review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Bruce Lee was a great martial artist, but this film still is probably one of the worst films ever made. It has Bruce Lee die as the result of falling off a helicopter after being hit by some kind of a ninja knife to the back of the neck but it doesn't explain how he came to be on a helicopter since the prior scene has him near but not on the helicopter which is already 200 feet in the air. It just gets downright absurd from then, like something out of a cheap comic book. Maybe the idea isn't so rotten but it isn't done with any degree of artistry from a film making point of view. There are dozens of such martial arts bombers out there, usually all made in Hong Kong. I think that Jean Claude van Dam improved the genre with adding plausible stories in his films and having film makers who know how to use the camera. Even Steven Seagal's films are way better than 90 percent of the martial arts junk movies made during the 1970s and early 1980s in Hong Kong. 'Game of Death II' falls into the category of junk cinema in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee being in it. | negative |
I went through the highs. I went through the lows...cried, laughed, puked my ever-loving guts out. But through it all, I was made whole. I became a better person for having sat through this experience in self-imposed degradation. It's not every day we can say that we have lived through the worst, and come out the other side with something closely resembling our sanity whole and intact. Friends...neighbors-unite and be as one now. Go out and find this film and languish in its extravagancies. Place it high on the mantel and kiss its polystyrene box. Take it to bed. Take it out with you when you go shopping, or have blind dates with strange people. They will appreciate you all the better for your sublime and uniquely schizophrenic slant on cinema. And then they will throw their beverage of choice in your face (but you will have the last laugh). I ran for Governor with this little beauty under my belt (and you can too!). It is a treat worth having again and again. | positive |
he was my hero for all time until he went along with {if you can call it a movie} I went to the show to watch it and come out and not just asking for me money back but asked for double the money thats how bad my hero's acting and the hole thing was.............I can't believe that Steven Segal's career has hit so low that he has been reduced to making 4th rate films with 5th rate secondary actors. I watched this moving expecting to see him beet the crap out of some people the way he usually does. When he is reduced to using a single judo chop between the shoulder blades to take out an opponent and the guy falls like a ton of bricks something is wrong.<br /><br />The plot is unbelievable as a movie, and even if you excuse the visuals, and had read this story as a novel, you'd be left wondering why you had even picked up the book.<br /><br />Steven Segal goes through the motions and seems as if he is only doing this because he is under obligation. He shows no effort and no enthusiasm, and in some scenes he doesn't show up at all.<br /><br />I hate to repeat other peoples comments, but the use of stock footage for cut scenes and for visuals of the aircrafts in flight is pathetic. The condition of those scenes chopped in, is shaky and scenes themselves seemed to have deteriorated over time. The zappruder film showing President John F Kennedy being assassinated is steadier and cleaner.<br /><br />My honest opinion is to tell you not to waste your time seeing this movie, it is not up to the standards of his work in the glimmer man or exit wounds. I read one review that said the movie had a 12 million dollar budget (Segal being paid 5 of that) and that the movie still came in under budget. I must concur.<br /><br />It is no wonder that this is a direct to DVD movie, as no conscientious theater owner would play this movie . | negative |
An amazing film, I've only just seen it and I already want to see it again. I'd never heard of Derek Jarman before I saw this film but now I am, I can't wait to see his others. The film takes a whole new perspective of Shakespeare's The Tempest, I'm sure he'd have appreciated it for Jarman's use of the the play's themes of love, magic, darkness and atmospheric tension. OK, OK there may have been a bit of nudity in the film which I hadn't really anticipated but it didn't offend me, it just surprised me and made the film more unpredictable. One Spoiler (for those of a nervous disposition: Fast forward the flashback scene with Sycorax & Caliban and Ariel as their slave, its pretty graphic. Overall, if you are starting to find Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeare performances flaccid and monotonous then you need to see this film. Fantastic and surreal, it'll blow you away, but only if you let it. Have an open mind - and then let this film work it's magic on you. | positive |
This movie is awesome. If you take it too seriously, of course you will hate it; however, it's quantity of "dudes" and "right ons" brings laughs and faint memories of about 15 years ago. I like its ability to make me simply chuckle at obvious jokes and silliness, and its ability to make me want to watch its precursor, "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" (1989). If you are looking for a film full of multifaceted jokes, and totally mature humor, don't watch it; however, if you want a film that is humorous and silly, yet intelligent and engaging, you will enjoy it. I actually wish more of this sort of picture showed up in today's theatres. And hey, it's Keanu Reeves acting the way everyone parodies him as acting...right...doesn't get much better than that :) | positive |
Words cannot describe how horrible this movie is. Well, maybe they can. I'll take a stab at it: 1 - Pitiful. Hollywood makes more talking animals set in graphics. Apparently script and storyline aren't needed anymore.<br /><br />2 - Violent. Kids movie but yet one of the characters is viciously attacked and killed.<br /><br />3 - Blatantly stupid. The movie is actually depicting the farm animals as having human abilities. In Nemo, the fish could talk, but for the most part, they are still fish. We only hear the English as a translation. In Barnyard, the animals are actually speaking English that other people can understand.<br /><br />4 - Unintelligent - No smart story line or even any smart humor. (Ok, the 13 year old dog on crutches was funny).<br /><br />5 - Culturally insensitive - The "black" cow is actually played by a black actress. The pink cow is played by a white actress. The black cow was playing a stereotypical black person.<br /><br />6 - Ignorant - No such thing as a male cow that I'm aware of. I believe we call them bulls? If we are going to expose our children to drek, it might as well have the simplest facts correct.<br /><br />7 - Boring and Borish. My 4 year old had us leave after 45 minutes. He practically fell asleep.<br /><br />I'm sure this movie will make millions, which is unfortunate, because it only proves to Hollywood producers that the American public at large is just filled with suckers waiting to pay 8 bucks just to get some peace and quiet from the kids for an hour or two. An unfortunate circumstance. Why should the producers spend real money when the returns will be the same either way. | negative |
"Dungeon of Harrow" had a lot of things that could've made this quite a good horror film. Creepy mansion, a torture chamber, a paranoid host, a henchman, a ghoul in the dungeon, etc. But sadly to say this wasn't made very well.<br /><br />A writer and a skipper get shipwrecked on an island owned by a count in a castle, his slave, and a mute maid. The count becomes more and more suspicious that the two shipwrecked men are pirates (of all things) and gets more inclined to turn on them and subject them, and the mute maid who befriends them, to torture and imprisonment. Sound not-bad right? <br /><br />Well, not quite. I used to call this one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but now I hesitate. Because it had so much potential it can't really be called "one of the worst." However, seeing all this potential go to waste is a really big hit against this film. All in all, it's not a very good movie.<br /><br />There is a very Gothic-suspense scene when our hero is chained in the dungeon and is confronted by the insane and leprous rotting bride, adorned in a tattered wedding dress. This was both creepy and disturbing the first time I saw the horror unfold in this scene. Man I wish this was a better movie! <br /><br />This movie had all the right stuff to make this a moody late-night chiller, but ultimately took all the wrong turns. I suggest someone remake this one. | negative |
You would really need to remember the Monkees and have a clear understanding as to where and how they fitted into the second half of the 1960s in order to fully appreciate this movie.<br /><br />There is no plot as such. Basically, it's a crazy, mixed up pastiche of various, unrelated sequences. But, it IS interesting AND entertaining in its own peculiar way once you get onto its wavelength. In short, it was a classic, cleverly conceived and well crafted example of late '60s experimental cinema. It contains some good songs, some ultra-groovy cinematography and plenty of other worthwhile ideas in terms of film technique.<br /><br />I give it 7 out of 10 for several reasons. First, it took a lot of courage to make such an unorthodox movie in the commercial mainstream where both its stars and its producers were firmly ensconced at the time. If a feature movie flops at the box office, the consequences can be dire for all concerned. Secondly, it was, for the most part, a creative success. And, finally, as already mentioned, it is, unquestionably, a classic of the genre and, as such, it is now historically important.<br /><br />Unfortunately, "Head" came too late in the Monkees career. But, there again, they would not have been allowed to make it earlier on because it was essentially a very pointed and cynical satire of their own image. <br /><br />Clearly, the members of the group knew, only too well, that the whole Monkees juggernaut had just about run its race when they started work on this project. In a way, it was to be their swan song and they were determined to let it all hang out. They were tired of being treated like mere pawns in the high powered corporate game in which they had been manipulated and exploited over the preceding few years. In short, they "wanted out" and they were going to say a few things before they left.<br /><br />History, however, has vindicated the band. Let the critics be damned. The Monkees, left behind some of the best, most polished and successful pop records of the decade. Yes, they had plenty of help. But at the end of the day, THEY stood in front of the studio mikes, THEY fronted the movie and TV cameras and THEY did the concerts. They were fun and just a little bit crazy. But, unlike some of their contemporaries, they were never threatening. You could safely introduce a Monkey to your elderly aunt.<br /><br />"Head" probably borrows a bit too heavily from the Beatles "Hard Day's Night" but it's still worth another look for those who were around at the time or for younger retrophiles who have the ability to appreciate its significance.<br /><br />Enjoy! | positive |
This could have been a really good movie if someone would just have known how to finish the film.<br /><br />The story was going along just fine and heading towards that point in every movie like this where the "gray" characters turn "good" and the "bad" guys get their just desserts and *boom* ... it's like they ran out of script and the cast just started to make things up.<br /><br />Which wouldn't have been so bad ... if the cast had just continued with the character development they had already put in place. But such is not the case and the movie soon becomes a goofy mess.<br /><br />My advice is to watch this movie up to about the last 30 minutes ... and then shut it off. At this point, imagine how you think the next 30 minutes will look based on what you have seen so far.<br /><br />Believe me, the ending you come up with will look far better than how this film actually ends. Trust me on this. | negative |
Demer Daves,is a wonderful director when it comes to westerns and "broken arrow" remains in everybody's mind.As far as melodrama is concerned,he should leave that to knowing people like Vincente Minelli,George Cukor or the fabulous Douglas Sirk. The screenplay is so predictable that you will not be surprised once while you are watching such a tepid weepie.Natalie Wood 's character was inspired by Fannie Hurst's "imitation of life" (see Stahl and Sirk),but who could believe she's a black man's daughter anyway?Susan Kohner was more credible in "imitation of life")and Sinatra and Curtis are given so stereotyped parts that they cannot do anything with them:the poor officer,and the wealthy good-looking -and mean- sergeant.Guess whom will Natalie fall in love with?France is shown as a land of tolerance ,where interracial unions are warmly welcome.At the time(circa 1944) it was dubious,it still is for narrow-minded people you can find here there and everywhere. | negative |
Cunningly interesting Western from a director who had few peers in the genre. Much like other Anthony Mann pictures, The Far Country blends a potent pot boiling story with an adroit knowing of impacting scenery. Both of which play out amongst some of Mann's peccadilloes like honour, integrity, betrayal and of course, death! The story sees fortune hunting partners Jeff Webster {James Stewart} and Ben Tatum {Walter Brennan} travel to Oregon Territory with a herd of cattle. Aware of the blossoming gold-boom, they plan to make a tidy profit selling the cattle in a Klondike town. Arriving in Skagway they find self-appointed judge Mr. Gannon {John McIntire} ready to meet out justice to Webster on account of Webster having fractured the law, all be it with honest cause, along the way. In punishment Gannon takes the partners herd from them, but they steal them back and head across the Canadian border to Dawson-with Gannon and his men in hot pursuit. Here beautiful women and a meek and lawless town will fill out the destinies of all involved.<br /><br />Interesting from start to finish, The Far Country benefits greatly from James Stewart's bubbling {anti} hero in waiting portrayal and Mann's slick direction of the tight Borden Chase script. The cinematography from William H. Daniels is superlative, tho not done any favours by current DVD prints, and the film has a few surprises and a "will he wont he?" core reeling the viewers in. Paying dividends on re-watches for hardened genre fans, it still remains something of an essential viewing for first timers venturing into the wonderful, yet dark, Western world of Anthony Mann and James Stewart. 8/10 | positive |
The "movie aimed at adults" is a rare thing these days, but Moonstruck does it well, and is still a better than average movie, which is aging very well. Although it's comic moments aim lower than the rest of it, the movie has a wonderful specificity (Italians in Brooklyn) that isn't used to shortchange the characters or the viewers. (i.e. Mobsters never appear in acomplication. It never becomes grotesque like My Big Fat Greek Wedding) The secondary story lines are economically told with short scenes that allow a break from the major thread. These are the scenes that are now missing in contemporary movies where their immediate value cannot be impressed upon producers and bigwigs. I miss these scenes. It also beautifully involves older characters. The movie takes it's own slight, quiet path to a conclusion. There isn't a poorly written scene included anywhere to make some executives sphincter relax. Cage and Cher do very nice work.<br /><br />Moonstruck invokes old-school, ethnic, workaday New York much like 'Marty' except Moonstruck is way less sanctimonious. | positive |
Lone Star Productions sure churned them out in the 1930's, and "Star Packer" has the feel of one of the more rushed ones. John Wayne is U.S. Marshal John Travers, investigating a crooked hoodlum known only as "The Shadow", responsible for stealing cattle, stage holdups and the like, and giving orders from behind the door of a phony wall safe. Yakima Canutt is Travers' trusty Indian sidekick, appropriately named as... well, "Yak".<br /><br />Early on, we find out that Cattlemens Union head Matt Matlock (George pre-Gabby Hayes) is really The Shadow; the dead giveaway is when he offers to buy out his (supposed) niece Anita's half of the Matlock Ranch, since "this is no place for a girl". As Anita, Verna Hillie doesn't have much to do in the film, although in a comic moment, she gets to use a six shooter to blast the butt of one of the villains in a night time scare raid.<br /><br />There are a few curiosities in the film - for one, Wayne's character alternately rides a white horse and a dark horse in the first half of the film. In what could have been a neat device, a hollowed out tree stump used by a henchman is located right in the middle of the street. And finally, the movie doesn't truly live up to it's name, as Sheriff Travers never wears a badge throughout the film, that is, a star packer without a star.<br /><br />The horse chases, the runaway stage scenes, the stagecoach off the cliff (another curiosity, the horses conveniently get loose from the stage) are all pretty standard stuff. But John Wayne fans will want to see this one for the charisma he displayed early on in his career. For those more critical, the white kerchiefs worn around the forehead by the good guy posse could only mean that they all had a headache. | negative |
