review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
You know the movie could have been a lot better when the animal - in this case, a little dog - is the best actor on the screen! The acting in this film is so bad, so amateurish, by dog got embarrassed watching this. He ("Rusty," our Golden Retreiver) could have done a better job than the people in here.<br /><br />By now this is almost a trite story: kid finds animal, pet is not liked nor wanted by one of the parents but the "pet" winds up saving one the kids and is now a hero and an official member of the family. Sound familiar? <br /><br />I remember this movie being a big hit, but never got around to seeing it until the mid '90s on VHS. I was shocked how bad it was. Why so much fuss over a film? Was it because there was so much sleaze in the early '70s that a nice family film stood out in the crowd? Possibly. There wasn't a whole lot of wholesome entertainment in the decade of the '70s plus a lot of people are suckers for cute little animal stories. Who could resist this cute little dog? Not me. But the movie I can resist: it's a Grade B storyline with horrible acting. <br /><br />Recommended only for small-dog animal lovers and I mean "lovers" because even the average pet owner will fall asleep trying to watch this film in this day-and-age. | negative |
The real surprise of this effortlessly lightweight movie is how such a top notch cast got assembled for what is nothing more than a hammy uninspiring affair. Presumably it was a proverbial snowball rolling down a hill gathering pace and size and shape. One can imagine that by the time Miranda Richardson got contacted by her agent, the conversation went along the lines of: 'Do you want to shoot a movie in Dublin scripted by Neil Jordan? Michael Caine and Michael Gambon are already in!' This is a dull 'comedy' that sees Michael Caine and Dylan Moran try and pull off a well-planned hustle where Moran must imitate a London gangland boss (whose arrival is imminent) to collect a sizeable sum of cash from local kingpin Michael Gambon. The rest is simply a forgettable romp that is thankfully over quite quickly. Moran is mildly amusing in places but on this evidence is better suited to life on the small screen in hit comedies such as Black Books. Caine is unchallenged in his role and gives a steady performance without being overstretched. One can only imagine what made him sign up for this movie - it can't even have been a summer in Dublin given that many of the scenes look positively autumnal in the background. Gambon actually steals the show, and anyone who has caught some of his performances in the likes of Have I Got News For You will know that he is a wonderfully funny man. But overall the result is disappointing, and it seems a lifetime ago that Neil Jordan was making quality movies of the likes of Mona Lisa. | negative |
Anyone who has studied any physics or cognitive science will walk out disgusted after 40 min., as my wife and I did. The ignorant masses might be entertained by the hand-waiving arguments and the absurd "conclusions" drawn (without even an attempt at a logical reason) from real science. I'm offended by such nonsense presented under the guise of "science". I can only conclude that the writers picked up a quantum physics book, didn't understand a word of it, then watched The Matrix about a thousand times, and proceeded to write this movie.<br /><br />For example, the Washington DC crime experiment was done by The Transcendental Meditation Program. A brief search will reveal the science of their methods. (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/t/tm/dissenter.htm)<br /><br />Save your money. | negative |
If you hate redneck accents, you'll hate this movie. And to make it worse, you see Patrick Swayze, a has been trying to be a redneck. I really can't stand redneck accents. I like Billy Bob Thornton, he was good in Slingblade, but he was annoying in this movie. And what kind of name is Lonnie Earl? How much more hickish can this movie get? The storyline was stupid. I'm usually not this judgemental of movies, but I couldn't stand this movie. If you want a good Billy Bob Thornton movie, go see Slingblade.<br /><br />My mom found this movie for $5.95 at Wal Mart...figures...I think I'll wrap it up and give it to my Grandma for Christmas. It could just be that I can't stand redneck accents usually, or that I can't stand Patrick Swayze. Maybe if Patrick Swayze wasn't in it. I didn't laugh once in the movie. I laugh at anything stupid usually. If they had shown someones fingers getting smashed, I might have laughed. people's fingers getting smashed by accident always makes me laugh. | negative |
It'll soon be 10 yrs since this movie was released....still makes me laugh.... If u enjoy this film, try the new Hera Pheri....t'is as hilarious. And my favourite bit of the film must be when Salman realises that he has no bullets left in his gun while he has the upper hand and has everyone at gun point...and he actually says it out loud!!! U just wanna bash him....but u know u can only do that if u stop laughing!!!! Fantastic film.... 10/10 | positive |
3lbs is obviously just a self indulgent programme for Stanley Tucci to be a producer/moody deep doctor. Unlike House he has absolutely no personality and unlike Grey's Anatomy the brain surgery cases are't even interesting. This programme is supposed to be set in a leading centre for Neurlogical cases - yet there's nothing interesting or exciting going on! Not even the so called pathetic 'feud' between him and a rival adds anything to the show and neither do those hallucinations. In the pilot there was a brief glimpse into the leads's social life as a father - snooze! boring and pointless.<br /><br />This show is pants,there's a glut of medical dramas around at the moment and this does nothing to make it stand out as special. | negative |
don't see this. this was one of the dumbest movies i have ever seen. its hard to be Mormon sometimes when there are movies like this out there. what a sad view of Mormon life. i can tell you if you did see this movie that it is not all like this at all in a singles ward. if it was i don't think i would have made it through it. its too bad that most Mormon movies are made by a group of geeks who have nothing better to do. the acting was so bad that my wife and i barely made it through. i guess you could say that it had all the signs of a B movie. or are there C movies? anyway...i just thought this movie sucked and was full of cheese. i wish some Mormons would start making some quality movies. | negative |
Oh, what fun there is here! <br /><br />Amy Heckerling has a flair for directing comedy (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Look Who's Talking) but here it looks like she told the actors to go out and have fun. Micheal Keaton breezes through the role of Johnny, easily his best screen performance. Joe Piscopo is great as the appropriately named Danny Vermin, what a shame directors didn't pick up on this. And I have even mentioned Richard Dimitri playing Moronie and the character's unique vocabulary. I don't think it's an accident that the bulk of the character's name is spelled MORON.<br /><br />Good lines are sprinkled throughout the movie, with Peter Boyle, Griffit Dunne.Maurren Stapleton, Merilu Henner given good lines. Even actors with minor roles like Dick Butkus and Alan Hale get in a good lines.<br /><br />recommend it to a friend. | positive |
I can agree with other comments that there wasn't an enormous amount of history discussed in the movie but it wasn't a documentary! It was meant to entertain and I think it did a very good job at it.<br /><br />I agree with the black family. The scenes with them seemed out of place. Like all of a sudden it would be thrown in but I did catch on to the story and the connection between the families later on and found it pretty good.<br /><br />Despite it wasn't a re-enactment of the 60s it did bring into the light very big and important landmark periods of the decade. I found it very entertaining and worth my while to watch. | positive |
I concur with what mallicka.b has said. The movie is portrayed in a way which appears to be a kind of vilification on the original content. Emotions aren't conveyed properly. I guess a couple of not-so-good performances also contributed to its mediocrity. In my view, Tabu would have been a much better choice for such a role instead of Aishwarya Rai. In some of her scenes, she looks a bit lusty, which is not ultimately what the movie should have portrayed. I also noticed a bit of over-acting in some of her scenes. I'm a bitter critic of Aishwarya Rai :) Can't help it; sorry for that. 'Raincoat' was a good movie by Rituparno Ghosh. And I saw Choker Bali after seeing Raincoat; I was not at all impressed. | positive |
"True" story of three girls who go into the wilds of Connecticut and end up hunted by a maniac in the woods. This is the sort of film that would have played in the drive ins across America thirty years ago to mixed acclaim. Not particularly much of anything the film works with its low budget to mixed results. The film is watchable but isn't at all scary (blame how some of the attack scenes for that). Its the sort of film that you'll probably forget about once you're done with it. Odds are that you're never going to think to see this unless its handed to you by someone and told, "here watch this", which is what happened to me. If you're handed a copy give it back, the film isn't worth the effort to see it even if it is watchable. | negative |
This era was not just the dawn of sound in cartoons, but of a cartoon character which would go down in history as the world's most famous mouse. Yes, Mickey makes his debut here, in this cheery tale of life on board a steamboat. The animation is good for it's time, and the plot - though a little simple - is quite jolly. A true classic, and if you ever manage to get it on video, you won't regret it. | positive |
This movie is terrible. It's about some no brain surfin dude that inherits some company. Does Carrot Top have no shame?<br /><br /> | negative |
All in all, Big Bad John was a hilarious, and touching movie. If you want romance, tragedy, and humor, this movie's got it. If you're a fan of the song (like I am) you pretty much know how it ends. But if you don't, or do and want to watch it anyway, I strongly recommend this movie. Jack Elam and Jimmy Dean are a hilarious pair with great chemistry. However, I wouldn't recommend this movie to strict urban folk. You have to understand where these people are supposed to be coming from, and only a handful of us are left. But even a few urban folk might understand it, and appreciate it for what it is: a good, down home movie that'll make you laugh, cry, and be inspired. | positive |
I always say, "there's nothing like a good movie". And I must say, this was nothing like a good movie! Drab, dull and tedious. It was like one of those bad dreams that never seem to end, no matter how hard you try to wake up. I don't mind the concept of a film without words, (ie: entering a fantasy or dream world), but there has to be something there to capture your imagination, not just empty images, which is what this film is. There seemed to be no character development and it jumped so fast from scene to scene that it was hard to discern any story. (Was there even a story?) You could tell the actors were trying their best, but unfortunately, poor direction sabotaged all the actors' work. It really seemed like a type of cinematic masturbation...only existing to pleasure the director and nobody else. Big waste of time. | negative |
I chuckled a few times during this movie. I laughed out loud during the notarizing of the margarine company handover (pun intended).<br /><br />There are three segments in this movie. The first one is supposed to be a spoof of "woman 'grows up' and launches career" movies. The Tampax® box was the funniest thing in this segment. Most of the cast members aren't listed here on IMDb. They are the lucky ones. Few other people will be able to connect this thing to the ruin of their acting careers.<br /><br />The second segment is a spoof of "sharkish woman sleeps her way to the top and seizes control of huge industry" movies. Robert Culp has several funny moments, all physical humor, including the aforementioned handover. After his character dies the segment sinks lower and lower as Dominique Corsaire rises higher and higher. By the time she becomes First Lady I wanted to rip the cable out of the TV and watch "snow." I switched to Pakistani music videos instead. I don't understand Urdu, or whatever language the videos were in. It was still better than listening to the dialogue in this painfully dull "story."<br /><br />Then came "Municipalians" with the *big* stars, half of them on screen for less than a minute: Elisha Cook, Jr., Christopher Lloyd, Rhea Perlman, Henny Youngman, Julie Kavner, Richard Widmark and ... *Robby Benson.* It's supposed to be a spoof of "young cop teams with hardened, substance abusing older cop who needs retirement *badly*" movies. The horizontal flash bar on the police car is very impressive. It was interesting seeing old RTD buses, and a Shell gas station sign, and an American Savings sign -- none of them are around anymore. Nagurski's "Never stop anywhere you might have to get out the car" made me smile momentarily. Then they discuss how boring the young cop is. A lot. Back and forth about how boring he is. That was as boring as this description of how boring it is. Nagurski's Law Number Four, "Never go into a music store that's been cut into with an acetylene torch," made me think that the music store is a real business at the actual location the dispatcher gave. Thinking about that was more interesting than the set-up for the gag which followed. Young Falcone (Benson) gets shot. A lot. He becomes a hardened cop like Nagurski. The segment keeps going. On and on. And on. It won't stop. It rolls relentlessly onward no matter how many times you wish he'd just *die* already so this thing will end. It doesn't. It goes on and on and on.... Then a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" episode which I've seen four times already comes on. Thank God! This abysmal movie ended while I went to get the mail. | negative |
RUN...do not walk away from this movie!!!!! Aimed at the very young kids, this movie will bore you to tears. If the Gamera trilogy of the 90's raised the bar, this film just lowered it. It's slow paced and the monster fighting is good, but seldom seen. This movie had me dry heaving in the cat box. Just a very poor offering after a phenomenal 90's series.<br /><br />SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!!! Here are the top 10 reasons Gamera fans of the 90's series will HATE this film.<br /><br />10. This movie is a drama that follows a kid trying to cope with the death of his mother and fears losing baby Gamera to a fight after knowing his father saw the adult Gamera die.<br /><br />9. You see the adult Gamera for maybe a minute at the beginning of the film. He gets his butt kicked by a few Gyaos and self destructs??? He looks old and lethargic. Plus he looks nothing like any gamera you've ever seen. His suit looked cheap and rushed.<br /><br />8. The young Gamera you see through the rest of the film looks like a Pokemon. Big-eyed and cute...it will remind you of the baby Godzilla from Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2. Gamera is now too cute.<br /><br />7. This movie has the pace of watching a NASCAR race during a 3 hour rain delay. I watched this movie with 2 other Gamera fans and nobody was happy with how slowly this film moved along. I've seen an SUV full of fat people going up a mountain road move faster.<br /><br />6. Like Godzilla:Final Wars, this movie had very little kaiju time on screen. Final Wars had much more, actually, and better fights although short.<br /><br />5. Kids take the title role. The friend of all children theme and poor writing killed the original Gamera series in the 1970's and history repeats itself in the 2000's. The most successful Gamera films abandoned the Sesame Street feel and went to a darker place. Why go back to a failed formula? This was to be a new trilogy and poor ticket sales killed any hope for this story to continue (thank god).<br /><br />4. Gamera lost his iconic roar. He now sounds like an Elephant with strep throat.<br /><br />3. This movie may produce a new Olympic event.....Imagine a relay race that involves sending very young children into harm's way. You have to see the ending to understand this point. Where were the parents? Oh yea..right there sending their kids into a kaiju battle zone.<br /><br />2. The special effects were good, but sub-par for a Gamera movie. Legion and Iris had better effects. The best effect was showing the apple sized baby Gamera fly. Not too impressive.<br /><br />1. This movie is just not what adult kaiju fans come to expect. The director was involved in Power Rangers and it shows. It comes off like a cross between ET, Always: Sunset on Third Street and TMNT. Kudos if you know all 3 references.<br /><br />Rental at best or watch once if you buy it to complete the DVD series. | negative |
