review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
After having seen "Marrying Mafia", I'd nearly lost my faith in Korean movie business. But this one brought my faith back.<br /><br />Leading female character who is university student forced to teach the spoiled, rich but charistmatic high school student guy. He is actually female character's age. Through some hilarious quarrells, these two end up being great friends.<br /><br />I was pleasantly surprised that newcomer kwan sang woo did his job with excellency. He was such a revelation!! Actress Kim ha nul was also charming as usual.<br /><br />This movie tried hard to avoid any cliches that can be seen in typical romantic comedies. And it didn't show us any unnecessary nude, sex scenes. It was brilliant, lovely , fresh, made me want to see it again.<br /><br /> | positive |
...this one. What came to my mind immediately was Loving Annabelle, as it has this same kind of mature mood and distanced dealing with the subject. We simply observe as the story unfolds, without taking sides, or having to confront any "moral" issues (or of course we are, but are not spoon-fed them). Sure, there were some difficult facts to face, and choices to make, but it just flowed. Basically it was just like any other love story, in any other life, with any other sexes.<br /><br />I personally found the girls having a good chemistry, and had fun with them on their night outs. The only thing i could really pinpoint as a problem would be it just felt kind of...retained. Held back. It's not about the sex scenes (or those missing), but given that i felt the film at its liveliest during the moments they were together having a good time, it kind of contrasted with the rest. Lowkey is good, but it just never quite sizzled like Loving Annabelle, nor touched me quite as much.<br /><br />This said, i heartily recommend it, it's by no means a waste of ones precious time, on the contrary...<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
October Sky is a highly lauded movie, and it¡¦s easy to see why. The story is easy to comprehend and many turning points are gripping, the actors and actresses do fairly good jobs, especially Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Cooper, the hero finally gets what he wants, and it¡¦s a true story. Frankly I think the director¡¦s achievement is not comparable to the sparks and heat the original story generates. We don¡¦t see any special narrative or cinematography; the power of the movie relies much on the riveting plot and tough situation the young hero is trapped in that most audience will find themselves identify with the characters. We feel Homer¡¦s desire to earn his father¡¦s recognition and create his own future, and his resilience wins our respect. ¡§October Sky¡¨ reminds me of a later 2001 Japanese production of mini series ¡§Rocket Boy,¡¨ which might owe some of the inspiration from this movie. Actually these two works shot from two different cultures provide interesting comparison. When October Sky unfolds a story of a young man crying out loud to claim his right over his own destiny, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ offers a more compromised description that could sometimes constitute an acrid criticism of modern society. Starring the outstanding actor Yuji Oda, ¡§Rocket Boy¡¨ focuses on three men as ordinary as can be: a travel agent who has a dream of becoming an astronaut, a boastful advertising agent who is on the brink of being torn apart by his inferiority complex resulted from the extreme success of his father and older brother (like what Homer feels in his family), and a food company employee who is about to getting married but scared of this idea. The collected social consciousness superimposes its definition of success on its constituents and steps further to force them suffocate their dreams by claiming them ¡§impossible.¡¨ To compensate for his lost ideal, Kobayashi (Yuji) works in the tour operator because it¡¦s called ¡§Galaxy.¡¨ When his client fails him and his girlfriend decides to leave him, he finally finds strength from his father¡¦s words, who had determined to be a sailor but later found life on the sea less attractive as he had presumed. ¡§But I don¡¦t regret it,¡¨ his father told Kobayashi, ¡§at least I tried.¡¨ It is his father¡¦s confession that encourages him to resign his job and apply for astronautships despite the fact that he hurts his legs and needs to move around on a wheelchair. Kobayashi¡¦s effort finally fails, and he goes back to the travel agency. But his ¡§crazy¡¨ courage inspires his friends, and everyone loves him more. Just before the end of the series, Kobayashi is on the job as a guide of a space camp meant to let children learn more about astronauts. After the tour is over we see him leaning against a tree, unfolding a sheet of poster he tears from the bulletin board that says: ¡§Astronauts Wanted for 2004.¡¨ Kobayashi looks at the piece of paper and laughs and laughs, just like a kid looking at his ticket to Disneyland. Kobayashi may never get what he wants, but he dares his destiny and ¡§just does it.¡¨ This series is so heart-gripping not because the hero exhibits any heroic deeds, but his ordinariness and unstoppable urge to realize his dream which make us wonder and envy. Unlike Dilbert or other sarcastic writings, this show enlightens us and teaches us something. Homer and Kobayashi both have the dream, and they do what they can despite other people¡¦s opinions. I recommend other IMDB users to see the Japanese TV series. If you are a nine-to-fiver, you will feel more touched. I feel sorry that IMDB doesn¡¦t have its data, maybe you can ask somebody from Japan to help you. | positive |
Well I gave this movie a 7. It was better than "Thirdspace" but not as good as "In the Beginning" as far as the B5 movies go. I really think the television series did a much better job overall with the special effects and character portrayal. Let's hope the producers and cast get the next series "Crusade" up to the standards of B5. | positive |
Though structured totally different from the book by Tim Krabbé who wrote the original 'The Vanishing' (Spoorloos) it does have the same overall feel, except for that Koolhoven's style is less business-like and more lyric. The beginning is great, the middle is fine, but the sting is in the end. A surprise emotional ending. As you could read in several magazines there is some sex in the film, but it is done all very beautifully. Never explicit, but with lots of warmth and sometimes even humour. It is a shame American films can't be as open an honoust as this one. Where Dutch films tend to go just over the edge when it comes to this subject, 'De Grot' stays always within the boundaries of good taste. 'De Grot' tells an amazing story stretched over more than 30 years. When you'll leave the cinema you'll be moved. What can we ask more of a film? Anyway, this film even gives more.... | positive |
Jeff Leroy wanted to makes fun of Scientology so built a horror movie around a cult similar to it. The twist is that instead of frail old L. Ron Hubbard as the cult leader, there's a centuries old space monster who turns his followers into vampires. Our hero is a dirty living college student who is doing research into the occult. His landlord is an attractive blonde who tries to get him to clean up his life with the help of the cult. It doesn't take him long to figure out that she's only after one thing: his blood. "The Screaming" was shot very cheaply on video and I just plain ugly. The space monster (which looks like a giant winged cat that looks perpetually mad and has no skin) is alternately a clay-mation miniature and a large scale animatronics puppet, both of which look awful. The acting and writing are both terrible and the director doesn't even try to disguise the fact that this movie was made for nothing. Avoid this non-scary, pitiful little excuse. | negative |
This is the first James Cagney film I have ever really watched. I was never interested in his movies before because I figured I wouldn't like anything in that style of cinema and because I've heard most Cagney films are the same. I have to say I really liked it. By today's standards for movies, it was not special, but I found it surprisingly entertaining. Cagney did not have the look of a tough guy but he played the part very well. | positive |
This is unfortunately Carlin's last recorded HBO concert, from a series that lasted over 30 years. Though this may not be his "best" work, it is excellent, funny, and thought provoking. This recording is also a bit different from most of his other concerts that it is a bit lengthier than most of his other concerts.<br /><br />Throughout his long, prolific, and influential career, Carlin has moved from the more observational humor and fart jokes, towards a more 'humanitarian' viewpoint of society and culture. His focus on the English Language and euphemisms increased throughout the years, and culminates in this performance. Though, I would argue that his audio book "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?" best displays his vast wit with regards to language, euphemisms, and the breakdown of our values. It's Bad For Ya is quite indicative of his long transformation from a comedian to a writer.<br /><br />If you are offended by foul language or the disparagement of the church, you will probably not like any of Carlin's stand up material. However, if you enjoy being mentally stimulated and can tolerate the language and blasphemy, you would probably greatly enjoy this concert. | positive |
I´m not surprised that even cowgirls get the blues if this movie is anything to go by. I expected something better from Uma Thurman, which was the reason I suffered my way through this experience in the first place. An awful film with only the music as a redeeming quality. It´s just a shame that we are incapable of giving 0 out of 10 in these reviews. This movie deserves it. | negative |
Right up (or down) there with Toys and Jurassic Park 2 and The Phantom Menace.<br /><br />The premise sounded cool, some of the commercials looked semi-promising, but alas, the entire movie had about 30 seconds of neat shot-ness, and that was shown on the small screen's 30 second slot.<br /><br />If you want amateur writing, second-rate effects, ridiculous costumes, and an all-around snoozefest by all means watch it. The plot is recycled sci-fi fodder. Too bad too, because coming in I thought it would be bad but held out hope. It may be the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot. <br /><br />Bottom line - Don't watch it.<br /><br />Unless of course you -liked- any of the above 3 movies. | negative |
Forget the fact that most people expect an action movie form Seagal. This movie simply had no substance. Very long, drawn out, and boring. Scenes were much longer than they had to be - the camera would often focus on something for long periods of time when absolutely nothing was happening. Cure for insomnia. Worst Seagal movie by far (I do like some of his other movies). 1/10 | negative |
I rented a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled "The One-Armed Swordsmen" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.<br /><br />But "The One-Armed Swordsmen" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate. <br /><br />Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.<br /><br />Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.<br /><br />If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go for it. | negative |
In ten words or less to describe this film, Barbara Stanwyck is too appealing and it is great! The film is wonderful, except for the perhaps tacked-on ending, but I love happy endings anyway. Barbara Stanwyck, however, as the platinum-blonde gold-digger is amazing. She knows what she wants and goes after it! This film is sexy and excellent! | positive |
And now for another point of view: I didn't like it. I didn't finish it in fact. I know that "Unforgiven" is ranked by some as one of the greatest Westerns ever made. I know that it stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood, one of the icons of American cinema. I know that it won a bunch of Oscars. Still, I didn't like it. I don't like Westerns, and that's clearly a matter of taste, but I also don't admire Eastwood's acting. He is not and never has been a leading man. He is no Burt Lancaster, no Paul Newman, no John Wayne. In this film alone he is dwarfed by Richard Harris and Gene Hackman; they are both actors. No, Eastwood is a tall guy with a reedy voice who usually plays tough guys. Here he plays a retired tough guy. When I see him on screen, I see a man laboring at his acting. Then there's the anti-Western Western plot. It is too obviously intended to inject contemporary values -- a respect for the role of women, blacks, native Americans, and single parents; a disrespect for violence and drinking; the wholesomeness that comes with marriage, including interracial marriage, and small adorable children -- into a century in which those values weren't necessarily accepted, at least in these ways. By promoting those values, the movie comes across as mannered, if not preachy. Then there are the hoary movie stereotypes -- prostitutes with hearts of gold, the kid who can't shoot straight, the city slicker new to the wild West, the sage brush shimmering on a summer afternoon with a musical accompaniment in major chords. Finally there is the pacing of Eastwood's direction. I gave up after an hour. Eastwood was still riding north, chatting with Morgan Freeman and the kid who couldn't shoot straight, sixty minutes after the plot driven by the slashing of a prostitute was set in motion. It was way too slow. Somebody had to find these elements uncompelling. I am afraid it was me. | negative |
Although at times I was the only one in the cinema who was laughing, this is the main pleasure I took from the beautifully shot "Thirst" - laughter. Although sometimes it seemed that the movie had an identity crisis and didn't know whether it was a tragedy or a comedy, the blackest of black humour shone through at regular intervals. <br /><br />It helped of course that it the standard of acting by everyone concerned was wonderful, and that I was slightly obsessed by the at times wicked leading lady, who was gorgeously elegant no matter how blood soaked and malevolent she became.<br /><br />I read reviews that suggested this movie was overlong. I didn't think so. In fact the last scenes, moving and hilarious (I mean, the brown shoes....) by turns, were among the best in the film. | positive |
Hope Floats with Sandra Bullock is a real disappointment. The story starts off ok. Her husband cheats on her and she finds out on national television. So she has to rebuild her life. Here it could have gotten interesting or built up in a story line, but you become so bored with it. She moves back with her parents and Harry Connick Jr. who plays Justin begins hitting on her. The two have no real chemistry at all, yet your supposed to get the impression that Justin is in love with her. The movie ends the way you figure it will but you wish it hadn't ended like every other kind like it. They had a good start with this movie and could have turned it into something watchable but instead its a movie that you definitely want to miss. | negative |
Paul Verhoeven (genius and master film maker) strikes back with the less than perfect, yet still fun in a "dirty old man type of way," Hollow Man. The first two acts are so good that the slasher final act disappoints. Yet I am giving a recommendation to this film for it's MIND BLOWING special effects (perhaps the best so far around) and two dandy performances by the leads. Verhoeven's moral questions are of course thought provoking, and although the film turned off many, this movie is pretty soft-core for old Verhoeven.<br /><br />Two major flaws: Josh Brolin (aka walking ape-man) and the whole deal with the elevator. If there was an access ladder, why were they trapped down in the lab? <br /><br />A fun horror film for a Saturday night. | positive |
