review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I saw this movie way back when it premiered.<br /><br />It was based on the notion that autistic children could communicate with typed-out messages with someone else merely aiding them and guiding their hands.<br /><br />Then suddenly these children, many of whom weren't even observing the keyboard or the screen when the messages were being typed out (they could be looking up at the ceiling in some instances), but their moderators were eyes glued on the keyboard, began typing messages of abuse from their parents and other persons, sending parents and child welfare agencies in a proberbial tizzy, left and right.<br /><br />This whole thing was proved a fallacy when a third person presented a folder, opened it to the child and said 'type the picture you see', then as the presenter turned the folder to the moderator, a fold would fall down, revealing another different picture.<br /><br />So while the child may have seen a dog, the moderator saw something like a boat.<br /><br />Every time, every bloomin' time, the name of the picture typed was what the moderator had observed, never what the child was shown.<br /><br />So who was doing the typing? Never the child.<br /><br />This movie further took a disastrous turn with, as the Australia poster stated, the person who molested the child in the movie was IN the situation trying to help the child.<br /><br />Had Melissa Gilbert never put her son IN that place, he wouldn't have been molested, is what the movie says. He was better off under her supervision.<br /><br />If I turn my kid over to your organization for aid and he gets molested instead, do you think I'm going to be keen to listen to anything you have to say after that? Not likely! I think it is a safe bet that all of these accusatory messages that these kids were typing out, that this movie was based on, they never accused someone within their operation as took place here.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I do recall that the movie gave a very good performance from Gilbert as the mother of an autistic, but other than that, the movie really didn't do much.<br /><br />The worst by far was the child typing at the end to Patty Duke, and we hear the mechanical voice read back what he typed, . . . . . "we won!" This child was molested. If you cut my leg off and I take you to court and you are found guilty of damaging me, assault, whatever, then that is legal justice, but it doesn't bring my leg back.<br /><br />At best, in my condition, I will view it as a hollow victory.<br /><br />Whatever chance this child had at what is perceived as normalcy with the autism alone is further damaged by the molestation.<br /><br />A 'normal' child has enough to contend with from such an experience.<br /><br />It's utterly superficial to think that you must look upon any situation and go 'we won' if that person is found guilty in court.<br /><br />Just a bad handling of a situation and circumstances all the way around here.
|
negative
|
Turkish Cinema has a big problem. Directors aren't interested in global cinema. They are local and folkloric, but want to be international. This brings kitsch results such this movie.<br /><br />Film has jokes translated to Spanish from Turkish and they don't have any meaning for non-Turkish audiences. Even for Turkish audiences after 10 years.<br /><br />Players, even Ferhan SENSOY have a worse acting than average. They act like puppets.<br /><br />Movie was shot in Cuba, but nothing includes about Cuba. So Cuba is thought like a banana republic.<br /><br />Waste of money, waste of time.
|
negative
|
The fact that reviewers feel very intensely negative towards the show is an interesting fact all its own. If you dislike it so much, don't watch it.<br /><br />Certain reviewers assert that you have to be dumb, dim-witted, or plain old primitive to enjoy this show. Au contraire, my friends. I am not claiming that all the contestants are smart. There are smart ones, and there are dumb ones. But I WOULD argue that they probably have a higher average IQ than the average reviewer on this website. Thats right, I said it. There is a lot to be said for the science of seducing girls. I'm sorry, but please withdraw all sticks out of your asses, and realize the reason you hate these guys is that they threaten you.<br /><br />Those oblivious to social sciences, and more specifically, the science behind mating are clearly going to miss the boat completely.<br /><br />One thing is clear: The clubs aren't the only places to meet girls. I personally think that the worthwhile women don't even go to clubs, so that they won't fall prey to men like the ones we see on the show. But what are men like these???? Apart from the ones whose games stink, they are the epitome of men. They are men who meet women in the most difficult situations. These are men who take ownership of their own sexuality. These men don't beg for their girlfriends to not break up with them, and these men don't say "OK" to the phrase "let's just be friends". <br /><br />Sound familiar???? In fact, these are the very guys you're afraid of when you take your special long term girlfriend to the club. We all are. These guys know what women like. (again, only the ones who have "game")<br /><br />And even the ones who are bad...they are worth a laugh! <br /><br />If you have gone out to a club, and actually interacted with the people around you, you should find this show entertaining. <br /><br />Look, I am at a loss for why there is so much hate for this show. My best guess is that it aggravates the insecurity in men who have had bad experiences in clubs, or threatens men who believe women are beautiful self-less creatures who just want a nice guy to buy their attention.<br /><br />I personally love this show. It is pure entertainment, and best of all, its REAL. It is a very perceptive take on the most recent state of sexual psychology. Sex roles have never been so different from before, and this show provides a very real view of that,<br /><br />I think it actually takes some intelligence to take away something positive from this show. <br /><br />This show appeals to a certain target market, and if you're outside of that, then I guess you shouldn't tune in to the show. We could say this about any other shows though, couldn't we?<br /><br />Grow Up,<br /><br />ApolloHelios
|
positive
|
A twist of fate puts a black man at the head of an old-school, white-bred advertising firm. And he intends to make a few changes...<br /><br />One very strange piece of cinema. You'll either love it or hate it. Either way, you've never seen anything like it.
|
positive
|
This low budget digital video film has strengths in the right places--writing and acting. In addition the digital photography is the best of the lot so far. In low light conditions the characteristic video umber tone prevails but, surprising, it rivals film stock for brightness, clarity, and, saturation in brightly lit situations. This is grass roots film making at its best with snappy dialogue carrying a "Midnight Cowboy" kind of story about grifters doing whatever it takes to survive in urban San Francisco.
|
positive
|
When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.<br /><br />And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.<br /><br />But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.
|
negative
|
Rating "10/10" Master piece<br /><br />Some years ago, i heard Spielberg comment that he would redo the movie here and there if he had a chance. Well, Mr Spielberg, i guess nothing is perfect, but this movie - together with schindler's List - is your best. Even Oprah acts well in this one !<br /><br />What got me most is the realism of the story and drama. Stuff like this happened and is still happening in the world.
|
positive
|
This movie came very close to being a good flick. The direction needs to be a bit smoother to progress from one piece to the next to make it more plausible. In particular: The main character's need to escape is not explicit enough. Is he trying to kill himself? Is he trying to escape? His life does not seem to be that bad, so it makes it more difficult to swallow that he wants to leave his life so much. Also, it is not very clear how much "in love" he has fallen with Jennifer Jason L. If the movie was reworked with some more attention to these details, it would have been Great. On the other hand, for an indy flick, it's pretty good! Maybe if you have a couple of drinks, to dull the logical thinking, it would be more fun...<br /><br />
|
negative
|
"The Next Karate Kid" is a thoroughly predictable movie, just like its predecessors. Its predictability often results in a feeling of impatience on the viewer's part, who often wishes the story could move a little faster. Despite its lulls and its extreme familiarity, however, this fourth entry in the series is painless, almost exclusively because of the presence of Morita. He doesn't seem tired of his role, and he does inject some life and humor into the film, becoming the best reason for you to see it. Not awful, but nothing much, either.
|
negative
|
There was once someone in my family (not saying who it is because of personal reasons) who thinks that Mr Bean is always so silly in whatever he does on the comedy series. Imagine how I felt at that time. Shocked instantly.<br /><br />There are more reasons than one why I love watching Mr Bean. Being one of those earliest shows on the local television here in my country where I first grew up watching, it's just one of those things which had stuck into my head. There was even once my friends and I talked about few of the selected episodes and we just laughed together.<br /><br />It's always silly, funny and hilarious in whatever antics Rowan Atkinson as Mr Bean will do in each episode. Though lately at times it may show some of the repeats here, it never failed to bring back those childhood memories of mine. In fact, I can dare say this is the very first show which introduces me about the kind of shows which come out of the UK as I was growing up.<br /><br />The comedy series...definitely really wicked, as what the Brits may be saying.
|
positive
|
I've been watching a lot of Asian horror movies lately, but this one has to be the worst so far. It started out interestingly enough, but lost momentum after the first 15 minutes of the movie. The added "drama" scenes, flashback sequences and serious plot holes left me hanging. What really happened in the tunnel? Just "something terrible"??? Who started all the killing if it wasn't the ghost? What did she want returned to her????? No answers whatsoever! Overall, not very scary at all and the movie makers need to come up with a lot better ideas than this...<br /><br />One positive was the cute actress, but that's about it.<br /><br />Not recommended.
|
negative
|
By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.We sent an e-mail to when you registered. You must click on the link in that e-mail to complete your registration and enjoy the full benefits of being registered at IMDb.com. Whilst you wait for that e-mail, you can still update some of your registration details by using the links below. Don't forget to keep checking your e-mail though!
|
positive
|
I went to see this film at the cinema on the strength of its potentially interesting subject matter, good cast, a director who had previously done the highly-rated "Once Were Warriors" and my liking for noir-ish films set in L.A. in the Forties and Fifties. I would argue that I am reasonably easy to please in this film category; I appreciate the classics of the genre but I will sit through and enjoy a half-decent if derivative effort as well. However, I found this film completely unbearable.<br /><br />Despite a good situation in which to place the story, nobody seems to do or say anything remotely interesting or entertaining in the whole two-hours plus of this sorry mess. Good actors are wasted in endless scenes of dialogue ranging from banal to embarrassing. The narrative is slack and drags unbearably, and none of the events it depicts is handled well enough to do anything other than bore the audience to death. There is no drama, no atmosphere, no tension, absolutely no entertainment value and by the end I simply didn't care what happened because I did not believe in anything in the film.<br /><br />L.A. Confidential came out a year later and regardless of whether one version of the story is more true-to-life, the latter film deservedly gets all the plaudits for its excellence in every department. Mulholland Falls by contrast fails in every department, a fact made all the more tragic by the amount of talent involved. If they ever show this on a plane I will still walk out.
|
negative
|
Dear Readers, 2001: A Space Odyssey is Kubrick at his best...although I really can't say that as Space Odyssey is his only film I've ever watched. But still, it's a good film. Strange, but good.<br /><br />The movie is in three acts, much like the novel...which is unsurprising since the author wrote the screenplay. Anyhow, we first start out with the simple yet spectacular opening with Also Sparach Zarathustra blaring on the speakers. Then comes the boring beyond belief 'Dawn of Man' sequence. Then there's the odd 'Finding of the Monolith' sequence on the Moon, played to Strauss's Blue Danube. Finally things get good with the Spaceship scenes and HAL going berserk and killing people. After that things die down and we have the 'Entering the Monolith' sequence which was WAY too long and the ultra-strange ending. Even though, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good film. It's not Star Wars, Stargate, Terminator, or The Abyss, but it rocks. My compliments to the chef, Mr. Kubrick.<br /><br />Signed, The Constant DVD Collector
|
positive
|
The most succinct way to describe Ride With The Devil is with but one word: authenticity. I will not rehash what has already been said about this wonderous film, but I would like to say how much the historical research and painstaking attention to detail the crew no doubt went through was appreciated by this filmgoer.<br /><br />As a student of history familiar with the period and setting of this film, I must say that this production is one of the most accurate fictional films regarding "bleeding Kansas". Yes there were liberties taken on the actual events, as all fiction is apt to do. But the overall feel of the film is genuine. Authentic costumes, authentic attitudes (no PC hindsight here) even the actors look authentic.Even Jewel Kilcher (who has a small part in the film) looked like she stepped form a mid 19th century photograph.<br /><br />A few viewers I talked with have expressed their incredulity at the stylized dialog. They cannot believe that 19th century farmers would "talk like poets".<br /><br />What they don't realize is that in this age of verbal slobbishness, the American public public of the 19th century was a surprisingly literate and eloquent bunch. These people were raised on Shakespeare and the King James version of the Bible. The screenwriters reconstructed the most likely verbal styles of these people, judging from documentation of the time. The stylized dialog just adds to the magical atmosphere of the film.<br /><br />But in addition to a historical document, this film works on a visceral level as well. Beautifully photographed and performed, it harkens back to the days of the great western epics. The raid on Lawrence, Kansas, done so many times before in so many other, lesser films is portrayed with a sense of urgency that puts the viewer right in the midst of the action.<br /><br />Romance, adventure, moral and ethical conflict.This film has everything a discerning moviegoer could want. <br /><br />In a year that was dominated by overhyped garbage like American Beauty, this great artwork was buried by an indifferent studio system. But I am certain that Ride With The Devil will be given it's due in the coming years. Please rent this film. You will not be disappointed.
|
positive
|
"Ripe" is one of those awful indies which manages to get into circulation and give indies a bad name. Telling a stupidly incongruous tale of pubescent twin sisters who crawl from a firey car crash which kills their parents and then hit the road while happily shoplifting, making goo-goo eyes at some guy, and ending up on an Army post so dilapidated no Army would want it (yeah, right!). An apparent attempt at a coming of age flick, "Ripe" is an almost complete loser which wanders aimlessly as the players drift in and out of character finally ending clumsily with nary a shred of credibility to be found anywhere. Not recommended for anyone.
|
negative
|
Ok, I first saw this movie like at 9:00 on Cinemax a few weeks ago and thought it would be award winning, boy was I 180d on that. This movie bit the big one. I mean, the mother of the monsters shows her true form only at the end of the movie. I'm going " That's it? Why doesn't she show it briefly a little bit more earlier in the movie." The plot being the mother and son feast on the blood of young women. Wouldn't it be better if they just went on, you know, a killing spree killing like a couple of young women each, then having the sheriff or a cop find out about and get into the old find a way to kill the monsters,save the young woman/women, and have 1 or 2 more people killed in the process? I think it would be a hell of a lot better that way. It also sucks because the son is the main character and he gets killed first. Why not get rid of the mother first? Plus, how does she have that strength at the end of the movie when she starts killing people? She said it herself she was too weak. What the heck was wrong with Stephen this time? I can never, ever dis the acting on any movie by any actor, after all, they try their best. If it weren't for good acting, I'd have given this movie a 1/10. 3/10.
