review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This was one of the first CREEPY movies I ever saw...I was about 5 at the time. It scared me GOOD! But that night I put chewing gum in one eye to be like the monster...and my mom got very upset. She had to clean my eye with alcohol and the next day my eye smelled like DOUBLE MINT! NOW THAT'S A MOVIE! Hey for it's time it was a great movie. That Head sitting on the lab counter top was as real as it got back then. And IF your 5 it is VERY SCARY! Kids now a days are spoiled by special effects that show too much and leave NOTHING for your minds imagination. Your mind can imagine things more scarier than special effects! (IMO) | positive |
Dekalog Five was an interesting viewing experience for me, because of the question Kieslowski seems to subtly ask the audience. Three men are the focus of this chapter, and Kieslowski present the two involved in murder with traits both good and bad (In one's case, almost overwhelmingly bad). With such vile characters, I found myself almost glad that they would receive some sort of punishment. However, when the time comes for the murder (And it's subsequent effect on the murderer), Kieslowski takes an interesting angle and seems to ask those of us who shared my view, "Are you not as guilty as this man?" This sort of indirect address of the audience makes the finale of Dekalog Five that much more profound as Kieslowski (As usual) doesn't stay within the literal confines of his theme. Just as the other parts of the Dekalog don't take their Commandment's theme in it's literal sense, neither does Dekalog Five. It asks us what is murder, who is more guilty of murder, and what should be the appropriate punishment, if any? It's a fantastic film and, typical of Kieslowski, absolutely stunning. | positive |
The questions and answers of the human spirit are all here in this masterfully crafted historical documentary. The shear beauty and horror of one mans walk through life, are revealed in totality. Dieter and Herzog are combined and connected through a mental maze that has been transformed into a single straight hallway which the walls have been plastered with images created by one mans characterization of himself by the vibrations of his own vocal chords. This film, for about 80 minutes, have discovered a new dimension of storytelling. What do I call this apparently new sense. Only God knows, after all, isn't a MIRACLE something that God does for us, but chooses to remain ANONYMOUS?<br /><br />This is a requirement to see. If you like to experience the lovely horror of war, this documentary will cleanse your soul to the marrow. | positive |
'It's supposed to have got good reviews' says the g/f. If so, I can't find them. She goes off to sleep and I endure. Michael Douglas as a good ol' boy - now there's a new one. Matt Dillon all screwed up. John Goodman losing his cool. Paul Reiser running around in BDSM leather. Oh it's a riot all right.<br /><br />The hitch is you're probably going to lose interest pretty soon on. Liv Tyler plays the femme fatale and critics complain she might not have the register for her part. But it's immaterial: this movie is not about character development. In fact I'd go so far as to say there's no character at all. What you're supposed to appreciate here is the plot.<br /><br />No one is 'bad' in this movie. Some people wonder why all these 'stars' - Reba's even in here for goodness sake - sign up for such a junky project. Odds are they thought it would be fun. Maybe they did have fun. Who knows? Hey - maybe they got paid good too.<br /><br />But you have to fork over money one way or another to see this turkey. And that's probably not a good idea. | negative |
this show is just plain awful. I liked to watch Drake and Josh, which was great, and before that The Amanda show, also funny, but this is just AWFUL. in my opinion watching this felt like watching those --- movies from Seltzberg, painful and uncleaver. this is about 3 dumb@$$ kids who make a crappy web-show (while stealing the hole Ithing) while their retarded brother is making sculptures (he has no life). the cast is crap, Megan from drake and josh is carly (AHHHHHH!)a ugly b!tch is sam and some kid they pulled off the street plays fred. all i saw from this (ugg) are random "jokes" that include the brother making a clay-mation film, he also played an arcade game called PAC-rat (genious), Sam and Carly being retards on their web show, and Fred being a dork. the only episode a saw (cant remember the title) where Fred gets bad luck by not forewarding an email.i find videos on youtube funnier than this junk. and why the hell do they get youtube jack@$$ fred, get AVGN to cancel the show with his potty mouth. just skip this show. | negative |
Possibly the most brilliant thing about Che: Part Two, as we begin to integrate it with Part One in our minds, is that there is no clarification of why Che chose to confidentially abscond from Cuba after the revolution, no allusion to his experience in the Congo, no clarification of why he chose Bolivia as his subsequent setting for a coup d'etat, no allusion to the political decisions he made as a young man motorcycling across South America, which Walter Salles has given prominent familiarity. Extraordinary focus is given to Che meeting the volunteers who accompany his guerrilla factions. Yet hardly any endeavor is made to single them out as individuals, to establish involved relationships. He is reasonably unreasonable. Che drives an unbreakable doctrine to leave no wounded man behind. But there is no feeling that he is deeply directly concerned with his men. It is the concept.<br /><br />In Part 1, in Cuba, the rebels are welcomed by the people of the villages, given food and cover, supported in what grows to be a victorious revolution. Here, in Bolivia, not much understanding is apparent. Villagers expose him. They protect government troops, not his own. When he expounds on the onesidedness of the government medical system, his audience appears uninterested. You cannot lead a people into revolution if they do not want to comply. Soderbergh shows U.S. military advisers working with the Bolivians, but doesn't fault the United States for Che's collapse. Che seems to have just misfigured his fight and the place where he wanted to have it.<br /><br />In showcasing both wars, Soderbergh doesn't build his battle scenes as actions with specific results. Che's men attack and are attacked. They exchange fire with faraway assailants. There is generally a cut to the group in the aftershock of combat, its death toll not paused for. This is not a war movie. It is about one man's reasonably unreasonable drive to endure. There is no elaborate cinematography. Soderbergh looks firmly at Che's inflexible dedication. There are remarkable sporadic visceral shots, but being few they are all the more powerful, such as Che's POV shot during his final beats. There is an abundance of the terrain, where these men live for weeks at a time, and the all-consuming effect is of languor, Guevara himself having malaria part of the time.<br /><br />Benicio Del Toro, one of the film's producers, gives a champion's performance, not least because it's modest. He isn't portrayed as the cutting edge like most epic heroes. In Cuba, he arises in conquest, in Bolivia, he falls to the reverse, and occasionally is actually difficult to distinguish behind a tangle of beard and hair. Del Toro illustrates not so much an identity as an attitude. You may think the film is too long. I think there's a genuine cause for its breadth. Guevara's affairs in Cuba and particularly Bolivia was not a sequence of episodes and sketches, but an undertaking of staying power that might virtually be called insane. In the end, Che as a whole or in parts is a commercially ballsy movie, one where its director begins by understanding the limits innate in cinematic biography and working progressively within those means. | positive |
The great and underrated Marion Davies shows her stuff in this late (1928) silent comedy that also showcases the wonderful William Haines. Davies plays a hick from Georgia who crashes Hollywood with help from Haines. They appear in cheap comedies until Marion is "discovered" and becomes a big dramatic star. A great lampoon on Hollywood and its pretentions. Davies & Haines are a wonderful team (too bad they never made a talkie together) and the guest shots from the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, William S. Hart, John Gilbert, Elinor Glynn, and Marion Davies (you have to see it) are a hoot. A must for any serious film buff or for anyone interested in the still-maligned Marion Davies! | positive |
I just did not enjoy this film. But then I loved Babe, a Pig in the City and have been spoiled by talking animal films that are exceptionally well done in every way. The animals were not likeable. They were all irritating especially Chris Rock's guinea pig, but then what could I expect, it's Chris Rock. I believe I smiled once or twice at a couple cute lines, but that's it. | negative |
In Paris, a few months before the Nazi invasion, the manipulative actress Viviane Denvers (Isabelle Adjani) uses her former sweetheart Frédéric Auger (Grégori Deràngere) to hide the body of a man killed by her. Frédéric hits the car, the dead man is found and he is sent to prison. When the Germans invade France, Frédéric escapes with another prisoner, Raoul (Yvan Attal), and they become friends. In the runaway to Bordeaux, they meet in the train Camille (Virginie Ledoyen), the young assistant of the physicist Professeur Kopolski (Jean-Marc Stehlé), who is trying to leave France with his research of heavy water. Once in Bordeaux, the group meets Viviane with her new lover, the minister of state Jean-Étienne Beaufort (Gérard Depardieu), and is chased by a German spy, the journalist Alex Winckler (Peter Coyote), while Paris is falling and the population is confused. <br /><br />What a delightful and magnificent romantic adventure "Bon Voyage" is! The excellent and complex screenplay has action, romance, war, comedy, espionage, drama and lots of characters, played by a fantastic cast, indeed a constellation of stars; the direction is stunning; the music score is wonderful. I really loved this marvelous film, and I have to finish my review due to my limitation of adjectives to describe such a gem. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Viagem do Coração" ("Travel of the Heart") | positive |
This movie is never going to be on a list of the top 50 films of all time, but if you're compiling a list of "fun films", this isn't a bad place to start. Liv Tyler is amazing, captivating and luscious, and everyone else is dead-on right for their parts. It's a 21st century counterpart to "Tom Jones" -- in other words; just good, bawdy fun. I think that this may be Tyler's breakthrough film on her way to major stardom. With no nudity she oozes sex in this film. It's no wonder all the boys give her toys. How could they help but do that for a helpless, innocent such as Liv's Jewel? | positive |
This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautifule scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture trys to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.<br /><br />If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one. | negative |
My giving this film a score of 8 is relative to other feature-length films from 1930. By the standards of films made just a few years later, this film might receive a score of only 6 or 7--mostly because the sound quality was so poor. Now it is possible that the film sounded better and the Fox Movie Channel did show a degraded print (it DID have a lot of lines and scratches), but I assume the sound problem was always an issue. That's because sound in movies was still a novelty in 1930 and many of the Hollywood talking pictures of 1930 sounded terrible--with background characters often drowning out the leads, characters huddled together to make sure they are picked up by the microphones or inconsistent quality (such as what was seen in THE BISHOP MURDER CASE, HELL'S ANGELS and other films of the day). This was all made much worse in THE BIG TRAIL because most of the film was shot outside--something unheard of at the time. Quite an innovation but also something that really stretched the talents of the sound technicians! So, while the film was very hard to listen to, I realize that they had to start somewhere, so I can forgive this--especially since the outdoor scenes are breathtaking--a major innovation for 1930.<br /><br />The plot is rather similar to CIMARRON--a Western that came out the following year and which captured the Oscar for Best Picture. Unfortunately, CIMARRON isn't all that great a film and I actually like THE BIG TRAIL more due to the scope of the film. While some might balk at THE BIG TRAIL's slow-moving pace, I saw it as a great history lesson about the hardships endured by those traveling West on wagon trains. Plus, the whole thing just looked so beautiful, as director Raoul Walsh went to significant trouble to film on location and THE BIG TRAIL looks almost like a film version of some Ansel Adams prints.<br /><br />As for the acting, it was pretty good. This was a major break for young John Wayne--as his previous screen appearances were, at best, minor and unremarkable. Here, he was given the lead and did a dandy job--though he was obviously young and a little less "John Wayne-ish" than he was in later films, as his screen persona was not yet firmly established. Another interesting part was played by Tyrone Power II (Tyrone Power's father). He looked nothing like his extremely handsome son and looked and sounded almost exactly like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons! He made very few sound films--dying just a year after making this film--so it's a rare opportunity to see and hear this once famous actor.<br /><br />Overall, the film is well worth seeing despite some sound problems and a few overly long scenes here and there. For 1930, it was a remarkable achievement--more so than the much more famous and award-winning CIMARRON made the following year. Much of the reason THE BIG TRAIL didn't win an Oscar most likely was because ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT came out the same year and it is truly one of the great films. | positive |
I have probably watched the movie 4 or 5 times. Every time, i get more and more impressed by how far the wish of a young heart can go, and the strenght of both Kai and Gertha to struggle for what they believe in.<br /><br />And the whole story is presented in such a way, you just get transfered into the plot and before you know it, you are there. you can see... yeah, there's Kai... working hard on the mirror... a little jump.... there's Gertha, fighting for her love..... and there's the Snow Queen...<br /><br />it's just a wonderful mix of love, adventure, tension.<br /><br />it's brilliant 10 out of 10 | positive |
I don't know why people except a lot from low budget indie films but I enjoyed this one as I'm a fan of urban horror. There's not too many urban horror movies out there so when I saw this one on the shelf, just the title alone peaked my curiosity. So I decided to check it out and I was surprised...it's not too often you run into a low budget indie horror film with GREAT acting and a good story. Is it low budget? yes. Can you tell that it's low budget? Yes...but once you start watching the movie you become so wrapped up in the story that it doesn't matter. I like hip hop music too and the soundtrack is nice! I don't know what's up with all these bad reviews for this film. All I hear is "worst movie ever". Have these idiots seen EVERY movie out there? There's thousands of movies out there, how can you categorize one as the "worst" ever? A video not "movie" like "zombiez" may be the worst film I ever SEEN but I can't say that it's the worst movie EVER since I haven't seen every movie out there. Bottom line these people who gave this movie bad reviews are probably from the suburbs. Listen, if you don't like minority based, urban films, the ghetto films, hip hop,etc then WHY WATCH THESE TYPES OF MOVIES???!!! knowing that you don't like this type of stuff? Sure, this is a horror film but it's not just a horror film but it's an URBAN horror film with a multi-cultural based cast. I don't like TV shows like Dawson's Creek or the O.C., THEY SUCK to me. Films like "Garden State", "Wedding Crashers" and "I heart huckabees" SUCK to me. I'm a guy from New Jersey and these shows and movies suck to me. Why? Because I can't relate to them. They don't peak my interest. Just common sense. Believe me, I will never watch GARDEN STATE 2: GARDEN SALAD, WEDDING CRASHERS 2: Here's a sequel to torture you again since the first sucked so bad and I HEART HUCKABORING. Now back to this movie, in regards to saint405's comment above, I don't know if this guy was smoking crack or got knocked "stupid" by his drunken dad before he watched the movie but to me, everyone did a great job. The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job. I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off. Anywho, I liked this movie and never heard of these actors and directors before but you bet I'll be looking out for their stuff for now on and if they are reading this, BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!! I'm out. Jerzee Representin'! | positive |