Not only do the storylines in "The Sopranos" engage audiences from all over, but I think (for me at least) what brings the viewers back is the acting. (Not even you, Gary, can dispute that claim) James Gandolfini, who plays the lead-man, Tony Soprano, has become (in this viewer's opinion) one of the "Hollywood Elites" as far as acting in a television series goes. I wouldn't go ahead and compare him with Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino, or at least, not just yet. He, however, does do a hell of a job playing the part of Tony Soprano. In the years since 1999, Gandolfini has risen so much so as an actor (mainly thanks to his role in The Sopranos) that today he is considered to be among the best in the business. And it's not just him. "The Sopranos" fields a great supporting cast including that of Lorraine Bracco, Edie Falco, Michael Imperioli, Dominic Chianese, and the late Nancy Marchand who played Tony's dreadful mother. At this point in the show's existence, it's being considered a cult-classic and rightfully so. The first two seasons were extraordinary. Violent and quite gruesome in a pretty frequent manner, but without a doubt, extraordinarily done. The third season was great, but didn't quite live up to the hype of seasons 1 and 2. Season 4, which wrapped up right before new-years, was the weakest season yet (or at least, in my opinion it was). Despite a dry-spell, I still found it (season 4 of "The Sopranos") to be more entertaining than most of its competition and that's saying a lot because lately I've been noticing a trend in good new television shows. Examples of this: Six Feet Under, The Shield, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and OZ (which is not technically a new show but ended with an unforgettable final season this year). To get back to my point though, to consider a show better than all the competition during a particularly bad year, no less, is quite an accomplishment on the part of the writers. "The Sopranos" ranks above and beyond all other television shows in its era and its writers deserve a lot of credit. To close, I'd like to say, "The Sopranos" is the real deal folks. For the average mature viewer (17 and above) who enjoys drama and doesn't mind a mixing of a little violence and profanity, you might want to check out "The Sopranos" if you get the chance. Trust me in that it will be well worth the time. | positive |
Why on earth should you explore the mesmerizing nature documentary "Earth"? How much time do you have on earth so I can explain this to you? OK, I will not elongate my review exploration on "Earth" to infinity, but I must stand my ground on why this is a "must see". The documentary takes a nature round trip on the migration paths on three animal families: a female polar bear and her cubs with the real life subplot of the father bear daring it out to hunt for food in his isolated path, a mama of a whale with her baby whale taking a whale of a migration tour for prey, and an elephant mama with her small (maybe not so small, they are elephants) offspring migrating in Africa. Directors Alastair Forthegill & Mark Linfield did an "out of this earth" job in also capturing the survival skills of many other animal species besides the magnetic shots of our three animal family protagonists. The cinematographically skilled team of Richard Brooks Burton, Mike Holding, Adam Ravetch, and Andrew Shillabeer were animales in camera shooting the wondrous nature sites and animal instinctive behaviors; not to mention, the slo-mo animal prey shots were u n b e l i e a v a b l e. "Earth" is also a lesson learner on the global warming effect on the animals; the papa polar bear in the doc is the poster animal boy on that consequence. So fellow earthlings, it is time to take the documentary voyage to visit "Earth" today! **** Good | positive |
I've seen better teenage werewolf movies in my time, this one however, takes the cake. More comedy than horror, "Full Moon High" puts the "c" in cheese-fest. The star quality in this movie is not bad. Just the way it was made just sends in rolling downhill. Adam Arkin plays Tony, an all-American high school football player of the 50's who ends up not aging due to a werewolf bite in Transylvania. The most annoying part of the movie was the violin player. He drove everyone batty! Ed McMahon plays his ultra-conservative father who met his end of his own bullet. Adam's father Alan plays a shrink who seems to be not top of his game. After all these years Tony seems to be very out of place due to the attack, and then he'll get the chance to catch in his state. More laugh than blood shed, this movie is just a start in the 80's, "Teen Wolf" was an improvement from this! 1 out of 5 stars. | negative |
probably the best horror movie in 5 years.. there's been lame remakes, attempts to make you scared (when all they make you do is walk out of the theater) and movies that just shouldn't have been made. but this one is worth it. the only reason i didn't give it a 10 is because Paris Hilton is in it (but her death scene makes up for it, believe me)..<br /><br />..so here they are.. the SPOILERS of all the death scenes in the movie..<br /><br />1. my favorite death scene ever - Paris Hilton's! after finding her boyfriend Blake laying on the ground with a knife sticking out of his neck, Paige starts to run. well, speed walk is more respectable. she finds this like garage with all these cars in it. then (one of) the killers cuts her ankle from below (this whole time shes holding a HUGE metal spike)so she drops it and runs and hides behind this car. the killer picks it up and as she looks through the window he throws it through the window and it shoots through her forehead.. I've NEVER BEEN SO EXCITED OR LAUGHED SO HARD IN MY LIFE.<br /><br />2. Paige's boyfriend Blake gets a knife stabbed into his neck and then the killer walks up to him (while hes on the ground) and steps on it pushing it farther into his throat.. then he dies.<br /><br />3. Elisha cuthbert (carly)(one of the hottest chicks EVER) doesn't die PHEW but she does get her lips super-glued together, punched in the face, and gets part of her index finger chopped off (yeah, i felt like heaving) 4. Carly's twin brother nick also survives, but not without getting his ass kicked and a stab wound to the leg.<br /><br />5. nicks best friend Dalton gets thrown down a flight of stairs, and then is decapitated. his body is dragged away and we see his eyes blink.. then he gets covered in wax.<br /><br />6. wade (Carly's boyfriend) gets his Achilles tendon snipped by a massive pair of scissors, and then is attacked by the same scissors. he doesn't die, but hes covered in wax, and on 2 occasions his skin is accidentally removed, revealing his nasty bloody flesh. YUMMY.<br /><br />..so there it is. Definitely WORTH YOUR MONEY. | positive |
This impossible tale is of a female witch pursuing a mortal man, in a mortal world. Her "community" is open among it's members, but she conceals her witchcraft from the mortals. Hmmmm...this is starting to sound familiar. LOL. It's not your typical movie. Very "campy" performances by Jack Lemmon and Ernie Kovacs keep things from getting dull. Kim Novak is always a pleasure on screen, but I found her pairing with James Stewart unusual (but not fatal to the story).<br /><br />With re-newed interest in all things witchy and dark, this film deserves to be discovered and re-discovered by old and new audiences...... IT'S STILL A HOOT ! | positive |
"The Woman in Black" is easily one of the creepiest British ghost stories ever made.A young solicitor,after arriving in a small town to handle a dead client's estate,is haunted by a mysterious woman dressed all in black.The film is loaded with extremely eerie atmosphere and the frights are calculated for and deliver the maximum effect possible.The action keeps the viewer deeply involved and the finale is quite disturbing.The acting is excellent and the tension is almost unbearable at times.So if you want to see a truly creepy horror film give this one a look.I dare anyone to watch "The Woman in Black" alone at night with the lights off.Highly recommended.10 out of 10. | positive |
First off, I am critical of this movie because I really had high hopes and instead, this movie sucked.<br /><br />*possible spoilers* (if you haven't seen the TV series) Where to begin??? Well, let's start at the quality. The movie was barely better than the original TV series and the two fight scenes were very nicely crafted. However the CGI was horrid.<br /><br />Then there is the plot holes and questions that still remain after the whole movie is all said and done. This movie does not close off as a successful conclusion to a very broad universe known as FMA and only returns to expand the universe more before leaving us with nothing but our imaginations to decipher what would happen in the future.<br /><br />And then there is the stories biggest fault. Adding WWII and Hitler... WHY ?? The series was perfect... and didn't need Hitler. It didn't even need Germany.<br /><br />Overall the entire movie was sorely lacing in what a true FMA movie could have been and if I were the directors, I'd scrap CoS and make a new, more "ending", ending. | negative |
14 years since this show was made and it is still is the best show ever made. The writing was 1st class and the production second to none. This show would never be made today and that this a shame. I hope if you are thinking about finding this show to watch that you do. <br /><br />AG came out the year I left high school at the time my fav TV show was the x files this gives you an idea of why I first got into this show. AG was a far better program with better writing but only got one reason? I know this is not the only program to only get one season another example that comes to mind would be the lone gunman (x files spin off) it had good writing and was funny but also only got one season. It does not seem right! <br /><br />We also have to remember that this show was around before shows like twilight made dark shows 'cool' so I think this may have also let to the show going down hill. <br /><br />Watch this program and enjoy it! 10 out of 10 for me. | positive |
Recap: A band of five young American men, all that is left of a platoon hit hard during the Ardenne offensive during the WWII get the assignment as a forward outpost and to look for enemy activity. They're in really bad condition, both physically and mentally, and think they have struck gold when their outpost is in an abandoned but once plush mansion full with food. But after a while there is some enemy activity, and it is very odd. Not hostile, but odd. It seems like there is a German squad out there, in equally bad condition, that want nothing more than to surrender.<br /><br />Comments: Based on a novel and my guess that the novel is much better but the story doesn't seem to translate very well to the big screen. Indeed it is a different war movie, much more about the mental pressure during wartimes than fighting and battles. But I can almost feel that scenes that must have been full of suspense, full of uncertainties and unknown elements, just fall flat in the movie. It is not suspenseful, just different and in many ways absurd. Many times people just act insane, and the reasons are unclear or at best hinted at.<br /><br />So when this mental pressure fails to come through, the main building piece of the entire story, I thought the story fell through. It wasn't good, it wasn't interesting, it didn't keep me on the edge and it didn't really send a message. Actually it did nothing.<br /><br />The cast is interesting, many young actors that then turned into stars in beginning of their careers. The acting is good, but not stellar, and a few characters also fell through into the absurd zone. Much of that too I feel is due to that this story, these characters need the time, space and pace given in a novel, that they can't be given here. And going halfway definitely isn't good enough.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
Walter Matthau is wonderful as the "philandering" dentist Dr. Julian Winston whose frequent fibs to girlfriend Goldie provide textbook proof of the dangers of lying. Goldie Hawn's touching kook Toni Simmons certainly deserved to win her Oscar. Ingrid Bergman's work as the stiff-as-starch nurse Stephanie is also touching to watch as she comes out of her shell, slowly and nervously. This is a great movie to watch in the springtime, or any time for that matter. It's very underrated; I never heard about it until I found it in the video store, and what a find! | positive |
It's probably a year since I saw Uzak, but it has left strong memories of the two main characters, jaded photographer Mahmut and his naive cousin from the village Yusuf.<br /><br />It's a long film with very little dialogue and a quite limited plot. This has evidently annoyed a fair few viewers. But the film constructs such a painfully believable portrait of Mahmut and Yusuf that there's just as much emotional tension as in the paciest thriller.<br /><br />Just to be clear, there's no padding in this film -- in the long pauses where no one speaks there as much happening in the characters' emotions (and in yours, watching them) as you could bear. Go to see it awake and alert, and you'll be gripped rather than anaesthetised.<br /><br />Uzak rings true in so many ways, and that sincerity is probably its greatest accomplishment. People don't grapple with events and problems, so much as with each other. In fact, in the whole film, there's probably not one point where the main characters (Mahmut, Yusuf and Mahmut's ex-wife Nazan) are not opposed.<br /><br />Much of it is true the world over: country cousin Yusuf's perhaps wilfully naive expectation that a job on a ship will drop into his lap; Mahmut's urbanised cynicism and unwillingness to sympathise with Yusuf.<br /><br />Other truths are more-specific to Turkey: Yusuf's incomprehension that Mahmut might be tolerating his stay with gritted teeth; Yusuf veering between macho ambition and wide-eyed awkwardness when he tries to get to know a woman.<br /><br />Uzak is undoubtedly a pretty bleak film, and one Ceylan's strengths is not to beat us over the head with the themes he explores. For me at least, I believed entirely in the behaviour of his characters. All the little failed attempts to connect and petty cruelties ring so true. And yet I didn't leave with a message that "The world is like that", but instead I got "This is how we sometimes treat each other." | positive |
When I noticed that "Hamish Macbeth" was being broadcast in the United States, I was thrilled. I then had the misfortune to watch the darn thing. I adore M. C. Beaton's books about the wonderful Scottish Constable. The characters in the book are entertaining and very well-written. The powers that be who are responsible for this mish-mash apparently have never have read one of Beaton's books. Only the name "Hamish Macbeth" has anything to do with the series. Besides the lack of familiar characters, I find the whole show offensively loud. It seems that the actors feel they must shout their lines and scream at each other. If you love M. C. Beaton's adorable Hamish Macbeth don't waste your time on this rubbish. | negative |
1st watched 7/29/2001 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Mark Dindal): Fast-paced, frantic animation effort by Ted Turner's feature animation group plays a lot like tv cartoons and leaves a lot to be desired in the area of likeable characters, but definetly has extremely unlikeable villains. I'm not even sure why the kids would like this movie because there are so many references to old movie stars that kids know very little or nothing about. Mediocre effort at best despite raves on the box comparing it to Disney efforts like Aladdin and Lion King. Don't let this fool you -- there is no comparison in story or quality. | negative |