|
negative
|
Definitely not a good film but nowhere as bad as some would paint it to be. Nightmare in Wax tells the story of a man, having had his face disfigured in a typical flashback scene, wreak his vengeance on those directly responsible and those indirectly for the losses in his life - most notably the love and companionship of a beautiful young actress. Cameron Mitchell plays the artist with his typical flair, albeit limited flair. Actually, I thought he gave one of his better performances. What exactly does that mean? Mitchell wears an eye patch, endlessly smokes cigarettes, wears a motley tunic, and talks to his creations in wax. They are not your ordinary wax dummies, but rather people still alive controlled by some serum that makes them lose control of all neurological function. They become zombies in effect. I thought the premise here was inventive if nothing else. It has some ludicrous explanation, but does serve the plot. This is a film of the 60s to be sure with some psychedelic camera-work by Bud Townsend and company. The acting is mediocre but Mitchell, Scott Brady, and Barry Kroeger give interesting turns. The wax figures of Hollywood's bygone era are done very effectively and most of the location shooting was very credible. The end of the film dissipates into something not quite real - either another example of 60s cultural cinema or the end of the scriptwriter's creativity. I'm banking on the latter. Despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the film. The opening scene showing an actor being needled was effectively done as was a police chase on the waterfront.
|
negative
|
This has to be one of those times you come across a movie with a neat cover, my first impression, sweet, full moon, crows, a scarecrow holding a scythe. OK my impression (I had watched scarecrow on TV a weeks ago) perfect, a nice slasher film to start the evening with. ................... wrong, absolutely wrong I think 5 mins in I was gonna take it out, but thought I wasted 3$ on this so Ill finish it wheres the scarecrow, well Im guessing its the legs of the fisher man wearing heavy duty rain boots. you see that every so often. I was watching this thinking.... OK when are those brats gonna run into this dude, at one point I thought they died. but no.... I mean frig, their still alive. I only chuckled at a few parts cause of how badly staged they were. one was the zoom in part at the start. the director/actor/writer says, "remember I had that feeling, well I have it again" and it was either a zoom in or zoom out, to hell I'm checking back. but I guess the scene was supposedly shocking, I mean whats more shocking is his wife had the same shocked look.... OK... she believed him??? Im sorry but YEAH.... i didn't know he was psychic until I read the movie box to make some sense out of what I witnessed. not only that, they used pictures to make you think this movie is at least clear. <br /><br />the other thing that made me laugh a bit was the, scream in the camera, to make it scary....... OK............... filming a girl close up screaming into the camera for 5 mins.......right..... I laughed cause of how pathetic it was these kids cannot act like the rest of the people in the movie.<br /><br />to top things off the scythe must have got lost or something.... cause seems the bad guy had just a stick. not even an ax, someone should axe the dam production film<br /><br />Don't fall for the picture, this movie is a piece of sh*t. I watched the trailer and guess what it has<br /><br />GIRLS WHERE ARE YOU TALK TO ME and CORN
|
negative
|
Second-feature concerns a young woman in London desperate for a job, happy to accept live-in secretarial position with an elderly woman and her son. Thrillers about people being held in a house against their will always make me a little uneasy--I end up feeling like a prisoner too--but this rather classy B-film is neither lurid nor claustrophobic. It's far-fetched and unlikely, but not uninteresting, and our heroine (Nina Foch) is quick on her feet. Rehashing this in 1986 (as "Dead Of Winter") proved not to be wise, as the plot-elements are not of the modern-day. "Julia Ross" is extremely compact (too short at 65 minutes!) but it stays the course nicely until a too-rushed climax, which feels a little sloppy. *** from ****
|
positive
|
Once again proving his amazing versatility, John Turturro plays the introspective Russian chess genius preparing for a comeback tournament, and forging an unlikely relationship with a gadabout fellow resident (Emily Watson) at a 1920's Italian hotel. They fall in love,to the horror of her social-mountaineering mother (Geraldine James).A wonderful love story, whose gloss of chess might make it appear cerebral.But in spite of its origins in a Nabakov story, it certainly is not .The romantic elements and the sense of time and place beat the psychological analysis hands down.John Turturro, having appeared in "Barton Fink" ,"O Brother,Where Art thou?" "The Big Lebowski" proves that he is not dependant on Coen Bros films to assert his stature.
|
positive
|
I went for this movie believing it had good ratings. Firstly, it is ridiculous that they're releasing a movie originally made in 2001, seven years later in 2008 here in India. Everything in the movie looks dated. Even for 2001 the movie looks like its been made on a shoe string budget. There is a scene where a taxi hits a man to elaborate how low budget you can get. Anthony Hopkins doesn't seem to know what he is doing in the film. He ends up giving a long monologue towards the end. If the film had bright sparks during that scene, I missed it as I was sleeping on my seat. Nothing about Jennifer Love Hewitt resembles a Devil. She wears ill-fitting trite clothes and scowls at random kids. As for Alec Baldwin a scene where he goes to meet Webster for the first time is not to be missed. What a waste of money! As Anthony Hopkins rightly put it, "Go back home and write better!"
|
negative
|
After watching Tipping the Velvet by Sarah waters i decided to watch Fingersmith, the characters were just as good in both performances, though missing Rachael Stirling in the adaptation of Fingersmith.<br /><br />The story line overall was of a good choice, the twisting and the unravelling of the characters were amazing! Excellent watch only missing Rachael Stirling!<br /><br />If you do enjoy the romance of two girls this isn't one of the best films to watch. <br /><br />It takes on a different spin from Tipping The Velvet but just as good. <br /><br />Would recommend it to everyone!
|
positive
|
...intimate and specific. Yes, a bit of a cinderella story, but only after many convoluted turns, earning it's way deeper and deeper into Antwone's psyche. Only superficial viewing can condemn this film as superficial. This is the stuff that heals nations, this is one of our great national stories. Antwone's path to emotional health encompasses a whole breadth of family history, the history of slavery and its aftermath. In his first directorial effort, first of many I hope, Denzel Washington confirms once again, that he has a truly beautiful mind and soul.
|
positive
|
An introspective look at the relationship between Hawking and the space/time contingent. This film expores the Gallilean and Newtonian laws and there relation to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.<br /><br />The film is methodically directed, exposing details of the man (Hawking) as well as his work (Black Holes). Interviews with his family are a little too long so sadly there is less development of his theories and ideas. <br /><br />A Philip Glass soundtrack superbly compliments the film. Only one other man could compose such haunting instellar melodies (Jean Michel Jarre).<br /><br />Overall I would highly recommend this movie on the basis of Hawking's 'nuggets of wisdom' and his adequate explanation of an Event Horizon!
|
positive
|
Director Kinji Fukasaku is perhaps best known, in his homeland at least, for his Japanese gangster films, a series with which this movie shares a number of characteristics. Violence and political intrigue are themes throughout both Shogun's Samurai and Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and both feature a lead character who finds his loyalties challenged by betrayals. Both films also feature a large number of characters who seem to have little purpose but to die, and since so little is done to develop them, their deaths have little impact when they do come. This film has other flaws as well. The makeup, costumes and sound design are distractingly poor, and the battle scenes were substandard as well, inferior to other samurai films of earlier years (Seven Samurai comes to mind). <br /><br />Sonny Chiba plays the Sonny Chiba character in Shogun's Samurai, the no-nonsense master swordsman who strides through the film, scowling menacingly. What a guy; he even gets to wear an eye patch. If you were expecting to see the legendary Toshiro Mifune, you may be disappointed; his appearance amounts to little more than a cameo, and just when it appears that his character might do something interesting, he disappears for good. <br /><br />Overall, the strengths of the film are its story, which is infinitely more comprehensible than those gangster films, and the challenges posed to traditional concepts of good and evil. Two brothers are challenging for the throne of their recently departed father, who may have had some help on his way out. Early on, it looks as if we will be faced with a couple of characters who couldn't be more clearly good and evil; after all, the older brother stammers and has a birthmark, the sure sign of a villain. Eventually, however, it becomes clear that in a winner-takes-all struggle for power, there are no heroes and villains, only winners and losers.
|
negative
|
Eric Stoltz delivers an extraordinary performance as Joel Garcia, a successful young novelist who winds up paralyzed and in a special hospital for the recently disabled after breaking his neck in a hiking accident. While learning to cope and adjust with the gravity of his new limited physical condition Joel befriends slick, fast-talking, charming womanizer Raymond (an amazing Wesley Snipes) and boorish, surly, racist biker Bloss (a terrific William Forsythe), who feels threatened by the diverse multi-ethnic array of fellow patients he's forced to share a room with. Joel also receives substantial support from his loyal and loving, but married girlfriend Anna (radiantly played by Helen Hunt). But he still must come to terms with being disabled on his own.<br /><br />This remarkable movie's key triumph is its laudably stubborn refusal to neither sanitize nor sentimentalize the severity of what these men are going through. Directors Neil Jimenez (who also wrote the thoughtful and insightful script) and Micheal Steinberg relate the story with exceptional taste, wit and warmth, specifically addressing with disarming candor and matter-of-factness how being handicapped irrevocably alters one's lifestyle, including and especially your sex life (this point is most powerfully made in a striking sequence when Joel and Anna try and fail to make love in a motel room). Besides the expected poignancy, the film further provides a surprising surplus of wickedly funny raw, earthy humor that's highlighted by the uproarious sequence with Joel and Bloss making a secret nocturnal expedition to a strip club. The uniformly superb acting qualifies as another significant plus: Stoltz, Snipes, Forsythe and Hunt are all outstanding, with stand-out supporting turns by Grace Zabriskie as Bloss' doting, amiable mother and Elisabeth Pena and William Allen Young as compassionate hospital nurses. Despite the grim subject matter, the film ultimately proves to be a very moving, positive and uplifting cinematic testament to the astonishing strength and durability of the human spirit. A simply wonderful little gem of a drama.
|
positive
|
I was sitting at home and flipping channels when I ran across what potentially sounded like an interesting film. I like Destruction type movies and decided to watch it. I don't know why but I ended up watching it the whole 2 hours. We have seen this type of movie I don't know how many times.<br /><br />Back in 1998 - 2000 there were dozen of films that dealt with global destruction of some sort. The best one on my list so far is Deep Impact which was more believable than this one. Here are my problems with this film: 1) cheap special effects, like something out of the old computer. 2) no background information or explanation on weather patterns. If you are going to make a movie about weather, at least have some decency to entertain the viewer with technical details. 3) How come only 2 or 3 people figure out that the storm is converging on Chicago... no more experts left in the field? 4) where are some interesting characters? I truly don't care for anyone except maybe the pregnant woman. I felt that there was no character development. 5) no thought provoking moment what so ever and factually incorrect theme. And this is only the first part of the film. I bet the conclusion will show us few destruction scenes and a search and rescue operation just like it has been done many times before. And judging by the special effects in the first part of the movie, I can only imagine what we are to expect. Of course, at the end, the main characters will survive and life will go on... how original
|
negative
|
Out of the handful of alternative titles in English, "The Sexorcist" is definitely the most appropriate one, since this is basically just a shameless rip off of William Friedkin's classic horror film in which they replaced 13-year-old Linda Blair with the 19-year-old Stella Carnacina only so that she could gratuitously show her ravishing naked body. I'm not sure what exactly Satan tries to accomplish here, but he exclusively seems to possess the young girl to play sexual tricks on her! Poor Danila masturbates around the clock and tries to seduce priests and even her own father into having sex with her. The young girl is introduced as a smart and ambitious theology-student with an odd-looking boyfriend (driving a stupid yellow car) and loving, albeit adulterous parents. When she takes a peculiar crucifix home to renovate, the ancient relic comes to life and no less than Satan himself (played by Ivan Rassimov of "Jungle Holocaust" and "Planet of the Vampires") starts to torment her. The overlong masturbation sessions and some bizarre nightmare sequences cover about three quarters of the movie, and then finally director Mario Garriazzo begins with the actual exorcism. That final segment is even more embarrassing and amateurish! The priests don't really do anything apart from saying some vague prayers but, somehow, Danila seems cured all of a sudden. There isn't much gore, the dialogues are horrible and the producers seem to compensate every little flaw by adding more sleaze! This is one of the strangest Italian exploitation efforts of the seventies (why the hell are they referring to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"?), but definitely not one of the best. If you fancy clones of "The Exorcist", I recommend "Demon Witch Child", "Beyond the Door" and "The Antichrist".
|
negative
|
Zarkorr is one bad movie. This doesn't even rate in the so bad its good category. It's just bad. From the (lack of) set design to the acting to the special effects, everything about this movie stinks. For starters, the film looks like it was filmed in just empty rooms with a couple of props thrown in to make it look good. Then we get acting that is so bad that it makes a high school play look like it was an Oscar candidate. And to top it all off, there's the special effects that are so bad that they look like an amateur pulled them off in their garage. The towns that the monster is supposedly crushing look like my nephew's train set. So obviously fake that they scream out at the viewer. The only good thing about the movie is the monster suit. Its just too bad that they spent all their budget on that and left nothing for the rest of the film. And maybe a decent script would have helped too.
