review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I saw this at "Dances with Films", and it was awesome. I really felt for Jake. Talk about adding insult to injury! Not only are your parents getting divorced, but there's a monster after you. <br /><br />It was both heartfelt and scary -- there were several moments where the audience screamed in genuine fright. It kind of reminded me of a Japanese horror film, except that the story was actually good.<br /><br />And that's what separated "Jake's Closet" from the usual indy film pabulum -- an excellent script with compelling characters. Also, by mixing elements of the horror film with family drama, the movie gets the best out of both genres, and avoids the clichés of both.<br /><br />If it's not coming out in theaters, definitely get the DVD.
|
positive
|
Ahh, the dull t.v. shows and pilots that were slammed together in the 70's to make equally dull t.v. movies! Some examples would be Riding With Death(the most hysterically cheesy of the lot), Stranded in Space(confusing and uninteresting), San Francisco International(horribly dull and unbelievably confusing), and this turgid bit of Quinn Martin glamor. <br /><br />Shot in Hawaii(although you wouldn't know it from the outside shots), it's apparently a failed pilot for a lame spy show. The real problem is that you don;'t like most of the characters, including the drab main character Diamond Head, who seemed half asleep for the entire movie; his boss 'Aunt Mary', who had a really weird delivery of his lines and shellacked white hair as well as the a tan that looked like it had been stuccoed on; Diamnd Head's girlfriend/fellow agent(hell, I can't even remember her name) a skinny, wooden woman with a flat way of speaking that is just not sexy or interesting; and the singing sidekick Zulu(again, i can't remember his character's name)who wasn't bad in small doses. The most interesting person in the whole production was Ian McShane, who sucked as a bad guy but still proved his acting chops. Alothugh the make-up jobs this so-called 'chameleon' used to disguise himself were just laughable. I have absolutely no idea what he was doing or what he was trying to steal from the lab that caused him to dress as a South American Dictator cum American General. Nor do I care. The plot simply wasn't interesting enough to hold your attention for even ten minutes at a time, let alone the hour and a half or so it goes on. Just call this one - Hawaii Five No!
|
negative
|
I've seen this movie about 6 or 7 times, and it truly gets funnier every time. Perhaps what I enjoy most is the tired character paradigms that the movie offers us: the somber all-American male protagonist, his blonde girlfriend, the theater nerd with glasses, a brunette girl, the antagonistic jock, and brunette girl #2. However, we're then presented with two magician martial arts experts with mullets driving a convertible. If anyone can explain that, please contact me. Among other highlights are Bobby Johnston's portrayal of the jock character, Dell, and his trademark line, "That's why I keep her around." In watching Johnston's performance, it comes as no surprise that his career quickly descended into the realm of soft-core porn. (SPOILER) Also, after multiple viewings, I STILL have absolutely no idea what that big demon at the end says at any point; it's just electronically muffled noises. Oh well, that's probably for the better. And lastly, why are all the demons so slippery? Is wet skin scarier? It certainly didn't help in this film.
|
negative
|
River Queen's sound recordist should have been fired, in this day and age there is no excuse for poor recording on the set. Mumbling voices was the end result, and the cinematography was average to fair at best. The story had potential and I feel sorry for the overseas actors who must have known they were on a turkey shoot while they were filming. Its obvious that the movie was suffering from el cheapo budget syndrome, and the scene where Temuera is procreating inside the house while a battle rages outside is just too stupid for words. <br /><br />I noticed a few shortcuts taken on the Maori protocol side of things, but this was probably due to movie length time restraints etc. All in all I wasn't impressed with this movie, the Whanganui river has many beautiful spots but this movie gives us a cold, drab and claustrophobic image, with none of the beauty. The movie needed more sunshine and better camera angles, less on screen confusion, better sound recording, and more thought needed to be put into what the movie goers would be seeing on the big screen. <br /><br />Hats off to all involved though for completing what must have been a very difficult shoo. I have the utmost appreciation for anyone who can make a feature film, sadly I did not enjoy this one.
|
negative
|
My definition of a great movie is if you want to continue to see it over again. This movie for some reason strikes a cord in me even though the scenes with Scott Glenn still make me winch; I watch it over and over again and love the music!
|
positive
|
Alexander Nevsky is a series of superb sequences of cinematic opera that pass from pastoral to lamentation and end in a triumphal cantata. The story takes place in 1242. Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) defeats the Teutonic Knights in a battle on the ice of Lake Peipus.<br /><br />The film is a splendid historical pageant which shows director Sergei Eisenstein at his most inventively pictorial, and climaxes in a superb battle sequence using music instead of natural sounds. Several films have scenes strongly influenced by the Battle of Lake Peipus, including Doctor Zhivago (1965), Mulan (1998), and King Arthur (2004). Alexander Nevsky was kept out of circulation due to changing political winds, and then enshrined as perhaps the most influential Soviet-made historical film.
|
positive
|
This early B entry into the patriotic category slapped a gorgeous young Gene Tierney on the ads and posters, but you have to wait a good time before you glimpse her, riding in a Hollywoodized camel train. Previously, we've set up George Sanders and Bruce Cabot in the desert as guys who barely get along, but must rally in the face of attack. I've seen Sanders as so many enjoyable cads that it was fun to witness a rare good guy turn. However, Bruce Cabot's allure is pretty much a mystery to me - he's base and unsubtle in comparison, but I've always felt he'd just emerged, smiling, from under a car, covered in grease and a sixth grade education. Some people like 'em that way, as did Gene's gypsy queen character. This is an action adventure filler, tho, and just as we've been warned of invading locals with guns, ready to sabotage and attack the Brits in their land, there is a final gun battle in which we must lose a main character for the good of all. This feature requires nothing more than your barest attention on a Saturday afternoon, a programmer that made whatever else it was paired with better. It was almost more interesting identifying the great supporting cast and a surprise appearance by Dorothy Dandridge in one of her first roles. A two or two and a half stars out of five.-MDM
|
negative
|
I just watched the 30th Anniversary edition of Blazing Saddles, one of my all time Favorites!! The TV Pilot for Black Bart stunk. The plot was non-existent and the acting was not good. It was obviously an attempt to profit off of the success of Blazing Saddles and there have been TV shows that have succeeded in doing take-offs of big movies, but this one would never have worked. Considering that for so many years TV would not even play the farting noises when they televised the movie, it is inconceivable that they thought they could put a show on TV with the "N" word thrown around. On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing a lot of familiar faces!!! There were quite a few actors/actresses that I recognized from other shows over the years. I had to write down all the names and do a few searches. That was fun. I was arguing with my mother if Steve Landesberg was from Barney Miller or Mash. I won! :)
|
negative
|
i thought id check this film out as I'm currently making a film about a mysterious box, therefore it would be great to see how this film took and developed the idea of a mysterious and unexpected box.<br /><br />before going to the cinema i had a high expectation of this film. with actresses, like Cameron diaz you would expect the acting especially hers to be great. the acting was a sort of let down for the film, the characters accents changed throughout the film it made it unbelievable.<br /><br />the whole idea of a weird box that can make your dreams come true but destroy others is such a brilliant story but i feel the director let it down, this film had potential it could of been a lot lot better than it was.<br /><br />this film had no middle to it. it was too confusing and needed a steady storyline. nobody wants to go into the cinema and come out thinking what have i just watched 'i didn't get it at all,' sometimes it can be exciting and make people want to watch it again, but this film made people want to never ever want to hear of the film again. throughout watching i noticed that half the audience had left before the ending. i feel every single person had been let down watching this film because of the high expectations and how slow parts of the film was.<br /><br />lets put the bad points to one side... i did like however the scene where the son is in the bathroom at the end. it was unexpected, it reminded me of a horror movie and the way it was put together made me imagine it and how devastating and scary it would of been to be in that position. the lighting and the effects made it look excellent, this scene looked slightly more 1990's than the 1970's that this film is supposed to be.<br /><br />this film was confusing because it had so many different bits to it. parts that you would expect to be sumned up at the end where everything comes clear but it didn't, it totally went against an audiences expectations, even though leaving the film on a cliff hanger, not giving the audience a reason why things happen could work and do really well, but this one didn't, it was a creative, different unusual film i thought, it had potential could of been better, disappointed didn't enjoy it, wouldn't buy it on DVD to be honest.
|
negative
|
So let me start off by saying that I saw this movie as part of a bargain. I was really bored one fine 1997 day and so I biked over to the movie rental store. I asked the clerk what the worst movie he had in stock was. Without hesitation he walked me over to "Lucky Stiff." He told me that he'd waive the $1 rental fee (he said it would be wrong to charge more) if I promised to watch the whole movie. So watch it I did, for free...<br /><br />This movie is terrible. God-Awful even. I don't need to go into plot details, read the other reviews. The jokes make no sense. The acting was terrible. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but the stupidity of the main character was exhausting. You might try to watch it as something to laugh at, but it's so bad that it isn't even funny in that way. Avoid!
|
negative
|
seriously people need to lighten up and just accept that funny is funny, and this movie is f**king hilarious. Better than the first and Knoxville really grew a pair for this film and did way more crazier stunts then the first. If Ebert and Roper(not saying that I'm a huge fan of theirs) can look past the pure idiocy of this film enough to give it 2 thumbs up then i think other people can to. I wasn't sure what to expect from this but i was floored and it is rare when a sequel is better than the original. This new one I believe exceeds the first big time. so do what i did,just relax kick back try not to barf at some points and laugh your ass off.
|
positive
|
As a long-standing Barbra fan, any posting like this will be biased. That aside, this film ranks as a classic. It has it's flaws (emphasized in other postings), but gives a glimpse of a time (late 70s) that will never be there again, and is fascinating to watch unfold on screen.<br /><br />Streisand fought hard to make this movie her own. I don't think she was ever satisfied. But it gives her fans a new Barbra (for the time) with LIVE singing, a young fresh appearance, and some very heavy-duty acting.<br /><br />The story is rough, but exciting, and holds your interest throughout. The extended one frame "finale" is hard for most non-Barbra fans to sit through, but it speaks volumes to those who admire her talent.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I use "Princess Raccoon" (to give the film its not-quite accurate English title) as a litmus test for my friends' sense of humour. It either leaves them cold and baffled - as it clearly did several other commentators on this site - or results in doubled-up laughter, unassailably huge grins and occasional gasps of admiration.<br /><br />The laughter comes from the film's consummate mixture of parodies in contemporary style. Targets include a bouquet of Japanese and Western classical stage drama forms, from Kabuki to Late Shakespearian and Spanish renaissance Christian fantasy; the naff vacuity of the modern American and European musical, as witness a host of random tap- and rap- dance songs and some very funny banal lyrics, all choreographed with loving "amateur" cliché; Japanese anime and samurai live-action clichés; portentous Buddhist ritual; and the overweening sweetness of Viennese operetta. I've not laughed out loud so much at this type of film since Ken Russell's outrageous musical deconstruction in "The Boyfriend".<br /><br />The grins come from the clever textual subversion of the Japanese legend, told in a traditional 5-act structure reminiscent of the plays of the 17th century master Chikamatsu. As in his work the narrative is advanced in a mixture of song, recitative, high-flown poetry and low comedy relief - here the pot-broiling of the incompetent ninja, Ostrich, by peasants under the illusion that he is a tanuki-raccoon in human guise. All of this somehow does hang together, and even more remarkably does manage to engage the watcher's emotions through the welter of cultural references.<br /><br />In truth "Princess Raccoon" wears its pan-cultural garb with alluring lightness, and that's where the gasps of astonishment come in. Visually - again, as with Russell's masterpiece - the film is a treat, a riot of colour with its digitised backdrops of classical Japanese images from screens and prints, over-the-top costumes and stage sets, mixed with some breathtaking live action sequences in summer fields and seashores. You'll love it or loathe it, but there's no point castigating chalk for being cheese; and "Princess Raccoon" stands, first and foremost, as a wickedly funny as well as affectionate put-down of our contemporary cultural vacuity, in both East and West. Bravo!
|
positive
|
This film plays like a demented episode of VH1's "Where Are They Now", or "Behind The Music". In the first half of the movie (that depict his "glory days") Abbie Hoffman is unintentionally portrayed as a sort of delusional rock star. You know the kind; the poseur lead singer, the pretty boy, who didn't write any of the music, doesn't have a clue, but gets all the glory for nothing and chicks for free. Consequently he takes his success for granted, abuses it, and ultimately destroys it along with himself. Indeed Hoffman's glory days ended abruptly when he was busted for dealing cocaine, skipped bail, and went into hiding. <br /><br />The second part of the movie deals with that time in hiding. In it we see Hoffman as a pathetic crybaby endlessly blaming everyone, anyone, but himself for his downfall. Eventually the times pass him by completely; and he can never to come to grips with that. How sad. THE END. End credits roll and OH NO! We learn that Abbie Hoffman eventually committed suicide in 1989.<br /><br />I'm sure this is not the image the filmmakers intended for Hoffman in making this movie. Given that Tom Hayden and Gerald Lefcourt were involved, I'm sure they intended this film as some kind of homage to the life of a man who was after all, an icon of the 60's and of the Left's anti-war movement. In this they have failed miserably. The film presents Abbie Hoffman as a mindless caricature. We are never told about what drives him. How did he arrive at his views? How did he manage to capture the imagination of a whole generation? How did he organize such a vast movement? Why at the height of his fame did he get involved in dealing cocaine? Why? Who knows, and since the filmmakers don't seem to, ultimately who cares?
