review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Dan Ackroyd in his prime stars as Johgn Burns, a mental asylum escapee who poses as his own shrink to travel out to La La Land and host a popular radio talk show while the regular host (Charle Grodin in his snarling prime) takes a vacation. Along the way, Ackroyd hooks up with Walter Matthau, a fellow nutjob, and the rest is sheer hilarity. Ackroyd and Matthau play off very well off one another. Ackroyd's stunning real-life wife, Donna Dixon, is along for the ride as yet another shrink. The ending feels a bit rushed and contrived, which is the only thing that keeps me from giving this film my top rating, an 8. A lost '80s gem. | positive |
There seems to be a spectrum of cinema. On the left, there are movies made mostly for entertainment and/or commercial purposes. In the middle, there are movies that are both entertaining and artistic. On the right are movies that are not as commercial, but are focused more on cinema as art than cinema as product.<br /><br />I'm not here to say any one part of the spectrum is better than any other, but that when a movie goes too far to either end, it's rarely good. Such is the case with Naqoyqatsi.<br /><br />I had no idea what to expect when I saw it advertised. A few friends were going and asked if I wanted to come along. None of us knew what to expect, and by the end, none of us were pleased.<br /><br />Yes, there are breathtaking images. Yes, I'm amazed at the lengths the filmmakers went to in searching through archival footage. Yes, the soundtrack is enjoyable to listen to, and probably the best part of the experience. The thing is, this goes so far to the right side of the spectrum I mentioned that I can't say anything nice about the movie as a whole.<br /><br />It's preachy. It's a jumble of symbolism and obvious morality. It's not saying anything new or forcing the viewer to examine life in a new way. It's just telling us things we already know (that is, if we can even figure out what it's saying).<br /><br />This movie is simply art for art's sake. An attempt to say "Look at how deep and thought-provoking we can be by using montage!" When a film becomes more about how clever or intelligent its creators are than about its subject, it ceases to be a film and simply becomes celluloid self-gratification. | negative |
Fans of the Pink Panther, Naked Gun, or Get Smart will certainly enjoy this farce that won one César and was nominated for four more.<br /><br />Jean Dujardin is Agent OSS 117, a man who wouldn't know a clue if it hit him upside the head. He is also a reflection of the colonialist attitude indicative of the West.<br /><br />All of the Russian spies, Nazis, and Muslim radicals around him are just as stupid, but there is Larmina (Bérénice Bejo) and the Princess (Aure Atika) to keep things interesting.<br /><br />OSS 117's uncanny ability to pick up languages, play musical instruments the first time he picks them up, and sing like a native are all more impressive than Bond's tricks, but he is still stupid. | positive |
There's no other word for it...Fox dumped this out, with NO marketing of any kind. Nobody in the country, other than those who have been looking forward to this film, know anything about it. All the red flags have flown. It has to be a mess, it can't be anywhere near as good as Office Space, right? Wrong. Though Office Space it ain't, this film definitely has satirical bite and wit. It's a misfire on certain levels, but who's to blame is left to mystery.<br /><br />Based on what is currently showing in theatres, I can say IDIOCRACY is a good movie. It's funny, sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. It's effective, sometimes ingenious. What it isn't as far as I can tell, is finished. We will see something come of this film again, whether it's an extended cut or reshoots. Alone it can be hilarious. It's ballsy at times.<br /><br />Leaving the theatre, looking around at the mall, I was surrounded by advertisements and billboards, commercialism and stupidity. It's not quite as damning a dystopia as 1984, but this movie paints an ugly future for our culture. And there doesn't seem to be much anybody can do about it. Anyway, go see this if you can and try to find out what happened that it was so specifically buried. | positive |
This movie is awful. It creates characters not in the book, and some of them are ethnic or racial stereotypes. Including an obnoxious little Jewish boy and a politically correct little black girl. Not to mention the Yiddish speaking elves. The book was a simple story about belief, and this movie is a dark, ugly, and needlessly scary movie about nothing.<br /><br />The animation is superb, but the story has been ruined by Hollywood.<br /><br />The good thing is that this movie will take a bath in the box office and maybe producers will learn to keep from tampering with a story that needs no improvement. Hanks was overdone and i don't see why there couldn't have been other actors' voices be used. | negative |
John Waters has made the most effusively buoyant, heartfelt, dark, personal little film I think I've ever seen (well maybe Fast Food Fast Women comes in close second) The directors vision is untainted...the narrative is whimsical, the characters are personal and odd reflections of family and his own inner life ...the tone never forced or stylistically over-arch.<br /><br />There is no pretentious shot design, ennui, or magazine grading....Martha Plimpton is amazing as the sister..Eddie furlong is inspired casting. A grandmother with a talking Mary, tea-bagging, recycled clothing, yesterday's garbage becomes today's art -- and the lesson of the film is that the most important thing we can value is family ... and a humble life. | positive |
When I first saw this film it was about 1956 and even though I saw it again recently I have not changed my mind about it. I think it was Robert Ryans best film, because he portrayed someone like my father, and he was a schizophrenic in real life,(my father) although he never murdered anyone but was affected more so during the second world war which made him worse. Having to humour him just to get by and get through the day was so apt. (My mother and brother had to do this)When I saw Robert Ryan portraying this type of man, it was a very good imitation of this type of individual, and I was impressed. | positive |
I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry. | negative |
i just wanted to say i liked this movie a lot, but i also want to ask about something..does anyone know the artist/song name of the song that the young boy (cant remember his name now) plays on his cd-player when his dad and 2 men comes and takes the TV and the cd-player ??? that song is so freaking cool even though i cant understand a word what they're saying...feel free to mail me the artist/song name at [email protected] thanks a lot in advance!! =) ---------------------repeating----------------------------- i just wanted to say i liked this movie a lot, but i also want to ask about something..does anyone know the artist/song name of the song that the young boy (cant remember his name now) plays on his cd-player when his dad and 2 men comes and takes the TV and the cd-player ??? that song is so freaking cool even though i cant understand a word what they're saying...feel free to mail me the artist/song name at [email protected] thanks a lot in advance!! =) | positive |
And obviously I didn't see it! <br /><br />But looking at the cast and seeing that Doug Masters is back from the dead, I know now to avoid this like the plague! I hate it when Hollywood, producers, writers, directors or all of the above think that audiences are stupid that they're not going to catch continuity errors. A supposedly dead Doug Masters returning is a big giant one, won't you say?<br /><br />And I can't believe that someone like Louis Gossett, Jr. would return for something like that.<br /><br />Did Jason Gedrick really decline this? Well, I hate to say it, but even if he took the role again, it would have still had that same continuity error. I bet (if he really turned it down), he must have been incredulous seeing that his character died in the second film.<br /><br />I'll probably catch it by accident on a late night air on some channel, but no way am I going to rent this or buy the DVD! | negative |
My school's drama club will be putting this show in the spring of 2002, and I can only hope we're as good as this! I watched this film recently as sort of "research" for my role (Rosie Alvarez), and I'd just like to say, Vanessa Williams is the coolest!<br /><br />Wow! The casting for this movie was right-on (with one exception). Jason Alexander, oh my gawd, is there anything he can't do? He was the most wonderful Albert Peterson ever - I especially loved all of his funny facial expressions and dancing during "Put on a Happy Face!" He is so great! Vanessa Williams, as I said before, is the coolest. She was a beautiful Rosie, and her transition from secretary to seductress was totally believable. Tyne Daly was hilarious as Albert's obnoxious mother and George Wendt was superb as the annoyed Mr. McAfee (however I LOVED Paul Lynde's performance in the 1963 version!). Brigitta Dau cracked me up as Ursula Merkle; she really hammed it up! And Marc Kudisch was an awesome Conrad Birdie..."Suffer!"<br /><br />There was only one casting that I didn't understand, and, as you'll see from previous comments, many other people didn't understand. Chynna Phillips as Kim McAfee - what was that? I mean she's really pretty and very talented, but...she looks a bit too old for the role. Eh, maybe I'm delusional.<br /><br />Okay well anyways, I highly recommend this movie. It'll leave you smiling!<br /><br /> | positive |
Picture Bride paints a realistic and moving portrait of what it must have been like for Japanese men brought to Hawaii at the turn of the 19th Century to work in the sugar cane fields. Most came planning to return to their homeland, but few were ever able to do so. Equally movingly portrayed is the fate of Japanese women, some as young as fifteen or sixteen, who were sent as promised brides to men they knew only through photographs that often were 10 or 15-years out of date, or were of some other younger man. They too worked long hard hours in the fields, while fighting homesickness and to preserve their dignity.<br /><br />Director Hatta's portrayal of one picture bride's courage and perseverance struggling to survive in a strange land and alien society under great physical duress, is, ultimately, inspirational and uplifting--a story of moral and cultural survival. There is a grandness and magnificence of sweep of character and landscape in Picture Bride that captures the alluring beauty as well as violent harshness of colonial Hawaii. This is a film that is emotionally, intellectually and artistically rewarding. | positive |
Franco Zeffirelli's ("The Taming Of The Shrew," "Romeo And Juliet," "Jesus Of Nazareth," "Othello") third stab at transferring Shakespeare to the screen works very well, with the casting of Mel Gibson ("Mad Max," "Lethal Weapon" and pre-"The Passion Of The Christ" notoriety) in the role formerly owned by Sir Laurence Olivier (and rightly so; see my review on his "Hamlet," arguably the best interpretation of one of the Bard's timeless (and most quoted) tragedies) and redone 5 years later by Kenneth Branagh as a full-bloodied treatment, explaining its 3 hour 22 minute running time, combined with a dream cast (and a lot of little additions, which were well-chosen and expertly done by the contemporary master of William Shakespeare, Kenneth Branagh, the director of "Henry V" and "Dead Again." Joining the "Lethal Weapon" star are Glenn Close ("The Big Chill"), Paul Scofield ("A Man For All Seasons"), Alan Bates, Ian Holm, Michael Maloney (who would be cast as Roderigo opposite Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Fishburne in Oliver Parker's "Othello" (see my review of Olivier's "stage" version of the tragedy, though he only starred in it) and who Branagh would cast as Laertes in HIS 3-hour version of "Hamlet" (a proper homage to Sir Laurence Olivier and his classic version of the play; see my review on that one as well) 5 years later), Nathaniel Parker (who would be cast as Cassio in his brother's version of "Othello" 4 years later) and Helena Bonham-Carter, who would be cast in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" 4 years later. <br /><br />Zeffirelli intended this movie as a homage to Sir Laurence Olivier (who had died 2 years prior to this movie) and it works pretty well, for the most part. What I was slightly uncomfortable with was Zeffirelli's misplacing a lot of lines and in one scene, he gives one of Hamlet's lines to the Ghost. Also, Helena Bonham-Carter DID NOT convince me as Ophelia. She was too dull and unreal, whereas Jean Simmons (who had immortalized the role in Olivier's version) and Kate Winslet (who did an acceptable job in Kenneth Branagh's uncut, epic revisionist reworking of "Hamlet") were good in the role, with Jean Simmons being the BEST Ophelia ever, that's why she was nominated for Best Actress in 1948 (she didn't win-what a shame). Ian Holm said his lines too quickly, not slowly as I expected him to, in a scene with him, Laertes and Ophelia. But then again, I'm more used to Felix Aylmer and Richard Briers' interpretations of the role and I think that they did better jobs than Holm in their respective versions of "Hamlet" (both done by great directors, actors, text-editors, producers AND stars of all their versions of the Bard's work) as Polonius. <br /><br />The rest of the cast, however, was excellent. The scene where Hamlet confronts his mother was very well done, but Olivier and Branagh heightened the scene to better lengths to create even more emotional intensity and suspense that the scene required. <br /><br />I recommend this version just to pass the time, but it's ideal as a teaching tool for 12th-grade English teachers (I recommend showing Olivier's version first, then Branagh's and finally this version). Despite the film's "PG" rating, there was really nothing objectionable in the movie. Only what the play called for. <br /><br />The Best Versions Of "Hamlet" Are: <br /><br />#1 Sir Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh. Both were so good that I can't decide which one was the best. See my reviews on these versions for more information. <br /><br />#2 Franco Zeffirelli. This one was alright. It started out alright with a scene not in the play, but should've then progressed to the actual beginning of the play, where a guard cries out "Who's there?" "Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself!!" That scene scares the hell out of you because you're sitting quietly and then-bam!!, you almost jump out of your skin. In short, that scene sets the tone for the rest of the play. HUGE blunder on Zeffirelli's part to omit that scene. It also misplaced a lot of lines (and cut others that I think should've been put in), such as the line where Hamlet says to Ophelia "Get thee to a nunnery, why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?"; that line was supposed to have occurred in THAT scene, NOT where it was placed in the film (after the "To Be Or Not To Be" soliloquy. This version struggles between cutting out too much or too little from an excellent piece of literature. Kenneth Branagh would remedy that 5 years later with his uncut version of the tragedy, making HIS version a more fitting homage to Sir Laurence Olivier, as several of the actors (aside from him) had performed "Hamlet" on stage/or on film many times on different occasions. However, Zeffirelli's take on "Hamlet" IS faithful to the play and THAT's what I was looking for. The setup for the final act duel was the same as in Olivier and Branagh's versions, only that the denouement in Branagh's version was more violent than the denouement of the previous two faithful versions (more in line with the play; Olivier toned it down...and it worked equally well) and stuck more closely to the play, with Branagh throwing in a few harmless touches of his own...to very good effect. <br /><br />This version is Not Rated. | negative |
I have realized that many people have commented on the nature of this show being racist and homophobic, but I don't feel that is what this show is about.<br /><br />The show is about parents who weren't ready for kids and are now not ready for teenagers. This show helps to bring humor to a very hard topic that is sometimes over looked: parenthood.<br /><br />Yes we have all had shows that had families in it, for example: Family Matters, Step by Step, Family Ties, Full House....but it always would have the same old recipe to it's episodes. "Steph" cuts from school and gets caught by her father. They have a heart to heart conversation and music is played and it's over with a two week grounding that after an "aww, Dad..." gets a smile and the show is over. Where is the comedy in such a situation? Where is the realism? With The War at Home, you get real situations from a real father type figure. Most parents that watch this show hear some of the lines the parents put out and they either laugh (cause they know they've said it!) or they nod their heads (cause they know they've thought it and never had the guts to say it!) The War at Home has situations that bring out great comedy as a father thinking his son is gay. Doesn't sound funny, most think it makes the father homophobic, but the comedy comes in the bumbling father trying to talk to his son to open up. What parent knows the right thing to say, especially in a situation as this? I greatly recommend this show to anyone that I know has a sense of humor, and especially to anyone who is a young parent or was young when they had kids. You relate to a show like this when you are either. | positive |
