review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
No one goes to a movie like The Hills Have Eyes 2 and expects the second coming of Citizen Kane. The same is true for the majority of low-rent horror flicks, especially those Roger Ebert has dubbed "Dead Teenager Movies." The Hills Have Eyes 2 definitely qualifies as a Dead Teenager Movie, only here, the teenagers have been given the superficial appearance of military trainees.<br /><br />Some will argue the line "it's only a movie" when questionable facts are raised in a movie review, but I've always been a firm believer that all good fantasy must be rooted in reality in order to be effective. In the Hills Have Eyes 2, we're to believe the main characters are military people on a training exercise, but they look and talk like high school kids camping in the desert. The dialog is awful and frequently vulgar to excess. Though the films aren't nearly comparable, I kept imagining these "soldiers" being in Platoon, and shuddering with dread.<br /><br />Very little about the characters evokes a soldier other than rifles and fatigues: radio transmissions are carried out like teenage phone conversations; a Colonel is addresses as "hey, asshole" by a Private. And nobody seems to have the slightest idea what to do, or any sense of command structure, when things begin to go wrong. I think of the soldiers in James Cameron's Aliens, a film of pure fantasy, and how even those futuristic Marines behaved like real soldiers despite their fantastic situations. Fantasy rooted in reality.<br /><br />I try to begin watching a movie as a 5 on a scale of 10, and judge it's strengths and weaknesses from there. You have to allow concessions for the material; there's no way Star Wars is as good of a movie as The Godfather, on equal terms. But both are excellent examples of their type.<br /><br />In that respect, while the Hills Have Eyes 2 is a pretty dreadful exercise in amateur and immature writing, it's only modestly worse in that regard than the typical Dead Teenager Movie. On a technical side, the movie appears to have decent production values and is pretty well made from that perspective. Scenes that are intended to shock, or which are intended to evoke urgency or suspense generally work. So, while watching The Hills Have Eyes 2 may indeed be a fate worse than death, there are certainly far worse horror flicks in circulation.<br /><br />It's worth a watch for those who enjoy this type of stuff without the usual fanboy baggage, or those who don't tend towards thinking every movie they see is either the Best Ever or the Worst Ever of all time. If you don't "get" horror, especially the Dead Teenager variety, you're not likely to have a good time with this one.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
Most people will consider that Yul Brynner's greatest performance was as the ruler of Siam in THE KING AND I. Certainly it gave him a wide variety of moods to test his abilities in, from comic, to tragic, from eager to learn to dominating to hateful. It also showed him to advantage as a "talk singer" and a dancer. Finally, as it was also his Tony Award winning performance from Broadway, the film allowed us to capture something of the great Broadway performance as well.<br /><br />But he did other movies that showed his talents as well as THE KING AND I. His comic turn in ONCE MORE WITH FEELING was quite nice. So was his performance as General Bunin in ANASTASIA, or his Ramses in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Yet he came terribly close to being a 1950s successor to Eric Von Stroheim as "the man you love to hate." A certain vulnerability in his acting and roles endeared him to the movie public, even after his best years as a star were behind him - and he retreated more and more to repeating the King of Siam on television and the stage.<br /><br />To me, his finest performance is in this 1959 drama with Deborah Kerr, Jason Robards Jr., Robert Morley, E. G. Marshall, Anne Jackson, and Ronnie Howard. The film is set in pretty modern times - the powder-keg that was Hungary in 1956, when briefly it looked like the Iron Curtain was about to collapse there under the reforms of Hungarian patriot Imre Nagy and his supporters. But the Hungarian Revolution collapsed due to bad timing. The Russians and their Polish and East German allies sent tanks in to crush the revolt (and arrested and executed Nagy and other reformers). The West stood by and let this happen: England and France had gotten caught in the Suez crisis, and the U.S. had berated them and Israel for attacking Egypt. Due to the actions of three close allies of the U.S., the West found it hard to condemn the overkill of the Soviet Union. It was an unfortunate situation, and the Hungarians have never forgotten how they were abandoned in it.<br /><br />In the film Brynner is Major Surov, a Russian intelligence officer who is watching for some of the leaders of the Hungarian revolt, one of whom is Paul Kedes (Jason Robards). Kedes may be getting assistance from some westerners on a bus tour through Hungary, led by Robert Morley (including Marshall, Jackson, and Howard, and Kerr). The latter are being kept in a hotel while their bus is being repaired, and Brynner mingles with them, hoping for a lead to the whereabouts of Robards. But Brynner is human - he tries to be ingratiating with these people (all of whom see him as a monster), and in sequence, when he has drunk a little too much, he confronts them with the questions that has bothered historians since 1945: How is it (even if one notes that Russia had Stalin in charge) that relations between Russia and the West collapsed so quickly? The allies, on the whole, had worked well together from 1941 to 1945, but after Yalta and Potsdam all types of mutual suspicions just erupted. Did they have to? Surov is a good officer, but he is torn in half by loyalty to the Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and in Hungary that he supports, and his growing fondness towards Kerr, who is hiding Robards but is also willing to note the more human side of the Russian major. And as the film reaches it's tragic climax, we watch as Surov has to decide if he will follow his sense of duty, or take pity on Kerr, Robards, and the other westerners who want to leave. It becomes a true struggle for him - and one that he may win far too late. It was a great film about a tragedy of post war Europe, and possibly the most thoughtful role Yul Brynner ever portrayed. | positive |
This movie is wonderful. The writing, directing, acting all are fantastic. Very witty and clever script. Quality performances by actors, Ally Sheedy is strong and dynamic and delightfully quirky. Really original and heart-warmingly unpredicatable. The scenes are alive with fresh energy and really talented production. | positive |
If this is the first of the "Nemesis" films that you have seen, then I strongly urge you to proceed no further. The sequels to "Nebula" prove to be no better...hard to believe considering this entry is bottom-of-the-barrel. This movie tries, but it's just not worth your time, folks. Take a nap instead. | negative |
Beast Wars is a show that is over-hyped, overpraised and overrated. Let's meet the characters of this obnoxious show whose creators must have been on acid to try and make a show like this.<br /><br />Cheetor- Seriously, they need to have censor bars on this guy. How come he dosen't creep out the viewers having the same voice as baby Taz? (at least Razzoff from Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc is voiced by Slip & Slide) Action Blast- If you want a line of show that suck, get G4 Tranceformers Cybertron- A show that should go down in a toilet. Good Job Creators (Sarcasm) Show it self-Retarded & boring (at least the Super Mario games are better) This show had a lot of followers sayin' bring it back, but I believe that it was cancelled for its own good. | negative |
What Fox's fascination with dysfunctional families, made up of mean, obnoxious, spoiled kids, and parents who are determined to be cool, as opposed to being a parent?? I'm sorry, I don't get it. The one episode that I was barely able to stomach watching involved one of the kids demanding a Bar Mitzvah, with the intention of getting thousands of dollars in gift money. Of course, the idiot mother decides that her precious little junior has to have the biggest and bes-test party of all, and has no problem dropping 20 grand on the big event. The ditzy, brain dead, boy crazy teenage daughter bounces back and forth between wanting to be Jewish and then Catholic, when she see's the "cute" religious tutors.<br /><br />The one borderline "heartwarming" moment in the entire episode, was when the putz of a father, who has been convinced the entire time that the Bar Mitzvah is solely a money making scheme, see's the son studying his Hebrew lessons, and is momentarily duped into thinking that perhaps, his conniving offspring is being sincere about the right of passage into manhood. This warm, fuzzy feeling is immediately ripped out of his chest when he informs junior that since he has not yet had a bris, a certain "procedure" needs to be performed. The Bar Mitzvah is called off, and the mother is out several thousands of dollars when the kid refuses to comply.<br /><br />This show is garbage, and I am saddened that I shall never get back the 23 minutes of my life I wasted watching this piece of crap, because nothing else was on TV ... | negative |
My poor Tank Girl, they ignored everything great about you. Why does it have as little to do with the comics as possible? I would have loved a movie that followed the plot, or at least had the characters right.<br /><br />WHY WAS TANK GIRL American? She's Austrailian, dammit! And she's not living in a post apocalyptic war zone either, she lives in the outback with Booga like a savage. She does it because she wants to live that way, not because she has to because Malcolm Mc Dowell is acting the git. And why's she looking after those kids? The only children in the comics end up violently being choked by her, it's terrible that they made her into a lame mother figure.<br /><br />And my poor Jet Girl and Sub Girl! In the comics, Jet is a sarcastic wisecracker and Sub girl is... another sarcastic wisecracker with a weird sense of humour. In the movie Jet is this mousy little thing and Sub is this ditzy middle aged hag. And Booga doesn't look or act anything like what he's meant to be either. Though maybe hot roo/human love was too much for the USA box office? The humour was so lame too. Whatever happened to all the stuff about the Smiths and that brilliant slang they used all the time? What sort of line is "Will this take long? I don't wanna miss Baywatch."? Even programmes for tiny children can come up with better material than that. | negative |
I saw this movie years ago on late night television. Back then it went by the title of "Stairway to Heaven". Even as a young boy, I remember being deeply moved by the story and astounded by the visual effects of the court trial (those who have seen it know what I'm talking about). Such imagination! A perfect blend of romance, drama, humour and fantasy, this movie is right up there with the greatest classics ever made: Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind. This movie is rated extremely high by IMDB voters and rightly so - over 51% voters rated it 10 out of 10; over 84% rated it 8 or higher out of 10. I was surprised it was not listed in the top 250 films until I realized so few have seen/rated this movie, compared to those on the list. What a pity. I hope this movie gets released on DVD for Region 1 (North America), so that 1), I can purchase it, and 2), others discover this hidden treasure. | positive |
To say this film is simply a demonisation of Catholics and a misrepresentation of history is untrue. That is not what this film is.<br /><br />What this film is is a comment on the abuses of the Church (although this could be substituted for any powerful body), the ways that this abuse affects people and families and the way so many people choose to simply allow and often participate in the abuse without thinking for themselves. The fact that it is the Catholic church which is in the wrong is simply because of the nature of the true story the film is based upon. To label this as propaganda against Catholics seems to miss the truth about what the Catholic Church has done at times; its history is often not great and is something that films like this highlight and that needs to be highlighted. Yes we should comment on the abuses committed by other organisations but that is not for the remit of this film.<br /><br />It is an amazing film which brought me to tears and well worth watching - 'if we do not study the past, we are bound to repeat it' | positive |
Great movie about a great man. Thomas Kretschmann is first rate as in all of his other movies.I would never have envisioned him as Pope John Paul. It speaks volumes for the casting director. Why do they keep casting him as German officer in the movies? And he only came to universal attention after "the pianist"? Of course he looks so hot in the uniforms. I know a lot of girls drool over his handsome face. But this guy is a great actor and has such great potentials. If you don't believe me, go watch "Stalingrad". I hope he will get a lot of excellent roles in the future with more diversity. Otherwise, what a heartbreaking waste of great talent. | positive |
This movie isn't worth the film it was photographed on. The dialog is flat, filled with cliché overused lines and delivered by amateur actors who sound like their reading a script for the first time. The choppy, shaky, film style is a cheap imitation of the "The Ring" style visual effects. The characters do not even act like a normal person would. For example, the character who is looking for her twin sister at her home forces her way through the front door, creeps around the house all frightened and sobbing and she doesn't even once call out her sister's name to see if she is home. What? You would think she had just buried her sister instead of searching for her. Way too many flashbacks to her childhood. Too many unnecessary flashbacks is a typical sign of an amateur director. It is actually funny watching the numerous shots of the woman driving her car down the street, up the driveway, around this corner, over here, over there, oh a side view, now a front view. Enough already. You would think you are watching a TV commercial for the Solaris! Terrible movie. 0 out of 100. I really pity anybody who spent money making this film or to watch it. | negative |
Revolutions always present opportunities for dramatic films since, in fact, most revolutions are in themselves dramatic events. Unfortunately, what this film lacks in drama is compensated for by an overabundance of boredom. One cares not who wins, loses, dies or lives--just end it as soon as possible. This is due in large measure to what seems to me to be a superficial use of background technology. Scenes of Paris and the French countryside have a cardboard quality about them. They might better be done on a bare stage and left that way. One cannot expect the amazing effects of "The House of the Flying Daggers" or "The Golden Compass," but , after all, this is a 2002 digitally mastered production. Characters seem to enter a scene for the sake of entering a scene, so much so that one loses count of the number of times character enter and leave rooms. In my view, this film turns the French Revolution of the 1790s into the "papier-mache" revolution of a "papier colle" world. | negative |
