review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
.......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.<br /><br />He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.<br /><br />Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.<br /><br />Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot.
|
positive
|
I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.<br /><br />The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point. <br /><br />The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really. <br /><br />The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.
|
negative
|
Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.<br /><br />The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).<br /><br />As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.<br /><br />Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons.
|
negative
|
This movie has everything that makes a bad movie worth watching - sloppy editing, little to no continuity, insane dialog, bad (you might even say non-existent) acting, pointless story lines, shots that go on FAR too long...and it's perfect for MST3K-style riffing, not to mention the "Corpse Eaters Drinking Game": Scribble on forms...take a shot - Sign your name...take a shot - Catch a bad Foley edit...take many, many shots.<br /><br />The only reason I didn't rate it higher than 8 is because there's not enough gratuitous nudity and because despite its insane badness, it's only an hour long - hell, a movie like this should have been at least 20-30 minutes longer!
|
positive
|
I sincerely hope that at least the first season of Cosby is released on DVD someday. The episode with Hilton's eccentric genius brother, George (played by the late Roscoe Lee Browne), is classic hilarity. It reflects the classic sibling rivalry and love between brothers whose lives took different paths but both ended up happy.<br /><br />Mr. Cosby and Ms. Rashad brilliantly recaptured the chemistry that they shared on The Cosby Show for many years and to put them in a more middle-class role shows the dimensions they can take as artists. <br /><br />The roster of comedic dynamite...Madeline Kahn, Phylicia Rashad, and Mr. Cosby ...classic genius!
|
positive
|
After seeing this film months ago, it keeps jumping back into my consciousness and I feel I must buy it or at least see it again, even though I watched it at least 3 times when I rented it at that point.<br /><br />I fell in love with Hal Hartley's directing many years ago - I found that these films could make me laugh in an place that is rarely entertained. It is a strange feeling, granted, and I assume most people out there really just don't get it, or it makes them feel confused and somewhat uncomfortable - I guess I just really get it - its as if these films were made for me.<br /><br />Although I don't remember if I actually laughed out loud during this film, it remains one of the funniest films I've seen in many years. If you don't see the humor of the grocery bag Fay carries from the street to a church, to her brother's publisher's office, to her son's principal's office you may lack the intelligence to be highly impressed by this film. The bag is a silent character in itself, being dragged around as an icon of motherhood the usually brash, bitchy Parker Posey must carry before the international intrigue of the remainder of the film besets her.<br /><br />I consider "Henry Fool" my least favorite of Hartley's films. I honestly don't remember it very well - I think the character himself was so despicable I found it tedious. Hartley's forte seems to be feminine character development.<br /><br />Aside from Posey's brilliance, it was wonderful to see Elina Lowensohn, one of my favorite actresses, again. Her extravagant naiveté is perfect for Hartley's direction. His ability to make the outrageous seem banal helps define his style as a delicious chronic irony throughout.<br /><br />This film erupts into a highly relevant international intrigue story, explaining political situations in Afganistan. This is never suspected at the beginning. The complexity of this film's development is unparalleled.<br /><br />This is the epitome of a "stand alone" sequel. The less you know about Henry Fool the more mystery is spun around him, the less you expect his appearance toward the end of the film - as an alcoholic chain-smoking complaint machine, hurling insults at his Islamic terrorist caretaker who somehow seems to respect him. Its like finding out Santa Claus is actually a 12-year-old schoolyard bully.<br /><br />Although I was impressed and satisfied with Hartley's other recent films "the Girl from Monday" and "No Such Thing", "Fay Grim" goes far beyond what I expected, with a sense of humor and originality no Oscar winner would ever dare.
|
positive
|
"Fat Girls" is among the worst films within the indie gay genre.<br /><br />The premise is promising: an average-looking gay teen is trapped in a repressive small TX town. His only kindred spirits are the other village HS misfits: the class 'fat girl', a naïve immigrant from Cuba, and the sensitive drama teacher. So far, interesting. In theory, this plot line creates a decent setup for an appealing coming of age story with a built-in audience---the thousands of gay men who grew up in small towns across America and experienced this adolescent anxiety first hand, peppered with a dose of self-deprecating humor.<br /><br />Unfortunately, rather than a nuanced dramedy, Ash Christian approaches his autobiographical subject matter with a poorly executed attempt at irony and dark humor. The result is a cast of unlikeable, derivative, two-dimensional characters which the viewer cannot but help feel indifferent toward. Sabrina (Fink) is a quasi-Goth bitter navel-gazer. She is such a prickly, unsympathetic person; there is little doubt as to the reason for her friendless condition. The chemistry between her and Rodney (Christian) registers zero. This may have been bad casting, but is more likely due to a screenplay which is simply unsalvageable. Consequently, one is left wondering when there is such a non-existent bond, what could possibly warrant their near-constant companionship throughout the story.<br /><br />Sabrina's newfound boyfriend, Rudy (de Jesus), and Rodney's mother Judy (Theaker) are among the most exaggerated of the clichéd stock characters ripped off from dozens of other films. Rudy is the horny undersexed immigrant/nerd lifted directly from every raunchy adolescent "comedy" ever made within the realm of TV or film. Judy is the born-again obsessed with Jesus- talk and big hair. Just when you thought the Tammy Faye thing had been done to death, Christian inserts a scene where Judy's mascara is running with her tears! Is there anyone in the civilized world that can possibly think this tired old stereotype gag is still funny after seeing it ad nauseum for 20 years?<br /><br />In addition to the failed attempts at sardonic humor, there are many puzzling story inconsistencies. Rodney considers himself a "fat ugly" loser. However, he simultaneously manages to participate in casual and regular impromptu trysts with the ubiquitous school jock/hunk, Ted (Miller). Although these liaisons are devoid of emotional fulfillment, most gay teens (filled with raging testosterone, just like their hetero brethren) would find this to be a rather enviable arrangement given the more common alternative of involuntary celibacy.<br /><br />Rodney finds an object for his affection in Bobby (Bruening), an exotic transplant from England. Against all believable odds, the lad not only happens to land in this tiny TX hamlet, but is conveniently openly gay to boot. Like Sabrina, Bobby is an icy, angry smart aleck and the viewer is left head-scratching as to his magnetic appeal. <br /><br />Much to his delight, Rodney is invited by his new crush to the town gay bar, where Bobby claims to be the DJ. Upon arrival, the boyfriend-to-be promptly leaves Rodney solo and heads off to another area of the bar for a quick encounter with a rather handsome young man. This is yet one more of the ridiculously inexplicable plot elements since Rodney's feeling as an outcast are supposedly derived largely from his lonely existence in a parochial town. As tiny as the town is, they have openly gay students at the high school? A secretly bisexual football captain? Lesbian moms? A Gay teacher? and it has a gay bar downtown (patronized by attractive men, no less)? Apparently, the place is not so backwater after all.<br /><br />Ten years earlier, Todd Stephens' "Edge of Seventeen" covered nearly the same material with a much more creative, honest, touching, and humorous film.
|
negative
|
Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.<br /><br />Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.<br /><br />And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".<br /><br />And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".<br /><br />Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.<br /><br />This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change.
|
negative
|
There are some wonderful things about this movie. Marion Davies could act, given the right property; she is wonderful in comedic roles. William Haines could act, and you can see why he was one of the screen's most popular leading men. (Until a potential scandal forced him from the business).<br /><br />The story is a bit trite, but handled so beautifully that you don't notice. King Vidor's direction is one of the principle reasons for this. The producer? The boy genius, Irving Thalberg.<br /><br />It's about movie making, and you get to see the process as it was done in 1928, the cameras, sets, directors directing and actors emoting. You get to see (briefly) some of the major stars of the day; even Charlie Chaplin does a turn as himself, seeking an autograph. You also catch glimpses of Eleanor Boardman, Elinor Glyn, Claire Windsor, King Vidor, and many others who are otherwise just names and old photographs.<br /><br />Please, even if you're not a fan of the silents, take the time to catch this film when you can. It's really a terrific trip back in time.
|
positive
|
Look, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And "Maniac Cop" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.<br /><br />When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, "What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death."<br /><br />1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. "A black rainbow of death" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.<br /><br />This is what you're in for.
|
negative
|
This movie is fun to watch , doesnt have much of a plot (well, there isn't a plot), but there are good jokes and situations that you will laugh at. The basic storyline is Cheech is trying to have a nice date, while Chong is partying with Cheech's cousin (They smoke dope , go in a music store, a massage parlor, a comedy club, and even go into someones house they don't even know! Rated R
|
positive
|
I saw what I believe to be the best Australian film of the year so far, Jon Hewitt's Acolytes.<br /><br />Acolytes is a stylish thriller with a killer premise. Get this
two bullied and molested teens discover a local serial killer in their suburb AND then set about blackmailing him to kill the bully who molested them. Hewitt has picked a top notch cast including excellent new comers Sebastian Gregory, Josua Payne and Hanna Mangan Lawrence to play the teens. Add to that three, yes, thats right three great psycho's! Lead by Joel Edgerton in an outstanding performance of serial killer du jour, Belinda McClory his deranged spouse and Michael Dorman as the teen raping bully, with swastika tattoos. Once you add these teens and these menacing adults, all hell breaks loose
Hewitt has crafted a balls to the wall serial thriller thats damn original and accomplished. You can see the influence of Larry Clark and David Lynch's Twin Peaks but Hewitt makes it all his own, in a Qld suburban back water, always ringing with the drones of emptiness. The script by Shayne Armstong, Shane Krouse and Hewitt is tight.<br /><br />If marketed correctly this film could be a break out hit with teens. The next Wolf Creek? It could well be. It makes all the right moves. The teens are real ala Larry Clark. They don't suck and have an attached PC agenda, they are non communicative, good looking and hip. The killers are dark with real menace. Joel Edgerton steals his scenes as the mild mannered local Ted Bundy, who sports a butterfly on his 4WD spare ala John Fowles The Collector. Dorman's petrol head rapist pours on the menace that tops Suburban Mayhem and provides a creepy thug who you can't wait to see buy the farm.<br /><br />The film is fast paced, tough and brutal. Not only that, it displays a confidence and directorial mastery from Hewitt that is surely to win him an IF or AFI nomination, if not award! Its nuanced and poetic mise en scene, brilliant sound design, excellent cinematography and tight structure mark it as clearly one of the best directed Oz features I have seen so far this year.<br /><br />The film leaves you shaken, thinking and unsettled. Its a truly great edition to the return to genre going on in Australian cinema at present. It will surely garner the interest of Hollywood. Oh, and did I mention it got into Toronto? What other Oz feature films can say that much? The world should get ready for a new auteur, Jon Hewitt.
|
positive
|
This would be a watchable Hollywood mediocre if it had a good editing. It relies on the typical American thriller plot - "who is going to outsmart everyone". Acting is below average, but with shining appearance of the detective who is the best actor in the film and he is mostly responsible if the tension in the film rises. Film was completely suffocated by blank video and sound shots and most of it looks like raw film material. All in all, if you don't mind watching a movie that looks like a student film project, this is a film to watch. I guess that would be enough to say on this film, everything else could really spoil the tension that is probably low enough.
|
negative
|
I got this film about a month ago and I am now a fanatic fan of Drew Barrymore's. I love a happy ending and this film gives a brilliant one with the truths of Red Sox slotted in! It's about a maths teacher who takes some promising kids on a maths trip to a company where the successful Lindsey(Drew) shows them some information. This then leads in the Ben(teacher) and Lindsey dating. But it isn't all simple when he confesses he is a massive Red Sox fan. <br /><br />First of all things are fine but then his baseball gets in the way of Lindseys life. It's all fine in the end and It took one shot to get Drew running across the field!! I got it for two quid in Blockbusters so I was happy. If you like films like this I suggest you see some more of Drew's work like Charlie's Angels and 50 first dates or even her new film with Hugh Grant in called Music and Lyrics.