Apart from Helen Bonham Carter, there is nothing worthy about this movie....And the surprise ending?! The thought of a sequel is even more annoying. Save your money, wait for the video and ignore that too. | negative |
Letters with no destination end up in another world found in the back rooms of the post office. Here, Alice manages to land a job in hope of finding her lost father. What she does discover is the tormented soul of her boss, Frank. A quiet little Aussie flic that came and went at the cinema. Now you find it in the deep dark corner of the video shop, overshadowed by fifty copies of that dreaded GODZILLA film. It's a shame because this turned out to be a satisfying film telling a brave tale with strong simple images and effective performances from the two leads. This film succeeds where Garry Marshall's other dead letter office flic DEAR GOD (1996 - USA) failed, and comes close to the brilliance of, not the Kevin Costner turkey, but He Jianjun's POSTMAN (1995 - China). | positive |
it's a real big bummer that people easily are able too make movies because of cheap digital video cams nowadays. usually I would appreciate this possibility but if you see movies like this it's just a big shame. and it's also big shame if people like h.p. lovecraft get abused by the likes of this. I rented this "movie" cuz of the drop "h.p. lovecraft" on it. and I'm a big fan of many of his adaptions, mainly those done by brian yuzna & stuart gordon. this movie has nothing to deliver! a cheap scenery on a beach and in an old wine-cellar. digi-cam effect "red light" over the whole movie. no actors, just some stupid low-grade models who have for sure no idea what they are doing, stiff as wood. and so must be the director. It's obvious that he tried to create some atmosphere. but as the whole things is so laughable it just doesn't work. and no gore-effects, just some blood in a river (you drink = you become demon) and dropping here and there. oh yeah, the story: thousands of years ago some "big old" colonised the world and took humans as slaves. then mankind got independent, so the "old ones" tried to destroy them. and now there are some survivors in a post-apocalyptic world. the only possibility to save mankind is to find the NECRONOMICON, that's where it gets to LOVECRAFT. so those soldiers fight against some undead and demons on their beach and in their wine-cellar. unbelievable - the whole thing! but as it is dubbed (german title: "Armee des Jenseits) and you can find it in most commercial video-stores it seems as if you can make money with stuff like that. I find this fact impressive. | negative |
Its No wonder this was free with the Mail on Sunday, slow going, poor acting, and filming (camera flare, near start of movie, is not even artistic) = Straight to video, but not in this case, why not recoup some of your (Film production costs) by releasing it free with a UK Sunday newspaper, at least this way you get a captive audience, and recover some costs.<br /><br />I have not given this film a 1 out of 10, due to the effort to pull some old actors out their shell, it was nice to see some old faces (Vanessa Redgrave,this an't no Blow Up), but Vinnie Jones as a lead, and I think he was better in Gone in 60 seconds when he did not speak.<br /><br />This Film is dropping in Ratings every day,i think this will find its true mark at the 3-4 out of 10,in the very near Future | negative |
Sam Fuller's excellent PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is the pick of the bunch from a number of early 50's Cold War-influenced low-budget noir vehicles. With a running length of under 80 minutes, PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is tough, gritty, explosive and endlessly entertaining.<br /><br />Widmark stars as pickpocket Skip McCoy, who has already been picked up three times. Yet McCoy can't keep his wandering fingers out of trouble- and trouble is exactly what he slides into when he grifts the wallet of gangster's moll Candy (Jean Peters). Candy's wallet contains a roll of microfilm invaluable to the Communist movement, and it's her last job for ex-boyfriend Richard Kiley to make the delivery. However, when Widmark lifts it, Peters must do whatever it takes to re-claim the film she (initially) knows nothing about.<br /><br />It's a tasty set-up, with Widmark's character, while not the psycho of KISS OF DEATH, a real live-wire, unpredictable and tough, yet curiously charming.When Bogart or Mitchum stepped into a film noir role you knew what you were going to get: a lone anti-hero maintaining his moral integrity and winning out in the end (Bogart), or an overly-laconic guy who allows himself to be drawn into a trap (Mitchum). With Widmark you just don't know what you are going to get, and with his incredibly modern acting style (his films always hold up well) he is amazing to watch. Here he is torn between making a big score for himself by selling the film, or handing it over to the police and fighting the "Commies" on the right side of the law. And he still has to pretend he never pickpocketed Peters to avoid the fatal fourth rap on his sheet.<br /><br />Peters gets her best role as the moll-with-a-heart-of-gold Candy. Widmark's unpredictability is perhaps best expressed in his scenes with Peters; the gorgeous tramp quickly (and rather unbelievably- the romance angle is rather rushed)falls under Widmark's spell, yet Widmark alternates between kissing her or slapping her around. Peters hard-edged beauty, yet lack of over-lacquered Hollywood glamour (Lana Turner would never have worked well in this role), is a major asset to the film. Candy is not innocent, yet she's very vulnerable, constantly being passed between and slapped around by men. Widmark knocks her cold on first meeting and wakes her by pouring beer over her face, yet by the final act he's a lot more tender to her (after she cops one hell of a going-over from Kiley). The scene in the hospital with Peters and Widmark shouldn't work, but it does.<br /><br />Thelma Ritter is brilliant as stoolie Moe, well-deserving of her Oscar nomination. Ritter's performance, like everything else in the film, is gritty, real and heartbreakingly honest. Her death scene is stunning. Fuller's camera movements and location settings are particularly interesting. Fuller loved a good close-up, and PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET is full of uncomfortable, cloistering tight shots that only enhance the tension of the plot. Fuller isn't afraid to let the camera linger on a shot for longer than standard Old-Hollywood really allowed, yet stunningly pulls away from Ritter's death scene to give the audience maximum impact. The urban locales and unusual, confronting camera angles give PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET, a bold, uncompromisingly modern look.<br /><br />10/10. | positive |
This 1984 version of the Dickens' classic `A Christmas Carol,' directed by Clive Donner, stars George C. Scott as Ebenezer Scrooge. By this time around, the challenge for the filmmaker was to take such familiar material and make it seem fresh and new again; and, happily to say, with this film Donner not only met the challenge but surpassed any expectations anyone might have had for it. He tells the story with precision and an eye to detail, and extracts performances from his actors that are nothing less than superlative, especially Scott. One could argue that the definitive portrayal of Scrooge-- one of the best known characters in literary fiction, ever-- was created by Alastair Sim in the 1951 film; but I think with his performance here, Scott has now achieved that distinction. There is such a purity and honesty in his Scrooge that it becomes difficult to even consider anyone else in the role once you've seen Scott do it; simply put, he IS Scrooge. And what a tribute it is to such a gifted actor; to be able to take such a well known figure and make it so uniquely his own is quite miraculous. It is truly a joy to see an actor ply his trade so well, to be able to make a character so real, from every word he utters down to the finest expression of his face, and to make it all ring so true. It's a study in perfection.<br /><br />The other members of the cast are splendid as well, but then again they have to be in order to maintain the integrity of Scott's performance; and they do. Frank Finlay is the Ghost of Jacob Marley; a notable turn, though not as memorable, perhaps, as the one by Alec Guinness (as Marley) in the film, `Scrooge.' Angela Pleasence is a welcome visage as the Spirit of Christmas Past; Edward Woodward, grand and boisterous, and altogether convincing as the Spirit of Christmas Present; and Michael Carter, grim and menacing as the Spirit of Christmas Yet To Come.<br /><br />David Warner hits just the right mark with his Bob Cratchit, bringing a sincerity to the role that measures up well to the standard of quality set by Scott's Scrooge, and Susannah York fares just as well as Mrs. Cratchit. The real gem to be found here, though, is the performance of young Anthony Walters as Tiny Tim; it's heartfelt without ever becoming maudlin, and simply one of the best interpretations-- and the most real-- ever presented on film.<br /><br />The excellent supporting cast includes Roger Rees (Fred Holywell, and also the narrator of the film), Caroline Langrishe (Janet Holywell), Lucy Gutteridge (Belle), Michael Gough (Mr. Poole) and Joanne Whalley (Fan). A flawless presentation, this version of `A Christmas Carol' sets the standard against which all others must be gauged; no matter how many versions you may have seen, watching this one is like seeing it for the first time ever. And forever after, whenever you think of Scrooge, the image your mind will conjure up will be that of George C. Scott. A thoroughly entertaining and satisfying experience, this film demands a place in the annual schedule of the holiday festivities of every home. I rate this one 10/10. | positive |
I really enjoyed "Doctor Mordrid". This is a low-budget film, which may be off-putting to some, but I have no problem with it. I admire it even more for that, considering it's WAY more entertaining than the drivel that Hollywood churns out every year. Too bad this didn't get a theatrical release; I don't know about anyone else, but I would have went to see it in theatres. `Doctor Mordrid' is a very entertaining science fiction film that just about anyone can enjoy, especially if they're into sci-fi like I am. I don't see why this is a R-rated film; only one f-word is said, and there are no gruesome death scenes, nor is there any blood at all. The timeless rivalry between sorcerers Anton and Kabal (Anton wanted the use his powers to save the human race, while Kabal wanted to enslave them), gave the story a sense of enchantment, while the mythical plotline added charm to the story itself. Basically, this a film that's just plain fun to watch. There is one unintentionally funny thing in this movie, though: seeing Jeffrey Combs keeping a straight face while wearing that silly blue cape and suit. That makes me laugh every time I see it. But I digress... Anyway, the acting is great; the main protagonists (Anton, and his lady friend, Samantha), are very likable; Anton is sympathetic, and hospitable, and Samantha is friendly. Plus, the settings were wonderful. The floating island in the other dimension was very cool setting; we're only given a glimpse of it twice, though; it would have been great to see more scenes take place here. The main setting was also very neat; Anton's apartment is very roomy, and he has some cool devices, especially the monitoring system he uses to keep track of the world's occurrences. He even has a pet raven that he keeps in his apartment named Edgar. Overall, this a great film; it was fun to watch, and the main actors put a lot of feeling into their roles. If you can find anywhere that rents `Doctor Mordrid', you should rent it (or, in my case, buy it. It was definitely money well-spent)!<br /><br />My Rating: 8 stars out of ten.<br /><br /> | positive |
A bunch of medical student yuppies get together in their spare time to hook each other to the electrical cables and die. Then they stand around counting the time before brain death, and then start CPR and heart-massage and bring each other back to life. The fact that Julia Roberts was in this movie should say it all. FLATLINERS is like group GHOST. Everyone wants to see their dead relatives and visit their old dead buddies, so what better way to do it than have a bunch of Medical Students kill you for five minutes and then bring you back to life. The rest of the movie has the predictable relationship issues, plus the predictable "GEE MAYBE IF WE KEEP KILLING EACH OTHER, ONE OF THESE DAYS ONE OF US WILL STAY DEAD?" D'OH!!! This movie should have been called BRAIN DEAD. The fact that the characters were depicted as being Medical Students made me wonder if they had gone to a foreign Correspondence School to get their degrees. The only thing that kept this film from being a total laugh was that they did not just stick their fingers into electrical outlets in order to "die." This film would have been a great THREE STOOGES comedy movie. | negative |
If you liked "Blair with" you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.<br /><br />It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's "Dawn of the dead" or Tarantino and Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.<br /><br />No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.<br /><br />The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit "submit" on the vote form.<br /><br />Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover! | negative |
Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully "break the rules." And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.<br /><br />Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.<br /><br />I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not "break the rules" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for " existential boldness," thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure. | negative |
After a couple years of searching for the Humphrey Bogart film, "Two Against the World", it unexpectedly showed up as a TCM offering under the title "One Fatal Hour", a First National film from 1936. Bogey's character is Sherry Scott, the man who runs WUBC, a radio station whose program lineup is losing listeners. The owner Bertram Reynolds (Robert Middlemass), is a pathetic executive who calls the shots at the station, but hides behind his decisions by pawning them off on Scott.<br /><br />In an effort to boost the audience base and revenues, Reynolds has the idea of reviving a twenty year old murder case, and offering it as a fifteen chapter radio play. Scott enlists the aid of Dr. Martin Leavenworth (Harry Hayden) to write the play and present it on the air.<br /><br />The Pembroke Murder case involved a woman who was acquitted of murdering her husband, the circumstances of which are not made clear. However Gloria Pembroke has married, and is now living as Martha Carstairs (Helen MacKellar), married to a successful banker (Henry O'Neill), and their daughter Edith (Linda Perry) is about to be married (on the same day no less as the radio play is to reveal the identity of Gloria Pembroke). About to be faced with the devastating effects of this revelation, Martha and Jim Carstairs embark on a crusade to have the program stopped. Simultaneously, Edith's future in-laws respond by demanding that the marriage not take place.<br /><br />Without revealing the final outcome, the film takes a devastating turn to jolt the viewer. Edith Carstairs confronts the principals of the radio station, vigorously admonishing Scott and the sniveling Reynolds. While accepting his share of the blame for the outcome, Scott partially redeems himself by quitting his job, firing his secretary, and hauling her out of the office, recognizing her for the conscience he once had. With an entirely abrupt finish, the film leaves one as disoriented and unsettled as any movie that doesn't have a happy ending. <br /><br />With about a dozen films under his belt, Humphrey Bogart gets a chance to take center stage here with intriguing results. With no name supporting players, Bogey rises to the occasion by taking charge in the confines of the radio offices, and runs the show as if it was his own. In an interesting bit of characterization, he expresses his exasperation by crossing his hands over his bowed head, predating by a half dozen years a similar effect we'll see him do in "Casablanca". For Bogart fans, it's a genuine treat to catch an unexpected nuance like this. | positive |