|
negative
|
Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film "Hitokiri" (manslayer; aka "Tenchu" -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in "western" name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name "Hitokiri," a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the "Loyalist" (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. "Brilliant History Lesson" indeed!<br /><br />No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.<br /><br />The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of "leveling" in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.<br /><br />But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's "Black Ships," the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from "selling out the country." (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.<br /><br />Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)<br /><br />Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with "Goyokin," which Gosha made in the same year. But, where "Goyokin" is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, "Hitokiri" is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.<br /><br />In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a "Bonanza" episode.<br /><br />Barry Freed
|
negative
|
Focus is an engaging story told in urban, WWII-era setting. William Macy portrays everyman who is taken out of his personal circumstances and challenged with decisions testing his values affecting the community. Laura Dern, Macy and David Paymer give good performances, so also the good supporting ensemble.
|
positive
|
I, like many folks, believe the 1989 epic Lonesome Dove was one of the best westerns ever produced, maybe THE best. And, realizing that most sequels (in this case a prequel) are certain to disappoint, my expectations were low. Comanche Moon met that expectation with its marginal directing and acting, poor casting and frankly, a lousy script. <br /><br />Lonesome Dove created western heroes of Captains McCrae and Call due to incredibly strong performances by Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones. Prior to living in Lonesome Dove, we believed they bravely fought to rid Texas of bandits and savage Indians during their rangering years. <br /><br />If I had only seen Comanche Moon, I would think these two boneheads were a couple of incompetent, cowardly idiots. In Lonesome Dove, Call and McCrae supposedly chased Blue Duck all over Texas and never managed to capture or kill him. In Comanche Moon, a shot to Call's boot heel convinced him to settle down and raise cattle. There wasn't a decent fistfight or gun fight in the entire miniseries. The best punch was McCrea sucker punching Inez Scull, a funny scene but out of character for McCrae.<br /><br />Where was McCrae's wit and charm? Clara's love for McCrae, a drunken, unshaven slob and philanderer was completely implausible. And Maggie's love for Call, a dispassionate and sullen loner, defies logic. <br /><br />The cinematography was excellent, superior to the original. Credit goes not only to HD technology, but the cinematographer. The Comanche Moon miniseries was better than anything else on TV for three nights, but sadly that's not saying much.
|
negative
|
Didn't care for the movie, the book was better. Does anyone know where it was filmed? *** this was my first visit to your site...just found the answer to my question. so now I look like a dummy, but I think I'll still submit my comments. and yes, British Columbia is lovely ***Or why they took it from its South Carolina Coastal setting?(this question stands) The place was essential to the fabric of the book and its change was part of my disappointment with the movie. Oh, I just read where I need to write at least ten lines. Here's my other main issue with the film. Kim Bassinger was too vapid and not at all what I pictured from the book. I know, the book was the book and the movie; well not so good. I found the character in the book much more empathetic. Also the book evoked rustic, almost primitive images of the monastery. While the "castle" in the film was much more visually impressive, it distorted the feel of the story and seemed at odds with the characters.
|
negative
|
From Kreestos: <br /><br />The dialog is terrible, awful, drivel. Acting poor. Many plot flaws. I don't recommend this at all.<br /><br />From Wikipedia:<br /><br />Artistic licenses The working manuscript of the score is attributed to two copyists [1], both of whom were male, not female as depicted in the film.<br /><br />The copyists neither contributed to nor altered the score. In fact, they were berated by Beethoven for any deviation that occurred from the original score.<br /><br />The movie is set in 1824 during the composition of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Throughout the movie Beethoven is shown to be hard of hearing but quite capable of understanding people who speak loudly. In reality, Beethoven had lost much of his hearing seven years earlier (1817). Beethoven never experienced permanent deafness; his condition fluctuated between total silence and terrible tinnitus. The Ninth Symphony was composed at a time when Beethoven's hearing had deteriorated severely. At this point in his life, most of Beethoven's conversations were facilitated by the use of notebooks. It can be argued, however, that he was also able to read people's lips, evidenced by his insistence that people face him when they spoke to him.<br /><br />In the film, Beethoven makes an allusion to the Moonlight Sonata. This is an anachronism as the Sonata No. 14 "quasi una fantasia" was not named "Moonlight" until several years after his death.
|
negative
|
This comment discusses "North and South Book I" dealing with 1842-1861 period<br /><br />The 19th century history of the USA is mostly identified by people with the Civil War (1861-1865). This is a reasonable opinion because that was Civil War which put the Union under the severe test; that was the Civil War which made Americans realize how precious it is to live in peace; finally, that was this period which at last brought the end to the shameful system of slavery. <br /><br />From the birth of motion pictures, there were people who adapted that time onto screen. D.W. Griffith, in the early 1900s, made his unforgettable BIRTH OF A NATION. Yet, the most famous film about the north-south clash is still, I suppose, GONE WITH THE WIND (1938). Unfortunately, fewer people know the magnificent TV series based on John Jakes' novel, "North and South." It is the very best TV series ever made and the time spent on watching it is really precious. I taped it on my video from Polish TV many years ago and have come back to it with great pleasure many times since then. Why? <br /><br />Firstly, the entire story is deeply rooted in historical reality. The two families, the Maines from South Carolina and the Hazards from Pennsylvania, represent two entirely different ways of life. In spite of that, friendship unites them. Yet, what they experience is the struggle all people do: friendship attacked by "truth" of "political correctness", love attacked by hatred of "legal spouses", gentleness by strength of "social heroes". Orry Maine (Patrick Swayze) is my beloved character - someone who finds love and who is quickly deprived of her; someone who cares for friends but political fanatics step in the way and ruin much. Finally, he is someone who can see the tragic future for his land but there is nothing he can do about the south's inescapable fate. His friend, George Hazard, is similar in most aspects but sometimes he appears to have a stronger character. It is him who shows Orry that although there are tragedies, he must get up from despair and live since life is the most precious thing we have. Although they represent two different lifestyles, their friendship occurs to be stronger than any prejudice, politics or conflicts.<br /><br />Other characters are also particularly well developed. There are villains, like Justin LaMotte or Salem Jones who are really wicked but most of the people are ambiguous as the nature of humanity has always been. Charles Maine is, at first, full of rebellion, prone to fighting, later, however, he learns to be a true southern gentleman for whom southern pride is not courageous words but foremost courageous deeds. Virgilia Hazard represents the most fanatical side of abolitionist movement striving to condemn slavery and punish the owners of "black breeding farms." Her marriage with Grady appears to be a symbol of equality but also a symbol of saying "NO" to the politics of the south. Two interesting characters are Orry's sisters, Brett and Ashton - sisters in whose veins runs entirely opposite blood. Brett, in her gentleness but also naiveness, believes in absolute fidelity. She marries Billy, even though he is a northerner, because she truly loves him. Brett is the representation of all that is precious in any young woman. Ashton, however, is a vamp, a tigress, a woman who does not hesitate to do the most wicked things. The clear picture of their world views clash is their chat about men and family...unforgettable moment and how universal! Most characters head for their values...yet, war breaks out and they'll have to put aside a lot...<br /><br />Secondly, the performances... someone said that not all people act naturally. I wouldn't say that. I'd rather say that all cast do very good jobs in their parts from the main characters who are portrayed by younger staff to the guests that consist of famous stars, including Liz Taylor, Robert Mitchum and others. Patrick Swayze as Orry does a great job. I consider this role one of his best ones. Lesley Anne Down as Madeleine is also very memorable. Her part, perhaps, entails too much suffering but she manages to express all sorts of feelings really well. Kirstie Alley is very appealing and truly memorable as the abolitionist Virgilia Hazard. Phillip Casnoff is worth consideration as horribly ambitious Elkanah Bent as well as David Carradine as a monster husband, disgusting Justin LaMotte. And, in contrast to him, a mention must be made of Jean Simmons who is truly excellent as Orry's mother whose heart beats for the glory of family life and concord of union. <br /><br />Thirdly, memorable moments of "North and South" leave an unfading trace in one's mind. Who can forget the first meeting of Orry and Madeleine - what charm, what gentleness there is in this scene! Or is it possible to skip the moment when Madeleine's father dies? I found it really powerful, there is a real drama in this moment, a drama of a woman being left by someone who really loved her. I also liked Churubusco sequence and George Hazard so worried about the life of his dearest friend, Orry. Then his meetings with Constance are terrific. Virgilia's speech in Philadelphia is a masterpiece of performance. And the final moment of the first part: although North and South may separate, their friendship will never die. Orry and George symbolically join hands as the train moves on. Simply, there are so many beautiful and powerful scenes that it's impossible to mention even half of them here. And these gorgeous tunes by Bill Conti and shot in brilliant landscapes. The music in "North and South" is very touching and memorable.<br /><br />What to say in the end? "North and South" is a real must have on DVD, simply an amazing TV series about the victory of all that is precious in us: love, friendship, loyalty, honor, truthfulness, absolute fidelity. 9/10
|
positive
|
....after 16 years Tim Burton finally disappoints me!!!! Whatever happened to the old Burton who read "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller as research for his preparation to direct Batman back in 1988-89? By the looks of it Burton didn't research the book nor the movie cause he got everything WRONG! This movie sucks! It's not as good as the original and it doesn't deal with the same subject as the original. If you want a good ape movie watch the original.<br /><br />**out of****stars
|
positive
|
A feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that: i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack, kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot - unless "provoked" means that it sees flesh); ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se -- and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society's dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one, virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use, develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior, no matter their age, and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships: marriage -- believe me, you are NOT going to like this film! Essentially it's a Howard Stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a Jane Fonda sort of woman (think The Electric Horseman). It's ugly stuff because the values, the ideals, of the screenplay are all so harmful.<br /><br />I share the other objections about the odd things in the writing: a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has -- because he refuses to reveal that his mother's death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them? It's a mystery why he just keeps saying "it was personal" when faced with angry and disappointed women. HUH? <br /><br />b) there's an enormous inconsistency (i.e., the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist's mother loved the father with everything she had - and then later we're told that there was only one great love in her life - her lesbian girlfriend.<br /><br />c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. We're never told that the executor has any right to live at the property - merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir's title and right to occupy the property. Yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant - which is crazy. (Try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent's property before the will's bequests are fulfilled - it doesn't happen).<br /><br />d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women - it's just absurd. Thus, we're told: i) that Penelope Ann Miller's character is dating other men near the end of the film - after having been with the decedent for five years - and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist, ii) that the protagonist's housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband - is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore "like to try a woman".<br /><br />iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that Mary Kay Place's character naturally looked at other women in college ("and they looked back" she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head).<br /><br />This is all just ridiculous.<br /><br />I agree with others about the sound of the DVD (I had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names, phrases).<br /><br />This is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man, hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child, loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. The film is out to preach - and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn't sit well.
|
negative
|
this movie was clearly done poorly and in a rush. I realize that the funding for any such movie is hard to come by. However if the plot had any kind of original substance someone would have seen that it got the necessary funding, this was not the case and movies like this are not necessary themselves and have no purpose in existing. The plot for this movie has been done and done better i might add, many times before. There is no reason to make a movie that has no chance in competing with any others. i was informed by my computer that i need a minimum of ten lines to submit my comment so the following lines are just bull to fill in space. In my opinion there is no need for anything else to be said about this film. what i've said is plenty and if you wasted enough time reading this review, than for God's sake don't waste more time watching this movie. The only exception to this is if you are the kind of person who likes watching crappy movies that get played on the womens entertainment network at 2:00 a.m. in that case go ahead see what i care.
|
negative
|
This was one of the DVD's I recently bought in a set of six called "Frenchfilm" to brush up our French before our planned holiday in beautiful Provence this year. So far, as well as improving our French we have considerably enhanced our appreciation of French cinema.<br /><br />What a breath of fresh air to the stale, predictable, unimaginative, crash bang wallop drivel being churned out by Hollywood. What a good example for screenplay writers, actors, directors and cinematographers to follow. It was so stimulating also to see two identifiable characters in the lead roles without them having to be glossy magazine cover figures. <br /><br />The other thing I liked about this film was the slow character and plot build up which kept you guessing as to how it was all going to end. Is there any real good in this selfish thug who continually treats his seemingly naïve benefactor with the type of contempt that an ex-con would display? Will our sexually frustrated poor little half deaf heroine prove herself to the answer to her dreams and the situation that fate has bestowed upon her? The viewer is intrigued by these questions and the actors unravel the answers slowly and convincingly as they face events that challenge and shape their feeling towards each other.<br /><br />Once you have seen this film, like me you may want to see it again. I still have to work out the director's psychological motive for the sub plot in the role of the parole officer and some of the subtle nuances of camera work are worth a second look. The plot does ask for a little imagination when our hero is given a chance to assist our misused and overworked heroine in the office. You must also be broad minded to believe in her brilliant lip reading and how some of the action falls into place. But if you go along for the thrilling ride with this example of French cinema at its best you will come out more than satisfied. Four stars out of five for me.
|
positive
|
I finally received my DVD today, viewed it and I'm pleased to announce this is the original theatrical version of the film. As you may have read in previous reviews of "Rich and Famous" that the edited for TV version of the film that somehow made it onto VHS sometime in the late 90's but, now WB has corrected the error and released it on DVD complete with the airplane restroom scene, Matt Lattanzi's bare butt, and the scene in the Hotel room where Liz (Jacqueline Bisset) calls Merry (Candice Bergen) a C**t! It's all there and looks better than ever! A crisp clear digital transfer, widescreen, and special features that include original theatrical trailer and a vintage 1981 featurette called "On Location with Rich and Famous" with cast and director interviews. If you love this film as I do you won't be disappointed with purchasing this DVD. Glad to finally have this on DVD
Well worth the wait! Thank you Warner Bros!
