review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I watched 5% of this movie tonight and you may tell me that I need to see the whole movie to understand it, but frankly I don't think so.<br /><br />What the hell is the story in this movie? I saw a lot of people running around in a factory, shooting at everything around them.<br /><br />Where to start? Okay..<br /><br />1) They were shooting around the place as if it was the Terminator or something they were trying to kill. The entire place is made of metal, but not a single bullet sparked on the metallic surfaces.<br /><br />2) No ricochet. Metal vs metal is bound to cause ricochets, but apparently no one got hit by a stray bullet.<br /><br />3) Magic bullets? In one scene a bad-guy is standing right in front of a good-guy when another good-guy pops out behind the bad-guy and pumps him full of metal. You see the bullets exit his chest as it explodes in a bloody mist, but the good-guy right in front of him doesn't get hurt at all! 4) After having just splattered a human being all over the wall, the two good-guys tell each other some jokes and they laugh and look like teenagers playing with soft-guns.<br /><br />5) Sound? At one point the good-guys cut a wire and an alarm goes off (who the hell cuts a wire just to set off an alarm?). The lady screams out "Alarm in sector blah blah" and the bad-guy boss says "Okay.. this.. is.. not.. a.. drill.. blah blah" in a very, very amateur kinda way. Ooh, we're getting ambushed by terrorists, this isn't a drill, but I'm gonna sound like I don't give crap.<br /><br />6) Focus!! First you see the bad-guys load up on weapons. For some reason the same guy gets the same Uzi twice. Deja vu or loop of scenes? You literally see every single bad-guy receive the same kind of weapon and they lock and load the same way. The weapons dealer pops in the clip and the bad-guy extra no. XX locks and loads. When they started opening fire you HAD to see the barrel flashes. Boooring!! 7) Actors or dummies? One of the presumed good-guys throw down a smoke grenade for some reason and of course the bad-guys are suddenly inside the smoke because they're smoke-blind or something so they don't see it coming. They cough and moan as if it was Anthrax in the grenade. Then a semi-boss bad-guy arrives and he doesn't even cough when he enters the smoke, he just pushes the other bad-guys away and they suddenly realize that the smoke isn't Anthrax anyway.<br /><br />8) B flick? I think yeah! A guy sliding down a metal pipe wielding a Uzi in his right hand shooting away at someone in his eye height apparently. I'd like to see a guy fire a Uzi with one hand and I'd like to see him go get his hand afterwards. Extra bloody gore mess in a B flick kinda way. Small *pops* and a red hole with a torn shirt indicates that this guy is dead. Though the first bullet hit his heart the good-guy who is a super trained green berets still feel the urge to empty his clip into the dead guy.<br /><br />9) One of these mentioned trained soldiers jump out from his hide with an empty clip! How stupid can you be!? Always check your clip before facing an unknown amount of enemies! 10) Boring scenes. Like the barrel flash scenes and the lock and load scenes, the movie is filled with time wasting scenes of people running around in an apparently empty building. Cut to the action if you're going for a B flick movie, please.<br /><br />My two cents on this movie.
|
negative
|
I don't know the stars, or modern Chinese teenage music - but I do know a thoroughly entertaining movie when I see one.<br /><br />Kung Fu Dunk is pure Hollywood in its values - it's played for laughs, for love, and is a great blend of Kung Fu and basketball.<br /><br />Everybody looks like they had a lot of fun making this - the production values are excellent - and modern China looks glossier than Los Angeles here.<br /><br />The plot of the abandoned orphan who grows up in a kung fu school only to be kicked out and then discover superstardom as a basketball play (and love and more etc;) is great - this is fresh, fun, and immensely entertaining.<br /><br />With great action and good dialogue this is one simply to enjoy - for all ages - and for our money was one of the best family movies we're seen in a long time.<br /><br />Please ignore the negative reviews and give Dunk a chance - we were really glad we did - a GOOD sports comedy movie.
|
positive
|
What can I say about this film other than "don't see it". I waited and waited and WAITED for someting (or anything) to happen and it just didn't come. Watch amazingly as two people walk around while setting the record for most filler screen time in a single movie. What are they doing? Are they solving a mystery? Are they gathering clues? Possibly, it's just hard to tell. At the end of the movie, after a lot of radio signals are decoded (illegibly on some sort of PET monitor) and this guy gives some lectures, the plot is finally revealed and tossed aside as quickly as possible. Some aliens want to get back to their home world utopia and are so happy there that they want to blow up the earth (I guess they don't like sharing the wealth). My guess is they finished filming and saw their 35 minute work or art (garbage!) and decided that they'd let the editing crew turn it into an 88 minute feature film. Watch at your own peril, it's not even funny because it's so bad, it's just bad.