I really, really enjoyed watching this movie! At first, seeing its poster I thought it was just another easy romantic comedy ... but it is simply more than this! I personally believe that this idea (that I'm sure a good part of the viewers had just before they saw the movie) it's yet another important part of the big concept of this movie itself (or even of its marketing strategy)! What I mean is: Nowadays we are slaves to images! To impressions! I went to the cinema to view this film having the wrong impression, the wrong expectations, and at the end I felt how superficial I could be! To exemplify it comes to my mind the sequence near the end in which Sidney buys the plane ticket to go back to New York and as he is asked to 'give an autograph', meaning to sign for the ticket, he believes that just because he got on TV thanks to the scandal at the awards he is now some kind of celebrity. And this is just, I believe, the climax of this main theme around which the movies revolves. Above this, I believe the movie also offers us a solution to get along with this, illustrated throughout the movie by Sidney's attitude: don't become too serious about yourself or about anybody else ... "even saints were people in the beginning" ... as Sophie once says in the movie. The saints of the moment are the stars. We attribute them an 'aura' of perfection, of eternal happiness, but the reality is much less than that. Even the saints of any religion are images, ideal models of how to behave and how to live your life. Even they were not for real ... they became 'for real' after they died and we looked back at them. And that's the catch: we need our saints! we need our stars! We strive for them as if it wasn't for them we wouldn't have anything to strive for. And television and all other media are means to create and capture our strivings. We desperately need benchmarks in regard to which to measure ourselves. And that's how we got in the cinema to watch this movie in the first place: to see if we can fit the benchmark, or if the benchmark is to small for us. This time it was larger than we expected. | positive |
The humor implicit in the complete title proverb derives from the Sunday School dictum that one would be better advised to prepare before you're dead for the Devil's scrutiny, i.e. so the Devil doesn't care when you're dead. There's no percentage in trying to Beat the Devil. The characters apparently didn't pay attention at Sunday School, and find themselves forced into crisis management, having eschewed crisis avoidance. But even a seasoned CEO would have difficulty managing these crises. Throwing dice is far more unpredictable than flipping a coin; when people are involved, the list of possible outcomes becomes even longer than the long list of unforgettable Sidney Lumet films. Until now, Hawke may not have been an unforgettable actor but here perhaps had an eye toward earning billing among other Lumet All Stars like Steiger and Pacino. | positive |
This movie was awful in the worst way: you just didn't care. You didn't care what happened in the plot; you didn't care about the characters. Everyone was devoid of heart. I ended up walking out about an 45 minutes into it because I simply didn't want to subject my mind to it any more. There is far too much sex in the film. Sex can be okay; it can even make the movie (hence Karma Sutra) but the intercourse here was not beautiful or sexy. It was just ugly. Don't see this film. | negative |
Some slack might be cut this movie due to the fact that it was made in 1979. That much said, it really is pretty dire.<br /><br />Never mind the laughable back-projection or the awful, awful camera-tracking of supposed "in-flight" objects, it's the stunts that the Concorde pulls off that will have you blinking in disbelief at the absurdity. Barrel-rolls, loop-the-loops and violent "evasive" maneuvers left me wondering why the Air-Forces of the world didn't just fly Concordes as their main fighters.<br /><br />So, here are the important lessons I learned from this celluloid cheese-fest: <br /><br />1. The Concorde is at least as agile as a Phantom 4 jet-fighter.<br /><br />2. You can fire a flare gun at Mach 2 simply by opening the cockpit window and sticking your arm out.<br /><br />3. If the flare gun fails to discharge, do not drop it, as it may then go off.<br /><br />4. The Concorde can dodge up to two Sidewinder missiles fired at it at once.<br /><br />5. A flare will distract a heat-seeking missile every time.<br /><br />6. Switching off your jet-engines is a sure-fire way of throwing heat-seeking missiles off track if 5 (above) fails.<br /><br />7. When performing a crash-landing in the Concorde, it is apparently impossible to jettison your fuel beforehand.<br /><br />8. Concorde pilots are all combat-trained veterans.<br /><br />As you might imagine, this film is not very realistic. The effects are primitive by today's standards and that, coupled with the nonsense acrobatics the Concorde performs, makes this a movie deserving of little but scorn.<br /><br />Not recommended. Not recommended at all! | negative |
Wow! Here comes another straight-to-video scarecrow movie to keep the cinematic masochists happy. If the cheap-looking opening credits don't tell you you're in for quite a ride, then the diabolically tragic "writing" sure will.<br /><br />A diabetic kid gets tied on to a legendary scarecrow as part of his initiation onto the baseball team. Then the scarecrow goes nuts and starts offing people. Need I say more? This movie consists greatly of cheap effects that makes it look like it was edited with iMovie (note that spooky color inversion) and actors who apparently weren't good enough to show up on some late-night Cinemax special. Actually, thats not fair, as the actors didn't have much room to work around the abysmal script. Parts of this movie really seem like parody, especially when one character picks up his guitar and starts playing the worst song ever conceived by humans, with the worst lip-synching ever performed to go along with it. The "gore" here is also a major disappointment. In most B-movies such as this, there is a thick layer of cheap gore FX to make up for what the story and acting lacks. Here, the stuff is so cheap that it's not even fun. This movie actually makes "Jack Frost 2" look like lots of fun in comparison.<br /><br />If you think this movie is the "worst one you've ever seen" then you probably haven't gotten deep into the world of straight-to-video B-horror. Regardless, this movie will cause you a great deal of mental anguish, no matter what your background. | negative |
I thought this film was excellent, quirky and different to the usual run of the mill 'disengaged cop catching serial killer' film. Kiefer Sutherland was brilliant as usual - I really don't think I have seen anything that he has done where he has not acted brilliantly. The dialogue was funny at times lightening the mood, and the plot engaging. Thanks to other reviewers for showing the link with Alice in Wonderland - I hadn't picked up on those. I would recommend this film to anyone who is a fan of Kiefer Sutherlands (as I am) and to anyone who wants to watch an entertaining film for a couple of hours. It was a shame that it wasn't released at the cinemas for a wider audience. | positive |
Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. "Gothic" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended. | negative |
The unlikely duo of Zero Mostel and Harry Belafonte team up to give us some interesting performances and subject matter in The Angel Levine. It's one interesting twist on the themes from It's A Wonderful Life.<br /><br />Zero is married to Ida Kaminsky and the two of them belong to a special class of elderly Jewish poor in New York. Mostel used to be a tailor and proud of his trade, but his back and arthritis have prevented him from working. Kaminsky is mostly bedridden. He's reduced to applying for welfare. In desperation like Jimmy Stewart, he cries out to God for some help.<br /><br />Now maybe if he had gotten someone like Henry Travers things might have worked out differently, but even Stewart had trouble accepting Travers. But Travers had one thing going for him, he was over 100 years off this mortal coil and all his ties to earthly things were gone. God sent Mostel something quite different, the recently deceased Harry Belafonte who should have at least been given some basic training for angels before being given an assignment.<br /><br />Belafonte hasn't accepted he's moved on from life, he's still got a lot of issues. He also has a wife, Gloria Foster, who doesn't know he's passed on, hit by a car right at the beginning of the film. You put his issues and Mostel's issues and you've got a good conflict, starting with the fact that Mostel can't believe in a black Jew named Levine.<br /><br />This was the farewell performance for Polish/Jewish actress Ida Kaminsky who got a nomination for Best Actress in The Shop on Main Street a few years back. The other prominent role here is that of Irish actor Milo O'Shea playing a nice Jewish doctor. Remembering O'Shea's brogue from The Verdict, I was really surprised to see and hear him carry off the part of the doctor.<br /><br />The Angel Levine raises some interesting and disturbing questions about faith and race in this society. It's brought to you by a stellar cast and of course created by acclaimed writer Bernard Malamud. Make sure to catch it when broadcast. | positive |
I just can't believe some of the comments on this show! The show is just genius! Sure it doesn't follow the tried and true, but do we as consumers always want the same things thrust at us over and over again. Shouldn't we have the option to sit back and enjoy something new once in a while. The style is not as realistic as previous "Scooby Doo" shows, but it's not supposed to be. The show it titled "Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get a Clue" what part of that title states that the entire beloved cast of other renditions would constantly join in the action. And nowhere does it say that they'd be solving mysteries, and they can't even stand monsters, so why would they? I'm actually glad that they put some long standing plot points that work into a Scooby-Doo show. They still have running jokes, clumsy hi-jinks, quick-change outfits in chase scenes, the standard hallway gag and even Scooby snacks. In fact I'm glad that this show is out there, because I just love it. I'm even glad they got rid of the rest of the team for a while and concentrated on just two main characters and a villain.<br /><br />Sure it's ridiculous, it's supposed to be! Sure it's different, it's supposed to be. It's supposed to make you laugh at the villain, and cheer for the idiotic robotic butler to triumph over all intruding vermin, no matter what the size. You're supposed to get the running "Roobi-Roo" joke. The whole thing is just put together so well, there isn't a single thing I can think that is WRONG with it. The writing, the acting, the animation, all top notch. The title music is awesome (my computer plays "GET A CLUE!" when it boots up), and the background music is just gripping. | positive |
Brilliant execution in displaying once and for all, this time in the venue of politics, of how "good intentions do actually pave the road to hell". Excellent! | positive |
Just read the original story which is written by Pu in 18th century. Strikingly, the movie despict the original spirit very well, though the plot was modified tremendously. The film language, the rhythm, the special effect are all from hollywood, but still there is a chinese core. It is amazing how Hark Tsui managed to combine them together. The result is pure beauty. | positive |
One of the many silent comedies Stan Laurel featured in before he teamed with Oliver Hardy, 'Mud and Sand' is a ho-hum hokum. The story is badly disjointed - though this could be because of the modern-day edit - and the humor itself is not at all inventive.<br /><br />Potential plotlines are started and ignored; for instance, Stan's promise to make Fillet de Sole pay for what she's done to him never comes to fruition. Stan's character doesn't seem very centered, either, but this is a common criticism of his work before he developed 'Stanley' of Laurel & Hardy fame, so it might be that I was just expecting to see this shortcoming.<br /><br />I strongly believe that all the silent films should be preserved and viewed, and I'm glad this one is still available. It's just not a great film. | negative |
Writer/Director John Hughes covered all bases (as usual) with this bitter-sweet "Sunday Afternoon" family movie. "Curly Sue" is a sweet, precocious orphan, cared for from infancy by "Bill". The pair live off their wits as they travel the great US of A. Fate matches them with a "very pretty" yuppie lawyer, and the rest is predictable.<br /><br />Kids will love this film, as they can relate to the heroine, played by 9 year old Alisan Poter (who went on to be the "you go girl!" of Pepsi commercials). The character is supposed to be about 6 or 7, as she is urged to think about going to school. Some of her vocabulary suggests that she is every day of 9 or older.<br /><br />Similar to "Home Alone", there is plenty of slap-stick and little fists punching big fat chins. Again, this is "formula" film making, aimed at a young audience. Entertaining and heartwarming. Don't look for any surprises, but be prepared to shed a tear or two. | positive |
Fantastically putrid. I don't mean to imply above that only a few people should avoid "Doc Savage." Almost every demographic group would be bored by this trivial, TV-movie-quality production. It's a little like the 60's "Batman" TV series, except it's not funny. Even accidentally. You're better off taking a nap. | negative |
Weak tale of an evil warlock who is searching for a centuries old satanic Bible so that he can do Lucifer's bidding by undoing creation. Hot in pursuit all the way is a 17th Centruy bounty hunter named Redfern and his reluctant sidekick Kassandra. Sound like a load of bunkum? It is.<br /><br />This drivel from writer D.T. Twohy gets the superficial treatment it deserves from director Steve Miner (who helmed that romantic nonsense "Forever Young"). Twohy obviously knows nothing about true evil.<br /><br />Julian Sands just flies around and cackles, trying to look evil, while Richard E. Grant succeeds only in wasting his rich talent. Lori Singer's career also took a nosedive with this one.<br /><br />Special effects crew has some fun, and Jerry Goldsmith provides a score superior to its subject matter. | negative |
The A-team is still repeating every day on Dutch television (RTL7, around 1800hrs) and I still watch it! I don't like the A-Team... I absolutely adore them!! It is just great to see Justin chasing the former members of A-Team. Brings back memories from the old days, when I was young an sweet. I would have given you a 10 for excellent, but Justin looks like he is chasing the former A-Team members all by himself. Of course, that is the only bad thing on this documentary. Too bad Justin does not look for Melinda Culea ("Amy A. Allen"). But it is great to see Mr. T. back into action. Too bad for him, he does not show up at the party, at the end. But that party is too short to laugh again and to see everybody in action again. | positive |
A kooky, but funny bit of diversion. You kind of have to see it from the beginning to follow what's happening, but each report to earth has it's own little joke. Pretty good special effects for a very low budget sci-fi t.v. show. It's fun to watch. Sort of in the vein of Red Dwarf, but even more low budget. For someone who's just coming in in the middle of one of the episodes, what you have to realize is that these guys are all incompetent, because they've been moved up the ladder of command, because the other officers died. Also, the main guys are from the laundry corps, which is why they have laundry in everything. If you like Red Dwarf, you'll probably like this. Slightly different t.v. concept, in that all you see is the Commander's report each day.<br /><br />It would be better if this were explained more, not just in the very beginning of the first episode, but then it was pretty hard to figure out what had happened in Red Dwarf too, if you hadn't been told. | positive |