|
negative
|
If you've seen the trailer for this movie, you pretty much know what to expect, because what you see here is what you get. And even if you haven't seen the previews, it won't take you long to pick up on what you're in for-- specifically, a good time and plenty of laughs-- from this clever satire of `Reality TV' shows and `Buddy Cop' movies, `Showtime,' directed by Tom Dey, starring Robert De Niro and Eddie Murphy.<br /><br /> Mitch Preston (De Niro) is a detective with the L.A.P.D., and he's good at what he does; but working a case one night, things suddenly go south when another cop, Trey Sellars (Murphy), inadvertently intervenes, a television news crew shows up and Mitch loses his cool, which results in a lawsuit by the television station that's going to cost the department some big bucks. Except that they may be able to get around it, thanks to Chase Renzi (Rene Russo), who works for the station and likes what she sees in Mitch-- enough to pitch an idea to her boss for a `Reality' cop show, that would feature none other than Mitch Preston, whom Chase sees as a real life `Dirty Harry.'<br /><br /> Her boss likes the idea and gives Chase the green light. Now all she has to do is convince Mitch to participate, which shouldn't be too hard, since the station has agreed to drop the lawsuit if he will do the show. But Mitch is a cop, not an actor, and he wants nothing to do with any of it-- that is until he has a heart-to-heart with his boss, Captain Winship (Frankie Faison), who puts Mitch's future into succinct perspective for him. And just like that, the show is on. Oh, yes, there's one more thing; for the show, Mitch is going to need a partner. And who do you suppose they're going to come up with for that? Let's put it this way: Trey Sellars is more than one of the usual suspects.<br /><br /> This is Dey's second film as a director, his first being `Shanghai Noon,'-- also a comedy-- and he's definitely showing a penchant for the genre. From the opening frames he establishes a pace that keeps the story moving right along, and he allows his stars to make the most of their respective talents and personal strengths, including their impeccable timing. With stars like De Niro and Murphy, Dey, of course, had a leg up on this project to begin with, but he's the one who keeps it on track, demonstrating that he knows what works, achieving just the right blend of physical comedy and action, and employing the subtleties of the dialogue to great effect. <br /><br /> There isn't a more natural actor in the business than De Niro, and he steps into Mitch's skin like he was born to it. And after years of doing hard-edge, cutting drama (in which he turned in one remarkable performance after another), with such films as `Analyze This,' `Meet the Parents' and now this one, he has firmly established his proficiency for doing comedy, as well. Mitch is not an especially complex character; he is, in fact, something of an `ordinary' guy, but therein lies the challenge for the actor-- to make him believable, to make him seem like the guy who could be your neighbor and just another member of the community. And on all counts, De Niro succeeds. He's Mitch, the guy you run into at the grocery store or the bank, or say `good morning' to on your way to work; who likes to watch the game on TV and has a life, just like you and me, who happens to make his living by being a cop. It's the character Mitch has to be to make this film work, because it makes the `ordinary guy in extraordinary circumstances' angle credible. It's one of those role-- and work-- that is often wrongly dismissed out-of-hand, because it looks so easy; and, of course, this is what makes De Niro so exceptional-- he does make it look easy, and he does it with facility.<br /><br /> As Trey Sellars, Eddie Murphy turns in a winning performance, as well, and it's a role that fits him like the proverbial glove. Trey is a cop, but also an aspiring actor-- and a bad one-- and it gives Murphy the opportunity to play on the over-exuberant side of his personality (reigned in enough by Dey, however, to keep him from soaring over-the-top into Jim Carrey territory), which works perfectly for this character and this film. From his melodramatic take on a part during an audition, to his throwing out of one-liners-- delivered by looking directly into the camera (which as far as he's concerned isn't even there) while filming the `reality' show-- Murphy's a riot. And he has a chemistry with De Niro that really clicks (which is not unexpected, as this is another of De Niro's many talents; his ability to connect with and bring out the best in his co-stars, all of whom-- evidence will support-- are better at their craft after having worked with him, including the likes of Meryl Streep, Christopher Walken and Ed Harris, just to name a few). Most importantly, this is a part that allows Murphy to excel at what he does best, and he certainly makes the most of it.<br /><br /> Russo makes the most of her role as Chase, too, a character who isn't much of a stretch artistically, but whom she presents delightfully, with a strong, believable performance. And William Shatner (playing himself) absolutely steals a couple of scenes as the director of the show.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Drena De Niro (Annie), Pedro Damian (Vargas) and James Roday (Camera Man). Well crafted and delivered, `Showtime' is a comedy that's exactly what it is meant to be: Pure entertainment that provides plenty of laughs and a pleasant couple of hours that will have you chuckling for some time after. It's the magic of the movies. 8/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />
|
positive
|
The movie was a pleasure to watch if you are a fan of the Stooges. The story is told from the point of view of Moe Howard and his relationships with his brothers Shemp and Jerome (Curly) Howard, also the life long friendship with Larry Fine. The movie deals mostly with the off camera high points and pit falls of the Stooges multi decade career. The casting director and makeup artist did a fair job of finding actors who resembled the famous ensemble. The actor who plays "Curly" Howard did a fine job of portraying the on camera antics of the most beloved Stooge. A must see for any fan of Three Stooges shorts.
|
negative
|
Louis Sachar's compelling children's classic is about as Disney as Freddy Krueger. It's got murder, racism, facial disfigurement and killer lizards.<br /><br />Tightly plotted, it's a multi-layered, interlinking story that spans history to reveal Stanley's own heritage and the secret behind the holes. It races from Latvia's lush greenness to the pock-marked Camp Green Lake (hint: there's no lake and no green).<br /><br />Disney's first success is re-creating the novel's environments so convincingly - the set design is superb and without gloss. The other plus is in the casting. Rising star Shia LaBeouf (Charlie's Angels 2, Project Greenlight) might not be the fat boy of the book, but his attitude is right and he's far from the usual clean-cut hero. The rest of the cast is filled out equally well, from Patricia Arquette as the Frontier school marm-turned-bank robber to Henry Winkler as Stanley's dad. The downside is the pop soundtrack - pure marketing department - and having the sentiment turned up to full volume at the end.
|
positive
|
If your idea of entertainment is watching graphic footage of people being run over by cars (you get to see a woman passing under the front wheel, being twisted as the car passes over her before she goes under the back wheel -- and they show it twice in case you missed it the first time) then this is the documentary for you. Admitedly I didn't watch any more of this very disturbing piece of voyeurism, but that was enough for me. Maybe the rest is even better.<br /><br />I wonder how long it's going to take for television networks to start showing slush movies. Perhaps game shows based on self-mutilation might be nice.<br /><br />I already know that there are disturbed people in the world and that horrible things happen. I don't need to see the proof on the TV masquerading as entertainment.
|
negative
|
I've rarely been as annoyed by a leading performance as I was by Ali McGraw's in this movie. God is she bothersome or what?! She says everything in the same tone and is horrible, so horrible in fact that, by contrast, Ryan O'Neal is brilliant. <br /><br />There is not much of a story. He's rich, she's wooden, they both have to Sacrifice A Lot for Love. His father is Stonewall Jackson, hers is called by his first name, in case you didn't notice the Difference in The Two of Them that They Overcame in the Name of Love. <br /><br />The Oscar nominations for this movie indicate it had to have been a bad year. John Marley is fine as Wooden's father, but a Supporting Nomination? At least Ali didn't win. <br /><br />I still think Katharine Ross should have played Jennifer, but then again, if it were up to me, Katharine Ross would have been in a lot more movies. She's certainly a better actress than McGraw. <br /><br />I didn't even cry when she got sick, never occured to me to even feel sad. <br /><br />It was nice to see Tommy Lee Jones looking like he was about 15, and the score is good. But this one is so old by now it has a beard a mile long, and the sin of that is its not that old, but it feels it.
|
negative
|
A group of heirs to a mysterious old mansion find out that they have to live in it as part of a clause in the will or be disinherited, but they soon find out of its history of everybody whom had lived there before them having either died in weird accidents or having had killed each other.<br /><br />You've seen it all before, and this one is too low-budget and slow paced to be scary, and doesn't have any real surprises in the climax. No special effects or gore to speak of, in fact the only really amusing thing about the whole film is the quality of the English dubbing, which at times is as bad as a cheap martial arts movie.<br /><br />3 out of 10, pretty low in the pecking order of 80's haunted house movies.
|
negative
|
I gave this a four purely out of its historical context. It was considered lost for many years until it popped up out of the blue on Showtime in the early nineties.<br /><br />Moe is the straight man and Larry and Curly act as a duo. Spade Cooley has a couple of numbers. I guess it had something to do with working on a ranch. I'm not quite sure because the plot was so minimal nothing really sticks in my memory. I vaguely remember it being a western musical comedy. Even the Stooge's seem to be going through the motions. Overall there's nothing much really to recommend here.<br /><br />If you're not a Stooge fan then don't bother. If you are a Stooge fan, then stick with the shorts.
|
negative
|
This really is a great film. Full of love and humor, it compels the audience to really care about the characters and participate in their journey. Michael Parness managed to assemble a great cast of top players, a minor miracle for a first film. No doubt, they were moved to help him tell this beautiful story. David Krumoltz carries the film with his understated intensity and honesty. Natasha Lyonne is unpredictable, exasperating, and yet totally lovable as Grace. Also a great turn by Karen Black (great to see her on the screen again) as Grace's crazed but sympathetic mother. There is cutting wit throughout, allowing us the relief of laughter when faced with life's pain. The acting is impeccable, the editing tight, the direction inspired, and the music creates a fitting backdrop of mood. Given the present-day Hollywood Blockbuster craze, full of big budgets, big names, car crashes and special effects, 'Max & Grace' is a refreshing departure. Give yourself a treat and see this movie.
|
positive
|
Best around the middle, when most characters get horny and go after someone they haven't had before. It is around this point that we get to see Susan Sarandon's majestic breasts (even if through a veil). Strangely enough, Beverly D'Angelo who isn't shy about nudity doesn't show any at all, while Aida Turturro of all people does. On the other end of the spectrum, the less said about Walken playing a homosexual the better. The film itself has little plot; the dialogs from the theater play and the "normal" dialogs cross over often and that's not the sort of thing I'd consider a good idea. Life in the theater: who cares? Occasionally the dialog has something going for it, but the film drags in stretches.
|
negative
|
This movie shows life in northern Cameroon from the perspective of a young French girl, France Dalens, whose father is an official for the colonial (French) government, and whose family is one of the few white families around. It gives a sense of what life was like both for the colonists and for the natives with whom they associated. It's a sense consistent with another movie I've seen about Africa in a similar time period (Nirgendwo in Afrika (2001)), but I have no way of knowing how realistic or typical it is. It's not just an impression -- things do happen in the movie -- but the plot is understated. The viewer is left to draw his own conclusions rather than having the filmmakers' forced upon him, although the framing of the story as a flashback from the woman's visit to south-western Cameroon as an adult provides some perspective.
|
positive
|
How good is this film? Apparently, good enough that they plan to remake it in 2011. Jean-Pierre Melville, who gave us Le doulos and The Good Thief, wrote and directed this film.<br /><br />The film is almost a silent. These are men of few words, preferring to let their actions speak for them. They live by a code that governs their every move.<br /><br />There are some great actors in this film - Alain Delon (The Leopard), Yves Montand (Jean de Florette, Let's Make Love), and Gian Maria Volonte (El Indio from A Fistful of Dollars & A Few Dollars More). The film does not shine on them; they are along for the ride that Melville has for them. Melville makes the film; they make it better.<br /><br />You see Melville's work in the Ocean films, but they just get the idea. The can't make it work like he did. A great loss in the seventies, but his work remains for our pleasure.
|
positive
|
The movie was excellent, save for some of the scenes with Esposito. I enjoyed how it brought together every detective on the series, and wrapped up some plotlines that were never resolved during the series (thanks to NBC...). It was great to see Pembleton and Bayliss together at their most human, and most basic persons. Braugher and Secor did a great job, but as usual will get overlooked. It hurt to see that this was the end of Homicide. Memories, tapes, and reruns on CourtTV just aren't the same as watching it come on every Friday. But the movie did its job and did it very well, presenting a great depiction of life after Al retired, and the family relationship that existed between the unit. I enjoyed this a lot.