No blood, no sex (though it oozes passion), no special effects, but just one of those pearls that comes across your movie screen when you're not really looking and grabs your attention. <br /><br />Great acting, great sets, great music, beautiful storyline. If only there were a lot more movies made like this one!<br /><br />The sets move us through time and make us feel like we were there.<br /><br />The acting appears like real life, and elevates us to the level of awareness of "Nanny", to whom no-one is a lost cause, least of all the inhabitants of her own "Halfway" house. <br /><br />Best of all it's a true story of misfits learning to "fit in". I was somewhat jealous of the good times that everyone appeared to be having in the movie! Could we all spend some time in Nanny's house? | positive |
Greetings again from the darkness. Mary Heron is amassing quite the list of films which provide a glimpse into their specific era. Her previous "I Shot Andy Warhol" and "American Psycho" were at their best when commenting on the quirkiness of society during that period. Although "The Notorious Bettie Page" is obviously about Ms. Page, it is every bit as much a peak behind the curtain at the world of kinky photo shoots in the 50's.<br /><br />The film is fun to watch both from the perspective of the story and the technical aspect of the way it was filmed and put together. The grainy B&W film and photos capture the time and the introduction of color in Miami Beach through the photos of Bunny Yeager is very well done.<br /><br />The supporting cast is strong with David Strathairn (fresh off his Edward R. Murrow role), Chris Bauer (as Irving Klaw) and Lili Taylor. The star of the film is the wonderfully talented and underrated and underworked Gretchen Mol. Ms. Mol always brings an edge and spirit to her roles. She was absolutely mesmerizing in the little seen, Jason Alexander directed "Just Looking" in 2000. Here she is the notorious Bettie Page. Her smile is captivating and her body is flawless. She really seems to enjoy this role and helps us understand how the girl next door from Tennessee could become the underworld Pin-up queen.<br /><br />As one would expect, the soundtrack from the era is terrific. Patsy Cline and Peggy Lee are just two of the featured performers. Although the film hints at providing a history into this industry, the final third kinda falls flat preventing pure movie magic. But the magic of Gretchen Mol and Bettie Page make this a fun movie to watch and one that will yield endless showings on HBO in the near future. Now will someone please turn Ms. Mol into the star she should be? | positive |
I don't usually like to comment on the acting in a movie, because it is the one thing that people who have agenda against a film will go after. In this movie, I will make an exception. The acting in this film are below average all around. I mean halfway into the film, I wonder how the hell did the producer and/or the director gets around casting such an ensemble of people who can't act. Even-though the production value was good, the ill written story just compounded on top of the bad performance of the actors, and there is even a half-hearted attempts to a twist to the ending of the movie, which ends up quite confusing. Is all the Spanish horror films this disappointing? | negative |
Melissa's sixteenth birthday is right around the corner and she's just discovering her sexuality with boys. But it turns out that all the guys that she spends time with all wind up murdered in this generic '80's slasher film. It's up to the local town sheriff Dan Burke (Bo Hopkins, The Wild Bunch) and his annoying mystery-loving goody two-shoes daughter, Marci (Dana Kimmell, Friday the 13th part 3), to get to the bottom of these killings.<br /><br />This film focuses more on the mystery and melodrama aspects of the movie and less on the killings themselves and thus is able to differentiate itself from a lot of it's '80's Slasher brethren. It doesn't hurt that Alesia has a great body (I feel the need to stress the obvious with stating that the actress is over 18 and thus convey that i'm not overly perverted). On the downside, the movie is hampered with a few plot points that are underdeveloped and unnecessary, a grating theme some that is used a bit too often, and an ending that is a tad anti-climatic. But the good outweigh the bad (barely). Give this a rent, but I wouldn't buy it.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Aleisa Shirley shows her tits, bush and ass <br /><br />My Grade: C <br /><br />Code Red DVD Extras: An intro by star Aleisa Shirley and Director of Intruder, Scott Spiegel; Both Director's cut & theatrical version of the film; Audio conversation with star Shirley and Director Jim Sotos; interview with Shirley, Sotos & Bo Hopkins; still gallery; theatrical trailer for this film; and trailers for Nightmare, Stunt Rock, Rituals, & Balalaika Conspiracy | negative |
This movie is so awesome! I loved it, it was really scary. I love the Scream movies and all horror movies and this one ranks way up there. It probably helped that I watched it at midnight. If you want a real scare rent this one! 10/10 | positive |
The Dentist is a really good thriller. And pretty disturbing. I think we can all agree that the chances of running into a psycho dentist are much bigger than running into monsters, vampires or zombies. That's exactly why this movie is so scary. During this film, you'll probably think about your own dentist a few times. Whether he's capable of doing such things...You better pray his wife doesn't cheat on him. That's what the story is all about. A respected dentist in LA snaps when he finds out his wife is cheating on him with the pool-boy. ( That must be the greatest profession in the world, by the way. Poolboys always take advantage of the housewives when the husband is at his work) From then on our dentist, Dr. Feinstone, can only thing about taking revenge. He can't concentrate on his patients anymore and a couple of them get hurt. Things aren't made easier for our dentist when he's chased by an annoying tax-controller, a curious cop and a suspicious staff member of his. At one point, Dr. Feinstone can't take it anymore. Now he's not only after his wife but after everyone who comes near him.. The dentist is written and directed by Brian Yuzna and co-written by Stuart Gordon. You can take that as a recommendation to itself. These 2 persons already gave us a few great horror movies ( and personal favorites of mine ) like Re-Animator, From Beyond and Society. With the Dentist, they succeed once more to bring an entertaining and very chilling thriller. This film came right on time actually. The decade hadn't brought us many great horror films so far. I'm not at all saying this IS a masterpiece, but it's a nice change. Corbin Bensen is great as the dentist obsessed by hygiene. I remember him mostly as a comedy or drama actor, but he can sure handle a psychotic character. The rest of the cast does good work too. The woman who plays Feinstone's wife is really attractive. Also, it was great to see Ken Foree acting again. The actor from my all time favorite movie Dawn of the Dead plays the cop in this film. Yuzna casted him in From Beyond too, 15 years ago and I thank him for that. I don't recommend this movie to everyone (if you have a weak stomach, I'll advise you to skip it) but if you do watch it, you'll enjoy it very much. You'll be disgusted...but that's an extra reason, I think. It's been a while since I was really freaked out by watching a film. It's a great topic to handle in the genre and Yuzna does it in a great way. Too bad this film was followed by a completely unnecessary sequel. My humble opinion on the Dentist ... 8/10 | positive |
Even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. It's hard to believe that anybody other than John Cusack would have put money into this. With a string of anti-military/anti-war movies already being destroyed at the box office, it's almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script.<br /><br />At first, it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of Grosse Point Blank with Akroyd and Cusack(s) all over again. But only about 90 seconds into the movie, it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at DR STRANGELOVE.<br /><br />I liked so many of Cusacks movies that I thought I would risk seeing the DVD of this one. I have to say that I don't know if Cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. Cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for George Bush and the Iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. Tom Cruise was never close to being this far gone. Not even close. | negative |
This is better than the early Cronenberg horror films, but nothing more than your basic what-is-real story. The videogame theme has been told before too. Nothing original is left except the weird Cronenberg atmosphere (which is not that strong here) with the amusing sexual references and Shore's dark score. The story never grabs your full attention. It just flows forward event after event with boring pace. Rating 4/10. | negative |
If you want a fun romp with loads of subtle humor, then you will enjoy this flick.<br /><br />I don't understand why anyone wouldn't enjoy this one. Take it for what it is: a vehicle for Dennis Hopper to mess with your head and make you laugh. It ain't Shakespeare, but it is well done. Ericka Eleniak is absolutely beautiful and holds her own in this one - Better than any episode of Baywatch - and shows a knack for subtle humor. Too bad she hasn't had many opportunities to expand on that.<br /><br />Tom Berenger fits his role of "real Navy" perfectly and William McNamara does a solid job as a hustler.<br /><br />Throw in a walk-on by Hopper in the middle of the chase for "the Cherry on this Sundae" and you've got a movie that kept my attention and kept me laughing. I bought this one as soon as it was available.<br /><br />Brain-candy. | positive |
Troubled men's magazine photographer Adrien Wilde (well played with considerable intensity by Michael Callan) has horrific nightmares in which he brutally murders his models. When the lovely ladies start turning up dead for real, Adrien worries that he might be the killer. Writer/director William Byron Hillman relates the engrossing story at a steady pace, builds a reasonable amount of tension, delivers a few gruesomely effective moments of savage misogynistic violence (one woman who has a plastic garbage bag with a rattlesnake in it placed over her head rates as the definite squirm-inducing highlight), puts a refreshing emphasis on the nicely drawn and engaging true-to-life characters, further grounds everything in a plausible everyday world, and tops things off with a nice smattering of tasty female nudity. The fine acting from an excellent cast helps matters a whole lot: Joanna Pettet as sunny, charming love interest Mindy Jordache, James Stacy as Adrien's macho double amputee brother B.J., Seymour Cassel as Adrien's concerned psychiatrist Dr. Frank Curtis, Don Potter as Adrien's feisty gay assistant Louis, Pamela Hensley as gutsy homicide detective Sergeant Fountain, Cleavon Little as a hard-nosed police chief, and Misty Rowe as sweet, bubbly model Bambi. R. Michael Stringer's polished cinematography makes impressive occasional use of breathtaking panoramic aerial shots. Jack Goga's ominous rattling score likewise does the trick. Popping up in cool bit parts are Robert Tessier as a gruff bartender, Sally Kirkland as a saucy hooker, Kathy Shower as a fierce female wrestler B.J. grapples with in the ring, and Frances Bay in one of her standard old woman roles. A solid and enjoyable picture. | positive |
This is a wonderfully written and well acted psychological drama. It is not really a horror flick so those looking for something like The Ring or The Grudge will be disappointed. What really surprised me about this film was the intelligence and subtle attention to detail in the plot and the effort made to be internally consistent. I also appreciated the absence of Dr. Phil psychobabble or New Age revisionism. Rather than advancing an agenda, the filmmakers just told the story, told it well and let the viewer think about it. The sparse dreamscapes were reminiscent of Wyeth paintings and amazingly effective. <br /><br />A great example of how to make a good film on a small budget, without big studios, star actors, big-name directors (this was far better than many of Hitchcock's films), special effects or "clever" plot twists. | positive |
I decided to watch this show and give it a go but I found it to be boring, and more importantly dull.....Dull.<br /><br />There is far too much sarcasm and the characters are all dull, there is far too much talking and the character Lorelai...just keeps talking on and on and on.... During a second glance felt like suffocating the characters, the banter doesn't work and the whole love and romance thing just ruins what is already a crap show....I can't believe this show survived past the pilot.... This seems to be a show which forces the 'Listen to your parents' line....No actual drama exists....<br /><br />Should have stayed a pilot.....and a pilot alone... | negative |
Evidently, not many people have seen this movie, because no one is posting any more comments. This is not a movie to be missed. After all, it has won the George Peabody award as well as the Humanitas award. Paul Winfield should have won an award for his awesome performance in this movie. Eugene Logan who was a co-writer on this made for TV movie also was part of another movie on humanity, or loss of it, by being a technical adviser to Truman Capote's movie the Glass House. This movie is now available on DVD. If anyone is interested, I will post another letter telling how it was that Eugene Logan came to be the technical adviser to a movie of such an amazing person as Truman Capote. Thanks for reading this and I hope you will find a way to view these two movies. | positive |
Not that he'd care, but I'm not one of Simon Pegg's friends. If I was, there's a good chance we'd fallout if he continued to make dross like this. The trouble is, he found a successful formula as the bumbling, ordinary guy-next-door type in Shawn of the Dead, Run Fat Boy Run etc, but it's starting to wear thin. Here his character has no discernible qualities, he's rude and obnoxious, and thinks he's funny when he frankly isn't. When transferred to New York from London (and I presume this link is meant to appeal to viewers on both sides of the Atlantic), he proves equally out of place with his new colleagues. Still, is it any wonder when amongst his jolly japes he hires a transvestite stripper to appear at an editorial meeting an act of revenge for his boss. Yet somehow, Kirsten Dunst starts to warm to him, even though he's done nothing nice. Oh, and because he's a superficial male he falls for Megan Fox at first sight, possibly because her character is as shallow as his. It all makes for a predictable film conclusion, although I can't see any viewer expressing how this mirrored their life. The shame is that on paper this is a cast supposedly worth watching. Pegg, though, plays himself, Kirsten Dunst seems to just go though the motions, creating no on screen chemistry, and Megan Fox isn't stretched at all. The one huge plus is Miriam Margolyes, as Pegg's New York landlady - now if she had been on screen longer..... | negative |
This filmed presentation of "the Rime of the Ancient Mariner" is a most beautiful and interesting rendition of Coleridge's haunting poem. The striking cinematography, combined with a collection of two centuries of efforts to illustrate the epic poem of 1798 by world famous artists, and Michael Redgrave's superb narration, are very well worth the time to view this excellent visual work.<br /><br />In the age of television, such work as this is an invaluable tool to induce young students, as well as adults, to explore and to learn the value of great poetry. To the best of my knowledge,this kind of work is indeed rare; that is regrettable. As a student of world literature and as a former college professor and academic counselor, I feel that more great epic poems like Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" should be so "translated." Although not a movie critic, but as an avid reader of classic literature, I am glad to recommend this fine production without any reservations whatsoever. | positive |
what can i say. oh yeah those freaking fingers are so weird. they scare the heck out of me. but it is such a funny film, Jim Carrey works the grinch. if you havent already seen it then what you waiting for an invitation. go, go and get watch it. you dont know what your missing. | positive |
I will never forget when I saw this title in the video store way back when. I was always a big Weird Al fan and when I saw this video I rented and watched it. I was too young to appreciate all of Al's subtle humor and satire at the time but I remember it much later when I was old enough to understand what I was watching. If you are an "Al" fan, especially of his earlier work, you will thoroughly enjoy this film. It is done in the MTV-esque "Rockumentary" style and tells a true (but sometimes exaggerated) tale of how Al got to be where he was in 1985. You will love it if you like his brand of humor and, more importantly, his music. | positive |