OK so some of the plot points might be a bit obvious but over all an interesting idea which works towards a tight ending. The acting is solid particularly Lachy Hulme who plays one of the central characters in this ensemble piece. He certainly has a screen presence and he is interesting to watch. It has a low budget feel which works for the sort of thriller/horror genre Four Jacks belongs to. The film doesn't try to take itself to seriously which adds to the overall charm. The character of Phil(Dave Serrafin) has to be one of the most annoying character seen on screen since Rupert Pupkin/ King of Comedy. Worth adding to a weekend pile of DVDs. | positive |
I really don't think it's necessary that I write a review on a movie with a title as derisory as "Snake Island", but even in the abstract confines of its own genre, this hit a new low, so my anger must be known. The only reason why I even bothered to watch this unbelievably bad movie is because I knew it was going to be bad, it was really late at night, I could not sleep, and in the past, really bad movies would drain the energy out of me and make me long for slumber. It became very quickly very early on that this movie was going to be awful, but it condescended below even those expectations.<br /><br />The movie was directed and written by Wayne Crawford, who also stars in the movie as a tourist guide on the African river, who ends up having to strand his team on a remote island called Snake Island until another boat comes down to pick them up. They hang out, get drunk, and then become subject to the onslaught of poisonous snakes who are on a mission to purge their island of human beings.<br /><br />If your jaw dropped at the last sentence of my second paragraph, don't bother to reread it, you got it right the first time. Frankly, I prefer my creature features when the creature(s) just attack the nonsensically dumb humans out of hunger, not because they have some kind of a mission. These aren't mutant snakes. They're not giants like what you see in "Anaconda." They're just ordinary, everyday African snakes like mambas and vipers
only they have the brains to form armies, take up causes, work together to trap people, understand our language, and even dance! Did your draw drop again? Well, it's going to drop further. Amount midway through this awful B-movie, about the part where I'd already given up, the human characters start drinking around a campfire and then all of a sudden, they break down into some kind of an orgy. And while they dance nude and such, the snakes hunting them all of a sudden stop and start jamming along to it. The combination of this scene and the scene where we discover that snakes, some the most roguish creatures on the planet, have formed an alliance against human beings for some oddball reason, proved just too much for my poor brain. And just when I though the filmmakers couldn't take it to an even lower level, the snakes started to sing.<br /><br />The people in the movie? Well, let's just say that never before have I rooted for the creatures to kill everybody off so quickly. I just could not stand it any longer.<br /><br />I really don't think I need to keep going on; you get the picture. If there is anything that makes "Snake Island" any different from its other rivals, it's that it does dare to try to be even dumber and that's not a complimentary achievement. Whyjust whyI continue to subject myself to these really bad movies, I guess I'll never really know. But "Snake Island" hits a brand new low. It's a cheap, trashy excuse for a motion picture that makes "Anaconda," a brainless snake movie, look as brilliant and sophisticated and thrilling as Steven Spielberg's "Jaws." You have been warned. | negative |
I can catogoricaly and unequivocally say that in all my 51 years on this planet that is the worse (supposibly children's) film i have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />I took my three grand children to see it and even they were struggling to raise a smile during the all tortuous 90 mins. The sexual indendoes i will leave for another day but they were as tasteless as the film. They should pay YOU to watch it not you pay them. It's truly truly awful, there is no other way to describe it. The people that made this film should be brought to task for taking money under false pretences.<br /><br />Aplogise for my spelling mistakes but i am so upset that it spoilt the time i had with my grandchildren Regards, Stephen | negative |
Profanity, stupidity, self-indulgence, and bad acting all join forces for a true tour de force in terrible movie-making. Pesci's attempt to prove My Cousin Vinny was no fluke, shows the opposite instead. He is generally too lightweight and foulmouthed to handle the lead. A true must-miss! | negative |
Here, on IMDb.com I read an opinion, that Grey Owl is best character of Pierce Brosnan ever performed. I do not know if he had better nor worse roles, I'm not his fan, but this one was really exceptional.<br /><br />The other thing - impressive hand of the movie director. I give my respect. The serenity, the beauty and spirit of wilderness was illustrated really exlusively, I never met such proximity it in any movie before.<br /><br />Another thing left in my mind after the film - this is the movie, closest to the original books, and atmosphere in it. <br /><br />And little bit more. I pay my respect to the original Grey Owl. | positive |
I have read several reviews that ask the question, "Why was this film made"? I myself found that question looming in my mind as the hour and twenty minute feature seemed to drag near the middle, only to give off the sensation that it was picking up steam at the end, when in actuality it was doing nothing of the sort. So, "Why was this film made"? I think that is a great question for those watching Heftig og begeistret to ask themselves. This reviewer is proud of director Knut Erik Jensen for giving us this powerful image of hope, brotherhood, and inspiration with this all male choir, but I do not think that Jensen did enough to bring a gripping story to the table. Let me pose this question to you, "Do audience members need more in a documentary than just a straight forward story to maintain interest"? My answer is yes, and this is where Jensen failed. Heftig og begeistret was a good documentary, but it was far from great. Jensen did a horrible job with the story and dedication of the subjects. It was great to hear the songs, but over time, those songs seemed dull, overwhelming, and a bit precocious. From the opening scene where our men are singing their hearts out in a blinding snow, I knew that I was hooked, but as the film developed I lost interest. Why? Jensen never took us, the audience members, to the next level. He kept the playing field level and ultimately hurt the overall tone of the film. Was this a movie about the music or about the men in the choir? The world may never know.<br /><br />Again, I would like to state that Jensen did a phenomenal job of finding an interesting story about this group of men who have definitely seen hard times and how they coped with that through music, but it was as if the all male choir were a bunch of the most boring men ever created. Jensen gave us the music superbly, but it was the characters, the subjects, that I knew nothing about by the end of the film. In the mix we had a 97 year old man who still had his driver's license, we had a large man in a tub singing classic American songs, we had old men who were once heartthrobs in their youth, we had some tension between the youth of the choir and the veteran singers, and we even had an ex-drug addict that had only been clean for eleven years. Did Jensen develop these interesting stories at all? Nope, he left them on the table. It was obvious that these singers were willing to talk further about it (see the political man who missed his political days), but Jensen seemed to clear away from those heartfelt moments and head straight back into interesting places that he could have the choir sing. To me, the music was defined at the beginning of the film, I wanted to be introduced and hear the stories of these individual men. They were all captivating, yet Jensen seemed to ignore them completely.<br /><br />By ignoring the major subjects of this documentary, Jensen became unsuccessful in creating any sort of tension towards the end. Without giving the ending away, I felt like Jensen was coloring in the lines. Instead of being bold outside the lines, he chose to create no moment of sympathy, emotion, nervousness, or sadness. Jensen took our subjects from point A to point B to point C without asking us to become involved in any way shape or form. I can see how national sentiment had made this film into a huge success in Norway, but for everyone else watching (i.e. ME) more was necessarily needed. I wanted to feel for these guys. I wanted to know if they were going to do well as they traveled, or just find themselves loved in their own city. There was no story, mostly in part to no development of the subjects. When you watch modern documentaries (oddly, this film was made in 2001), you want it to play out similar to any Hollywood feature film. You want suspense, realism, and drama, alas, with Heftig og begeistret you get nothing of the sort.<br /><br />Overall, I must ask the question again, "Why was this film made"? My final answer Alex, is that Jensen wanted to show how troubling times and a changing economy can still produce happiness in even the coldest places of Earth. I think that Jensen wanted to show human dedication and how something as simple as singing can unite a population. With that said, Jensen demonstrated that perfectly in this film, but he did not create a good documentary. When you make a film of this nature, I feel that you must look within the group, examine the choir participants and hear each one of their stories to bring about an ending that will grip your heart. The only thing that this film gripped was my attention span as it attempted to leave the room at rocket speed. Again, I do not want to sound negative about this film because the music was excellent and the men singing did bring about a feeling of honesty, but I needed more. With documentaries becoming a bigger staple of the film community, one expects a bit more than what Heftig og begeistret handed to us. I want to see reality and people, not just another song and dance routine! <br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** | negative |
I checked out this video expecting to like it. Wanting to like it. I like foreign films, I like beautiful cinematography, I know the critics liked this film (including my favorite, Roger Ebert), and I don't mind "slow" films.<br /><br />Well, it's beautiful. That's about the best I can say for it. The plot is very thin, the shots are very long, the glances are very meaningful, the actors are very sincere, and it seems like a very long movie. I fell asleep half way though it, woke up, rewound the tape, tried again. It was a trial, but I made it to the end. I didn't like it any better for that. | negative |
There are those who gripe that this is NOT the opera, but then they don't quibble with the film of CABARET that was not the original show either. All films of musicals/operas are and have to be "adaptations" or they don't work. CABARET took more liberties with the original show than did the film of PORGY AND BESS and yet it kept its original integrity, reworking the material, and is judged an artistic success. The same holds true for PORGY AND BESS- it reworked the opera into a dialogue/song libretto because audiences at the time loved musicals but stayed away from the few echt filmed operas. It would have been economical suicide for Preminger to produce a film of the opera - it would have lost a fortune for the Goldwyn Studios.<br /><br />That said, this is a fine adaptation. The acting is excellent, the Oscar winning scoring of Andre Previn is magnificent, as is the choral singing, and the individual vocal achievements are incredible. Robert McFerrin (dad of popular musician Bobby McFerrin) dubbed Porgy and Adele Addison dubbed Bess. While Sammy Davis Jr. sang his own songs in the film, his recording contract would not permit his voice to be heard on the soundtrack album, so Cab Calloway recorded his numbers (spectacularly) for that release. Brock Peters' bass/baritone is extraordinary and Pearl Bailey is her own unique self. Diahann Carroll, although a singer of fine note, has the small role of Clara which required a high soprano, so old reliable Marni Nixon dubbed her singing.<br /><br />The Gershwin Estate hates the film and refuses to grant the musical rights, although the dramatic rights are in the public domain. This sort of hate feud held up the video release of CAROUSEL for almost fifteen years (although in that case it was the dramatic rights that were in litigation) and is currently preventing both PORGY AND BESS and ANNIE GET YOUR GUN from being released on video.<br /><br />Of all the stage productions given film versions, it is these latter two which are the sole holdouts to video. Only a campaign of letters to the Gershwin Estate in NY might loosen up the reserve. | negative |
When I saw that this movie was being shown on TV, I was really looking forward to it. I grew up in the 1980's and like everyone else who has grown up in that era, have seen every 80's teen and summer camp movie out there. So I couldn't wait to see this movie that totally spoofs that film genre. What a disappointment!! The movie was nothing but a bunch of really bad jokes and gags over and over, with hardly any plot and no substance. And the filmmakers attempts at dark humor totally failed-some of these so-called jokes didn't come across as anything but downright cruel and offensive. The only good things about this film were the wardrobe, music, and acting. It was nice to go on a nostalgia trip and see all of the summer clothing styles from the 80's, and the same goes for the music. And the acting was top-notch throughout: almost all of Hollywood's best comedians were present. Too bad they didn't have better material to work with. | negative |
A couple of weeks after I saw this movie it began to remind me of John Carpenter's In The Mouth Of Madness (not for the story!) for the atmosphere, the fast elements of surprise and the dreamlike sequences. On the other hand, this movie mixes very well the image and the music (note the 4th chapter in the movie) | positive |
For my first taste of Shakespeare on stage, I cannot believe what these people did to a perfectly good play. <br /><br />-Let's start off with the good bit, shall we?-<br /><br />Alan Rickman is alright, although some of his dialog could have been delivered with more feeling. The rest of the actors needed to pull it together. <br /><br />Romeo, Romeo, whyfore art thou not dead yet, Romeo? The actor, while not only completely wooden and deadpan, could not read his lines with any gusto at all. He was completely out of focus, had difficulty even looking Juliet in the face, and absolutely NO grace with the lines that he was given. Whoever cast him deserves to be punished. Juliet is almost passable, but she gives no depth to her character,and seems to be completely out of touch with the play. Mercutio was incredibly creepy and completely out of character for the entirety of his dialog. Benvolio was unfeeling and mercilessly choppy with his lines. <br /><br />I was forced to endure this half-baked production of Romeo and Juliet. The acting was stilted and the costumes were nothing short of distracting. I have seen kindergarten puppet shows with more effort put into them. I only wish that i could give this movie a rating of zero. | negative |
Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) has been sent on a classified mission into Cambodia during the Vietnam War to assassinate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) as he has gone completely insane and is no longer taking orders. And since Kurtz is one of the most decorated men in the armed forces, it is hard for Capt. Willard to understand how Col. Kurtz could go off the deep end as he has, killing without clearance and taking the war into his own hands. What possibly could have pushed this great man over the top? Through Willard's long journey through the jungle to find his target, he tries with some success to understand why. But what will he decide to do once he finds him?<br /><br />Any movie that can start out with The Doors' "The End" is a great movie in my book, especially if it can flow with the mood and imagery shown with the song. Apocalypse Now does this perfectly. I can't think of anything better for it to be set to, the Vietnam War and the insanity in the soliders' minds that it created. AN is a dark and brutal story about a long journey through some of the hairiest jungle in Vietnam, the ultimate destination of which is murder. Through it's use of music and score alone, we are thrown into a dark world of mystery, violence, and insanity. A perfect example of how to set mood through music alone is this film right here. <br /><br />An overall great cast, with the exception of Laurence Fishburne, of which Sheen and Brando give us more than enough acting skills to spread around on our movie desire bread. I just don't like Fishburne, ever since I found out he was Cowboy Curtis in PeeWee's playhouse my contempt and hatred for this man has increased ten fold. I realize the pettiness of this but I simply do not care. We need to sick Gary Oldman on him. Brando is excellent as Col. Kurtz and I can't think of any other actor that could have played the good man gone insane and hold such screen presence. Sheen is also fun to watch as Willard and we can identify with his questioning of his mission and the war in general. My favorite character in the movie has to be Robert Duvall's Lt. Colonel Kilgore. Before this film I never pictured Duvall as a wartime cowboy but honestly it's my favorite of his parts to date. He simply nailed his character, which is one of the best in the entire film, as the gung-ho Air Cavalry commander who loves to surf. Maybe a little over the top but still brilliant. I also love the smell of napalm in the morning.<br /><br />The plot is a fairly simple one and it doesn't take too much brainpower to figure out what's going on. Willard's mission is to kill Kurtz, plain and simple. But it's the journey of the film that is really it's heart and also the dire situations of war itself. In the Redux version we are forced to sit through the extended French plantation scene and the Playboy bunny scene which really adds nothing to the film's entirety other than it makes it a longer journey. I don't feel they take away anything though, it's just a matter of if you want to watch a three and a half hour movie or the original. Through this journey, the film points out the utter futility and irrelevance of the war to the Americans and the massive effect it had on the soldiers who fought in it...in fact, that's the entire point. On top of that, the troops were not supported by the public and that could very well have helped cause a character like Kurtz' to go completely mad. <br /><br />A big war movie lover, this one is up there with Platoon and The Deer Hunter, all of them classics. I sometimes try to compare films of the same genre to one another but it has gotten me in trouble in the past in my reviews as I have had to go back on what I've said. All three have their own strengths and add their own twist to the Vietnam War....so to really say one is better than the other is fairly pointless...even if after having most recently view AN I think it's a tad better. In the end, Apocalypse Now is a true classic in either version and worthy of the status it's been given. As a fellow reviewer has previously stated, AN is one of the most ambitious films ever made. | positive |
I liked this movie because it basically did more with less. It could have been made more interesting if they had kept it confined to the studio even more (though some of the plot elements would have been harder to develop).<br /><br />The guy playing the DJ did a good job of showing someone spooked out and haunted by his memories. I also found his dialog with the callers pretty funny.<br /><br />While parts of the movie you can see coming a mile away, other parts you do not expect to turn out the way they did.<br /><br />I thought it was a pretty minimal ghost story for the most part, concentrating more on the living side of the equation. The last 5-10 minutes were pretty well done as everything is being revealed.<br /><br />While it was a shorter movie, it felt to be just about the right amount of time to tell the story. Any more and it would have started to drag. | positive |
this was a very good movie i wished i could find it in vhs to buy,i really enjoyed this movie i would definaetly recommend this movie to watch i would like to see it again but can never find it in tv, it would be well worth the time to watch it again | positive |
I have barely managed to view the entire film... Only after about 85min out of the movie's 110min did the journey to Mars begin, and then there were 5min left for the closure. These 85 long minutes were VERY boring and didn't contribute anything to the film. When finally reaching Mars, it wasn't much better plot wise. It all could have been fitted into much shorter running time and nothing would have been missed.<br /><br />What I cannot understand is the piece of trivia saying the because of the film new-born Babies were named "Aelita"... Why would someone want to name his/her baby after a villain, who despite having only one eyebrow, apparently has 3 breasts???<br /><br />The only interesting thing here is the sets and costumes for the Mars scenes. They are an interesting experiment in Constructivism, just as "The cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was for Expressionism, five years earlier.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 for the great looking design... | negative |
This movie is excellent. Not because it does anything special or new, but because it is consistently great in all of its parts. No part stands out as being "ground-breaking" or "stellar", but all parts are far above mediocre, and that makes, to me, an excellent movie.<br /><br />I own several copies of this movie, and may acquire it on collectors DVD or Blu-Ray, someday (holding off right now due to high blu-ray prices, and of course the face that I don't have a blu-ray player... but that's beside the point of this review).<br /><br />It stars off sort of ordinary, but quickly turns into a drama filled with tension, some action, strongly portrayed characters, and a well though out plot which keeps you interested until the very end.<br /><br />Wait, no, it does NOT start out ordinary.<br /><br />It starts out sort of like what a Qun. Tar. movie WISHES it could be. With an awesome scene where an attempt to buy coffee and a donuts goes... very, very wrong.<br /><br />By the end of the movie, nothing was as it seemed, and a few people are dead, and a few people are very rich. I won't tell you who... watch and enjoy! Overall rating: 10/10, A**, Excellent! | positive |
The Marriage of Maria Braun (MMB) is about a German girl (Maria) getting married to a German soldier (Herman Braun) just at the ending of the war. After being married for half a day and a night, Herman is send to the front again. To make ends meet, Maria starts working at a bar for mainly American soldiers and get to know a black soldier. She got word that Herman died at the front, and things develop between her and the American soldier. Herman walks in on them, in bed, and after a confrontation between him and the American, Maria killed the American. Herman admits to the murder, ends up in jail and Maria vows to wait for him. The country is in shambles; one sees people leaving everything that they are busy with for a cigarette. There are food shortages. It is in short, a time of survival of the fittest. <br /><br />Basically this film projects Maria's attitudes - those attitudes she permits herself under the mentioned circumstances, as a metaphor for Germany's loss of soul after they lost the war, and how it proceeds to rebuild itself. For example, Maria has the following conversation with a peddler (played by Fassbinder himself); the peddler tries to sell her an excellent copy of Kleist and she remarks that "Kleist burns out to quickly, it does not provide enough heat for the cold". The peddler answers "That's another way to look at it. Right now, it's probably the correct way". <br /><br />Maria meets a French/German business man, Karl Oswald after she bargains her way into the first class train compartment. She decides to get involve with Karl, "You're not having an affair with me; I'm having an affair with you". She also takes responsibility in the company, and after a while has the complete trust of the firm. When Karl says "I suppose we'll just have to wait for a miracle" she replies "I prefer making miracles then wait for them". In her own words, she has become the "Mata Hari of the economic miracle".<br /><br />In a lot of Fassbinder's films he tried to expose the psychological processes which lie behind social mechanisms (see Freud); in other words, he liked pointing his camera at the bullsh*t, the false social mechanisms, the pretending. The direct approach Maria takes in this film is successful to convey this ideology. For example, she phones Karl and when he picks up the phone her request is straight to the point "I need someone to sleep with". As Fassbinder said "the emotions people felt did not exist at all and were only a kind of sentimentality which we thought we needed to be properly functioning members of society". He also remarked that his films are anti emotional. <br /><br />I particularly liked the scene when Karl and Maria meet in the Munich restaurant (apparently, frequently visited by Hitler himself). Maria appears in control and Karl a bit on the down side, as if Maria's 'brutal honesty' wears him out, as if he is not completely up to the situation anymore. Karl says "I have to tell myself over and over that I love life". Maria replies "That's life isn't it. As if we signed a contract to enjoy life. And then we go out to eat and talk about food". I guess this is also about Fassbinder attitudes on relationships, to never submit completely to anyone. And why would you, if the central matter of most of his films is about "What love becomes in this society a commodity, an instrument of power, a weapon."<br /><br />It was remarked that it is typical Fassbinder to have the scenes with Maria and Betti walking in expensive dresses in the ruins after the war - with these clothing essentially the wrong period. What I think he wanted to portray here were those attitudes, when you feel bad, that "you can always put on your make up and face the day looking great". But, Fassbinder was not interested in perfection. Any mistakes made in a film could just be corrected in the next project. Since he completed films (approximately 4 a year) the way other people rolled cigarettes, it is not peculiar that this film has some very bad scenes. Peter Marthesheimer, who wrote most of the script, mentioned that Fassbinder likely dreamed up the whole scene with Maria and the American in the park, overnight. <br /><br />Hanna Schygulla is brilliant as Maria. Mostly, she just stares bluntly into the camera. In Maria's own words "It is a bad time for emotions. But, I like it like that". <br /><br />There are different opinions about the end. After Karl died of a hart attack, Herman finally shows up. (Herman left for Australia after he got out of prison, to "become human again".) After the testament is delivered (made out to her and Herman in half), Maria forgets to close the gas on the stove when she lights her cigarette, and blow her and Herman up. For me it is obvious that she just did that by accident. At the same time, she must have been rattled when her dreams finally seem about to come true. She must have felt as if she was not herself anymore. She felt as if she had outlived herself. | positive |
After seeing the movie last night I was left with a sense of the hopelessness faced by organisations trying to tackle the problem the film portrays. The scale of the prostitution seems so large that it's hard to see how it can be defeated without major governmental changes in Cambodia.<br /><br />Anyway, on with the review.<br /><br />Although it is a sombre movie with an uncomfortable central relationship this is a very compelling film, and I'd even go so far as to say it was enjoyable. The film was well edited for the running time and the performance by Thuy Nguyen was excellent. I also felt Ron Livingston played a very difficult role well.<br /><br />It would have been nice to have a little more insight into why Patrick feels he has to help Holly, but maybe the reason is a simple as he explains to Chris Penn's character. I won't explain it here - go see the movie.<br /><br />This is a good, thought-provoking film with obviously good intentions. I hope it gets a wide enough release to reach a decent sized audience and gain more support for the K-11 Project. | positive |
A couple of years back I had purchased (and enjoyed) the MGM double-feature DVD of the two Kolchak TV movies, THE NIGHT STALKER (1971) and THE NIGHT STRANGLER (1972). When the Universal set of the subsequent TV series came out, I had intended to buy it immediately – but rumors of playback issues with the dreaded DVD-18s kept me from adding it to my collection; recently, I placed an online order which consisted of a spate of discounted Universal Box Sets and decided to pick up the KOLCHAK 3-Discer as well.<br /><br />Having watched it now, I can safely say that I didn’t regret acquiring this beloved (if short-lived) crime/horror series one bit: it may follow a standardized formula – dogged and resourceful newspaperman Carl Kolchak, marvelously played by Darren McGavin, gets into everybody’s hair with his attitude (flustered editor Simon Oakland, long-suffering colleagues, assorted authoritarian figures, a plethora of monsters and villains), faces up to the inevitable (and usually supernatural) threat alone but, finally, is pressured into keeping his story under wraps – but a winning one (further boosted by an impressive line-up of guest stars and notable behind-the-scenes credits), making the show a great deal of fun.<br /><br />That said, quality varies from one episode to another and the modest budgets afforded them results in special and make-up effects which sometimes leave a lot to be desired (for instance, the werewolf in the eponymous entry and the goofy alligator creature in the very last installment) – not to mention the fact that these were restricted to 50-minute programmes and intended for family consumption to boot rather precludes a simplified and wholesome rendering of its often intriguing psychological and metaphysical themes (in the case of the werewolf, again, he’s never seen biting anyone but, somewhat foolishly, is made to merely throw people around)! <br /><br />While the hero’s cynical narration does a lot to pull one into the fanciful plots, there’s a healthy dose of comedy relief involved in each episode (often, but not exclusively, revolving around McGavin’s relationship with either Oakland or geeky reporter Jack Grinnage) – to say nothing of reasonable atmosphere (the setting, for the most part, is Chicago) and suspense. To make the ride even more pleasant, there’s a bouncy score by Gil Melle' and Jerry Fielding.<br /><br />For the record, the monsters encountered (but not always defeated) by Kolchak throughout the series are: a revived Jack The Ripper, a variety of cults (voodoo, Native American, Aztec), aliens, vampire, werewolf (going round its over-familiar concept by having this particular episode entirely set on a cruise-liner!), doppelganger, Satanist, swamp creature, mass of electricity, robot, apeman, witch, headless motorcyclist, succubus, a knight’s armor taking a murderous life of its own (the episode with perhaps the best supporting cast – featuring John Dehner as a morose police captain, Hans Conried and Robert Emhardt), Helen Of Troy(!) and crocodile. Some of the actors (other than those playing Kolchak’s co-workers) return in the same roles – Keenan Wynn and Ramon Bieri (both as officers of the law), John Fiedler (as a shrewd morgue attendant) and Richard Kiel as two distinct nemeses of the hero. If I were pressed to choose the finest (or most entertaining) episodes, I’d lean towards HORROR IN THE HEIGHTS (co-starring Phil Silvers and Abraham Sofaer) and the afore-mentioned THE KNIGHTLY MURDERS – while, as the weakest, I’d go for THE WEREWOLF (due to reasons I’ve already explained) and CHOPPER (based on a story concocted by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale!).<br /><br />Unfortunately, the set contains no extras: it would have been nice to see a featurette discussing the numerous concepts dealt with in KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER, as well as putting the series into the context of where TV was at the time of its original airing, or even denoting the lasting influence it had on the apparently endless run of sci-fi series popular today. In fact, Kolchak himself – in a much younger and ostensibly darker guise – returned in a 2005 revival; this version is available at my local DVD rental outlet…but, for various reasons, I’m not sure I’d want to check it out so soon after the 1974-5 classic! | positive |
