review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
The movie had an interesting surprise. Somewhat psychologically gripping. And the makers could have ended it tastefully without making it just another of a rash of movies put out by Hollywood promoting homosexuality and/or other sexual deviances. This could have ended with a "pay-off", but there were other motives behind the pen. What torques me off is that the mud slung in your face AFTER you've seen the whole movie. Like the disappointing "The Talented Mr. Ripley". Yeah sure, I'm just another puritan. This gay content tarnished the whole film. I wouldn't positively judge a movie for artistic or entertainment value if its sole purpose was to promote an ulterior political motivation, more so for this. | negative |
This movie is truly one of the worst pieces of garbage ever. It really is surprising that something so completely terrible could be made. But, if you can stand the mind-numbing plot, character development, and direction, you may get a kick out of the soundtrack which is so appalling that it is funny. The movie begins terribly and quickly becomes unwatchable. Someone should give anyone involved with this movie some sort of consolation because their career was probably ruined because of involvement in this movie. If you do end up seeing this movie or have seen it already (I feel your pain) then these words have come too late. For anyone else, Stay away at all costs or realize that the movie is so bad that it will waste 2 hours of your life. Then at least you can clean up or something while viewing it. | negative |
We have to remember that the 50's were practically a blank slate when it came to movies. Hollywood was in transition from patriotic war movies, noir, two reel oaters, etc to movies with a message. We had Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront and so on. Some folks might think that was an improvement. I don't. Who was the mogul who said: If you want to send a message, call Western Union? He was right. These psychological thrillers are less entertainment than some kind of remote therapy.<br /><br />This one is a pip. It's about three sisters trying to wrest control of their dead father's estate. One of them, maybe the only one worth redemption enlists the aid of the company pilot to help her keep the rest of the family at bay. He's initially in it for the bucks, but eventually falls for her. Meanwhile the rest of the family schemes to sabotage the romance. The results are predictable. You get a little bit of everything in this movie. Sexual tension between the sisters. A little subtle masochism. Hereditary insanity - if there is such a thing. We never get to meet the parents, but they must really have been screwed up The cast is practically unknown. One or two of the actors sound vaguely familiar. The acting is so bad it's hard to believe. It was released under the United Artists umbrella by a company called Bel-Air Productions. It was shot in and around LA mostly at night and probably without permits. The end was so bizarre that I thought it was a joke. It was as if they ran out of money and the producer decided to wrap it up in the middle of a scene.<br /><br />I can't explain it - not even to myself - but I gave this pile of trash an 8/10. I'm familiar with the term "It's so bad it's good", but I don't think I ever ran into the phenomenon before. Well, maybe "Hot Rods to Hell", but this one certainly fits. You might want to try this if you love movies that seem like they were made in somebody's basement. | positive |
Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with "The Mummy's Tomb."<br /><br />The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in "The Mummy's Hand," and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!<br /><br />Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as "The Mummy's Ghost" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film "Mummy" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.<br /><br />Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The "new" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore! | negative |
I saw this movie last weekend and it is silly and mindless. An ancient curse turns a man into a mummy in his pajamas? The victims are scared senseless and can not run from a slow moving old man. They drop their torches and shiver instead of attempting to ward him off or,duh, burn him. Quentin alias Mr. Fabersham of the Honeymooners is married to Diane Brewster alias Miss Canfield of Leave it to Beaver fame, who is unhappy in marriage. Wow, love plot. The rest of the cast just follows each other in the tombs and wait for screams to react and run to their aid. The Egyptian girl is not bad looking but does not lend much to the film. Where is the mummy? Really just a curse unleashed. This does not hold a torch to Universal Mummy films in the least.Watch this movie if you need sleep, because you will dose off. | negative |
Must confess to having seen a few howlers in my time, but this one is up there with the worst of them. Plot troubling to follow. Sex and violence thrown in to disorient and distract from the really poorly put together film.<br /><br />I can only imagine that the cast will look back on the end product and wish it to gather dust on a shelf not to be disturbed for a generation or two. Sadly, in my case, I have the DVD. It will sit on the shelf and look at me from time to time. | negative |
Was the script more fitting for a 30 minute sitcom? Yes, but they still make it work! I thought the actors did a fantastic job with an otherwise bland script, especially Jack Black and Christopher Walken. Most people on the board seem to really hate this film. I personally can't see how that could be, but Envy is just one of those film that you either love it or hate it. Much like Napoleon Dynamite and every Leslie Neilsen movie ever made. You either think it's one of the worst movies ever made or one of the funniest. Don't avoid this movie because of the reviews. Watch it and see if you're one of the ones who really like it! If you do, I guarantee it's worth your money. If you don't like it... well, now you know. | positive |
Typical Troma-trash, this smutty 80's flick is considered one of the "highlights" of Lloyd Kaufman's notorious production studio, alongside "The Toxic Avenger" released one year earlier. "The Toxic Avenger" is far superior if you ask me, but this demented splatter-flick is nevertheless endurable as well; just make sure you leave your full brain capacity at the door. The events take place in Tromaville, a little town that proudly claims to be the toxic chemical capital of the world, and they certainly aren't lying. The safety precautions in the local nuclear power plant are substandard, to say the least (even Homer Simpson never was this nonchalant) and toxic waste seeps through to the nearby high school. The first intoxicated victim is the stereotypical nerd, who starts spurting green stuff out of all his body cavities, but his death is believed to be an accident because he had no less than TWO microwave ovens in his house! Oh, the humanity! Shortly after, however, the nuclear leaks also affect the school's weed plantation and thing really start to get messy. After smoking a joint at a party, the cutest couple in school produce a gigantic worm monster that settles in the basement and feeds on teenage scum. "Class of Nuke 'em High" is bottom-of-the-barrel horror film-making, with dialogs so dumb they hurt your ears and make-up effects that give a whole new meaning to the word tasteless. If you enjoy watching faces melting away, getting crushed or splitting in half, this is definitely a must-see! Unlike the aforementioned "The Toxic Avenger", this film suffers from a couple of really dull and overlong moments where nothing really significant happens, like for example when Chrissy and Warren try to figure out what's wrong with their hormones. The crude humor isn't as effective as in "Toxic Avenger" and the acting performances are unforgivably amateurish. Proceed only if you're an avid Troma-fanatic. | negative |
Wow! What a lovely, warm, rural film! The story focuses upon Mi Taylor (Mickey Rooney), a young male wanderer, whose journey takes him to a quiet, rural coastal town. There he stays with the Brown family. Velvet (Liz Taylor) their youngest daughter, who Mi subtly befriends, has a passion for horses and wins one at an auction. This horse is a beautiful, maroon stallion; referred by its previous owner as a 'murderous pirate', but Velvet re-names him Pie. Not long later, Velvet suggests to enter him in the Grand National race, Mi and her family are against the idea, but soon agree and Velvet and Mi began to train him for Britain's most famous horse race
This film is a beautiful example of what British films are like. I remember I first saw this when I was eight and on my summer holidays. My parents taped it off the TV and I warmed to it instantly watching it most days instead of the large collection of Disney films that I owned.<br /><br />I believe it was one of Liz Taylor's first movies and a good one! Her character is naïve but sweet her acting is extremely convincing, especially when she portrays her love for horses. It's also a good chance to see Angela Lansbury in one of her early roles; who co-stars as Velvet's older sister, who spends most of her time in the film being smitten with a boy in the town! I must say she was a gorgeous lady when she was younger. Beautiful blonde hair and a rosy cheeked face. Although she doesn't have a major part in the movie, she dose have a number of scenes - so not to disappoint her fans! Parents reading this, I must emphasis if you can get hold of a copy of this please do! If you're children love animals I strongly suggest you show it to them! They may find a few scenes boring but you see Velvet riding the horse on many occasions throughout the film and would most defiantly entertain children! A lovely and nostalgic film. I might just go away now and put it on! | positive |
Taken the idea out of a true diplomatic incident "The Wind and the Lion" is a very good adventure film set in the deserts of Africa.<br /><br />El Raisuli (Sean Connery) head of an Arab tribe kidnaps an American woman(Candice Bergen) and her two children to obtain some concessions for his country out of American president Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith). Out of this simple plot John Milius gets a very complete and enjoyable movie in the genre.<br /><br />The outdoor dessert locations, an impressive color photography, very well handled action sequences and perfect settings turn the picture in a sort of epic one with an undeniable sense of greatness. The musical score is also remarkable an fits accordingly.<br /><br />Sean Connery is very good as the Arab leader and proofs he can handle almost any kind of role. So is Candice Bergen as the woman who shows strength under dangerous circumstances but deep inside is scared and has her weaknesses; she gets to admire Connery and even understand his complete different focus on life arising from their also completely different cultures. Brian Keith plays one of his best roles ever as American president Teddy Roosevelt.<br /><br />Most entertaining and very good cinematographic sample in the genre. Give it chance, you won't regret it. | positive |
One of the most heart-warming foreign films I've ever seen.<br /><br />The young girl is an amazing talent. Stellar performances by her (Doggie), the old man (the king of masks), and Liang (the Living Boddhisatva).<br /><br />(SPOILER) The deplorable treatment of children, especially females is disturbing.<br /><br />Loved the music. The original Chinese dialog heightens the emotional intensity of the performances and the story.<br /><br />This is a MUST SEE -- enjoyable family film, although not for very young children. Would have rated the DVD release even higher if the soundtrack had been transferred better onto the DVD and the transfer had included the widescreen version. | positive |
David Lynch's (1999) film of John Roach / Mary Sweeney's story is set in Iowa and Wisconsin some time well before the film's eventual release.<br /><br />We come into the life of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth) late on in life. His medical condition is poor, his life is mostly behind him and he knows it.<br /><br />This makes what he decides to do, even more remarkable and endearing. He decides (and at every point in the film his own name reverberates through his actions) to put a few things straight.<br /><br />Alvin is, by this time in his life, a man of great experience but modest means. His daughter Rose (Sissy Spacek) struggles with a speech impediment that makes communication a great effort on the audience's behalf. But it's worth it, because Rose's story cannot help but come out as the film progresses.<br /><br />This film is the story of a journey. But like all journeys it is a journey in the geographical sense and in the human sense. Early on in the film, we begin to understand that this is an ambitious journey, which no elderly gentleman of Alvin's age should reasonably undertake.<br /><br />But along the way, we slowly learn how Alvin has so many qualifications which equip him to achieve his unlikely objective. His objective is very simple and straightforward. His brother is ill and likely to die and he wants to visit him. He has had a falling out with him many years ago and they have not spoken in a very long time.<br /><br />Along the way, Alvin meets many people. The way he behaves towards them and the benefit they get from having known him is the essence of this film. We come to know who Alvin Straight is, from what Alvin Straight does. And at the end of the film, we know who we are .. better. | positive |
One Star. That's all this documentary deserves. I haven't felt this disappointed in watching a movie, let alone a documentary, in quite some time.<br /><br />I'm a BIG fan of the "Walking With..." series, including it's Nigel Marvin spin-offs, for all their gleeful fun yet informative information. And although the subject of prehistoric man has never interested me nearly as much as other prehistoric creatures, the subject is still interesting and unique to explore. Having seen all the other docs from the series, I figured I need to see this one as well, especially after seeing relatively good reviews in other places.<br /><br />Well for those of you who put up a good review of this doc... what were you thinking?! lol.<br /><br />Though the information that they were able to get through was interesting, the presentation failed in every other way possible. It had a terrible flow, was incredibly unfocused in what it was trying to say (with information scrambled and sometimes out of of place), horrible effects (that includes the few moments of CGI and especially the makeup effects), and overused MTV-style camera effects.<br /><br />Speaking of the makeup effects, one reviewer here mentioned how laughable the scene was when the cavemen come across this giant ape and how it looks a lot like a 70s man-in-suit horror movie. Well there are plenty of moments just like that were the people portraying the ape men looked ridiculous and acted ridiculous. None of this is helped by horrible camera positions and compositions.<br /><br />The worst part of all is none of it is shown in an interesting or dynamic way, or looks remotely real. It doesn't even look like it was taken seriously. It also lacked any emotional punch that the predecessors of the series had. Remember the episode in "Walking With Dinosaurs" of the fate of the Ornithochirus (sp?)? That episode still gets me on the verge of tears every time I watch it. It's this sort of engagement with the subject that lacks here most of all. When you are more engaged in the subject and it's own personal story, even one that is just speculation, you care more about the facts surrounding it.<br /><br />The only saving graces of this production are the fairly good narration (at least in the BBC version I saw) and the music. Otherwise, DO NOT bother even renting this one unless you want to have a good laugh (which I did frequently, but usually followed by rolling eyes). This does not belong on the shelf with the other "Walking With..." docs.<br /><br />And does it make sense to learn that this doc was NOT produced or directly involved with the same people who did the others in the series? Hmmm... | negative |