Man With the Gun is pretty much forgotten now, but caused a minor storm of media interest back in 1955 when Robert Mitchum turned down both Jett Rink in Giant (which had actually been written for him and which was subsequently substantially reworked) and Charles Laughton's intended version of The Naked and the Dead to make it instead. Despite some obvious production problems and some harsh lighting that occasionally renders both Mitch and Jan Sterling in unflattering tones, it's a terrific dark western that more than stands comparison with his earlier Blood on the Moon as his 'town tamer' sets to work on a town that never had the chance to grow up before getting run down by the local badmen before turning out to possibly be almost as bad as the men he dispatches. Certainly his way of dealing with news of a death in the family burning a saloon to the ground and goading its manager into trying to kill him doesn't inspire much confidence in his stability. As well as a good script and a surprisingly good supporting turn from the usually irritating but here well cast Henry Hull, it also boasts a strikingly good early Alex North score, which even includes an early workout for one of his tormented emotional cues that would later turn up in Spartacus. | positive |
I used to watch this show when I was a little girl. Although I don't remember much about it, I must say that it was a pretty good show. Also, I don't think I've seen every episode. However, if you ask me, it was still a good show. I vaguely remember the theme song. Everyone was ideally cast, the costume design was great. The performances were top-grade, too. I just hope some network brings this series back one day so that I'll be able to see every episode. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that I'll always remember this show in my memory forever, even though I don't think I've seen every episode. Now, in conclusion, when and if this show is ever brought back on the air, I hope that you catch it one day before it goes off the air for good. | positive |
Where do I begin? Let me say that -- after having watched the entire film and the special features on the DVD -- my wife and I watched the whole film again with the director's commentary running. I can't remember having ever before endured more than 7 minutes of such commentary for a film. It's worth hearing.<br /><br />I'm not a southern boy, but I spent some time around Memphis a long time ago, and have a feel for the area. This film almost smells of the South, it's so real. Samuel Jackson, one of my all-time favorite actors, is magnificent as the emotionally bent Lazarus, and Christina Ricci gives the performance of a lifetime as Rae, a woman who's been wounded severely during her brief life. I've always liked Ms. Ricci's work, but in this performance she's giving 137% of herself every second she's on the screen. Awards and little statues are not enough to reward her for what she lays before the audience in this film. <br /><br />There are other places where you can read the essence of the story, so I'm just commenting on the work. I'd heard the name Justin Timberlake before seeing "BSM," but had no idea what he looked like, or even why he's famous. Bumping my head on 60 years old, I'm outside his target demographic, to say the least. After seeing this film I will recognize him. He can act! He gives a substantial, believable performance as the loving soulmate of the county slut. <br /><br />The director is from Memphis, and shows reverence for his home region. He is also a fine story teller.<br /><br />.....and I MUST mention the music. I love Blues, and the soundtrack for Black Snake Moan is a veritable feast for a blues fan. <br /><br />I'm writing less coherently than usual because my enthusiasm for this movie is overcoming my sentence structure. See this film, and I mean now. | positive |
I wanted to give Drawing Blood the benefit of the initial doubt. The opening moments, with a naked woman sprawled out and an painter, Diana, about to paint her and then sucking her blood to drain out so she can use it for her art, give the impression that this could be a kick-ass artsy-vampire flick. Turns out this initial impression turns out false. Oh, Troma, the mark of some kind of lack of quality: sometimes they'll offer up something that is trash but funny and with at least some competence to the junk-food craft (or, sometimes not). This is a case where it's not even a whole lot of fun to watch since its attempts at humor (i.e. the protagonist's father is an old vaudevillian who does Jimmy Durante impressions?) are weak at best, and any unintentional laughs are undercut by Sergio Lapel's bargain basement direction.<br /><br />And it's not without him trying, oh Lord no. He does try a lot, which is a big part of the problem. He and his producers had money for lights, sure, but the way they're used in the movie made I, a former student filmmaker and aspiring director, sulking in my seat: if I saw this in a theater I would have to blind my eyes in many instances, and would wonder whether or not his DP understood really the basic 3-point lighting set-up. While this, along with a very lackluster sound design (or just lots of random loud humming like in the art gallery scene), shouldn't be something that comes to attention during a Troma release, it should be something *basic* that a filmmaker can tackle even if the script isn't very funny or scary (and it isn't) or if Lapel does a weird mixture of songs placed at bizarre moments.<br /><br />It's not a good movie by any stretch, and perhaps if you're a vampire die-hard (or just a vampire period) it might have some appeal as a low-rent bargain basement alternative to Near Dark, or as a slight improvement over, say, 1972's Blood Freak. You have better ways to waste your time, overall. | negative |
I used to be an avid viewer until I personally spent long cold hours helping build a home for the White Family, only to be sickened to see the house a year later. All of the beautiful rock landscaping has been removed, the gorgeous rock sidewalk and front fountain have been removed, all the pine trees and pecan trees in the front have been cut down, sprinkler system has been ripped out. It now looks like a disaster area. They don't even live there any more... they live "in town" and come out only for the weekend. It sickens me to think of all the hours that the great people of Oklahoma donated to these people and to see the result. The story that we all saw on TV wasn't completely the truth... don't believe every thing you see and hear. | negative |
Well, if it weren't for Ethel Waters and a 7-year-old Sammy Davis, Jr. (here billed without the Jr.), Rufus Jones for President would be one of the worst representations of African-American stereotypes I've seen from the early talkie era and wouldn't have been worth seeing because of that. Ms. Waters is excellent here singing "Am I Blue?" and "Underneath Our Harlem Moon" while Mr. Davis shows us how his childhood experience in showbiz prepared him for his superstar status as an adult. He's so good tap-dancing here that for awhile I thought he was a little person with decades of experience. So if you're willing to ignore the negative connotations here, Rufus Jones for President should provide some good enjoyment. P.S. This marks the fourth time today I've seen and heard the song, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You" performed on film, this time by Davis. Must have been a very popular song about this time. | negative |
"Boom" has garnered itself a something of a reputation. With heavyweights Taylor, Burton, Noel Coward, Tennessee Williams and Joseph Losey, one might be tempted to think, how bad could it be? Well, it's a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.<br /><br />The sad and disturbing fact of "Boom" is that is seems to signal the decline and fall of the aforementioned heavyweights. It was only director Joseph Losey who having plummeted the depths with "Modesty Blaise" and "Boom" (some may wish to add "Secret Ceremony"), managed to recuperate and in 1970 create his best work, the wonderful "Go-Between".<br /><br />Saddest of all is the work of Tennesee Williams. From the mid forties until the early sixties, Williams penned a number of plays which have gained classic status, remaining in theater repertory throughout the world, many becoming much praised films. When William's muse deserted him, probably owing to his notorious substance abuse, it deserted him for good. Williams at his best is an actor's dream providing many unforgettable performances. (Were Ava Gardner or Deborah Kerr ever better than in "Night of the Iguana" ? ) Taylor in particular, shone in both "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and "Suddenly Last Summer". There is an anecdote in which supposedly Taylor asks John Gielgud whether he would teach her to play Shakespeare, to which he replied "if you will teach me to play Tennessee Williams". Had Gielgud seen "Boom" he would have held his tongue. Taylor simply has never been worse, turning in a cringe inducing performance. Despite her face photographing well, she is decidedly podgy. Besides the physical decline, from this time onwards she would basically lose credibility as a serious actress with a string of completely forgettable (and worse) roles to her credit.<br /><br />Much the same could be said of Burton. Following his short lived theatrical stardom, he won fame and fortune in Hollywood. But the body of his work from this point onwards (1968) would be unremarkable to say the least.<br /><br />Noel Coward had long ceased being a force in the theater where his drawing room comedies had been replaced by the likes of Williams and the British "angry young men". He seems to be enjoying himself camping it up, but barely manages to amuses, that from the man who claimed such a talent.<br /><br />The only cast member who maintains her dignity is young Joanna Shimkus, who in a few years would forego a promising screen career to become Mrs. Sidney Poitier.<br /><br />"Boom" reeks of self indulgence; it's simply out of control. A rather sad pointer to careers gone wrong rather than a camp fun fest as some have suggested. | negative |
I watched the pilot episode for this one with high expectations, having just graduated college and moved on to "real life". I was not in a fraternity, but a lot of my best buddies were, and I got to partake in a lot of the partying that they did in their house, so I know what goes on to some extent.<br /><br />This show is obviously a dramatization, not a documentary in any way of Greek life, or college life for that matter, although it does hold a lot of truth, albeit exaggerated for the most part. If you watch the show for the value it contains as a TV show, and nothing more, it is very entertaining, much like movies such as Old School, Porky's, Animal House, etc. If you watch it expecting it to chronicle all of your experiences in your own college life, you will probably either be left wanting more, or mad that they over-dramatize a lot of events. | positive |
I recently got the movie and all I can say it is a good movie. There's a lot of famous Rome monuments and historical locations.It is from the same writer and director from The Da Vinci Code. Tom Hanks stars along with Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer. The movie starts out with the space and time experiment in Sweden until one of the canisters is stolen by the church's most hated enemy the Illuminati. The plot is hard to discuss about without spoiling anything. Its a race all of Rome following the Illuminati trail to get to the Illuminati secret meeting place. While racing against time to find the path of the Illuminati. Over all its a movie worth seeing hell I watched it 3 times and I still like it so in the end go buy it. It is a lot better than the movie 2010. And the ending has one awesome plot twist. | positive |
What a gem of a movie, so good that they made a sequel.<br /><br />The film starts off really good with a nasty monster who eats a few people and a party where the 2 main characters first set eyes on each other.<br /><br />Bendan Hughes plays the eccentric Vlad, a bit of an inkling there to who this character is, who has moved into town and uses the services of a particular real estate agent to find him a house.<br /><br />Hell, we've all seen vampire movies, we know the format.<br /><br />The movie is watchable, but the actors' performances are very wooden and they seem as they don't want to be in this film, but may be that's just all part of the decadent ambiance.<br /><br />Didn't like the ending, but there is a sequel, must track it down.<br /><br />When I watched the film I thought Brendan Hughes didn't really fit the part. Later on, I couldn't stop thinking about him, he sort of exudes an eerie sensuality, so maybe he was right for the part.<br /><br />BRENDAN HUGHES Last seen in 'Hitler - the rise of evil' as Lt. Guffman.<br /><br />Where is he now? | positive |
Best Years of Our Lives perfectly captures the era of my youth, and the feelings of that time. The cast was uniformly wonderful. This was possibly Dana Andrews best role of his career and he should also have been nominated for an Academy Award. There are so many wonderful scenes in this movie it is almost impossible to list them all. The cinematography is among the best of any film. This movie is a time capsule of what is was like in the 1940's. A must see movie for any true movie fan. Some critics have said this movie has aged. I disagree. The theme of human desires is timeless. And the obstacles faced by veterans returning from war will always be with us. This is just a great movie - one that can be watched over and over again. | positive |
Man, some of you people have got to chill. This movie was artistic genius. Instead of searching for reasoning or messages to justify it in your reality, why can't you understand that it is a work of fiction? A story. Entertainment, for God's sake (no pun intended). It seems to me that too many of the people on here are trying to be movie critics--and they're not doing to well. I'm so impressed by the movie and Bill Paxton's job at directing, that I'm going to contact him personally to tell him. Ya know, if you weren't trying to analyze the heck out of the possibility of the story line, you might just enjoy the film. Me and all of my friends did! | positive |
Like a Circle around the human condition, 2001 starts at the beginning, skips the middle, and proceeds to the ending, right back where we started. Noting the weakness of words compared to image(s), Kubrick wisely dispenses with dialogue, preferring the power and essence of the scenery, and allowing the intelligence of the audience to do the deciphering. Or not, depending on the audience.<br /><br />A monolith in cinematic history, 2001 is a high water mark of direction, execution, and achievement. If one considers the ambition of the film (a film about everything), and the measure of success the film achieved to that end, a very sound argument for this being the greatest of all films can be made.<br /><br /> | positive |