|
positive
|
My wife rented this movie and then conveniently never got to see it. If I ever want to torture her I will make her watch this movie. I've watched many movies with my 4 year old and I can take almost anything. Barney is refreshing after a shot of Quigley. <br /><br />The plot, dialog, cinematography, & acting were one step above (or equal to) a cheap porn film. I feel cheated out of $3.69 that we paid to rent it and then 90 minutes of my life I will never get back. I will say my 4 year old liked it, luckily it was a rental we had to return right away.<br /><br />I just hope that the younger actor's careers are not ruined from being in this movie.
|
negative
|
Everything everyone has said already pretty much rings true when it comes to 'The Prey'. Endless nature footage, bad acting - Aside from these elements, this is a watchable film for slasher fans that in some cases, is considered a cult classic.<br /><br />Jackson Bostwick and Jackie Coogan play pretty well off each other. There's also a three minute banjo solo that shows off Bostwick's skill behind the instrument. Not too bad if I do say so myself.<br /><br />The last ten minutes of the 'film' are its saving grace. The ending still haunts me to this day. This can also sport a short lived plus in that an early John Carl Bucheler does the special effects. Some may know him from films like 'Troll' and 'Friday the 13th part 7 - He directed both these films) All in all, this isn't a movie everyone will find something redeeming in. In fact, on a Hollywood level, this can rank right up there with one of the businesses most amateurish efforts, but for that handful (yet very loyal) of slasher movie fans in the world, even the bad acting and atrocious nature footage can be forgiven.
|
negative
|
The actual crime story at the core of In Cold Blood might seem a little 'tame' for those who are weened on the classic serial killer stories (Gein, Bundy, Dahmer), or just the more notorious cases out in Hollywood (OJ, Manson). The essential facts in the case don't amount to anything terribly convoluted: Perry Smith and Dick Hickock (here played by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson respectively) met by some luck, conspired to rob a man's farmhouse safe out in Kansas, and after killing a family of four with a shotgun and dagger came away with 43 dollars. Aside from their returning to the US after fleeing briefly to Mexico, there isn't a whole lot of mystery to the resolution either. They were caught by some stroke of ironic chance (a cop followed them and stopped them for having a stolen car after Smith and Hickcock helped out a boy and his old man collecting bottles for change), and sentenced to hang by the neck until dead. The story ended in 1965.<br /><br />But it's the handling of the story, moments of moot, the performances, a pure cinematic touch that Brooks and his absolutely marvelous (the late/great) DP Conrad Hall provides in crisp widescreen black and white, and a storytelling style that feels realistic without going into too much naturalism or too much melodrama (save perhaps for near the end, which is pitch perfect). The air of tragedy hangs over the story, and not so much because of the killings themselves, no matter how brutal they are as the "third" man that is conjured up, as the narrator observes, by Smith and Hickcock teaming up, but because of the inevitability of the story. You feel somehow for these criminals, who in any other hands would be just be conventional figures or something out of a B-movie. These aren't good people, but they aren't necessarily monsters either, at least all the way through.<br /><br />It's also an excellent 'road-movie' as we see Smith and Hickcock on the road down to the Clutter residence (the actual night-time scene of the crime taking place late in the film), then on to Mexico, then back to America towards Las Vegas. We get to soak in the personalities of these two, probably even more than that of the police detectives who at first have no leads and then finally get a break with an inmate. It's actually kind of disturbing to get this close to these two (sort of akin to the aimless quality of Malick's Badlands characters), and it's also a sign of daring for the period. There's no sermonizing, like "he did this because of that and this or the other." We see how Smith had an abusive, psychotic father, but that Smith loved and hated him. The complexity there is too much for the movie, maybe even too much for Capote's book (which, I should confess, I've still yet to read, though I plan to). And we see Hickcock is this creature of slick confidence (i.e. getting the suit and other things with bad checks), but without any deep-rooted explanation to it all.<br /><br />The streak of fatalism in In Cold Blood is some of the starkest of the 60s, and it's the luck of Brooks to have its stars as Blake in his top-of-the-pops performance (this and Lost Highway, oddly enough considering his real life saga in recent years, his quintessential pieces of work), and Wilson's breakthrough before becoming a character actor. While they're surrounded by fine supporting work, they themselves are eerily absorbing, driven more or less by greed and fantasies of escapism with treasure, and staying pretty much grounded in their situation through the death row and on through their ends. Is this a morale of the story, if there could be one, that it's more horrifying to confront the possibility that those who kill can't be classified, of good vs evil getting smudged? Smith apologized for his crime before being hung, and he points out, "but to who?" This is a story bound to give the most hardened fans of true-crime the bonafide chills, and it's quite possibly the best American film of 1967.
|
positive
|
After reading the book, Heart of Darkness, the movie did not do it justice. The movie puts the book to shame and anyone who has not experienced the book would frown upon the story and plot because it was portrayed so poorly by the movie. In the film, the characters and set were just some of the let downs that occurred in the movie. The director left out so many important and interesting aspects of the book that made it one of the best literary works ever made.<br /><br />Of course any book is better than the movie but these weren't even comparable. Joseph Conrad as a writer was brilliant in vocabulary and the cleverness of the written word. The movie doesn't even start to show any of this. Some of the very important and influential scenes from the book were completely left out, like how Kurtz was not in the boat when he died. Also when Marlow went to deliver the news to Kurtz's intended, she reacted differently in the movie, rather than the book. Another major difference was that Marlow saw the picture of the lady that was blindfolded at the end of the movie, not at the beginning, like the book. This was influential on how the audience perceived Marlow, and the movie totally messed that up.<br /><br />The book was so fine tuned on what every location looked like, but the scenery in the movie was a let down. There was a bunch of cheesy fake backgrounds and to compliment, a bunch of bad actors to go along with it. There was one exception to the awful actors and that would be Isaach De Bankolé, who played Mfumu. His character was depicted the best. Though the movie wasn't that great, I still would recommend it ONLY if you have read and understood the book very well. That way, you can see what the differences are in the movie and book and contemplate them. If you have not read the book, I do not recommend the movie because it is a boring, lifeless mess. I loved the book, so you should definitely read it and enjoy it.
|
negative
|
A "friend", clearly with no taste or class, suggested I take a look at the work of Ron Atkins. If this is representative of his oeuvre, I never want to see anything else by him. It is amateurish, self-indulgent, criminally shoddy and self-indulgent rubbish. The "whore mangler" of the title is an angry low budget filmmaker who murders a bunch of hookers. There is a little nudity and some erections, but no single element could possibly save this from the hangman's noose. The lighting is appalling, the dialog is puerile and mostly shouted, and the direction is clueless. I saw a doco on American exploitation filmmakers during the recent Fangoria convention. Atkins was one of those featured. He spoke like there was something important about his work, but after a viewing of this, I see nothing of any import whatsoever. There is no style, either, and the horrible video effects (like solarization) only enhance the amateurishness. Not even so bad it's fun. Avoid.
|
negative
|
this is indeed a treat for every Bolan fan, some might think that it's a little over the top, and that it is only about Ringo and Marc's egos, but i think it's similar to any other concert video, except for the fact that this is Marc bolan, not just any guy! i especially liked the music video for children of the revolution, with Elton John and Ringo Starr. this clip alone is worth all the money, i can't believe they did'not release this version as the single. The movie is really superb, especially for us danes. Now, I wasn't alive during the 70's. but danes in general was totally shot out from what was happening around them. the media didn't play or show any of the popular music back then, including Marc Bolan and T.Rex, they only played a little with The Doors, only the really popular songs though. so, i know from my dad, that seeing this, gives him back a part of his youth, he never got to experience.<br /><br />i wont make this too long, so... If you're the least bit fan of Marc Bolan, you need to see this. you might find it boring or as said before, a little over the top. But at least you've seen one of the best musicians ever, in action!<br /><br />Only thing that disappoints me a little, is that Ride A White Swan isn't on the tape. but i forgive it, since Jeepster and Get It On are so wonderfully played.
|
positive
|
After hitting the viewers with three very different episodes right off the bat, Serling continued to go about introducing viewers to 'The Twilight Zone' in a very strange way by scheduling one the series biggest growers as the fourth episode. 'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' is one of the more understated episodes, focusing on an aging movie star's inability to cope with the changing times and only introducing a supernatural element in the closing minutes. Because of this approach, the episode is under whelming at first but subsequent viewings reveal it to be a thoroughly classy and beautifully written short story.<br /><br />Both the leads, Ida Lupino as Barbara Jean Trent and Martin Balsam as her frustrated but caring agent, shine in their performances. The main problem with the episode is that the supposedly 25 year old footage of the actress is unconvincing. Lupino looks identical when playing the young Trent as she does when playing the middle aged Trent and this diminishes the tragedy of the situation significantly. Fortunately, Lupino acts her socks off in convincing us of her desperation to return to the past. It's a situation most can sympathise with, and yet Trent is far from a sympathetic character. She is a prima-donna who gives little thought to the feelings of those around her, such as the disastrously withered co-star who she tactlessly belittles because he reminds her of just how long ago her glory days were. It is somewhat surprising, then, that she is rewarded with a happy ending. It is clear what is going to happen from the moment we see the huge projection screen and it is cleverly pre-empted in the opening moments when Trent scares her maid by stepping out from behind the screen. What is not clear at the beginning, however, is whether being sucked into the projector will prove a reward or a harsh lesson in appreciating what we have and living in the moment. As it turns out, Trent is allowed to return to the past she longed for, a testament to how strong the wishful thinking of humans can be.<br /><br />'The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine' gets better with each viewing. The top notch writing and acting combine to create a short play of enormous power which reflects the nature of humans to long for the past, even though we can never return. Except in the Twilight Zone.