Describing this film is a difficult task. On the one hand, it's an over-the-top vampire spookfest, complete with cobwebs, eerie music, a hypnotic medallion, and of course a coffin with a creaky lid.<br /><br />On the other hand, this is one of the silliest scripts this side of Edward D. Wood, Jr. Produced by the same people who gave us "The Bloody Vampire," "Invasion of the Vampires," and this film's predecessor, the modestly-titled "The Vampire," the movie sticks close to the lack of logic that characterizes the other films.<br /><br />As I mentioned, this film is a sequel to "The Vampire," which I have not seen. But no matter...it's real easy to imagine what happened. Dr. Enrique, played by Abel "The Brainiac" Salazar, is befuddled when the well-intentioned but misguided Dr. Marion brings back the staked body of his vampiric enemy, Count Karol de Lavud (I suppose there is a rule somewhere that all vampires must be Counts of some sort). Dr. Marion complains that all important doctors throughout history have had to resort to some sort of grave robbing in order to advance their medical studies, and he hopes to use the vampire's corpse to study such phenomena as the vampire's lack of a normal reflection (at which point he holds a mirror up to the vampire and instead of no reflection, we see the vampire's skeleton. ???).<br /><br />Enrique is not pleased, and seems determined to pass off the events of the first film as mere fantasy and superstition. "This man was no vampire...I'll admit that he liked to drink a little blood, but that's all!" he states. Also confusing matters is the fragile Martha, a part-time nurse and part-time showgirl (!) who happens to be Enrique's object of affection. Martha narrowly escaped de Lavud's clutches in the first film, and apparently Enrique has spent a great deal of time "healing her mind" and getting her to think that everything that she experienced was not real.<br /><br />OK, so if you were the scriptwriter for this film, you would need a way to get someone dumb enough to pull the stake out of the vampire, right? Well, how about the greedy con man who helped Marion steal the coffin? After getting a glimpse de Lavud's body, he sets his sights on the expensive-looking brooch that the Count is wearing, and he conveniently returns to steal it when the doctors aren't looking. But darn it...he can't remove the brooch because of the stake, so...you guessed it. De Lavud is on the loose again, this time with the shady con as his human henchman.<br /><br />OK, so of course the vampire is after Martha again, and meanwhile the doctors are really confused about what they believe. At first they are determined to prove that there is no such thing as a real vampire, then by the end of the film they are trying to get the police to put an all-points bulletin out for "a man who is dead but still alive!".<br /><br />You can probably imagine the rest of the plot from here, but the filmmakers do throw in a few pleasing twists. One of the sets for the movie is a spooky wax museum (is there any other kind in these types of films?), complete with a fully-equipped torture chamber...with REAL torture and execution equipment. The movie has a very keen sense of style, and not just in the campy cobwebs. One effectively creepy sequence has de Lavud chasing a victim down a seemingly endless series of streets and alleyways, following their progress alongside vague buildings with no doors while lighting the scene like a German expressionist nightmare ("The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" seems to be an influence).<br /><br />But the rest of the film is juvenile, particularly in the film's climax. The special effects are quite crude, even for the year that this was made, and the climactic fight with de Lavud in bat form is laughable enough...but the director feels the need to ask us to believe that Martha would faint and collapse directly over top of a guillotine, positioned so that her head was in the perfect location to be chopped off by the blade, which is in danger of falling because the restraining rope has suddenly begun to fray RIGHT AT THAT VERY MINUTE! What an unfortunate coincidence! To make matters worse, he cuts away from the fraying rope to scenes of Enrique trying to dodge the swooping rubber bat, basically standing still and waving his arms around. It's definitely an Ed Wood moment if ever there was one, especially when Martha seems to revive on her own and rises groggily to her feet just as the blade slams down. Whew! What a relief! In terms of kookiness, "The Vampire's Coffin" does not have the lunacy factor of "The Bloody Vampire" or "Invasion of the Vampires", but fans of these types of old horror films will appreciate the atmospheric photography, and the fact that the director manages to wring some real chills from this material has to "Count" for something (haw haw). | negative |
A friend of mine lent this video to me and I was fairly excited to watch it, but after ten minutes of James Hetfield's slow pitched vocals and Lars banging on his drum set in what appeared to be slow motion I began to think, `Why am I watching this?' That question will be coursing through your minds in 5 10 minutes after you hit Play. I gave the tape back the same day, as you would suspect, not worth buying or watching!<br /><br />Just my opinion!<br /><br /> | negative |
Mmmm, a previous summary says "if you like aliens and predator you will enjoy this film" i could not disagree more, this film pays no respect to its weighty lineage and has reduced two of the best loved sci fi strands to little more than a teen horror slasher movie, it has none of the tension or foreboding present in previous alien or predator movies and there is no discernible lead character, i really did not care about any of the characters and i positively yearned to see the stereotypical cast die as soon as possible in the vain hope something better would replace them, it really takes super human incompetence to have two of the most fearsome creatures ever invented positively fail to make a gripping thrilling movie, only watch this if you want to see how NOT to do it. | negative |
This is definitely Nolan's most intimite,and thought-provoking piece. Not to say that Memento or Insomnia are bad,but they were definitely up to more Hollywood standards...while Following is more of an indie flick. The story is very brilliant,and very well developed. Overall...watch this if your a fan of any of Nolan's work,I'm sure you'll be able to appreciate it more. | positive |
I am at a distinct disadvantage here. I have not seen the first two movies in this series, although I have seen a lot of Larry Cohen films. Fans of the series seem to think this is a good film. Judging it on it's own, it was pretty boring.<br /><br />You never get a real good look at the maniac cop's (Robert Z'Dar) face, but what I did see was pretty grim. The death scenes seem to be staged to eat up the most film, not to give any thrills. Maybe if I saw the NC-17 Director's Cut, I may be more impressed.<br /><br />The ending with the car chase with Z'Dar, Caitlin Dulany, and Robert Davi was pretty intense. best part of the movie. | negative |
To call this film a complete waste of celluloid would be an understatement.<br /><br />The acting was unconvincing to say the least, especially from actor Craig Fong, who couldn't have acted stiffer. As far as story goes...well...what story?! The "film" is nominally about Harry Lee, a Malaysian of Chinese descent who comes back to his home country after flunking out of every course he took and tries to start a band.<br /><br />The film has ever cliche you can think of -- sex, tension among band members and a little bit of racial tension thrown in.<br /><br />The problem is that even with a subject that's been covered adequately by even the most amateurish directors, this movie is all over the place and the whole thing just feels contrived with parts that would make even the most hardened reviewers' hairs stand on end.<br /><br /> | negative |
This movie was so poorly acted. What was with Jeff Bridges accent, horrible and unbelievable. Was it supposed to be French, Scandinavian?The script was lame. To have the heroine trip over the grave of her boyfriend while running from the Jeff Bridges character...are you kidding me? How convenient that Jeff brings his dirty shovel in the house after he disposes of bodies in his lawn. Do these people just not believe in calling the cops? Okay...I'll get into the car with you, why not? DUH! Why was Bridge's daughter obsessed with making her dad have an affair, is her mother that evil or just plain dull? I did not see the original, it would be hard to make myself after seeing this movie. | negative |
I got this in the DVD 10 pack CURSE OF THE DEAD. You gotta love those bargain packs. For even if they don't feature true remastering, restoration and all that hoo-ha, and the films are generally in full-frame pan and scan format, there's no denying that there are always a few gems included. And by "gems", I mean there's always some good crap to be seen, especially if the films are from the '70s as The Mansion of Madness is.<br /><br />My copy is called Mansion of Madness, but when the title screens roll it's Poe's Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon. Doesn't matter, really, as crap is crap is crap, no? Yes! But saying this film is completely worthless is not true at all. There are some funky elements here and there, and obviously the flick did have a decent budget.<br /><br />The opening title sequence is cool with its colored negative run through a cheap TV look. The dialogue is always hilarious. Near the beginning of the film, the horse and buggy driver gets out to move a dead tree stump in the middle of the road. "WHAT STRENGTH!" says Our Hero. Funny, then, that this dude should later not be able to fight off the wacky woodsmen when they come to make freaky fun. You'll completely forget that this guy was even in the movie until he crops up again later near the end. That's how memorable these characters are.<br /><br />The best part about Mansion of Madness, however, has to be the wacky music and screwball hijinks that the good guys have to endure. It's like bad cartoon music that a three year old would find enjoyable. And why all the weirdo slapstick, anyway? I'd say my fave moment had to be when the horse and buggy is ambushed by the forest freaks when they pull a stupid looking homemade ghost up by a stick in the middle of the road and make the buggy stop. What the hell? Oh yeah, there's plenty of boobies to be seen, too, for those of you that dig such things. Boobies, bad dialogue, and wacky music. That best sums of Mansion of Madness for me. It's well worth at least one viewing, and may be a lot better if you've had a few to drink or whatnot. I can't say I was ever bored watching it, but I can't deny that it's also a barrel of poop. Kinda like Magical Mystery Tour but with a plot, but not. Hmm.<br /><br />And Mr. Chicken PWNZ. | negative |
This was not a good movie!! Why do you people keep saying that? There is a nice little story going on and then some sexy girls and then BAM vampires!!! Why? Why are there vampires? Where did they come from? Also, what the hell?! There are all of these "super human" vampires but George Clooney and three other random guys dominate ALL of them. Quickly too. It's not like there was a long fight scene with lots of struggle. There was just three dudes from the bar killing these vampires like a fat man kills twinkies! The next thing you know, Clooney and the stupid girl are rescued by Cheech and leaves the family-less homeless in the middle of Mexico. End of story. Literally. Oh and the strip club was an Aztec temple which is funny because that would have to be southern Mexico not the border. Why are you people lying and telling people this is a good movie? Do not rent, buy or even watch this movie at a friend's house. You will wish you had that time of your life back. | negative |
By all appearances this serial could have been made any time since the mid forties. The cardboard sets, the moon kings with lightning bolts sewn onto their aprons, you know the drill. This one is a Rocky Jones adventure, featuring the space cop's dealings with the insufferable Bitch Queen of planet Offeecious, a commie planet that won't join the United Planets. When the noble messengers of intergalactic reason announce that Offeecious is on a collision course with this other, vaguely Slavic planet, Bitch Queen decides to blow the other guys up rather than evacuate her land. This introduces a moral to the effect of "The greatness of a nation is not in its land, but its people," which is hammered home five or six times in the climactic talkfest. The BQ's constant nasal ranting about "OffEEEEcious" provides relief from some seriously wanting space effects, is this a TV show? | negative |
Watched the director's cut last night...glad it was free rental, even a dollar would have been too much for me to pay to watch this attempt at "film noir". The anachronisms (modern telephones) were annoying to me, not clever, seeming more like budget constraints than anything else. The "non-traditional" casting I also found distracting. If I have to stop following the story to wonder "what the heck is the black chick/drag queen doing there?" then the storyteller has failed me. Again, not clever in my opinion but annoying and irritating, and very film school final project-ish. And for pete's sake if you are going to shoot in black and white at least use some of the techniques used in old films that take full advantage of not having color. There was no use of nuance in the lighting, no shades of gray, no depth, no texture...just black and just white...boring! | negative |
Never before has such a large cast of ugly people gathered together to make an equally ugly film.<br /><br />Something huge and horrifying is loose in the waters off the Florida coast, something that leaves half chewed up bodies behind in its wake. Unshaven beer dependent Bob thinks he has caught the Thing's "evil voice" on tape. Bob's assistant, the amazingly unattractive and painfully skinny Stella, decides to enlist the help of slimy ladies man Peter, an electrician whose equipment may be able to help them locate the mysterious creature. But anyone who sticks their nose too far into the mystery winds up dead, killed by a baboon faced hit-man with a bad perm. What is the terrible secret behind the Sea Killer? <br /><br />Ugly scientists have torrid affairs, inept cops and doctors puzzle over the increasing numbers of corpses, Stella and Peter make out on the beach and characters we don't care about are killed off or munched up. The Sea Killer, a weird combination of an octopus, a shark and a pair of large dentures, never really seems as threatening as it should. The conspiracy behind the monster's creation makes no sense whatsoever. None of the characters are particularly likable, and the ones who might be are killed off immediately. This is a poorly shot, badly dubbed, plot less mess. The whole thing is so scuzzy and smelly it made me long for a hot bath. I've had sushi plates scarier than this film. Avoid it, unless it's the MST3K version. | negative |
Before I watched this tv movie I did not know much about one of my favorite actresses. After watching it, I realized how sad Lucille Ball's life really was. It had it's great moments too, but I didn't realize how sad it was. This movie was very good and told the story of the beloved Lucille Ball very well. I highly reccommend it. | positive |
This film is really bad, with a script full of 'memorable' lines and incredibly bad performances. The special effects are also bad (not the worst ones I have seen, either) and the music is so bad that you have to listen to it to believe it. Just two short themes (30 seconds long or so) are repeated constantly throughout the whole film.<br /><br />All in all, one of the worst films I have ever seen. | negative |
I just managed to find a copy of "Mission Cleopatra," which is not as easy as you would think for someone living in the United States. So far, I have only watched about the first 10 minutes of the film, and I can safely say that I laughed more in those 10 minutes than I did watching the entirety of the *first* live action Asterix movie.<br /><br />I am watching the dubbed version, and while the dubbing job is a little disconcerting, I have found the movie to be very funny and true to the book. I see that people on here have said that the dubbed version is very inferior to the subtitled version, that may very well be true, and after I watch the subtitled version (also on my DVD) I may have to come on here and alter my review. As it stands, though, I find it to be a very entertaining movie, and it more than makes up for the mess which they made out of the first movie. | positive |
Being someone who lists Night of the Living Dead at number three in her top five favorite movies of all time, and at the same time loving this student film parody, I feel I must defend this movie against the previously posted scathing reviews. This short but sweet opus has always been a crowd-pleaser at horror and science fiction movie marathons where those who attend have a love of the genre yet know not to take zombie movies too seriously. This film is a tribute to the original, not an insult. It is intended to be funny, and many others who I have heard chant for and applaud it agree with me that it succeeds. Especially for those of us who have seen NOTLD 50+ times. Watch for the director cameo as news reporter Jeff Drexel, and also if you have the opportunity catch his Alien parody, Loaf. | positive |
Mary Pickford plays Annie Rooney--the daughter of a cop that lives in the tough part of town. She is a rough and tumble young lady of indeterminate age (somewhere between 12 and 16) who loves to scrap but down deep has a heart of gold.<br /><br />This is a very typical style of film for Mary Pickford. Like so many of her films, she plays a young girl--even though she was nearly 40 when she made LITTLE ANNIE ROONEY. And, like so many other stories, she was both plucky and courageous. As a result, I had a strong feeling of déjà vu. Now if you haven't seen her other films, this isn't an issue. However, she is essentially playing a character much like the one in SPARROWS or DADDY LONG LEGS--though these two other films are a lot better. Now this isn't to say this is a bad film--just that it's certainly not among her best work--mostly due to a rather "schmaltzy" story that is very heavy on sentiment but not especially convincing. Entertaining but not essential viewing unless you are a huge fan of the silents. | positive |
The only reason that I did not give this 10 stars was the DVD format-no menus, extras, etc. However, if you have ever had a dream to do something with your life, this film is for you. If you believe in yourself and your dream do not let anyone or anything stop you. This is one of the most life-affirming films that I have ever seen. And magical. The acting is superb, the plot serves the purpose, and the opening sequence is fantastic. This is one of those films that "cult" status used to be about. I have recommended this film to all of my friends. Some love it, some can't finish it. Whenever I think, or feel , that something is impossible I think about Alan Arkin's role in this film. Sure wish he'd make more films. | positive |
The first Matrix movie was lush with incredible character development, witty dialog, and action scenes that kept with the flow of the story. These elements -- coupled by incredible special effects of the day -- presented a magical ride that kept you in suspense the entire time. Enter Matrix Reloaded (and its sequel, Revolutions). The problem here isn't the special effects or the fight sequences as some may argue; The brothers have taken well-developed characters from the first film and hollowed them out like rotten tree logs.