|
positive
|
It could be easy to complain about the quality of this movie (you don't have to throw cartloads of money at a movie to make it good, nor will it guarantee that it is worth watching) but I think that is totally missing the point. If your expecting fast cars, T&A or a movie that will spell itself out for you then don't watch this, you'll be disappointed and dumbfounded.<br /><br />This movie was thoroughly enjoyable, kept us on the edge of our seats and made us really think. The writer obviously put a lot of thought and research behind this movie and it shows through the end, just remember to keep an open mind.<br /><br />Note: the school scenes were all filmed at McMaster University and most of the rest was done in Toronto.
|
positive
|
this animated Inspector Gadget movie is pretty lame.the story is very weak,and there is little action.most of the characters are given little to nothing to do.the movie is mildly entertaining at best,but really doesn't go any where and is pointless.it's watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated TV show from the 80's.it's not a movie that bears repeat viewing,at least in my mind.it's only about 74 minutes long including credits,so i guess that's a good thing.unlike in the TV show,the characters are not worth rooting for here.in the show,you wanted Inspector Gadget to save the day,but there,who really cares?anyway,that's just my opinion.for me Inspector Gadget's Last Case is a disappointing 3/10
|
negative
|
They make everything too easy in this film. It sort of reminded me of Indiana Jones where he hides on the outside of a submarine during an ocean crossing. Everybody knows everything that's going on, it's just real easy to get anyplace you want in the White House. I don't even know why I watched half of it. Because I like Charlie Sheen and Donald Sutherland. I expect the usual ability to dodge bullets from every angle, and be able to run faster than a motorcycle (usually it's faster than a car in a garage or a allyway). It was silly, mostly, and I didn't even know then had a ten-story elevator in the White House. Anyway, anything conspiratorial is always interesting.
|
negative
|
I have great memories of this movie...<br /><br />I was only 12 when it was released and it scared the bejesus out of me. I really miss my bejesus...<br /><br />Zombies, graveyards, mausoleums, how can you go wrong? It's like Phantasm's retarded cousin.<br /><br />This movie was released 1 year before the PG-13 rating was instituted.<br /><br />I submit that One Dark Night is the GORIEST PG movie (not scariest, mind you) that has ever been released.<br /><br />Can anyone come up with a gorier pick?<br /><br />(FYI: I don't consider Poltergeist to be gorier...scarier, yes. But not gorier...)
|
positive
|
Well, basically, the movie blows! It's Blair Witch meets Sean Penn's ill conceived fantasy about going to Iraq to show the world what the "War on Terror" is really about. The script sounds like it was written by 8th grader (no offense to 8th graders); the two main actors over-act the entire film; they used the wrong kind of camera and the wrong type of film(not that i know anything about those things--but it just didn't look like real documentaries I've watched), and worst of all Christian Johnson took a great idea and made it suck. It reminded me of the time I tried to draw a picture of my dog and ended up with a really bad stick figure looking thing that looked more like a giant turd. I'd rather watch the Blair Witch VIII, than sit through that again.
|
negative
|
Wow, I've sure seen quite a bit of Kelli McCarty this summer. I didn't know this woman made so many softcore flicks in the past three years. It's like seeing a future softcore star blossom in front of me, much like Michelle Hall did a couple of years ago.<br /><br />"Passion's Peak" is the third quality softcore flick I've seen Kelli McCarty in, with "Girl for Girl" and "House of Love" being the others. "Desire and Deception" was okay, but it wasn't spectacular. There's spoilers in this review, so read only if you want to.<br /><br />The story begins with Christina (Kelli McCarty) heading out of the big city and to the mountains. She has inherited a house from her dear departed grandmother and plans to turn it into a mountain lodge. Before she can even set her things down, some woman named Kim (uncredited in this film, but quite the aggressive one) begins booking guests to stay there. Now she has to get the house into shape quickly--in comes Chip (Bobby Johnston), a childhood friend, to the rescue. Chip helps her get the house in workable condition. She hires two local slackers to work in her lodge--Chip's sister Bait (Samantha McConnell) and her sex buddy Hank.<br /><br />Now the guests start coming. The first to arrive are Eric and Linda (Flower), two stereotypical money-first lawyers. Linda and Eric get into a huge argument during a dinner party halfway through the film which leads to their breakup; sad stuff there. Next, there's romance novelist Sophia, played by B-movie goddess Monique Parent. She's using that silly alias Scarlet Johansing again, and she's got a very professional look this time--with blonde hair, of course. It wouldn't be Monique if she didn't have at least one scene where she plays with herself--and she obliges, during one of Eric and Linda's sex scenes.<br /><br />James and Shene (Devinn Lane--yes, the porn star Devinn Lane) show up for a little weekend getaway as well. Unbeknownst to Shene, James and Christina have quite a history. James and Christina used to date, but Christina broke it off to head to this mountain lodge. James comes up to the lodge to get Christina back, but his plan backfires. Christina spills the beans to Shene, which causes Shene to walk out on him and down to the local bar to strip for the locals. Shene ends up in the sleeping bag of the now-single Eric, and they leave together. Bait realizes she wants something more than just sex with Hank, and Christine finds true love with Chip, with Sophia soaking it all in and writing it into her next romance novel. <br /><br />In fact....if you ask me, this whole movie played out like a romance novel. I don't know if the screenwriter was going for that effect, but I sure got that impression. Sophia had some of the best lines in this film, playing up the idea that this is a live-action romance novel. She seems to enjoy all the fighting and backstabbing going on.<br /><br />Now to the sex. There was a fair amount of it, and it was the usual bump-and grind stuff. Monique did her fair share of moaning in her two sex scenes. This film was tapeworthy, and the story will actually keep the audience somewhat interested in between the sex scenes.<br /><br />Women: A- (Monique was simply Monique. Out of all the softcore actresses I've seen over the years, she's the best at acting, in my opinion. She can really act and be sexy, which is why she's holding on to the #1 position in my Skinemax Top 10. Kelli McCarty is better at doing softcore films than she is on the soap opera "Passions"; I don't know why she's not doing more of these. Flower was merely background scenery for the most part in a limited role. Samantha McConnell continues to impress me, and Devinn Lane is yet another hardcore actress crossing over into the softcore realm and doing a halfway decent job at it.)<br /><br />Sex: B (It was good, but not awe-inspiring spectacular. Plenty of moaning. Don't watch the R-rated version, trust me....most of the good stuff is taken out. My grade is for the uncut version.)<br /><br />Story: B (A solid storyline which throws in a contrived "Ooh, the building inspector's gonna shut us down" subplot toward the end which messes up things. The underlying story between Christina and James was nice, and Sophia's dialogue, full of the metaphors and imagery usually found in romance novels, was a nice touch.)<br /><br />Overall: B+ (I found this movie to be quite entertaining. It's not a surefire Softcore Hall-Of-Famer like "Girl for Girl" is, but it's a respectable addition to the Skinemax collection.)
|
positive
|
This is the most energetic and entertaining ten minutes of film >I've seen in a long time. As a film student at NYU, where this >short has been screened several times, I salute Jim Cox for his >astute sense of style and pace for our generation. I'm sure >I'll see his name later on the big screen. Hopefully this short >will find a market on TV or somewhere, so this inspiring work >can get the wide distribution it des
|
positive
|
I wouldn't say this totally sucked, but if it wasn't for Netflix I wouldn't even have this in my house. Steve Martin's eccentric president of a chain of health food stores falls flat. He's just not funny. He's another in a LONG slew of SNL rejects that can only find work whoring themselves to the next SNL movie. The birthing coach with the Elmer Fudd lisp is about as funny as it is original. Amy Poehler simply goes through the same motions she would for a 7 minute SNL skit which is about as funny as SNL lately. The only thing going for this movie is that Tina Fey is easy on the eyes. The ending was predictable as soon as you heard her character couldn't get pregnant. The subject matter could have opened up to other comedic attempts, but it seems to simple simmer along, not really entertaining or creating laughs.
|
negative
|
'The Hills Eyes II', one of the most pointless and blatantly stupid sequels to come around in some time, is 90 minutes of incompetent film making at its finest. Or worst, however you choose to look at it. While 2006's 'Hills' remake was one of the year's best, and truly frightening, horror films, this sequel takes every spark out of what made that such an accomplishment. Part 2 never gets off the ground, and neither does its mind numbing dialogue. Worst of all, it's not that scary.<br /><br />2006's remake followed a family who find themselves in the middle of the New Mexico desert, deserted, and one by one being picked off by deranged and sadistic hill people. People who, as a result of the military testing the atomic bomb on their land years ago, have become who they are. Surviving off travelers who wander into the region. The sequel puts audiences in the same desert, now occupied by the military as they covertly investigate the hills and what might have happened to that poor family. When a group of military trainees are brought to the campsite, they find it deserted with no signs of life. A grim reality soon befalls them, as they come to the realization that they're not alone. And the bloody fate that was handed to many before them will soon become their destiny.<br /><br />It doesn't take a genius to realize that 'Hills' has no legitimate reason to exist. But because last year's remake was received well both at the box office and by critics, it came to no surprise that a sequel would be rushed into production while there's still money to be earned. There's no rhyme or reason to it this time around, just an unbelievable and ridiculous set-up to pave the way for thoughtless characters, unoriginal killings, a non-existent story, and slipping interest. Originally, director Alexander Aja made Craven's cult classic into a remake that was a unique and thoroughly disturbing experience. One that gruesomely crossed the line on more than one occasions. Its frank display of violence, sadistic torture, well-rounded characterization, and white-knuckled suspense were all effectively used to shock and repulse audiences. The second time around, it's rehashed hand-me-downs. There's no style, no grit. It tries to build up tension by dismembering bodies, when all it really does is make for a been there, done that kind film, where even the gore seems tame compared to more recent bloodbaths.<br /><br />It's a sad state of affairs when deformed mutants who capture women for breeding purposes fails to keep your attention. It's a bore, nothing more. 'Hills' has no bite. Despite a jump or two here and there, there's nothing very scary about this by-the-numbers horror flick. It feels like something you'd see on the Sci-Fi channel, only with some F-bombs, a blood splatter here and there, a rape, and a graphic birth scene that's more gross than shocking. It's cheap. And with 'Hills', you reap what you sew. With no effort given, you can't expect anything in return.<br /><br />Replacing Aja with Martin Weisz as director was the film's first big mistake, all he does is drain the film of any sort of emotional resonance. But even more shocking is the uncharacteristically bad script penned by Wes Craven and his son, Jonathan Craven. You ask, how bad could it possibly be? This is the kind of dialogue that makes any comparison look like Shakespeare. Craven has had his fair share of clunkers in the past, but I'd never expect something like this from him. It's so unintentionally funny, you have to wonder, is Craven playing a joke on this? Or did he dump this one on his son after the studio payed him off? The film's characters are one-dimensional talking heads with no emotions or common sense. The acting is just as bad. The only character who may win you over is 'Napoleon' Napoli, the scrawny kid who doesn't fit in with the others. Even the deranged and instinct-driven villains, who we might have found some favor with in the deepest of our thoughts a year ago, are met with indifferent. You don't hate them, you don't like them. You honestly couldn't care less. Just like this movie.<br /><br />Even if you were giddy with fear during 'The Hills Have Eyes', as I was, you'll have a tough time finding anything to enjoy in this piece of garbage. It's as generic as generic gets, and there's absolutely nothing here we haven't seen done many times already. I can't express this enough, avoid 'The Hills Have Eyes II' like the plague. It's frightless, unoriginal, frantic, and a bore. Stick to the remake or Craven's original vision. Because if you don't walk out after the first thirty minutes, don't say I didn't warn you.
|
negative
|
Hamlet is by far my favorite of all of Shakespeare's works. Branaugh is one heck of an actor. His portrayal of this was just amazing. His soliloquies were breathtaking. For as long as it was it is rare for a film to hold my interest, however I was engrossed in this particular piece. I recommend this to anyone both fan of Shakespeare and those not so much. This has everything the modern world looks for in its films: murder, betrayal, and deceit. Not to knock Mel Gibson's version, but Branaughs touches the whole work. This leaves no stone unturned. When you finish the film it will feel as if you read the play yourself. Um how you say "two thumbs up".