Love it or loathe it, it's hard to not find Warren Beatty's take on "Dick Tracy," the 1990 film adaptation of Chester Gould's famous comic strip, anything short of a genre classic. Superhero films have been coming out of the woodwork in recent years, and may soon become a genre all on its own.<br /><br />Beatty's film liberally uses Gould's source material to full effect, shooting in all six of the strip's primary colors, and thus giving this unique yet familiar world of trigger-happy mutant gangsters and loose, seductive women a lush visual style and tone.<br /><br />It can be stated that the film's strong visual aesthetics drastically short-change the characters and their acting abilities, which I don't think can be any further from the truth.<br /><br />"Dick Tracy" relishes in its look and ghastly characters, and Beatty himself, who plays the dogged and incorruptible detective of the title, is appropriately stoic and ready to bust the bad guys at any and all costs.<br /><br />Other than the visual treats and Oscar-winning makeup, there is a plot, and Big Boy Caprice (Al Pacino, deliciously over-the-top in an Oscar-nominated performance), seeks to eliminate Tracy in one well-planned move, but also seeks to gain control of all criminal action in the city by uniting all the feuding gangs under him.<br /><br />Tracy, meanwhile, is juggling his relationship with Tess Trueheart (Glenne Headly), who as her name would have it, remains faithfully by his side and cares for The Kid (Charlie Korsmo), who eventually finds a father figure to look up to in our crime-busting hero. Tracy's fidelity to Tess is tested by the tempting advances of Breathless Mahoney (Madonna), who is also Big Boy's main squeeze. At the same time that all of this is going down, things become heated when a new criminal figure arrives in town, and decides to play both sides against the middle.<br /><br />The performances are good, as Beatty's focus on the strained and romantic relationships between each of the leads becomes the center of the material, as opposed to just concentrating on pointless action and special effects. Pacino freely chews up the scenery in a role that's truly standout from the rest.<br /><br />"Dick Tracy" is one of the best and most overlooked of the comic book movie genre. I think that if Chester Gould was still alive, he would be proud of Warren Beatty's take on his beloved crime-fighting detective.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.<br /><br />The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).<br /><br />Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.<br /><br />It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.<br /><br />Totally ludicrous TV show. | negative |
It occurred to me while watching "Imaginary Heroes" that any screenwriter attempting to make a drama about family relationships should seriously consider killing off a kid or two in the opening reel as a way of getting his characters to open up and reveal themselves. There must be something to this storyline, for it seems as if every other family drama that comes down the pike uses this device in one form or another ("Paradise" and "Moonlight Mile" are just two of the more recent examples that spring immediately to mind, although one could reach back to a golden oldie like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" to make the point as well). It's not that the death of a child is an illegitimate subject for serious films to explore. Far from it. It's just that, like any topic, it can be so overused that it becomes just another movie cliché, a convenient bit of narrative shorthand to get the ball rolling and to give the characters something to grapple with for the remainder of the time we get to spend with them.<br /><br />The latest such work is "Imaginary Heroes," a film that borrows heavily from what is one of the earliest and, perhaps, best known examples of the "family coping with the death of a child" genre, the Academy Award winning "Ordinary People." Like the characters in that earlier film, the Travises seem, on the surface, to be the ideal suburban family, until, one fateful day, their oldest son, Matt, who is the "golden boy" athlete and, thus, the apple of his father's eye, kills himself with no explanation (one minor difference is that the son in "Ordinary People" dies as a result of an accident, not a suicide). It is Matt's younger brother, Tim, who winds up finding the body, and who assumes the role of protagonist in the film. Each of the remaining family members copes with the tragedy in his or her own way. Matt, who has always lived in the shadow of his older brother, becomes more and more estranged from the father who has virtually ignored him all his life and begins to turn to drugs for surcease. Ben, the father, becomes swallowed up in feelings of remorse and guilt, turning away from both his job and his family. His wife, Sandy, is the most complex character in the film, a free-spirited child of the '60's who feels oddly adrift in the role of mother and wife as she endures a basically loveless marriage in sterile suburbia. She spends most of her time after the tragedy trying to reconnect with her pot-smoking past.<br /><br />As written and directed by Dan Harris, "Imaginary Heroes" emerges as a wildly uneven film. For every scene that feels real and authentic, there is another that comes across as arbitrary and inauthentic. One sometimes has the sense that Harris would like to cram every possible life situation he can think of into his screenplay, an admirable goal, perhaps, but one that makes the film unnecessarily melodramatic in the process. Instead of identifying with the characters and being caught up in their plight, we often find ourselves thinking, "Oh, come now
what next?" For teen suicide is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the hot-button topics covered in this film; the screenplay also touches on drug and alcohol abuse, physical abuse, sexual identity conflict, life-threatening illness, even inadvertent gay incest. It is this "everything but the kitchen sink" mentality in the writing that robs the movie of much of the credibility it needs to really make us care.<br /><br />That is not to say that "Imaginary Heroes" is a bad or unrewarding film. Much of what it has to say about familial relationships and values in the 21st Century is insightful, original, pointed and profound. Prime credit for its success goes to the actors, Emile Hirsch, Sigourney Weaver and Jeff Daniels, who deliver incisive, sensitive performances in their respective roles. It is they who triumph over the narrative excesses to stimulate our brains and touch our hearts. Moreover, Harris, in his direction, achieves an effectively melancholic tone throughout, but one that is frequently augmented by some badly-needed flashes of daring dark comedy.<br /><br />"Imaginary Heroes" may appear unfocused and derivative at times, but its fine performances and subtle mood shifts make it a film worth watching. | positive |
Despite the feelings of most "Star Wars" fans, in my opinion "Return Of The Jedi" is the greatest cinematic film ever created. Ever since the first time I saw it, it's depth, intensity, special effects, and moving story have overwhelmed me. The film was so well put together that it has been able to stand the test of time over the last 20 years. Filled with powerful action, as the climax of the original trilogy, George Lucas gives us a rousing finish of the "Star Wars" saga in "Jedi".<br /><br />Film Summary (Contains Spoilers For Those Who Have Not Seen It)<br /><br />After "The Empire Strikes Back" left us hanging for 3 long years we finally find the end of the story in "Return Of The Jedi". Darth Vader, in emotional turmoil makes a surprise visit to a new uncompleted Death Star to oversee it's construction. The Emperor is first seen in this film as he has the ultimate plan to destroy the Rebel Alliance and bring young Luke Skywalker to the Dark Side. Luke, Lando, Leia, Chewie, and the droids all travel to Tatooine to rescue the frozen Han Solo from the crime Lord; Jabba The Hutt. After Han has been rescued, and Jabba defeated, Luke returns to Dagobah to find a dying Yoda where he learns the awful truth; Darth Vader is in fact his father. The rebel heroes regroup with the Rebel Fleet. Now joined by other species and races including the Mon Calamari the Rebels must make a all-or-nothing plan of attack to destroy the Death Star before it is completed. While Lando heads the space attack in the Millennium Falcon, the Rebel heroes must disable the Death Star's shield generator on the Forest Moon Of Endor. It is here that the Rebels happen upon the furry, but mighty Ewoks. During the the two part intense battle, a third battle must take place as Luke willingly delivers himself to Vader in an attempt to convince him to leave the Dark Side. In emotionally charged sequences Luke must face his father as the Emperor lures out his dark emotions. As young Skywalker is about to face his death at the hands of Palpatine, Vader turns on his wicked master to save his son's life. <br /><br />Filled with a deep timeless story of good vs. evil, "Return Of The Jedi" is a spectacular, emotionally charged film that redeems the good in all of us. | positive |
This short film doesn't get there. Cliche' and not very funny attempt at dark humor. Humor isn't funny enough to get you interested and the protagonist isn't likeable so you really don't care about what happens anyway. Producer spent some money on this flop and it shows in the production value which is the only saving grace. | negative |
Martin Ritt seems to be a director who was always interested in social issues (as the son of immigrants, he had every incentive to be so, especially since he was blacklisted in the '50s). "Conrack" is based on Pat Conroy's novel "The Water is Wide", about his own experience in 1969 teaching a school of impoverished black children about the outside world, much to the chagrin of the right-wing superintendent (Hume Cronyn). What added to the movie's strength was the cultural and historical context: Conroy (Jon Voight) frustratedly tells another teacher how many of the children don't know about Paul Newman, Sidney Poitier, the Vietnam War, or even where Vietnam is. He proceeds to enlighten them about all these factors.<br /><br />Somewhere, I read a complaint that when Conroy played music for the children, he only played white music. The truth is, you can't blame the movie for that; it was based on Conroy's real experience. Either way, the movie's a real gem. | positive |
The best thing I can say about "Quintet" is that it's not quite as bad as I remembered it being on my first viewing.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean it's good.<br /><br />This weird, sci-fi thriller is not quite like any other movie I've ever seen, which I guess at least gives it the stamp of novelty. But it's a borderline disaster of a movie, and one of the worst Robert Altman ever made. On the DVD special feature about the making of "Quintet," it's clear that even Altman didn't know what the hell the movie was supposed to be.<br /><br />It's set in some distant future when the world is in the grip of another ice age. The film was shot at the abandoned site of the Montreal Expo '67, and I do have to admit that this gives the movie some interesting production design elements, even if much of it looks like it's being filmed in an iced-over shopping mall. Paul Newman, looking zonked out and absolutely disinterested in anything going on around him, and Brigitte Fossey, play drifters who wander into this futuristic city looking for Newman's brother. Soon Newman is caught up in a deadly game of "Quintet," which all of the bored inhabitants play for lack of anything better to do, and the rules of which are never made clear to the audience. All we know is that the object of the game it to kill everyone else you're playing with and remain the only person alive. This gives these nihilistic inhabitants their only thrill, because as one of them says at one point in a psychobabblish soliloquy, only by being near to death can one appreciate being alive.<br /><br />The movie is slow, ugly and actually uncomfortable to watch due to its unrelenting gloominess. It's almost as if Altman was purposely setting out to make a movie no one would want to sit through. There aren't characters -- oh sure, actors walk around speaking lines, but none of the lines really means much and the impressive list of international actors Altman assembled for this register not a whit. Only Bibi Andersson gives the closest thing to a memorable performance as could possibly be found in a movie like this. But nevertheless, it does succeed in establishing an atmosphere, even if that atmosphere is one of pure awfulness, and it is oddly fascinating in the way that watching a man slowly starve himself to death would be fascinating.<br /><br />Altman really hit a dry spell after nearly a decade of superb films. "Quintet" followed close on the heels of the atrocious "A Wedding" and was followed in short order by the not bad but mostly forgettable "A Perfect Couple," the by-all-accounts terrible "Health" (which I've never seen because it's not available anywhere TO see) and the disastrous "Popeye." Thank God he rebounded.<br /><br />Grade: D- | negative |
There is no need for me to repeat the synopsis rendered by Glenn. The black and white rendition is even more powerful in portraying the bleakness of country village life at that time. The deep measure of friendship shown by Babette toward the two elderly sisters touches the heart strings. The supporting cast is excellent and their performances superb, it would not be fair to single out any one character since the entire story depends on the cast as a whole. I cannot put my finger exactly on why I rate this movie so highly since I am not a professional critic; individual viewers may or may not agree with my rating since enjoyment of this type of movie is always in the eye of the beholder. | positive |
The worst part of all is the poor scripting, leading to superficial acting.<br /><br />Dreyfuss' character is intensely repetitive and annoying, and Dreyfuss himself has the annoying face to match.<br /><br />Holly Hunter's character is exaggeratedly self-centered, and Hunter herself indulges in serious overacting, as usual.<br /><br />Brad Johnson was wooden. John Goodman made the best of it.<br /><br />Furthermore, the whole death / ghost thing has since been somewhat overdone, and now appears rather lame. <br /><br />Barely watchable only if you like old aeroplanes. | negative |
A truly unpleasant film. While Rick Baker's special effects are quite impressive (if stomach-turning), it has no other redeeming features. Like many 70s movies, it leaves you feeling as if you need to take a long shower, and scrub the slime off of yourself. The characters are uniformly unpleasant, and plot makes no sense. | negative |
Okay, let me coin a new word here: polyphobia: The fear of polyamorous relationships. This is yet another in a long line of movies which start out by titillating audiences about some kind of threesome, only to turn on a dime and go all preachy about how it is oh so necessary and the only moral thing to find a monogamistic solution. Only one person in a thousand understands the delight of being able to love more than one person, and this director is not one of them. Bleh.<br /><br />Mark my words: a few decades from now, polyphobia is going to be just as big a faux-pas as homophobia, but guess who was too close-minded to realize this? Right the first time: the producers of this movie. And so many like it. Why even make a ridiculously conservative and old-fashioned type of movie like this? Priding itself on being limitlessly open-minded about gayness, it completely overlooks the fact that we live in an age where monogamy is turning into sequential monogamy, which in turn in turning into swinging and polyamory. Open your eyes, people, please!<br /><br />This is a disappointing, run-of-the-mill chick-flick. (But, damn, I gotta say, Heather Graham is the cutest thing alive.)<br /><br />3 out of 10. | negative |
Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!<br /><br />I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?<br /><br />It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a "stunt double". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.) | negative |
This movie has no respect for the viewer's time. It takes a 15 minute story and stretches it into 95 minutes. In order to achieve this, they have to use a very slow narration and have everyone run around with some implausible frantic angst. By the time this movie showed anything interesting in the plot, I just didn't care. The problem is not in the acting, but instead the pacing. The story is just weak. Jim Carrey is a capable actor, but his attempts to inject light humor into a serious role is just out of place. His style of humor is not generic, so he comes across as a watered down version of himself. The number 23 causes great grief and frustration to the people in the story, but the justification for this is never logical. At most it's just mildly interesting. Jim Carrey has far more ability in a serious role than this movie reveals. Don't waste your money seeing this in the theater. Rent this movie if you've had problems sleeping. If you are still wide awake after 10 minutes, then you liked it more than I did. I was not fond of the lighting and artistic aspects of the film making either. A lot of passive visual eye candy was thrown at the viewer with lighting or effects and it did little to enhance the already weak story. | negative |
Since I'd bought the DVD, I watched as much of this as I did out of a sense of obligation to my wallet.<br /><br />The plot has Kirk Douglas as a successful first novelist who hired Laraine Day as a secretary, falls in love, and marries her. Complications ensue.<br /><br />Douglas is usually thought of as an intense actor, given to heavily dramatic roles, sometimes hero, sometimes rat. He's not bad in this thoroughly comic part. The problem is that the part isn't particularly comic and neither is anything else.<br /><br />The plot rambles on. A dozen "quirky" characters come and go -- most prominently Keenan Wynn as Douglas's friend who does nothing but make wry comments. Thelma Ritter was better at this sort of thing.<br /><br />Well, if the plot is weak it could still have been rescued by some sparkle in the dialog but there is none to speak of. Some gags are silly. Others don't clear that bar. Here's what I thought of as an amusing line. Douglas has just hired Day and wants to get her down to the beach house and seduce her. Day is disturbed and remarks that she's never heard of a writer working in a beach house. Wynn asks if she liked Douglas's previous book, "Last Year's Love." Yes, of course she did. "Well, most of 'Last Year's Love' was done in the beach house." Ha ha.<br /><br />Nice cast, including support, but a failed comedy. There have been better sitcoms on television. | negative |
No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays. | negative |
What a great movie this is. I found it full of the delightfully unexpected pain of being a single father of a teenage girl. And it is set in a tropical island 'paradise'as well. <br /><br />Gerard Depardeiux brings his special European flair to this story about a divorced father of a teenage girl. They are on holiday together and she begins to add to the excitement on the island in many unexpected ways. But you will need to see the film for yourself to see all the hilarious situations they find for themselves.<br /><br />There are a few cult classics which all teens should see. This movie should be added to the list. In addition to Dirty Dancing, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Rocky Horror Picture Show and Animal House, My Father the Hero should be required film study. Watch it as if you had a teenage daughter and you'll be rolling with laughter. Watch it with your teenage daughter and prepare to be laughed at for months. | positive |
This is an exquisite film about the search for some bliss in everyday life. The pacing, the camera work, the emotion, the haunting musical score and the pure charm of this picture make it a must see. It isn't easily appreciated by the immature or emotionally stunted. The only flaw I can see about this film is that it wasn't captured in a more technically perfect film format. It deserved Todd-AO, Technicolor and the very finest sound format available.(An intimate film can be made in seventy millimeter.) The gorgeous Italian villas effect on its inhabitants would have rendered even more lushly and the small lovely moments would be even more beautifully seen and heard. As it is, it still demands attention as a sweet moving small film. I can't stop myself from watching it every time it comes on satelite. The transformations of the characters from contained, tight and mistrustful is always a joy to watch and I really should recommend it more often.<br /><br />The casting is perfect, the mood is perfect, the acting is above reproach. It is a film about middle age and the choices people make.It is deep and thoughtful without beating the viewer up with heavy handedness. Watch it in one sitting and let it have its effect on you. If you don't get it, perhaps you haven't lived enough, or something else is wrong with you. | positive |
What the hell was all that about? I saw The Matrix and was amazed. It was the most spectacular movie ever made. What ever possesed the Wachowski brothers to do this film is beyond me.<br /><br />There is no plot, you can't argue with that. Basically all this film was was a load of talking, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with talky films, but all the talking in The Matrix Reloaded was a pointless load of drivvle. Then there would be a fight sequence which lasted WAY too long, then more pointless drivvle, then another fight scene that lasts too long and it all builds up to the biggest anti-climax ever. A little bearded bloke talking a load of uncomprehensible bull for 20 minutes.<br /><br />Also, Keanu Reeves gives his worst performance yet. I knew he wasn't a good actor but this was beyond a joke. If you watch his films in the order he was in them it would seem he got gradually worse as they went along. God knows what his performance is like in Something's Gotta Give! Keanu Reeves: The only plank of wood ever to become an actor.<br /><br />After the splendor of the first film this came as a massive dissapointment. If you haven't already seen the first film I suggest you watch it, but don't waste your time with this utter pile of turd.<br /><br /> | negative |
<br /><br />eXistenZ is simply David Cronenberg's best movie. All the people compare it to the Matrix. They're not even similar. If you enjoyed Cronenberg's other works just a little bit, you'll love this one... | positive |
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please. | negative |
My wife invited my son and I to watch this on cable TV on a lazy Saturday evening, thinking that it might show an unusual role for Juliette Lewis. On this promise, at least, the movie delivers: her character is ineffectual, adhering to nearly every slasher-type horror movie cliche. As does the movie. A cataloguing of its studied adherence to them would be an exercise in recall of something I hope to quickly forget, so I won't make one. Basically, this is a whodunnit, heavy on the red herrings: everybody appears guilty, rather than just the two one suspects from the beginning. The "rule out the logical and obvious, and what's left is it" rule of bad horror movies works well on this one. The only surprise to have any impact on me was its final snagging of the indeterminate ending cliche: will Jane keep her appointment with her attempted rescuer, who will tell her the (obvious to the audience) identity of the 2nd conspirator, propelling her into another round of hysterical victim-play. Mercifully, I will never know. | negative |
I was watching an NFL game and started surfing during a break and found this on one of the HBO type channels. I missed the beginning but when I started watching Deadly Voyage the clicker was put down and not even thought of until the credits rolled. You will find yourself rooting against the villans and on the edge of your La-Z-Boy throughout this one. If you get the chance take the time to watch it. Every once in a while I think about having the cable company take off my Movie channels but when you stumble across great ones like this you know why it is worth paying extra for them. Happy Holidays to all from Cape Cod !!! | positive |
Despite a few acceptable adaptations of the books' main themes, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED/THE VAMPIRE LESTAT did not stay true to Anne Rices's complicated story telling. The deep layers that build up all the characters were shredded apart to only their surface, if not a completely different identity. The chronological order of the major events in the movie seemed warped and uneven.<br /><br />However, there were quite a few things the movie did to deserve my rating of 7. One was that the film strongly captured the affect that Lestat (among other vampires)had to the public, especially young girls. The movie also did a fairly good job focusing on the importance of heredity and history that the vampires took pride in. The scenes of sensuality were also atmospherically satisfying.<br /><br />The acting in QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was moderate, if disappointing. Stuart Townsend and Aaliyah have a surprising chemistry, though it only shows when the acting is at its best (not very often). The characters are nothing compared to the ones established in INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE. It also lacks the emotional intelligence of THE FEAST OF ALL SAINTS, which is a shame because Rice's Queen of the Damned book had that, and more.<br /><br />This movie doesn't give all that it appears to be. The effects are dull and very disappointing. The extravagance needed in many scenes is not given, and the dialog is tiring. The settings for many scenes are not how I pictured them in the book, and I think that many of them weren't even taken from the story. There are only a few areas of incoherence near the beginning and middle of the movie, but it wraps itself up fairly neatly, giving the viewer a full story (if they had not read the book).<br /><br />Somethings that I feel the movie needed include a good original score (Howard Shore or Elmer Bernstein), instead of the mix of rock music; though I had no problem with some of the songs. Another thing that would have made the movie better is better set direction. The scenery was boring as well as unclear, which is important in a story that moves around quite frequently.<br /><br />Overall, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED was an unevenly disappointing yet somewhat satisfying adaption of the important novel. With a few simple changes, it may have been a very successful piece of film work. I'd recommend this movie for people who has seen INTERVIEW or have read the books, so that they can make their own opinion on the adaption. | positive |
Please note that I haven't seen the film since I discovered it in 2007, and my town is smaller and doesn't carry it. However, I really want to say something about it. I'm actually doing research for university on the title character Richard Maurice Bucke and would like to point out that the person they based the main character on was in reality completely different!!! Hollywood's ideas of people and artistic license granted, the real Dr. Bucke totally endorsed hysterectomies to cure insanity in women, and would never have practiced anything as liberal as represented in the film. I think it's laughable to see various film critics who write for legitimate newspapers who say this film has some historical basis! The only actual fact I can see is the friendship between Dr. Bucke and Walt Whitman. Please don't waste your time on a film with such a disregard to the horror that real women experienced at the hands of this doctor who has now been glorified by the film industry. | negative |
This film speaks a universal language; one can relate it to the self, community, society or the wider world. It has a way of not only opening up several questions but also setting one in pursuit of discovering and asking the right questions in order to get to that point of self conviction / ownership. The portrayal of the stereotypes within the film addresses the archetypes around us which must be recognised as being the repeating cycle of destruction, the opposing force of innovation, creativity and growth. The factors which disturb the natural flow of things must be made apparent and tackled. The Idea, is definitely a film to be experienced and not just viewed as it taps into one's internal voice / conscience through the looking, it makes one feel as opposed to just watch. | positive |
This is by far the worst non-English horror movie I've ever seen. The acting is wooden, the dialogues are simply stupid and the story is totally braindead. It's not even scary. 2 out of 10 from me. | negative |