|
negative
|
the photography is good, the costumes are good, but the editing is bad. The various scenes are cut, or stopped at the wrong times, and the conversations are s-l-o-w and tedious. This slowness continues the entire show. It is a very tedious show to watch. . . . I believe that more scenes SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED, but that would make it a longer show. It is very slow-moving. The writers should have made it JUST a 1-night show, and not prolong our agony night after night. There is nothing else on, otherwise I'd change the channel (the first night). I feel bad for the Indians of the time, and am angry at the white-men for what they did to the Indians, but thats our history.
|
negative
|
Anyone who rates this movie above a 3 has a very distorted view of movies, anyone who rated this piece of sh!t 7 or higher, i have absolutely no respect for their taste in movies, and doubt they have ever seen a good one. I am always up for giving any movie a shot and i did with this one, i tried to pay attention, i tried not to let my money go 2 waste but 15 minutes in my friends were laughing at me cause i was listenin 2 my iPod, 25 minutes later i couldn't even watch the overacting that was occurring within the film, so i up and left, i have never ever ever walked out of a movie, until this garbage, Anyone who said they enjoyed it is a liar, or they should be banned from this site. I get so angry when i see a person rate this an 8 when the Godfathers overall rating is a 9.1 its like saying that that movie was close which it isn't.
|
negative
|
Cheap and manipulative. This film has no heart.<br /><br />It's also got dire dialogue, unconvincing characters and a preposterous, or rather non-existent, story. It just lurches from bad to worse in a cynical effort to wrench some kind of emotion from an insincere and unengaging hysterion-afest!<br /><br />And the HEDGEHOG!!!!How many cheap shots can a film take? The hedgehog, by the way, gave the most convincing and watchable performance in this ninety-minute cringe-athon.<br /><br />If you have considered watching this film, don't. I'm sorry but I cannot find a single redeeming feature to this movie. It scores a big, fat ZERO with me. Strictly for sub-Dogma knicker-wetters. Yawneroony!<br /><br />Still, if you liked Dancing In The Dark...<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Strained and humorless (especially in light of its rather dubious psychology), but well-paced and comfortably lurid, this genteel body count movie highlights the unusually hypnotic presence of Angharad Rees as a young woman periodically possessed by Jack the Ripper, thus allowing for some nasty gore effects amidst the Edwardian propriety. It's all pretty standard stuff for Hammer, but is handled with a good deal of visual elan, even if the central relationship, between psychoanalyst Porter and Rees, drives the narrative without ever being satisfactorily explained.
|
negative
|
This is the film in Antonioni's middle period that most critics dismiss quickly, as a 'flawed' look at 60s American youth culture/politics. For what it's worth, I found it more touching and memorable than his more acclaimed films like L'AVVENTURA, perhaps because he shows more emotion & empathy here than anywhere else. The story is simple, but it is used as a frame for Antonioni's brilliant observations of, and critique on American consumerist culture, student life, the counter-culture, and the whole anti-establishment, anti-war backlash that was so prominent then. <br /><br />Even from a purely technical point of view, it is a remarkably crafted film; from the opening credits sequence to the bizarre desert 'love-in', to the use of billboards, and right down to that jaw-dropping, cathartic finale that used 17 camera set-ups (in it's own way, as powerful as the climax of The Wild Bunch). Also, Antonioni chose one hell of a leading lady with Daria Halperin, one of the most beautiful ever to grace the screen. There isn't much 'acting' involved, as this feels more like a docu-drama, and so the use of non- professionals as the lead couple works quite effectively within that context. And the soundtrack is not only filled with marvelous music, its use is impressive as well (I can't forget the start of the film, mostly due to the selection of music - by Pink Floyd - that grooms the visuals so well).<br /><br />Contrary to popular opinion, this is quite an achievement in cinema, and one I would enthusiastically recommend to anyone with a taste or tolerance for the off- beat. Well worth seeking out, and one of those key films of the 60s that demands a DVD restoration/release.