The connection that was first established between viewers and on-screen characters in the first film is lost when you realize these are not the same characters from the first Matrix movie.<br /><br />To wit, Morpheus was developed as a charismatic, philosophical character with insight far exceeding anyone else in the movie, but here in Reloaded -- we're presented by a different Morpheus who stands hard and hollow, reduced to corny one-liners that contradict the character we saw develop in the first film. This character just didn't feel the same, and this could also be said about the supporting characters in the movie.<br /><br />The removal of 'Tank' was also a disappointment. Tank's involvement in the first film was minimal at best, but he played the role extremely well. In Reloaded, we discover that Tank dies after the events in the first film, and he is replaced by a Jar Jar Binks stunt double that couldn't act to save his live (think stale box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes). His performance left me chuckling throughout, and most of his spoken dialog lacked timing. There was an overwhelming sense that he was either trying too hard to convey his emotions on-screen or the delivery in the script was off; in either case, the experience was humorous! At times I felt embarrassed for the actor....<br /><br />Even Neo's Godly persona was suspect during most of the fighting sequences. The alleyway battle with the 200 Agent Smith clones was certainly exaggerated. One must wonder, for a man so gifted as Neo -- that he would even waste his time engaging in such a fruitless, frivolous battle when more pressing matters attend (especially when you consider his ability to fly or his ungodly ability to bend the Matrix; certainly Neo could have dispatched the clones much quicker, and more efficiently). Again, such acts lend themselves to a script hindered by consistency, and scenes created as filler to keep us from feeling gypped. In jest, our expectations of the characters created in the first film are discarded promptly. Sadly, for those expecting more of the same -- you will certainly walk away feeling gravely disappointed.<br /><br />However, if you take Reloaded as your standard, run-of-the-mill action movie, and forget the incredible story inconsistencies and the untwining of already-established character development from the first film, you should walk away feeling quite pleased. | negative |
*McCabe and Mrs. Miller* takes place in the turn-of-the-century Pacific Northwest. Into a soggy, muddy mining camp John McCabe (a hirsute Warren Beatty) comes barging, full of cigar smoke and big ideas about building a proper saloon/whorehouse for the town, replete with a trio of the sorriest whores in movie history. He also comes with an unearned reputation as a gunslinger: too shameful about this to blatantly advertise it, but not exactly afraid to use it in order to assert alpha-male credentials amongst the locals. And thus he wrangles the boys into building his saloon at the rate of 15 cents an hour.<br /><br />It looks to be a rather sorry operation until Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) shows up on a startling contraption that's half-railroad car, half-automobile (where did Altman find that thing?). Mrs. Miller immediately takes on McCabe as a business partner, with the aim of classing up the new joint with proper whores and an insistence that all visitors take a bath before entering. Noting that McCabe doesn't know how to add, she also insists on handling the accounts. It's not clear what McCabe's function will be.<br /><br />The plot thickens when a pair of oily representatives from the mining company show up in town and offer McCabe to buy him out for five grand. McCabe tells them to buzz off -- he's holding out for fifteen thousand. The company finds negotiation distasteful, so they hire a trio of assassins to simply kill McCabe . . . though how they think they can get away with murdering a man in broad daylight in the center of town is as unclear as McCabe's function in the whorehouse partnership. (Excusing this whopping plot hole on the grounds that the locals would be too cowed to talk doesn't cut the mustard when one considers that any reward-money offered by the local Marshal would be pretty tempting.) <br /><br />*McCabe and Mrs. Miller*, purportedly "classic Seventies cinema", should be a lot better than it is. The movie tells a pretty good story; the main characters have the potential to be interesting. There are some striking scenes, especially one involving what looks to be a 14-year-old stone-cold killer. But it's really, really hard to enjoy a movie when you can hardly hear what anyone is saying and when you can hardly see what anyone is doing. Once again, this director hijacks his own movie with sheer barnyard laziness and sloppiness. According to the trivia-sheet here on IMDb, the movie's editor griped to Altman that the sound was muddy; Altman disagreed; and when everyone said the sound was muddy after the movie's release, Altman blamed the editor. (Nice.) Along with the bad sound, the movie has an atrocious look. Only Robert Altman can hire a world-class DP like Vilmos Zsigmond and make a movie that looks as if they sprayed the camera lenses with dirty dishwater. Reviewers here who praise the "dark brown glow" of this picture have GOT to be kidding me. The interiors are shot through what appears to be a dark scum. The exterior photography is even worse: it's as if Altman placed 500 fog machines behind the copious trees. During the climactic stretch, when Beatty is dodging the assassins while the local church is on fire, Altman insists on pretty much wholly obscuring the view with an animated snow-fall that reminds one of a Rankin-Bass Christmas special.<br /><br />Look -- I can't watch a movie under these conditions. Get back to me when you learn how to place boom mikes, when you remove all that annoying "Altman-esque" overlapping dialog, and when you wipe the lenses with some Windex, or something. 3 stars out of 10. | negative |
This was one of the worst Wrestlemania's I've seen. It just didn't stand out at all, really. Card wise, I thought it was going to be pretty good, but every match just seemed to fall short.<br /><br />Chris Benoit vs. MVP One of the better matches. Benoit carried it. I just didn't think MVP was that great, but Benoit saved this match. <br /><br />Kane vs. Khali Wow, these two guys don't mix. Or maybe it's Khali and any other person alive don't mix. Awful match.<br /><br />Melina vs. Ashley I'm not a fan of female wrestling.<br /><br />ECW Originals vs. New Breed I was excited about this match, until I saw it. Really, Really disappointing.<br /><br />Edge vs. CM Punk vs. King Booker vs. Jeff Hardy vs. Matt Hardy vs. Mr. Kennedy vs. Finlay vs. Randy Orton Absolutely the worst MITB match so far. Just a major let down, to many people in the ring at the same time. It just didn't live up.<br /><br />Bobby Lashley vs. Umaga O.K. not extremely impressive, but not the worst of the night.<br /><br />Batista vs. Undertaker This was maybe the best match of the night. Very, very, very nice to see something good for a change. <br /><br />John Cena vs. Shawn Michaels I really feel like this match deserved to be last. People make a case for Batista vs. Undertaker, but this match was just as good. I am starting to get sick of seeing Cena win every match though. It's getting a little old. Now, I have to say, I feel this match is the best of the night, but I'm a huge Shawn Michaels fan, so I'm a little biased. Batista vs. 'Taker may have been better, but I'm biased, so...sorry. The last two were undoubtedly the best matches of the night and most everything else really came up short. | negative |
Errol Flynn's greatest movie, not just a sports movie with a wonder last 5 minutes where Ward Bond shines. Don't miss it just because you think its an old movie. Its a classic that could be easily missed. Do yourself a favour and don't. | positive |
This movie just arrived to Mexico and since I read very good reviews here about it I decided to go watch it with my friends and girlfriend, but i was greatly disappointed, I don't understand how people can rate it 10/10 I mean screenplay and directing were beautiful, but a great overall movie need a good story which this flick lacked altogether.<br /><br />I've enjoyed several dramatic Asian and European films but they had a good story, watch this movie at your own risk unless you are eastern European or orthodox i don't think you will like it.<br /><br />Half the people on the theater left including my 4 friends who waited outside since they were really bored so was I but I always wait till the end of the movie.<br /><br />Regarding the movie, it was extremely slow paced, with a lot of time wasting scenes, the full length of the story could have been shown in no more than 40 minutes, but they made it longer by having scenes of the monk getting coal that is like 15 minutes of the whole movie plus panoramic views and so on, until they made it a full length movie a really boring one.<br /><br />I recommend you listen to me if you still watch it come back and rate this comment as useful after wards to help people avoid this waste of money. | negative |
THHE remake was a superior movie remake in every way. Most remakes end up being total garbage but under the very talented direction of Alexandre Aja became one of the best ever made in terms of remakes and also as far as the mutant inbreed human sub-genre of horror is concerned. In steps part 2 directed by another individual Martin Weisz and written by the father and son combo of Jonathan and Wes "I cannot make a good horror movie to save my life anymore" Craven and if this is any indication of Weisz directing skills and young Craven's writing skills we are all in for a painful future as THHE 2 not only fails to be as good as the first but also fails to entertain on ANY level.<br /><br />We start off with a fairly graphic mutant baby birth which though is rather cool will not prepare you for the utter garbage that is to come, only hint to what could have been in this film. We then get to see a crew of scientists who all to briefly are introduced and dispatched by our radiated rejects. In steps our main cast of army reservist to save the day, this is where the major problems begin.<br /><br />From very sub par acting (yes even for this kind of movie) to the horrible characters to the lack of true carnage for most of its running time THHE 2 becomes a labor to watch as a lot of nothing happens as idiotic soldiers make mistake after mistake only to meet there demise not by the mutants but themselves. Think the Marines in Aliens only the exact opposite and you have the idea of how well these soldiers are trained. This is the true shame of the film as most of the Hills occupants do not get the kills you would like to see, like in the first film, in fact if this did not have THHE 2 attachment in the beginning and the brief overview in the beginning tying this loosely to the first this could have nearly been a Sci-Fi Channel original.<br /><br />The Mutant Mountainbillies as well are not as amusing this time around in fact in a lot of way they are far inferior to our prior batch as they all come off as being rather under designed and uninteresting. Also the one that took the cake was the Sloth-like Mutant (you know Sloth from the Goonies) who helps them out in the 3rd act. I was waiting for him to ask for a Baby Ruth or start going on about Rocky Road Ice Cream. Truly disappointing and shameful is the only way to describe most of the goings on here.<br /><br />The gore is in the film but not nearly as visceral as the original in fact it seemed toned down for the most part as other than the mutant baby birth scene there really isn't anything that stood out like in the first. Another major strike against this movie. So what did work here, the answer is nothing at all. This felt like a sequel designed specifically to make money off the success of the first and not to make an actually "good" film.<br /><br />I can go on about the crappy Drill SGT., the radio man that has a speech impediment (that's right, he is the kind of guy I want radioing in for help in a real crisis) or the pacifist fighter that resembles the exact same character mold as our "hero" in the first film but I believe you get the point. This movie is not even in the same league or even the same planet as the first. It should have been given another title and been added to the Saturday Night Line up on The Sci-Fi Channel. A true shame as a solid sequel could have been made but alas it looks like another horror movie that drops the ball on nearly every level and will get one of my lowest scores as I give THHE 2 the same score as its part: 2/10 Dreadful: Words cannot describe how bad this movie is a total polar opposite of its predecessor in every way, uninspired and down-right unnecessary. Next time guys if your going to make a sequel this bad...don't even bother. Please don't go support this garbage at the theaters, save your money and thank me later!!!! | negative |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Danny (Mel Raido) is a lonely factory worker who tries to get by with his job and to be a good dad to his two daughters after a messy divorce from their mother (Maxine Peake.) But after an altercation with said daughters present at a Working Men's Club, he uses a trip to their dance class to take a glance at Louis (Colin Salmon) and his gang of hard men who train in the boxing gym/free weights section there and to train himself into a tougher, more assertive person. Before long he's taken the philosophies of Louis to heart and has joined him as a nightclub doorman as the 80s disco faze kicks in...but when associate Sparky (Scott Williams) tries to do a sideline in drug dealing, everything turns pear shaped.<br /><br />As Robert De Niro once stated in the film A Bronx Tale 'there's no bigger tragedy than wasted talent.' The writer of Clubbed had a good idea and a talent to make it into some sort of film...but without the ability, it seems, to put it all together into some sort of coherent film.<br /><br />As a brummie, some of the filming locations (especially a scene at the end outside the Ring O' Bells pub in Moseley!) were quite easy and fun to spot...but the dour look of the cinematography is really a downer on things. Some really poor acting, for instance lead actor Raido with an indecipherable accent that's all over the place, and a hammy script with some misfiring dialogue are bigger problems for the film though. More established actors like Peake and even telly favourite Neil Morressey are sidelined to very small supporting parts, while the disastrous Raido and Ronnie Fox's lame villain take centre stage. Williams does a poor man's Sick Boy from Trainspotting impression, leaving Salmon and Shaun Parkes seemingly the only performers left with any integrity from the whole thing, as the excessive, blood splattered violence (becoming a common trend for Brit flicks!) takes over. Truly a missed opportunity. ** | negative |
I really do not have any clue as to why some people find the power rangers television show even remotely interesting at all. The costumes are completely ridiculous and the people playing in them also look completely foolish at the same time. There is absolutely anything remotely interesting about the power rangers. This is just a higher priced television commercial designed to sell extremely cheesy plastic garbage to the unsuspecting children around the world. From the notes, I can see that it's been banned in the country of New Zealand and from what I have seen, I can agree with their decision. Avoid this show at all costs, it's terrible and ridiculous. | negative |
It's complete nonsense. I've studied Nazism and read many manuscripts from the day - the "parallels" use most of the classic debased apocryphal myths of Nazism and then compare it with complete specious generalizations about what constitute 1/3 of the planet. It's crafted for an audience of Polly-Anna complacency who diet heavily on spoon-fed gibberish, horribly thought out arguments, irrational conclusions, fallacious ideas, and nonsensical logic.<br /><br />Who made this hit peace? Easy.<br /><br />When all is said and done; Que Bono? That is, who benefits, in the long run?<br /><br />You don't. You sacrifice money and rights. Muslims don't, they get our bombs. Try again. Answer this, and you've unlocked a major door. | negative |
This was the most god awful movie I have had to sit through. 30 minutes into the film and I couldn't take any more. Seriously, do not bother with this one unless you are a sentimental nut job or one of those pseudo-arty types that like this kind of tripe so that they may feel more cultured. Boring, although the acting is fine; the kid is just plain irritating. Some scenes are a little strange with very weird close-ups. I don't know why they did the whole movie in black and white, but whatever effect they were hoping to have failed miserably. There was just nothing to watch, and although its a sad tale, supposedly, its just so stupid that its hard to feel any sympathy for the characters. | negative |