There are no reasons of taking this documentary serious and there are four reasons for that: <br /><br />1) The people who made this documentary (including the director and the producer) are Serbs or of Serbian origin, therefore the criteria of neutrality fails. For instance, they mentioned that the diaspora Croats (the so called "Ustase") played a huge part in the fall of Yugoslavia, but they didn't mention that there were equal Serbian organizations as well (Cetniks)! For you who aren't that familiar with Balkan WW2 history: The Serbian so called "Cetniks" that were portrayed in the documentary as being so kind that they helped British paratroops during the war. Well, that's only half the truth. They were also a fascist (Monarch) group who collaborated with the Germans, but then switched side when Hitler started losing the war. It's also ironic that they don't mention the Cetnik leader Mihajlovic in the documentary, a man that is responsible for killing thousands of people and burning hundreds of villages all over Bosnia and Croatia. But they mentioned a certain Ante Pavelic...Hm...Allow me to be just a little suspicious.<br /><br />2) Most of the people interviewed are to me totally unknown. And I've studied this war for a long time (who is the old British lady!!! She really hasn't made her homework!) and they are not even presented by name, so they could More or less be anybody, maybe someone they took from the street. Who knows.<br /><br />3) In The documentary they talk about Kosovo and how the Serbs have lived there for ages, and therefore it should belong to Serbia (even though they are a minority). Well, when they mention the Serbian dominated part of Croatia (Krajina) suddenly the Serbs are portrayed as how they have the right to live there because it has been their home for so long. Fine, but what people don't know is that the largest city in Krajina (Knin) has great historical importance for the Croatian people. It was there where one of the most celebrated Kings of Croatian history (Zvonimir) was crowned, and therefore the city has a historical value for Croatia. The Serbs arrived almost 800 years or so later! But no, the Serbs should have Krajina and Kosovo according to the documentary. Is that fair? To me it looks like double standards of morality from the director. Plus, it is said in the documentary that the Croatian constitution didn't have any laws about minority rights, this is a lie because it was one of the first laws implemented BECAUSE of the fact that Croatia had a huge Serbian minority.<br /><br />4) The film mentions a radical Croatian Paramilitarian leader called Glavas. Or the Muslim radical Oric. They accused them of being a huge reason for the negative development of the war. Yes, they were radicals, but if you want to talk about radicals, why not also mention the Serbian radical paramilitary leaders such as Seselj and Arkan? The flaws are so many that I just presented a few of them, just so that people get an overview of the documentary. It looks like the people who made this documentary weren't well prepared and didn't have the guts to criticize the Serbs because they were afraid that their Serbian relatives would slap them or something. There aren't that many documentaries out there that are of good quality, but the best so far is "The death of Yugoslavia" where all the significant participants of the war are interviewed (e.g. Milosevic, Jovic, Bulatovic, Tudman, Izetbegovic, Karadzic etc.) and where you get a whole 5 hour explanation about the fall of Yugoslavia and the war.<br /><br />One other thing. I saw a comment on this documentary where the person was frustrated about why the US gave support to a country (Bosnia) that had connections with Bin Laden during the war. Well, first of all, all the countries involved in this conflict had nationalist presidents and because the Bosnian Muslims didn't have an old ethnic identity (previosly they were called "Muslim Croats") they had to rely on something else besides nationality to raise the spirit among the people, and that was by connecting them to the only thing that they had in common: Their religion. And they took help from the Mujahedin because no one else would support them. They had to fight the 4:th largest army in Europe! They needed all the help they could get. Nationalism is the best way to unite a people during war. History has shown us that. | negative |
The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.<br /><br />Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.<br /><br />Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.<br /><br />Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?<br /><br />I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"<br /><br />I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.<br /><br />Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.<br /><br />Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half. | negative |
Jess is 18, very smart and wants nothing more than to play football, when she joins a local team she has to lie to her parents again and again, as they would never approve of her chasing her dream, they want her to settle down with a nice Indian boy and learn how to cook.<br /><br />Bend it Like Beckham is a very funny feel good movie that doesn't need to be deep and complex, it's just fine as it is. The cast are all very good and they play their roles very well, the story is simple and predictable, but it works perfectly and the script is very realistic and very funny.<br /><br />A great Family movie 8/10 | positive |
The Greek locale for parts of the movie were very beautiful and the photography get all my votes and that's about the extent of my raves for this movie. I found that all the characters were narcissistic archetypes found so often in the American culture and were shallow and uninteresting. Susan Sarandon and Gena Rowlands are easy to look at but I found their characters very narcissistic and unlikeable for many other reasons. When Gena Rowlands sings at a party it made me wonder how this woman could think of herself as a competent star of the stage. I was tempted to hit the MUTE button until she finished singing. Molly Ringwald was herself and Raul Julia's character was so lecherous he was downright creepy. The movie was much too long for my liking and I could not sit through it again even at the point of a gun. | negative |
I thought I'd witnessed every wrinkle the crime/gangster flick had to offer, but the Garrett-Marcin-Hammett combination pull off some genuine thrills and surprises here, thanks to the inventively forceful direction by Mamoulian, the atmospheric photography by Lee Garmes, plus remarkably sharp film editing and flawless special effects. Brilliant acting helps too. Coop gives one of his most convincing performances as the reticent hayseed-turned-fearless bootlegger (the sort of character progression he was to repeat in other roles such as Sergeant York). Miss Sidney (pictured center) in her first major role is also an eye-opener. The principals receive great support from Paul Lukas, Wynne Gibson and Stanley Fields as the heavies, and even from Robert Homans' hard-as-nails detective. The movie has obviously been realized on an extensive budget which is brilliantly deployed in its realistic, crowd-filled sets. | positive |
It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?<br /><br />!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.<br /><br />I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain | negative |
Cary Elwes have to say puts on a better performance then Costner did in RHPOT but anyhow.<br /><br />Have to say this film it just makes me laugh so much mainly because the actors seem really into what their doing and you just sit there and thinking 'what the hell are they on' but in a very very very very good way.The random outbursts of songs were brilliant and well and the musical score used I really really liked.Great casting and as said before everyone seemed so into their roles<br /><br />10/10 from me defiantly<br /><br />'Because unlike some other Robin Hoods.I can speak with an English accent' | positive |
This isn't as violent as I was expecting which makes the violent scenes appear all the more brutal and effective.<br /><br />There are a lot of twists and turns and back stabbing and double crossing all the way through the film making it hard to know who's side a particular character is on.<br /><br />The plot is pacey with some good dialogue and character development and gives an interesting view of the workings of the Triad gang it follows.<br /><br />The violence when it comes is brutal, no guns or martial art scenes with special effects, this is believable in your face violence and for all the dialogue you are never allowed forget that the Triad is a violent criminal organisation.<br /><br />The ending is surprising but thoroughly consistent and believable. | positive |
I first saw Love in Limbo playing late on free to air TV about five years ago, and since then it's a movie I'll always remember warmly as one of those films you see and are forever influenced by.<br /><br />For the uninitiated, Australian film has a long history of making off-beat comedies about lovable losers, and Love in Limbo is a sterling example of this. Whilst Russel Crowe is the only name actor in it (although these days he's all a movie needs), the rest of the Aussie cast is good- he still steals the show as a nervous, nerdy, virgin loser though.<br /><br />The general premise is a lot like American Pie. A group of friends wanting to get laid and become men. As you'd expect, the entire movie focusses on this (with a sub-plot about the lead's mother and various other incidents), and is full of humorous situations that push it towards the inevitably sweet ending.<br /><br />If you enjoyed American Pie, don't expect this to be the same- but expect the same conventions to make appearances. Love in Limbo isn't a gross out romantic comedy- but it definitely has its share of laughs, fist pumping moments when the good guy wins, and the situations every guy, Australian or otherwise, can relate to.<br /><br />See it if you liked: American Pie, Almost Famous. Strengths: Good Aussie cast, easy to relate to, good perve value. Weaknesses: Predictable at points. My Rating: 8 out of 10 | positive |
***May contain spoilers***<br /><br />I had very high expectations for this film, based on the trailer. I knew a bit about the real Ed Gein, so I figured this was a medium-budget Hollywood version of the real events. Man was I wrong.<br /><br />First, the writing apparently came from an eight-grader who barely knew anything about Ed's history and cranked out the script in about 20 minutes. The movie completely passes over the most interesting facets of Ed and his relationship with his mother (not to mention what the real police found in his house) and decides to focus primarily on the young deputy who looks like he just wandered onto the set. Likewise, all of the male characters seem to be ad-libbing their dialog throughout the entire movie. I'm not exaggerating.<br /><br />Don't even get me started with the historical goofs in this movie. Seriously, who the hell directed this? This movie is supposed to take place around 1957, but the cops are carrying modern side-handled batons, some of the stuff in the hardware store look like they came from Lowes, and when the cop gets to a payphone he dials 9-1-1 (didn't exist back then). Also, Ed was a small guy, scary like Anthony Perkins' character in Psycho (who was supposedly based on real-life Ed), not this burly dude who ended up looking way too much like the bad guy in Men In Black.<br /><br />Another thing that really bugged me was the appearance that the makers of this film shot the whole thing in an abandoned, 3 building set. Because of the "clever" camera angles, you never see any actual town, and the interior of the sets looked like old, long-abandoned shacks. Pop a cash register on a saw-horse and bam!--instant hardware store.<br /><br />I'm usually pretty forgiving of low-budget horror films, but this one just begs for it. All you had to do was include most of the real events (even embellish them!), pay five good actors instead of 15 crappy ones, and for Pete's sake take 5 minutes and think about the time period once in a while. My advice: Google Ed Gein, you'll be far more entertained. | negative |
I am normally not compelled to write a review for a film, but the only commentary for this film thus far on is rather unfair, so I feel it necessary to share my point of view.<br /><br />"Krisana" (or as it was titled at the theater I saw it, "Fallen") follows Matiss, a lonely Latvian archivist, as he tries to learn about a woman whom he didn't try to stop from jumping off a bridge, as well as her reasons for doing so. That's the plot in a nutshell, but this film is not concerned with story as much it is in depicting the guilt of a man who failed to act. As a detective who investigates the incident tells him, we usually don't bother to care about the anonymous faces we pass every day until after they die.<br /><br />Comparisons to Michaelango Antonioni and his "Blowup" will most likely abound in any review you read about "Krisana." The influence of Antonioni's philosophical and austere style and the story of "Blowup" are clear and, in fact, writer/director Fred Kelemen makes an obvious reference to that film in scenes in which Matiss attempts to come to know the woman who jumped off the bridge, or at least who he thinks did.<br /><br />The only other person to share his or her views on the film detracts the "college film class" look and sound of the film. He or she neglects to consider the budgetary constraints that an existentialist Latvian film most likely faces, but the atmospheric black and white cinematography and ambient sound succeeds at an artistic level to depict the solitude of Matiss. The background sound of wind and street noises lend an ominous aura and reminds one of a Fellini film, whether or not that was Kelemen's intention. The filmmakers undoubtedly had little money, but this constraint is used to the film's advantage.<br /><br />"Krisana" succeeds as a character study with enough humor thrown in to keep it from being too self-serious. It could have easily fell into the trappings of a mystery story, but it avoids that and becomes an intelligent film about loneliness and guilt. If you are more concerned with plot, this film and its ending may frustrate you. Otherwise, take the time to be engaged by it. It is well-worth seeking out. | positive |
Watching this hilariously retro but very entertaining career girl tale, I was floored by Joan Crawford's first appearance. All I could think initially was, "My God, it's the same face as Michael Jackson in his notorious booking photo!" <br /><br />About 34 minutes into the movie, Diane Baker and Hope Lange get out of a cab in Greenwich Village. As they walk down the street, you can see part of a sign in back of them for the Stonewall Bar -- scene of the epochal "riots" that are considered the trigger for the modern gay rights movement.<br /><br />Speaking of Baker and taxis, I had to laugh when she gets into one and tells the cabbie, "56th and Sutton Place, please -- and be careful of the bumps." Can you imagine the reaction to that from a driver in today's Manhattan?! She says that, of course, because she's pregnant and doesn't want to hurt the fetus. But that doesn't stop her from JUMPING OUT OF A MOVING CAR when she finds out Bob Evans wants her to have an abortion! Well, they had to find a way for her to lose the baby (1959 and all).<br /><br />Sue Carson is delightful as Mary Agnes. Why was this her only movie? There is no biographical information on her in IMDb. | positive |
Terrific movie: If you did not watch yet, you must watch. Geena Davis and Samuel L. Jackson are amazing in this movie.<br /><br />Great actors + good story + incredible action scenes > "The Long Kiss Goodnight" <br /><br />I give it a 10, A+, 4 stars. | positive |
This film is so awful it is funny, not quite to Troll 2 levels of hilarity, but funny nonetheless. The acting is awful, the music is atrocious and the story does not make a blind bit of sense. The story revolves around a man dressed in an awful granny costume killing a bunch of people at a party. The death scenes are so badly done they are hilarious. One girl is stabbed repeatedly in the chest, but does not scream, try or defend or self or run away. She also manages to remain standing despite being stabbed repeatedly. Another death scene involving a rope is also extremely hilarious. No thought seems to have been put into the plot. The Granny seems to magically move from one area to another(e.g. be hiding under leaves in a woodland just where the victim just happens to stand, appears in front of someone even though it had been behind them ten seconds earlier), people kiss at extremely inappropriate moments(would you stop and kiss someone if you were being chased by a homicidal maniac) and the double twist at the end is utterly ridiculous, it seems they just threw it on just to confuse people. I would advise people to watch this film if they love awful horror movies like Troll 2, The Dreaded or Blood Gnome, but do not watch it if you are expecting a scary horror movie, you will be disappointed | negative |
