review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Another British cinema flag waver. Real garbage on offer here once again. I cannot understand (and I am British) why this over the top, patriotic nonsense was ever made. EIGHT years mark you, from when the second world war had actually ended! Other commenter's here have remarked on the editing and apparent seamless use of archive footage. This is extremely poorly observed. The archive footage is in abundance. Model aircraft swing from wires in the 'action scenes' like so many children's kites in the wind. The usual map room sequences tattoo the movie to make us supposedly drawn into the whole Malta event. Guinness must have his worst acting performance ever. The shocking back drop dog fight scenes are laughable. Hawkins bores us all to death in the map room area. Ealing made many great movies. This clearly is not one of them. They should have stayed away from such unconvincing rot! | negative |
I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is "the mundane life is worth living", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted. | negative |
This is a movie that deserves another look--if you haven't seen it for a while, or a first look--if you were too young when it came out (1983). Based on a play by the same name, it is the story of an older actor who heads a touring Shakespearean repertory company in England during World War II. It deals with his stress of trying to perform a Shakespeare each night while facing problems such as bombed theaters and a company made up of older or physically handicapped actors--the young, able bodied ones being taken for military service. It also deals with his relationship with various members of his company, especially with his dresser. So far it all sounds rather dull but nothing could be further from the truth. While tragic overall, the story is told with a lot of humor and emotions run high throughout. The two male leads both received Oscar nominations for best actor and deservedly so. I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys human drama, theater--especially Shakespeare, or who has ever worked backstage in any capacity. The backstage goings-on make up another facet of the movie that will be fascinating to most viewers. | positive |
As with all of Angelopoulos' films, "The Suspended Step of the Stork" implicitly demands a close and intimate participation on the part of the viewer, a fact that has certainly contributed to the limited popularity of his work. Dialogues are sparing, with no monologues or exchanges exteriorizing the characters' inner conflicts, doubts, or feelings. The filmmaker prefers to keep the viewers away from their own emotional responses, and instead forces them to explore and study the characters' identities for themselves. As a result, the acting is understated and implicit, as opposed to overt and explicit.<br /><br />The action scenes are set between long intervals of contemplation, where the viewer is asked to become a participant, to participate as an actor, by probing his or her own psyche. As in a novel, where the drama rests entirely on the author's writing to provide a template where the reader's imagination and/or past experience flourish, Angelopoulos' drama rests within his images: his uses of the long shots, the long takes, the leisurely pacing, the sparing dialogues that have become his trademark, inviting the viewer to experience the film from his or her personal perspective. Angelopoulos uses silence to capture moments of high intensity, reverting to the non-verbal language of gestures, gazes, sounds, and music, when he believes that words can only take us so far.<br /><br />The music, by Angelopoulos' long time collaborator, Eleni Karaindrou, provides more than just a discreet background, but becomes itself a dramatic element of the story. A large part of the film consists of exterior shots in subtle, subdued colors, recorded in a drab winter light. Angelopoulos presents us with an "other Greece," one far different from the Greece of the tourist brochures, with ethereal blue skies and emerald seas, drowned in an eternal sunshine. Here, the skies are covered and gray, the air is cold and misty, and the sands of the pristine beaches have been replaced by the trampled, dirty snow of the village streets. Angelopoulos' genius through Arvanitis' camera is on display throughout the film.<br /><br />"The Suspended Step of the Stork" is above all else a political statement aimed at the socio-political situation in the Balkans at the end of the twentieth century. It is deeply concerned with the meaning of "borders," and with those who are the victims of the confusion between nations. In the "waiting room" facing the Albanian border, the refugees, political or other, outcast by the rest of humanity, wait. They may be stuck against a political border, but unfortunately they still carry with them, and hang on, deeper ancestral borders: those of the languages, of the customs, and of the races. Although Angelopoulos' political views are well known, the film steers clear of any political discourse regarding the causes of the refugees' plights. In the process, Angelopoulos forces us to meditate on the concepts of geographical, cultural, political, and personal "borders." <br /><br />Angelopoulos considers himself a historian of twentieth century Greece, and he likes to bring lessons from the Hellenic myths into his discussions. In this film, he does some border crossing himself between the Greek and Italian cultures, drawing from a combined Homeric and Dantesque tradition of Odysseus' travel. Alexander is a Telemachus, in search of a story about an aging Greek politician/Odysseus who disappeared, never to be heard of again. This political man, a brilliant orator, unexpectedly and inexplicably left the comfort of his bourgeois existence, his wife, and his brilliant career, to live anonymously in a refugee camp with the lowest of the low. He became a poet in exile wondering how to change the world. Of course, the "politician" is not Alexander's father, but the "politician" stands before Alexander like a father figure/Odysseus. As with Homer's Telemachus, Alexander grows as a person during his odyssey.<br /><br />Of course, it would be wrong to try and see in the film a retelling of Homer's Odyssey in a contemporary context. Angelopoulos draws on Odysseus's travels only as structuring and thematic elements for his film. In Angelopoulos' ending, "Odysseus" is more like the Dante's Odysseus: he does not leave for Ithaca but goes on, "carrying a suitcase." And Alexander/Telemachus is "suspended" between returning to his home and his career, or embarking on a voyage to "somewhere else." He states as much, in a voice-over at the beginning of the film, paraphrasing few lines from Dante's "Inferno": "And don't forget that the time for a voyage has come again. The wind blows your eyes far away." <br /><br />Finally, although Angelopoulos is not a religious person, there is a Greek Orthodox religious theme introduced during the film in the form of the yellow-suited linesmen, who go around bettering things for their fellow human beings by reconnecting communications, and also the Christ-like figure of the "politician." In the final scene, these men in yellow demonstrate once more the Byzantine iconography's influence in Angelopoulos' work. They appear like "stylites," religious figures found in the Orthodox tradition, solitary and fervent men who took up their abode upon the tops of pillars, in a form of asceticism.<br /><br />The film ends without a resolution as to the true identity of the character played by Mastroianni. Angelopoulos does not give us any clues, and the wife's statement, "It's not him," is far from convincing and left ambiguous enough. The important question of the film is not whether he is or is not the vanished politician, but that he could be the politician. But the film still ends on an optimistic note. Whereas the wires strung from pole to pole run only along the river, and thus communications across the border are still not possible, and it remains impenetrable, we note that this final scene is taken from a point of view across the river: the camera has crossed the border, and the reverse tracking shot is inviting Alexander and the viewer to follow beyond the boundary. On this account, Angelopoulos gives us hope that somehow, some of the borders will eventually crumble. | positive |
I suppose it was for Temple Matthews who written basically a remake even though there are few changes which just make it worse. SPOILERS: It is much similar to the original. Melody, Ariel's new daughter is threatened by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Morgana escapes, but keeps her promise to take Melody away from them. Did Ursula have a sister?! And she is not that great a villain as Ursula was. This is where there is similarity. Medoly is kept from the sea until Morgana is captured, but she doesn't know a thing about it, because it all happened when she was a baby. A wall surrounds the palace to keep her in and morgana out. She goes under the wall day to day to have a swim and talk with Sebastian, who is not as funny or fun as in the original. She finds a seashell with her name on it and runs away from home and to look for answers and finds Morgana. Here is a similarity; Morgana tricks Melody, making her happy by turning here into a mermaid. Meanwhile, Eric, Melody and King Triton look for her. To stay a mermaid she needs to steal the trident from Triton. So Melody does, because she does not know King Triton is her father. She makes friends with a penguin and a walrus and here is where it is awful. The penguins who live with them in an icy ocean, hate them because they are cowards. So they try to prove they are heroes and fail. That does not suit the little mermaid. And the dialogue during those conversations between the penguins and those two characters is ear-bleeding. you know why? Because the first had a great story. This one is not and is not magical. It is just an example of how bad many sequels are.<br /><br />Melody finds them and they help to take her to Atlantica to prove themselves. When they take the trident, Ariel finds Melody with Morgana. Melody is angry at her mother for keeping her from the sea so she gives the trident to Morgana, then she shows her true colours once she grabs it. Poor Ariel and Melody are in her custody. The penguin and the walrus begin to prove themselves when they fight Morgana's shark friend. Sorry I did not mention him earlier. They finally prove themselves. Eric, King Triton and his soldiers arrive but are forced to bow down before Morgana by the power of the trident. Melody takes it, throws it to Triton and he ices Morgana (literally). Then Ariel apologises to Melody and thinks it is all her fault. It was not! Ariel did the right thing to protect Melody, but they never say so. Triton offers Melody to live in sea or land. She in fact has a "better idea". She uses the trident to vaporize the wall so humans and mer-folk can be together. Then everyone sings an awful song. THE END.<br /><br />Whoever has seen it and likes this obviously has not seen the original. I do not dislike this because I am a teenager. I liked it when I was very very little. Then as I grew older I began to see what is bad about this film. young, young kids will enjoy it, but it is likely that when they are in primary school, they will forget about it. Normally I would think I over-judged a film and it was better than I remember when I watched it again, but not this one. It is even worse. Story is no exception. If you thought, by reading this that the story is good, read more of this comment and you will know the other bad points: Well, you know the story now. I am sorry for spoiling it for you, but I had to point out some bad parts of it. One of the worst things is the animation. Colour is awful. The original had beautiful colour. Watching this almost made me want to go blind. Even the illustrations and landscape design were not good. The original had beautiful, magical colouring and beautiful underwater landscape design and for land as well, making it a joy to watch.<br /><br />The music is unbearable. Compared to the first, the music here is crap. Songs are not that well composed and Tara Strong (I think that is her name) who did Melody can not sing. She at times either sang too high or did not keep track for the melody in the song. So much for having "Melody" as a name.And the music is not at all beautiful or moving. Little Mermaid 1 won an Oscar for it and it truly deserved it. This one deserved a razzie award for worst musical score in a sequel if it would exist.<br /><br />I did not like the voices. Several people who played characters from the first, did the same ones in this. Jodi Benson is a great singer, but now that she is older, no offence to her, her voice is too deep and not so beautiful anymore. And I am really disappointed in her and others who were in the first for being a part of this. If I was chosen for this film, just by reading the script, I can tell it would be a bad film. The characters are different now. Ariel is more wiser now, but annoying. They overdid her character, making her too mature. In sequels you are not meant to change the characters unless it is for a special reason. She was sixteen in the first. There is little chance she changes. That is the stage when you become the person you are going to be for the rest of your life. Screenwriters should think of that. They should think of the character.<br /><br />Well, I suppose that is it for me. I hope you find my comment useful, because I am sure a lot of you will agree with my point of view. | negative |
Iron Eagle may not be the most believable film plot-wise, but the characters are well written and very well acted. If you cannot believe the characters, the film is a flop.<br /><br />I believe the photography, especially the aerial photography is superb. I believe it is far superior to Top Gun to which it is endlessly compared. It is one of the best pieces of aerial photography I have seen. The soundtrack by Basil Paledouros (forgive the spelling)is great, and juxtaposes well with the rock tunes. I wish that portion of the soundtrack were available.<br /><br />Jason Gedrick does well as the teenager who suddenly has to grow up in a rush and and the realities of life, death, and responsibilities. Lou Gossett is fab as Chappy, both hard-bitten and yet human as he recalls pilot deaths.<br /><br />There are lots of movies out there that you watch once and don't care to watch again. Then there are those movies that get you for one aspect or another and you can watch it again and again! Iron Eagle is that kind of movie! | positive |
This is the sorriest collection of clichés, strung together on a straight line, with no discernible plot or any decent way of acting I've seen in a long time. Canibalising scenes from Star Wars, Reign of Fire, Godzilla, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, it went for an all out war on the viewer intelligence. Was this movie good? It wasn't a movie at all!<br /><br />Even if it doesn't go so low to actually be funny and achieve cult status as a comedy, the movie does offer some laughs. The trick is to put the copied scenes in the context of their original films. Gandalf can be funny talking Korean, the basilisk looking snake hilarious if you compare it to a kitten and the evil henchman can provide a lot of fun switching back and forth between Sauron and Jaja-bing, or whatever his name was.<br /><br />Bottom line: any pleasure derived from this movie is completely dependent on the state of intoxication and imagination of the viewers, not on the director/writer. Shame on you, Shim! | negative |
If you've ever seen Open Water , this is the same kind of gritty, edgy, indie style of film. i liked the action, suspense. the slow building of it all,, i just hope they don't do to this one what they did to Open Water, with that sequel.. but anyways,, the one thing i didn't like was the annoying younger sister,, i was rooting for the croc the whole time.. film starts out pretty much like it should,, kids packing up for a trip,, they hire a guide who mysteriously left 5 mins. before they got there,, so i guess his assistant takes the two sisters,, and the boyfriend out on the water , now mind you this is the second day of their adventure,, curiously enough the first day they spent at guess ,, hmm a crocodile farm.. so they are out there and all is good for a little while,, then bang,, crocodile time... very intense,, you know something in this movie you don't see the crocodile, a whole heck of a lot,, but when you do,, gosh it is very scary,, i love the croc's snout and eyes,, and the shroud of fog that seems to enshroud the croc every time he raises his head above the water,, very very creepy, but good,, overall this is a great film,, if you can get past the annoying little sister. | positive |