|
positive
|
Joline (Heather Graham) sets out after her husband Carl (Luke Wilson) who disappeared to clear his head about himself and their marriage. Joline, who is committed to their marriage starts her journey to find Carl, yet on the way discovers a lot about herself. On her trip she encounters a bountiful of interesting characters who unknowingly help her find her way.<br /><br />In my eyes this is a classical road movie, which moves just at the right pace (some viewers may find it too slow). Throughout the movie it keeps its humorous note while Joline responds to the craziness of the world around her with a warm, knowing, sometimes sad smile. All actresses and actors give wonderful performances and the musical score is immaculate. 9/10
|
positive
|
The summary line is some men's wet dream for the ideal woman ... ;o) Seriously though, back to the movie, which has classic cinema written all over it (pun intended and quite literally shown in the picture, too as you'll see)! <br /><br />How could someone make a silent movie in this year and age? It's not completely silent for once (take the music for instance). With great cinematography is the answer. And it's no wonder that it did win prizes (as another user stated) in this area! But it's also sometimes it's downfall. Although the pictures are great, it sometimes delves too much in them instead of moving forward (plot and time wise). If you can cope with that, than you'll enjoy it even more than me. I haven't told you anything about the story, but I'll never do that, because I don't want to spoiler anything for you ...
|
positive
|
'Deliverance' is a brilliant condensed epic of a group of thoroughly modern men who embark on a canoe trip to briefly commune with nature, and instead have to fight for their sanity, their lives, and perhaps even their souls. The film has aged well. Despite being made in the early Seventies, it certainly doesn't look particularly dated. It still possesses a visceral punch and iconic status as a dramatic post-'Death of the Sixties' philosophical-and-cultural shock vehicle. There are very few films with similar conceits that can compare favourably to it, although the legendary Sam Peckinpah's stuff would have to be up there. Yes, there has been considerable debate and discussion about the film's most confronting scene (which I won't expand upon here) - and undoubtedly one of the most confronting scenes in the entire history of the cinematic medium - but what surprises about this film is how achingly beautiful it is at times. This seems to be generally overlooked (yet in retrospect quite understandably so). The cinematography that captures the essence of the vanishing, fragile river wilderness is often absolutely stunning, and it counterbalances the film as, in a moment of brief madness, we the viewers - along with the characters themselves - are plunged into unrelenting nightmare. 'Deliverance's narrative is fittingly lean and sinewy, and it is surprising how quickly events unfold from point of establishment, through to crisis, and aftermath. It all takes place very quickly, which lends a sense of very real urgency to the film. The setting is established effectively through the opening credits. The characters are all well-drawn despite limited time spent on back story. We know just enough about them to know them for the kind of man they are, like them and ultimately fear for them when all goes to hell. The conflict and violence within the movie seems to erupt out of nowhere, with a frightening lack of logic. This is author James Dickey's theme - that any prevailing romanticism about the nature of Man's perceived inherent 'goodness' can only wilt and die when his barely suppressed animal instincts come to the fore. There are no demons or bogeymen here. The predatory hillbillies - as the film's central villains - are merely crude, terrifyingly amoral cousins of our protagonists. They shock because their evil is petty and tangible. The film has no peripheral characters. All reflect something about the weaknesses and uncertainties of urbanised Homo Sapiens in the latter 20th century, and all are very real and recognisable. Burt Reynolds is wonderful in this movie as the gung-ho and almost fatally over-confident Survivalist, Lewis, and it is a shame to think that he really couldn't recapture his brief moment of dramatic glory throughout the rest of his still sputtering up-and-down career ('Boogie Nights' excluded, perhaps). Trust me, if your are not a Reynolds fan, you WILL be impressed with his performance here. John Voight is his usual effortlessly accomplished self, and Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox both make significant contributions. This is simply a great quartet of actors. To conclude, I must speculate as to if and when 'Deliverance' author James Dickey's 'To the White Sea' will be made. For those that enjoyed (?) this film, TTWS is a similarly harrowing tale of an American Air Force pilot's struggle for survival after being shot down over the Japanese mainland during WW2. It's more of the typically bleak existentialism and primordial savagery that is Dickey's trademark, but it has all the makings of a truly spectacular, poetic cinematic experience. There was the suggestion a few years ago that the Coen brothers might be producing it, but that eventually came to nothing. Being an avid Coen-o-phile it disappoints me to think what might have been had they gotten the green light on TTWS, rather than their last couple of relatively undistinguished efforts. Returning to 'Deliverance', it's impossible to imagine a movie of such honest, unnerving brutality being made in these times, and that is pretty shameful. We, the cinema-going public, are all the poorer for this.
|
positive
|
By strange coincidence I've started to watch this move straight after Brice de Nice and the good thing was that not many movies could be worst than Brice de Nice, so I was really looking forward for something better which would make me forget this horrible flop.<br /><br />Unfortunately OSS-117 again left me disappointed - I don't know, maybe it's just problem with translations, but since "Diner de Cons" I haven't seen ANY French comedy that I would call really good. Even when I look at the reviews on IMDb only people from France are giving the OSS-117 high notes...<br /><br />For me this movie didn't really work - in some parts is as funny as real Bond movies, in others jokes were a little bit too predictable or too corny.
|
negative
|
I am so angry to the point i normally down make reviews with spoilers but in this case I'll make an exception.The first scenes of this movies are weak and then when they get to the meat and potatoes of the movie it sucks. This is one movie were i rooted for the bad guys because the captain-save-the-day was unbelievable and there was no connection to him or nothing to make you like him. The lead actor gave the weakest performance and Laurence Fishburne or Matt Dillon couldn't even save this movie. Sometime there are eye openers or great moments in a film that may not be that great..this movie has none. If you are looking for a movie to see in the meantime while nothing peeked your interest...don't choose this one..save your money.
|
negative
|
OH MY GOD.. THE WORST SH*T I'VE EVER SEEN -this is the main thought which came into my mind right after watching the movie. And I really do not understand anybody with opposite myth. Though, maybe the idea was good but the effect miserable. I especially mean the role of H. Graham. What was that??? In my opinion it has destroyed all positive intentions of producers. The character was played in affected and annoying way. Every time she appears it reminds that you' re watching a movie and is destroying a spirit of the moment, then whole movie because the most time what you can see there are her stupid faces with more stupid attempts to create the emotion. TERRIBLE, don't waste your time.
|
negative
|
This movie was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. Well there's nothing wrong with that, except it looks like it was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. 90 percent of the cast are white males about same age. It's almost like watching a bunch of guys at boys camp who turned the camera on themselves. The movie has no plot. It simply repeats the same action of blood bath after blood bath. There are some funny scenes and comedic bits. But they don't redeem the flat monotony.<br /><br />The graphic cartoon scenes are used to cover the stuff that was obviously beyond their budget or resources to do, and not done very well at that. Anything that can't be done with white guys running around on the beach covered in blood is done with cheap animation.<br /><br />I went to see this film after seeing the trailer, which makes it look like a Tarrentino piece. Well, the trailer scenes are as good as they ever get. Ther rest of it just repeats the same kind of mundane, inane comedy. It works at times, but it gets boring after the same stuff comes at you over and over. It's more like a string of Satuday Night Live skits than a movie. It's a hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of comedy. I can see where the story idea is intriguing. But, in this film post apocalyptic America is much like Medevil England. In fact Wheatlry says the story ideas came from that era. He plans to make a Part 2. I guess he thinks he's Tarrentino or maybe doing a parody thing.<br /><br />At the opening in LA, Wheatley mentioned he will bring back pretty much the same cast in part 2. He was asked if he might consider a more diverse cast in the next one, to which he replied, well yea, sure.
|
negative
|
DON'T EVEN TRY to figure out the logic of this story. But do ride along with 10-year-old Gus on the most bizarre road trip ever witnessed. More weird characters and implausible situations than a Twin Peaks reunion! Nothing makes sense, yet it's impossible to stop watching Motorama! Now, where can I find that 'R'????
|
positive
|
Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid!
|
negative
|
I was really looking forward to this movie based on the previews and press it received, but after viewing it I was terribly disappointed. Slums is a totally unfunny film mixed with a Todd Solondz type of disturbing family reality sans Todd's brand of humor. The story drags along and each scene is worse than the last. Maybe I missed the point, but if this film is an example of every girl's growing up experience I am glad to be a man.
|
negative
|
The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like "Miner's Massacre" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and plenty of embarrassing performances give this turkey a 3 for nudity.
|
negative
|
I just got the DVD for Hardware Wars, in a shiny new package, looking irresistable. Stuck it in my DVD player to find a slew of extra fun stuff. The extra content on the DVD is even longer than the movie. For those of you that have (shame!) never seen Hardware Wars, it one fantastically silly Star Wars spoof (of Episode IV, of course). Household appliances (such as irons, toasters, vacuums, and a waffle maker) stand in for Ty-fighters, X-wings, R2D2, and the death star. Instead of Princess Leia, we have Princess Ann-Droid, complete with Cinnabon hairdo. You get the point, I'm sure. Mad silliness, and a fun ride for any Star Wars geek (like me!)<br /><br />Now, the DVD - wow! A director's commentary where he basically goes off on the movie, making fun of himself and the project throughout. An interview with Fosselius on Creature Features (remember that?!) and hilarious "director's cut" and "foreign version" of the movie (all jokes of course). Anyway, this is great. I loved Hardware Wars in the theater, and am so glad for having the DVD in my collection - wedged in between MST3K: the movie and Thumb Wars!
|
positive
|
Before the regular comments, my main curiosity about THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is that while there's a running time listed on IMDb of 94 minutes, the DVD from Wellspring Media in the United States runs 88 minutes. Any input on this is appreciated!<br /><br />Two friends with very rough lives take on the road for an adventure. What they wind up in is just that, with one accidentally shooting a girl and the two escaping by foot into the countryside. Rather than just a big chase, the film is complicated by the the daft and rather childlike Spike behaving inappropriately, and clutching his boom box like a teddy bear. Some viewers may dislike the story based solely upon the character Spike, but without a bit of frustration added to the story, the film would have been too easy. You'll notice the way the more stable character Heaton refers to Spike as "big man" in contrast to Spike's "kid out of control" attitude and behavior. Frankly, I too was aggravated by Spike's ridiculous actions, especially the spray can sniffing, but in a desperate situation it's apparent someone of his mentality would choose an temporary escape. But, Heaton was there to keep things in check up until things get way over his head as well.<br /><br />Kenny Glenaan as Heaton is a marvel, and after a while I quit wondering why in the heck he would want to pick Spike up from prison and continue a friendship, due to Glenaan's great performance. After all, there are many many reasons during their run that would be a good idea for Heaton to just ditch Spike and try to save himself. I suppose Heaton felt like a protective older brother to Spike, and the loyalty between the two is hard to break -- until things get too desperate.<br /><br />While some of the cinematography is indeed artsy, it does offer more flavor to story instead of just shots of the men running through the wilderness. The beautiful landscapes, rain, and vast gray skies offer a somber tone that increases the feel of the tragic circumstances. The score is unusual as well, and the use of Public Image Ltd.'s song "This Is Not A Love Song" and as the title of the film is quite smart.<br /><br />Overall, it's understandable if you don't care for THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG as it's focused on two contrasting personalities escaping from another man determined to hunt them down (played by a cool, quiet David Bradley). It's not big-budget action entertainment. For the rest of us that enjoy seeking out something minimal and dramatic, it's time worthwhile spent, and it DOES offer some extremely tense moments that have you holding your breath a bit.<br /><br />I'm really enjoying the films coming out of Scotland recently, with the likes of this one, Dog Soldiers, and The Devil's Tattoo. I'm also a bit thankful for the subtitles offered on this DVD, as the accents are sometimes lightning fast and difficult for some viewers like me to understand. <br /><br />Frustrating, dark, and often tense, THIS IS NOT A LOVE SONG is very tragic yet engrossing storytelling.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I rarely watch short films as they only seem to be on late night television and are not publicised enough for me to know which short films are worth while. As The Room is an extra feature on The Hitcher DVD, it gave me a wonderful opportunity to witness a high quality short with Rutger Hauer in excellent form.<br /><br />Artistically shot in black and white, The Room explores a man's obsession with a room he passed by in the early stages of adulthood and is expressed in a documentary/ interview style. The dialogue is very poetic, typical of a man expressing his feelings for a woman, but is also juxtaposed with ramblings and occasional deficiencies in fluency. This adds great realism and depth to Hauer's performance who is perfect as an eccentric man with most of his life behind him.<br /><br />The piano music that Harry (Hauer) hears from the room is constantly in the background and enhances the touching atmosphere of the film and intensifies the feelings of sadness expressed by Hauer.<br /><br />Hauer proves he is more than just a psychotic Hollywood bad guy with this role and perfectly displays his more sensitive side. Mattijn Hartemink is also effective in the flashback scenes as young Harry with a silent role. He shows how affected he is by the music and his disappointment when it goes away.<br /><br />The ending is prophetic and leaves you in a reflective mood longer than many feature length films. A very good effort.