Interferencia starts as unemployed Martin Sanders (Andres Bagg) hears something strange on his phone, he hears a mysterious man talking to a prostitute named Diana & arranging to meet her. Soon after Martin reads a local paper & sees the front page story about a prostitute being murdered & thinks back to what he heard. Martin confides in his friends Laura (Virginia Lustig) & Aaron (Oliver Kolker) but they don't believe him. Then shortly after the same thing happens again, the phone call, the man, the prostitute & her death reported in the papers. Martin decides he has to find the killer & put a stop to his killing spree but who is it?<br /><br />This Argentinian production that was apparently shot in just eight days (why so long?) on a budget of about $3,000 (why so much?) was written & directed by Sergio Esquenazi & I cannot believe some of the glowing comments Interferencia has on the IMDb. Out of 195 user ratings as I write this 113 of them rate this pile of crap 10 out of 10, I am sorry but there is no way anyone should be giving a film this bad a quite literally perfect score of 10 out of 10. If a score for a film on IMDb is fixed then this is it, I honestly don't believe that if you showed Interferencia to 195 average people that well over 100 of them would rate it as being absolutely perfect, no way on Earth. The user comments are also amazingly positive, all by IMDb users who have only wrote comments for one film, this. The one user (besides me) who has actually written more than one comment gave it a rock bottom 1 out of 10 which sounds just about right. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I would stake my life on the fact most of those positive comments are from fake accounts set up purely to big this piece of crap up. Where do I start? How on Earth can I adequately describe how bad Interferencia is? The plot is a mess that basically lives or dies by it's terrible twists, while most twists turn a plot on it's head & alters the perspective of everything that has gone before in a clever & relevant way & are genuine surprises here in Interferencia the twists destroy the first half of the film & makes it utterly pointless in a 'it didn't actually happen' sort of way & the twist is so poorly handled that it leaves you asking more questions than it answers. What made Martin go mad? Why did he imagine the phone calls? Why did he imagine a killer? Why did he imagine the newspaper headlines? No explanation is given for Martin's behaviour during the first hour or so of the film, there's just this absurd revelation that it was all in his mind & that's it, that's all the exposition there is. Then there's a plot twist about Martin's missing wife & her lover before Martin for reasons unexplained starts to kill his friends for no apparent reason. I am sorry but Interferencia is so bad, it's so boring, it's so badly written & thought out that I honestly can't think of a positive thing to say about it. Sorry guy's but that's how I feel, quite simply Interferencia is one of the worst films I have ever seen & is a complete mess both conceptually & technically.<br /><br />According to the IMDb Interferencia was hot in just eight days, to be honest it doesn't feel like that at all. Nope, it feels more like it was shot in five days! The whole film is an eyesore, Interferencia has probably the worst nighttime shooting I have ever seen. It's like no attempt was made to light the scenes, it's like the makers just went into a dark room or basement or whatever & just shoot the scene regardless of whether you could see anything. The scenes set outside in the daytime have this horrible unnatural blue green tint to them for no apparent reason which just looks daft & becomes increasingly irritating. This strange tint is not repeated on indoor scenes so they are also quite jarring & noticeable. There's no real horror or scares, in fact I would say Interferencia is more of a thriller than a horror. As far as gore goes there are two decapitated heads in a fridge, a knife is stuck in someones mouth & nothing else.<br /><br />According to the IMDb this had a budget of about $3,000 which makes Interferencia one of the lowest budgeted films ever commercially released surely? Some people think just because a film is low budget all reasonable viewing standards should go out of the window & we should accept any old crap, wrong! To watch this on DVD you will still have to pay good money & I personally think we have the right to expect some sort of good product. If this can get released & praised like it's Oscar worthy then we can all release our holiday camcorder footage (including embarrassing karaoke footage & scenes of total blackness as we forgot to take off the lens cap) & win top prizes at the next Cannes film festival! The acting is awful although the female lead Virginia Lustig is actually rather sexy & helps ease the pain of the final twenty odd minutes as she features a fair bit.<br /><br />Interferencia is an absolutely terrible film, seriously I beg you don't be fooled by all the fake positive comments, there is no way anyone not involved in this or have some sort of agenda is going to give it a 9 or 10 out of 10. An amateurish mess that is truly horrible to sit through. Sorry but that's the way I see it, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind... you have been warned! | negative |
I can barely find the words to describe how much this piece of trash offended me. Why is it that American filmmakers always go out of there way to portray Jamaicans as a bunch of backwards ass bush babies and worse yet, cast people to play Jamaicans who sound utterly ridiculous when they try to imitate the accent? We are not all extremely dark, we do not all walk around carrying machetes whether for work OR PROTECTION, we do not walk around naked in our homes and we do not practice VOODOO!! We are doctors, lawyers, architects, Businessmen and women, musicians, actors AND FILMMAKERS. I am sick and tired of watching all of these portrayals of Jamaicans as a bunch of dreadlock wearing Rastafarians who do nothing but sit around all day smoking weed on a beach or shooting guns in the air (When we're not living in our tree houses). YES, we wear clothes. YES, we have electricity. No, weed is not legal on the island AND CHANCES ARE WE SPEAK BETTER English THAN YOU! The worst part is, this isn't just me being angry and bitter, these are actual answers to questions that most Jamaicans who have traveled overseas have been asked at some point. Read a book before you assume what's it's like in another country and worse yet, decide to make a movie about it.<br /><br />WELCOME TO JAMAICA! The land where all we do is murder white people and beat our bongos drums...Tales from the Crypt has officially sickened me, along with the entire crew of people who worked on this garbage, especially the writer. | negative |
.....whoops - looks like it's gonna cost you a whopping £198.00 to buy a copy (either DVD or Video format)from ITV direct.<br /><br />Ouch.<br /><br />Sorry about this, but IMDB won't let me submit this comment unless it has at least 10 lines, so...........<br /><br />blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblah !!<br /><br /> | positive |
The filmmaker inhaled Andy Goldsworthy's art, his search for closeness with the land and the water, and his sense of proportion -- and so gently, so beautifully breathed it back on to film for the rest of us. "Rivers and Tides" loves Goldsworthy's work and joins it as a visual concert of time and human presence in a flowing world, a world that hides its power in plain sight. See this movie! | positive |
What a disappointment! I hated the mummy but this one was even worse! It was very tiring and unbelievable and at a certain point I found myself sighing and yawning all the time. I can't believe that people actually liked this movie. The role of Nicholas Cage wasn't very convincing. The whole movie felt like a grand tour around America's most wanted buildings. The never stopping flow of hints and combinations wasn't very convincing either. I stopped paying attention around 30 minutes. What was supposed to be a happy night out became a total disappointment. What a drag... I guess I've just seen too many movies to enjoy National Treasure. | negative |
Jack Webb finally gives something besides his usual wooden indian performance. He played the epitome of the jarhead, brainwashed, storm the beaches, semper fi, bonehead military idiot. The Corps before all else, even humanity. This great film showed the idiosy of boot camp to it's fullest. 4 stars. | positive |
I've been waiting 30 years to see this film. I played the soundtrack album as a teenager and through my 20s. Recently, I located a reasonably priced dvdr and I watched it this morning. It was in widescreen, probably even a 70mm print, stereo, the colors were quite good, very little fading, certainly not remastered but I'm very very happy with this clean copy.<br /><br />Now for the film. It's pretty good. I wouldn't say it's great though there are great scenes in it. Perhaps Premminger may not have been the right director for it, but I'll say this. For me the center piece of the film was the hurricane scene. Marvelously staged by Premminger. One of the great weather scenes of all time.<br /><br />In fact, I'd go as far to say that the acting scenes are better than the musical scenes, not that the musical sequences are bad. Not at all. They did lack... something though. Perhaps it was the fact that there are no close ups and very few medium shots. It was almost like watching a filming of a stage production. Perhaps that was the feel that Premminger was going after. In the end it may not have been the right choice, but so it goes. It is far from a ruined movie.<br /><br />Having said that, not everyone loves the singers on the soundtrack either. I always have. They are perfect for this film. I love the singing voices. The actors lip-sinking are excellent for the most part. I just wish the songs were staged more imaginatively. Sportin' Life's two numbers are fine, but the intimate numbers don't even feel intimate. They just feel... far away. In spite of that, you cannot deny the power of the music. And in the end, that is what comes through loud and clear. Once again, maybe what Premminger was trying to do was to stay out of the way of the incredible music he was working with. I believe he had the right idea but perhaps went too far in that direction.<br /><br />The acting is terrific. Top kudos goes to the great Brock Peters who acts and sings the part of Crown. He is the ultimate meany. We just want him to leave poor Bess alone, and he doesn't. As proud, arrogant and nasty as he is, Sammy Davis Jr's classic rendition of Sportin' Life is the slick devil himself and a very charismatic one at that. Arguably, Davis's best film acting. Poor Bess just can't handle two bad men. I'm glad the Hermes Pan gave Davis a tap dance number to do.<br /><br />Dandridge and Poitier, reportedly not impressed by being in the film, really are very sweet together. I don't know about chemistry... there was more chemistry between Dandridge and Peters than there was between Dandridge and Poitier. Still, it worked out fine for Dorothy and Sidney.<br /><br />Even so, I think they should both be proud of the work they did on this film. They both managed to bring more than one tear to my eye. Their characterizations where very 3D and believable. Sidney Poitier's Porgy, however, seems almost out of place in catfish row. I couldn't help thinking he was Mr. Braithwaite in "To Sir with Love", very educated and well mannered and spoken, fallen on hard times. He probably wouldn't have been my first choice for the part of Porgy, but hey, he was a huge star at the time, so why not? Dorothy's Bess was as perfect as her Carmen Jones, in fact even more vulnerable this time around. Carmen was probably the flashier part for her to do.<br /><br />A very very good film indeed, it is two sticks short of what I would call a classic. It just doesn't make the ultimate classic grade. Still, there is no reason on earth why the Gershwin estate has decided to keep this beautiful film, even with all of its flaws, hidden from the public as they have. Premminger may have made some odd choices as a director, but the film is nothing to be ashamed and embarrassed about for anyone involved with it. It is what it is and there are a lot worse movies than this that are embarrassing out on DVD and in theaters today. Porgy and Bess is not one of them. | positive |
Gods...where to start. I was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before I turned it off in disgust. Aside from the actor playing Robin Hood himself, the rest were just terrible. And, I can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far.<br /><br />From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.<br /><br />Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.<br /><br />The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.<br /><br />After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...<br /><br />Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.<br /><br />I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.<br /><br />For shame, BBC...for shame... | negative |
I had the privilege of seeing this powerful play on Broadway with Kathy Bates in the lead. I only saw one other play in the 1970's-1990's that had an emotional impact like this play did. I really looked forward to the play being made into a movie but was very disappointed when I learned that Kathy Bates wouldn't reprise her role in the film--she wasn't well known off Broadway at the time and the producers must have wanted star power I suppose and cast Sissy Spacek instead. Sissy did an adequate job in the lead role but did not measure up to Kathy Bates in any way. I love Anne Bancroft but she seemed too young for this role. The movie plot was true to the play. Anyone who ever contemplates suicide should have to watch this movie to realize the devastation on those who are left behind. | negative |
I have to admit that Over Her Dead Body actually wasn't as bad as I was expecting, my mom wanted to see it, so I rented it. I figured just to go ahead and see the horror before my eyes, but actually this wasn't too bad. I was just expecting this horrific movie, but it seems like the writers meant no harm, but the casting of Eva Longoria(Parker, sorry), she seems a little off set for the movie. I think I may have found it to be a little better without her, just she does annoy me. But Paul Rudd and Lake Bell had a decent chemistry that made the film somewhat likable. But you have to admit, there was no point to this movie, it was one of those quick paychecks for the actor type of thing. The movie could've been funnier if someone had really paid attention to it and had a better cast.<br /><br />Henry just lost his bride to be, Kate, who was killed by an ice sculpture on their wedding day. But when his sister takes him to a psychic, Ashley, Henry falls for her, but Kate is haunting her from beyond the grave. Kate is jealous and doesn't want Henry to move on so quickly and she will make sure that Ashley doesn't get him by torturing her day and night with her rambles, believe me, with Kate's voice, that's scary.<br /><br />Over Her Dead Body is an alright movie, not sure if it's worth the money, but I'd give it a rental for you if you want to see it or are curious. Eva Longoria just doesn't have enough star power to make the film work, no offense to those who love her, she just belongs on the small screen over the silver screen. Not to mention the character of Ashley, she seems still not too likable with everything she pulls, or her "gay" friend, Dan, just again, not really likable. Just with some re-writing and proper attention, this film could have been better, but instead we get the average predictable romantic comedy that will leave with with an empty feeling.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
Noni Hazlehurst's tour-de-force performance (which won her an AFI award) is at least on par with her effort in FRAN three years later. Colin Friels is also good, and, for those who are interested, Alice Garner appears as Noni's child, and Michael Caton (best known for THE CASTLE) is a bearded painter. (Also interestingly, Hazlehurst is currently the host of lifestyle program BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS, and Caton is the host of property-type programs including HOT PROPERTY, HOT AUCTION, etc...) This film reaffirms the popularly-held belief that Noni was arguably Australia's top female actor during the early-to-mid 1980s. Rating: 79/100. | positive |