How can a movie with Amy, Posey and Raechel have NOTHING funny in it? Believe it or not 'House Bunny' did this better and funnier. Hopefully the principals had a good holiday and got some money - this movie is an embarrassment to all of them. It is a cliché from beginning to end. Clichés can work well with a script, or at least an idea. This movie does nothing but use cliché after cliché rather than ideas or script. It uses the preexisting persona's of the actresses rather than develop characters. Bad, sad, and rubbish. Now I apparently have to have ten lines of text for a comment. Really? Why? As an IT ops manager this is another example of sloppy coding. | negative |
I LOVE this movie. Director Michael Powell once stated that this was his favorite movie, and it is mine as well. Powell and Pressburger created a seemingly simple, superbly crafted story - the power of love against "the powers that be". However, its deception lies in the complexity of its "is it real or is it imaginary" premise. Basically, one could argue that it is simply a depiction of the effects of war on a young, poetically inclined airman during WWII. Or is it? The question is never answered one way or the other. Actually, it is never even asked. This continuous understatement is part of the film's appeal.<br /><br />The innovative photography and cinematography even includes some nice touches portraying the interests of the filmmakers. For instance, Pressburger always wanted to do a cinematic version of Richard Strauss' opera, Der Rosenkavalier, about a young 18th century Viennese aristocrat. This is evident in the brief interlude in which Conductor 71, dressed in all his finery, holds the rose (which appears silver in heaven). The music even has a dreamy quality.<br /><br />All of the acting is first rate - David Niven is at his most charming, and he has excellent support from veteran Roger Livesey and relative newcomer Kim Hunter. But, in my opinion, the film's charm comes from Marius Goring as Conductor 71. He by far has the most interesting role, filling each of his scenes with his innocent lightheartedness, brightening the film. It's a pity that some of Conductor 71's scenes were left on the cutting room floor. It is also a pity that Goring's comedic talents are rarely seen again on film, except in the wonderful videos of The Scarlet Pimpernel television series from the 1950s. This is by far and away the most memorable role of his film career. He is a perfect foil for relaxed style of Niven, and his virtual overstatement contrasts so nicely with the seriousness of the rest of the characters. Ironically, also in the mid -1940s, Niven also starred against another heavenly "messenger", played by Cary Grant, in The Bishop's Wife. Their acting styles were so similar that I found the result boring, unenergetic, and disappointing. As a note, according to Powell, Goring desperately wanted the role of Peter Carter, initially refusing Conductor 71. It's a good thing he gave in and gave us such a delightful portrayal.<br /><br />The movie, "commissioned" to smooth over the strained relations between Britain and the U.S., overdrives its point towards the end. But it is disarming in its gentle reminders of the horrors of war - the numerous casualties, both military and civilian, the need to "go on" when faced with death. There is a conspicuous lack of WWII "enemies" in heaven, but the civilians shown are of indeterminate origin. Powell and Pressburger could have been more explicit in their depiction but it wasn't necessary. The movie may not have served its diplomatic purpose as was hoped for, but its originality continues to inspire moviemakers and viewers alike on both sides of the Atlantic. | positive |
24 has got to be the best spy/adventure series TV had ever aired. The whole idea of telling a story in a 24 hour real time period is dazzling. The style of filming and pacing is what hooks us to watch it. And Jack Bauer is one of the greatest protagonists in a TV series in a long time. I rate this, along with The Simpsons and The X-Files, my three most favorite TV series.<br /><br />This first episode begins with the conspiracy to assassinate US Senator David Palmer who is also running for president. Bauer is called to his office in order to discover who is behind all this and, at the same time, figure his daughter's path to the unkwown after fleeing from her bedroom. Thus, begins an adventure on the best political style and, what's best of it, is that it always takes place in real time, which makes this TV series a real work of originality in a time where almost every program on TV seems to be showing us the same things over and over and over. | positive |
I saw this film because Calexico did the score. A real disappointment. Annoying, trendy scenes, with urban hipsters and their cliche hip lifestyles. Cheesy stereotypical Mexican border culture (mystic grandfather with the rattlesnake and potions, granddaughter in her mariachi-style restaurant getup). A few laughs, but hipper-than-thou, and sorely lacking in vision and basic filmmaking talent. | negative |
Who ARE the people that star in this thing? Never heard of them!! But this is one of the funniest comedies I have run across. It should win the Putz Puller Prize for Parody. The absurd starts with Dr. Jeykl snorting his powder and turning into a sex fiend.He is pursued by libido driven nurse early in the movie in one of the funniest scenes of the movie. Pay attention to the hospital PA system in the background; rather like the system in MASH. The final scene with Hyde accepting the award has had me laughing for years. Oh... and the "Busty Nurse" is Cassandra Peterson, who went on to become Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. <br /><br />If you liked the Mel Brooks classic movies (Blazing Saddles, etc.), I suspect you'd like this one.<br /><br />Damn shame you can't get it on DVD anywhere.<br /><br />It's available on DVD now !!!!! Good thing DVDs don't wear out from use !!!!! | positive |
A hilarious and insightful perspective of the dating world is portrayed in this off beat comedy by first time writer/director Peter M. Cohen. The story unfolds as the four male protagonists meet weekly at the local diner to confer about their dating woes. We meet Brad: a good-looking, wall-street playboy with a quick-wit and sharp tongue; Zeek: a cynical, sensitive writer; Jonathan: a sexually perplexed nice guy with an affinity for hand creams and masturbation; and Eric: the married guy, who cherishes his weekly encounters with his single friends in hope for some enlightenment to his boring and banal married existence. The trials and tribulations of the men's single lives in New York are amusingly expressed, mirroring that of Sex in the City and HBO's new comedy The Mind of Married Man, and bring an astute light to scamming. The story takes a twist as the three singletons meet Mia--wittily played by Amanda Peet-and all fall for her. She seduces them each with her uncanny ability to conform to the personalities' they exhibit. When they come to realize they have all met and fallen in love with the same woman, they chose her over their friendship. Whipped is a realistic portrayal of the dating world, one that the critic's failed to recognize. In plain language, they missed the point. The protagonist's here are caricatures of real people. The exaggerations are hysterical, mixing satire and humility, and are not to be taken as seriously as the critic's disparagement suggests. See this movie, you'll laugh from start to finish. | positive |
This is the story of a maniac cop who, for some reason, has it in for a young college stud and his mates. After they report him to his supervisor who in turns suspends him pending psychiatric evaluation, he finds an opportunity to psychology torture them when, on a bet, the kids hack into a department store's security and unlock the door. Only, they get locked in the store, along with the weirdo. Murder and mayhem are afoot, and the kids are running around trying to survive until morning when they may be able to escape.<br /><br />'Dangerous Game' would have been a successful cat-and-mouse psycho thriller probably if it was set in a different location. The thought of psychotic cop chasing around a bunch of innocent teenagers in a department store just didn't work. Especially when he comes face-to-face with his flinching prey quite frequently and yet, does nothing serious quite often. There was no real confrontation as would be sufficient for this kind of story, and may've worked better if say, for example, the teens were loose in the neighborhood and left to fend for themselves against this weirdo (especially if that took a few days while he makes them increasingly paranoid...although granted, even that is clichéd).<br /><br />What a shame, too, that it could not have been a better thriller, considering a funky cast of young Australian characters. Even a light hearted adventure despite the madness of the villain interspersed through the picture might have even made it a more satisfying picture. Instead, it started out fresh, and sure did have plenty of action sequences, but wound up verging on the ridiculous. | negative |
This movie is just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I feel better. This movie is poor from beginning to end. The story is lame. The 3-D segment is really bad. Freddy is at his cartoon character worst. Thank God they killed him off. And who wants to see Roseanne and Tom Arnold cameos?<br /><br />The only good thing in the movie is the little bit of backstory that we're given on Freddy. We see he once had a family, and we get to see his abusive, alcoholic father (Alice Cooper).<br /><br />Other than that, all bad. There are some quality actors in here (Lisa Zane and Yaphet Kotto), and they do their best, but the end result is just so bad. The hour and a half I spent watching this movie is and hour and half I can't ever get back. | negative |
Orson Welles' 1974 documentary "F for Fake" examines trickery and fraud, mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. Clifford Irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, yet, at least it seems, purports his innocence. The other main subject of the film is artist Elmyr de Hory, a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces, sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. Interspersed among these stories are bits where Welles does magic tricks to illustrate points, etc., and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with "War of the Worlds".<br /><br />I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in "F for Fake". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4/10 --Shelly | negative |
<br /><br />Ok the film wasn't going to win any awards and it is pure bubblegum, and it is a modern update on "It's a wonderful life". But it's just come out as a cheap release on DVD and there are a lot worse ways of blowing $13. You get a film that has a surprisingly strong cast but for most they were still a year or two from becoming B list celebs. However it's an enjoyable way of passing an hour and half just don't think too much in it. | positive |
Yet another Lo Wei production to completely waste the talents of a young Jackie Chan, To Kill With Intrigue is a strange mix of wuxia, melodrama, supernatural action, and plain old-school kung fu fighting that is pretty dull despite featuring several surreal WTF moments and lots of laughably bad dialogue.<br /><br />In an effort to protect his pregnant girlfriend Chin Chin from the Killer Bees, a gang of ruthless killers that are about to attack his home, Cao Lei (Jackie Chan) pretends to be a heartless cad, driving her away, and thus saving her from danger.<br /><br />During the attack, Cao's relatives are all killed, but he is left relatively unharmed by the gang, whose leader, a scar-faced woman, seems to have the hots for him. Cao then goes in search of Chin Chin, whose safety he has entrusted to his close friend Chu Chuk.<br /><br />During his quest to find his true love, Cao befriends the head of a courier company whose precious cargo has been stolen by the leader of the evil 'Bloody Rain' clan. Eventually, after being injured in a fight against members of the nasty clan (a fun scene with lots of silly weaponry), and then nursed back to health by the scar-faced Killer Bee (who shows her love by burning his face!), Cao ultimately learns that he is a lousy judge of character: his friend, Chu Chuk, is none other than the power hungry head honcho of the 'Bloody Rain' clan, who has plans to marry Chin Chin himself.<br /><br />Cue the drawn out climactic battle, with Cao getting kicked in the face repeatedly before eventually choking his traitorous ex-pal to death with a scarf.<br /><br />Even die hard Chan fans will find this one a chore to sit through, with only the final fight managing to showcase some of the star's amazing acrobatic abilities. Fans of general Asian weirdness might dig the spooky appearance of the Killer Bees at the beginning of the film (with one character inexplicably demanding back his severed hand!), or the moment when three men float through a window to attack our hero, but, for most, this film will have very limited appeal. | negative |
This could be the most underrated movie of its genre. I don't remember seeing any advertisements or commercials for this one which could be the reason why it didn't do so well at the box office. However, Frailty is an excellent and a truly original horror movie. I rank it within the top 10 most favorite horror movies on my list.<br /><br />Movie begins with snapshots of photos and news articles telling us about a killer who calls himself "God's hand". And then a man walks into a police station and tells the chief officer that he knows the killer is his brother. Two of them leave together to go to a location where victims are buried which might help solve the case. During that trip, the man begins telling the story of his brother and we go back in time when the events began. Fenton and Adam are two young brothers living with their strict and religious father who, one day, claims that he has received a divine message from God asking him to kill the demons that appear to be regular human beings. He receives from God a list of names of demons to be destroyed and asks his sons to help him carry out this divine mission.<br /><br />This is an absolutely horrifying and suspenseful film that will keep you at the edge of your seat. The tension runs high, innocent people (or demons?) get killed and religious experiences are questioned. It has not one but few very intelligent twists at the end. If you like this genre, I highly recommend Frailty for you. I own the DVD and it is one of my all time favorite horror-thrillers. | positive |
