review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This movie had a good story, but was brought down because it didn't have enough horror film elements and violence. It was like watching a live action cartoon. It would of been better if this story is what they planned from the start of the first movie so they could of played seeds for where the series was going. | negative |
I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.<br /><br />I was excited for the sequel to "Wargames" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and "Wargames: The Dead Code" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.<br /><br />The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. "The Dead Code" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he "wins" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.<br /><br />Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like "He has expert knowledge of bio-terror" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.<br /><br />Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours. | negative |
David Suchet is Agatha Christie's mustached detective Hercule Poirot in "After the Funeral," produced in 2005. Anyone who has heard David Suchet speak with his own British accent knows what a shock it is, because his accent as Poirot is so perfect and organic to the character. Suchet is the Poirot of Agatha Christie's books, and although I confess a love for Peter Ustinov in the role, his portrayal doesn't have that much to do with what Christie wrote.<br /><br />In this episode, Poirot is asked by a solicitor friend to investigate the possible murder of one of his clients. Enroute on the train, the solicitor recounts the events after the death - a strange will disinheriting the expected heir and the pronouncement of the man's sister that he was murdered. When Poirot meets the family, he discovers adultery, lots of secrets, another will and murder.<br /><br />The story is excellent with rich production values and a wonderful, detailed depiction of the time period. All of the acting is superb, particularly from Monica Dolan, who plays Miss Gilchrist. Poirot here is without Hastings, his beautiful office, or Miss Lemon but he's effective nonetheless.<br /><br />I had the privilege of seeing David Suchet on Broadway in "Amadeus." Breathtaking. What an actor - when he's playing Poirot, all I see IS Poirot. | positive |
The latest Rumor going around is that Vh1 is starting casting calls for I Love New York 3 mid 2008. So does this mean Budah or Tailor made dumped New York or does this mean New York dumped the winner?<br /><br />I know Flavor of Love is coming up to it's 3rd season, so now with a Flavor of Love 3 and a I love New York 3.....will there ever be a true winner???<br /><br />I've also heard a few rumors that Chance WILL be brought back for the 3rd Season of I Love New York!!!! I have also heard rumors that New York will be Specially featured on Flavor of Love 3. <br /><br />Hopefully this was not too much of a spoiler for the ending of I Love New York 2....I'm just stating the latest rumor. | negative |
Saw it as critic at the 49. Internationales Filmfestival Mannheim Heidelberg.<br /><br />As every film that I know and Zelenka is involved in it is simply genious.<br /><br />I love his way of combining different stories and characters.<br /><br />His *Knoflikari* and the truly magic *Powers* (part of Regina Zieglers *Erotic Tales IV*) are definitely worth being checked out. Go and get it, folks! | positive |
Honestly I am not even joking when I say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! This film dosen't have a single ounce of originality in its flimsy dialog or its blatantly plagiarized story line. I can not even begin to count the number of things in this film that are obviously ripped off from "The Omen" and other movies like it. For example the nanny "Lucy" in this film is actually one of the devil's minions sent to guide and protect the spawn of Satan.....does this sound a lot like Mrs. Baylock to anyone else. Another thing is that the orphanage were they first got the child burned to the ground just a few months after he was adopted, just like in "The Omen". However luckily one priest survived the blaze and escaped with sever burns all over his body....yet another coincidence?????? And to top it all off the burned priest is staying in a hospital room with pictures of Jesus all over the walls, much like the priest in "The Omen" having pages of the Bible plastered on the walls like wall-paper. Please don't even get me started drawing comparisons between the ending of this movie and "The Omen" for you because as I've stated above there are far too many to mention here. | negative |
I was very disappointed when this show was canceled. Although i can not vote. I live on the island of Aruba. I sat down to see the show on tuesday. And was very surprised that it didn't aired. The next day i read on the internet that it was canceled.<br /><br />It's true not every one was as much talented as the other. But there were very talented people singing.<br /><br />I find it very sad for them.<br /><br />That they worked so hard and there dreams came tumbling down.<br /><br />Its a pity<br /><br />Ariette Croes | positive |
I always thought people were a little too cynical about these old Andy Hardy films. A couple of them weren't bad. Modern film critics are not ones who usually prefer nice to nasty, so goody-two shoes movies like these rarely get praise<br /><br />Nonetheless, I can't defend this movie either. You can still have an dated dialog but still laugh and cry over the story. Watching this, you just shake your head ask yourself, "how stupid can you get?" This is cornier than corny, if you know what I mean. It is so corny I cannot fathom too many people actually sitting through the entire hour-and-a-half.<br /><br />The story basically is "Andy" (Mickey Rooney) trying to get out of jam because he makes up some story about involved with some débutante from New York City as if that was the ultimate. People were a lot more social-conscious in the old days. You'd hear the term "social-climber" as if knowing rich or beautiful people was the highest achievement you could make it life. It's all utter nonsense, of course, and looks even more so today.<br /><br />However, it's about as innocent and clean a story and series (there were a half dozen of these Andy Hardy films made) as you could find. Also, if you like to hear Judy Garland sing, then this is your ticket, as she sings a couple of songs in here and she croons her way into Andy's heart. Oh man, I almost throw up even writing about this! | negative |
I recently watched this, but when it started I had no idea what the concept was about, what the topic was.....in short - I had no idea what it was. Was it a documentary, was it a comedy routine.....Well, it was BOTH.<br /><br />It started a little slow, but I think that's because I had absolutely no idea what type of program I was viewing. But it quickly sucked me in. The episode I watched had Robert Wuhl discussing fact and fiction in history. Mainly how we (american's) learn history that isn't really true - and how we got to learn what we did. He did this in such a way as to keep the viewer completely entertained, and interested. I actually learned a few things and that is a true indicator of how effective this type of program can be.<br /><br />I would love to see this picked up as a series for HBO. I believe it can be just as fun and effective with a variety of topics - especially if they are "taught" in the same type of manner as this episode. | positive |
I have seen this movie twice now on cable. The first time I saw it, it caught me by suprise. The skaters I was seeing were the guys we followed in the pages of Skateboarder magazine back in the late 70's. These were the guys we copied and tried to become while skating. I am glad that a film was finally made that gives an accurate account of how it all came to be. I am almost 40 years old now and I guess a pretty uptight kind of guy with all of life's problems, however; this film did a great job of taking me back. Back to the vacant pools, the backyard halfpipes and the road trips to Cherry Hill NJ. I suspect that in order to really understand this movie and appreciate it, you had to live it. Otherwise, it probably won't have the impact on you as it did me. But for those of you (and you know who you are), who did live it, you know exactly what I am talking about! In any event, I don't care who you are, if you get a chance to see this movie...do it! I give thanks to the Z-Boys of Dogtown for the memories of my youth and thanks to Stacy for making this movie! JOB WELL DONE! | positive |
I don't like "grade inflation" but I just had to give this a 10. I can't think of anything I didn't like about it. I saw it last night and woke up today thinking about it. I'm sure that the Hollywood remake that someone told me about, with J Lo and Richard Gear, will be excellent, but this original Japanese version from 1996 was so emotional and thought-provoking for me that I am hard-pressed to think of any way that it could be improved, or its setting changed to a different culture.<br /><br />A story I found worth watching, and with o fist-fight scenes or guns going off or anything of the sort! Imagine that!<br /><br />All the characters seemed well-developed, ... even non-primary characters had good character-development and enjoyable acting, and the casting seemed very appropriate. <br /><br />It's always hard to find a good movie-musical in our day and age, and perhaps this doesn't quite qualify (there is plenty of learning how to dance, but no singing) but I really think that Gene Kelly and others who championed a place for dance in our lives would have thought so very highly of this film and the role of dance in helping to tell a story about a middle aged man, successful with a family in Japan, looking for something... he knows not precisely what.<br /><br />To the team of people in Japan who contributed to this film, thank you for creating and doing it. | positive |
"Bride of Chucky" is one of the better horror movies to come out in the past ten years and could be one of the best horror films of the 90's.<br /><br />**SPOILERS**<br /><br />Chucky's girlfriend, Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) manages to find his battered remains after being sucked into the fan at the end of part 3 and brings him to life in her trailer park. Her neighbor, Jessie (Nick Stabile) and his girlfriend Jade (Katherine Heigl) are being tormented by her uncle. (John Ritter) Tiffany upsets Chucky when he refuses to marry her, so she buys a doll for him to play with. Chucky kills Tiffany, and then transfers her soul into the doll she got him. In order for them to be placed back into human bodies, they have to travel to New Jersey to retrieve an amulet to do so. Jessie sees this as an opportunity to escape from Ritter, and they set out on the journey, but not before Ritter is killed by Chucky and Tiffany. Along the way, several bizarre incidents force them to stop at a bed and breakfast. When several more people are killed, they call up their best friend (Gordon Woolvett) to straighten out the situation. They convince him neither one of them are the killers, as the police have began to solve the crimes. He finds Ritter's body in a trunk in the back of the van. Thinking he has been set up, he confronts them about it. Chucky and Tiffany then turn real to prove they did it, which gets Woolvett killed. The group steals a motor home and arrives at the cemetery. Jessie and Jade get Chucky and Tiffany to turn on each other, giving them enough to escape. Chucky recaptures Jade and forces her to get his amulet. Chucky and Tiffany restart their feud, which gives Jessie and Jade enough time to kill the both of them as the police arrive and clears them of the crimes.<br /><br />The Good News: I have to give the most amount of props to the FX department, as Chucky and Tiffany as dolls look completely convincing. The scenes with them together are the movies main highlights, including a hilarious conversation where Tiffany advises Chucky on how serial killers in the 90's work. That being said, the amount of one-liners in this movie that are actually funny is incredible. Chucky gets the most of them, but Tiffany cracks a few gems as well. It is actually funnier than what Hollywood calls comedies these days. The gore is plentiful and shockingly realistic. Several deaths in this movie are actually original and creative. Turning Ritter into a new form of Pinhead was a totally brilliant scene. The honeymooning couple was a nice death scene, as well. For teenage love, the pairing of Stabile and Heigl works great. They have a great chemistry together and actually behave like a normal couple. I also have to admit that the first time I saw this movie, I did jump during certain scenes, and that shows what an incredible job director Yu did. He learned enough, apparently, to do the same thing with "Freddy vs. Jason." He knows how to stage set-ups and pay-offs, and here he shows some great skills that have a Hong Kong influenced look and style. He could be the next great horror director if he keeps filling up his resume with films like those two. Nice soundtrack, too, like "Freddy vs. Jason."<br /><br />The Bad News: For fans of cheesy movies, this will be a great find. However, this film has a high cheese factor that may prevent the serious horror movie fan from having a good time enjoying this film. The film knows it is a cheesy movie and revels in it, making a serious fan turned off because of things like the one-liners. It isn't all that bad of a movie, but it has to be watched in the mind frame that it is a cheesy movie, and that the cheesiness of certain scenes add to the movie, not to take it away. Remove yourself from that state of mind and you may find yourself enjoying this movie.<br /><br />The Final Verdict: Fans of cheesy movies and the other "Child's Play" movies will find a lot to like about this movie. For serious horror fans, take a look at it, but keep in mind that it isn't a serious movie and that the cheesiness is supposed to be there and you might find yourself liking it.<br /><br />Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Brief Nudity on a doll, a shadowy puppet sex scene, some drug use, and numerous drug references. | positive |
I first saw this movie in a theater in France a year or so ago. It came and went with little fanfare, but I enjoyed it for the beauty of the landscape photography and the fascinating wildlife footage. (The story, while nice, is really incidental. If you actually thought about it, there is no way most of what happens could happen in real life.) I just saw it again tonight, here in the States, on DVD. Again, I gather it has very limited distribution. Blockbusters only had one copy of it, and I don't recall it ever playing in the art houses in Cleveland.<br /><br />Seen on my TV, the photography is not as breathtaking, though it is still very beautiful. The wildlife footage is still fascinating. The story of the relationship between the 10-year old child and the fox is even less convincing the second time around, when you know where it's headed.<br /><br />Still, as I said, the story is incidental. It's a beautiful film to watch, and if you like wildlife footage, you should find this fascinating. | positive |
Mark Walhberg in a great role, idolises a rock star to the extent of knowing all his songs, imitating him to perfection, and dressing like him. When the opportunity comes for him to take over his "idol's" role in the band, he jumps at the opportunity. However the role of a rock star may not be what it is cracked up to be... and relationships can change .... This movie certainly struck me as having the theme of what you attain for may not be what you think it is once you get it. Overall a really good movie with great performances from all the cast as well as the two leads, Mark Walhberg and Jennifer Aniston. It did make me feel sad, especially when Emily, (Jennifer Aniston), met up with Chris in Seattle and saw the depths to what he had sunk. If anybody ever dreamed of being a rock star or a groupie they should watch this movie to see that the lifestyle, although glamourous for a while, is very lonely and ultimately not what you may want. | positive |