|
positive
|
'Blue Desert' may have had the potential to be even a half-way plausible and more enjoyable thriller had the main character, Lisa Roberts (Courtney Cox) not been so stupid. When she is the victim of another attack on the streets of New York, comic book artist Roberts moves to a small town out West. In her first days there, she meets the suspiciously crazy Randall Atkins (Craig Sheffer, playing this part well) who will eventually not leave her side. Fearing for her safety after having been in the situation already twice before, she strikes up a friendship and relationship with the suspiciously amicable town cop, Steve Smith (D.B. Sweeny, who's character does not seem convincing enough, leaving disbelief among viewers who should otherwise be convinced of the red herrings thrown by the writers). Smith needs Roberts cooperation because, as he tells her, Atkins is an ex-con and guilty of sexual assault. But, the cops have lacked the evidence to put him away before.<br /><br />The movie had enough ploys to at least make an interesting movie because soon enough, there is such confusion as to whom Roberts should trust. However, much of the intended suspense appears too forced because Roberts character never seems to react to simple things as we think any reasonable person might. And her delayed responses allow much of that suspense to occur to easily and unconvincingly, particularly in the finale. Perhaps Sweeny was the wrong choice for this role; too baby faced in ways that kind of recall Kevin Anderson's persona evident in his character in 'Sleeping With the Enemy.' Or, if Lisa Roberts was written as a stronger character, this might suffice as well. In the meantime, the film is not all that great, even as a low-budget B-thriller.
|
negative
|
Stop me if you hard this one before, some cheerleaders, their coach and a couple guys are trapped within a cabin in the woods when an unseen killer kills them off one by one. Shame on me, after I totally wrote off Jim Wynorski after the horrid "Busty Cops" (it was a long time coming as his last truly good film was 1990's "Hard to Die"), I still for some reason got my hopes up for a supposed sequel to "Slumber Party Massacre". Sadly even my mediocre expectations were not met. This outing is not nearly as fun as even the three previous films in the franchise (and yes I'm including SPM 2, that should tell you something) Furthermore how can you have a slasher film with this little gore??? I mean Come on now!! <br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy: Ricky Ray gets topless; April Flowers and Charity Rahmer show boobs and buns in a shower scene (April gets nude again later in the film), and Tamie Sheffield gets topless and bares buns
|
negative
|
I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".
|
negative
|
This movie is even a big step down form the typical fare dished out by Bollywood. The performances were horrible. Even Boman Irani, who always manages to shine, goes completely OTT as the villain. The soundtrack is not memorable either. And in spite trying hard, the female leads don't manage to be "sexy". Vivek Oberoi is capable of far better projects while Fardeen Khan seems to be stuck in similar fare for the time being. But this monstrosity is even beneath his limited capabilities as an actor. Esha Deol and Amrita Rao are horrible in badly written cliché roles. It's high time for Indra Kumar to hang up his directorial hat. Hope he never directs another eyesore like this. Future of Hindi movies are in better hands now. To sum it up, stay far away from waste of celluloid.
|
negative
|
Dolph Lundgren stars as a templar who comes to New York when a key that unlocks the anti-Christ is found by an archaeologist, of course the demon is only a couple miles behind Dolph and isn't killed so easily as he transfers from body to body. (Like Fallen without the suspense) Of course Lundgren is out of his element and the movie is completely unwatchable. I admit to being a fan of Dolph Lundgren, like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, I try to watch his movies whenever they're on TV. I caught The Minion and boy was I ever disappointed. This movie is utterly terrible. With action sequences so poorly staged and badly edited you can barely make coherent sense in the fight arena. Worst of all is Lundgren's woefully unconvincing perf as a tough guy priest (!) all of this made worse that the movie is such a rip off of Fallen (Which was good) and End Of Days (Which was bad but better than this) overall this movie is the worst movie I've seen from Dolph Lundgren. It literally has nothing to recommend it. It's awful and it's the lowest point in Lundgren's career. And I saw Cover-Up, The Last Warrior and Masters Of The Universe.<br /><br />1/2* Out Of 4-(Awful)
|
negative
|
I've seen some bad things in my time. A half dead cow trying to get out of waist high mud; a head on collision between two cars; a thousand plates smashing on a kitchen floor; human beings living like animals.<br /><br />But never in my life have I seen anything as bad as The Cat in the Hat.<br /><br />This film is worse than 911, worse than Hitler, worse than Vllad the Impaler, worse than people who put kittens in microwaves.<br /><br />It is the most disturbing film of all time, easy.<br /><br />I used to think it was a joke, some elaborate joke and that Mike Myers was maybe a high cocaine sniffing drug addled betting junkie who lost a bet or something.<br /><br />I shudder
|
negative
|
A wonderful film by Powell and Pressburger, whose work I now want to explore more. The film is about what we perceive as real and what is real, and how the two can be so difficult to distinguish from one another. Beautifully shot and acted, although David Niven doesn't seem to be 27 years old, as his character claims to be. Fun to see a very young Richard Attenborough. This film made me think, while I was watching it, and afterwards.