|
positive
|
This remarkable film can be summed up very easily. First of all, while the comparisons to "Princess Bride" are inevitable, it's almost futile to do so. While both films combine adult wit and humor with a fairy tale backdrop, "Stardust" is so much different than any other fantasy/sci-fi film I've ever seen. It's such a hybrid of those genres, but its plot and script are so unique that--along with the performances, special effects, cinematography, and score--the finished product is simply not all that comparable to anything that has ever appeared on the silver screen. Secondly, the score is very effective at simultaneously pulling us into the story and the fantasy world in which it takes place and pushing the story along, while creating just the right amount of awe and excitement necessary to make the magic believable within the realm where the characters exist. Thirdly, I did not find the film to be even remotely difficult to follow or confusing in any way. In fact, the interesting interplay between the three main subplots actually made it even that much more compelling to watch. Wonderfully casted, and superbly acted across the board. This fantasy adventure (with sci-fi elements) was the best one I've seen since "Return of the King" (not that I am comparing the two at all). OK, so its not that easy to sum up, but don't let any crude and/or heartless and cynical review nor the film's pathetic PR prevent you from partaking in the best time you could have at the movies this summer (or even possibly in a long time)!
|
positive
|
Monday, October 02, 2006 So I got together with my dad as I always do. We ordered some Japanese take-out, turned off the lights and pushed play. I'm an avid fan of horror movies. However, The Cavern released on DVD this October was most certainly a let down. It seemed promising, meeting all the standard requirements of any horror movie machine: drawn out beginning with antagonistic character present, a cannot be omitted sex scene, and the all too familiar pre-spook (when they spook you unexpectedly but it turns out to be the idiot buddy). Then finally when it got down to the nitty gritty, I was ready for some real gore action. The director, I admit was keen. Of course you would have to be to fill in an entire 81 minutes with people running back and forth in a space about 10ft wide. It all begins when some college bound "cavers" get together for yet another cave dive. They all seem like seasoned pros, very serious and spiritual about the whole cave experience. This time they bring a new-by along, some annoying photographer too blinded by his National Geographic cover to understand the full dangers of cave diving. As they descend deep into what they call "Hell Pit" they soon realize that they are not alone in the chasm of death. I will politely leave out any spoilers if you are naive enough to not heed my advice and avoid wasting your time. Although the atmosphere and background music was spooky; and there was sure a lot of blood and gore, when the moments approached to witness some actual dismemberment it was more like watching porn without the full frontal. The camera work was purposefully dark and sketchy. I guess the director used it for effect. I suppose the thing I like most about the movie were the moving characters. They deserved Acadamy Awards for those touching bickering scenes. I almost shed a tear when they finally "got it"... A tear for joy! If you like dry horror, soft porn, and you hated Braveheart. Then this is the right movie for your next Saturday night.
|
negative
|
Some films are so badly made they are watchable purely for the cringe factor. Disciples made me cringe so much it was uncomfortable. I watched it all disbelieving what I was watching, wasn't anyone aware how bad this was whilst they were filming? Mix the most hammed performances from the most wooden actors, an abysmal script were every comment from all of the 'actors' sounded like it came from the same character and the most hurried editing that tried (and failed bigtime) to give the film a forced pace. All these combined into a film that will rob you of a few hours of your life and give nothing in return. Avoid at EVERY cost.
|
negative
|
I Last night I had the pleasure of seeing the movie BUG at the Florida Film Festival and let me say it was a real treat. The Directors were there and they did a Q&A afterwards. The movie begins with a young boy smashing a roach beneath his foot, a man who is nearby parking his car sees the young boy smash it and runs to ask the kid `why? why? did he have to kill that living creature?' in his rush to counsel the youth in the error of his ways, the man neglects to pay his parking meter, which starts off a whole chain of events involving people not at all related to him, some funny, some sad, and some ridiculous. This movie has a lot of laughs, Lots! and there are many actors which you will recognize. The main actors who stood out in the film for me were: Jamie Kennedy (from his comedy show the Jamie Kennedy Experiment, playing a fortune cookie writer; John Carroll Lynch (who plays Drew's cross dressing brother on the Drew Carey show) playing the animal loving guy who just can't get it right; Brian Cox (The original Hannibal Lecter in Manhunter) playing the germaphobic owner of a Donut and Chinese Food Take Out joint. There is one line where Cox tells his chef to wash off some pigs blood that is on the sidewalk by saying "clean up that death" which is quite funny mostly because of Cox's "obsessed with germs" delivery. The funniest moment in the movie comes when a young boy imitates his father, whom he heard earlier in the day yell out `MotherF*****', while in the classroom. Another extremely funny and surreal scene is when Trudie Styler (Mrs. Sting herself) and another actor perform a scene on a cable access show, from the film the boy in the plastic bubble. The actor who hosts the cable access show is just amazing he is so serious and deadpan and his performance as both the doctor and the boy in the plastic bubble is enthralling. There are many other fine and funny actors and actresses in this film and having shot it in less than a month with a budget of just about $1 million, the directors Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi (who are screenwriters by trade, having written crazy/beautiful and the upcoming Tuxedo starring Jackie Chan) have achieved a film that is great, funny and endearing.
|
positive
|
I'm glad I read the Sarah Waters novel first, since I had my own pictures of the characters in my head at the time. The ones cast for this production, however, were not at all disappointing - in fact, after I got used to Rachael Stirling as Nan, I think Nina Gold did a damn fine job in the casting department. (Can Keeley Hawes be more delicious?!)<br /><br />The BBC has done it again: this is a wonderful production of a very good book, and they have done it up in style. If you can get your hands on this (VHS, DVD) be sure to get the 181-minute version (the uncensored one.) It is a marvelous journey, albeit a bit rocky at times, that you won't regret taking.
|
positive
|
'The Last Wave' is far more than the sum of its parts. It's not merely a disaster film, not simply an exploration into Australian Aboriginal spirituality, and certainly more than a simple court drama. Writer/Director Peter Weir manages to take these elements to the next level to produce a truly effective and thought-provoking film with the same eerie atmosphere he gave to 'Picnic At Hanging Rock' two years earlier, that you will continue to remember years later.<br /><br />When lawyer David Burton (Chamberlain) is called to defend Chris Lee (Gulpilil) over the death of an Aboriginal for which he may or may not be directly responsible, he finds himself not merely struggling to get the truth from Lee, but making sense of what he hears when it does come. As with the Aboriginal belief that there are two worlds - the everyday and the Dreamtime, the truth exists on two completely different levels, with ramifications more disastrous than Burton could ever have imagined.<br /><br />No doubt the reason why 'Picnic At Hanging Rock' is better remembered is because of its enduring mystery. We are led along the same path but forced to find answers for ourselves. In 'The Last Wave', we can piece everything together by the end of the film. However, even with all the information, we have to choose how much of it we want to believe, because the film takes us beyond the borders of our normal realities.<br /><br />On the production side, Weir uses his budget to great effect, progressively building a sense of doom in everything from soft lighting, to heavy rain, to good use of sound. The incidental music is unobtrusive, never trying to be grandiose. Richard Chamberlain manages to convey the bafflement the audience would doubtless feel as he tries to unravel the mystery. David Gulpilil excellently portrays a man trapped between two worlds, wanting to do the right thing, but afraid because he already knows the ending.<br /><br />Put all these things together, and you have a perfect example of why David Weir is a familiar name in cinema thirty years on. Strongly recommended.
|
positive
|
Silverlake Life, The view from here, is an absolutely stunning movie about AIDS as well as about a gay love relationship. Some images are indeed really hard to take, especially when one is gay or fears about AIDS, and probably for any sensitive person watching it. It's not easy to make a movie about such a terrible illness and its consequences about not only one, but two people's lives. This movie teaches how to care for each other in such hard times, but it never gets too morbid, it still shows life at any time, reminding you that outside of the theater or of your room, life goes on, whatever the destiny of some people may be. The characters are incredibly endearing, while we watch their intimacy in shots that never go beyond a very strict limit, never unveiling anything too private or offensive. Children should certainly not watch this movie, but grown-ups whether they have to deal with such situations or not, should do it, and will not regret the tears they shed.
|
positive
|
This is a funny, clever film and well worth your time. In my opinion it is much better than American Pie and other films of the same genre that seem to get knocked out all the time. I hadn't heard of this film, so I guess it didn't get much press, which is kind of a shame. It doesn't take itself too seriously but at the same time delivers a serious message to people about life and life experiences and what is important...As opposed to a film about a bunch of desperate guys trying to get laid for the first time and one dude sticking his d**k in a pie, but in the end everyone gets laid and whoop-de-do... One thing that impressed me was that the soundtrack was pretty awesome and not the usual cheesy American pop-punk...They actually had real punk from back in the day like the Ramones...That in itself made the film better! To be honest I wasn't expecting much from this film and I was pleasantly surprised at how good a comedy it is.
|
positive
|
Kurt Russell, whose career started when he kicked the REAL Elvis in It Happened At the World's Fair, will probably never top his performance as the King in this biopic helmed by slash and shock meister Carpenter. There are times you feel that you're watching Elvis until something snaps you back to reality...perhaps memories of a hapless Don Johnson in Elvis and the Beauty Queen? All the performances here are excellent: Season Hubley as Priscilla, Pat Hingle as the Colonel, even Shelley Winters brings the right level of nerves and hysteria to her rendering of Momma Presley.<br /><br />Kurt's dad Bing is here playing Elvis' father Vernon, and there's a fine understated performance from Robert Gray as Elvis' buddy and bodyguard Red West. <br /><br />A must see for rock n roll fans.
|
positive
|
Before I took a job as a reviewer, I never went to films like this, and thus remained blissfully unaware that at the soul of the Hollywood film lies a deeply woman-hating spirit that thrives on putting its knocking little knees on the silver screen for all to either empathize with or revile. Or is this just a particularly bad year? An ugly trend? <br /><br />Here we have yet another seemingly sweet, innocent, beautiful woman turned lethal weapon. The kind that cautions us that beneath every pair of batting eyes and nesting instincts lies a wild-eyed beast guaranteed to make everyone's life within 50 miles a living hell.<br /><br />This month's specimen is Jewel Valentine's (Liv Tyler), whose simple dreams include having her own little house, a backyard fountain, and a mondo home entertainment system. Unfortunately, Randy (Matt Dillon, in his first film in 3 years), the dim-bulb bartender she picks up at McCool's one night intending to rob, is less materially oriented. The kind of guy who drinks beer out of a toilet plunger, he prefers to hunker down in his dead mother's house with few creature comforts save his snowglobe collection.<br /><br />In that same low-rent bar, the Devil in the Red Dress also bumps into Randy's cousin, Carl (the highly amusing Paul Reiser), a lawyer with an ego the size of St. Louis. When things go south within hours, enter the widowed detective with a heart of gold (John Goodman). The result? Three men sustain big, bad crushes on the leopard-clad progeny of Steven Tyler and Bebe Buell-crushes that make them do things that common sense would normally contraindicate. Like get involved in the first place.<br /><br />Multiple points of view and flashbacks patch together the front-page news about how easy it is to fall victim to one's libido, especially if you're male. As each of these men relates his perspective to a confidant, his desire to possess The Jewel colors the `truth' of the situation. About 70 minutes later, things come together in a reasonably amusing way. But it's amusement from the same source that tells you that the stuff on the popcorn actually tastes like butter.<br /><br />MCCOOL'S is the first film by Norwegian commercial and music-video director Harald Zwart, and his pedigree is clear during some of the fantasy segments, including one about a car wash, soap and a hose that you can probably extrapolate. It's also the debut project from the production company owned by Michael Douglas, who's found his niche as a toupeed sleezeball in a bingo parlor.<br /><br />Dillon and Tyler are unlikely to win any gold statues for this one, though given the one-dimensionality of their overdone film noir-type characters, you can't really fault them. Several minor roles drag out unexpected guests--Reba McEntire plays Carl's psychiatrist, and Andrew Dice Clay doubles as both the hoodlum Utah and his even-scarier brother. (Finally, an outlet for all that aggression.)<br /><br />This film unwittingly speaks volumes about the dynamics between men and women--or men and their mommies. But ultimately you'd probably find more lasting psychological truths in a Bugs Bunny episode. I will say that it's better, funnier, more sophisticated than other recent gems like TOMCATS, but should we really have to choose what to see based on what ranks lowest on the misogynism scale?
|
negative
|
And that's how the greatest comedy of TV started! It has been 12 years since the very first episode but it has continued with the same spirit till the very last season. Because that's where "Friends" is based: on quotes. Extraordinary situations are taking place among six friends who will never leave from our hearts: Let's say a big thanks to Rachel, Ross, Monica, Joey, Chandler and Phoebe!!! In our first meet, we see how Rachel dumps a guy (in the church, how ... (understand), Monica's search for the "perfect guy" (there is no perfect guy, why all you women are obsessed with that???), and how your marriage can be ruined when the partner of your life discovers that she's a lesbian. Till we meet Joey, Phoebe and Chandler in the next episodes... ENJOY FRIENDS!
|
positive
|
Have you ever, or do you have, a pet who's been with you through thick and thin, who you'd be lost without, and who you love no matter what? Betcha never thought they feel the same way about you!<br /><br />Wonderful, wonderful family film. If you have a soft spot for animals, this is guaranteed to make you cry no matter your age. I used to watch this movie all the time when I was a little kid, and I find that now, at age sixteen, I love it as much as I did then. I could never decide on a favorite character then, and I still don't think I can! I love all three of the animals. The dialogue seems very real and comfortable, like a loving, but feuding family. I do love Chance, and how at the end he says that he has a family at last. Cheesy, yes, but one must remember that this is meant to be a family film, and it fulfills that role perfectly. Sassy has just the perfect dose of "sassiness" and Shadow is the perfect leader/role model to the young, adventurous Chance.<br /><br />The animals way outshine the humans, but of course most of the teary moments are to be had during an interaction with them (ie. rescuing Molly, and the end). Not to mention the incredible soundtrack that gives each moment even more emotion, and an accompanying heart-swelling feeling. I give this 9/10. To be compared to (and even rated better than) Cats and Dogs and Babe.