As a CA resident, I'd like to see the jackholes who were shutting down the electricity plants to raise the prices get some jail time too. <br /><br />I thought the movie was pretty good and has some very informative pieces. While they stuck to how Enron rose and crashed, I found it really interesting. However, when the movie focused on it's anti-Bush slant, it made me wonder if they were really being accurate. <br /><br />It's fine to point out any connection the Republicans had to Enron, but the monster was created while Clinton was president. The CA energy crisis happened under Davis's watch. Both were in office during Enron's abuses, but neither are held accountable in any way. Rather, many minutes are spent on how Bush was friends with Lay. So what? Lay played golf with Clinton and spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Why are Democrats given such a free pass in this film? I think most politicians are a waste of our taxpayer money so I'm not partial to either party but I hate feeling like I'm subject to someone's political agenda when I watch a documentary. Yes, politicians deserve some blame, but I really doubt that the only guilty one's have Rs after their names. I found no value in portraying the Bush's as Kay-lovers when Democrats received just as much Enron campaign money as Republicans did. Like I said, it weakens the rest of the film for me because it makes me suspicious of the rest of the facts they lay out. | negative |
Written and acted by sincere amateurs, produced by some exploitation monger, this is dull and hard to watch.<br /><br />Not the worst movie ever, but at least schlock like _Plan 9 From Outer Space_ usually had a real actor or two. I'd recommend _A Thief In The Night_ only to hardcore ironists and hardcore Dispensationalists. I'm neither.<br /><br />Don't believe me? Watch it for free (albeit sourced from poor VHS) here: http://www.archive.org/details/Thief-In-The-Night<br /><br />Relevant links added mostly to reach IMDb's 10-line minimum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/3199/thief-in-the-night-se-a/ | negative |
This movie is not what it appears to be. Clint Eastwood is not Dirty Harry or a "cowboy" here. The movie's appeal comes from its careful manipulation of atmosphere and theme. It's a Gothic tale set in the Civil War and as such all the film's "action", or lack thereof, takes place inside a house populated by Southern Belles of all ages and shapes.<br /><br />The horror comes from viewing the whole story through the eyes of the Clint Eastwood character. Seeing him stranded in the house and held captive by the women is a very "beguiling" experience indeed. And who is "beguiled" here exactly? Are the women beguiled by Eastwood's incredible looks? Are we, the viewers, beguiled by both his sexual allure and the potential deviant sexualities it unleashes? Or does "beguiled" refer to what the director does here-- holds us enthralled for a short space only to (maybe)let us go? Don Siegel does all of the above in one of the most memorable and disturbing films I had the pleasure of watching. | positive |
All of the people reviewing this film, and probably many professional film reviewers, just don't get it. This film was made with matting sequences and art techniques quite like the works of the great Czech filmmaker, Karel Zeman. If you want to know what I'm talking about, I suggest you get any of Zeman's films, such as The Fabulous World of Jules Verne, Baron Munchausen, Journey to the Beginning of Time, or On The Comet. If you are unable to locate a film, then read the reviews in AMG. They will explain the processes used. If one were to look at Zeman's work and try to compare it to any of the other sci/fi fantasy films of the time, viewers probably wouldn't have gotten it then either. It is unfair to compare either of these filmmakers' styles to the standard technologies of the day, because both Zemen and Hines "do not compute". They have a style that is unique to them and should be judged for their creativity only. If you look at this film from a perspective where you KNOW that he intentionally tried to create a pastiche collage of mattes mixed with live action, you could easily come to the conclusion that he did a masterful job. It isn't easy making a bunch of computer cutouts flow. I thought that the creatures were also quite good, also considering how they were made. Hines took a great gamble, and I think his film will not be fairly judged for years to come. Someone promoting the film should have tipped the audience off as to what they would be seeing, rather than let them blindly go into the theater expecting the usual CG work. Regarding the actors, I think Hines also took a page from Zemen's book, in that many of Zemen's actors were somewhat expressionless at first, but became much more engaging as the film and action went on. It is totally refreshing to me to have this movie in my library. I will watch it for years to come, all three great hours of it. | positive |
Pretty pictures with a cool sound track do not constitute a 'movie'. Like all pop promos, MDH's pretentions are are outdone only by its' unjustifiable budget. One dollar spent on this aimless, purposeless dross was one dollar too many. Stick to penning pop songs Bono. | negative |
The first half of the movie is not that bad actually. Although there's not really too much depth in the characters, the story is somehow funny and generally OK with potential to get better, which it doesn't.<br /><br />In the second half things start to turn for the worse, not only for the characters in the movie, but also for the viewer, who will be basically waiting for the story to come to its obvious end.<br /><br />The previous user comment mentioned: "It's a love story, a road movie, a thriller, a comedy of errors, an 80's movie and most of all, it's a Jonathan Demme movie."<br /><br />Well, please allow me to rephrase that: "It's a boy gets girl story, they happen to be driving around in cars, the thrill is gone as it is all too clear how things will evolve, there wasn't any scene in this film to which one might laugh out loud, it does have some slight 80's feeling and yes, Jonathan Demme really was the director." | negative |
I enjoyed the first reviewer's comment far more than I did the film when I saw it at a second-run theatre in the early '80's. I was impressed then by the care taken to create costumes modelled so closely after the Tenniel drawings. But to me, the cast was largely squandered, their personalities muffled by the masks, while the direction I think of as being unusually static, and the photography murky. The rating jotted down at the time was a nought, which means "not worth sitting through even once".<br /><br />Still, I too would jump at a chance to have a second look. | negative |
"Nobi" or "Fires On the Plain" is a film that is so excellent on so many levels, that not enough good things can be said about it. My only regret is that I was not able to see this 1959 film sooner.<br /><br />Being something of a film purist, I tend to look at films for their artistic merits based upon dialog, acting, photography and even the efforts to remain true to the period in terms of costume. Ultimately, I want to know if the film is "truthful" enough in revealing the human condition to make me think without oppressing me with what the director wants me to think.<br /><br />"Fires on the Plain" is a great film because it crafts a portrait filled with realistic human reactions to the dying fires of a great historical catastrophe.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is a condemnation of war on all levels -- as any good war film should be. War is horrifying, bloody, destructive. It is also murderous on the psyche. However, what is fundamental about "Fires on the Plain" is its unapologetic look at the Japanese soldiers. It shows them slowly collapsing under the weight of superior American firepower and their nation's inability to wage a war of its own making. A fatalistic code encouraging death before surrender is at the heart of this madness.<br /><br />I was astonished to see such an honest and brutally close look at the bitter fruits of Japan's military misadventure made just 14 years after the end of what the Japanese call the "Great Pacific War." Ichikawa, reveals what the Germans called the "war life," the plight of the common soldier.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is interesting, since even today Japan is having a hard time fully coming to terms with its wartime fanaticism, its subjugation of conquered peoples, the racism of its war against the Chinese and war crimes which included cannibalism by soldiers and officers practiced not only against one another, but against Allied prisoners of war.<br /><br />Ichikawa produces a stark representation of the victimization of soldiers by a confluence of bad political decisions and cultural pressures.<br /><br />This stark examination is skillfully done by portraying the doomed soldiers as human beings who exhibit, at various times, fear, brilliantly laconic humor, dialog enriched by its sparseness, and a plot whose complexity is belied by the grim, wilderness setting.<br /><br />Ichikawa's portrait is a ragged and painful tapestry of defeated men. The tubercular Tamura, played as a woebegone and gentle soul by Eiji Funakoshi, is a good soldier who can't abandon his humanity, though he is as frightened and lost as his comrades. Before he departs for a hospital that will reject him as too healthy, Tamura is given a hand grenade by a superior who, recognizing the hopelessness of their situation, advises Tamura to kill himself.<br /><br />Why Tamura's hopelessly ill-supplied and militarily incapable unit was not ordered to surrender at the start of the film is telling. Ichikawa makes it plain that the war is over and everyone is merely waiting to die. As Tamura leaves his unit for his hopeless search for physical and spiritual salvation, he sees his comrades pointlessly digging an air raid shelter. They appear like corpses looking up from their own mass grave.<br /><br />We later watch as the overworked hospital's medical staff abandons the dying patients to an all-consuming American artillery barrage. The pathetic patients, who crawl from their huts in a vain attempt to survive, appear like pathetic, serpentine creatures dragging themselves from an omnipotent force. You know they won't survive.<br /><br />Ichikawa makes it plain that the only thing worse than a defeated army is one that has lost its honor by abandoning its humanity and its comrades. As Tamura staggers through the jungles of Leyte we encounter the noble, the dying and the exploitive. Cannibalism rears its ugly head as soldiers begin to eat one another rather than surrender to American "corned beef."<br /><br />When the men do talk of surrender, the propaganda of how Americans kills prisoners is countered by a worldly-wise soldier who reveals that the approaching Americans feed and care for prisoners of war because they, unlike the Japanese, respect brave soldiers who are forced to give up.<br /><br />It is the Japanese who intend to die fighting for the Emperor long after resistance has lost all meaning. Those willing to fight to the death will be killed. It is the calculus of war.<br /><br />After shooting a murderous and cannibalistic comrade, whom he earlier offered his own body to as food, the fatalistic Tamura's careless surrender also seems to be an intentional form of suicide. His death is a lonely image. Was Ichikawa trying to tell us of the internal conflict of the ordinary soldier who wants to live, but who is still trapped by his nation's suicidal cultural codes?<br /><br />If someone watches this film carefully, he or she will see that absolutism and fanaticism is the enemy. The Americans are portrayed as a technologically advanced people willing to employ that technology in the form of inexorable military power -- a lesson that transformed Japanese postwar society. Ichikawa's film isn't so shallow that it indicts America. Ichikawa indicts the sedimentary layers of Japan's destructive policies that created the war and then to continue it when all was lost.<br /><br />Ichikawa does not mention the nuclear weapons dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He doesn't have to. The slow-motion destruction of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines reveals the seeds of Japan's immolation. | positive |
The emergence of Quentin Tarantino and his dubious influence on the likes of Guy Ritchie may have triggered the wave of appalling British gangster flicks we've been bequeathed over the past few years, but one of our most famous acting exports only serves to perpetuate the cycle by lending his considerable name to trash like this. I only wish he'd taken a moment to consider before choosing this project for the same reasons of personal gain he admits he often employs. It's not only stifling HIS talent, but possibly the promise of future originality from British films. <br /><br />Not one of this film's characters are likeable or even remotely realistic, and the dialogue consists of the usual empty threats and colourful language. Caine doesn't give the material any more effort than it deserves, either. If this was meant to be in the style of a tragic fall from grace a la "King Lear", it would've helped immensely had I cared about the ultimate fate of the principals, instead of just wishing that they'd get mired in the quicksand of life and dragged under almost immediately.<br /><br /> | negative |
I have a feeling that Dr. Dolittle was intended for an audience composed entirely of children. I think I would have had a better time if I sat at home and watched a sit-com. My favorite characters in the movie were the pet hamster and the two alley mice. | negative |
Recently when i was shopping, i saw the box-set of Americian Gothic, and i thought 'I remember that!' I used to set my alarm to get back up & watch this when it was on CH 4 in 1996 at 1.30am (i was 14). I remember it mostly because it was really scary and weird, no person could ever be as frightening as Lucas Buck (with a B!!) No one ever was anyway. <br /><br />What annoyed me though was they did the same thing to the box-set as when on TV. Episodes in funny order, I kept thinking when does Dr Matt leave??? - they made it so confusing. <br /><br />However this is not the writers, producers or directors fault (its TV people in background the money makers They still do the same - Just look at shows like Carnivale and Farscape they don't like originality in studios!!!!!)<br /><br />To finish - If you've not seen this and you call yourself a Sci-Fi Fantasy, Horror, supernatural drama..Fan = YOU MUST. They even said the same in SFX when reviewing the box-set. | positive |
Not many reviews, hence thought i would add one.<br /><br />DO NOT GO BY THE OTHER REVIEWS! This was a excellent movie.<br /><br />RKS is one of the very few Indian directors that can actually put together a really good movie.<br /><br />AB and Akshay given yet another example of great acting, as does bhoomika too, which was a little unexpected, but great to watch.<br /><br />Am surprised there has not been much hype around release.<br /><br />Or filmfare/other awards nominations, considering how good the movie was.<br /><br />Better then Khakee i thought and i thought Khakkee too was good movie.<br /><br />Is a fairly long movie, but definitely worth it and while watching it, definitely does seem long.<br /><br />Cant wait for RKS next movie and the next AB, Akshay movie they always seem to do well together... e.g. waqt.<br /><br />Bhoomika too has acted really well in the movie and should do really well if she continue in the same fashion in the future. | positive |
