review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
If it wasn't for the terrific music, I would not hesitate to give this cinematic underachievement 2/10. But the music actually makes me like certain passages, and so I give it 5/10.
|
negative
|
Saw this my last day at the festival, and was glad I stuck around that extra couple of days. Poetic, moving, and most surprisingly, funny, in it's own strange way. It's so rare to see directors working in this style who are able to find true strangeness and humor in a hyper-realistic world, without seeming precious, or upsetting the balance. Manages to seem both improvised, yet completely controlled. It I hesitate to make comparisons, because these filmmakers have really digested their influences (Cassavetes, Malick, Loach, Altman...the usual suspects) and found their own unique style, but if you like modern directors in this tradition (Lynne Ramsay, David Gordon Greene), you're in for a real treat. This is a wonderful film, and I hope more people get to see it. If this film plays in a festival in your city, go! go! go!
|
positive
|
I've tried to watch this show several times, but for a show called "That '70s Show," I don't find much apart from a few haircuts and the occasional reference to disco that actually evokes the '70s -- the decade in which I grew up. Of the episodes I have seen, most of the plots and jokes could be set in any time period. Take away the novelty of (supposedly) being set in the '70s, and the show is neither interesting nor funny.<br /><br />If you're looking for a show that more successfully represents the experience of youth in America in the '70s, in my humble opinion you can do no better than "The Wonder Years."
|
negative
|
Absolutely laughable film. I live in London and the plot is so ill-researched it's ridiculous. No one could be terrorised on the London Underground. In the short time it is not in service each night there are teams of maintenance workers down there checking the tracks and performing repairs, etc. That there are homeless people living down there is equally unlikely. Or that it's even possible to get locked in and not have access to a mobile phone in this day and age...<br /><br />The worst that's likely to happen if someone did find themselves there after the last train is that they might get graffiti sprayed on them. Although this has been coming under control due to the massive number of security cameras on the network, another thorn in the side of the story. (Remember in London as a whole we have more security cameras than any other city in the world.)<br /><br />If it had been set in a city I am not familiar with perhaps I could have enjoyed it through ignorance, but it's not a high quality film so I just couldn't bring myself to suspend my disbelief and try and enjoy it for the banal little tale that it is.<br /><br />I would have given it 0/10 if such a rating existed! Possibly the most disappointing film I ever thought I would like.
|
negative
|
This is a top car flick (Its a work of art/ YER a work of art!) all classic cars no plastic fantastic, I have watched it over & over again I have worn out two video tapes, And will wear out lots more. Lots more car lovers young or old will love this film & watch it more than 1 time! so hire it or buy it (just see it) I wish they would make more (car) movies like this V8 power not gassed up little whipper snippers!!!!<br /><br />(shes a 351 right?)(motor magic) (the heap the chariot)<br /><br />(you've got to learn to feel the power)
|
positive
|
I shouldn't like Jackass Number Two. No one should. There is and never has been anything particularly redeeming about Jackass. And yet...it's one of the funniest things I have ever seen - and I simply cannot explain why.<br /><br />This new movie leaves the first one in the dust. It's so funny, so horrible and so wrong. The whole team give their all - with Jackss in chief Knoxville leading the charge. He's nuts. I adore him, but he's insane. And more power to him. With his burgeoning film career he could have sat back and just let everyone else do the dirty work, but the fact that he threw himself, almost literally, back into the world of the 'Ass so wholeheartedly makes me oddly respect him. More kudos must go to Bam Margera who previously seemed content to sit back and just make sure everyone around him did pretty much what he wanted. Here Bam isn't the tormentor but the tormented and is all the better for it.<br /><br />I simply can't say what my favourite part is because I laughed the whole way through. Admittedly I viewed much of the movie from between my fingers, but there hasn't been a 'real' movie I've seen in a very long time that made me feel as invigorated as this did. Love them or most probably hate them, the Jackass team have delivered above and beyond my expectations. But I do agree with Bam. There can never be a Jackass number three because someone will die and I want these guys to stick around.
|
positive
|
Really bad Italian horror movie, a sort of remake of Hammer infamous Frankenstein must be destroyed, this time with a lady Frankenstein taking over the business from father. A few nudes, several botched bits of dialogue, no tension at all. forgettable
|
negative
|
The men can slaver over Lollo, if they like (or her lollos--she gave her name to a slang terms for breasts in French), but the ladies have an even tastier morsel in the divine Gerard Philipe, who is not only beautiful but can act. Don't be deterred if your version has no subtitles because in this simple, dashing story of love and war, in which all is fair, they are not needed. All you need know is that, at the beginning of the film, Lollobrigida reads Philipe's palm and tells him he will marry the daughter of the king. Thereafter the story is quite plain from the Gallic gestures and the running, jumping, and swordplay.<br /><br />On the minus side, the obviousness of the story and the heavy-handed facetiousness of the tone become somewhat wearying, and it is annoying that the French apparently consider themselves too superior to Hollywood to bother even attempting the plausibility of its exciting stunts. And of course the non-French-speaker misses the occasional bit of ooh-la-la, such as: Virtuous girl: I must tell you that my heart belongs to Fanfan. Seducer: My dear, what made you think I was interested in that bagatelle?
|
positive
|
Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.<br /><br />I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.<br /><br />It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment.
|
negative
|
In my book "Basic Instinct" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!<br /><br />This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the "There is no smoking in this room" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away! <br /><br />I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film!
|
negative
|
I went to see this film based on the review by Siskel and Ebert; not only did I get duped, but I took some friends along, and had to spend the rest of the day profusely apologizing for making them sit through this pointless crap. After this, I never went to see a movie based solely on Siskel & Ebert's advice.
|
negative
|
I'm going to be generous here and give it a 3 only because I live in Huntsville and it was great to see how well the city was filmed. That said, this movie was pretty bad. It's like they started off with hardly any script and the director just told the actors to stare at each other meaningfully with a lot of music playing over it. And Billy D. Williams looked like he'd rather be anywhere but in this movie. It's just a mess. I think I could write a script better than the dislodge for this film, and I'm no writer.<br /><br />There is one thing I've seen mentioned throughout the reviews and message boards--everyone is under the impression that the movie begins around World War 2 and actually it seemed more like it was supposed to start out in the late 1950's/early 1960's. While the military was not segregated by then, I'm pretty sure that any troops waiting to board a train would still be segregated in a place like Huntsville, Al. If the beginning of film was supposed to be the 1940's, then Billy D, Lesley Ann & Rae Dawn would have to have been in the 70's and 80's instead of their mid 50's or early 60's.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you really, really like the actors because the story isn't very interesting.
|
negative
|
In the world of "shorts" (most of which aren't), this film is a gem.<br /><br />A quiet, concise peek into the world of a young woman who's a reader for a blind woman, here the stellar Elizabeth Franz - this film bears the textures, layers and visual storytelling of a sumptuously painted still life.<br /><br />The dialogue is minimal, the cinematography is stunning, and the direction sure, clear and compelling. I saw this film in a film festival held in a loud and crowded Tribeca bar - and within the first two minutes (and for the first time that night), the crowd fell quiet.<br /><br />That says it all.
|
positive
|
A teenage film about angst, friendship, loyalty and growing-up
but this isn't a happy outing on its part due to the circumstances and life-changing dilemmas surrounding the premise. What eventuates is quite numbing, haunting and downright cold. However I was expecting something a little more powerful and effective and while engrossing and unforgettable it didn't entirely stir up much in the way of emotions. The performances are reasonably a mixed bag, but there's a brutal honesty to them all. Dennis Hopper and especially Daniel Roebuck are amazing
Crispin Glover eccentrically over does it and Keanu Reeves' dead as wood turn seems to pay off in his custom slacker role. Joshua John Millar is quite good and so is Ione Skye. Jim Metzler chimes in with a short, but highly engaging performance. The story is dramatically confronting, character-laced and harrowing in its eventual breakdown where it infuses a gritty and painful punch. Jürgen Knieper's swirling music score is simmering with anxiety, tension and wonder as the morals and commitments are tested and learnt.
|
positive
|
This is an excellent example of an entreatingly bad b-movie. There are worse movies than this one (Titanic for example), but this definitely shares the pile of steaming crap movies.<br /><br />OK this was apparently shot in Kansas City, which explains why everyone is so lame. The main guy looks like Steve Guttenberg, and is even more lame than him! I didn't even think that was possible! In fact, him and the main girl in the movie are responsible for the WORST DRAMA EVER! Its not just that there acting was waaaaaaaaay over-dramatic, well actually it was, of course the script was terrible which combines for a deadly one-two punch in bad terrible utterly unwatchable drama.<br /><br />The scarecrow, lets talk about him. The whistling you hear every time he's around is stupid, and obviously dubbed in. Now his costume, I cannot get over that - its a guy wearing burlap sacks and a stupid mask! I simply am dumbfounded, maybe if your 3 years old with brain damage you'd be scared of him/it.<br /><br />One of the characters, the token black guy actually, used the line: "This might be a chance to earn my red wings" when referring to trying to score with one of the girls on her period. Wow, um yea, that is the kind of dialogue you can look forward to.<br /><br />Oh, in the beginning when the scantily clad girl is running through the corn, why is it roped off? I'm pretty sure its not supposed to be evident, just one of the many obvious mistakes made throughout this 'film' Another is the bad dubbing for the musical number (yup thats right), there all at the beach, and the one dorkaziod gets up the courage to sing a song and play guitar for everyone, and its so obviously dubbed its funny. Thankfully, the scarecrow answers all our prayers and throws a spear right through the guy's chest when he's done singing. Overall the gore like that is pretty good, this is one of those films when you rooting for these people to be killed by the killer.<br /><br />OK, there's a scene where the 2 guys bury one of their friends in the sand, then stand up, whip out their peni, and urinate all over the guy in the sand. Who does this? Really, imagine it "Hey, lets bury joe in the sand, then stand up and take out our genitals like its no big deal and pee on him" In fact, this brings up the homo-eroticism in this film, what the hell? A good part of the beginning of this movie is the jocks standing around in there underwear in the locker room and corn field while there doing the hazing. What the hell is with that? Traditionally, in film and real life, jocks get the girls and nerds don't. That really doesn't make sense as all nerds think of is girls and sex, and apparently all jocks think of is sports and being around each other in their underwear, I don't get it.<br /><br />Lets get to the sex. As someone who watched this movie with me put it: "I've never been so disgusted by heterosexual sex in my life" and its true. If you like hot A cup action, or ugly old woman boobs, then this film is for you. I swear, they found a girl with the smallest breasts ever and this is who they get to do the nude scene?? Then the ugly old woman nurse shows her bouncy ones a couple of times, and man, I just didn't want to see that.<br /><br />Now, I have to talk about the timeline continuity to this film, thats what really is just bizarre. It starts in the daytime, then they all head to the cornfield, and within like 2 minutes its instantly dark middle of the night, when they drive off from there saying their going to the beach - its instantly day again, and apparently they stay at the beach until night again, and until day the next day. SO basically these events in the film cover 4 days, without any of the characters needing sleep or anything, its really weird.<br /><br />After the main killings have taken place, it flash forwards to '3 weeks later' and apparently none of these people actually care that they saw their friends brutally murdered! The surviving people literally pop some champaign! And thats when I realized the budget didn't go to the script, directing or acting, it all went to that freakin bottle of champaign.<br /><br />The ending. Stop reading now if you don't want the ending spoiled for you, it truly is enjoyable.<br /><br />OK, so the end takes place in a church, and the scarecrow put his soul inside the diabetes kid body, then he fights with the steve guttenberg lookalike guy, and he fights him with a b-movie version of the power the emperor had in star wars! I'm not kidding, its so stupid! So somehow, in the middle of the fight, the scarecrow's soul jumps bodies into the guttenberg jr. guy, and then with the last amount of will he has of his own, he impales himself on a cross in the church! Its awesome! Some blood, but whats even better is that the cross is obviously cardboard! You can see the bottom move off the ground! Wow, yea have fun watching.
|
negative
|
How can someone NOT like this movie??? This movie is so good, that the first week I saw it on the shelf at the video store it was stolen....BEST Horror Movie Ever!!!....I mean he took the Carrot and he...well you know HAHAHA..How is that NOT funny? The only movie that comes close to touching this is Bride of Chucky and that was just great!!
|
positive
|
Naturally in a film who's main themes are of mortality, nostalgia, and loss of innocence it is perhaps not surprising that it is rated more highly by older viewers than younger ones. However there is a craftsmanship and completeness to the film which anyone can enjoy. The pace is steady and constant, the characters full and engaging, the relationships and interactions natural showing that you do not need floods of tears to show emotion, screams to show fear, shouting to show dispute or violence to show anger. Naturally Joyce's short story lends the film a ready made structure as perfect as a polished diamond, but the small changes Huston makes such as the inclusion of the poem fit in neatly. It is truly a masterpiece of tact, subtlety and overwhelming beauty.
|
positive
|
This movie is not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.