|
positive
|
I know it sounds crazy but yes, I am a huge fan of House Party 1 and 2 (and proud of it!!). I hated part 3, and then here comes part 4. I was like are you kidding me with this? Kid 'n Play are nowhere to be found in this movie, and that would've been okay, had they not foolishly entitled the movie House Party 4, as if it was in any way, shape, form, or fashion related to its predecessors. Every time this movie comes on late at night on USA, I shoot my TV with a rifle. Quite frankly, it really is just that atrocious. *hurling*<br /><br />As the only remaining fan of Kid 'n Play that will actually admit to being a fan (tee hee hee), I was appalled. Remember that stupid little boy group Immature? They snuck their way into House Party 3. Okay, fine and well but how can part 4 be just about them and nothing else and it also seems like they're not even the same kids from part 3. *confused!!!!* House Party fans: do yourself a favor and stick to House Party 1 and 2 and Class Act. Beyond that, everything else is ridiculous.
|
negative
|
Walter Matthau and George Burns were a famous vaudeville comedy act, Lewis and Clark, who haven't spoken in over 10 years. Burns retired and Matthau took it personally and has held a grudge ever since. Such is the premise of this hilarious Neil Simon play made into a movie. Of course, what makes it so good is Matthau and Burns in their prime, and the material is funnier than anything you can find today. Richard Benjamin shines as Matthau's nephew and agent. There's even old clips of actual stars of the golden era to get you into the groove of the film, and character actor Fritz Feld starts it all off with a "pop." Rosetta LaNoire, who started out in the 30s in theater with Orson Welles and later was Grandma on "Family Matters," is great in a small role.<br /><br />The only problem I had with it (and maybe I'm being too picky and/or serious) is the way Matthau treats Burns when they first meet. Granted, he's had a lot of resentment festering in all these years, but some of the things he does would be considered rude or just plain bad manners taken out of context. Also, I'm used to seeing Matthau act that way in other movies, but not to George Burns. And, Matthau's bellowing tends to get a little old. <br /><br />All in all, if you need a consistently funny film to help and forget your troubles, put in "The Sunshine Boys." They'll lift your spirits and make you think of a simpler time and way of life.<br /><br />Benjamin: "You have to slide it." <br /><br />Matthau: "Wait, wait. I think you have to slide it."
|
positive
|
George & Mildred - The Movie lacks the talents of its TV writer John Mortimer who brings the close quarter cut and thrust of George's class war with the Fourmiles alive.<br /><br />The plot is cut from standard spin-off cloth - hit-man/mistaken identity - and has as little tension as there are laughs. The producers should have taken a leaf from Rising Damp, (also 1980)which was also bought to the big screen after the TV series demise, and kept much of the story in familiar setting.<br /><br />Yootha Joyce died in 1980 but she should not be remembered for this creaking piece of work encumbered as she was by her illness. Mildred lacks the sharpness of her TV incarnation; cutting asides and withering looks largely directed at Georges lack of libido. George's sputtering incredulity also gets lost in the more expansive sets. This is not to say that they were much to shout about. The budget for this movies looks pathetically small; a restaurant they go to is clearly a new semi-starched house with some Christmas lights adorning the front door.<br /><br />For fans of 70's British comedy or those who just want to revisit an old TV companion from their youth this film can add nothing to the experience and they should just stick to the first four TV series out now on DVD.
|
negative
|
Loved this movie, what a hoot. Rupert and Julie are great together with Rupert being almost poker faced against Julie's animation, which worked well. Laura did a good job as the overbearing mother.Julie of course is marvellous as usual. While this movie will keep you laughing most of the time it also has a poignant side to it as it unravels the secrets in the lives of the main characters. Interesting that it was entitled Driving Lessons as this might lead you to believe this is the main feature of the movie which directly it is not though it certainly could be seen as "Ben" finally being in the driving seat in his own life. Like most things that are funny in life there is always the sad side and there are some moving moments in this movie. Very enjoyable movie and well worth watching.
|
positive
|
This movie took me by surprise. I first saw it more than 10 years ago, and it stays with me still. It's got it's just plain boring points, and I, personally, would have ended it differently- this has not in the least bit discouraged me from watching it over and over and recommending it to others. The acting is _fantastic_. The cast and director do an amazing job with the script, and anyone who likes 'different' movies, who has the patience to sit and say, "What the hell is this?", and allow themselves to be drawn in should give this film a chance. If you just want Alan Rickman to be goofy or to see things explode this is not the movie for you.
|
positive
|
A story of obsessive love pushed to its limits and of a lovely swan whose beauty is the very ticket to her own premature demise. Placed at the beginning of talkies, PRIX DE BEAUTE walks a thin line in being a full-on silent film -- which is still is at heart -- and flirting with sound and sound effects. The effect is a little irritating for anyone coming into this film because the recorded audio is extremely tinny and just doesn't help it at all. Hearing sound stage conversation edited over the beginning sequence which takes place in a beach, for example, is as part of the movie as the actress who dubs Louise Brooks' dialog and in doing so robs the audience of a fine performance. Other than that, the movie rolls along more or less well, with little jumps in continuity here and there -- something quite common in films from this era -- and has that vague sped up feel typical of silents. In a way, this is an experiment of a movie, and closer to the style of Sergei Eisenstein in visual presentation and near-intimate closeups that elevate it from what would be a more pedestrian level. Louise Brooks here plays a character less flapper than what she was known for: she's a stenographer who on a lark decides to enter a beauty contest despite the furious opposition of her extremely smothering boyfriend. Her role is quite Thirties and contemporary for its time; the last of the flapper/Jazz Baby roles were being shown on screen and now, with the onset of female independence, women as professionals were being represented in film. That Brooks's character decides to leave her boyfriend (even if she does "reconcile" with him later) is also a little ahead of her time. However, her character's fatal flaw is its willing to believe what isn't there -- that her boyfriend wants her to succeed -- and this is what leads to her end at the movie theatre. This final sequence looks like something straight out of Hitchcock in its heightened suspense (seen in THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) and cuts from Brooks, her image on screen, and the murderous boyfriend. Even more dramatic is the placement of the still singing "live" Brooks with the now dead one -- a chilling effect to a chilling, powerful movie.
|
positive
|
This movie is not a kung fu movie. This is a comedy about kung fu. And if, before making this film, Sammo Hung hadn't spent some time watching films by the great French comic filmmaker Jaques Tati (i.ie., e.g., esp. Jour de fête), he is certainly on the same wave length.<br /><br />Personally, I think Tati's films are hilarious; but they're not to all tastes. Some have told me that they loathe his work. I've never figured out why, but I think it's because the character that Tati usually plays himself is so totally dead pan, so unaffected by the events around him (which he is usually causing) that many miss the more subtle comic bits happening around him.<br /><br />At any rate, Tati's main shtick - or at least his best known - is to take a pretentiously upright petite bourgeoisie with 19th century sensibilities and drop him into 20th century France where he must confront a society that is largely defined by the gradual eroding of those sensibilities. He usually has serious difficulties with little things like record players or radios. He's a hazard in a car, but the world's no safer when he rides a bicycle. But through it all, he never loses his aplomb, which is derived from his inner recognition that the nineteenth century was more interesting than the 20th overall.<br /><br />In a similar fashion, the character Sammo Hung himself plays is a country boy come to the big city of Hong Kong, utterly convinced that what makes the city interesting is that Bruce Lee made kung fu movies there. This gets him into trouble in small ways, since he takes in stride happenstance which would never be noticed in a small town but which are deemed inappropriate in a big city - such as the moment when he appears to be urinating in the street, A cop stops him, only to discover that Hung is actually just squeezing water out of his shirt, soaked during an accidental dip in the bay. What's interesting about this gag is why it is Hung doesn't understand what the cop's fuss is all about - in a country town, as long as no one's looking, if you gotta go you gotta go. In other words, Hung is not really urinating in the street - but he certainly would - and what's the problem officer? Of course Hung's obsession with Bruce Lee also gets him into big troubles as well. He beats a gang of thugs who have refused to pay his restaurant-owner uncle. Of course, in a Bruce Lee movie, the thugs would be considered trounced, and they would have learned their lesson. But in Hung's Hong Kong, reality unfortunately prevails, and the thugs return when he's not around, to trounce his uncle.<br /><br />Of course, Hung finally triumphs in the end, just as Tati always did. Characters like this must always triumph (at least in comedy) because they are completely innocent, and as such, despite their comic missteps and misunderstandings, they really represent what is best in the humans we admire and wish to be. We don't really want to be Bruce Lee (who has to experience the loss of all of his friends before he gets a chance to beat the bad-guy), we, in our own innocence, really want a world where Lee's heroics are possible.<br /><br />Unfortunately, that world only exists on film.<br /><br />"Ah, but what if...?" - and in that question we find Sammo Hung at his comic best.
|
positive
|
Two days after seeing this thing, I'm still in agony over HAVING seen it. It's so bad, you have to wonder how anyone could write this tripe, much less allow it to be loose on the general public. Stilted acting, a leading man who looks like he's sleepwalking, and Alison Eastwood embarrassing herself. The action is indicative of low budget movie making, which means it is painfully bad. The plot? Well, if you were 6 years old, then you could have written this movie. Simplistic, idealistic, and just plain lame.
|
negative
|
Note: This should probably be read only after watching the film.<br /><br />It is very rare to find a documentary or movie that focuses on the loser. Deep Water does just this, making it one of the most thought provoking films in a very long time. It does not provide us with a hero to look up to, but rather an anti-hero who forces us to look into ourselves.<br /><br />The film is about a group of men who attempt to sail around the globe, singlehandedly, and without stopping. Only one makes it, several die, one decides not to return home, each of them on a psychological journey intriguing enough to merit entire films for themselves. Yet the most interesting is Donald Crowhurst, or rather the way that he is portrayed by the filmmakers and our reactions to him as viewers.<br /><br />By any standards this man should be considered a despicable character, yet why is he depicted so heroically? Why are we so sympathetic to him? From the beginning he made all of the wrong choices. He risked his family financially to get the boat, he left at a more dangerous time to get more publicity, he ignored all of the warnings despite his lack of experience, he chose to lie instead of admitting defeat, these choices snowball until the inevitable and final one: suicide. All for what? A place in history? A feeling of accomplishment? Perhaps. What is important to consider is whether this mans situation was inevitable.<br /><br />Each individual must ask himself if his natural human drive for fame and accomplishment would bring him to such recklessness, and I believe that examining your own reaction to Crowhurst's story will offer at least some answer to that question.
|
positive
|
In 1984, The Karate Kid had some charm to it, even if it was little more than a poor man's Rocky. Alas, producer Jerry Weintraub failed to realize it was best to leave the story at the point where it had ended, and convinced Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita to make an extra effort to turn the film into a trilogy. Part III was the definitive low in the franchise, yet someone must have thought the series still had some potential. What other explanation could there possibly be for the existence of The Next Karate Kid?<br /><br />Wait a minute. Next? Yep, Macchio's gone (at least he was smart enough to stop eventually), and his replacement is Hilary Swank (!), playing a troubled teenager (what else?) named Julie Pierce. Now, the girl has family issues. She also gets in trouble at school. Said school has a sadistic gym teacher (Michael Ironside). As it turns out, though, one of his students is actually a nice guy, and Julie falls for him. This gets her in bigger trouble than before, of course. Lucky for her, she is currently living with Mr. Miyagi (Morita), an old friend of her grandfather who happens to know how to get back at the bad guys.<br /><br />All those factors ad up to seven clichés, and that's just a generic plot summary - imagine what the detailed scenes must be like! From beginning to end, The Next Karate Kid is a tired, flat and dull marathon of idiotic lines and set-ups. Swank does, thankfully, have the likes of Boys Don't Cry and Million Dollar Baby to redeem this disaster, but why did Morita accept to come back? He may have received an Oscar nomination for the first movie, and was quite enjoyable in the sequels, but has nothing to speak for him here - even the revival of the "wax on, wax off" gag is stillborn. As for Ironside, he is slightly better than Martin Kove and Thomas Ian Griffith in Part III, but that's hardly a stretch.<br /><br />So, is this picture really that awful? Not exactly. There is one sequence that manages to achieve a weird beauty, but when the best bit in the whole film involves a group of Asian monks dancing as they hear pop music for the first time in their lives, it doesn't qualify as a recommendation to see the rest.