The last film in Lucas' saga is a lavish, spectacular-looking production. It is often considered the ugly duckling of the original trilogy, but I think it is a notch above episode IV (and just a notch below episodes III and V). In fact, I think it is the third best film in the 6-part saga. As far as I'm concerned, it is still a grandiosely entertaining film. It is not a movie with a beginning, climax and ending; the film's mechanism operates with only one goal in its mind: bring closure to Lucas' universe. There is an air of finality attached to the whole thing, which makes the film a little too sentimental, but emotionally rewarding. Also, it is a lot of fun. New characters are introduced and old ones face new, unexpected challenges. C3PO and R2D2 provide (as usual) great comic relief. Leia and Solo are a wonderful romantic duo, and Luke is still a great character to identify with. Again, it is Luke's (and Vader's) inner conflict what gives the saga its backbone. Lucas' aggressive imagination is still very much apparent, and the film's themes of loyalty, hope, and redemption resonate strongly. I'm glad Lucas eventually dropped the idea of making episode VII, VIII and IX, because this film is a great bookend to a long, fascinating and captivating saga. Not a perfect movie, but fun in the best matinée style. | positive |
How to take Charles Darwin's fantastic intellectual journey and turn it into a chick flick. His pivotal and seminal ideas and their radical influence on Western thought and capitalist society are untouched except for two brief scenes, in one of which it is claimed he is "killing God"; pure demagoguery to make the movie emotional. And the rest of the movie buckles to that purpose: it consists entirely of melodramatic and long family scenes with overloud music at which one is beholden to cry. Anyone who actually read "Origin Of Species" would be vividly aware that there was no breach with God in any of Darwin's work; to the contrary, there was an increased awe and respect, and a revolutionary new way of looking at things. A good movie about Darwin could be educational, thoughtful, and deeply inspiring, even in a religious sense - but that would contradict the soap-opera intentions of this flick. This is a flick that is designed to make people wail in contrived sympathy and then feel transformed although unable to understand why; it makes fast use of Darwin's great name only as marketing clout, as one would drop a famous name at a party to create an impression. Sad that the sets and costumes are so good: production values, except for the writing, were obviously high. See it if you want to weep, for the loss of intelligence in American literature. | negative |
This film was a disaster from start to finish. Interspersed with performances from "the next generation of beautiful losers" are interviews with Bono and The Edge as well as the performers themselves. This leaves little time for the clips of Leonard Cohen himself, who towers over everyone else in the film with his commanding yet gentle presence, wisdom and humor. The rest are too busy trying to canonize him as St. Leonard or as some Old Testament prophet. Many of the performances are forgettable over-interpretations (especially Rufus & Martha Wainright's) or bland under-achievements. Only Beth Orton and Anthony got within striking distance of Leonard's own versions by using a little restraint. Annoying little pseudo-avant-garde gestures are sprinkled throughout the film- like out of focus superimpositions of red spheres over many of the concert and interview shots, shaky blurred camera work, use of digital delay on some of Leonard Cohen's comments (making it harder to hear what's being said) and a spooky, pretentious low drone under a lot of the interview segments (an attempt at added gravitas?). For the real thing, see the Songs From The Life Of documentary produced by the BBC in 1988. | negative |
Scary Movie 3 isn't as funny as its predecessors but its still has its funny moments. It all begins when roving reporter Cindy Campbell sets out to find a hard news story in the middle of television sweeps. She soon uncovers an outrageous onslaught of globe-threatening developments including alien invaders, killer videotapes, freaky crop circles and much more. Faced with conspiracies of massive proportions, and a crew of very strange people following her around, Cindy must fight to stop evil from taking over the world yet again. The plot is a non-issue here as the first two were pretty much plot less. This time around they focus on Signs, The Ring, Matrix Reloaded and 8 mile as well as many others just not as much as the previously mentioned ones. The first one was {imo} one of the funniest films I have ever seen. The second one wasn't as good but still quite funny. The third one is mildly enjoyable but its nothing special. Let's just say that I didn't mind seeing it once but I probably wouldn't want to see it again. The jokes are either hit or miss and the ones that are funny usually involve Charlie Sheen. The lame ones usually involve Anthony Anderson as he is very overrated. Why he keeps getting cast is unclear because he isn't funny. Anna Faris gives a funny performance and she's also kind of underrated. Simon Rex shows some potential as he actually wasn't so bad. Regina Hall also returns as Brenda and she gives a pretty funny performance. The rest of the cast were pretty much a bunch of cameos. Jenny McCarthy and Pamela Anderson probably had the funniest scene out of all the cameos. Their in the opening sequence spoofing The Ring and that scene turns out to be on of the more enjoyable ones in the film. Denise Richards, Queen Latifah, Camryn Manheim and many others also have cameos. David Zucker directs and while this isn't another Airplane, it's also not another My Boss's Daughter either. Its pointless to really analyze a straight comedy as the main thing that people want to know if its funny or not. Like I said before if you do like it, you probably won't really like it that much. In the end, I found it a bit disappointing as the PG-13 rating kind of weaken it but it can still be enjoyed. Rating 6.3/10 | negative |
I neglected this film when I used to go to the movie store but then the curiosity got to me and I decided to check it out. I loved it!!! The movie starts off with Judy and Jay heading for a Halloween party at the abandoned funeral parlor Hull House. Then we meet a few more characters, Angela and Suzzanne ( the hosts), Frannie, Max, Rodger, Sal and Helen. Then of course they start to party and when they''re really in the mood they decide to have a séance which awakens a demon. The demon possesses Angela and she starts her gruesome slaughtering. Will they survive the Night of the Demons.<br /><br />The movie was overall great. The gore was fine but the nudity provided by Linnea Quigley (Trash from ROTLD) once again screws it. I never was a fan of hers and never will be. | positive |
If you don't like bad acting, poor editing, ridiculous dialog and unbelievable characters you will hate this movie. If you like all of the above, that is to say if you are a Lynch fan, then you will love Mulholland Drive. This is quite possibly the worst film to be rated above an 7.0 on IMDB.<br /><br />Outside of Naomi Watts work, you will be hard pressed to find any competent acting in Mulholland Dr. The other female lead went to the "hide your face with your hands when you don't have the chops" school of acting. Given the script they had to work with it's a wonder all of the actors weren't holding their heads in their hands.<br /><br />Characters wander in and out of the film that do nothing to advance the storyline. You have a hitman, a mysterious cowboy, an adulterous wife and her cliche'd poolman lover, a mafioso type figure sitting in a darkened room who speaks through an external voice box and a host of others too numerous and tedious to mention. Suffice it to say that they manage to do little more than fill up screen time.<br /><br />This isn't so bad however in that it distracts the viewer from the fact that the movie has no discernable plot. You will wait and wait for for all of the loose threads to come together and in the end you will be abysmally disappointed. The hardest thing for a writer to do is to bring everything together in a believable fashion at the end of a movie in a way that leaves everyone feeling fulfilled. The easiest thing for a writer to do is to create a lot of odd characters and put them in scenes that are not connected to the movie as a whole and then to take what few coherent threads there are and jumble them up at the end for the sake of surprise. Guess which way Lynch goes. SURPRISE!!<br /><br />You know you have a bad script when you have to resort to dream sequences to make any sense out of it. After all, a dream sequence covers all sins. Dreams don't have to make sense. Anything can happen in a dream.<br /><br />The editing is similarly disjointed. Let's just say good editing does not call attention to itself. Much of the way this film is edited seems to be done for the sole purpose of calling attention to the editing. "Look at me... You can see my editing... Aren't I a genius?" Uh, well... NO! This movie has all of the earmarks of the worst and most self-indulgent French films.<br /><br />So why is this movie so popular? My theory is that it is just another sign of the decay of our culture. Melodies are hard to compose so let's listen to rap. Plots are hard to follow so let's dispense with them. Pictures are difficult to paint so let's pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. These are the symptoms of our times and Mulholland Drive is just another part of the affliction. | negative |
I heard about this film and knew it wasn't real good. But I started watching the film (on my film-channel)and was interested. This could be a really great, darkly black satire on todays morals in media. The small featurettes on every contestent were good. It build up to something I wouldn't wanna miss. But when the so called show starts everything becomes implausible, cheap and rather silly. Here's where the writer should have added something that would make people think. But instead it's wrapped up and assuming people are this dumb.<br /><br />The ending is so bad I give it a 1. Even if the film starts of promising. | negative |
I picked this title up from a friend who had it sitting in his exhaustive DVD/Video/Laserdisc collection, so luckily I didn't personally have to pay for it. I had an inkling that it would be a bad film, but I KNOW what a truly bad film is after watching greats like Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things and The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies, and now there is truly nothing that fazes me unless it is astoundingly bad.<br /><br />Solar Crisis is bad, but it doesn't reach that sweet spot of absolute pain that some movies are at.<br /><br />Anyway, the general plot is that the sun is about to unleash a huge solar flare towards the earth that will essentially destroy it. In order to counter-act this imminent threat, humanity has assembled a spaceship and crew whose duty it is to fire an antimatter bomb (which the opening describes as "the biggest explosive ever") into the sun, which through some convoluted sci-fi logic will cause the flare to shoot out at a different angle, leaving earth unharmed.<br /><br />Never mind that what I have just described to you sounds like a bad episode of the original Star Trek. Even with an ensemble cast (Charlton Heston, Peter Boyle, and Jack Palance), Solar Crisis can barely manage that level of mediocrity, thanks to a plot that starts simple, yet becomes increasingly nonsensical as time wears on.<br /><br />The crowning achievement of this debacle of a movie is the addition of a villain character (played by Boyle) who insists on sabotaging the mission. Through means that are never explained, he sends an evil minion with an embarrassingly bad haircut to exercise some sort of vague electronic mind control over the space crew's genetically engineered scientist, played by female lead Annabel Schofield. Why is he sabotaging the mission? Because by his moronic viewpoint, he believes the flare won't happen and that when it doesn't, he will become fabulously wealthy because he has dug his evil claws into the stock market. In effect, you have a villain with the most absurdly stupid motivation imaginable.<br /><br />The film's plot becomes amazingly convoluted and develops very slowly, in time tapping the use of characters who have only vague or uselessly brief roles in the storyline. I could sit here and explain in detail precisely what happens to demonstrate the sheer inability of the screenwriter to make a plot that actually clicks or holds your attention, but I am sitting here writing this review on Microsoft Word and I know for a fact that this would take three pages, and I would only succeed in losing your interest. But then again, you would probably get the same effect from watching the film.<br /><br />Anyway, the film is miserably bogged down with exceedingly poor dialogue. Imagine if all that ever happened on the Star Trek Enterprise was that the characters spewed sci-fi jargon back and forth at each-other. Yes, I know, they already do that, but imagine if that's ALL they did, and that they used said jargon to set up vague and near-nonsensical scenes that produce no excitement, tension, or interest in the viewer whatsoever.<br /><br />This is best exemplified at the point when a character in a Zero-G environment screws a bolt back onto a metal box before proceeding to cry in agony for a couple of minutes before suddenly exploding. The script alludes previously to the character risking an explosion, but doesn't bother to give any solid answer as to why or how this occurs, nor why he can't really escape. In totality, you have a sorry cross between the bizarre and the laughable.<br /><br />Then we have several scenes where dramatic build-up leads to nothing. Jack Palance's performance is wasted on a character that serves only to drive the boy hero (don't ask) around the desert, before getting roughed up and killed by a bunch of suits. On his death-bed, Palance finally tells our boy hero his last name (while wearing a horrible bruised makeup job that makes it look like somebody put a balloon under his eyeball), which he kept quiet about before. Colonel Travis J. Richards. The boy repeats it quietly after he expires, giving viewers the impression that the name is of some significance later on in the film. Perhaps Charlton Heston's grizzled admiral character knows him and the plot will advance thereby once his name is repeated. Something. Anything.<br /><br />Nope. Sorry. Any hopes you have will be dashed when this moment turns out only to be another of many pathetic, failed attempts at creating dramafor a character so flat and hackneyed that it will forever be a stain on Palance's career, just as those of the rest of the cast are similarly marred.<br /><br />Completing the film is a painfully abrupt ending featuring Schofield piloting the bomb into the center of the sun in an effort to redeem her deeds while under the villain's spell, a climax which features another of the film's considerably well-done visual effects sequences that, even for the visibly elaborate care put into them, still always manage to make the film look just as chintzy as it really is. The saddest part about this film is the obviously large budget, tragically wasted on a stinker of a script and a supporting cast behind Boyle, Heston, and Palance that manage to nail the coffin shut with pure over-acting.<br /><br />Grade: D- | negative |
I went to see this film over Matchstick Men, in fact buying the tickets to Matchstick Men and going to the other, because it looked like a fun movie with action, romance, thrills, jungles, and exotic locations. They had all that but so do a lot of movies with a conception of story.<br /><br />All I can say is WHY WHY WHY WHY did they not just make it a straight narrative instead of some sappy flashback story.<br /><br />Here is all the movies from what I've seen the film was derived from: Of course, Indiana Jones and Romancing the Stone, but also True Lies, Proof of Life, that old 80s Tom Selleck movie, Bananas (Woody Allen), and Hero (from the use of digital extras).<br /><br />PS the only scene in the movie that was cool is when the central character finds her room blown up. | negative |