This movie just felt very true to life. I liked the ending which seemed to resolve naturally without any big moments but with a lot of little moments coming together. You could tell it is an honest love story. It doesn't matter what the 'sexual orientation' of the main characters are, it still a story about love and understanding.<br /><br />There were a lot of scenes that involved the family. The setting is during what for some people is a very stressful time. Namely "the holidays." Christmas to be precise. <br /><br />Like most good films, this one addresses issues of love, fitting in, expectations, and can't-be-overcome biases. In the end Alexandra and Casey make a choice for each other, knowing that love is difficult, and about giving. Well done. | positive |
[Minor spoilers follow]<br /><br />Steve Allen opined that topical humor about serious events might be found by many to be acceptable based on the formula: Tragedy+Time=Comedy. 1939 before the German assault on Poland was hardly a fun period and subsequent events, including the Blitzkrieg (following the Sitzkrieg) which took Germany to the Channel, resulted in the heroic evacuation at Dunkirk and gave the world the sickening spectacle of a supine France prostrating its honor before the Nazi conqueror.<br /><br />The stuff of romance, comedy and a big dollop of serious drama? Yep. Director Jean-Paul Rappeneau, with a well-matched and outstanding cast, creates in "Bon voyage" a pastiche of events and scenes from history and from imagination that is hugely entertaining.<br /><br />Viviane Denvers (the sloe-eyed and beautiful Isabelle Adjani) is France's top actress as war clouds gather over Europe (what an overused cliche, sorry). A veteran self-venerating bedhopper with many affairs to her credit, her inner motivation seems to be "Whatever is good for Viviane is good for...Viviane). Following a premiere of her latest film after which a minister in the incompetent Reynaud administration, Jean-Etienne Beaufort (Gerard Depardieu in an unusual role for him), signals his interest in her, she goes home only to tiredly encounter an ex-lover who doesn't understand the word "no." She decisively resolves that issue but then frantically and histrionically enlists another former beau, the still besotted Frederic (Gregory Derangere), to help deal with the mess in her flat. Frederic is a novelist-in-expectation.<br /><br />A comic accident that once again highlights, almost as a public service message, the importance of working windshield wipers puts Frederic in jail on most serious charges. Fortunately the breakout of the Germans from their static positions forces a wholesale transfer of prisoners to the south of France but our boy escapes, making his way there privately rather than as a ward of the state.<br /><br />The panic and fear in France as the Germans swept to victory is well portrayed and a new twist enters the story. Who should Frederic encounter but the truly gorgeous young research assistant, Camille (Virginie Ledoyen) who is accompanying the obligatory Jewish refugee scientist, Professor Kopolski (Jean-Marc Stehle). Kopolski has some bottles of "heavy water" he needs to get to England. Of course the Germans musn't latch on to this vital ingredient for you know what (this part is pure fiction-there was never any heavy water in France in 1940-just Perrier). And Camille is so winsome as well as dedicated.<br /><br />What next? Peter Coyote as a supposed French journalist, Alex Winckler. Be tipped off as to his name. He's really an officer in the Abwehr (German military intelligence: a spy). And he used to bed Viviane too (and wants a reprise of their affair). Apparently the kind Kopolski is the only major male character who doesn't want to have it off with the actress.<br /><br />What follows is a series of adventures and mishaps that are seamlessly integrated to produce a very fast-paced and enjoyable film. Partly a tribute to and a bit of a spoof on "Casablanca," this is is a remarkably funny movie (except for the heavy Nazi bits).<br /><br />Isabelle Adjani deserves kudos for the best portrayal I've seen in years of an adorably cute total narcissist with few if any redeeming features. And Depardieu, disloyal to Reynauld and ready to jump ship and join the traitor, Petain, is convincing as a man whose ardor for Viviane exceeds his diluted sense of duty to the Republic. As a human being in power at a critical moment in French history, Beaufort is mundanely vile.<br /><br />Not shown in too many theaters, "Bon voyage" should be available for purchase or rental soon. See it!<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
In its way, Mister Foe (originally, and more appropriately, titled Hallam Foe I can't see addressing its title character as "mister"), is a tribute to good acting. Both Jamie Bell, as Hallam, a physically attractive voyeur/creep, and Sophia Myles, as Kate, his kinky partner in sex and fantasy romance, are convincing. The problem comes when you try to connect their roles to anything that happens in real life. A young man who spies on the intimate details of people's lives the way Hallam does would be deservedly beaten to a pulp. And a woman in Kate's situation would be repulsed and frightened - she would probably call the police.<br /><br />These things are not, however, what happens in the movie. Poor Hallam's mother has died and his father married a woman with whom he's been having an affair. Hallam, of course, hates his stepmother and lets he know it. She has sex with him. Kate's some kind of an employment person who places Hallam in a dish washing job and plays sexual games. She looks like his birth mother. It all ends happily with Hallam "resolving" his "issues".<br /><br />Forty some years ago, the play and brilliantly acted movie, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, had a similarly optimistic ending, with characters becoming wiser and better after tearing each other apart. The trouble is, it doesn't always work that way, especially when nobody really cares. In Virginia Woolf, the ending's plausible because of the intensity of the emotional revelation. In Mister Foe, the emotional revelation never really happens. | negative |
I read a small ad in some horror magazine in the early nineties about Liebe des Totes (the love of the dead) or something similar. This of course awoke my curiosity so I ordered Nekromantik 1 & 2 and Der Todesking (The Death King). The Nekromantik movies are Ok, even kind of interesting and unique in their approach to the subject Necrophilia (even if they obviously are horror-opera entries rather than intended to invoke fear in the viewers mind, they are actually quite funny.)<br /><br />TODESKING, on the other hand is, in my opinion, one of the best films ever made. It consist of a series of scenes depicting the many facets of death. Death as an enemy; Death as a reliever, Death as the very fysical decomposition of the body. The film is a metaphor over life. It shows how fragile life is and how short our lives are. It reduces its viewers to the childs they (we) actually are. The fact that we cannot really understand the nature of Death, and hence neither the process of dying, is the core message of the film. This is a most realistic film. Never does Buttgereit try to hide death behind white roses or whatever. No matter what moral standards you set up, death is unevitable, and will sooner or later be not a fiction but YOUR reality. This applies to YOU, Dear Reader, like it applies to the viewers of the film. Some juvenile reviewers seem not to grasp this, which is fully excused, since they of course will live forever...<br /><br />This is no exploitation movie. Why? Because death does not exploit us humans. It harvests us. We grow for seven days, then we are brought back to the schopenhauerian state of pre-birth, that is Death. Buttgereit gives us his version of the oldest of tales. Whether you choose to regard it as "optimistic" or "pessimistic" is up to you. At first glance it may seem very dark. Consider though, that in order for something to live, something else must die. "Who wants to live forever?"<br /><br />I believe that when Buttgereit shows a body, that are being consumed by maggots, he shows not only decomposition, but GENERATION of new life. Is it not better to die and give life to maggots and then birds and eventually become soil, than to remain the living dead zombie that is one of the the favorite pets of the genre?<br /><br />When you realize this, you see Der Todesking it its right context.<br /><br />Sieben Tage hat die Woche, siebenmal letzte Stunden. Seven are the days of week (weak, mortal !), seven times the last hour.<br /><br />Dont fear the Reaper, Buttgereit tells us, because the Reaper takes only what is ripe. And apples that are not plucked for food will rot!<br /><br />Have a good life, fellow IMDB'ers !<br /><br />(And watch this film, that compares only to Ingemar Bergmans "The Seventh Seal" in terms of depth and universality) | positive |
If you want to watch a real 'quality' movie get hold of The Eden Formula. This wondrous film must have cost all of $50 to make. It features a wafer thin script, pathetically bad sets, lighting and camera work, and a stop motion, paper-mache monster that is utterly laughable (it looks like they sometimes used a guy in a rubber suit and/or a glove puppet for the monster - but all were equally dreadful). <br /><br />The actors all speak their lines as though they've never seen them before and are reading off a teleprompter. The special effects are way beyond lousy. And the only sad thing is that they dropped the really nifty original title 'Tyranasaurus Wrecks' which sums up exactly what you get for the full 90 minutes.<br /><br />This is what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you break through to the crud that lies underneath. <br /><br />I loved every minute of it. | negative |
This movie was made 20 years before my time. Its introduction of John Garfield in the supporting role of Mickey Borden makes it a classic. He slumps onto the screen and your eyes are glued. Garfield was an original and his portrayal of fate's whipping boy is a must see. | positive |
I have loved this movie since I first saw it in 1979. I'm still amazed at how accurately Kurt Russell portrays Elvis, right down to how he moves and the expressions on his face. Sometimes its scary how much he looks, acts, and talks like the real Elvis. Thankfully this is being released on DVD, so all of us that have been waiting can finally have an excellent quality version of the full length film. I have heard the detractors, who say that there are some inaccuracies, or some things left out, but I think that keeping in mind that John Carpenter only had about 2 1/2 hours to work with, and that this was being shown on television (just two years after Elvis's death!) that he did a fine job with this. In fact I haven't seen another Elvis movie that even comes close to this one. Highly recommended. | positive |
I watched this show on the basis of it being told it was reminiscent of David Lynch's Twin Peaks - a show which I adore. The show quickly starts introducing us to the main characters and rather unusually the pilot episode is to me the best of the lot, its extremely dramatic and really gets out the whole evil side of the show ready to progress throughout the rest of the season. My one biggest criticism is I felt a little let down by the show - probably not through its own fault, as it got cancelled after a mere 1 season, it seemed to display show much potential and it deserved a lot better treatment than it got. The acting is excellent, and this show has some of the best characters (good and evil) in it I have ever seen that are well developed in a short space of time. There is the odd cheesy effect for the first 5 or ten shows which are a bit overly dramatic, but this is rectified as the season progressed. Well worth a watch, definitely something out of the ordinary! | positive |
Don't even ask me why I watched this! The only excuse I can come up with that I was sick with Bronchitis and too weak to change the channel. :) It's too terrible for words, the movie that is, not the Bronchitis. The acting is deplorable, Richard Grieco hams it up as a trigger-happy, gun-slinging serial killer with a penchant for knocking off cops. Nick Mancuso phones in a performance as the cop on his trail and Nancy Allen manages to put in the only sympathetic role in the entire film. The script is dismal, peppered with clichéd lines, "Are you ready, Pardner?" purrs Richard Grieco to every single one of his victims. Dire. Avoid. | negative |
Yes, this IS a horror anthology film and it was a lot of fun! That's because although the film clearly was horror, some of the stories had a light spirit--and there were even occasionally a few laughs. This isn't at all a bad thing as sometimes horror films are a bit stuffy and overly serious. Because of this and because all four of the stories were pretty good, it's one of the better movies of this style I have seen.<br /><br />The unifying theme that connects each story is the house itself. Four different stories involve people who either rent the home or investigate what happened to the tenants.<br /><br />The first segment starred Denholm Elliott as a horror writer who has writer's block. So, for a change of scenery, they rent this house. Almost immediately Elliott's block vanishes and he works steadily on a tale about a serial killer. Amazingly, soon after his block vanishes he begins to actually see his fictional character! Again and again, the psychotic killer appears and then disappears--making it seem as if he is losing his mind. This might just be the best of the stories, as the nice twist ending makes the story come alive.<br /><br />The second, while not bad at all, is probably the weakest. Peter Cushing plays a bachelor who is pining for a girl friend who died some time ago (though the picture of her looked amazingly contemporary). When he enters a chamber of horrors wax museum in town, he sees a wax figure that reminds him of his lost lady and he is both fascinated and scared by this. Later, a friend (Joss Ackland) visits and he, too, sees the figure and is entranced by it. This all leads to an ending that, frankly, was a bit of a letdown.<br /><br />Christopher Lee then stars as an incredibly harsh and stern father to a pathetic little girl. During most of this segment, Lee seemed like an idiot, but in the end you can understand his demeanor. Though slow, this one ended very well.<br /><br />The fourth segment was the silliest and was meant to parody the genre. Jon Pertwee (the third "Doctor" from the DR. WHO television series) is a very temperamental actor known for his portrayals of Dracula. However, nothing is right about the film according to him and in a fit of pique, he stomps off the set to find better props for this vampire film. It's actually pretty interesting that he played this role, as it seemed like a natural for Christopher Lee who played Dracula or other vampires a bazillion times (give or take a few). I enjoyed Pertwee's line when he basically said that Lee's and other recent incarnations of Dracula were all crap compared to Bela Lugosi's! Perhaps this is why Lee didn't take this part! Despite some very silly moments, it was very entertaining and fun--possibly as good or better than the first segment.<br /><br />Considering that the film started and ended so well, had excellent acting and writing, it's hard not to like this film. | positive |
This is perhaps the creepiest display of Santa Claus ever committed to any medium, whether it be a book, a picture, or a movie. Santa looks like a perv looking down on the children and the twisted story of bringing Merlin in to help him defeat one of Satan's minions, Pitch, doesn't make things any better. It's laughable to say the least, with bad effects, even for 1959 standards. If a kid were to watch this movie, he'd have nightmares and never want Santa to visit. They'd be scarred for life. Imagine the kid's in "A Christmas Story" when they start screaming after being put on Santa's lap. That's how this would turn out if kid's see this movie. | negative |
It's generally an accepted fact that Marcel Carné's 1936-1946 movies are masterpieces and it's considered polite to say that the rest are mediocrities.This is an unfair opinion:at least ,two of the latter era are eminently watchable:"Thérèse Raquin" ,his best post-war work,and "les tricheurs" (the cheats).<br /><br />There's a strange evolution from the Prevert golden hour to "les tricheurs":in "les enfants du paradis" "quai des brumes" or "le jour se lève",true love is thwarted by the villains. In "les tricheurs" true love does not exist anymore:we deal with a bunch of young people who believe in nothing;falling in love would be incongruous for this youth.The adults are not the villains at all:Mic's brother and mother are kind people ,but she is beyond their command.Very few grown-ups appear anyway.<br /><br />During two hours,the characters do not stop playing around,dancing,listening to jazz records(a music which was not still part of the bourgeois culture),and heavily drinking .When two of them discover they care for each others ,it will be too late.<br /><br />The cast is rather good ,Laurent Terzieff as an existentialist cynic and Andréa Parisy as a rich kid are the stand-outs.On the other hand,Pascale Petit and mainly Jacques Charrier(who married Brigitte Bardot the same year as "les tricheurs")do not possess the ambiguity their parts ask for.They are all smile,too sweet and to nice to be believable.<br /><br />Oddly,"les tricheurs" was labeled "nouvelle vague"!When you know what the priests of this cinema school (the likes of Godard)thought of Carné ,it's really a good joke.But this disenchantment you feel throughout the whole movie is really disturbing. | positive |
