review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Well in to 2002 I've got some catching up to do. And looking back on a lacklustre year, Best In Show shone. No great storyline. Little action. Just a cavalcade of magnificent characters. Particular reference to Fred Willard and Jim Piddock as a rattling pair of TV commentators. Well done. Well worth the effort.<br /><br />Ron (Viewed 24Mar2001) | positive |
A SUPERMAN Cartoon.<br /><br />When America unveils its colossal new bomber, the JAPOTEURS, an elite force of Japanese spies & saboteurs, strikes. Stealing the behemoth, with intrepid girl reporter Lois Lane aboard, and the destination either Tokyo or destruction, it's time for Superman to get involved...<br /><br />This was another in the series of excellent cartoons initially created by Max Fleischer for Paramount Studio. They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots. Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts. Bud Collyer is the voice of Superman; Joan Alexander does the honors for Lois Lane. | positive |
Rourke does his usual bit part,as a sinister,rancorous,Neanderthalian,ferocious,evil jerk,in the same mold as in "Picture Claire","Out in Fifty","Get Carter","Double Team" and the rest of the garbage he happens to be in.<br /><br />He has very few lines.<br /><br />Of course,all this is just junk,undervaluing Rourke,abasing him,and doesn't matter for his characterization as an actor.Still ,after seeing "A Prayer ...","Johnny Handsome","Barfly","9 1/2 Weeks","Year of the Dragon",etc.,etc.,for many years I considered Rourke an outstanding,smart,intelligent man.I think he has changed since.<br /><br />He looks callous,calcined.<br /><br />"He went about with gloomy looks;/Despair inhabited his breast/And made the man a perfect pest."(Belloc,"The Example").<br /><br />I had absolutely no other reason to watch this dull movie except that Rourke was in. | negative |
After waking up at 3:30 in the morning and not being able to go to sleep, I decided that I may as well be entertained while I suffered from sleep deprivation. This movie was on HBO and I decided to watch it. What a mistake!<br /><br />Here is the plot (potential spoilers, if you even care) : a neurotic man with an addiction to candy (Josh Kornbluth) works as a temp for some ridiculous company. Suddenly, he is offered the chance to "go perm," which seems to be the favorite catch-phrase of this movie. But with a secure job and a secure income within his grasp, Josh decides for whatever stupid reason that he doesn't want to do it. He hopelessly bungles several minor tasks and his laziness and lack of ambition fill me with contempt. His inability to send several "very important" letters within a given amount of time is supposed to be hilarious, but is merely stupid. Josh meets and deceives a lawyer woman and they wind up in bed together (obviously a fantasy of Josh's in real life, as such a thing would never happen). A bunch of other stuff happens, but it's too trite and inane to go into now.<br /><br />Despite the fact that this movie is billed as a comedy, I only laughed twice during it; the first time was the opening shot of Josh Kornbluth (my initial reaction was one of stifling fear) and the second was when he was in bed with the attractive woman (yeah, right). Josh Kornbluth is perhaps the most terrifying-looking person I have ever seen in my life. He is an unattractive, overweight, balding Jewish man who I am supposed to believe has sex with beautiful women. I do not at all sympathize with Josh's character. He is lazy and unmotivated and I just don't appreciate the failed attempts at humor. Skip it, even if your life depends upon it. | negative |
Even though The Shining is over a quarter of a century old, I challenge anyone to not get freaked out by Jack Nicholson's descent into madness. This is a rare example of something so unique that no one has been able to rip it off; instead it has been referenced time and again in pop culture. The twins, the elevator of blood, RedRum, the crazy nonsense "writing"... this should be seen, if for nothing else, to understand all the allusions to it in daily life. The film is simultaneously scary, suspenseful, beautiful, and psychologically intriguing. It has the classic mystery of Hitchcock and the terror of a modern thriller. And it has what horror movies usually lack: a great script. | positive |
Being a 90's child, I truly enjoyed this show and I can proudly say that I enjoyed it big time and even more than the classical WB cartoons.<br /><br />I don't know why; early 90's cartoons had something special; I don't know if it was the uncertainty atmosphere, a generational change, whatever. But "Tiny Toons" kept the 90's vibe and delivered one of the most popular, funny, and underrated cartoons ever created.<br /><br />The memories are murky but I can only say that I enjoyed every single episode and product related to the show. Easily, none other cartoon made me laugh in a tender way (before getting into dark sitcoms oriented for teenagers).<br /><br />The characters were all funny and had the peculiarity of not having a true lead character. Every single character was hilarious and deserved to be called a lead. | positive |
A truly, truly dire Canadian-German co-production, the ever-wonderful Rosanna Arquette plays an actress whose teenage daughter redefines the term "problem child" - a few uears prior to the "action" the child murdered her father, and mum took the fall for the offspring. Now she's moved up to the Northwest US to start over, but her child still has a problem in that she's devoted to her mother. So devoted in fact that she kills anyone who might be seen as a threat to their bond.<br /><br />Unfortunately Mandy Schaeffer (as the daughter) murders more than people - she delivers such a terrible performance that she also wipes out the movie, though the incoherent script, useless direction and appalling music (check out the saxophone the first time she displays her bikini-clad bod) don't help any; we're supposed to find her sexy and scary, but she fails on both counts. Almost completely unalluring and not even bad enough to be amusing (not to mention the fact that Arquette and Schaeffer don't really convince as mother and daughter), all condolences to Miss Arquette and Jurgen Prochnow, both of whom are worthy of far more than this, and both of whom (particularly Rosanna) are the only sane reasons for anyone to sit through this farrago.<br /><br />One of the production companies is called Quality International Films - not since the three-hour "Love, Lies And Murder" (from Two Short Productions) has there been such a "You must be joking" credit. | negative |
How could a film dealing with illegal Mexican immigrants being robbed and beaten over the border be dull? Well, "Border Incident" is.<br /><br />No wonder that song and dance man George Murphy's career ended not long after this terrible film came out. Politics was certainly a way out for this future senator who dies a horrible death in this slowly paced film. The film stereotypes the typical Mexican migrant farmer worker as dimwitted and awfully dull.<br /><br />The film only picks up in intensity once the identities of Murphy and Ricardo Montalban have been discovered as federal agents for the U.S. and Mexico respectively.<br /><br />Disappointing at best, we see similar problems in our very own society today. | negative |
Amazing. That's what you'd say if you sat through this film. Simply, incredibly, amazing. It's actually so amazing that anyone was stupid enough to dump money into making this monstrosity that you simply can't believe what you're seeing. That, my friends, is what is truly scary about this film. Somebody thought it was a good idea to make it. <br /><br />Well, here's another amazingly original story: High School student (occasionally seemed like collegego figure) has whore for a mom, lives in a trailer park, and is an "artist" who is ridiculed for his "being all different." Well, of course, this poor ridiculed boy is eventually killed and, here's the original part, his soul inhabits a scarecrow (beneath which, he is killed by his slutty mama's latest john). Then he goes around with the standard killing off of all the people that done hurt him. Awww.<br /><br />Here's the breakdown:<br /><br />The Good:<br /><br />--Amazingly funny movieeven if that's not what the clearly drunk filmmakers wanted.<br /><br />--This and the sequel on one disk in the Wal-Mart $5.00 binso it's only a little overpriced.<br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:<br /><br />--The violence and gore are kind of sub-standard. One person is stabbed with a corncob.<br /><br />--Sounds like they put some effort into the musicbut it doesn't really fit the movieand isn't all that good.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />--Terrible, terrible acting.<br /><br />--Another slasher let-down with sexy womennone of them removing clothing. When did that cease being a staple of low-brow slashers??<br /><br />--Ridiculous story.<br /><br />--The scarecrow vomits up one-liners that would make Freddy Krueger and Arnold Swartzenegger blush.<br /><br />--Standard underlying love story goes nowhere, and is poorly done.<br /><br />--Some of the people killed seem like they were chosen at randomyou never really know who anybody is and then they're killed. And you only assume that they must've had it coming.<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />--Extremely average slasher fare, just with a murdering scarecrow instead of
well, all that other crap.<br /><br />--Nowhere near as interesting as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Pinhead, Chucky, or even Angela from the "Sleepaway Camp" seriesall of which are better than this atrocity.<br /><br />--The absolute worst dialogue I have ever heard in my LIFE. The script is laden with a level of retardedness that I never imagined could exist. I'm serious hereit's a full step beyond terrible. Don't get me wrong, though, it's funny as hellbut I've never heard more asinine bantereven in "Slumber Party Massacre III." This film makes "Jason X" look like Shakespeare.<br /><br />--The man who kills the boy that becomes the scarecrow: Worst wig ever. Dialogue to match.<br /><br />Memorable Scene:<br /><br />--The one where elementary-school youths spew out their own witty dialogue: "Hey, let's go find small animals to torture. Huh huh."<br /><br />Acting: 3/10 Story: 3/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 1/10 Character Development: 2/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 5/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (No nudity, Mom's a whore, girls wear no bras) Violence/Gore: 5/10 (Low quality, mediocre amount) Dialogue: 0/10 (Extremely ridiculous, blatant, over-the-top and painfully funnyso bad it's good. My first rating for dialogue in any film!) Music: 5/10 Direction: 2/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 10/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 3/10<br /><br />Another one for just people like me who enjoy watching pure crap. Or Slasher-film completists. This is not a good movie, at all. Laughable dialogue and characters keep it from being truly boring.<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com | negative |
"Porgy and Bess" is an outstanding production of George Gershwin's masterpiece. It is tastefully done in muted colors. The voices are outstanding. Although Sidney Portier's voice is dubbed for his singing portion, he gives a very touching performance. There is a remarkable performance by Sammy Davis Jr. as Sportin Life. There is yet no DVD available for viewing, and this piece begs for one. All intelligent movie goers who enjoyed it in 1959 will appreciate the release of this masterpiece on the new medium. The screen is filled with a dynamic presentation that rivals all other musicals including the outstanding ones by Rodgers and Hammerstein. Be sure to ask for it an your video supplier. Like "Songs of the South" by Walt Disney, it may be the assumption of racial overtones that is preventing the marketing of this cinema. | positive |
I saw this at the 2008 Palm Springs International Film Festival. There are some wonderful descriptions of this film from other commenter's here and they seemed to have really enjoyed it so I won't too far into giving a film synopsis but you could see a little of Woody Allen and maybe a little of Federico Fellini in this film's collection of some 50 short sketches or vignettes strung together with no real singular plot. A few of the vignettes are related to each other in their character and plot lines however and a a corner bar is used frequently as a central scene where they are always giving last call. The beginning and ending scenes have a common theme too that bookends the film. It took three years to film this and much of the time must have been spent on finding the plainest and homeliest looking people in all of Sweden to make the cast. This is Sweden's official submission for Best Foreign Language Film for the 2007 Academy Awards. It's a nice movie but hardly worthy of an official submission for best foreign film. Last year Sweden's official submission was the very weak Farväl Falkenberg and the year before it was expensive looking but dull ZoZo, so once again Sweden will have no chance in picking up the Oscar. This film has it's moments and would have made a good 20-25 minute short film but it gets a little old and cold for a full length feature film. Roy Andersson directs. Gustav Danielsson is the cinematographer. Editor Anna Märta Waern deserves a lot of credit for the work she must have put into this. Benny Andersson of ABBA fame provides an entertaining music score. It's an interesting film with a lot of dry humor and I did like it but It's nothing really special and could only give it a 7.0 out of 10. | positive |
The Patriot (nothing to do with the Mel Gibson film of the same name) came out Steven Seagal was still doing that 'saving the environment' thing in his movies. Which is fine. But it doesn't make for good action.<br /><br />When the plot(?) of this film finally kicked in I saw the twist(?) coming a mile off. Seagal's anti-warfare, care-for-mother-nature stance is not very subtle. For a film that was originally going to debut in the cinemas it is shot very much like a TV movie despite some wonderful shots of the country by Dean Semler, the photographer of Dances with Wolves.<br /><br />Steven Seagal does like 1 fight scene in the entire film and it's totally boring. As an action film it fails, as a drama it stinks, as an environmental message it's obvious. Avoid like Ebola crossed with plague. | negative |
BASEketball is indeed a really funny movie. David Zucker manages to make us all laugh our heads off again, in a really silly, but many times smart, comedy.<br /><br />The 2 creators of South Park, the main actors in this film, play very good, surprisingly good actually, but this is the first time i see them as actors. The movie oftenly reminded me of South Park - one of my fav shows.<br /><br />It's a really good and funny film, so don't miss it.<br /><br />Vote: 7.5 out of 10. | positive |
There are films that are not released in theaters but on video. This one should be allowed to age and disintegrate the way old nitrate film stock does. No story, inept violence, over acted, badly written and the sorry thing is that the star was not the only bad part in the film. And I did like and enjoyed some of Siegel's other movies. | negative |