I had never paid much attention to this flick until I learned that Paddy Chayefsky - author of the brilliant "Network" - was the scriptwriter. His work there had instructed me as to his genius, so when 'Hospital' appeared on TMC, I was anxious to see it. I was not disappointed. Looking at both this film and "Network" it would seem that his big theme is the absurdity, inanity, and sheer viciousness of large human enterprises (e.g., hospitals, networks) against the sanctity of individual experience and the human spirit, and all of it delivered with a knife-edge sense of utterly black humor. "Hospital" is as black of a comedy as "Network" is, and the excellent cast, led by the incomparable Scott, does his work full justice. This is a keeper; definitely not to miss. | positive |
New Orleans is nothing like how it is portrayed in this<br /><br />debacle of a film. Quaid's attempt at speaking with a cajun<br /><br />accent (by the way, hardly anyone speaks that way in New<br /><br />Orleans) is terrible. Plot = elementary and mindless. This<br /><br />picture refers to itself as a mystery, but a mystery involves a<br /><br />gradual process whereby a viewer is given clues and twists throughout a film. There's none of that here. "Big<br /><br />Easy" tries to get by on trite New Orleans stereotypes. <br /><br />Don't be fooled - the real Big Easy is nothing like the town<br /><br />that Quaid & Barkin bumble their way through. | negative |
Sergio Leone spins in his grave... If there was any film that tramples upon a man's life work its this one. The lead character's "lone wolf" bravado is uninspiring and lame, and the script was apparently written by a monkey with an eight grade education. Whoever's idea this was should be horse whipped. The only reason I'm spending time trashing it is because there's a 10 line minimum. Sergio Leone's family should sue, not because its crap, but because now it's immortalized as crap by MST 3000. Shame. Disgust. I blame Hollywood...at least Gary Busey makes crap that wont offend anyone but cocaine users and weapon experts...this film is pure blasphemy. | negative |
I do not believe all the praise for this movie. The play and movie were a ripoff of Sleuth. Michael Caine wishes he were Olivier, and Reeves wishes he were Caine. Caine even had the nerve to do a remake of Sleuth with Jude Law playing his original part. Jude Law? You mean the one that did the remake of "Alfie"? <br /><br />This movie was made during a period of Caine's career when it was obvious he needed to pay off gambling debts. He would do anything for money. He would star in such award winning movies such as this, and "Beyond the Poseidon Adventure". What seems to be driving the praise for this movie is Reeves death. He deserves better than to be remembered for this lousy movie. And so does Caine. This movie can be found in the $5.97 bin at Walmart. Along with gems like "The Island", and "Blame it on Rio". | negative |
Mikhail Kalatozov's The Cranes are flying is a superb film. Winner of the golden palm at Cannes Film Festival, it has an excellent cinematography and performance by Tatyana Samojlova, the only Russian actor ever to win an award in Cannes for a performance. She plays Veronika, a teenager in love with her boyfriend, happy and without preoccupations, with plans of getting married. Her life will get upside down when World War II strikes and her boyfriend volunteers to the army. The film depicts the effect of war on a teenager love and on the people that stayed and saw their loved ones go and fight, waiting for a letter or other information. It is a portrayal of lost innocence. Samojlova does a magnificent job, and her character transformation will break your heart. The camera movement is fast with a lot of close-ups, it is a dancing camera. The first scene in the stairs is fantastic, but it isn't the only one, there is later a scene when Veronika attempts committing suicide, and another, in my opinion one of the most powerful scenes in movie history, the bombing of Veronika's house when she runs the stairs in the middle of fire, to find her apartment completely destroyed. Simply great! 10 out of 10. | positive |
This is one of quite a few cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian - and a space dog called K-9 is included as well. This Looney Tunes episode is very funny, has reasonably good cartoon animation (Marvin's animation is very well done) and the plot is well done. The end is rather weird, so be prepared for it, it is slightly boring. <br /><br />In this episode, Marvin the Martian has been sent to earth to capture an earth creature and bring it back to Mars. With his trusty dog K-9, Marvin sets out and soon finds the tracks of no other rabbit but Bugs Bunny! He greets them with treats, thinking they are trick or treaters in their costumes. Little does he realise they are preparing themselves to take this rabbit to Mars...<br /><br />I recommend this episode to anyone who likes Bugs Bunny, Marvin the Martian and Looney Tunes in general. As far as the beginning and the middle of the episode are concerned, you are likely to like this. Enjoy "Hasty Hare"! :-) | positive |
I have to admit that I'm a great fan of this show, so you must know how disappointed I got when I watched this movie. First of all, the plot was awful, I thought it was going to be something more interesting, like to see what happened to Arnold fathers, or something more interesting, but NOOOOOOO, a maniac wants to destroy Arnold's house, between many other places, so many people tries to stop this.<br /><br />I must admit that the plot wasn't so bad after all, but what really sucked were the steps that Arnold and his friends do to stop this maniac, they become friends of a spy,; they drive a bus (based on a video game, for God sake), and to worse everything, they make super-moves on the bus, things that many persons had already tried and died, but not Arnold, Gerald and Helga, 'cause they are experts on a video game.<br /><br />Honestly, my mom, my sister, even me got really disappointed after watching this movie, 'cause it was the worst way to finish a really good cartoon. I must admit that I used to enjoy "Hey Arnold!", it was one of my favorite cartoons on Nickelodeon, but after this crap of movie, I'm not quite sure if I'm going to watch "Hey Arnold!" as I used to watch it on the past.<br /><br />Other thing Nickelodeon, with that enormous number of dynamite I can assure you that not a simple street would explode, I think that the whole city could explode with that, oh, and please, if all of your future movies from good cartoons are going to be like that, don't do more movies, you give a bad critic to cartoons that used to be good.<br /><br />Honestly, I think this was the worst way to end this show, a good show transformed into this crap of movie. | negative |
The war in the East,as the Germans referred to the WW2 Soviet-Nazi conflict, was a war of annihilation on the part of the Germany. 90% of the German army were in the Soviet Union fighting. Their ultimate aim was to wipe out the so called "sub human (Untermensch)" Russian population and colonize the mainly empty country with German settlers after they had won.<br /><br />Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners."<br /><br />Here we have the German army presented as innocent victims and not as Nazi mass murderers. When are modern German film makers going to be honest and face up to the past?<br /><br />Better see the Russian film "Come and See" instead! | negative |
I didn't understand the people who rated it over 5. I think it's a horrible film from any point of view. Plots, acting, art, dialog, music, whatsoever! I don't mind a low budget..However you have to get some point. Wandering, wondering..pointless..then two boys started kissing in bed. awful,,just awful. I love indie films, don't mind it is slow. However this movie disappointed me from any perspectives. Even the Graffito, not artistic.<br /><br />I was wondering what kind of people would like it. I am a female in my 30's. Is it for teens who have some kind of the loneliness about life, or I just don't get it? What I gained then? Wasting time! Please go for some others. | negative |
I gave this show a chance because of Jaleel White, not for his Urkel character, but mainly for the Sonic the Hedgehog voice XD So anyway, like I said, I gave it a chance, and I was very fond of it. I never cared for the Urkel character, so I was pleased to see Mr. White in a role other than the ever-so-annoying nerd. And his Calvin J. Fraiser (first called Calvin, but come the second episode, everyone started calling him "J") was very entertaining and interesting.<br /><br />I think my favorite episode was when J was dating the ex-Cowboys cheerleader with the snobby kid. ("Don't you talk that way 'bout my momma!" "This is grown-up talk, you stay down there!") The only beef I have is that the show was suppose to have 3 main characters, but Mr. White's character always seemed to have the most attention and the other two (who are married) always had the back stories... It isn't exactly a good thing when a story about those two possibly being pregnant takes backseat to J. having to babysit his girlfriend's dog.....<br /><br />Other than that, I really wish this show could have lasted a little longer. Unfortunetely, it seems that people weren't interested in Jaleel White as something other than the God-Awful annoying ass nerd known as Urkel....<br /><br />Hope they at least put it out as a DVD box set. | positive |
I believe I received this film when I was a young buck. I remembered watching it as a child, but i could never find the film. I remembered good ol Rageddy Ann, Andy, Babette, the Greedy, King Koo Koo. I searched high and low for this movie and still no luck. But one day when I was moving out of my childhood home I had found it. We were reunited. I am 17 years old now. I still watch it. All the time actually. It's one of the funniest and touching movies I have ever seen and enjoyed at the same time. And personally I think they should make a sequel. Mmm, yes a sequel indeed. Now i am even considering getting the captains bird tattooed somewhere on my body! | positive |
Although a well produced made for television movie, Dying to Love You reeks with low grade melodramatic splendor.<br /><br />The film opens up to Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson, looking much older than I remember him to be), who is a struggling businessman that leads an empty, lonely life after his wife Ruthie (who looks suspiciously like Roseanne Arnold) leaves him with the quickness. Now all Roger has is his cats....and his ad in the newspaper. <br /><br />Once his ad is answered, he calls Johnnie-Elaine-Lisa-oh it doesn't matter I'm whoever you want me to be-Lawrence. Then...they have phone sex.<br /><br />I'm not sure where you're from or when you were born, but I remember that phone-sex bit was played out by the late '80's. I'm sorry but that was trashy.<br /><br />Soon Roger and the broad hook up and have a whirlwind romance. They fall in love, visit the zoo to see gorillas, and then have some kinky sex with Roger's son in the other room. She ties him to the bed and seduces him.<br /><br />Roger is just so stupid that he does not realize that Johnnie-Eliane is just a bimbo that loves to sleep around. God forbid women only sleep with one man. Soon enough, strange phone calls begin to occur, Johnny Girl wants Roger to marry her with absolute quickness, and she keeps ranting and raving about her ex-husband who used to beat her. It's funny to see Roger believe her through all this stuff. That's until a frumpy co-worker tells him to go snooping through her belongings like a nosy housewife. He takes her crappy advice and lo and behold, he finds a suitcase crawling with fake ID cards and wigs and guns and a crossbow. He immediately takes the suitcase to the police and has her arrested. Even though all this jazz, he still loves the dumb broad. She tells so much lies, it seems her tongue will catch fire if she tells the truth once.<br /><br />Roger goes on with his life and meets an ugly woman named Angela who looks like something off of Gremlins 2. She has a child as well and Roger takes quite a liking to her. But something inside Roger's subconscious keeps him connected to Lisa Rohn (if that's even her real name) and he keeps going back to see her.<br /><br />Now Lisa is the "ex that won't go away" as she "earns" herself a get out of jail free card and shows up at Roger's doorstep and his son Matt is so busy trying to check her out, he pours juice all over the floor. IL' Rog is so stupid, he throws Lisa out and doesn't even change the locks. Boy, if all people were that stupid, I wouldn't even be writing this review. The ending of this movie is so corny, you won't believe.<br /><br />Tim Matheson is a Made-for-TV-Movie king. he just looks like such a dawm mummy in this movie. He's a little wooden and stiff. The dazzling Tracy Pollan works well with her role and her trampiness rings true. She is extremely beautiful and I do see what Michael J. Fox sees in her. <br /><br />This movie is great to watch when you're on that late night tip, but then again, you might fall asleep, considering how dull and bland it is. | negative |
I really wanted to like this movie. The previews looked marginally funny but I figured they put most of the funny stuff in the previews. In this case, they not only did that but they twisted the clips so that they appeared much funnier than they were in the real film. I like John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Vince Vaughn, The Rock, Cedric the Entertainer, etc. so I wanted to like this movie but it just never seemed to do anything.<br /><br />I saw Get Shorty and did not particularly care for it. Too slow and unfunny for me. This movie is certainly no better and, if anything, is worse. There were a lot of opportunities for some good comedic moments but it took none of them.<br /><br />The acting was okay but even John Travolta seemed toned down. Cedric was okay but he was too reigned in to be really funny. Vince Vaughn and the Rock were pretty good and ready to be funny but they just let it all pass them by. I wish they had been given a chance to follow through with the funny things they set up but instead it just kept going back to the same old thing and back to just setting Vaughn and Rock up to be funny (though never allowed to really deliver that punchline or comedy).<br /><br />Overall, this was a very disappointing movie and I am glad I only saw it on video. At least it was cheaper than the theater. | negative |
I think this was the most outstanding edge-of-your-seat thriller that I have seen in a long time. The research for the film was thorough, the writer Kelly Sane has left no loose ends. The cast was seasoned (fantastic performances all round). Omar Metwally was outstanding.<br /><br />The cinematography is poetic, music enchanting and the overall effect highly satisfying.<br /><br />Rendition goes into territory that even the media fears to tread. It is really a wakeup call for those involved with espionage and the legal web that is the "War on Terror". <br /><br />A woman walked out of the theater and asked me "does this really happen"? That in itself speaks of Gavin Hood's masterful achievement. | positive |
In my opinion, the best movie ever. I love when people ask me what this film is about. I usually smile and say "life". They shrug and probably never give it another thought. The fact that everyone from every background can relate to some part of this movie makes it all that much more amazing. Definately a must see for everyone. | positive |