|
positive
|
New Year 2006, and I'm watching Glimmer Man again. Say what you like, I find Steven Seagal's movies amusing. Like many comments, good fight sequences - I particularly liked his answering of the phone at the restaurant saying how long it would be closed for restoration. Bit like Schwarzenegger's humour in the earlier action films - although that tended to be self-deprecating.<br /><br />But the one I like here is Brian Cox. One of the most versatile actors around. Pity about his hand and foot, but so much for withstanding extended interrogation - must have flunked that class at the "farm".<br /><br />As the films went on I wonder just how the ever thickening girth of Seagal affected his movement?. Never mind, it's entertainment!.
|
negative
|
BORN TO BOOGIE is a real 'find'--though a rock fan for nearly thirty years, I only first saw the film a few days ago, and rank it among the top rock films of all time; the music's terrific (the cream of T. Rex) and the visuals consistently exciting and unusual, leaving this viewer craving any more past directorial efforts of Ringo Starr, who did a fine job here. If you love the music, you'll be in T. Rextasy throughout, as Marc Bolan really is the star of the piece, front and center. Even the fact that some songs are repeated doesn't matter a bit: different venues, costuming, musical arrangements, and bizarre visual concepts are all used to lend different textures and a great deal of upbeat humor to what could have ended up as 'only' a concert film in other hands. As rich and full packed as BORN TO BOOGIE is, the film's only about an hour long, but what is there is totally satisfying. Therein lies my only criticism--the video package states something like 71 minutes, and at least one online source claims the film to be 67 minutes, but apparently it's more like 61 minutes of rocking fun.
|
positive
|
I watch family affairs,coronation st &east enders on uktv every week night family affairs is by far the worst, bad plots, bad sequences and the worst acting of any soapie,even worse than the Americans and that is saying something.<br /><br />I find it very frustrating that all these shows on uktv Australia" are so far behind the UK and when one trys to find out the reason for this they just fob you off with some story that they will show double episodes to catch up ,needless to say, this never happens. I am very happy that family affairs is going , to make space for something of better quality, but at the same time I would to know the background reasons, did they finally realize how bad it was? did people stop watching it? whatever it was you musn't leave us in suspense Why do you feel that you have to keep everything a secret from your fans? or is it that you just don't care? I feel strongly that you should try and keep your public up to date. Family affairs is notorious for just having its characters disappear and reappear for seemingly no reason,we do get involved in the people and enjoy following their lives.\<br /><br />I can understand why family affairs would have to come to an end, even though we are so far behind here in Australia, it is easy to see that the writers are running out of ideas for new plots,so many plots are being repeated and old episodes coming back.I have also noticed that as new characters are being introduced, a lot of them are really bad actors, like you are scraping the bottom of the barrel and ending up with the drek regards Vince
|
negative
|
Christian Duguay directed this tidy little espionage thriller early in his career. It plays on TV pretty regularly, albeit with some terrific scenes of violence and sex unfortunately trimmed. I finally got around to seeing the theatrical version on a $3 tape from the local video store. Naval officer Aidan Quinn is recruited to impersonate the notorious Carlos the Jackal, and gets a little too caught up in the role. Donald Sutherland Ben Kingsley play Quinn's superiors, with Sutherland a true zealot and Kingsley as the more level-headed one. The first half of this fun flick shows Quinn being trained and indoctrinated. The second half has him out in the field, making love to the Jackal's woman and shooting it out with sundry enemies. The idea is to make the Jackal look like a turncoat to the Russians, and let them take care of the world's most notorious assassin. Things don't exactly play out as planned. At times, I almost expected the cast to break out laughing at some of the corny dialogue, but they all play it very straight. In the end, this is one terrific little thriller that deserves your attention. The Jackal's former mistress teaching the highly proper and very married Quinn to rough her up, lick blood from her face, and then go down on her, alone is worth the price of admission.