This is a movie that should be viewed and treated as a piece of art. This is an oblivious labour of love by the Schrader brothers about the life of Yukio Mishima that is full truly artistic elements. The movie jumps from color to black and white, past to present, fictional works by Mishima to him. All without being confusing in the least bit. The only thing that gets me is that the entire movie, with the exception of the narrator's spoken parts is in Japanese. Still a masterpiece that deserves an audience but hasn't found won. Criterion, if you are reading this, this is a film that should be released under your imprint with as much extras as possible. This film truley deserves more. 10/10 | positive |
I've been willing to put up with a lot from late-spring/summer action fluff movies, but in general that's been due to the fact that most of them have reasonable payoff (i.e. cool special effects, interesting plot twists, comic value, Steve Buscemi, etc.). This movie, however, had none of this. All that we got was the cheap thrill of several minutes of Eva Longoria's cleavage (an issue of Maxim is cheaper than a movie ticket). There is an embarrassing lack of plot, suspense, back story, character development, continuity, etc. I would get into specifics, but quite frankly I've already-maybe willingly-forgotten most of the movie.<br /><br />The entire time I was in the theater, I was kicking myself for not just spending the afternoon watching a 24 season on DVD. Save your money on this one, folks. Unless you really, really, really like Eva Longoria's cleavage. | negative |
Obviously, someone was looking at catching onto the "Blair Witch" wave.<br /><br />This movie was set up like all the "reality" haunted shows that are popping up on TV lately (and I must admit, I get a kick out of these), but this movie is MUCH cheesier! Probably the first three-quarters of the movie is filled with the "participants" going through the house, WHINING. Give me a break! Spending 10 minutes whining about going up into the attic is not my idea of a good time. Any paranormal happenings are blatant setups. No strings, but too perfectly caught on camera to be real. The "participants" were not very likeable either. Two goofy guys who don't take it seriously, one girl who scares at the drop of a hat, and the quintessential over-played "paranormal" person. Is this becoming the clichéd-"formula" for a ghost movie?<br /><br />I have to admit, the last 15 minutes or so were pure tension. They took every ounce of tension in the movie and stuck it in those 15 minutes. I admit, I spent that time pacing in the kitchen. I really wouldn't recommend this movie to younger viewers, even if it is PG13.<br /><br />If you're looking for some entertainment, if you don't take it seriously, you will get a kick out of this movie. There's tons of situations to make cracks about! If you're looking for an great story-line.. look elsewhere ;) | negative |
Can I give this a minus rating? No? Well, let me say that this is the most atrocious film I have ever tried to watch. It was Painful. Boringus Maximus. The plot(?) is well hidden in several sub-levels of nebulosity. I rented this film with a friend and, after about thirty minutes of hoping it would get better, we decided to "fast forward" a little to see if things would get any better. It never gets better. This film about some dude getting kidnapped by these two girls, sounds interesting, but, in reality, it is just a bore. Nothing even remotely interesting ever happens. If you ever get the chance to watch this, do yourself a favor, try "PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE" instead. | negative |
Bon Voyage is fun for the audience because it combines the requisite silliness of a comedy with just enough sobriety to keep viewers actively engaged and invested in the outcome. Most importantly though, the film is also historically instructive; it captures the tension of the so-called "phony war" and, later, the French aristocracy's flight from Paris ahead of the German onslaught. Yet Bon Voyage is not a "war movie." It is a comedy about the lives of a handful of people set against the backdrop of extraordinary times. Bon Voyage conveys the chaos, confusion, and emotional bewilderment of a nation of the brink of collapse and the wide spectrum of French reactions to the new political order. This film is a comedy which entertains the audience, a romance which skillfully utilizes many clichés, and a story of a handful of people whose nation is collapsing around them. | positive |
A large bed possessed by a demon eats people, among other things. I'm not making this up.<br /><br />Completed in 1977 and not officially released until it came to DVD in 2003, "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is a movie whose plot is impossible to describe. You most likely know of it thanks to Patton Oswalt's excellent bit about it, as well as Stephen Throwers essential book "Nightmare USA." While watching it, you wonder the following<br /><br />-Who is George Berry, and what drugs did he smoke/inject/snort before writing and directing this movie?<br /><br />-Is this a horror comedy? A combination of a horror flick and an art movie? A weird prank being pulled on the audience?<br /><br />-What the hell am I watching?<br /><br />"Death Bed" really defies any explanation. I know, that term is overused, but it couldn't be truer than it is here. This truly beggars description. It is a horror comedy, as well as art film/horror hybrid. But the whole thing is so surreal, it must be seen. The score sounds like the electronic bits from an old Candlemass album, the acting is terrible and disconnected from everything, the direction is surprisingly competent, and the movie at times feels like a Jesus Franco movie-that is, if his movies were intentionally funny.<br /><br />In the end, there really is no proper way to describe this movie. Lord knows I've tried, but really, few movies are as odd, unique, or mind boggling as this is. See it...but you've been warned. This is also the only movie George Berry has ever done. He definitely left his mark on the exploitation genre with this, I'll tell you that much. | positive |
Written by the writer who penned the excellent Murder Rooms series which chronicled ACD's adventures with Doctor Joseph Bell, I was looking forward to this and I wasn't disappointed. It was quite slow moving, with a lot of emphasis on Doyle's frustration at Sherlock Holmes which was very accurate and excellently portrayed. It was an interesting character study and very well shot ( on digital video, unusual for a period piece ). The acting was excellent all round, particularly Tim McInnery and Brian Cox although the actor who portrayed ACD, whose name I cannot remember impressed me no end. An excellent character study which has about the same amount of twists as any normal Sherlock Holmes case. Do see this if you get the chance | positive |
This movie ... I saw it 15 years ago and in the last years couldn't remember it any more, name or anything else, just it was about a Romanian country man played superbly by Anthony Quinn. The impression I got from this drama will be eternal. Finally I found the name of the movie, I hope I will be able to buy it. And honestly this movie worth 10 Oscars. Ten times BRAVO. I was quite young when I first saw the movie. I asked my friends if they heard about this story but nobody would know anything about Anthony Quinn playing the role of a Romanian peasant. I remember when a German officer came and saw Anthony and told him he was a good "breed" but in fact the German was cheating on him. For few bucks you won't get rich in case you buy the movie but you will be rich if you have it. | positive |
T. Rama Rao made some extremely beautiful films in the 1980s, but he seems to be a filmmaker who cannot mature with the changing times, styles and fashions. He's like stuck with the same old-fashioned film-making style.<br /><br />Actors are not bad, not good either. Anil Kapoor generally acts convincingly his two roles of a father and his son, but the flawed script often makes him look funny and pathetic. Rekha is good, but then - she's always good, and here she's nothing more than such. She makes the best of what she is given, but she always does that. In conclusion, nothing great at all. Raveena is OK, which means ordinary, not bad, not good, nothing.<br /><br />This film is melodramatic, occasionally stupid. Maybe it's a delayed film? Well, even then it still would be below standard. The script is terrible, the film is overdone, and the story goes nowhere. It feels like a film made in the early 1990s, but the script makes it look even older, the style is like from the 1950s.<br /><br />Don't recommend, unless you're a big fan one of the starring actors. | negative |
Madhur Bhandarkar goes all out to touch upon taboo issues and gives the most realistic picture of the modern society. One gets the impression of the director even from his earlier movies like Satta and Chandni bar. The issues just hinted on in the latter movie are explored and exposed in totality here. The casting is amazing and one can see the judgements on each scene from many angles. Mostly, the movie leaves you wondering on lots of facts around. As you start guessing the things, you end up at most being close, but missing the mark in many a scenes. It leaves a lasting impression in the end.<br /><br />Actors to watch are Konkana Sen Sharma, Boman Irani & Atul Kulkarni among others. The dialogues are well written and you feel you've lived around some of these people. There are still some scenes that make you think of more depths. The songs are in the background saving time and Lata's voice in a very meaningful song "Kitne Ajeeb" leaves you feeling you're left all alone in the midst of the modern society! | positive |
The hysterical thing about this movie is that, according to the director, it has difficulty finding a distributor in the U.S. because most of them that viewed it couldn't reconcile the seemingly conflicting messages of Christianity and American angst. The thought of anyone seeing this as a religious film in anyway is laughable.<br /><br />Because a minister at a mission prays with the homeless or wishes someone "Godspeed" this makes it a "Christian" movie? One could interpret that it is actually mocking religion for in the "Land of Plenty" with all of its material excess, the best an organized mission can do is hand out a bowl of soup and a bible verse. Plenty of unfortunate or downtrodden maybe? Plenty of useless homeless missions? How about plenty of psycho Vietnam vets? As a pill-popping delusional survivor of agent "pink" are we to think America is a "Land of Plenty" of paranoid patriots? Maybe we have plenty of psychiatric patients? Certainly we don't have plenty of people concerned about Palestine politics based on the main characters phone conversation in the film. Of course if you worked in a German homeless shelter the unfortunate there would be much more concerned about peace in a distant land than their own personal survival as the world knows how Europe is the "Continent of Plenty" when it comes to sophistication.<br /><br />Indeed I agreed with the title in the end as the United States is the "Land of Plenty" and in this particular case it refers to the abundance of poor scripts, amateur acting and dispassionately directed films. Life is too short and one, even an American, doesn't have "plenty" of time to waste watching this piece. | negative |
Life Begins is a wonderful pre-code film starring some of the best of the era. It is set in the maternity ward of a hospital, particularly in the room for the women expected to have trouble. In it is an older woman, a tough unwed mother (Glenda Farrell), a frail young woman, an Italian woman, and the main character (Loretta Young) who is spending 20 years in prison for murder. Her husband (Eric Linden) is at the hospital at every second aching to know that everything will be okay. Aline MacMahone plays the nurse who is great at her job.<br /><br />This film is highly interesting and entertaining. It isn't terribly shocking in any way, but it is interesting to see such a neglected subject on the silver screen. The acting is brilliant all around. Loretta Young is gorgeous here in her prime. Eric Linden comes out of nowhere and is sincere as can be. His innocence is reminiscent of Michael J. Fox. Glenda Farrell is great as always, a staple of pre-codes and for good reason. | positive |
I had never heard of this one before the owner of my local DVD rental outlet mentioned it to me; being a 1980s horror flick with the notorious distinction of having been banned in the U.K., I decided to check it out. The film turned out be a dull, amateurish and ugly-looking ride; the sound recording is so poor that dialogue is unintelligible half of the time, whereas the acting gives new meaning to the word inept! <br /><br />What’s worse, the film follows the awfully tired formula of a trio of teenage girls being involved in an accident and finding themselves sheltered by a dysfunctional family living in remote surroundings. Soon, one of the girls goes to look for help and is never heard from again; another, still bed-ridden, is quickly disposed of (after being forgotten for most of the duration). The heroine is the one to interact the most with the three inhabitants of the house: a harridan of a bible-thumping mother (cue horrendous overacting), her repressed (and long-suffering) daughter, and the latter’s weirdo brother who occasionally appears on the scene to drool over the sleeping female guests.<br /><br />Often resorting to dinner-table reminiscences by the man-hating mother (as a means of filling in the dreary, to say nothing of unoriginal, backstory) and which invariably develop into mother-daughter sparring contests, the film does have one ace up its sleeve – the twist ending is as unexpected as it is ingenious, but it does little to remove the bad taste left in the mouth by the film (as much through the lameness of it all as the intermittent gore) or the inescapable feeling of having wasted 80 minutes of my time... | negative |
I must say that during my childhood I'm quite proud of a lot of the movies I've rented. The exception being Theodore Rex. Talk about the all time swindler movie in any actor's resume. Could you just imagine what Whoopie's fired agent must have told her to sign on to this piece of crap "Hey Whoop, you ever seen that show Dinosaurs, yeah well they're making a movie out of it, and you get to see Germany!" After that that agent must have referenced Star Wars a lot.<br /><br />This movie was so bad I figured Whoopie must have bought out every copy of this film and had it destroyed. I just wish she could have done the same thing to my memory, because my sister still gives me crap for watching that movie. I mean c'mon, I'll even admit I watched Mr. Nanny and Kazzam in theaters (good reasons why I gave up on both Hulk Hogan and Shaq for awhile), yet this one sticks out in my mind as the worst of my childhood, and the biggest rental regret of my life, and that was 16 years ago. I'm 24 now if you want to do the math.<br /><br />Whenever I think of my all-time list of worst movies I don't even mention this one, because like a raped step-child, I try hard to repress that it ever happened. Screw you Whoopie, just be glad people only acknowledge Eddie and Sister Act 2 as your worst you lucky stiff. | negative |
God bless Randy Quaid...his leachorous Cousin Eddie in Vacation and Christmas Vacation hilariously stole the show. He even made the awful Vegas Vacation at least worth a look.<br /><br />I will say that he tries hard in this made for TV sequel, but that the script is so NON funny that the movie never really gets anywhere. Quaid and the rest of the returning Vacation vets (including the orginal Audrey, Dana Barron) are wasted here. Even European Vacation's Eric Idle cannot save the show in a brief cameo....<br /><br />Pathetic and sad...actually painful to watch....Christmas Vacation 2 is the worst of the Vacation franchise. | negative |