"Go Fish" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.<br /><br />Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.<br /><br />Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from "In and Out". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes. <br /><br />Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.<br /><br />Pathetic. | negative |
Every generation fully believes it is living in the end times. This has been true for thousands of years now. And movies like this feed on this. How did they get the great Orson Welles to narrate this train wreck? This is a documentary about the biblical prophecies of Armageddon. It tries to link the prophecies as well as it can to what was happening in the times it was made, making it obviously dated and kind of silly.<br /><br />The reenactments look like they are out of "Unsolved Mysteries" but without the high production values. People should have been embarrassed to take part in this.<br /><br />In short, the movie is dated, silly, reactionary, and useless. Good if you want a good laugh, but not good enough to actually look for. | negative |
A tedious gangster film that leaves you wishing someone had edited it farce more ruthlessly. I would have thought that the story of the creation of Las Vegas would prove interesting but it fails at almost every turn. Warren Beatty's performance as the stupid and unlikeable Bugsy Seigel leaves you wishing you were watching someone else. Once or twice he flashes through the fog of his performance to deliver an interesting scene but most of the time you just can't care about him. Annette Benning gives a skilled turn as his untrustworthy lover but even she's only faintly more savoury than he is.<br /><br />I really wouldn't bother with this turgid drama unless you're a Benning devotee. | negative |
Pecker is another mainstream film by John Waters done on a smaller than Serial Mom. The title character of Pecker has a hobby of taking pictures of anything he sees. It doesn't matter if it's dirty or shocking when he takes pictures. He soon uses the pictures he taken and puts them on display at his work. Pecker live in a semi-normal middle-class family. His dad works at a drinking bar with a claw machine, but doesn't make enough money with a lesbian stripper bar across the street. His mom runs a thrift shop and loves to dress-up poor people. His older sister, Tina, works at a gay bar where her specialty is trade. His younger, Little Chrissy, has a habit of eating sugar, sugar, and nothing but sugary food. His grandmother, Memama, has a small statue of the Virgin Mary and plays ventriloquist with it. He also has 2 friends. On of his friends, Matt is a chronic shoplifter and his girlfriend, Shelley, runs a laundry mat as if she was a dictator. Soon, a tourist from New York buys his pictures and displays them at an art gallery. With the picture comes fame, but the pictures expose the unusual life style of his friends and family's simple life. For an R-rated film, Pecker is sure tamer than most of Waters previous R-rated films and even Pink Flamingos. Another 10 out of 10! | positive |
***SPOILER ALERT*** Disjointed and confusing arson drama that has to do with a sinister plan to burn down a major vacation resort before New Years Day. Being insured for ten million dollars the man behind Valley View Estates in the Blue Mountains in Australia Julian Fane, Guy Doleman,is determined to bring his own project down in flames in order to collect. This has to happen by January 1, two weeks hence, before the insurance policy on the project runs out.<br /><br />With his mind totally on his work builder and architect Howard Anderson, Tom Skerritt, has no idea that his boss, Julian Fane, is planning to burn down the resort he's building and possibly set him up as the fall guy. Anderson gets a bit suspicious when insurance investigator Sophie McCann,Wendy Hughes, informs him on some very fishy goings on between Fane and the insurance company Proud Alliance. It turns out that Proud Allience is actually owned, or 60% of it, by Fane himself! This explains whey Fane is having all these arson fires happen in order to collect the ten million dollars of insurance which is at least twice as much as the entire Valley View Estates is worth!<br /><br />We later have Sophie McCann murdered, in a faked swimming accident, to keep her from finding out whats happening with the suspicious fries around and in Valley View Estates. It's when Lloyd's of London, who's underwriting Proud Alliance, insurance investigator George Engles, James Mason, shows up that Fane takes a powder leaving his ace arsonist on his own and out of control to blow Fane's entire plan.<br /><br />Meanwhile Anderson has gotten wise to both Fane and Engles who unlike Fane wants the Valley View Estates to go under for reasons which are never made quite clear, just watch the last few seconds of the film to realize that, by it's writer and director. The arsonist is exposed as he's about to do in his girlfriend with Anderson coming to her rescue. We then have this wild chase scene with the arsonist getting lost in the Valley View construction site only to have it set on fire, with the help of Howard Anderson, where he ends up burning to a crisps by the time the fire department came to hose him down.<br /><br />The sudden and unexplained ending never made clear to just what happened to the Big Cheese in this whole scheme of things the sinister and evil minded Julian Fane. It's as if Fane got away Scot-free and only his unstable and deranged henchman, the arsonist, who was only the instrument of Fane's crimes ended up as the only person who payed from them. | negative |
This was a flick doomed from its conception. The very idea of it was lame - take a minor character from a mediocre PG-13 film, and make a complete non-sequel while changing its tone to a PG-rated family movie. I wasn't the least bit interested. Then came the trailer. Not only did it only confirm that the film would be unfunny and generic, but it also managed to give away the ENTIRE movie; and I'm not exaggerating - every moment, every plot point, every joke is told in the trailer. It's like a 3-minute Cliff's Notes version of the flick. So obviously I wasn't gonna pay to see it, but once it hit DVD, I thought sure, I'll watch it for free. Maybe Steve Carell can save it.<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />I'm still baffled as to why he signed on for this. He must have owed someone a favor. The jokes were all so flat and obvious, and the director obviously asked him to go for very broad comedy style like the original Bruce Almighty's Jim Carrey. But it's just not funny. The studio obviously tried to cash in on the success of 40-Year-Old Virgin, complete with several of Carell's past co-stars, a reference to the flick on a theater marquee, and another musical closing credits sequence. But even the talented Carrell can't save this. His co-stars don't fare much better, with people like Morgan Freeman, Jonah Hill, and Ed Helms just wasted. Wanda Sykes isn't wasted, she's just a waste in anything she does, and her horrible one-liners and reactions just make you wish people would stop giving her work.<br /><br />The story itself is just predictable and lazy. It pounds you over the head with obvious foreshadowing, like Evan's disregard for the environment (drives a gas-guzzling Humvee, opts to use wood from endangered trees for his house, hates animals,...), and by the end it's just over-the-top preachy on both faith and the environment.<br /><br />Why the movie was made at all is puzzling enough, but I really don't understand how it reportedly became the most expensive comedy ever. The only real effects work is the presence of all the animals, and the integration of those into the scenes is some of the worst and most obvious blue/green-screen work I've ever seen. Maybe the rental of the live animals on set cost a fortune. Who knows. But whatever it was that cost them so much, it didn't translate to quality, that's for sure. But hey, it wasn't the worst film of the year by far. There's still plenty of worse duds like Norbit and Death Proof. | negative |
Do not bother to waste your money on this movie. Do not even go into your car and think that you might see this movie if any others do not appeal to you. If you must see a movie this weekend, go see Batman again.<br /><br />The script was horrible. Perfectly written from the random horror movie format. Given: a place in confined spaces, a madman with various weapons, a curious man who manages to uncover all of the clues that honest police officers cannot put together, and an innocent and overly curious, yet beautiful and strong woman with whom many in the audience would love to be able to call their girlfriend. Mix together, add much poorly executed gore, and what the hell, let's put some freaks in there for a little "spin" to the plot.<br /><br />The acting was horrible, and the characters unbelievable - Borat was more believable than this.<br /><br />***Spoiler***and can someone please tell me how a butcher's vest can make a bullet ricochet from the person after being shot without even making the person who was shot flinch??? I'm in the army. We need that kind of stuff for ourselves.<br /><br />1 out of 10, and I would place it in the decimals of that rounded up to give it the lowest possible score I can. | negative |
"L'Auberge Espagnole" collected the audience wherever it was shown. It gathered audience awards on many film festivals all over the world. And it is not strange. We have the ability to watch a cheerful and an astonishing piece of art. And it is wise by the way. "L'Auberge Espagnole" is a very funny comedy about youth and growing up. But most of all it is about the lights and shadows of living in the European Union.<br /><br />The main character of the film is a French student of economy Xavier. For his future carrier his is sent for one year of studying to Barcelona. In Spain it turns out that the lectures are being given in Catalonian language. That probably doesn't help the increasement of knowledge. But it helps in tightening the relationships inside the group of foreign exchange students. Especially if they rent a big flat together. There are 3 girls: English, Belgian and Spanish, as well as three boys: German, Danish and Italian. Our French guy will also get there. A year is a very long time. Long enough to get close and make friends. And get to know some European stereotypes while trying to break them apart.<br /><br />Klapisch treats this special case of a process of uniting Europe with humor and without pecky didactism. He comes out of the idea that young people are everywhere just the same. They like jokes. They like to make irresponsible relationships. But they don't neglect their aspirations. The most interesting is the sum of experience of this little community. They live together in the fire of everyday tasks fighting with the surrounding reality. They are full of unusual ideas for life. Young Europeans come back to their countries to take up a life of an adult on their own. They are Europe's hope to fight the many problems of the Union. For example, the terrifying administration system. In the end they proof that not only can they communicate and make friends despite the many differences. But they also now how to live the full of life. And they won't allow taking that full of life away from them. | positive |
If the following sounds tempting, then by all means rush down to your local Blockbuster and rent this movie post-haste:<br /><br />1. Awful 60's hairstyles, from pathetic perms to dodgy ducktails.<br /><br />2. The worst child actor in the world ever, who does nothing but cry and say DADDY in the most annoying voice imaginable.<br /><br />3. Lots of stock footage of alligators and monkeys that doesn't mesh with the film. At all.<br /><br />4. Stereotypical Indians who use blowpipes and talk gobbledegook. Oh, and it goes without saying they whoop around a campfire.<br /><br />5. Hilariously fake plane crash mechanics where the cast actually throw themselves into the corners of the cardboard set.<br /><br />6. The exterior shots of 5, which look suspiciously like a toy jet on a string being led around a studio lit with blue light.<br /><br />7. Terrible special effects which make the ones used in the first Star Trek series look cutting edge by comparison. ( Special mention: The little boy's blond hair glowing. Oh dear..) <br /><br />8. Laughable editing and continuity, where background items move between scenes, the soundtrack changes completely without any warning etc.<br /><br />9. Not got enough money to hire a professional dancer? Get any lady from off the street to prance about like an idiot! No-one will notice the difference! Er..<br /><br />10. A 'thrilling' climax involving quicksand, snakes (more stuff from the archives) and a ton of fake blood. Don't forget to put in a stupid 'tribal' sounding song either!<br /><br />The more sensible among you however, will wait for it's inevitable appearance on MST3K when this classic TV show is resurrected and then you can watch it in the spirit it was intended. Any other kind of enjoyment to be derived from this crap is unthinkable.. not to mention unworkable. So don't even try it. 0/10 | negative |
Lost is largely considered one of the most beautiful TV series that have never done ... and so is ... if you lovers of mysteries, intrigue and adventure this is the series for you ...In the first season ... since the first episode starts to go increasingly to move forward until you get to the second season ... in the second you lose a little its cocktail of mystery and expectation and pushes very on and reveal the various mysteries that the island hides ... the third season is perhaps the second most beautiful because resumed suffered since the first episode with the pace and tenacity of the first season ... the fourth also not let pass unnoticed and tends to reveal a little mysteries ... but not as the second season but at a somewhat different ... For the fifth season expects ... | positive |
From the critical acclaim, I expected more from this movie and from Tamara Jenkins. The story just meandered along and didn't seem to have a point or a plot. And I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old girl (mature for her age or no) would be so blase about getting the loss of her virginity "over with." Maybe I am too young to relate (I was four years old in 1976), but I didn't have any problems connecting with the stories of Shakespeare in Love or Life is Beautiful and I wasn't alive for either of those settings. The cast is very good but unfortunately for them the script did not alow them to engage the audience. Overall, Slums had its moments but unless you are yearning to reminisce over halter tops and tube socks, I would say skip this one. | negative |