|
negative
|
I was on a mission to watch Uwe Boll movies to see if they were really as bad as all that. The first one I saw, BloodRayne, was not a complete loss. I liked it more than most people, and actually rated it a 4 out of 10. Next up was the first House of the Dead movie. Now THAT was horrifically bad. I could stand watching ten minutes of it, and fast-forwarding a bit, and that was it. I could see where it was going and I didn't need to see any more of it in order to rate it a just 1 out of 10.<br /><br />But I had access to the sequel, too (which however is not by Uwe Boll, but, mysteriously, written by the same guys who so incompetently wrote the first one), and since it got a higher rating at IMDb than the original, I thought I'd give it a chance. And I actually managed to watch all of it. It started out with some funny references and cool lines (like how the president got his orders from the vice-president!), and acting-wise it is light-years better than the first. Here we have cool muchachas like the ultra-hot Emmanuelle Vaugier, whose coolness is in league with Carrie-Anne Moss, Claudia Black and Evangeline Lilly. Man, I hope some Matrix-style movie comes along for her sometime. And the always delectable, super-aerobicized Victoria Pratt. I love athletic women. And, there was also Nadine Velazquez (Catalina on "My Name Is Earl"), who performed quite well.<br /><br />The story wasn't much, and the action wasn't great, either, and the ending was a disappointment, as they didn't succeed in their mission. Oh well, at least the two mains survived. Guess that's some small victory, too.<br /><br />Good cast, but a pretty bad movie. The actors make it watchable, but there's no real substance there.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
|
negative
|
This show is made for persons with IQ lower than 80. The jokes in the show are so lame. If you are on a deserted island and you do not have anything to do you will be better than to watch this garbage.... You will hate their accent their behavior and all the stupid jokes and pranks they try to perform...It really pisses me of that viewers gave Reba 6.7 on their voting...Sure i knew there are some people with IQ lower than 80 but what i did not know that there are so many of them! So people if you got to read this I hope that you will never ever download or buy this peace of garbage... I know it is not the place for his but i wish to recommend one much better mini-series 'Scrubs'
|
negative
|
I suppose that today this film has relevance because it was an early Sofia Loren film. She was 19 years old when the film was made in 1953.<br /><br />I viewed this film because I wanted to see some of Sofia Loren's early work. I was surprised when she came on camera having had her skin bronzed over in brown makeup to resemble an Ethiopian princess. Surely, today, this would have been viewed as a slur and to be avoided in movie making. It actually became annoying watching Ms. Loren in skin color paint throughout the film.<br /><br />Yes, this film would have been better made if the real opera singers had made this movie. Then, the singing and the actual facial gestures of the real artists would have been apparent. I discount the comments by others about whether the real opera singers are older and heavier in weight.<br /><br />As beautiful as Ms. Loren was at age 19 and still is today, the film would have been better received as though it were being performed on the stage. After all, we don't see beautiful young people on stage with "old opera singers" back stage singing from behind the curtain! Do not discount the success of using heavy-weight opera singers. One only has to refer to the most artistically produced television commercial for the J. G. Wentworth Company with the opera singers on stage singing so professionally the praises of the company's product. This is one of the best and entertaining TV commercials produced to date.<br /><br />The quality of the movie print also makes this production of a somewhat lesser quality. The color ink has faded much and that can not be helped.<br /><br />To improve this film on DVD the production company should add English language subtitles so that we, who do not speak Italian, can know what the lyrics are saying. It would help the story and teach it more than the narrator giving 30 seconds of introduction to the scenes.<br /><br />Watch this film not because of the story of Aida nor the fact that this is an opera. Aside from Ms. Sofia Loren none of her co-actors are known nor remembered by this writer. Instead, watch this movie if you are a fan of Ms. Loren and wish to see her at age 19 -- no matter what the production is.<br /><br />Larry from Illinois
|
negative
|
Flawlessly directed, written, performed, and filmed, this quiet and unpretentious Danish film is an example of cinema at its best, and if a person exists who can watch BABETTE'S FEAST without being touched at a very fundamental level, they are a person I do not care to know.<br /><br />The story is quite simple. In the 1800s, two elderly maiden ladies (Birgitte Federspiel and Bodil Kjer) reside in remote Jutland, where they have sacrificed their lives, romantic possibilities, and personal happiness in order to continue their long-dead father's religious ministry to the small flock he served. One of the women's youthful admirers sends to them a Frenchwoman, Babette (Stéphane Audran), whose husband and son have been killed in France and who has fled her homeland lest she meet the same fate. Although they do not really require her services, the sisters engage her as maid and cook--and as the years pass her cleverness and tireless efforts on their behalf enables the aging congregation to remain together and the sisters to live in more comfort than they had imagined; indeed, the entire village admires and depends upon her.<br /><br />One day, however, Babette receives a letter: she has won a lottery and is now, by village standards, a wealthy woman. Knowing that her new wealth will mean her return to France, the sisters grant her wish that she be allowed to prepare a truly French meal for them and the members of their tiny congregation. The meal and the evening it is served is indeed a night to remember--but not for reasons that might be expected, for Babette's feast proves to be food for both body and soul, and is ultimately her gift of love to the women who took her in and the villagers who have been so kind to her.<br /><br />The film is extraordinary in every way, meticulous in detail yet not overpowering in its presentation of them. As the film progresses, we come to love the characters in both their simple devotion to God and their all-too-human frailties, and the scenes in which Babette prepares her feast and in which the meal is consumed are powerful, beautiful, and incredibly memorable. There have been several films that have used food as a metaphor for love, but none approach the simple artistry and beauty of BABETTE'S FEAST, which reminds us of all the good things about humanity and which proves food for both body and soul. Highly, highly recommended.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
|
positive
|
if they gave me the option of negative numbers I'd use it. This movie was truly god-awful. I went into the theaters expecting it to be horrible, and it somehow managed to exceed my expectations.<br /><br />The script was weak, the acting was painful. I wanted to walk out but my friend was driving and wanted to get her moneys worth, I think we were both disappointed.<br /><br />The growing of the breasts when the girls got their super power and changing of the hair color was just wrong. Eddie Izzard just seemed wrong for the part of super villain, he came off as oddly weak and silly. Jenny Johnsons (Uma Thurman) came off as psychotic and strange, as did Matt's (Luke Wilson) friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson.
|
negative
|
A number of posters have commented on the unsatisfactory conclusion. This is always a problem with long, complex dramas. Crime is essentially banal, so the pay off is always anti-climactic, whilst detailed exposition detracts from the human drama. The writer has used a number of clever devices to try and get round this, but has not been entirely successful. Answers to precisely what happened and why may have been supplied, but if so they are well buried. The viewer inevitably feels a little cheated.<br /><br />But in a sense this is unimportant. The drama was never about the crime, or even the investigation, it was about the impact of events on the lives of those involved; the family, the investigators, the witnesses, the press. And as such it was gripping. The writing was a significant cut above the run of the mill for prime-time drama, and the performances uniformly good. In an ensemble piece it is invidious to focus on individuals, but Penelope Wilton deserves special mention for an extraordinary tour de force as the mother-wife-daughter, and Janet McTeer was in cracking form as a hard-bitten old cop.<br /><br />One of the most interesting aspects of the drama is the handling of race, as the elephant in the room that no-one is prepared to mention. Subtle, powerful stuff.
|
positive
|
What ever happened to shows with united parental figures? The parents in this show are nearly as irresponsible as the children. Instead of punishing the youngest child for being manipulative, they let her get away with murder. They can't ever agree on a course of action when it comes to dealing with the children, and instead they do nothing. Yeah, great plan. Just ignore their behavior because they're "cute." This show tells the already manipulative preteens that watch it that the "divide and conquer" technique is the best way to get their parents to "cave." The oldest children are constantly running amok and getting themselves into all sorts of impossible situations, but there are no consequences for their actions. Yeah, great television all right.
|
negative
|
as i said in the other comment this is one of the best teen movies of all time,and one of my personal favorites. to me this movie is the second best teen movie of all time. second only to the breakfast club. the last american virgin is also maybe the most honest teen movie of all time. it's underrated,and pretty much an unknown movie to a lot of people. it comes on TBS maybe once a year,but sometimes longer. the first half of this movie is a sex comedy with a few honest scenes. then the second half is pure honest,and most of the time serious. with only a few comic scenes. in my opinion this is the best soundtrack of all time. i've never heard this many great songs in one movie before. there are 4 love songs in this movie that i think are some of the best love songs in history. the movie is about a pizza boy named gary who is a virgin. hes in high school who has a couple of best friends. his two friends are sex-sarved teens. the first half of the movie is pretty much sexual misadventures. that are very funny. gary is major in love with the new girl in school. he later finds out that his best friend is going out with her. he also cheats on the side. you can feel the love gary has for this girl very much. you can feel it even more in the second half. gary's friend turns out to be a creep. but his other friend is pretty cool. the movie shows how mean people can be. you can relate to a lot of this movie. the plot sounds like your typcial teen sex comedy. but it's so much more than that. it's a very honest movie. it's also very 80ish which i love. if you love the 80's or grew-up in the 80's,rent this movie. but there may be some people that don't like the 80's,but still may like this movie. i first saw this movie back in 1987 i think. it's very entertaining,and very funny. it combines very touching moments with very funny moments. it's an underrated gem! i have the movie. i love it! i give the last american virgin ***1/2 out of ****
|
positive
|
After watching the first 20mn of Blanche(sorry I couldn't take more of it), I have now confirmed she does not. <br /><br />Basically, this "movie" is an insult to the real french actors participating in this farcical piece of junk. It starts from a concept successfully used in French comedies ("Deux heures moins le quart avant Jesus Christ", "La Folie des Grandeurs",...): a historical movie with anachronic tone / dialogues. This can give brilliant results if supported by brilliant actors and a "finesse" of direction avoiding the dreaded "heavy comedy" stigma.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the horsey-faced Lou Doillon ruins everything and Blanche, instead of a comedy, just turns into an horror movie. Horror to cinephiles who want to be puzzled and shocked watching fine actors such as Decaune, Zem or Rochefort struggling in the middle of this gaudy burlesque kitchy-prissy farce.
|
negative
|
This is the weakest of the series, not much of a plot and a rather odd-looking Wallace. But it's still pretty good, considering. A sign of greater things to come!<br /><br />6/10
|
negative
|
Delightful film directed by some of the best directors in the industry today. The film is also casting some of the great actors of our time, not just from France but from everywhere.<br /><br />My favorite segments:<br /><br />14th arrondissement: Carol (Margo Martindale), from Denver, comes to Paris to learn French and also to make a sense of her life.<br /><br />Montmartre: there was probably not a better way to start this movie than with this segment on romantic Paris.<br /><br />Loin du 16ème: an image of Paris that we are better aware of since the riots in the Cités. Ana (Catalina Sandino Moreno) spends more time taking care of somebody else's kid (she's a nanny) than of her own.<br /><br />Quartier Latin: so much fun to see Gérard Depardieu as the "tenancier de bar" with Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara discussing their divorce.<br /><br />Tour Eiffel: don't tell me you didn't like those mimes!<br /><br />Tuileries: such a treat to see Steve Buscemi as the tourist who's making high-contact (a no- no) with a girl in the Metro.<br /><br />Parc Monceau: Nick Nolte is great. Ludivine Sagnier also.<br /><br />I've spend 3 days in Paris in 2004 and this movie makes me want to go back!<br /><br />Seen in Barcelona (another great city), at the Verdi, on March 18th, 2007.<br /><br />84/100 (***)
|
positive
|
OK another film bought by me and Joe Swatman. OK this isn't the worst film i've reviewed this week but it still sucked royaly. we had a lot of fun watching this piece of crap.<br /><br />The Monster Jigsaw is a mish mash of all these dysfunctional students ideas, u just know ur in for trouble when someone equips him with a buzzsaw and a sawed of shotgun, the film wasn't as gory as we hoped, i mean on of the deaths is a heart attack. Again i think the acting sucks, sum of the actors must be porn stars and one get into her undies for what ever reason. <br /><br />The absolute worst part is the ending, it leaves it open for a bit of a Jigsaw 2 but thats never gunna happen lets face it.<br /><br />My ratings:<br /><br />funny 4/100 mock (how much fun we had mocking it) 73/100 acting 8/100 generally 12/100
|
negative
|
cool flick. enjoyable to watch. hope to see more from Fred Carpenter soon. i really like the location setting with all the new york references. it was interesting the way it all unfolds in the end. the suspense factor was effective and the acting, though kept simple, was also effective in portraying the characters. there are a bunch of neat little tricks incorporated into this film that make all the better. i think the supporting actress did a great job in her role. the casting and directing in this film seem to be sewn together seamlessly and the quality of the shooting is quite impressive. the movie is not without its soft moments either, which gives it a nice sense of balance.
|
positive
|
This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller. <br /><br />It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame. <br /><br />As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of. <br /><br />As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.<br /><br />Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible. <br /><br />Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?! <br /><br />In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't.