Caddyshack II is one of those pictures which makes you ask 'Why?' As in; 'Why was it funded?': 'Why was it made?' and 'Why was it released into the public domain?'.<br /><br />To say the least it's a bad film. It serves little purpose but to underline how superior its prequel was by setting an almost identical set of characters against each other in a similar storyline as a 'New money' land developer attempts to buy out the establishment's golf course sanctuary. <br /><br />Right off the bat making the follow-up a whole 8 years after the original is somewhat bizarre. I mean if your going to cash in on highly successful picture such as the first one then you have a window of a few years to do so. But leaving it 8 years means that the formula is hardly fresh enough to simply do a follow up, or poor imitation as this is, so your sort of obliged to reward fans of the original by giving them at least reference to if not indeed actual contributions by the actors who made the first one so memorable. But there's little if any of this.<br /><br />Instead we get cheap imitations. Okay the passing of Ted Knight in the interim years would have made it impossible to bring back the memorable Judge Smails but Robert Stack's inclusion as 'Chandler Young' (a fellow WASP elitist akin to the Smails character) is unimaginative and seriously lacking in the sort of anarchic frustration that made Knight's turn so watchable. Jackie Mason's 'Jack Hartounian' is a feeble attempt at recreating the non stop wisecracks delivered by the Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) character of the first. While Dangerfield's role was endlessly quotable Mason's is completely forgettable. <br /><br />Bill Murray's laughably ridiculous groundskeeper 'Carl Spackler' and his war of attrition with the pesky local gofer is substituted for his Ghostbuster's co-star Dan Ackroyd's role as the militant 'Capt. Tom Everett' who's high pitched voice just splits your sides with frustration as opposed to the intended laughter.<br /><br />Randy Quaid , brilliant as Cousin Ed in the National Lampoon's Vacation series, is quite the opposite here playing Hartounian's unstable lawyer. The looks of disbelief shown by the actor's looking on at Quaid's character's intended to be hilarious acts of inappropriate violence echo that of the audience. Your not laughing. Your just asking 'What the hell is he doing?'<br /><br />Chevy Chase shows up, all be it occasionally and wisely rather fleetingly considering the disaster that's perpetrating itself around him,as club pro 'Tye Webb' in the films only direct reference to the original not withstanding the golf course itself that is. With his deeply tanned skin and loud Hawaiian shirts Chase looks like he's just got back from a lengthy summer vacation and needs a paycheck. He distances himself from the events in the actual picture enough that he takes little of the blame and leaves with some, all be it little, credibility still intact. <br /><br />Jessica Lundy as Mason's daughter 'Kate' takes over from the 'Danny Noonan' role of the original as teenager struggling against class divides. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? At least in the first Danny (an Irish Catholic from a blue collar family) and his laughable attempts to make inroads into the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant dominated world of the golf club mover and shakers was played out to some memorable set pieces such as being dismissed by the resident Lutheran Bishop as well as being mocked by the offspring of the local yacht club. Lundy's embarrassment of her father's inability to fit-in is hinted at being because of his Jewish roots. That aside it may also have to do with him being a classless moron but such intricacy's are swept aside though I stopped caring long before they were resolved. At the end of the day Noonan was trying to get ahead in life. Miss Hartounian's biggest problem is getting the hob nobbers at the local golf club to like her multi-millionaire father so that she can get a date with the club's prodigal white kid. Or so I gathered. <br /><br />Anyway in summation its poorly written, badly scripted with lame set pieces and wastes a lot of talent. Indeed kudos if you were able to sit through it to it's conclusion. It really is a penance. There is that question mark though of why did so many of the original actors not return as opposed to being replaced by performers who on paper at least looked their equals. Maybe they just weren't asked. Or perhaps I suspect they actually read the script. Stick to the original!!! | negative |
had to see this cos it looked like a great scary premise- prisoners finding magic book,oo err! claustrophobic terror ensues, etc. <br /><br />but there didn't seem to be a story to go along with the great idea. rather than chilling/physcological horror, it relied on effects out in the open- fire and OTT body horror- , which didn't scare at all if your over 12. <br /><br />The logic at the end is ridiculous, with characters being killed off for nothing other than bodycount. waste of good characters- which were the best thing about this film.<br /><br />obviously low budget, which doesn't spoil it, the film really goes nowhere, and- icant believe im going to say this- it needs a Hollywood remake. you simply loose interest in this version. definitely not in the same league as other french films coming out in the last few years like crimson rivers which were at least watchable/entertaining, malefique isn't watchable to the end to be honest. and i bet you can guess the ending before you have watched the film. really really disappointing- impossible to recommend. | negative |
This movie was a complete disaster for me. There is one thing that movies must have in order to be watchable, and that is *some* psychological credibility of characters... unfortunately, here, this is not the case. The main characters behave irrationally most of the time, and even if they have some reason for such behavior, it is not revealed to us by the director. Sophie Marceau's character is particularly irritating, making pictures of everything throughout the whole movie, when one could expect something more rational (for example meeting with her mother in the hospital)... and why exactly did she marry this guy? (no, this is not a spoiler) The plot at times seems like ripped off some soap-opera, and while the actors' performance is not bad, this does not help much. All in all, I just could not find a way to connect with this movie. Not that I tried too much after the first hour, though. I have never walked out of cinema during a movie, but this time was the closest in my life so far. | negative |
"The Cure" is a very touching and poignant drama. The film focuses on two neighborhood boys who become good friends. One of the boys has AIDS. The boys become good friends despite Erik's apprehensiveness at first. The film shows the boys journey to discover "the cure", which is in Ohio according to "The National Examiner", and how it affects their relationship. The acting is wonderful (I have never seen Annabella Sciorra do better), and the movie is just plain touching. I couldn't stop crying with the shoe scene. This is a good tearjerker. Keep the kleenex nearby. 8/10 | positive |
Fot the most part, this movie feels like a "made-for-TV" effort. The direction is ham-fisted, the acting (with the exception of Fred Gwynne) is overwrought and soapy. Denise Crosby, particularly, delivers her lines like she's cold reading them off a cue card. Only one thing makes this film worth watching, and that is once Gage comes back from the "Semetary." There is something disturbing about watching a small child murder someone, and this movie might be more than some can handle just for that reason. It is absolutely bone-chilling. This film only does one thing right, but it knocks that one thing right out of the park. Worth seeing just for the last 10 minutes or so. | negative |
For a moment, let's put aside the cultural aspects of this movie, even if it is a very important side of it, and let's look at the simple fact that this is a very nice love story. Two individuals find themselves in a difficult situation, caused by two selfish husbands. They have to live through their sad days without any ray of hope. If each one of these two women had been alone, imagine what kind of life each one would have had to accept. They found each other and they fell in love. That this love was against all the social, religious and cultural laws of their environment is almost irrelevant. They loved each other, found relief in each other, that was sufficient. The reaction of the individuals around them is but a small fact that they have to accept, suffer even, and then they can go on with their lives, their life. Very nice. | positive |
Academy Awarding actor Sidney Poitier of "Lilies of the Field" reprises his role as Lieutenant Virgil Tibbs from the 1967 Oscar winning Best Picture "In the Heat of the Night" for veteran director Gordon Douglas' tired, uninspired sequel "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," with nobody the equivalent of Rod Steiger with which to swap dialogue. Clearly, both "Bullitt" scenarist Alan R. Trustman and Robert D. Webb of "Cape Fear" were off their game when they penned this predictable police procedural potboiler. The dialogue is drab and none of the characters are interesting, not even the chief suspect. Absolutely nothing remotely exciting, suspenseful, or surprising occurs in this tame whodunit. Meanwhile, things have changed considerably since Virgil was last seen in "In the Heat of the Night." He worked as a homicide detective for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Police Department. In "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs," our hero works for the San Francisco Police Department. Moreover, he has a wife, Valerie (Barbara McNair of "Change of Habit"), and a family, a young rebellious son, Andy (George Spell of "The Naked Kiss"), and a younger doting daughter, Ginger (Wanda Spell of "Hickey and Boggs"). Tibbs drives a medium blue Mustang and his wife holds down the house and hovers over their two children since he doesn't have as much time to spend with them. Literally, there are no surprises in this pedestrian murder mystery. Indeed, the best thing about "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is Quincy Jones' terrific orchestral soundtrack with a memorable opening theme, more memorable than this forgettable crime thriller deserved.<br /><br />Everything begins sensationally enough with a struggling prostitute, Joy Sturges (Linda Towne of "The Adventurers"), being bludgeoned to death in the bedroom of her downtown apartment by an unseen assailant. Apartment handyman Mealie Williamson (Juano Hernandez of "Intruder in the Dust") enters Joy's apartment and finds her strewn on the carpet dead with a bloody forehead. He picks up the statue briefly and then puts it back on the floor and reports Joy's death to the superintendent of the apartment, Rice Weedon (Anthony Zerbe of "License to Kill"), and Weedon gives Mealie and fistful of dollars and sends him packing. Afterward, Weedon anonymously notifies the SFPD that popular minister Logan Sharpe (Martin Landau of "Nevada Smith") beaten Joy to death and was seem leaving Joy's apartment. Captain Marden (Jeff Corey of "True Grit") assigns Tibbs to handle the case; it seems that both Tibbs and Sharpe have known each other for 18 years. Naturally, Tibbs' wife Valerie cannot believe that the well-known, politically active evangelist could have committed such a crime. Just to give the movie context, it should be noted that when Tibbs and the police study the crime scene, they mention the word 'semen,' no doubt a controversial term to mention in an early 1970s movie.<br /><br />Tibbs questions Weedon whom he suspects is either a drug pusher or a pimp. Weedon explains that he has no records on Joy Sturges because she was subletting the apartment from another realty company. Tibbs visits the realty company and realtor Woody Garfield (Ed Anser of "JFK") flees and drives off, essentially doing an O.J. Simpson until he crashes his car after a lengthy but tame pursuit. When Tibbs proves that Woody didn't kill Joy, he allows him to leave, with his disgruntled wife, Marge (Norma Crane of "Penelope"), prepared to file for divorce after the revelation that he paid a hooker to stay in an apartment.<br /><br />Tibbs tracks down handyman Mealie and clears him of the crime, and then he goes after Weedon. Luckily, for Tibbs, our hero catches the evil Weedon in the middle of a narcotics transaction. One of Weedon's henchmen assaults Tibbs, but Tibbs dispenses with him briefly before he embarks on a long foot chase after Weedon. Eventually, he corners Weedon in an underground parking garage and they shoot it out. Guess who wins.<br /><br />The scenes in the Tibbs' household are more interesting than his investigation. Andy runs rampant, striking his sister, and smoking in the garden. Our hero wants him to clean up his room. When Andy refuses, Tibbs pops him three times on the jaw. These child rearing scenes could probably never be handled today as they were back in 1970. At the end of the movie, as if to solidify the family sequence, Tibbs is seen walking off with his wife and kids. There is on confrontation between Valerie and Virgil about the welfare of their children and how his long hours at work has affected them.<br /><br />Director Gordon Douglas directs in competent fashion. Surprisingly, for a film released in 1970, the filmmakers never play the race card. In one scene, when Tibbs searches a billiards parlor owned by an African-American, we see a mixed breed of races scowling at the hero when he finds Mealie and leaves with him in tow.<br /><br />Altogether, "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" is a poor follow-up to "In the Heat of the Night." Mind you, Poitier delivers another fine performance with nuance, but everything looks prefabricated. All of the sets look fake and there isn't much physical violence: one underground parking lot shoot-out that doesn't last long and a fight. Beyond Jones' seminal jazz score, the only surpriseand it really doesn't qualify as a major surprise more like a convenient contrivanceis the ending. Donald Medford's "The Organization" followed "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs" as the second, more action-packed sequel. | negative |
When I first heard about "Down To Earth," I was pretty excited. I'm a pretty big fan a Chris Rock, he was especially hilarious in Dogma. But this film proved to be a disappointment. Chris Rock's performance was not nearly as good as his past performances, and the movie was just very badly directed as a whole.<br /><br />First off, Chris Rock. He plays the entire movie as a standup comedy routine. Obviously, this works fine in the scenes where he's supposed to be doing standup, but in the rest of the movie, it doesn't. Even when he's talking to one other character, he seems to think he's trying to make a roomful of people laugh. He has a few funny moments, but they mostly come during the standup scenes (no wonder they decided to make his character a comedian). As for the rest of the cast, they're pretty much there just to give Rock someone to talk to, none of them stand out.<br /><br />Also, the movie was poorly directed. The movie has basically a one-joke plot: old white guy acting like a young black comedian. While I prefer movies with more than one joke, this still could have worked, and been quite funny. The problem was, we saw too much of Rock and not enough of the old white guy. It's supposed to be funny because it's this white guy telling Chris Rock's jokes, but for most of the time, we just see Chris Rock, so it's not nearly as funny. The few scenes where they decide to show us the white guy talking like Rock are, in fact, hilarious. If he had been shown more, the movie would have been a lot funnier.<br /><br />Overall, a few moments of laughter can't make up for the fact that "Down To Earth" is poorly acted, and poorly directed. This one was a pretty big disappointment.<br /><br />Rating: 4/10 | negative |