Director Douglas Sirk once said `there's a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains craziness is by this very quality nearer to art'. This statement defines his cinema perfectly, a very unique body of work that includes classic stage adaptations, adventure and war films, westerns and of course, his famous melodramas.<br /><br />Sirk's melodramas were, as the very word signifies, dramas with music. The music sets the tone for his masterful style, and every stroke of his brush (Sirk was also a painter) leaves a powerful image on the screen-turned-canvas. But this ain't life but its representation, an imitation of life. Sirk never tried to show reality, on the contrary. None of the directors of his generation made a better use of all the technical devices provided by Hollywood (most notably Technicolor) to distinguish the artificial from the real thing. Let's remember that his golden period coincides with the time when Hollywood films turned its attention into the social drama (Blackboard jungle, Rebel without a cause). Sirk always knew that cinema was meant to be something else.<br /><br />Another of Sirk's statements summarizes this: `You can't reach, or touch, the real. You just see reflections. If you try to grasp happiness itself your fingers only meet glass'. I defy anybody that has seen Written on the wind to count the amount of mirrors and images reflected that appear on screen. One ends up giving up.<br /><br />Therefore, we are in a hall full of mirrors where there's no difference between real and its false copy. Nobody can say that the Hadley are real people. That town ain't real either, with those hideous oil pumps all over the place. So in this realm the acting is affected, the decore is fake, the trick is visible. Everything is pushed a little bit off the limit (the sexual connotations of Dorothy Malone with the oil tower, for example). Sirk was criticizing and theorizing at the same time.<br /><br />`The angles are the director's thoughts; the lighting is his philosophy'. In Written on the wind we follow the fall of a traditional way of life both in a geometrical way and in terms of light and shadows. The Hadleys house, with its different levels connected by the spiral staircase operates in a strictly metaphorical way. A house that resembles a mausoleum, that no party can cheer up. As tragedy progresses from luminous daylight to shadowy night, Sirk's photography becomes an extension of the inner state of his characters, and so are the colours of the clothes they wear. Drama is thus incorporated to every element at the service of the director's craft.<br /><br />Sirk considered himself a `story bender', because he bended the standard material he was assigned with to his style and purpose. Written on the wind is a good example. It wouldn't work in any other hands.<br /><br />The other director that was using similar strategies was Frank Tashlin, who was for 50's comedy the same that Sirk was for melodrama. Their films are full of the machinery of american life -advertising, TV sets, jukeboxes, washing machines, sport cars, vacuum cleaners- to depict its emptiness and decay. I'm inclined to think that their films were regarded in a different way by their contemporary audiences. The game was played by both sides, so it was camp. Now we regard them as `cult' or `bizarre', because we are not those spectators anymore. That is why Todd Haynes's homage `Far from heaven' turns into a pastiche, because it reproduces Sirk's work nowadays as if nothing happened in between. Then Sirk turns exactly into that painting hanging in the art gallery that Julianne Moore and the gardener discuss in the aforementioned film.<br /><br />Sirk understood the elements of melodrama perfectly. There were always immovable characters (Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall here) against which he could assemble a series of split ones. His balance through antithesis is remarkable and not surprisingly we root for the split characters, because these are the ones Sirk is interested in too. When Robert Stack flies the plane and `tempts' Lauren Bacall with all sorts of mundane comforts of the world below them (obvious Faustian echoes) we are strangely fascinated with him too, as we are when the devilish nymphomaniac little sister painfully evokes her past with Mitch alone by the river.<br /><br />In the Sirk's universe the studio often-imposed `happy ends' have no negative impact. In fact they worked just great. Sirk was fond of greek tragedy and considered happy endings the Deux ex machinea of his day. Thus the final courtroom scene fits well and one must also remember that the whole film is told in flashback, so we know from the very beginning that tragedy will fall nevertheless over the Hadley feud.<br /><br />It was pointed out the many similarities between Written on the Wind with the Godfather saga. I absolutely agree and I'm sure the parallel is not incidental. Both share the theme of the old powerful father head trying to keep his empire going while protecting his family. The temperamental son portrayed by Robert Stack has an amazing physical resemblance with Jimmy Caan's Sonny Corleone. The action of fighting her sister's male friend is symmetrical. The non-son in which the old man put his trust is also common in both films, as the fact that both families carry the names of their town. Even details as the gate that gives access to the property, and the surroundings of the house covered by leaves, suggest that Coppola had Written on the Wind in mind while setting his masterwork. Because both films deal with the subject of Power: the acquisition of power, its manipulation and legacy (even Kyle Hadley's sterility, the event that hastens the turmoil, is an issue easily tied to the central theme of Power, in this case, a weakness in sexual power). The other great film that deals with power and uses american life as its representation is Citizen Kane. One wouldn't think at first of similarities between Welles and Sirk's films but there are a good many, starting with the petrol business as the origin of the family's fortune and ending in the fact that Mitch Wayne (Rock Hudson), as Charles Foster Kane, was adopted by a tutor, having his own father alive. Amazingly, the same actor (Harry Shannon) perform both Wayne and Kane's fathers. This detail is cannot be a coincidence.<br /><br />Written on the Wind is a masterpiece in every aspect, in execution and vision, in style and technique, a highlight in the career of this wonderful director. Some say that this is his best film. In my opinion, `Magnificent obsession', `All that heaven allows', `There's always tomorrow' and `Imitation of life' are just as good. And for those who put Sirk in the level of Dallas or Dinasty I wish them no happy end. | positive |
My review is divided into questions that you really should ask yourself: <br /><br />1. Plants eating people have been done HUNDREDS of times. It's been used by Nintendo in everything from Mario to Zelda to Metroid Prime. It's been used in plenty of low-budget 50's movies, on par with the lowest of the Godzilla franchise. And this brings it to a whole another level of cheese with plants that TALK. I've known no one who walked out, but I know a lot of people who absolutely broke out in hysteric laughing during parts of this movie. I was one of them. Doesn't the horror genre deserve something a little better than this pile of laughable crap? <br /><br />2. The characters easily could have been copy/pasted from Hostel or Wrong Turn or Wolf Creek or any other movie with collage kids with bad luck. Yet it's called "characterizing" when the movie takes hours of your time to tell you clichés that hundreds of characters before have had? Don't you ever wish a movie had characters that weren't just forgettable pieces of meat with legs? <br /><br />3. This was not gory. A guy cuts his skin off. Oh, my! (Not.) A guy gets his legs broken. Oh my! Gasp! (Not.) I have shown movies like this to my mother who hates everything to do with horror because it makes her sick, and she said: "I've seen PG movies worse than that! Why was it rated R?" So, why was it rated R? <br /><br />4. Here's the only plot the movie/book has: collage kids drink, have sex, get naked, cruse, bleed, and eventually die. This is possibly the most typical example of a cheap, thoughtless horror movie, yet people call this "mature"? What the . . .? <br /><br />5. I do not think I have ever seen something less original sense I watched A Beautiful Mind. <br /><br />Haven't you ever sat there and wished the horror genre, easily the most diverse genre out there, would do something . . . well, diverse? Something truly original?<br /><br />I just wish more horror movies would have actual horror, not just cheap collage parties put on film with a few splatters of fake blood tossed around.<br /><br />1/10 | negative |
What do you get when you have a tenacious, seasoned French police inspector by the name of Maurice Martineau is called to solve a murder case? Well, simply a very entertaining, fun film. The re-mastered black-and-white film "Quai des Orfevres" delivers the goods despite romance, jealousy and marriage that seem to just get in the way towards the truth of 'who done it?'<br /><br />Inch by inch, technique by technique as seasoned by experience and intuition, the patience of this master Inspector etches into the truth -- but of course, with the help of a bag full of dirty police interrogation tricks.<br /><br />Martineau is the centerpiece of this film. The use by director Henri-Georges Clouzot of raucous background music to intensify the drama in grand film noir style is a wonderful wrapper around the visual experience.<br /><br />Martineau eventually solves the mystery and arrests the culprit. Hey, he is good!! But alas, Martineau, too, can keep a dark secret in his past. Who is that boy that is perhaps not his son?<br /><br />Some things can never get solved -- even beyond the closing credits. | positive |
This was such a waste of time. Danger: If you watch it you will be tempted to tear your DVD out of the wall and heave it thru the window.<br /><br />An amateur production: terrible, repetitive, vacuous dialog; paper-thin plot line; wooden performances; Lucy Lawless was pathetically hackneyed.<br /><br />Seriously flawed story, completely unbelievable characters. The two worst concepts in film and t.v. are: (1) the evil twin, (2) amnesia. There are no twins.<br /><br />The plot "twist"? Outrageously simplistic and obvious - like watching a train coming down the track in the middle of the day on the prairies. It doesn't even resolve properly. The evil is not punished for the original crime.<br /><br />Please, please, please - don't watch this even if its free and your only other choice is to go to a synagogue. | negative |
I can envision the writers of this story thinking up this script:<br /><br />1.Let's make a serial killer movie like Se7en, Knight Moves, Copycat, and Silence of the Lambs. People like serial killer stuff. It'll sell... 2.The killer needs to adopt some sort of pattern. I know; he'll copy it out of a serial killer mystery novel. That hasn't been done yet, at least not exactly like that. 3.Now, we need some kind of way to make this movie unique; of course, the good guy can be bedridden like in Rear Window. 4.Lastly, we need a twist ending that will give this movie the success of The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects.<br /><br />Okay, now that you know these things, you know the whole movie, so don't waste your money. One thing I really hate about moviemakers is that they take a perfectly good concept for movies and completely run them into the ground. I wrote better stories than this when I was in Junior High. I just kept checking my watch every five minutes. When the twist ending finally came, I wasn't shocked, I just said, "Oh. Who cares?!" The characters are two-dimensional. They have your typical movie personalities. This movie is just proof that stealing the elements of other successful movies is no excuse for a bad script. I give this movie 1 out of 10. Normally, it would earn at least 2 or 3, but I'm so sick of the unoriginality. When will they learn? 1/10 | negative |
Rod Serling was, of course, a genius and his wonderful, playful, creative mind left something of the period in which he lived and examples of television at that state of development. There are no such shows now, but rather "Housewife" sluts ala Eva Longoria or Terri Hatcher, or the pitiful stabs at humor and witty banter that litter our high-tech screens.<br /><br />Jack Elam edged into the episode with such acting precision and with his usual craziness that I can't help but think that Rod Serling was tailoring that long ago week's show around Elam, even though he was an ancillary to the flow of the story. This episode ends with a twist, as usual, but shock and humor are mixed with especially "Serlingesque" dexterity.<br /><br />Rex Lewis Field | positive |
Who would think Andy Griffith's "Helen Crump" (Aneta Corsaut) had a Steve McQueen movie in her past? But that is only one of several weird and wonderful things about the ultimate 1950s teenagers-battle-creatures movie, which might best be described as Rebel Without A Cause meets God Knows What From Outer Space. The Rebel is Steven McQueen (who would shortly decide that "Steve" sounded less prissy), a good boy with just enough wild to be interesting; the very wholesome yet understanding girlfriend is the aforementioned Aneta Corsaut. It was bad enough when their date was disrupted by teenage hot-rodders, but they are considerably more nonplussed when they encounter a gelatinous, man-eating What Is It that rides down to earth on its own hotrod meteor--and begins gobbling up townfolk right and left. But will the grown ups believe them? Of course not, what do they know, they're just kids!<br /><br />The movie is teeny bopper at its teeny bopping best. The actors take the rather pretentious script very seriously, with many a soulful look into each other eyes, and the "adult" supporting cast probably says "Kids!" very third sentence or so. But the real pleasure of the film its creature, which is well imagined, well-executed, and often manages to generate a surprising degree of suspense. And although clearly on the cheap side (check out those miniature sets, guys!), THE BLOB is actually a fairly well-made film--and there's that catchy little theme song thrown in for good measure. The 40-plus crowd (myself included) will enjoy the movie as nostalgia, but that won't prevent them from hooting right along with the younger set at its whole-milk-and-white-bread 1950s sensibility, and the film would be a great choice for either family-movie night or a more sophisticated "grown ups only" get together. Make plenty of Jello cubes for movie snacking! Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | positive |
Lame movie. Completely uninteresting. No chemistry at all between Indiana Jones and the guy from Black Hawk Down. The car chase scene just goes on and on and on ad nauseum. They manage to switch vehicles a few times, but always end up right on the tail of the baddies. The scene where Hartnett grabs the family's car with the crying kids in the back was just as stupid as could be. He is telling them about Eastern philosophy and how it is all right to die, which I imagine the writers thought was funny or even witty. It just came off as moronic, totally unbelievable and even cruel.<br /><br />Some subplots weren't even explored, they were just used as filler. Why does Hartnett get sick seeing dead bodies yet keeps ordering burgers at crime scenes? Why, and on what grounds, is the bad IA guy suddenly arrested out of the blue by the chief? Why can IA pick up the buddy cops and then just let them answer their phones or pretend to be Indian mystics and then just let them waltz out of there without so much as a slap on the wrist? For some reason, even though Ford is uncovered as a cheat and a fraud when acting as a realtor, (he makes up the prices when he is trying to sell the producer's house to jack up his own commission), they keep coming back to him anyway! They knew he lied to both of them! Yet there they were, coming to terms that both said they would never go for. Stupid, just stupid. This is also one of those cop movies where they just fire wantonly on public streets with no care in the world for innocent bystanders. There they were, just standing on the sidewalk blasting away while people ducked for cover. Amazing that they didn't hit a single person after having fired about 60 rounds each....<br /><br />The scriptwriting was terrible, the action sequences were boring, the plot just a sidestory to a very pathetic attempt to have us root for Ford and Hartnett. It fails miserably. And Ford's phone! Turn the damn thing off! How many times could it ring in a 2-hour movie? 50? 60? It was frustratingly aggravating by the midpoint in the movie! Every 30 seconds, that stupid tune would play! And if it wasn't Ford's, then Hartnett's was ringing! It was incredibly annoying!<br /><br />Complete waste of time, Ford's worst movie since 6 Days 7 Nights, which was without a doubt, the lowest point of his distinguished career. | negative |