Ignoring (if possible) the tediously gratuitous marijuana smoking (which seems to be mandatory in Australian government-funded films) the cast of this movie gives a reasonably credible performance. That's a far as it goes. The rest is simply awful. The plot's overburdened with "wow" symbolisms which are meant to look good on film but go nowhere. A gross example is the giant peach float, obviously left over from a town parade and donated by the local canning factory. It was just too tempting to waste what was hopefully a free, but nevertheless irrelevant, prop! The peach is given a cursory, unexplained wash-down at one stage but that's where it ends.<br /><br />Similarly, the contrived "black spot" road sign where Steph's parents were killed, is intended to symbolize the eventual escape from her past, but her escape to what? She's had a pretty good deal where she was, especially considering her visual disability and the unending, loving patience and care of her understanding young female guardian.<br /><br />The Guinness' prize for corny melodrama, however, goes to the characterization of Alan. Alan successfully aspires to the noble role of trade union shop steward but "rats" on his fellow workers by becoming a supervisor for a wicked multi-national - hiss! hiss! As a supervisor, Alan performs the boss' villainous dirty work. He implements redundancies until, surprise, surprise, the whole plant is closed and Alan himself is left as a pathetic, unemployed failure. No cliché-free zones here, mate! Not only this, but Alan also loses the seductive Steph from the most unlikely relationship you'd encounter. If you think the plot is melodramatic and didactic, don't ask about detail. What's the significance of the shaving cream on Steph's seductive leg? Why doesn't the hotel, where the couple makes love, eventually twig that someone's gaining illegal entry to one of its grandest bedrooms and, among other pandemoniums, the sheets are regularly soiled - quite spectacularly on one occasion. Summing this movie up in one word: Avoid, Avoid, Avoid. | negative |
I actually flipped to Lifetime channel by mistake, just as this movie was beginning, and ended-up watching it. <br /><br />It certainly deals with a serious issue, probably more prevalent than we realize, in terms of this type of attack of a young woman by an ego-maniacal fellow-student, who feels he's above the system, and, unfortunately, often is.<br /><br />The cast here was believable, and the performances credible. A lot of these Canadian/Lifetime flicks are decidedly "over-the-top." However, this is one I might label as "under-the-top."<br /><br />While appreciating the fact that it wasn't presented in an overblown fashion, this film somehow seemed like a record being played at a slower speed than proper, the 96 minutes seemed like many more, and it had the effect of looking like a shorter film, looped over-and-over, seemingly going on and on and on and ON - before reaching its inevitable and predictable conclusion.<br /><br />Yet the engaging characters and performances made it better than the average film of this type, despite these criticisms.<br /><br />And while these pictures often "milk" the climax, this one could have given it a bit more detail and length. | positive |
If you've never experienced the thing that is Zasu Pitts, here is a Zasu zinger! In 1933 Mae Questel caricatured Pitt's voice for the character Olive Oyl for the Fleischer Studios animated cartoon version of the comic strip Popeye. Zasu (pronounced Zay-Sue) does her best "Olive Oyl" impersonation walking around whining and ringing her hands or attaching herself to the policeman's laynard. I kept waiting for her to say "ohhh myyyy", but instead it's "something always happens to somebody." The first time I saw this film I loved Zasu and found her character really funny. I've since seen her in other films where she does this same whining, uptight, fragile-flower routine. So, upon watching this film again I started getting a little annoyed with the constant whining and near hysteria over a piece of dust. But, there are some funny comedy bits here, and it's also a mystery movie as well. It's an interesting mix of mystery and comedy that actually works. The mystery plot holds together well through the camp of Zasu Pitts and James Gleason who plays Arthur Crimmer the policeman. The haunted House is fun with many a secret passage and even a skeleton in the attic! Well worth the watch. Read more public domain movie reviews at: http://pdmoviereview.blogspot.com/ | positive |
I have to say as being a fan of the man who created Halloween/The Fog/Christine/The Thing - probably his best films.<br /><br />Then you got this POS. I can't logically think he put any effort at all into this like he did with Cigarette Burns. At least his son made a decent soundtrack.<br /><br />You have to look at this from the standpoint that it didn't seem like a movie. It looked as if someone else directed it for one thing. I won't believe Carpenter put any effort into this at all.<br /><br />I was just listening to his old school H2/H3/The Fog soundtrack and it was awesome, especially for the times.<br /><br />He was using a style that no one had and it worked so well for his films. | negative |
The Wind. Easily one of the worst films ever made. The only good that comes from this kind of pointless drivel, is the fact that seeing films like this get distribution makes indy horror filmmakers like me confident that my upcoming feature will make the cut too. I mean, if this represents the market for indy horror, I could make a fortune videotaping myself taking out the garbage for 83 minutes. <br /><br />A complete list of what this film lacks would take way too long to write out. But, the highlites are: no story, terrible acting, awful cinematography, and virtually no editing. That last one bothered me the most. As an editor myself, this film drove me absolutely crazy because it had almost no editing at all. Every scene was shot in a master. They had absolutely no coverage at all. For anyone who doesn't know..."coverage" is shooting a scene from multiple angles to have cutting options when editing to make for a desirable viewing experience. Yeah, this movie had none of that. I'm talking about even the simplest of scenes. Example: an ordinary conversation scene between two people sitting at a table would typically start out with a master establishing who's in the scene and where they are. Then, as the conversation goes on, you would cut back and forth to over-the-shoulder shots as the conversation continues. You may even throw in a cutaway shot or two of something on the table, or in someone's hand. Anything. This is "Film 101" stuff guys. It seems as though these people had no idea this is how films work. Every shot was a camera lock-down. No movement, no cutting, no nothing. If I was teaching a course in filmmaking, this would be the visual aid for my "What not to do" lesson.<br /><br />In closing, don't waste your time folks. The only amazing this about this film is that it ever scored distribution at all.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> | negative |
In all honesty, if someone told me the director of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, City of Angels, and Caspers was going to do a neat little low budget indie film and that'd it be real good, I'd say that person must be joking. But that's what director Brad Siberling did. And it was really good.<br /><br />"10 Items or Less" has a similar conceit to films like "Before Sunrise," "Lost in Translation," or more recently "Once." It involves the chance meeting of two people who if serendipity didn't put them there, they'd probably never cross paths, or if they did, they wouldn't say word one to each other. Like those films, "10 Items or Less" focuses on the relationship that builds and how the characters come to understand each other and build on each other's strengths and weaknesses.<br /><br />The story involves Morgan Freeman, playing an unnamed actor who goes to research his role as a grocery store employee for an upcoming independent movie and because of things beyond his control, ends up spending the day with the lady in the 10 items or less lane played by Paz Vega. She has a rotten marriage and is hoping to land a new job as a secretary. Initially, Freeman's character just needs a lift home. After spending time with her, however, he wants to get to know her and maybe even offer her some advice.<br /><br />Brad Siberling builds the characters almost entirely through the exchanges between Freeman and Vega. The plot is merely a setup for these two characters to interact with each other for most of the film's 80 minute duration. Freeman has fun with his character, as he appears an outsider in lower class world that Vega's character, Scarlett, inhabits. Vega, in the meantime, grows beyond the stubborn checkout clerk upset with her life's situation looking to move on.<br /><br />There a couple things that really stood out in this film. First of all, Siberling has probably taken note from independent cinema to make sure the relationship is sincere and doesn't fall into any Hollywood pitfalls. It's a very mutual friendship that develops convincingly throughout the film. It works, even though the situation itself does seem a little inconceivable.<br /><br />I am also impressed with the performances. While Freeman's presence gives this film credibility from the get-go, he shows a certain amount of charm and fun not usually seen from him. Paz Vega, meanwhile, is priming herself for a breakthrough in US film sometime in the future. I loved her in Spanglish and she's equally good here as the tough, no-nonsense Scarlet. Towards the end of the film, she successfully conveys the growth of her character. I'm looking forward to seeing her in more films.<br /><br />Overall, 10 Items of Less functions best as a character piece, well scripted and directed by Brad Siberling. He hasn't done much writing and his feature film work has consisted mostly of big Hollywood films. Yet there's certainly an artist at work here and am anxious to see if he'll take this road again. | positive |
I read the other comments here about this movie before watching it. If you've read them, you will know that they are almost all negative. I really don't understand that. I admit that it is far too long (it needs about a half hour cut out to speed it up a bit). The music is often inappropriate. But, strong performances by Ford and Thomas are indeed enough to carry this. With all his fame as a movie star, I'd forgotten that Harrison Ford really can act! This role as a man who has defined himself based upon a lie is remarkable. I find it completely believable that he wants all the details he can get so he can see what was real and what was deception. Thomas is always wonderful and this is no exception. Her initial denial which leads to confusion and then to inner calm is tremendous. This movie is never going to be on anybody's list of great flicks, but it isn't that bad. I'm glad that I waited to see it on video, but it is worth the $3 or $4. | positive |
But how can you stand to mange a baseball team that can't win. For George Knox, it is not easy. As the movie opens, Roger Beaumont (Joseph-Gordon-Levitt) and his best friend J.P (Milton Davis Jr.) are riding on thier bikes around the angels' stadium. When they return to thier foster mother's home, Roger is suprised to have a visit from his dad (Dermot Mulroney). His mom is dead! And when he asks his father when they going to be a family again, he father jokes "I say when the angels win the division championship" So later on, Roger and J.P hide in a tree to watch the angels play baseball. When the manger George Knox (Danny Glover) take out his pitcher, the pitcher gets mad and gets into a fight with him, and soon the angels team get into the fightm that gets Knox ejected from the game. That night Roger makes a prayer, for the angles win the championship. When his foster mother Maggie Nelson (Brenda Ficker) agrees that Roger and J.P go to a basball, Roger sees real angles come on the field and helps the left fielder (Matthew McConaughey) makes a catch, that leaves the manger and the play-by-play man (Jay. O Sanders) how did he to that. Roger learns from the head angel (Christopher Lloyd) that only he can see the angles, because he was the only that prayed for help. <br /><br />10/10 | positive |
Another well done moral ambiguity pieces where the anti-hero makes it hard to decide who to root for.<br /><br />If nothing else "The Beguiled" silenced anyone who said there were no good parts for actresses in movies-at least in 1971. There were four excellent parts for actresses in this film and all were well cast and well executed.<br /><br />Pamelyn Ferdin did a fine job as Amy and would go on to play "Wanda June". This must have been the first time an adult male box office star shared an extended kiss with a twelve-year-old girl on camera, wonder if there was much controversy about this at the time. It was probably Polanski's favorite scene. Given the fate of Amy's turtle "Randolph", it is no surprise that Ferdin grew up to be a hardcore animal rights activist.<br /><br />Geraldine Page was likewise excellent, playing a complex character with just the right amount of restraint. It is interesting that she died just three days after Elizabeth Hartman committed suicide (throwing herself through a fifth floor window) as they had also worked together in "You're a Big Boy Now".<br /><br />Hartman (who looks like she could be Blair Brown's sister) was wonderful as Edwina and should have gotten an Oscar (no other performance was even close that year), but given what we now know about her you wonder just how much of her performance was a studied effort and how much just came from inside her. Edwina shows such raw pain it is difficult to watch. Like Marilyn Monroe's incredible performance in "The Misfits", the viewer is probably seeing a whole lot of her own demons in the character she is playing.<br /><br />Finally there is Jo Ann Harris who is stunningly perfect as the flirty Carol. For my money Harris was the sexiest actress of the 1970's, combining sensuality with intelligence and humor. She was the best reason to watch the "Most Wanted" television series and the only reason to watch "Wild Wild West Revisited". Hard to believe that someone who could bring all that to the screen never became a big star. | positive |
You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.<br /><br />"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?<br /><br />Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.<br /><br />Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there. | negative |
Anyone familiar with my reviews on the Internet Movie Database will know that I can be a grumpy bastard from time to time. There are a lot of films I don't like which, for some unfathomable reason, I've felt the urge to review. However, if anyone out there is curious to know the name of the worst film I've ever seen, look no further than Transylvania 6-5000. Without question, this takes the title of the all-time no. 1 awful film. I can't believe that I actually made it from the start of this clunker to the finish!<br /><br />It is clearly meant to capture the flavour of Mel Brooks's Young Frankenstein, but where that film was a funny take on horror movie traditions, this one is a desperately strained and misguided attempt to wring laughs from embarrassingly weak material. Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley Jr look ashamed to be here as a pair of journalists in modern day Transylvania (perhaps they realised early on that they were doomed in this dud). During their research, they come up against all the chief monsters from past horror favourites, such as vampires, werewolves and mummies.<br /><br />Anyone who manages to brave this film right through to its end may pray that a stake be driven through their heart to relieve them from the agony of boredom. It marks a career nadir for everyone involved and proves that when comedy fails in a big way, it results in awesomely dire entertainment. | negative |
...dislike this movie and everyone would understand why. The plot is poor, so is the acting. But in my opinion it is better than Halloween 5, although even this does not give many surprising moments. A few scenes are really well directed. But these few moments do not deliver the reason to rent it. I do not despise violence in movies, but H6 features extraordinary strong and bloody scenes which do not fit to the tradition of the Halloween-Movies. The most sucking aspect about H6 is the lack of tension. No comparison to the first masterpiece.<br /><br />Halloween 6 only gets 4 out of 10 stars from me. If you want, rent it. But don't expect a great horror-experience....<br /><br /> | positive |