Kim (Patricia Clarkson), George (Jake Weber) and son Miles (Erik Per Sullivan) are headed to the country for winter weekend relief from Manhattan's bustling metropolis. On the way, they hit a buck and end up stuck in the snow. A group of hunters who were tracking the buck come along. Rather than helping, at least one of the hunters, Otis (John Speredakos), is mad because the accident cracked the buck's antlers. George, Kim and Miles are disturbed by Otis, and even worse, we quickly learn that Otis has learned where they're staying. Meanwhile, Miles is given a wendigo (a kind of Indian shape-shifting spirit/monster) token by an Indian whom only he has seen. Is Otis a psycho out to get our heroes? Are there wendigos in the woods? <br /><br />I can see where Wendigo would have a number of problems appealing to viewers. It is a fairly low budget film, with technical limitations frequently showing through. Much of the film, and maybe all of it, is not really about the titular creature. And perhaps the fatal blow for many people, it has a very ambiguous ending, with a number of questions left unanswered. If you are discouraged by such endings, and you do not like films that have an aim of making you think about and discuss what everything meant, do yourself a favor and avoid Wendigo.<br /><br />Personally, I like films like that. I usually prefer some ambiguity. The marketing of Wendigo is geared towards those who want a quick, scary creature flick, where they'd expect a grand battle with some supernatural monster who is defeated in the end, and everything is tied up neatly except for an opening for Wendigo 2: The Monster Returns, but that's not what this film is. Wendigo is much more thoughtful and poetic than the surface of such a creature flick would suggest to most people. Heck, writer/director Larry Fessenden even has a character, George, reciting Robert Frost. The Frost poem, and George's comment that Frost can evoke complex imagery and atmosphere out of seemingly simple things, is the key to the film.<br /><br />One of the best things about the film is its complexity. In a way, there are four different films occurring at the same time, a thread from each character. In George's thread, he isn't exactly the happiest or most pleasant guy in the world, and he has some parenting problems. For him, the film is a realistic, horrific descent of his life going from bad to worse. In Patricia's thread, she's looking for rejuvenation of her life and family. She's a psychologist mostly denying the problems around her, hoping that they'll go away and get better. In Otis' thread, he's even more down on his luck than George, and George's arrival into his life symbolizes the final "crack" in his psychological armor. And in Miles' thread, which is probably the most important of the film, life is like a grand poem due to his youthful innocence and interpretation of the world. But this is a horror story, after all, albeit one with a glimmer of hope, and the events in the film give Miles' poetic interpretations a dark turn. Still, when everything is said and done, he seems to be the only one retaining his composure, due to the poetic outlook.<br /><br />Even though the film is low budget, there are a lot of well-executed higher budget ambitions. Fessenden and director of photography Terry Stacey find some great shots in beautiful locations, and created some interesting slide show like montages (such as the cards, or the Indian wendigo images from the book). There are also interesting more traditional montages, such as Miles' nightmare. Wendigo is better shot and edited than many big budget films.<br /><br />Other technical aspects are good for the budget. The "Wendigo" appearance at the end worked for me and was appropriately ambiguous. The lighting was usually good--there were a few times that dark scenes weren't as clear as they could have been, but it seemed to be more of a problem with the film stock (it could have been digital instead) or transfer. I thought the performances were good and far more realistic (if you value that) than the majority of films. Although I didn't really notice the score, it must have been okay, or I would have noticed it with a negative judgment.<br /><br />Overall, Wendigo is a very good film that deserves to be watched without preconceptions, as long as you don't mind having to think about the movies you watch. | positive |
A "sleeper". I had never even heard of this movie until I was channel jumping one night. I've been a police officer myself for 25 years and thought this was a true to life movie. Non-police critics are rating the movie purely from a critic's point of view and not from a police officer's point of view. This is real. | positive |
Greetings again from the darkness. Remember all the "What happened to Woody Allen?" jokes? Even Mr. Allen poked fun at the fans who wanted him to continue making his same "funny" films. As with any great artist, Mr. Allen's craft evolved over the years and he lost some fans, while picking up others. Last year's masterpiece "Matchpoint" showed he is still every bit as relevant and poignant as he was in the days of "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan". What is most striking to us 40 plus year fans is that Mr. New York himself seems to have a bit of a crush on the mother country. Apparently he actually likes England!! While filming "Matchpoint", Mr. Allen became enamored with Scarlett Johansson and her real life spirit and sense of humor. This attraction motivated him to write his best comedy in years. Scarlett, while risking overexposure, must be given credit for not just picking films that cast her in some glamorous light. She is unafraid to look and act like a real person. In "Scoop", she flashes some real on screen comedy chops and, in many scenes, delivers the real punchline to Mr. Allen's straight man. Of course, any time Mr. Allen decides to put himself in front of the camera, he will get more than his share of one liners and social commentaries in - which is fine, because few do it better.<br /><br />Very nice support work from Ian McShane and Hugh Jackman. In fact, Mr. Jackman provides a few glimpses into why many of us thought him the best choice to replace Brosnan as the new Bond. As with most of Allen's films, the star is the script, not the actors. Although Scarlett delivers superbly here and is a nice contrast to the polished Allen and Jackman, what makes this one crackle is the dialogue ... especially the banter between Allen and Scarlett. If you are not a huge Woody the actor fan, fear not. He does limit his screen time and he is quite effective, except in two or three brief scenes that almost seem out of place. Another Woodman tradition is a sparkling musical background and "Scoop" is no exception ... especially the Strauss composition.<br /><br />"Scoop" is a nice cross between "Annie Hall" and the best of the Marx Brothers films or the Cary Grant comedies. Yes it is an adult comedy, but it is actually very cute ... especially for a serial killer and talking ghost comedy!! | positive |
I didn't really HATE Mirrormask. I just really wanted more from a movie than pretty visuals. The movie begins with a young girl named Helana who works in a circus. But while other children (supposedly) want to run away to the circus she only wants to run away FROM the circus. During a heated argument with her mother, Helana wishes she would drop dead. Bad move. The mother gets ill with...something (presumably cancer) and needs surgery. On the night before surgery she dreams she travels to a wonderful world composed of her her dreams and nightmares where she "finds herself". Personally the movie got crap for me as soon as she started dreaming. The early scenes show the weird and wonderful world of the circus and then contrast it with the bleakness of the hospital and the filth of an apartment block. But a soon as she dreams the whole films shifts to CGI land where nearly everything is a computer image. The problem is that this dream world has none of the mystery and wonder it should have. while films like the Wizard of Oz seemed enticing to explore Mirrormask shoves images in our faces and then snatches them away to give us another image. There's little rhyme or reason to the design in this film and even though some things are very pretty (the librarian is a masterpiece) they just disappear so quickly that they're soon forgotten. Helana and her sidekick Valentine are annoying at best and unbearable at worst. Overall Mirrormask is like a pretty stake that you bite and find out is actually ash. Stick to the real world kids. | negative |
An off beat but very delightful performance by John Travolta sets off this very funny comedy. His interpretation of the archangel is as a scuffy, womanizing, overweight, ladies man. And, he certainly has a mesmerizing effect on the women he encounters on his trip to Chicago. John Hurt is very low keyed in his role as chief reporter for Chicago Tabloid owner, Bob Hoskins. Angie MacDowell plays role much as she did her role in "Four Weddings and a Funeral." Maureen Stapleton is neat in a cameo. Her comment, "Michael doesn't suffer fools," is just one of many memorable moments. Bob Hoskins is the only one of the lead performers who fails to connect, a little to off the wall. Mainly you're there to see Michael take on a bull, mesmerize the waitresses and lady dancers at a western style restaurant, and fully demonstrate that he is complete free soul. It is a memorable comedy that is worth more than one viewing. | positive |
The Menagerie parts one and two was the only 2-parter during the 3-year run of the original Trek series and it was because Roddenberry was able to insert most of the footage from the 1st pilot "The Cage." The move was made out of necessity, to combat deadline problems in getting episodes produced (such a sf show back in the 1960s was a hassle to get done on time). One positive outcome back then was that audiences, unaware of the pilot produced almost a couple of years earlier, were treated to a whole new crew and captain for these two episodes on top of the regular cast of characters, as if the producers had spent double the money on these episodes to present a TV epic spanning a dozen years of Starfleet history (though they still used terms such as 'United Space Fleet' in these early episodes).<br /><br />The wraparound story begins as a space mystery plot: the Enterprise is diverted to Starbase 11 for unknown reasons and very soon Spock is a suspect in these shenanigans. Astonishingly, though even McCoy belabors the fact that Spock's Vulcan heritage makes subterfuge on his part impossible, it does turn out that Spock is indeed acting out some mutinous scheme to shanghai our precious starship and kidnap his former captain, Pike, now horribly crippled. Well, Spock is half human, we tend to forget. Or has he simply gone mad? It may very well be, for he's directing Enterprise to Talos IV, a planet so off-limits it's the subject of the only known death penalty on Starfleet's books. When the jig is up, there's a great scene of Spock surrendering to a flabbergasted McCoy, as Uhura looks on in shock. Even Kirk, usually steady as a captain should be, doesn't know what to make of his first officer's illogical conduct.<br /><br />In the 3rd and final acts, we begin to see transmitted images of a mission of the Enterprise from 13 years prior, when Capt. Pike was commanding and Spock was one of his officers. We really don't know where all this is going and what Spock hopes to accomplish - and that's another thing that makes this a very good 2-parter - we really need to find out what it's all about in the 2nd part. Not only is Spock facing severe penalties, but it looks like Kirk's career may be finished, as well. Double jeopardy, folks. This is also the 1st televised episode to feature one of those shuttlecrafts (none were available in the earlier "The Enemy Within" when the crafts were really needed). There's also one of those neat matte paintings to convey the ambiance of a futuristic starbase - this was the only way to visualize such things back then. Finally, check out Kirk's smug approach at the start of the episode - boy, do things go sideways on him as the story progresses. | positive |
The French people are not known to be great movie producers.<br /><br />Though their Amelie scores high points at the Oscars. Asterix et Obelix is a very different film of what I am used to from the French. It is a great movie especially for kids. The only thing that boddert me was that it was spoken in French and subtiteld. Normally with the english spoken movies (here in the Netherlands) I don't have to read the subtitles. But with the French language you just have to read to understand. The story it self is just great with Obelix who doesn't recall him self of beïng fat, but there also nice details mainly in names like brucewillix and malcomix. You all know the story from the comic books and this movie shows all most slide by slide the book. Every thing is in it, from the Sfinx nose braking till pirate red beards lose of three more ships. I would say a great movie for the weekend with the children. | positive |
Intense, funny, witty, and more than anything, social comedy on the ways of adult dating and it's results-be it good or bad. Mohr and Nicholson are engaged couple two months away from a wedding date, when a bizarre event at their engagement party forces Nicholson to re-think the relationship and start to date other people so she won't feel so pristine when it comes to sexual experience. This leads to a disaster of events following Mohr, Nicholson, and their cohorts. Very intelligent and needed in this time of clumsy, condescending comedy, while containing your usual variety of comedic, sexual, and frustrated characters(especially Charles as a sexually frustrated sex fiend...very annoying) who even they seem to get the right feel to this heart felt commentary.<br /><br />The film goes the way films should go these days, showing that guys are sensitive at heart and have morals. Most of the male characters are the moralistic, straight forward eyes, while the woman are the fresh faced street prowlers who will stop at nothing to get pleasure. Guys will be appreciative of the message made for guys with self respect, however it is easy to assume that most males who DO see this film will use it's message of male sensitivity cover up any flaw or trait that a female might find offending. Still, the writing formula uses this as a tool to pave the way for it's male leads, particularly those of Mohr, Richter, and finding the director in a cameo as a sales man!<br /><br />The females are by far the most promiscuous as they speak of nothing but pleasure and what it would be like to... with someone else. They have amicable traits though, even though they are covered by the image of sex driven kittens. Very funny stuff.<br /><br />On another level, the film follows some of it's ensemble into different relationship work. Richter meets up with a stressed divorcée(a VERY remarkable and noteworthy performance by the always reliable Helen Slater) named Penelope who is divorced with a son who hates her for splitting with his father. As the two go deeper into a relationship, human interest is revealed and both the comedy and tragedy of divorce and starting anew are studied. <br /><br />By the end of the film, Mohr and Nicholson have become way to deep over the heads to see what's coming next, and it is up to what they have learned about each other and themselves to decide what will come next. It becomes appropriate and dramatic at just the right time.<br /><br />Wallodorski's direction is emulated very well when the characters learn to face each other after all that has happened...with the right ending.<br /><br />All in all, this film should have been released nationwide, and I should hope that it is up for some Academy Awards...maybe Helen Slater can finally get the recognition she deserves. Anywho, this film is a no hits miss, give it all you got romantic sex farce, displayed very maturely and aesthetically.<br /><br />Great film! | positive |
This is a pretty OK film... yes some parts are lame and exceptionally convenient, and the movie doesn't really justify the large star cast (AB, SD, Tanuja). However, the actor that really impressed me here was Kay Kay Menon (not to be confused with the singer KK). In the scene where he first meets Amitabh's character, I thought that a man who can just look at AB, keep staring and not say a word, and still look strong, is definitely a good actor. In fact, he has proved himself worthy again in Sarkar, alongside AB for a second time. This guy should get more roles, he's brilliant.<br /><br />If you've read any of the other reviews here on IMDb, you already know the plot, and I do agree that Akshaye Khanna's entry into Pakistan was a little too easy. And the little love angle he shared with "what's-her-face" was completely unnecessary. But he is a fairly good actor (as seen in DCH), Sunjay Dutt is cool to watch, always. and AB... what can I say. I don't know if I'm his biggest fan in the world, but I know I can definitely compete for the spot.<br /><br />An interesting watch, considering it's Bollywood, although a bit inspired by Hollywood oldies like "the Great Escape" and "Bridge on the River Kwai". | positive |