|
negative
|
After seeing The Aristocats: Special Edition in a two pack with The Fox in the Hound, I decided to buy it since both of these films were childhood favourites.<br /><br />The Aristocats is a classic, definitely. It might not be a five-star classic, but it is a fun film and makes a good evening's entertainment. It is somewhat a light refreshment from the darker, more serious Disney classics. The Aristocats tries to be a light-hearted musical comedy, and I think it just about succeeds.<br /><br />The storyline doesn't really make much sense and I don't think the plot is particularly strong, but it is certainly not weak. The animation and backgrounds are a bit scratchy in places, typical of Disney's 70s films, but it does have a rustic, old fashioned charm about it.<br /><br />The Aristocats strongest points are the characters, the music and the humour. The music is very memorable - try getting 'Everybody Wants To Be A Cat' out your head in a hurry! The songs are written by the Sherman Brothers, who also did the music for The Jungle Book. There was one song called 'She Never Felt Alone' that was going to be in the film, but sadly didn't make it into the final feature. It is a shame, because I think it would have fit in very well.<br /><br />The characters are unforgettable. Thomas O'Malley is voiced by Phil Harris, and is basically Baloo in a feline form. Eva Gabor gives Duchess this warm and maternal feel and the kitten's voices actually sound like children, and not an actor imitating the voice of a child. The secondary characters are here by the dozen and yet you still end up understanding their personalities. Edgar, the 'villainous' butler plays a similar role to Cruella De Vil, but he's more comical than scary, often ending up in funny situations. Even though he's the bad guy, he's still lovable all the same.<br /><br />The two British geese - Abigail and Amelia really had me cracking up, along with their crazy (and drunk) uncle. I also like the dogs, who tend to argue over who is 'the leader.' I could go on, but I won't spoil it. But I can tell you, The Aristocats is funny and will entertain everyone without having to resort to rudimentary toilet humour.<br /><br />The bottom line - The Aristocats might not be Disney's crowning achievement, or even their strongest film from the 70s (that award is a tie between The Rescuers and The Many Adventures of Whinnie the Pooh). But it is an enjoyable romp and is sure to entertain. If you are looking for a dazzling work of art, you might be better off watching Bambi. But if you want a fun night in, The Aristocats is the way to go. It is a charming and lovable film and it's impossible to dislike. Enjoy! (And besides, it's good to have a film where cats aren't seen as the villains).
|
positive
|
Visconti's Death in Venice qualifies as one of the most beautiful films ever made. While watching, we acknowledge we are in the hands of a visionary genius. Endlessly opulent Death in Venice surely is; but in other important ways, it's an unsatisfying film. Thomas Mann writes with contempt and from a distance of von Aschenbach's literary career and output; of his imperious manner, his layer-upon-layer of programmed, self-conscious behavior. When Tadzio appears and obsession arises, it's evident that Aschenbach hasn't the slightest idea who he is beneath his Gilded-Age trappings and carefully lived life. In fact, upon seeing Tadzio, the 'Solitary,' as Mann sometimes calls him, splits in two. Aschenbach No. 1 absorbs the sight of a beautiful 14-year old boy, then attempts to intellectually process the giddy jolt in blood pressure as he would a work of art - a 'divine' work of art. But Aschenbach No. 2, emerges as a stalker who takes control of, then replaces, the rational Aschenbach No. 1. Like the original Aschenbach, his sexual-doppelganger is mortified to make human contact with the object of his obsession - and thus Tadzio remains a far-off ideal. Thomas Mann has no mercy for this game. Every shred of self knowledge comes too strong and too late; the excitement of sexual flush is too great to resist. That Venice is gripped by disease means nothing to Aschenbach - except that his game now has higher stakes. When he finally whispers beneath his breath 'I love you,' he knows that all is lost, and the abyss awaits. Is any of this filmable? Perhaps, and Visconti creates a visual feast impossible to look away from. But there are errors: He and Dirk Bogarde create Aschenbach as sympathetic; Mann, again, did not. Aschenbach's POV dominates the film and we are expected to identify. But nowhere on screen is there a man being torn apart from within. Bogarde toggles between the sublimely controlled and the ridiculously temperamental with ease - but what's underneath? Bogard's reactive performance has no mooring. Mann writes a character who is, in his imagination, doing the Dance of the Seven Veils, all too aware of the consequences such freedom invites, yet unable, unwilling to resist. Also, Visconti's screenplay creates a character not in the original - Alfred, a friend of Aschenbach's - to dramatize Mann's discussion of Art and Artists. These scenes are badly written disasters, and the actor who portrays Alfred is difficult to watch. Also, Visconti's Aschenbach is a Gilded-Age Teutonic composer, which I think works for the film; and the symphonies of Mahler substitute for Aschenbach's novels. Mahler's great music unfortunately is badly recorded and very badly played. So Death in Venice, as Visconti hands it to us, is not the complete success it might have been, but as a purely visual experience its power cannot be denied. All students of film, especially cinematography, will want to take a look.
|
positive
|
Okay, so I'm not a big video game buff, but was the game House of the Dead really famous enough to make a movie from? Sure, they went as far as to actually put in quick video game clips throughout the movie, as though justifying any particular scene of violence, but there are dozens and dozens of games that look exactly the same, with the hand in the bottom on the screen, supposedly your own, holding whatever weapon and goo-ing all kinds of aliens or walking dead or snipers or whatever the case may be.<br /><br />It's an interesting premise in House of the Dead, with a lot of college kids (LOADED college kids, as it were, kids who are able to pay some fisherman something like $1,500 just for a ride after they miss their boat) trying to get out to this island for what is supposed to be the rave of the year. The first thing that comes to mind about House of the Dead after watching it is that it has become increasingly clear that modern horror movies have become nothing more than an exercise in coming up with creative ways to get a lot of scantily clad teenagers into exactly the same situations. At least in this case, the fact that they were on their way to a rave excuses the way the girls are dressed. They look badly out of place running around the woods in cute little halter-tops, but at least they THOUGHT they were dressed for the occasion.<br /><br />Clint Howard, tellingly the most interesting character in the film by far, delivers an absolutely awful performance, the greatness of which overshadows every other actor in the movie. I can't stand it when well-known actors change their accents in movies, it is so rarely effective, and Howard here shows that it is equally flat to have an well-known actor pretend that he's this hardened fisherman with a raspy voice from years of breathing salty air. He didn't even rasp well. It sounded like he was eating a cinnamon roll before shooting and accidentally inhaled some powdered sugar or something. Real tough there, Clint! I expected more from him, but then again, he did agree to a part in this mess.<br /><br />Once we get to the island, the movie temporarily turns into any one of the Friday the 13th movies that took place at Camp Crystal Lake. Lots of teenagers played by actors who were way too old for their parts getting naked and then killed. The nudity was impressive, I guess, but let's consider something for a minute. These kids pay almost two grand to get out to this island to go to the Rave Of The Year, find NO ONE, and say, well, who wants a beer! Even the guy who pulled that stack of hundreds out of his wallet to get them all over there didn't think anything of it that they found a full bar and not a single solitary person in sight. Here you have the input from director Uwe Boll - There's alcohol! They won't notice that the party they came for consists of no one but themselves!<br /><br />So not only do they start drinking, not minding the fact that the whole party seems to have vacated the island, but when one of the girls goes off into the dark woods to find out where everyone is (dragging one other girl and one of the guys reluctantly along), the guy and the girl who stay behind to get smashed decide that it would be a great idea to strip down for a quickie now that they're alone. It's like they expected to find the island empty, and now that they rest of the people that they came over with were gone for a little while, they would have some privacy since there's no one else around. Brilliant!<br /><br />Now for the things that everyone hated, judging by the reviews that I've read about the movie. Yes, intersplicing shots from the video game into the movie, mostly in order to show that, yes, the movie was being faithful to/directly copying the video game. Sure, it was a stupid idea. I can't imagine who thought up that little nugget, but worse than that is the Matrix-style bullet time scenes that were thrown in over and over and over and over. After the first time (at which point I found it pretentious and cheesy for a movie like this to have a shot like that as though it was something original) it is noticeable more for the technique of the shot itself rather than any dramatic meaning or creation of any kind of tension for the film.<br /><br />One of the things that makes a zombie film scary and gets you on the edge of your seat is to have them slowly but relentlessly coming after the living humans, who are much faster but getting tired, running out of places to run, and with a terrifying shortage of things with which to fight the zombies off with. The first two are done right in the movie, the kids are terrified and don't have a lot of places to run since they're on an island, but since they caught a ride over with a smuggler, they find themselves heavily armed. And I mean that very strongly. I mean, these people have everything from machine guns to hand grenades, which removes most of the tension of the impending walking dead.<br /><br />Then you have what I call the techno-slasher scene. Since the rave never happened, and I guess since Uwe Boll thought people were going to be disappointed at not hearing any techno music in the movie, there's one scene right in the middle where all the humans are fighting off the living dead, and amazingly enough it turns into something of a music video. There's techno music blasting as the shots are edited together faster and faster until it's nothing but a blur of gory shot, mostly only about 5 frames long (which is about 1/6 of a second) flashing across the screen in time with the speed techno music. Clever, I guess, but it has no place in a horror movie because it completely removes any sense of scariness or tension of even the gross-out effect because you can't see any one thing for long enough to react to it. You're just watching these shots fly across the screen and wondering what the hell the director was thinking when he decided that it would be a good idea to put something like this in the movie.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of people compare this movie to Resident Evil, mostly claiming that it copies the premise of it, and they're exactly right. I appreciate that at least here, as was not the case in Resident Evil, it wasn't some man-made virus that turned people into walking dead that were able to infect other people, changing them the way vampires turn others into vampires. 28 Days Later was also clearly an inspiration for this movie, it's just too bad that House of the Dead didn't do a single original thing, except for the somewhat moronic idea of putting in quick shots of the video game on which it is based, just in case you forget. I really think that this should have been a much better movie. While obviously I can't say that I know much about the game it's based on, just the title and the movie poster deserve a much better movie, but unfortunately I think that's more often the case than not with horror movies. It's really kind of sad when a movie comes out that is so obviously advertised as a no-holds-barred horror film, and the scariest thing in the entire movie is the closing shot, which suggests the possibility of a sequel.
|
negative
|
Did anyone stop to realise what sort of movie they were producing here ? Now let`s a former marine officer becomes assinged to a group of kids at a cadet school so this should be a family comedy right ? Wrong . This is just a gross comedy aimed at teenagers with many bad taste moments .It might have been watchable in an extremely dumb way at this point but I found Damon Wayans voice to be irritating beyond belief . Does he speak like that in real life ? If he does then he has my sympathy but he won`t be getting any of my money from watching his movies
|
negative
|
Supercarrier was my favorite movie in the later part of the 80's when it came out. My Dad taped it for me & I watched it all the time until my step-mom taped Oprah over it & my heart was torn. I would love to know if or where I can get it from. I have been looking for it. I believe they even came out w/ a Supercarrier 2. It wasn't as great as the 1st, but I would like to have all of them if I could find them. I do not think @ all that it was a bad movie. It was a very interesting movie with a lot of action yet it had somewhat of a love story plot to it. The actors/actresses in the movie were great. It also helped me to understand that this is not just a man's world, but it is also a woman's world & many women can do the same things if not more than what a man can do & women deserve much respect for their duties as well.
|
positive
|
I don't know why they even kept the name. How they could call the series 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' after they deviated from the novels so much, I wouldn't have a clue. The character names are the only things they kept, and even then they changed a few of those, and mixed them up, and changed Percy's relationships with them. Admittedly, I only watched about two hours at the most of it, but that was enough for me to realize that the series was nothing like Baroness Orzcy had portrayed her characters, and probably would have been rolling around in her grave when it was filming and airing. Poor lady. I hope that when the next person wants to make a movie/series of the book they don't ruin it as completely as this series did.
|
negative
|
May Contain Spoilers!!! In no way, shape or form does this movie break the horror movie mold. Not by a long shot. However, it does deliver a creepy atmosphere, believable enough characters and gore.<br /><br />The story is simple and doesn't bother to unfurl itself anymore than it needs to. A bunch of kids are killed in a mining accident back in the early 1900's. Since then, they have stalked and killed the residence of their sleepy little PA town in the mountains.<br /><br />Simple: they want revenge on the man that caused their death years and years ago. Naturally, his great, great, great grandson is in town and he's a real prick.<br /><br />Along with that, a mother and her two daughters inherit a run old house after the husband dies. The eldest daughter is rebellious, obnoxious...a typical teen. The younger is curious, bright-eyed and gets in with the ghost children.<br /><br />The creepiest part of this flick is the sheer emotionlessness of the children and they hack their way through victim after victim. Excellent acting. It was so spooky! I mean, the Children of the Corn flicks are one thing...but this topped any of those (as for the creepy kids).<br /><br />Worht a look. I bought it before seeing it and I was not unhappy. But I'm a horror fan through and through.