William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice portrays 16th century Venice. Al Pacino plays Shylock, a Jewish loan shark who plots revenge on a Catholic that has looked down on him. The movie is a slow moving plot in the beginning that builds up throughout the two plus hours. The film gives a very good and believe appearance to it's characters, especially Pacino. When hearing that Pacino plays a Jew one might think that it would not work looking at Pacino's previous mobster type movie roles. Nonetheless it works very well, credit must be given to the costume designer's and director's of the film. The look of all the characters fits well with the time period the play takes place in. The costumes look like the Renaissance appearance one might envision to be.<br /><br />The film portrays a very anti-Semitic vibe. From the first minute to the last it is shown how the Catholic's try to take advantage of the Jews in every way they can, even to the point of keeping them locked away in "ghettos" and not allowing them to regular jobs. In comparison to The Passion of the Christ, another recent film that people believed to be very Anti-Semitic, Merchant of Venice makes Passion look like a Jewish holiday. The film shows how the Jews, or at least Shylock wanted revenge for the mistreatment that the Jews received. The location shots also seem very timely and the scenery is at times very beautiful or very ugly depending on the scene of the film, making it just that much more realistic. Showing the beautiful and the ugly can also be seen as anti-Semitic because the ugly is usually shown around the Jews and the beautiful around the Catholics.<br /><br />Although the film clearly attempts to have a serious aura certain parts do add a bit of humor to the act. The oh so serious trial between Shylock and Antonio (Irons) adds a bit of humor when Portia (Collins) and Nerissa (Goldenhersh) come into the trial and decide who will be the victor and the defeated. That in itself might not be funny, but seeing it that they were women dressed up in disguise as men one might find it to be pretty amusing. The whole cross dressing scene, as compelling as it was could have probably been even more memorable had the make up artists and director Michael Radford taken notice that the two women still look like women and could easily be recognized. The director also could have seen into the fact that the women are speaking through their regular voices instead of trying to sound like men, which in part takes away from the scene but doesn't kill it entirely.<br /><br />Overall the film gets a 7 out of 10 | positive |
Why did they have to waste money on this crap?!<br /><br />WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!<br /><br />The plot: down-to-earth-good-kind-girl meets a rich-snob-ignorant guy. Her boyfriend gets jealous and with the guy, they burn down a resturant? (Over an UGLY girl?) Guy has to stay in town to build a new resturant, perfect for the love story to begin. But, hark!!! The girl is dying!!! Isn't that a surprise boys and girls? But she teaches him love life, and enjoy it. He's sad she is dying. She dies. He is sad. But has now learned to love life.<br /><br />What's the moral of the story? When, dying, teach another person to love life.<br /><br />LIKE EVERY OTHER LOVE MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!<br /><br />AAAAAH! This movie was the crapiest thing I have ever seen!!!! Did the director want to try to make this plot original?! AAAH! And the friggin' girl would not die!!! It took her a half hour?! I felt no pity for the charactors, and the love story died the first hour of the movie.<br /><br />1/10<br /><br />DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE BORED OR GET A HEAD ACHE!!!! | negative |
For several reasons, this movie is simply awful. Other posters have listed some of this movie's historical errors. Well, I have a layman's knowledge of Roman history and even I found the inaccuracies flagrant. I usually forgive errors in historical movies because I understand that the purpose is to entertain not educate. And shrinking a long saga down to a two hour feature requires some, let's say, historical license. But this movie goes well beyond mere rounding.<br /><br />There's worse. To tell a story from a distant period, the movie uses flashbacks which just make the story more confusing. Unless viewers have some prior knowledge of the period, they will quickly be lost. In addition, the movie was obviously filmed simultaneously in Italian and English with various actors being dubbed later. At times, the actors seem as if they were in completely different movies which were then edited together. In fact, this is not far wrong. The actors were obviously pasted onto a cheesy computer generated ancient Rome.<br /><br />The only reason I give this boring mess any stars is because I always find Peter O'Toole entertaining. But that is no reason to rent it. If you are curious about Roman history, there are much better movies available. | negative |
I think everyone was quite disappointed with this sci-fi flick. For one thing, it was directed by Tim Burton. Another thing, it's a remake of what is supposed to be a classic. I found it boring, gross, and ridiculous. If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Just about everyone at Imdb say it's crap and boy, are they right! If you haven't, avoid it. It's a snorer. 1 out of 10. | negative |
Great Movie! The sound track is awesome! Very relaxing sound. Elton was ahead of his own time even back in 1971. Lewis Gilbert did a magnificent job producing and directing this film! The movie was romantic and a breath of fresh air. The sound tracks written by Sir Elton complimented the movie to a T. Rex Morris does a great job with the tenor sax on the song "Honey Roll" and poem "I Meant To Do My Work Today" by Richard Le Gallienne was incredible! Kudos to everyone involved with this fantastic film! It was no surprise that a lot of the people involved with this movie went on to become the best in their field. | positive |
Who says zombies can't be converted into useful members of the community? Certainly not the makers of "Fido," who take us to a never-never-land version of the 1950's where the undead have been turned into butlers and servants for the burgeoning middle class. Timmy Robinson is the all-American boy who becomes emotionally attached to the family's new full-time domestic - a recently resurrected zombie whom Timmy has affectionately dubbed Fido. All of this has been made possible by Zomcom, a big-brother-type organization that has found a way to render the zombies (who were originally brought to "life" by radiation from outer space) manageable and docile - at least most of the time.<br /><br />This twisted, modern-day spin on the TV series "Lassie" - it might easily have been entitled "A Boy and His Zombie" - takes slyly satirical swipes at such pre-'60s concerns as obsessive social conformity (here keeping-up-with-the-Joneses means having more zombie servants than the folks next door), the sterility of suburban life, the corporate control of civic affairs, small town corruption and nuclear family values - all played out in a beautifully designed setting of parti-colored houses and immaculately manicured lawns. The movie doesn't hit the audience over the head with its message nor does it engage in endless hyperbole to generate laughs. Instead, this is a low-keyed, subtle little satire that elicits appreciative chuckles rather than full-bellied guffaws. Much of the humor derives from the incongruity between the placidness of the setting and the cavalier attitude towards death demonstrated by the fine citizens of the community (Life Magazine has been replaced with a periodical entitled Death Magazine). Despite some playfully graphic violence, the movie stays true to the spirit of innocence we generally associate with both the 1950's itself and the cheesy, low-budget horror movies that were so much a part of the pop culture scene of that decade.<br /><br />K'Sun Ray, Carrie-Ann Moss and Dylan Baker are amiable and appealing as the wide-eyed Timmy and his Cleaver-esquire parents (with slightly sinister undertones), while Billy Connolly accomplishes the well nigh impossible task of bringing a great deal of humanity and depth to the role of a resurrected corpse.<br /><br />This is what "Lassie" might have been had Timmy's best friend been afflicted rabies. | positive |
I have seen a lot of Saura films and always found amazing the way he assembles music, dance, drama and great cinema in his movies. Ibéria shows an even better Saura, dealing with multimedia concepts and a more contemporary concept of dance and music. Another thing that called my attention is the fact that, in this movie, dancers and musicians, dance and music, are equally important: the camera shows various aspects of music interpretation, examining not only technical issues but also the emotional experience of playing. The interest of Saura on the bridge between classical and contemporary music and dance is one more ingredient in turning this movie maybe the most aesthetically exciting among his other works. That's why I recommend it strongly to those who love good cinema, good music, good dance, great art. | positive |
Film follows a bunch of students in the NYC High School of the Performing Arts. There's Coco (Irene Cara) a black singer who WILL make it to the top despite everything. She's helped by Bruno (Lee Curren) a white musician. Then there's Doris (Maureen Teefy) who wants to be an actress--but she's shy and scared. She becomes friends with Motgomery (Paul McCrane)--purportedly the only gay student in the school and is romanced by Raul (Barry Miller). Then there's Leroy (Gene Anthony Ray--who sadly died in 2003) who's homeless and a great dancer--but can't read. Then there's various teachers (Albert Hague, Anne Meara stand out) trying to teach the kids.<br /><br />The songs are GREAT (the title tune and "Out Here On My Own" were nominated for Best Song--"Fame" won), the dances are energetic and the young cast shows plenty of ambition and talent. BUT this film misses the boat in the drama department. Many plot lines are brought up and completely left open-ended by the end of the movie. Why did Coco do a porno? Did Doris and Raul remain together afterwords? Did either make it? How about Montgomery--what happened to him? And did Leroy ever graduate--and how? There are too many long speeches (Raul has two) and moments that just lead to nothing. I'm assuming there were cuts in the script--I can't believe the movie just left all this open. <br /><br />Still, it's worth seeing for the acting and, again, the music. There's basically not one bad song and the dances go full force (and at one point stop traffic--literally!). My favorites are "Fame", "Out Here..." and "I Sing the Body Electric" which is a great closing song. So I recommend it but can only give it a 7--the script really needed to tie up loose ends--and it didn't.<br /><br />Trivia: They wanted to shot this film at the actual School for Performing Arts but couldn't get permission. The dean of the school read the script and said there was way too much swearing in the film. That is true--there is a LOT of foul language but that's how high school kids talk. Avoid the TV version which abysmally overdubs it. | positive |
Midnight Cowboy is not for everybody. It's raw, painful, and realistic but very entertaining. The lead actors Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman who would go on to become Oscar winning actors deliver amazing performances. Voight as the Texas hustler, Joe Buck, who migrates from small town Texas to New York City to become a hustler. He does not apologize for his chosen profession but it is not that easy. The New York City women like the rich lady played by Georgeann Johnson and Cass played by Oscar nominated Sylvia Miles are different than Texas women. Sadly, Buck is trying to escape from his past life in Texas. He was raised by his grandmother, Sally Buck, played by the wonderful actress Ruth White who died in 1969 from cancer. The locations in New York City are wonderful to watch as is the relationship between Fatso played by Hoffman and Buck's characters evolve into a moving male to male friendship. The men are struggling to survive the New York City life by not playing by the rules like getting a real job. As the film evolves, Buck's past comes to the surface and it's haunting but not clear. The film is not for children but compared to today's films and television programming, Midnight Cowboy might be more tame. I can't forget a young Brenda Vaccaro and a party that you can't forget. It's also a tearjerker of a film, so get your hankies out too. | positive |
This Movie Is Not A Horror Movie. There Is Nothing Scary About It It's More Of A Torture Flick. And It Doesn't Make Sense To Me, There Is A Few Scene's With Disappearing Bodies. For Instance he Woman In The Beginning Of The Movie. That Get Pulled Away Returns For A Scene In The Restroom With Nicole And She And She Completely Disappears. Then She Kills The Police Officer To Put Him Out Of His Misery And He Disappears PLUS Had To Shoot Him In The Head Twice To Kill Him I Don't Think So Especially When You Can See His Head Half Blown Off And Didn't Kill Him? The At The End She Sets The Killer's Truck On Fire. That But He's Not In It. He Is Standing Behind Her. Then It Cuts To The Rest Stop Has Been Completely Remodeled And Some People Are At The Rest Area And A New Girl Comes In And Nicole In Asking For Help Like The First Girl Totally No Sense In This Movie. Save Yourself Some Money And Skip This Movie. | negative |
Susan Sarandon. She made this movie for me. I've never appreciated her acting more than as I did in this movie. She really acted as though she were Adele August. I can appreciate actors and actresses who leave their individual persona and create a character who's truly believable. <br /><br />Natalie Portman as Ann August helped create the ideal antagonist as their characters developed through the movie. The movie was about them so the other characters were peripheral.<br /><br />I gave this movie an eight rating, but Susan received a ten from me because of her performance. As far as relationship movies go, Beaches and Terms of Endearment had a greater impact on me than this movie, but I highly recommend it. | positive |
don't buy this film for comedy value like I did, I didnt find it one bit funny, but so f****** miserable and lame it's unbelievable. I gave it to a friend for christmas which was pretty funny (on my side) I recently heard that he watched it and told me what an a**ehole I am!<br /><br />There is nothing more frustrating than watching an over-lit, over dramatic, poorly scored scene in which the camera is sat there on a tripod and doesn't move... the film work is truely pathetic, and I can only say DONT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!! | negative |
Lily Mars, a smalltown girl living in Indiana, dreams of making it big on Broadway and her aspirations are given a lift when successful Broadway producer John Thornway returns to his hometown for a visit. Lily tries everything she can to get Thornway to notice her, but he just gets annoyed with her antics. When Thornway goes back to New York to stage his show, Lily follows (unknown to John of course) and Thornway eventually gives her a small role in his next show, only as a favor to her family, however Thornway starts to fall for this young girl and a romance blossoms, which makes the show's leading lady, Isabel Rekay, jealous. When Isabel gets fed up with the John-Lily romance causing friction with the show, she leaves, and John decides to make Lily the star. Isabel returns later, and Thornway is forced to tell Lily that she is back to her small bit role in the play, which also may jeopardize the romance. Very charming film, and a refreshing change to see Garland put the comedic touches into her role (her reading of Lady MacBeth, while supposed to be humorous, never threatened her singing career) I enjoyed Heflin's character (Thornway) more when he was annoyed with Lily rather than be the romantic. The film got to be somewhat predictable and the scenes weren't assembled that well together, but a very enjoyable film. Rating, 7. | positive |
Let me just say - I love the horror genre to the extent that I see every single one that I can get my hands on regardless (except really low quality b-movie horrors which I could do without) and recently have become a big fan of Eastern horrors. Little did I know that a Korean horror would be the one that tops my list beating off heavyweights such as the Japanese Ringu (or the American Ring), or even quality US movies such as the Sixth Sense and The Others, and the widely acclaimed Hong Kong horror 'The Eye'.<br /><br />Previously 'The Ring' had stood as my favourite horror but it seems to me that I prefer the beauty of 'The Tale of Two Sisters' any day - the story is extraordinary and rather open to interpretation thus allowing repeat viewings although chances are you'll want to watch this again and again just because the movie is so masterfully shot... the story is likely one of the best in the genre to date. The acting is top notch too from the entire cast and the scares when they come have the potential to rattle you like anything within the Ring - I did find myself glued to the screen at those points unable to take my eyes off. <br /><br />Still I am glad it didn't come back to haunt me later that Sadako/Samara did from the Ring - after all such feelings are unpleasant and The Tale of Two Sisters leaves you with an uneasy feeling, but one that hopefully won't leave you without sleep but leave you satisfied that you have seen something quite special. But do remember.. if you don't understand the plot after the first viewing, a repeat viewing is more than advised.. I personally didn't have time for this since it was late so I flicked through scenes on the DVD, some numerous times until I had a good synopsis in my head and after looking on the net, seemed Ihad pretty much nailed it on the widely agreed interpretation. And the satisfaction from solving a puzzle like that is wonderful.<br /><br />All in all - a masterfully crafted horror that is unlikely to produce the same 'level' remake (its been purchased by Dreamworks) simply because of the Korean content and everyone is advised to catch this in the theaters or on DVDs while they can... its one of the best you will get. Unfortunately due to the type of movie this is, there is no way to even talk about the story without spoilers so its best to do what I did - watch it without knowing a single thing except its 'a tale of two sisters'! And be prepared for something that is unlikely to be matched for some time. | positive |