Why were there so many people crowding into an evening showing of Roberto Moreira's "Up Against Them All" ("Contra Todos") at the San Francisco Film Festival? "It's about a hit man," my friend said. "Well. . . and it's Brazilian," I added. Beautiful multicolored people, tropical weather, lush rhythms, and a hip gangster plot? Ample enticements no doubt.<br /><br />Somebody forgot to tell us one little detail: this is a very bad movie, really pretty horrible, and as unpleasant to watch as it is poorly made.<br /><br />So how on earth did "Contra Todos" get to make the rounds of Berlin, Melbourne, London, Manila, Stockholm, Cairo, Chicago, numerous smaller local festivals, and now San Francisco? Apparently, because of the way the promotional process and the film festival circuit work.<br /><br />First of all, it won first prize at the Rio Film Festival where it was called the best Brazilian movie of the year. It must have been a bad year; they've had much, much better ones. Next, snappy synopses in catalogs plus imaginary buzz lead to crowded auditoriums and -- since the movie isn't featured anywhere and so avoids close scrutiny by critics -- it keeps going the rounds.<br /><br />Festival blurbs aimed at promotion sometimes goose it up a lot. A Chicago Festival one called "Contra Todos" "a speedball cocktail shot straight out of Brazil" and referred to Claudia's s boyfriend as the "stud of the slum-like neighborhood." Soninha is "Teodoro's nymph-like teen-aged daughter of burgeoning sexuality." The movie is "shot with the urgency of a frequently hand-held camera" and the director "works up a genuine and palpable sense of frustration borne from domestic desperation and decay." The effect is " unbearably raw and honest," and the movie hurtles "toward a conclusion as dead-ended as the lives on display." Not the best writing, but it sure pumps up the excitement for a certain kind of potential viewer.<br /><br />"Contra Todos" does concern a hit man, two hit men actually, and a wife and daughter and a born-again Christian girlfriend. It's shot -- in execrably ugly digital video with no talent behind the camera-work -- mostly in a barren-looking poor suburb rather than in one of the teeming "favelas" or village-like Brazilian city slums where such wonderful films as "Black Orpheus", "Pixote," and "City of God" were made, and not in Rio this time, but São Paulo.<br /><br />The hit man with family problems is Teodoro ( Giulio Lopez) and his partner with a drug problem is Waldomiro (Ailtan Graça). Both actors have a little TV experience as does the actress who plays Teodoro's sluttish blonde wife Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and Silvia Lorenço who plays his pouting, ready-to-revolt daughter Soninha. These actors might make it through the back corners of a few telenovelas. Who knows? -- in a better directed film they might even be good. Aside from them there are some young men who get bumped off by Teordoro or, when he's busy, gangs of thugs. The principals don't work up much presence, even though the camera magnifies their pores.<br /><br />A couple of observers, one at the Berlin Festival and one at London's, did see this movie's failings but alas they're buried in the Web hinterlands. Henry Sheehan noted from Berlin that the "film" (his quotes) was "the worst of the video works" shown. "The filmmaker seems to have chosen video simply because it was a cheap alternative to film," Sheehan wrote, "and hasn't made any creative use of the new medium" -- nor, he adds, done anything else creative.<br /><br />Sheehan pointed out the movie's first big mistake: it "starts off as a domestic drama that's supposed to ratchet up when, half an hour into the action, Moreira reveals that the father and one of his friends are professional hit men. Waiting the thirty minutes adds nothing to the movie; it seems like a perfectly arbitrary decision and is, at the very least, a waste of time. But ratcheting up is all Moreira ever does, like a little kid who's gotten a tool kit for his birthday, and goes around banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill." Devastating, but true.<br /><br />Writing about the 2004 London festival for Kamera.com, Metin Alsanjak tried to look at the positive side but nonetheless gave away the lack of redeeming features in calling the performances "easily the film's best feature." Yes, very easily, given that everything else is so bad. Alsanjak admitted that " this low-budget, violent and seedy account of the lawless in Sao Paulo is devoid of any likable characters, and as a result, of hope. Too dark and cynical to be a telling account of the human condition, the film is not helped by poor subtitling.. ." Alsanjak's connecting Contra Todos to "Dogme" and Mike Leigh didn't help matters.<br /><br />Apart from that meaningless first half hour in which nothing redeems the boredom of our wait for the first acts of violence -- which, when they come, are just "banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill" -- Moreira clumsily tries to redeem his abrupt finale by adding what appear to be outtakes right after it, followed by an implausible ironic concluding scene where one of the characters gets married. No doubt the director wanted to exhibit the "banality of evil" of low-level hit men in working class neighborhoods, but he can't make the characters, which he sees generically, come alive for us. And the structure of the film shows that he also can't edit his material. <br /><br />(Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 28, 2005.) | negative |
Ladies and gentlemen, we've really got ourselves a winner here. Actually we don't, but boy is this film an often hilarious and always entertaining horrible hoot of a stinker. Poor Alma (fetching Julia Ruiz) is suffering from an ancient Mayan curse that causes lethal poisonous snakes to grow inside of her body. Alma and her deranged shaman husband Brujo (Alby Castro, who feverishly overacts with delicious eye-rolling intensity) stowaway on a train that's bound for Los Angeles. Naturally, a bunch of deadly vipers get lose so they can terrorize the motley assortment of passengers. The Mallachi Brothers, working from an absurd script by Eric Fosberg, treat the ridiculous premise straight, thereby creating a wonderfully wretched piece of deliriously campy cheese. The cruddy CGI effects, the pathetically unfrightening common variety Gardner snakes (there's would-be scary rattlesnake noises added to the soundtrack to imbue them with a faint sense of otherwise nonexistent menace), the plodding pace, the total dearth of any tension or momentum, the obvious rickety stage-bound train set, and especially the simply astonishing "you gotta be kiddin' me!" over-the-top preposterous ending are all downright awesome in their very jaw-dropping awfulness. Better still, we also got game (if lame) acting from a no-name cast, a nice smidgen of tasty gratuitous female nudity, a funky hum'n'shiver score, and plenty of extremely gross and grotesque make-up f/x. Bonus points for the fact that the token irritatingly cutesy little girl gets eaten by a large reptile and for the stoner engineer who gets caught smoking crack out of a hollow light bulb (!?). An absolute gut-buster of a kitsch howler. | positive |
ALMOST GOLDEN: THE JESSICA SAVITCH STORY<br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Bland, soap-opera dramatisation of the rise and fall of America's first female TV news anchor. With a tighter script and direction - and a better cast - this might have passed muster, but the flimsy story really wasn't worth the effort. A good documentary on the subject might have been the best way to go. Typically strong production values in the TV movie conveyor-belt manner, but it's all as superficial as old fluff, and just as engaging. | negative |
Definitely, definitely the worst film I've ever seen, no questions asked! Contradictors of this opinion might argue that this title should not be judged by the same criteria as others, since it's an independent, low-budget film, but c'mon already the amateurism and meager innovation is horrifying.<br /><br />Agreeing with everything that has been said about this film, for example the mind numbingly weak acting (when it's this bad you take another go at shooting the scene, god damn it), the thing I found the most annoying was the total lack of common sense in the script, assuming such a thing existed during the production. There was an obvious absence of a dialogue with respect for the viewers, the girls switched personalities several times and they seemed to show absolutely no sing of any rationality or even brains - five relatively fit girls against one slight female psychopath gang up on her, why don't you?<br /><br />The only thing that can be regarded as somewhat of a conquest for this title is the camera not leaving the van at any time thus the viewer seeing everything from inside it - which is, as the rest of the film, a good idea executed exponentially dreadfully.<br /><br />
oh and by the way, this movie is NOTHING like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield or any other title filmed with a hand-held camera this is an effect and not a trait! Used cleverly it can be breathtaking, but in this case it's an excuse for inadequate cinematography. | negative |
I was staying in one night and got extremely bored around 2:00 a.m. so I flipped aimlessly through the channels and happened upon H.B.O. where this "classic" was playing. Initially I was happy to have caught something at the beginning, but my happiness faded about two minutes into the movie. The whole movie centered around an unattractive man who had a fear of females, four beautiful but empty minded women who worked as waitresses at his uncle's diner, and his enormously fat and extremely miserable cousin who also works at the diner. There are a few strange twists in this movie that make it somewhat interesting, but certainly not worth watching. Basically, if you have nothing to do some night or just can't sleep medication works much better. However guys there is a lot of skin so it may be okay to watch with no sound, but even that can get annoying | negative |
Telly Savalas hams it up as the Mexican revolutionary (though he's matched by Chuck Connors as a military martinet) in this jokey yet rather boring pastiche on the famous historical figure's life and times. An earlier attempt, VILLA RIDES! (1968) with Yul Brynner in the role and co-starring Robert Mitchcum, dealt with these events more soberly and on a grander scale. As such, PANCHO VILLA is an all-too typical European venture and an undistinguished one at that, despite its credentials; the end result is more often silly rather than amusing - though a few moments, most notably the action set-pieces and a scene involving a brawl inside a church, offer some mild pleasure. Oh, and Savalas even gets to sing over the end titles! | negative |
Not one of your harder-hitting stories, and that's a real strength of this film. There are at least two relationships in which less confident writers would have added some all-too predictable romantic tension. They not only spare the audience this, but throw in some surprises at the same time. There are a few Disney-ish moments, particularly near the end, but they are manageable. Overall, it was worth the rental and it was good, relaxed fun.<br /><br />BTW, if you get the DVD, watch the segment where the director teaches you how to make aloo gobi. We followed her directions and it was BRILLIANT! Next time we will make it the day before we plan to eat it, because this is one dish that definitely gets better with a full night in the fridge to let the spices out! | positive |
The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to "prove" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.<br /><br />This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).<br /><br />As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional "Frankie and Johnny" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else! | negative |
I've always enjoyed animated ducks for some reason: Duck Tales, Darkwing Duck, Daffy Duck, Donald Duck. Though none of them are as deranged as Duckman. Originally broadcast between 1994 and 1997 Duckman lasted for a total 70 episodes but could easily have gone on forever without becoming stale.<br /><br />The titular character is a discombobulated, unapologetic slob and pretty much the worst living person in the world. He's a private detective, a widower, a peeping tom, an alcoholic, a sex maniac, a murderer, a (fill in the blank). You name it, Duckman has done it. But who can blame him for being such a slimeball when the world he/we live in is so insane, outrageous and just plain nonsensical? Eric Tiberius Duckman(voiced by the maniacal Jason Alexander) could carry the whole show by himself but when he's surrounded by a bunch of eccentric supporting characters you just know that trouble is just waiting to explode at every opportunity. My favorite has to be Willibald Feivel Cornfed (or just Cornfed Pig), Duckman's incredibly deadpan sidekick who is seemingly talented and highly skilled at everything and is perpetually oblivious to his partner's infinity of vices and incompetence.<br /><br />The typical plot will involve some bizarre case he'll inevitably blunder through or will revolve around his highly dysfunctional household, though every now and again Duckman's arch-enemy King Chicken (Tim Curry), a sort of Professor Moriarty in fowl form, hatches some diabolical scheme in revenge for being bullied in high school.<br /><br />Since I was a teenager this has been my absolute favorite animated show, better than The Simpsons, Family Guy and even King of the Hill. Nothing will ever surpass it. There never was, or will be, anything quite like Duckman ever again. The level of satire, observational humor and writing is so sharp it's deadly and the animation is done in that unique Klasky/Csupo style (anyone who has seen Rugrats will understand). It's a wonderful, highly imaginative and wild world and all with a noirish, 1940s feel.<br /><br />You can never have too much of this particular bird. | positive |
Val Kilmer and Dylan McDermott are terrific. I have seen Kilmer on The Doors, however his interpretation of John Holmes is superb. Nothing compared to Boogie Nights which was kind of slow. Wonderland is a movie which is able to show you a horrible crime story from the perspective from a guy who is just indulged in his drug vice and indolent of what ever happens around. At the same time, the John Holmes character shows a very clever hustler who is able to pass through the nastiest and ugliest situations almost unharmed. The movie deserves being watched more than once. The seventies ambiance sensual and full of drugs is amazing. | positive |
This film was a wonderful romp, intelligent, playful, mysterious, full of surprises, with humor in odd places and a tremendous energy. The famous film director (the protagonist) and the events he tries to manipulate through film all become entangled in fascinating ways as he is nearly out-maneuvered by a prince who has never heard of him. There are wonderfully rich images throughout and paths suggested but not followed (exactly what is going on with the somber wife of the pedestrian tourist wedding director?). The ending is so much the better for being untidy. Realism and logic are not what you should be looking for here. If we are going to turn our weddings and our imaginative lives over to film directors, we should be prepared for a wild ride, this film seems to suggest. | positive |
Out of the many films I've seen, Tommy Boy is a rare film where I can watch it over and over and it's still funny. David Spade and the late Chris Farley do their best in this film and is a must-see by anyone who's a fan of the Spade-Farley duo. | positive |
Yawn, that is my reaction to this film. I was really hoping this would have been a good modern day slasher but it doesn't even fall into the category of slashers. Instead, it tries to be something it isn't, which is a psychological thriller, and it fails so miserably at this. Even the title "Freak" suggests that this might be interesting. Match this with the cover art on the DVD and you think "OK, maybe I will give this one a try". Not worth the time.<br /><br />The story actually starts up a bit interesting with a poor deformed child with bandages wrapped around his head being chained up by his fat Mother. She yells at him and probably beats him since in one scene we see her actually slap him for no reason. After all this, he decides he has had enough and smashes her face in with (I believe) a rock. Present day, he is now in insane asylum and is being transfered. On his way he breaks out of the van he is in and escapes. Introduce also the 2 leads characters, a little girl and her older sister. They are moving and hit the road. So most of the movie is them riding around in the car talking amongst themselves. But, the bandaged "Freak" is now on the loose and is about go on a rampage of grueling murder! (This is me being totally sarcastic)<br /><br />I can't believe how boring this movie turned out to be. The budget was on the smallest ever with absolutely no special effects and the dialog I could just care less about. This is one of those movie where the packaging is better then the flick itself. And to compare this to Halloween?! Rubbish! I am not even a fan of the the Halloween series (except the 3rd one) but Halloween is far superior than this. At least with Halloween we have a great score and some genuinely creepy moments. With this, there is virtually no music except some piano here and there and there is nothing creepy about this movie. Maybe this movie would have fared better if it had a solid score because even the worst of movies are tolerable if the music is good.<br /><br />Well, that is just my opinion on the movie. I thought it was just a complete waist of time and money. But, since the movie has over a 4/10 rating on IMDb, there must be people that like this movie. I am not one of those people. 2/10 | negative |