All the reviewers are making one big mistake. This movie was not suppose to be taken seriously.<br /><br />It was made for kids and teens of the late 80ies or early 90ies and as such it was truly a film of it's time. If you hated that period, or love the first movie so much that you can't even take a joke about it, then this is garbage, but only because it wasn't meant for you. The low budget here and failure of the Beastmaster 1 at the box office (grossed under four mil. with a nine mil. budget) were obviously the reasons to drop the seriousness of the original and to put it in the present day. You can complain about the story, dialog or logic, but again this was made to run, not to win races. If the movie had tried to take itself seriously it would be a total failure, but it doesn't do that for a second (in "our" world, Dar sees a movie theater that's advertising The Beastmaster 2, enough said). To paraphrase Clint Eastwood from Dirty Harry movies: This movie knows it's limitations. It's more of a comedy/parody then usual adventure. Soundtrack (for the time) was also great. Actors aren't taking themselves that seriously either so even the usually irritating "spoiled rich brat" role (played here very well by young Kari Wuhrer) turns out good. <br /><br />So, if you are nostalgic for the 80ies/90ies (cheese) culture, or you liked the first part, and don't mind going out on a cheese limb, you'll have tremendous fun with this attempt to revive Dar in the 90ies (literarly). This is not really the sequel to the first, and don't watch it if that's what you want. It's more of a "what if" fantasy sequel.<br /><br />As for the "why different dimension and not just different time" question: When in history did we have those tall winged humanoid creatures that suck the flash of bones (from the end of part 1)? By the way, the movie ends in the Zoo because of an attempt at a cheap (moneywise) big finale. It's suppose to be the best place for Dar to show all his moves (him being the manipulator of animals). | positive |
The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu starring Peter Sellers in a spoof of the characters created by Sax Rohmer is an injustice to the end of Sellers' career. The plot was very simplistic, and if done the right way could have been handled nicely, but instead it was poorly executed. Part of the reasons why this film wasn't that good was the poor dialog, cheap laughs, choppy directing, and an awkward feeling that the film was somewhat incomplete.<br /><br />The acting, on the other hand, was really the only thing that kept my interest during this mixed up picture. I found Sellers portrayal of diabolical Manchu brilliantly done, with the occasional lines that will be remembered. For example, there is the scene where Fu Manchu is confused which henchman is which in which he says "Ah, you all look the same to me." I hate to admit it, but I laughed out loud with that line.<br /><br />Then of course a fistful of strong supporting characters really caught my attention with the likes of Helen Mirren as the backstabbing constable, David Tomilson as Sir Roger Avery (his last film as well, not a way to end a career), and Sid Ceasar (who gives a rather whimsical performance of Al Capone's relative who works for the FBI). These characters also kept me watching.<br /><br />The sets were also nice. Oriental designs and English society in 1933 was depicted with elegance in this dud-of-a-picture.<br /><br />In all honesty, my advice to you is to watch the film if you are a Peter Sellers or Sid Ceasar fan. Otherwise, you're better off settling on chewing aluminum foil. | negative |
I love the mockumentary format that Chris Guest and crew have developed over the years. I actually like this and "Waiting for Guffman" better than "Spinal Tap", which was the first of the group (and made by Rob Reiner but starred Guest and several other of his mockumentary regulars). This humor is not for everyone. IT's rather subtle and not too physical, so some people may not relate. However, as a dog lover (and a dog show fan), I loved this movie. There are so many funny lines in it! My daughter and I quote them to each other often. I find it amazing that these people can ad lib so much funny material for each movie! What a fun bunch they must be. I highly recommend this to people who prefer their humor on the cerebral side. | positive |
I simply cant understand why all these relics from the Ceausescu era refuse to let go. One can see clearly how frustrated they were during the commie censorship that forbade them so many things to show in their movies, and now they imagine its dunno what big deal of artsy-fartsy freedom so fill the screen with people defecating, urinating, vomiting, swearing, and any other kinds of hideousness imaginable. THIS IS NOT CINEMA, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS! This is simply visual perversion. Forget about Bunuels Chien Andalou, about David Lynch, about Forman and neorealism and other movie makers who were able to work with an aesthetics of ugliness. THOSE people were mastering their jobs - well, you Don't! Do us a favor, all you Daneliucs and Nicolaescus and Saizescus and Muresans and Marinescus and Margineanus and other obsolete old-timers, and leave us alone! Its bit time to see some Romanian MOVIES on screen, enough with your immature terribilisms! You are not directors, you are ILLITERATE!!! | negative |
A good Korean film about not just Taekwondo but what its takes to be good, like a thugs way of fighting cannot beat a taekwondo guy in his sport because there are rules, just as there are to life and school and this film has undertones of this notion.<br /><br />The martial arts in the film isn't that good but it is passable and enjoyable. Friends who go on to achieve something they once would mock become stronger through the mind and heart. This film isn't meant to be taken too seriously as it does have slapstick, but it also carries a message.<br /><br />A good film again from Korea. | positive |
When I first heared that there was going to be The World is not Enough video game for the Nintendo 64, I was so excited. When it finally came out, I was one of the first ones to rent it. I rented it for 7 days, and I got through the whole game!!! The game was to easy and gave out too much hints. A majour dissapointing sequel to GoldenEye. Take my advice and DO NOT RENT THIS GAME.<br /><br />Sure the guns and gadgets are cool, but one gets tired of a watch lazer that looks like it was taken right from GoldenEye with the exception of being a red color instead of a blue color, a poor excuse for a dart gun, horrible stunner and a stupid grapple hook that can only attach itself to things that are yellow and black.<br /><br />I think that RARE should of made this game instead of EA who should stick to games there good at making, like sport games and should stear clear of first person shooters and let the masters do the work. | negative |
The first ten minutes of "Just Looking" really dictates the direction most of this movie takes. Lenny (Ryan Merriman) is a 14 year old boy living in New York in the '50s. He has a burning desire to see two people have sex. Who are the best people he has in mind? Well, his own mom and stepfather of course! How pleasant. Unfortunately for Lenny, he is caught before he sees anything and is sent away for the summer to stay with his uncle and his uncle's wife.<br /><br />Lenny's next plan is to see his uncle and his wife have sex. However, the wife is quite pregnant and they aren't currently sleeping together. Then Lenny makes a new friend. Him and his buddy spend most of their free time hanging around a couple of girls. They have a little club where all they do is sit around and talk about sex. The problem is...it's not done in an innocent, charming 1950's sort of way. I am no prude by ANY means, but I found it rather disturbing listening to these kids talk about masturbation, blowjobs and anal sex. That kind of rawness may work in a movie like "Kids" (1995) but in this film it just seems perverted.<br /><br />Gretchen Mol is utterly wasted here as Hedy, a former bra model who becomes the object of Lenny's carnal desires. Jason Alexander needs to stay as far away from the director's chair as possible. "For Better Or Worse" (1996) was awful and now this. What a waste. 1/10 | negative |
A female executioner (played by the sexy Jennifer Thomas II) has the fun job of fulfilling all the fantasies of all the men on death row before they meet their maker. And what a way to go. Lucky this film is not real, or we would have a lot more people in this world on death row.<br /><br />It starts out real slow. Low light and bad acting, like most (B) films. It gets better as it moves along. And ends with a bang.<br /><br />I would rate it very high on the low cost, very sexy movies of the 90's. It's a must see once the kids are away or in bed. | positive |
Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever. | positive |
It's kind of fascinating to me that so many reviewers consider this a masterpiece. I am not a dullard as far as quality films go, and I will agree that from a technical filming standpoint, as well as for several of the characters portrayed, the film is in an award-worthy class. But there is no sense (for me) of this film actually going anywhere; I mean, taking the viewer anywhere. It is a series of mood scenes, perhaps remarkable as such, but I want more from a film. I look for story and movement and a fulfillment of arrival, none of which did I find in this film. Yes, it might be considered poetry on film . . . but there is much poetry that I cannot live with for the same reason: that it paints pictures without going anywhere.<br /><br />One thing further to be said is that it documents a mid-century English childhood, which is necessarily limited in its universality. I was personally appalled at what a young British boy had to live through, in that time and place. Having grown up in America just a decade earlier, I can authoritatively say that the contrast is immense. I cannot help wondering if this contrast has had some effect on those reviewing the film so favorably. In other words, could there be a tendency to judge the film entirely on its 'filmic magic' (which I acknowledge is there) and completely ignore its lack of relevance to the nature of one's actual recalled experience? | negative |
this movie wasted my time. i saw only part of it and i was crying about the wasted time that i could of spent doing something productive and useful towards this earth. for everyone that has watched this movie more than once, i am blaming them for global warming as the the amount of black balloons that got entered into the earth from this piece of crap were not needed and if they came from a different movie, i would have forgiven them. robin Williams lowered his standards to actually participate for more than 10 seconds in this film and Tim Robbins, how he went from this film to the shawhsank redemption, i have no idea. please do not watch this movie for the safety of the earth. stop releasing black balloons into the earth from a film that they should have never funded or released. please burn all copies before anyone else has to watch this crap. | negative |
I just finished watching this film. For me, the most outstanding work in this film was the music score. While many silent film scores work very well with their scenes, I feel that this is the best score I've come across. The mutiny scenes in particular worked extremely well. | positive |
I saw this on the shelves at the rental place and I have rented everything else so I said why not. Why not is because it's one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It looks like it was shot with home camcorder. I guess thats all the budget would allow. There was less boobs in it than I thought there would be. Some people made it out to be soft porn with a few killings. The funniest part of the whole movie to me is in the extra stuff. There is a spot with deleted scenes. Well there is only one but it is the dumbest and I think it may have brought the rest of the movie down. The girls get in a hot tub and find some chocolate syrup in the bathroom. Yes it ends up all over them. Great stuff !!! This movie is very very bad. Don't bother. | negative |
The movie deserves 2/10. 1.5 stars for the girl, (I'm sorry I'm biased, i think pretty girl is the only highlight of the movies), and 0.5 for the fact that it is shorter than Azumi 1. I watched Azumi 1 and 2 in 1 seating. I amazed myself being able to sit through it. <br /><br />Lets talk about the plus points of the movie. The girl. Ueto Aya is cute. Thats all there is to salvage the whole movie. The fact is, if the main character was male, i am sure that most people (including me) would not have touched the movie at all. <br /><br />Now lets talk about the minus points. Firstly, it is real draggy, with lots and lots of repeated scenes. Scenes of Nachi and Azumi keeps coming back. It seems more like a drama way of shooting. Typical Japanese dramas love flashbacks, and this movie too. Secondly, the movie is too unrealistic in a historical setting. I do not mind unrealistic movies. But this movie is like a poor way of showing creativeness, by throwing in ninjas that act like bears and spider webs, etc... it reminds me of Shinobi, though Shinobi is a movie with a fantasy setting. Moreover, to portray "i-don't-know" what effect, the director films people dying with blood spraying (literally) all around... people not realizing their head was cut off... etc.. etc... etc... Too many of these spoils the show. It seems like the anime influence is strong in this movie. It degrades the show greatly. Thirdly, Isn't Azumi supposed to be an assassin. She seems more like an one-man-army to me, just that she is a female. I don't think you see assassins charging into army camps. The only time i felt she acted "assassin-liked" was when she killed the Kiyomasa Kato at the end of Azumi 1. Lastly, the plot was thin in both movies. Its a linear plot with no development and surprises in any way. | negative |
Its a good film set in Vienna about a cab driver, Toni (Donald Buka), who steals a passenger's identity when the passenger is shot whilst sitting in the back of his cab. This gives him an identity as he is an illegal immigrant, but he needs to play out the role of the victim until he catches a flight to the U.S. with a ticket in the victim's name. Mrs Manelli (Joan Camden) rumbles him but she is accused of having mental problems by her husband, Claude (Francis Lederer), a concert pianist. As a result, Toni is let off the hook. Claude does not want to part from his wife, but she runs away from him. There are several plot twists and eventually both Toni and Mrs Manelli make a run for it together - they are both trying to escape from their lives in Vienna. There is a tense, exciting build-up to the finale. Are they going to get away.....??...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the picture quality isn't fantastic and there is a line that runs down the middle of the picture for a while. The cast are all very good in their roles, especially Francis Lederer's portrayal of Claude. Also important to the story are Heinth (Manfred Inger) as the cab company owner, Marie (Inge Konradi) as Toni's hometown girlfriend and the inspector (Hermann Erhardt). <br /><br />Its a good film. | positive |
Hitchcock's remake of his 1934 film concerns about the known story of McKenna marriage(James Stewart, Doris Day, in the first version Leslie Banks, Edna Best) along with their 11-years-old son travelling through Morocco during vacations. In a bus they know a sympathetic French person(Daniel Gelin, in the old version Pierre Fresnay). While they are in Marrakech they also know a couple(Bernard Miles and Brenda De Banzie) and happen suddenly on the scene of a killing, the dying whispers a political message.Then the child is abducted to ensure their silence and McKenna gets help to Morocco's Inspector Buchanan(Ralph Truman).<br /><br />This is a superb movie about a family who stumbles on to an obscure international conspiracy and then they're forced into action is excellently played by James Stewart and Doris Day. This exciting film displays suspense, intrigue, tension, and interesting drama well written by John Michael Hayes and Charles Bennett . Packs an ordinary theme of the suspense magician: innocent people become caught up in a cobweb intrigue and uncanny, intelligent villains. Colorful and glimmer cinematography shot in Morocco and London studios by cameraman Robert Burks, though with excessive transparency for Marrakech scenes. Lavish sets by Henry Bunstead, Hitchcock's usual, and working until his recent death. Of course,the highlights are the happenings of the famous Royal Albert Hall of London assassination where a sneering killer, Reggie Nalder, tries to execute while composer Bernard Herrmann is conducting orchestra. Besides at the climax Doris Day singing ¨Que sera, Que sera¨, meantime her son suffering risks, the song won Oscar for Ray Evans, Jay Livingstone . The story was ferociously reviewed for its double characters but today is considered a classic movie and fairly entertaining. Rating : better than average, Hitchcock's enthusiastic no doubt will enjoy it. | positive |