|
positive
|
A classic late 50's film. The superannuated headliners (Joan Crawford and Louis Jordan) are not at their best, but the direction, cinematography, and acting of the younger cast are compelling. In a 50's sense (which I love).<br /><br />The look and feel of the artsy (over-artsy?) contemporary film "Far from heaven" reflects exactly this sort of film (and I suspect this film may be one of the models). A silly plot, of course (hey, it's 1959!), but as a film-- glorious! As a reflection of the society, extremely interesting. And as witness to how Hollywood breaks away from the idealistic portrayal of American sexual mores, fascinating.
|
positive
|
At last!! Sandra Bullock is indeed a beautiful woman, but I've finally found a film that she gets to be an actress! Forget the predictable Keanu-fodder of SPEED, forget the predictable Kleenex-fodder of WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING - this tests her!<br /><br />And she is great! A techno-feminist role that really works well on screen, on a subject that is very close to the bone. The issues raised don't seem far-fetched at all and the whole experience, helped along by a fine supporting cast, makes for quite an un-nerving couple of hours.<br /><br />You may never enter another chat-room again, in fact I'm getting quite nervous just writing this review...er...bye!
|
positive
|
This movie is about a young couple running away to start a new life in LA, who end up being stalked by a psycho at a deserted rest stop. Actually, it's really just about the girl (Nicole), since her boyfriend literally disappears within a few minutes. The movie gets going extremely fast, and early on you wonder how it could possibly stretch its story out to feature length. It isn't long before you realize that the movie does this by simply wasting time with unnecessary scenes that go nowhere.<br /><br />The story is not only paper-thin, but unstructured, stupid, and incoherent. Minutes after the disappearance of her boyfriend and car, Nicole finds a mobile home at the rest stop. She sees the flashing of a camera, and KNOWS that people are inside, but she easily gives up on trying to get their help when no one answers her door knocks. After she is informed by the killer that her boyfriend is in danger, she walks around the rest stop, doing all sorts of stupid and unnecessary things. This includes turning on a TV (and even looking amused when she thinks she's stumbled onto a porno movie, even in this dire situation), sitting around, wandering, and drinking from a bottle of liquor for hours on end. She does all this KNOWING that her boyfriend has been abducted, that the killer is still on the loose and stalking her, and without taking any actions to ensure her immediate safety (she doesn't bother to lock the doors or remain alert). Oh yeah, she tries using a radio to call for help, but why even bother when there's a mobile home with people inside RIGHT THERE at the rest stop? It really seems like the script writer forgot about this important fact while writing this part of the story.<br /><br />There's no sense of entrapment or ever-present danger in this story. The heroine freely wanders in and around the various buildings at the rest stop, and the killer only drives in occasionally to scare her, before driving off again. There's NOTHING stopping Nicole from simply taking off (even if the rest stop is a long way from anywhere else, that's better than sitting around), but she chooses to stay anyway. At one point in the movie, the main character even ACKNOWLEDGES that she can run off, but doesn't.<br /><br />The story doesn't go anywhere, and instead just jumps from pointless segment to pointless segment. Nicole finally gets inside the mobile home, and it turns out that the inhabitants are a family of sheltered, presumably inbred or psychotic religious fanatics. They seem willfully ignorant or uncaring about the killer's actions (but there's no indication that they're connected to him in any way), and then kick Nicole out after several minutes.<br /><br />In the next irrelevant segment, the main character wanders into the bathroom building. She discovers one of the killer's previous victims (a young woman named Tracy), who is still alive and locked in a closet. For some strange reason, Tracy starts vomiting ridiculous amounts of blood. Nicole goes off to fetch a crowbar to pry open the closet door, and when she returns a minute later, both Tracy and her pool of blood have disappeared without any explanation. What was the point? Nicole finds a bulletin board showing many missing persons, and sees that Tracy had disappeared in 1971. So, was Tracy a ghost or something? The writer never bothers explaining.<br /><br />Next, a cop shows up in the middle of the night to man the police office at the rest stop, which had been conveniently left unattended for the entire day so far. Nicole tells him all about what's been going on, and when the killer drives up in his truck outside the office, the cop goes outside to confront him. What does the police officer do, knowing that something is seriously wrong? He goes up and calmly talks to the killer (who Nicole had even pointed out to be the guy who was stalking her), and buys into the killer's lie that he was simply driving through and needed directions. Seriously. The cop then talks to Nicole outside, totally unaware as the pickup truck turns around and runs him over.<br /><br />The cop quickly starts telling Nicole that he's a goner who's "lucky to be breathing" still, yet he strangely doesn't die for quite a while. The two of them do some more pointless talking, and the all-important fact that he has a gun is annoyingly not even mentioned for too long a time. When the two of them finally try to use the gun, Nicole stupidly wastes most of her bullets blindly shooting at a door when the killer was possibly behind it. With two bullets left, the policeman tells Nicole to use one to euthanize him. She fires one into his mouth, and he lays still for a few moments, with a chunk blown out of his head. Then, he suddenly and inexplicably yells out "You missed!" and she has to shoot him again. Completely cheap attempt at shock.<br /><br />Nicole finally confronts the killer
and fails. The movie ends with a scene taking place not long from then, with a woman arriving at the now strangely much more active rest stop. In the bathroom building, she hears Nicole crying for help in the closet (locked in like Tracy was). She gets a policeman to go inside and check it, but he finds an apparently normal and clean closet. The cop leaves, thinking he's been tricked. A battered Nicole is seen coming out from behind some boxes in the closet (she would have been easily spotted if the cop had spent all of 10 seconds looking), apparently too stupid to have said or done anything when the policeman was there. WOW.<br /><br />This movie is apparently the first in a new line of "quality" direct-to-DVD movies, marketed as being too extreme for theaters. In reality, it's just more cliché, B-Movie garbage.
|
negative
|
I'm sorry but i don't understand how the studio get's away with this. The movie is just not worth it. Maybe as a theater-play but certainly not as a movie! And why do they call it a thriller??? Offcource the acting is good but i did'n't expect anything less from these perfect actors. Robert Redford plays very well and Willem Dafoe is convincing enough as the softy "bad guy". Helen Mirren can play almost any role and always (still) looks beautiful to me ;). I'm also a fan of her British detectives. Still they just can't save this ow so boring movie, i'm sorry. I hope we don't get to many movies anymore from this director "Pieter Jan Brugge" cause he obviously doesn't now the meaning of the words "suspence and thriller".
|
negative
|
This was a very strong look at prejudice and group mentality. The cast is composed of superb actors doing a remarkable job. The sets are beautiful and just a bit stylized. The art direction is top notch along with great cinematography. The story is taut and shows how prejudice and bigotry can flourish easily. It is disturbing for its realistic violence and protrayal of a fairly typical community. I was very impressed.
|
positive
|
As a fan of Eric Rohmer's studies of the contemporary war between the sexes, I was very eager to see "The Lady and The Duke (L'Anglaise et le duc)" for how he would treat men and women during a real war, the French Revolution. <br /><br />The film looks beautiful, with each scene designed as a period painting, like a tableaux vivant. And I expected much talking, as that's Rohmer's style. But maybe Rohmer was restrained by basing the screenplay on a real woman's writings is why this mostly felt like a docudrama version of "The Scarlet Pimpernel."<br /><br />As awful as the excesses of Robespierre et al, how about some recognition that the French aristocrats were spoiled brats? I kept humming to myself: "Marat, we're poor/and the poor stay poor;" you could also pick a tune from "Les Miz."<br /><br />I wasn't all that sympathetic as the central figure has to go back and forth between her city home and country manor to stay ahead of the Revolution. At one point her maid claims the pantry is bare but sure manages to lay out a fine repast. I simply didn't understand her, an English sympathizer who alternately rejects and defends her former lover and patron as he and the Revolution keep shifting political focus; I think I was supposed to sympathize with her consistency more than their political machinations, like a character out of "The Scarlet Pimpernel." Hey, the only reason she didn't go back home was her disgrace after an affair and child with the Prince of Wales or somebody. <br /><br />Usually in a revolutionary period there's some groundswell of change going on in relations between men and women, but I saw none here. I once went to a Herbert Marcuse lecture that concluded with a lengthy Q & A; the last question, from an audience member far older than the rest of us acolytes, heck she had gray hair, was "Why are revolutionaries so grim?" She was hooted at and Marcuse didn't deign to respond to it seriously -- but it's the only thing of substance I remember from the whole evening. Rohmer demonstrates that counter-revolutionaries are also grim and didactic.<br /><br />(originally written 8/11/2002)
|
negative
|
I was @ 13 yrs of age when I saw this greatly underappreciated film at The ADAMS theatre in Newark, NJ, I purchased the Program, and later bought the soundtrack... still have both.... I am now 55 + yrs.. and have not seen it since (possibly once on network TV, in 1960's???) One of the greatest casts ever assembled, great score and production , please let another generation see this great film... It was my introduction to opera, and aided with my understanding of Tolerance.. Please family of Gerswhins or Premingers, release this classic soon !!
|
positive
|
The whole does not even come close to the sum of the parts. No problem. This film features a line-up of some of the most diversely creative directors of our time and some really famous names in the cast. The segments are devised around the same theme, "Love in Paris", but the resemblance ends there. Actually, considering that the approach to the theme from all these different directors takes so many forms, it is amazing that we can even feel we are still watching the same film. No great effort has been made to turn it into a comprehensive whole. This buffet has so many great ingredients, I am glad nobody tried to put them all in a single dish.
|
positive
|
The movie within the movie - a concept done many times in the history of cinema. It is accomplished here as well as in any.<br /><br />If you love Carmen, you'll love this version.<br /><br />If you love flamenco, you'll love this version.<br /><br />The plot of the classic opera is played out in the actual rehearsal of the opera by a flamenco troupe. The music is authentic. The direction wonderful.<br /><br />If you like dancing, you'll love this version.<br /><br />There is tragedy. There is passion. There is intrigue.<br /><br />There is...<br /><br />Carmen.
|
positive
|
Well done Al Gore! You have become the first person to have made 1 Billion dollars of the global warming lie! Just like all the other man made fable's in the world this one is up there with the best lies to have sucked in so many people. Sure polution is not a good thing, and I would love for all the tree's to keep on growing, but global warming is a business! It employes thousands of people that are all very mislead.<br /><br />Google it! There are just to many things that just don't add up, but well done Al, you failed as a politician, but went on to make lots of money sucking in the world.<br /><br />Whats next? Santa is real?
|
negative
|
Well, it is hard to add comment after reading what is already here but I feel I must say something. I wasn't exactly looking for 'a splatterfest' as someone puts it or even 'blood and guts/gore'. I have some respect for the victims relatives although I really felt the filmaker DIDN'T. -They were nameless, faceless and meaningless. Just a vessel for Dahmers sexual antics.<br /><br />I watched this film with the kind of morbid curiosity that makes me think 'What makes a guy be a serial killer?' as well as wondering the specifics about the Dahmer story, of which I know very little. People here seem to think that the movie didn't have to cover the events of the Dahmer story.. I.E. his history, what happened when he got caught, the aftermath, etc but IT IS IMPORTANT! You see, I assume if you are American you WILL KNOW all of this. We do not all live in America. To tell this story about such a man as he obviously was, REQUIRES that at least SOME of the history and actual events are told/shown. This doesn't mean blood and guts, there are ways of showing horrific things in a movie by implication or clever filming without resorting to gore. Without even touching upon some of what he did (I found out more about him reading the user comments on this site!), the movie felt like a void. A moment in time with very little substance. I would like to know if there is a film about the REAL Dahmer because with its lack of direction, VERY slow pace that NEVER changes, Strange portrayal of homosexuality and the VERY unfortunate lack of ANY attempt at an ending, this movie is POOR. I would not recommend to anyone that they waste the time it takes to watch it. A definite 1 out of 10 (for the acting!)
|
negative
|
For months preceding the release of this movie you saw it advertised in all sorts of print media, so I patiently waited for its video release to see what all the hype was about. After it was over I had to apologize to my roommate for occupying the VCR for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie. It essentially fails because it is a character based movie about unredeemable characters. With the possible exception of Amanda Peet (whose only redeemable quality is that she is Amanda Peet) you cannot stand any of them. The film relies on its dialogue which is sophomoric, moronic, and crude. The only slightly amusing character is Eric, whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friends is dead on. The final twist, designed to make you laugh at the three main characters, only instead inspires the same kind of resentment towards Peet. All in all, only rent if you are desperate or possess a dark sense of humor.
|
negative
|
OK, so I rented this clown-like-Chainsaw-Massacre-esquire film, not expected much, but I did like the novel approach to a serial killer film. (from the back of the box is the following synopsis) "At first, it was just a joke - a myth around the campfire - for five friends staying at a remote cabin in the Texas woods. But when they began to disappear one-by-one, replaced by scattered, bloodied body parts and voodoo effigies, the remaining few scramble for their lives. But he's out there. And he's sick. And all he wants is blood..." So obviously from the get-go it doesn't make sense: why is this clown in the woods to begin with? Why a clown? Why are their dolls with the word "food" drawn on them? Why why why? Hardly anything gets answered in this 1 hour 30 min. bore fest except where this clown lives. The characters are dumb guys, dumb girls, and a hell of a lot of bitchiness. One in particular is a girl whom they brought from a restaurant up the road, whom they thought they should help because she was getting hassled by some guy she knew. What warrants that as an excuse to bring a girl into your circle of friends or their cabin? She, of course, begins planting seeds of jealousy, having the men have sex with her by feeding their dumb minds everything they want to hear.<br /><br />The music was an average affair (standard frantic keyboard music like in every horror film without differences). The actors seemed to be brought from some soap opera the way they complained and whined about everything. The idea that the main guy in the film takes this girl to the cabin as their first date makes for a horrible date, but of course, she unrealistically gives herself to him on the first night of getting to know him. There was hardly a budget spent of anything, it seems, but there was a clown outfit and plenty of cheap $1-store dolls lying around in the woods, which was a horribly bland place to shoot this whole movie (been done too many times). I was also waiting for the clown to jump into the house to kill the remaining 4 characters of the film (in through the glass maybe), but nothing exciting like that ever entered the film. I guess you were just supposed to like the clown being a killer or something.<br /><br />I had to give the film a 3. It was an interesting premise (clown as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre character, essentially) and I'll give them a star for acting serious all the way through when the movie could've totally been a B-movie-style video, but they opted for the more legitimate style of video. But ultimately, I probably would've felt like renting the Killer Klowns from Mars video again before going back to check this out. Ah, but that cover art...pretty awesome drawing.