|
positive
|
This is one of those rare movies, it's lovely and compelling, dignified and quirky, a true gift. I consider it a prerequisite for any trip to Italy, or any vacation at all, because it reminds you to open yourself up to a broader experience (yup, find the magic). I especially loved Josie Lawrence, as Lottie Wilkins, but every lead and supporting actor is flawless in this film. Further the costumes, if you're drawn to fashion and costumes, are extraordinarily well done. I just wish they'd release it on DVD because I'm wearing my tape version out! <br /><br />Absolutely well worth your time, just make sure to settle in to watch it, without any interruptions.
|
positive
|
This is the worst documentary to come out of Canada ever!!!! I'm glad to see the guys haven't made another movie. All they want to do is get a movie made and it doesn't have to be the one they wrote. They keep changing the script to suite the person they're pitching. I could not get out of the theatre fast enough when I saw it at that year's Toronto Film Festival. Please never see this film.
|
negative
|
Even though it doesn't really matter to the film, this is a Creation myth. God (a convulsing, bloody figure in a chair) cuts his organs out with a straight razor and dies in His own filth. Mother Earth rises from his corpse and impregnates herself with his seed, giving birth to Man. It is, however highly unlikely for you to figure any of this out without reading a synopsis first, and it's not especially important to the film that you do, as it's more a surrealistic art-house imagery thing, all in inky, processed black and white. A sick, bleak atmosphere is created with the stark photography and minimal sounds (mostly water dripping, groans, scrapes, etc.) but each scene goes on a bit too long and so does the film as a whole. This could've been great as a short film, and the God killing himself scene was excellent and extremely creepy, especially being the first thing you see, but it's hard to be patient when it goes on for so long and you don't even know what you're seeing for much of the time.<br /><br />Still, a good film for the original style, images, atmosphere and content.
|
positive
|
Lang does Hawks as well as Hawks does in the first part of this extraordinary Western, before settling down into typical deterministic, dark and guilt-haunted Lang for the finale.<br /><br />This is one of those films that shows its greatness almost instantly but at the same time very subtly. Vance Shaw (Randolph Scott) is on horseback and being pursued, we know not why -- he stumbles on wounded Edward Creighton (Dean Jagger) and decides to take his gun and horse, but discovering that Creighton is in a bad way, decides to fix him up first. This is conveyed mostly through facial expressions and very brief, clipped dialog - in 2 minutes we know that Shaw is an outlaw, but basically a good guy. Shaw ends up helping Creighton on his way to civilization, then disappears.<br /><br />Cut to a few weeks or months later, with Creighton on the mend and in charge of an expedition to lay telegraph wire going west from Omaha. He hires Shaw as a scout, who tries to leave when he finds out that Creighton is in charge; but Creighton wants him anyway, repaying a debt and sensing something quality. Also hired is a tenderfoot, son of a benefactor of the project, but atypically the Easterner Richard Blake (Robert Young) is quite competent as he shows right away in an amusing but exciting bronco-busting sequence. Both of the hires vie for Creighton's sister Sue (Virginia Gilmore) who - again not typically - seems quite as able to take care of herself as any man. The camaraderie between the three men, the comedic elements involving an unwilling cook and various rough and tumble types, and the wonderfully played light romantic elements dominate the first third of the film and reminded me more of Howard Hawks' "Red River" or "Only Angels Have Wings" than most Lang - but they are so well played and the action progresses so naturally that it doesn't matter, and doesn't alter our pleasure - if it does perhaps change our expectations - as the more usual Langian themes of the haunted past, dark secrets and the immense pull of the easier, destructive and evil ways come to dominate the later part of the film. Shaw's old pals come back to haunt him as the the wagon train and its wires move westward; attacks mount on the crew, and Shaw has to wrestle with what, if anything, he is to tell Creighton about his tortured relationship with Jack Slade (Barton MacLane), leader of the outlaws.<br /><br />Beautifully shot in early Technicolor and moving fairly seamlessly from sound stages to western locations, this is for my money easily Lang's best western and one of his very best films, conveying as potently as any of his films the tragic inability of men to escape their pasts and build a new future. Scott is as good as I've seen him, showing more with a flick of an eye than a lot of actors can do in a paragraph of dialog, and the rest of the cast is uniformly fine. The inevitable showdown between Shaw's past criminal life and his potential future is extraordinary, and a surprise even for a longtime Lang devotee such as myself; and even in 1941 it seems there was no place more fraught with meaning on the margins of civilization than the barbershop and the dusty street outside. You can get a shave, you can feel like a new man, but you can't really ever be one as long as the old ties are still holding you back.<br /><br />Genius.
|
positive
|
Well, I guess I'll have to be the one to say "The Emperor has no clothes." When I saw this show listed for PBS last night I was both hopeful and apprehensive. I loved "Morse" (even going so far as to buy the complete DVD set) and felt that, while I always liked Kevin Whately's Sgt. Lewis character, the show WAS John Thaw, period! After watching the new "Inspector Lewis" (as it is billed here), I am more convinced then ever that I was right...Whately is fine (even though he looks awful (both badly aged and too fat), but he simply doesn't have the charisma to carry the show as did Thaw.<br /><br />And as for his "sidekick" Fox, well...perhaps the reviewers here from England can understand what he's saying, but I for one mostly could not.<br /><br />As for Ms. Innocent...all I can say is that I miss James Grout.<br /><br />I'm sorry to say that they should have left "Morse" rest in peace.
|
negative
|
okay, this movie f*ck in' rules. it is without question one of the most technically inept pieces of cinema ever made. absolutely terrible, but you GOTTA see it. rent this with your buddies and come up with a drinking game or just have fun, it's hilarious. and the behind-the-scenes featurette proves it, you can do anything with paper plates and finger paint. awesome. okay, rent it just for this one scene: two characters are actually WALKING IN PLACE for about 3 minutes in a shot. the director (on the commentary) says "yeah, the tracking was so smooth it looks like they're...". yeah, right man, they are totally walking in place. it's so funny.
|
negative
|
Goodnight, Mister Tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of England where the sun always seems to shine. Before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of World War II. Soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from London and when shy little William is billeted with reluctant, gruff old Tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins.<br /><br />And what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. In fact it's just the old odd-couple buddy formula. Aren't any new stories being written?<br /><br />As I suggested there's hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in London apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. And certainly no hint of the horror of the Blitz as London's citizens file politely into air-raid shelters. Even when the local schoolteacher's husband is declared missing presumed killed, he is later restored to life.<br /><br />I found `Goodnight, Mister Tom' cliched and obvious and John Thaw's accent conjured up a picture of Ronnie Barker of the Two Ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin' accent.<br /><br />Incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that I disliked it and looking at fellow-imdb reviewers I seem to be in a minority of one.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.<br /><br />As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.<br /><br />The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war "effort" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?<br /><br />The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.<br /><br />Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said "It's funny 'cause it's true" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.<br /><br />http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/
|
negative
|
This movie starts by showing you a map and then explaining radar and it is quite awhile before you ever see the deadly mantis. Probably a better movie in the 50's this dated piece is a bit to slow moving and the pay off in the end isn't very good. Though it has its moments like when the guy from Perry Mason argues with an old man and when he says "I have narrowed the possibilities to one" excuse me, but when you narrow something down you have a couple or more possibilities not one...if you get it down to one you haven't narrowed it down, but you have in fact figured out what it is. The monster is standard 50's sci-fi fair, better than say the grasshoppers in the Beginning of the End. Acting is sub-par and the heroine is the most unattractive...in fact in some shots she does look like a guy in drag. You see plenty of fighter plane stock footage and other things, but you won't see much at all of the deadly mantis.
|
negative
|
Talk about false advertising! I wasted an hour and twenty five minutes watching this piece of crap and there was not one leisure suit, not one platform shoe, no pointy-finger dancing, and not a single disco ball. I watched it on a Saturday night, and ended up with an awful fever, but it had nothing to do with the music.<br /><br />Seriously, with or without John Travolta, this movie sucked.<br /><br />From the opening scene, you will be asking yourself the question, "Where did that rope come from, and will it please hang me, too?" From its unabashed bias against the driving abilities of the Pennsylvania Dutch, to the shameless promotion of the apparently everlasting capacities of Alienware laptop batteries, to the cheap horror effects lifted directly from Japanese cinema, this is the worst film to hit theaters since The Grudge.
|
negative
|
A story about love and hate, tragedy and happiness, and most of all, friendship set in the very interesting time of the American Civil War.<br /><br />Gets you interested in history, gets you emotionally involved and makes you feverishly wait for the next episode.<br /><br />Moreover, the casting was splendid. Many superstars appear in short cameos, the leading roles are played by a big array of talented mimes - Kirstie Alley and Terri Garber should be mentioned here - this is simply a superb example for a TV production as it should be.<br /><br />Not to forget the sheer loveliness of Wendy Kilbourne portraying Constance :-)
|
positive
|
In all truth, this really isn't a "movie" so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, "Homicide: The Movie" is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of "family", not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD...
|
positive
|
So here's a bit of background on how I came to see this movie. As you probably know, this is the original French film, that was then remade (quelle surprise) by Hollywood as Wicker Park. Well I avoided that movie like the plague when it was first released, simply because, a) I knew it had absolutely nothing to do with Wicker Park, and living in Chicago, I didn't see why they called it that - it was filmed in fricking Canada for a start! - b) I have a very hard time bothering with pointless remakes, done purely because Hollywood thinks we're too bone idle to read a few subtitles (I am dreading the remake of Infernal Affairs by the way) and c) I can't stand Josh Hartnett, 'nuff said there. <br /><br />However, I came across WP on TV the other day, probably about half an hour in, and I have to say initially, it made no sense at all, until about half an hour from the end, when it started coming together. By the end, I was really surprised to find myself really into it, and then the ending just seemed so good - a perfect combination of story, passion and ending with possibly one of the greatest musical choices I've ever seen (heard??).<br /><br />Since then I've heard a lot about the L'Appartement vs. Wicker Park argument and looking at WP, I still say it has bugger all to do with Chicago, but there seemed something about it that I liked, so when it was on again, I watched it again - unfortunately, still missing the first chunk (I've still yet to see it!), and I still thought it was pretty good. Heck, even Josh Hartnett seemed good! But I was curious about L'Appartement and wanted to see what all the fuss was about. So I waited and waited to catch l'Appartement somewhere somehow. Netflix let me down, so I ended up getting a copy from some website in Ireland. And I've just watched it. <br /><br />It's really kind of weird, but a good weird. A classic French film. Great acting, Romane Bohringer is an absolute gem - sorry, but she acts Monica Bellucci off the screen in every scene. Vincent Cassel was a weird choice for the lead but by the end he works. And I've seen Jean-Philippe Ecoffey in a lot of movies and I just love him - the scene where Alice dumps him in the restaurant and he just looks like someone's told him his puppy's been run over was excruciating! But, I can honestly say, having seen WP and pretty much expecting that to have been a scene for scene copy (as about 75% of the rest of the movie had been - maybe in a different order, but come on, the scene with the coffee in the glasses?? Word for word!!), you can imagine my surprise when I watched the ending of L'Appartement!! I can literally say I was blown away - hmm, a bit like poor old Lucien was through the cafe window really! So, be prepared, if you've seen Wicker Park and you fancy taking a look at the original like I did, do not make the mistake of expecting an identical movie, because you'll either be disappointed, or exhilarated at a piece of French movie history - a prime example of how you can watch a movie, think you're going to watch a pithy happy ending, and get whiplash from the total spin in the opposite direction right at the end. Definitely catch this movie. Oh and while you're at, maybe not too near the same time, but down the road, take a look at Wicker Park, it'll surprise you too.
|
positive
|
Little Dieter Needs to Fly was my first film during the 1999 edition of the Göteborg Filmfestival. As I was extremely tired that evening, I was hesitant to see it, but the raving overall score of 9 here at IMDB made me go there.<br /><br />It was 80 minutes of pure life-force! Experiencing Dieter Denglers life through his own telling was enchanting.<br /><br />SEE IT! And if possible... see it at a cinema!