|
positive
|
First off, let me say that I am a great believer in Fanpro stuff. I see it as a way to continue a good show long after it has been cancelled. Star Trek Voyages and Star Wars Revelations are examples of decent efforts. So I have a soft-spot for fanpro stuff that means I'll overlook things that I would ordinarily slate badly.<br /><br />So on to ST: HF. Well, first off the good things. Enthusiasm is a major part of making any show believable and, for the most part, the crew of the various ships all seem to be having a good time with their roles. Next, the effects aren't bad for a home-brew effort, with nothing to make you really wince. The stories aren't too bad either. Nothing particularly innovative, but solid enough stuff and at least there are ongoing story-arcs.<br /><br />But it has a lot of faults.<br /><br />First off, although they quite obviously HAVE to rip-off Star Trek footage, set backdrops, music and effects, I see no reason why they proceeded to rip off virtually every other sci-fi musical score ever made. Everything from Aliens to Starship Troopers rears it orchestral head at one point or another. Likewise, much of the footage is from other movies, dutifully CGI'd over to make it look different. The Grey warships, for instance, though disguised, are quite obviously Star Destroyers from Star Wars. And the station is also rather obviously Fleet Battle Station Ticonderoga from Starship Troopers. Likewise, sound effects from various Star Wars movies appear in space battles between fighters, as does animated over footage. In one scene in either first or second season, I think, you even see two TIE fighters fly past during a battle, which hardly does your suspension of disbelief any favours.<br /><br />Acting varies from the reasonable to the hideously painful to watch. Everyone does improve as the seasons progress, though, but expect to grimace at the screen a lot, especially in the early seasons. They've also made some interesting acting choices. Let's just say that the food replicators on this show seem permanently set to "cake" and leave it at that.<br /><br />Make-up effects are generally quite effective on the whole. But they really ought to mercilessly club to death the person who decided to use cheap Ferengi and Cardassian masks for anything other than background use or "passing" shots. They are just beyond unrealistic. Every time I saw one of these (apart from trying not to laugh too much) I kept expecting the unfortunate soul wearing it to pull out a gun and announce that "This is a stick-up!" In one scene a "Cardassian" actually talks whilst wearing one of these. Not only do the lips not move, but the mask doesn't even have an opening where the mouth should be. Someone needs to be slapped hard for that. Couldn't they have taken a craft knife to it, for goodness' sake! There are also some well-done, but unintentionally funny make-up jobs, such as the Herman Munster look alike.<br /><br />The writing, though coherent, is nothing new. Instead the script runs like a continuation of DS9, with the ships heading out from DS12 on various missions. The new enemy, "The Grey" aren't very menacing and the plot line involving them is effectively a reworking of the Borg threads. i.e. Starfleet meet the Grey, the Grey are hugely powerful, Starfleet barely escape with their lives, then through technology they begin to find ways to combat the enemy etc etc. All done before with the Borg.<br /><br />Another bone of contention is the dialogue. Star Trek writers have long had the ability to write "insert technobabble here" into a script. It usually means an exposition of the latest plan to combat the enemy using "quantum phase discriminators" or "isolytic charges" etc. In other words, nonsense that tells you that they are on the case and a resolution is at hand.<br /><br />The words are just gibberish really. I've no problem with this, but where ST:HF makes a mess of it is where they include real-world comments into this concept.<br /><br />Tactical advice such as "We need to regroup" sounds good, but not when uttered by trio of characters already standing in a group. Likewise when asked what the situation is, a tactical officer is heard to reply "We count three battleships". He actually needed to count them? C'mon! I expected the questioner to ask him "Are you sure?" or "Can you double check". But my all-time favourite comment is this: <br /><br />Captain: "Can we establish two-way communication?"<br /><br />Comms officer: "No, we can only send and receive.."<br /><br />Well, duh!.....<br /><br />Having said all the above, the show does improve as it goes along. Seasons 1 and 2 are pretty bad, 3 shows an improvement but 4 & 5 are where it starts to get noticeably better. Season 6 so far looks quite reasonable.<br /><br />I do have a problem with their choice of media for the shows though. Quicktime sucks, quite frankly and the sooner they move to divx/avi format the better. Some of us like to actually take our downloaded shows and watch them on decent size screen and not peer at a tiny QT window on a computer monitor. Not only does Quicktime make this difficult, but the 320x180 resolution the shows are in does not scale at all well. In fact, it makes the shows pretty unwatchable, like they were a tenth-generation VHS tape copy. The least they could do was to include a hi-res downloadable option.<br /><br />Anyway, the show has promise, and I'm even beginning to like some of the characters. But that's 40 episodes on, so I'm not sure this says that much about character development at all.<br /><br />But what can you say, it's free....<br /><br />PS: Out of 28 votes, 19 people rated this show as a 9 or 10. Hmmmm... were we watching the same show? Or are you 19 all three year olds?
|
negative
|
It's funny how time went by and never saw this movie...'till last week, when i was like under a spell. I saw it twice in a week and it still wasn't enough. It's a great movie and I will love to see it again. The story is great and it really moved me. I would love to live such a story. The actors are great, the music too and you can dream about your own love story. I just hope that someday I will find the opportunity to learn to dance like Johnny and Baby. I feel like dance connects people and brings them together. I think people should learn to dance...it helps a lot, especially in a relationship. It's great to feel the dance in your blood and in your body.
|
positive
|
I thought this was an extremely bad movie. The whole time I was watching this movie I couldn't help but think over and over how bad it is, and how that was $3.69 down the drain. The plot was so jumpy. They did an excellent job at the beginning of explaining who dated who in high school, but they never really explained anything after that. Was it a supernatural thriller? Was it a regular thriller? Apparently you can decide for yourself, because they didn't see the need to explain. I understood basically what happened, I think. What I got confused about was all of it prior, what was the deal with the bloody noses, phone calls, etc.? Was this guy coming back? Was the wife channeling "Carrie" or something? Who knows? You certainly won't after watching this movie.
|
negative
|
Add Paulie the parrot to beloved movie animal characters. This movie is a love story - bird and Gena Rowlands, Bird and beloved Marie, Michael and Marie. A Russian janitor helps a talking and thinking parrot find his rightful owner many years after Marie's parents sell him to a pawn shop. Before the heart warming ending we learn all the misadventures of Paulie. Cheech Marin and his dancing parrots are marvelous. Beautiful photography throughout. Great little movie, word of mouth will make it a cult favorite.
|
positive
|
The real shame of "The Gathering" is not in the bad acting, nor is it in the despicably shallow plot. The real shame is that it was far worse than the series it begun, even though it did have one main attraction: Takashima. I would love to see Laurel Takashima in a room with Susan Ivanova, even for just five minutes. She has that sarcasm, that wit, that double-edged personality that is at once volatile and lovable. Sadly, though, the "Babylon 5" pilot movie has an incredibly dull story involving assassination. Patricia Tallman-- who never seriously returned to the series until much later-- fortunately got much better with age as Lyta Alexander, who here is little more than a whiny, tiresome telepath. I shall leave you with one final thought-- why is it that Delenn looks like some sort of outer-space frog man (even though she is a woman)? Thank heavens for the way the Minbari looked later in the show.
|
negative
|
My family goes back to New Orleans late 1600's early 1700's and in watching the movie I knew it was a history my grand-parents never talked about, but we knew it existed. I have cousins obviously black aka African Americans and others who can "pass" as white and chose not to. It's a hard history to watch when you realize that it's your family they're talking about and that Cane River is all a part of that history. It makes me want to cry and it makes me want to kick the 'arse' of my great grandfathers who owned those plantations and wonder in awe of how my great grandmothers of African heritage lived under that oppressive and yet aristocratic existence...And at the same time had I not come out of that history, I probably wouldn't be the successful business woman I am today living successfully in a fairly integrated world. The acting was both excellent and fair depending upon the actor, but it is a movie that NEEDED to be made. Anne Rice is incredible and I ask myself, why is she 'symbolically' writing about my family and I'm not. I recommend this movie to everyone. Leza
|
positive
|
First off, I hadn't seen "The Blob" since I was 7 or 8 and viewing it as an adult was an incredible experience. Pages could be written on its influence on horror films even today. And even more could be written on its social subtext with the 50s "fear of teenagers". But this simple little tale of interplanetary horror is still a damn fine scary movie if you let it be.<br /><br />Sure, it looks cheesy as all get out in our modern world. But "The Blob" packs in some genuinely frightening moments as a band of kids track the unstoppable creature when then adults don't believe them. In fact, there are even some pretty bleak moments in its candy-colored world. And Steve McQueen gives so much more than the story deserved on paper that we the viewers really get caught in the moment and believe in him.<br /><br />To sum up, if you can take off your postmodern irony filter, there's a lot more to love here than meets the eye.
|
positive
|
Like Freddy's Revenge, this sequel takes a pretty weird idea and doesn't go to great lengths to squeeze a story out of it. Basically Alice from number 4 is pregnant and her baby is haunted by Freddy which gives him an outlet to haunt her friends. This has the least deaths out of the whole series and the wise-cracks are quite poor, so neither the horror fans or comedy fans are happy. <br /><br /> I've not alot to say about this. It's moderately interesting to see the characters of Alice and Dan returning from four, but not worth watching a movie over. Uninspriring and unenjoyable, possibly only the competant direction saves it from being the worst in the series.
|
negative
|
This is a pretty strange movie. It does comes across as an exploitation film with over-the-top violence and unrealistic situations, but unusual for being constructed around rural characters at war with each other, as opposed to an invading 'other'.<br /><br />The movie is an excessive stereotype of Vietnam veterans, in a long line of films that portrayed the vets of that war as dangerous psycopaths. Kris Kristofferson's last line is 'I ain't lost a war yet', as he meets his demise after wreaking a long trail of murder and destruction, including the town's chief of police and his brother's girlfriend in a particularly chilling scene. However, Kristofferson is a good enough actor, and charismatic enough, to carry this villain with a surprising depth. Vincent is clearly the golden boy, but with enough intensity layered over his clean cut goodness. The movie bears some plot resemblance to Winchester 73 where Jimmy Stewart tries to tolerate a criminal brother until being forced to act against him.<br /><br />The movie has b-movie grade action, though the presence of Kristofferson, Vincent, a gorgeous Victoria Principal and Bernadette Peters give it an A-grade lineup.<br /><br />I give it a 7 for being a long lost view into an American psyche of post-Vietnam/pre-Reagan introspection, paranoia, and confusion, and a movie industry that was willing to address such topics at that time.<br /><br />Seen on the THIS channel, a great network that keeps playing lots of old movies of the 70s through 90s, regardless of political bent.
|
positive
|
I remember seeing this film in my late teens or early twenties on TV - probably HBO. I watched it with my parents, a brother and a few friends. Since that was about 30 years ago, I don't remember a lot of the story. I do remember that the entire group of us watching agreed that this was the funniest movie we had ever seen. When it was over, our bellies hurt from so much laughing. My dad worked at a hospital, so that made it all the better.<br /><br />Every time I see The Party in the TV listings, I look to see if this one is there, too. To my dismay, it never is. Although I loved The Party, I feel this one is funnier. Peter Sellers was great as a crooked hospital administrator. Why it's never been released on video is a mystery to me. It's a classic, but it appears that nobody under 35 or 40 has been allowed to see it. I'd buy it in a second if they ever release it to DVD.
|
positive
|
This movie sucks. The acting is worse than in the films we made when we were 10 years old with a camcorder, the effects look like some 80's computer game and the plot is worse than terrible. Even the worst Van Damme movies make this look crappy. The accent and speech rhythm of the 'bad guys' is so bad it's funny.. <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend watching this unless you are a big time fan one of the actors. 1 out of 10.
|
negative
|
I can remember watching this for the first time, when I was 9 years old. I wanted to be one of the "barbarian brothers". This movie is still great. One original aspect was that the fight scenes where very short. Implying that the "barbarian brothers" where so good that they finished there enemies off quickly! Plus, you have chases, a cage fight, a dragon, and yes even a bar brawl! <br /><br />Yes, the acting is bad so that's why it's not a ten, also the story line has received a lot of criticism. I think it is quite original. Not to many movies in it's genre have the same original story lines, or colorful dialogue. <br /><br />I definitely recommend this film.
|
positive
|
My god...i have not seen such an awful movie in a long...long time...saw it last night and wanted to leave after 20 minutes...keira knightley tries really really hard in this one, but she cant handle it..dropped her accent every once in a while and didn't have the charisma to fill the role...sienna millers acting gets you to a point where you start to ask yourself: Has she ever had acting lessons? judging by the edge of love shes never been to acting class, but should consider to go in the near future...they both look really pretty..maybe thats what they should focus on in their future career..if they can be actresses everybody can!