I saw this director's "Woman On The Beach" and could not understand the good to great reviews. This film is much like that one, two people who are caught in a relationship with very little dynamic and even less interest to anyone else. Like his other films, you have to want to listen to vacuous dialog, wade through very little and become enchanted with underwritten, pretty uninteresting characters. If you feel you can like this film, don't let my review stop you. I do like minimalism in films, but I feel Tsai Ming-Liang's films are far superior. He has a fairly terrific actor in Lee Kang-Sheng in his films. There is nothing here. I wish IU liked it, but I don't. Oh, well. | negative |
Bad, bad movie. When I saw the synopsis I was expecting something like Ring only with video game instead of tape. Nothing of the sorts happened. I'll admit idea is interesting and could be turned into a good movie but this is not it.<br /><br />First of all choosing real life person, countess Bathory, is stupid move that adds absolutely nothing to the story. Anybody even vaguely familiar with her story would begin to wonder why and how did this Hungarian noblewoman end up in this movie. Choosing a generic vengeful spirit would be much, much better.<br /><br />Then there is whole you-die-in-real-life-as-you-die-in-the-game concept. As I said before interesting, Ring-like story. But instead of developing it into good story line it sort of just flows along with no explanation given why did this game became such as it is, why it was created and so on. Waste of good idea.<br /><br />And finally this movie doesn't even have gory of funny parts that can if not save at least make crappy horror movies watchable. Death scenes are too quick and acting is too wooden to be funny.<br /><br />Avoid if possible. | negative |
My friend took me to a screening of this movie in Hollywood and it was awesome! It's a film noir with amazing acting, great script, cool music, the whole thing was very well done and entertaining. Don't know if it is getting a release in theaters, but this would be a great date movie or a fun movie to rent if you see it at Blockbuster. This is the kind of movie I love, low on budget but big on style and imagination. I hope Alexandra Holden gets more big parts like she has in this one, she is fantastic. | positive |
As other reviews have stated, there are a few missing videos from this collection, but what is on this disc is overwhelming. There are two separate soundtracks, an original recording and a completely redone new performance version. Any new music from the Residents is welcome, and I suppose for a first time listener, the new version may be more ear-friendly, but I prefer the original recordings (probably simply because they are "the originals". Production of this DVD is amazing, new and old videos are all interesting, with live performance videos probably the least interesting of what is offered (although the snippets of live recordings hidden as easter eggs are extremely welcome). This is not a renter, this is a must own collection. Enjoy. | positive |
I thought this was very "different" compared to most modern interpretations of Shakespeare and enjoyed it thoroughly. It would not be useful for those studying it at school etc. as it does not show the traditional Shakespeare character interpretations (i.e- Miranda is portrayed quite punky compared to your traditional Shakespeare lady) but for understanding of the play and for the basis of the story it is a very strong piece and fantastic to watch. It does not include also the correct format, as in the layout of acts and scenes as I am currently playing Miranda in a production and most of her lines had been cut and some scenes split and mixed around but it is very useful and I would definitely recommend it as a must-see even if just to say you've seen it! Shakespeare fans would love this! | positive |
What's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.<br /><br />This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.<br /><br />Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.<br /><br />The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes... | negative |
I love this movie, though I don't like how they picture Egyptians, being an Egyptian citizen myself! that's why it earns an eight out of 10.<br /><br />The relationship between Augustin and the leopard is awkward, and of course because of loneliness and living in that cave for quite so long, he develops a kind of insanity and passion to that leopard.<br /><br />A very touching scene when the leopard dies, watch Augustin's reaction.. <br /><br />All in all I find it enjoyable, and I'm looking forward to reading the short story by Balzac. | positive |
"Markham," says urbane gentleman crime-solver Philo Vance (William Powell) to the district attorney, "I'm coming more and more to the belief that Archer Coe was killed in this room. That poker, this dagger sheath, now these fragments...it's all here." "But Vance," Markham says, "do you mean to tell me a dead man walked upstairs?" "I'm not trying to tell you anything but the facts," Vance says. "This is the most remarkable case in my experience." <br /><br />We're sympathetic. Wealthy, arrogant Archer Coe, disliked it seems by all who knew him, had been found slumped in a chair in his bedroom, pistol in his hand and a gunshot wound to his head. But wait. Further examination shows Coe had been hit hard by a blunt instrument that fractured his skull. Then there's the dagger wound in his back. Complicating matters is that Coe's bedroom door and windows all had been locked from the inside. Coe was no suicide; this was murder. But how could the killer have escaped? What was the specific motivation since there are so many suspects? And why was Coe's brother, Brisbane Coe, found dead in the main-floor closet? <br /><br />The Kennel Murder Case, now 73 years old, still provides a stylish look at the old locked- room classic whodunit. What makes it work as well as it does is, first, the mystery is complicated and clever, but still is logical. Second, is the amusing, assured performance of William Powell. Consider his work as Philo Vance as something as a rehearsal for his great performances as Nick Charles. Few things escape Vance. He uses his wits to piece things together. He's also good company. Powell was a star in the Twenties and moved steadily upward in status and popularity when the talkies took over. His intelligence, style and effortless sophistication have made him one of the most contemporary-seeming of actors from the past. <br /><br />Also pleasant is seeing a few other great faces. There's Mary Astor as Hilda Lake, the young, resentful and potentially rich ward of Coe; Paul Cavanaugh as a titled Brit hovering around Hilda; Helen Vinson with her notably sultry and selfish manner (watch her really do her stuff in Vogues of 1938); Etienne Giraudot, a small elderly man as the fussy Dr. Doremus, whose job as coroner and medical examiner keeps taking him away from his meals; and Ralph Morgan as Archer Coe's private secretary. This movie has a high percentage of middle-aged men without an ounce of fat who can wear snug, English-cut tailored suits with ease. Most of all is Eugene Palette, with his noble belly and gravel voice, as Detective Sergeant Heath. Sergeant Heath and Vance are long-time acquaintances who actually seem to like each other. | positive |
Now, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas. <br /><br />It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.<br /><br />It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist. | negative |
I looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. I mean, I hate to say bad things about an amateur production, but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it, tone it down a little. "Groundbreaking" is a little over the top. This is a Boston based college production that doesn't even achieve the level of most amateur college film. It's what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. A silly action film without much creativity. It's pretty funny if you're willing to poke fun at it. Not something you will ever see unless you are a student at Emerson college. | negative |
While many unfortunately passed on, the ballroom scene is still very much alive and carrying on their legacy. Some are still very much alive and quite well, Octavia is more radiant and beautiful than ever, Willi Ninja is very accomplished and gives a great deal of support to the gay community as a whole, Pepper Labeija just passed on last year of natural cause, may she rest in peace. After Anji's passing Carmen became the mother of the house of Xtravaganza (she was in the beach scene) and she is looking more and more lovely as well. Some balls have categories dedicated to those who have passed, may they all rest in peace. There is currently another project underway known as "How Do I Look?", you can check out the website at www.howdoilooknyc.org. | positive |
This is the best of the films (so far) that Christopher Guest has created using his very talented ensemble cast. Previously, they'd made the excellent WAITING FOR GUFFMAN and following BEST IN SHOW, they made the very enjoyable A MIGHTY WIND. As for their latest, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, the less said the better.<br /><br />The film appears to be a documentary about dog shows and several contestants in particular. You follow these few chosen dogs from pre-show preparations all the way to the big night where one of them is chosen best in show at the fictitious "Mayflower Kennel Club". However, none of these people are real dog show enthusiasts but talent improvisational actors that parody many of the common types of people you meet in the dog show world. Amazingly, even though the characters are rather outlandish, there is a lot of truth to the personalities they are parodying--as decades ago I had some experience with dog shows and this is a VERY cutthroat group of people! My favorites of the dog owners were the incredibly high-pressure and tense yuppie couple who just exuded anger and volatility. I also loved the openly gay couple, as they were terribly funny and clever. However, the best performance probably wasn't from any of the couples but from Fred Willard who played the world's stupidest and least talented announcer in human history. His comments were uniformly inane and often betrayed his as an incredibly stupid person--how he got to be the announcer for such a prestigious show is anyone's guess. The other contestants featured were also quite funny--the high-priced professional poodle handler and its rich owner, the country boy and his hound as well as Winkie's "parents" who could barely scrape together enough to make it to the show.<br /><br />Despite the improvised style of film making, the pieces all fit together wonderfully and told a very funny and compelling story--one that is NOT for dog owners only. Exceptional acting made this one of the best comedies of the last decade. Clever and consistently funny.<br /><br />By the way, try to find this on DVD as the extras were actually worth seeing. While a bit painful to watch, I loved seeing Harlan Pepper and his beach ball collection in particular! | positive |
I have fond memories of watching this visually dazzling film as a child in the late 70s/early 80s on wor-tv (now upn-9) in NY. Though a product of the swinging 60s, this film has hardly aged. The effects are just as wonderous as 2001, and in some ways superior (the model work is flawless). With an attractive cast, great color photography and set design, and an evocative score, JTTFSOTS is a winner! | positive |
Though it's better than most made-for-TV movies, "Buried Alive" is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill revenge tale. There are so many plot holes in this one, it makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't go through a series of re-writes. The ending has a nice twist to it, but it's hardly believable.<br /><br />The acting by Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific, as always, but Tim Matheson hams it up with cheesy one-liners that reminds one of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining". Don't bother with this one. | negative |
It has been since 1972 that I saw this movie and I still remember it as one of my favorite all time movies. I would buy a copy if it were on DVD and it is too bad it isn't. You would think that anything starring Peter Sellers would be brought back. Much better than "Being There" and as good as the Pink Panther series. Uschi Digard had a small part for such a well endowed performer. She is bonus in this movie. I think the medical field may not appreciate this film as it really makes fun of the profession and it also makes one appreciate that Sellers was never available to treat them as his bed side manner sucked as well did his analysis of urine samples. | positive |
The story and the characters really REALLY needed work. The world idea is kind of neat, but no one bothered to develop any of it either through exposition, or through the plot. Despite the cheesy notes at the beginning of the film, it makes sense that you wouldn't use exposition, since no one is new to this world. And yet, when Matt Owens (Bill Paxton) and Byron (Bob Peck) stray off-course and get lost, and get introduced to the wind-worshipers and the fat, lazy, rich people in the museum, we don't get any real idea of who these people are, or why we should care about any of them. Smart films have ways of developing this simply by having the characters live in the world. Simple things, like ordering a drink at a bar, or talking about something in the past -- these are the kind of things that make the film world memorable, not endless shots of crappy planes, and cheap CG effects of someone trying to do loops in an ultralight.<br /><br />If this is too difficult for you, here's a little tip -- pare down the multiple locations. If everything's becoming disjointed because you're pulling up to often, stay in one place for a little while and have the characters talk a little. All the superfluous crap should be removed. Get rid of the entire wind-worshipers scene. Get rid of the stuffy museum people. Get rid of all the crappy flying crap unless you can make the wind relevant to the story. Have the entire thing set on a big plane, or something. Just get people talking about something we care about.<br /><br />Hey, get rid of Bill Paxton. Have the film center around Tasker's character and his relationship with the robot, Byron.<br /><br />Indeed, the biggest problem of the film is that we don't care anything about anybody, because no one takes the time to either explain their motivations or delve into their characters. We don't like Matt (well, because he's played by Bill Paxton, among other things). He's a scoundrel, who doesn't redeem himself enough, except to let the android, Byron, go. And this action has even less meaning than most because of three key points: <br /><br />1. Byron is a murderer. 2. Byron is indestructible 3. Byron can leave any time he damn well pleases.<br /><br />We try to like Byron, because there's a kind of pathos there, but it's largely undeveloped. All we're left with is a whiny, glassy-eyed robot guy who's acting is subdued and wooden one moment, and practically zany the next. We don't know why or how he develops emotions, but we do know for a fact that he's murdered someone. We don't know why he murdered someone, or the circumstances of this grisly event, because it isn't developed. We can't feel pity for him if we don't know the story. All we know for a fact is that he murders people. And he likes Bill Paxton.<br /><br />We don't hate Tasker enough (partly because he's played by good-guy Mark Hamill), since while gruff and ruthless, doesn't do anything out of the ordinary for his character -- a post-apocalyptic peace officer. Sure he kills Montclaire (Robbie Coltrane) and his team, but they are drug dealers, on their way to grow poppies for heroin. And they shoot at him first. He doesn't kill anyone who doesn't get in the way, or who does not try to physically harm him first. That goes equally well for the final confrontation in the museum. He uses a smidge of police brutality against a lazy dilettante (F. Murray Abraham is wasted in this role), and everyone else draws a gun on him.<br /><br />I really don't understand what's the deal with Belitski (Kitty Aldridge), Tasker's partner. After only an accumulated 10 minutes with Matt, she's ready to switch sides, despite her shouts of loyalty, and despite Matt's trash-talking her, and punching her out. If that's love, then I'll choose hate any day.<br /><br />Really. Paxton's character is about as lovable as Simon in "True Lies", or Pvt. Hudson from "Aliens". Does anyone fall for him in these movies? No. Why? Because he's a loud-mouthed idiot, and a loser. Why put him at the helm of this film? | negative |