|
positive
|
Some people think this was a rather bad TV series, with cheesy effects. (considering it was filmed between 1977-1979) but really, look back at those years and think, "We didn't have computers back then." so if you think about it, it's a rather good TV series.<br /><br />I always figured bad ratings killed the show, but no. the network did. they canceled out their theme as "The superhero network" and abandoned a short lived spider-man series. if it had gone on, it probably would have run well into the 80's, and if it was really lucky (And i mean really lucky), the early 90s.<br /><br />And no one wanted to pick this series up.<br /><br />Anyways, Jolly old (or young) Nicholas Hammond, of The sound of music fame, is brought to the TV screen as peter parker, the Secret identity of the amazing spider-man. along the series, peter deals with a clone, a beautiful girl from a foreign country, and a corrupt politician.<br /><br />while the series is way out of timeline (being that peter is already graduated from university, and thats when he gets bit, and uncle Ben is already dead,) The audience is treated to action, suspense, and the attitude that the characters have towards peter and his alter ego, spider-man.<br /><br />While it's also slightly disappointing that Robert. F Simon looks nothing like J.J.Jameson, it's not so disappointing that Betty grant isn't Betty grant, but a hot African American girl (who reminds me of Halle berry, who is one of the hottest women on the planet) so really, this one wasn't so bad.<br /><br />but considering the time, and how much drama they packed into this one, it kind of foreshadows what bad TV is today. either way, it's entertaining, even for today.<br /><br />8/10
|
positive
|
"Black Friday" did this plot so much better, which is why it is remembered and "The Man With Two Lives" is just a forgotten potboiler. "Shed No Tears" was it's working title and it would have been a better one as he was a thoroughly evil character for most of the film.<br /><br />Philip Bennett is newly engaged when he is involved in a traffic accident. Dr. Clark (Edward Keene) has been involved in some experimental operations on animals - bringing them back from the dead. His colleagues urge him to try his operation on Phillip, who has died. As he is operating , a dangerous criminal, Wolf Panino, is going to the electric chair and trans migration of the soul occurs. When Phillip awakes from the operation, he has the soul of Panino. He is a changed person, he is rude to his family and starts to hang around Panino's old haunts. He takes over Wolf's old gang - going by the name of Philip Bennett, he also romance's Wolf's former girlfriend - who smells a rat. Bennett, as Wolf, is determined to even up scores and starts to eliminate his enemies.Bodies pile up, including the girlfriend and a policeman, then his own family begins to fall victim.<br /><br />But - I HATE those "bad dream" movies - you always feel let down. This film would have been better if he had stayed in character as Panino and had a final shoot out. Eleanor, his fiancée, would have ended up sadder but wiser with his brother. <br /><br />Edward Norris, the star, had a big career mostly in B movies.<br /><br />Not really recommended.
|
negative
|
Sequels, well there are many reasons to make 'em but what went through Irwin Allen's mind to come up with such a boring idea is beyond all logical matters. There are so many open answers to this movie that it is ridiculous...like The Poseidon which is a monstruous ship with passengers on is drifting on the sea and just Michael Caine with his miniboat and an evil Telly Savalas discover the boat...well, at the beginning the French marine are circling above the wreck with their helicopter but as a sinking cruiseship is a daily thing, they just fly away... What am I trying to say??? Hmmm, Michael Caine goes on board with sally Field and he might pick up everything he sees (diamonds)if there wasn't a Telly Savalas who is looking for weapons on the ship...my God, why in fact am I wasting my words on here? It's ridiculous and knowing that both Field and Caine were involved makes you think what went through their minds when reading scripts....certainly not diamonds....
|
negative
|
I love this movie, one of my all time favorites. Ann Blythe as Sally O'Moyne is sweet and trouble-free. She believes that praying to Saint Anne will solve all her and her friends troubles. The sub-plot of the dastardly bad man to get her father's property is funny and clever. Her brothers are what kind of brothers any girl would love to have. Also, look for "Aunt Bee" as her mother, a strong Irish woman who won't leave her house that she brought her family up in. They don't make them like this anymore, that's for sure.
|
positive
|
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Gerald Mohr, a busy B-movie actor during the Forties and Fifties, leads an expedition to Mars. Before we get to the Red Planet we're entertained by romantic patter between Mohr and scientist Nora Hayden; resident doofus Jack Kruschen; and the sight of Les Tremayne as another scientist sporting a billy-goat beard. The Martian exteriors feature fake backdrops and tints ranging from red to pink-the "Cinemagic" process touted in the ads. Real cool monsters include a giant amoeba, a three-eyed insect creature, an oversized Venus Fly-Trap, and the unforgettable rat/bat/spider. The whole bizarre adventure is recalled by survivor Hayden under the influence of hypnotic drugs. THE ANGRY RED PLANET reportedly has quite a cult following, and it probably picked up most of its adherents during the psychedelic Sixties.
|
negative
|
This Columbo episode is one of the better and perhaps one of my personal favorites. The cast includes Rosemary's Baby John Cassavetes as the maestro, his wife played by Blythe Danner (Gwyneth Paltrow's mom) and his mother-in-law played by Myrna Loy (one of America's greatest leading actresses in film of our time). Anyway I disagree with anybody who criticizes against this film. This episode is one of my favorites because you have an excellent cast who do a superb job in performing. I love watching Columbo with his beloved dog who he never names in the series. This time, the episode focuses in on classical music at the Hollywood Bowl, one of L.A.'s attractions. Of course, Columbo becomes as interested in classical music as he does anything else involving a crime.
|
positive
|
Stone has tried another type of movie. Any Given Sunday falls short of a the above average The Last Boy Scout and the below average Against all Odds. Stone can be fantastic, see The Doors, Natural Born Killers or Platoon but he can also repeat himself see Nixon or Born on the Fourth of July. His real brilliance is realized in the Michael Caine perfection, The Hand.
|
negative
|
Yesterday I watched this movie for the third time. It was recommended to me by a fried several weeks ago. I never watched or even noticed it before, because it falls (so typically) in the category "Swedish Movie" and those who rose up (like me) with Hollywood productions tend to be sceptical of any foreign movies. Hell what a paradigm shift! The film touches me, because it just keeps up my hope, that mankind can change to a better way. The Swedish village is just a pattern for all areas on earth where people live together - controlled by religion, misunderstandings, lack of courage, predictions, disguised brutality, but also the ability to have fun, to meet, to sing... It takes a trigger from outside to rip off the masks of everyone (who keeps one) and to let them feel that we all are just human beings with the desire to live our own lives. I can never stop to see stories like this, because, that keeps up my hope as described above. The five minutes containing the story of Gabriella's song including her performance is one of my movie-highlights ever! Thank you Kay Pollak just for these 5 minutes, which made me happy!
|
positive
|
This is a really bad waste of your time. I would probably rather go watch some documentary than this; it's really that bad.<br /><br />The acting is really terrible, and you can tell that the producers had a low budget because of the terrible picture quality. It's by far on the low end of the scale; don't waste your money on it.<br /><br />I have a really hard time believing the person who made this movie that it would fare well. I had to watch it with the kids when my mother rented it because she thought it would be good for the kids. Even the kids (3, 4, 6, and 8) all thought it was pretty boring.<br /><br />I agree with the other commenter, Spongebob would be a lot better to watch than this.<br /><br />Overall: Just don't watch it. Don't. Don't.
|
negative
|
Typically Spanish production - slow-moving, but with great sensuousness and sexuality oozing from the lead actress Paz Vega. (Watch her in "Spanglish"). Great sets, lots of colour - you get to see Cordoba, Seville, Spanish mountains and countryside. The plot tends to meander here and there, but if you follow closely (I managed to, even though the film is in Spanish), you'll get the gist of it.<br /><br />It's about how one very highly sensual young Gypsy woman, Carmen, uses her feminine wiles to seduce men to do her bidding. Carmen is being taken to prison after attacking a fellow cigarera at the cigar factory where she works. She persuades Jose, the soldier in charge of taking her to prison, to let her escape. Jose succumbs to her charms because she speaks Basque (he is Navarrese and speaks the same language). Jose is punished by 1 month in jail and demoted to foot soldier. He later meets Carmen at a party and they end up becoming lovers. But Carmen refuses to commit to him, and continues her lascivious and flirty lifestyle. In a jealous rage, Jose kills a fellow soldier who has been with Carmen. They then have to leave town. Life on the run turns Jose into a bandit. Carmen, meanwhile, remains the same, a wildly promiscuous woman. In the end, Jose loses his mind and ends up killing Carmen.<br /><br />The story is told by Jose in prison, awaiting to be executed. The person he tells the story to is Prospero Merrime, a French writer and anthropologist, whose fancy watch (it plays Beethoven's Fur Elise) was stolen by either Carmen or Jose.<br /><br />Worth watching for the sets and for the delectable Paz Vega.
|
positive
|
Horrible acting, Bad story line, cheesy makeup, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have never seen a worse movie in my life, 5 minutes in I decided to fast forward to see if anything redeeming would happen... It didn't. (Aside from a nice breast shot) The movie apparently was filmed in some furniture warehouse, and the same warehouse was used for at least 90% of the sets. You even see this same red chair in several different "locations" If you are going to make a film at least rent an office building and an apartment, not some warehouse which will echo all your actor's dialog.. (Note to producers) Renting a small office space and an apartment for a month is much cheaper than an entire warehouse, and both are quite a bit more versatile and believable) If you spend your money to rent this people I hope you got it with a return guarantee... You will be demanding your money back... I only spent $2.99 to rent this tonight and I feel ripped off.
|
negative
|
This is an extremely-powerful based-on-a-true story film that can be infuriating to watch. I say that because how brutal a hounding press can be to people, in this case an innocent Australian couple charged with killing their baby.<br /><br />Meryl Streep received a lot of recognition for her performance when this film came out but I thought Sam Neill was just as good. Let's just say they both were excellent but the role was little harder for Streep because she had to learn an Australian accent. (She learned it so well I had trouble understanding her in parts.)<br /><br />Without giving anything away, all I can say is this movie will wear you out emotionally.
|
positive
|
The 1998 version of "Psycho" needed to be set back in the 60's, rather than present day. The headliners would have done a good job with the setting. There were two scenes that just stuck out like a sore thumb. The first one was at the beginning of the movie when Marian Crane (Anne Heche) was sitting at her desk. Her boss took his client into his office because "it was air conditioning." I imagine that the majority of Arizona businesses have air conditioning. The other was the meeting of Lila Crane (Julianne Moore) & Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen). Lila sporting the Walkman seemed like an exaggeration to update the movie. The movie did spook a number of the viewers in the theater.
|
negative
|
This film tries very hard to be an "action" film, but it fails miserably.<br /><br />Steve Guttenberg plays the head of an elite counter-terrorist team that fails (?) in attempt to keep a mysterious group from stealing a deadly nerve agent.<br /><br />The story...the acting...the special effects...ALL FALL FLAT!!!<br /><br />Definitely A MUST AVOID!!!!
|
negative
|
It occurs to me that some of the films that have been banned during the course of cinema history were actually very important and very good films. I'd like to argue that instead of banning challenging, controversial movies the censors should consider banning films that are so bad that they pose a threat to your IQ and your sanity. If they were to do so one of the first films to be quickly hidden away would undoubtedly be "Stroker Ace". This film is awful with a capital 'A'. It is the worst film Burt Reynolds ever starred in.... quite a feat for for a man with "Cannonball Run II", "Cop And A Half" and "Rent-A-Cop" on his CV!<br /><br />The wafer-thin story introduces us to successful stock car racer Stroker Ace (Reynolds), a man who loves fast cars and fast women. He gets stuck in a demeaning contract with crooked promoter Clyde Torkle (Ned Beatty). The contract requires him to do some humiliating promotional work for a new chain of fast food restaurants, such as dressing up as a giant chicken. Thrown into the mix are Lugs (Jim Nabors), Ace's dim-witted pal, and Pembrook Feeney (Loni Anderson), a bimbo with a brain fractionally smaller than a pea who is wooed by Ace.<br /><br />Hal Needham, the director of this low-grade garbage, was formerly a stuntman and he made numerous films that relied on his expertise in staging spectacular stunts and car chases/races. Some of these films were OK, like "Hooper" and "Stunts Unlimited", but with "Stroker Ace" he reaches a career nadir. The characters are so stupid that you actually feel pity for the actors playing them. Anderson especially is saddled with such a dumb role that it makes you grind your teeth with despair. The humour is weak and infantile throughout, and the stunts and race sequences are unremarkable. Even the out-takes during the closing credits (which can be found in all the Reynolds-Needham collaborations) are generally unfunny, which gives the impression that maybe the film wasn't much fun to make. "Stroker Ace" is a stinker of considerable magnitude.
|
negative
|
1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.<br /><br />And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.<br /><br />Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP).
|
negative
|
It's not fair. I was really expecting this to be a hilarious, entertaining movie. I mean, I like Drake Bell from Drake and Josh, and Leslie Neilson is nothing to be sneezed at since his earliest classics, Airplane and the Naked Gun. However, After seeing Superhero movie, I'm glad I didn't even have to pay for it. It just wouldn't have been anywhere near the 9$ per ticket. More like a dollar and a few pennies. Because that would sum up for the hour and a few minutes. And as disappointing as this film was I'm glad the running time was that short, if not shorter. I just cant believe how incredibly vulgar, unnecessary, and above all, STUPID, some of the scenes were! And above that, I've seen better acting from a wooden dummy(without the ventriloquist). It's as if Craig Mazin purposefully wanted to make a film that deserves its 3.7, if not lower, and even try to be worse than "Meet the Spartans". Very disappointing indeed.