Being featured at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival and gaining quite some fame, this movie appears to be another modern and profound school drama. <br /><br />It's about a bunch of adolescents who get through a revealing and desperate day at school. Everything's circling around a suicide - shown at the very beginning to some extent - that happens at 2:37pm. The characters are somehow all connected with each other. What moves them is described via short interview sequences, strictly shot in b/w. The characters are well written, the acting is intriguing (especially Teresa Palmer as Melody and Frank Sweet as Marcus are discoveries).<br /><br />Let's stick to the movies' technique. That's what really impressed me. There rarely are cuts, most of the time the camera follows one of the protagonists like in Gus van Sants' Elephant. Some scenes are presented more often than once, but each time from a different point of view (here: character). This surely evokes a slowly developing, but grabbing atmosphere that drags you inside literally. The colours are vibrant, somehow unfitting considering the tough plot - but that's nothing less than a clever contrast, a disturbing 'everything's fine thing'. The use of lighting is adequate all the time, underlining the characters' actual mood. And finally, there are decent placements of music.<br /><br />2:37 somehow itches you from the very beginning. It does not compromise nor does it serve laughter. It rather strings together what psychologists would define as terror moments. This movie substantially focuses on emotional precipices. There ain't nobody who's not to handle some kind of neurosis, even the depicted minor parts (e.g. the teachers) seem to be in some state of disorder. And that is what keeps this movie from being really good. Its summing up of piercing tragedies is unrealistic to its very bones. There is no: friendship, love, smiling, truth, passion. There is: faking, humiliation, despair, sickness and beating up. It's like being hit in the face real hard all the time, but you are numb after the first hour. This flick keeps on hitting you, until it reveals something quite instructive in the end.<br /><br />For being sensitively and superbly acted: 9. For being technically innovative and original: 9. For being unidimensional: 3.<br /><br />Makes a solid 7 out of 10. | positive |
"Walking with Dinosaurs" is absolutely brilliant in every regard. Kenneth Branagh narrates in a way that really makes you want to listen. The script for the documentary really sounds as though the researchers and writers had done their homework, it is so insightful and it does get you hooked and never lets go. The music is also brilliant, very dramatic when it needs to be. But the visual effects and scenery are what makes this documentary work so well. The scenery is breathtaking, and the dinosaurs look so real, thanks to the simply astounding effects. This is so informative with such a good concept and attracts not only adults but kids too.<br /><br />In conclusion, this is a must watch. Not only did I love this, but this is quite possibly the best documentary I have ever seen. If anything, it could have done with being longer, other than that this is perfect. 10/10 Bethany Cox | positive |
This is truly a re-make that should never have gotten out of the stable. It has two casts that are acting in entirely different strata. At the top of their game are Joan Plowright and Maximillian Schell. Every nuance of the Franks is in plain sight. at the rock bottom are Melissa Gilbert and Doris Roberts. I cannot imagine how Schell and Plowright manage to play so well when Gilbert and Roberts are working their anti-magic. Gilbert ruins every scene she's in. It's like Father Knows Best in the Ghetto. She's Ann Frank light. Her run at Helen Keller was thin but not awful. This is sacrilege. Doris Roberts makes Mrs. Van Damm merely annoying. She is a completely inappropriate choice to play the sexually hungry woman whose flirtatious, dissatisfied presence caused so much trouble in het Acherhuis. This needed to be played by a woman who could convince us that she at least remembered what it was like to voluptuous. Her weight is not the problem. Joan Plowright could have played this part beautifully. Roberts was on a career high when this was made, getting lots of press and many opportunities. Her performance here displays her weaknesses as an actress shamefully.<br /><br />James Coco and Clive Reville, have most of their scenes with Gilbert and Roberts , and , strong though they are, they are completely incapable of undoing the damage done by their partners. Reville is a wily actor capable of the kind of iconic performance given by Ed Wynne in the original film. He gets no support from Gilbert . She drain the color out of every scene. <br /><br />I've read with dismay the comments by those of you who grew up watching this version, filled with attachment to these performances. It's a lesson in how the version you see first attachs to you. It makes me reconsider my attachment to some inferior products I loved in my childhood. I encourage you to watch the original. It has very few weak spots and it's head and shoulders above this mess. | negative |
Budget limitations, time restrictions, shooting a script and then cutting it, cutting it, cutting it... This crew is a group of good, young filmmakers; thoughtful in this script - yes, allegorical - clever in zero-dollar effects when time and knowledge is all you have, relying on actors and friends and kind others for their time, devotion, locations; and getting a first feature in the can, a 1-in-1000 thing. These guys make films. Good ones. Check out their shorts collection "Heartland Horrors" and see the development. And I can vouch, working with them is about the most fun thing you'll do in the business. I'm stymied by harsh, insulting criticism for this film, wondering if one reviewer even heard one word of dialogue, pondered one thought or concept, or if all that was desired of this work was the visual gore of bashing and slashing to satisfy some mindless view of what horror should mean to an audience. Let "The Empty Acre" bring itself to you. Don't preconceive what you expect it should be just because it gets put in the horror/thriller genre due to its supernatural premise. It's a drama with depth beyond how far you can stick a blade into someone with a reverence for a message that doesn't assault your brain's visual center, but rather, draws upon one's empathetic imagination to experience other's suffering of mind and spirit. mark ridgway, Curtis, "The Empty Acre" | positive |
Cecil B. deMille really knew how to create a classic, and after 7 decades his western comes across as the Real McCoy, engrossing, entertaining, spectacular; in no way outdated.<br /><br />As a real fan of TV's DEADWOOD, I'll tell you the performances of Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickock and Jean Arthor as Calamity Jane are far more on-target.<br /><br />We don't have any giants in Hollywood anymore. PLAINSMAN is just one of dozens of classics from the 1936-1945 decade that have seen enduring commercial life decade after decade: released, re-issued, re-issued all over again. Filmmakers like today's Spielberg, Jackson, Bruckheimer are like kids playing in a sandbox. None of today's movies will be sought out in 7 months let alone 70 years. | positive |
don't watch this Serbian documentary and Serbian propaganda look out for this documentary and you will see facts and truth http://imdb.com/title/tt0283181/<br /><br />The Death of Yugoslavia documentary series (of five episodes) is a painstakingly compiled and researched account of the extended mass-bloodshed which marked the end of the old Federal Yugoslavia and spanned almost the entire first half of the 1990's. It includes a huge wealth of news footage and interviews with involved parties both "Yugoslav" and otherwise. The only real "improvement" which could be made to this amazing achievement would be the inclusion of later developments in the Balkans since the program was made. This was indeed done in the late 1990's for a repeat showing on BBC television, but the addition of some even more recent events would help to complete this admirably detailed and fulsome piece of work. Perhaps another whole episode might be warranted? The very succinct title of this documentary was made all the more appropriate by the eventual abandonment of the term "Yugoslavia" by the now-named Federal Republic of Serbia and Montenegro - a much belated and formal admission of that which occurred years before.<br /><br />not fiction like in "Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War (1999)" | negative |
HUSBANDS BEWARE is a remake of the Shemp classic BRIDELESS GROOM. The film's new cooking scene at the beginning of the film is great. The stooges are always funny when they cook. However after the first few minutes of cooking footage, we cut to original footage of BRIDELESS GROOM. One thing I noticed about these 1953 to 1956 remakes are that they do fit with the new story. They do an insert shot if the old story line doesn't match.<br /><br />HUSBANDS BEWARE does have a new ending, but I won't give it away to those who want to be surprised.<br /><br /> **** out of 4 stars. | positive |
I too am a House Party Fan...House Party I is my favorite movie of all times. House Party 4 is a disgrace to all of the HP's and to Kid n Play...This was supposed to be part of a series really..there was nothing about kid n play in this movie or any of the other veterans..yea kid n play was probably too old to be throwing a House Party movie b/c its kind of focused on teens..but kid n play could have at least made a cameo appearance ... you can tell how good it was b/c it didn't even make it to the movie theaters. Immature was in House Party 3 so it made sense for them to carry on the legacy...but they should have represented right...they should have left it at House Party 3. I am 27 years old and I have been watching House Party I since I was 11 when it came out in 1990(16 years ago) and I have been a fan ever since. When I first seen House Party 4 I was like what are they really thinking about...There was nothing familiar about this movie that would compare to the previous 3 movies.. I thought it was a black Ferris Bueller days off. | negative |
Bobbie Phillips, who in her own right has amassed a great list of credits as a hard working Hollywood actress, shines in this third installment of UPN and Village Roadshow's Chameleon series. In this installment, the sexual innuendo has been toned down with Kam showing a caring maternal side towards a recently orphaned genius teen. Bobbie delivers this role to the viewers with great panache'. The action and stunts were the best in the series. | positive |
If it wasn't for the bad dialogues and script. I mean, the direction was really in touch with it's subject. The actors were doing good at bringing their characters to life. But in the end, the thing that was really missing was a solid script to hold all the pieces together. I would highly suggest not to watch this. Unless you're a Al Pacino enthusiast like I am and will watch everything he is playing in. Even if the result lately are rather poor. This is, after S1m0ne, a second very bad movie for this actor that once knew how to choose roles. | negative |
Blake Edwards tried very hard to change Julie Andrews image in this film. He tried to make her sexy not realizing she already was. I think they were both still a bit irked that Julie had not been chosen to film her Broadway success of Camelot and was passed over as not being sexy enough. Unfortunately, they chose this vehicle to try and assuage this belief. It gets to the point where it is almost funny seeing Rock Hudson, who we all know now was gay, kissing Julie every 2 minutes throughout this movie. It seems now that they were not only trying to make you believe that Julie was a femme fatale but that Rock was straight. Sadly, they have absolutely no chemistry together and the unending kissing scenes start grossing one out. The other error they made with this picture was not knowing what kind of movie they were making. It is almost three separate movies. There is the drama of Julie as the German spy trying to get military secrets from Rock. There is an air war movie with lots of footage of WWI vintage planes swooping about and there is the stupid attempts at humor that Blake Edwards seems to think he has to insert in every one of his pictures whether it is appropriate or not, In this case, it was not. The only truly redeeming qualities in this film are looking at the always lovely Dame Julie and hearing her sing in that crystal clear bell-like soprano. Of course if you love her, you may overlook the weaknesses of this film just because of her. You can always tell yourself, afterward, that it was a hell of a lot better than sitting through STAR! | negative |
I have been away from Istanbul for the last 10 years. During that time I constantly lived in London. When I have seen the movie I realised how much I am Istanbuler. I am not just from Turkey I am a part of Turkey. One of my part is Istanbul, the sound of the Istanbul, the people of the Istanbul.<br /><br />Probably Faith Akin thought that he has done great musical documentary but I must say it is more than that. It is about putting nice blend of vastly different musics, cultures, approaches, politics, ethnics into a delicious pot...<br /><br />As we all know Turkey to be precise Istanbul is always comes and goes between being eastern or western city. As one of the band member said Istanbul is a bi-cultural city. But much more a eastern city because we always tried to be a western city. It shows we've never been one.<br /><br />This movie will catch from very first second. Music is excellent, people are fascinating. Especially Aynur and Sezen Aksu. Singers, band members! It is nice to see you all at a small cinema in Wood Green. | positive |
The film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story. | negative |
Note: These comments are for people who have seen the movie.<br /><br />Vanilla Sky is a brilliant, complex, and thrilling movie that existentially explores exactly what the tag-line says: LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriends. Maybe the movie plot can come into focus for confused movie-goers if one looks at it from a different angle.<br /><br />Considering the following:<br /><br />Now, I have not painstakingly gone through the film scene by scene, so I will have to further examine my assertions, (and I welcome your thoughts) but give this a try and see if the movie doesn't fall into place: Where exactly does the debatable 'splice' occur?<br /><br />Now, I'm not talking about the splice as it is explained by the L.E. 'technician', since that sequence itself could be actually interpreted as a rationalization inside of David Aames's mind/dream/coma state, but the true splice between reality and dream.<br /><br />It seems to me that the reality of the car crash, the way that it is filmed (no explosion, for example) is a likely 'splice' point, and that any particular sequence containing an existential/dream/coma/non-reality feel to it -- whether it's shown onscreen before or after the crash -- is actually a part of Aames' personal journey toward self-realization inside of his own mind.<br /><br />In that respect, then, we are left with two questions at the very end(if you know of more, let me know): is Aames actually disfigured, and where does he wake up?<br /><br />If you don't get entirely wrapped up in the exact sequence of details in the plot, or at what particular point his dreams are scattered throughout, this movie becomes a fascinating exploration of a human on a journey to find himself and what that means in today's pop-culture society.<br /><br /> | positive |