Bears about as much resemblance to Dean Koontz's novel as Jessica Simpson does to a rocket scientist. If you've read the book, I suggest you put it as far out of your mind as possible before watching the movie.<br /><br />Watchers is your typical "Boy meets dog, dog turns out to be super-intelligent government lab experiment, dog and boy are pursued by super-intelligent and emotionally disturbed monster created by same lab, and, oh yeah, did I mention the shady government agents pursuing the monster pursuing the dog?" movie.<br /><br />Corey Haim is the boy, Barbara Williams is his mother, Michael Ironside is one of the evil government guys, and Sandy the dog is, well, the dog (named Furface here; Einstein in the book).<br /><br />The monster effects are ridiculously cheesy, much of the dialogue is laughable, the script rarely makes sense or is believable - a good example is Haim's character's unquestioning acceptance of the dog's intelligence, as if every Fido off the street can type messages on a computer keyboard or bark once for yes and twice for no! Hmm, it's gotta be the puppy chow, right? Haim's performance is enthusiastic but shaky, as he carries off the stupid dialogue with the least amount of skill. Ironside has been the highlight of many a bad movie, and this is no exception. He easily gives the best performance of the movie, although I'm compelled to add that the dog (who's a pretty darn good actor himself!) comes in a close second.<br /><br />All in all, an atrociously dumb movie, and yet . . . And yet I watched it three times within a week. And yet I can't help liking it. Hey, what can I say, I have a taste for junk - and Michael Ironside (not that I've ever actually tasted Michael Ironside- I'm sure there are laws against that). But any movie that can make me laugh that hard (yes, even unintentionally) can't be all bad. Chalk it up to a guilty pleasure, a "yes I know it's insultingly stupid but I like it anyway" movie.<br /><br />It's tough for me to rate this. On a normal scale I'm forced to give it a D-, but on my own personal cheese scale, it gets bumped up to an A-.<br /><br />Yeah, I know. I'm weird like that. | positive |
Well I have to say I had the chance to see this show here in Philadelphia,PA sometime in June of 06.And I really loved it.my all time favorite Madonna look was the 1990 Blond Ambition tour era.this to me is "MADONNA".now that she is a mother of 3 she has to change some things to suit motherhood.and I totally agree.this is a classic Madonna concert.I wish "live to tell" wasn't edited.we saw body's falling from buildings on 911,we can see a woman on a cross...any way I'm looking forward to the release of this tour on DVD and hope it is the entire show unedited and with a bunch of bonus footage.she is a artist of all time.the best out there...and still at the top and going strong.long live MADONNA ! | positive |
Most would agree that the character of Wolverine is one of the most intriguing characters in comic book history. I'm no Marvel expert, but I did grow up with the adventures of the X-Men and definitely approved of Hugh Jackman's now widely known portrayal of the scruffy Logan. I enjoyed the first X-Men, found the sequel too heavy and messy and liked the third one as comic book entertainment. All through the three movies, I probably enjoyed Jackman more than anything else. I figured the idea of making an "origins"-movie about Wolverine could very well end up being a better movie than all of the three X-Men movies. If we concentrate on one character, I figured there could be a movie that achieves what I found the second movie failed at - being a fairly complex and character driven comic book adventure.<br /><br />The reason that the Wolverine-movie fails is not because the competition is tougher after The Dark Knight. It's not even because of a plot development that is beyond obvious and rudimentary - even though that certainly isn't good - no, it's because the movie doesn't even seem to try. To begin with, this does not qualify as good entertainment. There is something about the action in this movie that comes off as so very, very automatic. With no greater special effects or elements of suspense, and when one event will make you predict the following five, it almost feels like an Uwe Boll movie, imitating an action/adventure movie concept that you've seen a dozen times before. Of course, nothing in this movie is as downright awful as a piece of Bolls**t but when everybody's talking clichés as if they are part of a chain of events that is so standard, you at least make the connection and that surely is bad enough.<br /><br />But there is an even bigger problem. Even a generic action movie is a generic action movie and, by the way, that makes you forgive a lot of plot holes and character stupidities. I think you find the most fundamental flaw in the very title. I mean, "Origins". Really? What to the people behind this movie think about that title? What do they mean?? You want to know the origins of Wolverine? He grew up with his brother. They ran away from home during dramatic circumstances. Then they went off to war. All of them! The Civil War, World War I and II and Vietnam too. Why did they do this? Still unknown. Eventually, the brother (Sabertooth, played by Liev Shrieber) became evil. "How?" you ask. I don't know, it was somewhere between Omaha Beach and Hanoi. "Yeah, but why?" you still ask. I just said I don't know!! The movie doesn't explain. He's evil alright! "Yeah, but... you know, 'origins'"... Yeah, well that's an origin! I mean, duh! Anyway, eventually they end up with a super secret team of mutant elite soldiers. Something with the government, ho-hum. Wolvie gets enough and leave his brother. For six years he's a happy lumberjack with a loved one, who ends up a little defenseless around the time Sabretooth suddenly appears again. "Yeaaah... but... whyyyy?" - Oh shut up! - and Wolvie decides to be a guinneapig for a bunch of evil scientist who make him a flesh-covered metal war animal. He goes after all the bad guys and they come after him and after all the fighting he ends up with his memory wiped, cue X-Men the first movie.<br /><br />There. That's the origin. You can also find it on the back of the DVD cover. The actual movie won't tell you anything else. With no worthwhile scenes of action, no good heroes, villains or characters in general (lines from my couch audience: Fat suit! Token black guy! Oh, I give you 200 in cash if that girl survives this movie.., That is supposed to be Gambit...? mmhm, yeah well... uh-huh, right), not one line of memorable dialog and zero lines to cover a T-shirt with, added to that the common stupid things that ruin the plausibility in general that you might usually forgive...... well, that sounds pretty much like a waste of time, right? Fans will check this out, or have already. There's no stopping that. But if you liked the X-Men movies for no other reason than that they were well-made and entertaining - see them again and do yourself no favors by trying to look for origins where there are none. | negative |
This is about as stupid as it gets.<br /><br />A classic case of two-dimensional characters who always act exactly contrary as to what a sane person would do in the same situation. It reminds me of a scene in "Scary Movie" where Carmen Electra flees from the killer. There are two signs, one marked "to safety", the other one "to sure death" (I am reciting from memory).<br /><br />And just like in Scary Movie, the characters always run into the direction marked "Sure Death". <br /><br />Why oh why did the girl start the fire in the teller booth AND HOLD THE DOOR SHUT ??? Did she prefer to die in the fire instead being killed by the guy? Why oh why, after cutting and overpowering the driver did they sit him in the seat and have him being watched by the wounded guy instead of plain shooting him or at the very least knocking him out? He was running over their friend and killing him a minute before, yet they have scruples ?? Why oh why a hundred things more ... <br /><br />If this movie were a road, you could not drive a single yard because of the holes. Everything is so far-fetched, it's starting to physically hurt at times.<br /><br />Add mercilessly overplaying "actors" and a small budget to that and here's what you get. Looking at the rating and the comments, I get the feeling those people have been watching an entirely different movie.<br /><br />The one thing missing really, is the infamous red toolbox from "While She was out" - a movie that is about similar in unrealistic plot and stupid behavior of the characters. | negative |
I had always wanted to see this film and the first three-fourths proved I hadn't waited in vain. But what the hell happened in the end? I mean, don't get me wrong, I liked the film. It definitely made me nostalgic of the realistic, unique NYC of the 80s that we have lost thanks to Giuliani. But it's missing another half hour! | positive |
After winning a championship fight, boxer John Garfield (as Johnnie Bradfield) celebrates with a drinking binge, which leads to the manslaughter of a pushy reporter. Although his manager killed the man, Mr. Garfield is blamed. When the manager dies in a car crash, wearing Garfield's stolen watch, authorities think the boxer is dead. Still a WANTED man, Garfield changes his identity to "Jack Dorney" and moves to an Arizona ranch. There, Garfield meets "The Dead End Kids": Billy Halop (as Tommy), Bobby Jordan (as Angel), Leo Gorcey (as Spit), Huntz Hall (as Dippy), Gabriel Dell (as T.B.), and Bernard Punsly (as Milt).<br /><br />Garfield bonds with the young "Dead End" lads, who were sent to stay with sweet "Grandma Rafferty" (May Robson) as an alternative to reform school, courtesy of her brother, deceased priest "Father Rafferty". Garfield falls in love with Halop's sister, pretty "Peggy" (Gloria Dickson), who is there to keep any eye on the kids. Of course, Garfield's past comes back to haunt him
<br /><br />"John Garfield and The 'Dead End' Kids" make beautiful (Max Steiner) music together, thanks to effective direction and photography, by Busby Berkeley and James Wong Howe. The story is predictably comfortable, with the Warner Brothers support team in fine form. Garfield and the "Dead End" kids are a winning combination; although Garfield made no further movies with the "East Side" gang, the studio had him re-team with both Billy Halop and Bobby Jordan, almost immediately, for "Dust Be My Destiny".<br /><br />The boxing scenes are nicely staged. But, the most exciting sequence has Garfield and four of the New York "Kids" (Halop, Jordan, Hall, and Punsly) climbing into a giant water tank for a swim - which unexpectedly puts their lives in danger. Other, more brief, highlights include floozy Ann Sheridan (as Goldie), boozy Barbara Pepper (as Budgie), and young Ronald Sinclair (as Douglas) losing at strip poker.<br /><br />******** They Made Me a Criminal (1/21/39) Busby Berkeley ~ John Garfield, Billy Halop, Bobby Jordan | positive |
Drew Barrymore is an actress that has gone through bad periods, not only in her career, but in her personal life too. After being a prodigy child actress she descended into obscurity with mediocre films of low quality. While she has recovered from that dark past, this movie stays as a reminder of Drew Barrymore's worst days.<br /><br />The movie starts with an interesting premise, very reminiscent to Brian De Palma's "Raising Cain"; with a plot dealing with multiple personality disorder that sets the story for a horror/thriller. Barrymore stars as Holly Gooding, a young woman who is trying to make a new life in California after a traumatic event of her past in which apparently her other personality killed her mother.<br /><br />Suddenly, her past returns to haunt her as her evil personality is back in her life willing to ruin her new found peace and her new found love. In the middle of the chaos his new boyfriend, Patrick Highsmith (George Newbern), will try to help Holly to face the demons of her past.<br /><br />Unlike De Palma's underrated thriller, "Doppelganger" is for the most part a mediocre film that not only never fulfills it's purpose, it also concludes in one of the worst endings of movie history. While Barrymore is definitely not at her best, she manages to keep her dignity with an above average performance. The rest of the cast however range from mediocre to painfully bad over-the-top performances, although Leslie Hope manages to be among the best of them.<br /><br />The script is full of clichés and De Palma's influence is quite obvious. While the movie tries to be original by making literary references in almost every line, the dialogs are dull and the wooden acting certainly doesn't do any good. It has a fair share of nudity and for strange reasons, and excessive use of special effects.<br /><br />The make-up effects are done by the outstanding KNB and are really among the few good things in the movie. However, the bizarre over-use of the effects in the totally out of context ending decreases the impact of KNB's work and makes cheesy what in a different movie would be amazing.<br /><br />The fact that this is a B-Movie is no excuse for it's low quality, as with a better and more coherent script this could had been an interesting movie. Sadly, all we have here is a mediocre film that gets worse every second. Worthy for Barrymore's beauty. 3/10 | negative |
(aka: DEMONS III)<br /><br />Made for Italian TV although shot in English and was never meant to be a sequel to the earlier DEMONS films. It was supposed to be simply titled, THE OGRE, which is how director Lamberto Bava had released it.<br /><br />An American family rents an Italian villa for the summer. The woman (Virginia Bryant) has recurring dreams of herself as a little girl going down to the old wine-cellar of this villa an encountering this cocoon-like structure hanging down from the ceiling. It glows and is covered in cobwebs and has what looks like spider or insect legs hanging down from it. It drips what looks like green paint.<br /><br />Of course the husband doesn't believe any of this. The villa just is old and creaks and makes strange noises in the middle of the night and she should just ignore it.<br /><br />But then the OGRE itself appears in what looks like some kind of 16th Centaury costume with what looks like a wolf's head attached to it and it's attracted to the scent of orchids.<br /><br />The films isn't really that bad and at least the dialog is halfway intelligent without the ridiculous awkward phrases that dubbing would bring. There's no real gore other than some skeletons rotting in a basement pond that really looks like the bottom of a modern swimming pool. The OGRE itself just simply fades away after it is run over by the family's Jeep Cherokee. <br /><br />The copy of the Shriek DVD I watched was defective, with the picture going black for a few seconds about a half an hour into the film, a flaw I hope Shriek has since corrected. Extras include a short interview with Lamberto Bava where he explains how this wasn't a sequel, etc..etc...along with some trailers to other Shriek DVD releases. This is pretty standard stuff.<br /><br />3 out of 10<br /><br /> | negative |
Generally it was a good movie with an ideal ending; the acting was spectacular and the characters didn't stray from their persons. I especially liked the plot, although you knew what was going to happen it still gave the element of surprise through out the entire movie. However, I find that coming on to the ending it could have been a little longer (extended maybe)- to me it seemed like it was rushed a bit; as if the writer was trying to take linens off the lines before the rain fell. For instance- What happened to Tristan's brother, Hayden? For all we know he died in the hospital. Maybe he was the one that setup the entire thing?! Who knows! Maybe there will be a sequel? Maybe? If there is.. I cant wait to see it. | positive |
In efforts to make a somewhat comedic yet serious movie about the art of growing marijuana, Stephen Gyllenhaal (director) fell a few bong rips short of a good movie. While the cast is nothing short of amazing, this movie is extremely hard to sit through. The acting of Billy Bob Thornton, Ryan Phillipe, Jon Bon Jovi, Hank Azaria, and Kelly Lynch couldn't even save this movie from failure. It would be wiser to flush three single dollar bills down the toilet then to check this movie out at the local video store.<br /><br /> | negative |