|
negative
|
Good Times was a groundbreaking comedy about the first nuclear black family living in the Chicago projects. Whether or not, you live in the inner cities, ghettos, suburbs, or rural countryside, this show is still a treasure to watch and observe a family being just a family rather than a show about a poor black family. But they don't dwell on it. They find humor and have strong family values and morals. Despite the story behind the scenes, this show was worth keeping on the air except I didn't like them killing off the father which I agreed with Esther Rolle who fought hard to keep the family together. But despite all the fights behind the scenes, Good Times was a show about a family. We all loved JJ's dynamite and his antics. We watched Janet Jackson's Penny grow up a little. This show was groundbreaking to show despair in drugs, gangs, and alcoholism. Without being to preachy, The Evans always tried to do the right thing rather than do something wrong to get out of the ghetto.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.
|
negative
|
Hitch is a light-hearted comedy that will entertain you with some fine performances. Will Smith turns in a believable performance as a cloak and dagger Date Doctor who must remain invisible to protect his clients and his profession. Smith was excellent, never schmaltzing it up too much.<br /><br />The best piece of acting goes to the actor (don't know name) playing this accountant who has fallen for this woman who is out of his league. This actor did an excellent job of character development as he listens to Smith's directions, but in the end, just can't help being who he really is.<br /><br />And in the end, that's the main message of this film. Be who you are in love, and you'll be OK.<br /><br />At the same time, Will Smith meets this attractive lady and the Date Doctor gets a taste of his own medicine as he slowly falls for this woman. Don't know her name, but she was pretty good too.<br /><br />Overall, this was a delightful, light movie that is definitely worth seeing.
|
positive
|
I had been looking forward to this movie since Lost World came out. It didn't bother me that Lost World wasn't as intellectual as the original, and here, I was just hoping for a good monster movie. It was all about "Dinosaurs eat people." However, it was disappointing even on that level.<br /><br />For starters, there were not enough people to eat, and while I'll keep it a secret how many people get eaten, it was not enough. Also, while there was no shortage of variety in the dinosaur community, there were not nearly "enough" dinosaurs. And many dinosaurs, like the spikey-back-and-has-a-club-on-its-tail-osaurus, just made cameos and didn't do much considering how cool they are.<br /><br />(START SPOILERS) Then there were the Pterodactyls. The figures I've read put their body weight at about 15 pounds, while the movie made them look closer to 300. Worse, they didn't get to eat anybody, or even splatter them on the rocks by dropping them from high up. There was no ending to the movie, either, it was just, all of the sudden, credits. (END SPOILERS) I'm left wondering if the edition I saw was missing 40 minutes of film.<br /><br />My only conclusion can be that they taught the Pterodactyls to stick their long beaks stealthily into your pockets and get your $7. Go rent the Carnosaur series; at least you won't be disappointed.
|
negative
|
Now, I LOVE Italian horror films. The cheesier they are, the better. However, this is not cheesy Italian. This is week-old spaghetti sauce with rotting meatballs. It is amateur hour on every level. There is no suspense, no horror, with just a few drops of blood scattered around to remind you that you are in fact watching a horror film. The "special effects" consist of the lights changing to red whenever the ghost (or whatever it was supposed to be) is around, and a string pulling bed sheets up and down. Oooh, can you feel the chills? The DVD quality is that of a VHS transfer (which actually helps the film more than hurts it). The dubbing is below even the lowest "bad Italian movie" standards and I gave it one star just because the dialogue is so hilarious! And what do we discover when she finally DOES look in the attic (in a scene that is daytime one minute and night the next)...well, I won't spoil it for anyone who really wants to see, but let's just say that it isn't very "novel"!
|
negative
|
Actually my vote is a 7.5. Anyway, the movie was good, it has those funny parts that make it deserve to see it, don't misunderstand me, is not the funniest movie of the world, and its not even original because its a idea that we have seen before in other movies, but this one has its own taste, a friend of mine told me that this was a film for boyfriends... I think that not exactly but who cares? Also there is another movie that show us almost the same topic, Chris Rock appears in it, the name is Down to Earth, men, that one its a very funny movie, see both if you want and I know that you will agree that Mr. Rock won with his movie. I would liked that the protagonist male character were given to Ashton Kutcher, however, the film is good.
|
positive
|
Uneven Bollywood drama. Karisma Kapoor is excellent as an Indian woman in Canada who marries a friend (Sanjay Kapoor), has a child, and then visits his family in India only to find they are terrorist warlords. Drama and tragedy ensue, and the film becomes a kind of NOT WITHOUT MY BABY styled thriller. Film is compelling, its few song/dance numbers are uninteresting and needless, the gaity of Bollywood song and dance is really out of character for the intensity of this film's drama, at least once we've left the comforting confines of their Canadian love nest although one number involving a cameo by the stunning Aishwarya Rai is enjoyably provocative, if ultimately misplaced as well. Likewise, the inclusion of Bollywood superstar Shahrukh Khan as a happy-go-lucky drifter who helps Kapoor in her escape from the clutches of the warlord turns what had been a very serious drama into a silly farce, and it only gets back on his feet when his character and his fantasies about Rai that generate her cameo dance are dispensed with. His throw-away comic-book dialog and the silliness of his fight scenes detract from the film's primary gripping drama. The cast is nicely supported by Nana Patekar as the warlord, and the elegant Deepti Naval who is outstanding as his long-suffering wife who finally choses to stand up against him in one of the film's best scenes; Ritu Shivpuri and Rajshree Solanki are also very good as Sanjay's sisters in India, and very pleasing eye candy. But Sanjay himself overacts terribly, especially during obvious ad-libs. The directorial style of writer/director Krishna Wamsi is sloppy, rampant with rough transitions and abrupt cuts, although his camera movement is good. The musical underscore is also quite effective, moody, featuring wordless female voice over a small orchestral ensemble (too bad little if any of that made it onto SHAKTI's soundtrack cd, but Bollywood hasn't yet discovered the value of including score along with songs on their soundtrack albums, at least not in most cases). But SHAKTI is Karisma Kapoor's film, all the way, though, and the intensity of her performance once the film switches to India contrasts nicely with the gentle romance with which she engaged with Sanjay in the initial Canadian scenes. Despite the unevenness of much of the picture, Karisma's performance completely sells the film and solidifies its otherwise inconsistent measures. In a strange way, also, I found the story to be another take on the ostentation of royalty I'd noticed in CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER and MARIE ANTOINETTE, both of which I'd seen just prior, although SHAKTI of course is an entirely different kind of film; but the focus on a dysfunctional royal family here living in the austerity of terrorism-controlled poverty in India rather than the elegance of Versailles or the massive megalomania of feudal China's Tang Dynasty whose self-serving seeking of power brings ruin upon many others and forces an uprising of one kind or another provides the film with a notable subtext.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie on my flight from Philly to Denver. The screen was three rows in front of me and about 12" x 10". So I really wasn't going to watch it. But I like Malcolm in the Middle, so I thought I'd watch just a few minutes. Next thing I know I'm sucked in, having a great time, and was pleased as how good it was and how fast it seemed to make the time go by. I agree with that the acting is very good for this level of entertainment. Being one of the older baby boomers, I was also pleased to see Lee Majors with a role in the movie, as with a couple of other actors who were famous (Jamiel?) "yesterday" but are out of the spotlight today poking fun at themselves.<br /><br />It's your basic "kid is wronged, kid gets even (and then some), and everyone enjoys themselves in the process". No heavy thinking, no great analysis needed. Just a good fun way to pass the time.<br /><br />3.5 out of 5.
|
positive
|
Greetings again from the darkness. 18 directors of 18 seemingly unrelated vignettes about love in the city of lights. A very unusual format that takes a couple of segments to adjust to as a viewer. We are so accustomed to character development over a 2 hour movie, it is a bit disarming for that to occur in an 8 minute segment.<br /><br />The idea is 18 love/relationship stories in 18 different neighborhoods of this magnificent city. Of course, some stand up better than others and some go for comedy, while others focus on dramatic emotion. Some very known directors are involved, including: The Coen Brothers, Wes Craven, Alfonso Cuaron, Alexander Payne, Gus Van Sant and Gurinda Chadha. Many familiar faces make appearances as well: Steve Buscemi, Barbet Schroeder, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Ben Gazzara, Gena Rowlands, Gerard Depardieu, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Bob Hoskins.<br /><br />One of the best segments involves a mime, and then another mime and the nerdy, yet happy young son of the two mimes. Also playing key roles are a red trench coat, cancer, divorce, sexual fantasy, the death of a child and many other topics. Don't miss Alexander Payne (director of "Sideways") as Oscar Wilde.<br /><br />The diversity of the segments make this interesting to watch, but as a film, it cannot be termed great. Still it is very watchable and a nice change of pace for the frequent movie goer.
|
positive
|
Nicely done, and along with "New voyages" it's a great continuation! Fab to see James Cawley in the latest episode "Vigil" Check it out! <br /><br />I like the growing characterisation, and think we have good replacements for the TV actors in a fan-produced piece. This show manages to capture the feel quite well, as they state on the ste, it has improved over the years with experience and I hope with some more experience, a strong script editor, and a pick-up in timing and CGI that HF will becoming more remarkable than it already truly is!<br /><br />Good work to all concerned!<br /><br />(I have a HUGE soft spot for Lefler & McFarland (GREAT acting), although I'm a bit tired of "Lefler's laws". ENOUGH already! Shelby's great (if a little uptight) and it's cool she got the ship. Commodore Ian's nice (like Fred Flintstone), but lacks the gritty edge of a commanding officer and does seem too pleased with himself. The Doc, Counselor, and Rawlins are right on the money in my eyes, as is the WONDERFUL Nechayev (what a beautiful accent - a REAL Russian! (Well, I'm guessing Rene hails from the Czech Rep.)<br /><br />It gets my vote, and the CGI is kewl. Some of the greenscreen's obvious, but on a small budget whaddayagonndo?<br /><br />Really glad I found it!<br /><br />(OK, some of the acting isn't great but it's fan-made and is therefore allowed to be variable - sorry Cmm. Cole)<br /><br />The gay material is layed on too thick (Graham Norton'd be embarrassed). Trek doesn't pay that much attention to hetero couples so why signpost gays with all the snogging? It's not necessary to showpiece someone's sexuality to this extent - I hope they tone it down & let Aster & Zen be people not tokens - I don't treat my gay friends any differently, They're just regular guys.<br /><br />Musically it's a mixed bag. I can tell its all stock Trek OST stuff and works most of the time, but timing can fall flat now & then (the end of "Worst Fears Part 2" misses the crunch, and the edit. Love the fact they use the "Galaxy Quest" music!<br /><br />I certainly can't wait for more!! Dazza<br /><br />"Never give up, never surender!"<br /><br />Viva les frontieres
|
positive
|
I thought "Intensive Care" was quite bad and very unintentionally funny. But at least not as bad as I thought it might be. Sometimes it's somewhat suspenseful, but never a good shocker.<br /><br />SPOILER AHEAD<br /><br />The fun lies in ridiculous moments. But the all-time classic moment is this: Peter (Koen Wauters) is stabbed and beaten by the killer. He lies moaning in the corner of the hallway. Amy (Nada van Nie) kneels beside him and asks "Poor Peter, shall I get you a band-aid?".<br /><br />This movie was shot in Dutch and English. To spare costs, all license plates are USA, and the background in the news studio is a skyline of Manhattan. Very funny if you're Dutch and watching the original version in Dutch.
|
negative
|
One of the best silent dramas I've seen. As dark and shadowy as anything the German Expressionists produced, but featuring performances that were quite understated and naturalistic for the day. No camera mugging and no unintentional laughs due to wild-eyed arm-waving histrionics. Sjostrom gave a convincing performance as the drunken, mean-spirited and frightening David Holm.<br /><br />Set mostly at night in a dingy Swedish slum, the film had a very claustrophobic set-bound feel to it, aided by the low key lighting and extensive use of irising.<br /><br />There was a deep, and typically Scandinavian, sense of despair and hopelessness to the narrative: the film begins in a rather grim present, and then we're told David Holm's story in a series of flashbacks (and flashbacks within flashbacks--a pretty complex story structure for 1921), where his character is offered numerous chances at redemption, but he doesn't take them, and we know he won't take them, because we've seen him die drunk and wretched and mean as ever in the present. The penultimate scene is as dark as any I have seen in all of cinema.<br /><br />The writing and directing is tight and intelligent, even by today's standards. In several instances, Sjostrom skillfully sets the audience up to suspect one thing, and then pulls out a surprise. The ending might not be such a surprise to some viewers, but I didn't see it coming.<br /><br />This movie deserves a full restoration and DVD release. Or even a crappy budget release. It just needs to be out there so people can see and appreciate it.<br /><br />9.5/10, which rounds up to 10/10
|
positive
|
Amnesiac women who remove their clothes at the drop of a hat (or a blouse?) are about the only stand-out points in a film that is otherwise slow and aimless. Although the basic premise of the story offers a wealth of possibilities, they are never developed to any satisfying degree, and exposition is almost non-existent. A large proportion of the film is mere wanderings through the corridors of a multi-storied clinic/hospital. The overall effect is bleak and sterile, a la THX-1138.