I picked up Time Changer because it looked like a nice low-budget scifi time travel movie and I was in the mood for something like that. The description said it had something to do with some biblical stuff and time travel but I didn't expect a fundamentalist Christian film!<br /><br />The movie had decent special effects and an interesting premise that could have gone places and been far more interesting than it ended up being. Our hero, who is a bible professor from the 1890s, eventually travels forward to the 2000s and finds that modern life is filled with the influences of evil - Jesus is nowhere to be found. This wonderful technological feat is accomplished with the assistance of a fellow bible teacher who somehow managed to invent a functional HG-Wells-style time machine. The movie starts to lose some credibility at this point, which is unfortunate because this happens very early in the film. Earlier (or perhaps immediately later, can't remember for certain), our hero professor was seen teaching what appeared to be a science class where he claimed that scientific findings could only be considered validated if it could be matched with what the bible says. What should be obvious to anyone is that this is clearly not what the scientific method is about, however it is presented such that the filmmakers appear to prefer the point of view that science is useful only if it supports their claims and otherwise is not useful.<br /><br />In any case, that belief is perfectly valid and sensible in the context of the character at the time. So, if we accept that as the fact of life for these bible professors, then obviously the professor who went and invented the time machine isn't a very strong believer as I don't think there's any evidence (and none was offered) for the physics of time travel in the bible. So immediately there's a problem with mixed messages and credibility there, but never mind...<br /><br />After the professor is convinced to take the leap into the future, the shock of modern technology was handled quite well in most cases. It was also fun to not have it pinned down to an exact year (as the character is reading the date off a newspaper to himself, a car honks a horn and it scares him into not finishing the date: it's just two thousand and... *honk*). Some of the shock went on a little too long, though. For instance, the car was one of the first things he encountered when he arrived and around two days later he's invited to a church movie night and takes a ride in a van. He sticks his head out the window like a dog might, is scared by the headlights and the starting engine, etc. That seemed a bit off since he'd been there a few days by this point and the city appeared to be quite busy with traffic. In any case, that's easy to ignore. The rest of the tech shock was well done - especially his first encounter with the TV which was delayed because he didn't even realize what it was until he saw a kid watching one and using a remote.<br /><br />Unfortunately, our hero predictably starts to preach to virtually everyone he meets as if he's an authority on all life and religion just because he's from the past and is an elder. Eventually he gets himself a brief moment in the spotlight at the church he had been visiting where he proceeds to explain his concept of Christianity to them in a long monologue that was supposed to be moving and insightful, but mostly was just more of the same. A couple of husbands in the church begin to get a funny feeling about this guy (go figure) and investigate his name. They eventually conclude that he either is a time traveler or is impersonating this long dead bible professor and decide to find out which it is. The movie frames these guys as non-believer bad guys for being skeptical.<br /><br />Just before the professor is to head back to his own time, he is confronted by those two men. In an effort to avoid being arrested or hauled away, he eventually breaks into an almost insane-like rant about how Jesus is coming soon and that he's a prophet so they should listen to him. Just in time, he's whisked away and one of the husbands wonders if perhaps this is the rapture he'd heard so much about.<br /><br />The irony is that this essentially means the professor became a self-proclaimed (and most likely false) prophet claiming to know that the rapture was near and he was sent by God when truthfully he was sent by his fellow bible professor and did not have any God-given knowledge (that was stated or even hinted at).<br /><br />As I understand it, Revelation claims that the time of the end is only for God to know and at the end of the film we see the inventor professor trying (and failing) to send a bible into the future. First 2080, then 2070, etc. as the scene fades out. Clearly he's trying to determine the exact date of the end times - which he shouldn't be able to know! Essentially, the entire premise of the movie cancels itself out because by being so insistent on their religious beliefs and how certain things are for God to know only, it means there couldn't ever BE a time machine in the first place because then mankind could find out something that only God should know! The entire movie's premise collapses and makes the whole thing basically worthless as it undermines it's own credibility in the end. | negative |
My take on this, at our local festival where people would see me so often they thought me a better source than I may actually have been, began with a head shake: "Well, I can't summarize the plot, but it's a really superb character study of an extremely scary man." Then, slight embarrassment, I ran into someone who actually knew what had gone down, that is, from whom Trebor unwittingly gets his new heart. It'd been my last film in a long, long day halfway through the festival. Maybe I'd dozed. The better a film is the more likely it triggers daydreams that send me really dreaming. Don't know. Did know there was an O'Henry twist achingly just beyond my ken as things finished. And knew it had to do with the heart, hence the quietly hilarious talent search. My plot-loss remark had more to do with intricacies of Trebor's connections in France, his relation to the dog woman and so on, stuff I'd been wide awake for. Denis barely glances at details that might have anchored another director's treatment.<br /><br />But I write these things too often from memory, especially festival films, films whose DVD I don't have at hand (Le Lait de la tendresse humaine is one of many examples.), and plot kinks fade much more quickly than broader impressions. Still, or already, L'Inrus in my memory is beyond all else a character study of a sort of dark-side superman, a super fiend not ensconced in genre or historical trappings but active and plausible, relatively soft-spoken, driven but patient, right among us. The scar, once he attains it, makes him, just visually I mean, in image, a sort of hybrid Frankenstein monster, mad doctor and creation all in one. The actual doctors are his tools. If he doesn't extract and install the heart himself, it's only because it's not possible. He's the force, always, the parasite consuming everyone he touches and finally himself. What else is he? To suggest that he's us, the First World versus the Third, seems too simple since he feeds no less on his fellow First Worlders, on all of us.<br /><br />Denis's camera's eye - when it looks at things I know - goes usually where mine would, so I tend to trust her when she looks at things I don't know. Snow trekking, too-fast bicycling, and forest darkness I've known in small ways, but the South Seas not at all, so I made better entry into L'Intrus, both France and the crystalline isles of its finish, than into Beau Travail. L'Intrus is, for me, a very comfortable discomforting film. It's a sequence of places portrayed familiarly, with a intimacy that allows us to know them whether we've seen the reality or not. A single image, Trebor cycling, his massive weight on the thin racing frame, the sounds of violated air and shrieking tires, the asphalt ribbon, the dark-in-bright-sun evergreens, cued me that the film would be linear, a road trip, a single will-driven thrust.<br /><br />Despite Trebor's personal power, he's a human failure. No matter who he's with, he's alone, though apparently he hasn't always been. His body aborts life twice, first to need the new heart, then despite it. L'Intrus is tragedy. Trebor is hubris.<br /><br />I'm navigating perilously the thread of what I remember. Let's leave it at that. | positive |
What can I say about this? Such a big Prestige-Production - but in the End? Wasted Time, wasted Money.<br /><br />This work a disaster is historically seen. Only some examples:<br /><br />* Augustus often is named 'Gaius' - his First name (Pronomen). But the old Romans don't used this Name. Correct would be the Surname (Nomen Gentile and Cognomen) or the 'Octavian', 'Caesar', 'Augustus'.<br /><br />* Livia was shown as tyrannic Wife. But this historically wrong.<br /><br />* Iulia was shown as nice young woman - but she wasn't one. Adultery and (maybe?) Prostitution and arrogant behavior was the cause of her banishing.<br /><br />* She wasn't at the dying bed of her Father. She never was allowed to leave her banishing. And she was at this time around 50 years old! Not as young as she was shown. In the same Year Augustus died she committed suicide, because Tiberius stopped giving her a Pension.<br /><br />* Augustus was much more scruplesless then in this Movie shown. But Author and Director seems to believe Augustus' own 'Res Gestae'.<br /><br />What remains? Historically extremely doubtful, bad acting, bad built and equipment - 2 Points out of 10 - one for Peter O'Toole. | negative |
This is the movie that I use to judge all other bad movies, and so far there hasn't been anything close.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say is that after watching this I know that I have seen the worst movie I will ever see. | negative |
This movie has the distinction of being the worst movie I have ever seen, and the only film I have ever given a 1 out of 10 on imdb as of yet. I was fooled into renting it because of the cool H.R. Giger cover art on the box. This cover art is the only thing the least bit good about this steaming pile of...<br /><br />It was about frat boys fighting "freaks" in a strange but not the least bit interesting post apocalyptic world where the cities are in ruins/chaos, but apparently the suburbs are still a safe and wonderful place for young men to haze other men into braindead frat organizations. The most uninspiring performances by boring characters, not so special effects, dreary, un-original scenery and just generally extremely poor quality in all production aspects make this lemon the all time loser on my list.<br /><br />FINAL RATING: 1/10 I wish I could give it a zero.<br /><br />Noob Aalox | negative |
So many of us who are devoted to the "art" of the motion picture will disregard or forget that movies are also business ventures. Most of the time, they are far too costly to produce to be anything else. In light of this, it often seems a miracle to me that really great ones do get made every now and then. Once in a while, the film-makers will go so far over budget in producing a film that the businessmen responsible for funding the enterprise will be badly hurt financially and will of course become very angry about this. I'd like to know precisely how it happens that this has often led to both the big studios and some major critics "gunning" for the picture when it is at last released. Terrible expectations are generated and often what people expect to see clouds their perception of what they are viewing.<br /><br />You can see this phenomenon at work in the imperfect, but magnificent '62 re-make 0f "Mutiny on the Bounty", and you can definitely see it in the reaction to "Heaven's Gate". Cimino took too long and cost United Artists way too much money in making this picture. The company was fatally wounded by his excesses and, no doubt, powerful people were out to see his reputation forever ruined when this strange, mammoth epic was finally released. There are always many film-goers who dislike long, weighty pictures. The storytelling in this film is not accomplished with great economy or a brisk pace. Like Stanley Kubrick, Cimino often chooses not to spell out the particular statement he is making with a given scene. Rather, he draws it out in such a way as to make the viewer feel like they are living in the moment, providing time for his own imagination to participate deeply in what is being presented. A lot of folks don't react all that favorably to this approach. They want the story to move quickly and clearly and they easily become impatient and confused by this sort of film. These factors doubtless contributed to the box-office failure of "Heaven's Gate".<br /><br />By nature, a film editor, I am deeply frustrated by two problems with this film. Here and there, a scene is clearly too long and could easily have been trimmed without harming its effectiveness. Then we come to the massive, drawn-out battle scenes at the end of the picture. Where these are concerned, the clarity of the storytelling is indeed damaged. If you liked the film up to the point where these occur, your understanding of what is supposed to be happening is likely to become unclear and this is indeed a frustration. Not having seen all the rough footage, I can not tell if actual re-shoots would have been needed, or whether some critical plot elements might have been made clearer by careful re-editing of some moments. Given the time and money that were poured into this picture, more care and thought should have been given to this problem.<br /><br />There are other problems, some occasional weak acting, some dialog that doesn't ring true, but these are really minor concerns. The reason I am so troubled by the problems stated above is that, like so many these days, I too feel that in all "Heaven's Gate" is so splendid to behold and so magnificently deals with major historic, political and sociological issues that it is just short of a masterpiece. Despite its shortcomings, it is so dramatically and visually powerful that it stands head and shoulders above most other Hollywood films I have ever seen. I'd like to re-mix a lot of the sound. I'd like to re-direct and re-edit the scene where Ella is killed, but the greatness of this picture is such that these considerations really do become trivial when compared with the value of the total production. I should add that it should always be seen on a giant wide screen to achieve the glorious effect that it is so capable of delivering. | positive |
Director Kinka Usher stays true to his own credo, "Play it straight and they will laugh," and with the help of a superb cast has crafted what should become the #1 cult film of all time, `Mystery Men.' When an evil villain, Casanova Frankenstein (Geoffrey Rush) is released from a mental institution, captures the local superhero, Captain Amazing (Greg Kinnear), and threatens to take over Champion City, three wanna-be superheroes, Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller), The Shoveler (William H. Macy) and The Blue Raja (Hank Azaria) come to the rescue. Frankenstein has been joined by a myriad assortment of underworld scum, however, and has become a formidable opponent. The trio realize that help is needed, and decide to recruit; what they end up with is nothing less than the most unforgettable team of `superheroes' ever assembled in the history of the cinema. Mr. Furious has his rage; The Shoveler, his shovel; The Blue Raja flings silverware (mainly forks, and the occasional spoon, but never a knife); the Invisible Boy (Kel Mitchell) can turn invisible as long as no one is watching; the Sphinx (Wes Studi), a heavy hitter from down south, is very mysterious and can break guns in half with his mind. Maybe; the Bowler (Janeane Garofalo) can fling a ball with deadly accuracy; and The Spleen (Paul Reubens) wields flatulence that can incapacitate an entire room. This is a brilliant ensemble piece that delivers the laughs without ever becoming condescending or patronizing the audience, while playing it straight at all times. The dialogue is witty, and the performances given by Stiller, Macy, Azaria and Garofalo are exemplary. There is a number of memorable, hilarious scenes, especially the one in which they throw a pool party and barbecue to recruit, and conduct interviews with a stupefying assemblage of applicants; and another, in a bar, when the Bowler has a conversation with her long-dead father, whose skull has been implanted in her bowling ball. The funniest of all, however, has to be when the team actually attempts to rescue Captain Amazing. But these are only examples, for the entire movie is composed of one hilarious scene after another, laced with subtle humor that will keep you laughing and thinking about it for a long time. The real secret of it's success, though, is that Usher keeps it all real; the relationships between the characters are true, and the whole concept of being a `Superhero' is played as being entirely reasonable, which somehow gives a sense of credibility to the entire proceedings. In this world, the aspirations of Mr. Furious and the rest are tenable, and Usher keeps the laughs coming without ever resorting to slapstick or mere sight gags. The solid supporting cast includes Lena Olin (Dr. Annabel Leek), Eddie Izzard (Tony P.), Tom Waits (Doc Heller), Claire Forlani (Monica), Louise Lasser (The Blue Raja's mother), Jenifer Lewis (Lucille) and Pras (Tony C.). `Mystery Men' is a truly inspired movie that can be seen over and over again, with a new chuckle to be had with every viewing, guaranteed. In the immortal words of the Sphinx, `We are number one! All others are number two, or lower.' Is it an Oscar-worthy movie? Hardly; but for a good time and a lot of laughs, treat yourself to this masterwork of comedy; it's the real deal, and you won't regret it. I rate this one 10/10. | positive |
Without doubt, one of the worst films ever made. Sluggish and without structure, tension or story, the film coasts on the thin premise of "putting together a show". Conflicts are resolved within two or three seconds of their inception and dialogue is random and incidental. Everything is put together in a slapdash order and often "Stepping Out" feels more like a deleted scenes reel than an actual movie. The film seems to exist merely as a showcase for gaudy and totally random Liza musical numbers. Shelly Winters can be seen in the far superior octo-epic "Tentacles", and the REAL Liza can be found in the Showtime release of "Queer Duck: The Movie". | negative |