:::SPOILER ALERT:::<br /><br />Soooo, Arnie's really a good guy, but after an incident with some fighting in a helicopter and some disobeying of orders, he's sent to jail (or rather some sort of work camp). He escapes, but after a short while he's caught once again. This time ends up in a freakish reality show in which he's supposed to run for a while from a bunch of tough guys with different themes, and eventually die. But we all know Arnie, and we all know that he's tougher than even the toughest of tough guys.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this movie, being an Arnie-fan and all. However, "The Running Man" contains too many flaws that really annoy the crap out of me. E.g. The reconstruction of Arnie's fight inside the helicopter, where the shocked audience is showed a short summary of the incident, complete with 5-10 different camera angles. This means that the military helicopter in which Arnie flew was equipped with almost 10 cameras filming the crew members, one of which _inside_ the eye of one of the crew members Arnie beats.<br /><br />There are other flaws also, and the plot, which in theory seems to be very interesting and innovative, works for a while, then it sort of creates a pool of stupidness and unrealism in which it drowns.<br /><br />The acting can't really be said to be anything better than sub par, with Arnie in the leading role, doing an average Arnie performance. The rest of the cast get by without being especially good or bad.<br /><br />The special effects are OK, without being impressive.<br /><br />RATING: 3/10 | negative |
O boy, was this really bad.<br /><br />I saw this on videotape.<br /><br />In scenes that had soundtrack music, it was hard to hear the dialog. When people were on the telephone, it was hard to hear the person on the other end. It appeared that at least two different kinds of film or video stock were used, because the colors and focus sometimes shifted drastically between edits. And there were a lot of out of focus shots that didn't seem intentional.<br /><br />One indicator of the budget (one of many) was when a news report comes on TV. There is just a "news flash" title card badly superimposed with a video effect onto a TV screen, and a voice-over by a newscaster. They couldn't shoot footage of a newscaster, and then actually show it on the TV?<br /><br />The movie starts off with a killer wearing surgical scrubs and mask, wielding a scalpel. Supposedly he's a paranoid schizophrenic who escapes from the hospital to avoid having a lobotomy performed on him.<br /><br />Students are let out of school for a break, and three young women decide to have a slumber party. Three guys decide to crash the party, and a geek named Science decides to crash it too. The slumber party is pretty boring, and the guys just keep showing up randomly wearing masks, taking the masks off, and then disappearing. The mother and father (the surgeon who was to do the lobotomy) of one of the girls keep showing up too. The killer knocks slices people's throats without anyone really noticing. The apparent lead of the movie more or less sleepwalks through the movie. Perhaps that was bad acting, or maybe it was intentional, since much of the movie is a nightmare, and some of it a nightmare within a nightmare.<br /><br />The ending is really horrible too.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the cheesy United Home Video VHS box art, which was revived for the DVD release (a double feature with Terror at Tenkiller). I honestly can't tell if it is a photo, or a painting, or a combination of both. The women pictured on the cover are not in the movie, and the clothing they're wearing is way more revealing than anything the women in the movie wore. The throat slicing on the cover is scarier than the ones in the movie - where people tend to affect a goofy pop-eyed look. For that matter, that's what the killer has most of the time: head cocked, and eyes bugging out, mugging for the camera. Frequently the scalpel was held up close to the camera in focus, while the killer's mask-covered face was in close-up but out of focus in the background. | negative |
"So there's this bride, you see, and she gets crushed to death by this statue that falls on her on the day of her wedding. Then, get this, a year later, her former fiancé falls in love with a beautiful psychic
and then, that beautiful psychic gets haunted by the ghost of the disgruntled dead bride who wants to keep her from stealing her boyfriend
he he
it'll be hilarious!." Polite chuckling.<br /><br />This, I like to envision, is how Jeff Lowell, the man who dreamed up "Over Her Dead Body," presented his concept to the studio execs over there at New Line Cinema. The big mystery is how those very same corporate bigwigs could then turn right around and green light the project, allowing Lowell to direct the film as well as write the screenplay.<br /><br />For if you think that no movie could ever possibly be as bad as this original premise sounds, then clearly you have another think coming. The only way in which it might have worked is if the writer had simply gone crazy with it and turned it into a no-holds-barred satirical farce. Instead, wanting to ensure that he delivered a fuzzy, inoffensive and warmhearted romantic comedy, Lowell engages in boring half-measures every step of the way, tamping down the absurdity in favor of drab conventionality. Indeed, "Over Her Dead Body" is so thoroughly inept and unfunny that it's hard to know where exactly Lowell thought he was going with it. Virtually every set-up, joke and sight gag in the film is flat-footed and poorly executed, with even the actors themselves seemingly aware of their predicament. How else to explain the halfhearted, lifeless performances of Paul Rudd, Eva Langoria Parker, Lake Bell and Jason Biggs in their various roles? <br /><br />I choose not to blame the actors, some of whom have proved their talents in better vehicles in the past (that is particularly the case with Rudd). But Lowell and those studio execs sure have some 'splainin' to do. | negative |
OK, so the following review is more of a synopsis more so than really containing any spoilers, but better safe than sorry so as to avoid being blacklisted, right? Right! Consider yourselves officially warned, and read on...<br /><br />In this parody/tribute to the greatest time in horror movie history - the 1980's - a group of stupid teens are getting together to host a seance in the house of the notorious Murder McGee, who butchered his entire family a few years back and buried them in the back yard. As I'm sure you can guess, things go from bad to worse faster than you can say "Where's the beef??" and in typical 80's horror movie fashion the deaths are bloody, the dialogue is cheesy, and beautiful women are taking off their clothes every chance they get. Good times...<br /><br />No clique or 80's horror movie clichéd characterizations are left unrepresented here. In fact, no stone was left unturned at all we have the cool hero, his innocent girlfriend, the Goth chick, the tough thug (think John Bender), the hot blonde who keeps losing her shirt, the shy dork in love with the hot blonde that keeps losing her shirt, a couple of gorgeous half-naked lesbians, and two big geeks.<br /><br />As you can plainly see, the cast is pretty big. Usually, larger casts are where things can fall apart quickly, with one or two sour apples buggering up the whole barrel. Not in this case though. Not a single cast member left me disappointed. The acting was very well done. Everyone from the cool hero in his Thriller jacket played by Jovan Meredith to the grooovy Goth chick played by Renee Dorian to Geeks One & Two played by Cory Assink & Jonathan Brett they all played it straight, brought their A-game, and knocked it out of the park. If you're a fan of Gary & Wyatt in Weird Science, you'll immediately fall in love with the geeks.<br /><br />Director/co-writer Jeff C. Smith is a guy to watch for in the future, trust me on this. If this is what he can do with a low budget, there are nothing but good things ahead for him when he gets more money for future projects. The characters were dead on; the atmosphere was perfect; the laughs were huge; the blood flowed, and squirted, and sprayed beautifully it was just like watching a horror movie from the 1980's. Call this one "THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets NIGHT OF THE DEMONS"!!! The tag line says it all, and says it honestly - "EXCESSIVE VIOLENCE; GRATUITOUS NUDITY; ZERO BUDGET" - no false advertising here, folks! As fans of this genre, we have to look to the indies and support these hard-working folks who are busting their humps out there bringing us original tales, lest we forever get stuck in a world filled with big studio watered-down PG-13 'horror' or pointless remakes like The Hitcher. No, thank you - no more of that for me.<br /><br />In closing, I honestly have to say that STUPID TEENAGERS MUST DIE! is by far one of the best indie flicks I've gotten the pleasure of watching this year. It's a bloody good time, and holds up on repeat viewings. From the dialogue to the characters to the wardrobe...even the closing love theme over the end credits (which if that doesn't bring back fits of laughter recalling mid-80's power ballads by REO Speedwagon - over-pronounced R's on every word starting with the letter 'R' - then I'll eat my DVD right now)...bottom line is, if you're a fan of 80's horror or horror in general, no more hesitation - this flick deserves to be in your collection!! | positive |
As a young lass, beautiful Joan Woodbury (as Rita Adams) was orphaned, after her "stool pigeon" father was shot to death. As a young woman, Ms. Woodbury finds herself struggling to keep a job, as her murdered father's ex-convict status makes Woodbury a bad business risk. Woodbury rooms with understanding songstress Linda Ware (as Donna Andrews), who advises Woodbury to get in touch with old orphanage friends John Archer (as Bob Elliott) and Jack La Rue (as Mickey Roman). But, none of her friends can help when Woodbury is the victim of a scam, which lands her in prison. Upon release, Woodbury decides to give the male mobsters a run for their money
<br /><br />Re-titled "Gangs, Inc.", this is an obviously weak, cheap mobster melodrama. Still, it's a lot of fun to watch Woodbury work wonders with inferior material. She plays the innocent growing more sophisticated "Rita" quite convincingly; and, she tosses in a great bit as a blonde hooker. Woodbury must be added to the list of unfortunately underutilized Hollywood actresses of the past. "Paper Bullets" also features an early Alan Ladd (as Jimmy Kelly aka Bill Dugan). Ms. Ware, who sang the hit "An Apple for the Teacher" with Bing Crosby, sings a couple of fair '40s numbers nicely. But, mainly, it's Woodbury's show.<br /><br />**** Paper Bullets (1941) Phil Rosen ~ Joan Woodbury, Linda Ware, Alan Ladd | negative |
I was expecting a lot from this movie, and I can say I haven't been disappointed. First of all, this movie, as a world tour of wine making, let the spectator enjoy beautiful places. The people interviewed are really interesting and funny too, in particular Hubert de Montille. The shooting may be confusing, the camera always being unsteady and often focusing on secondary elements in the backgrounds. You may not like it, but I don't consider it as a defect.<br /><br />The themes raised in the movie may be kind of confusing as well, since globalization isn't the only issue discussed. But Nossiter managed to give his movie a consistency all along. A great achievement of this movie is revealing all the characters involved in the wine industry as they really are, avoiding a cliché "Good against Evil". This could be the main difference between "Mondovino" and Michael Moore's documentaries; Nossiter's point of view appears in a subtle way, through opinions expressed by his favorite characters. The richness of this documentary relies mainly upon the characters, the history of long-time wine-making families, such as the De Montilles, the Mondavis, the Antinori and the Frescobaldi. Nossiter lets the spectator discover that wine is somehow related to families, rather than just being a business and an industry. This movie doesn't make you want to drink wine, but certainly make you want to discover vineyards and wine-makers.<br /><br />I watched this movie as a student in Enology, and let's just there are many ways to learn. I give this documentary 10 out of 10, despite his technical particularities. | positive |
This movie has good intentions, at least in the message "don't be afraid, no matter how tough it can be. Fear will kill you in the end" It's a good message, but the container is so flawed that the message gets squashed by bad acting, complete lack of credibility in the feelings, dialog that's delivered as if it were read out loud, stereotypes instead of breathing, living people.<br /><br />It abuses from effects such as slow-motion to compensate for a complete lack of credibility in the acting and thus, a lack of emotional force...<br /><br />The suicidal part of it still reminds me of a low-budget film from the pre-90s, when lesbians seemed to have (at least on celluloid) an utter incapacity of live good, happy lives, and a tendency to get caught in over-the-top dramas that often involved separation, death, or prison. <br /><br />Had it focused on the rewards of living life according to how we feel it (and not according to how others think we should live it), it would have being less dramatic, more inspiring. But it doesn't, it focuses of pain, on loss and leaves the message at just a theoretical ideal.<br /><br />I can't see how this movie can be an inspiration to anyone to come out or overcome fear and rejection. <br /><br />If you're looking for a really good movie that talks about overcoming fear and daring to live what you feel, go back to the magnificent "Desert Hearts" (even better: read the novel!) | negative |
I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film. | negative |
Hitting the ground running, the film begins with THREE murders in a row. No plot, no characters, no motivation; the second murder happens off screen, and that victim's severed head is actually used to quite efficiently bludgeon the third victim to death! This is a high point. But the Lewises are obviously smart enough to lead with strength; soon they're covering up botched dialogue scenes with detective voice-over and shooting endless snappy repartee in ugly wide shot. By now this Betacam production's horror atmosphere is rapidly giving way to an insurance infomercial vibe, with the monumental (and rather endearing) plainness of the leads skewing things further in that direction. Shlub cop investigates, meat cleaver guy slaughters, repeat, climaxing early with a memorable severed-finger-in-the-salad gag. Only, how the hell did the fingers get in the salad? And wasn't the Blood Cult's purpose to collect the appendages they severed? When the GORE stops making sense, you know you're in trouble. And without spoiling the big, nonsensical twist ending, just take my word for it: the fascinating incompetence of the first scenes gives way to a deep cathode-tube-smashing impulse. The basic reaction is to try to put it behind you and get on with your life. | negative |