|
negative
|
I first remember seeing this one back in the 70s when it was shown on late night television. Scared the hell out of me. But then, I was a teenager back in those days, not as jaded about films as I am now.<br /><br />CASTLE OF BLOOD (aka: DANSE MACABRE) is a fine example of the 60s Italian horror genre, along with Mario Bava's BLACK SUNDAY(1960), CURSE OF THE LIVING DEAD (aka: KILL BABY KILL) (1966) and Mario Caiano's NIGHTMARE CASTLE (1965). If you want spooky atmosphere along with great writing, then check these out as well. I also rate these along with those early Poe films that Roger Corman was doing during the same period.<br /><br />I saw the new Synapse DVD that was taken from a French print and it's a great improvement over that old pan-and-scan print that was making the rounds on television over the years. It adds a couple of minutes of dialog (in French) that don't really add much to the movie as whole, but it's nice to see it complete, without cuts. Unfortunately the DVD doesn't really offer any extras beyond stills from the film.<br /><br />One flub I noticed was in the opening scene, seeing the smoke-effects man next to the camera being reflected on the glass of the inn's front door. I guess the editors didn't catch it at the time, or maybe they didn't care, but it is something I didn't notice the first time. That's the wonders of DVD. You get to see all the flubs, mistakes and details that weren't apparent the first time around. But no matter.<br /><br />But no matter, it still gets a 7 on the imdb meter<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Again, we're getting a melange of themes well covered by so many previous films. The good and the bad son story, courtesy East of Eden. The American marine hero story, who doesn't consider himself to be one due to what he knows. And the grieving wife potentially falling in love with another man story.<br /><br />The mere fact of those stories being that ubiquitous isn't so much of a problem though. Because theoretically they could still be better presented and dealt with each time around. No luck this time though, as all three of those threads ultimately fall flat all the same.<br /><br />As the bad son never really gets to talk to his father, so that conflict is never resolved properly. Apart from the father kind of starting to appreciate the bad son thanks to the latter renovating the kitchen of the grieving wife. Now, how satisfying is that.<br /><br />Next, the surprisingly homecoming marine suspecting his wife of unfaithfulness conflict never gets resolved. Because he never really talks to the man under suspicion, namely his own brother. So once more we're handed a loose end here.<br /><br />And finally, the American military heroism hypocrisy theme, where the marine is publicly considered a hero when, due to the dirtiness of war he went through, he shouldn't really be called one as to his own standards, that third theme falls flat just the same. Because the movie ends right when, for the first time, he's just able to talk to his wife about what he went through. Where the real story would actually begin at that very point, namely his process of recovery, how that would look like and how he would finally face the family he'd have some major guilt to admit to. All that, all the really interesting bits are passed over and getting ignored.<br /><br />So while story wise this film is a serious, and I mean serious, disappointment, I'd still give it points for the impressive cast. Although no film should use Maguire for a voice over, because that belongs to Spiderman. Especially a grown up Gyllenhaal seems to fulfill all the expectations he aroused as a young and aspiring actor. So much that I'd in fact love to see him entrusted with a really deep and demanding lead role of proper profile.<br /><br />So while the cast really seems to do what they can, I consider this film totally forgettable otherwise. A shallow and ultimately pretentious, utterly unsatisfying tear squeezer indeed. Message du jour to the writers: we know the wounds already, see the host of Vietnam films. You want to earn some credit, show us a believable healing.
|
negative
|
Romantic comedy movies are definitely the most fertile genre for "bellow from average" movies and source of frustration for viewers. This one is a perfect example of this and got a place in my "top ten worst movies".<br /><br />History is far from creative and jokes are weak. I found no reason for a single laugh during all the movie! Characters are plain and the performance of the actors and just good. History develops slowly, it's tedious and foreseeable. Ending is also foreseeable and sugar-coated.<br /><br />This is one that movies you watch in a rainy Saturday afternoon when you have nothing better to watch in my humble opinion.
|
negative
|
Well!! the movie has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. It's a Hallmark television movie. It's from a Thomas Hardy novel. It has Catherine Zeta Jones in it. She is by far the only one in the movie who acts better than in my high school theater class. Oh yes it has Clive Owen in it. I'm not British so that means almost as much as being a Thomas Hardy novel. Except he was in "The Bourne Identity", and I liked that. That just about wraps it all up folks. That really all there was. I'm becoming repetitive, but I do like CZJ, so I stuck it out to the end. The computer is telling me that I don't have 10 lines and I keep counting them. I always count 11, but maybe it just doesn't like my style, but that is my opinion of the movie, too.
|
negative
|
On Steve Irwin's show, he's hillarious. He doesn't even try to be funny and he just is but his movie wasn't even what I would call a movie-I mean when that guy on his car is trying to kill him he's just saying 'Oh, this is one nasty bloke!' and looking straight into the camera. He put his face in the camera too much! And then when the guy falls off the car wouldn't you expect him to be dead? And Terri had the worst acting I'd ever seen! Like when the crocodile almost ate Steve she just says 'Steve'. She didn't sound scared or anything, it was just 'Steve'. I mean I hate to sound mean but that was not worth seeing. I love Steve Irwin but his movie was just too stupid.
|
negative
|
I'm a huge fan of the spy genre and this is one of the best of these films. The Assignment is based on a true story, which has been somewhat embellished for the big screen, and it really takes you on a fun ride. The film has a great cast, starring Aidan Quinn, Donald Sutherland and Ben Kingsley.<br /><br />Naval Officer Quinn is a reluctantly recruited by Sutherland after a chance meeting with Kingsley who believes Quinn to be the famous terrorist Carlos the Jackal. Because Quinn so closely resembles Carlos, Sutherland stops at nothing to recruit him because Sutherland is obsessed with the terrorist's capture or death.<br /><br />The training sequences are awesome. Quinn is really put to the test by Kingsley and Sutherland, having to withstand attacks from remote controlled snowmobiles, from eating the same food each day, to being drugged with a hallucinogen. He even has to learn how to make love to a woman the way Carlos would.<br /><br />The film has some great action scenes with Quinn eluding allies because they believe he is Carlos and in his final mission when he is to kill the jackal. Throughout the film, Quinn must struggle with the new personality he has attained versus his own. Will he remain as ruthless and free as Carlos or will he once again return to his life of a good husband and father? <br /><br />If you like the spy genre, this is a must see. The action is used only to propel the story of this thriller forward; no gratuitous explosions or fight scenes. Rating 10 of 10 stars.
|
positive
|
Eddy Murphy and Robert De Niro should be a combination that results in a great comedy. Great expectationa often lead to dissapointment, and this proves to be the case.<br /><br />When Eddy as a police officer spoils a drug deal being done by Detective Robert, they botch it so badly that they end up doing a live action reality TV cop show. Logic is not a great component of this movie. The super-gun that they spend the second half of the movie chasing down confirms it. A twelve guage machine gun that leaves large holes in sheetmetal and three will destroy a house in about a minute (without reloading) is as more a fantasy than science fiction. A five pound gun, firing hundreds of shots per minute without any recoil, is certainly the weapon of the future using the technology of the past.<br /><br />It is clear this movie was designed for neither adults nor children, so if you are somewhere in between, this is the movie for you.
|
negative
|
Maybe it's because I looked up the history of the Irish troubles in the 1920s and then the sad Civil War that engulfed the Free State after the signing of the treaty before watching this movie. Anyway, the sudden turn at the end brought tears to my eyes.<br /><br />Victor McLaglen isn't as famous today as he was back then, and he should be better remembered. In this film, I think he's playing himself as he would have been without his innate talent and brains. For example, the scenes where his buddy in the crowd is challenging men to fight with him is probably quite reminiscent of what McLaglen actually did in earlier years, when he was a world-class bare-knuckles boxer. John Ford is partly responsible for that; the IMDb trivia section shows how he tricked McLaglen into getting a really bad hangover for the trial scene. This director also could bring out a lot in his actors, even without such tricks. Mostly, though, McLaglen is firmly in control, especially when his character is almost totally blotto (which is difficult for an actor to do believably), and he also plays Gypo Nolan with a depth and emotional power that is surprising for someone who has only seen McLaglen later in his career, in "The Quiet Man." I especially like the contrast between this role as an IRA man and the much more obviously controlled performance he gave as the IRA man Denis Hogan in "Hangman's House." <br /><br />In "The Quiet Man," of course, McLaglen is a country squire at odds with the local IRA. Victor McLaglen was big and bully, in the old-fashioned sense of the word, but he was a good actor, too, and capable of wide range and fine nuances of performance that we just wouldn't expect of a such a man today. It's a rather sad comment on our own set of expectations and prejudices.<br /><br />Ford, as usual, packs a lot into a little bit of film. All the characters are excellent (though the Commandant's mostly American accent is distracting) -- NOTE: There be spoilers ahead! -- Knowing that Gypo once drew the short straw and was ordered to kill a man but let him talk his way out of it instead, we really empathize with the man who draws the short straw for executing Gypo, and the humanity he shows, most notably when they go to take Gypo in Mary's room. <br /><br />John Ford really shows his genius here, taking what could have been a gruesome and yet expected outcome to the whole story and instead using it to set up a totally unexpected and yet very satisfying ending that makes us think not just of Gypo and the other characters, but of poor Ireland during that tortured time.
|
positive
|
Okay, you hippies are probably wondering what I have against an "education" and "informative" show like "Barney"? Well, I have a lot of hate against it for these reasons:<br /><br />1. It teaches that having a personality and individualism is immoral. No one on the show has a personality. Everyone dresses alike, talks alike, acts alike and dances alike. Even in the episode called "Being an Individual", kids try to tell Barney about what they like and EVERYONE on the planet should do what I like. Do you wanna teach your kid that being an individual is wrong?<br /><br />2. "A Stranger is a Friend,You Haven't Met" Episode. While seemingly harmless, the show's producers soonfound that it could also be extremely dangerous for young children. In fact, several young Barney-lovers from across the U.S. fell victim to pedophiles, who were using the show's friendly message to lure children away from their parents. The episode has since been pulled, but the damage had been done. So called "Innocent" mistakes in programming, like this one, clearly show why parents need to watch television WITH their children.<br /><br />3. IF your not happy all the time, you are a bad person. No one seems to show any other emotion but happiness, no matter which situation they are in. If the child's parents get mad or sad for some reason, the child may think of Mommy or Daddy differently. Not a good message at all.<br /><br />4. Magic solves everything! Seems like every problem is solved by magic. At least in shows like "Fraggle Rock", it teaches us that magic CAN backfire at it is best to solve problems on your own. Does Barney teach this? NO, of course not. There HAS to be magic in there. And the problem is, a lot of two year olds cannot tell fantasy from reality, and might think their parents, siblings or relatives can use magic to solve everything, yet become confused when they CANNOT use magic and think they are weird. Another boner pulled again.<br /><br />5. Barney makes no distinction between stealing and sharing. He has even specifically said that "stealing is okay if the person you steal from doesn't mind". Kids can learn that if you really want something, stealing is a perfectly acceptable way to get it. This is not something that preschoolers need authority figures to tell them.<br /><br />6. "If I just have the right thing, I can solve all my problems." Whenever the kids have a problem, Barney gives them whatever they need to solve it. The message being sent here is "Don't try to think to solve this! It's too much work, and the solution probably wouldn't work anyway. Just use this." Because of this, children could stop thinking through things (Barney said it was too much work) and become dependent on the "right" object. (The right shoes, the right food, the right computer, the right exercise machine...) This is obviously a good message for the Barney marketers, but it's not good for preschoolers.<br /><br />7. The message that cheating is okay. In another episode the children are involved in a contest to carry a peanut on a spoon without dropping it. One child puts peanut butter on his spoon, and easily wins. The child is then rewarded for his creative thinking, when the child in fact bent the rules, and changed the game so that he could win. This teaches that cheating is good, you win and people think that you are creative, when in real life you will often be disqualified, or worse, and severely disliked by other competitors who played by the rules.<br /><br />8. Do the kids in this show eat anything else besides cakes, cookies and candy? That teaches that it is okay to eat tons of junk food and avoid healthy food, despite Barney's so called "Health Food" song. Other than that, EVERYONE in the show eats junk food. No wonder there are so many obese kids in America and Europe.<br /><br />And finally....<br /><br />Most other kids' television shows teach creative problem solving well, without having to resort to "magic". Barney could also have done that but instead decided to use the method that was A) best for the marketers and B) took the least time and money for scripts. It's a blatant sellout that shows just how little the Lyons Group actually cares about children.<br /><br />That is my rant for you all.