I love this movie and have seen it quite a few times over the years. It does get better with every viewing. I agree with all of the positive reviews here. Yes, it's gritty and brutally realistic as life on the prairie was in those days. I found myself doing commentary as I watched it. Someone on here said Rip Torn was miscast. I couldn't disagree more. He is brilliant as the dour, miserly Clyde Stewart who says little and works like a slave/workhorse. Conchatta Farrell is fantastic as the widowed Elinor, whom Clyde hires as a housekeeper/cook (along with her 7 old daughter). Lilia Skala is excellent as distant neighbor called grandma. Also a star is the stark Montana prairie. It is both beautiful and brutal country in which to settle. There are some scenes that are both repulsive and necessary. No special effects here, what you see is real! It even has a terrificly perfect music score and a great script. Once you see Heartland, you'll never forget it. It deserves all the 10s it gets here. | positive |
I am so confused. What in the world was this movie about? What was the killer's motivation? He seemed quite angry, but I have yet to figure out why. Nothing in this movie made sense. It had zero depth. Or less than zero depth. Which I guess would make it a hill. Or a pile. Of crap. The acting was horrible. When I searched for a few of the actors in this movie, they had been in very few things that I had heard of, and that came as absolutely no surprise. I can't decide whether to feel sorry for them for the embarrassment of being in a movie this bad, or to feel that they should never be offered another acting job again. Starting . . . NOW! (Seinfeld reference.) Really, though, don't waste your time with this. There's so little substance that there's nothing there even just to make fun of. This was undoubtedly one of the worst slasher flicks -- NO, one of the worst flicks of ANY KIND, that I have ever had the misfortune to watch, and I've seen quite a few. | negative |
The third film I got to watch at the philly film fest was this outstanding drama from Japan. After breaking out of prison nine escaped convicts plan to find the "key to the universe" that a tenth convict who didn't break out told them about. Along the way we get to know each of these men fairly well. Each has their own dreams. For much of the movie it seems to be mostly a comedy, but a shift takes place that the film ends up a tragedy. All of the actors give great performances. I can't say much more without spoiling the film, but suffice it to say that you end up feeling for some of these individuals. At 2 hours, this film is a tad to long, but good none the less. I have no qualms recommending it with the warning that it does have a bit unsettling violence for the tender-hearted. Toshiaki Toyoda hit a home-run this time out, and it makes me want to search out his prior films as well as look forward eagerly to his future ones.<br /><br />My Grade: A | positive |
MABEL AT THE WHEEL is one of those movies with a behind-the-scenes story that's more interesting than the movie itself. This was Chaplin's tenth comedy for Keystone during his year of apprenticeship, and his first two-reeler. Here he played one of his last out-and-out villain roles (although the feature-length TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE was yet to come), and it also marked one of the last times he would work for a director other than himself. In fact, Chaplin's conflicts with director and co-star Mabel Normand almost got him fired from the studio.<br /><br />Chaplin hadn't gotten along with his earlier directors, Henry Lehrman and George Nichols, but according to his autobiography having to take direction from a mere "girl" was the last straw. Charlie and Mabel argued bitterly during the making of this film. Chaplin was still a newcomer at Keystone and his colleagues didn't know what to make of him, but everyone loved Mabel. Producer Mack Sennett was on the verge of firing Chaplin when he learned that the newcomer's films were catching on and exhibitors wanted more of them A.S.A.P., so Chaplin was promised the chance to direct himself in return for finishing this movie the way Mabel wanted it.<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of that drama is visible on screen in MABEL AT THE WHEEL, which looks like typical Keystone chaos. The story concerns an auto race in which Mabel's beau (Harry McCoy) is scheduled to compete, but wicked Charlie and his henchmen abduct the lad, and Mabel must take the wheel in his place. For all the racing around, brick hurling and finger-biting the film is frankly short on laughs, but there are a few points of interest. There's some good cinematography and editing in the race sequence, though there aren't really any gags, just lots of frantic activity. Chaplin himself looks odd, sporting a goat-like beard on his chin and wearing the top hat and frock coat he wore in his very first film appearance, MAKING A LIVING, but the outfit suits the old-fashioned villainy he displays throughout. At least it's novel to watch him play such an uncharacteristic role. Visible in the stands at the race track are such Keystone stalwarts as Chester Conklin, Edgar Kennedy in a strangely dandified get-up, and a more characteristic Mack Sennett, spitting tobacco and doing his usual mindless rube routine. As a performer, Sennett was about as subtle as the movies he produced, but you have to give the guy credit: he knew what people liked. These films were hugely popular in their day. Mack's performance doesn't add much to MABEL AT THE WHEEL, but he probably had to be on hand for the filming of this one to make sure his stars didn't kill each other. | negative |
Haven't seen any of the Japanese Grudge-films, but I really enjoy this one. I rarely get SCARED when watching films. I can jump, if the effect and sound is startling enough, but getting scared from a movie is a rare thing for me. But I did get scared from Grudge. Maybe because I didn't expect anything at all when I watched it. I didn't expect getting scared. I didn't know anything about it either. That was probably a good thing.<br /><br />This is a film that you, apparently, either love or hate. Most people seem to compare it to the Japanese Grudge-films, but even though I haven't seen them, I believe it isn't right to compare any film, actually. This film stands on it its own.<br /><br />The story is weak, most people say. I don't agree. The story is minimalistic, and done so on purpose. The story-telling techniques used - the broken time frame for instance - is perfectly done. The director knows exactly what he's doing, and I believe he got his vision through as he wanted it.<br /><br />I gave this film 8 of 10. It is a film you will enjoy watching, or hate. It's as simple as that. | positive |
This film is about a teen who is struggling with his social status in school. He is a "Good Christian" and feels that he is missing out on all the fun in high school. So he wishes he had never become one. After getting his wish and trying a worldly lifestyle he realizes that his quality of life has been dramatically diminished and wants to go back to being the person that he was. Good family-oriented film with a positive message of being proud of who you are even if you're not the most popular. | positive |
My mom and I went to see this film because my brother is serving in the U.S. Peace Corps in the same region in which it's set. Halfway through the film, I decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish, the title is pretentious. The subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary, but because of its poor execution, it left me far less educated about the issue than I had hoped to become. I agree with laura-jane from Canada ("Powerful Message but Lacks Focus."). I also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker's narration-free style is the opposite of that of Michael Moore, but I don't agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him- or herself. I do agree with one user's comment that "a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves"; however, our conclusions can't be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them.<br /><br />The main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) The African people who live near Lake Victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) The introduction of perch to Lake Victoria, inflicted by Europeans, ruined its ecosystem. 3) The communities surrounding Lake Victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy.<br /><br />The best things I can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub-Saharan Africa, which, unfortunately, is an anomaly among films, and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal, inevitable phenomenon. I liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. I appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the U.N. team assigned to the region was with the people. Like almost all documentaries that don't have the word "women" in the title, this film fails to do a good job representing women's voices -- the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men.<br /><br />Maybe I need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points I might have missed, but I failed to detect Sauper's theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to Lake Victoria and the unjust living conditions for Africans living near the lake. Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it struck me that Sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. Not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary, but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable.<br /><br />The most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over Tanzanians is that of war, not fishing. Sadly, Sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a "decide for yourself" approach.<br /><br />If Darwin's Nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them "a chance for a better life," it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the U.S. and Europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to cast light on the inability of the U.N. to carry out its mission, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to say that meager income Tanzanians earn from the perch isn't worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to imply that Tanzania would be much better off had Europeans never come, it didn't do a good job of it. | negative |
I first saw this film in the theater way back in the 40s when I was a kid and always remembered the ending. There is nothing like the first impression but some movies are always a treat each time they are viewed. Something just resonates with them. This is one of those films and I agree with another reviewer who said Fritz Lang should have directed more westerns. To add to it I have always liked Randolph Scott and Robert Young. In fact, Robert Young stars in what I consider my favorite movie if I have to name just one, not an easy thing to do. That film is Northwest Passage. It led me to the superb historical novels of Kenneth Roberts. Western Union likewise led me to reading Zane Grey's novel which, in this case turned out to be one of those rare cases where I like the movie better than the novel. Not that Grey's novel is a bad one; I just like the movie story better. The movie in no way resembles the novel. It is a completely different tale, one of the biggest departures from a book I have seen.<br /><br />I can't add much to the other reviews except to say I agree with many of them. I, too, wish it would be released on DVD. "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott happened to the best of me." | positive |
I'm doing a thesis on blurring the boundaries: the female cross dresser and am using Tipping the Velvet the book as my main text, any comments on gender and sexual identity, gender and sexual confusion, gender as a performance, gender as a fiction, gender imagery, cross-dressing as an erotic fantasy and as revolution, the effect of the male costume etc etc would be much appreciated! But a bit off the point has anyone seen Sergio Toledo's 1987 film Vera? Its about a young lesbian possibly transsexual cross dresser..I'm dying to see it because I think it'd be really helpful...Does anyone know where I might get a copy of it? I've tried amazon and a few other sites but no luck... | positive |
I've seen all four of the movies in this series. Each one strays further and further from the books. This is the worst one yet. My problem is that it does not follow the book it is titled after in any way! The directors and producers should have named it any thing other than "Love's Abiding Joy." The only thing about this movie that remotely resembles the book are the names of some of the characters (Willie, Missie, Henry, Clark, Scottie and Cookie). The names/ages/genders of the children are wrong. The entire story line is no where in the book.<br /><br />I find it a great disservice to Janette Oke, her books and her fans to produce a movie under her title that is not correct in any way. The music is too loud. The actors are not convincing - they lack emotions.<br /><br />If you want a good family movie, this might do. It is clean. Don't watch it, though, if you are hoping for a condensed version of the book. I hope that this will be the last movie from this series, but I doubt it. If there are more movies made, I wish Michael Landon, Jr and others would stick closer to the original plot and story lines. The books are excellent and, if closely followed, would make excellent movies! | negative |
OVERALL PERFORMANCE :- At last the long waiting AAG hits the screens. Unfortunately, it couldn't set progressive fire in the audience. The first best thing to talk about the movie is The idea of remaking the mighty SHOLAY. And Varma made a nice choice of changing the total backdrop of the movie. If he repeated the same Ramghad backdrop, people will again say there is nothing new in this. Different background is appreciative but the way he presented it is not worthy. Right from the start of his career with SIVA in Telugu, he had been using the same lighting and kind of background. I seriously dunno this guy Varma considers about lighting or not or may be he has no other lighting technique other than like gordon willis GODFATHER. It's all DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH. Why would some body use so many Dutch angles and extreme closeup shots!!!!!!! The shot division is lame. Characters couldn't carry an emotion, performances are not to their mark, Storytelling is worse, Background is really really terrible.<br /><br />Babban:- Amitabhz been over prioritized to his job. VARMA produced great villains like Bikumatre, Bhavtakur Das, Mallik Bhai but this time he failed in carving the all time best characters of Hindi Cinema. There's no comparison of Gabbar with Babban. Babban is a more psycho rather than a villain, still he has a soft corner for his brother ( It's a gift in this movie). Amitabhz performance is not to his mark. His appearance itself is pathetic. The scar on his nose, symbolizes forgotten villains of black and white cinema. What ever they worked on Babban is not successful. Babban is no comparison with Gabbar.<br /><br />Narsimha:- The first best thing about this character is not to put audience in suspense about his hands. If varma did that , it would be like teaching ABCD to a Bachelor degree holder. Itz good he opened the secret early. But the flashback is pathetic. Varma couldn't use a great actor like mohanlal to his mark.<br /><br />Durga:- The only character with betterment. This character has been improved with satisfactory changes and was used according to the story.<br /><br />Heroo, Raj, Ghunguroo:- No body bothers or at least considers these character. The utter failure of movie starts when director could not work on the close friendship between our heroz. These characters carry nothing to this movie.<br /><br />RAMGOPALVARMA:- His quality is degrading, diminishing. AAG totally can be treated as a C grade movie. Sholay is a fire of revenge, problem of a town, meaning for true friendship and highly appreciated nuisance and fun by Dharmendra. AAG never carried an emotion with its characters. Storytelling is too weak that it could not make audience feel sympathy for the characters. Don't compare AAG with sholay, still u will not like it.<br /><br />If you dare watch this movie. You will be burnt alive in RAMGOPAL VARMA KI AAG | negative |
..especially by Lambert. This is the essential Burrough's Tarzan that I grew up reading when I was a kid. I have read a few negative reviews on this film and couldn't help but wonder what their issue was. They obviously didn't see the movie I did or they were expecting something that was more akin to the Saturday afternoon serials.<br /><br />This was the Tarzan that was of the novel and the film makers should be applauded for tackling the source material and taking it seriously. Lambert was excellent. I still think he is one of Hollywood's most under-rated actors. This was a movie that he shines in.<br /><br />The photography and the apes, done by Rick Baker both were amazing. You definitely felt the since of the jungle. The 2nd half, Tarzan's attempt at being civilized really pulls you into the emotional conflict he had was forced to resolve.<br /><br />I highly recommend this film | positive |