|
negative
|
I really appreciate what Jung-won had done before his death. Everything. I want to say that his choice for love is unselfish. If he chose Da-rim , that will be good for him. But Da-rim will need more time to recover from his death. Obviously he does not want to let it happen. As he did in the film, he chose giving up. So it was just temporary agony for Da-rim.<br /><br />As comparison, My Life Without Me is very different. Their behavior shows big difference between eastern culture and western culture. I cannot say which is better. Every one can has right to choose. That is totally up to you. Life is equal for everybody. We can live only once. Any choice is acceptable if only you think it is fit for you.<br /><br />In truth the slow pace of the film cannot be the excuse for rejecting the movie. Just calm down. You will get more from the movie.<br /><br />One of the best Korean movies I ever watched. 9/10
|
positive
|
For the first forty minutes or so, Luna is a real pleasure to watch. The characters and their situation are interesting and the photography and locations are beautiful to look at. Then Jill Clayburgh discovers her son Matthew Barry is using heroin and the movie starts to unravel and then becomes outright laughable in its sickness.<br /><br />Clayburgh asks him why and when he started using the drug and she nor the audience ever get a straight answer, which would be a bit helpful. He mentions not caring about anything but that's not right because we see clearly in the amazing early scenes that he has a good deal of interest in his mother's singing, baseball, sex, and apparently cared enough to turn down marijuana. This movie is for people who think junior gets into hard drugs because mom and dad were workaholics who missed his piano recital. I think such a dangerous and emotionally volatile drug like heroin was chosen as some sort of intellectual catalyst for the later scenes of incest. There's a lot of discussion about the mother's love for the son but it's really about Bernardo Bertolucci being pretentious. Luna would have been great as a quaint little family drama.<br /><br />How old was Matthew Barry in this movie? I was more concerned over the bizarre things he had to do as an actor for this film than for anything his character was going through. ** out of ****
|
negative
|
I just saw this movie at the Tribeca Film Festival and i have to say that i thought it was amazing. The combination of humor and sincerity really made the movie worthwhile. The movie was about a seventeen year-old boy whose mother and father are very religious. The seventeen year old, Ben, decides to work for a retired actress who teaches him about girls and driving and life. It is very comical and touching. I honestly have to say that it is now one of my favorite movies. I recommend this movie to anyone and everyone. If you didn't catch one of the showings at the film festival, it's supposed to come out in theaters later in the year. Please go see it! It is a great film.
|
positive
|
I bought the video for £13 at HMV (we pay more in Britain) as a friend had told me it was highly rated and the reviews on this site were generally impressive.<br /><br />I have to say that the opening credits were a let down...the dancing/music not very powerful.<br /><br />The car ride and unexpected crash just as the lady passenger was going to be harmed was a nice touch,..something unexpected...though the way she walked away from the car with hair perfectly groomed and still carrying a handbag looked corny for most Directors ..but for Lynch was something else.<br /><br />Her dazed walking around after such a shock was enhanced by a regular low noise similar to fingers scraping along a blackboard; I thought another Lynch master touch perhaps portraying the demons gnawing into her shocked and traumatised self conscious. After a while this noise became somewhat annoying and on further investigation I discovered the new video cassette squeaked.<br /><br />I dont know whether this squeak took away a lot of my enjoyment but this movie became a waste of time.(and money)<br /><br />The two female characters had some presence and the lesbian scenes were fair enough, though predictable. There were no male characters of any merit and apart from a few vaguely good scenes (the hoover switching on )there were far too many dreadful scenes that were plain weak and ridiculous. Eg, the coffee being spat into the napkin by the menacing loon and the silly monster face at the back of the diner. Oh and what about the paint in the wifes jewels..boring and naff.<br /><br />This whole film gives you the feel of the failed genius..you know when you listen to the worst Dylan track ever and think my God that was embarrassing....was that really Bob?<br /><br />The whole feel is that of a failed TV movie , badly put together with a few (not many) extra bits to give it a 15 rating.<br /><br />I whizzed it on during the last 30 minutes .<br /><br />Do I give it another chance and watch again. If I want to be puzzled and work hard at understanding a film I will watch Frank Woods Guide to Consolidated Accounting.<br /><br />Lynch did one classic ..Blue Velvet and Straight Story was nice.<br /><br />This, like Wild at Heart, was a let down ; his weirdness is now predictable and stale. Anybody want to buy a 2nd hand video?<br /><br />Make way for some younger original talent, David.<br /><br />Four out of Ten (and no more). Sorry.
|
negative
|
Violent sequel to RoboCop was directed by Irvin Kershner (Never Say Never Again, The Empire Strikes Back) will never be as good as the original, because it is almost humorless, and it is extremely mean, and should have been rated NC-17, because of scenes with infants being involved in gunfights, people threatening to brutally murder very young infants with REAL automatic weapons, and even scenes with a 12 year old using lots of explicit profanity, giving drugs to lots of random people, shooting and graphically shooting up and killing policemen and SWAT officers, opening fire on police officers when lots of small and young children are present, and a whole group of children using strong profanity and beating up the store owner (who is a very old man) of an electronics store and stealing and destroying lots of items there. This film gives new meaning to the term "appallingly mean", but the effects and action sequences are exceptionally incredible. Overall, an OK movie.
|
negative
|
I ordered the movie from Korea because I was an extra in it and was interested to see how it turned out.<br /><br />Having watched it I can say that I am ashamed to have had any part of it. I feel embarrassed not only for myself but for everyone else who had any part in the making of this mockery of British "comedy".<br /><br />From beginning to end the film is predictable, tedious, dull, monotonous and cringe-worthy to the point that on several occasions I actually looked away from the screen in dis-belief. Until you actually see the movie it is difficult to conceive how un-romantic and un-comedic a romantic comedy can be.<br /><br />It's not only a bad story, but a badly-made film. In one scene, you can actually see a runner or assistant director showing the S.A.'s when to wipe across. I will post details of this in the 'Goofs' section.<br /><br />On the up-side, it did fill me with emotions (disappointment, rage, embarrassment
)
|
negative
|
I have to confess that I slept in the cinema while watching the first Asterix movie... but this one is simply FANTASTIC! It is really funny and it leaves the first one miles away. It has enumerous gags and funny situations that made me laugh since the first minutes of the movie and I only stopped laughing when I reached the car to return home. I repeat: this movie is spectacular... Obelix is really funny and Cleopatra is a real babe!!
|
positive
|
This is the first Jean Renoir Silent film I have watched and perhaps rightly so since it is generally regarded to be his best, besides being also his first major work. Overall, it is indeed a very assured and technically accomplished film which belies the fact that it was only Renoir’s sophomore effort. For fans of the director, it is full of interesting hints at future Renoir movies especially THE DIARY OF A CHAMBERMAID (1946) and THE GOLDEN COACH (1952) – in its depiction of a lower class femme fatale madly desired by various aristocrats who disgrace themselves for her – but also THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939) – showing as it does in one sequence how the rowdy servants behave when their masters' backs are turned away from them – and FRENCH CANCAN (1955) – Nana is seen having a go at the scandalous dance at one point. Personally, I would say that the film makes for a respectable companion piece to G.W. Pabst’s PANDORA’S BOX (1928), Josef von Sternberg’s THE BLUE ANGEL (1930) and Max Ophuls’ LOLA MONTES (1955) in its vivid recreation of the sordid life of a courtesan.<br /><br />Having said all that, the film was a resounding critical and commercial failure at the time of its release – a “mad undertaking” as Renoir himself later referred to it in his memoirs which, not only personally cost him a fortune (he eventually eased the resulting financial burden by selling off some of his late father’s paintings), but almost made him give up the cinema for good! Stylistically, NANA is quite different from Renoir’s sound work and owes a particular debt to Erich von Stroheim’s FOOLISH WIVES (1922), a film Renoir greatly admired – and, on a personal note, one which I really ought to revisit presto (having owned the Kino DVD of it and the other von Stroheims for 4 years now). Anyway, NANA is certainly not without its flaws: a deliberate pace makes itself felt during the overly generous 130 minute running time with some sequences (the horse race around the mid-point in particular) going on too long.<br /><br />The overly mannered acting style on display is also hard to take at times – particularly that of Catherine Hessling’s Nana and Raymond Guerin-Catelain’s Georges Hugon (one of her various suitors)…although, technically, they are being their characters i.e. a bad actress (who takes to the courtesan lifestyle when she is booed off the stage) and an immature weakling, respectively. However, like Anna Magnani in THE GOLDEN COACH, Hessling (Renoir’s wife at the time, by the way) is just not attractive enough to be very convincing as “the epitome of elegance” (as another admirer describes her at one stage) who is able to enslave every man she meets. Other notables in the cast are “Dr. Caligari” himself, Werner Krauss (as Nana’s most fervent devotee, Count Muffat), Jean Angelo (as an initially skeptical but eventually tragic suitor of Nana’s) and future distinguished film director Claude Autant-Lara (billed as Claude Moore and also serving as art director here) as Muffat’s close friend but who is secretly enamored with the latter’s neglected wife! <br /><br />The print I watched – via Lionsgate’s “Jean Renoir 3-Disc Collector’s Edition” – is, for the most part, a lovingly restored and beautifully-tinted one which had been previously available only on French DVD. Being based on a classic of French literature (by Emile Zola, no less), it cannot help but having been brought to the screen several times and the two most notable film versions are Dorothy Arzner’s in 1934 (with Anna Sten and Lionel Atwill and which I own on VHS) and Christian-Jaque’s in 1955 (with Martine Carol and Charles Boyer, which I am not familiar with).
|
positive
|
I'm like the rest of the fans who love this comedy,i've been waiting for it on DVD. I've got it on VHS and got so fed up waiting for a release and worrying that my VHS copy would ruin i got the equipment to get it onto DVD. The picture and sound are excellent to my utter surprise. If anyone else want's a copy drop me a line at<br /><br />[email protected] <br /><br />and for £7.00 i'll put it onto a DVD,print the DVD and get it in the post to you. £7.00 just covers my costs & recorded delivery etc with maybe a little over so i'm not after making money out of it,i'd just like the world to see this ignored gem of a comedy.I recently saw a copy of ebay got for over £26,amazing. How can they not release this classic. Email me for payment details like cheque or Paypal etc etc
|
positive
|
This movie is incredible. If you have the chance, watch it. Although, a warning, you'll cry your eyes out. I do, every time I see it, and I own it and have watched it many times. The performances are outstanding. It deals with darkness and pain and loss, but there is hope. This movie made me look at the world differently: vicarious experience, according to my English teacher. Also, if you've seen it, note the interesting use of shadows and light. Home room is a phenomenal movie, and I rate it 10/10 - for real - because of the excellent acting, amazing plot, and heart-wrenching dialogue. Very tense, very moving. Doesn't give all the answers, but makes many good points about humankind
|
positive
|
This is an excellent movie. It is about many things: the hunt for a serial killer, the bureacracy of Soviet Russia, the drive of one man, and the relationship between this man (the lead detective) and his superior.<br /><br />The thing that sticks with me the most is the relationship between Durokov (Rea) and Fetisov (Sutherland) (excuse bad spelling, please!). For some reason, it is moving to see their evolution from hostility and offense turning into respect and cameraderie and working together. One line in the movie sums it up for me: "He would say something witty, but he is overcome with emotion."<br /><br />Excellent acting by all of the cast, even the smallest parts were done with believability.<br /><br />This is not a fast-paced action thriller; in fact, it moves at times like a slow drama, but it is worth it. Very satisfying and not exploitative about the crimes at all.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL <br /><br />The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf<br /><br />This movie is a tedious exercise<br /><br />The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock <br /><br />The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes<br /><br />Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL<br /><br />Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay
|
negative
|
The plot certainly seemed interesting enough. How can a real-life brutal murder be turned into a truly boring movie? Well, you can watch "Wonderland" and find out.<br /><br />I had heard of the Wonderland murders before this film was released and found it to be an interesting true story of some genuinely sadistic people. Unfortunately, there is zero character development, so we never get a chance to understand why any of this was done or get a good sense of the interrelationships between the characters. The pace of the direction was very tedious. This all leads to an extraordinarily boring movie.<br /><br />Given that Dawn Schiller - a central character as Holmes's girlfriend - was an associate producer and that Holmes's wife was a consultant on the film, we should have had the opportunity to gain some real insight into the characters.