For a movie that was the most seen in its native South Korea for most of 2004, it was a huge disappointment. Shows that Hollywood is not the only place where people can make over-emotional, melodramatic movies. The film was over 130 minutes long but not a lot actually happened and everything that happened was pretty much what one expected, the plot was that transparent. Granted if one himself was Korean, one would perhaps get into it more, but for me it didn't do much anything. Suffice to say that as the case tends to be with Korean cinema, the plot revolves around the relationship between the northern and southern parts of the peninsula. South Korea decides to recruit and train an elite assassination squad from death-sentence prisoners to kill Kim Il-Sung.<br /><br />A tedious plot doesn't bother me much if the characters are good but unfortunately that is not the case this time around either. They are stereotypes and most of the acting is mediocre and too often just over the top as it tends to be in Korean cinema. Too much time is spent on the numerous montages and the characters remain distant, one dimensional cardboard cuts. They should've spent more time establishing the characters and less showing us how tough and cruel the training and the soldiers are.<br /><br />One thing it does remind us of, is that a lesser of two wrongs is still wrong. | negative |
This movie is like the material S.E. Hinton was writing in the 1970s and Copola was adapting to the screen in the early 80s, and, had Trueblood actually been a product of either, the results might've been much better (especially in the acting department). Instead, we get a rather so-bad-its-funny piece of mediocrity.<br /><br />Jeff Fahey plays Ray Trueblood, a former street rumbler, I suppose is the accurate description. This was in the days of action movies that used guys in their 40s and mid30s and dressed them up in greaser threads or some kind of more effeminate selection of gang garb and they fought to lousy 80s music. Nonetheless, Ray is the lone caretaker of his younger brother, Donny (Chad Lowe in a part where he screams a lot), who he is forced to leave behind inexplicably in a train station when, on the run from the cops, he is nabbed and forced to serve time in the Marines. Flash forward to present day and Ray is back in town and looking for his brother who has also become part of the street gangs, although in a gang that was Ray's adversary and now old scores must be violently settled (and again, cops must be dodged and this time, a lady's honor defended in the action film sense) before Ray can carry on life at normal pace with his brother, Donny.<br /><br />For the most part, the film is quite ridiculous. For me, most of this has to do with far too much overacting, although not by Fahey or Sherlyn Fenn who plays the waitress he befriends. The guys in the gang and Lowe himself seem to do quite a bit of needless exaggerated as New York street toughs. Although, the bigger hang up is recycled plot lines and perhaps a kind of movie that was well past its prime as a product of 1989. | negative |
For the first fifteen minutes the story of NAKED FAME is interesting: two late thirties male porn stars in a seemingly healthy relationship decide to leave the Porn industry and try for the world of singing and acting. The two very buff and preening men are Colton Ford and Blake Harper. With the aid of Kevin Aviance and Marc Berkely, Colton makes a dance track that is then marketed in New York with the hopes that Colton Ford will become an instant star - a unique disco singer touting his background as a Porn Star for PR.<br /><br />The remainder of the film is grumbling and in-fighting and commentary by Porn Producer ChiChi LaRue and the film slowly sinks into repetition and doldrums. Not a bad idea for a film if there were a bit more depth revealed in each character's drive to move away form a successful career (though one greatly influenced by the youth both characters have lost) into an alternative one. It is just that a one-note song wears thin quickly. Grady Harp, November 05 | negative |
The script for this movie was probably found in a hair-ball recently coughed up by a really old dog. Mostly an amateur film with lame FX. For you Zeta-Jones fanatics: she has the credibility of one Mr. Binks. | negative |
It is not an easy film to watch - it is over three and a half hours long and it is composed entirely of conversations. Yet it is so incredibly compelling and ruthlessly observational of the human character, that it is, in my humble opinion, one of the very greatest films of all time.<br /><br />The film is depressing, cynical and cruel. (If you want something uplifting, see Jacques Rivette's fantastic Céline and Julie Go Boating, which was made around the same time). It shows the idealism of the late 1960s to be nothing different from the society that it was trying to change.<br /><br />It involves a supposedly liberated ménage-à-trois between Alexandre (played by Jean-Pierre Leaud), Marie (Bernadette Lafont) and Veronika (Francoise Lebrun). Yet Alexandre is shown to be as chauvinistic and jealous as any other man. The women are exposed as being willingly subservient and defining their femininity through the male gaze.<br /><br />The film is an extremely icy end to the highly revolutionary French New Wave. This movement was one of the most significant movements in film history and had a profound effect on cinema as we know it. Jean-Pierre Leaud was one of the key actors of the New Wave, having starred (among other films) in the influential Les Quatres Cent Coups (1959) by Francois Truffaut as a rebellious teenager. Director Jean Eustache is not as well known as other directors from the New Wave, but he should be.<br /><br />There is no improvisation (unlike in John Cassavetes's similar films made in the US) and the dialogue comes from real-life conversations. The film is resonant with Eustache's personal experiences. For example, Francoise Lebrun was a former lover of Eustache. Eustache himself committed suicide in 1981 and the real-life person that the character Marie was based on, did too. The anger and bitterness all culminate in a harrowing monologue by Veronika delivered directly to the audience, breaking down the coldly objective nature of the rest of the film. This mesmerising, personal, and honest filmic statement remains one of the most revealing films of human nature around. | positive |
Well, it definitely is unlike anything else directed by Lynch. No supernatural stuff, no violence, no profanity. Nevertheless, it is a beautiful flick. It's a little slow but perhaps that was intentional because it's the story of an old man's 6-week(that's my best guess for its duration) journey. The characters are everyday people and thus, they are believable. The performances are good and the final scene was incredibly touching. Everyone who has a sibling can relate to it. Lyle and Alvin don't even have to say anything. For a moment they are back in the old days and all the fighting is forgotten. | positive |
A sparkling movie. BB is a marvel. She's sultry. She is a feminist. She is still very much in love.<br /><br />The movie features Paris in the 50's. It is wonderful to look at the sites, the cars (DS!) and Orly.<br /><br />A simple but very enjoyable romantic comedy. The music is horrendous. It almost dissonates. On the other hand it is hilarious. But it is probably the only thing amiss, at least looking at it with 21st century eyes.<br /><br />The movie comments on the French manner of treating infidelity. It is that sense modern. A movie like un elephant se trompe enormenent did it in an 80's way. But the basic premise stays the the same.<br /><br />Thanks to makers for providing BB with this opportunity. | positive |
What a shame that Alan Clarke has to be associated with this tripe. That doesn't rule it out however; get a group of lads and some Stellas together and have a whale of a time running this one again and again and rolling around on the floor in tears of laughter. Great wasted night stuff. Al Hunter homes in on a well publicised theme of the late 80s- that hooligans were well organised and not really interested in the football itself- often with respectable jobs (estate agent???). But how Clarke can convince us that any of the two-bit actors straying from other TV productions of low quality (Grange Hill) or soon to go on to poor quality drama (Eastenders) can for a nanosecond make us believe that they are tough football thugs is laughable. Are we really to believe that the ICF (on whom of course the drama is based) would EVER go to another town to fight with just SIX blokes?<br /><br />The ICF would crowd out tube stations and the like with HUNDREDS. Andy Nicholls' Scally needs to be read before even contemplating a story of this nature. The acting is appalling and provides most of the laughs- Oldman is so camp it is unbelievable. Most of them look as though they should be in a bubble of bath of Mr Matey. A true inspiration to anyone with a digital video camera who thinks they can make a flick- go for it. | negative |
Elizabeth Taylor never could act at all and she was just her usual annoying, untalented self in this film. This was before she got so fat but she still looked very short and dumpy. Rock Hudson was OK as Bick Benedict but clearly an actor with more range like William Holden would have been better. James Dean certainly proved he knew how to mumble his way through a movie. The whole film is incredibly slow and goes on for far too long. The actors were all too young and lightweight and none of them aged convincingly due to the poor make-up. Hudson looked ridiculous just being padded out and Dean and Carroll Baker were obviously the same age.<br /><br />0/10. | negative |
Let's hope this is the final nightmare. This is the epitome of a good thing gone bad. Okay, there is still some enjoyment to be had, but only in the most mundane sense. Rachel Talalay had been there for the duration of this franchise, had been on the production staff and produced even. I don't know what she was thinking, but this debacle comes complete with the human video game boy and a guest appearance by<br /><br />Tom and Roseanne Arnold! I wish I had a clue what she was thinking when she wrote/directed this disappointing piece of garbage. She even tried to distract her audience from the fact that this movie was nothing more than an over-glorified popcorn movie instead of bearing any resemblance to horror, with the contrived use of a 3D ending. Aren't those glasses nifty? And you get to KEEP them! It's the equivalent of, you just spent $9.00 making me rich. Here's 10 cents. Now, don't you feel special!? Sorry, but for me, it just did not make me feel special. <br /><br />And Freddy's had yet another face-lift. This one was for the worst, I think. All the beautiful artistry that went into his "look" in the earlier films has been replaced by an obviously cheaper, less detailed set of prosthetics. He looks ... less like the burn victim he is supposed to be, and more like he has a skin disorder. Changing the lead's makeup like that so far into a series is about on the same level as changing the lead actor. But wait! They've done that, and done that. So I guess it doesn't matter. But it mattered to me. Freddy is no longer SCARY. He's just ... another low-rent monster like the Leprechaun. <br /><br />It's more...a dark comedy than the horror classic this series promises; riddled with what you can only hope the writers thought were witty one-liners and clever repartee (sadly, it fell short on both accounts). <br /><br />So there's nothing more to say than grab the popcorn and get ready to laugh, because there was not one scary or suspenseful moment in this entire film. <br /><br />It rates a 3.2/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | negative |
AAA is my favorite movie... I have seen it a number of times (don't remember the count now) and every time I just love it.... This is the best movie of Raj Kumar Santoshi..The comedy, dialogues, and performance is amazing.. All the actors and actresses have done a superb job... You cannot stop laughing while watching this movie... its just hilarious... Amir khan and Salman Khan have done a great job... and acting by Paresh Rawal was excellent as always..... The music is inspired from the old Hindi movies (60s music) and is good...the entire cast of the movie has done great job... <br /><br />Overall its a great Indian comedy movie to watch... | positive |
I saw this movie last night after waiting ages and ages for it to be released here in Canada (still only in limited release). It was worth the wait and then some. I am a very avid reader of Margaret Laurence and was excited to see that this novel was being turned into a film. I actually ended up liking the movie better than the novel. I liked that the character of Bram Shipley was a bit less harsh, and that there seemed to be more of a love story between Hagar and Bram, which made the scenes at the end of Bram's life that much more moving. The loss seemed stronger. Hagar was not any more likable on film than in the book, but Ellen Burstyn was a genius in this role. She WAS Hagar through and through. Christine Horne was brilliant and has many more great things ahead I am sure. Her scenes with Cole Hauser were electrifying. I could go on and on, overall a 9 * out of 10. Fantastic and can't wait for it to come out on DVD, a must own for my collection! | positive |
Man, is it great just to see Young and The Restless star Melody Thomas Scott as something other than flighty Nikki Newman! A doctor with a brain no less! And super nice to see her with the likes of the gorgeous Lorenzo Lamas instead of Victor Newman!<br /><br />Mel plays a college professor of micro-biology who goes to the islands with her son for spring break, only to find herself a prisoner of the island infested with a rapidly spreading virus. Handy for her there is the hunky character played by Lorenzo, who has a daughter just her son's age.<br /><br />Mel shines, as does Lorenzo with a bit of the overacting from the younger couple. Interesting premise in these times of chemical and biological terrorism talk. Worthwhile seeing, especially for Y&R fans. | positive |
On Sunday July 27, 1997, the first episode of a new science fiction series called "Stargate SG-1" was broadcast on Showtime. A spin-off of and sequel to the 1994 film "Stargate" starring Kurt Russell and James Spader, the series begins approximately one year after the events portrayed in the film. For ten seasons, it chronicled the adventures and misadventures of an intrepid team of explorers known as SG-1. Originally, the series starred Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (two "l"s!), Michael Shanks as Dr. Daniel Jackson, Amanda Tapping as Captain Samantha Carter, Christopher Judge as Teal'c and Don S. Davis as Major General George S. Hammond. For ten long years, we watched the team battle against the Goa'uld, the Replicators, the Ori and many other aggressors. At the same time, they forged alliances with the Asgard, the Tok'ra, the rebel Jaffa, the Nox and the Tollan. They saved the world no less than eight times over the years and never gave up, not until death claimed them. And sometimes not even then.<br /><br />As with all long-running series, they were numerous cast changes. Michael Shanks left the series in January 2002 at the end of its fifth season in order to broaden his horizons as an actor. Daniel Jackson's successor as the team's resident archaeologist/geek was Jonas Quinn, an alien from a country called Kelowna on the planet Langara, played by Corin Nemec. However, Shanks returned at the beginning of the seventh season in June 2003 and Nemec left at the same time. Unfortunately, he made only one further guest appearance and his character was seldom mentioned afterwards. Don S. Davis left the series at the end of the seventh season in March 2004 as he felt that it was time for him to go. The show's original star and arguably its most popular actor, Richard Dean Anderson, starred in the series throughout its first eight seasons. His participation in the seventh and eight seasons was noticeably less than in the earlier seasons. He finally left "SG-1" in March 2005 in order to spend more time with his then six-year-old daughter. Jack O'Neill was by far my favourite character in the series and, truth be told, I never enjoyed the last two seasons as much as I did the earlier episodes for that very reason.