I can't quite explain why I find this so alluring and "The Leopard" not; it may be because the focus here is on all that was great with that film, those intimate moments that Visconti can render so magnificently. Like that film, it has a majestically slow pace, but this time it isn't overlong. It's the kind of film where nothing happens but twenty minutes passes like that. I think that must be due in part to the way the film deals with flashbacks that act as their own mini-story. Like "The Leopard," it has a sympathetic lead who brings out the same kind of worn pathos -- though Bogard's performance is more willing to open itself to being unlikable, especially in look: he has a really stupid grin that's easy to dislike. It's often quite beautiful in the quiet moments. It's the opulence of Visconti's films, the grandeur of the ball scenes, that I find tedious, as they exchange individual clarity with mass precision. But here, that is part of the point -- Gustav surrounded by a visual din.<br /><br />The way in which the object of Gustav's affection is introduced to us is quite brilliant -- the camera shows a girl, girl, girl, then this beautiful, feminine-featured boy. It's like an allusion to Shakespeare's sonnets, and it doesn't feel heavy-handed. (It's not until the camera views Tadzio fully, pulls back and we see his long, slender legs, that we realize he is not a boy, but an adolescent -- at first we're forced to question Gustav's attraction in an uncomfortable way; Visconti must have known that, and he doesn't shy away from it.) Visconti is extremely patient with Gustav; we get a sense of the man, we know him. It's a largely silent performance, and when he does open his mouth it's to spew venom; no wonder he wants the angelic, open-featured boy to project himself onto. There's a difference with Tadzio (we never know him, just as we never know a handful of Fellini grotesques; but that's because his life is another, its own film), but it's not as flirtatious as it's been made to seem (there is one scene, however, where he twirls around a pole that's too much). Tadzio isn't necessarily leading him on -- he's looking at him; Visconti just zooms in is all.<br /><br />The film doesn't detail Gustav as being gay -- Tadzio isn't even really male, he's a prettified version of a boy (delicate, pale, wispy, with golden locks) that everyone seems to love (including one gorgeous, slightly older young man who he wrestles with). The closest they go to showing what could be understood as a reference to Gustav's homosexuality is the famous barber scene, which unlocks his repressed vanity.<br /><br />It isn't totally successful -- the whole section with Alfred is a waste, and some unnecessary scenes, people carrying bags in long shot, could have been excised. Some parts are heavy-handed, such as when Gustav's boat pulls in and rowdy boys pass him by -- the looks on his face are too obvious. (But during the same scene Gustav throws a fit, wanting a new rower, something so unexplainable that it makes up for it.) But there are some scenes -- touching for the first time -- that build up a remarkable, quiet intensity. Tadzio repeating a piano song again and again, the notes quivering in the air, may be the best example of the anxiety the film has. There is one discussion that contains a debate I'm especially interested: Can art be spiritual if it satisfies the senses, or does it have to go beyond them? (We can consider Tarkovsky, who esteems both Visconti and Mann, to be the prime example of someone going beyond mere sensory sensations.) I think this one manages to do both. 9/10 | positive |
This movie documents a transformative experience for a group of young men, and the experience of watching it is in itself transformative for the viewer. Few movies even aspire to this level of transcendence, and I can think of no other movie -- documentary or drama -- that achieves it. There is no other movie in which I have both laughed so much and cried so much. Yes, it is about DMD and accessible travel; on those issues alone, it is a worthwhile venture, but it is more. It is about friendship. It is about life itself, about living every day that you're alive. And it's a great, fun, adventurous narrative. This is why God created the cinema! See this movie!!! | positive |
Im proud to say I've seen all three Fast and Furious films.Sure,the plots are kinda silly,and they might be a little cheesy,but I love them car chases,and all the beautiful cars,and the clandestine midnight races.And Ill gladly see a fourth one.<br /><br />Wanna know what the difference is between those three and Redline?Decent acting,somewhat thought out plot,even if they are potboilers,and last but not least,directors who have a clue.All three were made by very competent directors,all of them took the films in a different direction,equally exciting.Redline looks like the producer picked out a dozen women he slept with on the casting couch,and made them the extras,then picked up his leads from Hollywood's unemployment line.And the script.Yikes.Its Mystery Science Theatre 3000 bad.This is 70's made for TV movie bad.<br /><br />Yeah,the movie had a few cool cars,but you don't really get to see that many in action,and the action is directed so poorly you cant get excited by the chases,and if the cars aren't thrilling you,why go to a movie like this?<br /><br />Im in the audience with a bunch of teenagers,and I cant stop laughing out loud.Im getting dirty looks,but this was just a debacle.<br /><br />Rent the F&F movies.Go to Nascar Race.Go to a karting track and race yourself.Whatever you do,avoid Redline like bad cheese. | negative |
A wealthy young man, raised as a SON OF THE GODS, must confront his Chinese heritage while living in a White world.<br /><br />Although the premise upon which this film is based is almost certainly a biological impossibility and the secret of the plot when revealed at the movie's conclusion makes all which has preceded it faintly ludicrous, the story still serves up some decent entertainment and good acting.<br /><br />Richard Barthelmess has the title role as the sweet-natured Oriental whose life is terribly complicated because he looks Caucasian. Barthelmess keeps the tone of his performance serious throughout, gazing intently into the middle distance (a mannerism he developed during Silent Days) whenever his character is indecently misused. He makes no attempt to replicate his classic performance in D. W. Griffith's BROKEN BLOSSOMS (1919) and this is to his credit. Beautiful Constance Bennett is the millionaire's daughter who makes Barthelmess miserable. She is gorgeous as always, but her behavior does not endear her to the viewer and her terrible illness in the final reel is kept mercifully off screen.<br /><br />Multi-talented Frank Albertson has a small role as Barthelmess' improvident buddy. Serene E. Alyn Warren and blustery Anders Randolf play the leading stars' very different fathers, while Claude King distinguishes his brief appearance as the English author who befriends Barthelmess.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize little Dickie Moore, uncredited, playing Barthelmess as a tiny child.<br /><br />The original Technicolor of the flashback sequence has faded with time to a ruddy tint. The shot purporting to be the South of France instead looks suspiciously like Avalon on Santa Catalina Island, off the coast of Southern California. | positive |
The Neil Simon's Sunshine Boys starring Walter Matthau and George Burns is a funny comedy on the strange bond to the life and its shortness, but the laughter always bitter taste. Seeing Willy Clark(Matthau) and Al Lewis(Burns) two big theatrical comedy actors now reduced on the imbecility from the hard and unceasing old age you can feel only anger and blue. Willy not ever surrender and continue to look work, while Al is tired for players and he is retired to the country in the house to his daughter. The couple in his old time was truly funny and harmony, but out the scene was a continue squabble and to quarrel, and for eleven years after their broken they not talk between. Now if they would work, they must return together another time for do one of his best old sketch for a comedy story TV show. The meets is explosive and liberating for the old questions
. The Neil Simon's screenplay give a certain corrosive spirit to the story and the melancholy and blue overwhelming the many gags and laughter succeeded to generate a good mix also thanks to a great couple Walter Matthu(Nomination Academy Award as Best Actor) and George Burns(Won the Academy Award as Best Support Actor). The two actors are very believable and real and the their harmony seems almost as they real work together for all that time and that realty they not bear between them. The movie is very touching also for its all consuming reality as the story is narrate and how the report Love-Heat that bind the two actors is totally real part to the strange but at the same time ordinarily comprehensible things to the life. My rate is 7. | positive |
Okay. To enjoy this silent comedy short you MUST suspend disbelief concerning the major starting point for the film. If you can't then you'll probably be more likely to score this film a lot lower. Charlie Chase has a HUGE overbite and his wife has a nose large enough to have its own area code. Unknown to each other, they have both been saving to have surgery to correct these defects. Apparently, plastic and dental surgery was better back in the 1920s because neither seemed to have any need to recuperate from these major surgeries and they looked just dandy right away!! Okay, remember I said to ignore this, right?! Okay, well you also have to then ignore the difficult to believe idea that both could then meet and have no idea the other is their spouse. Okay,...now that you allowed yourself to accept these two silly premises, the film gets really, really good.<br /><br />Charlie makes a pass at her and she makes a pass at him. Both are shocked and thrilled because no one has ever really considered them attractive. So, because of this new vanity they agree to go on a date. But, they both sneak back home--not wanting their spouses to know! Anyway, they meet later and are quite attracted to each other. But what about the poor spouses supposedly at home? Well, they both learn that the other is married and both anticipate their marriages will result in divorce because they really want to be with each other! Late in the film, Charlie figures out that the woman really is his wife and he goes through a very funny sequence where he plays both the boyfriend and the old husband--by changing his clothes and putting in false teeth when he plays the hubby! It really is a laugh riot to see him bouncing in and out of the room as he appears to be fighting with another person! You really have to see it to believe it. However, the wife sees an ad with Charlie's before and after photos and knows what's happening. In the end, they both feel pretty foolish! | positive |
Now i have seen two movies by the director Chen Kaige, a very good one (Farewell my concubine), and this bad one, The Assassin. Both movies depict crucial events in chinese history, FMC in the 20th century and TA the first unification of the whole chinese nation in the 3rd century bc. FMC succeds with memorable characters, gorgeous cinematography, convincing sets, good acting and an interesting story. The Assassin fails on nearly every level (okay, the sets are great, the cinematography is good, and the few battle scenes are quite exciting). But...the pathos. Call me a cynic, but too much is too much. If you felt that Saving Private Ryan was too pathetic, be aware, this here will make you sick. The dialogue is lifeless, many lines seem like political statements, subtle or entertaining is this pic not. The film is overpowered by its own pompousness. I am really surprised that The Assassin gets such high votes here on imdb. 4/10 | negative |
A really very bad movie, with a very few good moments or qualities.<br /><br />It starts off with pregnant Linda Blair, who runs down a hallways to flee what might be monsters or people with pitchforks, I'm not sure. She jumps through a window and wakes up, and we see she is very pregnant. The degree to which she is pregnant varies widely throughout the movie.<br /><br />She and an annoying and possibly retarded little boy who I thought was her son travel to an abandoned hotel on an island. Italian horror directors find the most irritating little boys to put in their movies! On the island already are David Hasselhoff and his German-speaking virgin girlfriend (you know how Germans are said to love Hasselhoff...). He's taking photographs, and she's translating an esoteric German book about witches, I think.<br /><br />Also traveling to the island are an older couple who have purchased it, and a real estate agent, and a woman I thought was their daughter. Evidently she was an architect, and Linda Blair and the boy are the older couple's children. I guess they all traveled to the island together, but it really seemed like Linda and the boy were apart from the rest of them (maybe they were filmed separately).<br /><br />The hotel seems neat, certainly from the exteriors, but it isn't used to any great effect. An old woman in bad makeup and a black cloak keeps appearing to the boy and chants something in German sometimes, which he eventually records on his Sesame Street tape recorder.<br /><br />People start getting killed, either in their dreams, or sucked into hell or something. Some of these gore scenes are OK, but not enough to recommend the movie. Though the copy I watched stated it is uncut on the box cover, the death of one character whose veins explode really seems to have been cut. Much of the scene is showing another character's reaction shots, since we're not seeing anything ourselves. The creepiest scene is one in which a man or demon with a really messy-looking wound of a mouth rapes someone. He looked particularly nasty. There's a laughably and painfully bad scene in which Linda Blair is possessed. I wish if a horror movie is going to cast her, they would do something original with her role, and let her leave Exorcist behind her (except for the yearly horror conventions).<br /><br />In the weird, largely Italian, tradition of claiming to be a sequel to something it is unrelated to, this is also AKA La Casa 4 and Ghosthouse 2. That is, it is supposedly a sequel to Casa 3 - Ghosthouse, La (1988) - it's not (that's also a better movie than this one). La Casa 1 and two were The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead II (1987) - again unrelated to Witchery and La Casa 3 (and much better than those). There's also a Casa 5, La (1990) AKA House 5, which seems to want to be a sequel to the fake La Casa series and the series House: House (1986) House II: The Second Story (1987), The Horror Show (1989) AKA House III, and House IV (1992). How's The Horror Show fit in there? It doesn't really, it claimed to be a sequel, thus requiring the real series entry to renumber itself to cause less (or more?) confusion. Oddly, The Horror Show is also AKA Horror House, and La Casa 5 is also AKA Horror House 2. Does your head hurt yet? | negative |