Haven't played the game? Don't bother. This is for the Final Fantasy VII fans out there that beat the game, and no other will appreciate this rare gem of a movie. Want to watch it and love it? Buy the game, beat it and then watch it. When's the last time you've seen an excellent movie based on a video game? Well, this is it.<br /><br />The story takes place two years after the game and no short summaries are given to refresh your memory (though I doubt many would forget), and goes right into the one hour and forty-one minute adventure.<br /><br />All your favorite characters are there, even Cait Sith. The voice acting is superb in the Japanese version, every character is cast perfectly. Cloud sounds tough and broody, Tifa sounds kind yet strong...Aeris is also perfect, she sounds exactly as I imagined. Cait Sith sounds less cute than I imagined, but worked very well.<br /><br />The character models are spectacular, great textures and lighting. The environments are breathtaking and the battles are choreographed in a way to make The Matrix blush. The amazing camera work comes through in the bike chases, for example, where your eyes are just screaming in satisfaction and your lungs breathing heavily without consent.<br /><br />The music is typical Uematsu quality, which means its top notch. Familiar tunes are remade to accompany Advent Children's graphical leap, which meshes with the visual aspects very well. There's even an inside joke for the fans that involves music, it'll make you smile for sure.<br /><br />I did not watch it with subtitles since I'm half-Japanese so I can't say that the subtitles are any good. In Japanese, however, the dialogue is very good and every word sounds like it's coming from real living beings, not just actors. Impressive. I'll watch this again someday with subtitles to see the differences since I've played both the Japanese and American release of Final Fantasy VII.<br /><br />If you are a fan of Final Fantasy VII, buy this movie the day it comes out or pre-order it. If you haven't played the game but want to see this movie very badly, don't waste your time: buy the game, beat it, and then come back for this DVD. I won't tell you to not watch it, but play the game. It'll make the experience a lot better and won't leave you in the dust scratching your heads.<br /><br />Come back, old friends - it's time to go on an adventure again with your brave comrades! | positive |
Of all Arnold's mid-'80s movies who would have thought that most relevant today would be The Running Man. A chilling and surprisingly realistic tale of reality TV gone mad. It may have been far-fetched back then but not so now. Not when you think about it. Currently, Reality TV shows are either scraping the bottom of the barrel or desperate to raise the bar. If the next one isn't more controversial as the last, it's a dud. How long will it be before we really do see shows like The Running Man? How long before we have 'court-appointed theatrical attorneys' or the entertainment division of the Justice Department? There is so much satire and intelligence in this movie that may have been missed back in 1987 that is desperate to be seen again considering the current state of TV shows.<br /><br />The biggest message of all is 'You are being lied to'. It's no secret that the Government and the media work in cahoots. And the masses believe what the media tells them to believe. It's a very scary state of affairs and unless more accurate representations of the truth emerge we may easily accept a brutal show like the Running Man in the near future. It's no secret that Reality TV is not very realistic. It's edited and reshaped before being aired and it's only what the networks want you to see. Usually it's far from the real truth.<br /><br />Although rather different than Stephen King's book (the ending is completely changed) the script does conform to the typical Arnie formula. Yes, he does have numerous and very corny one-liners and he does say 'I'll be back' (which he never REALLY said that often anyway, when you think about it) in the most ironic situation yet but he's still a zillion times better in the role then Christopher Reeve or Dolph Lundgren would have been (these two were considered BEFORE Arnie believe it or not).<br /><br />The director is none other than Dave Starsky himself (Paul Michael Glaser). It may not be artistic but it is still strong enough to generate excitement and his use of neon and flourescent colors gives each individual set a pretty cool look. Andrew Davis (not a director I particularly like) was attached before Glaser, though no matter who directs, the film is still marred by a very heavy 80's feel.<br /><br />First of all, Harold Faltermeyer's score (remember him?) is incredibly dated and robs the action scenes of any timeless integrity. And the fashion sense of the movie is far too excessive to be convincingly set in the future. Apart from the dated feel, the only other thing that bugs me is the poorly staged shoot-out that passes as the climax.<br /><br />This new DVD is a zillion times better than the original release. Gone is the horrid letterbox picture. In its place is a brand new hi-definition 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer. The colors sparkle and literally pop from the screen. The new Dolby 5.1 EX and DTS ES soundtrack are also amazing. There constant use of the surround channels to great effect and the bass is strong and powerful. Definitely one of the best re-masters I've seen so far. Two intriguing documentaries, a trailer and a 'Meet the Stalkers' gimmick are included in this 2-disc set that comes in a rather neat slip case. | positive |
I went in to see D-War on a whim and with very low expectations. The movie failed to meet them.<br /><br />I don't mind stories that stretch credulity - remember Reign of Fire? - but I do expect them to be internally consistent. This film leapt from howler to howler without pausing for breath, all interspersed with special effects that lagged far behind the likes of LOTR or even Godzilla.<br /><br />A shape-shifting mystic warrior from Korea, curiously metamorphosed into a Caucasian antique dealer and popping up like deus ex machina to get the hapless protagonists out of their latest mess. A special agent from the FBI who seems to be completely boned up on ancient Korean folklore because of the Fed's excellent "paranormal division" - which has gone unremarked up to this point. Lovers kissing on deserted beaches where one exclaims "I never meant for this to happen." A reincarnated pair of long dead Koreans who "died like star-crossed lovers." Mystic pendants, faceless hordes of robotic soldiers (that owe a lot to Peter Jackson's orcs) and a serpent who wastes so much time roaring that every time its chosen prey is within reach something comes along to distract it.<br /><br />The dialogue is appalling, the acting wooden and the effect of the whole was, to be honest, tedious. However, for me the crowning moment was at the end, after the finale, when the music for the closing credits was - Arirang! This is rather like Akira Kurosawa closing "Ran" with a karaoke rendition of My Way - and let me be clear that I am in no way comparing director Shim to Kurosawa.<br /><br />In short, a self indulgent, lackluster collection of clichés and narrative non-sequituurs which may appeal to the sense of the melodramatic so prevalent in Koran popular culture but should not be worth the price of the ticket to any serious movie goer - or even a not so-serious movie goer. I would suggest that this bypass the movie theaters altogether and go straight to video, but I'm not even sure that it's worth that much. | negative |
Basically, this movie is one of those rare movies you either hate and think borders on suicide as the next best thing to do, rather than having to sit through it for two hours. Or, as in my case, you see it as a kult hit, one of those movies wherein the humour, the plot, the acting, is actually very hidden but for those of us willing to go looking for it, trusting the director well, the reward is: U laugh your A.. of !! The fact that U have to find the things mentioned above, actually makes the movie even more funny, because u get the impression the director isn't even aware of how funny his movie is, which doesn't seem likely and therein lies the intelligence at the helm of this magnificient project called : Spaced Invaders !! | positive |
This short is a puzzlement. Words fail me here, as this is almost indescribable, Technically exceptional after more than 90 years (the visuals are remarkable and even occasionally amazing), this is not something you watch if you like things that are mundane or "normal'-because it most certainly is not either. This be an odd one, gang. Well worth checking out, but if things like Ren and Stimpy make your head hurt, you may want to skip this. Recommended. | positive |
My mom and I went to the Ft Worth Premiere mainly to see George Strait, but ended up getting the chance to see the movie premier at Bass Hall. What a wonderful, beautiful film which not only depicts the beautiful Texas landscape, but also had a great feel-good storyline. It was well written, directed and produced and my mom and I loved it from start to finish!. Thank you Jay for giving us the opportunity to be a part of the premiere of this wonderful movie. It was a night we will never forget. As if seeing the movie was not enough, we also were fortunate enough to be sitting 4 rows in front of my favorite singer, George Strait!! Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!! Keep up the great work and again, thank you!<br /><br />Debbie McClendon & Maureen Daugherty Ft. Worth, TX | positive |
This is a great example of what happened at Comedy Central after Dave Chapelle left. Here's the problem with Carlos Mencia. Firstly, his birth name is Ned Holness, and was known that until he was 18, when he switched his name to Ned Arnel Mencia. He was born in Honduras, though he acts like he's from Mexico. He grew up in the United States, as well.<br /><br />I might be able to forgive all that crap, but...<br /><br />He's been caught stealing other peoples material. Joe Rogan has been his most vocal critic in this way. The Stereotype Olympics was an idea he ripped off a couple of DJ's from Miami. He has stolen jokes from Bill Cosby. He stole George Lopez's material in his own HBO special (13 minutes of it).<br /><br />He thinks what he's doing is so original, but Dave Chapelle and Lisa Lampanelli have been cracking on race for years before this idiot (amoung others).<br /><br />This show will crash and burn. The word Beaner can't last that long before it gets old. He hasn't done anything new since the first episode.<br /><br />"Wanna hear a joke? A Beaner jumping a fence!! That's funny for 3 Seasons!" Not.<br /><br />Awful. | negative |
I want to state first that I am a Christian (and that I do work in the film and TV industry) so I understand what it is like to work on a feature length film so props to the filmmakers in that regard. I'm all for positive, uplifting messages if they are true to the nature of life (that this is a fallen world and that things don't always work out ... even for followers of Christ). I'm glad that others are having such overwhelmingly positive reactions to the overt Christian message; for me it was just that the execution is where the film fell on its face. A movie lives and dies on its story and here you have one dimensional stereotypes, exposition aplenty, and spontaneous changes in character behavior that are inexplicably to say the least. I believe that a film does not have to club you over the head with its message to get the point across. I'm sure the Kendrick bros. will improve with time and that their storytelling methods will as well. Maybe they could direct someone else's screenplay as their next project.<br /><br />* Sports films are not exactly my first love but a good one (Hoosiers, Field of Dreams, etc) can inspire in a multitude of ways. If you would be interested in a PG-rated film that inspires, give Steven Soderbergh's 'King of the Hill' a look. All truth is God's truth ... | negative |
"The Shop Around the Corner" is one of the great films from director Ernst Lubitsch. In addition to the talents of James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan, it's filled with a terrific cast of top character actors such as Frank Morgan and Felix Bressart .They're the type of character actors that Hollywood sadly no longer employs. In fact, the film itself is the kind of movie that Hollywood doesn't make anymore. (The makers of "You've Got Mail" claim their film to be a remake, but that's just nothing but a lot of inflated self praise.) Anyway, if you have an affection for romantic comedies of the 1940's, you'll find "The Shop Around the Corner" to be nothing short of wonderful. Just as good with repeat viewings. Enjoy! | positive |
Surely one of the mysteries of the modern world!! - this film is NOT considered to be within the top 100 films of all time????<br /><br />If you watched this film and thought it was anything other than wonderful please let me know how? - Al Pacino's performance is as good as it gets! | positive |
Gene Roddenberry never let his fans down. His death ended Sci-Fi legacy that will never be matched. Earth: The Final Conflict was proof! His pilot film and the first 2 Seasons were well written and meticulously produced, but somewhere along the way the Roddenberry touch was lost. The loss of lead, Kevin Kilner (William Boone) definitely hurt the series as he was a vital part of what made it work. The story involves the human race being visited by the Taelons, an extra-terrestrial race who dub themselves 'The Companions'. After 3 years they have given earth new technologies, helpful information about the Universe and more. Many question their intentions here on Earth. The main liaison on Earth between the races is Da'an (Leni Parker) and he is to many, the most trustworthy Taelon. Questions arise: just why are they here? what are their goals, is Da'an aware of any suspected plots against the humans? There is an underground group led by millionaire industrialist Jonathan Doors (David Hemblen) who utilizes his millions to investigate the Taelons. By the end of the First Season things are going well, Da'an seems trustworthy, Boone assists Doors in his investigation while working with Da'an and the Taelons as a liaison. In the middle of the 2nd Season things start unraveling and the once terrific and fascinating series spirals downward, mostly because Roddenberry had died and was not around to guide the producers, of whom his wife Majel Barrett-Roddenberry was co-producer. Still, the first Season remains intriguing and fun to watch. | positive |
Let's be fair: there are no RULES for scriptwriting, so I won't say the movie SHOULD be something other than it is. I'll just state my opinion. OK, I really liked the script, the way things are told and characters are introduced. However, I think when a play is adapted to the silver screen, it could maybe try and fit this other media. Since this movie was directed by João Falcão, the same man who directed the play, it's not too much of a surprise that the film turned out a bit too theatrical. It's the man's first movie, for cryin' out-loud! What I'm saying is, there are parts in the film - like the city of Nordestina, which slightly resembles the set of "Hoje é Dia de Maria" - that feel like we're not at a movie theater. We're at the theater! Lines are spoken too formally, characters are moving choreographically, and the lightening is clearly meant for a stage. Sure, maybe that was the intention, but that's been done. On stage. Wonderful things have been made when adapting a play into a movie - the beautiful "Closer", for instance. When I went to see this one, though, I didn't feel like I was watching a movie. But overall, it was a good one, worth watching. It's a nice love story, funny at times and sad at others. My vote is a 7. | positive |