|
negative
|
Pedantic, overlong fabrication which attempts to chronicle the birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Begins quite promisingly, with a still-relevant probe into an airplane explosion, however the melodrama involving James Stewart and wife Vera Miles just gets in the way (Miles had a habit of playing tepid wives under duress, and her frayed nerves arrive here right on schedule). Esteemed director Mervyn LeRoy helmed this adaptation of Don Whitehead's book, but despite the talent involved, the picture fails to make much of an impression. Best performance is turned in by Murray Hamilton as Stewart's partner, however most of the dialogue is ludicrous and the dogged pacing causes the movie to seem twice as long as it is. *1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
When I was engaged, my fiance and I would frequent the adult bookstores. He would look for his favorite mags, and on occasion a video that caught the eye. As much as I enjoyed the one-on-one with him that the media caused, there was never a video that I really enjoyed. I had seen only one other movie way back when there was a satellite channel called XXX (it dealt with a private eye unraveling a case) that actually had a proper plot and was enjoyable. All the others were grunting and puffing and blowing and whatnot. There's only so many times you can watch a blonde bimbo faking 'it'.<br /><br />This movie caught my eye, and I migrated to it, allowing him to wander the shop. He noticed (how hard was it not too? grins. I was actually interested in something, lol(!) in the video section!) and came over, buying the slightly used copy for me. We took it home and I loved it. Here was a "Porno" with a plot. I wasn't sure it even classified as porno, but I use the word loosely.<br /><br />The librarian was a character I could identify with. Alice rejected her boyfriend's advances. She was not comfortable with her own sexuality and prudish in her comments. Bill went away, and she continued to check in books. The White Rabbit ran through the library (one book, if you notice closely, I believe (it's been ten years since I saw the movie) was by Lewis C.) and Alice, for that same reason that propels teenagers to run into the woods when a chainsaw wielding maniac is behind them rather than towards populated areas, follows. It's the best way to get the plot forward. Alice finds herself in Wonderland.<br /><br />I barely recall all the details, but I do remember clearly the swim in the lake, and how she was "dried" off. I liked how they got Humpty Dumpty Up again, the Mad Hatter's size of member being on his hat to wear it proudly, and the brother sister team of Dum and Dee (which did disturb me slightly--then again, they could have been husband wife, but I never could tell no matter how many times I watched it). The woman on the knight who told Alice go away and find your own Knight (What's a A Nice Girl Like You Doing on a Knight Like This?).<br /><br />The part that really caught my attention when I watched it about a year or so later was one of the cards (3 of hearts, I think) who resembled my ex's current wife exactly! We couldn't help but tease her about being in the movie! The King of Hearts was interesting, and the Queen was even more so. Due to the openness of the forum, I can't go into details, just say it was "orgy" based and we'll leave it at that!<br /><br />When we split up, I was allowed to take the video--he knew I liked it--but in the time since it's been lost in borrowing. Someday I'll find another copy.<br /><br />Btw, if anyone could tell me offlist what scene was cut from the Amazon version, I'd really appreciate it.<br /><br />I heartily recommend this movie for the over 18 crowd. It was soft, sweet, and really 70's, but I liked it immensely.<br /><br />***** out of 5. D.
|
positive
|
Wow. This was probably the worst DCOM ever. I watched the first half hour and I laughed. Brenda Song plays Wendy, the popular girl with the hot jock boyfriend and stuck up friends who is determined to be Homecoming Queen. She is supposed to save the world as a warrior, and Shin comes to her aid to help her with her Martial Arts. Shin teaches her the skills of a snake, tiger, etc. and she has to learn certain techniques to save the world.<br /><br />This movie is great for kids who want to learn about Martial Arts and the Chinese culture but the acting and casting was horrible.<br /><br />Brenda Song is a comedic actress and I can't see her playing a serious role. It was laugh out loud funny watching her cry over Shin. Shin couldn't act at all, and everything was totally unbelievable.<br /><br />I watched this movie and tried to think of something similar, and the thing I came up with was the Power Rangers. This movie is so fake and the stunts were so Power Ranger-esquire that it was just corny and stupid. The characters weren't likable and I just couldn't stand to watch it. Disney really needs to take time to make some decent movies. High School Musical is the only movie that deserves to be on Disney Channel, along with other movies like Jumping Ship, Color of Friendship, Go Figure, Read It and Weep, & Stuck in the Suburbs.<br /><br />If you like action-adventure and corny jokes, you'll like this movie.
|
negative
|
Pretty visuals and a lot of fights make not a good movie. And that is precisely what happened here.<br /><br />First off, let me admit, I am yet to play FFVII (I intend to order it soon). However, I did do research to familiarise myself with the characters and the story. However, not everyone has the luxury of time to research things like this, and Advent Children demands that knowledge of FFVII is required.<br /><br />In spite of incredible visuals, I can't say there is too much thats new. We've seen it in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and apart from some better movement, I can't say they've done lots of super-daring stuff with this.<br /><br />The fight scenes - well, they are a bit of fun. Still, how could we ever doubt the result of any of them. This one was boringly classic - there were three fights with the bad guys, following the standard procedure (the hero, Cloud, gets smashed, then he almost gets there and gets smashed, and then finally wins). The reason I say it was boringly classic was that it is used a great deal, but in this case is poorly executed. I'll touch on that later.<br /><br />The English dub seemed fine to me, though I didn't watch it in Japanese, so I shan't judge the Japanese dub, but only the English one. I'll say this - I've heard plenty of better ones, even in my limited repertoire.<br /><br />And now, the plot. Ummm... what plot? Let me be frank, this movie is nought but a fan service, a chance to see the FFVII characters on the big screen with lovely eye candy. As I said earlier, the fights seem to just happen for no reason. The opening fight is never explained, Kadaj seems to have neither ambition to destroy the world himself nor any real motivation to do anything nasty. Cloud sits around moping for the entire film, and pretty much everyone else gets an obligatory cameo.<br /><br />Really, FFVII was an ensemble piece. Advent Children is anything but. If they'd managed to give everyone some significant story role (Star Trek: First Contact proved it was possible, I might add), then this could have been a lot better. Naturally, that would have changed the plot too, which, lets be honest, is almost set to be better than the one we got.<br /><br />Characters were also generally either unused or virtually forgotten. The members of Avalanche (thats the group Cloud worked with in FFVII, for those who don't know) get 2 scenes (3 in the case of Vincent Valentine, and some get even less). Hell, the bad guys get more lines than these guys, and that is pretty bad.<br /><br />The music... well, I don't care if Nobuo Uematsu is God Himself, he botched this film big time. Advent One Winged Angel was the only decent piece. Otherwise, he couldn't decide whether to be epic (and orchestral) or fun (with electric guitar). When he switched from one to the other, you felt it as though he'd taken a sledgehammer to your head.<br /><br />And that last point on whether this movie was epic or fun... it tried to be both, and failed miserably. Honestly, you can't please everyone and do everything. The movie also tried to be deep (you can go epic and deep, or fun and deep, but all three is too much), but failed here too. The last scene, which is reminiscent of a baptismal ceremony, was thrown in there for what looks like the sake of it. You don't need to be a Christian to just shake your head and cry there. That scene just didn't belong in the film (and nor did Aerith's frequent appearances - she's dead Jim!).<br /><br />Given just how fantastic I've heard Final Fantasy VII to be, this movie is nothing short of a gigantic disappointment. Because of the beautiful visuals, I give it a 2 out of 10.
|
negative
|
***SPOILERS*** This film depicts the brutal bloodbath caused by the retirement of Johnny Carson to determine who would succeed him. The impersonations of David Letterman and Jay Leno are performed in a satisfactory way by John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roebuck, though the performances weren't great. Reni Santoni is the best-performing of the "execs" (he plays John Agoglia of NBC), and Warren Littlefield (played by Bob Baliban) is a close second. I was shocked at the way in which Littlefield eagerly discussed dumping Johnny Carson. This was Johnny Carson! This scene evinces the cut-throat, what-have-you-done-for-me-lately world of television. Kathy Bates delivered the best performance of the film as Jay's agent, Helen Kushnick. Another commenter asserted that Leno was portrayed as a simpleton in the film. I respectfully disagree. The relationship with Kushnick bordered on something akin to domestic violence. She orders him around, and, when he rebels against her at the end, she tries to play the sympathy card (mentioning her dead husband and son); however, when Jay terminates their relationship, she turns violent again, screaming "Don't you leave me, you two-faced bastard!" before smashing a picture on the floor. Overall, the movie is hilarious, and I wish that it were shown more often.
|
positive
|
This movie is just so good! Despite Carmen Electra, this has to be one of the better films I have seen in awhile. Jamie Kennedy is just amazing, and Loren Dean plays an insane spoiled movie star very well. The plot is great as well. It's all very real which is scary. It says here that it's a drama, but this is one of the damn funniest dramas I have ever seen. Go check it out.
|
positive
|
First I played the second monkey island game, and I liked it despite the low quality graphics and sound. Then a few months later, I found out a new game was made. I tried it out and liked it a lot. First thing you notice is the great graphics. The areas are huge, colorful, and detailed, with lots to explore. The game requires you to use your brain, a lot, as always. The game is challenging, with all point and click games, frustrating. The jokes haven't gotten old a third time around. The animated cut scenes are a great addition to the game also. This is the best MI game out there, perhaps the best P&C game too! If you like cartoony games that play like a movie, get this game!
|
positive
|
I was watching the Perfect Storm, and thought about another Wolfgang Peterson film which is much better--this one. Although certainly not based on a true story, In the Line of Fire is how a movie should be made. It has a terrific story with a great cast. Malkovich won a well-deserved Oscar for his performance as the creepy killer with a grudge against the government he served all too well. Eastwood is good as the tortured Secret Service and Russo is easy on the eyes. If you haven't seen this, definitely rent it or buy it as I did. Definitely one of the best crime thrillers of the past decade. 9/10
|
positive
|
Symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called to Rome to help decipher the mystery behind the Illuminati before a new science experiment blows up the city.<br /><br />The Da Vinci Code broke records in 2006 but for the vast majority of Dan Brown followers it did not do his award winning book justice and though running at a good 2 and a half hours, seemed to bore many.<br /><br />Having read the book, I was perhaps one of the few who enjoyed Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou attempt to solve the mystery of the murder in the Louvre but for Angels and Demons the scales were raised once more as lead star and director return.<br /><br />Having asked around, most people seem to prefer Angels and Demons to The Da Vinci code for an entertaining read and it seems as critiques and fans, whilst still not fully justified, prefer this latest adaptation to the 2006 release.<br /><br />This Howard picture certainly has a more clinical energy and exercise to it as unlike Da Vinci, Tom Hanks' Robert Langdon has only one night to solve the mysterious activities of the forgotten Illuminati in the Vatican and because of the time limitations, the action and desperation up the ante and deliver an excitement that certainly beats The Da Vinci code but also generates plenty of twists and stunning murder sequences.<br /><br />The interesting factor of this 2009 release is the constant elements being justified for the murders. Earth, wind, water and fire are all included in drastic and powerful sequences to pronounce a feeling of overall power to the situation.<br /><br />This really does justify the tag of thriller with a constant tension and sharp drama with the issues and beliefs once more given a full working over.<br /><br />Just like 3 years ago, there are many debates and discoveries of symbols once believed to be lost forever and Langdon is again the key character to show everyone the light in and amongst the controversy of other pressing circumstances.<br /><br />It is fair to say Dan Brown is a complex writer; he certainly likes to cram issues and dramas in amongst his action and thrilling sequences. As well as trying to discover the Illuminati, there is also the scenario of the election of a new pope, the dealings with a new scientific experiment and the power of Religion is again present. All interesting to discover and listen to, if occasionally the debates and dialogue tend to send your mind drifting but as there is so much in the novel, this was always likely.<br /><br />Ron Howard, who kept a frankly ordinary type of direction rolling in Da Vinci, returns in perhaps the worst way possible. His jerky ever moving camera styling does nothing to keep the pressure up, and we can never fully accept what is happening on screen thanks to this frankly awfully portrayed style. He is certainly no Paul Greengrass and this is by no means Bourne.<br /><br />Slick and stylized this is faster and more interesting than Da Vinci
|
positive
|
I saw this one remastered on DVD. It had a big picture of Sandra on it and said "Starring Sandra...." and made it seem like she had a big part in it. Not so. She's barely in it. She does what she can with the script, but that's not much. <br /><br />The sound was awful. By that I mean things didn't go together. Shots would be fired and the number of shots didn't correspond to the sound. People talking in a car while it's moving and the shot is from outside the windshield but there's no motor noise, road noise, or any other sound. Kind of weird.<br /><br />Score was awful. It sounded like the same few notes over and over. Dialog really awful. <br /><br />Acting was awful, I couldn't believe any of it. Fight scenes were like a Batman comic without the "BIFF", and "BAM". They were really lame. The shooting scenes, I mean with firearms, were laughable, literally. I fast-forwarded through a lot of this movie. Even then, it was too long.