Although I had previously watched this one some time ago on Italian TV, I found it to be a surprisingly tolerable potboiler this time round, buoyed by an international cast of familiar faces (including a bemused Joseph Cotten as the Baron) and, contrary to many another film of the Euro-Cult sub-genre, an incident-packed plot in place of lethargic pacing.<br /><br />The creature itself looks a bit dodgy and Cotten is a bit too old to be taken seriously as an eager scientist still dabbling in creating life-forms out of corpses (one would have thought that he would have made himself an army of them by now and not struggling at perfecting his technique still) but Ms. Neri does look good in and out of costume and reliable Herbert Fux probably comes off best as a lecherous grave-robber/blackmailer. | negative |
I suppose all the inside jokes is what made Munchies a cult classic. I thought it was awful, though given the ridiculous story and the nature of the characters, it probably could've been a much better (and funnier) movie. Maybe all they needed was a real budget.<br /><br />Munchies, as many viewers have pointed out already, is something of a Gremlins parody. Hence, all the references to the movie. The movie begins somewhere in Peru during an archeological dig. An annoying dufus named Paul, aspiring stand up comedian who offers no sarcasm or witty jokes during the movie despite his career plans, is holed up with his dad in the caves. His dad is an unconventional kind of archeologist, searching the caves not for artificats or mummies or anything, but proof of U.F.O.'s. And that's where the Munchies come into the picture. Hidden in the crevice of a rock is an ugly little mutant that looks like a gyrating rubber doll with a Gizmo voice. They name him Arnold, stash him in a bag, and bring him home so Paul's dad can finally show proof of extra terrestrial life.<br /><br />Paul, the idiot that he is, breaks his promise to his dad to watch Arnold (a wager he made with his dad, if he loses, it's off to community college to get a 'real' career). The creepy next door neighbor with the bad rug, Cecil (television veteran Harvey Korman), wonders what his neighbors are up to. So, he and his lazy son, some airhead hippie type (who looks more like they should've made his character a biker or heavy metal enthusiast) to go and snatch Arnold. Why? A get rich quick scheme of course. And of course, even Cecil's son is too dumb to look after Arnold. And after a few pokes and prods at Arnold, he multiplies into more Munchies.<br /><br />This wasn't even a movie that was so bad it was good. It was just plain awful. I was hoping that the Munchies would've mutated and killed the morons that were always after them, even Paul and his girlfriend. At least it would be one way to get rid of all the bad acting in this movie that really hams up the movie. Not to mention poor special effects that look like hand puppets. And really bad writing all around--it wasn't even funny--not even that young cop who can really give you the homicidal twitch in your eye. Like I said, Munchies, if they had been given an actual budget and better actors, they might've been able to pull off a good parody. Pass. | negative |
I went into this film really wanting to like it - it headlined a film festival earlier in the year, and boasted an all-star cast. But (and you could tell there was a "but" coming) it's a failure of a film. Outstanding character acting by Sarandon and Walken is destroyed by editing and the antics of the supporting cast. Turturro's performance is lackluster, and most of the comedy is overplayed. The recurring puppet shows are pointless, and a few scenes are completely out of place.<br /><br />That said, there are some wonderful moments sprinkled in the film. A genuinely touching stage moment, several of the seductions, and a few of the comedic color actually work out. Unfortunately, they're overshadowed by the diffuse, incoherent script and some bad acting. | negative |
Opening with some blatantly reused footage from 'Kit for Cat', 'Tweety's S.O.S' fails to live up to that classic cartoon. Instead, we get an example of Friz Freleng's Tweety and Sylvester series at its most generic. Unlike Chuck Jones's Road Runner series, which strived to introduce new jokes to the same setting, Freleng's series seemed happy enough to recycle jokes as long as the characters were in a different place. 'Tweety's S.O.S', then, basically amounts to "this time let's put 'em on a boat". It's not an entirely weak cartoon. There are a few good jokes, mostly involving Granny's glasses, but they are outweighed by gags you can see coming a mile off (the seasickness routine) and it all builds to another of those endings where someone else other than Tweety says "I tawt I taw a putty tat", a joke that worked well once but has diminishing returns. 'Tweety's S.O.S' will probably please children who enjoy virtually any cartoon but for big kids like me who are looking for more than the same tired gags it's definitely one to avoid. | negative |
When Gundam0079 became the movie trilogy most of us are familiar with, a lot of it was sheer action and less of anything else. This OVA is kinda the opposite. Though there're only half a dozen episodes, it isn't filled with action, but emotional things. The two main action sequences in this, I believe, are enough to satisfy me. After seeing so many gundam series, movies, and OVAs, I was completely ready for a civilian-esquire movie. This movie did a fantastic job of that. What makes this movie stand out is that shows both sides of the war have good and bad people. It made the Zeons seem more human rather than the original movies where they're depicted as the second rise of evil Nazis. Most people that don't like anime that I've forced to watch this movie (lol), liked it. So, I'd recommend it to a lot of people just for the anti-war story. If you're a Gundam fan, and haven't seen this, you shouldn't be reading this; you should already be watching it right now. | positive |
Princess Warrior is a science fiction action movie with a pretty thin plot-essentially on the death of their queen mother two sisters, one evil and one good, fight for control of the throne. The good sister is being beaten so she escapes to Earth where she appears buck naked in a strip club in the middle of a wet t-shirt contest. The rest of the movie is basically one long chase scene, as the evil sister tries to find and kill the younger good sister. But the younger sister is helped by Bob, a good-hearted DJ, and everything is complicated by police involvement and the good sister's ignorance of Earth customs and culture. The older sister catches up to her younger sibling several times but the latter manages to escape and go on the run again. Throughout all of this action, there is a cult of women on the home planet having some kind of a space age séance to bring the good sister back. Sadly a good portion of this film seems to be rather boring car chase scenes as they drive around Los Angeles (and what was that sound effect when the police car crashed???) The film culminates in another physical fight between the sisters with a predictable ending.<br /><br />It seems to borrow elements from Star Wars (the light sabers and the look of the girls' home planet in the opening and subsequent scenes), Dr. Who (the phone booth like means of transportation) and some of the costumes (from the cult on the home planet) could have been taken from Star Trek episodes.<br /><br />Ms. Dana Fredsti (the evil sister in the movie) in another user comment mentioned "the endless (and dull) wet T-shirt contest. It is seriously the longest wet T-shirt contest in cinema history. And the only one where the contestants were wearing industrial strength cotton-polyester shirts that defied all efforts to get them wet and translucent." I couldn't state it any better. The only thing I would add is that the music in this scene is just plain annoying.<br /><br />Most of the acting is pretty over the top, but that seems to suit the whole style of the movie. The actors playing Vinnie and Vito were just too much for me-I just found them annoying. Ms. Fredsti (Curette) seemed to be enjoying herself and not taking the whole thing too seriously, in contrast to Sharon Lee Jones who acted decently but seemed to be taking everything more seriously. All of the police were portrayed as bumbling idiots, presumably to add comic relief, which is a bit unnecessary, given that the whole movie was rather comical.<br /><br />From a ratings perspective, this film had a lot of foul language; some topless women and others scantily clad in thongs, but not enough skin to satisfy those who are looking for nudity; one sex scene that was portrayed in a non-graphic arty dreamlike fashion; and little violence-while there were threats of violence throughout, the scenes of both sword fighting and brawling were exaggerated, and too camp to be "offensive", though it looked like the actors were having a lot of fun with it.<br /><br />I have to wonder who came up with the character names? Ovule (a small egg), Curette (a surgical instrument used for scraping and cleaning), Exzema (suspiciously similar to a disease characterized by scaling skin and pruritus), Bulemia (an eating disorder with binging and purging) and Rickettsia (another disease)? <br /><br />Overall, this is a bad, low budget, campy, sci-fi action movie, but it did keep me entertained, though I might need a few drinks before watching it again. | negative |
I am a massive fan of the book and Orwell is certainly my favourite writer ever since studying Animal Farm at GCSE. I bought the DVD out of sheer curiosity, Burton is an actor I hold in high regard so when I heard that he played the role of O'Brien I was swung.<br /><br />I watched the trailer on the DVD first and some fears started to set in, mostly regarding the frankly terrible "Theme song", hearing the Eurythmics mechanically shouting "1984!" over and over again to an electronic beat is as bad as it sounds.<br /><br />The acting on a whole is pretty good, Burton and Hurt play their roles well and the tension that exists in the Ministry of Truth towards the end can be felt, especially in the harrowing Room 101 scene. However this is also where the movie is let down. The movie spends too much time focusing on the Love affair between Winston and Julia, which frankly isn't what Orwell was writing about. He was writing about a harrowing future, about how Ingsoc build up a mans beliefs and then shatter them all in the name of him being made to love Big Brother. The movie skips over what is essentially the most important part of the book, Winstons coming to terms with his position in life and the world, and his re-education via O'Brien.<br /><br />The comment on IMDb at the moment states that the movie sticks to the book is completely incorrect. Julia is not present when Winston visits O'Brien, they do not commit themselves to Goldstien's Brotherhood and confess their crimes. There is no obvious mention of the initial instances where Winston finds the article with the Unpersons but it does get mentioned near the end, if you have not read the book it is completely confusing.<br /><br />A terrible screenplay, which some excellent acting cannot rescue. Michael Radford seems to have completely missed the point Orwell was trying to make, and the electronica sound track is frankly terrible. | negative |
i watched it because my friend said we could try it, when my father asked if we'd watch it. i didn't want to because it was such an old film, how could that be good ? i finally did watch with that friend and my father. my friend and i loved the film. the songs are great, the actors were cool and we were crazy about it. i guess this shows even though it's from dad's time that doesn't mean it can't be a good film. i bought the film not so long after seeing it on TV, i put it on a lot and sang along with the songs. i even watched it with my classmates on my birthday party. it's a nice, good, and sometimes funny film.<br /><br />if you don't try, you can't say it's bad. even if you think no, i'm not going to watch a film from dad's time. try the first part of the film you can always stop watching if you don't like it. i really recommend it, it's great!! | positive |
Tyra Banks needs to teach these girls that it's not all about being beautiful on the outside. The inside counts for something too. A lot of the past winners have looked semi decent but are horribly cruel and starting trouble for the other girls. I see Tyra less involved with the girls in every season. About the only thing worth watching Top Model for is Mr. Jay Manuel. Recently, Tyra had a contestant who was a pre-op transsexual. I felt that she should have done more to encourage her. It was obvious that she had insecurities about her original anatomy showing through her feminine look. Tyra should have given her tips or perhaps she could have sent resident Trannie Ms. Jay to help the girl out. Instead, the contestant was met with harsh criticism and not enough positive criticism. It's a shame because I truly enjoyed the first 3 seasons. There's a reason why Project Runway has all 4 seasons out on DVD and Top Model only has 1 season on DVD. It's called taste. Top Model seriously needs a lot of revamping an some more humanity. | negative |
Wow, could have been such a good movie,Starts of with Brittany Daniels tied up, Im thinking cool we are going to get a flash back, but nothing, movie starts anew with the kid filming. This movie probably would have been better if it wasn't for the acting. I mean the acting was mostly horrible.. Although with the lines the poor actors had to deal with i guess they did the best they could..Still it really ruin the movie for me.. The twins were the only ones that seem to have some acting skills.. The movie drags to long for the supposed shocking conclusion.. All in all I have seen worse low budget movies but considering this was hype with the 8 films to die for I was very disappointed.. By the way, were did some reviewers say there was gore and stuff. Did I see the same movie.. Well this is 4 out of the eight, and so far only one has been any good.. | negative |
I once caught about a 20 minute portion of this movie on Turner Classic Movies about 6 months back. I thought every minute of what I was watching was gold, and, because it was somewhere in the film's middle and I didn't want to spoil the whole thing if I were to watch it from the start, I decided that I would rent it immediately. Well, the video store which I frequent did not have a copy, so it took me six months to finally go somewhere else and rent it. I had previous to that experience only seen some Chaplin shorts, funny but not greatly artful, but after I saw the snippet of The Great Dictator, I checked out three of his other films, City Lights, The Gold Rush, and Modern Times (City Lights was great, I found the Gold Rush a little overrated, but still worthwhile, and I found Modern Times to be one of the funniest films I've ever seen (second funniest, behind Keaton's Sherlock Jr., more exactly).<br /><br />Finally, the whole of the Great Dictator. Well, to be honest, it had its moments, both of comedy and of drama. But these moments don't always mix well. Chaplin's comedy worked well when mixed with melodrama (City Lights is the best example of this), but it didn't always work with social commentary. Plus, the fact that there was dialogue lessened the impressiveness of Chaplin's talent. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie as a whole, but I thought it of little consequence. I would have given it a solid 7/10 on the ratings scale...if not for the ending. The final speech that the Jewish barber gives is enormously powerful. Yes, it is adressed to the tempora et mores of 1940, but his message is perfectly applicable to the world today. The speech brought me to tears, and I consider it one of the best endings I've ever seen. Final score: 8/10. | positive |