Probably the best picture Producers Releasing Corp ever made, this little horror piece rivets the attention from first to last. Director Frank Wisbar obviously knows a good story when he writes one and what's more important he knows how to realize its full shock potential on the screen. Not only is the plot involving and the characters fascinatingly drawn, but the setting is absolutely out of this world! Just about all the action takes place either at night or in the middle of a clinging, pervasive fog. This chilling atmosphere is augmented by Wisbar's inventive direction and the wholly convincing performances he has drawn from all his players. The lovely Rosemary La Planche makes an ideal heroine, beautiful, spirited yet vulnerable. Robert Barrat delivers his usual no-nonsense, straight-down-the-line portrait of the local bigwig, though it's hard to believe that the personable, good-looking guy who plays his son is none other than the later dullsville writer/director Blake Edwards. | positive |
Once again Elmer is faced with the dilemma of who to shoot. Bugs of Daffy. He's unsure of what season it is and Bunny and Duck arguing help matters not. Though Bugs proves he's the smartest once more by repeatedly using reverse psychology on Daffy in increasingly subtle ways. And when that runs out he does his trademark cross-dressing thingy. Daffy freaks out and demands the bunny be shot. Though Elmer is too stupid he is hopelessly in love with the girl bunny thing. Elmer really is to blame for all this. If he weren't so dumb he'd know it REALLY is duck season and just blast Daffy. But poor old Daff can't believe the utter preposterousness of the situation. His cruel plans of misdirection have been foiled by Elmer's dumbness. Daffy is so shocked that he even goes home with Elmer to be blasted in his living room.<br /><br />Poor Daff. He rules! | positive |
Final Score: 0 (out of 10)<br /><br />***Possible scene specific spoilers (but who the hell cares)***<br /><br />Yes, that's right: zero. And I rarely give 1's. Even for the lamest of movies I look for things like music, cinematography, imagination, it's humor, even a good pace to be as objective about the score as possible. Looking at it within it's own genera or subgenera. But there is absolutely nothing redeeming here. I can't remember another time a movie actually sent me pacing up and down the room when it was over. The only reason I made it to the end was because I couldn't seem to change the channel - I sat there simply aghast, watching to see what insultingly stupid bit it would come up with next. It was like watching a snake digest a rat. <br /><br />But let's have some fun and pull this baby apart, shall we. First of all, There is nothing technical about "Whipped" that works. The visuals are all sitcom style. The cut scenes all just pictures of the street traffic going by at night over and over. The music and score, not only doesn't contribute anything to the movie - it's obnoxious. Not to mention it doesn't have anything to contribute to anyway. The acting is as cardboard as it comes, all around and that goes for Amanda Peet (clearly the "star" that got this train wreck green-lighted) too. These guys, supposedly good friends, have no more chemistry or sense of purpose then if director Peter M. Cohen had rounded them up at a bus station minutes before shooting.<br /><br />On the creative side, there isn't an original bone in it's body. It has no imagination. It shows us nothing we haven't seen a thousand times before. The whole premise, or "twist", of this movie is based on male-bashing and the "idea" that an empowered women can play men "just as they get played". Anybody, that thinks this is somehow a twist or is in any way original has obviously never turned on a TV before. Twisted, shallow women are common. Male-bashing is the norm. It's not stealing from anything specifically, it's worse: it's stealing from clichés. I can't imagine a women making a movie that depicted other women based so much on stereotypes and with this sense of contempt. Makes me want to go rent "In the Company of Men" - or better yet, "There's Something About Mary". This movie wants to be a "edgier" version of "There's Something About Mary" so bad you can see the sweat. <br /><br />The movie has no insights into women, men, dating, sex, or really anything. Cohen is simply content to regurgitate myths he has been indoctrinated with from other sexist movies. On the other end, the movie doesn't work as a satire either, because even though it is ripe with exaggerations one could view as "satirical" it doesn't have that grounding in reality that satires need. It doesn't even know what it's satirizing. Then there's the dialogue, which is little more then the characters screaming obscenities at each other. Example: Character 1: "F**k you" Character 2: "Oh yeah, well f**k you" (repeat)<br /><br />And the bottom line, the thing that could excuse all the other discretions: There are a lot of movies without plots, without good acting, with morally repulsive characters and obscenity laced dialogue that have been funny and thus, been good. "Whipped" ain't funny. Not for a second. It has no comic skills or timing. The situations are all completely phony, not based in any shred of truth, especially enough to wring laughs out of us. The characters all broadly drawn so they will SEEM relatable to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. Just look at "the marquee scene", "cult classic" hair gel scene. One of our bumbling anti-heroes opens the medicine cabinet and sees Mena (Peet)'s vibrator. For some reason light shines down on it as if he's found the holy grail. Why Cohen thinks men react this way to vibrators I do not know. While he rubs it on himself, he drops it in the toilet and then attempts to fish it out with his bare hands when, oh my, Mena walks in on him. Oh, my sides. <br /><br />But strangely enough, people actually like this movie. Of course, people also like "Friends" and reality dating shows so I shouldn't be surprised. All of this has a common thread however. "Whipped" is big evidence to me that there is just a huge pocket of people in America that will laugh at any joke just because it is about sex. They will like any show or movie (or think they like it) just because it is about dating or relationships. It's lack of any quality has no baring on these people. Just as people are indoctrinated to want whiter teeth and thinner bodies to sell toothbrushes and weight loss programs, they are also indoctrinated to blindly lap up anything dating/relationship related to sell them cheap, empty, effortless TV, movies and any number of products. <br /><br />The only consilation will be that when I die, because I saw this movie, I've got a credit to get 80 minutes of my life back. <br /><br /> | negative |
This movie is a very realistic view of a police squad in a small german town as seen through the eyes of a woman recruit. She brings her way of dealing with the law, which means more than simple convictions. The strong performance of the main character, supported by good dialogues makes this flick very enjoyable. | positive |
Each frame in the movie is a lesson to new directors or existing directors to know how a movie should be taken. Hats off to Sekhar. He is underestimated in Indian film industry. The director has got all the qualities in taking this movie in the range of Satyajir ray, Adoor.. Every character is portrayed effectively in the movie. Though it's simple story, it's been taken to such extent it can be considered to one of the best in India. I don't have enough adjectives to praise the movie. Just as the way the life goes in day-today atmosphere, the movie has been taken. Though the songs in Indian movies are considered to a weak area, songs in this movie has given extra energy to the potential of the movie..especially background score..it's amazing | positive |
"First Snow" has an intriguing beginning. A traveling salesman has his fortune told by an old man, who's predictions turn out to be amazingly correct. From this point on the movie plays out like a bloated "Twilight Zone" episode. I mean nothing but car trips, phone calls and paranoia. William Fichtner gives his usual interesting performance, but Guy Pierce is anything but a sympathetic character, disregarding other people's well being for the sake of his own paranoia. The ending is especially weak, with absolutely no payoff for the long suffering audience. Do yourself a big favor and avoid this one. Not recommended. - MERK | negative |
Based on the manga (comic) of well-known artist Masamune Shirow, this animated feature was a slight disappointment to me.<br /><br />The story is good, but the animation is merely "OK" while it could/should have been mindblowing. The movie is IMO adequate, but seems somehow flat & uninspired, if you know what I mean. A wasted opportunity, if you consider that another work by Shirow, "Ghost In The Shell", is considered a classic in many respects. It set new standards for Japanese animation, and spawned, among other things, a brilliant series called "GiTS: Stand Alone Complex".<br /><br />I consider this worth a rental, unless you're a fan of Shirow and want it all. Do check out the original manga, which comes highly recommended. | positive |
Home Room was a great movie if you've ever had drama in your life. It keeps you wanting to see more. Wondering what the secret Alicia is hiding. I think I watched that movie 6 times in a row and never lost interest. Plus I usually don't cry over movies but this one made me cry each time. I wish I could find more movies like that one. All in All I thought it was a great movie. The more you watch of it the more you become part of it. The very end is the part that really got me when she cried when getting her diploma, because it had her daughter's name on it. My heart felt as if it had shattered just then. And how her new friend came to comfort her when she hadn't gotten hers yet. I loved it so much. | positive |
My Take: Even splendid underwater photography can salvage a familiar script and paper-thin characters. <br /><br />For those who haven't already got enough of the FREE WILLY pictures, FLIPPER might serve up a decent rental. Others are (heavily) suggested to stay away. Although FLIPPER is harmless affair, it hardly showcases anything for the adult audience (unless it's your first time to see a dolphin).<br /><br />A remake of a 1960's TV show and film, FLIPPER may have sound like a good idea back then: A dolphin charms the life of boy and a girl, they help ave the environment by first getting rid of toxic wastes thrown in on the sparkling waters of the Florida Keys, and at the same time, battle a shark and a salty sea baddie who happens to be the one responsible for the toxic dumping and also happens to hate dolphins. But even for the 90's, especially if an eerily similar film like FREE WILLY was a recent hit, FLIPPER is just another harmless yet occasionally empty summer splash movie for the kids. Although the animals (this, in case, is the main dolphin, a clumsy pelican and a realistic-looking hammerhead shark, typecast as the villain) and the pristine underwater cinematography steal the show, there's nothing much in FLIPPER to steal from anyway.<br /><br />The story is completely predictable, something than nowadays even a 6-year old may find evident. The (Human) cast, led by a pre-LORD OF THE RINGS Elijah Wood and an out-of-work Paul Hogan, have rarely anything to do but stand around and look pretty. Their acting skills, whatever they may be to this movie, is rarely revealed on screen, unless you consider the "acting" talents of cheerful Bottlenose Dolphin. I guess not trying to recommend FLIPPER as mindless family entertainment won't be fair, but anyone over the age of 10 (No, make that 8), are better off renting or buying something else. Besides, the film is about 95 minutes tops. That might just give you enough time to something elsewhere without worrying about your kids. That alone might be worth the rental.<br /><br />Rating: ** out of 5. | negative |
A stunning realization occurs when some sort of phenomenon takes place!! Be it, firecrackers going off, witnessing a robbery, a hurricane nonchalantly devastating everything in it's path, or, for that matter, any other spectacular occurrence !! In the case of the Maclean Family, however, reveille was something which was no more complex than their day to day lives..Montana in the early twentieth century was an environment which was rough and tumble...The Maclean family was comprised of four people, the father, a minister, who was ideologically driven to raise his family properly. His wife was God fearing, and dutiful. The two boys were, well...BOYS!!.. What else can you say?...Brad Pitt starred in this film before he was really THE!! Brad Pitt, and his acting performance in this film was, to say the least, remarkable!!!.. His brother, Norman, was the cerebral type, he was touched by emotions that were genuine, and motivated by a set of values that Missoula, Montana concurred with!! Paul (Brad Pitt) was a misfit from the offset, and lived on the edge...You would think that Montana in the 1920's had no such thing, yet somehow, gambling, drinking, and violent confrontations, were as much a part of Paul, as was his fly fishing rod!! Fly fishing!! Did I say that? Parenthetically, this was the core of this movie's theme!! The recreation of fly fishing served as the cohesive bond which homogenized the kindred spirits of the Maclean brothers, and to a lesser degree, the father!! I would describe the acting in this film as incredibly believable, and the cinematography went beyond sensational.. Put it this way, anyone who sees this film will want to live in Montana.. Breathtaking filmography of bluer than blue mountains and streams captured the youth and effervescence that the Maclean brothers had for life...Seldom in a film do you witness whereby feelings immediately invoke a dogged tenacity to accomplish whatever it may be that someone wishes to accomplish..The Maclean brothers lived life to the fullest, and for better or worse, the father knew that this was going to be the only way the two of them could become men!!...Robert Redford directs this film, and tells the story of the Maclean's through the perspective of the older brother, Norman...Norman gets offered a position at the University of Chicago at age 26, and marries the woman he will always be in love with...What this film also points out, is that the younger brother, Paul, has attained an accomplishment of his own by being the epitome of a remarkable fly fisherman!! The seedier side of life prevails in the younger brother's existence, and exerts an insidious form of consternation for the Maclean family!! As most human shortcomings go, the Maclean family made light of turbulent waters, (literally) and thus, established unity as a family, by putting necessary blinders on!!!<br /><br />The end of the movie "River Runs Through It" presents an epigram of life through the eyes of the older brother.. For Norman Maclean, stoicism is a prerequisite to perseverance in his emeritus years!! Such a fate is largely due to the fact that reflecting on his life is tantamount to yearning for people who have passed away! The fond memories of his brother, his wife, his mother, and his father, must now be viewed philosophically!! For Norman, his life has been relegated to stubborn facts that have determined his dubious outlook, and precarious resolve! Something as simple as the statement "This was your life, and that is how you lived it" is a somber recollection of the joy, the sorrow, the regrets, and the love, he gave, as well as was the recipient of!! Best put in the last sermon he heard his father give, his father said "We can completely love someone without completely understanding them".. Whether you agree with what has happened in your life or not, it happened nonetheless! Norman Maclean must come to grips with the fact that his life has been fragmented by misunderstandings! Norman Maclean has become a decrepit octogenarian who is polarized by virtual conclusions to his life!! The murky waters of Montana's picturesque rivers serve as a vicious and desultory finalization to his years on earth!! Without question, the very prolific statement of "what seems complicated is really very simple" purveys a very acrimonious message in this movie...More simply put...The people and places which were important in Norman's life, are now only a bittersweet memory....merely a painfully intellectual rumination of events which are aggravated by the haunted waters of Montana's beautiful streams and rivers...To which, for the entire Maclean family, "all things merge into one and a river runs through it" | positive |
Bad acting? Yes, but it was not a surprise. Stupid story? Yes, so what?<br /><br />But why, tell me, Mr Director, why all that slow motion crap? Fight scenes were bad, really bad, because of slow motion and bad cutting. Not because of Seagal.<br /><br />"What if I just speed this up for 2 seconds and then slow down those next 5 seconds and then... Maybe I need to flip the coin to decide?" What were you thinking, Mr Director??? | negative |
As an Altman fan, I'd sought out this movie for years, thinking that with such a great cast, it would have to be at least marginally brilliant.<br /><br />Big mistake.<br /><br />This is one of Altman's big-cast mishmashes, thrown together haphazardly and improvisationally (or so it feels) with the hope that it would all come together in the editing room. It doesn't.<br /><br />As Maltin points out, this turkey is notable only for the debut performance of Alfre Woodard, who outshines the vets all around her. But other than that, avoid at all costs. (Which is pretty easy to do -- it's never been released on video -- to my knowledge -- and its cable appearances have the frequency of Halley's Comet.) | negative |