The only reason I rented the movie was to see Jeri Ryan in it! OMG that was the most boring, pointless movie I've ever seen!!! HOW LAME!!! I mean really, give me a break! After Voyager, I'd hope she'd be offered better roles!!<br /><br />If I were one of the last people on earth, I would NOT still be living in a travel trailer in the dessert!! This is just such a bad movie!! The thing about the indian tribe and how he compared it every 10 seconds really, really got old. Poor Jeri, better luck next time! | negative |
This movie is a real thriller! It was exciting from shortly after the start till the very end! If you are a real suspense nut, this is the movie for you! The characters were very well developed and the scenery was beautiful. The story was very well written, similar to some others I have seen, but quite different in several ways. A must see! | positive |
This series takes a classic story and makes rubbish of it. Robin is somehow mystified by an elk-man in the forest and is embroiled in all sorts of druidism and outright satanic episodes. The story is more about him avoiding the evil sheriff than helping the poor. This is barely watchable. And to top all the ridiculousness they kill Robin at the end of series 2 and replace him with another actor. Some people may like this show as a fantasy show but it is NOT a Robin Hood show. If you want Robin fighting in king Richards name against Prince John and the sheriff and if you want Robin feeding the poor and oppressed, watch the classic series or the newest from the BBC. | negative |
This film is the most cult movie on metal there is. Premise: A kid gets a hold of the final recording of his favorite artist Sammy Curr who recently dies in a hotel fire. He plays it backwards and summons him back from the dead to get revenge in the name of heavy metal on those b**tardly jocks who torment him. Any fan of true metal will enjoy this movie, and if you are a metal head being tormented by jocks, play a Sammy Curr album backwards.........no wait he is fictitious, well get a hold of this movie and watch it with your fist in the air, your head banging, and the volume at 11! | positive |
The first opening scene that lasted around five minutes showed the potential of becoming an instant classic, with moderit to good acting, good film, a story that keep the volume up, and an in the corner the of screen a spooky "did you see that!"(the scarecrow moves).<br /><br />After the quick set up of history that would come into the present, it was like someone else had written and directed the rest of the "film". The next scene is a basic outline of how the film goes downhill like a runaway truck. It looks like the rest was shot in video, with crappy "porn style actors", the set design was a lawyers office with practically nothing on the bookshelves or anything in the office at all. <br /><br />I remember only watching crap horror films for a chance of seeing some naked "teenage" girls, back then there weren't Victoria's Secret mags everywhere, and not watching for things that make great horror films of today like acting, terror, suspense, intregue, and so on.<br /><br />It took nearly fifty minutes for the first person to die. When it did, me and and my friends were so shocked by the WORST costume of a "monster" EVER, we through our popcorn at the TV screen booing. | negative |
with what they had. John and Carolyn were very private so the writers had to put together what they could. I really liked Portia de Rossi as Carolyn, but Jacqueline Bisset's voice grated on my nerves. She should have used her regular voice. I would have preferred that the whole movie focus on John and Carolyn instead of rehashing stuff we already know about John. | positive |
I sought this film out because I'm a new Frain fan and wanted to see more of his work. First of all, his Irish accent is great. He's got a keen ear for dialects, it seems. His acting was marvelous, as usual. James Frain aside, I thought the film was very well done. It showed the conflict in Northern Ireland as the *mess* it really is. Both sides are guilty of grave injustices, and the men drawn into the conflict usually have very little to say about their circumstances.<br /><br />Also, it is interesting to realise that not every man (or woman) that is supposedly fighting for his country, is really doing *just* that. For example, when Kenny (James Frain) asks Ginger (Ian Hart) why he does "it", Ginger can't come up with a morally acceptable answer. Why? Because Ginger isn't in it for the noble cause of protecting his country or the rights of his fellow Protestants...Ginger is in it for the fun of killing. He's full of blood-lust and it's the perfect job for a guy like him. In a struggle like this there are guys like Liam (John Lynch) who just want to live their daily lives and enjoy their families...guys that see all of the fighting just begats more fighting. There are guys like Kenny that are born leaders full of charisma, and they add fuel to the flames, rather they mean to or not. Also, Kenny genuinely believes in the "cause". He believes what he is doing will make a difference in the future...which is a bit odd 'cause his character seems too intelligent for it all. But, like a lot of other seemingly intelligent men, he is sucked into a gang lifestyle not even realizing it...'til it's too late. Then there is Ginger, a pure psycho who isn't in the fighting for any other reason but for the sheer thrill of it, which in a gangland type war makes him a valued asset, some might argue. However, now, in this film, Ginger has out lasted his worth, and has become a very dangerous loose cannon.<br /><br />Everything comes to a boiling point, and predictably, the ending is a tragic one. What makes this film worthy is that is shows both sides of this ages old conflict. Being American, I can't begin to fully understand what all struggle is about. But, I do know there has to be a better way.<br /><br />All in all, a well acted, touching...but troubling film. | positive |
I had a great time watching Femina Ridens a couple of mornings back, somewhat hungover. For most of the film its pretty much a two hander, showing the games and weird relationship of crazy doctor Philipe Leroy and stunning Dagmar Lassander. I'd seen her before in a couple of Fulci films dying gruesome deaths, but here she is young hip and beautiful. The film is pretty predictable and certainly mild on the exploitation front, but entertaining throughout owing too its marvellous colourful kitsch feel. The set design, music, lighting and cinematography are all classic late sixties Italian style, a surreal feast for the eyes and ears and though the general thread of the plot is not too difficult to foresee there are more than enough unusual events and memorably bizarre sights and sounds to keep things interesting throughout. Both leads are pretty good, and it bears repeating that Dagmar Lassander is really, really fine. The music, by Stelvo Cipriani is gnarly too, perfectly suited to the images. Director Pierro Schivazappa has come up with quite a cracker here, but its not perfect. Though very alluring, there's little substance here and the exploitation elements are about as mild as can be. I guess this gives it a sort of charm and innocence but I can't help thinking that the subject matter could have done with more sleaze, more threat, that sorta thing, especially since its pretty simple to figure whats going to happen. This is I suspect a bit pointless for stronger exploitation fans and certainly not for people wanting sex or much nudity. Its more of a light, fun pop art affair, lovable but insubstantial, like bubble bath. Recommended mainly for those fond of the 60's, Dagmar Lassander, or sweet set designs. | positive |
This tear-teaser, written by Steve Martin himself, is so unbelievably bad, it makes you sick to your stomach!<br /><br />The plot is pathetic, the acting awful, and the dialogue is even more predictable than the ending.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs! | negative |
''Meet Sherri..for an evening of Pleasure and Terror!'' Cheap special effects,cheesy lines,yep its the original 1978 Movie ''Nurse Sherri'' Starting Geoffrey Land as Peter Desmond,and Jill Jacobson as Sherri Martin and Directed by Al Adamson.<br /><br />The movie is about an evil ancient spirit that possesses a nurse at a hospital,then she starts killing doctors one by one.The acting was okay but some of the acting was robotic.The storyline was good but the sex scenes were just thrown in there probably to get more views.The directing was bad,And the special effects looked like a drawing,the effects didn't fool anybody.the death scenes were pretty good but the director mixed too many things in there that didn't make any sense like the sex scenes,the nudity,the football player,and many more.<br /><br />Overall Its A Good Movie,But Not The Best.<br /><br />7 Out Of 10 | positive |
Telling the story wouldn't be the point at all, would it? Barnens ö, spelled almost like "booné aww" is the title for that brilliant novel of the late seventies that shocked a lot of people, including myself.<br /><br />Children's Island is the title, and what an island. In the book, Raine, the main character has The Guiness World Record Book as his own Bible. And he's keen on breaking new records himself. In particular the youngest person under water for three minutes.<br /><br />The story is, as most Swedish films and books of the time, deep, consciously provocative and awe inspiring. Bergman was beginning his final film and Cries and Whispers was barely out. expectations for any Swedish film were pretty high. They taught us then that great theatre, great actors, superb writers and gifted directors made a veritable team of perfection in cinema.<br /><br />All this said, Barnens Ö is a story of discovery. It is, too, a story of alienation: cities are alienating and living in one of them make us aliens to most of its residents. It is a story of revelations and sudden encounters with our own destiny. It is a film of overwhelming hope and desperation. Of feelings buried under layers and layers of isolation and insulation from a world that couldn't care less...<br /><br />This approach, in itself, is a pretty difficult way to weave a convincing narrative. Here, the masterful guidance of Kay Pollak on Ola Olsson's script of P C Jersilds novel, turns it not only in a possibility, but in one of those master pieces of cinema.<br /><br />I may disagree a bit with someone who said that this work was all but forgotten. It is not. Even as I write this in 2009, discussions on P C Jersild's story are conducted all over the world, and the film shown at many film schools and small theatres.<br /><br />Why? Waxing philosophical on all of it would be difficult and many have already done it scholarly through writing and lectures. The reason why Barnens Ö was and IS a special story is the cosy feeling you get from the start when you discover that everything is told through the eyes of a small child. And that's where it ends, too. Maybe it's a clinical view, as someone else pointed out. But deeply disturbing, moving and satisfying. The concept is deep: as long as we have no pubic hair, we still can live one more day as an angel. Afterwards, we'll become what Raine reflects as the colophon of his experiences: "Men are Pigs". He finds his fears when he's fearless. He finds love when the world is crumbling around him. He discovers a reason not to behave like the grown-ups because he refrains from committing crimes. He let go his inner purity and confidence in others without reservation, just to learn how rotten the soul of a man can be.<br /><br />Where love is expected, he finds hatred. Where compassion is needed, he finds suspicion and cold hearts. It's a film of metaphors. A film to think and to raise questions that are hard to ask but harder to answer.<br /><br />In the end, the satisfaction of witnessing such a superb work (that really upped the ante for any other Swedish film after) is a ride of joy and hope. Be aware that it is a film full with the dark side of our nature. But, alas!, a film of hope and deep joy. Reine will still be an Island in Stockholm, but there is the big hope of living today in full, even when we found our first signs of sexual maturity show. | positive |
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing "You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road," just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed. | negative |
A young woman nicknamed "T.N.T." for being virtual dynamite in a fight and a knockout in terms of looks to boot, goes to the most lawless part of Hong Kong in search of her missing brother Stag Jackson. When she learns he has been murdered, she decides she will bring the killer to justice in a fashion only she can.<br /><br />Sounds good, doesn't it. Well, there's really nothing wrong with the basic premise as a starting base for a martial arts/blaxploitation action thriller, which is what this aims to be. The leads actually prove pretty good too with Jeanne Bell fitting nicely into the role of "T.N.T." and Stan Shaw doing well as the ambitious, power-hungry Charlie. Where this fails miserably is in terms of the fighting action it offers up. The fight scenes are totally and completely unconvincing and/or sometimes so completely over the top it reaches the point of ridiculousness which doesn't at all help when the basic focus of your movie is a Kung Fu action heroine. Also the poor lighting, actors sporting accents making them hard to understand, the confusing camera-work and the sometimes poor sound doesn't help this obvious low budget effort out either any. This does deliver in one area which may delight some fans, it does offer up plenty of the T in "T & A", in fact practically every fight scene in the film is proceeded by some type of nude scene and Jeanne Bell actually does have one extended fight scene in which she is completely topless.<br /><br />In the end, this fails to be something you want to revisit because the fight scenes are so pathetically, laughingly bad. | negative |
I am a Talent Manager. I have been for 15 years now. I have discovered some wonderful talent. They have been in Movies, Commericals, Braodway and Television. In my opinion Eddie Monroe was cast wonderful. I love seeing the ability of real people. Not just a name. The Actors in this movie were very natural and believable. I was very entertained by this film. I love a movie with a few twists. I also enjoy when at the end of the movie the puzzle is solved. I still would like to know what happened to the large sum of the money.(When you see the flick you will understand what I am saying.) The Mobsters all look real ???? I would like to see this film on the Big Screen. The footage was shot really well. The scenery of New York was the New York that I know. Have a Happy 2006 and may this movie make it to the awards. | positive |
Subsets and Splits