|
negative
|
Eytan Fox did it again : move the viewer's heart in a modest story taking place in an overwhelming mess. The movie also succeeds in describing so perfectly and subtly the atmosphere of the incredible city that is Tel Aviv.<br /><br />I was there a month ago and it is all there : the lifestyle, the relationships, the heart-beating city, the mess, the chock of utopian mindsets in the most light-hearted, blithe and oblivious megalopolis ever.<br /><br />Strongly recommend: it is a voyage for the heart and the mind, with an interesting perspective to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.<br /><br />Nota Bene: There is central gay plot in the movie. If you do not think you are too gay-friendly, be prepared to be challenged and finally see it as "just love". (and don't worry: the chick is hot too!)
|
positive
|
I personally found this movie to be terrible, first it was hardly objective, and provided one side of the debate. The only people who were presented as the side saying he did exist being a bunch of people coming from a Billy Grahm Revival. Secondly it deviated heavily from its supposed topic did Jesus (Yeshua) exist, to talking about how violent Christianity is, and showing scenes from Mel Gibsons "The Passion". In the end it has the director con his former Principal of a Conservative Private School into being interviewed, and attempts to trap him about teaching the kids there faith. Oh and also the Techno Music just made the film harder to watch.
|
negative
|
This documentary attempts comedy, but never quite gets there for me. Camp? Ehn, maybe. The more apt word that everyone will agree on -- and have a hard time avoiding in any review -- is kitsch. It dripped kitsch. It was as if the film makers had worried their viewers would take the movie too seriously, and so they bent over backwards to insert kitsch and proclaim, "We're joking around here! See???"<br /><br />In short, I felt it was trying too hard. For example, the sock puppets that introduced each scene were (to me) annoying when I'm sure they were meant to be amusing -- or at least (ahem) kitsch-ey.<br /><br />Do not, however, avoid this movie based on my complaints. Just be ready to revel in kitsch rather than having it thrust at you unprepared. If you're interested in lighthearted fare, you could do far, far worse. At the very least, the facts surrounding the rise and fall of the Bakers make this interesting and worth a view. At best, gaggles of like minded kitsch lovers will hoot and holler over choice bits throughout the film.
|
negative
|
Being an unrelenting non-stop over-the-top explosive melodrama, this movie is one of the worst action flicks ever produced, and utterly unbelievable in every way. The pace is constantly fever-pitched, and all the action and the actors are gripped by total hysteria. It is nigh unwatchable, and a stain - nay, a blotch - on the careers of everyone involved.<br /><br />The wildly exaggerated attempt at excitement undermines itself, resulting in a movie where you just go "Come on!" all the time. The setting and the events are impossible to take even remotely seriously. I can only rate this abomination a 1 out of 10.<br /><br />If you want to see a good asteroid movie, see Deep Impact, which is intense, sensitive and thoroughly engrossing. Everything Armageddon is not.
|
negative
|
DO NOT WATCH THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A FILM. I have wasted time and money on this and am pretty p**sed off about it.<br /><br />The acting is comparable with high school plays. The script is shocking. There is no plot. Twenty minutes from the end (which I believe I should be rewarded for reaching) I had a headache from all the screaming, crying and wailing the five girls make.<br /><br />The majority of the violence is (rare for a film nowadays) suggested rather than graphically depicted but I found the characters so damn irritating that I wanted to see them, and indeed every single person involved in the making of this piece of s**t, die in the most horrible ways possible.<br /><br />I spend ten more minutes of my life saving you from a very poor 100 minutes of yours. Don't do it.
|
negative
|
Boring children's fantasy that gives Joan Plowright star billing but little to do. Sappy kids pursue their dreams. Frankie wants to be a ballerina and a baseball player (yuk) while best-friend Hazel runs for mayor---she's 13! Totally pedestrian in every way, plus the added disadvantage of syrupy performances by the girls as well as the baseball boys. Certainly a lesser effort for Showtime---no limits?
|
negative
|
Intruder in the Dust (1949) Dir: Clarence Brown <br /><br />Production: MGM<br /><br />Excellent 'Southern Gothic' tale, adapted from the Faulkner novel, about a black man, accused of the murder of a white man, who asks a young white boy he has befriended to help him prove his innocence. Lucas Beauchamp (Juano Hernandez) is something of an anomaly in this small town. He's a black man who owns the land he lives on and doesn't think much of the diseased social order that mostly keeps the peace here and in many similar small towns. So when Lucas is found holding a gun over the dead body of Vinson Gowrie, shot in the back no less, young Chick Mallison (Claude Jarman) (who Lucas once saved after Chick fell through the ice while hunting on his land) fears that the town finally has the chance to "make Lucas a n*****." Arrested, and with a very real chance of being lynched before the night is through, Lucas reaches out to Chick for help, as the only person he knows "not cluttered with notions". Chick asks his Uncle John, a lawyer, to defend Lucas and while the man is initially bothered by his own notions he agrees and they race against the gathering mob to save Lucas' life.<br /><br />The film has an uncommon frankness for its time and is mostly free of moralizing. The lawyer character has a tendency to speak incredibly self-aware dialogue that sounds mostly like something from the printed page, but it has minimal impact on the tone. That's a credit to the rich characterization of everyone else. Juano Hernandez, who had mostly appeared in Oscar Micheaux films, is superb as the proud Lucas. Porter Hall as the murdered man's father, in maybe the best role I've ever seen him in, and Elizabeth Patterson as a plucky old lady sympathetic to Lucas' case, standout in support roles. The setting is perfectly realized. It is actually filmed in Oxford, Mississippi, Faulkner's hometown. Brown also uses the crowd in an effective way, it's always an anonymous mob against a single person (like Lucas when he's arrested or John when he's going up to his office), that is very threatening. Or the grotesquerie of the whole town gathering at the jailhouse to witness the lynching like it was a parade. Of note is an absolutely riveting scene when Chick and his friend Aleck go evidence gathering in a cemetery. Robert Surtees (THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO, BEN-HUR) shot the picture. <br /><br />*** 1/2 out of 4
|
positive
|
i say the domino principle is an enormously underappreciated film.anyone who has taken the time to investigate our contemporary history of conspiracies;jfk, rfk, mlk,g.wallace and in fact numerous others can only draw the conclusion that the author of the domino principle really knew what he was talking about.roy tucker could be lee harvey oswald or james earl ray or sirhan sirhan or arthur bremer maybe even john hinkley or timothy mcveigh.to mention a few.the conspiracy scenario involving spies, big business and political assassinations is not really a fiction but an ominous part of our convoluted existential history.god help us,but the domino principle is more fact than fantasy.if this causes a little loss of sleep, maybe it should.don't take my word for it,investigate for yourselves.
|
positive
|
Ok, first of all, I am a huge zombie movie fan. I loved all of Romero's flicks and thoroughly enjoyed the re-make of Dawn of the Dead. So when I had heard every single critic railing this movie I was still optimistic. I mean, critics hated Resident Evil, and while it may not be a particularly great film, I enjoyed it if not for the fact that it was just a fun zombie shoot-em up with a half decent plot. This however, is pure crap. Terrible dialogue, half-assed plot, and video game scenes inserted into the film. Who in their right mind thought that was a good idea. The only thing about this movie (I use the term loosely) that I enjoyed was Jurgen Prochnow as Captain Kirk (Ugh). While his name throws originality out the window, you can see in his performance that he knows he's in a god awful film and he might as well make the best of it. Everyone else acts as if they're doing Shakespeare. And very badly I might add. Basically the only reason anyone should see this monstrosity is if you a.) Are a huge zombie buff and must see every zombie flick made or b.) Like to play MST3K, the home game. See it with friends and be prepared for tons of unintentional laughs.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
This is not the stuff of soap-operas but the sort of conundrums that real people face in real life. A testament to the ensemble and director for the powerful story-telling of fallible characters trying to cope but not quite succeeding.
|
positive
|
Far more sprightly, and less stage and set bound than Gene Saks' previous efforts Barefoot in the Park(67) and The Odd Couple (68), Cactus Flower is not a work of art, but compared to most of the tired farces from the 60's like The Apartment, How to Murder Your Wife, Goodbye Charlie, A Guide for the Marrried Man, Divorce, American Style, Any Wednesday, Kiss Me Stupid, Boys Night Out, it's a masterpiece. Director Saks and writer I.A.L. Diamond have effectively "opened up" Abe Burrows' Broadway hit, and the film benefits greatly from New York City location shooting and excellent performances from Ingrid Bergman and Goldie Hawn. Bergman is charming, looks great, and demonstrates a flair for comedy. Hawn in her Oscar winning role has never been better or more appealing. Matthau is OK though it's hard to believe that Hawn's character would be so enamored of him. And in retrospect, Hawn's attempted suicide at the start of the film is out of character and unbelievable. Nonetheless, the film has a plausible farcical set up, and once it gets going it generates laugh. Rick Lenz, Jack Weston, Eve Bruce, and Vito Scotti provide good support. The film is likable and fun, and Hawn and Bergman make you care.
|
positive
|
''The Sentinel'' is one of the best horror movies already made in the movie's Industry! I think it is very scary as very few movies actually are. Alison Parker is a model with some fame. She dates a lawyer called Michael Lerman, and has as a best friend, another model called Jennifer. Everything was great in her life, until she decides to live alone for some time and rents a beautiful and old apartment.<br /><br />The problem are her neighbors, who are very, VERY strange. Suddenly Alison starts to have health problems and faints with frequency; She also remembers some painful facts about her past that makes her have nightmares or illusions. But everything has a reason, and it has to do with the new house she is living...<br /><br />I personally find ''The Sentinel'' a very creepy movie, and along with ''The Exorcist'' they are two of the scariest movies I already watched. When we discover that Alison's house is only occupied by the priest and herself my blood froze! It's also horrible to see that she needs to become blind in the end of the movie in order to be the new sentinel to keep the monsters away from our world.
|
positive
|
The first murder scene is one of the best murders in film history(almost as good as the shower scene in Psycho) and the acting by Robert Walker is fantastic.A psychopath involved with tennis star in exchange murders.That´s the story and overall this film is very good but theres one problem:why dosen´t Guy Haines go to the cop in the first place.4/5<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Its hard to make heads or tails of this film. Unless you're well oiled and in the mood to mock, don't view Santa Claus. It mixes Santa, Satan, Merlin, and moralizing in a most unappetizing way. It certainly is not for fretful children.
|
negative
|
I put this second version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" to my Top 10 Hitchcock movies. Together with "Frenzy", it's probably the most argued film among the fans of Hitchcock. I consider it far better than, say, "Rebecca", which has gained unreasonably much appreciation.<br /><br />The film contains many ingenious scenes (most of them have been mentioned in other reviews), but that's something to be expected from Hitchcock. It takes almost half an hour until things really start to happen, but that time is used for preparing the following happenings, which are full of intriguing suspense.<br /><br />If you can ignore the clumsy rear projections, the only weakness of this film is the main villain, played by Bernard Miles, who is a rather flat and undeveloped character. Luckily, there is a creepy assassin in the form of Reggie Nalder. And Hank, the little boy, isn't as irritating as most kids in old movies.