Seriously, there is absolutely NOTHING good about this crap fest at all. Randolph Scott, a closet homosexual who lived with his lover Cary Grant for twelve years, is at his most wooden and boring in the least role. At 57 he was clearly far too old for these romantic roles, although it doesn't matter so much here because Gail Russell looks so much older than her 31 years and she is so ugly due to her chronic alcoholism and chain smoking. Lee Marvin plays his usual villainous role but it isn't enough to save this garbage. Thank God they don't make westerns any more, they're just dated, racist old movies that glamorise guns and murder.<br /><br />0/10. | negative |
The film is not for everyone. Some might think the acting is bad when it is actually understated and natural. There are no obviously evil acts and there are no stunningly beautiful moments. There is a lot of indecision, an lot of conflicting feelings.<br /><br />Actually this film takes a very honest look at a very complex subject, Sex with minors. It is complex because the characters are trying to deal with love and sex when her body and hormones are still developing and both of their minds and personalities are still developing. Complex also because society has very simplistic views of sex with minors, and complex, because the characters don't know if society is right or if their instincts are right.<br /><br />Some will not like the movie because it leaves unanswered questions. Questions such as who was really in charge of the relationship, who was damaged, did good come out of it, was it art, who was damaged more, did some of the problems with their relationship stem from it being forbidden by society, did some of the problems stem from their own immaturity, and probably most important, was this truly a crime?<br /><br />The film is resolutely neutral on all of this, and it is this neutrality that is its strength. It is the reason for the understated acting, the simple sets, the lack of background music, soft lighting, and the general "flat" presentation. The message is clear. We don't really understand this kind of relationship today, and quick judgments are bound to be shallow. | positive |
When I think about this movie, all the adjectives that come to mind somehow relate to the physical appreciation of the world. Texture, smell, color, that's how I think this movie should be judged in terms of. See the rich golden tones surrounding the young concubine asleep by the fireplace, or the sweltering turkish bath, and let it flood your senses with impressions of spice, coarse cloth, smooth skin, scented oils, flickering flames, satin rustle. Don't just watch and listen, be absorbed, let the droning voice of the storyteller mesmerize you. | positive |
This is an excellent film, but Momento (Nolan's other big budget film) is much better . I would recommend people go to see Momento and then if they like that, see this film. THe film is shot in black and white which I was a bit annoyed with at first but once into the film you understand black and white is the best way for the film to be seen. It is extremely gripping and reasonably easy to understand even though the way it is made is extremely clever. Elements of the storyline i think are a bit daft but the film is definitely worthy of a second viewing. To conculde the film has a clever plot, clever twists and turns, very good acting and bearing in mind the budget of the film I have to say that it is pretty amazing. | positive |
As I was watching this film on video last night, I kept getting these tingles that told me this one will endure. I've a feeling I'll be watching this again and again for years to come.<br /><br />It's got all the timeless qualities you could ask for in a story/film. And even though some cultural references are obscure for me, a Western viewer, at the core this is a universal tale. | positive |
One of the most beautiful movies ever made in ex Yu.Story is very familiar to people in ex Yul because generation after war used to live in the same way.People in the west cant imagine how political situation in our country affect people.The plot is in the 50",When Josip Broz Tito said no to the SSSR and politbiro and because of that our borders becomes open for western influence.But,in a country were people didn't had much money jeans was only ideal and friendship was everything.The friendship between for young people an a girl was so strong that after 40 years of their emigration from Yu is still alive.They get together after all this years on Ester"s funeral and they start to remember of their childhood,before their went to the emigration and become successful people. | positive |
Reportedy based on actual historical events, this disturbingly violent, bloody, and shocking period epic sustains viewer interest by creating a verisimilitude missing in the majority of films set in a remote era. Ms. Bolkan's portrayal of the rebellious nun is a tour de force. Her gradual transformation in character from an obedient if unwilling complicitor in social injustices of her day is adeptly evidenced by telling sequences: her witnessing of the hated local Duke's casual rapist activity, her forbidden love affair with a Jew, her criminal defection to the invading Moslem forces of the sensual Prince Ahmed (Anthony Corlan) There are some painfully realistic gory sequences (human flaying) in this film that are not for the squeamish, but viewers with strong stomachs and an interest in medieval history should find ample interest. Deserves to be seen, if only as an antidote to Hollywood depictions of the medieval world. | positive |
I figured the whole joke of the movie would be to see some rich white guy acting like Chris Rock, and then see Chris Rock react to people's reactions. Instead you just see Chris Rock being himself and people not understanding him. There are maybe 2 scenes in the entire movie where they use their gimmick. This should have been a lot better. | negative |
It was almost worth sitting through this entire god-awful "film" just to know that I can never experience anything as bad as this again. Acting - 0, script - 0, fight scenes - 0, male lead - 0 (cheddar bob from eight mile as a suave war hero who gets the girl), Nadia Bjorlin - 10 (She is gorgeous and not a terrible actress). This is the criteria I used to average it out to a two. I lost count but I believe ever movie cliché, ever, is in this movie. When the driver that supposedly killed her father miraculously shows up at the end to race against her, from out of nowhere it cemented the previous statement. Plus he just shows up for no reason. He was never even mentioned before. I don't know what else to say here. Just watch it when it comes out on TV in a couple years. At least that way some of it will be edited out for commercials. | negative |
This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy. | negative |
Such a shame that this wonderful bright spot on the small screen had such talent in writers and actors, such wonderful scenery that was the ultimate escapism for those in a land locked, sun deprived state. Many of the actors went on to bigger things...another indicator that there was something wonderful sadly lost. I lived in Columbus, Ohio at the time, with all of my (now ex) husband's very large family in a chorus of 'NO NO!!' every time it would be yet again taken over by a baseball game broadcast. <br /><br />Someone who wrote here mentioned it was up against 'Rosanne'...all my ex and I noticed was that it was always always always preempted by BASEBALL!!!! Yes, FOX really wasted something wonderful that one and nothing will ever equal it~! Thank you for the memories of it. | positive |
It could have been better had it been directed by someone with more experience. Shumlin didn't do a bad job but it is not a great work of cinematic art.<br /><br />It is, however, a beautiful movie. I have loved it since local channels used to show it. Graham Greene is one of my favorite writers of the last century. Some pretty bad movies were made from his novels and stories. (Many love "The Fallen Idol" but I am not among them. I think I saw "Brighton Rock" once many years ago and liked it but maybe I'm simply thinking fondly of the novel.) This is superbly cast. Charles Boyer does not, it's true, come across as Spanish. But he seems to have the perfect temperament for this character -- tired, wary, caring. Lauren Bacall is appealing as the British girl who falls for him. But the supporting players are the best: Katina Paxinou is excellent. Her performance is a little Grand Guignol, but I attribute that to the director. Peter Lorre, whom we first meet as he gives Boyer a lesson in an Esperanto-like universal language, is excellent -- as always.<br /><br />And Wanda Hendrix could break the hardest heart. She comes across as a precocious early teenager. The character wants to be helpful. She does her best.<br /><br />I recommend this movie highly. Not without reservations. The reservation is, primarily, that it is a little stolid. But the story and acting can scarcely be bettered. | positive |
This movie is great, the music "with the exception of the very first song in the movie" was awesome. The story line is awesome too, it's just basically a wonderfull movie, for ALL ages. I found the last battle scene awesome! Basically this was a great flick! | positive |
With the exception of about 10 sublime minutes with HB Warner on the celestial train, this was 94 minutes of jaw-dropping horribleness! The acting was atrocious, but the story is what I really found appalling. The acting was wooden and stilted, even by early talkies standards (the exceptions being Lee Tracy and HB Warner, neither of whom can do wrong). Rose Hobart was absolutely horrid and lifeless as Julie (as she likewise was in 1932's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, an otherwise excellent flick). And the rest of the cast was worse, there being no words to describe their awfulness. <br /><br />Worse than the acting, however, was the story. For some unknown reason, Julie loves Liliom, a cad and user of women with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He marries Julie but doesn't support her, instead lying in bed all day or hanging out with his low-life criminal pal (Lee Tracy). And, oh yeah, he never has a kind word to say to Julie and he regularly beats her. Julie loves him nonetheless and continually makes excuses for him, which only seems to make him more abusive. What's even sicker is that this movie presents this story to us as a love story. Somehow we are supposed to see Julie as a noble character whose pure love redeems Liliom. WTF? <br /><br />The last 1/3 of this movie takes place after Liliom has killed himself (a robbery plot goes awry and Liliom plunges a knife into himself rather than being taken in by the police). As he lay dying, he tells Julie "I beat you all the time, but I'm not sorry for it." When he at last dies, she finally tells him she loves him. (Neither character ever said "I love you" to the other while they were alive.) After his death, God's Chief Magistrate gives Liliom one more day on earth so that he can "do something good" for his unborn daughter. The price for this is 10 years in hell. After 10 years, Liliom is allowed one day on earth to see his now 10-yr-old daughter. He approaches her in the front yard of her home and tries to cajole her into letting him "do something good" for her; he tries to get her to play cards, he tries to give her Gabriel's horn, but she's not interested and rebuffs him. So he slaps her. He. Slaps. Her. And then he disappears back to the afterlife. Looking on, we see his daughter tell Julie about this. The girl says the slap didn't hurt, that it felt like a kiss. This is supposed to be the movie's magical moment. The girl asks her mother if such a thing is possible, and Julie replies that "someone can be beat you and beat you and beat you and not hurt you at all." Then the music swells and Liliom rides up to heaven in the celestial train. BLECH! <br /><br />There was one saving grace to this film, and that is the interview between the Chief Magistrate (HB Warner was truly magnificent here) and Liliom on the celestial train. The Magistrate had some very profound things to say to Liliom about life and second chances and death. This scene alone made me bump this rating from 1 to 2 stars. Regarding Liliom's suicide as a means for escaping his problems, the Magistrate says "People suppose that when they die, their difficulties are ended for them. You thought that by killing yourself that you would cancel all your responsibilities. It is not as simple as that. On Earth your name is still spoken; your face is still remembered. As long as one is left who remembers you, so long is the matter unended. Until you have been completely forgotten, you will not be finished with the Earth, even though you are dead." Some great sublime transcendental stuff amongst some of the most horrible trash I've ever seen. <br /><br />By the way, this story has apparently been filmed many times both as "Liliom" and as the musical "Carousel." | negative |
I am glad other people enjoyed this movie, cause I know it doesn't have the greatest reputation and it made no money at the box office. I thought it was terrific and there are several reasons why - Bogdanovich directs with the lightest of touches, the cast (especially Coleen Camp) is perfect and the Big Bad Apple never looked better on film. You've seen worse movies! | positive |
WEll first and for most I'd just like to say that I'm back out of retirement from writing well deserved comments about horrible movies. Only the movie in titled "Scarecrow gone wild" could bring me back, so here I am.<br /><br />With that being said, I like to start off with this comment. OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This movie was really horrible, I mean I know it was going to be bad. But I had no idea that I would be spending 60 minutes out of a possible 90 minute film laughing at what I thought was a horror movie.<br /><br />Let's start with the biggest flaw of the film (to me that is). Ken Shamrock. Now if memory serves me correctly, Shamrock is one of the worlds most dangerous men. Now if memory serves me again, he was also in this stupid movie being a stupid comic relief (or that's how it looked to me). I mean how else do you explain all of his lines. My all time favorite line of his in this so called movie was "It's been a long time coming". OK????????? The funnest thing about that line was that no more then five minutes prior to him say that, he was sitting on the beach talking to the soon to be dead kids about how the dam scarecrow could not be killed. So if he has knowledge of this, why on earth would he start trying to combat it as soon as he sees it (the scarecrow that it). Like I said before, he must have been the comic relief, except I don't think his UFC buddies where laughing.<br /><br />Now that I've finished that well deserved paragraph on to the movie.<br /><br />I'll admit that I can't remember a lot of scenes, and that's not good considering that I just watch the movie no more then fifteen minutes ago. So what I'm going to do is list the top five things wrong with this film 1. Usually when horror movie monster have their own theme music, it's not heard by the victims or even by the monster itself. So why were just about every person involved in this movie able to here this pathetic whistling. I mean I saw the scarecrows face and nothing about it said that he was the whistling type.<br /><br />2. Why on earth were there murders on a beach. I'm sorry, but threw out history beaches are associated with party time and vacation type feelings. But I guess this horror movie thought it was going to be such a success that it would change all of that. Plus was it me or did the beach seem to be the size of someone living room. I mean every time an actor or actress was running around on the beach, it looked as if they were running in the same spot.<br /><br />3. The girl running in the gray sweat pants. That really bother during the duration of this film. I mean she looks so ridiculous. Plus it didn't help any that she looked as though she was the youngest out of the whole group. I mean what was she like twelve or something. There no excuse for someone to be that thin on camera. I mean doesn't the camera add like ten pounds or something, so what was her excuse.<br /><br />4. People trying to get record deals on camera. Just when I thought that this movie could not get any cheesier, out comes the wanna be Gorth Brooks and oh man was he lame. I don't' remember the whole scene, but from what I do remember it was not pretty. This one guy starts singing this song about something that has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with what's going on in the film. The funniest part of the whole happening is how everyone seems to being enjoying this. I mean the only person who doesn't really know how to response to this is the "token black guy". And that's sad because if I'm not mistaken he was the one that encourage this latest addition of American Idoal. But here's where it gets funny. While this guy is all into his new song or whatever. In the far distance we see or villain aka the scarecrow. And boy does he look pi**ed off at this. I mean there's actually a moment where he looks like he's really jealous of this guy. So what does he do about this jealousy, well I'm glad you ask. He wait's for the guy to finish his song, and then he finises the guy. I don't want to give the death scene away, but I can tell you this. If that scene doesn't make you laugh, then nothing on this earth will.<br /><br />5. This movie was way longer then I expected. And it didn't help that they tried to pulled some pathetic twist bulls**t at the end to squeeze another 10 minutes out of this film. I mean I'll admit, I didn't see the twist coming, but that had a lot to do with the fact that I was hoping that the film was over and done with. But no they had to do they twist s**t. Needless to say that when I say that coming, I just turned off the T.V. and said f**k it, there's no way that movie could have gotten any worser. Thanks to my rather fast judgment I can say that I'll never know what was to happen next. But I promise that I do not care!!!!!!!!!!!!! All and all the movie is good for a laugh, but please don't buy it. Just hype it up to one of your friends and watch it on there expanse. | negative |