<br /><br />The ninth season represented a new era for the programme. With the departure of its lead actor and the defeat of the Goa'uld and the Replicators in Season Eight, many fans felt the series should go out on a high. Regardless, the series carried on for a further two years with the Ori replacing the Goa'uld as the series' main adversaries. Three new characters were brought in to fill the gaps as it were and help usher in this re-invention. Ben Browder came in as the cocky Southern Air Force pilot Lt. Colonel Cameron Mitchell, the new leader of SG-1. His "Farscape" co-star, the lovely Claudia Black, began to play a prominent role in the series as the vivacious, sexy, hilarious and certainly extroverted Vala Mal Doran, a former Goa'uld host and con artist from another planet. A recurring guest star during the eighth and ninth seasons, she joined the cast full time at the beginning of its tenth and final season. Rounding off the cast was the legendary Beau Bridges as Major General Hank Landry, the new commander of the SGC and an old friend of Jack O'Neill and General Hammond. For the last two years, they starred alongside the "SG-1" faithful (Michael Shanks, Amanda Tapping and Christopher Judge) and became valuable parts of and made equally valuable contributions to the Stargate franchise.<br /><br />Alas, all good things must come to an end. During the initial broadcast of the first several episodes of Season Ten, ratings dropped considerably, resulting in cancellation in its August 2006. After ten seasons and 214 episodes, the dream was finally over. On March 13, 2007, what began with "Children of the Gods" ended with "Unending". The series finale made its world premiere on Sky One in Britain and Ireland before being shown on the Sci-Fi Channel in the United States on June 22, 2007.<br /><br />In the ten years that the series was on the air, it amassed legions of fans and even eclipsed the science fiction series, "Star Trek", in terms of popularity in certain countries. It became the second-longest running sci-fi series in the world, second only to "Doctor Who" (1963-1989), and the longest-running American produced sci-fi series, having surpassed "The X-Files" only a few months before it ended.<br /><br />"Stargate SG-1" represents the cornerstone of the "Stargate" franchise. In 2004, its success and popularity led to the production of a spin-off series entitled "Stargate Atlantis", which was regrettably cancelled after five seasons and 100 episodes in August 2008. Although plans for another feature film fell through, two direct-to-DVD films, "Stargate: The Ark of Truth" and "Stargate Continuum", were released in 2008 and more are planned for the not too distant future. A third live-action series, "Stargate Universe", is also due to premiere at some point next year. (There was, unfortunately, an animated series, "Stargate Infinity", which ran only from 2002 to 2003 but the less said about that the better). Despite the end of "SG-1" and "Atlantis" as continuing series, the future of "Stargate" looks very bright indeed.<br /><br />In conclusion, while "Stargate" has yet to gain the same degree of popular recognition as other major sci-fi television franchises such as "Star Trek" and "Doctor Who", its still relatively new compared to those two sci-fi giants and I have every confidence that it will continue for many, many years to come. | positive |
I was in the film too, but i don't know if they actually put this scene in. On the way back from a school trip (in 2005) we stopped at a service station at the same time as they were doing the film, and we were asked (the whole of us) to run in and shout Go! Freebird! We were all around 10 years old, could anyone who has seen the film tell me if that part was actually kept in the film, it would be great to know! I remember I thought the film had never come out, because it was another 2 and a half years before it was released. All of your comments seem to be good so I'm guessing it has been quite a successful film, I might buy it, but first I would like to know if I'm in it! :D Thank you | positive |
This movie is a fascinating drama about the Making of a movie. The Actor and the Actress really can't stand each other, but we build up to a scene in which they are to have sex - she for the first time, per script. The actress shows little emotion on or off camera in the plot, aside from she is freezing in the early scenes on a beach. The actor is self absorbed and increasingly defies the direction of the Director, Jeanne. I could not help being drawn in to the drama of 'how are these two possibly going to ACT their way thru a Sex Scene?' That drama in itself becomes more exciting than the actual nudity and foreplay performed for the cameras. Not that Roxane Mesquida isn't lovely and worth seeing naked! However, there is a pretty young stage hand who walks thru a few scenes as an extra. I think that is her in the far left edge of one of the pictures (2 of 9) here in IMDb. I don't even know if this girl is credited, but when she walks by (fully dressed of course) in confident indifference with her short blonde hair -- SHE is Sexy! WHO IS THIS GIRL??? | positive |
"The 40 Year Old Virgin" exists in a world I don't understand. A world where an electronics store employee can tell his boss to "f*** off" and broadcast videos of his naked ass throughout the store and not get reprimanded. A world where it's really funny to go drunk driving and smash into other peoples' cars. A world where it seems okay for a boss to sexually harass her underlings. A world full of raging and offensive stereotypes of ethnic minorities. And a world without any funny jokes! I am absolutely shocked at the seeming chorus of viewers who liked this movie. I thought every scene was like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch - not very funny to begin with, and stretched out beyond all rational thought. The chest-waxing scene went on FOREVER.<br /><br />The characters, aside from Carell, were totally one-note. And the romantic elements were completely contrived, particularly the scene where Keener finds porn in Carell's apartment. That was just lame.<br /><br />And I also found the "Aquarius" sequence totally annoying and excessive. I hated hated hated this movie! | negative |
There is absolutely no doubt that this version of Tarzan is the closest to Burroughs' vision. While he gladly collected his royalties from the films produced during his lifetime, he frequently made it clear that they were little more than the bastard children of his tales. The film studios' ludicrous obsession with casting Olympic swimmers as Tarzan was beyond laughable. I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that they did not set their sights on shot-putters. <br /><br />Prior to this film, the most faithful adaptations were in comic strips and comic books. As fine as some of these were, we had to wait seven decades for a filmmaker with the integrity to respect the character as he had been created. | positive |
Even with the low standards of a dedicated horror fan, I found this film to be beyond awful. It was a huge disappointment since it was featured as one of the eight Horrorfest films. I can only hope the other seven were better. I was actually embarrassed for the friends I was able to convince to see this, and these are the same friends I made watch the remake of The Wicker Man. It has every cliché in the book. In fact, it went out of its way to include them. Let's start with the characters. Instead of one young damsel in distress, we get three: the single, hot mom with two daughters a blossoming yet brainless teenager and a cute yet simultaneously creepy little girl that you just know is going to have 'special' skills including supernatural knowledge and the ability to communicate with the dead. The little girl is the same one that was in the remake of The Amityville Horror. She was a little annoying but not nearly as irritating Dakota Fanning.<br /><br />Overall, these characters seemed like escapees from a LifeTime movie. I thought perhaps horror movies had moved on from scenes where the female characters go to bed in full makeup and run around in the dark announcing their presence to anyone with ears, but not this one. I also find it inconceivable that none of them could be bothered to secure the front door from arbitrarily opening day and night. To give you an idea about how uninvolved I was with these characters, I spent most of my time thinking about how cold it must have been on the set because everyone was in a coat even in their houses and how white their teeth were.<br /><br />Despite all the formulaic plot machinations, the film does not build any suspense at all except to wonder when it will be over. There is more atmosphere at the local Giant in the middle of the most mundane of weekday afternoons. As for the dialogue, I could have sampled quotes from ten other films and cobbled together better, more believable discourse. The gore level, the eye candy for a horror fan, was minimal at best. Without their tiny weapons, the 'zombies' were not menacing at all. You could probably drop kick a couple of them across the room.<br /><br />What really kills it is its banality. Horror films, more than any other genre, cannot survive uninspired mediocrity. Give me a horror movie that is comically inept or outrageously over the top with gore. I can even take the new ones with their cringe inducing torture. Every once in a while I'd appreciate a truly frightening one, anything but this. | negative |
One of the other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful. | negative |
1st watched 10/10/2009 - 8 out of 10 (Dir - Billy Wilder): Spectacular rendering of Lindbergh's famous flight by James Stewart as Lindbergh and Director Billy Wilder. There isn't really a whole lot of background built into this story but that's OK because Wilder makes the event really remarkable as it comes directly from Lindbergh's perspective since he used his book as the basis of the movie. This early movie about flying has to be one of the best about the act itself as well. Stewart talking and thinking to himself during the flight gives you so much insight into what Lindbergh went thru in this 33 hour solo flight across the Atlantic. And he did the whole flight without sleeping the night before -- which is amazing!! There is a little backstory about how he purchased the plane and got the financing, and some flashbacks about his life during the flight but the movie is mostly about the flight. The story is also beautifully made and photographed and is a joy to watch despite it's age. I appreciate the fact that they didn't throw in a lot of fluff and just let the story tell itself. Well done throughout. This is a classic movie that should be viewed by all. | positive |
Alex D. Linz replaces Macaulay Culkin as the central figure in the third movie in the Home Alone empire. Four industrial spies acquire a missile guidance system computer chip and smuggle it through an airport inside a remote controlled toy car. Because of baggage confusion, grouchy Mrs. Hess (Marian Seldes) gets the car. She gives it to her neighbor, Alex (Linz), just before the spies turn up. The spies rent a house in order to burglarize each house in the neighborhood until they locate the car. Home alone with the chicken pox, Alex calls 911 each time he spots a theft in progress, but the spies always manage to elude the police while Alex is accused of making prank calls. The spies finally turn their attentions toward Alex, unaware that he has rigged devices to cleverly booby-trap his entire house. Home Alone 3 wasn't horrible, but probably shouldn't have been made, you can't just replace Macauley Culkin, Joe Pesci, or Daniel Stern. Home Alone 3 had some funny parts, but I don't like when characters are changed in a movie series, view at own risk. | negative |
they should make terrorists watch this video as torture, and not just for the disturbing final scene in which tying up and beating a woman with mental problems is apparently a source of comedy. about a half hour of this would convince even the staunchest fundamentalist to spill the beans rather than sit through even one more minute of this disaster.<br /><br />This movie is awful. I rented it because a friend said it was hilarious, only to find he was talking about the blowhard director doing the commentary rather than the movie itself. I guess if you find unrestrained arrogance funny, you'll like this. It apparently is true that he goes on and on about chicks he's "banged", the most tasteless example being when the lead actress comes on screen.<br /><br />Actually CJ Stacy was the only good part of this movie - her charisma shines like a diamond in this horrid dung pile. This apparently is the only movie she's done according to IMDb, I hope she is involved with theatre or indie stuff as I think she has the talent and natural beauty to really be an asset to any production. | negative |
Cheesy script, cheesy one-liners. Timothy Hutton's performance a "little" over the top. David Duchovny still seemed to be stuck in his Fox Mulder mode. No chemistry with his large-lipped female co-star.He needs Gillian Anderson to shine. He does not seem to have any talent of his own. | negative |
I thought "The River of Souls" was a very good Babylon 5 movie, with some exceptional performances from Martin Sheen, Tracy Scoggins and Ian MacShane. If this were an episode of the series (without the humour) it would probably be one of my favourite stand-alone stories of the series.<br /><br />Personally, I've always preferred Scoggins to Christian, although granted JMS didn't write her as well for much of the series and she did have to endure the Byron/Telepath plot. If you take out the smutty humour about the brothel and the "poorer" actors in those scenes, then this movie is solid stuff. Probably my third favourite of the four movies, but in no means bad at all. | positive |
The plot is somewhat original, and all the actors did their job pretty well. There is a plenty of comic relief, too. Some things do not make a lot of sense (e.g. the first "chase" scene, why would the heroine not just hide somewhere and wait until the baddies leave?). The Russians actually speak Russian without accent, but the cars are extremely strange, with models spanning like 50 years, and so the place seems weirdly out of time. Overall, if you like thrillers you will probably like this one as well. | positive |
This is just one of those films which cannot justify much of anything that happens. These people are going on a trek: the young girl wants to photograph animals. There really are no Piranhas, but I guess the psychotic hunter guy is the real piranha. Anyway, there are lots of animals and there is lots of driving. There is considerable anti-gun talk, but we all know where that is going. Toward the end, there's lots of action and a rape thrown in. Somebody must pay, and they do. It would have been nice to have a couple of piranhas to sort of fill the thing out. There were lots of monkeys. If you fast forward through the dull parts, you have a tight little five minutes. | negative |
The film Soultaker is essentially an older form Final Destination in which several car wrecked teens have their souls separated from their bodies and must cheat death who is chasing them... The film has its moments, and its concepts, the idea of disoriented souls being separated from their bodies is a pretty nifty idea... If this movie were remade with a few good actors/actresses and some awesome special effects it could turn out to be extremely awesome... As for the actual film, I recommend watching the MST3K version, the pure version might be too boring to sit through, unless you love bad movies staring Martin Sheen's brother... | negative |
It might be that the film I saw was entirely different from the one that the others saw, however as the actors are the same I can only think that the cut I saw in Europe differed from the one circulating in the US.<br /><br />Anyway, this was the worst movie that I saw the past five years. (Closely followed by The Waterboy...)<br /><br />Why: Because in my opinion this director has taken elements from every thriller preceding this one, mixed them, put the in the wrong order with the wrong music and published it.<br /><br />(Examples: nothing happends, the music gets scary, and still nothing happends. The "grumpy" officer us grumpy in a way that would let the actor flunk any acting class. There´s a buddy-moment which comes out of nowhere at the end. There´s an inescapable scene and in the next scene all the problems are gone.)<br /><br />If you want to see a smart movie: see Memento. If you want to see a better thriller: see any thriller that comes to mind. If you want to see Patrick Swayze: see Dirty Dancing. | negative |