"Read My Lips" tells of a strange symbiosis which develops between a plain, socially maladroit female office worker (Devos) and her workplace trainee, a crude excon (Casel). As the film fleshes out this unlikely duo down to their ids they become embroiled in a chilling merging of the minds, each using the other for their own selfish reasons with an extraordinary outcome. Good stuff for anyone into character-driven films with strong psychodramatic undercurrents. In French with easy to read subtitles and good translation. (B+) | positive |
Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note. | negative |
This is simply the worst movie I've ever seen. Neither of the three central characters has any charm, and Erika's good looks aren't enough to carry the film. The lamest plot I've ever had inflicted upon me. Also the most unconvincing military comedy ever. Why did they bother? | negative |
Russell, my fav, is gorgeous in this film. But more than that, the film covers a tremendous range of human passion and sorrow. Everything from marriage to homosexuality is addressed and respected. The film makes the viewer realize that tolerance of other humans provides the route to saving humanity. Fabulous love story between Lachlin and Lil. I replay their scenes over and over again. Anyone who has ever been in love will empathize with these people. All characters are cast and portrayed excellently. | positive |
This little flick is reminiscent of several other movies, but manages to keep its own style & mood. "Troll" & "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" come to mind. The suspense builders were good, & just cross the line from G to PG. I especially liked the non-cliche choices with the parents; in other movies, I could predict the dialog verbatim, but the writing in this movie made better selections. If you want a movie that's not gross but gives you some chills, this is a great choice. | positive |
I've never watched a file in a language I don't understand just because I wanted to see the movie and I couldn't find it with English subs. I don't know how much I missed but it wasn't much. Probably just specific details which sounds silly until you see the emotional level of this movie and how the characters interact together. I want to mention to The Diceman from Germany there's no reason to feel that he 'sucks' when it comes to commenting on the emotional strength of the film. Like I said, I don't understand Japanese -or at least only the very small amount I came away with from reading the very lengthy novel -pro- bably my favorite all time book which I could not put down & took the next day off from work just to finish reading! I don't know if there's an English dubbed or subbed version but if the film but if there is I'd love to see it. The film was incredible in Japanese anything better is icing of the cake!! Slainte', Maegi | positive |
Wow, this movie was absolutely brilliant. I really don't know why everyone says it has a slow pace. I thought the pace was perfect. The movie is about Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks with perfection who is a sort of hit-man/ killer working for John Rooney (Paul Newman). He disslikes this job but does it because Rooney payed for his house and helps him financially. He had nothing and Mr. Rooney gave him everything. But, his children are unaware that this is his job, and when one witnesses a cold blooded murder by him, he is placed in an awkward position. And when an atrocity occurs, he leaves with his son and is bent on revenge. They rob abanks and much more and build a bond. They're the perfect team. Hanks does a great job as always as well as Jude Law who plays his creepy role to perfection. This drama is highly recommended as it shows a beautiful story and greatly shows how the 1930s were. | positive |
I can't believe this film was allowed to be made. These people should be drug out and beat with blunt objects. They should be tortured. This film is an abomination.It's nothing but footage from the first film. Whatever is original is freaky and makes no sense whatsoever. It's like some sort of drug hallucination.Like, what's with the laying on a mirror naked therapy. Also, whatever moron patched together this turd didn't even bother to watch the first film, because they kept calling Suzanna Love's character Natalie, when it's Lacey. I felt like shouting that at the screen, "IT'S LACEY, IT'S LACEY!!!!". I give it a -50 out of 10. MY GOD!!!! | negative |
Season after season, the players or characters in this show appear to be people who you'd absolutely love to hate. Is this show rigged to be that or were they chosen for the same? Each episode vilifies one single person specifically and he ends up getting killed off. You enjoy seeing them get screwed although its totally wrong and sick. You enjoy seeing them screwing others, getting screwed themselves, playing dirty, getting it back, escaping and finally getting kicked out by Trump. The amount of tears also seems to be increasing by the season.<br /><br />The rewards which attempt to compensate for past humiliation and suffering are also heavily reduced. In the newer seasons, its like "You get to meet xyx who'll lecture you about uvw"..like who freaking cares? The characters are so hateable, collectively and individually, that you wonder if they're paid actors? The only sane one gets to win.<br /><br />Watch with caution and maintain a conscience. Those are your fellow human beings in the firing line. | positive |
Screenwriter Steve Tesich's sophomore effort (following upon the wildly overpraised BREAKING AWAY) is a compendium of clichés, coincidence, and dour melodrama. Perhaps he lived some of this; if so, I'm sorry to say he was inexplicably unable to dramatize any of it convincingly.<br /><br />In fairness, he's not helped much here by Arthur Penn, a talented director who's done remarkable work in the past (BONNIE AND CLYDE, LITTLE BIG MAN), but fails to inject any energy or verisimilitude into Tesich's narrative. <br /><br />The cast struggles as best they can but are saddled with weak motivation and dialogue. Sympathies should be reserved particularly for Craig Wasson, whose morose performance presages the impending quick fade of his leading man career, as well as the embarrassingly untethered Jodi Thelen, miscast as the film's extremely unlikely 'femme fatale.'<br /><br />It all seems longer than it is, and any points made are heavy-handed and obvious. See Arthur Penn's earlier take on the subject of the 60's, the droll and elegiac ALICE'S RESTAURANT; it's everything this one isn't. | negative |
It's a bad season for Bollywood with all the big releases with a massive hype surrounding proving to be duds at the box office. London Dreams is no exception to that. Let's dissect it... It's all about chasing your dreams and how far will you go to achieve it. Sounds impressive right? But unfortunately the film is not.<br /><br />Arjun (Ajay Devgan) is an aspiring musician who wants to make it big someday. His dream is to perform in Wembley stadium in front of a cheering 90,000 audience calling out his name. He is joined by two brothers, Zoheb & Wasim (debutants Aditya Roy & Ranvijay) and a ravishing Priya (Asin). Together they form "London Dreams" their dream band. After impressing the chief of a record company, they become overnight sensations. Arjun is secretly in love with Priya which he doesn't want to reveal till he achieves his goal. Arjun then brings his childhood friend Manjit Khosla aka Mannu (Salman Khan), a carefree flirtatious guy who has got no ambitions in life, to join their band. Mannu is a trained musician and a real talent for whom later Arjun become envious for Mannu's superior skills and his affair with Priya. Arjun with the help of Zoheb plans to blight Mannu. What happens next forms the rest of the movies.<br /><br />Coming to the technical aspects, we feel only the shadow of Vipul Amritlal Sha whom we have admired in Namaste London. Felt like he simply visualized the screenplay. To cut it short, a glorified cameraman. Screenplay by Suresh Nair dulls even though it has its moments. Defined in a predictable fashion, the screenplay bore you to stiff. Camera work was awesome in capturing the beauty of London. It's the only entertaining part while watching songs.<br /><br />Few songs are hummable while others are passable noisy fare. Ajay was the one who stole the show with his negative character. Salman is monotonous and he irks you. Asin is forgettable and I don't that she will make it big in Bollywood. Aditya Roy is impressive while Ranvijay is strictly OK. Brinda as the bitch is what we have seen in innumerable movies. Ompuri is ongoing with the proceedings. I don't want to pen down about the flaws as it will be a herculean task.<br /><br />Finally let me put it simple and straight, London Dreams is a soulless movie which you may better enjoy on DVD. | negative |
"Putney Swope" is a unique, low low low budget gem from the late 1960's which probably would have been forgotten in time if it hadn't been for two things: Paul Thomas Anderson (who named Don Cheadle's character in "Boogie Nights", Buck Swope, after the eponymous hero of this film) and the limited DVD release. Watching "Putney Swope" is like listening to hardcore punk rock: it may not make a lot of sense (at least to me it didn't upon watching it for the first time), but you have to respect the film for its passion and unabashedly rebellious message. I didn't understand a lot of things about "Putney Swope", but for the most part, I liked it. The more I think about the movie, the more it grows on me.<br /><br />The film is advertised as a parody of New York's Madison Avenue, best known in the 1960's as the advertising capital of the world. Members of Generation X and Y may be lost on this concept, but fortunately "Mad Men" is on TV to provide us with this otherwise lost piece of U.S. History. What you need to know before watching this movie is that these ad agencies were largely male, and even more largely white establishments.<br /><br />With this premise in mind, the movie opens up with an ad agency board meeting. The members are predominantly white except for Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Dick Gregory in this film), the token African-American on the board. The board members are so self-absorbed and soulless that when their chairman falls dead in front of them, their only concern is who will become chairman next. Without even removing the body from the boardroom, they begin a paper ballot to elect the next chairman.<br /><br />Putney Swope is elected by a landslide, but not because the other members think Swope is qualified. Voting for Swope was an ill-fated attempt for these board members to sabotage any other member's chance of being elected chairman. With their plans backfired, Swope takes charge and "sink(s) the boat", firing all but one of the original members and hiring all people of color in their place .<br /><br />After this point, the film became (for me) very weird and hard to follow plot-wise. There may not have even been a plot, really. The whole idea of the film seems to be a "what if" scenario, with the result being that the new "Truth and Soul Inc." firm would be unconventional, but successful nonetheless. The firm ends up making so much money that the members build a huge glass case to keep the cash in for unexplained purposes. It could be because Swope doesn't trust banks, although that point is not touched upon or explained in the film. It could also be metaphoric in some way, but who knows.<br /><br />Most of the movie takes place inside the ad agency, with occasional scenes in the White House with a president who, for some unknown reason, is a midget. My assumption is here that some political joke was being made, but I can't figure out what. Were the filmmakers saying that the president is a small, insignificant part of American life? Were they saying that the latest elected officials (Nixon at the time) were insignificant candidates? I don't know. I found it a bit eerie, however, that the man playing the president bore a striking resemblance to future president Ronald Reagan. It is funny to make that connection 40 years after the movie was made.<br /><br />What this film may have benefited from is showing how consumers outside the ad agency reacted to the new ads. Of course, the ad footage possessed a strange, funny appeal for its unconventional creativity, but did these ads convince people to buy the product? If so, how? The movie hinted on the idea that the new ad campaign was successful through client interaction and the calls from the White House. However, it would have been revealing to see average people, since that demographic has always been most profitable for advertisers.<br /><br />Although the parodies and political messages this film may have made probably didn't stand the test of time, this film still had a lot of unique qualities. Arnold Johnson had a magnetic X factor to him that benefited him greatly in this film. Swope's rough voice was actually director Robert Downey, Sr.'s voice dubbed in, sometimes poorly, but fit the character so well in being an authoritative outsider. He hires and fires workers at random, but earns the respect of all but one of the employees for revolutionizing the ad agency and seeking out new ideas.<br /><br />The premise of the film was, and still is, incredibly risky, especially since the film was written and directed by a white man (Robert Downey, Sr.). However, this film declines to fall victim to negative black stereotypes which would lead to the rise and fall of the blaxploitation genre years later. Although some of the sex scenes may be a bit off-putting for some viewers, the main message is that a black owned and operated business can thrive through innovation and risk taking. Many people may not take a positive message away from this movie, but I just did.<br /><br />"Putney Swope" remains an overlooked movie from a strange era, and Downey, Sr. (even despite his son's recent comeback) never quite got the recognition as a director he deserved. However, if you find a DVD of this movie, buy it and watch it. If it's on Netflix, ditto. It's a movie that can be confusing at times, but is worth watching for its gusto, ambition, and its non-conformist stature even by today's movie standards. | positive |
Before I start, I should point out that I know the editor of this film. We've never met, but we belong to the same fanzine(those things which came before message boards), and we have talked on the phone, so I do have a bias here. Anyway...<br /><br />Somehow, it's ironic how while the "Rat Pack" culture of the late 50's and early to mid-60's made a comeback in the mid-90's, this movie, from the son of one of the original Rat Pack, and which was made in a similar fashion, was a flop. Not only that, it was a critical flop; I believe Peter Travers of Rolling Stone was the only one who did not savage this(he gave it a mixed review, as I recall). And while I don't think this is the greatest film in the world, and I am not a fan of the Rat Pack, or "cocktail," culture, I do think this is worth seeing.<br /><br />For one thing, this looks stylish, and moves right along. For another, the core performances are all good. Richard Dreyfus is surprisingly restrained here as the head gangster coming back from a sanitarium, and has a droll edge to him. Jeff Goldblum goes back to the quietly ironic performances he gave in his pre-blockbuster days, like THE BIG CHILL. And while Ellen Barkin is only required to vamp in this movie, she does it entertainingly. Admittedly, it's not a great film; the dialogue is mostly made up of puns, and a lot of them don't work(like the whole "Zen of Ben" speech). And Gabriel Byrne and Kyle MacLachlan are awful here. Still, I was entertained, and if you like gangster films, you might be too. | positive |