I don't want to go too far into detail, because I can't really justify wasting much time on reviewing this film, but I had to give an alternate opinion to hopefully help people avoid the movie. The animation is crud and the story alternates between boring/pointless to extremely irritating. The humor was completely lost on the audience, and yes - Ghost in the Shell fans, this is NOT an action sci-fi or anything like that - its an attempt at slapstick comedy, and the humor just did not work after being translated. It was a total chore to watch this movie, and horrible way for me to kick off the film fest, especially considering how excited I was and how open I was for anything - I wasn't expecting a Ghost in the Shell sequel, but I was expecting something entertaining, and it simply didn't achieve this. Yaaawwnnn... Rent Kino's Journey instead. | negative |
This straight to video cheap flick is based on a true story. I don't doubt it. Doesn't mean it's particularly interesting (unless you are one of the main characters who actually lived though this experience). A young woman named Angela buys a great, big old country home really really cheap. Well, as we all know from watching Horror movies, when you buy a big house cheap it usually means it's haunted in some way, shape or form. In fact, the second the house is being handed over to Angela the wise guy kid who lived in the house up to now takes a moment to "introduce" Angela to one of the ghosts! Nice guy, huh? Angela gets in touch with a psychic and a paranormal expert and tells them that her house is haunted and invites them to come over and see the ghosts for themselves. They come to a party and sure enough there are ghosts walking around, sitting on the couch, hanging in the garage and trying to seduce people in the bathroom. A few friends sleep over the night of the party, see the ghosts and vow never to come back in the house again. (Check out the girl who deadpans "I'm so scared. I'm so scared." totally emotionless. If she was so scared why didn't she get up, turn the knob and leave?!) The ghosts don't really do anything menacing aside from show up (And there is no blurriness or aura about them. They look just like regular people). They steal celery from the kitchen, move chairs around a la POLTERGEIST and one bisexual female ghost seduces Angela, who, get this, doesn't seem to mind! This scene plays like the kind of soft-core porn you see on the SPICE channel. (Ummm...not that I'd KNOW! Hahaha). The actresses aren't your typical porn stars though. They should hit the beach and the gym more. When Angela'ss NOT making love to the dead she gets mad at them and stands alone in a room screaming "Why won't you leave?! This is MY house! Get out!" They don't leave. I couldn't help but think of all the times I've heard psychic Sylvia Brown on TV saying that if you have a ghost in your house you should calmly rationalize with the ghost and say "Look, you're dead. It's time to cross over to the other side. In other words, get out!" According to Sylvia Brown, as long as your not hostile and nasty about it, they'll leave! This movie looks like it cost about $50 to make. It has a really cheap feel, and bad acting. I could have made this movie with 5 friends and a camcorder. | negative |
This film is a very good movie.The way how the everybody portrayed their roles was great.The story is nice.It tells us about Raj who is in love with Priya.They get married.She later becomes pregnant.But shortly their is a problem.Sadly they wont get the child.Raj later meets Madhu.He bribes her.She later becomes pregnant but she is not married to him.The movie is very good.The dialogues are wonderful.The songs are melodious to listen.The picturisations are good.The wedding song is very colourful.Salman,Rani,Preity were excellent. .The cinematography is excellent.The film is beautifully pictured in Swiztertland.The cast makes the movie great to watch.Worth the money and time.. Rating-8/10 | positive |
This movie was for a while in my collection, but it wasn't before a friend of mine reminded me about it until I decided that I should watch it. I did not know much about Close to Leo just that it was supposed to be excellent coming out of age movie and it deals with a very serious topic Aids. <br /><br />Although the person who has aids is Leo the scenario wraps around the way in which Marcel (the youngest brother of Leo) coupes with the sickness of his relative. At first everyone is trying to hide the truth from Marcel he is believed to be too young to understand the sickness of his brother the fact that Leo is also a homosexual contributes to the unwillingness of the parents to discus the matter with the young Marcel. I know from experience that on many occasions most older people do not want to accept the fact that sometimes even when someone is young this does not automatically means that he will not be able to accept the reality and act in more adequate manner then even themselves . With exception of the fact that the family tried to conceal the truth from Marcel, they have left quite an impression for me the way they supported their son even after discovering the truth about his sexuality and his sickness. The fact that they allowed the young Marcel to travel along with Leo to Paris to meet his ex boyfriend was quite a gesture from them most families I know will be reluctant to do that. There is a lot of warmth in the scenes in which the brothers spend some time together you can see them being real friends , concern about each other.<br /><br />Close to Leo is an excellent drama, which I strongly recommend | positive |
It's Bad for Ya really showcases more of George Carlin's talents. He really is still as sharp as a tack. It is a shame that we lost him this past year, but his comedy will forever live on. This stand-up special is literally one of the funniest I have ever heard a comedian perform. Even though he is making fun of small children, it just makes you laugh the way he says some of the stuff. It is true that Carlin can literally make something that seems unfunny and turn it into one of the funniest things you have ever and will ever hear. I really enjoyed this stand-up particularly from Carlin and recommend that those that liked this check out more of George Carlin's stand-up. | positive |
What a time we live in when someone like this Joe Swan-whatever the hell is considered a good filmmaker...or even a filmmaker at all! Where are the new crop of filmmakers with brains AND talent??? We need them bad, and to hell with mumblecore!<br /><br />This movie is about nothing, just as the characters in the film stand for nothing. It's this horrible, so-called Gen Y, that is full of bored idiots, some of which declare themselves filmmakers with out bothering to learn anything about the craft before shooting. Well, Orson Welles was a filmmaker. John Huston was a filmmaker. Fellini was a filmmaker. Dreyer was a filmmaker, etc. Current films like these show just how stupid young, so-called "filmmakers" can be when they believe going out with no script, no direction, no thought, no legit "camerawork" (everything shot horribly on DV), no craft of editing, no nothing, stands for "rebellious" or "advanced" film-making. Nope, it's called ignorance and laziness or just pure masturbation of cinema (and there actually is an in-your-face "jack-off shot," so be ready). <br /><br />Look at the early films of any accomplished "indie" filmmaker: Linklatter, Morris, Allen, Lynch, Hartley, Jarmusch, Jost, Lee, or Herzog...none made anything as tedious and aimless as this, yet Swan-whatever the hell, is still going to SXSW every year and hailed as some kind of gutsy, new talent. It's crap! I can't imagine anyone liking this, and everything else this so-called filmmaker has done (all seen by me) is just as bad (the newer stuff clearly made to appeal to a more mainstream audience, one of the sitcom calling). Steer clear, unless you're a friend or family member of those involved...on second thought, if you're a family member or friend you'd probably be embarrassed to see a family member or friend in such compromising situations...<br /><br />Utter garbage. This isn't art. This is the ultimate opposite of it. | negative |
This movie deserves credit for its original approach. It combines elements of theater, film, and epic storytelling. Unfortunately, it falls flat on all levels. The films biggest weakness is it's unwillingness to commit to anything; it has camp, moralistic, and epic elements without ever committing to any of them. As for the story itself, Chretien de Troyes is spinning in his grave at this horrible adaptation which turns the lovable, unbearably innocent Percival into a most ungallant and rude churl.<br /><br />Most likely two types of people will see this, francophiles or Arthuriophiles. Speaking as one of the latter, I found the movie unwatchable and an incredibly shabby, disrespectful treatment of a beautiful story. | negative |
I understand "Checking Out" will likely be released in Theatres in the USA in June 2006, and on DVD in November 2006. My recommendation is to not miss "Checking Out"!! This Comedy Film will entertain everyone, who will all relate to the characters, family relationships and multiple social issues that are portrayed. "Checking Out" will make you laugh throughout with quick fire clever humor built into almost every line, and may make you poignantly cry in a touching positive way as well. <br /><br />The subject of suicide is dealt with in a comical way, that at the same time may help people considering it understand the impacts this act may have on those their life has touched and on those who love them. Lets hope that "Checking Out" can have a positive impact and help prevent those considering suicide from acting it out, especially in the 16-25 age group that has the highest rate of suicide in the USA. <br /><br />The script is wonderfully written, perfectly casted, and loaded with synchronicity and meaningful flashbacks in time, whose significance become more apparent throughout the film and especially at the ending. I believe the script is worthy of an Academy Award Nomination for "Best Screenplay, Play to a Movie" ( The Phoenix Film Festival honored "Checking Out" with a "Best Screenplay Award" ).<br /><br />The cast is loaded with great actors that out do themselves, and have a long track record of great performances, acting award nominations and wins. I feel Peter Falk's performance in "Checking Out" is worthy of an Academy Award Nomination, and is the most challenging and wide ranging of his career. Laura San Giacomo's performance and chemistry with Peter Falk as her father is masterful, and was recognized at the Palm Beach International Film Festival with a "Best Actress Award."<br /><br />Even the teenage characters in the movie shine and are played by young acting phenoms Dan Byrd ( Movies: A Cinderalla Story with Hilary Duff; 3 Young Artist Award nominations, Won 1 ) and Mary Elizabeth Winstead ( TV: Monster Island, Wolf Lake, Passions, Touched by an Angel; 2 Young Star Nominations ).<br /><br />Director Jeff Hare and Producer Mark Lane wonderfully develop the characters, their interrelationships, and the story line of this entertaining, enjoyable yet complex script.<br /><br />The film editing keeps the pace of the film moving quickly, only appropriately slowing in the poignant scenes, so that the audience will never loose interest from the beginning to the end.<br /><br />Don't miss this film that you can take the whole family to see and all will enjoy it. | positive |
This movie was nothing like the book. <br /><br />Everything was mixed up or changed. Most of the movie was things that weren't even in the book.<br /><br />This movie never should have been viewed. It was a great disappointment to me when I enjoyed the book so much and then to watch how this movie trashed the entire thing.<br /><br />I would never recommend this movie to anyone that is a fan of Nora Roberts or J.D. Robb.<br /><br />Honestly this movie is not worth watching with how off from the book is really is. | negative |
Every movie critic and metal head hated this movie but I enjoyed it. I saw this as a child on TV somewhere and was amazed by the scene where Sammi comes on stage and plays Trick or Treat by Fastway.<br /><br />The movie itself was typical 80's, guy gets pushed around by bullies and enlists supernatural help to beat up the bullies but goes to far and has to be destroyed.<br /><br />Matt from Melrose Place picks on Skippy from Family Ties so Skippy gets a record of Tony Fields from Gene Simmons to comfort him and all hell breaks lose, the highlight being where Tony sings (lip-synchs) and dances to a metal song before the shyt hits the fan.<br /><br />There were a lot of errors and stuff but the music and the overall imagery was enough to keep my fists pumping 8 out of 10 | positive |
So, Fox pulled the plug midway through a drama/mystery...<br /><br />How lame is that? Do they expect us to invest our time in their new shows when there is a realistic risk of never finding out what happens? Why weren't the remaining, already filmed episodes aired in the US? They were broadcast elsewhere.<br /><br />Hey, Fox! Are you listening? This was a great show, but you left us hanging. If you're going to introduce new drama/mysteries, at least air a conclusion before abruptly ending mid-theme. Every time something like this happens (and it seems to happen a lot with you - i.e., Fox), there are more of those who will "wait and see" before investing their time. This means you will see an artificially low interest share, and are more likely to end the series. See? It is a vicious cycle. Don't let us down again... | positive |
The Williams family live on a ranch located in the middle of the remote desert. They find themselves in considerable peril when the place is suddenly thrust into a time vortex where the past, present and future collide in a wildly chaotic and unpredictable manner. Director John "Bud" Cardos begins the film on a compellingly mysterious note and gradually allows things to get stranger, crazier and more exciting as the loopy story unfolds. Moreover, Cardos fills the screen with plenty of dazzling visuals and does a nice job of creating a genuine sense of awe and wonder. The admirably sincere acting from a game cast qualifies as another major plus: Jim Davis as hearty patriarch Grant Williams, Dorothy Malone as his cheery wife Ana, Christopher Mitchum as the concerned Richard, Marcy Lafferty as his lovely wife Beth, Natasha Ryan as sweet little girl Jenny, and Scott C. Kolden as the gutsy Steve. The funky special effects offer an inspired combo of gnarly miniatures, neat stop-motion animation monsters (said creatures include a tiny spindly hairless guy, a big, lumpy, fanged beast, and a scrawny lizard dude), and nifty matte paintings. Richard Band's rousing full-bore orchestral score really hits the stirring spot. John Arthur Morrill's crisp, sunny cinematography likewise does the trick. A fun flick. | positive |
There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.<br /><br />Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.<br /><br />Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.<br /><br />Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead. | negative |