'Nemesis' was the last book to feature Miss Marple written by Agatha Christie (the official final case 'Sleeping Murder' was written in the forties) and I've always had a very soft spot for it. I loved the characters and they are lovingly brought to life in this excellent BBC adaptation with Joan Hickson, terrific as ever, as Miss Marple.<br /><br />On the whole it is very faithful to the book. A few characters are dropped, the first (new) murder is slightly different and a couple of new characters are introduced. Personally I felt that the added character of Lionel Peel was unnecessary and rather irritating. Tour guide Madge was irritating in a different way but often quite amusing. It's largely because of Lionel that I don't award 10 out of 10! The other characters are beautifully done especially Helen Cherry as a dignified Miss Temple and all of the three weird sisters but particularly Margaret Tyzack who gives a towering performance as Clothilde. She threatens to go over the top towards the end but just avoids it. The female bodyguards are good value too and the episode contains one of my favourite Hickson lines...'An Archdeacon?!' <br /><br />This is another relatively early BBC Marple that looks wonderful and is has a gloriously nostalgic feel to it. Highly recommended. | positive |
An excellent interpretation of Jim Thompson's novel, this neo-noir thriller has all the requisite elements--deranged ex-boxer turned drifter, alcoholic widow with sinister desires, ex-cop turned small-time crook, and a kidnap plot destined for doom. Yet, the film never crosses into cliche country, but remains fresh and intriguing. The performances are all superb, particularly Bruce Dern's role as the wicked sleazeball, Uncle Bud. There is a tense uncertainty to the film's movement which, intentional or not, adds to the grim proceedings. Highly recommended. | positive |
When something can be anything you want it to be or mean, it's bound to register with someone as being rather special. But just as the shape of a cloud in the sky may appear to one of us or remind us of a battleship, and to another of his aunt's rear, and yet to another absolutely nothing other than a cloud, this does not make this cloud meaningful except for the viewers' interpretation. Anyone who might find throwing a stuffed giraffe out of a window brilliant, or worthwhile for that matter, without relating it in some context, is possibly merely trying to impress us with his or her intellectuality.<br /><br />Submitting to this movie as the dreams of a madman does quite nicely, especially since there is no standard or expectation for what said dreams would be like, and even if we were mad ourselves, this would hardly give us sane reference points for comparison. A love affair with this movie entails the same risk as seriously interpreting Nostradamus. Whatever real meaning was being conveyed at the time might be buried in the private jokes, musings, or provincial minutiae of its day, and to a select few radical intellectuals at that! I did spot a bit of an agenda even with my limited capacity though.<br /><br />The movie is definitely anti-Fascist and to some extent anti-Italian. I noted that although the years 1929-30 were years of great public works and urban renewal in Italy, any indication of this seemed avoided. Furthermore, (avant-guarde academic spinners take note of this for your next class) the very short cropped haired man with the mustache in the party segment near the end is a caricature of Victor Emmanuel III and his tall female companion none other than Queen Helen, formerly Princess of Montenegro. Without an understanding of potential historical relevance, even the apparent irrelevance is beyond the competence of academic or other intellectual poseurs who would bask in irrelevance to impress us.<br /><br />I gladly add my own paint buckets to the defacement of this cinematic joke. But in an adaptation of the famous mot by the little boy; The movie really has no face (to deface). Paint would help it burn though. | negative |
"Paranormal State" is an interesting show for most paranormal believers. I enjoy watching what the "team" has to say and what they "find", however, I know that the entire show along with it's build ups and story lines are completely set up. They go to real haunted locations and I suspect that they speak with actual witnesses. I commonly feel as I watch it that I am not watching non-fiction but an actual movie that is contradictory to reality. I personally would not advise or recommend anyone to watch this show unless you are a basic scare seeker. <br /><br />Interesting show. Stick to "Ghost Hunters" | negative |
I turn on 700 Club once in awhile and only agree with some of the statements made- I'm one of many believers that is considered liberal by most Christians and conservative by most non-Christians. I vote my mind, and its usually not rep. or dem. - i don't believe 700 club tells people what to believe, but that it represents many older christians that grew up in very conservative backgrounds. i think many folks misunderstand what is said on 700 club. it bums me out to hear name calling either direction. i think 700 club folks really do love Jesus but are so busy trying to get people to vote conservatively that they've forgotten to show love to certain people and promote peace like Jesus did. Please don't judge Jesus based on ignorant individuals that believe on Him and let's also not be as ignorant with our comments about them. Why ARE people so mean to each other? | negative |
This movie is very hilarious, and it has a great compilation of actors like William H. Macy which always have perform this kind of roles, maybe his most representative, Fargo; and George Clooney which is a very good actor showing his comedian work in brothers Cohen film "Oh brother, where art thou?" which results to be one of my favorite movies ever! But it's been hard to find "Welcome to Collinwood", here in Mexico. My city lacks of good places where to buy some good films. I tried to buy it at Blockbuster but they don't know it by the original name, so maybe it will be a little easier to find if I have the name they gave to it in Mexico, do someone knows it?, because I can't remember! Cheers. A. | positive |
Cybrog 2:Glass Shadow stars Elias Koteas as Colton Hicks (Rhymes with kicks!) a karate instructor who helps a Cash (Jolie) escape from Pinwheel, her creators who look to detonate her and destroy a rival company. Along the way Billy Drago and Karen Shepherd show up to displace the duo, while Jack Palance is there to deliver guidance to the duo on the run. One of the things that is quite shocking about the Cyborg franchise, is how the series has managed to have quite prolific and off beat actors in the cast. The original had Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dayle Haddon (Don't know her? Well she was in a bunch of 70's pornos) this one has Jack Palance, Elias Koteas,Billy Drago and Angelina Jolie. The third one has William Katt, Zach Galligan and Malcom McDowell. (Okay so, Cyborg 3's cast isn't that impressive.) I've never seen Cyborg 3, but I did see this on Sci-Fi channel and must admit I wasn't impressed. Actually strike that, Cyborg 2 is an often lovely looking movie, it's shot with excellent style and the visual detail make this easy on the eye. However Cyborg 1 was the same way, indeed the movie was directed with a certain amount of style, slow motion and music that made it all easy on the eye. Unfortunately like the first, this one doesn't have any new ideas or anything resembling a plot or texture. Most of the ideas are taken from Blade Runner and Max Headroom, so for various reasons the movie doesn't have much to offer beyond it's look. Another aspect is the terrible acting. Karen Shepherd and Billy Drago are absolutely terrible and Angelina Jolie isn't much better. Elias Koteas and Jack Palance come off fine but seriously Palance is playing a cyborg warrior and Koteas is a karate instructor. I guess on the positive side you can't accuse Michael Schroeder of not being ambitious with casting. Still the movie is dull and I for one lost interest in the story fifteen minutes in. Also why did they tie it in with Cyborg anyway? It has nothing to do with it's predecessor, which this manages to be worse than.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad) | negative |
Rohmer returns to his historical dramas in the real story of Grace Elliot, an Englishwoman who stayed in France during the apex of the French Revolution. One always suspected that Rohmer was a conservative, but who knew he was such a red-blooded reactionary. If you can put aside Rohmer's unabashed defense of the monarchy (and that is not an easy thing to do, given that, for instance, the French lower classes are portrayed here as hideous louts), this is actually an elegant, intelligent and polished movie. Lacking the money for a big cinematic recreation of 18th century France, Rohmer has instead the actors play against obvious painted cardboards. It is a blatantly artificial conceit, but it somehow works. And newcomer Lucy Russell succeeds in making sympathetic a character that shouldn't be. | positive |
Life was going great for New York City advertising artist Ted Kramer. He had a great job and a loving wife. No, actually, his wife wasn't so loving, for when Ted returned home late from work that night his wife, Joanna, had a suit case packed and was heading out the door. He tried to stop her, but she just got into the elevator and out of Ted's life. Well, now in addition to his job he's now got to mind the house as well as their 6-year-old son, Billy; Ted assured his boss that his wife's leaving would not affect his job performance in any way. It did however affect his performance as a father. He blew up when Billy spilled punch on his client artwork! Well, some time later Ted and Billy receive a letter from Joanna, and it was obvious from her letter that she wasn't coming back. Ted was distraught. Well, he was late coming home from work on Billy's birthday, which made Billy sore at him. <br /><br />Ted was late to work one day and his boss yelled at him because he had missed a very important client meeting. When he got home, he yelled at Billy for sneaking ice cream during dinner. Then later he truthfully told Billy that the break-up between he and Joanna may have been his fault, not Billy's; Ted invited a good friend, Phyllis Bernard over that night, and well, Billy got his first look at a naked woman. When Ted took Billy to the park the following day, he fell off the jungle gym and landed face-first onto his toy plane. Ted literally ran him to the hospital where they had to administer stitches. After that, life began taking a downward spiral for Ted. Then one day out of the blue he received a phone call from none other than Joanna! They met in a corner café. At first they have a pleasant conversation but then Joanna informs him that she has returned to collect her son and take him with her. Ted would have none of it and stormed out. Well life got even worse for Ted when his boss, Jim O'Connor, took him out to lunch and abruptly fired him. Not only that but Joanna was choosing to sue for custody of Billy, and without a job, Ted didn't stand a chance in hell for winning. He hired himself a lawyer, John Shaunessy, who charged a pretty penny: $15,000 exact change. And that's IF they win. <br /><br />Ted was also able to find a new job. It was actually a step down from what he used to do with a considerable cut in salary but he accepted with great determination. Finally the court date, January 9, 1980, arrived. Judge Atkins presiding. Joanna took the stand and Shaunessy proceeded to question her about why she left Ted and about her other relationships and how they were failures. The next day, Ted took the stand and Joanna's lawyer really grilled him like a cheeseburger. Ted's good friend Margaret took the stand as well and she really didn't help matters. Well, the judge took some time to think it over and sure enough, one day Shaunessy informs Ted that he lost. Joanna got sole custody of Billy. How typical! Always ruling in favor of the mother. Well, Ted and Billy were just devastated about parting ways. They had a tearful goodbye when suddenly Joanna stopped by. She and Ted have a little talk and well, rather than just give away the ending, let me assure everybody that everything turns out alright for everybody!<br /><br />This was a very good movie. Dustin Hoffman was very good. He earned that Academy Award. I've also seen him in Hook, Meet the Fockers and Rain Man, which he also won an Oscar for. Meryl Streep was good. She also got an Oscar. Justin Henry was good too, so where was his nomination? I guess the Academy had a rule against giving Oscars to children, but the rule was lifted when Haley Joel Osment came along. This movie has great drama, light comedy, and is very subtle. It does a good job of holding your attention. I was watching Rain Man on TCM the other night then this came on after and I just couldn't help but watch. And that's what you should do. If you like Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep or movies of this genre, then I recommend Kramer vs. Kramer! A gripping film about the pangs of two divorced parents fighting over their child. I liked Ted's little speech about ruling in favor of mothers all the time. What was it about sex that makes a good parents? Actually, that's how they have the child. But seriously, he's right. Why always rule in favor of the mother because she's a woman? Also in the cast, George Coe, Howard Duff, who passed away in 1990, and Howland Chamberlain who passed away in 1984. Watch for an up-and-coming JoBeth Williams in the nudity in the hallway scene. Anyway, see Kramer vs. Kramer today!!! Good movie!!<br /><br />- | positive |
Great story, great music. A heartwarming love story that's beautiful to watch and delightful to listen to. Too bad there is no soundtrack CD. | positive |
I liked it... just that... i liked it, not like the animated series... i love it!!!. The fact that this make less appealing is that we all try to compare and not to appreciate, but this cartoon was awesome, but it really didn't like it that much. There's too much people talking about Bruce being so cold, but if this is around 5 years later, anybody in a crime-fighting gang would get this angry and darker attitude, so to me it isn't a flaw. Batgirl was awesome she really fit there, as there isn't more Dick Grayson as a robin, batman needed a good teammate, not like the new robin, he is just a child and you cant rely that much on a child. But heres what didn't work: The new artwork... it isn't horrible but... to me it does'nt work in a series like batman. This is a dark character, with a maniac killer like the joker, so you cant put this kind of artwork in this cartoon, The joker isn't a bad design but i still like the past joker (but to me the BEST joker ever was the one who appeared in batman beyond:return of the joker) , so this joker isn't near as good. The good thing about the joker is that it still mark Hamil voice. My favorite character: Harley Quinn (im in love for her) They put an awesome episode for her: Mad love (to me the best episode of this series). Here we finally know how she turned Harley Quinn, and how the joker twisted her mind, and it feel that atmosphere that you feel in the animated series, darker, no happy ending, brutal fight with the joker (but too short), this is how it was to be ALL the series. BUT in general i didn't like how she made Harley in this series... in almost every episode they put funny but in a ridiculous way, she get punched, she say nonsenses, she make flaws... c'mon she is funny in a way you can laugh with her, not from her... and here they put ridiculous (like i said the only episode where i don't think that its in mad love and beware of the creeper) So in general its a good series, it has it upsides and downs, the drawn could be better ( MY GOOD!!! KILL THAT CATWOMAN!!!!) nice sound effects, nice music, nice voices and nice episodes: my favorites, Mad love, Jokers millions, Old Wounds, Sins of the father, and Cold comfort. If you enjoyed Batman:TAS you can watch this but don't spec too much, in the other hand if you didn't watched TAS, watch this first and then watch TAS in that way you're really gonna love TAS :D | positive |