Hayao Miyazaki's second feature film, and his first one to be widely acclaimed both commercially and critically (though his debut - Nausicaa AKA Warriors of the Wind is considered by many fans his best), 'Tenku no Shiro Rapyuta' AKA 'Castle in the Sky' may seem childish and simplistic when compared to his more recent masterpieces like 'Kiki's Delivery Service', 'Mononoke-hime' and 'Spirited Away', but in 1986 it was years ahead of its time and it was one of the milestones of modern anime. It's important to remember that 'Castle in the Sky' was made two years before the revolutionary 'Akira', and while it's not provocative and controversial like the aforementioned masterpiece, the lead characters are all mainly basic manga hero / heroine / villain type characters, and the story is quite predictable and obvious (at least in today's standards), Miyazaki's designs and animation work are of standards never seen before. While the story and humor are a bit silly and outdated at times, the movie is still very entertaining and very enjoyable - if not as breathtaking as 'Spirited Away'. And if you'll allow yourself to see the beauty of the frames themselves and ignore the low-budget coloring and animation and the identical twin faces - at this point Miyazaki is still faithful to his roots and to the agreed standards of Japanese cartooning - you'll see Miyazaki's genius shine through as well as it does on 'Spirited Away' and Mononoke. While 'Castle in the Sky', being a sci-fi adventure and very suitable for children, fits in more neatly with classic anime than anything else he had done since, his motifs and principles still show and play an important part. To say much more would be to ruin the movie, so I'll kindly shut up. Suffice to say that I'm giving it only nine stars because if I gave it ten I couldn't go any higher for 'Spirited Away' and 'Princess Mononoke'. And that would be a crime.<br /><br />As in most anime movies, I recommend watching the Japanese version with the English subtitles, even if you don't speak a word of Japanese - the English overdubs just don't tend to be very good, and in this case it's just horrendous. You might want to watch it in the English version once, though, just for the laughs, and for the star-filled cast (the English dub was only recorded following the success of 'Spirited Away', as it was for 'Kiki's Delivery Service') - Anna Paquin and James Van Der Beek (Yeah, the Dawson guy!) fill the lead roles, Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker from 'Star Wars', in case you don't know!) plays the villain, and other roles are filled by Andy Dick, Tres MacNeille (The Simpsons, Rugrats, Animaniacs...), Michael McShane (Friar Tuck from Kevin Costner's Robin Hood travesty) and Mandy Patinkin (Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya...) Good for a laugh, or a few laughs really. But watch the Japanese one first. | positive |
"When a small Bavarian village is beset with a string of mysterious deaths, the local (magistrate) demands answers into (sic) the attacks. While the police detective refuses to believe the nonsense about vampires returning to the village, the local doctor treating the victims begins to suspect the truth about the crimes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />An inappropriately titled, dramatically unsatisfying, vampire mystery.<br /><br />Curiously, the film's second tier easily out-perform the film's lackluster stars: stoic Lionel Atwill (as Otto von Niemann), skeptical Melvyn Douglas (as Karl Brettschneider), and pretty Fay Wray (as Ruth Bertin). The much more enjoyable supporting cast includes bat-crazy Dwight Frye (as Herman), hypochondriac Maude Eburne (as Aunt Gussie Schnappmann), and suspicious George E. Stone (as Kringen). Mr. Frye, Ms. Eburne, and Mr. Stone outperform admirably. Is there another movie ending with a mad rush to the bathroom? <br /><br />Magnesium sulfate
Epsom salts
it's a laxative! <br /><br />**** The Vampire Bat (1933) Frank Strayer ~ Dwight Frye, Melvyn Douglas, Maude Eburne | negative |
This movie looks like it was made for TV . For years I waited for some movie to be made about Rubin Carter, because I loved to see him box at the old MSG, and to see this movie was very disappointing.I have alot of respect for Mr Washington, but he was awful and boring.There is really nothing good to say about this movie except I did like the song. | negative |
For most people, RoboCop 3 is the film that really is the big disgrace for the Robo series. It has few fans, and most people hate it for it's shameless commercial PG-13 approach. Now, I'm not going to say that RoboCop 3 is any good. Frankly, it pretty much sucks. But as far as being a properly shot and executed film, it surpasses this piece of circuit chaos. Yes, the truth of the matter is that RoboCop 2 is the worst of two bad and unnecessary sequels to a near-masterpiece. So what if RoboCop 3 turns Robo into a cartoonish super hero in a ultra mainstream production for kids to enjoy - at least it's doing it openly. I don't know where RoboCop 2 begins and ends, I don't know what or whom it's about, I don't understand what's going on in it, I don't understand which jokes are deliberate and which aren't, I will go insane if I try to understand the characters, I see nothing of any value in anything anybody is saying, I can't believe anybody looked at the shooting script and figured it would work and I can't believe that Irvin Kirshner saw the finished result and figured that he liked what he see. He probably didn't by the way, neither Miller, nor Weller nor Allen did. It's not hard to see why.<br /><br />Now, RoboCop 2 has it's fans, I know this. Mostly they belong to this league of absolute anti-pretensions, dismissing anybody who expected any depth, or subject matter from the first film, as academic Roger Ebert Sith apprentices. It's just a lot of fun, a good piece of action and great entertainment, the argument goes. Yeah well, I guess if you just don't listen to what any of the characters are saying you could fool yourself that we might as well have Arnold in the suit instead of Weller. Don't get me wrong, I like a good action film, with pure entertainment value as it's only - most satisfying - virtue. But RoboCop 2, sir, ain't no such thing.<br /><br />Look at the first couple of scenes. This horrible actor makes Robo repeat that he's just a machine, and then goes into this operatic speech about how he could never be a man, where-after Murphy's wife (who's suing OCP for robot-stalkings) walks in out of the blue and have this sad little moment with him, and then is never heard of again! I surely would like to go in to this film scene by scene, because every one has these kind of absurdities in them. It's like a twelve year old fan boy has done the screenplay, the characters act totally random and first say this, then say that. OCP wants to stop crime with a new Robo, especially this drug called "nuke" but then it seems they really just want to become this big capitalist empire and control the entire city politics are abandoned I guess, understandable given the comic relief mayor, The villain (played by Tom Noonan, who did a better version of this in Last Action Hero and that's saying a lot) is an addict, but is still used for this machine. The woman behind it all has an agenda which is impossible to understand.<br /><br />Speaking of twelve year olds, this film has the infamous role of "Hub", this mad kid who swears and kills people, played by a child actor. I'm not going to be all moral about it, it's a free world and if you want a psycho kid in your action movie, go for it. I don't know how much of Frank Miller's original vision was put into this, but the credits at least acknowledge him as conceiver of the "story". And, if I zoom out, I could see this as being quite a cool character. It's grim for sure, to have a maniac killer kid but then again this is the world of RoboCop and who would be surprised? This whole business with the OCP trying to become this giant monopoly over everything, is properly dystopian and good as well. Also, the idea of RoboCop getting in touch with his wife and kid, having them embedded into the story somehow - would also be great, and as far as I can see a natural and logical step if they now had to make a RoboCop sequel.<br /><br />But, of course, these are just ideas. As many people have already said, the screenplay is 100% mess. The kid has one scene (the torture scene) where it's hinted that he in fact is just a stereotype messed up kid, and then we have this unimaginable scene where he is dying and gets all soft and friendly towards ol' tin head. Why doesn't he just take up his uzi and try to take him down with his last breath? Isn't that what his character would do? Does he give his life a little second thought there on his death bed? Not necessarily, given that his last words are "it sucks", so why? It really makes no sense, and this can be said about everybody, no everything, in this film. IS there a strike in the police force? IS RoboCop machine or man? What's the deal with turning Robo into this community service machine for 10 minutes? I mean, sure, it's pretty funny I wouldn't deny that. But why build it up, and then discard it? And why the hell is Allen so criminally underused? and what is it Weller has an obvious urge to express with his character and yeah, well, the threads are many and the mess is enormous.<br /><br />This review is just as messed up as the film. The only reason I give an extra star up there is because of the actors from the first film, I'm sure they had good intentions with it. I mean it's something somewhat stable, some kind of anchor in this sea of bad movie making. | negative |
Tumbling Doll of Flesh (aka Niku daruma and Psycho: The Snuff Reels) This was on my want list for quite a while, and then I finally scored a copy on Ebay a while back. It's never been on DVD, and what I got from Ebay was a very good quality DVD-R, which I'm quite satisfied with. The movie is I believe the most extreme example of torture porn, with an emphasis on porn. A woman responds to an ad for a porn movie and goes with the producer to a place where it is filmed. The porn is definitely real, with the annoying Japanese pixelation to try and hide the hardcore shots, without much success most of the time. After the porn movie is shot and the actress is ready to leave, she gets clubbed over the head with a baseball bat, and taken back to the room and savagely dismembered in slow shots, and in one of the most disgusting scenes, the male porn guy screws her in an open wound in her chest. This is after both legs have been severed, her arm, and a few other niceities. This movie outdoes the Guinea Pig series by a long shot, in fact, they are not even close to the realism, although cheap gore effects, shown in this movie. This is indeed one of the best fake snuff films I have ever seen, if not the best. Now I must warn you, that if you are not into this stuff, you should stay far far away. This movie is very strong, and with the real sex, it is in a very sick way, erotic to an extent. And I mean, in a very sick way. But wherever you come down on this subject material, this movie brings the goods home, and I would definitely recommend you seek it out. After reading about the movie, I was expecting something very strong, but it exceeded that by a bunch. | positive |
This movie is overrated, to say the least. It's not good as a comedy, and it's not good as a "serious" film either. The pacing is far too plodding for the former, and there is too much lame slapstick for the latter. The only laughs come from some of Bud Spencer's reaction shots when he becomes exasperated by his brother's behavior. The dubbing is excellent but the full-screen framing is appalling. (*1/2) | negative |
This was one of Christie's later stories. Throughout her long career, she was interested in the shifting narrative and the notion of conflicting agents. Both are essentially the same thing and boil down to questions of who it is that controls or creates the situation.<br /><br />In detective fiction, the game is a matter of conflicting realities. The murderer intends to change reality to fool the detective, the writer intends to do the same to the reader. Both the reader and the detective are in similar battles to create what they see. That's why her stories often include a writer.<br /><br />In her works, she explores every combination of tricks she can think of that deal with this. Along the way, we often have bodies that are not who they seem, and times, and intended victims and such. But the real magic of the books is this notion of control. In 'Bertram's' it was literally a building.<br /><br />Here, it is a dead man. Well, sometimes that happens, but not like this. It is as if the writer were the famous Mr. Rafiel. This is particularly sweet to Marple readers who remember this same character from the 'Carribean Mystery,' which in a way was also framed by her nephew. In that story, Rafiel was the conveyor of the story to the authorities.<br /><br />The producers of this series have an almost wacky commitment to using a different creative team on each one. Sometimes it produces bland work. The 'Bertram's' episode was rather brilliantly staged. This one is the most lavish of the lot, and has an active camera. But unlike the 'Bertram's' work, it has nothing to do with the story.<br /><br />The camera moves and captures merely because it can. The 'Citizen Kane' quote at the beginning was a little too literal and blunt. This story is good, but the adapter took out some pretty critical stuff, and that irrelevant camera annoys.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements. | negative |
When a hardworking entrepreneur is rejected from a prestigious country club, he starts a battle between the members and eventually buys it from Ty Webb(Chevy Chase) and turns it into a theme park/golf course in which everyone can join.<br /><br />This is by no means a good movie, but it is still slightly amusing at times. Almost all of the comedy is cheap slapstick and bad jokes except for Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase plays one of his greatest roles as Ty Webb for a second time and plays it great. He is not only the funniest character in the movie, he is the only funny character in the movie. Even Dan Akroyd fails to bring humor to this film which aspires to be a great sequel to a classic comedy but falls to rubble with others shown on Comedy Central. The movie might have been better if Ty Webb(Chase) had a larger role but instead he was reduced to a minor character and the star became Jackie Mason(Who??) They should have brought back all of the cast and made a sequel the right way! This is a perfect example of what not to do when making a sequel to an already great movie. Overall, Caddyshack II is humorous but a large mistake.<br /><br />I do not recommend this movie. | negative |
The only reason I remember this movie is because it was (and still is) the biggest waste of time and money ever spent. I was 17 and my friend was 18. We were the age when action movies were our thing to enjoy most (ok 2nd most). We walked out feeling so insulted, we wanted our money back, but the time could never be regained.<br /><br />The editing is what killed this movie. As the truck gets attacked by more and more vehicles with rocket launchers attached the movie completely insults the intelligence of the audience by having these rogue bad guys in 4x4 VW Bugs shooting rockets at the truck. Please, rockets at a truck known to be carrying plutonium? What's worse is the these VW's manage to get 15-18 shots off of a 4 rocket launcher. You would see on VW with 4 rockets fire 2 of them, cut around the truck with the last one attached, come back a second later with two rockets attached, fire another, then go in front of the truck and now it's back to a full set of 4 rockets.<br /><br />We toughed it out hoping for a big finish that never happened. It looks like they just ran out of money and stopped.<br /><br />Just ridiculous. | negative |