I'll keep this fast and sweet. Five girls on their way home from a football game decide to take a 'short cut' that leads them down a deserted forest-ridden road. Of course nothing but good things happen to them, and they safely arrive at their destination.<br /><br />Alright, they don't. Soon they're hunted down by a deranged chick who has some severe mental issues, and what ensues is 90 minutes of sheer boredom.<br /><br />I hope to never see any of these actors in any movie ever again. Their screaming, screeching voices gave me a headache, and the script was so poorly written that it included a lot of repeat phrases and nonsensical hysterical screaming. All in all, one of the worst cheap horror flicks I've ever seen...and I've seen a lot. | negative |
I just watched this movie in high definition on television. I am in a wheelchair due to a neuromuscular disorder and like to watch the few films made about those with physical disabilities.<br /><br />At first I found the main character somewhat noble and captivating. His message about the disabled and the life time he spent fighting to have the disabled recognized and integrated into mainstream society's job market is great. And my problem isn't with the real person who did these things. HE was a great man. But this film is completely hypocritical and diametrically opposed to the very message it is preaching, that I found it insulting.<br /><br />First of all, they didn't cast anyone in a title role with an actual physical disability. Sure they were competent actors, but it seems completely dis genuine to preach about hiring the disabled and then not actually HIRING THE DISABLED for anything in the film. Further compounded by the fact that in one scene mid way through the film a man is seen walking to a podium on crutches, appearing to have only one leg. But the CGI in this scene is so apparent it is shameful. What? They couldn't find an actual amputee anywhere for the film? For a 5 second shot it was more financially sound to do CGI effects than to just HIRE an ACTUAL amputee? At that point in the film I found it so fraudulent and completely against the message it was trying to convey that I came here to bitch and whine about it like the pathetic cripple I am.<br /><br />Figure that out. | negative |
I was looking forward to this movie as everyone was talking about it as being a good horror movie, and finally an European one. So, maybe my expectations were to high.<br /><br />It begins with a good quiet horror/shock sequence but it lets you down right away in the following scenes, where the plot begin being introduced, as the acting and the motivation/life of the characters reveals itself no better than any 'made for TV' drama. It keeps that way right into the end.<br /><br />About the horror part of the movie, it is certainly a good idea and a different one, but ALL the scenes are of the 'seen it before' kind.<br /><br />Overall, my idea of this movie was that it had a good concept, which was inserted into a mediocre story, bad acting and less than tolerable plot holes.<br /><br /> | negative |
this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie". | negative |
I have watched THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL with the avowed object of refuting this so called scientific atheist . I don't know where to start as he is such a rich source of stupidity.<br /><br />He is obviously not a statistician else the odds of 2/1 of him burning for all eternity would have pushed him towards belief in God<br /><br />He regards science as religion and expects us to believe him as we do God. One has only to look at the language used in his postulations. <br /><br />Regarding Faith. This commodity is used extensively in everyday behaviour. Just think about it. When he gets in an electrician be believes that it will be wired correctly and trustfully turns on the switch. When he gets in a plumber he pulls the chain in his bathroom and expects the water to flow in the right direction. Regarding faith in science When I was in chemistry class I believed and was taught that the atom was the smallest particle and the onion skin theory of electrons both of which have now been discounted. I was taught this as the atomic theory 'writ in stone' so to speak. So why should we believe any scientist especially when he goes beyond the parameters of his field? Dawkins states that religion will be the downfall of civilisation. Religion is civilisation. Can he, or any other atheist, please tell us what civilisation was founded and nurtured by atheism, barbarism or savagery please? He is now living in the last stages of a Christian based civilisation and taking all the benefits from it without any admission for its source. I found Dawkins to be arrogant, dictatorial, judgmental, an obvious believer in eugenics and a Nazi in his attitude towards the young. How dare he say what a parent can teach their child. The child is theirs, not the nation's and as the parents bequeath to it their genetics, so do they bequeath their beliefs. His dismissal of Adam as "he never existed" as he has no proof was an example of this same attitude. So I have no proof that Joe Blogs lives in New York but he well may do. I just haven't found the proof yet. That does not negate his existence I note his argument with the Bishop of Oxford that the prelate is selective with what he takes and believes in the Bible. Well, Dawkins also does this. Where does he draw the line between it as a historical document and a religious statement? He is also selective. I heard the lot when Dawkins came up with the ALTRUISTIC gene. What a hoot. He is desperately looking for proof for his wackiness and as the Piltdown Man was invented, so now we have this so called ALTRUISTIC gene which predisposes us to looking after our young and other members of our 'group' The trouble is that all animals do this - not just apes, and with evolution it is survival of the fittest. not the kindest and if he really thinks we are becoming kinder as a race he is not reading the same newspapers as I am I found his arrogance beyond belief in declaiming that as we only have this life, we should enjoy it to the full. So how does he equate this with his obvious position as a well off European to a destitute person in Africa who has had all her family wiped out and probably raped and is starving. Will he help her? I note that all his opposition to religion is a) that they go to war. Well G K Chesterton declared that the only war worth fighting was a war for religion b) we are against using contraception and abortion and homosexuality. All sins against the 6th commandment. Funny that.<br /><br />As a Catholic I find his dismissal of Pius XII's pronouncement of the Dogma of the Assumption in 1958 to be erroneous. He , Pius, never said that it was revealed to him while he was sitting somewhere by himself. In case Dawkins does not know it, Revelation ended with the last Apostle. Pius would have taken years of advice and studied documents handed from down over the centuries to have come up with this pronouncement. Also as a Catholic I find his dismissal of all religious people as satisfied. what utter rubbish. We, everyday fight the world, the flesh and the devil. We are the Church Militant. We are also able to glory at a sunset and admire the beauties of nature even if we believe in God. The trouble with Dawkins was that he interviewed whacky zealots and extrapolated them to all of us. | negative |
Firstly, I really enjoyed this movie and its message, which is about daring to live life to the fullest. Very poetic, with heartwarming and funny and sad scenes, very lively, it was a pleasure to watch. Here are my "exceptions" though: The movie was way too long and at some point, it kept adding more and more additional conflicts so that it started to lose the main story line. I disagree though with another comment that its unrealistic to have so many people with "strange" problems in such a small village. I think this was absolutely realistic! There are incredible dramas going on everywhere, we just don't know this about people we meet only superficially. I disliked the ending, which was so loaded with symbolism and extremely forced. It left a bad taste as it was just too much. I did not like it that so many big issues were dramatically mentioned in the group (when some accused others in front of everyone else of major things, people would just be more "ashamed" to voice everything so personal in front of everybody, even if those people are a group one is closely working with). And: defending oneself is a human-beings strongest instinct. So why on earth would Daniel let himself be beaten and never fight back, not even to defend himself? I mean he was not weak, he could at least try to defend himself when attacked but it just drove me mad to see him do nothing. It was as if the storyteller tried to forcefully bring across a message like "violence is not needed", but the way he chose to do this was not good. I am also against violence but the character loses credibility when he stays unmoved despite all the attacks. And: Gabriella...why on earth would a woman, who has spent years with a man beating her up, go to that man when he gets arrested and say "I do not wish you any harm. You have just done your best, like all of us". Oh really, this spoiled so much! Was she going to be a saint or what? It would be normal for her to be bitter but not so almost "holy" and therefore not human. Was her work with Daniel and the music so great that it made her forget all of the s**t that happened to her? Oh, please. So, these were the spoiling moments. Nevertheless, I still think this is a delightful movie all in all, which is amazing enough, given my discomfort with quite a few things. Watch it!! ;-)" | positive |
Warped take on the Pinocchio theme, and set during the Christmas season(..after the previous entry abandoned ties to Christmas) has booby-trapped toys sent to murder a child(..yet through this, other victims are accidentally harmed in the process)perhaps by a toy maker's "son". Screaming Mad George was responsible for the killer toys(..including a larvae which enters a victim's mouth and out his eye, another where soldier toys actually shoot real bullets at a babysitter after her boyfriend was practically strangled by a severed hand toy, operating from a remote control). The little target is a mute child named Derek(William Thorne)whose stepdad was murdered by a red ball with extending arms that ensnare his face, causing him to land on a fireplace poker. Mother Sarah(Jane Higginson)worries about her son's mental state, figuring his reluctance towards opening presents or, more importantly, talking, derives from watching her husband's horrific murder. Derek's real father, Noah(Tracy Fraim)fears for his son't safety, and informs, reluctantly, his ex-girlfriend Sarah that the local toymaker, Joe Petto(Mickey Rooney)once was arrested for setting traps in toys to harm kids due to the loss of an unborn child when his wife was killed in a car crash..kind of a retaliation in saying that if he couldn't have a son, then others shouldn't either. Still quite a heavy drinker(..often seen swigging Jack), Petto seems to have set aside his feelings towards kids, but his creepy son Pino(Brian Bremer)hasn't and Derek he harbors angst towards. Why? You'll soon understand.<br /><br />Pretty disappointing special effects and rather goofy premise. Rooney's name adds an allure to the film, gaining it a notoriety, but his histrionics can only help so much. Attractive lead actress Higginson(Slaughterhouse)and Fraim as the man who re-enters her life aren't so bad, but the lame plot that develops is hard to take seriously. I'm guessing that's the point, but Rooney has no reason to be in such a film as this..he has no room to bring any personality to his toymaker other than rage and desperation, quite volatile, barely holding himself together as he explodes in anger towards Pino, when not downing liquor. Bremer is appropriately weird and "robotic" as Pino, longing to have Sarah as his mama. The practical effects used during the attacks on victims are rather unconvincing..Screaming Mad George's work with Savage Steve Holland was far more effective than what we see in this film. The sex everyone talks about isn't as gratuitous as many would have you believe(..I can't even recall any nudity). Probably the best of the numerous sequels greenlighted, but that's not exactly an endorsement. I'm pretty sure written on paper, this was an entertaining concept, the idea of spoofing Pinocchio using horror elements, but the result doesn't exactly blow you away. | negative |
This was a very faithful presentation of Lewis's life in the mid-50's. The dialogue on theology and the banter with his follow colleagues was exceptionally good. Michael White's book, "C.S. Lewis: Creator of Narnia" deals with this time frame in a very parallel way. Joss Ackland's acting was superb in catching the unemotional Lewis. The movie took great pains to be presented in an accurate English setting. The development of a strong bond between "Jack" (his preferred name) Lewis and Douglas Gresham, Joy's son from her previous marriage, was enjoyable to watch. The movie did avoid the distasteful element of "Warnie" Lewis's (Jack's older brother) drinking problem, but it would not have moved the story on, so it is best left out. | positive |
I went to see this film at the cinemas and i was shocked when I got in the room. There was only me and my girlfriend! This shouted to me that this film is not very good. <br /><br />Not to my surprise, the film was dire. Ben Affleck plays a guy who buys a family for Christmas. It is a very predictable narrative with him falling in love with the girl that hates him. His acting is OKish but for the comedy aspect of the film he is not very good. The plot line is poor and the comedy almost non-existent.<br /><br />However, there are some good points. For example, the family is falling apart and the mother is very funny.<br /><br />I hope this review stops other people wasting their money. I was very embarrassed when I came out of the room!!! | negative |
Tamara Anderson and her family are moving once again, as her itinerant painter father chases his next landscape. Fifteen years old, she is in her rebellious stage. Already angry at her father for their frequent relocations, her anger is exacerbated when her mother is suddenly confined to a sanatorium for tuberculosis. Her mother's absence causes Tamara to lash out at her father and seek comfort in religion, the boy next door, Rusty, as well as the spirit of the dead teenager who used to live in her rented house.<br /><br />The story is modest to a fault. It's oddly paced, and even during its emotional scenes there isn't any tension. The actors portraying the parents are fine. Alberta Watson is incredibly charismatic as the sick mother, and Maria Ricossa is particularly effective as the guilt-ridden mother of the dead teenager. But Katie Boland, as Tamara, is too amateurish to carry the movie. The dialog is very natural and Boland can't quite pull it off. She has her moments and when she hits them she can be good but there were too many times when she came off awkward. One can see her thinking 'ok this is what my line is and this is the face i'm supposed to make' rather than actually reacting to the other actors. She's not the only one, Kevin Zegers as Rusty and Megan Park as his sister Brenda also suffer from stilted delivery but at least they're in fewer scenes.<br /><br />If done right, the screenplay could have made her an affecting movie. And it has it moments but much of it is bogged down with an amateurish lead performance and flat directing. | negative |