Eric Roberts "stars" in this Tommy Lee Thomas debut prison film. He plays the leader of a corrupt ring of guards. Though evil by most people's standards, his character is the kind of guy who is nice enough to give you supporting wires while you hang chained to the ceiling as he tortures you with "Lethal Weapon" electric prods.<br /><br />The movie has an intricate plot about prison corruption that makes absolutely no sense. Thomas has Clint Eastwood's squinter eyes, Dolph Lundgren's one-liners, the acting abilities of JCVD and the body of the tiniest guy you knew in school who took steroids after graduation.<br /><br />Martin "Cobra Kai" Kove's career shares this low point with Roberts, in the film it is difficult to tell if Kove's character is supposed to be drunk for the entire movie or if Kove just came that way. I couldn't blame him if he did.<br /><br />Fortunately for all involved, this movie has a "so bad that it's good" quality that can be fun IF YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BETTER TO DO. | negative |
Harman and Isings 'Old Mill Pond' is a true masterpiece of the art of animation. The consummate skill and artistry that characterise this duos work is nowhere more in evidence than in this cartoon. It is a shame that so many people can see only offence in what is, and was always intended to be, a light hearted piece of entertainment that in no way sought to denigrate black people. If anything it is a tribute to the infectious humour and musicality of the black race. I have not been able to view this confection for many years as the 'race commissars' in England have deemed it too offensive to be shown in multi racial Britain. If anyone knows where I can obtain a copy I would dearly love to view this masterpiece again. I think those who routinely look for messages and intent that were never intended in these cartoons, which are, after all, sixty years old, should try to lighten up and remember that the world is a very different place today, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to censor what is viewable from the past. | positive |
Fame did something odd. It was not only a musical that was created originally for the screen (most are based off of Broadway musicals), but it spawned a TV series and a Broadway musical. Let me correct that sentence. Fame is not a musical. Musicals have song numbers in order to advance the plot or to show characters' feelings. The singing in this music is not used to do either; in fact, there's no use for it at all. People just randomly sing to fit in with the plot. And that's not the type of musical I know.<br /><br />The so-called plot of Fame has an onslaught of characters (who are all introduced at once-last time I saw that in a movie [Gosford Park] it had disastrous results) who audition for, and get into, New York High School for the Performing Arts. All of them are in for different reasons-i.e. acting, singing, etc. Quote-unquote drama unfolds as these middle-aged people pretending to be teenagers go through their four years.<br /><br />My largest complaint is that the high school is supposed to be selective. After all, it's a free college, and they can't let everyone in. So how is it that some people who are really bad get into the college? Obviously so that drama could ensue between all of these different people. And why is the person top billed not even in the movie until near the end, for no reason at all, except to make us feel uncomfortable? There's many unsettling situations that these untalented people get into, yet you can't feel bad for them because you don't know who they are! These relationships occur between people whose names you don't know. And these characters realize things about themselves throughout the course of the movie, yet you don't realize that, because you don't know what they were like in the first place.<br /><br />As for the singing, it pops in randomly (and is supposed to be humorous?) and does nothing. When the title song is sung, it's played in the middle of a street and before you can say Ferris Bueller everyone's in the middle of the street dancing wildly and off-beat to it. The song itself is fine, but the whole scene, like the whole movie, is unnecessary. Fame is an unpleasant movie, to say the least. I would say more, but most of the movie has thankfully gone out of my head. Just don't see it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.<br /><br />My rating: 2/10<br /><br />Rated R for language. | negative |
Flat, soulless computer images on less than astonishing backgrounds animates a horribly predictable story in this film. Absolutely nothing takes you by surprise, you can even tell when the Bryan Adams vocals are going to come in, which are always at the wrong time.<br /><br />The main character, Spirit the horse, is given an annoying voice when he narrates what is happening. The narration is not needed, though, as everything happening is really obvious. You can even tell what the horses are saying, although all they do is neigh. Which would be good, but all the horses make exactly the same sounds - one for warning, one for sorrow, one for laughing, etc. There is no variation between the horses' voices.<br /><br />Young kids might like this film, though. It's soppy enough for a family to sit down and watch, and there's little danger of anyone being frightened. If you have nothing else to do, and want to watch a film with your kids, this isn't a bad choice.<br /><br />But otherwise, this isn't recommended. | negative |
'Opera' (1987) <br /><br />Director: Dario Argento (Deep Red, Suspiria) Screenplay: Dario Argento and Franco Ferrini (The Church, Sleepless, Demons) Photography: Ronnie Taylor (A Chorus Line, Sleepless) Music: Claudio Simonetti (Phenomena, 'Goblin')<br /><br />Story: Betty (Cristina Marsillach) is the Lady Macbeth understudy of a very stylized staging of Verdi's Macbeth opera. Betty's time to shine comes when the diva star breaks her leg before opening night when she is hit by a car running away in a tantrum. The famous curse of Macbeth takes a more sinister and calculating turn when right away the body count begins to rise. It seems Betty gets her first fan via a stalker who ties her up and tapes needles to her eyes to force her to witness the grisly murders of the people around her. Story: 3 of 5<br /><br />Acting: Acting in a lot of these Italian films can sometimes be hard to judge. English, Italian, French, German, Spanish can sometimes all be in the same flick as they usually speak their native languages making dubbing rule of thumb and hard to judge. I usually cut them some slack in the area as a result. Acting: 4 of 5 <br /><br />Direction: Giallo maestro Argento enters again the genre helped pioneer. 'Opera' shows him at the top of his game with an exquisite blend of gore, tension and beauty. Direction: 4 of 5<br /><br />Visual: This has to be one of Argento's best looking films. Gorgeously filmed by Taylor, 'Opera' features some stunning and inventive camera-work that keeps the film running fast and hard and keeps the eye-candy coming. The camera always seems to be in notion whether it is a wonderful shot of the camera going up a spiral staircase or a sequence towards the end of a bird's eye view of said bird circling the crowd at the opera house. Visual: 5 of 5<br /><br />Audio: Frequent Argento collaborator Simonetti (through his various bands Goblin, Demonian and solo effort) compliments the screen action with zeal as his score touches from the classical (Verdi) to metal musings (with a little help from Brian and Roger Eno and Bill Wyman) and lends music muscle to the screen's bloody gristle. The sound design give you all that you need from stabbings to gunshots, fire to screams and masterfully remastered on the Anchor Bay disc in glorious 6.1 for every crunch and caw. Audio: 5 of 5<br /><br />Technical: The editing keeps the film flowing and moving wonderfully. Combined with the camera-work, the editing help keeps the surreal dreamy imagery flowing. The exquisite opera house is one hell of a location and perfect for staging the horror version of Macbeth. One can't end a review of an Argento film without having to comment on the kills. Argento dispatches characters with glee this time around with a brilliant stabbing sequence, crow eye-gouging and the film highlight of a gun blast through a keyhole into the eye and out the back of the head shot that once again sends Argento's ex-wife Daria Nicolodi to the movie morgue. Priceless! Technical: 5 of 5<br /><br />Wrap-up: A nearly flawless giallo that suffers from a slightly unnecessary epilogue in Switzerland that delivers all the visual thrills that Argento fans crave.<br /><br />Overall: 4 of 5 | positive |
Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a "Napoleon Dynamite" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.<br /><br />The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.<br /><br />Thank gosh I didn't pay for it. | negative |
Just as Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman) is about to get a break in his professional life his frustrated wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) finally gets up the courage to leave him, leaving Ted to care for their five year old son (Justin Henry). Being a single parent proves to be quite the chore for Ted, and he suffers professionally but also learns there's much more to life than a career as he continues to bond with, and really get to know, his own son. But then Joanna returns and intends to get her son back, which leads to a cruel custody trial.<br /><br />Kramer vs. Kramer is a superbly well written and magnificently acted human drama that will only leave the most cold-hearted a viewer untouched. Hoffman's growing relationship with his son is so well portrayed and the film never takes an easy way out. It always feels very real and thanks to the film's low-key approach it makes even more of an impact and can easily work upon multiple viewings, the film's dramatic impact does not lessen.<br /><br />Easily recommended; 10 out of 10. | positive |
The final part of Kieslowski's trilogy based on the colors of the French flag finds the director at peace with the metaphysical and transcendent nature of the cinematic image. In Red, imagery is paramount, as well as the obvious but clever color coding. However, rather than adhering to empty aesthetic contrivances based on the 'cinema du look', Kieslowski's Red is a multi-layered, densely plotted meditation on the nature of fate and love. In Red, love and fate are intertwined but complex notions, dictated as much by the whims of human beings as the invisible parallel associations that seems to pass us by. You sense Red is really an allegory, a reenactment of Prospero's omnipresent gestures in The Tempest, yet it is more than its story appears. Red demands countless viewings, and in each viewing something new is discovered that weaves itself into the already immaculately plotted structure.<br /><br />Although Red stands alone as a masterwork from Kieslowski, it's best viewed as part of the trilogy. Elements of Blue and White are referenced in Red, which knowing viewers will enjoy. | positive |
Bah. Another tired, desultory reworking of an out of copyright work never designed to be filmed.<br /><br />On the plus side, Toni Collette is superb as always (being an actual actress, you see), and there are some nicely handled handover cuts between scenes. There are even a few genuinely funny lines, and the filmwork, score and editing is competent, apart from a bizarre lapse into voiceover and speaking to the camera towards the conclusion.<br /><br />But, ah, but. Much of the cast seems to be on autopilot, and they are almost all very clearly too old (and in one case too young) for their declared ages. Worse, they are all speaking "Austinese", that peculiar falsetto self satisfied sing song that couldn't be further from the way people actually spoke in Austen's day (think Yosemite Sam, I kid you not). This is particularly sad, considering that we seem to finally be seeing the demise of the equally farcial "Fakespearan" that Olivier and his cronies were so fond of bellowing at the top of their lungs.<br /><br />And worst of all is Gwyneth Paltrow. She's only ever played one character in her films, and she stays true to form here, running through her entire range (smirking to sulking) in the first ten minutes, then just repeating herself for the rest of the overlong film. There is absolutely no chemistry between herself and any of her admirers, nor any apparent reason why they would be interested in her apart.<br /><br />In short, there is very little reason to watch Emma. It's an amiable enough adaptation, but if you're going to pack a film full of anacronisms (i.e. an appalingly thin lead who can't shoot a bow or handle a period accent) then you might as well do it properly, as with the vastly superior "Clueless". | negative |
I Am Curious is really two films in one - half of it is the sexual experimental side of Lena and the other half is her curiosity with political/socialism. Whatever the director's intention, the two don't really mesh together. The director should have just stuck with the romantic side of Lena and made a separate movie for the politics. There is a bizarre mixture of political/war rallies, Dr. King, serious political interviews, flopping breasts, and pubic hair. The film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie. Other than the interesting sex scenes, you'll be bored dry watching this film. Unlike many other reviewers, I think the nude/sexual scenes are overdone for what it is. If you want to see real porn, I'm sure there are better choices. The pervasive nudity is a major distraction from whatever plot there is. I think the cast did a fine job however. They played their parts believably. There is little of the over-the-topness I'm so used to seeing in the American films during this time. | negative |
Gillian Anderson is an arrogant, driven, career woman who picks up working class oik Danny Dyer for a night of fun. After a stupid accident in the countryside, they are brutally attacked. After recovering, and after a chance meeting with one of the attackers, their thoughts turn to that of revenge...<br /><br />I thought "Straightheads" was terrible. Violent, brutal, misogynistic and unpleasant. If I didn't dislike the phrase a great deal I would call "Straightheads" a video nasty. Certainly it was the kind of film that would have had a no budget release straight to video during the dark days of the 1980's. Frankly I don't know how "Straightheads" got a cinema release.<br /><br />I am not a prude. I don't mind sex and violence in the movies, but they have to be married to a movie with a) a good plot or b) good characterisation or c) preferably both. "Straightheads" had neither. No progression in the plot or the characters and too much left unexplained and unsaid. Luckily "Straightheads" went nowhere fast. It was only 80 minutes long.<br /><br />It was a shame, because there was the germ of an interesting film here, with an especially interesting turn in the plot in the last third. How often do I say this, but it could have been good if it had been done properly. What a shame. I really like Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer, but they were on a hiding to nothing with this film. She, especially, is very underrated (and is still particularly fit).<br /><br />If you want to see a good British revenge movie, rent or buy Shane Meadows' "Dead Man's Shoes". It is a little masterpiece. Last weekend I should have seen his "This Is England" instead. Ce sera sera... | negative |
Can u believe a college professor made this film?????<br /><br />The same man who made DHOOP<br /><br />The film is horrible and has some of the weird scenes ever<br /><br />The main message is nice but presented badly<br /><br />The film looks like a collage of amateurish scenes, miscasts.etc and bad performances<br /><br />Direction and everything is poor<br /><br />Music is okay<br /><br />Emraan's naughty streak works and he does well Tusshar is bad Tanushree and Isha are bad Paresh annoys when he looks at the mirror | negative |
Obviously written for the stage. Lightweight but worthwhile. How can you go wrong with Ralph Richardson, Olivier and Merle Oberon. | positive |
Hello. this is my first review for any movie i have seen. i went through the trouble of doing this to tell everyone that this is quite literally, the most disgusting movie i have ever seen. I feel like the movie was porely made, which i will give some understanding due to budget constraints on making it. I felt like i was watching a very bad remake of the movie saw. Which i can agree, saw as well is also very graphic, but, i did like the movie saw.<br /><br />The scene where he takes the hammer to the head of the tied up victim in the chair is the most disturbing scene i have seen. the scene lasted almost forever, well actually, it was probably around 5 min but still. i want to note that i like some horror movies and i do give credit if they are good. this director uwe boll, and his group of people used to make this movie should think it over before making another one similar to this one. one final note haha!! FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY WATCHING ANIMALS BEATIN TO DEATH, LETTING ROT, WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AND A FIVE MINUTE SCENE OF SOMEONE GETTING THERE HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A HAMMER then you will enjoy this movie, if not, and you like horror, go with a higher budget film, like saw for example. I cant believe people actually make movies like this. anyway sorry to anyone who loves uwe boll and took it to heart, this is just my opinion on the movie. | negative |