This story of Ted Brice, an American pilot who is the sole survivor of the crash of an Allied reconnaissance plane in Belgium in January of 1944, is pretty much of a mess. The title would lead you to think that it is principally a story about the Belgian armed resistance groups, but that seems to be just a backdrop to prop up a silly love story between Ted and Claire, the woman who takes Ted in. Claire's husband Henri is a committed resistance member, but it is Claire who decides, in Henri's absence and against his wishes, to give Ted refuge.<br /><br />Crucial plot details don't make sense. Central to the story is the retrieval of the recorder on the downed plane that contains navigation codes and the positions of targets. But in the opening scene we see Belgians looting the plane, resistance members among them. Why did they not retrieve the valued items at that time instead of waiting for the Nazis to come and guard the plane? And the whole affair of transferring Ted out of the area was conducted using secret instructions and code words when the transaction could have just been a simple exchange. The ponderous music attempts, but fails, to lend some weight to this tepid undertaking.<br /><br />The most ludicrous part of the movie is how the love affair develops between Ted and Claire. At first Claire is devoted to nursing Ted back from near death and, when Ted starts to recover, they become physically involved (while Henri is conveniently away conducting resistance business). Julie Ormond does a passable job as Claire, but she effects a French accent that I frequently found impossible to understand. Her responses seemed a little weak at times - when informed of the hanging deaths of several town members she reacts as though she had just been told that the local grocery was out of peaches. As Ted, Bill Paxton seems just to be reciting his lines; his performance is so uninspired that it's embarrassing. A true American pilot might evidence such a flat personality, but it does not make for convincing cinema. I did not sense any chemistry between these supposed lovers.<br /><br />The most idiotic thing is the way that Ted and Claire act like lovers on holiday. Maybe sexual release from such heavy situations is understandable, but to appear totally oblivious of the gravity of the situation is hard to fathom. At first Ted is consigned to an attic room and Claire worries about his even coming into the house. But as things develop he not only comes into the house, he dances with Claire to loud music, enters the adjoining barn to have a game of baseball with a local boy, and ultimately goes on a car trip with Claire to a nearby town.<br /><br />The young boy seems to be most committed to his role, but he is undermined by the script. He has an uncanny ability to be at crucial events without being noticed. And when he delivers lines like:<br /><br />"Have you ever seen someone get hanged. They look like the're dancing, but they can't find the floor." <br /><br />you feel that it is the screenwriter talking and not a thirteen year old boy.<br /><br />And oh, by the way, there are scenes to show that the Nazis are pretty bad guys.<br /><br />Comparing this film to the brilliant "Ashes and Diamonds" about the Polish resistance, or the equally stellar "Lacombe, Lucien" about the French resistance, one realizes what a truly dismal affair it is. | negative |
Get this film if at all possible. You will find a really good performance by Barbara Bach, beautiful cinematography of a stately (and incredibly clean) but creepy old house, and an unexpected virtuoso performance by
"The Unseen". I picked up a used copy of this film because I was interested in seeing more of Bach, whom I'd just viewed in "The Spy Who Loved Me." I love really classically beautiful actresses and appreciate them even more if they can act a little. So: we start with a nice fresh premise. TV reporter Bach walks out on boyfriend and goes to cover a festival in a California town, Solvang, that celebrates its Swedish ancestry by putting on a big folk festival. She brings along a camerawoman, who happens to be her sister, and another associate. (The late Karen Lamm plays Bach's sister, and if you know who the celebrities are that each of these ladies is married to, it is just too funny watching Bach (Mrs. Ringo Starr) and Lamm (Mrs. Dennis Wilson) going down the street having a sisterly quarrel.)) Anyway
Bach's disgruntled beau follows her to Solvang, as he's not done arguing with her. There's a lot of feeling still between them but she doesn't wanna watch him tear himself up anymore about his down-the-drain football career. The ladies arrive in Solvang to do the assignment for their station, only to find their reservations were given away to someone else. (Maybe to Bach's boyfriend, because think of it where's he gonna stay?). The gals ask around but there is just nowhere to go. Mistakenly trying to get into an old hotel which now serves only as a museum, they catch the interest of proprietor Mr. Keller (the late Sidney Lassick), who decides to be a gentleman and lodge them at his home, insisting his wife will be happy to receive them. Oh no! Next thing we know Keller is making a whispered phone call to his wife, warning her that company's coming and threatening that she'd better play along. Trouble in paradise! The ladies are eager to settle in and get back to Solvang to shoot footage and interview Swedes, but one of the girls doesn't feel good. Bach and Lamm leave her behind, wondering to themselves about Mrs. Keller (played heartbreakingly by pretty Lelia Goldoni) who looks like she just lost her best pal. Speaking of which
under-the-weather Vicki slips off her clothes and gets into a nice hot tub, not realizing that Keller has crept into her room to inspect the keyhole. She hears him, thinks he's come to deliver linen, and calls out her thanks. Lassick did a great job in this scene expressing the anguish of a fat old peeping tom who didn't get a long enough look. After he's left, poor Vicki tumbles into bed for a nap but gets yanked out of it real fast (in a really decent, frightening round of action) by something BIG that has apparently crept up through a grille on the floor
The Unseen! Lamm comes home next (Bach is out finishing an argument with her beau) and can't find anyone in the house. She knocks over a plate of fruit in the kitchen, and, on hands and knees to collect it, her hair and fashionable scarf sway temptingly over the black floor grille
attracting The Unseen again! Well, at about the time poor Lamm is getting her quietus in the kitchen, we do a flashback into Mr. Keller's past and get the full story of what his sick, sadistic background really is and why his wife doesn't smile much. Bach finally gets home and wants to know where her friends are. Meanwhile, Lassick has been apprised of the afternoon's carnage by his weeping wife and decides he can't let Bach off the premises to reveal the secret of his home. He tempts her down into the basement where the last act of the Keller family tragedy finally opens to all of us.<br /><br />I cannot say enough for Stephen Furst, whom I'd never seen before; it's obvious that he did his homework for this role, studying the methods of communication and expression of the brain damaged; Bach and Goldoni, each in their diverse way, just give the movie luster. Not only that, but movie winds up with a satisfying resolution. No stupid cheap tricks, eyeball-rolling dialog or pathetically cut corners... A real treat for your collection. | positive |
I do not know who is to blame, Miss Leigh or her director, but her performance as Catherine is almost impossible to watch. Ben Chaplin on the other hand does a superior job - against all odds as far as I am concerned. His character is entirely too charming and appealing. but certainly not shown as greedy enough, to put up with Leigh's character's silliness. Chaplin appears bemused by what cannot possibly be understood as Leigh's shyness and lack of grace, but rather her orthopedic unsteadiness. There has to be some element of believability to his interest, but as played it is incomprehensible. The performances do not jibe. Maggie Smith and Albert Finney are, of course, wonderful despite any effort to derail them. The supporting cast is also a pleasure to watch. What a pity, too, the leads don't work together because the production is lovely to look at. | negative |
Did someone find the plot somewhere in the film?. Perhaps it is the thing missing in this pretentious exercise of cinema about cinema. It is quite surprising that Gordon says that "A movie without a plot is nothing"... It is possible that characters have more to say that the own Wim Wenders. Was this phrase in the original plot or the actor decided to send a hint to the director?. | negative |
It seems everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and say "Maha Go Go Go"....The word is MACHA........Like "Mach".....Pronounced maa - ka"...<br /><br />I grew up with this series in the early 70's here in LA on the late and VERY lamented channel 56...Before that there was Tetsuwan Atomu (Astro Boy), dating from 1963 on ol' KHJ TV. Astro Boy was the first TV example of anime we got here in the states...I was into anime as a kid and followed it until the late 80's when, by then it'd become a series of badly animated "talking heads", a phenomenon which has only gotten worse. 'Nuff said.<br /><br />As for "Speed Racer", I really enjoyed the basics there, the POV shots, the cinematic aspects of live action skillfully adopted to animation...That was fairly typical of most Japanese anime back then...Graphics graphics graphics! Take note sometime how obviously the series was inspired by Stanley Kramer's film "Grand Prix" (1966), especially the redone American credits....<br /><br />Oh yeah, I have the original comics from which the series is based, so I know of which I speak.<br /><br />What were we doing animation-wise besides crap like Johnny Quest?.....Th' same ol' stuff we'd been doin' since the 20's....Ho-hum!<br /><br />I guess the real problem I had/have with the way anime was/is shown on American TV is the hatchet job done on the scripts, credits, etc to "sanitize" them for American audiences...I won't go into other programs as we're talking' Speed here.<br /><br />Look at clowns like Peter Fernandez as one of the culprits here, as he was 99% responsible for the re-writes of the series...Not to mention the voice of Speed, Racer X and others...Between him and the goofs at Trans/Lux ( Think Felix the Cat and the Mighty Hercules - oy vey!) they took a slick, very sophisticated show and dropped it down to the level of Sesame Street. Think "Cruncher Bloch", The "Forthebird Company", "Skull Duggery"...If I go on I'll puke.<br /><br />This series dates from 40-odd years ago but I, at the time, was keen enough to feel insulted by the dumbing down of this and other Japanese programs...I mean it's obvious when someone's getting' killed but they either remove it or gloss it over........Pleeeeeze!<br /><br />Good show - originally. Sadly all the more recent incarnations of the series have that CRAPPY "made in Korea" look, not to mention being nauseatingly "pc" in content. Even the Japanese outsource their animation now..<br /><br />Try watchin' the original Japanese opening on YouTube sometime...It sends chills up my spine.....If only......Oh well. Robert | positive |
Brilliant work. Marvelous actors dissolve as brave and courageous characters .All unforgettable parts in a more than intriguing and capturing action thriller. The casting is perfect. Both from the side of the stars like :Armand Asante, Bernhardt, Kier ,Denier. But as well for new faces .I was very impressed by the young actor who plays the boy gang member- Mustafa. You trust each one from the Turkish gang. Very convincing is Michael Barral and all white power followers. I admire the music beat of the main theme of "Children of Wax".This sound track is a charming mixture of Turkish, hard rock and Udo Kier's humming
And in the same time Children of Wax "a tale focusing on racial conflicts .The intolerance and brutality between the skinheads and the Turks. | positive |
Just got this in the mail and I was positively surprised. As a big fan of 70's cinema it doesn't take much to satisfy me when it comes to these kind of flicks. Despite the obvious low budget on this movie, the acting is overall good and you can already see why Pesci was to become on of the greatest actors ever. I'm not sure how authentic this movie is, but it sure is a good contribution to the mob genre..... | positive |
This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up. | negative |
John and his wife Emily, accompanied by their child Edward venture from the comfortable environs of suburbia to the village where the husband spent some of his childhood. There has been a death in the family and John must begin proceedings to take control of an old ramshackle cottage, situated by the seaside and once inhabited by an old man who has apparently committed suicide.<br /><br />Sceptical about the circumstances of the death, John divorces himself from his family and from reality, puts his own life in peril, and puts on the clothes of the old man who is now dead.<br /><br />The film now changes - nothing is what it seems - the people of his past appear, in full Gothic/hillbilly glory - his wife worries about his mental state - and his son disappears into the reeds.<br /><br />John finds that the old man didn't commit suicide, that his death is far more mysterious and strange. In a spine chilling finale, we learn that the events of the film actually never happened and that the entire narrative was imagined by the little boy, Edward, who is struggling to come to terms with his parents' divorce proceedings.<br /><br />Modern Love is a macabre piece of high art cinema, a puzzling and perverse piece of pretentiousness, full of vague suggestion and unexplored red-herrings. It is humourless and seemingly unconcerned with current Indie trends which both validates its creators, but also renders it passé.<br /><br />But the weaknesses of this Australian film are fully outweighed by its sheer muscular cinematic vision, its bloody-minded and uncompromising precision and its oddball Euro horror. The bastardry of script norms and lack of slick dialogue pales into insignificance against a backdrop of noir and a lead performance that needs to be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />One of the most aggressively weird Australian films in years. | positive |
Luise Rainer received an Oscar for her performance in The Good Earth. Unfortunately, her role required no. She did not say much and looked pale throughout the film. Luise's character was a slave then given away to marriage to Paul Muni's character (he did a fantastic job for his performance). Set in ancient Asia, both actors were not Asian, but were very convincing in their roles. I hope that Paul Muni received an Oscar for his performance, because that is what Luise must have gotten her Oscar for. She must have been a breakthrough actress, one of the first to method act. This seems like something that Hollywood does often. Al Pacino has played an Italian and Cuban. I felt Luise's performance to be lackluster throughout, and when she died, she did not change in expression from any previous scenes. She stayed the same throughout the film; she only changed her expression or emotion maybe twice. If her brilliant acting was so subtle, I suppose I did not see it. | negative |