Years have gone by since Don Wilson used his martial arts expertise to take down a robot who was programmed to destroy him, he's also married to the blonde reporter (Stacie Foster) who led the rebellion in the first film, now a new conspiracy is in the works, one that involves look-alike droids who frame our two heroes, and a corporation looking to rule the world (There is no plot to back any of this up) and Cyber Tracker 2 becomes a virtual replay of the first movie. I admit that I have bought DVDs from the bargain bin that were made by PM, PM was a company that specialized in cheap-jack action flicks (like this) which had tons of explosions, little story and overall nothing but mean edged action. Some of these titles have been (mildly) enjoyable (Last Man Standing and The Sweeper) however Cyber Tracker 2 is stuck with the casting of the charisma-less Don Wilson. When comparing the protagonists of similar PM efforts both Jeff Wincott and C. Thomas Howell are Oscar nominees when compared to Don Wilson. Another telling sign is that this was directed by Richard Pepin who has none of the flair Joseph Merhi seems to have in crafting action sequences that feel much more expensive than their budgets. Then again though both C. Thomas and Wincott are probably more expensive to obtain. Cyber Tracker 2 is a rip off with a capitol R, there are so many steals from better movies (Robocop, Terminator, Universal Soldier to even Halloween III!) that it's almost as if Richard Pepin is trying to infuse a sense of identity to the pedestrian material yet without the intelligent ideas or at least the mindless zip of great action, Cyber Tracker 2 falls flat. There is literally no good idea that isn't borrowed from a better movie and the supporting cast overact. The only exception comes from Tony Burton who is miles better than the material. Also Stacie Foster looks like she could be better with far better material. However Cyber Tracker 2 comes off mainly as noisy, bland and lackluster as its leading man, however with no real martial arts sequences to fall back on, all there is, is lots of cars tipping over and that alone is no substitute for the bankruptcy of ambition expressed here.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor) | negative |
With the releasing of "Farligt förflutet" Swedish film industry has truly hit rock bottom. Stefan (Jens Hultén) has for the past years lived a calm life with his wife Marie (Regina Lund). One day an old friend of Stefan´s arrives with a favor to ask him. Stefan is to do a small courier job. He is supposed to bring a suitcase filled with heroine through the Sweden-Germany customs. Unfortunately things in Germany don´t work out as planned and Stefan is now in big trouble. It is always nice to see a Swedish film that breaks the traditional family-drama pattern. Unfortunately if the people involved in the production have no clue of how a movie is supposed to be written, filmed or cut the result can only be catastrophic. The content can be concluded with: bad acting, an incoherent plot and idiotic dialogs. The only highlight in the movie is the unprovoked sex-scene wit the incredibly beautiful Regina Lund. This lasts for only a few seconds leaving approxamitly 90 minutes of pure, let´s say what it truly is, crap. | negative |
One of those, "Why was this made?" movies. The romance is very hard to swallow. It is one of those romances, that, suddenly, "click" - they are in love. The movie is filled with long pauses and uncomfortable moments - the drive-in restaurant being the most notable. Charles Grodin does a credible job but for most of the movie it's just him and Louise Lasser. Ask yourself, do you want to watch Grodin with his neurosis and Lasser with her neurosis together for a hour and half? | negative |
Widow hires a psychopath as a handyman. Sloppy film noir thriller which doesn't make much of its tension promising set-up. (3/10) | negative |
In 1976 a mother named Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) lives with her son Walter and her husband Arthur (James Marsden). One night a box is placed on the doorstep of their home and the following morning they cut open the box to reveal a button device that must be opened with a key. By the late afternoon, a man with terrible scarring on his face comes to their door and presents Norma with an offer. This man is Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) and he announces that if they push the button someone in the world that the family does not know will die and they will receive a million dollars in cash. If they don't press it, nothing will happen and the offer will move on to someone else. Norma and Arthur are not allowed to tell anyone including their son about this deal. The incentive for the family to push the button is heightened by their financial difficulties. Arthur, who is currently working for NASA, fails to be accepted into a new job he applies for and Norma, who is a teacher, learns that her faculty funding is being cut.<br /><br />One's enjoyment for this bizarre sci-fi thriller, based on the short story "Button Button" by Richard Matheson, will be determined by how far they are willing to take this ludicrous premise. The opening of the film is particularly problematic in grounding itself in a sense of realism with the household. Richard Kelly's previous film Donnie Darko cleverly used the condition of schizophrenia to justify its excursion into paranormal activity and parallel universes. Without the dream-like state of that far superior film, The Box and the very thought of a device that can kill anyone in the world, is entirely implausible. That Norma would also accept someone into her house that has almost the same scarring as Two-Face from The Dark Knight and believe this offer, seems equally contrived.<br /><br />If this sounds unlikely so far, what follows is even more absurd, involving a conspiracy about someone who was struck by lightning, the possibility of alien life or some other Godly being influencing these situations. Scenes involving gateways opening up in public libraries, random nose bleeds and mindless drones stalking the Lewis family, become almost unintentionally comical in their absurdity. To a point, the film could be called intriguing purely to see where it is going. Kelly is occasionally clever in his ability to hold our attention through many of the films contrivances. In one scene Norma is teaching a class and then is asked by a strange boy about her foot. He taunts her about it as she is missing four of her toes. Later, at a rehearsal dinner for a wedding that Norma and Arthur are attending, this same student appears as a waiter and seems to be stalking them. Yet the eventual justification for these all of these oddities is wrapped up in a highly contrived sci-fi revelation that many will find implausible and difficult to swallow.<br /><br />What is most disappointing about the film is that once the button is pressed surprisingly early on, many of the moral implications that were initially promised are diminished for much of pictures duration. The ending, which won't be spoilt here, resurfaces these moral questions again in the hope of echoing that of a Greek tragedy. While the resemblances can be seen, by this point, given the unlikelihood of so much of the film and the uneven performances, there is little reason to care. Cameron Diaz's Southern accent might be unnecessary but it is surprisingly Langella who is the most disappointing in the film, with a very unsubtly written role, as the mysterious scarred man, who seems to be hiding a military base that would make Dr. Evil proud. It really is just a shadow of his towering performance in Frost/Nixon. There is not a lot for many of the other actors in the film to do; in particular both Norma and Arthur could not be regarded as characters but mouthpieces for Kelly's pastiche of ideas. Underdeveloped and brief conversations, such as where Norma sympathises with Arlington over their deformities and also when Norma and Arthur question whether they really know each other in case the button kills either of them, highlights this.<br /><br />Since 2001, Richard Kelly has failed to make a film that has lived up to the quality and the imagination of Donnie Darko. Though this film might be intriguing for a little while, it is too absurd and implausible to be fully enjoyed and it would certainly not warrant multiple viewings given the film's rather illogical revelations. Science fiction fans might be able to appreciate it somewhat more and draw their own conclusions, but what Kelly is really trying to say beneath the surface remains cryptic. The Box is one film this year that should have been shelved. | negative |
This was Charlie Chaplin's first all-talking film. Yes, there had been a little bit of sound and speaking inserted into his previous film, MODERN TIMES, but it was still essentially a silent film. So, it wasn't until 1940 that the public got to hear Chaplin speak on film.<br /><br />The movie is incredibly famous and has a stellar reputation. While I enjoyed the film, I was not nearly as impressed by this as Chaplin's other full-length films of the mid-20s and 30s. That's because I really felt annoyed by some of Chaplin's dopey over-acting when he played Adenoid Hynkel--especially when he was giving his speeches. The silly pseudo-dialog just seemed akin to something a lesser comedian would have used (such as the Three Stooges). Plus, playing a funny Hitler is hard for me to take.<br /><br />However, when Chaplin played the Jewish barber, he wasn't especially funny (he really wasn't intended to be a funny character) but he was a tremendous voice for reason and decency. This film should not be remembered as a comedy (especially since it doesn't really excel there), but for its excellent acting and humanity. The final speech by the barber (impersonating Hynkel) is brilliant and almost brought tears to my eyes. Watch the film for this reason alone. | positive |
I saw recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International film Festival and I can't believe that this is Sweden's official submission to the 79th Academy Awards to be considered for best foreign film. Producer Anna Anthony last year also had Sweden's official submission for best foreign film with Zozo. I wasn't personally a fan of Zozo but at least it had some production value to it. This could have been shot as a high school film project. As a short film it may have worked but as a feature film it is as lost as it's characters. This is a story about five twenty something friends who live in a small Swedish town and have no goals or hopes or ambitions for the future and like to live in the past of their long gone childhood. Actually Falkenberg isn't like some remote northern Swedish village. It's a popular summer resort with a population of city and townships of almost 40,000 and lies between two major southern coastal Swedish cities of Götborg and Malmo. The characters are likable enough guys but if they were high school age kids with a bleak or confused attitude about what they plan to do with their lives I would undoubtedly care about them more. They are however long past the point where they should be making plans to deal with adulthood. If they want to stay in Falkenberg forever than certainly there must be some jobs in the tourist or fishing industry instead of just riding bicycles, drinking, smoking pot and occasionally painting a house. Maybe if they hung around with a girl or two in their circle of friends, of which girls are absent from this film altogether which doesn't make sense. Jesper Ganslandt makes his directorial debut and co wrote the film along with the cinematographer, of which I use the term loosely, Fredrik Wenzel. the acting isn't too bad. I would give this a 4.5 out of 10 but despite it's submission for consideration for the Academy Awards I would not recommend it. | negative |
Classic author C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay stating that no children's story is worth the reading, viewing etcetera if it can only be enjoyed by children. I'd say this film is an easy one to hold up as a defence of his argument.<br /><br />Around the age of five or six, I loved it, tracked it down only three or four years later and found it to be wet, poorly animated, dully and confusingly written, and with distressingly repetitive and awful songs (I'm looking t you, hi-cockalorum), showing a production aiming at joyful silliness and whimsy, but resulting with an ugly, twee, frustrating mess.<br /><br />By all means, show this to your infant, but I would heartily recommend that you don't buy a copy or attempt to sit in on the viewing. If you want something set in the same era but with genuine charm and wit, go after 'Oliver Twist' or the BBC's brilliant adaptation of 'The Box of Delights'. | negative |
To say Funky Forest: The First Contact is a bad movie is an understatement of incredible proportions. I can really get into a good art house film, even a surreal and twisted romp like El Topo, Naked Lunch, and Survive Style 5+, because those movies actually have something worth discussing when the credits roll.<br /><br />FFFC attempts at every avenue to be this deep and intellectual, essentially there is no substance in this movie. This movie is badly done, the visuals in this movie are not inspiring, the dialog is worse, the musical numbers destroy this movie.. I chuckled for GUITAR BROTHERS, but that was immediately wiped out by something completely unnecessary, and irrelevant. It attempted to be deep and meaningful I think, but its just pretentious disoriented nonsense. Freshman film students without a camera could craft something more interesting.<br /><br />Guitar Brothers and the stand up routines in between skits get 1 point each, everything else is just badly paced, pseudo-creative, heavy handed attempts at being AS good as films by other REAL directors like, Sogo Ishii, David Lynch, and Jodoworsky. Give me a break. I am convinced that people that rave about FFFC are doing so because they have no idea of what they saw, because it was nothing but mild pertinent statements here and there mixed with stupidity and blended until you puke on your own shoes.<br /><br />This movie was an extreme disappointment, coming off the high that was Survive Style 5+, a film that actually has meaning, combined with excellent use of scenery, cinematography, catchy dialog, funny moments, good soundtrack, excellent performances, fantastic pacing and flow. FFFC features the exact opposite in every way, boring scenery (20 minutes staring at a bland beach at night? a completely white stage? Alien balls floating in white space? a dinky school hallway and then a... school hallway?), terrible cinematography, forgettable dialog, nothing funny or humorous, save the fact you just wasted your life for two hours, soundtrack?, amateurish performances, uneven, disjointed, and often flat out dragging pacing, zero flow whatsoever.<br /><br />There are those that claim this is what makes FFFC a great movie, that it is so unconventional at every turn that its pure genius. This is simply a way to stroke your own ego it seems, because "unpredictable" could be a good quality for a film if it wasn't coupled with "boring", "innane", and "terrible". Personally I have spoken with two people who admitted to me that FFFC was terrible when they left the theater, but overwhelming rave by art-house elitist made them watch the movie again and then come back to me with a... "Hey it was pretty good I liked it".<br /><br />I'm going to put my foot down, this movie is slop, I don't care if Roger Ebert says this film is the best thing he's ever watched since he lost his own virginity. "The Emperor's new cloak" I say... this movie is no way indicative of the other psychedelic/trippy films to come from Japan in the last 10 years. Taste of Tea, Party 7, and Kamikaze Girls are much better movies (even with a low budget), and none can honestly compare with Survive Style 5+. Watch FFFC only if your interested in making a pretentious pile of nothing on a shoestring budget. | negative |
The Sopranos is arguably the greatest show in Dramatic Television history.<br /><br />Its hard to think of another series that boasts so much intelligence, sublime writing or first rate performances.<br /><br />Across its epic scope it produces fresh and iconic characters and a constant level of high quality. Centering around the life of one Tony Soprano, a man who lives in two families. One is the conventional wife and two kids nuclear family the other a huge New Jersey Mafia group, of which he is the boss of both. Played by James Gandolfini, of True Romance and The Mexican fame, Tony is a fascinating, scary but also likable guy. Full praise must be given to Gandolfini for making a womanising and horrifically aggressive brute a genuinely identifiable and perfect leading man. Contemporay American drama has never had such an arresting and iconic figure as Tony.<br /><br />The cast of hundreds never boasts a flat performance and such stand out characters like Paulie Walnuts and Ralph Cifaretto will stick in your memory for ever.<br /><br />The true genius of this tale however, is the creator and writers bravery and revolutionary take on a conventional drama series. Twenty minute long dream sequences, powerful and original use of symbolism and metaphorical imagery and truly shocking scenes of violence. Yet all this style is met by truly touching themes of love, honour and respect for family. The series never becomes cold hearted or gratuitous.<br /><br />With TV now competitive and often poor The Sopranos stands tall above the rest as America's most original and compelling drama. Forget Family Redifined. This is Television Redifined. | positive |