Some 25 year olds behave like teenagers, coping with the death of a high-school mate, trying to find their purpose in live and love. The script is so lame that I had to force myself to even finish this movie. Stay away from it. 1/10 | negative |
I thought this movie was brilliant. It was so funny and so true too. A great idea for a movie. Five groups of friends on their way to schoolies. I've got to say that Matt Newton as Mason was probably my favourite character. I wish i could give this movie more than a 10 rating. | positive |
New York attorney plots to rid himself of his senile mother after meeting an attractive, available woman. Screenwriter Robert Klane, adapting his own novel (the kind of paperback kids would buy for the dirty parts), doesn't seem to have any knowledge of mental illness: to him, it's just an excuse for prurient comedy and scatological jokes. George Segal--who, in the 1960s, starred mostly in war and espionage pictures--had become, by this time, one of America's greatest sad-sack comedians; his nutty reactions and batty responses rival only his mother's inscrutabilities. Segal is paired well with Trish Van Devere, and their moments of connection (though also played for laughs) are really the only sequences one can gravitate towards. Ruth Gordon, lovable as is she, is simply around too much--and more of her amounts to less. This is one of the worst directed and edited films I have ever seen from so-called professionals. Promising scenes which ultimately don't play out for the full effect are haphazardly disconnected from other moments which flail around endlessly, causing the crass, rickety movie to self-destruct long before it's actually over. *1/2 from **** | negative |
One can only hope that there are many times when someone as powerful as Morgan Freeman can take the time to assist someone who needs help.<br /><br />It all comes down to loving people. As Will Rogers said, "I never met a man I didn't like." Of course, if you meet Paz Vega, what's not to like? That smile of hers can melt diamonds. She is just so fantastic that I can watch anything she is in. The same goes for Freeman. he is just magic on the screen.<br /><br />The two of them gave us a film that was funny from start to finish. From the Mexican supermarket to Lorraine & Bobby to Packy. It was tender, charming and just plain funny.<br /><br />You have to check this out. | positive |
This was recently on AMC's vibrant movie classics and I had to laugh. I had high hopes for this adventure that follows in the vein of "Voyage to the Earth's Core" and "Mysterious Island". I was sorely disappointed not only in the acting credentials but in the silly story line that reads from a five year old's comic book. Be sure to catch sight of the wires that are holding on to the Pterdactyl's wings when they grasp "Ogar" a half idiot pre-modern man who befriends the lost adventurers. The ending left it open for further rehashing of the same effects in "People that Time Forgot". Don't waste your time. | negative |
Clocking in at an interminable three hours and twenty minutes, "Salaam-e-Ishq" is a pretty but superficial comic soap opera from India that regales us with six interwoven tales of romantic love (which is at least four tales too many in my estimation).<br /><br />Filmed like a cross between an MTV music video and a Super Bowl beer commercial, the movie is a sprawling mishmash of exotic settings, dazzling colors, sexy showgirls, high-stepping song-and-dance numbers, dream and fantasy sequences, winking character asides, corny dialogue and way-over-the-top comical performances - all pretty much standard-issue stuff when it comes to Bollywood happenings these days. It's an exhausting chore just trying to keep all the characters straight as they dance, prance and preen their way through the incomprehensible storyline.<br /><br />There's plenty for the viewer to feast his eyes on here - not least of all all the drop dead gorgeous women - but he'll need the patience of Job to get him all the way through it. | negative |
Yes, my summary just about tells it all.<br /><br />If you haven't watched this, try it. But not for pleasure. For studies of one of the worst examples of trying to be politically correct, family-oriented and "cool" at the same time.<br /><br />The men always think they know everything, are stupid, and finally loose to the magnificent women. Etc.. This is especially offensive, when all the characters are just as terrible and stereotypic. I mean, ok, "Cody" was funny one time or another, but unlike other "stupid characters(tm)" like Woody in Cheers or Joey in Friends, he doesn't get good lines. His stupidity is cast in a "duude" way, which gets quite annoying after a while.<br /><br />The family morale is awful. Everything for the family. Mother and father are supreme dictators, who inbetween severe punishing and old-fashioned parenting, constantly say they "love" their kids, and then of course, in the end, the kids love them back *barf*.<br /><br />And: There's always a "tender spot" like that squeezed into the "action", where american(c)(tm) morale lessons are forced upon the viewers, about sex (in a mature, you can't have sex before you're 18 (!!), kind of way), or drugs. Even church-habits are thoroughly described here. The whole concept is directly sickening, all made in a half-hearted way to make money. If there are people like Karen and Frank out there, please lock them up and desintegrate the key.<br /><br />So, with themes ranging as far as revolting religious propaganda, I think it's fair to conclude as I did in my subject... | negative |
Director / writer Michael Winner's feature is a better than expected offbeat supernatural horror film (although still schlock efficiently catered for), which really does by go unnoticed. Sure it might borrow ideas from other similar themed horror movies of this period, but still manages to bring its own psychological imprint to the smokescreen material (of good vs. evil) and a unique vision that has a fair share of impressively expansive, if somewhat exploitative set-pieces. As a whole it's sketchy, however remains intriguing by instilling an ominous charge without going gang-busters with the scares. Actually there's always something going on amongst its busy framework, but it's rather down-played with its shocks steering to soapy patterns and atmospheric tailoring, up until its vividly repellent and grisly climax with a downbeat revelation. Winner's dressed up craftsmanship might feel pedestrian, however it's the ensemble cast that really holds it together
as you try to spot the faces. There's plenty too. Some having more to do with the scheme of things than others, but there's no doubts every one of them are committed, despite the ludicrously crude nature of it all. It's interesting to see names like Sylvia Miles (who's significantly creepy!), Beverly D'Angelo (likewise), Deborah Raffin, Eli Wallach, Christopher Walken, William Hickey (a neat cameo), Jeff Goldblum, Jerry Orbach and Tom Berenger in bit parts. Then you got a mild-mannered Chris Sarandon and movingly gorgeous Cristina Raines in the leads. Offering able support José Ferrer, Martin Balsam, Ava Gardner, John Carradine, Burgess Meredith and Arthur Kennedy. The script does throw around many characters, as well as notions but gets disjointedly sidetrack by trying to squeeze all of it in. However it's disorienting air works in its favour in establishing the suspicion and deception of what's really going on here. Is there a reason for all of this, and why is it surrounding Raines' character? The emphasis is mainly built upon that moody angle, as it begins to slowly shed light of her inner goings and that of the strange/worrying experiences she encounters when she's moves into her new apartment. This is where Winner tries to pull out the eerie shades, which projects some icy moments. Gil Melle was the man responsible for the grand, overpowering orchestral score that never misses a cue and Richard C. Kratina instruments the sweeping, scope-like photography. | positive |
I've seen this film in avant-premiere at Imagina Festival in Monaco.<br /><br />I saw the first trailer four years ago, and from this moment, I was waiting to see the final result. I haven't been disappointed.<br /><br />It is a full 3d movie with a high contrasted black and white render. Clearly inspired by some comic books, such as the ones from F. Miller. In this optic, it goes one step further than the excellent "Sin City" adaptation from R. Rodriguez. This time, (almost) no Grey or any middle color, but a graphic style never seen before in a realistic animated film.(can't wait for scanner darkly)<br /><br />The massive use of Motion Capture gives a lot of life and credibility to the characters and we forget really soon the technical aspect to concentrate on more classic elements, such as direction or plot. The direction stays sober and controlled despite the infinite possibilities of the medium, and that is a really good surprise.<br /><br />The futuristic story (Paris 2053) makes it a classic sci-fiction movie and maintain the viewer interested till the end. Despite a classic base plot (an investigation that goes far beyond initial expectations)the atmosphere and some interesting recurring themes (genetics, absolute power of certain firms...)gives this movie a great interest.<br /><br />Despite it is an animated film, this one is obviously not made for children. You won't find here any funny pet or any stupid family moral, only the cold reality. It is far closer to a good film noir.<br /><br />I found that the setting is one of the best aspect of the film: we still feel the well known Paris, but it is morphed by a fine touch of futurism.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I regret a few mistakes. The montage is sometimes a bit flat, one or two very cliché slow motion effects and some poor dialogs. Even though the technical is excellent, it shows its limits in some romantic sequences (a bit like "final fantasy" did). Those little things makes it a 7/10.<br /><br />Altogether, it is a successful artistic challenge that you have to watch if you can. The director, Christian Volckman, knows how not to fall into potential traps (luckyly, they didn't ask John Woo to do the job!).<br /><br />To conclude, it is a film with blasting visuals, an intelligent story and a wonderful art direction. Watch it if you can!<br /><br />Please excuse me for the spelling mistakes. | positive |
Shintarô Katsu, who played the blind swordsman "Zatoichi" in a total of 27 movies, ends the Hanzo trilogy with this excellent film in which he gets to make love to a ghost, Mako Midori (Blind Beast).<br /><br />The big stick, used often in the pursuit of justice, is retired forever.<br /><br />Katsu was his usual impudent self as he pursued those who would steal from the treasury to lend at usurious amounts to those who could not afford to pay.<br /><br />The usual amazing swordplay and skill of the big guy was present, along with the blood.<br /><br />I'm going to miss him. | positive |
An interesting concept turned into carnage...<br /><br />My first seeing feature from Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper), When i first took interest in it, it seemed at the time an interesting concept...<br /><br />Shakespere + Aussie Film + Gothic setting + Melbourne Gangland<br /><br />A very odd mixed that turned into a disastrous piece of Aussie cinema that gives my country a bad name...<br /><br />Pros: -Interesting concept<br /><br />Cons: -Waste of a good cast -Stuffed and stupid plot -Crooked camera angles -Not much variety of locations -Crap use of Shakespearian diologue<br /><br />Overall: Australia's worst attempt of a Shakespere film, Stick to Baz Lurhman...or Romper Stomper (WARNING: That film is dangerous) | negative |
OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.<br /><br />We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.<br /><br />I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.<br /><br />If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.<br /><br />So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.<br /><br />Hope this helps. | negative |
This movie kind of reminds me of A Mary-Kate and Ashley movie-only worse. Just the rich sisters kind of thing I think even though Alysons more the actress, in this movie Amanda michalka was okay sometimes but Alysons acting stunk. i think that after high-school musical they needed to come up with somethihng better and this definitely wasn't it. The story line wasn't that great and I think they should have gotten two other people to play Taylor and Courtney. I'm not a big Alyson Michalka fan and this movie didn't make me like her any better. i think they should definitely sick to singing and only watch this movie if you have nothing better to do (which sadly I didn't) | negative |
I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.<br /><br />The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).<br /><br />To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on. | negative |
I just realized why the colors and sets in "Sakuran" were so flashy and gaudy, and just painful to look at. The story is about a high-class prostitute known as an oiran in Japanese. Their kimono were always flashier and gaudier than other kimono so that the oiran would stand out. But the director, Mika Ninagawa, had to make sure that the director stood out even more than the main character, or even the story. <br /><br />What Anna Tsuchiya did in the movie just gave me the creeps. You couldn't call it acting. It was nothing more than catering to her flipped-out, high-school-girl fan base. Hey Anna, good luck on that one as you get older. Yeah, right, an oiran as a crude and vulgar, prone- to-violence, biker chick. Didn't we already see you portray this character in a more appropriate movie?<br /><br />The story was painfully boring and predictable. What is the story of "Sakuran"? An obnoxious little bitch ever remains true to her self which is just that: an obnoxious bitch. She finds that, inexplicably, men are attracted to her and that she has an unexplained ability to manipulate men and becomes a successful, high-class prostitute even though she talks and behaves like she's a member of a female biker gang. This so-called seductive ability of hers is talked about but we never see it in action, probably due to the ineptitude of the main, pretend-phony-biker chick, I mean "actress." <br /><br />The main character of the movie makes a wealthy and powerful man angry at her because she keeps him waiting while she services a much more lowly customer. Not very oiran-like, is it? How could such a woman ever become an oiran? Oh, because the previous oiran got herself killed and the house needed a whore that could demand a high price. Who would pay a high price for a slut so cheap? Rumors get around. How could there be no repercussions for what she did to the powerful guy? Because the screenwriters are dolts. They just made up a bunch of crap.<br /><br />Then an even more wealthy and powerful guy falls for her (why?) and she throws him over for a penniless guy who is generally cold and distant toward her but respects who she really is (which doesn't make sense. How can anyone respect someone so worthless?).<br /><br />Speaking of crap, it's like the director squatted down and took a huge, psychedelic-colored dump on the aesthetics, culture, and society of the Edo Period. What of such things as sabi, mono no aware, wabi, subtlety, elegance, a rigidly hierarchical society? All shat upon by a director who comes off as a senseless, nouveau-riche parvenu. The amazing thing is that so many other Japanese, in watching this movie, squatted down around the director and took steaming spoonfuls of this blazing-colored stinking crap and exclaimed how tasty it was.