The Legend of Bloody Jack is set in the Alaskan wilderness & starts as a relative of some murderous deceased occultist Lumberjack reads incantations (The Evil Dead (1982) style) from an ancient spell book in an attempt to resurrect him, he succeeds & not being a big believer in family unity the Lumberjack dude kills his relative. Two days later & Ray (Travis Quentin Young) along with his sister Dawn (Erica Hoag), her boyfriend Nick (Craig Bonacorsi) & four of their friends pull up outside a cosy log cabin (The Evil Dead style...) with a view to a relaxing weekend in the wilderness. Unfortuntaely the killer Lumberjack dude show's up with his axe & starts to slaughter the friends one-by-one...<br /><br />Edited, written, executive produced & directed by Todd Portugal this is a pretty rotten modern slasher flick the likes of which are killing the horror genre for me, I'm just not a big fan of ultra low budget horror films with the production values of a holiday video. The script is absolutely terrible in every way for 80 minutes, it has every bad slasher cliché, the character's are awful, the dialogue is terrible & it's hard to care about anyone or anything in this pretty worthless excuse for a teen slasher film. The teens are even more annoying & stupid than usual, the script is more moronic, predictable & flawed than usual & the killer Lumberjack dude is just lame. Then there's the final 10 minutes or so which, if you make it that far & believe it's tough going, produces one of the worst twist ending in slasher film history which as far as I'm concerned pokes fun at us the paying audience who has just had to sit through 90 minutes worth of crap. I will now spoil the ending so anyone who doesn't want to know it stop reading now. Basically just before the end of the film it cuts back to Ray telling a story & it turns out he was telling the story of what we had just seen & Nick & Dawn & everyone else berates him for telling such a bad story (I felt their pain) & then proceed to pick holes in it & laugh at it. From saying why did they stand around & argue, why didn't they pick the axe up & such things, I felt like this was poking fun at the audience as those were the sorts of things I was asking myself while watching this crap & to have it shoved down my throat & made perfectly clear that the makers knew the script was crap & could see all the holes in it & went for a twist ending which unashamedly rubbishes the preceding 80 minutes (which we have just had to sit through remember) is just a little grating. Then to add insult to injury the Lumberjack dude turns up & kills everyone within two minutes, why didn't he do that to start with? It would have saved everyone a lot of time.<br /><br />Director Portugal turns in a real mess, this has the worst continuity between night & day in a film I have ever seen. The whole film is meant to set at night & I suspect the makers tried to use the day for night process but it didn't work & most of it looks like it is set during the day. For example, look at when Lisa is trapped in the bathroom & she climbs out of the window. It is clearly pitch black outside when we are looking out from inside the bathroom but when she falls to the ground & the films cuts to an exterior shot it's bright daylight. Then there's the fact Ranger Vince says we can't get a search party out here until 'the morning' indicating it was supposed to be night, then several minutes later when he walks outside & it looks like it's the middle of the day he is actually carrying around a torch which is clearly on & he is clearly pointing it in the directions where he is looking like it's night. Anytime there is a scene set in the cabin look at the windows, it's pitch black outside & when the Ranger walks in through the door to start with is also another clear example. The continuity in this film is simply the worst I have ever seen. There isn't much gore, there are a few scenes of an axe going into people bodies but nothing memorable. It's not scary, there's no tension or atmosphere & the appalling day & night continuity is just so distracting because it's so obvious.<br /><br />Technically the film is rock bottom, again the continuity between night & day has to been seen to be believed how bad it is. The special effects are poor & they couldn't even afford to show a car blowing up even though it's pretty vital to the plot. This has amateur hour written all over it from start to finish. The acting is absolutely brilliant & everyone involved should get an Oscar, nah only joking, not really they were utterly awful & even the girls who got their breasts out weren't very good looking.<br /><br />The Legend of Bloody Jack is just an awful teen slasher flick, it looks like it was shot on a camcorder without the use of a tripod or steadycam, it has awful effects, is boring & has a twist ending which is either the most insulting in horror film history or I've got it totally wrong & it's the most clever. Not recommended, watch a decent slasher from the 70's or 80's to remind you how they should be done. | negative |
I have yesterday seen the second part. And I must say, it was actually better then the first one. At the begin, I realized, It is actually a sequel, not a remake but not a good one. I do not like the old movies and series of Galactica, because the cylons saw like toasters (just as it was mentioned in this new movie) and were completely harmless for the old galactica. This movie turns the sides - the Humans were harmless but the whole movie was for me completely chaotic and stupid. Many scenes were unnecessary, for instance the story of the "computer expert" - completely a crap. If I were a scriptwriter I would leave him die in his house, killed by the cylon woman. And the evacuation from the planet? Oh, please if it would be bombed by 50 Megatons (why exactly 50 MT??) nukes, they would be dead killed by the radiation. And how is it actually possible that the big fleet of cylon was completely hidden before the attack? Aha, it was possibly this computer virus, created by the cylon - the script was probably written by ten-years-old school boy. The good side of the movie is, that the humans are at last defeated!! Really defeated, the population is near the extinction (children are dieing - two times explicit in the movie: 1. a baby!!! maybe one month old and a girl in age of max ten - what a violence...). And the bad-asses won and I think it is the first time in such sci-fi galaxy fight movie. I also appreciate the design of the cylons (not only of the humanoid cylon:-) a good job with these ships - I like the design of the ships by both of them - human an cylons. The human ships are a good never version of the old ones. And galactica - really pretty with these docks, I liked that. But this is all, only the design is not enough. The acting was really bad, the whole plot was expectable (only two things not - the human-cylon on the ragnardocks and the human-cylon at the end).The dialogs were trivial (and in the Slovak dabbing just stupid, but that is not fault of the movie). The whole movie looked like a pilot film for a series, but who would shoot such series? What it would be about? One star for the design the second one for the near extinction of humanity. | negative |
This movie should have easily qualified as a film<br /><br />that best promotes human understanding among people.<br /><br />It may be rather annoying to even try to comprehend that a young Jewish southern girl could would give shelter to an escaped German prisoner of war.<br /><br />Kristy McNichol depicts an amazing portrait of the unhappy, young girl thirsting for acceptance and love. Michael Constantine gave a remarkable performance as her difficult father and Esther Rolle, as the maid, Ruth, gave a superb Emmy-winning performance as an understanding maid caught up with these events.<br /><br />Bruce Davison portrays the German who is supposedly not guilty of Nazi atrocities. This is how his role appears. He has escaped, but he joined the German army and he might have been a member of the Hitler youth movement.<br /><br />The action takes place in 1944 Georgia, in a rural area. The townspeople are filled with prejudice. Even the FBI inspector acts as if he would like to get something on the Jews. Notice the opposite interpretation that as McNichol is in bed, Davison is hunted down and ultimately shot. It is interesting to see that society views McNichol as a traitor for harboring an escaped prisoner of war. The film also deals with an extremely complex relationship that exists between father and daughter. Constantine's outburst at his daughter at the end is some acting. As the mother, Barbara Barrie, is given little to do. It was annoying that she is stereotyped as the typical Jewish mother with that loud shade of lipstick on her lips.<br /><br />Memorably done and well worth viewing. | positive |
Brazilian films often get more positive appraisals than they actually deserve. Rather incredibly, Contra Todos (Against Everybody) (original title, which the producers discarded: God Against Everybody) got very low GPA (grade point average) in this website. It seems to be bluntly rejected by female spectators at large. Actually, it is not so brutal. I mean as far as graphical violence is concerned. Its brutality is intrinsic as it portrays would-be lumpens, I mean underdog citizens who in fact possess high-tech equipment, who coldly perform murder orders in exchange of "grana graúda". Is this post-modern man? Is his/her only worry a quick, almost impersonal, ultra permissive lay, amidst over satiating meals ? The picture is probably the best Brazilian film of 2004, so far. Its shining editing style, à la Godard, its curious soundtrack counterpoints, its more than efficient overall cast and, above all, its original narration, with subtle non-chronological hidden points that only come to light in the epilogue, deserve at least an 8 mark. | positive |
Jane Eyre with full frontal nudity! I was not surprised to see that a woman had had a hand in this awful "woman's picture" and I mean that in the worst possible way. The trouble is, it could have been so good if they had only left out the Jane Eyre stuff and stuck with the vastly more interesting scenes involving the Spanish/Portuguese Jews in early 19th century London. When the sound track music is better than the film, you know you are in trouble. When you fast forward the video because you can't stand the film, just to make sure you don't miss anything, you are in even worse trouble. This film will end up on the romance TV channel where it rightly belongs. | negative |
Lorne Michaels once again proves that he has absolutely no business producing movies.<br /><br />You'd think that after such dismal flicks "Superstar", "Night at the Roxbury", and "Coneheads", he'd start to get the notion that maybe he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to movies (and many would argue that he doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to television, as well). Trying to make feature films out of skits that wore out their welcome the third time the were done on SNL makes no sense.<br /><br />I personally like Tim Meadows, and think that he would be great in the right movie. It's a shame to see a talented guy wasted in a film that features unfunny after unfunny situation, and caps it all with a dreadfully bad song and dance scene. Any laughs here will be because the movie is so bad, not because it's funny.<br /><br />Oh well, at least we can be thankful that there are many other tired SNL characters who will never have films done about them. It's just too bad that this one made it to the big screen. | negative |
I just can't agree with the above comment - there's lots of interesting and indeed amazing filmic imagery in this one, it has an unusual structure and moves well toward a frightening climactic sequence that is notable for it's effective use of silence. What's more, it explores the odd impulse of suicide in a very frank way, not pulling any punches in what it shows, yet not dwelling and over-sensationalising the subject matter. it has hints of documentary about it as well as horror and art-house cinema, and deserves a place amongst the canon of 'different' horror films like The Blair Witch Project and the original Ring (both of which it predates and could well be an unacknowledged influence on). It's definitely worth seeing if you're interested in the edges of horror cinema. | positive |
<br /><br />I thought that this movie lacked the building dramatic suspense the first movie had. This is hard to accomplish when the film takes place over a week. The original movie lead up to the final climatic scene over a period of a year and it still was less violent than the sequel. One good thing about this film was the movie went by relatively quickly, because the plot seemed rushed. When Rachel's best friend died there was no funeral mentioned in the movie. Another bring down was the involvement of Amy Irving. All her scenes brought down the movies pace. The dialog in this movie was terrible. It in no way reflected the way kids talk. In conclusion this movie could have been a hit but fell apart after the opening scene. | negative |
I say Ben Johnson and my fellow Canadians say, "Ben Johnson?!" - he was a goddam MOVIE STAR guys, a COWBOY, and by 1976 he was scraping by playing a sheriff in stupid made for TV disaster movies such as this, cashing in on the DEADLY SWARMS OF KILLER BEES that everyone apparently thought were coming to get us at the time. So there's these bees, and they kill some people by flying in their mouth and going after them underwater. Eventually these idiots find the swarm and die and this woman is trapped in her car by the entire swarm. The cops are like, what do we do? Uh, bees die when it's cold. So where could we make it cold? I know - the stadium in New Orleans! So they drive this car and its attendant swarm of killer bees on and on through the streets of New Orleans, with a bullhorn saying "GET OFF THE STREETS OR YOU WILL BE STUNG TO DEATH." And the future home of tens of thousands of flood victims with its broken toilets so becomes the narcotic doom of this particular buncha bees. I don't know which is the greater indignity on this great city...well I do, but this one sucks too. Most appropriately viewed on an extremely faded-to-orange 16mm print, although Betamax is a good alternative! | negative |
I consider myself a big fan of low budget horror movies. The more bizarre and imaginative the film, the more blood and guts, the better, and i really fall in love with cheaply done flicks if they are done right. Luther starts out well enough... his origin at the circus, a creepy run at a supermarket, an attack of an old lady, and his disturbing occupation of a woman's farmhouse all set the mood nicely. A hot sex/ shower scene ensues when the woman's daughter and daughter's boyfriend arrives at the house. When Luther steals the boyfriends motorbike the movie takes a turn for the worse. <br /><br />The characters are presented with numerous opportunities to: A) save their loved ones, B) get the police to help, C) escape, or (most importantly) D) KILL LUTHER!!! I can't feel empathy or fear for characters that are too stupid to help themselves. Chareters snub chances to arm themselves with guns and knives while Luther is away. A policeman eventually arrives and is equally ineffective in stopping Luther, even though at one point he has a rifle squarely aimed at Luther while Luther clucks and does his rendition of the polish chicken dance. I found myself futilely coaching my television: "Make sure he's dead!", "Hes gone, get out of there!", or "Just kill him already!" <br /><br />Luther is a bloodthirsty savage, but he is hardly Hannibal Lecter. If you can't outsmart this egghead, you deserve what's coming to you. By halfway through the movie you'll be so lethargic to the fates of the half-wits that only morbid curiosity will sustain you to last to the mildly amusing ending. This movie was noted as one of Fangoria's 101 greatest movies you've never seen... well Fangoria is half-right in the case of Luther the Geek. | negative |
Ouch. This is one ugly movie. Not only is it badly acted, but it absolutely destroyed the book as well. Horrible. How you could mess up such a classic book is beyond me, but they sure did. Don't even think about even renting this. | negative |
Right, where do I start? I cannot even imagine to comprehend this preteen pathetic excuse of a show. Picture this: a boarding school, where kids whose parents are rolling in money simply chuck them in there so as to jet around the world themselves. It could not get any more diabolic than this.<br /><br />If you taught these kids, shall not even upgrade them to the term teenagers, because they hardly even act like sane homosapiens, were self-centered, think again. About 23 minutes choked full of their so-called problems, boy troubles, and the like.<br /><br />The heroine of the show, of course, Mademoiselle Zoey, played by Britney's Polly Pocket Little Miss I'm All That sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, has obviously much to learn about acting. However, I will give her some face, because her superficial, one dimensional character, does not allow much room for depth. She plays Pacific Coast Academy's sun, moon and stars, crusader fighting for the plight of all women, equality of all genders.<br /><br />Perfect in everyway, always with her two loyal sidekicks, Nicole, the daffy bimbo, who obviously has too much of Daddy's cash, and tough chick, Dana, who proves a hard nut to crack. Both left the show in seasons 2 and 1 respectively, not that I blame that. But horror of horrors, in comes Lola, who deems herself the greatest actress since Natalie Wood, with green feathers in her hair and fake tan. She is even more rude than Zoey herself, if that is even possible, and even more dumber than Nicole, and hell, we know that cannot be possible.<br /><br />This show, like all the sorry excuses for television programmes Nickelodeon has been spewing out since 2000s, is a prime victim of stereotyping. Get girl next door and dense to her best friend's feelings for her Zoey, a great albeit inarticulate at times best boy friend, Chase, a cool, arrogant ladies man, Logan, a boy and clothes crazy girl, who is not very bright, Nicole, the one whom everyone thinks is weird just because she is extremely smart, the nerd, Quinn, the over-dramatic, annoying yet super thin, Malibu picture perfect model, Lola, and the tough yet soft inside woman, Dana. Now, where have I heard these characters before? I am sorry, but what is so wrong with having a personality? Just because Quinn is passionate about Science, and actually cares about her future and doing well in the academic aspect, in which the rest should be concerned about as well, she is "weird" and a "nerd"? Lola at the beginning of the series, proved to be a potential great character with her sassy ways and different outlook in life, Zoey just had to go, get out your pitchforks, burn her at the stake, she's going back to Weird Town and all that jazz. So much for womens rights. Unfortunately, Lola just became nothing more of another OC clone, in all its anorexic glory. Probably so as to not outshine her Mistress.<br /><br />But hey, the 2000 generation of MySpace whores seem to love it with the Chase/Zoey typical fairytale romance, the tension between adamant, "hot" Logan and "kick-ass" Zoey or Dana, whichever to your liking, and the pretty people. Please, this show exists to remind us that people do not like realism, they prefer a pretentious, shallow and vapid lifestyle. Sorry to break it to you darlings, that will not happen, unless you have a major trust fund and parents to cushion you. | negative |