|
negative
|
This movie was terrible...How can somebody even think that this movie was like the ones back in the "good old days" when Tim Thomerson was not even in it. And to make things worse, they used clips from old trancer movies. Thats just terrible. NO trancer movie is complete without Tim Thomerson.I love Fullmoon films, and i have been watching them since i was 4 years old. I have been through everything they have done and this movie almost made me lose it. Now i got a couple of lines to fill so i will keep going. Their way of breeding new trancers is completely stupid as well as way to send Jack back in time. What happened to the TCL Chamber. AND finally! What happened in the end of trancers 5 where lina says and i quote "Jack Has given me something special" AND her and some other broad looks at her stomach. I don't know...maybe a BABY is in there. There were so many other places of going to, but fullmoon S'd the Bed
|
negative
|
I agree with several of you that this film was rather boring and dull. I found myself disliking the main character and the following actors/actresses that came in the scenes. The camera work was non pleasing itself. Random shots and shaky film scenes made me quite annoyed and I turned the film off. I will make up my time by watching the 1999 adaption and hope that it fits agreeable along with Sense and Sensibility; Emma; Becoming Jane; and Pride and Prejudice. I've only a few others to watch besides these films but I believe they were done in great taste. The music was kind of out of place with the film also, reminding me of another show I had seen this year. It was called Hex and a show from BBC. I came across it one night on the web. I rather liked the first season but the second season was dry and pulling things out of thin air that should of stayed with the clouds. I found the main male character who was Henry in this film out of place. Perhaps I just do not like his way of speaking or his stature. Well I would not recommend this film to anyone unless they were going to have it muted and they wanted to look at the fashion of the era, or the way homes were kept at the time. Again I will watch the 1999 version and hope it is a better and does Jane Austen some justice to her writing.
|
negative
|
How can there be that many corrupt cops without any one of them slipping up? With enough cops to run a mini-war that include such weapons as flamethrowers, you would think they would have been caught before someone writing for a weekly coupon newspaper overheard someone saying 'thanks' to a corrupt cop.<br /><br />You will never get your 90ish minutes back. Life is too precious to rent this movie.<br /><br />I feel bad for the big named actors that made the mistake of making this movie.<br /><br />If you like Justin Timberlake, feel free to rent this movie. He does have a very major part in it, so fans might enjoy seeing him. <br /><br />However, I believe most of his fans are young girls, who may be turned off by the violence in this movie.
|
negative
|
What a terrible movie. Rotten tomatoes had a good rating for this too. don't be fooled by the positive comments; It wasn't scary. It wasn't funny. It wasn't clever. It won't even hold your attention. I just wasted 2 hours of my life viewing this crap-fest. the computer generated monster was interesting to see the first couple times. after about 15 minutes it no longer entertained. the dialogue was terrible, must be a translation thing. another negative that stood out was the idiot Americans. 3 were portrayed and they were all lacking character, intelligence and judgment. Now I will write a couple of lines to pad this since we have to have 10. The employees at the video store should have slapped me for bringing this title to the counter.
|
negative
|
The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms. <br /><br />Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend. <br /><br />The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize. <br /><br />Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?<br /><br />It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself. <br /><br />Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten.
|
negative
|
You spend most of this two-hour film wondering "what's the story regarding the lead character?" <br /><br />Will Smith, as a low-key "Ben Thomas" will keep you guessing. The last 20-25 minutes is when you find out, and it's a shocker....but you knew something dramatic was going to be revealed. Until then, Smith, plays it mysterious, almost stalking people. You know he has a good reason for doing it, but it's never really explained, once again, to keep us guessing until the end.<br /><br />All of it, including a on again/off again but touching romance with Rosario Dawkins ("Emily Posa") might make some viewers frustrated or wanting to quit this film.....but don't because the final long segment puts all the pieces of this puzzle together.<br /><br />This is a two-hour film and not the typical action-packed macho Will Smith film. In fact, the most shocking aspect might be seeing the drawn, sad face of Smith throughout this story. It almost doesn't even look like him in a number of shots. He looks like he's lost weight and is sick. Smith does a great job portraying a man carrying around a lot of sadness.<br /><br />Like a good movie will often do, this film will leave you thinking long after the ending credits.
|
positive
|
trying hard to fit into the scary space comedy genre, this film falls down in two of these. It does indeed take place in space - but it is neither funny or scary. The plot is dismal and the one joke, concerning the computer's intellect, is overplayed to death. Saying that Paul Whitthorne as Ethan, Angela Bassett as Fran and Brad Dourif as Al Bert make the best of their ham script. The homo-esque relationship between Ethan and Al Bert is hinted at but never explored whilst the attempt at sexual tension betwen fran and rick is so crude as to be laughable. All in all this is a turkey that is best suited to late night tv, preferably whilst do the ironing.
|
negative
|
I love Paul McCartney. He is, in my oppinion, the greatest of all time. I could not, however, afford a ticket to his concert at the Tacoma Dome during the Back in the U.S. tour. I was upset to say the least. Then I found this DVD. It was almost as good as being there. Paul is still the man and I will enjoy this for years to come. <br /><br />I do have one complaint. I would of like to hear all of Hey Jude.<br /><br />Also Paul is not dead.<br /><br />The single greatest concert DVD ever.<br /><br />***** out of *****.
|
positive
|
I love movies in this genre. Beautiful girls, toilet humor, gratuitous nudity. So why didn't I like this movie? No movie like this should add even the slightest confusion to the plot. Who's who, where is the money, it's not SE7EN, just make me laugh. Maybe it's me, but i never felt this frustrated watching American Pie movies or any other more modern National Lampoon's movies. This movie has no flow that keeps me smiling, waiting for what's next. Instead, I find myself stopping to think, "Why did they keep that scene?" I do not recommend this movie. If you are expecting Van Wilder, think again. The only fun I had watching this movie was guessing what movies the actors were in when they were kids. 2/10 generously.
|
negative
|
I just saw this for the first time in 10 or 15 years...maybe close to 20. In some ways, it was better than I remembered...in other, it was MUCH worse.<br /><br />First of all, there's the music. It's just plain awful. There are only 5 songs in the movie, most of them used more than once. The opening song is shrieked by a chorus of annoying children, and the disco-y title track is performed by Rick Dees. It doesn't get any worse than that. Even the background music is terrible, with much of it repeating the themes of the other nauseating tunes. We also get some truly lame slapstick, mostly in the opening credits.<br /><br />On the other hand, Bill Murray is spot on brilliant as usual...you have to wonder if he ad-libbed the whole thing, or if the writers just gave him all the funny lines. Or maybe he's just that great- turning a weak script into comic genius. The best part are his surreal PA announcements. ("Lobsters...get out of here...you're a menace!")<br /><br />You also get a lot more character development than you have any right to expect in a movie like this. At least half the characters seem like real people...and mostly real people you would like to have around. Even "Spaz" gets to do a more than any other Eddie Deezen-type character ever did, and when he gets the girl, it's plausible. (She's not absurdly hot, but he doesn't automatically pair up with one of the nerd girls- see "Revenge Of The Nerds" for examples of both cinematic phenomenons.)<br /><br />And when the plot seems clichéd...well, ya gotta wonder if it wasn't a cliché yet when they made this. While it wasn't the first summer camp movie- ya gotta go back at least to "The Parent Trap"- it's certainly the movie that made it it's own genre. In fact, I was surprised that there was no Talent Show scene..."Wet Hot American Summer" spoofed the summer-camp genre so perfectly, I just assumed everything in it came straight out of Meatballs. (I also half-expected Jon Cryer to pull up in a convertible with a chimp, thanks to "Mr. Show's" epic camp-olympiad spoof "Monk Academy") <br /><br />Anyway, this one seems to be vanishing a little as far as the late-70's/early 80's comedies- it's not a cable staple anymore, and certainly doesn't have the cult following of Caddyshack or Animal House. I was pleased to catch it on Showtime today- and in High Definition at that! Sure, it's pretty awful in spots, but you could do a lot worse in a 70's/80's teen comedy. And again, Murray is a genius.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie on late night TV out of Buffalo about 30 years ago and I'm dying to see it again one more time before I... well.. you know. The interaction between the main characters after the Tiger (Eli Wallach) "captures" his prey (Anne Jackson) in a botched kidnapping attempt is absolutely hilarious. Charles Nelson Reilly's portrayal of a neurotic university dean(?) or department head is priceless. How many films can you name which are able to illuminate humanity's struggle for meaning and fulfillment by making you laugh from beginning to end? This film reminds us that we are all in that same struggle regardless of class, race, sex or religion. And who can forget the scene of the suburban homeowner on his hands and knees attacking those few tiny weeds that have dared to appear overnight on his perfectly manicure lawn!
|
positive
|
Mary Pickford often stated that Tess Skinner was her favorite movie role. Well said! She played the part twice and for this version which she herself produced, she not only had to purchase the rights from Adolph Zukor but even give him credit on the film's main title card. Needless to say her portrayal of this role here is most winning. Indeed, in my opinion, the movie itself rates as one the all-time great experiences of silent cinema.<br /><br />True, director John S. Robertson doesn't move his camera an inch from start to finish, but in Robertson's skillful hands this affectation not only doesn't matter but is probably more effective. A creative artist of the first rank, Robertson is a master of pace, camera angles and montage. He has also drawn brilliantly natural performances from all his players. Jean Hersholt who enacts the heavy is so hideously repulsive, it's hard to believe this is the same man as kindly Dr Christian; while Lloyd Hughes renders one of the best acting jobs of his entire career. True, it's probably not the way Mrs White intended, but it serves the plot admirably, as otherwise we would have difficulty explaining why the dope spent a fortune on defense but made not the slightest attempt to ascertain who actually fired the gun that killed his future brother-in-law! Needless to say, this particular quality of the likable hero is downplayed by Jack Ging in the bowdlerized 1960 version which also totally deletes the author's trenchant attack on smug, middle-class Christianity. Notice how the well-washed priest here moves forward a pace or two in surprise at the interruption, but then makes no attempt whatever to assist our plucky little heroine in the performance of duties that he himself was supposedly ordained to administer. This is a very moving scene indeed because it is so realistically presented.<br /><br />"Tess" also provides an insight into the work of another fine actress, Gloria Hope, whose work was entirely confined to silent cinema. She married Lloyd Hughes in 1921 and retired in 1926 to devote her life completely to her husband and their two children. Lloyd Hughes died in 1958, but she lived until 1976, easily contactable in Pasadena, but I bet no-one had the brains to interview her. Another opportunity lost! <br /><br />To me, Forrest Robinson only made a middling impression as Skinner. I thought he was slightly miscast and a brief glance at his filmography proves this: He usually played priests or judges! But David Torrence as usual was superb.<br /><br />In all, an expensive production with beautiful photography and marvelous production values.
|
positive
|
I saw that movie, and i was shocked! Robert Carlyle isn't Hitler he is a man who sadly tries to be Hitler. The Movie lies, it doesn't reflect the truth. In the scene were Hitler hit the guy with his gun. Hitler never had hit anybody, he wouldn't hit people with his fist, but with the fists of soldiers. Understand?? Another thing is: It is too obvious, that Hitler is that evil, he was more clever, than shown in this movie. No German would have accepted him as the leader, because the can see that he is evil. So the real Hitler haven't shown his evil side to the people.<br /><br />Have any of you Yankees watched the movie "Der Untergang" or "The Dawnfall"? this is a great movie, with amazing actors. And its a German movie. I think, this Theme of Nazi-Germany, should not be realized as a movie by people who don't know anything of Germany. People! Watch "Der Untergang": <br /><br />http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/<br /><br />Its a great movie about a very sad period of time for human beings around the world.
|
negative
|
This movie is supposed to be a "lighthearted" tale about Santa Claus and his "magical and mystical" wonders. But instead it comes off as being downright creepy. Two things in this movie that stand out in my mind as horrifying are 1) the way Santa looks.- Have you ever seen a more horrible looking Santa Claus? and 2) the "evil rep. of Satan" Pitch's just plain odd dances are just sickening to watch. Only watch this movie if it happens to be the MSTed version or if you like a very good laugh. I can't believe this is a children's movie.