<br /><br />Argentinean tango music with violin and bandoneon as backdrop for the Edo Period when Japan was totally isolated from the international world (except for the 3.7 acres of Dejima)? Why not just have Anna, the bad-ass-biker oiran, answer her cell phone and the rich and powerful daimyo character drive off in a hissy fit in his red Ferrari? The music we had to listen to was jarring and anachronistic (the same as the art design). <br /><br />Near the ending, I liked that there were only two or three tiny flowers on the shrine cherry tree. But, earlier, the second she said she would leave the quarters when it bloomed, we all knew exactly what would happen. How boring, to telegraph the ending so clearly. But what's the point of the old tree blooming? That rich and powerful guy already made the pleasure quarters bloom in cherry blossoms like the mountains of Yoshino in spring. That didn't impress her at all? No, of course not. I already know that about whores. The guys that treat them nicely get kicked in the balls. Maybe it bugs the whores to have people idealize them when they themselves know the truth of who they are: just cheap and worthless.<br /><br />Considering the director's obsession with goldfish, the second to last scene should have been of a goldfish bowl on a verandah accidentally knocked over. Two fish tumble into a stream which carries them off to escape beyond the walls of the pleasure quarters, belying how goldfish are stuck in their bowl and can't survive outside (just like the denizen's relationship with the pleasure quarters). Otherwise the talk of the fate of goldfish has no meaning.<br /><br />In the final scene the cherry trees were full in bloom, but the brevity of the blooms is one thing special about cherry blossoms. I couldn't help thinking that soon enough dusk would wipe away all the soft pink color and warmth from the scene. The sky would go quickly from hints of shadow, into an ever- deepening gloom, and night would fall. It would become cold, very cold. And dark. That really wasn't a happy ending, was it? Romantic love (in the Edo Period?) could survive in the face of terrible poverty and being ostracized for about as long as those cherry trees bloomed. Maybe a few days, unless it rained sooner. But the unconsummated romantic love we see here? It's existence in this period is incomprehensible.<br /><br />Anna Tsuchiya walking in the shoes of an oiran? She couldn't do it. Literally. Check out the scene of her "promenade" where she seems to have the correct footwear on but she has to hold on to some guy's shoulder to keep from tumbling on her ass.<br /><br />I was going to give this movie two stars for the art direction but then I realized what that was all about: sick dominance on the part of the director. Those colors and sets are just the way the director has of screaming, "I'm the most important one here! Me! It's all about me!!!!" | negative |
I am probably one of the few viewers who would not recommend this film. Thought visually stunning like all of Ang Lee's work (each still frame seems worthy of a print), I was really disappointed by the film's disjointed pace. It really was too long.<br /><br />The story is set in Civil War era Missouri, and is about a young man (Roedel) who joins the feral forces of the Bushwackers, sort of renegade Confederate sympathizers who conduct geurilla type fighting with the Jayhawkers, their Union counterparts. He and his close friend, Jack Bull Chiles played by Skeet Ulrich, join the group after Chile's father is shot point-blank and his home is burned, presumably by Jayhawkers. The story follows Roedel's and Chiles' raiding adventures and their interactions with other victims of the war, including former slave who fights for the Bushwhackers (Daniel Holt played by Jeffery Wright), and a war widow played by Jewel.<br /><br />It seemed that every time the film developed the story to an interesting point, it would turn to some other subplot and leave things undeveloped. For example, the agitation among Roedel's group caused by former slave Holt participating in the confederate cause is shown briefly through some conflict regarding propriety and protocol, and then dropped until later in the movie. A young villian/bully Bushwhacker hates Roedel and directs much angst and violence against him, but, we never know why. Some of the characters never seem to surface; I think that is because the movie embraces too many of them as well as taking on large amounts of history.<br /><br />The historical detail was excellent. I loved looking at the housing, furniture, clothes, etc., and I thought the lead actors did a wonderful job of humanizing the characters, though they stumbled a bit with the dialog. Unless you really enjoy history or are a huge Ang Lee fan, though, take a pass on this one. | negative |
I really like the movie's opening, when Col. Ted Masters realizes on his fighter radar that four enemy aircraft were approaching from about 10 o'clock. The good news is that the movie does not mention at the very beginning that the colonel, along with a wingman fighter who was a lieutenant, was trying to do a "freedom of navigation" exercise along the eastern Meditteranean Sea, but went a little too past the restricted air space zone reserved for a rogue Middle eastern nation as they accidentially fly past it.<br /><br />I also like all of the intercutting on the colonel's fighter radar readouts and computer displays as the enemy aircraft aggressively picks the two American fighter pilots into an engagement for violating their airspace. That first dogfight immediately reminds me of the famous fighter pilot movie, "Top Gun." From the waxing of the enemy bandits to the enemy aircraft's thirty-milimeter rounds that struck the colonel's jet engines and forcing the plane down, forcing him to eject, all of this reminds us of one thing...dogfight fighter techniques can keep you alive...but one false move can cause you to be shot down.<br /><br />The only problem in the movie was the "snake sequence" scene. It was a little bit too long. Yes, the movie's opening was great when you see the conflict...which was the dogfight engagement. Only when one boy tells Doug Masters that his father was shot down after the Cessna planes landed in the "snake" race, forces us back to the time the conflict already started. I guess the snake sequence in the middle should be interrupted a little bit by Col. Masters being dragged in handcuffs in the middle of the Bilyad desert on his way to the detention center...while the music sequence for the "snake" continues. The film does not do it...if it were, the conflict's details would have been smoother at that point. Still good otherwise.<br /><br />When word found out that Col. Ted Masters trial for high treason (violating territorial air sovereignty) was over and he was condemned to be hung on the gallows in three days, Doug Masters decides to go into action. With the Air Force having futile attempts to save the man, Doug decides to pull his friends and Col. Sinclair (played by Louis Gossett Jr.) for a plan to rescue Masters. Risking a high chance of facing a court martial and spending more than a year in a military stockade, he goes against Air Force policy and makes a plan to rescue Masters without consent of the U.S. government.<br /><br />Doug and his friends sneak into several classified areas of the base to get plenty of stuff on the area where Masters is held for the upcoming hanging, and the surrounding area around Bilyad (which turns out to be a fake Middle Eastern country for the movie). One plan included shooting off firecrackers outside the Air Force darkroom area as a diversion to get classified photos and maintenance stuff on the fighter aircraft, fighter base, intelligence, and all of the other military stuff around Bilyad. <br /><br />When all was said and done, and Sinclair studied all of the intelligence, he almost rebuffed at that plan because Doug was way too cocky. Not until they get the two F-16 planes and tried a dry run across a firing range that I realized what they were going to do overseas. I realized that Doug's fighter shooting and bomb dropping is not good until he hears rock music. I can remember when he dropped one Mach 82 bomb on a horizontal target and the bomb missed by 20 feet....I realized that Doug is unusual. He likes music when he fires the fighter ammunition.<br /><br />The last part of the conflict, the final dogfight action in "Iron Eagle" was better than Top Gun's climax of the hostile dogfight sequences. I liked the way the final conflict unfolded, especially when Doug Masters faces off with an Middle-Eastern ace fighter pilot who actually ran the trial against Ted Masters. Short but sweet when Doug took the enemy fighter out after a second try by a side-winder missile. Looks like this Bilyad colonel was akin to "Darth Vader" in Star Wars....in the air, he can be very evil, because if you have seen Star Wars, Darth Vader was actually Anakin Skywalker, who was an ace pilot in space. Unusual connotation for this but still works! | positive |
You know the old saw about a train wreck? The one about how you can't look away? This movie isn't that good. The only reason you're still there is because you brought your kids and you can't leave them alone in the theater. You might catch a nap.<br /><br />Tim Hill should never work in film again after delivering this awful piece of junk. He manages to take a decent comic actor in Jason Lee and turn him into a robotic, unsure actor in this production.<br /><br />I didn't have much hope for this movie in the first place, I admit. If it weren't basically the only family film I could take my son to around Christmas, my wife and I wouldn't have gone. God, I wish we could go back in time and stop ourselves. I leaned over to my wife about 10 minutes in to tell her what a stinker I thought it was, but she beat me to the punch.<br /><br />I'm not kidding. It's putrid. Only David Cross's terrific-as-usual work saves this review from being only 1 star.<br /><br />The story is cloying, insulting and stupid, as might be expected for a movie in this genre (although the recent "Curious George" was blissfully intelligent and enjoyable). The acting is mostly poor. The decision to "update" the Chipmunks songs for today's audience was inadvisable at best and boneheaded at worst. It does not work.<br /><br />The chipmunks of old were clever, mischievous and sly. These chipmunks are dumb, somewhat mean-spirited, obnoxious, and in a surprise, needy to the point of uselessness.<br /><br />Either as a retrospect, a tribute, or as a completely new production, this film totally fails. The final straw? My son couldn't wait to leave. Spend your money renting Curious George instead. | negative |
This one and the one prior "Toulon's Revenge" and the next one seem to be completely different from the first two movies where the puppets were not so nice. It is basically choose your series, the first two go together and paint the puppets as killers, while the next three are a series of them being the good guys. This one plays out to much like some cheesy television series episode to be as good as part three was and I never really had the urge to try and watch part five of the series. Basically, a kid gets the puppets while some strange dark lord or something sends his evil puppets out to kill, this dark lord looks like some sort of enemy from one of those live action Japanese shows like Ultraman. The movie is over before you know it though so it has to get credit for not inflicting you with a very painful to watch movie. Just to many plot holes and things in it for it to be considered an okay movie. You do get to see the guy who played Toulon in the last movie though then you have a very anti-climatic battle and wham the movie is over before it really begins. | negative |
John Cusack stars as Hoops in this silly little movie that has to be one of the best of the eighties teen comedies.Believe it or not Demi Moore is his co star...If you love the eighties,grew up around that time,or are an angst ridden teenage artist get ready to laugh.Wait until you see the cartoons..what a riot.... | positive |
It's quite revealing to see this today and appreciate how far we've come along in what we expect from movies, and at the same time appreciate how many bedrock notions were established.<br /><br />Here we have a full-fledged narrative talking film - the audio and the visuals are pushed to their period limits. The framing is limited to about belt-high and up -- no face close-ups. <br /><br />The compositions are remarkable; there's an early over-the-shoulder cross cutting scene to showcase the dialogue; there's a treacherous descent into a canyon with some harrowing perspective angles; a sun-bleached skeleton lies in the dust as the wheels and legs march in the upper portion of the frame; the tension in the showdown between the hero and the bad guy is visually captured by filming above the long axis of a large tree that lies between them; and on and on - early visual treats abound.<br /><br />Today, it's unsettling to see the young Wayne carry a film, unencumbered by ego or mannerisms.<br /><br />I have to wonder if Walsh recognized the self-reference: the subject is the journey of a disparate group of pilgrims; those who appear on screen are a disparate group of stage actors, vaudeville comedians, shell game artists, and, probably, carny barkers and ten-in-one show veterans. They all journey together to blaze a trail for how movies would be made.<br /><br />This is worth at least one viewing to appreciate the source of so many visual ideas borrowed in later movies. | positive |
This movie contains the worst acting performance of all time. Spilsbury lacks energy to say the least. Energy is what Clayton Moore gave us in spades. I never felt once in this movie that Spilsbury was anxious for anything. Revenge, love, justice? Not in this guy's portrayal.<br /><br />There is also no chemistry between Tonto and LR. If the plot did not force them to be friends, you don't get the impression they want to hang out with each other. Plus, the sidekick has the more interesting personality. Ewww.<br /><br />The dialogue is predictable and boring.<br /><br />The narration is stunningly bad and if you are familiar with the Dukes of Hazzard you can picture what this is like. I cannot believe the director would agree to this. It insulted me as a viewer by explaining every plot line I just witnessed.<br /><br />Hey, at least the horses and locations looked good, maybe that is what happens when you hire a cinematographer to be your director.<br /><br />RATING-2 You may be able to watch this one for laughs or to demonstrate to an alien what a bad movie is. | negative |
Let me start by saying that Liev has gained a ton of respect from me after seeing his directorial debut "Everything Is Illuminated". Anyone who has read the book knows how saturated the story is with nonsensical and hilarious vocabulary by Alex along with countless flashback scenes and crazy dreamlike sequences. Liev took all of this and made it work. The movie itself is great - the soundtrack, the performances, the cinematography - it all works. There is a lot of story missing about the town and its inhabitants, but there's only so much you can do with an indie, so this part of it didn't bother me too much. It's just disappointing that not a lot of people will see this movie or even know that it exists because of the lack of promotion that came with it. I didn't even know it was in theatres. I didn't know when the DVD came out. You'd think that since Frodo Baggins was one of the main characters, SOMEBODY wouldve at least released a commercial for it. I had to see the trailer on my "Paradise Now" DVD (released on DVD in the Spring of '06) to even know that it had a "Fall of 2005" theatrical release date. Haha - sad really.<br /><br />Anyhow, if you stumble across this review somehow because one of your friends read the book and loved it or saw the movie and are recommending that you see it - take my advice and watch it. It's a very good experience.<br /><br />8 out of 10. | positive |