Spoilers. This review has been edited due to word limit.<br /><br />`The horror. The horror.' Marlon Brando, Apocalypse Now (1979) and Apocalypse Now Redux (2001)<br /><br />The sentence which is as famous as `Here's looking at you, kid,' or `Are you talkin' to me?' or `May the Force be with you,' or `I'll be back,' means a little more than some one-liners. When it is spoken it lingers in the air with an importance and meaning that does not go unnoticed. What might drive some viewers nuts is that they may never find an answer to the horror unless they re-watch the film and try to pay close observation to every single frame.<br /><br />What, exactly, does this line of dialogue mean? The horror spoken of is the reality of war. The reality of moral men being so easily corrupted that they turn on their inborn instincts and kill fellow beings without any sign of guilt. When Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) stands before the dying Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) at the end of the film, `The horror.the horror.' is the realization of Willard's corruptness. He has mercilessly killed a man in cold blood as part of his assignment. This isn't a typical Hollywood ending. In most cases a character gains something, whether it be emotionally, physically, mentally or all three. But Willard both gains and loses. He gains the knowledge that he has lost his morals. And that is a shocking ending.<br /><br />`Apocalypse Now' is Francis Ford Coppola's tribute to the artistic side of filmmaking. This film is wholly different from `The Godfather.' It is hallucinogenic, visually dazzling, and an ode to the guilty side of human nature. At first it seems realistic, and then it becomes strange, and then symbolic, and, by the end, original in its own unique perspective of the spiritual side of warfare. This is not as much a film about the Vietnam War as it is a film about the war within us.<br /><br />At first it does appear to be another war film. Captain Willard (Sheen) is assigned by an Army Lieutenant (a young Harrison Ford) to assassinate a renegade American Colonel named Kurtz (Brando), who is hiding out somewhere in Vietnam with a hoard of troops who more or less act as his slaves.<br /><br />Willard carries out his mission `with extreme prejudice,' heading out on a boat along with four soldiers, including the boat captain, Chief (Albert Hall), Chef (Frederic Forest), and a very young `Larry' Fishburne (who later went on to appear as Morpheus in `The Matrix').<br /><br />"Apocalypse Now" is in a many ways a modern update of Homer's Odyssey. As our main character, Willard, carries on his journey, he meets an array of original and strange characters, including Lt. Col. Kilgore (Robert Duvall), who has a strange fetish for surfing, and a stoned photographer (Dennis Hopper), whose lively gestures and mannerisms can be compared to those of the very much lesser Jeremy Davies in "The Million Dollar Hotel," one of the worst films I have ever seen. Davies failed to make any connection with an audience; Hopper does. He is like the poetic vibe between Willard and Kurtz; he is like an interpreter going back and forth and speaking in foreign languages. In this case, he is translating Kurtz to Willard, although I'm not so sure Kurtz needs a translation of Willard.<br /><br />Many films are lucky enough to have one or two memorable scenes or lines. "Apocalypse Now" has many. Kilgore descending upon a Vietnam village playing Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" remains one of the most remembered scenes in all of film history. There is sharpness to it, a brutality to it, an ironic tone to it, and also a sense of playfulness. When Kilgore kneels down on that beach and says, `I love the smell of napalm in the morning.it smells like victory,' we all crack a smile.<br /><br />I won't lie to you: `Apocalypse Now' is a strange film. It isn't exactly the easiest thing to analyze. The end may frustrate some viewers if they don't understand Marlon Brando's significant speeches. But what it all comes down to, what really matters, is that this film is about the dark nature of the human psyche. The horror is the realization of war and its effects, not the war itself. Kurtz says, `You have a right to kill me. But you have no right to judge me.' Brando's character, Kurtz, is left to the audience to judge. To many naïve viewers he may appear as a crazy loon whose power got to his head. But that isn't what Francis Ford Coppola is trying to get across. By fighting in Vietnam, Kurtz has realized just how great he had it, and how bad some others had it. By walking through devastated villages he eventually comes to realize that we are the naïve ones, living our lives in a fool's paradise. We are totally naïve to our surroundings and possible misfortunes until they hit. By seeing how unlucky some Vietnamese are, Kurtz realizes just how easily he could be struck by something. Just how easily he could end up like the people around him. And he also realizes that the people who did this are people who have abandoned their morals and left them at the door. Many people think the horror is one thing. It is two. For Kurtz, the horror is the reality of how naïve he was and the reality of the war's impact upon men. And after Willard murders Kurtz, and hears Kurtz's dying words, he realizes it too. He realizes the effects of war. To see so many soldiers with no sense of right or wrong makes him realize the horror of what war can do to a man. And what it has done to him. The horror.<br /><br />5/5 stars -<br /><br /> | positive |
Dark Harvest is about a group of friends that go to a farm(it belongs to one of the friends relatives or something) for a getaway. But there are killer scarecrows lurking there(there was something about a curse in there too but I forgot what that was about).<br /><br />The acting in this movie is awful, I don't know what the director was thinking when he was casting actors and actresses. The script is the same story as the acting "awful"(this statement coming up is very obvious but..) if there was better acting and a better script this could have turned out "okay".<br /><br />The directing stunk too, I see no potential in this guy's future. After all these negatives this movie still maintains a "fun" factor that bumps it up to a two. The last plus is they don't use CGI! My overall thoughts on this film are it's bad, real bad, but so bad it's "fun" so it gets a 2/10 | negative |
Tiny Toons:how i spent my vacation, has always been my favourite animation movie and loved it since i first watched it when i was 7 or sumthing,now i'm almost seventeen and i still love this wonderful work of art..<br /><br />I really like the idea how we track what each of them did in their vacation, and there were really some funny quotes said, that really made me laugh a lot...<br /><br />In this movie u'll never get bored and once u see it u'll want 2 c it again and again, because believe me it's really wonderful and it's suitable for all ages.. | positive |
Okay I marked this spoiler so don't be upset when I wrap this up. Now I went into the movie expecting to see a very predictable movie. And I was right, as almost every horror flick I have ever seen it was predictable but not as bad as most. What helped was the story, I did not expect there to be a "WHY" to Kane's madness. But there was and while somewhat foggy you still got the idea and understand the madness. Now of course if you like something that will scare you for nights to come this is not the movie your looking for. But if your a fan of Saw, or some other movies that claim their fame thanks to sadistic content this is a movie to watch. Now where I really throw in a spoiler for a second warning. I give this movie a 9 perhaps because I'm a fan of the WWE and a fan of Kane, but who doesn't like a movie a little bit better when it stars somebody we love. However this movie could have scored a 10 for me IF. . . (spoiler)----> at the end of the movie when it showed Kane dead on the pavement. While a dog pissing in his eye was "CUTE" it could have been classic with the Kane/Undertaker quick sit up and turn of the head. A perfect 10 would have been awarded if that would have happened. It was a perfect opportunity, but either the WWE didn't think of that or a future sequel will begin with that very sequence I mentioned. That's all. (9) | positive |
I don't cry easily over movies, but I have to admit, this one brought me to tears. Although I am not a Ms. Streep fan, her performance was excellent. The title defines in a sentence what a mother's love is. For the first hour I didn't like any of the characters, but that changed as the movie went on. The movie also explained why certain marriages last even though there are obstacles. A must see film. | positive |
Yes, it's true that it was Jessica Alba who leads me to this movie, because without her, I should have never pick it.<br /><br />But, I find it long, dull and above all, unoriginal. All along, I thought that the story was full of clichés and the directing very boring. So it was a surprise to see that the director and writer are the one and same person. I take notice to remember to avoid all his next movies.<br /><br />It's a pity because all good things were at hand: Malaysia is a beautiful jungle, it was the British Empire and the cast is wonderful: Jessica knows how to open her soul and for one time, she has found an appropriate movie for this. Bob Hoskins shows a great experience and he should have won an award for this role.<br /><br />The only positive thing is that it makes me open a world-map to locate this island because if you guess it happens in south Asia, you don't know where exactly! Ah, the little plane flight with red lines in the Indiana Jones movie!!! | negative |
Carnosaur 3: Primal Species (1996) D: Jonathan Winfrey. Scott Valentine, Janet Gunn, Rick Dean, Anthony Peck, Rodger Halston, Terri J. Vaughn, Billy Burnette. Why even bother reviewing this movie? Another stupid dinosaur movie in which top secret military guys discover those lethal (and very fake-looking) prehistoric monsters running around killing people in gory ways. The original was bad enough, the sequel was even worse. This falls somewhere in between, though unrelated to either of the previous CARNOSAUR films. RATING: 2 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and gore, grisly images, and profanity. | negative |
As I have said before in previous comments, some programmes are there to be 'Light entertainment'. So I get somewhat frustrated when commentators seem to be expecting a program that will reveal the meaning of life, you will not get that from Cleopatra 2525 and it does not presume to offer it. What you get is a girl who was frozen and is brought back to life some 500 years later and her adaptation to this new life is realistic. She does not settle in within 10 minutes as what happens with other time travelling adventures and neither is she the female equivalent of James Bond ready to take on all comers.Cleopatra is overawed by her new surroundings and frightened by some of the weaponry on display as most of us would be. However it is light entertainment, the stories have a beginning a middle and an end in quick time and their are some surprisingly good moments of acting. The episode when there is a double of Cleopatra is particularly moving and Jennifer Sky I think gives one of the best performances of someone dying for a long long time, and being a film and television buff I know what I am talking about. Finally to prove my sincerity I have purchased all but four of the episodes and I am entirely satisfied with my purchase. The only reason I do not have the complete set is because I purchased the other episodes before realising that there was one complete box set. Victoria Pratt and Gina Torres complete the trio creditably and for light entertainment Cleopatra 2525 certainly entertained me. | positive |
Okay, so the first few seasons took a while to get going on the special effects way, but from the beginning, Hidden Frontier has given consistently good story lines and performances, and have always been willing to mistakes they've made. They advice people to see newer episodes first, so they can see just how good the show is, and understand how much it has changed since the first episodes. The cast have a fantastic camaraderie and it shows on-screen. <br /><br />The influx of guest actors who make their mark on the show and with fans attests also to the show, as the story lines go from strength to strength. The show has pushed barriers with its various story lines - depression, drug addiction and mainstream homosexuality - and these may have rubbed a few people the wrong way, but that is what Star Trek is and was all about. It portrays those story lines in a smart and emotional way, dealing with them subtly and smoothly. <br /><br />Yes, they have used some characters from Trek history, but they have done them justice - characters like Shelby, Lefler and Necheyev, vastly underused in the show, had a rebirth in the New Frontier books, but they lost their sizzle after a while, when Peter David when more towards wild fantasy versus serious sci-fi, and HF shows those characters in a completely different light, which serves them better. <br /><br />The site also allows fans to interact with chat rooms and forums and they can get to know the people involved. They release bloopers for every episode, so the fans can see what a laugh they have, because they are people doing it in their spare time, with a dedication that would make many professional actors wide-eyed in shock! <br /><br />What this series, now drawing to a close after 7 years, has accomplished on such a limited amount of resources is nothing short of amazing - bringing people together, inspiring others to do the same. HF will live for a long time after it ends, as long as people still enjoy the reason it started in the first place. | positive |
This is an exceptional film. It is part comedy, part drama, part suspense. The dialog is exquisite. Most of the actors and actresses were very famous in their time, and for good reason. You will probably recognize someone, even if you don't usually watch older movies. They are also each in a role that particularly suits their talents. <br /><br />One correction to make on another users comment is that two people, not one, are announced to die in the accident. Maybe the unlucky two are a reflection of what the writer considers important in life. The movie is too engaging to worry about who it is until it happens.<br /><br />The story is ahead of its time, but it does not lose the quality of an older movie. Time and effort was spent perfecting the camera's view and the soundtrack, something modern movie makers tend to forget. | positive |
If at least the cruelty and drawn out deaths had a purpose to the story to justify their inclusion but the script was just unintelligible and just plain stupid.<br /><br />It went nowhere, the story had no legible continuity. It was just a bunch of drawn out pointless snuff scenes and a really stupid ending tacked on as if to say.. "the end *beep* you my haters and my few defenders for watching my garbage."<br /><br />I don't get it, a masked murderer who never had his mask removed in prison, a prison rape scene that was suppose to be the guards raping a a ugly deformed serial killer and getting killed by him and nothing else? no explanation, no punishment, a really weak main cop character that was a waste of a actor like Pare, who didn't try to off the guy who killed his cops, tortured a baby, a woman and a dog and sent them to you to watch on video.<br /><br />Cops who for some unknown reason all wandered off in the dark by themselves (individually) in his farm house at night like a bunch of poorly written teenage characters to be killed one at a time like a bunch of idiots, and no other cop hears them die in the darkness one after the other and just keep wandering around for no reason till each is killed in turn. <br /><br />A bunch of horrible real life animal snuff scenes in the beginning for no reason or explanation, was he reminiscing, was he watching it to masturbate, was it comedy for him... what was it? nope Boll just thought to throw it in to upset animal lovers.. whatever. <br /><br />then Pare believing the word of a psycho path to let his family go if he kills himself... a more gullible, stupider cop you never saw in a film. <br /><br />I dunno why I try not to totally hate his works. I try to find some reason to explain a horror writers art but this stuff... pure crap. <br /><br />Boll what are you doing anymore? I hope you figure it out because I know a lot of more deserving people who can't dream to get the budget you get over and over again to make their movies.<br /><br />If you want to see Boll actually at his best check out "Postal" it was actually okay. | negative |
For a comedic writer, Woody Allen really lets the paying viewer down with this meager attempt at character development. There are a few entertaining moments, but no more than one would have listening to their dryer tumbling tennis balls.<br /><br />Will Ferrell wastes his time in this movie which fails to showcase his usually funny delivery. Amanda Peet did well, but again, didn't have the room to move in this otherwise corpse like movie. The movie is so heavy and dull that it cannot be carried but if it were carried, Radha Mitchell did it. <br /><br />If you enjoy movies that go on and on in one scene and don't really accomplish anything but to show that their writer can write a few lines of snappy dialogue on occasion, then you'll love this movie. | negative |