|
negative
|
The not the best movie in the world???? That was an understatement. I personally didn't like this movie at all. Not because of the story line, not because of the graphic violence, and the nudity. The nudity didn't really need to be in it, it did nothing for the story, except maybe the girls were going through a rough time, and being naked probably messed them up even more. But one of the things in the movie that I hated.. was that it was sooooo dark. You couldn't really make out what was going on. I think if it wasn't as dark, and you could see where they were, then it might not have been so bad. All you know that its a basement somewhere. You see no house, no road, the killer in it, all you could see was half his face for about 5 seconds. I wanna see some stuff in a movie. It gets boring after 20 mins of pretty much darkness and all you see occasionally is a flashlight or a wall. Then you will hear the girl sobbing. There was nothing that really stuck out to me that was good about the movie, maybe the suspense in the first 10 mins of the film... but not the suspense of how the movie is going to end, but the suspense of.. will I get to see anything in this movie but a few naked bodies and various flashing lights. But honestly people, this was a Saw meets Blair Witch Project wannabe. Both top notch movies, and both with the correct lighting to figure out what was going on. Forget this movie if you can see.. if your a blind person.. you might wanna rent it to hear the screams if your into that sort of thing. But then again if you are blind, your probably not reading this either.. so anyway... BAD MOVIE!!!!
|
negative
|
Eddie Murphy is one of the funniest comedians ever - probably THE funniest. Delirious is the best stand-up comedy I've ever seen and it is a must-have for anyone who loves a good laugh!! I've watched this movie hundreds of times and every time I see it - I still have side-splitting fun. This is definitely one for your video library. I guarantee that you will have to watch it several times in order to hear all the jokes because you will be laughing so much - that you will miss half of them! Delirious is hilarious!<br /><br />Although there are a lot of funny comedians out there - after watching this stand-up comedy, most of them will seem like second-class citizens. If you have never seen it - get it, watch it - and you will love it!! It will make you holler!!! :-)
|
positive
|
I liked this movie way too much. My only problem is I thought the actor playing the villain was a low rent Michael Ironside. Of corse Ironside is just a low rent Jack Nicholson. I guess Mike was busy that year with "Highlander 2: The Quickening". Sadly "Beastmaster 2" would have been a much better career move. It is certainly the best of the Beastmaster series and in many ways reminiscent of that great big screen classic "Masters of the Universe". Not only does it star the incomparable Mark Singer it also features an amazing supporting cast, specifically the second girl from "Sliders", Uncle Phil from "Fresh Prince of Belair" and evil chick from "Superman 2". It rocked my world and is certainly a must see for anyone with no social or physical outlets. BEASTMASTER FOREVER!!! ROCK'N ROLL!!!
|
positive
|
I have been reading the reviews for this movie and now I wanna kill my self. I don't wanna live in a world where people find this move or Rob Schneider funny. What is wrong with these people. I'm not angry at Rob Schneider because he has the intelligence of a dead cat. I watched this film in disbelief. Who would pay money to make this?? This film is so bad that its painful. Most bad films are funny because they are crap. The Animal is just DISGUSTING!!! Watch this film and if you like please for all of man kind kill your self. We don't need you. I want to raise money to get Rob Scheider off all movies. If someone killed Rob Schneider they should be given a Nobel peace prize.
|
negative
|
This appears to be one of Noel Coward's lesser known films, and it is easy to understand why. Taken at face value it's not a bad film, but there's nothing terribly good about it either. Nothing much happens at all throughout the course of the film, it's simply the story of Chris and Leonora's ill-fated affair, and Barbara's reaction to it. The only thing that keeps the film interesting is the fact that we already know it's going to end badly for one reason or another, owing to the first scene. Oddly, there are many perfect opportunities in the story for conflict, and yet none of them are utilised. For example, it would've been much more interesting and believable if Barbara had've fallen out with Leonora, but instead the two remained on good terms throughout the film. The notion of Barbara having been betrayed by her friend was not explored at all - in fact she didn't even seem to feel betrayed by her husband; she even encourages him to go on a holiday with Leonora. Similarly, Chris' two secretaries at his practice, Susan Birch and Tim Verney, who also happen to be close friends of both Chris and Barbara, are never forced to take sides. In fact, Tim shies away from conflict by telling Chris that he's terribly fond of both him and Barbara. Despite the strange lack of conflict, the biggest flaw in the film is the fact that we don't care whether Chris ends up with Leonora or Barbara. The two womens' personalities are indistinguishable anyway so we don't know which of the two is better suited to be with Chris, and besides this, Barbara's permissiveness gives the impression that she hardly cares about the affair anyway. Furthermore, I found Chris and Leonora's relationship somewhat unconvincing. I can overlook the ridiculously short timeframe in which they fall for each other because that is so common in films of this era, but even then the relationship seemed shallow. Coward's character was too austere and cynical to be the object of Leonora's affections. He reminds me of the socially inept genius Sir Earnest Pease from the film "Very Important Person" - I'm sure the two would've gotten along well. Chris' coldness and austerity made his love for Leonora seem insincere. I think Coward should've sat this one out and given his part to a younger man - as it is, I was constantly wondering what this young beauty saw in such a sombre, mostly emotionless, balding middle aged man. Despite all my criticisms, the film still manages to be interesting - just not terribly compelling. The fact that none of the characters are particularly well developed gives them an enigmatic nature, which is somewhat intriguing. The Astonished Heart is certainly worth watching, but it is a flawed piece of cinema.
|
negative
|
This movie is a shameful result of what happens when:<br /><br />A) It is written, directed and produced by an idiot. and/or B) It was rushed in production to satiate the poker/Stu Ungar craze. <br /><br />The story from beginning is uneven. Vidmer spends too much time on Ungar's childhood and not enough on some of the legendary tales -- such as counting cards, his blackjack escapades, the roll of money as id. He also leaves out mentions of other poker greats such as chip reese, brunson etc. The movie is a complete mess from beginning to end. <br /><br />If you want a more complete and accurate account, read the book One of a Kind. If you thought the movie was good, read the book and change your mind.
|
negative
|
as a former TV editor, I can say this is as authentic as it gets. It even led to Letterman's producer (thought to be a source) resigning (eventually) in real life. Letterman was outraged (OK, so one goofy thing is it has him throwing softballs at a tire swing on his estate; total fabrication) but the main information is hilariously true, from the silly bidding war for Letterman once he decided to leave NBC to Leno's problems with an agent who was not ready for big time, but who he let run the show (almost to a disastrous exit) out of his famed loyalty. If any of you kids don't grasp the idea of why Letterman is jealous to this day, see this tape.
|
positive
|
this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.
|
negative
|
What starts out as a gentle country yarn, inoffensive and mildly enjoyable romantic tale changes pace as Edward Norton's initially charming Harlan gradually reveals more about himself and things take a turn for the sinister, as the film gradually changes from a southern romance to a modern wild western.<br /><br />An amiable rancher (Norton) wanders into town and charms a young girl (Evan Rachel Wood), seemingly rescuing her from a dead-end existence with her bad-tempered father with a whirlwind romance, but it gradually becomes apparent that there is more to this cowboy than meets the eye.<br /><br />Edward Norton a real chameleon actor (with changing facial hair to match) playing a country hick, accent slightly dodgy but maybe because he's merely trying to act the part without worrying about the accent. He certainly makes it appear effortless to make all the nuanced little adjustments as we learn more about Harlan. However, with too many small changes it means we are never sure exactly where Harlan is coming from, and what seemed like a good performance from Norton gradually becomes confused. Evan Rachel Wood is likable without ever really having a great deal to do other than bat her eyelids at Norton.<br /><br />Down in the Valley strikes as a slightly uneven tale due to its change of pace, and by never really making the protagonist's motives clear the audience's sympathies for the characters remain uncertain. Should we like this drifter or not? Even after a dramatic turn of events it remains unclear. This ambiguity is to the film's detriment, as if the writer could not make up their mind what kind of story they wanted to tell and settled for somewhat of a hotch-potch. Had the film remained one or the other it might have been a solid film, but as it is what we are left with is something of a mess. Fans of old-fashioned romance will enjoy a portion of the film but will be put off by the darkening tone. Completist fans of Norton aside (or fans of the lush scenery of the San Fernando valley), give this a miss.
|
negative
|
As someone who usually despises Ali G, Ali G Indahouse was absolutely brilliant. When I was watching it, I was in a hysterical fit. Yes it is sexist, rude and extremely crude, and I loved it. As some comedies are only have one or two comical scenes, this movie was laugh-a-thon. I have never seen a comedy as original as Ali G Indahouse.For a comedy starring Ali G, this would be worthy of an 8 out 10. Absolutely Brilliant.
|
positive
|
After eagerly waiting to the end, I have to say I wish I wouldn't have joined the whole series at the first place. The final episode was everything against the previous seven years. It has ruined everything. The journey was 23 years, but captain Janeway has the power to reduce it... let say, seven years only. Why seven? Why not just one? Or nothing? Why not avoid the whole adventure? Crewmemebers were dying all along the journey. Why she wants to save Seven of Nine only? The others don't count or what? The most ridiculous part when the crew states that getting home is not really the most important thing to them. As the say, "journey is more important than the destination". Unbelievable. And at the finale scene the are surrounded by other Federation ships and the Earth is in sight. Nothing about landing, returning to the normal life.<br /><br />Worst ending ever.
|
negative
|
The Australian public and the Australian film industry are often heard to complain that there are not enough great Aussie films around, or that they are all the same.<br /><br />Well in this case this film is not a carbon copy of other Australian films. It is unique - it will make you laugh out-loud, it will make you cry and it will make you feel really good about yourself.<br /><br />The casting of this film is superb and the acting is second to none. The script and the photography (colour/light etc) is wonderful. But more important this is a great film. I don't want to talk about the plot as I think it is always best to see a film knowing as little about it as possible. Suffice to say this film will appeal to a wide range of audiences. Take your girlfriend, take your Mum, take your friends - for a great evening out.<br /><br />10/10!!!!
|
positive
|
i didn't hate this one. i just couldn't adapt to the story. it didn't really grab me. Michael Mann is a very good director but i have to disagree with his methods in this. i'm also a fan of Daniel Day Lewis. some projects he's been in are pretty rubbish but his acting is brilliant. my favourite Daniel Day Lewis films are There Will Be Blood and Gangs Of New York.<br /><br />there is one thing i loved about this and that was the musical score, it gave the film a lot of atmosphere. thats about all i liked in it though. this film has a high vote as well which is a bit random. i can see that a fair few people will like this but not enough to make the overall rating 7.8.<br /><br />i would give this film a miss if i was you but there is a lot of high votes for this so i guess you should watch it and make your own views on what you think. i didn't really like it............. 4/10.............j.d Seaton
|
negative
|
'The Italian' is among the great or near-great films of 1915 that are available today. The year was a turning point for the feature-length film, especially in America: Lois Weber's 'Hypocrites', Cecil B. DeMille's 'The Cheat' and, of course, D.W. Griffith's 'The Birth of a Nation' set new benchmarks for the art. Additionally, that year, Russian filmmaker Yevgeni Bauer made two of his best pictures, 'After Death' and 'Daydreams'. The French serial 'Les Vampires' also has its admirers today, although I disagree with them. The emergence of the feature-length film was led by Europe, mainly Denmark, France and Italy, but dominance of this market and, to a degree, the art shifted to across the Atlantic in 1915.<br /><br />The most overriding artistic achievement of 'The Italian' is its stunning and often innovative cinematography. There are some picturesque sunsets, mobile framing, including a brief overhead angled shot of the Italian racing to buy a wedding ring and another shot of him holding onto a moving car, and, in general, there is wise use of varied camera angles and expert lighting throughout. An especially amazing shot is a close-up of the Italian enraged as he slowly approaches the camera for an extreme close-up, in reference to D.W. Griffith's 'Musketeers of Pig Alley' (1912). He's so enraged his environment even begins to shake around his anger.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the cinematographer appears to be unknown. The director, although originally without credit in the film, is now known to have been Reginald Barker. Five or so of his other films made for Ince are also available today, but are rather unremarkable. 'Civilization' (1916), which he worked on, was a large production, but a deeply flawed movie. By the way, I'd guess that one or more of the various cinematographers who worked on 'Civilization' also photographed 'The Italian'.<br /><br />Moreover, the entire production is very advanced for then. Venice and New York are well rendered despite the film being shot in Los Angeles (for romanticized Venice) and San Francisco (for the ethnic slums of New York). There are extensive flashbacks, although perhaps one or two too many. I especially like the clever framing of the narrative as being read in a book by a character played by the same actor, George Beban, who is also the lead in the inner, main narrative. The reading of the story is further briefly framed by the opening at the beginning and closing at the end of curtain drapes, à la the theatre, which is reflected within the inner story during the revenge climax in the child's room, with the opening and closing of window curtains. Parallel editing, in-camera dissolves and irises and such are handled expertly. Additionally, Beban and Clara Williams, as his wife, play their parts well.<br /><br />On the other hand, 'The Italian' does have a few drawbacks. The film's early moments of comedy clash rather disharmoniously with the latter parts of harsh and heavy melodrama, although the environmental changes from romanticized Italy to naturalistic New York works wellmostly because it's supported by the lighting and photography. The harsh dissolution of the American dream in this film, enhanced by the stark photography, must have been poignant to the immigrant classes who comprised a disproportionately large population of the movie-going public back then. The Corrigan character should have been foreshadowed more; his brief introduction campaigning for another politician seems inadequate for his later centrality to the Italian's revenge. In addition, the filmmakers were either medically naïf or careless to not explain the lack of breastfeeding of the infant and the unwarranted faith in the healing powers of quietness for the other child. Aside from the deficiencies in plot, 'The Italian' is exceptionally well made.