This movie lacked credibility for two reasons. One, no mayor of a major city, and New York is certainly as major as it gets. Would allow a borough in his city to degenerate into such a violent place to live; especially for voters who could have much to say about his or her future job security. All of the victims in the movie were mostly elderly, Jewish or defenseless. At 62-years of age, I have never seen a movie that depicted such utter lack of respect for authority as this movie did. Even "Escape from New York," which was fictional, up front, i.e. they told you that this was science fiction, didn't resort to such deep-seated violence. In this movie, most of the elderly victims were victimized and yet had guns but were unwilling to use them. Also, in this movie and I have not seen the prior two, is more lawless than the "Escape" movie. Secondly, gangs as far as my research shows have never been as cooperative as this movie makes them out to be. On the one hand they catch a gang member from another gang working in their area and he's killed. Yet when the heroes start shooting at the local gang bangers, the next gang over is welcomed with open arms. Outside gang members are always viewed as outsiders and are stopped. We are supposed to believe that when automatic weapons are used against our gang, the other gangs want to be all into it. Why did the outside gangs come to help? I believe that more than one gang from outside came to help. What did they come for? Another question, why was the gang leader in jail and why do fellow jail inmates ask his permission to attack Bronson's character? This was not a great movie and I could go on, but I won't. | negative |
I just want to start by saying this is the first review of a film I have done on the net. I felt the need to warn people about this film because it truly is one of the worst films I have ever seen. After reading interviews with the director he says he respects constructive criticism and so i will try to avoid bashing the film just for the sake of it and offer my opinions as to why i found it to be so catastrophically terrible.<br /><br />1. The actors. I know the budget may not have allowed for great thespians but with Nicholson working in the industry for over ten years surely he knew some actors who were at least average.<br /><br />2. The incredibly lame make up and special effects. Once again budget obviously interfered with what was originally intended but after working in make up for so many years there is really no excuse.<br /><br />3. The obvious similarities to Hostel. Whilst not being exactly a rip off it sure does try to cash in on the former films success. Only problem is Roth knew where he was going and exactly how to get there...<br /><br />4. The music. Not at all creepy or haunting not even sickening just plain annoying.<br /><br />5. The script in general. All dialogue was forced and terrible! Also the sub plots about the theatre and the guy who comes in to save them were weak as and almost like an afterthought.<br /><br />6. The editing. WTF. How jarring, and not in a good way. nuf said.<br /><br />Seriously I would like to hear the director's thoughts on my post (he no doubt frequents his pages on IMDb.) cause buddy... what were you thinking. Surely at some point during either the shooting or editing you realised what a turkey yolu had on your hands... Sorry I don't want to be harsh but you must have more talent than this i hope your next feature that gutterballs movie or wahtever is better, hopefully practice makes progress.<br /><br />But in the mean time avoid this like the plague. I want my 81 mins back with interest. (At least I didn't pay to watch it.) | negative |
I don't think I'm too far off base saying that this is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I've been working on a list of my favorite war movies: "The Longest Day," "To Hell and Back," "Bridge on the River Kwai," (all black and white) which all have good plots, rich characters and great acting. I've seen better dialog and acting in student-written high school one act plays. The plot, however isn't a bad premise - just poorly implemented. It's kind of like a traffic accident, though, I couldn't seem to turn it off! A movie doesn't need big money or great sets i.e. "Twelve Angry Men" and "Lifeboat" to be good... so budget is no excuse. What were they thinking? | negative |
The film is really good, it doesn't use violence or sex etc to sell itself like other films but instead just uses a really decent plot(based on the original by Michael Caine) and some great actors to make a fun, action packed film which i thoroughly enjoyed. One thing which made me enjoy this film even more was that it had some actors which i really like such as Edward Norton(who i last saw in 26th hour, which i enjoyed also), Jason Statham(transporter, enjoyed that also) and Seth Green who i think is great, his role as Shawn Fanning's roommate dubbed "The Napster" is hilarious and his hacking skills play a great part in the main heist which centres around a large traffic jam in LA. The car chases are really decent and the high tech equipment used by the thieves is interesting and very impressive. I haven't seen the original so i can't really compare the too but i liked this a lot and would highly recommend this film to everyone, it isn't a film where you need to like that specific genre, it will suit everyone, i felt good after this movie, it had a really good ending and was overall really fun to watch. I give it 8/10. Go watch it! | positive |
Imagine yourself trapped inside a museum of the dark middle Ages and a resurrected vampire and his maniacal sidekick are chasing you. Where is the absolute last place you want to hide? I'd say inside the uncanny Virgin of Nuremberg torture device, because there's a good risk you'll get brutally spiked to death. And yet, the elderly lady in this film stupidly runs into her spiked coffin. "The Vampire's Coffin" is a rather disappointing sequel, as director Fernando Méndez doesn't re-create the Gothic atmosphere of the 1957-original but puts the emphasis on comical situations and dialogs. No more ominous castles with eerie cobwebs and dark vaults, but confused doctors and clumsy assistants that provoke laughs instead of frights. The story opens inside Count de Lavud's final resting place, where an eminent doctor and a hired assistant steal the coffin in order to examine the corpse at a private clinic. Naturally the wooden stake gets removed from his heart, and the vampire count comes to live again, immediately enslaving the petty thief to do his dirty work. The vampire has his eye on a beautiful female patient at the clinic, and it's up to Dr. Enrique Saldívar to rescue her soul and to destroy the bloodsucker. "The Vampire's Coffin" uses a limited amount of locations and there's very little action. The whole film would actually be pretty boring if it weren't for a handful of memorable sequences and decent acting performances. The photography is amazing, though, with the sublime use of shadows and darkness. This is most notably during the scene in which Count de Lavud stalks a young woman through the deserted streets of little town at night. It's the only truly worthwhile scene of the whole film, the rest is fairly mediocre and déjà-vu. | negative |
This movie is really special. It's a very beautiful movie. Which starts with three orphans, Sho, his brother Shinji and their friend Toshi, They're poor children's, living on the street, but one day they succeeded to steal a bag full of money, and then their able to live on, to buy a house, and their life seems to become much better. They're making new friend, life-friends. But something went wrong and they're becoming enemies and it all ends up with them killing each other.<br /><br />I was negative about this movie in the beginning, because when singers (Gackt - Solo, ex-singer in Malice Mizer, Hyde - Solo, singer in L'Arc~en~Ciel, both very famous in Japan and Wang Lee-Hom - Taiwanese singer) trying to become actors, but this isn't like the other singers-going-actors-movies. They're doing a great job, and with no earlier experience in movies (except for Lee-Hom, who had been in two movies before).<br /><br />This is absolutely one of my favorite movies. Maybe that's a little because I'm a very big fan of Hyde, but - it was this movie who made me discover him.<br /><br />Well, Gackt (playing the main character - the orphan Sho) was a part of the group who wrote the script, and it was he who insisted that Hyde should play Sho's friend, the vampire Kei. At that time they didn't know each other, at least not like friends. But after the movie they became really good friend, and that shows us too that they really worked hard on this movie and that they had good cooperation.<br /><br />The movie have many different feelings running trough the story, Love, Hate, Sadness, Pain, Loneliness, Happiness and so on. I think the first hour are the best, it's so beautiful. After that people are dying, Kei's leaving and it all changes so much. But still it's a great movie, it's the only movie who has ever made me cry, it ends up so sad, but still beautiful.<br /><br />So if you haven't seen this movie, you really should. Because it's wonderful, but sad. You won't regret it. ^^ | positive |
This is apparently one of Shemp's first shorts with the Stooges. (This excludes his much earlier vaudeville years with the team). But the threesome's comedic timing is at its honed best here. Aside from the intense slapstick scenes, there are others more subtle, but just as funny. Watch Larry when Shemp asks him to look at the camera for a snapshot. Or watch the real object prompting Moe's exclamation, "Oh...highly polished mahogany!"<br /><br />Emil Sitka is at his bewildered goofiest. And the goon may look scary, but he's somehow funny. He seems as frustrated and perplexed with the Stooges as are "regular" people in other shorts.<br /><br />For Shemp aficionados, this is a must have episode. It won't disappoint. | positive |
I'm a big fan of sleaze and horror movies, when you put them together that's my sweet spot: horrible sleaze. You're not going to get it in this film, though.<br /><br />There is certainly sleaze, in the form of girls being kidnapped and tortured, tied naked to various things. The sleaze isn't very sleazy, though. It didn't register very high on my sleaze meter, mainly because none of the girls were in the least attractive, nor did they attempt to act as if they were even threatened. They seemed to be thinking more about what was for lunch, or maybe when they could score some crack.<br /><br />Forget the effects, they were lame in the extreme. The lameness was contributed to by the bad acting; effects are harder to believe when even the actors and actresses aren't buying into them.<br /><br />Cinematography was pretty bad, they could have hired a couple cameramen from a porn movie and done better. In fact, that might have raised the sleaze factor enough to make it enjoyable. As it is, there are a lot of dark shots where you can't see very clearly, and what you can see isn't looking too good.<br /><br />The horror factor is nil. Null. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I've seen kids movies that were more frightening. There's no camp here, either. It's just a movie that attempts to be shockingly sleazy, but doesn't even come close. | negative |
I was swept into this series just as surely as the sea would sweep me into its grip. Although it started out slowly, I found that the realism in depicting the ship, the variety of characters and lively dialogue keep me watching. The protagonist was destined to be challenged, grow and change on this voyage and I wanted to be there for it. I was not disappointed. The series took you from humor to tragedy and everything in-between, often in the same scene, the same breath. There was a wealth of emotional overlaying, interaction and expression--relentless and compelling to observe. The movement of the ship added an almost fanciful component to the many scenes, making the characters ill one moment and adding humor the next.<br /><br />Edmund Talbot is a complex character, the likes of which we don't see often. We may know where the captain stands or Mr. Prettiman, but they are older men, set in their ways. Talbot was young and arrogant, still learning, testing himself and being tested. He struggled getting along with others and made mistakes like a real person would but had a heart that could be touched, that grew with each hard-taught experience. I appreciate the excellent characterization; it's too rare in movies and television. | positive |
Tasteless. I can't even write intelligently about the movie. I laughed the entire movie. It wasn't supposed to be funny. Matt Farnsworth has no clue what he is doing. His story is written, it seems, without any knowledge of Iowa culture and the meth problem. I know Farnsworth is from Iowa, which makes his movie even more puzzling to me. Why do the two main characters have accents? It doesn't make any sense. The acting was mediocre at best and at times hard to watch. Gratituous violence and sex filled the movie. I am guessing that the violence and sex were supposed to make the movie edgy, but it came across as unbelievable and offensive. The ending of the movie is so brilliantly bad that all I could do was laugh and look at the rolling credits with disbelief. As I walked out of the theatre everyone else who was leaving was laughing along with me. The ending of the movie was meant to evoke tears, but it did the exact opposite. Do not waste your time on this horrible movie, unless you want to see ignorant, sappy, overacted, clichéd drivel. | negative |
Someone i know said that there was this film called flatliners that was probably up my street. I was told about this movie after watching final destination 2 and watching the extra feature about near deth experience.<br /><br />I bought the DVD of flatliners at the modest price of 5 pounds. Got home and watched it. And i could not help but smile and feel good wondering how this film hadn't been in my life before. The film is about a group of medical students try to see what it's like after near death experience. But then there sins come back in reality and can harm them physically.<br /><br />Acting from Kevin Bacon and Keifer Sutherland is great as you would expect from the pair. And Joel Schmacheur made this a great movie like he did with the lost boys.<br /><br />This is an edgy and stylish thriller bound to please nay type of film fan. | positive |
A young man falls in love with a princess but then has to go to battle to save her father's kingdom. While away, he accidentally kills an enchanted animal which brings a curse upon him. He becomes a beast and begins to kill even his own comrades. When nobody returns to the kingdom from the battle, the king renders the land of battle cursed and forbids anyone from going there. One day, a rebel who wishes to marry the princess decides that it's time they ventured into the cursed land to claim it for the king and the king agrees, when they reach the land the king is captured by the beast and the rebel returns home to lie to the kingdom that the king has been captured and killed. He assumes the throne and prepares to marry the princess but the night before her wedding, the princess escapes to the land to go and battle the beast herself. It is only when she gets to the cursed land that she begins to realise that her father is still alive and that the beast may not even be that evil after all. Sadly, her discoveries lead her to pay the ultimate price in their revelation. | negative |
This man is nothing short of amazing. You truly feel as if you have lived his life with him throughout these tragic events, and cry along with his family in the end. He was so passionate about his cause, not just for himself, but to ensure others who will survive him do not have to go through this wretched pain. I watch this video every time I am having a bad or "down" day, and it always manages to make me see the great and brighter side of life, just like Jonny did, even with his unbearable pain. My only regret is not knowing about Jonny sooner, as I visited England 2 times during his life, and would have been able to say I'd met him. It is comforting to know Jonny is sitting on his cloud, pain free! Rest in peace, Dear Jonny. You deserve it! | positive |