I discovered "The Patriot" in a DVD-store and thought it could be a real action thriller. No, it´s instead a low budget movie with a ridiculous story. It´s no doubt a cable-movie and not one for the theatre. Fortunately after 90 minutes the movie stops otherwise the audience should have taken an anti-virus against sleep. One thing came over: it was the nice country the film has been shot. You can really feel the American air but that´s all. I hope for Steven Seagal that he finally succeeds in a big hit. It is not a must see because I and my wife voted average 4/10. | negative |
I would have to say that in general Barbie Movies have impressed me. I have a 5 year old Barbie fanatic niece and she watches them all the time so needless to say I have seen quite a lot of Barbie these holidays, but I am not sick of them.<br /><br />This film, visually, has a lot to offer, especially the backgrounds, and the animation of the characters has improved with each new movie. One thing I noticed in particular was a vast improvement in the animation of Barbie's hair in this film. It has a lovely range of excerpts from classical music and I think that this is great, as it exposes a new generation to the classics. This film is well worth ago, especially if you have young relievers. They will be entertained for hours! | positive |
Darr was a Super Hit film, which was loved by many peoples. It tells the story of Shahrukh Khans innocent obsession for Juhi, who loves Sunny Deol. Honestly it was a entertaining movie, but if you look carefully its not too realistic. Shahrukh Khan keeps phoning Juhi and tells her that he loves her too bits. He gives an announcement in college that he Loves her, and gives her some nice surprises like beautiful photos of her. Unfortunately, instead of being flattered that a guy loves her too bits, she gets very very scared. I personally know 100s of people that get pranked by someone, and these people enjoy it, cos they play a long. Yash Chopra gives us a good film that does entertain, widely because of Shah Rukh Khan's character. Sunny Deol is suppose to be the main actor, but Darr belongs to Shah Rukh Khan delivering a Superb performance. Shah rukh Khan is literally the villain of the movie, but i would of been happy if he got the girl, because he loves her so dearly. Sunny Deol gives a decent performance, but he beats up all those guys on his own, and survives a brutal knife attack. Juhi Chawla is cute as ever in a fairly good performance. Some good songs including Tu mere samne being the best. | positive |
If you're not in the mood for more than an hour long movie than this film could give you some variation. What I love is the ongoing surprises. It's not only once that you want one or more of the short film in 'New York I Love You' to be continue. Yeah, some of the short films makes you curious, some of them very short, some of them longer, some of them has it definite ends, some of them don't.<br /><br />Most of the story presents the sad side of the capital city. It shows many different nationality background. Many of it, make it feels the same way where I have been once went to a capital city in other countries for a year where it has many people came from different countries. This movie explore many type of things you might have known, but for all the characters it's a new things. Maybe some of you have traveled abroad alone to stay for a year or two just to feel something new, meet new people; feel dreamy, sad, but the kind of sad you looking for because it is just that bored you were in your own home. You might want to reliving it again, by watching this. | positive |
For a feature film, the plot closely follows history--or at least historical gossip. But then the Chinese, who know the story very well from seeing it portrayed again and again, would never tolerate it otherwise. The attention to detail is wonderful, especially for anyone who has read Sima Qian's account in the Records of the Historian. Jing Ke, according to Sima Qian, did indeed make an attempt on Qin Shi Huang's life at the request of the Crown Prince of Yan before unification. Sima Qian explicitly mentions both the head of General Fan and the dagger rolled up into the map, as well as the dagger being thrown into the brass column. Although Jing Ke is described as no stranger to swordplay, he's hardly the invincible warrior portrayed by Chen Kaige. Jing Ke is indeed this film's weakest link. In reality (again, according to Sima Qian), he was a heavy drinker and put off his visit to Qin for as long as possible, spending a good deal of time with the ladies of Yan before the crown prince finally ordered him on his way. He was, in short, a human being and was not looking forward to death although he was willing to accept it. Chen Kaige's Jing Ke is afraid of death, but not his own. He is the classic ruthless killer turned disillusioned pacifist. His love (or maybe just affection) for a woman and pity for several hundred children whom Zheng had buried alive (not even two thousand years of hostile Confucian historians claimed Qin Shi Huang did this, although there is a legend about him burying 460 Confucians up to their necks and then beheading them)is enough to make this former assassin kill again. The melodrama is not convincing and the character ends up being just plain boring. The acting here isn't shabby, though not very interesting given the character. As for Lady Zhou, in all the numerous stories I've heard about Qin Shi Huang, she's never come up. Anyway, Gong Li is famous enough for Americans to have heard of her (thanks to Zhang Yimou) and there needed to be a love interest, so here she is. It's unfortunate that her performance is almost as wooden as Jing Ke's character. She's done much better (in Qiu Ju for example) at being subtle; here she just barely manages presence. But all of this is trivial compared to the extraordinary acting of Li Xuejian as Zheng himself. Qin Shi Huang is for the Chinese rather what Milton's Satan is for us: accepted as a villain, but a noble one. Qin Shi Huang's accomplishments radiate an awe all the way across two thousand years into the present and Li captures his frightening will without compromising his humanity. Li's performance is enough, but the scope of the film is grand although the photography is purposely drab. It does feel ancient. The score is adequate, scarcely moving though very appropriate to the action. Though I've only seen it once, I believe that Chen Kaige should be given more credit for his camera work than other reviewers have allowed him. The opening credits are exhilarating. If five stars its absolutely average, I given three more for Li Xuejian's acting and Chen Kaige as an actor, writer, and director. | positive |
Retro Puppet Master starts in Kolewige during 1944 where puppet master Andre Toulon (Guy Rolfe) & his living puppets plan to escape Germany, hold up in an Inn puppet master Toulon reminisces about his early life & the point at which he learned the secret of giving life to dead objects way back in 1902 in Paris when his younger self (Greg Sestero) ran the Theate Magique. He describes the fateful night when he met a 3000 year old Egyptian sorcerer named Afzel (Jack Donner) & the eventual love of hi life the young & beautiful Ilsa (Brigitta Dau). He tells the story of how Afzel passed the gift of life to himself & gave life to his own wooden puppets that were part of the Theatre Magique show. However the gift of life was also a curse as the ancient God Sutek whom the secret was stolen from in the first place by Afzel wants it back & everyone who has learnt it dead...<br /><br />As of late I have been on a bit of a Puppet Master bender as being a big fan of the first three I decided to watch the rest of the franchise & as such I have seen Puppet Master 4 (1993), Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter (1994), Curse of the Puppet Master (1998) & now Retro Puppet Master in the space of a couple of weeks & boy was it tough to get through them all, especially this one as it's the worse of the series so far. Retro Puppet Master feels like a cross between Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) with it's period setting & Puppet Master 4 & Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter with Sutek trying to kill everyone associated with his stolen life giving secret. There's not much continuity here either, again there's none of the green serum featured in the earlier films & despite Andre Toulon committing suicide in 1939 at the start of the original Puppetmaster (1989) he is seen alive & well during 1944 in this. The majority of the story is told as a flashback & concentrates on Andre Toulon himself rather than the puppets, the film focuses on his relationship with Ilsa & him learning the secret of life & it's all rather dull & tedious stuff to be honest. Even at only 80 odd minutes Retro Puppet Master feels long & padded with no real pace & the no central concept as the plot never really settles down & generally hops around a lot. Then of course there's the baffling decision to totally redesign the puppets which I found incredible, I mean why would the makers take the one basic thing that made the Puppet Master films so memorable & completely do away with it? The puppets are seen briefly at the start & the end but otherwise we get these rubbishy looking wooden caricatures that are nowhere near as cool as their modern re-workings. It's never even explained why these puppets were used rather than the ones all Puppet Master fans have come to love although one suspects that Full Moon was hoping to make yet another sequel which dealt with that very question.<br /><br />If a poor story & a complete lack of our favourite puppets wasn't bad enough Full Moon decided to go with a PG-13 rating for this making Retro Puppet Master the only Puppet Master film not rated 'R' in the US (obviously other countries have their own film ratings systems) & therefore there's not a single drop of blood in the entire film, the puppets don't kill anyone, there's no swearing & no nudity either. This is tamer than tame kids stuff all the way. Besides the puppets themselves being rubbish the special effect are the wost of the series too, there's no stop motion animation at all in this one, no CGI computer effects (surely in 1999 CGI was cheap enough?) & all the effects are of the stiff rod puppet type effects. I mean whenever you see a puppet 'walk' the camera is always positioned above it's wait so it's legs don't have to be shown & there's obviously some production assistant just pushing the thing along, that's as complex & state of the art as the special effects get.<br /><br />The one positive thing that Retro Puppet Master does have going for it is that it looks rather nice, the period production design, costumes & props are actually quite impressive & it's a fairly handsome film to watch at times. Apparently filmed in Bucharest in Romania which doubles up quite nicely for turn of the last century Paris. The acting here is awful & maybe the worst of the series.<br /><br />Retro Puppet Master is more or less the final Puppet Master film as the next one Puppet Master: The Legacy (2004) basically edits together footage from the previous seven films & it's a pretty crappy way to round the series off which started so well with three excellent & distinctive little killer puppet flicks. Don't bother with this, just watch one of the first three again & just remember the good times... The killer puppets would return in the terrible spin-off flick Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys (2004). | negative |
I haven't seen much German comedy, but if this film is anything to go by, I'm compelled to see more! The simple but effective storyline takes two very different people on a trip from Germany to Italy after Eva, an unemployed mother of two, discovers that her artist husband is having an affair with the wife of a wealthy lawyer. I won't reveal anything further, but what results is a very funny series of events with the perfect conclusion. My interest in international cinema has expanded since I first saw this film. I recommend it to anyone (any adult... don't let the inclusion of the young children fool you into thinking it's a family film) who love comedy - even those unfamiliar with the language. | positive |
Ok, let's get this out of the way first: As a piece of cinema, Lifeforce is rubbish. As a bit of cheesy entertainment for SF buffs, it's got a lot of merit. If you enjoy watching those old black and white SF B-movies - giant mutated spiders/ant or alien monsters wandering around the desert - you really will get a kick out of Lifeforce.<br /><br />Bad things: The story makes little sense and the acting is pretty poor. Good things: The special effects are halfway decent; it has a welcomingly different British centered story (it's set in London) which gives different feel to most SF movies; and it has the well-endowed Mathilda May (amusingly billed as "Space Girl") wandering around stark naked. <br /><br />In short: it's fun. <br /><br />I've seen it half a dozen times now, and every time it comes on TV I make time to watch it - admittedly this is partly to do with the naked Ms. May - but it's also to do with the enjoying a bit of unassuming and silly SF. | positive |
This is one of the two postapocalyptic fantasy movies that Albert Pyun made in 1993 - and it's the bad one. Apparently all his energy went into "Nemesis" which was an entertaining non-stop action movie, and had a much more expensive look. "Knights" is clunky and cheesy, a bottom-of-the-barrel sci-fi that too often resembles a video game (new opponents pop up all the time and must be exterminated as quickly as possible). The only thing that saves this movie from the trash can is Kathy Long; not a particularly attractive woman, but undeniably a brutally efficient fighting machine. As for Kris Kristofferson, considering his age at the time (58), I hope his stunt double was well paid. (*1/2) | negative |
In the Fiji islands, the greedy and unscrupulous owner of the Valalola Resort Primal Park invites investors and guests for an opening party of his compound composed of hotel and zoo aiming to find partners for his discoveries. When a bunch of college smalltime thieves puts a virus in the security system to participate in a scavenger hunt, the greatest attractions of the zoo sabretoothes from the prehistoric age developed from DNA found in fossils escape, killing the hosts and guards for pleasure.<br /><br />The incredibly lame and cheap "Attack of the Sabretooth" is one of the worst movies I have recently seen. The characters are awful and not funny or pleasant and the story is a terrible Jurassik Park rip-off with a bad collection of clichés. Basically all the lines and situations are poor and stupid, but the winner is when the guard explains that the sabretoothes are bulimic and like to kill for pleasure. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Ataque do Dente de Sabre" ("The Attack of the Sabretooth") | negative |