|
negative
|
The credits at the end read "ALL directed by Shigeru Izumiya". That's a fitting way to phrase it because it seems like filmed material from several projects were thrown together somehow, barely even attempting to make it all form one consistent work. It more felt like one of those music clip things that are marketed as feature films to cash in on those video commercials, just that here we have the marketable music and the live performances missing, except for one scene, which may as well be marketed as a weird music video clip in Japan. Whatever.<br /><br />It makes zero sense. Visually it isn't too special either, although it has its moments (for example the female creature with the "death powder" who is strapped onto a bed base and some morphing sh!t throughout) and it certainly has an industrial-y feeling to it. Usually I'd call the effects dilettantish but what this film offers in this regard is baffling more than anything else. You remember those cheap video effects from 70's and 80's music videos that make them look so dated, like a picture within a picture flying through the screen? There is quite a lot of these kind of effects in this, and without any apparent reason. The most half-assed seeming effort comes in the form of a picture collage. The pictures sort of look like album covers. Whatever.<br /><br />I don't know what's up with the subtitles of the version I saw. The Chinese ones (or whatever those hieroglyphics are) sometimes seem to show up when nothing is even said and the English ones often show up without the Chinese ones. The English subs talk much about life without death (is it possible?), and a mind without a body, which provides what comes closest to a comprehensible conflict between characters in this film. One guy (a scientist dude) says that life without flesh is death while another guy (a metamorphosing dude) who claims his mind is beyond his body now that he got the "death powder" blown into his face and that he now knows the secrets of the flesh and whatnot; metamorphosing dude is visibly p!ssed off about the scientist dude's claim. Whatever.<br /><br />Erm, The End - All Written By Perception de Ambiguity
|
negative
|
The film was very outstanding despite the NC-17 rating and disturbing scenes. In reality things like this do happen and that is why this movie shows a lot of it. It all starts with Maya (Rosario Dawson in superb performance) whose recently started attending college has everything going well for her. She meets Jared (Chad Faust in a terrific performance) at a frat party who turns out to be a real gentleman and sweet. He invites her out to dinner. They look at the stars from a bridge and they end going to his apartment. They talk and takes her to the basement were they become flirtatious with each other. She tries to put an end to it, but he rapes her. This incident scars her. She goes to a club meets a bartender/DJ Adrian (greatfully played by Marcus Patrick) who sees that she is getting to drunk and helps before she goes to far. They strike a friendship. He also does drugs and Maya starts using as well. In other words introduces her to a different world. She starts going back to school and working as TA (Teaching Assistant) and spots Jared as one of the students. While the students are taking a Midterm, she catches Jared cheating. Jared tries to smooth talk Maya, but she still has the upper hand decides to invite him to her place. Will history repeat itself? Or Will Maya have a surprise for Jared? You watch the movie. Excellent A. Rosario Dawson portrays the role with focus and endurance. Chad Faust does not like he can be a rapist, but he does a terrific job as Jared. Marcus Patrick is very brilliant the man who saves Maya and coaches her into a new world. This film deserves an award.
|
positive
|
Things get dull early an often in this in this mawkish jazz bio fiction written and directed by Spike Lee.<br /><br />Bleek Gilliam (Denzell Washington) is a happenin' jazz trumpeter that fronts a quintet packing them in at Below the Underdog. His problems include an incompetent manager, a stage hogging sax player and two girlfriends that he's playing musical mattress with. The real love of his life though is his trumpet and his music. The band's manager, Giant, has a dangerous gambling problem and proves to be an ineffective negotiator with greedy club owners and would be best jettisoned but Bleek remains loyal for as long as possible. It will prove to his undoing as an artist but ironically contribute to his growth as a man.<br /><br />As Bleek, Denzell Washington is all wrong as the ambitious trumpeter with a babe on each arm. He's too sweet a guy to be so self centered about his art, dispensing patience and love to those close to him with a low key remoteness. He simply lacks the fire. Wesley Snipes who plays Henderson the sax player would have been far more suited for the role but even he would have to mouth the flaccid throw away scribblings of Lee's torpid dialogue. As Giant, Lee hits the trifecta with an abysmal performance to match his writing and direction. Loosely attempting to mirror the grubby but sympathetic Ratso Rizzo to Bleek's Joe Buck he adopts a limp and even the "I'm walkin' here" moment from Midnight Cowboy. In this case you wish the taxi would run him over and be done with it.<br /><br />Lee's script is all tepid argument, heavy handed ribbing and veiled insult with some requisite clumsy editorializing that Lee has to inject to remain down. The scenes between the band members backstage and in rehearsal lack spark and are only surpassed in dreariness by the Bleek, Giant conversations that have an ad lib look and go in circles. Completing this travesty is Lee's pretentious visual style. Tracking shots, zooms and pans are wasted and without significance to scenes. They just wander.<br /><br />Blues is Lee's love letter to jazz (made implicit by the mountains of memorabilia plastered all over the sets) and it's all sentimental clap trap that lacks passion and verve. Jazz on film is better served by Tavernier's "Round Midnight" and Eastwood's "Bird" which get below the surface, reveal more sides of the form, the pain behind it in addition to offering infinitely superior lead performances by Forrest Whitaker and the real deal Dexter Gordon. This Spike Lee Joint doesn't even offer a mild buzz. It's some pretty bad homegrown.
|
negative
|
This sounded like it was going to be like Silence of the Lambs or Zodiac or something, but it wasn't. It really was more like one of the Halloween movies without all the jump scenes. It was a little like Plan 9 From Outer Space in the sense that the main bad guy kept making inane speeches that made me want to go get a snack without pushing pause. The idea of a person who is so crazy that he would abduct people and torture them as a form of spiritual enlightenment is actually an interesting idea, but the execution was too made-for-TV feeling. I have to say it was better than I expected for a movie written and starring Dee Snider. A good first effort. Maybe he'll learn some lessons and his next effort will be less clumsy.
|
negative
|
Shirley Knight plays Sara Ravenna, a Long Island housewife who runs away from her marriage when she discovers she is pregnant. She plans to drive into America's heartland and start anew. Along the way she picks up a friendly hitchhiker (James Caan) who calls himself 'Killer.' Soon she discovers that the good natured 'Killer' is actually brain damaged, and by picking him up she has unknowingly taken on a huge responsibility. The two of them drive all the way to Nebraska, where Sara gets Killer a job helping out at a roadside reptile farm. It is here that Sara meets Gordon, a local cop, and soon things go horribly wrong for everyone.<br /><br />This is a powerful drama about people disconnected from society, alienated by the choices they make or by the limits imposed on them by others. Even with such a low budget and a very freewheeling attitude, the film is able to capture everything that needs to be said through these clearly defined characters. Shirley Knight has a complex, diverging role and there are moments of some awe-inspiring acting by her. One of my favorites is when she is on the telephone calling her home to her worried husband the first time. It is such a tense scene on both ends, and in every small gesture and inflection of a word, so much about her is spoken with so little. Then comes in the character of 'Killer' played by James Caan. This character is unlike any I've ever seen him play, and he performs wonderfully. It's one of his best performances as he is very restrained and moving.<br /><br />The way Coppola develops the characters by using short, dream-like flashbacks is very clever, adding a fragmented kind of view onto it all. The quick flashbacks that are graphic and self-contained contrast well with the longer shots in some crucial scenes. Also, because this film was shot on location all over the Eastern U.S., it offers an interesting, authentic look at America in the late 1960's.<br /><br />I haven't seen many other films starring Ms. Knight, I'm only familiar with her more recent work on television, usually playing a nagging mother in law or a dotty old woman. It was great seeing her so young, beautiful, and so wonderfully subtle in this movie. It's also kind of a shame that James Caan went on to be typecast as the 'tough guy' for the rest of his career, because this film evidenced that he is capable of so much more than that.
|
positive
|
I wasn't sure what to expect but am I glad I went to see this. A smart, slightly twisted comedy that makes you think. I wasn't quite sure how a director can create "nothing", but leave it to Mr. Natali and the brilliant individuals at C.O.R.E. to create another low budget set that looks real (as real as nothing can be). Well worth your time and money, if you have the opportunity to see this, please go. You'll be glad you did.
|
positive
|
... in search of the cheesiest "so bad it's good" movie, I've repeatedly laughed at the first fifteen minutes of various films, only to be left disappointed and bored at the end. Not this time!!! My eyes teared up, my belly and my cheeks ached from laughing so hard throughout the movie. Sure, Hulk Hogan is a subpar actor and the plot is utterly predictable, but everyone dives into this movie knowing all this - all anyone wants to see when renting this is Hogan breaking out a can of whoopass, with a bunch of "YEAH BROTHER"s and "WHATCHUGONNADO"s flying from his infamously goateed mouth. And while the Hulkster on the screen pales a bit in comparison to the Hulkster in the ring, seekers of the ultimate cheese will certainly not be disappointed by this backhand gem of a flick. A laugh riot.
|
negative
|
There is so much to love in this darling little comedy. Anyone who has ever built or bought a house, or even just been short of space,will find that there is more than just a grain of truth in the plight of the addled Mr. Blanding.Melvyn Douglas,with great comedic flare, both narrates and acts as the Blandings' attorney and voice of reason.As well Myrna Loy is at her best as a rather scatterbrained but extremely patient wife. But the best performance is Grant's. He is the American everyman, especially relevant at the time of this film's release, when the nation was in the grips of a housing shortage after the end of the war. The themes are universal,lack of money, work strain, fear of infidelity.Yes, it does wrap up awfully neatly, but you must keep in mind that this was a time when the world was just recovering from a terrible war, and wanted a happy ending. It is still relevant today, and I must chalk up the poor reviews I see to a present preference for dumbed down, gross out comedies. The look of the film is slick, and there are some great bits of comedy is well, particularly toward the beginning.While it may have lost some of it's social relevance, nearly sixty years after it's release, it is still a gem.
|
positive
|
In his feature film debut `Yellow,' Chris Chan Lee attempts to enlighten Hollywood's portrayal of Asian-Americans by departing from the stereotypes typically depicted in mainstream film. However, in so doing, Lee commits a far more heinous crime: he exaggerates Asian-Americans' own stereotypes of themselves to the point of incredulity. The result? Dreadfully one-dimensional characters and an outrageously shallow script triggers the cast into a frenzy of over-acting, ultimately resulting in a film that is physically painful to watch.<br /><br />Don't be deceived by any of the positive reviews garnered by `Yellow'; each falls into one of two camps. In one corner (e.g., right here on imdb.com), you find Asian-Americans who are so elated that an Asian character can be depicted onscreen without thick glasses and a math book, that they somehow neglect the idiocy of Lee's final product. On the other hand, you find movie critics who have simply presumed that it'd be uncool to give `Yellow' the thorough bashing that it deserves; after all, it's an edgy Asian-American film made by an independent Asian-American filmmaker... protected territory for now.<br /><br />Case example: main character Sin Lee (Michael Chung). Writer/Director Lee accomplishes a monumental feat with Sin, by editing `Yellow' in such a way that Sin never appears onscreen unless he is either scowling or yelling. See Sin resenting his friends' support. Scowl. See Sin walk along the beach and brood. Scowl. (Yelling ensues.) See Sin closing up his father's shop. Scowl. See Sin urinating. Scowl. See Sin breathing. Scowl.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Sin is full of Asian-American angst. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Scowl.<br /><br />Just to be thorough, Lee introduces us to Sin's father, Woon Lee (Soon-tek Oh). Throughout the movie, whereas Sin simply scowls or yells, Mr. Lee scowls *and* yells. In fact, this is Woon's principal role in `Yellow': simultaneous scowling and yelling.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Woon is an Asian father with an authority complex. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Yell.<br /><br />If Lee's one-dimensional characters don't annoy you, his story line will. Meet Mina (Mary Chen) and Joey (John Cho), two characters that exist in this film solely for the purpose of spinning a tangential and entirely irrelevant love story into the film. You see, Lee learned in film school that every good movie must include some sort of love-related subtext, and these two characters allow him to fulfill the obligation. Mina and Joey's excruciatingly inane flirting dialogue consists of one-liner insults culminating in a kiss: `Nerd!'; `Stupidhead!'; (eyes meet); (understanding smile); (kissing ensues).<br /><br />But rest assured, somewhere out there, Sin is scowling while this all takes place.<br /><br />That neither Mina nor Joey contributes in any way whatsoever to the film's plot does not perplex me so much as Lee's insistence on the most hackneyed movie cliches to accomplish his nonsequiturs. And trust me, the flirting sequence is just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />Towards the end of the film, we find Woon Lee attempting to explain his constant scowling and yelling to Sin's girlfriend, Teri (Mia Suh), in what I am sure Lee meant to be a poignant moment. What a surprise: as Woon invokes a metaphorical story about the homeland to illustrate his point, ripped straight out of Reader's Digest, his voice quivers in that extra-special paternal way. The camera pans into an obligatory shot of Teri's trembling hands. We feel compelled to roll our eyes, except we realize that Woon's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. But lack of substance didn't stop Lee from making the movie, so why would he cut this particularly ineffective scene? After all, the world can always use another cliché.<br /><br />Well, you say, the movie may be painful, but at least it *must* be a technical masterpiece -- say, like, `What Dreams May Come.' Sorry, on a technical basis, `Yellow' disappoints as well. Lee's edits are awkward and disrupt what little rhythm exists in the film at all, but I'm sure Lee thought they would seem hip. To make matters worse, every frame is either underexposed or overexposed. Although the light meter was invented in 1932, somehow the newfangled technology didn't make it onto the `Yellow' set.<br /><br />In light of the film's utter deficiency, supporting actor Burt Bolos, who plays Sin's best friend Alex, performs relatively well. Although Bolos overacts slightly, you can't really blame him when Lee's script consists solely of scowling and yelling. Bolos' castmates, on the other hand, show no restraint in their overacting whatsoever.<br /><br />I have not seen a film as bad as `Yellow' in a very long time. And I truly pray that I will not see a film as bad as `Yellow' for quite some time, as well. Please do not waste see it; life is already way too short. Thank you.