Chupacabra Terror: 2/10: It was the Navy Seal team that tipped the balance from bad cheesy movie to just bad. Up till then there was a lot of bad movie baggage but the Seals
They are wearing bicycle helmets painted black. You know the ones with air holes that make every adult who wears them look like a complete tool. Of course the bass fishing boat they took to greet the cruise ship might have been another clue (it wouldn't make it across Tampa Bay let alone an ocean)
and their tactics wouldn't pass muster on an 3rd rate XBOX game.<br /><br />Does director John Shepphird have photos of John Rhys-Davies in a compromising position with a Hobbit? Because I can't think of any other reason he would be in this movie. The other actors have a great excuse. They are talentless unattractive hacks that couldn't get hired for an infomercial. The plot is that two men try to smuggle the mythical Chupacabra (Love saying that name) aboard a cruise ship and it gets loose.<br /><br />The sets consist of horrible cruise ship fakery (complete with airshafts the size of a small apartment), the monster killings are bottom of the barrel, there is no nudity, and a lot of really bad actors refuse to finish their death scenes. Of particular annoyance is a gigolo character from a 60's Doris Day movie.<br /><br />The cast bleeds ketchup while the Chupacabra bleeds day green glow in the dark blood. (Why a goat eating Mexican mammal would bleed anything but red is beyond me.)<br /><br />Every B movie has a tipping point that makes it a fun time (Hey it's a lesbian shower scene, OMG that guy just ate is own eyeballs) or not so fun (Did they just call those forty something overweight guys wearing coveralls and bicycle helmets Navy Seals?) Chupacabra falls into the not so fun B movie side with a thud. | negative |
Hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that's wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first-time viewing basis. Hannibal is bad, terrible, inept, lame, droll, idiotic, contrived, laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). Minor spoilers follow...<br /><br />This movie has huge logic holes - more than any Bruckheimer/Bay movie - or for that matter - any movie that exemplify the indulgence of Hollywood exaggeration. It's a slick Hollywood production designed to cash in on Hannibal Lector mania, directed by "so-somber-he-takes-this-way-too-seriously" hack director Ridley Scott and produced by a hack Italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is "doesn't matter whether film is s**t, money is good".<br /><br />I can't get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good-novelist-turned-hack-author Thomas Harris. David and Steven - well-known and immensely talented screenwriters - wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. Another factor in the disappointment of this film.<br /><br />There are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e.g. Starling/Pazzi cell-phone in the midst of Lecter pursuit that turns up Inspector Pazzi as the victim. Not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by Tony Hopkins with a smirk and Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. Hopkins gives the true meaning of "scenery-chewing" along with hammy acting by Gary Oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against Lecter.<br /><br />The gore effect is good, but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from Hannibal. The predecessor - Silence of the Lambs - is more believable with tension and suspense. Suspense is what made Silence of the Lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller, not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. The "brain dinner" sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self-parody.<br /><br />The ending is kinda blatant and idiotic - are we supposed to believe that Lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you? Ooh, scary... <br /><br /> | negative |
Unlike Bond and other detective movies, Alfred Hitchcock's hero used to be a common man who would get into trouble and then with his acumen and courage (and luck) would get out of it. Jewel Thief is based on the same principle and so in a way it is Vijay Anand's tribute to the master of suspense. The tribute as it may be but it stands its own grounds and establishes Vijay Anand as a great director himself.<br /><br />It is the story of a common man Vinay who one day realizes that he has a double called Amar who in fact is a Jewel Thief. Suddenly Vinay finds himself in the middle of a hatching scheme and to save himself goes on a wild goose chase to find this Amar who remains one step ahead of him. The suspense is almost killing throughout the movie and as the plot unravels you are hit by the brilliance of the scheme. Just like Hitchcock's movies, Jewel Thief can boast of a grand climax shot inside the grand palace of Sikkim.<br /><br />Everyone and I mean everyone; Dev Anand, Vijay Anand, Ashok Kumar, Vajyanti Mala, Tanuja, SD Burman, Kishore Kumar, Majrooh Sultanpuri etc. etc. are in their top forms. This is one of the best thrillers ever made in India. | positive |
Sometimes intentionally campy, at other times unintentionally silly (like in the opening scene, where a woman is "informed" that she has been raped and that her family has been slaughtered, just for the sake of exposition), this film is ultimately neither funny enough nor competent enough (as a straightforward adventure story) to be really enjoyable. I'll leave you to decide which may be the highlight, but the low point is probably the fight with a silly metallic dragon. Brigitte Nielsen was a good choice for Sonja, with her fresh face and her firm, slightly muscular body (and I think that her dark-red hair suits her perfectly), but Schwarzenegger gives one of his few colorless performances as Calidor. (*1/2) | negative |
The movie is about Paul(Páll) a young man who sinks into the harsh world of insanity and his stay at the mental hospital "Kleppur" and his friends. Victor(Viktor) who during his education in England started to think he was Adolf Hitler. Peter(Pétur) who took to much LSD and tried to fly of a roof top the fall left no broken bones or physical damage only insanity, he is obbsesed with China. Oli Beatle (Óli Bítill) Oli has spent most time at the hospital although Viktor is slightly older then him, he claims he wrote every single Beatles song and send it to them by telepathy<br /><br />The novel is better then the movie and covers all of Pauls life from birth to his death, there is a long time since I saw the movie but if I remember it right the movie doesn't cover Pauls childhood.<br /><br />"Englar Alheimsins" is funny,sad and powerful if you haven't seen it watch it NOW! and read the novel first it makes the movie better | positive |
Sheltered young woman, home-schooled and possibly quite gifted, harbors a disturbed, overly-emotional side which comes to the surface after her absentee father pays her mother a visit, asking for a divorce. Directed by celebrated cinematographer William A. Fraker, this ill-titled psychological thriller falls into the trap that most films helmed by directors of photography find themselves in: each shot is composed for the utmost style, but at the sacrifice of fluid pacing and a tight, gripping narrative. Fraker (and his cinematographer, László Kovács) are very fond of gauzy whites and golden tones, giving the picture a burnished, tableaux feel. The mansion at the center of the action looks like a funeral parlor, and Fraker paces the wheezing yarn just like a funeral. Robert Shaw and Sally Kellerman (as Shaw's fiancée), two of the most interesting actors of the 1970s, manage to cut through the plastic overlay and are quite compelling despite the jagged editing (which turns their scenes into little bits of half-realized business). Sondra Locke, another interesting screen personality, seems cast for her resemblance to Catherine Deneuve in "Repulsion". Pale and saucer-eyed, with imposingly thick and long hair, Locke is a curious human puzzle, and she's initially quite intimidating and dangerous; however, this role is so old-hat that Locke can find nothing fresh to bring out of the deep freeze, and she flounders. Fraker allows Locke's freak-out scenes to go on and on, while Shaw (looking terrifically debonair) is put in the impossible position of playing touchy-feely daddy to her. All of this nonsense might be worth slogging through if the screenplay had been peppered with a modicum of tangibility (or, at the very least, some dry wit or humorous relief). As it is, Lewis John Carlino and Edward Hume's limp script, adapted from Stanton Forbes' novel "Go To Thy Deathbed", strands the viewer early on, and only the charisma of the players gets us to the finish line. *1/2 from **** | negative |
I don't even know where to begin...<br /><br />It's is not worth typing a review so I will just quote what another user posted because I agree thoroughly, but I give it 1 / 10 instead of 2 / 10 "I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought "no, nobody would do something that stupid". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles / stability / zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever." | negative |
What an amazing film. With very little dialogue, the whole story is told with glances and body language. Very involving almost voyeuristic. My only gripe is that it has not been released on video in Australia and is therefore only available on TV. What a waste. | positive |
The Hazing is confused mumbo-jumbo that wants so hard to be The Evil Dead that it even references Bruce Campbell several times. The problem is, it is simply not in the same league as that terrific movie. This movie is nowhere near as original. The plot has been used before, by Kevin Tenney in Night of the Demons, and that was a lot more fun. This flick wastes too much time with complicated exposition before getting the kids into the spooky mansion and starting the demonic happenings.<br /><br />Brad Dourif is, as usual, not given much to do here, but when he is on screen he puts in another over-the-top performance that would make Christopher Walken jealous. As for the acting of the kids, it's passable but by no means good. The shaky camera work is more annoying than clever or atmospheric. There are a few good moments when the first guy gets possessed and throws around some deadly one liners while dispatching his victims, but it was never scary for a second. The gore level is mid-range to low, but the director tries to make up for it by showing the actresses topless a few times. All in all, just okay if you have 87 minutes to waste. | negative |
OK, this movie seems to have been pretty well covered by earlier comments, but there are a couple of items I wish to add. The mad scientist is producing a serum from the blood of a caged animal in order to turn a man into a werewolf. If we suspend our disbelief enough to buy into that, fine. But the animal in the cage is a coyote. That would make a werecoyote. Did audiences in 1942 not know the difference between a wolf and a coyote? They're easy to tell apart. That's weak.<br /><br />Secondly, this movie was covered in the third episode of MST3k (on the Comedy Channel). It took Joel and the bots a number of episodes to get up to full riffing steam, and they weren't up there quite yet on this one. They DID add enough to this snoozer to keep you awake until the end, but it was not one of their better episodes. They never even mentioned the glaring omission of an actual wolf, and THAT joke was just hanging in the air waiting to be smacked. | negative |
A mediocre at best horror flick that deals with dumb, not so horny teens who discover an evil video game (GASP) is killing those who die in the game (DOUBLE GASP). This movie is the sustained mystery of the Mystery Gang in "Scooby Doo". I was waiting for them to pull off a mask of one of the villains. I could deal with this for 40 minutes even as a movie on sci-fi but going all the way to the theaters, come on people. The effects were very mediocre, this whole scenario is something of crummy two-but director Uwe Boll, since this would be his cast. As always the great thing about video game systems is the glorious power button. I'd suggest using that mid-viewing. *1/2 | negative |
i just glanced over another comment posted here in which the writer discusses the disturbing ways the teenagers in this film use the body of their dead friend. one overlooked in this statement is perhaps the most unsettling of them all, no surprise it's what crispin glover's character (layne) does. he is thrilled over one of his friends murdering another friend of his, the killer's girlfriend. not because layne did not like this individual, rather he is excited about her death because it gives him something to do. this poor boy is bored in life, and dead inside, that a murdered friend is something to get excited about because it provides him with something to focus on. | positive |
This was an awesome movie with flight scenes that were incredibly realistic! I have seen it multiple times and it has kept my attention throughout every time. I myself am a big fan of the Air Force and love to watch any movie where I can get a glimpse of an F-16 flying. If you like Top Gun, then I guarantee you will love this movie also. Except for a few mild curse words, this is an excellent movie for the whole family. It has a great plot and does not have a dull moment throughout the entire movie. Every second is action packed and keeps you on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens next. So once again I HIGHLY recommend this movie!!! | positive |
Sarah Silverman is a dangerous Bitch! She's beautiful, sexy, funny and talent, dark and demonic. I read the other 'comment' on this show as well as the message board stuff and people just don't get it. Nothing that appears on T.V. is an accident. Too much money, time and work is put into the production of a T.V. show for there to be mistakes. This show is stupid because Sarah wanted it to be stupid. This show is juvenile because Sarah wanted it to be juvenile. I thought the jokes were great and the theme show as well as the other musical numbers are wonderfully bizarre. It's a lot like Pee-Wee's Playhouse for maladjusted, slacker twenty-something glue sniffing, Future Pornstars of America from the Valley. The cast is awesome. The scenarios and action is well-paced. I hope this show succeeds since Comedy Central didn't let David spade keep his show. Who plays Sarah's sister? She not in the cast listing on the show's home page. I would love to see her stand-up. Does anyone know about her up-coming show dates or DVDs that may be floating around out there? | positive |
Wealthy horse ranchers in Buenos Aires have a long-standing no-trading policy with the Crawfords of Manhattan, but what happens when the mustachioed Latin son falls for a certain Crawford with bright eyes, blonde hair, and some perky moves on the dance floor? 20th Century-Fox musical has a glossy veneer yet seems a bit tatty around the edges. It is very heavy on the frenetic, gymnastic-like dancing, exceedingly thin on story. Betty Grable (an eleventh hour replacement for Alice Faye) gives it a boost, even though she's paired with leaden Don Ameche (in tan make-up and slick hair). Also good: Charlotte Greenwood as Betty's pithy aunt, a limousine driver who's constantly asleep on the job, and Carmen Miranda playing herself (who else?). The stock shots of Argentina far outclass the action filmed on the Fox backlot, and some of the supporting performances are quite awful. By the time of the big horserace finale, most viewers will have had enough. *1/2 from **** | negative |