OK, Chuck Norris has shown up in many an entertaining movie over the years. This is not one of them. I won't even bother trying to get into the plot about a Bible shipment gone wrong. The "acting" of the main characters is so wood like, Pinocchio would have done a better job! The synthesizer based soundtrack is even worse than the one in Deathstalker. Whereas traditionally low budget spooky movies are often trying to catch their audience by adding plenty of graphic violence, this one is trying to catch an audience by throwing religious mambo jumbo at the spectator. The plot boils down to different versions of the Bible. | negative |
Hilarious film about divine retribution. Camera work stinks (shot on digital video) and looks like early MTV videos. Turn the other cheek by looking past the visual and concentrate on the story. Laughs galore for those with a well-developed sense of irony. | positive |
To me, "Anatomie" is certainly one of the better movies I have seen. I don't think "Anatomie" was primarily intended to be a horror movie but a movie questioning the ethics of science. If you watch it with that in mind, it turns into a really good film. The only annoying bit was the awful voice dubbing for the English version. How can you expect any non-German person to listen to these unbearable German accents for two hours? Let native English speakers do the talking or use subtitles instead!! | positive |
Steven Segal's movie career is a tribute to horrible cinema. I have been tragically bored with every one of them as soon as I realized that they were even more unrealistic than Jean Claude VanDamme's. Has anyone else ever noticed that he never gets hit?! I mean, give me something to root for...a hard fought battle with a bad guy who's scary. TWENTY YEARS and he's still filming the same fight scenes. Fight scenes can often distract you from the fact that your hero cannot act. The boring choreography of a Segal film places his painful lack of acting skill in sharp relief. Worse yet, he's woefully out of shape. Just what we need, a fat stiff who THINKS he's a leading man. There's not one iota of redeeming cinematic value in all this movies ninety or so minutes. Do NOT watch this unless you feel like throwing away an hour and a half of your life. | negative |
This rendition of "Noah's Ark" has set Hallmark's (and Turner's) reputation back about 100 years. However, the production has it's bright side...a learning experience for neophyte movie entrepreneurs in "how not to make a movie"<br /><br />Where in the annals of Biblical literature and common sense can one find these quotes and situations:<br /><br />"Ok, boys, let's saddle up." "It's too bad that God created the sun to shine only during the day when we really needed it at night." "We're not kissing...we're only whispering in each others' mouths."<br /><br />Lumber for building the Ark with "Georgia Pacific" stamped on it. Metal nails. Kids flying kites. A peddler (how can James Coburn sleep after this) selling Chinese hats. Pirates attacking a wooden Ark, which they wished to capture, with flaming tar balls of fire shot from catapults. Glass bottles of wine (Noah was in a continual state of inibriation. It was a miracle that he could see the Ark let alone build it.) Lady Godiva (Mary Steenberg in a blond wig tromping around the Ark on a white horse...still rated G) Warding off Biblical pirates with an iron (teflon-lined?) frying pan. Landing on Mount Ararat after having passed through the Straights of Hercules.<br /><br />etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />Special effects...you've got to see them in order not to believe them.<br /><br />The list goes on. This movie must not be missed; but if you want the full TV version, you must call NBC for the screen version...but only if you agree to absolve NBC of all responsibility of ever having aired the thing in the first place. Only the expurgated version exists in video stores (no pirates, etc.)...that is, those video stores that dare to stock it.<br /><br />Marvin Cohn<br /><br /> | negative |
This movie was awful. I had a very difficult time watching this all the way through. I didn't get the point of the movie. What was the point of this movie? The soundtrack was bad, acting was bad and the story uninspiring. The two main characters in the movie were very boring and their dialog was uninteresting. There was no chemistry among any of the cast members. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that most of the actors were first timers. The movie could have easily been cut down to about an hour and half without losing the plot. That indicates how many useless scenes there were in the movie. I would have rather ha a root canal during the two hours of the movie. I want those two hours back! If you want to watch good, funny movie that is family friendly and made by a bunch of mormons, watch Napoleon Dynamite instead. | negative |
Reading the various external reviews of Roger Ebert and other well-known film critics makes me hesitate to admit how much I love this movie, even though I only have a dubbed-into-Japanese video version of it.<br /><br />Apparently, many critics seem to take it as a minus that the story premise has been used before, most famously in the very great "It's a Wonderful Life." To me, a great premise is a great premise no matter how many times it's used, and I'd be happy to see more movies using this particular premise--the discontented man who gets a chance to gain a fresh perspective on his own life through a bit of "divine magic."<br /><br />I suppose folks and critics of a more intellectual bent are not as pulled into the story, but I don't go to movies to critique them with notebook in hand--I go to movies to throw myself into them and let them take me where they will. <br /><br />If you are sentimental sort like myself, you'll be well rewarded by seeing this picture. The performances are excellent throughout, and the movie was very well cast. Wonderful choice of music, too. Michael Caine is superb as the sympathetic bartender. Jim Belushi does a great job as an "average Joe" kind of guy who wonders if his life hasn't gone as it should. Linda Hamilton, always excellent, is again right on target here as the loving wife. Jon Lovitz entertains as usual, and even has some surprisingly moving moments in "Mr. Destiny."<br /><br />No, "Mr. Destiny" is not "It's a Wonderful Life," but who says it has to be? Taken on its own terms, "Mr. Destiny" is an enjoyable, well-made, funny, and moving film. I've seen my Japanese-dubbed video of it numerous times, and I'm sure I'll see it several more times. If that somehow makes me a "lowbrow," so be it! I'm just glad that I hadn't read any reviews of "Mr. Destiny" before seeing it.<br /><br />I suppose I should have the courage of my convictions and give the movie nine or ten stars, but I couldn't help but doubt myself after reading all the critical reviews! | positive |
Very slick, very Pre-Hays Code, and still very sassy. I would highly recommend seeing this movie, even if you are not a fan of Stynwyck. She's funny, she's sexy, she's hard-working - and love that perm she gets!<br /><br />Barbara Stynwyck is fantastic as a doozie of a floozy who rises up in the world, perfectly portrayed by a bank building. John Wayne (in a suit!) plays one of her first conquests. <br /><br />The last three minutes are a letdown, but the sets, the lines, the clothes all add to one heck of a movie about rising vertically in the horizontal position. | positive |
This movie is a waste of time and money. Throughout the entire hour and a half, I continued to wait for it to get better and it never did. It was slow moving, the plot jumped around, it wasn't scary or interesting, and really never amounted to anything. The credits during the introduction were long and drawn out, which was basically like the rest of the movie (long and drawn out). Numerous parts of the plot made no sense. Several times during the movie I had thought that maybe I had "zoned out" because the incongruity of the plot, however, my companion had the same issue and assured me I did not "zone out" from boredom, but it was indeed the movie. I've actually never posted on here about a movie before and have been actively looking up movies on IMDb for numerous years. So the fact that I'm actually taking the time to write something should speak volumes of how bad this movie is and that you should not waste your time or money on it. | negative |
A VERY un-Tom and Jerry short. Jerry narrates this tale that revolves around Tom the cat falling in love and losing her to his rival, Butch. Tom is best friends with Jerry here which irked me a bit. The cartoon is also presented in Cinemascope. Overall I found this Tom and Jerry cartoon sad and depressing. The should have just put "Puss gets the boot" on the DVD instead and I would've been happy. This experimental animated short can be found on disc 2 of Warner Brother's 2-DVD Spotlight Collection set. It's the last one on the set and I'm hoping that Warner Brothers chooses to release a second Volume soon.<br /><br />My Grade: C- | negative |
the author of the book, by the same title, should not have let her name be used for this movie. if you have read the book, this movie takes such a liberal interpretation of the actual events in the book and its spirit that the movie and book seem to have quite little in common except the title and some superficial details. the movie adds nothing, in terms of artistic merit, to the book's own literary achievement.<br /><br />for those who have not read the book: you will also be disappointed. not only does the plot move at an incredibly slow pace, it doesn't offer anything more while it is moving slowly (like character development, for example). some viewers might be entertained by some of the graphic lesbian love scenes later on in the movie, but you might as well watch a showtime special for the stuff they show in therese and isabelle--its fairly tame and not imaginative at all. | negative |
This movie was incredible. I would recommend it to anyone, much better than what I had already anticipated. It was definitely a heart-wrenching spectacular movie. It is an amazing story, with amazing actors and creators. Definitely another great movie with Denzel Washington. (shouldn't surprise anyone) Derek Luke did a wonderful job as well. | positive |
Magnificent, original, beautiful movie. The acting is great, the settings en decors are superb (Paris at its best- but then the real Paris, not the famous settings) and the music will do also. A brilliant storie, very detailed, which I just very much love.<br /><br />The best French movie I've seen (and French cinema is very good)! | positive |
This movie had so much potential. Anyone who followed the story of Jeffrey knows that there are so many details overlooked in this movie it's ridiculous. Too much time and effort was spent in the movie on Dahmer's homosexual tendencies and his alcohol consumption. Where was the character development? The origins of any villain are always interesting and Dahmer was no exception. Where in the movie does it address his adolescence when he began killing and mutilating small animals? Instead we are giving a dizzying array of flashbacks that seek to explain the origin of the killer, but fail to address the major point in Dahmer's development. Also, the reason why the country became so intrigued with this story was the details - how he stored the bodies in his apartment and the lengths and measures he went to to accomplish this; his cannibalism and his desire for flesh, etc. I could go on, but to sum up, too many lagging points in the film, focused on his sexuality and not enough of the gore - the good stuff you would expect to see when the title of the movie is "Dahmer." | negative |
If the creators of this film had made any attempt at introducing reality to the plot, it would have been just one more waste of time, money, and creative effort. Fortunately, by throwing all pretense of reality to the winds, they have created a comedic marvel. Who could pass up a film in which an alien pilot spends the entire film acting like Jack Nicholson, complete with the Lakers T-shirt. Do not dismiss this film as trash. | positive |
I watched Princess of the Nile for the first time when I was about 10 years old. I am 63 now and have never forgotten the movie. Nor have I gotten over my fascination with Egypt. I have searched the internet trying to buy the movie, but have not been able to locate it. It makes me wonder if this is one of the lost movies in Hollywood. I loved Debra Padget and Jeffrey Hunter together. They have such charisma together. If you were to ask me anything about the movie I could not tell you anything other than who was in it. I vaguely remember a scene by the Nile with Debra Padget a bunch of other women.I have always wanted to see it again. I never thought of it as an escape movie back then, but I can see now where that was probably the case. I do hope they will put it on DVD and I will be able to see it again before I die. It was a wonderful movie. | positive |
"All the world's a stage and its people actors in it"--or something like that. Who the hell said that theatre stopped at the orchestra pit--or even at the theatre door? Why is not the audience participants in the theatrical experience, including the story itself?<br /><br />This film was a grand experiment that said: "Hey! the story is you and it needs more than your attention, it needs your active participation". "Sometimes we bring the story to you, sometimes you have to go to the story."<br /><br />Alas no one listened, but that does not mean it should not have been said. | positive |
Yes, this movie has kids going to space camp and it starts out okay enough as you have the kids meeting one another and learning the ropes. Then they introduce Jinx, a robot that could not possibly exist in 1986 as they do not have anything with that kind of artificial intelligence now. Kid becomes buddy with robot and robot repays the kid's kindness by shooting him and a group of other kids in this camp into outer space with a very limited oxygen supply and radios that do not have the signal to reach into space. This camp is also not very fun as these kids are put to real training and the instructors get all over them for failing missions or not doing the right things. Give it a rest, they are there for fun, not to become astronauts just yet, just give them the experience of space flight not a military like camp. However, you do get to see Joaquin Phoenix in a fairly early role. So in the end a movie that tries to be realistic in some areas, but with the introduction of Jinx and other factors you might as well had the kids battle space aliens on top of everything else that was happening in the movie as that would have made the movie a bit more enjoyable at least for me. Probably for a few others as well, who else would like to see Kate Capshaw's face ripped apart by some strange super alien creature. | negative |
One of Disney's best films that I can enjoy watching often. you may easily guess the outcome, but who cares? its just plain fun escape for 1 hour forty-two minutes. and after all wasn't movies meant to get away from reality for just a short time anyway? The cast sparkles with delight. -magictrain | positive |
Robert Downey Jr. in a 17th century wig and dress was enough to make me shudder, but I couldn't believe a great actor like Sam Neill actually took a part in this movie. The whole thing was unbelievable. I especially like Merivel's "cure" for the crazies. They dance...and hey presto! everyone's happy and they're all better! I guess I just didn't like the character Merivel too much. Therefore, watching a whole movie about his supposed transition from a whoring buffoon into a great physician was grueling. <br /><br />Also, I'm not entirely sure, but I didn't think the plague as well as the famous fire of London took place simultaneously. | negative |