|
positive
|
This film was recommended to me by a friend who lives in California. She thought it was wonderful because it was so real, "Just the way people in the Ohio Valley are!" I'm from the area and I experienced the film as "Just the way people in California think we are!" I've lived in Marietta and Parkersburg and worked minimum wage jobs there. We laughed a lot, we bonded with and took breaks with people our own age; the young people went out together at night. The older people had little free time after work because they were taking care of their families. The area is beautiful in the summer and no gloomier in the winter rain than anywhere else.<br /><br />Aside from the "if you live in a manufactured home you must be depressed" condescension, the story lacked any elements of charm, mystery or even a sense of dread.<br /><br />Martha's character was the worst drawn. It's doubtful that anyone so repressed would have belonged to a church, but if she had, she probably would have made friends there. I've read reviews that seem to assume Martha was jealous of Rose because Rose was "younger, prettier and thinner" but if this is the case it isn't shown. All we actually see is Martha learning to dislike Rose for reasons that would apply just as much if the three friends had been the same age and gender. We see Martha feeling left out during smoking sessions, left out of the loop when social plans are made, used but not appreciated, and finally disrespected and hurt.<br /><br />Just one more thing: Are we supposed to suspect Kyle of murder because he had once had a few panic attacks? Please. This takes stigma against mental illness to a new level.
|
negative
|
This movie is truly awful. After seeing the advertisement for it, i thought it could have its charms ... but it didn't.The girls cannot act, and they cannot sing either. The soundtrack to this movie is full of their songs, and its not a pretty sight, Terrible story line, unbelievable plot, its one of Disney's worst movies by FAR!. Ally is not a bad actress on "Phil of the Future", so i don't know what happened in "Cow Belles". And her sister, AJ, seems to be just hitching a ride on her sisters "fame", and she displays no talent what so ever.<br /><br />At the end of the movie the girls do finally learn some cliché morals, but this is to late to rescue this train wreck movie.<br /><br />Awful
|
negative
|
Why would Burt Lancaster allow himself to play a poor schnook who is ultimately undermined by femme fatale Anna Dundee, played by Yvonne DeCarlo in 'Criss Cross'? The same reason why Robert Mitchum allows himself to be cast as another loser who falls for femme fatale Faith Domergue in the 1950 noir, "Where Danger Lives". Perhaps they both felt it was a good way to show that they had 'range' as actorsthat playing against type, the usual 'tough-guy' role they were known for, would enhance their image as actors who could play any role. But the problem was that roles like Steve Thompson, the pathetic love-sick milquetoast in 'Criss Cross', did nothing to enhance Lancaster's career. Not only is Lancaster completely miscast in the one-note role of Thompson, but there's something inherently unlikeable (and may I say, pathetic) about the film's protagonist in the first place.<br /><br />'Criss Cross' is an interminably slow-moving film. Among the many unnecessary scenes in the film is at the beginning: the flashback which chronicles Thompson's confrontation with Dan Duryea's Dundee at the nightclub. Everything that occurs in that initial flashback is explained later in the picture: the illicit affair between Steve and Anna, Steve's strained relationship with Martinez the cop and his bad blood with Dundee. If Director Siodmark felt compelled to begin the film with a flashback, why not keep it under three minutes? I think it would have been more effective.<br /><br />In 'Criss Cross', it takes quite awhile before the protagonist commits himself and steps out of the 'ordinary' world of Act One. That's the scene where he's "passing by' and 'runs into' Anna at the nightclub. And notice how Siodmak spends so much time cutting back and forth between Anna dancing and Steve staring at her? In addition to the cross-cutting, he also spends a great deal of time focusing on Esy Morales and His Rhumba Band than moving the story along.<br /><br />Up until the crisis of Act Two, the story plods along with Thompson having various uneasy encounters with Anna and then drowning his sorrows at his usual watering hole. At the midpoint of Act Two, he learns that Anna has run off and gotten married to Dundee. It's becoming more clear at this point that one of the film's central weaknesses is that Dundee is never on screen throughout most of the second act. There are no confrontations between Thompson and Dundee during this time and we're left with the rather unexciting machinations between the two lovebirds. As it turns out (and Anna 'explains' this later to Steve), the reason why she left was not only because he disappeared for eight months but she also felt pressure from Steve's mother as well direct threats from Martinez the cop who implied that he would see to it that she ended up in the Women's House of Detention. Anna goes back to Steve because she realizes she made a big mistake with Dundeeit turns out that he's been beating her and she's now scared of him.<br /><br />One of the silly refrains uttered by more than one character in Criss Cross is that you can never hijack an armored car. But everyone acts so surprised when Steve points out it can be done if it's an 'inside job'! You would have thought that Dundee would have known about Steve's 'profession' as an armored car driver and propositioned him beforehand. But of course Steve needs to make the proposal so that Dundee won't kill him after discovering his affair with Anna (if they're so afraid at getting caught, why do Steve and Anna meet at his apartment where Dundee can so easily find them?). I really got a kick out of Finchley (played by Alan Napier), the 'brains' of the operation. Dundee is so dumb that he has to hire this alcoholic ex-professor type who plots out the heist on a map. Oh there is the matter of procuring the ingredients to construct the gas bombs used during the robbery and of course Finchley is good at that too!<br /><br />The only really well done scene in the entire film is the armored car robbery. The editing was quite good as it depicted the rising action of a heist gone bad. As the gas bombs go off, the brutality of the gang is shown in high relief when Dundee murders the innocent Armored Car Guard.<br /><br />The climax of the film is as drawn out as the rest of the film. Why does it take so long for one of Dundee's goons to kidnap Thompson? There's that nurse, then the goon is waiting outside, then he comes in and pretends that he's a friend, Steve falls asleep and finally after he awakes, the goon kidnaps him.<br /><br />When Steve finally meets up with Anna at the house, we wonder how Anna got her hands on the cash. Did she somehow steal it from Dundee after the heist when he went out to dinner? It's never explained. Even worse, Anna suddenly becomes the evil femme fatale out of the blue. Before, her selfishness and attraction to Dundee can be explained by her perceived rejection at the hands of Steve and Martinez's threats. But after going back to Steve because she fears Dundee, she inexplicably turns on him when he is most vulnerable. Just as there is 'instant coffee', you have 'instant femme fatale'.<br /><br />In "Film NoirAn Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style" by Silver and Ward, the authors hail 'Criss by Cross' as "one of the most tragic and compelling of film noir". I beg to differ. In order to have tragedy you need characters that have great depth and in order to be compelling you need a story that's plausible. Criss Cross has neither. It's an overrated "B Movie" that somehow has found itself in the pantheon of art house noirs. Once again, the herd mentality has triumphed in evaluating the pictures of yesteryear.
|
negative
|
Baldwin has really stooped low to make such movies. The script, the music, just about everything in this movie is a waste of time.<br /><br />The sound FX do not sound real, they stick out way too much (technical gadgets etc.) If they are trying to make a movie about things like this, at least try to get real with it and drop those extra bleeps and beeps, because those gadgets don't really make loud sounds like that. Natural sounds like footsteps and such are non-existent, which gives it a void-like atmosphere.<br /><br />Directing seems to be OK for such a low budget film (I sure hope it was a low budget production), although it does seem fairly amateurish at times.<br /><br />Most characters seem empty and false, they simply haven't casted this movie very well. I'd imagine it would've been a better idea to make Baldwin speak some Spanish than to make Spanish actors speak English, when we all know that theirs is the language which is more vibrant and alive, that is why the actors performance can suffer greatly if an odd language is used. I mean, could finally someone realise how stupid it sounds to make international actors speak English with a bad accent? It's should've a long ago buried corpse in movie production. The production team ever heard of subtitles? This movie again manages to depict European police as lazy and corrupt, the societies as vulnerable and helpless. I mean if the plot again goes like "The Interpol can't do jack, so let's call one American to bring down this international syndicate" or whatever.<br /><br />Sony Pictures treads on the same path as Columbia before it, just producing movies for the hell of it. I'd imagine them to have some self respect also. Are buyers supposed to buy every dirty title just because Sony puts out something good a few times a year?! Maybe they should've used the same team as who were making Di Que Si - Say I Do. It's spoken in Spanish and Paz Vega and Santi Millan do a decent job keeping the movie afloat. Looks and sounds much better! Come on Sony, wake up, produce less, sell more.
|
negative
|
1st movie comment ever! I'll start with saying "Come on! Wasn't THAT bad... was it?"... No it was't that bad actually. I laughed and giggled enough times through the movie so I cannot say with hand on my heart that it was rubbish.<br /><br />It's completely different, this and Epic Movie (Epic Movie sucked bad.. doh!). "How so?" people would ask. I'll tell you how. This movie is not as nearly as pointless, not to mention that the stupid (and I say stupid because it is, but being stupid makes it funny) stuff that happens around and with the characters is actually enjoyable in this movie. Not the best around but hey... what would you expect - look at the poster! Some people said it was stupid, I find that when writing a comment one should be more objective (my own opinion) but yeah, of course it was stupid, it's a movie about "stupid"! Look, I'm not telling you to go and watch the movie now or else you missed the event of the century. What I am telling is that, if you happen to see the movie somewhere, please don't carve your eyes on the opening credits. See what it's all about - who knows, you might like it a bit.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 for not being so bad and making me laugh and some unexpectedly good sex-related jokes.
|
negative
|
It just goes to show how wrong you can be. I had not expected to like this film. I was disappointed by both the Kill Bill films (although i preferred the second) and Death Proof (although it was better in the shorter cut of the double-bill release). I love Reservoir Dogs, admire Pulp Fiction and think that Jackie Brown is Tarantino's most mature piece of film-making - technically his most superior - including the last great performance elicited from Robert De Niro. Since then it seems to me while his films have been okay (i haven't hated them) he has been treading water in referential, reverential, self-indulgent juvenilia.<br /><br />Then i read the script last year for Inglourious Basterds - and i hated it! Sure it had some typical QT flourishes and the opening scene was undeniably powerful. There were a couple of great characters. But on page it was more juvenile rubbish, largely ruined by the largess of the uninteresting Basterds of the title. It made me seriously contemplate not seeing the film. The trailers did nothing to convince me. I only changed by mind when i had the opportunity to see the film with a Tarantino Q&A following in London. I figured it would be worth enduring to hear him in Q&A as i know from interviews how entertaining he can be in person.<br /><br />So little was i prepared for the sheer exuberant fun and brilliance of Inglourious Basterds.<br /><br />Easily Mr Tarantino's best work since Jackie Brown it is a triumph.<br /><br />Yes the references are there but they do not interfere with the story, they are not the driving force. Yes Eli Roth is stunt casting but he works fine, with little to do but look aggressive, and does nothing to hurt the film as i had feared. While i admired Mr Tarantino for using stuntwoman Zoe Bell as herself in Death Proof in order to amp-up the exhilaration of the major stunt scene her lack of any acting ability in a key role was a problem for the film. The same could be said of Tarantino's own appearances in several films, especially Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn, which Tarantino wrote.<br /><br />What really makes this work is how BIG it is. The spaghetti western vibe to much of the style, dialogue and performances is wonderfully over the top without descending too far into the cartoon quality of Kill Bill. The violence is so big. The audacity so big. Brad Pitt is so big! In the trailers the Hitler moment and Pitt's performance bothered me but in the context of the film they are hilarious. Pitt is actually brilliant here, exactly what he needs to be. He is Mifune's blustering samurai in Yojimbo, he is Robards Cheyenne from Once Upon a Time in the West, there is a very James Coburn vibe to him, and of course a suitably Lee Marvin edge.<br /><br />Christoph Waltz (who i did not previously known) and Melanie Laurent (who i first noticed in a brilliant French-language British short film by Sean Ellis) are sensational and i expect to see both used a lot more in the future. Tarantino has clearly not lost his eye for casting, which seemed to desert him in Death Proof. Waltz is equally large in his performance. Chilling, yet theatrical. He is Fonda from OUATITW, Van Cleef from Good, The Bad & the Ugly. And Laurent is suitably Cardinale innocence but tough, a fighter. They both dazzle here.<br /><br />That every member of the cast gets the fun to be had from what they are doing while not indulging themselves in just having fun and trying to get laughs helps tremendously. The laughs - and there are loads - come organically. Only Mike Myers comes close to tipping the wink and pushing it too far but his scene is reigned in just enough - with the help of a fantastic Michael Fassbender who seems pulled directly from the mold of Attenborough's Great Escape leader.<br /><br />All the actors shine and Tarantino throws in wonderful flourishes, but ones that work with the story. The introduction of Schweiger's Hugo Stiglitz is a riot. After a sensational slow-burn opening and a glorious intro to those inglourious Basterds the pace never lets up and over two and half hours flies by.<br /><br />It also looks beautiful, marking this as a return to real film-making rather than just self-indulgent silliness. The musical choices, as always, are inspired from Morricone on.<br /><br />The film is audacious and hilarious. After a summer when nearly every film has disappointed me it came as a huge surprise that the real fun and entertaining, but also involving and impressive film should be this one, when i would never have believed it from script form. Welcome back QT.
|
positive
|
If this movie had been directed by a man, he would have been jailed. While Adrian Lyne was shackled with a lawyer in the editing room to oversee the gutting of a classic piece of literature to appease the censors, and to avoid running afoul of the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996, a woman dumps Ripe on us and everyone applauds. Did I miss a meeting? In addition to the blatant pedophilia, this movie is utterly preposterous. Has this woman never set foot on an active military base? Has she never met a soldier? Whose army is this? The uniforms must have come from Uniforms-R-Us. Just throw on some patches, who cares? Just make sure each and every one of them has a Big Red One. There is a slight inside joke here that no doubt went over the auteur's head, but might possibly have been slipped in by whoever furnished the military vehicles. Certainly there were no military advisors. The U.S. Army does not operate slums. Temporary base camps in jungle war zones are cleaner than this. The U.S. Army does not put 14-year-old girls to work on military bases, nor allow them to use the firing ranges or training courses. There is much drama to be mined in the sexual coming-of-age of teenage girls. This movie has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.