"Telefilms" tend to fall under the pitfalls of a low budget and a hasty shooting schedule, which is why this film always tends to buck the trend.<br /><br />George C. Scott embodies Ebenezer Scrooge perfectly, fully encompassing all of his cold tendencies, and still makes him a simpathetic character. The production value for this film was exceptional, never relying on boffo special effects or soundstage set-ups, yet relying on the depth and clarity of on-site shooting and strong backdrops. A movie that certainly stands alone. | positive |
OK, so my summary line is a cheap trick. But the movie is full of them and it gets absurdly praised, so...<br /><br />I caught this one on TV (uncut, as TV here shows all movies, that's for you Americans who might say I didn't like it because I saw a cut TV version - fortunately that's only an US thing), and had no idea about what it was. I switched on, caught the last minutes of a show, and the movie began. Within a minute, I was begging it was a comedy, given the particularly ridiculous clichéd beginning (yes, it's a bad movie-within-the-movie, I know, but what a way to try to keep the viewer interested! I don't even know why I didn't switch channels). And, yes, in fact the movie turned out to be a comedy, albeit an unintentional one.<br /><br />Marina Zudina is pretty enough, but gosh, what a dreadful performance! While casting a foreigner in the role is smart enough (she doesn't talk so bye bye language barrier), yet, sorry, Marina baby, playing mute doesn't mean impersonating Harpo Marx. Her acting is unintentionally funny in many moments, just look at her when she draws an X in the air while stalked by the killer. He wants to kill you, it's no time to play Zorro. We get plenty of "running upstairs" stuff passing for tension, as in the worst slashers, and things like pulling a carpet and a bad guy shots the other. Ugh! Will Hollywood ever learn? Yet the best/worst pearl is having a guy electrocuted in a bathtub and... Well, I have never seen anyone being electrocuted to death in a bathtub, but I'm sure you can't see the blue cartoon rays in real life, do you? And how about immediately trusting a mean-looking guy because he SAYS he's a cop, and not asking him to show you his credentials? OK, so he turns out to be a real cop. But still, not asking for the badge makes no sense (plot-wise, we could always think the credentials might be phony or he might be a crooked cop. Screen writing 101). And how about the big twist? Don't tell me you didn't see that coming from 200 miles away...<br /><br />I feel sorry for poor old Alec Guinness and his useless stock footage cameo. Now I think about this, what's the point in giving him a "Mystery Guest Star" credit... in the END titles? The movie's over, there's no mystery anymore, and everybody and their brother have identified Guinness (even non-movie buffs will recognize "the old guy from 'Star Wars'"). Yet better off this way, so we can pretend it's not the late great actor.<br /><br />People keep comparing this to, of all people, Hitchcock. I suppose it has to be John Hitchcock the milkman, as the late Sir Alfred would feel embarrassed out of watching this, let alone making it. And this gets a 6.8/10???? It's Bottom 100 material! But then, we're talking a rating system that allows 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' to appear as the third best movie ever made (check Top 100), so...<br /><br />2/10. | negative |
These guys combine low-brow with low-budget. It's glorious.<br /><br />Look- if you want Bergman, rent "7th Seal" or something. If you want to see gross-out humor and exploitation sex, this is the one.<br /><br />I think Jane Jensen as Julia makes it all watchable. She can actually act (really well), she's a complete dreamboat, and she doesn't seem to feel above it all. | positive |
This movie was recently shown subtitled not dubbed, on Australia's Special Broadcasting Service. I thought I read here that there is sometimes an assumption that *Revenge of the Rats* is a sequel. In fact, the rats are getting revenge for something that is done within this movie, or in human history. There is no prequel as far as I know.<br /><br />Now, let's get The Pied Piper of Hamelin out of the way. Perhaps this tale crossed my mind when I was watching the film, but that's all. There was the use of the word "coffers" at the end of the movie. A dazed mayor tries to justify her actions by saying "the coffers were empty". "Coffers" isn't a word you hear around much these days, unless you read folk tales to your children, as I do. Since seeing *Revenge of the Rats*, I've read two versions of The Pied Piper of Hamelin. Now I see the comparison. A metaphorical fat but literally ugly mayor promises more than the city can afford, to get rid of the rats. This is about as far as I can follow the analogy. The children are not led to a door in a mountain, with one lame boy left behind to tell of a land of winged horses and fountains, where it is always spring and everyone is always happy.<br /><br />There's a lot that is quite mainstream about this movie. The romance and the resolution especially. The female characters have potentially powerful roles in society but are really quite impotent. Where this film is quite rebellious (as compared with American cinema) is that it is anti-authoritarian. The helicopter pilot is sacked by the mayor for "doing good". The mayor and local government are portrayed as corrupt and pandering to big money. Finally, it is left to one doctor in Frankfurt to solve an epidemic of a fatal and contagious disease. Apparently there is no national Infectious Diseases authority to co-ordinate things or send in back-up.<br /><br />I'm not a horror aficionado, so any horror I do see is usually mingled with humour. Right from the rat in the blood bank you can see this is going to have the right balance of horror and comedy for most viewers; the huge number of rats is impressive and the horror fans seem to be satisfied too. | positive |
There is an excellent reason Edison went straight to video: it would have landed in theaters with a crumbling thud. The movie lasted entirely too long and was perilously boring. Just a notch above lowbrow (thanks to Freeman and Spacey, who obviously had a spare two weeks before their next films), the bad guys are as laughable and action as near non-existent as Justin Timberlake's acting. I hate to knock the guy, but the sooner he realizes that pop is his forte, the better.<br /><br />The movie isn't all bad...just mostly. I like the fact that LL Cool J was given what appears to be a shot at being leading man. He deserves it. And, unlike his fellow musician and co-star, he can act. Kevin Spacey is almost always enjoyable as well (you can see him gulp several times as he chews the scenery), and Freeman has the ability to elevate this flick to three stars (out of ten...he's not THAT good).<br /><br />When all is said and done, the ultimate error with this movie is that it is a mundane and tiresome piece of pseudo-action poppycock that fails to keep anyone awake. It also fails to make anyone give a good crap about any of the characters. All in all, t's just plain boring. That being said, rent this when you are suffering from insomnia. | negative |
I remember seeing this movie back when it was released and I still remember the 'buzz' I felt when I left the cinema. Everything about this movie is magnificent! The music is top notch and I still play the soundtrack after all these years.<br /><br />I have seen this movie so many times and yet I still get yearnings to watch it again and again. Nicholas Cage was great and whenever I see Cameron Dye in anything nowadays, I always associate him with this movie. It is too bad the rest of the cast didn't go on to greater things but maybe that is part of this film's charm.<br /><br />I won't do a film school critique as I am sure all the analysts out there can find fault if they wanted to, but what I will say is that this movie defined my teenage years and still continues to influence my life over 20 years later. The movie 'feels' great and stirs up emotions when you watch it (well...it did for me) and I cannot recommend it highly enough for anybody who has not yet seen it.<br /><br />You either 'get' the movie or you don't! Those of you who 'get it' will be rewarded with a unique movie experience. | positive |
I saw the trailer to this film and it looked great, so I went out and bought it. What a mistake, the acting is a shambles, the special effects (if you could call them that), look like something that wouldn't be out of place at a school play. Some of the characters are so stupid in this film you will cringe the minute they are on the screen, which unfortunately is all to often. As for a story, forget it. This is a warning, don't waste any money at all on this film it has to be one of the worst things I have ever seen. If, for some reason, you like this film watch Troll 2, you will probably enjoy that as well. | negative |
Critics have started calling it the Oscar Winner club, understandably. What after Halle Berry won it for Monsters Ball then going straight to the diabolical Catwoman. Hilary Swank triumphs in Boys Don't Cry and follows it with The Core. Jamie Foxx takes a nosedive as a pilot in the dull Stealth after scooping a gong for Ray. Now it's seems Hollywood Starlet Charlize Theron craps all over her "Monster" Oscar with this one of the worst Sci-fi spectacles ever made.<br /><br />The film loses its audience interest after a mere 20 minutes meaning the only thing really worth staying for is the fact that despite the film being rubbish Charlize Theron is still an exceptional actress who is clearly making the best of a crude and laughable premise. Not only is Æon Flux ultimately shallow but for an action flick it's also really very dull. It will only really appeal to comic book fans and Horney teenagers who like the idea of Theron running around half naked for 90 minutes. Flux only really succeed in failing.<br /><br />Set against the 2011 virus that kills 99% of the world's populace, and in the last city on Earth, Bregna, the survivors, some four hundred years later, in the year 2415, are continuing to live in the Goodchild dynasty, the name of the scientist who developed its cure.<br /><br />All is not well in this utopia and it is not what lies beyond its high walls that protects its citizens from the never ending jungle but what unspoken, unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unwritten taboo that holds and binds these unfortunates' together that lies within these walls of paranoia, conformity and unquestionable obedience. Filmed in and around Berlin, ironically, this is a story set against a totalitarian state, a walled city, where its peoples are no longer capable of reproducing, and its sinister and most secret plot of how it sustains life.<br /><br />Æon Flux is the assassin that has been assigned by the underground rebels to change the course of Mankind, forever. This is the story of her fight for justice, freedom and revenge.<br /><br />Æon Flux combined lousy narratives, ropy pacing and truly dire effects. Looking more like an unrealistic video game rather than a film. The only thing that is fortunate about the failure is that no sequels are in the works, Flux might just be the beginning and the end of what could have been one of the worst franchises in history, thank god for the lousy box office takings then.<br /><br />My final verdict on this truly lousy feature? There really isn't a story here just Charlize Theron jumping around in a black suit like a grass hopper. The acting is very wooden moronic and emotionless compared to the other cinemas that are out there today. It try's too much to be like an adaption and doesn't really take much from the cartoon which is what I was expecting, the only thing that was done half right that pays tribute to the cartoon was the fly in the eye scene. Avoid at all costs. | negative |
Fido is a cute comedy that deserves wider recognition, especially considering the mainstream crap that is supposed to entertain us these days.<br /><br />As has already been pointed out, this is hardly a real zombie film, but rather a sweet satire that employs the undead to point fingers. While there are necessarily some bloody scenes, there is almost no gore and the way this movie is presented (feel-good 50s style), I can't imagine anyone being actually scared or turned off by Fido & his fellow sufferers.<br /><br />While the cast is generally good, I felt that Moss and Nelson stood out. The humor is not in-your-face, but rather subdued; there's a lot of attention to detail and I caught myself smiling benignly several throughout the movie. This is certainly no masterpiece of cinema, but it doesn't strive to be - instead, Currie succeeds in delivering a heart-warming black comedy. | positive |
This is my first review on IMDb.com and probably first ever written review of a film I've done of my own accord - not for some class assignment. I think that fact alone says something about this movie... not a good thing! I am no seasoned journalist or critic (though I have seen my fair share of movies), but I found this particular film so terribly painful to watch, it was necessary for my own peace of mind to vent about the experience. Where better to do it than IMDb? As I forced myself to sit through the movie, physically writhing from the inability to connect-the-dots, I was sure there would be some "light at the end of the tunnel" - a revelation to explain what in samhe.-.ll was going on. The movie ended and I was as enlightened as dog****. After several rewinds to review certain scenes I still could conclude nothing sensible. I found myself wanting to yell "Does this make sense to anybody?" I would recommend to not waste your time, but then again if I were you I'd probably want to experience it myself. If that's the case, bring a crossword puzzle or something so you don't get bored. | negative |
Look, don't get me wrong I love independent films but COME ON! I could barely sit through it without wanting to kill myself. the director had absolutely no talent and he turned something that could have been OK to a F***ing Nightmare. I am a punk enthusiast myself and even the music sucked. the acting was crap.<br /><br />I am usually a bleeding heart for these low budget films but this one, this one didn't even try. Please don't waste your precious time and money. I am sorry to be so harsh but come on! it dragged on and and on and on. Remember when the kids got into that party with the weird cupcakes and the watermelon martinis? how did they just blend in? It made me frustrated how they could just go anywhere they wanted and get into trouble and have sex and a "meaningful conversation" with whoever they wanted. I know im blathering but my mind is just buzzing with everything I hated about this film. | negative |
Folks! is a "comedy" about a man whose parents beg him to kill them because they're going senile and want to be put out of their misery. Several times he tries to kill them and then changes his mind, saving them from his death-traps at the last minute and losing one of his body parts each time in the process. The movie seems to hate its main character, which makes it all the more painful to watch. There's also the usual tacked-on love-interest and predictable ending.<br /><br />This movie was also the first time I'd seen Tom Selleck without a mustache, and I remember his shaved upper lip looking weird and making me feel slightly slick. But this might have been just because of the terrible premise and lame execution of the movie. | negative |
Subsets and Splits