Most yeti pictures are fatally undermined by a grave paucity of energy and enthusiasm. Not so this gloriously bent, batty and berserk over-the-top Italian-made shot-in-Canada kitsch gut-buster: It's a wildly ripe and vigorously moronic ghastly marvel which reaches a stunning apotheosis of righteously over-baked "what the hell's going on?" crackpot excess and inanity.<br /><br />A freighter ship crew discovers the body of a 30-foot yeti that resembles a hirsute 70's disco stud (complete with jumbo wavy afro) perfectly preserved in a large chunk of ice. They dethaw the beast, jolt him back to life with electric charges, grossly mistreat him, and keep the poor hairy Goliath in an enormous glass booth. Before you can say "Hey, the filmmakers are obviously ripping off 'King Kong'," our titanic abominable snowdude breaks free of his cage, grabs the first luscious nubile blonde Euro vixen (the gorgeous Pheonix Grant) he lays lustful eyes on, and storms away with his new lady love. The yeti gets recaptured and flown to Toronto to be showed off to a gawking audience. Of course, he breaks free again, nabs the vixen, and goes on the expected stomping around the city rampage.<br /><br />The sublimely stupid dialogue (sample line: "Philosophy has no place in science, professor"), cheesy (far from) special effects (the horrendous transparent blue screen work and cruddy Tonka toy miniatures are especially uproarious in their very jaw-dropping awfulness), clunky (mis)direction, and a heavy-handed script that even attempts a clumsily sincere "Is the yeti a man or a beast?" ethical debate all combine together to create one of the single most delightfully ridiculous giant monster flicks to ever roar its absurd way across the big screen. Better still, we also have a few funky offbeat touches to add extra shoddy spice to the already succulently schlocky cinematic brew: the vixen accidentally brushes against one of the yeti's nipples, which causes it to harden and elicits a big, leering grin of approval from the lecherous behemoth (!); the vixen nurses the yeti's wounded hand while he makes goo-goo eyes at her, the yeti smashes windows with his feet while climbing a towering office building, and the furry fellow even breaks a man's neck with his toes (!!). Overall, this singularly screwball and shamefully unheralded should-be camp classic stands tall as a remarkable monolith of infectiously asinine celluloid lunacy that's eminently worthy of a substantial hardcore underground cult following. | positive |
this is a great movie. I love the series on tv and so I loved the movie. One of the best things in the movie is that Helga finally admits her deepest darkest secret to Arnold!!! that was great. i loved it it was pretty funny too. It's a great movie! Doy!!! | negative |
This is one of the few movies - maybe the only - that truly haunted me for years. It was the first I had ever seen people tortured, so much that blood was flowing of their mouths from gritting their teeth and screaming, etc. It was brutal; the worst thing I had ever seen on film.<br /><br />Dr. Clement Molloch, played by Joseph Mayer, is still one of the most evil characters I've ever seen on film, and I've viewed thousands. He was so sadistic that I would never watch this movie again, nor would I recommend it. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr. Rogers. If seeing people tortured is not your idea of fun, then stay away from this film.<br /><br />I know there are a lot of sick people out there, many of them professional film critics, who probably enjoyed this sordid, sick story. It's a "B" movie, anyway, with stupid dialog and some wooden acting by Charles Bronson. This is not one of his better efforts. Even if it was, there so many horrendous scenes in here you wouldn't want to watch. Trust me on this one. | negative |
All this dismaying waste of film stock needs is Count Floyd popping up every sixty seconds. Somehow they got Steve Railsback, Susan Anspach, John Vernon, and Joe Flaherty together on a set and couldn't get within five miles, about eight kilometers, of an actual movie. BOY does this thing suck. There isn't one original line, thought, shot, or effect from brainless opening sequence to brainless close. The magical, ethereal Susan Anspach of Five Easy Pieces - boring. Steve Railsback - boring. John Vernon - boring. The big bug - boring. If this is a scary movie, Buttercream Gang is a thuglife documentary. <br /><br />Seriously - every bad movie contains its own explanation of its badness. Usually it's in the opening credits - "Written, Directed, and Produced by" one guy. Or at the very center of the action is some bimbo so talentless that you know there's one and only one reason this turkey got made. Here, you don't find out till the very last of the credits, where the cooperation of about a dozen subfunctions of the Canadian Government is gratefully acknowledged. <br /><br />Right now I'm watching MST's take on Beast of Yucca Flats to get the taste out of my mouth. Ghod, what an improvement. | negative |
Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) is a successful dentist, who shares his practice with other business partners. Alan also has an loving wife (Jada Pinkett Smith) and he has two daughter (Camille LaChe Smith & Imani Hakim). He also let his parents stay in his huge apartment in New York City. But somehow, he feels that his life is somewhat empty. One ordinary day in the city, he sees his old college roommate Charlie Fireman (Adam Sandler). Which Alan hasn't seen Charlie in years. When Alan tries to befriends with Charlie again. Charlie is a lonely depressed man, who hides his true feelings from people who cares for him. Since Charlie unexpectedly loses his family in a plane crash, they were on one of the planes of September 11, 2001. When Alan nearly feels comfortable with Charlie. When Alan mentions things of his past, Charlie turns violent towards Alan or anyone who mentions his deceased family. Now Alan tries to help Charlie and tries to make his life a little easier for himself. But Alan finds out making Charlie talking about his true feelings is more difficult than expected.<br /><br />Written and Directed by Mike Bender (Blankman, Indian Summer, The Upside of Anger) made an wonderfully touching human drama that moments of sadness, truth and comedy as well. Sandler offers an impressive dramatic performance, which Sandler offers more in his dramatic role than he did on Paul Thomas Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love. Cheadle is excellent as usual. Pinkett Smith is fine as Alan's supportive wife, Liv Tyler is also good as the young psychiatrist and Saffron Burrows is quite good as the beautiful odd lonely woman, who has a wild crush on Alan. This film was sadly an box office disappointment, despite it had some great reviews. The cast are first-rate here, the writing & director is wonderful and Russ T. Alsobrook's terrific Widescreen Cinematography. The movie has great NYC locations, which the film makes New York a beautiful city to look at in the picture.<br /><br />DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an good-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD also an jam session with Sandler & Cheadle, an featurette, photo montage and previews. I was expecting more for the DVD features like an audio commentary track by the director and deleted scenes. "Reign Over Me" is certainly one of the best films that came out this year. I am sure, this movie looked great in the big screen. Which sadly, i haven't had a chance to see it in a theater. But it is also the kind of movie that plays well on DVD. The film has an good soundtrack as well and it has plenty of familiar faces in supporting roles and bit-parts. Even the director has a bit-part as Byran Sugarman, who's an actor himself. "Reign Over Me" is one of the most underrated pictures of this year. It is also the best Sandler film in my taste since "The Wedding Singer". Don't miss it. HD Widescreen. (**** 1/2 out of *****). | positive |
Gary Busey's best performance in a nicely-flowing biography. Since had a musical background, he was able to do his own songs and it really works. It's always good to see that fine actor, Don Stroud (one of the crickets) and Charlie Martin Smith as well.<br /><br />An 8 out of 10. Best performance = Gary Busey. Thankfully, Mr. Busey was Oscar-nominated for this, losing to Jon Voight in COMING HOME. A fairly low-budget flick that doesn't disappoint, with GREAT SONGS by Mr. Holly. I hope this made plenty of dough. Busey was never this popular again for varying reasons, but thankfully he has this one great one on his resume. | positive |
I was supremely disappointed with this one. Having just read the wonderful Oscar Wilde story, I had hoped for at least a little of the magic to translate onto the screen. Well, there was none. This version played like a condensed, dumbed down Reader's Digest movie. Not only did it feel rushed, it was cheapened and needlessly re written. Major characters and plot points were either changed or completely removed. I appreciate the difficulties in trying to bring a novel to the screen, especially on what may very well have been a limited (TV) budget, but there is no excuse for mangling a great story in this way. I thoroughly recommend reading Wilde's tale of the depravity that exists under even the most beautiful exteriors. But I cannot advise anyone to rent this travesty. | negative |
My husband and I went to see this movie, being the horror movie buffs that we are. Two hours later I found myself wanting both my money and time back. I was so disappointed. The teasers for this film basically contained the best points of the film. There was nothing very scary about the film other than good timing on surprise entrances, etc. I found most of the 'scary' parts to be more comical than anything. After viewing other movies based on the works of Japanese writers, I have to conclude that what is deemed frightening in Japan is not what is frightening here in the US. My advice: If you are a fan of true horror movies, save yourself the pain of sitting through this one. I can't really say that I would recommend renting it either, unless you have a free rental coming to you. | negative |
Those prophetic words were spoken by William Holden (as a war reporter) to the beauteous Jennifer Jones (as a Eurasian doctor), explaining his failing marriage on the beach. They start an affair, despite huge odds of adultery and racial issues. In Hollywood of the 1950s, interracial romance was allowed but only with dire consequences at the end. Beautiful Hong Kong scenery (although some beach scenes look studio-bound), a famous title tune, poetic script, lovely background music (by Alfred Newman), great costumes, outstanding performances, especially Jones (directed here by Henry King, who also did "The Song of Bernadette - 1943, an Oscar for Jones) still make this a world-class romance weeper. | positive |
A movie visually graceful but interesting is mainly the plot. The film depicts a zigzag progress of exploring the main actor's innermost feeling. Max, who has lived in New York for two years and intend to marry a girl he met there, comes back to Paris and unexpectedly meets his ex-girlfriend whom he still fancies very much but finally finds out the one he loves the most in fact is her best friend. Non-linear narration thus many flashbacks and every part are articulated quite well. The three women Max has met symbolize something we must pursue although possibly having no clear picture about the underlying motivations. His fiancee is the one he needs rather than the one he loves and thus completely no loyalty we can see. She gives him also no love but only stability. True love also cannot be found in his relation with the ex-girlfriend. Merely a fantasy for him to escape - many things very romantic he has done for her but almost nothing seems amenable. The one who really animates Max's life in fact is her best friend. The equilibrium achieved at the end is not identical to the initial equilibrium because Max has understand much more about his innermost feeling. The nonlinear structure makes the progress of searching look more complicated. Not equally ingenious as "Pulp Fiction" but things seem much more natural in "The Apartment". Max is not the only character who undergoes a transformation and in fact interesting is also the description to Romane Bohringer. The good cinematography also makes her and Monica Bellucci look very beautiful. A good commentary of today's love and undoubtedly a film worth seeing. <br /><br /> | positive |
"May Contain Spoilers*<br /><br />"All Dogs Go to Heaven" is a great movie. I saw it in 1989 when I was two years old. I didn't understand it that well but as I saw it more and more times I started to love it. I love the songs in this movie. My favorite songs are "Let Me Be Surprised" and "Soon You'll Come Home". Those are beautiful songs. The only thing that bothers me about the movie is Charlie dieing. When I was little my sister couldn't even watch that part. Other than that this movie is wonderful. <br /><br />My favorite part of the movie is when Annabelle and Charlie are flying around heaven. Heaven is beautiful in the movie and the "clocks" are very clever. I also love Itchy, in fact I have 3 dachshunds of my own. They are so cute. <br /><br />Overall I love this movie and suggest everyone should see it. I give this movie 10/10 stars. | positive |
Ok, so it may not be the award-winning "movie of the year" type-film (apart from the brilliant soundtrack that I think won a few awards), but it is a really great film about 'The Kid' (Prince / O( take your pick) and the happenings around him living in Minneapolis, playing his music. The music is absolutely superb, in my opinion you HAVE to own this soundtrack, it is truly a classic and sums up the eighties sounds and feel in a wonderful fashion. And the movie itself plays out a nice plot, it's worth seeing over and over again, espeically if you like Prince / O (which I do) of course. | positive |
I don't know about the English version of this movie, but the Norwegian translation is the funniest movie I've seen in many years. The characters say so many funny things and make so many weird references to current events that I'm amazed they kept having more options, like the architect who can never say the name of the wizard Miraculix correctly. It becomes things like Malcom(i)X and "utenriks", which is Norwegian for foreign affairs.<br /><br />Like the word "utenriks", many of the translations does not give any meaning in English, and probably not in French either, so the translators must have made up their own jokes, and done so very well. Of course, they have a very good base to build on, with a film that's simply comical from beginning to end!<br /><br />Recommended in all languages with a good translation! | positive |
I guess they reward idiocy today because whoever came up with the concept for this movie was not shot on sight.<br /><br />This is a morons delight. The worst stereo-types of every ghetto and high school movie is dragged out twisted around and made even more unbearable. Every character in this movie has a sob story beyond sympathy. Lets pray for a remake where the whole school gets nuked.<br /><br />***Spoiler*** how does a school so run down have the internet in the first place? | negative |
This work is pretty atmospheric, with a couple of surprises a few really creepy elements. I found this work more rewarding than I first expected, given the rotten reviews this receives here at IMDb. The dialog comes across as natural and honest (given the circumstances), although the overall run of the film goes from predictable to cliché with the heroines falling down when they should be running, and investigating strange noises when they should be locking their doors. Typical horror movie fare.<br /><br />The local characters are some of the worst clichés, depicting Appalachian natives as in-bred developmentally challenged freaks. The characters of the children and the principals are GREAT! The development given is adequate, and Scout Taylor-Compton seems to be developing her talents quite well.<br /><br />Now, I'm not going to say that this is entirely original or the best thing since sliced bread (which isn't all that great by the way), but this IS interesting and I do not long for my 107 minutes back. I would not say this is an awesome movie by any means, but there are some really good horror elements herein. But there are also some really slow spots where plot/character development seem superfluous to the director's (or the film editor's) whim.<br /><br />All in all, this is good for a rainy night, but not so good for a Friday/Saturday night's viewing.<br /><br />It rates a 7.6/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | positive |