One of my favorite westerns and one of John Ford's best in my opinion. No major stars, but Ben Johnson shines in most everything he appears, and here he gets a rare lead as the title character. Matching him is Ward Bond as the crusty Mormon elder leading his people west. John Ford's stock of character actors, including Harry Carey, Jr., Jane Darwell, Russell Simpson and Hank Worden, provide ample support, as does eerily silent James Arness, a member of the outlaw Clegg clan that joins up with the wagon train. The Mormon trail into Utah was one of the most arduous and demanding enterprises ever undertaken. We can't really get the feel of that, but we do see ordeals that had to be overcome by pioneers on the way west; river crossings, long stretches of dry, waterless desert, encounters with Indians and the like, all set to glorious song by the Sons of the Pioneers. The Mormons actually did dig sections of the trail with picks and shovels, as depicted in the movie. My main regret is that it wasn't made in color, but I believe there is a colorized version. By the way, those craggy rocks featured in various scenes are called the Fisher Towers, located near Moab. Highly recommended viewing. | positive |
for a slasher flick,this movie is actually better than a lot in the genre.yes it is predictable-resident nut job goes on killing spree,people die,yada yada yada.however there are some good positives in this film.first off,i really liked the mask the nut job wore.it is definitely creepy to say the least and possibly unique(although i haven't watched every single slasher film ever made)also,the genesis of the bad due is something i haven't seen before,and he way he finally meets his end is a novel concept,as far as i know.i also really liked the weapon of choice employed by Mr sicko,for most of the murders.the murders themselves are not as graphic as most in the genre,but that'a small concern.the movie does not take itself seriously,which is something most slashers suffer from.oddly enough,while watching the movie,i was reminded of the early "Friday the 13th films,which did take themselves seriously.there are a few concerns about this movie.in several scenes,the killer suddenly bears a strong resemblance to one of our horror icons.by this,i mean his movements and his reactions upon being shot,and also the way he walked.of bigger concern,however is a scene very close to the end,where Mr crazy bears a more than striking resemblance(actually a complete rip off)of another famous horror titan.and in the very last scenes,we have our scumbag,once again,looking exactly like the 1st horror icon i mentioned.in fact that last scene is almost a complete rip-off from another icon in the slasher genre. these scenes were weak and unoriginal(obviously).by the way,the movie is set in Australia,so if you're a sucker for a chick with an Aussie accent(like me)you'll be in heaven.if you not,than it just might grate on you.one other great thing about this movie:beautiful Kylie Minogoue(just don't get too attached to her)there is one non Aussie accent,courtesy of Molly Ringwald.overall,there are more reasons to watch than not.i enjoyed it and had some fun.so,i have to give "Cut" 8/10,which may seem too high to some people. | positive |
"Babette's Feast" and "The Horse's Mouth" are the two most insightful, accurate films on what it is to be a real artist. The key lines in "Babette's Feast" are not, as some other commentators here have said, "an artist is never poor," but two lines that come before and after it:<br /><br />"I was able to make them happy when I gave of my very best. ... Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist: give me the chance to do my very best." <br /><br />I spent nine years producing experimental multi-media music theater in San Francisco, raising money for productions that involved dozens of singers, actors, designers, etc., and the artists I supported stretched every penny in their effort to do their very best. They were just like Babette: they were desperate to get every dollar necessary to do their very best work. Babette's art is fine French cooking, and for her to perform her art at its very best costs 10,000 francs. When, after years in political exile from France, isolated with two caring spinsters on a bleak Scandinavian coast, she suddenly gets a windfall of 10,000 francs, she does what every real artist would do: she sees that she unexpectedly has the chance to do her very best, and so she does it. She spends all the money so that she can do her very best work as an artist. The twist in the movie is that we don't know she is such an artist, until she is actually cooking and serving the meal. Up until then, she appears to be just a working-class French lady who haggles a bit with the tradesmen, and is very serious (her husband and son were murdered in Paris violence in 1871). <br /><br />To such an artist, it is secondary whether there is an audience for the art that is competent to appreciate it. That is why the author set this dinner in a community of people who could not possibly have any understanding of what they are receiving. Babette did not cook this meal as a gift to the two spinsters, or to the religious community. It was not her goal to achieve a reconciliation or spirit of good feelings among the members of the little religious sect. Indeed, she never once leaves the kitchen to speak to any of them. After the meal, she is sitting alone, sipping some wine, not paying the slightest attention to how the guests reacted. She is basking in the satisfaction of finally having the chance to have done her best as an artist. <br /><br />That is why it is so satisfying, and so important to the story, that the General unexpectedly shows up -- for, as Babette knows instantly, a general will know what she has placed before him, and will appreciate it. For there is a sort of tragedy in a great work of art being shown to an audience that lacks even one person competent to appreciate it. She is glad, very glad, he came, in fact he is the only guest she ever mentions during the entire dinner, the only one she singles out for special treatment -- not either of the spinsters. But she did not plan the meal knowing that such a person would come to receive it. <br /><br />To anyone who has had the chance to enjoy a real first-class Parisian dinner, as I have (my father was Naval Attache to Paris in the 1980s, and I had my honeymoon in France), this dinner, and Babette's satisfaction in making it, and the pleasure it brings to the diners, is absolutely convincing. If any art has the power to suffuse the recipient with a sense of joy, it is a fine French meal cooked and served in France. This movie makes a claim about the transformative effects of great art on the recipients. Before the dinner, the members of the little religious sect are quarrelsome, dredging up old resentments. The old hymns fail to restore good fellowship; people ignore them, talk over them. But the shared experience of sensual great art -- for the people can enjoy the tastes of the foods and wines even if they have no conception that they are experiencing great art -- contents the people, puts them in a forgiving mood, reconciles them, and by making them happy, encourages them to love each other, and thus has a god-like sacred effect of bringing peace. This is the claim found in the modern art movement today -- that art can supplant the traditional religions in making mankind more peaceful. Thus, contrary to those commentators here who say that this film speaks for the power of Christian belief, it is more accurate to say that the film claims that art can heal wounds that Christian ritual cannot. After all my years in the art world, I have to say that this claim -- that art brings peace that religion cannot -- is overblown and invalid. But it is a pretty conceit and it is the second main theme of this beautiful film.<br /><br />One last note: at Babette's arrival at the spinsters' home, a particular French general, Galliffet, is named as the person who in 1871 executed Babette's husband and son, and imposed a military rule that she had to flee. At the end of the film, as the General tells the story of the magnificent meal he enjoyed in Paris many years before (before 1871), at the conclusion of some military maneuvers, it turns out that this same Galliffet was his host at the meal. As the General tells the story, French general Galliffet praised the chef of that meal as the greatest woman, the only woman he would risk his life for. Of course, that woman was Babette. Thus, ironically, the same French general who said he honored Babette above all other women was responsible for driving her away from France forever. | positive |
In order to enjoy 'Fur - An imaginary portrait of Diane Arbus,' Stephen Shainberg needs the viewer to suspend all reality and prior knowledge of the American photographer, Diane Arbus. Paradoxically, it's the very use of Diane Arbus' name and knowledge to her life and work, that sets this film up to fail on a grand scale.<br /><br />What becomes apparent quite early on with the casting of the beautiful WASPish and glamorous Nicole Kidman as the anti-glamorous Jewish Diane Arbus, is that Shainberg didn't get Arbus or what her work was about (unsentimental realism) and seems only attracted to Arbus on a superficial level through her photographs of circus freaks.<br /><br />What follows is a kind of pretty and trivial Beauty & the Beast fantasy biopic with Robert Downey JR as Kidman's hairy fictional love interest. However, it's not the banality of the story that is the main flaw in this film, but the director's misogynistic stance that Diane Arbus, one of the art world's most singular and original woman photographers, was incapable of forming her own ideas about her work. While his previous film 'Secretary' was a study of female masochism, his continued portrayal of the female as submissive spoils this film completely - and flys in the face of the real life Diane Arbus' courage, tenacity and fearlessness in single-handedly exploring the often shady world of outsiders.<br /><br />Imagine an imaginary biopic on pop star Madonna's life with Guy Richie as her Svengali, the man behind her career, and you'll get a feel of how seriously flawed and imaginary this film is: It can only work if you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject, or just choose to ignore all the facts.<br /><br />It's a shame because once you remove all reference to Diane Arbus, this film could have stood up on its own as an interesting study on fetishism and a good companion piece to Secretary. 4/10 | negative |
This is certainly the worst movie i ever saw? The beginning is somewhat good, but the end? I still don't even get it! Magical power, 300 years later, goddess, dancing what the f*** is that about??? The acting is somewhat not so bad.. but some place I could do better for sure! | negative |
Surface was awesome, I don't know how many Mondays I survived at school just by thinking about the new episode of surface. I loved it, sometimes I had to call home and tell my mom to tape it for me. I was pretty upset when I heard it was cancelled, I mean jeez way to let us hang. So,they can have their new Tina fay comedy(you couldn't pay me to watch that, I think seeing the commercials made me dumber). I'm gonna miss my Monday night fix of Surface, even if my sister did make fun of me. although,kidnapped does look good and, they still have L&O: SVU (i think, i still have to check) (i only wrote the 2 lines above, because they said i needed ten lines). | positive |
If there's one thing that annoys me most in seeing a bad film, it's seeing it done by experienced film-makers who ought to know better. This "re-imagining" of Planet of the Apes could have used some imagination, to say nothing of essential elements of character development. Nova, the girl in the original Planet of the Apes, was a better developed character than Daena in this version, for all that she does not say a single word. One certainly expected a lot better from Tim Burton, a man who has hitherto combined an incredible visual imagination with intelligence, wit and humour, all of which were notably absent from this production.<br /><br />There were problems in basic plot development. The first big mistake was allowing the humans to talk. This was the fundamental difference between apes and men that made *all* the difference in the original film. Even while he was mute, his ability to communicate was what marked out Heston's Taylor as being different from the other humans. In the current film, Mark Wahlberg encourages the (talking) human slaves to revolt, but there is no overpowering reason for them to have not revolted and reclaimed their emancipation already. They are dexterous tool-users and have the ability to communicate in order to form plans, something mute humans can't do. It needs no man to fall from the stars to save them. Indeed, since he comes from a technological civilisation and finds himself in a pre-technology era without (at first) any gadgets to help him, it is Wahlberg who ought to be at a disadvantage, not the humans who are used to living there.<br /><br />It was sad to see Helena Bonham Carter working so hard to generate some kind of spark between herself and that unresponsive brick wall Mark Wahlberg. Her best scenes were with the villainous Tim Roth.<br /><br />The humans were practically ignored until they were needed in the third act, at which point Daena started showing some actual interest in Davidson (Wahlberg), and a young boy suddenly changed from part of the background to a feisty gung-ho freedom-fighter. This was poor character development. (Estella Warren, in particular, looked as if she would have been capable of a great deal more than she was given in the script). Wahlberg's puzzlement at the end as to what these humans see in him was certainly shared by me, as he has scarcely interacted with the humans throughout.<br /><br />Creating the apes: half a plus point and two minuses: Ape make-up was excellent on the males, particularly Michael Clarke Duncan who has incredibly expressive eyes (which was why he was so good in The Green Mile), and the makeup design allowed him to use them fully. But the ape females looked like nothing on earth, neither ape nor human. The minuses were the ape jumps which looked about as realistic as Flash Gordon's rocket: jumping apes looked as if they'd just been fired from a catapult, they had none of the long-limbed grace of genuine apes. Secondly, the poor sound mixing - when the gorillas roar it is quite clearly dubbed from some animal, probably feline, making them sound ridiculous and unrealistic.<br /><br />In the original film, the various "human" things the apes do and say are handled as light relief ("I never knew an ape I didn't like." "Human see, human do!"). Here, the apes just talk matter-of-factly exactly as 21st Century humans do, and there is no humour in it at all. The only genuinely original idea was Ari writing with her feet.<br /><br />Nothing made me cringe more than the "V-Ger from Star Trek" moment near the end of the film. First of all, the apes had apparently been able to read Roman lettering in the distant past, for them to know the name of the Forbidden Zone in its partly concealed form. Secondly, the mysterious inscription giving the name is merely covered with sand which Wahlberg just brushes away, something any ape could have done centuries ago. This moment was, for me, far worse than the much-maligned ending of the movie.<br /><br />Things of that nature, however, are typical of most science fiction movies of today. Back in the '60s and '70s, they generally didn't have the budget to make convincing futuristic sets, but they dealt with genuinely original themes and ideas which were truly science fictional. I'm thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 1967 Planet of the Apes, THX1138, Soylent Green, Silent Running and the 1972 Solaris. The first Planet of the Apes even utilised the only scientifically valid and physically possible method of travelling forward in time. However, this film includes just about every bad science fiction cliché going: space storms, anomalies and worm holes straight out of Star Trek; the planets of the solar system and their moons apparently all visible together as large globes (in reality from any one planet, all other bodies, even their own moons, are just points of light); a conventional rocket powered shuttle travelling from Saturn to Earth in a matter of minutes instead of years; two-thousand year old equipment firing up and fully working the minute the hero presses the button. To say nothing of a conveniently bulletproof internal glass door. In a contemporary setting, you'd have to explain *why* it was bullet proof, but because it's "science fiction" you don't have to!<br /><br />Overall, Burton's most disappointing film. | negative |