|
negative
|
A documentarist, like any filmmaker, must convey a compelling story. Will Pascoe fails utterly in this effort, cobbling together uninspired snippets of Chomsky's wisdom from a visit to McMaster University in Hamilton. The footage is shot amateurishly and in video. Pascoe's only effort at cohering the fragments into a whole is by periodically throwing a vague title on the screen: "9-11," "Activism," "Truth."<br /><br />Lame.<br /><br />Compare this with documentaries like "The Corporation" or "The Fog of War" which create a narrative drawing material from interviews, stock footage, and filmed footage. In the end each delivers a poignant and insightful message deftly and intelligently.<br /><br />The only saving graces of the film are Chomsky's nonchalantly delivered upendings of historical dogma, and the fact that the running time is only 74 minutes.<br /><br />One of the more interesting passages was Chomsky's recounting of his experience with National Public Radio. He describes the conservative media as more accommodating to dissenting views, while NPR's liberal dogma strait-jackets its interviewees and dramatically limits its permitted messages. Yet another media outlet to be skeptical of.<br /><br />This documentary is for Noam Chomsky completists only.
|
negative
|
This is one of those movies the critics really missed the mark on. This movie is practically McHale's Navy for the 90s or Police Academy at sea. Grammer proves he can play roles other than Frasier as he outwits and outfoxes the Navy in order to get his own sub. Rob Schneider is as wormy as usual, the same in every role he plays, and Lauren Holly is the local sexpot albeit with a brain. Ken Hudson Campbell is as funny as usual with almost every line a catch phrase. The movie has a wonderful intelligent plot and a non-predictable script that still surprises me every time I watch it. Many of the Navy phrases and terms go over my head, though, but it's a small obstacle for the sheer accuracy and realism of the movie and its characters.
|
positive
|
This film has great acting, great photography and a very strong story line that really makes you think about who you are, how you define yourself, how you fit in, whether you accept to play a role or break free... There already are excellent comments dealing with these aspects. I want to comment on the formal setting of the film. Basically, it's two people on a roof. There is unity of place and time, with 2 protagonists, and the radio acting as the choir. Many directors have turned Greek tragedies into film, many directors have filmed contemporary stories as if they were a Greek tragedy, but no director, in my opinion, has succeeded as admirably as Ettore Scola in approaching the purity and force of the great Greek tragedies both in story line and formal setting. A masterpiece.
|
positive
|
Believe me when I say this show is just plain hilarious. The basic story is about Kintaro Oe who travels from town to town taking part time jobs, chasing women, and learning all he can about life. Kintaro has to be one of the easiest to relate to characters ever made. He takes everything to the extreme, and it's just laugh out loud funny every time. From his constant never ending quest to study life, to tiny things he instantly blows up into life or death matters.<br /><br />One of the funniest things about this show is simply Kintaro's constantly extremely over the top expressions and reactions. He spends a great amount of time in various super deformed modes like Dragon Half or Trigun. Other times in less then 0.1 seconds his face will turn not just serious, but manga-fighter-style life or death expressions like a weight lifter trying to benchpress a new record. It's hilarious.<br /><br />If that wasn't enough, the writing is superb and the english voice acting couldn't possibly be better. Kintaro's English VA is just perfect and will have you rolling around when he's not even really saying anything. The one thing to mention though is this is without a doubt an Ecchi series. It practically defines the word. If you're an adult anime fan who can get a laugh out of movies like American Pie, you'll love this.<br /><br />- Rirath_com
|
positive
|
Awful is really all one needs to know. First think of all the things that could be bad about a movie. And then try to make a movie that is bad in all of these ways. You will have made "Vacationland." The state of Maine should feel insulted: it's much too nice a place to serve as the backdrop for such trite, mindless, boring schlock. I'm a romantic, and I always want movies about two people finding each other to succeed, and I tried hard to find the good in this one. It was tough; very tough. I couldn't find a glimmer of emotional connection among any of the characters in this exercise in humdrum dreariness. Except maybe in one or two of the bad guys.<br /><br />Maine IS a good vacationland; this movie is not.
|
negative
|
I totally agree. This is "Pitch Black underground" and a well worn plot. The best scenes I thought were the divers exploring the caves, going through impossible subterranean passageways, some of them were heart pounding. The scenery was great. Had they dispensed with the staple "alien" toothy CGI badboys entirely the movie would have been much better. All they would have had to do is never show any monsters at all but have everyone wondering, and follow Jack's descent into madness, and this might have been a top rate hitchcock-style thriller, maybe award material. The acting isn't bad. But those rubber bats just reduce it to standard fare.
|
negative
|
What has to change in today's attitude towards films like Boogie Nights is the approach. The approach is awful! Comparing it to Pulp Fiction, seeing only the pornography, and all its aspects.. come on people, there is more than that in this beautiful motion picture. And to all the sceptics, hasn't Paul Thomas Anderson proved himself worthy time and time again? Magnolia is one of the main reasons I watch American films at all and still have faith in this "Industry" that film-making is today.. And what about There Will Be Blood? That is a film that will stay in film history whether u like it or not! Yeah, you! The so-called consumer.. you know something: F#*k you! you don't deserve this, you don't deserve anything. So many artists today struggle to get recognition and it has become increasingly difficult to make serious films, even mainstream, because people just wanna see celebrities doing stupid stuff.. like that sell-out Britney spears.<br /><br />Anyway, this was very painful for me to say because I don't want to see this, i don't wanna believe that today all it matters is the adding up of numbers.. sales revenue and sales return.. I want to see magic, the magic that Fellini, Bergman and Kurosawa brought and created through the language of cinema.. Because thats what PTA is doing.. he is creating magic!!
|
positive
|
Overall this is a delightful, light-hearted, romantic, musical comedy. I suppose a small case could be made for the movie being to long. But I'm not sure what you would cut out. The singing that Kelly and Sinatra do? No. The fabulous dancing that Kelly does? No. The time the movie takes to develop the story line and develop the relationships of the characters? No (that seems to be a common complaint many times that more recent movies don't develop the characters).<br /><br />Some comment that Iturbi didn't bring much to the movie but this gives us a chance to see and hear a great talent from the 1040s. So what if he wasn't an actor? He was an important part of the movie as the basic plot was to get Grayson an audition with him. <br /><br />Originally Katherine Grayson wanted to be an opera star. Louis B. Mayer brought her to MGM for a screen test that included an aria. During her audition in the movie there is a shot of the MGM brass nodding and smiling. You can just imagine it was like that when she had made her real screen test years before.<br /><br />This movie is so full of life it is hard to hit all of the highlights. Great use was made of color and lighting throughout the movie. You can see why Frank Sinatra became the star he did. A nice counter-point in the movie is how Sinatra (a ladies man even then) played the role of wanting to just find a date while on leave. You'll feel good after seeing this movie. 7/10
|
positive
|
Some people say this show was good in it's early years! I disagree with all of 'em. The show is just plain stupid and pathetic. My mum hates it, I hate it, my dad hates it, I don't know about my sister but oh well. Here some reasons why:<br /><br />1. THE CHARACTERS: Babies being used as grown up style characters are stupid. The babies are just precocious and annoying. The grown ups and adults are dumb and unappealing. The worst character is that Angelica Pickles (she really does it in for your ear drums when you had a long, hard and miserable day at the office) and also that Kimi Finster who appears later on; she is too over optimistic and a pain in the butt. She can't decided whither she is French or Japanese: it doesn't matter know; you are a American Citizen know and that's that! Oh, what am I talking about, all the characters from this show suck!<br /><br />2. THE STORIES: The stories are unoriginal and dumb. The make it like the babies go off on a great adventure, yeah to the back yard shed. In one episode, that little goofy brat, Tommy Pickles the Leader broke in to a television's control room and literally almost destroyed it. Don't give kids any idea to smash up normal T.V Station's control rooms (they pay a awful lot of money for them in real life). I can imagine what the broadcasters must of felt like airing this episode, they will probably start staring at their machines throughout the day scared that a baby will brake in. Sad!<br /><br />3. OVER RATED!: The show has been dragging on for years now and people are still making up stories and new series and spin-offs for this. Get off! The Simpsons have been going for nearly the same amount of time as this but they are much better and funnier than babies. The show is just plain over rated! People, where is your common sense!<br /><br />Anyway, I surprised T.V Stations across the world want to air this series even off today. The show is utter junk and should have never been produced. The two movies for this cartoons sucked just the same! 2/10
|
negative
|
I enjoyed this movie. More than I expected. It has enough action, intrigue and locations to make it worth your while. While I can't quite yet see Mark Wahlberg as a leader, he's gotten good enough to be a credible manager and that's OK.<br /><br />The superhero of the movie is the Mini Cooper. It's shown to have the speed, dexterity and muscle to pull off any job. And to handle a maniac driver like Charlize Theron's character.
|
positive
|
It is difficult to imagine how the engaging Dan Brown novel "Angels and Demons" could misfire as badly as this film version. Here are ten reasons why the film was a failure. Due to the spoilers, please do no read on unless you have already seen the film.<br /><br />(1) In the film, there was no love relationship between Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra. Worse still, there was not even any chemistry between the two leading actors. <br /><br />(2) The breathtaking locations in Rome, as described in the novel, were not realized visually in the film. I am aware that director Ron Howard encountered difficulties in filming on location. But there are superior photographed depictions of Rome on The History Channel than in this film where the Eternal City was presented in eternal stock film footage. The great art works described in the novel were only briefly depicted in the film. The magnificent Bernini sculpture of the "Ecstasy of St. Teresa" was only momentarily glimpsed, and the West Ponente relief in Vatican Square was not visible at all.<br /><br />(3) The most tasteless choice made by the film-maker was in the depiction of the deceased pope who actually resembled the beloved John Paul II. In the novel, the pope is clearly fictional with no resemblance to any real pope.<br /><br />(4) One of the most colorful (and important) characters of the novel, Maximilian Kohler, Director of CERN, was cut out of the screenplay.<br /><br />(5) There were numerous instances when the lines of dialog were inaudible due to extraneous background noise.<br /><br />(6) There were moments when the faces of characters were not visible due to the shadows and chiaroscuro film lighting. This technique worked in "The Godfather" films, but Ron Howard is no Gordon Willis.<br /><br />(7) The College of Cardinals was quite a motley crew with one of the electors speaking in a Southern drawl. This dude would have been more at home on a Texas ranch than in the Sistine Chapel.<br /><br />(8) The crucial relationship of the Camerlengo and the deceased Pope was not defined in the film. This relationship was central to the theme of science vs. religion and the relevance of the Illuminati to the plot against the church.<br /><br />(9) In the novel, the character of Hassassin was an unforgettable villain. In the film, that assassin character's role was a cardboard cutout villain. <br /><br />(10) As a whole, the filmmakers did not trust the workings of the successful novel.<br /><br />In the novel, Langdon makes an impossible fall out of the sky and into the Tiber River. In Ron Howard's film, it was the movie itself that landed in the Tiber.
|
negative
|
This movie was advertised as a comedy but was far more serious than the trailers made it out to be. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but was expecting more laughs. Great performances from Robin Williams and Laura Linney. Worth seeing, but don't go expecting to be rolling on the floor. The movie left me wondering what it would be like if Robin Williams character was a real person that was running for president. Would we elect a comedian? I doubt it, unfortunately. That kind of stark honesty is something greatly lacking today. This is a movie that I will be adding to my DVD library as soon as it comes out on DVD. The movie has heart.
|
positive
|
In Everything Is Illuminated, Elijah Wood plays Jonathan Foer, a Jewish American who is looking for the woman who saved his grandfather during WWII. In a sense, the woman that saved his entire family.<br /><br />This is a heart-felt tale about someone who is on a seemingly hopeless journey. A stranger in a strange land so to speak. Jonathan is not entirely prepared for this adventure, he sticks out like a sore thumb in the Ukraine (he would probably stick out like a sore thumb anywhere). But what he discovers is more, much more than he anticipated. This movie will make you laugh and will make you cry. Elijah Wood is really good in this film, based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer.<br /><br />From someone I talked to, this movie is somewhat different from the book. A book I gather is really good. Nevertheless, this is a good movie, it has something for everyone and I really enjoyed it. Can someone say Oscar?
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.