|
negative
|
...and that's a goddamn shame! Please make the sun rise and have it incinerate all copies of Dracula 3000. This must be the WORST vampire-flick of the new millennium so far (I haven't seen REIGN IN DARKNESS yet, but they don't get much worse than this). Don't be fooled be the movie's cool H.R. Gigeresque cover. This is so bad, it's almost hilarious. I can't describe all the emotions this movie conjured. I laughed my ass off, I yelled at the screen, I sat there numb, nodding my head in disbelief,... This film has 'cheap & cheese' written all over it. The best thing of this movie are the opening-credits and the opening-shots which feature more or less okay CGI of two space-ships. But when Casper Van Dien's voice-over comes on, you start smelling something fishy. And, indeed, it all goes downhill rapidly after that.<br /><br />The crew of a salvage-spaceship finds an abandoned vessel, the Demeter, which seems to be heading for earth. They enter it, thus sealing their fate. This movie is, above all things, a shameless low-budget ALIEN-rip-off, mixed with vampires. Right down to the plot-twist were Erika Eleniak's character, Aurora, reveals she's a robot. Coolio goes badly over-the-top as the dope-smoking, bloodsucking 187 (pffff, code from the hood as a name?!?!). Casper Van Dien's character's named Capt. Van Helsing (hahaha!) and he looks like...,er well, Casper Van Dien. Udo Kier as Capt. Varna, former commander of the Demeter, is only shown on a monitor-screen and he really does seem to have trouble reading his lines from an auto-cue (poor Udo, what where you doing in this flick?). And then we have Langley Kirkwood as count Orlock, one of the most pathetic and laughable Dracula's ever to (dis)grace the silver screen. Just look at his outfit. Instead of some cool-looking futuristic black suit or something, he's wearing a cheap old-school Halloween-suit with fringes. You thought Richard Roxburgh was unconvincing as Dracula in VAN HELSING? Then wait until you see Langley's performance!<br /><br />The set-designers went overboard on this one. The interior of the Demeter looks like a cross between an oil-tanker and an old steel-factory, which they decorated with awful lights and colors like green, pink, blue and yellow. The prop-master must have forgotten that this movie takes place in the year 3000, because the characters use guns which look like today's .45 magnums and "Prof" uses a non-motorized, non-floating wheelchair. It has to be pushed around in order to move.<br /><br />Aside from one dried-up corpse, a few impalements and one dismemberment there's absolutely no gore. And the vampire-fangs and contact-lenses look fake as hell. Add to that also the most lame, stupid and abrupt ending ever: Humvee and Aurora are the only survivors. Instead of having one final (bloody) showdown with count Orlock, they lock themselves in the control-room. Then Aurora explains that before her program was upgraded and joining narcotics, she used to be a "Protheus 3.2 PB", in other words: a pleasure-bot. So she says "Well then, what are you waiting for". Humvee answers "Ain't gotta tell me twice. Come on, girl", picks her up and... "BOOOOOOM!!!" the ship explodes and credits roll. No sex-scene, no Erika flashin' her boobies, no bloody climax,... Just one more shot of Udo Kier reading a line on the monitor and it's over.<br /><br />So, this movie is a must-see for every bad-movie-lover, but I must warn them: It gets really painful at times. And everyone claiming that VAN HELSING, UNDERWORLD or even QUEEN OF THE DAMNED is the worst vampire-movie of the new millennium clearly is insane, or just hasn't seen Dracula 3000 yet.
|
negative
|
I saw this recently and I must say, I was moved by the factual basis of the story. However, "Holly" as a movie did not quite work. I am however, looking forward to watching the documentary which the producers who organised this project had made because I think that would be a much more compelling work than this film.<br /><br />The international cast was composed of B-class actors but their acting was appropriate, and I must give a special mention for the young actress who played Holly. This was her first movie role and she did a very nice job, considering hers is the most challenging part. <br /><br />Ron Livingston was adequate but bland as Patrick, the American whose quest is to "save" Holly, but Chris Penn was good in this, his final role. Unfortunately, despite my mostly favourable opinion of Virginie Ledoyen and Udo Kier, both of these actors were very much forgettable and did not do their best work in this film.<br /><br />I believe in the film's message and intention, but I have to be fair, so I rate "Holly" 3 stars based on its shortcomings as a movie. But I think the subject matter deserves serious consideration and I am pleased that the people behind this movie have made a documentary as well which I hope will have its debut on BBC and other TV networks.
|
negative
|
Funny, sexy, hot!!! There is no real plot but you needn't anyone...<br /><br />so the naked or almost naked girls and the typical fights between college-cliques need no development!<br /><br />All in all the whole seems to be known from simply every film in this category but the reissuer reached the goal that this film can be recognized out of thousand others.<br /><br />Last thing I've got to say. Unbelievable funny!<br /><br />You've got to see it!!! <br /><br />And if you are young and you want know more about the female body you've got to see it twice
|
positive
|
ZERO stars out of ****<br /><br />Endless Descent has absolutely no redeeming values, whether it's the ridiculously bad acting, the laughably awful special effects, the incompetent direction, the stupid script, or the gratingly annoying musical score. It's the kind of pitiful production that makes me wonder how a movie like this could even have the slightest consideration for being greenlighted by a studio in the first place.<br /><br />I don't think I'm going to delve into the plot other than to say it's about a bunch of people who are trapped under the water and have to kill a lot of fake-looking creatures.<br /><br />Let me go more into detail as to what is so awful about this flick. First of all, the acting is simply horrendous. Jack Scalia is ten times worse than Sylvester Stallone, a feat that is hard enough to accomplish as it is. The supporting performances aren't really any better. And what is with actor Luis Lorenzo, the guy who plays the cook, Francisco. He has a high-pitched voice and an accent that sounds appropriate for a comedy, not a sci-fi horror film.<br /><br />The special effects are even worse. The creatures range from weird-looking eels to giant starfish and "mostquitoes." The effects look like something you would see in a muppet movie, and I don't believe I need to delve further in this issue.<br /><br />Director J.P. Simon has slight cult status because of all the terrible films he's made. I'm sure some will enjoy Endless Descent in an Ed Wood type of way, but I don't even think it's that good. Everything he does is shoddy, especially the camerawork. The man cannot direct a movie, that's all there is to it.<br /><br />This was the last of four films that took place underwater, and it sure does make Leviathan and Deep Star Six (Both bad films in their own right) start to look masterful in comparison. Either way, just stick with The Abyss.
|
negative
|
Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS.
|
positive
|
This film is mediocre at best. Angie Harmon is as funny as a bag of hammers. Her bitchy demeanor from "Law and Order" carries over in a failed attempt at comedy. Charlie Sheen is the only one to come out unscathed in this horrible anti-comedy. The only positive thing to come out of this mess is Charlie and Denise's marriage. Hopefully that effort produces better results.
|
negative
|
Lou Gossett, Jr. is great as 'Chappy Sinclair', a super U.S. Air Force pilot who comes to the rescue of a nice but undisciplined 'Doug Masters' (Jason Gedrick), the son of a captured pilot who is determined to borrow a couple of F-16 fighters to use in an attempt to save his Dad from a dictator (David Suchet) of an enemy overseas country.<br /><br />Better than 'Top Gun', this Air Force aviation film has excitement and lots of explosions - you know, all that cool stuff you'd want from a contemporary military adventure film.<br /><br />Cool music including Twisted Sister's Dee Snider belting out 'We're Not Gonna Take It' and King Cobra's excellent 'Never Say Die'.<br /><br />Aim High! Air Force!
|
positive
|
Before hitting international acclaim with The Silence of the Lambs, director Jonathan Demme cut his teeth making quirky comedies. This was one of them and like quite a few Oscar winning American comedies I could mention, it has a fine concept, is well paced, has great performances, a complicated romance. but it just simply isn't very funny. Pfeiffer is mob widow who moves to the city backwaters after her husband (Baldwin) is murdered. The crime boss who killed him (Stockwell) takes a fancy to Pfeiffer, his wife (Reuhl) is furious and to complicate matters Pfeiffer also falls for the cop who is trailing her. All of this should have been a laugh a minute. Pfeiffer, sporting a hefty wig is excellent as the widow, as is the hyperactive Ruehl and Modine is good too as the nice cop. But the script is simply devoid of one-liners, wit, humour or punch lines of the verbal or physical kind that this kind of film demands. The result is it raises smiles at best rather than guffaws. It oozes charm, but is tediously short on humour.
|
negative
|
I think Andrew Davies did an admirable job of taking a magnificent book which emulated the pace and styling of a Victorian novel and turning it into a moving and entertaining film. I'm glad I read (twice) the book first which is usually the case for me. I know that one must view a novel and a film as different media and judge them accordingly. But, still, it's often hard to read the original material after a film gives away the best parts.<br /><br />I realize that Davies is a very good adapter, but I wish the producers had chosen a woman to write the screenplay. Davies, as he admits in the commentary that accompanies the film on DVD, wanted particularly to emphasis the more scatological bits in the book. I certainly enjoyed those, on film as in the book. But Davies missed a half-dozen moments that are so excruciatingly, painfully tender which he could have incorporated if his sensibility were more feminine. <br /><br />I also would take issue with his use of the book's primary symbol, the rose.<br /><br />As the screenplay was plotted by Davies, the denouement was inevitable and appropriate. But I really think that author Waters' final nod to the rose symbol was much more interesting. And I preferred way the novel let Nan "come of age" than the way Davies chose.<br /><br />One quick comment about the four actors who essay the primary roles. They are all wonderfully talented -- well, except for the singing and dancing, perhaps -- and, moreover, their physical presences are so much what the mind's eye sees when reading the novel before seeing the film. I thought they were all terrific.<br /><br />I recommend that any lesbian and anyone who loves good fiction, add BOTH the book and the DVD of TIPPING THE VELVET to their bookshelves.
|
positive
|
Hollywood's attempt to turn Jack London's life into a "Jack London" adventure film isn't a bad idea; certainly, he led an interesting, and sometimes adventurous, life. This film, however, winds up flat and unsatisfying. Most importantly, it lacks integrity. Michael O'Shea (as London) has some Londonesque speeches; and, it's nice to see his bearded Jack receive "The Call of the Wild" after spending some quality time alone, in the snowy mountains, with his dog, "Buck". Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward are both very pretty. The film draws unfortunate "Yellow Peril" parallels between London's life and World War II, which are both strained and insulting. <br /><br />** Jack London (11/24/43) Alfred Santell ~ Michael O'Shea, Susan Hayward, Virginia Mayo
|
negative
|
I'm sure this was one of those "WOAH!" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom.
|
negative
|
No, I've never seen any of the "Santa Slasher" series, i.e. 'Silent Night, Deadly Night,' the original 'Black Christmas' or this one, 'Christmas Evil.' I've heard all about their reputation, or, MADS (Mothers Against Deranged Santas.) I thought I would rent this one as I've heard it pop up as a reference on a 'Fat Guys At the Movies' segment.<br /><br />Mothers should be against this, but not for the ooooohhhh "killer" Santa, but for the fact this movie was just plain crap. Boring, long even at only 92 minutes, crap.<br /><br />Little boy sees Santa arrive down a chimney in 1947, deliver presents, eat some goodies and miraculously, float up the chimney. Boy goes to bed, but returns to living room to witness Mommy and Santa (sort of) getting it on. Apparently this messed up that kid for the rest of his life, though the scene was about as steamy as when Ralphie's dad got the "Leg Lamp" in 'A Christmas Story.' He was sooo disturbed, he went to the attic and, well cut his own hand.<br /><br />Fast forward to the future! Now, it's 1980 and messed up boy works in a toy factory. We get a whiff of him being a little off-kilter, and he stalks both kids and parents alike. Who's naughty, who's nice, blah blah. It takes a good two-thirds of the film to get him to finally snap as if that's not foreshadowed from frame one. NO MOVIE should take that long.<br /><br />I will admit, this movie had its tension building, but only because I kept expecting him to do something, anything to anyone. When he finally does, well, punish "who's naughty," it's as graphic as a "Garbage Pail Kid" card. And I haven't mentioned the WTF ending. I'm thinking it was a metaphor, but in reality, it's just as weird as the rest of the movie. (Take the brother who's upset his sibling is killing, and his solution is
uh, killing.) Don't open this mess, even on Christmas Eve, or Evil. Again, I didn't watch the other "Santa-Slashers" but this one sucked bad. It built up suspense due to the nature of the movie and never once delivered a decent present.