After Life is a Miracle, I did not expect much. It's hard to believe that these films were made by the same man as Do You Remember Dolly Bell, for instance. Zavet is two hours of silly antics with no story. The wild and unbridled humor of Underground seems to have degenerated into pathetic buffoonery here. It appears that Kusturica has been going steadily downhill since he started making life-affirming comedies, beginning with Black Cat, White Cat, which I think was great, but already had some disturbing signs of dementia. I liked his early films so much, and this is why it's especially disappointing to see something like this. Let's hope his next one will be great. | negative |
I love dogs, and the most interesting character in this movie is a Golden Retriever. He is smarter, better looking and more interesting than any of the human characters. Like many other contributors I have not read the book but I doubt that having done so would change my opinion of the movie. It is predictable from the first five minutes on. No surprises. Mad scientists create a monster that gets loose and a teen age boy and his wonder dog collaborate to destroy it. All in all the movie is a dog. But as I said, I love dogs and will therefore give this movie a 7/10 rating. Watch it if it comes on TV, rent it if you are bored and nothing else catches your eye, but don't buy it unless it is on special. | positive |
This is by far the funniest sitcom that has ever aired on TV. I own all 9 seasons on DVD and literally could watch them over and over. Anyone who does not find this show hilarious, heartwarming, entertaining, and laugh out loud hysterical, is crazy! Kevin James is absolutely one of the most talented comedians out there. My boyfriend and I love going to stand up comedy shows in Boston (where we live) and have seen Kevin James twice and his brother Gary Valentine (Danny) once. They are both so unbelievably talented and just plan smart with their work. There are so many comedians out there that are just awful and Kevin and Gary really show the true side of real comedy. Leah Remini, although a snob and bitch in real life (so I have read) is an amazing actress and deserves more credit than any other woman in sitcoms. She truly makes the show...along with Jerry Stiller! This show is a must see and you will get addicted within one to two episodes! | positive |
The first time i saw this movie was on a flight between Guangzhou, China and Los Angeles. It was a real hoot and made the trip pass with much less discomfort than the normal 10 hour flight. I tried to locate a copy of it without success until I discovered a copy for sale on eBay. Having now watched it twice, I recommend it as good entertainment. My only real criticisms are that the choice of English translation words for the subtitles is sub par, even by normal standards. Also, the subtitling is little to small, blends into the movie too often and frequently travels too fast to read well. | positive |
I watched the first episode of "The War at Home" because I thought it was worth replacing "Arrested Development", boy, was I disappointed. It should be clear to everyone that this show was blatantly ripped-off of "Grounded for Life", "Titus", and "Married...with Children" since they are all similar in plot and overall mood. The so called "punch lines" are all repetitious and formulaic, even more, those "punch lines" aren't even funny at all, to me, they're more along the lines as being crass and crude. The main character Dave Gold acts like a white trash thug, who thinks he's being funny and cool, which he's not. (Even Hillary (Dave's daughter) said so in the episode "Gaza Strip").<br /><br />In the episode "Dream Crusher", Hillary wanted to be a singer {but was actually pretty bad}, Dave and Vicky then gladly decided to crush her dreams by telling her she sucked. After that, she then wanted to be a child psychologist and planned on going to Harvard, after telling Dave and Vicky so and left the room, the two of them began mindlessly mocking her. Also, in the first episode Dave said of Hillary's {black} boyfriend "Does she actually think we're gonna let her go out with this guy? I'd rather drink my own urine", that line has to the dumbest line in the history of television. And Dave is constantly making fun of Larry (his son) when he breaks the fourth wall because he thinks he's gay and is a geek. Also, let's not forget that he also made fun of Larry's (fat) girlfriend. Dave is the father he's supposed to stand up for his son no matter what. "The War at Home" is without a doubt the worst TV show for family. That clearly explains why the show should be canceled since it spreads a racism and homophobic agenda. It's like the show wants to be funny for always putting in that stupid laugh track every time someone says something, but the lines are all somewhat forced, idiotic and pathetically juvenile.<br /><br />Another reason why the show's horrible is the acting, Mike Rappaport and Kyle Sullivan are terrible, terrible actors. Rappaport has to always move his hands around when he's in front of the camera, he not only does this on this show but he also did that during his time with "Boston Public". Sullivan talks and acts like some kind of robot every time he acts (he also did this in "Malcolm in the Middle"}.<br /><br />So to wrap this whole thing up, you all got your reasons of what's wrong with this show 1.It's unoriginal 2.The acting sucks 3.It's not even funny 4.All the jokes are the same 5.Has lousy script 6.The characters are pitiful and unlikable 7.The dad's a rip-off of Archie Bunker<br /><br />FOX needs to take this trash off the air, because anything's better than this. | negative |
Another good Stooge short!Christine McIntyre is so lovely and evil and the same time in this one!She is such a great actress!The Stooges are very good and especially Shemp and Larry!This to is a good one to watch around Autumn time! | positive |
An unassuming, subtle and lean film, "The Man in the White Suit" is yet another breath of fresh air in filmic format from Ealing studios. While I suspect some modern viewers may initially find it obscure, I doubt many would fail to be charmed by the expert way the plot, the themes and characters are languidly relayed during the film's course.<br /><br />The genuinely great Alec Guinness gives another fine characterization in a film perhaps not as obviously virtuoso as Ealing's inspired "Kind Hearts and Coronets" from 1949. This time, he merely plays one character rather than eight, but as the unworldly inventor and scientist Sidney Stratton, he always finds the correct tone and expression. Along with Guinness' subtle, expressive performance, the rest of the cast are effective. Of the main players, Cecil Parker and Ernest Thesiger do stand out. Thesiger is compellingly absurd as the crippled but influential business grandee, while Parker is dependable as the ineffectual yet pivotal mill owner and father. Father, that is, of Joan Greenwood, the deftly delectable comic actress, who is at her insurmountable peak in this film. Resplendent and seductive of aspect and diction, she is quite sublime in this film, a fine contrast with the similarly unusual, but more maladroit Guinness. The scene where she seemingly tries to tempt him is played so adeptly by the pair that it is both deeply poignant and amusing...<br /><br />The themes are handled very effectively, with no easy morals drawn. The complexities of the relationships between science, business and the workforce are insightfully and enjoyably examined. Expertly helmed by Alexander Mackendrick, this film is technically adept in all areas; evocative photography, fitting sound effects and music and a wistful script, all quietly impress. A thoroughly satisfying film, with Guinness and Greenwood magnificent.<br /><br />Rating:- **** 1/2/***** | positive |
Great voices, lots of adventure and clever dialogue make this a very good movie. The addition of "character" to the three lead animals gives the story a lot more depth and meaning, particularly the relationship between the older fellow, Shadow, and the young hellraiser, Chance. The earlier versions of this film were unable to give the animals any real personality or motive, which is done perfectly here. Sally Field is lovable in anything, but really shines in this film as the proud feline, Sassy. Great contrast between cat and dog perspectives on life, and just the right amount of spirit and warm fuzzies to make the plot and resolution excellent. There's even an uplifting score and beautiful mountain scenery. Definitely perfect for an evening alone or with the kids. Hats off to Disney. | positive |
Alex North (John Cassavetes) has problems in relationship with his father and flees home to join the army, from where he very soon deserts and comes to New York intending to start a new life, using as an advantage the fact that nobody knows about his past. He finds a job at the Waterfront, where he meets Tommy Tyler (Sydney Poitier) a lively young man, who is happily married and is a living contrast to Cassavetes' sad and unhappy character. They very quickly become good friends and Tommy does his best to help his friend. The only problem is that their superior at work, a tough worker Charles Malik (Jack Warden) is sort of envious of their friendship as well as Tommy's constant happy disposition and success in personal life. He really manages to make their life difficult when he comes to know the truth about Alex's past.<br /><br /> A good drama skillfully directed by Academy Award nominated director-producer Martin Ritt (The Hud) and featuring wonderful performances from Sydney Poitier and Jack Warden. 7/10 | positive |
Any movie with "National Lampoon" in the title is absolutely guaranteed to die a death in London,England,Paris,France,Rome,Italy,and anywhere in Germany.It may be an institution in the U.S. but it is practically unknown in Europe to the larger audience."National Lampoon's European Vacation" is unlikely to rectify that situation. The appalling Griswalds are just that - appalling.They are not funny. Clearly Mr Chevy Chase thinks he's funny, after all Miss B.di Angelo laughs a lot at his jokes,but she's getting paid for it and didn't have to fork out £2.50 for the privilege. The section set in England is typical.The same old same old TV performers, Messrs Idle,Smith,Coltrane,Miss M.Lippman trot out the same old same old tired clichés,Mr Chase gets lost in the hotel corridor....yawn,yawn,yawn.. Bucking - ham Palace,Big Ben......I feel cheated that we never saw bobbies on bicycles two-by-two.........rosie red cheeks on the little chil - dren,need I go on? The English are buffoons,the French vicious - tongued Yank-haters.The Germans pompous and puffed up,(don't mention the war,Clark),and the Italians lecherous bottom-pinchers.Have I forgotten anything? Every possible "comic" situation is worked to death,Mr Chase gurns desperately,Miss di Angelo dimples sweetly,the children are embarrassingly bad. The fact that this franchise ran as long as it did must bring comfort to those who propound that you never lose money by underestimating public taste. | negative |
The movie is bad. Nothing special - just a "kid" movie with no serious thing in it. There is though one reason to watch this for: the animal talk. Some of them are so funny in what they say, you just can't stop laughing. So if you want to hear a dog in the dog pound saying "I'm Keyser Soze", or another animal saying "You're a dead cat walking", or many other funny one liners, see it. Cause there's no other good movie to watch it. Vote: 4 out of 10. | negative |
The Wooden Horse was one of the first "great" escape stories from World War II, telling the true story of Eric Williams and others in their escape from Stalag-Lufft III in October of 1943. I really like this film, but had to by it on VHS from Amazon in England and get it transferred from PAL format in the U.S. I read the book when I was in hight school, after having seen a portion of the film in the early 60's on T.V. The taunt drama of Peter and John trying to escape from Germany during the war is more realistic than the treck of the escapes portrayed in the Great Escape. This film is a lost treasure, that should be made more available to American audiences. | positive |
A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it. | negative |
<br /><br />What more can you ask for? A great screenplay based on one of the finest plays of the latter half of the 20th century, two fine emotional performances by Courtney and Finney, a realistic vision of war time london, a great supporting cast. This film takes you on an emotional rollercoaster through humour, sadness, loss and fulfillment. if you are in the theatre it is even more effective. This is a true 10 on the rating scale ! | positive |
There are so many holes in the plot, it makes you wonder if they knew they had an audience for this and just threw it together. I don't know much about George Zucco, but I've seen him in two movies. Obviously, he has been cast as the loving father, mad scientist, vampire guy. He looks so ordinary. I'm surprised that he ended up in the genre. This is the typical, "I will create monsters that can be used to fight as an army." By transferring wolf blood (or is it coyote) to his hired hand, he turns him into a werewolf. Glen Strange, who was one of Karloff's successor's as the Frankenstein monster, plays the kindly, lovable hired man who is victimized because he trusts the mad doctor. At first the scientist is able to control when Petro (his name) can be transformed. But, like the invisible man, suddenly he starts morphing on his own and becomes a liability. There is a little love story of the daughter and a reporter with kind of a high pitched voice (Golly Miss Brooks). She wants to leave but her father, the doctor, won't allow that. He is also driven by a group of his peers who mocked his research before and now he is going to have satisfaction. The way he plot to embarrass or kill them is pretty far fetched and depends a lot on Petro and the guys sitting around waiting to be attacked. It's not a very good movie. The strong point is atmosphere of the woods as people and monsters lurk around the Spanish moss. Once again, the townsfolk are a bunch of morons, who look like they escaped from a bad western. One thing that stayed with me was that a little girl is the first victim and that seems unusual for a film of this era. There's also a pipe smoking old lady who knows about werewolves but nobody listens to her. | negative |
i went to see this because i have some friends in the ukraine. but the film moved me beyond what i expected by turning out to be a perfect blend of belly holding laughs (alex's strange use of English) situational comedy and heaviness bordering on depressing. i loved the range. it made me want to jump in to an old car and hit the road for the ukraine. alex (hutz) plays his guide part perfectly and provides a great counterpoint to elijah woods' poker faced earnestness. the film shows the positive side of humanity when ppl of differing cultures can bond and do the right thing when they feel the sincerity of the situation, even when they went into it with preconceived notions and prejudices, and how this can open up doorways into deeply buried memories. there is a lot in this film. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.