I read ashew's comment and thought they must have been watching an entirely different picture! <br /><br />I just watched the film this morning and was quite surprised.<br /><br />To address ashew's comments:<br /><br />Trail Street is a very well done western.<br /><br />And Randolph Scott was in it quite a bit! <br /><br />Gabby Hayes was funnier than I've ever seen him! <br /><br />The bad guys had very good comeuppances as far as I was concerned.<br /><br />Plus:<br /><br />It was interesting to see Robert Ryan as a straight-laced good guy - he's usually so slimy.<br /><br />In all, a good western, very well acted and written.<br /><br />I liked the background story of Kansas and the "winter wheat" that supposedly helped it become a state, too.<br /><br />I thought the girl who played Susan was lovely - can't think why she didn't become a bigger star! | positive |
Oh, man! This thing scared the heck out of me when I first watched it... and I was SIXTEEN!!!<br /><br />That creepy animated Barbie is scary as hell! I want to stop talking about her now. | negative |
Despite its stereotypes, virtually 'no-name' cast and an obviously low budget I thought this film was alright; much better than I expected it to be. I was skeptical at first - the idea of a computer virus that can also infect people seemed a little ludicrous to me. But in the end, I thought the film handled the concept well (even if some scenes were a little clichéd).<br /><br />The cast was quite good, and the two leads seemed to take their roles very seriously. I couldn't help thinking, though, that Janine Turner is a bit of a Geena Davis look-a-like. Maybe it's just her face or the make-up, hair and clothes she had in this movie but it just kept nagging at the back of my mind the whole time.<br /><br />While it's not a 'must see' or a great film by any standard, 'Fatal Error' is an entertaining flick that will keep you watching until the end. | negative |
This movie reeks. No money, no acting, no nothing. I caught this on on the 3am late show movie tonight and felt compelled to comment on it. This movie has nothing to recommend it. I can't believe it ever got released to US television! Nobody in this movie can act their way out of a paperbag. The lame attempts at comedy fall flat on their face, the special effects consist of a worm-like handpuppet "monster"... I can't even begin to tell you how rock-bottom this production is. It looks like it cost maybe $50,000 to shoot, but only because it is on 16mm, and that is probably a generous estimate! Anyway, I lost interest rapidly and had to settle for watching "Matlock" reruns instead of finishing it. That's how BAD this movie is!!! | negative |
I probably doubled my knowledge of Iran when I saw Secret Ballot (2001). Now I know about four times as much (I doubt I learned a whole heck of a lot from Not Without My Daughter (1991)).<br /><br />Offside is a splendid budget Iranian comedy about a group a girls (working individually) to attend a decisive soccer match for their country's place in the World Cup. Women are not allowed to attend soccer matches, so the nation's armed forces have been mobilized to save any women who try to enter from themselves. Some (teen?) girls try to crash the party by dressing as boys, but are caught. The movie is mostly set at this holding pen where the girls are detained by soldiers, awaiting some unspecified punishment (although, the girl who dressed as a soldier claims that she was one insignia away from being executed!)<br /><br />The movie explores the absurdity of the situation. The thinking that bars women from football matches comes down to it being too raunchy an experience for the fairer sexa philosophy not unknown in the west less than 100 years ago. This farce comes to a head when a girl needs to go to the bathroom, so a soldier escorting her demands that she cover her eyes so she can't see the graffiti. The conflict is not entirely about the battle of the sexes: at one point some friction arises between a solider who is rural and the girls who are urban.<br /><br />Fortunately, this movie was not too culturally esoteric that the comedy was lost on this neighbour and cultural cousin of the Great Satan. You have to be in the mood for it, but no one should avoid this movie because they think that they won't get it. | positive |
I have never before voted 1 for a movie on the IMDB, but for this one I am sorry the scale doesn't go down to -10.<br /><br />All I can say abou this movie is that I saw it in a Sneak Preview, and it was my worst movie experience ever. I don't mind the stupid jokes. I can live with the silly story. But when I see those dumbly grinning "main characters" with their pseudo-foreign speech (only Germans will understand what I talk about), I felt I kind of loathing I never thought I was capable of. (If they had left them out, the thing may actually have been acceptable...).<br /><br />There's not much more to be said about this one. You may laugh once or twice, because it's so ridiculous, but that doesn't make it any better. It is definitely not funny.<br /><br />If you live outside of Germany, be happy and rejoice that this awful work will most likely never make it to your cinemas.<br /><br />If you do live in Germany, avoid this movie at all costs. | negative |
Being a Bills fan, I originally found it annoying that they made a movie about the Bills and the losing of four superbowls. But once I began to watch, I felt really connected. It was actually nice to see the "Bills" win the superbowl, and I must say, that for a TV movie it was actually very well done. Gil Bellows as the QB, and Jon Voight as the old-school Coach did a very fine job. 8 out of 10 | positive |
I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did "Revenge of the Nerds" (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after "Return of the Jedi" and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a "Nerd" and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time. | negative |
Heart pounding erotic drama are the words that come to mind when I think of "Secret Games". It becomes more erotic as the film goes along and at one point blew me away! I didn't expect the delightful scene I was about to encounter. The "call girl" has her first customer and what a customer! One of the most erotic lesbian scenes I have ever seen. The husband should have listened to his wife and perhaps she wouldn't have gone on this erotic journey. It turned out to cost them in the end but, it was one exciting ride! GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!! | positive |
Yet another recent comedy that shows that Hollywood can't even do the basics when it comes to film-making that it used to do in its sleep for decades. If the writer/director had any brains they would have based the film around Stamp's character of tyrant boss Jack Taylor. When he's in the film early on it's nothing special but it is mildly promising and occasionally amusing. Once he departs for the majority of the film and Kutcher has his 'hilarious' adventures house-sitting with guest after boring guest dropping in, the film totally disintegrates.<br /><br />As a result, what should have been a passable timewaster turns into an inept stinker. | negative |
I just cannot believe the low scores for this movie. Probable reason has to do with the low number of votes meaning few people have seen it. This is simply a fantastic movie! There are so many stories inter-wined within but it's not complicated. Each character grows with the movie and we experience with them undergoing life changes. The scenery is simply amazing and the end credits are the best ever in any movie I have seen (just like a Shakespeare play). Yes, it's a little dated (filmed in 1982) but the issues the characters face are very current. It could have been filmed in 2002 without modifications to the story line. Raul Julia is amazing, best role ever in a movie - this is his signature piece. A young Molly Ringwald is excellent as she matures from girl to young woman. Susan Sarandon is perfect as a young carefree woman and John Cassavetes is the force that puts this all together. Do yourself a favor, find this movie, view it & enjoy it. Come back to IMDb and score this movie into the top 250 of all time where it really belongs. | positive |
This is a movie with a wonderful concept, but very weak writing. It should never have been released with out at least three more re-writes (assuming it got any). The story is too loosly held together, and there are too many 90 degree turns in the story to make it a cohesive movie. It would be great to see what a decent screen-writer could do with the story. | negative |
If this movie should be renamed, it should be "The Jackasses of Hazzard." To sum it up, this movie is nothing but 88 minutes of two immature country punks joyriding the famed 1968 Dodge Charger around town and in the country, chasing the girls and eluding the law.<br /><br />I have been a fan of the "Dukes" and what tarnishes the movie is the characters are out of key. The overindulgence of profanity, sexual references, and drug use, has made the good name of the "Dukes" into trailer trash.<br /><br />Side from comparing it to the television show, the acting was horrible. The only actor that got it right was the famed 1969 Dodge Charger named General Lee. The others have exaggerated the character's role which tarnished the movie.<br /><br />The "Dukes" have been another casualty of the 21-st century Hollywood television-to-big screen transition tragedy. Skip this movie and just buy the television series on DVD.<br /><br />My grade: F | negative |
Hitchcock is a great director. Ironically I mostly find his films a total waste of time to watch. I admire Hitchcok on a purely visual and technical level.<br /><br />First the positives. Hitchcock invented the notion of the probing camera. The curious eye that is able to withhold or search for information. It isn't exactly a new visual grammar but it was revolutionary then.<br /><br />Secondly, Hitchcock pretty much perfected the thriller and chase movie. He has an economical style and is always thinking of the audience. He gives them regular thrills, regular jolts of humour and regular shocks. In short, he anticipates the audience's base needs and plays them like a fiddle.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the base needs of a human being are mostly stupid. Food, sex, the thrill of danger and a little comedy. Hithcock caters for all these needs on screen, with the exception of food, which, judging from his size, he catered to off screen.<br /><br />It's this pandering to the audience that sabotages most of his films. A second downside is that most of Hitchcock's camera work and visual grammar are now common place. What keeps his films watchable are the simple economy of his tales, the intelligence of his camera work, and his skill at crafting tense action set pieces.<br /><br />So on to "Saboteur". This is a light-hearted romp in the vein of "The 39 Steps". It jumps from sequence to sequence, until it concludes at the typical Hitchcock final act set piece.<br /><br />On an emotional level, the relationship between the leads is not up to par with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in "The 39 steps". Hence the whole story lacks a certain energy. The plot simply rumbles on like a machine, desperately depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end, since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages.<br /><br />There are the usual Hitchcock logic flaws. For example, a guy with handcuffs frees himself using a car fan belt etc. (Why doesn't he just drive away in the car? Surely handcuffs aren't that restrictive? He's able to swim in them, after all!)<br /><br />If you want a better Hitchcock wartime propaganda flick from the 40's, I would advise you watch "Foreign Correspondant". They are both silly chase movies with a catchy finale, but "Foreign Correspondant" makes great use of umbrellas and tulips, something Spielberg rips off nicely in "Minority Report".<br /><br />7.5/10 - Some good set pieces. Beyond that, however, there's nothing much to sink your teeth into. | negative |
This movie was very disappointing in that several elements of the book were wrongly done. The main story is the same but there are several flaws that hurt the movie.<br /><br />1) Boobie Miles gets injured in the beginning of the story in a preseason game at Texas Tech. This means he won't get anything done during the season at all and Chris Comer comes up sooner on the team.<br /><br />2) The game against Marshall was lost at Marshall. The team depicted as Marshall was actually Midland High one of Permian's main rivals and here is the proof- Marshall High is the Mavericks colored Scarlet and Silver, Midland High is the Bulldogs colored Purple and Gold. Look at the jerseys and you will see who it is. Also the real Marshall High's football roster is overwhelmingly Black, the team shown was racially mixed like Midland High. <br /><br />3) Permian only loses to Midland Lee by one point in district play. Midland Lee loses to Midland High and Midland High loses to Permian. These are the teams that set up the coin toss as such.<br /><br />4) Boobie comes back on the team as a reserve to Chris Comer and after not getting any playing time in the Midland Lee game, he quits the team completely at half time and never stands on the sideline or goes to any games again. <br /><br />5) Brian Chavez was a Tight End and Defensive End who wore #85 not a Tight End and Strong Safety. In addition, Boobie wore #35 and Ivory Christian wore #62. <br /><br />6) The coaches end up liking Chris Comer as a player more than Boobie because he has a better lifting ethic and runs more straight up plays the way the staff prefers him too, this is in part why Boobie quits the team. <br /><br />7) Dallas Carter is played in Austin at Darrell K. Royal Memorial stadium where UT plays in the state semi-finals not the state finals. Carter wins the state title but is forced to forfeit due to an ineligible player.<br /><br />The acting is done pretty well but if you read the book, you will see these flaws are pretty true. I am also tired of hearing all the PC hypocrites out there complain about the depiction of Dallas Carter's football team. The team according to the book is as large, monstrous, talented, and black as the movie shows. People say it is a racist depiction but reading the book, you see a true depiction of the team. The story is very altered giving this movie a score of 3.5/10. | negative |
I think the cards were stacked against Webmaster, because right from the start there was this itchy feeling, like something was wrong but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then it hit me. Dubbed. For a little while, they managed most of the lines either as voice over or off screen, with just a little hint here and there, until it became painfully obvious. This is the kind of dubbing that grates on the nerves, with nothing even remotely funny about it. I hate dubbing, but at least, however misplaced, martial arts films badly dubbed tend to have a sense of humour about it.<br /><br />What I wanted was a film about a hacker doing actual hacking and stuff like that. Maybe like a reverse side of the table of the movie Hackers (being about the person trying to keep them out instead about the people trying to get in). What I got was some poorly written, nonsensical at times murder mystery with a ton of bad chase sequences, a supposedly inept hacker who was neutered without his little ego, and a director who obviously didn't know how to handle a camera. I just wanted to reach in there, grab the camera from the guy, and shoot the dang thing myself. The editing wasn't much better. The acting? Well, I guess if the lead guy didn't have such a bad script to work from, he'd be at least watchable. The main bad guy was OK, too, but pretty much everyone else was a joke. Dubbing didn't help, but the acting was pretty bad even taking that into consideration.<br /><br />Before I get into more bad, let's perk up to a few good things. Well, one or two. Despite the rudimentary graphics, I rather enjoyed the cyberworld stuff, what little there was of it, and would have much rather watched a movie mostly about, in, and around that than the tepid surroundings outside in the 'real world'. The falsifying thumbprint thing seemed kind of cool, but ended up being rather useless in the scheme of things. The heart gadget, which reminded me of Guillermo Del Toro's Cronos, was interesting, though as a plot device ripped directly from the pages of Escape from New York, it was horribly conceived in the long run. There's one point where the bad guy is unconscious and our hero is right there. Why didn't he try the bad guy's thumb print then (since the heart device was thumb activated)? Nonetheless, some interesting gadgets and cyber stuff, if only they could have been utilized better.<br /><br />Now, who here dares compare this movie to Blade Runner? Both films take place sometime in the future and there's some kind of off kilter type of romance in it, sort of, in both films. There's the investigation of a murder, but I've seen many a film with a murder at its center that are nothing like either Blade Runner or Webmaster. Identity, for instance. That's about where the similarities end. Period. There is no comparison, just as there wouldn't be between Blade Runner and Hackers. Ridley Scott is a brilliant director with a great mind for art direction and knows some fundamentals of film-making, like where to put the camera. Webmaster is cheap, and not just because of the budget. It's cheap because of bad writing, and because it more often than not takes the easy way out (like writing in a character who barely appeared in the first place to save the girl in the end to get her to Point B by herself without the Hero, so that he could do his thing. Very convenient. Or, the attempted sympathy factor for a character we have no reason to care for. Or, inane things like the car set up to stall them just enough for someone to get away.).<br /><br />It tries to be hip, it tries to be exploitive, it even tries a twist ending that's not the least bit surprising, and it tries to be thrilling. But a bunch of near identical chase sequences, bad writing, editing, horribly shot, bad acting, etc. does not a thrilling movie make. | negative |