|
negative
|
I rate this 10 out of 10. Why?<br /><br />* It offers insight into something I barely understand - the surfers surf because it's all they want to do; Nothing else seems to matter as much to them as surfing; Nor is it a temporary thing - it's a lifetime for these guys * Buried in the movie is a great history of surfing; I have never surfed, but I love surfing movies, and have seen many. None taught me what this movie did * The movie was very well edited. It flowed well. The interviews were outstanding * It's interesting from start to finish<br /><br />In summary, it's about as good as a documentary as I have seen, so I have to rate in terms of that. So 10/10
|
positive
|
The third, and final installment of "Hanzo the Razor" is the most concrete of them all. The "training" even gets completed within the first five minutes of the film. Not for everyone, this film details Hanzo's investigation of loan sharking being performed by an order of blind monks. It also makes a historical comment on the prideful refusal of old Japan to incorporate Western technology. Where the first Hanzo film was just a funny and gory ride with little connection to it's plot, "Hanzo 3: Who's Got the Gold" manages to connect everything, and brings it all home in the end. Definitely the perfect finale. Oh yeah, Hanzo still has a lot of sex, and there's a lot of needless blood and violence (it *is* Hanzo the Razor after all).
|
positive
|
Alright, friends, a serious movie buff is expected to watch all kinds of movie, the bad as well as the good, and this movie put me to the test. I won't mince words. This movie was bad. The story was bad. The acting was bad. The always wonderful Sissy Spacek did nothing to make this movie better. Indeed I asked myself why did I even bother to see this rotten trashy movie? Why did I waste my time and money on something that I suspected would be bad? The answer is, of course, that I am a movie buff and therefore cannot avoid what otherwise should be avoided. I will not waste your time explaining what exactly was wrong with this amateurish movie, except to say that the quality of the acting was, to put it politely, subpaar. A serious movie buff may want to take on the responsibility of watching this movie. Otherwise. stay home, don't waste your time, read a book, take take of chores or have yourself a good sandwich.
|
negative
|
Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to "Alive" from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.<br /><br />Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.<br /><br />The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.<br /><br />Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...<br /><br />WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.<br /><br />Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.<br /><br />Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!<br /><br />Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.<br /><br />Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.<br /><br />WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.<br /><br />WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start? <br /><br />Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.<br /><br />WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?! <br /><br />WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.<br /><br />So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.<br /><br />As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).<br /><br />The very end, however, is quote lame.
|
negative
|
I'm surprised that mine, so far, is the only comment on this t.v. movie...as far as I'm aware, the series itself, has had a huge following, reviewer pundits and real people alike, have praised it to a person. Anyway, let me tell you right away that, if like me, you're a sucker for gritty police dramas, you'll like "The Lost Child" Tennison, the heroine, throughout the "Prime Suspect"series, has been battling the male police establishment, throughout the series, getting to her present, comparatively powerful rank in the police hierarchy through hard work,obstinacy, and sheer talent for police work. She is,essentially, an ambitious career woman, but she has a romantic side and is certainly no man-hater. Unfortunately her relationships are affected by the wicked hours, which her career demands, and she has never married, so when she finds herself pregnant from her latest affair, she is faced with the choice of becoming a mother, and jeopardising her entire police job, let alone future advancement, or having an abortion - which she opts for. This abortion never looms large in the ensuing drama - it's very skilfully dealt with, in less than a couple of minutes screentime, a marvel of economy in scripting, and editing - but it's always there, as a counterpoint to Tennison's desperate efforts to find another "lost child" - a kidnap victim - before it's too late. The story takes many twists and turns,before the surprise ending, and one is fascinated, alike, by the plot, and characters (although I found the many villains a little overdrawn), the police, and especially Tennison, herself, are not always competent, nor that likeable, which figures, given the unpleasant job that they have to do, in the sleazy underworld which this series, habitually inhabits.<br /><br />Mirren, herself, has said that she'll make no more movies in the series, but, excellent as she's always been in the role of Tennison, the series, itself, is as "actor proof" as is another addiction of mine -Dick Wolf's American"Law & Order" - whoever appears therein, each could go on forever. As is my fervent hope.
|
positive
|
This movie scared heck out of me when I was just a kid. It's no "Citizen Kane" but it has its moments. The arm ripping scene is good. The plot is good even if characters aren't - could have something to do with the acting. Put some top name people in the roles and then see what you get. This was one of those shoot, edit (what little there was) and distribute in a couple of months type of movies. This is classic low budget sci-fi and deserves it just due. I rated it a 9 based other films of this genre and age.
|
positive
|
I've never seen a movie get a worse release then this. And that's a shame, as this is the funniest film of the year! You would think an ad with the line "From the director of "Office Space"" would be enough to warrant a big release! But there are no ads, no posters, no website , I doubt the stars even knew it came out this weekend. What is 20th Century Fox thinking? Mike Judge's Sci-Fi comedy is set in 2505 but it could come true in about 10 years (if things continue as they are.) Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph get frozen in a top secret army experiment and wake up in a future full of consumer zombie inbred retards. The film reminds me of Woody Allen's "Sleeper" ,"RoboCop", "Planet of the Apes", "Blade Runner" and "Network" and the late great "Futurama". Try to see it before Fox burns all the prints!
|
positive
|
For those who are like me and are used to watch and enjoy high budget Hollywood films, on huge screens with a surround audio, this film seems to be so distant. However it surprised me how close can it be to any human while I watch it. It is so natural that you feel like nobody wrote a scenario or nobody directed it. You are the director and you are writing the scenario while you watch it. For me, the time I spend on watching a film is the only time which I go to another world. This film is the first sample for me which shows that it is not always a must to watch millions of dollars of budgeted films, surround audio capabilities to go to another world. This films sends you to another world (or maybe makes you return back to yourself) without millions of dollars of budget, or technical capabilities. I felt like that I'm reading L'etranger from Camus.
|
positive
|
In Strangers On A Train, it's obvious from the start that playboy wastrel Robert Walker has singled out Farley Granger as an unwilling accomplice to a pair of murders. Granger's a semi-public figure, he's a tennis pro, but not an especially high one. High enough however for him to know that Granger is trapped in a loveless marriage and would like to be free to marry Ruth Roman.<br /><br />So when they meet as complete Strangers On A Train one afternoon, Walker knows enough that Granger will at least be intrigued enough with the possibility that if the two of them, complete strangers, did commit homicide on parties that the other would be convenienced by their demise. Though Granger is repulsed by the idea, one of the beautiful things about this film, is that you can see in the performance he gives that Granger just might submit to temptation.<br /><br />In fact when Walker kills Laura Elliot, Granger's wife whose been two timing him and even gotten pregnant by another man, he expects that Granger will in turn murder Walker's father so that Walker can inherit his estate. Today Walker would be called a trust fund baby and a pretty malevolent one at that.<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock directed Walker to his career role, ironically in his last complete film. Walker died the following year with most of My Son John finished. Hitchcock does not do too bad by Farley Granger either. <br /><br />Of course when Granger does balk at committing homicide on people who never did anything to him, the tension. Strangers On A Train is also characterized by great editing, first in the tennis match in which Granger has to finish the match and waylay Walker before he plants evidence convicting Granger at the crime scene. And also in that final climax with a fight on a runaway carousel between Walker and Granger.<br /><br />Strangers On A Train is Hitchcock at his best, it should not be missed and ought to be required viewing when film classes study editing.
|
positive
|
The BBC'S Blue Planet is simply jaw-dropping. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say it contains some of the most beautiful sequences ever captured on film. From familiar creatures on and near the surface of the ocean to some more unrecognisable and just plain bizarre ones in the murky depths, next to nothing is left out. Weighing in at a hefty 8 hours, some people may want to check out the edited highlights brought to you in the form of the film "Deep Blue" but I would heartily recommend you give the series a go. I don't think it will disappoint and if your kids enjoyed the aquatic world brought to them by Pixar's Finding Nemo I'm sure they will love this too. I just wish all television was this entertaining.
|
positive
|
I mistakenly kept myself awake late last night watching this thing. About the only thing I could say good about this horrid film is that it could be used by film schools to show how not to make a movie. No proper character development, wait, I'm not even sure they were characters. Set-ups were hokey and inane, and the overuse of split screens was wasted since sometimes they couldn't even synchronize with alternate shots. If I could give this a zero or minus rating I would. Sadly, it isn't even worth the time for a few laughs.<br /><br /> It's just a sad example of money wasted by Hollywood, and now I waste my time even thinking about it.
|
negative
|
Its my favourite film because there's so much going on that you don't see at first and so many things that make you wonder "Did Kieslowski mean that or is it in my head?" For instance - is the judge meant to be God or some supreme being ?<br /><br />Also Irene Jacob as in The Double Life Of Veronique is outstanding, there may be a few superficially prettier actresses but none who manage to convey beauty of spirit with physical beauty the way she does.<br /><br />Tritingnant also is magnificent without really saying much and the things he does say are excellent such as his answer to Valentine . . . "Be".
|
positive
|
As long as you go into this movie knowing that it's terrible: bad acting, bad "effects," bad story, bad... everything, then you'll love it. This is one of my favorite "goof on" movies; watch it as a comedy and have a dozen good laughs!
|
positive
|
The legend of Andrei Konchalovsky's towering 4 and a half hour poem to Siberia is not to begin at once, because it must hold back for space, because it takes its time in roundabout explorations of half-remembered childhood memories in a turn-of-the-century backwoods village, yet the movie goes on picking up steam building in emotional resonance as though even the sounds and images which compose it become imbued by sheer association with their subject matter with that quality of fierce tireless quiet dignity that characterizes the Soviet working spirit. Konchalovsky celebrates Soviet collectivity but in an almost revisionist way to paeans like Soy Cuba and Invincible the mood turns somber and reflective. News of the revolution reach the secluded Siberian village through the grapevine. The fruits of its labor reach it only when a world war calls for the young men to enlist. Through all this, Konchalovksy zeroes in on the individual, with care and affection to examine the bitter longing and regret of the woman who waited 6 years after the war for a fiancé who never came back, waited long enough to go out and become a barmaid in a ship with velvet couches and which she quit years later to come back to her village to care for an aging uncle who killed the fiancé's father with an axe, the irreverent folly of the fiancé who came back from the war a hero 20 years too late, came back not for the sake of the girl he left behind but to drill oil for the motherland, the despair and resignation of the middle-aged Regional Party Leader who comes back to his small Siberian village with the sole purpose of blotting it out of the map to build a power plant. The movie segues from decade to decade from the 10's to the 80's with amazing newsreel footage trailing Soviet history from the revolution to war famine and the titanic technological achievements of an empire (terrific visuals here! all kinetic violence and skewed angles and flickering cramped shots of crowds and faces) but the actual movie focuses on the individual, on triumphs and follies small and big. By the second half a sense of bittersweet fatalism creeps in; of broken lives that never reached fulfillment choking with regret and yearning. "It can't matter", seems like the world is saying, to which Konchalovksy answers "it must matter" because the protagonists keep on trying for redemption.<br /><br />Yet behind this saga of 'man against landscape' something seems to hover, shadowy, almost substanceless, like the Eternal Old Man hermit who appears in every segment to guide or repudiate the protagonists, sometimes a mere spectactor, sometimes the enigmatic sage; a little behind and above all the other straightforward and logical incomprehensible ultimatums challenges and affirmations of the human characters, something invisible seems to lurk. Ghosts of the fathers appearing in sepia dreams, repeated shots of a star gleaming in the nightsky, a curious bear, indeed the Eternal Old Man himself; Konchalovksy calls for awe and reverence before a mystical land of some other order. In its treatment of a small backwoods community struggling against nature progress and time and in the ways it learns to deal with them, often funny bizarre and tragic at the same time, and in how the director never allows cynicism to override his humanism, it reminds me of Shohei Imamura's The Profound Desires of the Gods. When, in a dream scene, Alexei tears through the planks of a door on which is plastered a propaganda poster of Stalin to reach out at his (dead) father as he vanishes in the fog, the movie hints at the betrayal of the Soviet Dream, or better yet, at all the things lost in the revolution, this betrayal made more explicit in the film's fiery denouement. The amazing visuals, elegiac and somber with a raw naturalist edge, help seal the deal. By the end of it, an oil derric erupts in flames and the movie erupts in a wild explosion of pure cinema.