Wow! I remember so many awful films that loosely revolved around high school from the early 1980s. They usually had someincredibly strained plot and lots of 27 year old actors pretending to be students. As I watched this film I felt a little of the nostalgia of growing up in the 1980s. However, then I find out that this film was made in 1989? Say what! Well, the nostalgia factor ends right there, this is just bad. The plot has the city preparing to close a high school and threatening to bus all of the students to inner city high schools. Which is odd, in that the students at this school are both wealthy and abundant. In fact, the main character lives in a mansion. Makes you wonder how they cannot find money to keep this school alive, have they never heard of property taxes. Oh, but here is the kicker. The school board says that they will keep the school alive, if the students can raise $200,000. So the seniors go about doing this. Hmmm, you raise $200,000 but instead of saving that for college, you put it towards saving the high school that you are a Senior in? And why exactly would they close an overpopulated school before the year is out? And...ahh forget it, this film was stupid and made in 1989!? | negative |
Do you hear that sound? That's the sound of H.G. Wells rolling over in his grave, between this version and Spielberg's cinematic abortion it's been a tough year for the classic novel. But at least Steven got a few things right compared to this crapperella. Hello, the ships weren't big insects, they had names. They were Tripods and the aliens worked in threes. The ships and the aliens were all wrong, you don't really get to see the aliens until the end. The effects and the cast work fine. But these actors are much better then this "movie" deserves. The bulk if not all the movie is the Howell character wondering through the devastation, meeting one person, they join him and he looses them for one reason or the other. There's not more then two people on camera at any given moment though most of the movie. It's like if they filmed three at once it would put the movie over budget or something. So fat the only and mean only watchable adaptation of the WAR OF THE WORLDS story is the GEORGE PAL version way back in the 1950s. THE BLACK HOLE. | negative |
At least something good came out of Damon Runyon's misguided attempt to sentimentalize the Mafia. "Guys and Dolls," the seemingly indestructible stage musical, was captured on film in 1955 by Joseph L. Mankiewicz ("All About Eve") in a colorful, enjoyable movie that featured an all-star cast including Vivian Blaine (from the original Broadway show), Jean Simmons (whose character bears an odd resemblance to Audrey Hepburn in "Roman Holiday") and two of the all-time great leading men, Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando, both of whom had recently won Oscars for Best Supporting Actor ("From Here To Eternity") and Best Actor ("On the Waterfront") and were on the top of their game. One listen to Brando singing "Luck Be a Lady Tonight" speaks volumes about where the early Dylan got his voice. Stubby Kaye steals the show as Nicely Nicely Johnson, who brings down the house with "Sit Down You're Rocking The Boat." The ubiquitous Sheldon Leonard adds yet another page to his rogue's gallery of screen gangsters. The film has a bright, cartoonish look, anticipating the Pop Art of the early 1960s. The characters speak in a stylized patois, apparently based on Yiddish idioms. Although the film's social attitudes and gender roles are dated, it's all great fun, and even the gentle kidding of the Salvation Army is harmless and reflects no real animosity toward organized religion. Just seeing Sinatra and Brando in the same film is reason enough to watch this movie, but it has lots of other attractions to offer during its 149 minutes. | positive |
This movie deserves the 10 I'm giving it.<br /><br />But it's not the 10 that you'd give to movies like 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas' or 'Psycho'. This is the kind of 10 you give to a movie which just makes you laugh,over and over again! It's the most horribly written and directed movie, yet it doesn't fail to entertain. It has the most amateur effects, yet you enjoy every moment! I saw this movie today on TV, and I didn't want to move away! Read the following dialogue to know why!<br /><br />(Whole college is standing around Manisha,who has just undergone a rape attempt and the guys who attempted the rape are asking for forgiveness)<br /><br />Bad Guy 1: Please forgive us! <br /><br />Bad guy 2: Yes,we won't do it again. <br /><br />(No response from Manisha) <br /><br />Akshay: Come on,forgive them! <br /><br />Manisha: I don't know... <br /><br />Akshay: You are a beautiful woman, and even dead men can get aroused by you! And these are living young males! Don't blame them!<br /><br />Pancholi: Yeah Manisha.. <br /><br />Manisha(To Suniel): What if they tried to rape your girlfriend??? <br /><br />Suniel: I'd break their hands,legs and kill them.But anyways,just forgive them..<br /><br />Akshay: Yeah if you don't forgive them then it will be as though you are too arrogant about your beauty!<br /><br />Now that is a true masterpiece of a dialogue! This movie never fails to entertain, mainly because there are so many goofs and unrealistic situations! The bad guy (Munish) can do basically anything..He can blow a sandstorm from his mouth, or he can get a motorcycle from his backside and just as easily make it disappear again. <br /><br />Every actor takes turns to speak..One line from Akshay,then from Suniel, then from Arshad, then Aftab, then Nigam. It's the main rule followed by the director, so that equal screen time is given to each guy. And then there's the all powerful pendant, which can cause even a speeding car to go right through you without you being harmed! All these things make it an enjoyable movie, and I can watch it over and over again. I think this movie can go into the comedy hall of fame if there is one..<br /><br />The only problem is that it wasn't trying to be funny. | positive |
With some wine, some friends and some good humor, I had a really good time watching this film. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Jilon Ghai (as "Randy"), who was such a kick in the pants! His scenes with Charity Rahmer ("Michelle") were wildly amusing. I wouldn't want him coming on to me, but it was great watching "Randy" try to score with "Michelle" and even better seeing the results! Of course, the girls in the film are lots of fun to watch too. AND, a friend of mine showed me the PLAYBOY issue that had Pilar Lastra as the Playmate of the Month. She's definitely a looker. All in all, this film totally served its purpose, which was to entertain us in a light and care-free way. | positive |
I should no longer be surprised when critics miss the most obvious things in works of art, because they are human beings, and the vast majority of human beings are lazy by nature. That said, the simplistic notion that Ingmar Bergman's great 1968 film Shame (or Skammen) is merely an anti-war film does a great deal of damage to the reputation of this very complex, and highly nuanced, film. Compared to its more filmically showoffy predecessors, Persona and Hour Of The Wolf, Shame is seemingly a more classic film, in terms of narrative. But, the key word is seemingly, for while it lacks the bravura pop psychologizing of Persona and the gaudy horror film homages of Hour Of The Wolf, it is one of the best films ever made about war- and not as an anti-war film, nor a pro-war film. As such, it has to rank with Wild Strawberries as one of his greatest films, as well as one of his best screenplays, if not the best.<br /><br />Although ostensibly a more psychologically exterior film than the films that preceded it, it truly says far more realistic things about the human psyche and the will to survive. In it, Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman play Jan and Eva Rosenberg (perhaps a nod at the infamous American spies, whom many European intellectuals felt were innocent), two musicians who used to play for the local philharmonic orchestra before a war broke out, and they retreated to live on a small plot of land on an island, content to working in a greenhouse. The country they live in is unnamed, as is the island they live on, although the film was made on Bergman's small island of Farö, just off the northern end of the Swedish Island of Göttland. It seems that their nation has been at war for some years with an invading country, or perhaps engaged in a civil war with rebels from another province. This is all left deliberately hazy, as this war is meant to symbolize all wars. This is reinforced as the film starts with assorted war quotes on the screen, as the credits roll. These include quotes from Hitler to Vietnam Era American military figures. After early scenes that depict the prosaic nature of their rural life, and then the coming of war, where even old men are conscripted, an aerial attack ravages the Rosenbergs' land, as enemy jets fly overhead, dropping bombs and what seems to be chemical weapons of an Agent Orange like nature. One plane is hit, and a parachutist jumps out and ends up hanging in a tree. Jan, who starts off the film as a sniveling coward, refuses to go and help, so Eva goes alone. Jan joins her and they find the pilot has been shot. It seems he is, indeed, part of the invading, or possibly rebel, force. A bunch of government soldiers soon stop at their home and ask questions about the dead pilot, then advise the couple to leave their home, as the Invaders are near
. there are the misinterpretations of the film on a micro level, such as that of Bergman scholar Marc Gervais, who provides the film commentary on the DVD of the film. Like many other critics, he claims that Jacobi is a Quisling, who has collaborated with the Invaders. But, this is clearly and demonstrably wrong, for Jacobi is with the original Fascist government. As proof, first off, the Invaders are repelled after they invade the Rosenbergs' land and shoot their agitprop interview. We know this because the government that later questions them of the faked interview, and words put into Eva's mouth, see the film as supposed proof of their treason, and Jacobi is clearly working with them, the Fascist Big Brother statists. Secondly, Jacobi is in charge of deciding which of the townsfolk are sent to concentration camps, for collaborating with the Invaders, and the Rosenbergs, again, are among those spared. Thirdly, in his seduction of Eva, Jacobi tells her his son is on leave from the military, and clearly, if he was an Invader, he would not be speaking so happily of his son serving the state. Also, rebel forces are not official armies, and do not grant official leave. Lastly, Filip is clearly with the rebels, or Invaders, of the Organization, and why would he have killed a colleague?<br /><br />That Gervais and other critics so blatantly and wantonly misinterpret and flat out miss such a key and manifest point of this film brings into question their ability to discern any and all aspects of all of Bergman's films. This is a wonderful and great film, and very high in the Berman canon, but it is disappointing to read how so few critics and viewers have really understand its complex message, instead opting out for the cheap, lazy, and easy claim of its being merely anti-war, and a rather simple film in comparison to its two showier predecessors. And that, in the long run, is the real shame of Shame. | positive |
Ha ha! First of if you've never seen a "Dimension Film" your in for a real treat! Known primarily for SUPER LOW BUDGET Horror/Slasher films, "Beowulf" was no exception.<br /><br />However, this video was more in the style of ultra-cheesy. I missed the K-R-A-F-T label on the side.<br /><br />Consider the Anachronisms! (something out of place and time)<br /><br />We had: candles, armour, swords....<br /><br />Yet we saw: telescopes, Soled Shoes, Cigarette lighters, Loudspeakers, Electricity, Body Bags, aluminum foil tins,, and spoons/forks. <br /><br />Not bad for something that takes place in like the 8th Century!<br /><br />This is not a horror film, is a horrible film. Its very laughable. Its really a comedy made to look like a horror film! I couldn't stop laughing!<br /><br />Christopher Lambert ("The Highlander Series") -- must have really taken a tumble in his career if he's working for "Dimension Films."<br /><br />I've learned my lesson though. I'll be looking at the film studios on the videos, a LOT more closely now.<br /><br />RATED NO REELS OUT OF FIVE. If you want a good laugh though, its hard to pass up on this piece of work!<br /><br />This move had some cleavage in spots -- I especially liked the blonde bimbette!<br /><br />Wayno<br /><br /> | negative |
The worst movie i've seen in years (and i've seen a lot of movies). Acting is terrible, there is no plot whatsoever, there is no point whatsoever, i felt robbed after i rented this movie. they recommended it to me mind you! a disgrace for terrible movies! stay away from this terrible piece of c**p. save your money ! | negative |
Seeing as the vote average was pretty low, and the fact that the clerk in the video store thought it was "just OK", I didn't have much expectations when renting this film.<br /><br />But contrary to the above, I enjoyed it a lot. This is a charming movie. It didn't need to grow on me, I enjoyed it from the beginning. Mel Brooks gives a great performance as the lead character, I think somewhat different from his usual persona in his movies.<br /><br />There's not a lot of knockout jokes or something like that, but there are some rather hilarious scenes, and overall this is a very enjoyable and very easy to watch film.<br /><br />Very recommended. | positive |
The movie is excellent. Acting, cinematography, direction and music are spellbinding. It seems to me that the reason so many give the movie a low score is because of the devotion they have to the original, 1937 version starring Ronald Coleman. That movie - for good reason! - engendered an unbelievable level of commitment. From talking with people who saw the original when it first came out, I believe the impact was something akin to the first "Starwars" movie in modern times. I have seen it. It was and is wonderful. But that does not mean that this version is not also worthy. From the first scene the 1973 version grabs you. The noise and tumult are fantastic, especially in they way they prepare you for the peace of Shangri La. And Burt Bacharach's music is beautiful. So - by all means enjoy the 1937 version. But do not let it detract from your enjoyment of this 1973 version any more than you would let the 1935 King Kong destroy Peter Jackson's of this year. | positive |
Total disgrace! Truly awful! The screenplay and dialogue is a joke, and combined with a director who doesn't have a clue about life in Saudi Arabia. It's not a surprise, quite Saudi film ha, the director is Palestinian-Canadian, the writer is Lebanese, the lead actress is Jordanian, and the shooting took place in Dubai, and all those elements show very well to make the film far from representing the Saudi society. Yes it contains some Saudi cliché's, the stuff we see in cartoons in the newspapers everyday, but that's about everything. The film had the opportunity to show real problem with Saudi society, or at least give us something new and genuine about the youth troubles and concerns in Saudi Arabia, instead it copied and pasted from here and there, and the result was a mess. Even the supposedly love story in the movie doesn't exist or at least we haven't seen it. The only bright side in this total debacle is some good acting from the supporting cast. The veteran Khaled Sami was funny in a badly written role as the grand father, which he is clearly got miscasted, for he looks younger than the actor who plays his son. Also the actor who plays the fanatic brother's role, Turki Al-Yusuf, has done well, in fact he was the best actor in the film. The rest of the cast, being professionals for long, did an OK job, but the lead actor Hisham Abdulrahman was just bad. He had one look of a little adorable bobby for all situations. He couldn't even say his lines in a proper manner. He has charisma that made him win the title of Star Academy, a very famous reality show, and he is good in interviews and TV shows, but he was just the weakest link of this film. The lead actress I didn't mind very much, but even she acted badly in some scenes and overplayed her sensuality in unneeded way.<br /><br />The Film was a huge hit, Saudi flocked in thousands to neighboring Bahrain and Dubai to attend it when it was screened there, and it made a tone of money, then it was screened in pay per view, then in broadcasting TV, and that was in a span of a few weeks. This was to cash on Saudis eagerness to homegrown entertainment, but alas; the film was neither homegrown, nor entertaining. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.