Anytime I'm not giving 150% to my dreams or my goals I think of Mark Borchardt, the real-life subject of "American Movie". Mark's dogged persistence at having his first feature film produced and shot is so captivating that it will have you laughing, shaking your head with sadness and rooting for him.<br /><br />I haven't seen a documentary this honest since the movie on R. Crumb. The supporting "cast" (Mark's real-life family and friends) are all great. Give this movie a chance and you'll see a great film and a wonderful portrait of the stuff that the American dream is made of. | positive |
Now I like Victor Herbert. And I like Mary Martin and Allan Jones. But it would have been nice to see a real biography of Victor Herbert. Walter Connolly as Herbert does have a decent resemblance to him in his latter years<br /><br />Jones and Martin sing beautifully though. The Herbert music is just there to adorn the plot line concerning these two musical performers. Jones's John Ramsay is a frail character, very similar to Gaylord Ravenal in Showboat who Jones also played.<br /><br />As for Mary Martin, it's a mystery why she never had a good Hollywood career. She did films with Bing Crosby and Dick Powell as well as this one. She performed well, but movie audiences didn't take to her. The best musical moment in the film is Jones and Martin in a duet of Thine Alone. The recordings I have of the song are individual and it was written as a duet. There's also a pleasant scene with Jones and Martin riding bicycles swapping Herbert songs as they ride.<br /><br />The real Victor Herbert with his womanizing and his Irish patriot background and his musical training in Germany where he developed a love for all things German would have been a fascinating study. He was also a cello virtuoso before he turned full time to composing. I have to take strong exception to the reviewer who said Cuddles Sakall would have been a good Victor Herbert. Sakall as Irish, HELLO.<br /><br />Nice movie, but the real Vic would have been so much better. | positive |
I can see what this film was intending to do. Unfortunately it just never quite completes the deal. The "reality crime" aspect works fine and the shots are all first rate. In fact quite a few of the scenes are incredibly evocative in a moody sort of way. Notably the silhouette of the detective talking to the beat up woman, the scene of the detectives going through the garbage, and the father tying flies. On occasion s few scenes bog down in too much dialog. Instead of showing the viewer the writer treats it too much like a book. But the real problem lies in the editing. The story does not flow. It fails to make a whole out of the sum of the parts. In the end you are confused as to what is actually happening. Those who like this sort of detective movie like to follow along, piecing together the puzzle at the same time the lead characters do. With such poor editing it is difficult if not nearly impossible to do this. | negative |
>>>>Author: msgreen-1 from Canada >>>>The big problem was the "China Syndrome" claim - that if the reactor error occurred and radioactive waste leaked out it could burn its way straight through the earth to China. A lot of people have made fun of this and if the movie makers meant it seriously then yes it should be made fun of. The spill wouldn't make it anywhere near the center of the earth or even the molten rock. Even if it did make it to the center of the Earth how would it come out in China? It would have to flow against gravity the rest of the way! Also China is not the opposite side of the world, the Indian Ocean is.<<<<< ......... ......... ........................ ................ ..................... .................. .............. ............ ................<br /><br />This point is brought up by the characters of the film, saying that of course it could not happen, as the core would hit ground water and release a radio-active cloud, raining down on the population.<br /><br />Before you try to find a weak point in the film, you should watch it first!!!! Don't judge a book by it's title... | positive |
Hunky Geordie Robson Green is Owen Springer, a young doctor who moves home to Manchester to be near his father. Along the way, he falls for Anna, a woman 20 years his senior, and who happens to be the wife of his new boss, Richard Crane. Despite warnings from his new colleagues, Owen proceeds to get Anna for himself, going as far as to sabotage Anna and the cheating Richard's marriage. This is a romantic drama with many humorous undertones and a quick wit. The actors are superb: Green of "The Student Prince" and "Touching Evil" smolders on-screen as the cunning, yet warm-hearted Owen; Annis of "Dune" fame is lively and proves a good match to Green; Kitchen, from "To Play The King" is the right menace as Richard, whose comic missteps and snobbery underline his masterful, building hatred for Owen. This is a perfect love triangle, and despite the foibles and fallacies of our three characters, you come away better for knowing and watching them. | positive |
Crossfire (1947)<br /><br />Great Message, Great Symbolism, Very Good Movie<br /><br />It's hard to go totally wrong with Robert Mitchum, Robert Young, and Robert Ryan all together as the three male leads, and with director Edward Dmytryk pulling together a complicated murder and detective yarn. That's reason enough to watch it once and even twice.<br /><br />You might need a second look to fully catch the plot as it is explained (too much) or shown in flashback (also too much) because it's a little complicated without good reason. But it makes sense overall, and we see early on (too early probably) who the culprit is, and even why.<br /><br />Besides the drama, well done in typical noir lighting and filled with those short quips that make post-war films dramatic, there is the social message, the anti-anti-Semitic point of it all. It only borders on preachy once or twice, and it's such an obviously good point to make we watch it being made approvingly and wait for the plot and the dramatic acting to take front row. Which they do, especially Young, who is a brilliantly laconic and patient detective, and Ryan, who is mean in a believably crude and angry way (Ryan is good at that, his typecasting reasonable). Mitchum mostly plays a watered down version of what he is famous for, and the fourth known acting force, Gloria Grahame, is a great, brief, presence even if slightly dispensable.<br /><br />Though the movie is dominated by the sequence of events and by the message, both of which grow in force as we go, it is really easy to watch just for the lighting, camera-work, and acting, including the classic fight scene that opens the first few seconds of the film, all done with shadows. <br /><br />The archetypes of soldiers presented is very deliberate, and this might be something people at the time were very familiar with and could relate to as much as the anti-Semitism thread. The shell-shocked soldier rendered helpless (but still intrinsically capable), the modest youngster without confidence (but capable, too), and the weary but outwardly able veteran are all there. And of course, the angry, violent soldier who is a product of the war, too. This last is also a responsibility of society--even the army goes all out to make good on the injustices here, not just because they are criminal, but because they stem from the wear and tear of a long awful war.<br /><br />The audience then, more than now, could really get, but it's there to appreciate still. | positive |
Beware My Lovely originated from a play written by Mel Dinelli who apparently liked writing about frightened women. His first and best effort was the screenplay for The Spiral Staircase. He also did a Loretta Young suspense thriller Cause For Alarm a couple of years earlier. The play Dinelli wrote was originally entitled The Man and it ran for 92 performances on Broadway during the 1950 season. It was Dinelli's only effort on Broadway and it starred Dorothy Gish and Richard Boone. <br /><br />The roles that Gish and Boone played are taken by Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan. For whatever reason RKO thought to eliminate the age difference. Dinelli himself rewrote his play for the screen so I'm wondering what he thought about that. Certainly the frailty issue was eliminated completely from the story.<br /><br />That wasn't the only thing that was eliminated. The people are all wearing period clothing from around World War I yet there's no reference at all to the time this story takes place in. I thought that strange and later on when the telephone company repairman comes to Ida Lupino's residence, I noticed his truck was a vintage one of the same era.<br /><br />The film is almost entirely set within Ida Lupino's home where she's hired an itinerant stranger in Robert Ryan as a handyman. The film is a great object lesson in not hiring strangers without reference. It turns out that Ryan is a schizophrenic who imprisons Lupino in her home for about a day.<br /><br />Both the leads do fine jobs even with the changes made. Films like Beware My Lovely are the stuff that a small studio like RKO did best. If this were done at MGM or Paramount the glossy trappings would have overwhelmed a solid story. | positive |
I just purchased this movie because I love to donate to Operation Smile, the charity on which the movie was based...but I found the writing of the movie to be very strange. It t does not really focus so much on Operation Smile or similar organizations like The Smile Train and their Herculean efforts to relieve the suffering of children born with facial deformities in third world countries. No, it concentrates on an American teenage volunteer, Katie, whose "over-privileged" life in Malibu, California, includes a mother who brings her to a doctor so that she'll have birth control pills in her before she sleeps with her boyfriend. What is this birth control nonsense supposed to do, titillate the audience? It's 2005. I'd be more surprised if in 2005 a Malibu teen wasn't on birth control, and even if she is, so what and who cares? Contrasting Katie is the character of Lin in China, a girl with a facial deformity who missed last year's chance to get an operation and this year does not want to have one. Neither character is written in such a way that the audience can really identify with, let alone understand the motivations of, either girl. On the other hand, the actors do an adequate job of trying to play the bad hand they were dealt by whoever wrote this ridiculous script. The best performance was by the gentleman playing Lin's father although much of his dialogue is in Chinese and subtitled. Operation Smile deserved to be honored by a much better movie than this! | negative |
Functioning as a sort of midpoint between "Waiting for Guffman" and "A Mighty Wind", "Best in Show" portrays a dog show and the various people who bring their canine friends to participate. Some are weird, some crazy, and otherwise, but they all make the movie good. Director Christopher Guest is particularly funny as gay Harlan Pepper, very much trying to promote his dog. Eugene Levy, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, and Bob Balaban also do great jobs (I can't imagine them not doing great jobs, at least not in a Christopher Guest movie). As someone who's never attended a dog show, this movie is my main exposure to them. They sure look neat. | positive |
This is a quirky movie that the Brits do so well. Low budget, cameo type roles, well executed. The story is a little weak, a recently widowed Judi Dench decides to round up the "blonde bombshells' a all (well almost all) girl band who performed during the war in London. The obligatory son/daughter who thinks she's gone potty. I did like the way the movie lets young people see that they don't have a monopoly on feelings, love and even lust! That the "old wrinklies" can have a good laugh too. Judi Dench was superb as always, a pity we didn't get to see more of the other "blonde bombeshells, the end was a little rushed I thought. I kept thinking as I watched that David Jason would have made an even better Patrick than Ian Holm, although he was quite adequate as the "transvestite" drummer. All in all a cheery movie well worth a night in with the girls :) | positive |
I thought the this film had an interesting name and just might have proved thought provoking, but was I wrong. This film was boring, especially in the beginning and the middle parts. I cannot comment on the ending because I just couldn't stand watching the whole film. The premise of signing a student researcher just because he walks into your lab makes no sense. This student had an interesting type of moving robot in his apartment and sadly enough this non living thing is more interesting than the characters in this film. So if you are having trouble with sleep then I recommend that you rent this film. | negative |
Assault on Precinct 13 is the absolute dumbest film I've seen since Charlie's Angels 2. The shame lies in the fact that they had a good cast and a good premise to work with. <br /><br />SPOILERS ............................................................. I know they've said this movie is a remake descendant of Rio Bravo but did the writers of this film actually watch Rio Bravo? Besides the fact that Rio Bravo is a western classic, the premise of the film was that the sheriff (John Wayne) had to keep a prisoner accused of murder from being liberated by his brother and his gang. No one wants to liberate anyone in Assault on Precinct 13. They want EVERYONE dead. So, my first question would have to be, WHY NOT JUST BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN FROM THE START? Why "assault" the place at all? I know the contrived plot turn was suppose to be clever and shocking but it didn't make sense and/or was presented properly. If the veteran cop was in on it from the start, why the need for this whole movie? If the veteran cop suddenly cut a deal at the back door during the siege, how did he even get the chance? As soon as he appeared at the door he would've been shot and they would've had their entry point. It's all just FUBAR. <br /><br />What part of any city can an all out war take place at a police precinct (complete with helicopters and massive explosions) but no one notices?? However, as soon as there's a fire they have to "leave before the fire department shows up"?????? How did they plan to cover up the chaos that was happening outside?? Police issue bullets in the walls, bullet casings, footprints, equipment usage, and the fact that there were going to be no bodies of "Bishop's men" to be found? How about those police snipers? How could they possibly miss so badly so often? I like the fact that when the two detainees tried to run, the snipers were foiled by two tiny mounds of snow. As if it's not possible to shoot a high powered riffle through a pile of snow. <br /><br />The set up was interesting although ridiculous but the movie just went off a cliff when they decided to kill that particular character with a bullet to the head for absolutely NO REASON at all. I know the makers of the film were going for shock but all they got was disgust at the cruelty and the anger of the audience. Don't you think that part of the reason why this thing is bombing at the box office is the fact that word of mouth has everyone telling friends and family to stay away from this one? That particular scene has to be a big part of that word of mouth (that and the fact that every plot turn is dumber then dirt). The conclusion remains steadily stupid as the villain pauses to deliver an Austin Powers-like diatribe instead of killing the helpless people who he has finally captured. I know several people have mentioned the closing scenes that take place in the woods of Detroit city (>snicker<) but why did Ethan's character just wander off in to the woods in the first place? He doesn't even look to see if the SUV with the secretary and his friend gets away? They just cut to him prowling slowly in the woods, pistol in hand. GACK. I could go on but won't. All I can say is that you want to avoid this stupidity at all cost. | negative |
Here's an indie film I really wanted to like, but ultimately could not. The lack of script (boldly proclaimed in the main titles) really shows through and kills the picture. The story is a nonsensical mess that isn't worth trying to figure out. I quickly became bored within 10 minutes, then suffered through the remainder of the first 40 minutes--hoping for the best--before hitting the chapter stops to (mercifully) get to the end... even that wasn't worth the extra effort. OZARK SAVAGE clearly tries too hard to be clever, lifting its best sequences from EVIL DEAD 2 and THE MATRIX. As a result, there's very little in OZARK SAVAGE that hasn't been done before, and better. This film would have been much more fun as a 10-20 minute short, but as a feature, it just feels padded and forced. Of course, there's no money in shorts, so I completely understand the financial reasons that I assume motivated it being stretched out to 75+ minutes. Director Matt Steinauer shows great promise, and I wish him luck. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.