I've watched this documentary twice - and although I'm an major movie buff, most documentaries don't hold my attention. This film however was mesmerizing. Almost every shot is perfect - saying so much more than an audio commentary (which this documentary does not have).<br /><br />The concept of this film is amazing, I can't praise it enough. Mardi Gras beads - who would have thought?? <br /><br />Amazing and excellent choices of interviews - film footage of a factory in China - the film makes you feel like you are actually there.<br /><br />I'm political aware - and I've read several books on globalization so there wasn't anything in this film that was a surprise to me. However, it's made me think so much. <br /><br />I wish so much too, that this world was a better place.<br /><br />A million kudos to the filmmaker - and thanks for making this film too.<br /><br />I wish everyone could see it. | positive |
This movie made me think....of how I could write something about it without personally dissing the director and all the actors, who, as an Australian, I am proud of for actually getting out there and making a film.<br /><br />But the movie itself? Let me tell you a story....<br /><br />Found this DVD in my local rental shop yesterday and had vague recollections of the reviews at the time of cinema release here, so I thought I would give it a go.<br /><br />For some reason, I decided to watch the 'special features' before I watched the actual movie, not something that I usually do. Turned the 'making of' off halfway through, as I'd had enough cringing at the 'aren't we so wonderful for putting together such a hard hitting film with such a raw script' attitude.<br /><br />The movie? Ugh. Full of clichés and pathetic character development. The actors? Well done guys, you are Aussies and I applaud you. And, just like a footy team is only as good as the coach that directs them, you unfortunately did NOT have a great script to work with.<br /><br />I felt that the movie actually trivialised so many of the subjects that it seemed to want to cover. I have seen many reviews here that refer to it as nothing more than a soap. Agreed.<br /><br />Finally (and forgive me if I don't phrase this correctly), I was extremely disappointed that there were no optimistic overtones at all. Yes, we all know that life is full of hard stuff, and yes we know that things such as incest DO occur, but I really find it hard to applaud a movie that has not one piece of joy in it. I believe that a director has a responsibility to put it in there SOMEWHERE. Otherwise, the movie is all about THEM and THEIR feelings, they have created it for themselves, not for an audience.<br /><br />Which I think is the basis of why this movie isn't so great. The special features mention that the director wrote the screenplay in a 36 hour sitting, the day after he himself tried to end his own life. Well, it may have been cathartic for him to do this, however the movie reeks of self-indulgence when you know the story behind why it was written. "I feel horrid, I'm going to write a movie about feeling horrid". (Note: I have read the interview with Andrew Urban, and understand WHY Thalluri needed to write something to help him through his own issues, but I believe there is a line in film that cannot be crossed - the line of making a movie purely for your own emotional needs, and I feel that this is what has unintentionally happened here)<br /><br />By his own admission, the director had no technical experience at all, and sadly, this makes the movie come off looking like nothing more than a year twelve media project.<br /><br />As for any recommendations that this movie should be studied at school, or that all teenagers should watch it - not sure there either. Because there is a VERY dangerous line at the end. I too have been in a place where I have thought that someone who no longer has to 'face life' is 'lucky', but as an adult, I do worry that this line could be influential on a young viewer that was in a vulnerable frame of mind. Might be in there to promote discussion, but again, it reflects no possibility of redemption or joy in this story as a whole. In fact, it almost indicates that there is more sadness to come.<br /><br />I haven't seen Elephant, but I just might go find it, given all the comparisons here.<br /><br />Nothing personal here guys, I do hope you can make another movie someday, and we all have to start out somewhere, so forgive me if I've been too harsh. I am glad that you are proud of what you created, which in the end is what life is all about. It's not a movie I would recommend though.<br /><br />Oh, I DID like the way the time-frames often collided, thought that was an interesting way to film. <br /><br />But the whole "Its the quiet ones you have to watch" - we already know that. | negative |
Visually stunning? Most definitely. I have seen few films look this good in some time. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow uses striking cinematography, computer graphics, and creative futuristic designs to create a world that is historically familiar yet something quite fresh. The time period seems to be the 1930s or early 40s. The movie tells of recent attacks on New York City by mechanized armies stealing generators and the like for some inexplicable reason. Also, mysterious disappearances of relevant scientific minds coincide. Who can stop them and save the world? Alright, it doesn't take a leap of faith to know it is the Sky Captain himself with his wisecracking reporter girlfriend always hot for a lead, and in the wings his trusty, thoroughly competent sidekick. What Sky Captain has in atmosphere and graphics it lacks in storytelling and characterization. The plot for this film is ridiculous. That being said, the film is going for a serial-like feeling of film serials of yesteryear. They had pretty far out stories and bad acting - but none of them, and I mean none of them, had the budget and big names this film had. Two academy award winning performers and Jude Law could keep a film afloat, one would think, but Sky Captain sinks miserably. Despite its fantastic dark look, I found myself wishing the film would just end and I could get on with my life. I had little interest in a story that generated little interest. I didn't care at all for any of the glib portrayals. Paltrow was just awful. Jolie was a joke with a role with virtually no substance. Law cannot carry the one-liner tradition all too squarely on his limited shoulders. I mean, let's face it, he's not Will Smith, Mel Gibson, or even Wesley Snipes. The sad thing about Sky Captain, at least for me, was that it held so much promise yet delivered so little. I was bored ten minutes into the film - waiting for something to hook my interest - and it never came. | negative |
A touching love story reminiscent of In the Mood for Love'. Drawing heavily on Chinese poetry and how this is used by eastern people to communicate feelings to each other, the story focuses on a schoolteacher who wants so much to be a model teacher as well as a good husband and father. A senior student is very attracted to him. As the story unfolds we see the emotions below the surface in his 20 year marriage and how he grapples with the moral dilemmas that face him. A beautiful and moving story. | positive |
I'm not sure what dragged me into the cinema to watch this movie, but few minutes after it started, I wanted to leave the theater. For a while I hoped at least the story will surprise me, but then realized it's a waste of time, there was just nothing there. I stayed only because I had another show after it.<br /><br />Design: some designs where quite beautiful, mostly of the environment, but the characters were terrible both in terms of animation and design. They look great while still - on posters and screenshots, but not when they have to come to life! They just didn't work, mostly because the very same mistake most 3D companies make: technically it is very hard to create really natural materials in 3D, that would make you feel that the character is alive. You need a lot of effort and knowledge (hence money) to create something that really feels like hair, skin, fabric, etc. Those characters in the movie were made out of "cloth", and that just didn't work! So they had this ugly cold feeling of the computer artificiality, where the cloth stretches or squeezes like a piece of plastic. It just didn't have the feel of a material, that dolls are made of (that's what those characters meant to be). I think it was a big mistake choosing this style for the characters. It just had a feeling of a 3D shoot'n'run computer game. I don't want to go to cinema to have a computer game on my screen, don't know about you...<br /><br />Animation was also a disgrace. I am a professional animator and was terribly disappointed at the low level of animation in "9". It was stiff, boring, almost lacked any imagination or mood. It was just a little bit above most average 3D animations I saw, and that doesn't add to it any good...<br /><br />And all that - the bad character design and bad animation could be solved with a good story, right?! That was not the case here. Actually the story was the worst thing in that movie. It was below any level. It starts straight forward, it goes straight forward and it ends the same. There is no twist, no surprise, no good dialogs, even no development. We've heard and saw stories of machines overtaking the humankind thousands of times and "9" is just one of them, and we know how it ends at the very first minute of that movie. The characters don't even have time to get into the story - they are just there, showing themselves almost immediately, and immediately some of them take action without even getting to know what's going on. It just didn't work. There are also many repetitive action sequences, that looked as if they were made to fill in the time for the lack of a story...<br /><br />Acting, sound and script - oh my gosh, what can I tell, it was pathetic. Bad story has a bad script, and except dialogs like "No, don't do it!" "I will do it!" "But... you cannot do it alone!" "We can do it together!" "But there are rules!" "But we have to save him!" etc etc and so on, and repeating itself all the time, so besides those terribly pathetic dialogs, there were those non stop "Ahh" and "Ohhh" and"Ehh", and "Oooh", and "Whatchout", and "Run!" and "OhOhh!" that were following almost every jump, run, or fall of the characters and it even sounded as if they were out of sync or even unrehearsed.<br /><br />Conclusion: bad acting, bad animation, bad sound, bad story, bad script, bad characters, everything expected, no surprises, no twist, nothing. Only some good designs are not worth the time. BIG NO! | negative |
Don't bother to check for logic. There is none. But on the other hand, there are MANY really great movies that totally lack logic, so why bother?<br /><br />I both like and dislike this film. I like it because the action sequences in the air are really great, you get to see a lot of dogfighting. I also like the F-16, which is a very cool plane.<br /><br />But there are just too many goofs to make me really enjoy it. I guess it's not fair to wish for SOME sort of continuity, as it is hard to make a really good fighter film - but I also think there should be some sense of reason.<br /><br />And I have a question: do they fly from California to the Middle East in F-16s without air refueling? I'd like to see that happening. | negative |
Someone else called this film a "fable-horror" movie, and I think that fits pretty well. That's the concept at least. A group of teenagers, each with their own vice, catch the eye of a twisted sideshow barker. He decides to teach the teens a lesson by making them part of the freak show. A cool idea, but could have been executed better. The fate for some of the teens is shoved in your face too obviously, while other characters could have been fleshed out more. Also, the ending was a serious let down. No resolution or big twist or anything. <br /><br />But as a low budget horror movie, it's pretty fun to watch. If you're into cheesy spookfests, you should have a laugh watching this one. I think one of it's faults though... that it takes itself too seriously. It's a silly movie, and if it was a little more self-aware when it comes to that, I think it would have been better. But at least there's enough neat carnival themes and b-movie monster makeup to keep you watching. | negative |
Penelope Spheeris (of "Wayne's World" fame) made her mark with the documentary "The Decline of Western Civilization", about the LA punk scene in the late '70s and early '80s. Most of the documentary features interviews with the punks and footage of concerts (which often turn violent). Overall, we get to see how the punk movement was a reaction to the hippies: whereas the hippies were into being natural, the punks wanted to have themselves as altered as possible, what with spiked hair and all. But also, we see how they're really disaffected and sometimes becoming skinheads.<br /><br />Anyway, this is a really great time capsule. We're not really sure whether we want to long for that era or feel repulsed by it. But this is definitely not a documentary that will leave you neutral. Truly worth seeing. | positive |
"While traveling in the mountains, a man is attached by a mysterious creature that promptly departs, leaving no trace of its presence. Unbeknownst to the man, he has been attacked by a werewolf and now he's inherited the curse associated with such creatures. Now our hero must race against time to rid himself of this dreadful affliction before the next full moon," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Horrifically re-produced from the original Spanish, "The Fury of the Wolf Man" loses whatever charms it may have possessed in its original form. Lycanthropic Paul Naschy's werewolf characterization is uneven and ineffectual. Dominatrix scientist Perla Cristal and sexy assistant Verónica Luján never get close enough to truly titillate. The often incoherent storyline isn't even ghoulishly amusing. | negative |
Sunday would not be Sunday without an action movie, and when you want intense combat, you turn to Tom Berenger (Platoon).<br /><br />Here he plays a sniper in the jungle going after rebels and drug lords. Life's a bitch, so he gets a green office type (Billy Zane) to help on the mission.<br /><br />The film is in the hands of Luis Llosa, who stunk up Anaconda. he doesn't do much better here, but Berenger makes the movie worthwhile.<br /><br />Sure, it may be a little long - who wants to see a lot of walking through the jungle, but is is good, tense action when the time is right. | positive |
About 15 minutes in, my wife was already wanting to leave. Not so much because of the material, but the lack thereof. They decided to fill in the blanks where the funny stuff should've been with as much language and absolutely vulgar talk as they could. When this would let up (very rare), we'd sit back and watch (not laughing, mind you) and wait for the next gross-out or offensive remark(s). After about 35 minutes, we both got up and left. Everything we'd read said how great this was. The trailer looked good and Roger Ebert actually called it "intelligent" and said it wasn't a crude sex comedy. Did he go to the right movie? Along with Be Cool, it's the only other movie I've ever walked out on...and I have no regrets. I'm sick of trying to go see comedies in America. | negative |