Nazarin by the acclaimed surrealist Bunuel is ovbviously an attack on the Catholic Church and its loss of values. It is not a visual film and I think it would have played better on the stage. Bunuel takes us through this man, the nazarene that lives like Christ lived; a true follower i.e. in poverty, and without a care for property and what the next day bringeth. Some might call it a parallel to Christ's story but any follower and practitioner of the word, life should be like Christ in a way. But in essence Bunuel also inquires into the ogle of man's selfishness and need to sin and how goodness may save us all. It is a bold statement to make that may enliven, or recite to memory the movie for some. Truth, be told the Nazarene is also selfish because he gives without wanting in return or asking for it. His selfishness is his folly and the two women who follow him represent the sides of a coin;with the same face on each side. Lots of people represent sides of a coin in this movie, all with both faces the same. But the movie isn't exactly memorable once it ends and one could attack many of its ethical perforations and effusions within the movie's own doctrine. Not top-notch Bunuel but a "surreal" dream sequence that bunuel stages whithin where the message of the movie is framed and is worth noting for it shows you the capability of the director, Bunuel. | positive |
I saw this as a kid, before it had been yanked from the rotation, and even then it left a bad taste in my mouth. There were some competently worked out gags, but making slapstick villains out of American citizens who'd been interned in camps strictly due to their race was amazingly tasteless. <br /><br />Moe himself might have wanted this one buried. He was a liberal guy. In his autobiography he told of visiting a town in the segregated South, where he saw a black man get off the sidewalk to avoid passing too close. Moe stepped into the street to show it wasn't a problem, and the man then got back on the curb. Then off again. Finally, the man told Moe nervously that if Moe didn't stop trying to share the sidewalk with him, he might get them both lynched.<br /><br />Another thing: There are exploding ostrich eggs but no oxen in the film, so the title should actually be (if anyone cares) "The Yolk's on Me." | negative |
Dude...I liked Buffy and Angel as much as the next sci-fi freak...but this is too much. The worst lead actress EVER!! Not even David "Hot Pants" Boreanaz is able to save this crap. No wonder I NEVER watch Fox it blows!! We totally gave it a chance, and it continued to suck. We watched four or five painful, agonizing episodes. I want to kill the execs at the network SO BAD! Why is money being spent on this drivel?!?! I don't get it and I don't support it and you should NEVER waste your time watching this show...unless you LIKE it when your EYES BLEED FROM THEIR SOCKETS! <br /><br />Crap. Crap. Crap. | negative |
Sensitive film does lack brilliance and, to some degree, narrative structure, but is nevertheless superbly shot and performed. However, the narrative structure point is debatable. While it gives the impression of tying off loose ends nicely in the final scenes, and connects its thoughts with what might be described by the modern viewer as a "story", I'm sceptical as to whether this feel *needs* a "narrative structure" that is definite and detectable. Inevitably, it will be compared with SOMERSAULT in that its central protagonist (I'm not sure that's the correct word!) is a young, and very young-looking, woman, whose newly discovered sexuality both confuses and empowers her - although of course Cate Shortland's film tackles this aspect better. But while the possibility exists for reckless viewers to dismiss this film as a cliché, PEACHES is, in some ways, much more ambitious than SOMERSAULT. Perhaps that's where it doesn't quite make it. It's certainly very different to Monahan's first feature - THE INTERVIEW! I'm not quite sure how the sex scenes between Weaving and Lung added to the story. Who knows - maybe they did. They certainly rammed home the compromised and flawed nature of Weaving's character - although I personally think this was achieved without the need for these scenes.<br /><br />*****JUST SAW THE FILM AGAIN*********<br /><br />On a second viewing, I can see how some would dismiss it as a telemovie dressed up as a feature. But I'm not sure how distinct these 'categories' are anymore, or even if we should be making that distinction. In any case, I do think there are enough layers in the film to distinguish it from Hallmark efforts. On the other hand, the film's structure is very formal, and its content is hardly challenging,at least in the way SOMERSAULT, TOM WHITE, THREE DOLLARS, THE ILLUSTRATED FAMILY DOCTOR, LOOK BOTH WAYS and THE HUMAN TOUCH are. The performances are all good, but I did come to the realisation that the main reason I was enjoying the film was because it fit the "Australian" genre, without necessarily adding anything...and I can understand that this can be a fairly good reason for another person *NOT* to like it! Indeed, it wasn't until Lung enters the room in her Vietnamese dress that the film really begins to pack a punch. But that leads us into another debate - *should* we expect that a film must challenge us all the time? Certainly I enjoy being challenged by a film (or a book, or other people), but is there no room anymore for what is simply a nice story?<br /><br />I haven't deleted my initial post on this film, because I'm all too aware of the Orwellian overtones of such an act. But I would downgrade my initial rating from an 8 to perhaps a 6.5.<br /><br />As for nominations for AFI Best Film, my votes go to THE HUMAN TOUCH, THREE DOLLARS and LOOK BOTH WAYS - and I think LOOK BOTH WAYS should win. | positive |
With this movie I was really hoping that the idea was to make up for the hashed together ineptitude of the first AVP, and yet to my horror: Requiem is far worse than I could have imagined.<br /><br />My hopes were up in the opening moments of the film inside the Predator ship, and I almost breathed a sigh of relief when we finally saw the Predator home world (a throwaway digital matte painting, but still nice to finally see it) and then of course, the humans (if such poorly written characters can be referred to as such) are introduced...<br /><br />One must wonder why it seems to be impossible for Fox to make a good film out of Aliens and Predators. At the very least the supposed filmmakers could have done their homework.<br /><br />Characters are set up in the same manner in which we would expect from the worst Friday the 13th Sequel. The pizza delivery scene was cringe inducing as was every other scene of character interaction that followed it. Bimbos and teen non actors do not make for a REAL film, they make for a cheap flick, and Alien 1-3 and the Predator movies were good because they were produced above the concept (remember that the 1st Alien is a "B" movie done as an "A" movie) The Strause brothers really missed an opportunity, that could have been rectified by simply knowing their Alien+Predator roots: In both the Alien and Predator films we are introduced to characters that are part of a larger group (Alien: Refinery workers, Aliens: Marines, Alien 3: Convicts and in the Predator films we generally follow a main hero part of a unit; Predator, Arnold--Special forces, Predator 2: Danny Glover, Police) and it's easy to see where the filmmakers of both franchises started to go wrong: in Alien Ressurrection we have pirates...or something, AVP we have...explorers?...with guns?? and of course in AVP-R we have teen slasher clichés. What is there to identify with here? In concept the idea of a convict returning to a small town and a war vet returning seemed a set up for a First Blood type of action hero, but like many things it was never paid off.<br /><br />The Film-making is equally devoid of rhyme of reason. There is no sense of forward momentum to the action, just small sequences that build the most minuscule levels of tension or interest only to cut away just when they're getting interesting...taking the audience out of the movie at every turn. The action scenes themselves, though much ballyhooed in the trailers, are so darkly lit, it is literally impossible to tell what is going on during the fight scenes when they finally occur. Basically, the movie is hindered from many levels. Bad actors combined with poor direction and an atrocious screenplay (which as a screenwriter myself I noticed, seemed to hit every wrong note and cliché that only the most untalented writer devoid of ideas could have hashed together) The WRITING, if it can be called that, is not even direct to video quality, nor does it demonstrate a shred of respect for the established lore of the previous entries in the series. Why does the Predalien all the sudden have the ability to shoot alien embryos down a pregnant woman's throat to use her as an incubator for chestbursters? More than likely because the brain dead screenwriter needed a way to have more aliens for the predator to fight (and given the accelerated growth time even more so than the first AVP: as quickly as possible. Why must meaningless small talk between cardboard cutouts on sticks (meaning the supposed characters)substitute for real character development? (Remember a character is defined by what they DO, not SAY). Why is the Sheriff leading civilians to a cache of guns? (isn't he an officer of the law?) How does the bimbo of all people know where they are? Why does the Predalien wait for the Predator to VERY SLOWLY remove his mask before it attacks? Why are the aliens still falling into that nasty series-post-Alien 3 habit of hissing all the time to let their prey know to run? How on Earth did this series devolve to a character saying "People are dying...we need guns!" (how this writer even works is beyond me, and reflects badly on Fox's already destroyed artistic reputation. It's like everyone involved in the making of this film suffered from a mental impairment or really are that inept at every level of the film-making process. <br /><br />The EFFECTS are pretty lousy this time around. The Aliens look like men in suits and ADI is just getting lazy with their creature design. The Aliens look like modified leftovers from Alien Resurrection, with that same bulky musculature around the arms as if they did not learn from that movie that it was not a good design, nor a good one to recycle. Again, everything is shrouded in such a state of darkness not to create mystery or atmosphere, but simply to hide how bad the creatures look. And just like in AVP, Stan Winston is sorely missed when the fake looking Predator face is revealed.<br /><br />There are too many faults to list so I will just say this: Do not waste your money on this movie. Fox is beyond caring about the fans, as this cheap and trashy film is clearly evidence of. I felt bad having taken my girlfriend to see it (though it was free) and apologized to her profusely after. This is one die-hard fan who is done with the franchise.<br /><br />Note to Fox: What we really wanted wasn't a mindless slasher flick, it was a film adaptation of the original Darkhorse Comicbook, which was better than anything you've produced for this franchise post 1993.<br /><br />Signing off. | negative |
The saddest thing about this film is that only 8 people cared to leave a review of it and NO-ONE felt it worthwhile leaving a comment on the message boards.<br /><br />Made the same year as Philadelphia...the Tom Hanks Oscar-winner... this is the film that people REALLY should have seen and given awards to. There is more humanity, life, love, tenderness and beauty in these two people than in just about any other gay film I have seen... and it is all true.<br /><br />In order for this to be printed I need to leave a few more lines of text: suffice it to say that anyone who REALLY wants to know what it was like to be gay in the 60's and 70's, and to understand just what AIDS was like before the modern drug "cocktails" allowed people to breathe a little easier... this is the film to see. <br /><br />Oh, and I will add a personal comment about AIDS. Despite everything, there actually has been a silver lining to all the horror. When AIDS first arrived, it was called the "gay cancer", and governments preferred to "let them die" rather than spend a red cent on research to help save a bunch of fags. Then it became clear that AIDS would also be a heterosexual disease. But the government wasn't ready for that; So when straight people began getting ill too, the only organizations and associations that were available to them were those which had been set up by gays themselves (examples: The Names Project: the quilt memorializing all those who died of AIDS; Act Up etc) The result is that people who probably would never have come in contact with gays in their ordinary lives suddenly found themselves counting on them and needing them, because no other organizations existed. This close contact, in my estimation, is what finally broke down the barriers of prejudice and allowed the straight world to finally accept gays as equals. When AIDS first came on the scene, many of us thought that the straight world would use it as a way to come down even harder on us... and that probably would have been true if straights didn't suddenly become ill too; nevertheless, the strides that have been made in gay liberation - to the point that, as I write this, there are at least 5 countries in the world that accept gay marriage - these gains would probably have taken a lot longer without AIDS to bring us together. It is sad to think that all those people - both straight and gay - had to die before our common humanity became more obvious - but if what I am writing here is true, and I think it is - then there is a bit of comfort to be taken in realizing that all those people did not die in vain. | positive |
This is about one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. It's not the worst though - Manos the Hands of Fate holds that honor.<br /><br />This movie has a lot of problems. To begin, this whole movie is a cheap rip-off of the Conan movies. There's the babe in a skimpy dress wearing a hubcap, the quiet Asian warrior, the cookie cutter bad guy, the almost mindless soliders, and so on. There's lots of continuity errors in this film. Some of the dumbest errors I've ever seen are in this film.<br /><br />Fortunately when I watched this film I seen the MST3K version. Joel and the 'bots make the film watchable, otherwise I probably would've turned it off five minutes into the film. | negative |
This movie consists of such great emotion especially with its outstanding soundtrack that coincides with the film. Tom Cruise is one of my favorite actors because of his enthusiasm to make films and to entertain. This movie was not the best the first time I watched it, but after about 3 more times I decided that this is one of the best films that I have ever seen. It takes place in New York, and progresses on through his lifestyle. He discovers a delimma in his life with his girlfriend (Diaz). He goes through a state of depression and then an outgoing blend of imagination. This film was beyond my expectations, and is one of Cruise's best films ever! | positive |
Subsets and Splits