|
positive
|
A truly disturbed, cannibalistic psychopath, John(Gary Kent, under the pseudonym Michael Brody) who lives in a cave, stalks campers who make the unfortunate mistake of backpacking in his wilderness. Steve(Dean Russell)and his buddy Charlie(John Batis)get into a playful argument with their wives, Sharon(Tomi Barrett, the late real-life wife of Gary Kent))& Teddi(Ann Wilkinson)over surviving in the woods camping by themselves. To prove a point, the gals decide to head for the wilderness out of Los Angeles for a camping trip disturbing their partners to the point that they soon follow afterward. Falling prey to John, Teddi is soon killed as Sharon runs for her life as the men arrive late to the wilderness due to their truck's overheating. Afraid, tired, and paranoid, Sharon receives some very unusual assistance..John's ghost children! That's right, John's children remain in the wilderness, ghostly apparitions which spy on those who exist in the woods, taking a special liking to Sharon, helping guide her to safety and her friends. Meanwhile, Steve and Charlie soon find shelter from a down pour and the darkness of night in the very cave where John lives. Cooking over a burning fire, the meat simmering is actually from Charlie's wife, Teddi! Unknowingly Charlie eats from the meat when offered by John who finds the outsiders inside his dwelling place! Anyway, soon, worried about their wives, Steve and Charlie set out to find them as morning breaks. Meanwhile, John goes a hunting, with Charlie, Steve, and Sharon in a fight for survival. When Steve suffers a compound fracture stumbling between two massive rocks over a flowing river, he will be handicapped only increasing such an already nightmare scenario, with Sharon following her ghostly young friends to potential safety..they even, at one point, plead with their father to not kill her. Charlie, unfortunately, doesn't have such friends.<br /><br />Director Donald Jones(..who also wrote it and went broke funding the film)smartly shoots the film in such a breathtaking, gorgeous location in the Sequoia National Park, in California, where those gargantuan trees tower to great heights, and I basically watch backwoods slashers for this very purpose. For some strange reason, I didn't particularly find Jones' direction of the setting very atmospheric..the dread was missing, although there are some rather disturbing attacks by John using his knife(..shot in a clever way, Jones' camera suggests more than what is actually on screen, yet, somehow, still achieves that gasp at what John is doing to victims). Within such a picturesque landscape, to see innocents preyed upon by a maniac, that kind of increases the terror. City folk attempting to spend a nice few days in a different place, to smell the clean, fresh air, enjoy the sights of a lovely view, only to find themselves stalked by a creepy predator with a very intimidating knife. Providing the back-story to why John is the monster he is, Jones allows us to witness his memory flashback in discovering his wife's adultery and reacting accordingly(..she is also a ghost in the wilderness looking for her children, wishing to punish them for "being naughty")killing both her and the lover in bed(..a refrigerator repairman). The children, sad and depressed committed suicide and now "haunt" the wilderness, still interacting with their pa or whoever they so choose. I realize such a novelty as ghost children in a backwoods slasher is unique and appreciated by some, but I found the idea rather hokey and too silly to take serious. They do help our heroine escape a few potentially dangerous situations, but it was awfully hard for me to keep from giggling uncontrollably. The music I found hideously 80's and the performances aren't mind-blowing. I mean I could react to the situation they were in, because it is indeed quite terrifying to find yourselves in an unfamiliar and hostile territory being hunted by someone who knows the area so well. I think the film is similar in many ways to DON'T GO INTO THE WOODS..ALONE!, except that THE FOREST has the aforementioned ghost children(..their voices echo when talking to Sharon, their father, or each other). Gary Kent looks like a filthy George Lucas, with tattered clothes, and humanity lost. As I mentioned above, the violence isn't as grisly as what is suggested because director Jones is able to effectively cut away from a great deal of knife penetration, yet the way he stages the set pieces leave you rather unsettled(..such as Teddi's murder, the violence mostly silhouetted on the surface of a nearby huge stone formation, her pleas for John to stop and, once stabbed several times, attempts to crawl away from her predator only to be finished off;a hanging corpse John is skinning). I've seen better and worse of this type of slasher film, it's rather mediocre, at best, with some effectively shot scenery. I don't really think it's particularly memorable, for the exception of the ghost children.
|
negative
|
There were a lot of dumb teenage getting sex movies of the 80s and a lot of slasher flicks but there were only a handful that were made with thought, made you laugh and captured the time period right; this was one of them. Cage is Hillarious, so is Forman who from her bio unfortuatley has dissapeared from the Hollywood limelight. I'd love to see this released on DVD with in a special version with commentaries by Cage and Forman. Wishful thinking, I know. Ever want to plan a true 80s movie weekend, rent this, Sure Thing and 16 candles and Breakfast Club. It will take you back to a "Totally Rad" time which it seemed at the time, was a lot more simple. Memo to studios: Time to release the DVD!
|
positive
|
Before I saw this movie I believed there were two kinds of bad cinema. (1) Your average, completely uninspired fare (i.e. "Constantine"), and (2) the work that is charmingly bad, or so-bad-it's good (a la "Manos The Hands of Fate"). Now that I've seen "Dr. Gore" I know there is a third kind of bad movie: the utter crap sandwich. That will be irrevocably tattooed on your memory. A work that is mind-bendingly execrable. Anathema.<br /><br />I have hated certain films before, but I've never hated a film so much that my loathing reached its thresh-hold and became SELF loathing! Have you seen a movie that not only makes you regret losing the hour you spent watching it, but makes you grieve for another hour after that? Mystery Science Theatre disciples beware, this is soul-sucking cinema. Go Rent "Circle of Iron" or "The Killer Shrews" instead.
|
negative
|
I have no idea what on earth, or beyond, could have possibly made Sam Mraovich believe that this would have been a worthy project to undertake. Ben & Arthur is one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, I see no reason why it should not be at #1 on the Bottom 100. For although I have not seen, for example, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#5 at the time of this publication), I would venture to guess that that film is considerably better than this oozing wound, because even in its vapid dismalness at least Baby Geniuses 2 was professionally made. By contrast, everything, and I do mean everything, in this film is completely unprofessional.<br /><br />The movie is intended to be an attack on the Christian Right's supposed bigotry and hatred toward gays. And I do emphasize "intended." Not only does it completely and utterly fail at its purpose, it also leaves an ugly scar. Instead of creating a compelling and realistic portrait of a gay couple's struggle against a society that largely opposes them, it creates tired, crass stereotypes of each party involved. Ben and Arthur, the namesake couple, are portrayed as two crude, sex-starved, and hopelessly romantic cardboard cutouts who marry when the laws change to allow them to do so. This meets with the opposition of Ben's brother Victor, a Christian minister who, like all Christians (as this movie would have us believe), is loud, prying, stupid, and violent. He tries to kill Ben and Arthur after his associations with them get him kicked out of the ministry. Just like in real life. And if you think that's dreadful (it is), you haven't seen it all.<br /><br />The actors (?) here manage to completely destroy any vestige of credibility in this movie by saying their lines as if they were narrating a YouTube home comedy video. But not even Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando as the title characters could have saved this clunker, for there would still be the matter of the completely inane and laugh-inducing dialogue that fills every minute of the movie. Every scene has at least one awkward or misplaced quote. For example, in one scene, Victor tries to complain about not being able to have nieces or nephews because of his brother's homosexuality. But instead of portraying this idea clearly, he spits out the stupid, utterly confusing, whiny-sounding line, "You know what, I'm never going to have any nieces or nephews, okay, because you're so F***ED UP!"<br /><br />Even more glaring is the complete lack of production values. Yes, I know this ain't The Dark Knight, but even amateur film makers should know some basics about special effects and editing. For example, six dots of red cake dye do not suffice for realistic bullet wounds. People do not teleport across a room between takes. And objects do not fall FORWARD when shot! <br /><br />Do not waste your money on Ben & Arthur. I don't care if you're 7, 17, or 107. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or undecided. I don't care if you're "just curious." I don't care what pathetic reason you may have to be tempted to buy this dung-heap. Stay away, far away. This movie's only redeeming quality is its ability to be used as a Frisbee.
|
negative
|
We have high expectations with this one . . . because its Zombi 3 the official sequel to Zombi 2 and directed by Lucio Fulci . . . however . . . its co-directed by Bruno Mattei (from Night of the Zombies) and not written by Dardino Sachetti but by Claudio Fagrasso (Night of the Zombies) and its shot in the Phillimines like Night of the Zombies and resembles Night of the Zombies (Hell of the Living Dead) a lot. as a result its more like a companion to Hell of the Living Dead than Zombi 2. Fabrazio DeAngelis who produced Zombi 2 and its editor Tomassi (?) and efx gianetto De Rossi gave Zombi 2 its magic . . . Zombi 3 is not magical . . . its like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich without the peanut-butter. But over the years, I've grown to accept Zombi 3. I could swear I saw a version where a soldier was bitten on the arm and went to the hotel room . . . there was a senseless Fulci-cut and the Mattei/Fulci-cut is the one on DVD.
|
positive
|
I watched this film alone, in the dark, and it was full moon outside! I didn't do it in purpose, it just happened in this way. So all the elements were there for this film to scare the hell out of me!! Well, it didn't, in fact i wanted to shut off the DVD player after only 8 minutes, but i thought come on give it a chance, unfortunately i did. The acting was awful, the only one with some decent acting was Samaire Armstrong. The plot is not original, if you are a horror fan then it is just the same stuff you have seen many times before. Some scenes didn't make sense at all, and you just get the feeling that the director wanted to make the movie longer! The monster was the biggest disappointment of the movie. The (scary) scenes looked like they belong to a horror movie from the 80s when there was not enough technology, yet some good movies were made back then! I was surprised to see the name of a major production company at the beginning of the movie, i thought couldn't they put some money in this and make it decent?!! I couldn't agree more with the ratings that the movie got, it is also my rating for it, 3 out of 10.
|
negative
|
Another well done moral ambiguity pieces where the anti-hero makes it hard to decide who to root for.<br /><br />If nothing else "The Beguiled" silenced anyone who said there were no good parts for actresses in movies-at least in 1971. There were four excellent parts for actresses in this film and all were well cast and well executed.<br /><br />Pamelyn Ferdin did a fine job as Amy and would go on to play "Wanda June". This must have been the first time an adult male box office star shared an extended kiss with a twelve-year-old girl on camera, wonder if there was much controversy about this at the time. It was probably Polanski's favorite scene. Given the fate of Amy's turtle "Randolph", it is no surprise that Ferdin grew up to be a hardcore animal rights activist.<br /><br />Geraldine Page was likewise excellent, playing a complex character with just the right amount of restraint. It is interesting that she died just three days after Elizabeth Hartman committed suicide (throwing herself through a fifth floor window) as they had also worked together in "You're a Big Boy Now".<br /><br />Hartman (who looks like she could be Blair Brown's sister) was wonderful as Edwina and should have gotten an Oscar (no other performance was even close that year), but given what we now know about her you wonder just how much of her performance was a studied effort and how much just came from inside her. Edwina shows such raw pain it is difficult to watch. Like Marilyn Monroe's incredible performance in "The Misfits", the viewer is probably seeing a whole lot of her own demons in the character she is playing.<br /><br />Finally there is Jo Ann Harris who is stunningly perfect as the flirty Carol. For my money Harris was the sexiest actress of the 1970's, combining sensuality with intelligence and humor. She was the best reason to watch the "Most Wanted" television series and the only reason to watch "Wild Wild West Revisited". Hard to believe that someone who could bring all that to the screen never became a big star.
|
positive
|
A fascinating relic of the turbulent cultural/political aura of the late 60s (taking in the class struggle as well) which, ironically, in view of its outdated and occasionally embarrassing conservative views, makes full use of the permissiveness that prevailed for a while in mainstream cinema and which came about as a direct result of the liberal attitude it purports to criticize! Norman Wexler's incisive Oscar-nominated script is superbly enacted by Peter Boyle (in a powerhouse performance) who manages to make his garrulous, down-to-earth yet hypocritical and opportunistic character (with a barely-disguised fascist streak which comes to the fore in the remarkable violent conclusion) likable, even admirable; indeed, he comes across uncannily like a flabbier version of the young Marlon Brando! Similar to other generation gap movies of its era like TAKING OFF (1971) and HARDCORE (1978) but also nihilistic vigilante films like DEATH WISH (1974) and TAXI DRIVER (1976) - interestingly enough, two of these also feature Boyle - JOE ultimately emerges as an engrossing and powerful drama which could have been a masterpiece if it had had a more experienced director at the helm...
|
positive
|
Considering it's basically low-budget cast, this is a surprisingly good flick about the life and death of rock pioneer Buddy Holly. Gary Busey stars as Holly, who was one of the first to use an electric guitar for pretty much all his music. Backed up by his Crickets, Holly had a string of hits and became a bona fide star before his death in a plane crash along with Richie Valens and The Big Bopper. The film follows his rise to stardom, marriage to his sweetheart and eventual death. I like this film and believe that you will too. Charles Martin Smith also does a great job in this film.
|
positive
|
what a refreshing change from the PG movies that have teen girls jumping in and out of bed, young high school boys counting how many girls they can "hook up" with, kids drinking, doing drugs, etc., etc., etc. Carl Hiaasen has written so many books that are enjoyable but hardly classic literature. but he has finally written something that Middle School kids WANT to read. And this movie sends a message to kids that maybe they can make a difference, that maybe their voices can be heard. Filmed in South Florida, the scenery is beautiful and natural and REAL. Who cares if its predictable, and a little corny. So was FREE WILLY and look how well that did. This is a good family movie..........a rare breed.
|
positive
|
The way i found out about this movie was when i watched American pie 2, at the start it had a trailer for Ali G indahouse, i watched the trailer and it just forced me to buy the DVD, it looked incredibly funny! so the next day, i went to my local store and picked it up for £3.99 (Bargain!). The film is about Ali G, who is a "gangster" of the west staines massive crew, who's rivals are the east staines massive crew. Ali has a "Cub Scout" pack of children where he teaches them how to survive in the "ghetto" by teaching them how to swear and steal cars, after Ali finds out the government are stopping the money coming to the leisure centre where Ali teaches the kids, he runs for MP for staines and overthrows another MP in his attempts to get rid of the leisure centre to make room for an airport in staines. Throughout the film there are laughs aplenty as Ali gets up to some crazy stuff! Borat makes an appearance for a few seconds in the film too, this is a definite must watch film for all you Sacha Baron Cohen fans out there!
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.