This was a very good film. I didn't go into it with very high expectations and was pleasantly surprised by the acting, the script, and the scenery. Miranda Richardson was fantastic and so was Joan Plowright. They stole the show. But the other actors played their parts wonderfully also. Very enjoyable film. | positive |
Riotously cheesy lunacy about lava spewing from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. Even if you attempt to suspend disbelief by ignoring this ludicrous premise, you'll still be howling with laughter at the inane dialog, nonsensical plot contrivances, and wildly reckless scientific plot holes that parade across the screen.<br /><br />I have a theory: every successful actor is doomed to appear in at least one bad movie at some point in his/her career. This was Tommy Lee Jones's turn. Although he makes a decent effort, the script is just so pathetic even he goes down in flames (oops, sorry about that). Most of the supporting cast is also choked by the hackneyed writing; a few of the actors simply phone in their roles. Anne Heche deserves special Hall of Shame recognition for her awkward portrayal of a scientist. She is about as convincing in this role as Pee Wee Herman, and even he would have at least done a better acting job.<br /><br />Since the scientific plot holes are too numerous to list here, I would instead suggest that you screen the film with friends, and have a game of "Find the scientific absurdities." The loser could be forced to listen to tapes of corny lines from the movie like "Everybody looks the same" over and over. Here's a sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect: a scheme to blow up a building is devised, engineered, and the dynamite set and detonated all within a space of about 20 minutes. <br /><br />Let us not forget the obligatory disaster movie clichés: divorced dads, scientists who get ignored by everybody, obnoxious cops, tough street kids, bratty teenagers, greedy investors etc.; all are present and in abundance. The film also bashes you over the head with a relentless barrage of political correctness.<br /><br />For fans of cheese and silliness only. All other viewers: beware. | negative |
I was actually planning to see this movie when I noticed it in my TV guide but after about 5 minutes decided time is definitely more precious than "Who's That Girl" could ever be worth. Describing how bad Madonna's acting looks like is impossible and the end result is one of the most annoying characters ever captured on film. This crap is an insult to movies and intellect. I almost never! rate a movie I don't see from start to finish, but in this case the former is impossible. 2/10 | negative |
Michael Jackson is amazing. This short film displays the absolute highest standard in music video and no-one will ever be able to out-beat this 'King Of Pop' masterpiece! It shows Michael turning into a zombie and dancing in the street with some spectacular choreography. The story is great, the scenes are marvelous, the music is fantastic and overall the clip is fun, eye-popping, spooky and is a real spectacle. Today everybody is still doing the same thing in music video with dancing and film-based story-lines which he innovated. This ground-breaking video is the toast of MTV and will forever be remembered for what is the greatest music video of all time!! | positive |
Man this movie is awesome especially the part they show the Italian chick damn shes incredibly hot shes not your average Italian. Mna i would go see that movie over and over just to see that chick. i really enjoyed the movie really hot girl shes steamy sexy. also the actor are really good but the girl is better. I think the actor played a better part in pride and prejudice so i don't think he acted in his highest level but yeah back to the girl i mean shes gorgeous perfect and i could only wish her luck in her future movies yeah also her acting skills in such young age was awesome i was just amazed Wit her performance. what a great actress so yeah i recommend everybody this great movie | positive |
"The Falcon and the Snowman" is the story of two young men, a CIA employee and a drug dealer, who become disenchanted with United States foreign policy and sell state secrets to the Soviet Union. The events of the film are based on a true story.<br /><br />Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn are convincing in the lead parts and develop interesting characterizations. The supporting cast also performs well, notably with a performance from David Suchet of Hercule Poirot fame as a seasoned Soviet agent.<br /><br />The film is generally effective at setting out its premise and developing it and giving a sense of two boys caught in something they did not properly understand going in. However, it does seem overlong and cumbersome at points in the middle. The ending, however, is tense, stunning and effective. There are some catchy rock songs included in the soundtrack, but also unfortunately a repeated mellow synthesizer track that doesn't fit with a spy story. There are other spy films more worth seeking out than "The Falcon and the Snowman", but it is a decent film none the less. | positive |
I've been looking for the name of this film for years. I was 14 when I believe it was aired on TV in 1983. All I can remember was it was about a teenaged girl, alone, having survived a plane crash AND surviving the Amazon. I remember people were looking for her(family) and that she knew how to take care of herself---she narrates the story and I vividly remember about her knowing that bugs were under her skin. I don't remember much else about this movie, and want to see it again--if this IS the same one--and if any of you have a copy, could you email me at [email protected]? I'd be curious to attain a copy to see if it is in fact the same film I remember. It was aired on Thanksgiving(US) in 1983, and I was going through problems of my own and this film really impacted heavily on me. Thanks in advance! | positive |
Jack Black and Kyle Gass team together to promote their band Tenacious D in this Rock Classic called Tenacious D In The Pick Of Destiny. Jack Black and Kyle Gass invent their own Rock Opera..it was like an Opera of Rock 'N' Roll. Some of the most twisted events took place in that movie....the big foot part....the mushroom part....and in the end when they did the rock off against the Devil. A classic formed in Tenacious D....one of the best films I have seen in a long time. The last couple things I saw in the theater were stupid..but this movie rocks. This really made me laugh hard. The whole basis is Jack Black runs of to find his rock partner in Los Angeles. His partner is Kyle Gass and man who has always been bald. They work together to find this magic pick that can make the most terrible musician play greatly. They finally make it to the Rock 'N' Roll Museum and steal the pick. On the way they meet The Stranger Played By Tim Robbins. They make it to the club to win their prize money when the owner grabs the pick and all along he was the devil and he battles the D in a Rock Off. The D doesn't win but the Devil's horn falls off sending him back to hell. Therefore LONG LIVE THE D!!!!!!!!!! | positive |
Kubrick may have been the greatest director of all times. He may have made more classics than anyone else. He may have been a perfectionist. But man, was his first attempt ever bad!<br /><br />Kubrick had good reason to try to make this film dissappear from the map: it looks like an Ed Wood film. It has strange narration, cheap shots, bad dialogue, ominous music reminiscent of your 50s sci-fi/horror flick, and what looks like relatives of the cast of "Reefer Madness" going insane for no reason.<br /><br />Sure, you can see an undeveloped Kubrick in there. It is a psychological/horror study of war. The characters became dehumanized and insane. There are people playing more than one role. There are constant shots of the faces and particular facial expressions of different people. And there are a few interesting shots around there. But really, this is a mess.<br /><br />Of course, I am not discouraging you from watching it. If you get a hold of it, you are joining a select group of myself and a few thousand people world wide who have had access to it. | negative |
Do not waste your money or time. Terrible movie. Bad acting, plot all over the place. Really, really bad acting. Man, this movie is just plain bad. I shut it off at 7 minutes. The script is bad, the directing is bad, it seems to me that a high school group got together to do a project for their drama class. Yes, it's that bad. The acting is not convincing at all, mind you I saw only 7 minutes of it. How this movie made it to DVD, is beyond me. <br /><br />It should have been left in the editing storage room. I saw the cover and thought it was pretty cool, I sure's heck won't do that next time :_) | negative |
Woof! Pretty boring, and they might as well have shot it in black and white, it was so colorless.<br /><br />The movie starts with rolling text explaining cryogenics, and asking whether god or Satan is behind it. There are some protests outside a cryogenics lab. Some people rob a bank, and many of the robbers and guards get shot. The father of one of the robbers (I think) arranges to have his son frozen. There's a lot of jumping around in the beginning from scene to scene introducing characters without us knowing how they relate.<br /><br />There's a power outage, and the cannisters containing the frozen people get struck by lightning, and they emerge as zombies. They're all wearing silver mylar-like suits, and their skin is dark green and wrinkled (no idea why they look so bad - being frozen evidently didn't preserve their looks), and they have silver eyes. They go around killing people, sometimes lurching like zombies, sometimes moving like normal people.<br /><br />Linda Blair keeps showing up every once in a while, to what purpose I'm not really sure. I think her character works at the cryogenics lab, but she's not very important to the plot, and her role is very small.<br /><br />The movie ends with some freeze frames with text captions that tell us what happened to the characters next, which are pretty silly. | negative |
Don't mind what this socially retarded person above says, this show is hilarious. It shows how a lot of single men are in a bar atmosphere, and also shows that women are not as gullible as men think they are. <br /><br />The contest aspect of the how is really cool and original. Its not the standard reality show that we are all used to now a days.<br /><br />Give it a chance everyone, we are only one episode in, we finally have some Canadian programming that isn't absolute crap. As Canadians what do we normally get, Bon Cop, Bad Cop, or Corner Gas. Come on people show that we are all not as prudish as the previous reviewer.<br /><br />Way to go Comedy Network, giving a new show a chance. The panel is funny and the contestants so far are pretty good. | positive |
Isn't anyone else tired of that old cliché' where a nearly dead person shows up in a horror film, gives us some informations, and then blasts his head off for no apparent reason? I know I am.<br /><br />The sad thing is that it's use in this film is worthless. If you have seen the first film (the first remake I should say) then the information given is completely worthless, because you would have already known it. I guess, you can that it isn't worthless to the main characters..but then why does the idiot shoot himself in the head? Wouldn't he want to live? Sure, he would have died anyway..<br /><br />This is the second film to be titled "The Hills Have Eyes II." The first being the sequel to the original 70's film. This is where it gets a little complicated for someone like me. See, I'm probably part of minority of people my age that even knew there was a HHE2 to begin with, much less an original HHE1. And now that we have a sequel to a remake and the fact that this sequel is named exactly as the sequel to the original HHE1...it just makes it worse! But anyways..<br /><br />Wes Craven's original Hills Have Eyes was decent. In the end, though, the idea was better than the presentation, but he most likely had a low budget. To be quite honest, Wes Craven isn't that good of a horror director. He's only made a few good horror movies (Nightmare on Elm St., New Nightmare), a few alright ones (Scream) and a bunch of horrible ones (Cursed, Shocker, Vampire in Brooklyn). Oh yeah, and he made Swamp Thing, as well...but the original HHE2 falls under the latter category. I've only seen a few minutes, but it was terrible.<br /><br />Now he has co-written the new HHE2..and it's such a disappointment! Last year's HHE remake was even better than the original film. It was tense. I guess it had to do with the fact that the main characters were a family, and not a bunch of beer and pot and sex crazy teenagers. It made us feel dirty. For the first hour, we were in hell, and finally in the last few moments, the good guys got revenge on the bad guys and it felt good..<br /><br />This new film has no tension. No suspense whatsoever. Just violent things happening to mostly stupid people. There is hardly any menacing presence here. Just ugly hobos hiding under rocks.<br /><br />I'm getting tired of horror movies where people die because of the stupid mistakes they keep making. It was just the other day that I watching "Deep Blue Sea" where Samuel L. Jackson kept on walking around the water, while giving the speech, and then he gets eaten by a shark, only because the idiot stayed to close to the water..something that nobody would do in the given situation! Here is the exact same thing. People go off by themselves to take a leak even though they know people are dying..seriously, couldn't a potty break wait? And then when you think people would have learned, someone else goes of by themselves! Seriously, isn't more scary when the characters are bringing their A-game and still losing? I would think so...<br /><br />It even under delivers. It should have made the first remake look like "The Fog" remake (which was less menacing than an episode of "Becker"). More bad guys. More time in the caves. More tension. More of everything.<br /><br />But it actually downgrades. Less bad guys. No tension. Sure we have more time in the caves, but not a whole lot happens there. In the end, it only seems like there is two or three bad guys. The last film made it seem like a whole tribe of people. Where is this tribe? Who keeps on watching them through binoculars? Seriously, these are the things this film should have brought us, but it ends with the exact same promise that the last film gave us, with that exact same "being watched" scene. Come on! I'll give the devil it's due. The look of the film is good..but thats it.<br /><br />I don't even think fans of gore will like this..though I'm probably wrong! There is gore (though most of it is sped-up while in the dark), but without the tension, and characters you even care about..the gore does nothing in my book! In the end, you're not frightened. You;re not shocked (unless you're an 8 year old girl). You don't even feel like you have seen anything new. | negative |
Mark Blankfield played Jekyll and Hyde.<br /><br />Michael McGuire was the dad.<br /><br />Tim Thomerson was the plastic surgeon.<br /><br />Did you even see this movie? I doubt it!<br /><br />Blankfield was fairly popular at this time for playing the pill-popping doctor on Fridays. Thomerson has been funny in anything he does, from movies to series to stand-up comedy. If I ever find this movie on DVD I will definitely buy it. I recorded this movie off of HBO back in '82 and have pretty much worn out the tape. One of the funniest takes on the Jekyll & Hyde theme ever.<br /><br />Of course. with all the cocaine references in this movie, it'd be panned as being way too politically incorrect today, as would Cheech and Chong. Too bad, because it is FUNNY, FUNNY, FUNNY! | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.