My friend and I rented this movie for 3.99 at blockbuster. If I'd have known how absolutely horrible this movie was going to be, I wouldn't have paid a cent. I had no warning for this bs. The acting can't even be called acting, the inevitable sex scene is awkward, and you can tell that both girls feel completely uncomfortable doing it, and the male villain... god, who couldn't tell he was going to attack emily And the musical cues... my lord. This movie makes me want to cry. Never rent this. In fact, if you happen to look upon it, gauge out your eyeballs. This movie isn't of God- it's from hell. I'm just gonna take the last couple lines to write blah blah blah shiz cause I really don't want to continue on with this review. | negative |
Robert Siodmak does a fabulous job with this B noir starring Ella Raines, Franchot Tone, and Alan Curtis. And he does it, I might add, without a lot of help from his male actors, i.e., Curtis and Tone. It's Raines all the way, a pretty, leggy actress who for one reason or another never reached the status of some of her "noir" counterparts.<br /><br />Siodmak's use of sex, light, shadows, and music is truly remarkable as he tackles this genre. The shadows, lighting effects, and camera angles are all effective. But the highlight of the film takes place in a nightclub with a very sexual drum riff by Elisha Cook, egged on by an excited Raines. It's this scene that brings "Phantom Lady" into new territory.<br /><br />Siodmak's commitment to the material is matched only by Raines, who gives a sincere performance as a woman in love trying to save her man. Franchot Tone phoned this one in. Alan Curtis didn't seem upset that he might die and didn't seem happy that he lived. And he never, except for a brief moment in prison, seemed to be in love with Raines.<br /><br />The amusing thing about many of these films is that, as World War II progressed, interest in psychiatry deepened. But often the terms were used incorrectly in films such as "Possessed," "Spellbound," and "The Greatest Show on Earth." Tone is called paranoid by Thomas Gomez - Tone probably has some paranoia attached to his disorder, but he appears to be closer to a psychopath. In actuality, as evidenced by his headaches, he may have had a brain tumor pushing against his brain.<br /><br />Phantom Lady doesn't have the greatest plot, but it's well worth watching. | positive |
I would have rated this film a minus 10 but sadly it is not offered.<br /><br />Why I didn't walk out in the first five minutes of this movie I cannot say. I should have gone with my instinct and left immediately!! Several people in our theater did and sadly I didn't follow them out.<br /><br />The story lacked all criteria for a movie. NO plot. Awful acting! Even Robin Williams was so disappointing that I may never see another film he is in. Not a single relationship in the story went beyond parlor talk. I did like the tazer scene. Too bad it didn't shock some meat into the senselessness of the plot. Someone needs to tazer the writer and director of this film! | negative |
When I first saw the previews for this movie on TV I thought that this could be a funny movie. I was wrong. All though I am not totally against movies that make fun of others. Some are actually funny such as the first scary movie. This was one of many that have been made as of late that are not. The humor in this film was anything but funny and was rather dull.<br /><br />I feel the one of the biggest problems is that they poked fun at to many movies such as Varsity Blues, Friday Night Lights, Stick it, etc. And if you are anything like me you try to pick out each movie instead of paying attention to whats going on in this one. Even the adult humor in this movie was dry. Do yourself a favor and save you money and time and rent don't rent this movie | negative |
I can remember a college professor commenting as to how disturbing this film was, reflecting the apathy of adolescents (this was before Generation "X").<br /><br />In a way, most of us are products of the same consumer culture; these high school kids spend their time drinking, getting high and wondering what to do about the body left on a riverbank.<br /><br />What would they do today? Would things be different?. Some very important questions. There are some excellent scenes with Keanu Reeves, and the dysfunctional family he lives with; his 11 year old brother going out to get wasted; the mother has no idea what to do- spends her time drinking with her boyfriend.<br /><br />This film was a bit before its time in that it addresses the problems in lower class American society; these kids had no outlet; what is available for them in this dirt-water town? . All in all a few interesting social commentaries are presented, and there are no solutions. 9/10. | positive |
SPOILERS<br /><br />Tom and Jerry is a classic cartoon, with a flawless idea, and almost every single short is a gem. While I must say that this is definitely an inferior short compared such other classic Tom and Jerry shorts, there is not way you can hate this cartoon. Sure, it is understandable to say that this is one of the worst of the first Tom and Jerry episodes, and I can say that I agree, but the fact of the matter is that all Tom and Jerry episodes are great, but some are just better than others. Well, this would fit into "others." <br /><br />Here is the plot of Fraidy Cat. Tom is listening to an old scary radio broadcast, and becomes easily frightened. Jerry observes how scared he is, and tries to scare him even more than he already is. He creates scary dilemmas for Tom, and Tom becomes scared out of his wits, and his lives. Jerry then puts a sheet over a vacuum cleaner and controls it, thus making it look like the vacuum is a ghost. Tom finds out that Jerry did all of this, and chases him. Tom then accidentally bites the house maid. However, at the end Jerry ends up the one becoming scared after he sees his reflection in a flour cup.<br /><br />Overall, this is far from the best Tom and Jerry short out there, but this is still a fun and entertaining piece of time. It makes me wish that there was more cartoons like this. The slapstick and gags in this that make Tom and Jerry famous are as good as ever in this short, but it felt like something was missing in this. It felt slower than most Tom and Jerry shorts. Anyway, this is a good short that does not quite live up to some other Tom and Jerry cartoons, but it is still nice.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
I can not believe I wasted my money to rent this movie. I thought it was a porn flick when it started and it never got any better. The acting, the music drowning out the actors. Horrible. Save your money! You have to read the movie all the way through b\c they knew the music would drowned out the speaking lines. I never got the part about the slaughterhouse or the need to continue to show cows and pigs being butchered. What did that have to do with the "real" BTK killer? I understand why there were no famous actors\actresses in this movie. The script would have turned me away within the first page of reading. You would be better off watching paint dry. | negative |
I believe I share the same psychological outlook on the world with Kieslowski. He is Polish, I am Dutch, yet we share a synthetic mind: the world is not void of the metaphysical amidst total coincidence. Hardly ruled by man or perhaps by a poet-prime minister, so that as a social and cultural 'low pressure area', Poland could play the role it did in WWII, being critical yet Christian towards the Jews but often not less critical toward oneself. There are innocence and guilt in Kieslowski's world view, as the symbols in Catholicism: the White versus the Black Madonna. In Rouge, the Black Madonna is she who the judge fell in love with when he was a young man. Flashbacks are magically-realistically intertwined with the present, although totally coincidental, such as the camera simply swinging to the other side of the street or the then young judge's red jeep passing by the now young woman's car after she accidentally hit his dog with it. That we leaped through time in those same camera moves, is what we grasp later. His love was unanswered, so that his life wasn't as he had planned it. He lost his ability to love other people and animals. Being a judge, he feels he is actually spying on other peoples' lives and when he retires, he simply continues to do so, spying on his neighbors this time. The innocence and sense of righteousness of the younger woman (literally) accidentally getting into his life, reinstalls his better judgment and it is because of her that he spontaneously confesses his spying behavior to his neighbors and the police, accepting and even holding on to the stones consequentially thrown through his windows. In the process, history repeats itself between this man and the woman he loves, although this time he is old and the woman not the same. Kieslowski may have wrestled with this bit for the old judge is his alter ego, and it is said he was infatuated by Irène Jacob. Both women play the same essential role in his psychology, of the one (!) who possesses his heart and soul and therefore can make him or break him, even as an old man! It is as if the 'powers in the air' are, or God is, bringing them together. Coincidences are *too* coincidental to just be chance or even good luck. There has to be some mystical, supernatural or theological source influencing these unfathomably deep life-decisions. The study book fell and opened at the page of the exam question is another example of this. Or the moment the old judge spoke his heart to the young woman, the wind outside the opera house suddenly slams the open doors and breaks the windows. The gigantic picture of the young woman happens to predict the one on TV, after the drowning accident on her Canal crossing trip. These moments are effectively accentuated through the human voice of liturgy or what sounds like it (Van den Budenmayer). | positive |
Parasomnia has an interesting premises, but the story is poorly done without any tension or even a logical approach. The cast in unconvincing, even Patrick Kilpatrick, who played great roles in movies like Scanner Cop 2, Open Fire, Under Siege 2 and Eraser. The rest of the cast is unknown (and not very good) with the exception of Jeffrey Combs. (Herbert West from the great Re-Animator trilogy). But he can play roles like this in his sleep (which is a little what he does here). The main problem is that the actions of the characters make no sense at all. The story is rather dull and predictable with cheap computer effects mixed with some gory scenes, especially at the end.<br /><br />This could have been so much better, I do not get the good reviews on this one. It is below average really. | negative |
Sean Bean is great, as are the photography, locations and costumes. However, the plot is somewhat muddled, and the conclusion flat. The plot has been SUBSTANTIALLY altered from Cornwell's novel, and not to the better. Unfortunately, this adventure is much better read than watched. Sharpe was too narrowly drawn here, in contrast with his literary alter ego, who seems more intelligent and determined despite his apprehension in his new role as an officer promoted from the ranks. I really enjoyed the brief scene in which Sharpe is tripped by a "real" officer, and after a quick pause and piercing stare, pushes the surprised and cowed officer right back. It sets the tone for his later trials as a commanding officer.<br /><br />Rating: "4" of "10." | negative |
I don't know why some guys from US, Georgia or even from Bulgaria have the courage to express feelings about something they don't understand at all. For those who did not watch this movie - watch it. Don't expect too much or don't put some frameworks just because this is Kosturica. Watch the movie without prejudice, try to understand the whole humor inside - people of Serbia DID actually getting married while Bil Clinton bomb their villages, gypsies in all Balkans are ALWAYS try to f*ck you up in any way they can, LOVE is always unexpected, pure and colorful, and Balkans are extremely creative. For those who claims this is a bad movie I can see only that the American's sh*t (like Meet Dave, Get Smart etc) are much much worse than a pure, frank Balkan humoristic love story movie as Promise me. The comment should be useful and on second place should represent the personal view of the writer. I think the movie is great and people watch it must give their respects to the director and story told inside. It is simple, but true. It is brutal, but gentle and makes you laugh to dead. | positive |
Being a seasoned fan of Italian thrillers and directors Dario Argento, Mario Bava, Sergio Martino and Aldo Lado, I thought of Lucio Fulci as an overrated hack. I had seen The Beyond which I think is totally overrated, I found The New York Ripper to be simply appalling and I didn't particularly like The House By the Cemetery. These three movies left me to conclude that Fulci is the least interesting of these Italian filmmakers. But my stubbornness prevailed and I had to check out more of his films. City of the Living Dead was a film I found very interesting but Don't Torture a Duckling is very nearly a masterpiece.<br /><br />Set in a small town in the Italian countryside in a repressive religious community where young boys are being murdered. The authorities are clueless as to who's behind these crimes, especially after their prime suspect has been cleared. An eager young reporter along with a rather slutty girl (who seduces young boys) investigate and eventually get to the bottom of it.<br /><br />Brilliant atmosphere combined with a good story and a good cast (not always the case with 70's Italian thrillers) make Don't Torture a Duckling a crackling good thriller. The plot is well constructed, not easily figured out and the end conclusion is very satisfying. Fulci creates a dynamic atmosphere of repression and guilt in a very unforgiving and ignorant community and creates some very strong visuals, particularly in a scene where a woman gets beaten to death by some local townsfolk. Fulci's social commentary concerning religion and innocence are quite edgy and every aspect is well handled. When thinking of his zombie flicks and his ultra violent giallo New York Ripper it's amazing how well he balances his critique with explicit violence and makes an even stronger point. So far I haven't seen any Fulci film made as professionally as this one.<br /><br />While not a traditional giallo film, Duckling has many of the genre's trademarks. Fulci displays complete control over the format, only once going overboard with an unconvincing gore-moment, but overall he seems to be even better at making mysteries than full blown gore epics. The extreme scenes here are much more powerful and really pack a punch.<br /><br />So far Don't Torture a Duckling is Fulci's best film by far in my opinion. Edgy social commentary combined with explicit scenes of violence and a crackling good mystery to boot. | positive |
Leave it to Paul "sex on the brain" Verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the INVISIBLE MAN story. If he'd direct a Pokemon film, I'm sure he'd turn it into some massive orgy of sorts. I don't mind sex or even sleaze (check my other reviews) on film but frankly, it's obvious the director has a one track mind and he couldn't see interesting aspects about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implications it comes with it. It's a shame because it could have been good if the film didn't spend so much time having an invisible Kevin Bacon grope women. <br /><br />The game cast of actors does what it can with the one-note cheesy script but I felt bad for some of them, including William Devane, who is totally wasted here.<br /><br />But then what could I have expected from the director of SHOWGIRLS, which, btw, is much more entertaining than this stilted & bad film. | 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.