|
positive
|
This film has to be viewed in the right frame of mind. First, the central father-son relationship makes it pretty clear that the film was intended as a prequel to his Wong Fei Hung film "Drunken Master" (ideas from this film recur in "Drunken Master II), and not "Young Master"; that Chan backed away from this plan and renamed the characters indicates that he himself was not convinced the material was coming together properly; and, indeed, the film conveys a sense of being incomplete; for instance, the romantic relationship around which half the plot turns is left utterly hanging at the end of the film. "Young Master", from the same period, also feels underdone, but at least all its central threads are tied together at the end. This film feels as though Chan wrestled with the plot and characters trying to find his central theme, only to abandon the effort, possibly due to time and budget.<br /><br />Or perhaps the film is simply over-ambitious. This is an important turning point film in Chan's career, because he commits himself to development of the central character above all other concerns - which is why there's such a lack of kung fu throughout the film. Chan wants to make an historical romantic comedy that just happens to have kung fu in it. But both the historical element and the romantic element come across as little more than plot-twists.<br /><br />That leaves us with the comedy. Since Chan's concern is character-development, the comedy is largely character driven - as in the conflict between Chan's character and his best friend, an argument over a girl. But there's plenty of slapstick as well. Frankly, I find the comedy amusing enough to forgive the incompleteness of the plot.<br /><br />This film represents an effort on Chan's part to find a viable formula that he can use and develop over time. It doesn't quite work, and Chan would only find that formula after abandoning the historical elements of his earlier films, with the making of the contemporary action comedy "Police Story". But going back to view this film is still very informative as to how Chan worked his way through the historical genre, and perhaps why he abandoned it.
|
positive
|
They were alternative before there was alternative, The Residents are a band like no other, and I love them for it. This has all their classics, from 'Hello Skinny', 'Third Reich and Roll' to their homage to the great James Brown with a take on 'This is a Man's Man's Man's World'. But that is just the beginning. As a bonus it even has Renaldo & the Loafs hauntingly beautiful 'Songs for Swinging Larvae' and even features The Residents cover of it. Needless to say, I highly recommend the purchase of this DVD, I would also recommend buying their latest album 'Demons Dance Alone', it is fantastic.<br /><br />Uncle Willie Eyeball Buddy #502
|
positive
|
Madison is not too bad-if you like simplistic, non-offensive, "family-friendly" fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.<br /><br />Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliché in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the "glory years" (which many would argue were already past in 1971).<br /><br />Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a "heroic" musical score.<br /><br />And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a "Rocky" salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.<br /><br />As one reviewer so aptly put it, "The sport deserves better than this."<br /><br />Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971
|
negative
|
The first time I saw this movie, I fell in love with it. The atmosphere was what caught my attention first and foremost. I expected a gore fest, but instead got to watch a highly intelligent killer mess with my head to a chilling soundtrack (it's actually my ringer at the moment :P). The fact that I couldn't predict when he'd kill and when he'd disappear was a major plus in my book. Predictable horror movies bore me. Now, I know the storyline had some discrepancies, but, if you're like me, you don't even notice them until long after the movie's over and you're laying in bed mauling over the fact that you just witnessed a masterpiece in motion. Finally, as I mentioned, the soundtrack is timeless. It's one of my all time favorite theatrical scores, so I was very happy to hear that Rob Zombie is leaving it untouched in his remake. Speaking of the remake, I read a very comprehensive article on it and, now that I know that Mr. Zombie reveres John Carpenter, I have high hopes for his take on this classic. This movie is great for any time you have a craving for a spine tingling, but it's the perfect addition, opener, finale, you name it for an All Hallow's Eve movie marathon. :)
|
positive
|
I saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.
|
negative
|
I agree with the guy above, It is so funny I understand it all, but my friends just don't get it. Go to Japan and you will see a different movie after being there. When I met my girlfriends dad, at his home in Kanagawa. I swear I felt the same as Jack,. scared, but by the end of the day it was all good, so I give this movie a 10 out 10.<br /><br />I have watched it at least 30 times, taking it with me to watch on the plane flying to Japan next month. One thing that is real good is the ball game scenes. Makes me feel like I am there again. This is a must see if you have any interest in Japan and Baseball. Too bad they don't make a sequel. Does anyone know where the temple scenes were filmed and the argument with hirko in the walkway with a roof on it???? need to know so I can win an argumrnt with me Japanese ex-wife. thanks
|
positive
|
Maybe I'm being too generous with the rating...but I just love this movie! I've seen it so many times, but every time I see it I fall in love with it all over again. It's just a simple romantic comedy, with nothing huge or monumentous that happens. But I'm a big romantic and this movie *is* romantic. I love Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins, and Walter Mathau is so funny. The scientists make me laugh so much...I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who hasn't seen it. It's such a clean, good movie - and those are so rare now! My 20-year-old brother likes this movie, too, so it's not just a chick-flick. ;-) I recommend it if you need to laugh, or if you're just lonely and need to *watch* a romance, if you yourself can't participate in one. It's a good 'un!
|
positive
|
This film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very "artistic". Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.<br /><br />It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted.
|
negative
|
This is a crummy film, a pretender to a genre of surprise ending movies. And a genre that has been done so much better before. The plot limps along, with a predictable ending. (Yawn) The characters are unlikeable, and some are so unlikeable they are almost unwatchable. Matt Dillon, a fine, intense actor is totally miscast here and is stiff and mannered. The others are forgettable. Much of the dialog is sophomoric, again a pretender trying to be witty. I wouldn't hire the screenwriter to write my grocery list. Yes, it's that bad, veering from misogynistic to just plain gross, as in beyond frat-house gross. With so much real talent out there, I'm really surprised this movie ever got made. It shows the total lack of imagination of the office suits...
|
negative
|
Set just before the Second World War, this is a touching and understated romantic story that is loosely based on a real event.<br /><br />It concerns a German rocket scientist Gerhart Zucher (Ulrich Thomsen) working in Britain in the advent of the Second World War. Fearing Hitler may recall him to Germany to assist him preparing for war, Zucher and his slippery assistant Heinz (Eddie Marsan) are evacuated by the British authorities to a remote Scottish island. They are given the task of building a rocket post box that will enable the islanders to communicate with the mainland.<br /><br />Mocked and bullied by the islanders, they set up home with local girl Catherine Mackay (the stunning Shauna MacDonald), with whom Thomsen begins an affair but complications arise when Germany comes calling...<br /><br />The central romance between Zucher and Catherine is subtle and sincerely played and the supporting cast is a colourful bunch with an array of respected Scottish character actors including Gary Lewis and Clive Russell.<br /><br />Fine cinematography and a brilliant central theme song sung in the local dialect round out this movie.<br /><br />Intelligent but undemanding, it is good for a quiet evening in.
|
positive
|
I didn't have much faith at the beginning, but as a Costa Rica's citizen I can confirm that the movie shows the reality that we live day by day, and shows a lot of things of our culture, such as our way to speak, our music, our way of standing up for our rights without any fear, without any weapons.<br /><br />I'm really proud of the job they did and of how they didn't forget along the movie the message they wanted us to receive, not caring for the money, but actually working with a short budget, letting us appreciate the beautiful scenarios and the great photography.<br /><br />I strongly recommend seeing this movie, you will not regret it.
|
positive
|
I've been waiting for this movie for SO many years! The best part is that it lives up to my visions! This is a MUST SEE for any Tenacious D or true Jack Black fan. It's just so great to see JB, KG and Lee on the big screen! It's not a true story, but who cares. The D is the greatest band on earth! I had the soundtrack to the movie last week and listened to it non-stop. To see the movie was pure bliss for me and my hubby. We've both met Jack and Kyle after 2 different Tenacious D concerts and also saw them when they toured with Weezer. We left that concert after the D was done playing. Nobody can top their show! Long live the D!!! :D
|
positive
|
If you liked Roman Polanski's "Repulsion", you should probably check out "The Tenant" since it's a similar concept, just with Polanski stepping in and playing the schizophrenic wacko. This is actually one of my favorites of his movies - second, after "Rosemary's Baby", of course - and is a straight forward journey into the mental collapse of a man who moves into the former apartment of a suicide victim. The other residents of the building are all flaky and sticklers on keeping the noise level down - even the slightest 'titter' becomes a big deal and Polanski, who stars, becomes increasingly paranoid and succumbs to his loony hallucinations further and further as the film carries on. It gets to the point where he is dressing and acting like the former tenant and you realize it's only a matter of time before he decides tor re-enact her fatal leap out the window... The film is a bit slow and dawdling for a while, but if you have ever seen a Roman Polanski movie, you should know it's going to end with a bang and this flick doesn't disappoint. It's also best if you don't question the intricacies of the premise and just take it as a descent into madness, because it's pretty trippy surreal at times. Polanski is very good as the timid, deranged resident who, somehow, attracts the ever illustrious Isabelle Adjani. We also get to see him running around in drag, which is disturbing and hilarious all at the same time! Damn, he makes for one ugly chick! So, Polanski fans - who can actually look past his thirty year-old pedophile charges - should enjoy "The Tenant" as an entertaining psychological head-trip...
|
positive
|
Witty and disgusting. Brash and intelligent. BASEketball redefines comedy/sports with a pot spoof of an easy target. Makes other so called comedies like dead boring. One of the best of all time! Trey Parker and Matt Stone play their roles as losers with apt perfection.
|
positive
|
Summer Holiday is the forgotten musical version of Eugene O'Neill's Ah Wilderness and deservedly so with the Broadway musical adaptation of Take Me Along. With the exception of the Stanley Steamer song, none of the other Harry Warren-Ralph Blane songs are worth remembering and even that one is questionable. <br /><br />It was right after the release of this film that MGM let Mickey Rooney go and I don't think it was a coincidence. The film was made in 1946 and released in 1948, so Mickey was 26 playing an Andy Hardy like teenager. He was just way too old for the part of the 17 year old who was affecting radical ideas in a spirit of youthful rebellion.<br /><br />Rooney made four films for MGM from 1946 to 1948, this one, Killer McCoy a remake of Robert Taylor's A Crowd Roars, Love Laughs at Andy Hardy and Words and Music. In all of them Rooney was playing an adult part. Even in the Andy Hardy film, Mickey played an adult Andy Hardy returned from World War II. Why he was in this Louis B. Mayer only knows. <br /><br />Rooney's bad casting makes Summer Holiday all the worse because in the original Ah Wilderness the emphasis is on the father's character played here by Walter Huston. And in the Broadway show Take Me Along which won a Tony Award for Jackie Gleason, the Great One played the inebriated brother-in-law Uncle Sid here played by Frank Morgan and that's the central character.<br /><br />Gloria DeHaven steps in for Judy Garland as Rooney's sweet and adorable girl friend and Marilyn Maxwell plays the show girl who gives Rooney an adult education. In the original play O'Neill has her as a prostitute, but this was the Hollywood of the Code so all Marilyn does is get young Rooney soused.<br /><br />A lot of really talented people had a hand in this one and they do their best, but Summer Holiday fades rather quickly into a chilly autumn.
|
negative
|
Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong! <br /><br />Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying "man" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.<br /><br />The best joke was were one guy asks "Why are you talking to your watch?". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).<br /><br />It's funny, but writer/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.<br /><br />Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney!
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.