"Closet Land" was sponsored by Amnesty International and does have a lot of political overtones, but there's so much more to this richly stirring story than that...<br /><br />This is not just about the political tension of the late 80s - it's about the personal persecution that a woman puts herself through as a child who was molested by a family friend. We see the subtle allusion to the parallels of a dishonest government/society structure and the culture of sexual predation where one in four young children are molested and one in three women has experienced some form of rape.<br /><br />For me, it brings up a chilling chicken-and-egg question: does the attitude of our sexual repression-leading-to-predation create the political environment of fear and censoring, or does the socio-political dysfunction fuel a culture of sexual predation? The psychological ramifications of even asking this question force us to a place where we are brought to develop our own answers.<br /><br />In the end, our young lady writer (Stowe) has a similar moment to the one at the end of Hensen's "Labyrinth" - she realizes in one shining, brilliant moment that the idea of having her power stolen from her by the secret police (Rickman) is an illusion. No one can steal your power - they can only trick you into giving it up, and then you have the right to take it back at any time.<br /><br />This is not a movie to be entered into lightly, and you most certainly do ENTER it. The minimalist aspects coupled with the child-like animation stirs the deepest parts of the psyche and leaves no viewer unchanged. | positive |
There is no greater disservice to do to history than to misrepresent it. This takes the easiest and most shallow route, simply portraying him as a monster. Only showing his negative sides, and exaggerating them. "Those who are ignorant of the past doom us to repeat it". He was a human being. That may prove tough to some people to accept, but an important part of life is facing that which we don't want to. Rather than demonizing the man, we ought to try to understand him. Otherwise, we stand little chance of preventing anyone similar in the future, or possibly even the present, from succeeding at anything of remotely comparable scope, as far as damage and misery goes. Hate him and what he did, don't make him into something mythical, intentionally or otherwise. Frankly, far too much of this mini-series could play "dumb dumb *duuum*!" after or during scenes. The whole thing nods, nudges and winks at the audience, with a clear message of "was this guy evil or what", incorporating every single bad trait(as well as making up several that go directly against who and what he was), letting them appear more or less out of nowhere, and having them be constant throughout his life, not something he came to believe or claimed to. This should never be used to educate. Use Der Untergang(Downfall, in English), and maybe point out the few inaccuracies of that, instead. This, this is disrespectful to the actual events that took place, and to any and all survivors, not to mention those who died. The cinematic quality? Top-notch. It's well-done, through and through, excellent production values, a solid arc to the well-told plot, what characterization does occur is strong and credible, dialog and script are great, all acting performances are masterful(Carlyle looks and behaves the role... as it was written... perfectly), the music is well-composed, cinematography and editing are flawless and creative, and this is definitely dramatic, entertaining and riveting. They get dates and many occurrences, and do them justice. If I had been offered to work on this, and did not feel I could be objective enough to have Hitler appear as a fully fleshed-out person, I would have declined, citing that as the reason. I don't blame anyone for loathing him. How can you forgive what he did, and are we sure that we should? That is not what I am suggesting. Finally, let me point out that, as I write this, we are in a world-wide economic crisis that has lasted for about two years, and that is not terribly dissimilar to the stock market crash of 1929. The two reasons it hasn't led to a depression of the new millennium are as follows: governments are giving money to the banks to keep the market going, and the majority of the countries is now friendly towards one another. Apart from that, the lesson hadn't been learned. Hopefully, it has now. Back to this... my suggestion? Read a book, non-fiction, dealing with the subject. There are plenty of informative, smart ones. The DVD holds a trailer. I recommend this only to those who know better, and vehemently urge anyone who has watched it, to seek out the truth. 8/10 | positive |
I wouldn't bring a child under 8 to see this. With puppies dangling off of buildings squirming through dangerous machines and listening to Cruella's scary laugh to name a few of the events there is entirely too much suspense for a small child. <br /><br />The live action gives a more ominous feel than the cartoon version and there are quite a few disquieting moments including some guy that seems to be a transvestite, a lot of tense moments that will worry and may frighten small kids.<br /><br />I don't know what the Disney folks were thinking but neither the story nor the acting were of their usual level. The puppies are cute But this movie is spotty at best. | negative |
Amateurish in the extreme. Camera work especially overwrought - documentary camera operators needn't spin around ALL THE TIME.<br /><br />The script is truly inane, and the acting is even worse. On top of that, the story is disjointed and meandering - with some gaping holes in logic. At one point the lead wishes to get thrown in jail in order to rub shoulders with suspected Al-Quada operatives, and thus get an interview with Osama. I found the story entirely unbelievable as a result of so many flaws. The "filmmaker"/lead role really portrays a rash, idiot frat boy. The only item of interest really, is that the filmmakers did in fact film on location. It's truly a shame they wasted their opportunity to make something interesting.<br /><br />Who financed this crap? | negative |
I first viewed this movie when it first came out and also bought an LP recording of the soundtrack. I liked it so well, I went back to see it several times..cannot understand why it was considered a flop. Julie Andrews was lovely in this film, her voice was in top form and the costuming was beautiful!<br /><br />The film contains a little bit of everything and even though some of the scenes were a bit heavy-handed, they were still fun. <br /><br />I recently found I could get a copy in DVD form and ordered it......I was disappointed that a couple of songs and sequences in the movie were not included in the version of the DVD I ordered. | positive |
I know that Guts of a Beauty and Guts of a Virgin are crap films and are hated by many but I'm gonna put myself under the bus here and say I like 'em, especially Guts of a Beauty (aka Entrails of a Beautiful Woman). Watched it the other night with some folks at the pad and I was surprised how well it actually went over.<br /><br />Entrails is the type of madcap cheapo horror softcore sleaze epic that you really just don't find too much of outside of Asia (specifically Japan in this case). It's basically a rape/revenge flick with a reincarnated monster instead of some silly shotgun murders or a motorboat-propelled noose or even a ticked off Daddy with a chainsaw...That stuff's just silly. Wouldn't you rather see a hermaphroditic monster with a hilarious little snake monster for a winky?<br /><br />PERVERSION FACTOR: This movie is high in graphic, sometimes wacky rape sequences, fake pop shots, and satisfying masturbation and monster sex sequences that you oughta like if you like Corman nuggets like Humanoids From The Deep. I dunno, maybe that's a stretch but I personally didn't think Entrails of a Beautiful Woman let me down as an avid fan of Asian sleaze and bizarro B-pics.<br /><br />Yeah, I know sometimes some of my recommendations are not always everyone's cuppa tea (even for those of you who like the same kind of garbage as I do) but I stand behind this one. 8/10. | positive |
This movie was good for it's time. If you like Eddie Murpy this is a must have to add to your collection. Eddie was young and funny with his 80's haircut. Charlotte Lewis, Eddie's costar is hot. This was one of her first movies and she was not bad. The graphics were good for the 80's. A lot of the actors went on to do other good movies you should check them out through IMDb. Other must have from Eddie is "Coming to America" and "48 hours". Another actor "Victor Wong" has a small part in this movie. Check out some of his older movies like "Big trouble in little china". If you liked the action movies from the 80's this is your movie. | positive |
Lawrence Olivier and Merle Oberon did two movies together within two years. One is considered one of the great romantic films of all time, and the movie that made Olivier a great movie star (and gave Oberon her best performance role): WUTHERING HEIGHTS. The other is this film, made in England a year earlier. THE DIVORCE OF LADY X is a romantic comedy (as WUTHERING HEIGHTS is a romantic tragedy). Olivier is a lawyer, Everard Logan, who is a dynamic barrister, but is also a total misogynist. One night he checks into a hotel just ahead of a crowd of people. It is a very foggy night (the type of pea soup fog that London was known for up until a notorious "killer" fog in the 1950s), and the crowd (who'd been attending a party in the hotel) need beds. The management tries to get Logan to allow one or two socialite ladies to sleep on a couch and a day bed in his rooms, but he refuses. But he has not reckoned with Merle Oberon as Leslie Steele. The granddaughter of a high court judge, she manages to get into Logan's rooms and manipulates him to not only agree to her sleeping there, but appropriates his bed (he goes onto the couch - much to his discomfort).<br /><br />The next day they share a breakfast, and in the smalltalk it is evident that despite his mistrust of women Logan finds Leslie very attractive. But she kittenishly refuses to tell him her name. She is determined to learn more about him, and she finds his attitude toward women infuriating. In the meantime, Logan is approached by a wealthy nobleman (Ralph Richardson as Lord Mere) as a potential client. Mere suspects his wife Lady Mere (Binnie Barnes) of having an affair. In fact, he tells Logan her Ladyship was with her lover in the hotel that Logan knows he was in on the night of the fog. Logan (naturally) jumps to the conclusion that Lady Mere was his mysterious roommate that night. I will not go into the plot any further, except to say that Leslie eventually realizes what a mistake Logan has made, and decides to use it to teach him a lesson about women.<br /><br />The script has the feel of a Wodehouse novel, but is slighter. Still the performances of Olivier, Oberon, Richardson, Barnes, and Morton Selden (as Oberon's grandfather) are all splendid. It shows what a good cast can do with even the slightest of materials. Take a look at some of the minor scenes to see what I mean: Selden's first scene, complaining about his weak coffee to his butler/valet, who tells him off properly (they've been used to each other's personalities for years). Or Olivier dealing with a young clerk in his office, who is certain there were two Lady Meres in the office two minutes before (there were, but Oberon and Barnes left together), and ends up thinking the poor clerk is a simpleton. Or the waiter in the hotel who can't understand why the tenant in Olivier's room is constantly changing from a man to a woman to a man. As I said, a slight charming comedy - but it is very charming. | positive |
Talented screenwriter Alvin Sargent sadly cannot get any engaging ideas cooking in this artificial trifle about a wayward mother and her mature teenage daughter trying to make their lives work in Los Angeles despite mom's flighty behavior. Apart from several good sequences, I didn't quite buy Susan Sarandon as a flake (she's too intrinsically smart and focused to be passed off as this devil-may-care lady), and her naturally grounded personality is a bad fit for the role of an irresponsible parent. Natalie Portman fares much better as her kid, and yet there's a creepy aloofness to her work (and some of her scenes, such as the one where she asks a boy to strip, are misguided and uncomfortable to watch). Certainly not an incompetent piece, "Anywhere But Here" does have moments that work, but it isn't an embraceable film, nor has it proved to be an important one. ** from **** | negative |
I saw an advanced screening for this movie tonight. I absolutely loved it. The movie kept me on the edge of my seat all night. Cillian Murphy is extremely creepy as the villain. For those of you who have seen Batman Begins, his character was much scarier in this film. He played his character very well. The scariest "bad guy," I have seen in awhile. Rachel McAdams was great. Everyone in the audience laughed, gasped and cheered at the same time, as if we were on cue. The suspense is held through out the movie. THe amazing part is that the end was not anti-climatic. I was not disappointed in the end. I felt satisfied. The trailer does not do the movie justice. The movie is much better than the trailer indicated. Do not wait for this movie to come out on video. Go see it. Although, I did not have to pay to see this movie, I would have gladly given 10.75 to see it. Enjoy! | positive |
I saw this drama by cable TV. Although I saw just two series, I love this drama. I'm waiting for more series will be aired by cable.<br /><br />Even though it describes horrible, absurd situation in a prisoner's camp, this one shows us an indomitable spirit, warmth, friendship and humanity. They don't know whether they can survive or not, but kept their hope strongly without being discouraged by adversity.<br /><br />I know this movie is not realistic like other war documentary, but I don't want to blame for it. It makes me believe the strong will of people in the most difficult situation. <br /><br />'Private Bill' , especially, this episode touched deep in my heart.<br /><br />I remember every scene. I always hate mathematics. But after seeing this drama, I can understand something about mathematics... Mathematics is his connection between past and present, also symbolizes eternity.<br /><br />'Time, light and memory framed in a circle.'<br /><br />Like other victims of war, he lost his lover by irresistible fate. I'm immersed in his time and memory as if I experienced same thing.<br /><br />He experienced the great loss but he has pure passion of study.<br /><br />He started his study in the camp, his joy of realize,<br /><br />I believe his dedication of study sustained him.<br /><br />I saw it several times, but the meaning of this film never faded. Every time I saw it, I feel same deep emotion.<br /><br />* Their songs are beautiful, harmonious,<br /><br />I'm sorry that I can't listen OST. | positive |
There is one detail, which is not very common for Jackie Chan movies, but which is present here. It has some very tough and serious atmosphere about it while the funny elements are present too. Jackie is menacing and psychotic here. He is not a hero who is attacked and only then fights back (in a usual laid-back pattern), but he is the one who can go and start the tumult. His manner of hitting that evil guy in the glasses is amazing. Every time it goes "crack!". I also especially enjoy the scene when Jackie goes to the pub and thrashes the villains who had fronted on his girlfriend. It's one of the best blitzkriegs put on screen. Besides, the whole scene is shot with the background of some action character painted on the wall (it also looks like a poster of "rabochiy" from our Soviet era) and some lines in Russian on the left (I noticed that quite accidentally). That looks terrific (and nostalgic for Russian people). I also like when the windows are being smashed in the movies. Here there's a lot of this stuff. It's quite amazing watching the characters falling/jumping/running/driving through all manner of panes.<br /><br />All three movies are great. I had been preparing myself to see the down-slide of the quality but I saw a perfect trilogy with sense and incredible stunts (and not only Jackie Chan's character appears in all three movies - that's also excellent and keeps continuity up).<br /><br />I would like to describe each movie just in a few words: No.1 - great (in all aspects - it is one gripping story from the very beginning to the very end) and funny (many scenes are ridiculous); No.2 - raging (Jackie is really *beep* off here) and painful (Jackie gets tortured); No.3 - unbelievable (the woman that fights alongside with Jackie is incredible) and bombastic (should I mention a lot of guns and explosions?).<br /><br />As to the rest - much has been mentioned by the others.<br /><br />It's a trilogy that can be watched over and over again (at least by me). Its place is in top 10 among action/comedy jewels. Finally it's been released in Russia on DVD (the 2nd film has the best options - the Chinese/Russian soundtracks and English/Russian subtitles).<br /><br />Solid 10 out of 10. Thank you for attention. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.