This movie is just plain silly. Almost every scene has some bit of humor: running gags, slapstick, and great jokes. The acting isn't that great, and the plot is cliche, but the jokes more than make up for that. If you have a chance to see this movie, I recommend that you do. | positive |
The basic idea behind "Dungeon of Harrow" isn't all bad. The acting, however, is bad. The lighting is bad. The music is bad. The scenes of torture are without emotion. There really isn't much there to recommend this film. You know what kind of a movie you're in for when the credits say "Special Guest Star" and list someone you've never heard of. Might as well say "Rex Hamilton as Abraham Lincoln." because there's really no one in this movie you can identify. There are one or two decent moments, mostly toward the end and I think the basic plot outline may have contained an original idea, but that alone is not enough to keep you awake through this otherwise inept yawner. | negative |
Red Eye, a movie that id had wanted to see for awhile...Cillian Murphy plays Jack Ripner (jack the ripper) a managerial pose to Assassins, and his literally killer plan to knock off a highly profiled man and his family.<br /><br />An everyday woman "Lisa" (I think) is a normal woman, goes to work, home...worries...hates to fly.<br /><br />The death of her grandmother sends her on a flight which delayed several times.<br /><br />a flight where she meets Jack...an ordinary seeming guy, until he suavely reveals his profession and plans, which coincidentally include her in them, she is the key to the Keefe's (sp?) death.<br /><br />She succeeds in saving them...but nearly the cost of her life is taken, Jack is beaten...the Keefs are saved...oh what a story *laughs* just kidding, the movie is really good actually, the best of last year...there are small things that you have to pay attention to earlier in the movie that play a GREAT importance to the movie later... (the Frankenstein pen) I watched it several times before catching all the little jokes and quirks...<br /><br />a must see for thriller fans no sexual, but there is a slight hint (the bathroom scene) (jack) "Thanks for the quicky" and the (female attendant) "Ohhh...its gonna be ONE of those flights" (second female attendant) "Hey! this isn't a motel" you get the idea... | positive |
Yes. It takes a Norwegian to ruin and slaughter two great books and a concept that would work well on film - this film truly is The Worst Swedish Film Of All Time. I hated it so badly that I even considered walking out on it, something I have never done. But it was so awful i was almost compelling. I just had to sit through to the end. Much like some early-80's Stallone action reel, this one REALLY takes Swedish action back to the stone-age. So full of logical errors and stupid mistakes it is almost amusing - but who could ever see anything good in the terrible acting, Mark Hamill's surviving a mine-field or the dumb-ass, useless and irrational action?<br /><br />Let me ask you: aren't we through with clocks ticking down to zero, the hero escaping in the nick of time and two friends become enemies reuniting by the end? STUPID!!!!<br /><br />And one more thing: the product placement in this film is unbelievable. While other countries have understood that it shouldn't be so OBVIOUS, the Swedish film industry apparently hasn't understood at all: just look at the credit card Hamilton uses to open a window? Or or or.... this film really makes me mad. | negative |
I disagree 100% with the reviewer who disagreed 100% with the reviewer who gave this short movie an "F" grade. Cashing in heavily on political propaganda only obscures Joe Dante's lack of ability to pull another Howling out of his bag of tricks. The Masters of Horror series was a phenomenal collection of truly horrifying tales, save for this episode.<br /><br />Despite gaining acclaim from those who wish to promote it's political slant, "Homecoming" is the least effective episode of MOH season one. Unlike the rest of the series, Dante's entry is a parody of the genre, falling short of both horror and humor in it's ham-fisted delivery of a hackneyed political point.<br /><br />Dante can really only be blamed for pulling this stinker off the shelf, as it wasn't his creation. The zombie sub-genre is very popular this decade, and among the crop of predictable George Romero tributes and vacuous fantasies are a number of works designed to push political or (ir)religeous messages. Such works are not written by or intended for true horror fans. Maybe Dante really isn't a a Master of Horror, either. What has he been up to since The Howling, after all?<br /><br />If you want a lame anti-war zombie flick with a few pop culture references passed off as humor, Homecoming may be just your thing. If you are a horror fan looking for something Masterful, pick up... most any other episode of the series. My personal favorite was Dario Argento's "Jenifer," based loosely on a classic comic short by the team of Bruce Jones and Berni Wrightson -- truly creepy. | negative |
Mean spirited, and down right degrading adaptation to the classic children's tale not only lacks the charm of its forefather but lacks any talent what so ever. Mike Myers should not only be ashamed of himself for his horrible performance that is a clear rip off of what Jim Carrey did but he should give up acting all together. He is so annoying that you would want to beat the crap out of him if you were able to jump right in the film. The sets are ugly and the cinematography is very poor. I have seen a lot of bad film this year, but this not only takes the cake but it is with out a doubt one the worse films ever made. | negative |
It was funny because the whole thing was so unrealistic, I mean, come on, like a pop star would just show up at a public high school and fall in love with the girl who happens to be obsessed with him? Come on, people!<br /><br />Everyone but the lead girl were completely horrendous at acting. The dialog was cheesy, the premise was stupid, and the camera work was poorly done. I felt like I was watching a badly made home video. <br /><br />I feel as if I've wasted almost 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. <br /><br />I don't have anything else to say, except that I'd rather punch myself in the face multiple times, than watch this movie again. | negative |
It takes patience to get through David Lynch's eccentric, but-- for a change-- life-affirming chronicle of Alvin Straight's journey, but stick with it. Though it moves as slow as Straight's John Deere, when he meets the kind strangers along his pilgrimage we learn much about the isolation of aging, the painful regrets and secrets, and ultimately the power of family and reconciliation. Richard Farnsworth caps his career with the year's most genuine performance, sad and poetic, flinty and caring. And Sissy Spacek matches him as his "slow" daughter Rose who pines over her own private loss while caring for dad. Rarely has a modern film preached so positively about family. | positive |
Yesterday my Spanish / Catalan wife and myself saw this emotional lesson in history. Spain is going into the direction of political confrontation again. That is why this masterpiece should be shown in all Spanish High Schools. It is a tremendous lesson in the hidden criminality of fascism. The American pilot who gets involved in the Spanish Civil War chooses for the democratically elected Republican Government. The criminal role of religion is surprisingly well shown in one of the most inventive scenes that Uribe ever made. The colors are magnificent. The cruelty of a war (could anybody tell me the difference between Any war and a Civil war ?)is used as a scenario of hope when two young children express their feelings and protect each other. The cowards that start their abuse of power even towards innocent children are now active again. A film like 'El viaje de Carol'/ 'Carol's journey' tells one of the so many sad stories of the 20th Century. It is a better lesson in history than any book could contain. Again great work from the Peninsula Iberica ! | positive |
This is a very famous Ninja movie but it isn't a nice movie. If you want to see some ninjas and some figures, want to know some things about Ninjas see this movie. This movie only for ninja fans and who wants to make nostalgia.<br /><br />First 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of the movie are best. You can just see Ninja figures and fight in this scenes. Between these are below the average, nearly bad as a movie. Acting is bad. Sho (black ninja) is the best actor in this movie. Frank Nero is a good actor and charismatic but he cannot fight good. Scenario is also not good. Its so simple. Franko Nero comes near to his best , old friend from army and war. He also protects him from mafia but he is having sex ( go to bed ) with his wife and his friend knows this but don't say anything to Nero negative. Is this possible in life ? What a friendship !<br /><br />Finally this movie started a genre ; Ninja movies. Also there is the ninja master Sho Kasugi but some fighting scenes are not realistic and not fast even with shoo. This film is below the average even it is a classic. | negative |
I watched this movie for the first time a few weeks ago, and It was quite possibly one of the most boring, unfunny films I ever had the misfortune of seeing. First of all Matthew Modine is a terrible actor, and ruined most of the movie, on top of that, the plot is just way too silly. The only reason a checked into this film was because of Alec Baldwin, and his character was eliminated pretty quickly. Unless you are a fan of Michelle Phiffer you should probably avoid this movie like the plague. Many people can't praise this film enough, but I just cannot figure out what people find so terrific about it. If its supposed to be the black humor that makes this film so terrific, then I guess anything can pass for comedy these days. | negative |
I am a sucker for films like this. Films that take you back and let you relive your childhood. I'm a grown up now and have many grown up responsibilities like a mortgage, kids, dogs, a wife and a slew of others. I enjoy my life but it is not as innocent and carefree like it was when I was twelve. Mike Binder's Indian Summer knows this and explores this like he was twelve years old. It brings you back to a time when life was simpler and much more fun. It brings you back to a time when worrying about your first kiss and wondering if you could finish the camp marathon were important issues. Indian Summer is a fantastic film and it is one that should be watched at least once a year just so you can sit back and laugh...and reminisce.<br /><br />The film stars Kevin Pollak, Bill Paxton, Diane Lane and Matt Craven (to name a few) as childhood friends that are being summoned back to Camp Tamakwa by their former Head Camp Counsellor, Uncle Lou. Uncle Lou is played perfectly by Alan Arkin. He is kind of guy who is the patriarch of the group. He is also all knowing and encompasses the true spirit of a father figure and someone who understands the simple things in life. He has a hard time relating to today's kids that need a walkman blaring in their ears when they are at a place of immense beauty like Tamakwa. This is a camp that has moose wandering through the camp, leaves turning colours that God gave them and water for as far as the eye can see. Uncle Lou yearns for the days of old and asks his former campers back to the camp to see one of them will take over the camp. While they are all together again, we get to see their trials and tribulations and perhaps a new love could spring between them.<br /><br />As the adults return to the camp, it isn't long before they act like kids again as the typical camp pranks get played all over again. They take toilet paper out of the stalls, the put toothpaste on sleeping bags and so on. All of this is done hilariously and with actors like Pollak and Paxton, it is all very funny stuff.<br /><br />But beyond the hilarity, we get to explore some very real adult emotion that anyone can relate to. In one of my favourite scenes, Kevin Pollak and Elizabeth Perkins are overlooking a bay where they used to go canoing as kids. Pollak can't get over how small it all looks and Perkins finally tells him that the bay didn't get smaller, they just got bigger. It doesn't hammer the point home, but it does it subtly. We all grow up, we all move on and we all unfortunately can't live like we did 20 years ago. The more things change, the more they stay the same.<br /><br />Indian Summer is a character driven film and it is written beautifully by Mike Binder who actually did attend Camp Camp Tamakwa, (as did Sam Raimi, who played Stick in the film) and it is his fond and vivid memories of his experiences that fuel the film. There are many touching scenes and there are many hilarious ones also. Both are perfect.<br /><br />I love this film. I love everything about it and it is a true hidden gem.<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
I am a college student studying a-levels and need help and comments from anyone who has any views at all about the theme of mothers in film, in the mother. Whether you have gone through something similar or just want to comment and help me research more about this film, any comment would much greatly appreciated. The comments will be used solely for exam purposes and will be included in my written exam. So if you have any views at all, im sure i can put them to use and you could help me get an A! I am also studying 'About a Boy' and 'Tadpole' so if you have seen these films as well, i would appreciate it if you could leave comments on here on that page. Thank you. | positive |
huge Ramones fan. i do like the ramones, and i suppose if you hate them, then, besides being a avid Bush supporter, you might not like this classic.<br /><br />it's immensely better than the sappy john hughes teen films and the like that littered the 80's. infinitely better than the American Pie's that plague us now.<br /><br />There are some other great high school films: Switchblade Sisters, Fast Times..., Class of '84, Three O'Clock High, and the cheesy yet gripping(doesn't seem possible) River's Edge. But RnRHS will always be my favorite because it's the funniest and most fun, plus you can get up and dance with it.<br /><br />I love you, Riff Randell.<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
I rented this movie yesterday and can hardly express my disappointment in little Laura Ingalls for getting involved in something so poorly produced. I am not sure if it was horrible writing or bad directing or both but it leaves a viewer very disappointed in having wasted the time to watch this swill. It consisted of a weak naive story line, very poor lines, and relied solely on pretty scenery, and pretty people to sell it. Unfortunately this was not enough. You would be better off to rent a tape full of static than to waste your time on this crap. Lindsey Wagner also played a pretty pathetic part as a ranch owner who apparently works very hard doing nothing, anybody who has ever been near a ranch knows that this was obviously written by a young person from los Angeles and not someone with much knowledge of the world. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.