|
positive
|
By the standards of Hollywood this movie was filmed and edited as Hollywood movies are and therefore looked like a movie you would get out of a big-time production studio within Hollywood. Thats where anything remotely close to having Hollywood standards ends. This was THE WORST MOVIE I have EVER seen in MY LIFE! I am not joking. The story was so unbelievably stupid and unrealistic that I could not contain my laughter in the movie theater through the course of watching this film. I know what you're saying, "its a horror film its not supposed to have a good story it's supposed to scare you." Well let me tell you something, the movie is not even scary in the least bit. Its too full of stupid bits that cancels out the little suspense there may have been. The acting was awful as well, along with the scariness of the murderer, who you constantly see through flashbacks locked in a cage jacking off. Throughout the movie I kept getting a sense I was watching something that was thought up, written, produced, and directed by a high-schooler who watches too much pornography. Please, don't see this movie, spend your $8.50 on other things, like a snow cone, which would be much more worth your while.
|
negative
|
I really enjoyed the first film and when it turned up again, without thinking, or checking, I took a family of friends to see it. I was ashamed that I had enthused so much about it to them.<br /><br />Disney processed the original film just like the human body processes a delicious meal - takes in something good and turns out ... well, you know. And by having a dark-skinned person as the FBI man, the results of fingerprinting the informant were subdued.<br /><br />Taken as an isolated film, I suppose it is not too bad if one likes that weird sort of thing, but when one has read the book or seen the first film - horrible!
|
negative
|
I am not quite sure what to say/think about this movie. It is definitely not the worst in the series (there's still "Halloween 3"). The style is just very different and it focuses on other elements than its predecessor did. It tries to explain why Michael Myers freaks out on Halloween and starts butchering around. Well, all that stuff about Michael Myers being cursed and the evil cult was a rather nice effort, but I didn't buy it. None of the other installments in the series tried to come up with any fancy explanations.<br /><br />The movie contains lots of gore. Actually it's plain carnage. If you haven't seen the other Halloween films you will probably like this one for its blood content. But for a real Halloween freak this sequel might be just too different to be seen as a good one. Suspense was turned into terror and carnage (exploding heads..., you get the point).<br /><br />The ending (theatrical cut) is simply awful. Michael gets stabbed with a needle, then beaten up with a pipe, then stabbed again, this time with more needles, then beaten up a little more until there's slime running out of his head (where did this green stuff come from anyway?). Basically it's nothing more than trash worth 5 million $.<br /><br />There was one good thing though: Michael's mask!<br /><br />Dedicated to Donald Pleasance, quite a disgrace. <br /><br />My rating: 4/10
|
negative
|
This is a charming movie starring everyone's favorite cartoon chipmunks. In this feature we follow the band of rodents on an unforgettable balloon race around the world. Although there are lows, including an orphan penguin, all in all it's a great family film.
|
positive
|
I LOVE Sandra Bullock-She's one of my all-time favorite actresses-but this is a movie that she should have paid a long time ago to be trash-canned. I realize that it's almost 20 years old-but my dead grandmother can act better than these people did. Beware-it's not even worth the $ 5.50 WalMart rack...You know that when the acting stinks this bad that it's not even worth a couple of bucks-the sound quality is horrendous-there's no closed captioning to even hear the hideous dialog, and it looks as if it were filmed on a $ 1.98 budget. I thought that I'd like to see Sandra in an early role to see how she evolved as an actress-but YIKES is too kind a word to use...
|
negative
|
IT SHOULD FIRST BE SAID THAT I HAVE READ THE MANGA AND THEREFORE MY ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES.<br /><br />This anime greatly disappointed me because it removed the comedy and high quality action of the manga and OVA. What it left behind was merely a husk of what it could have been. Many of the characters lacked the depth that is seen in the manga. Alucard is not the sympathetic character that secretly wishes for death. Walter's story lacks the betrayal. And the Nazi villains that plot to engulf the world in war are completely absent. Instead, the anime provides the Gary Stu villain Incognito who is defeated against what appear to be all odds.<br /><br />My primary complaint is not that the anime diverges from the manga, but that it does such a poor job.
|
negative
|
There's some very clever humour in this film, which is both a parody of and a tribute to actors. However, after a while it just seems an exercise in style (notwithstanding great gags such as Balasko continuing the part of Dussolier, and very good acting by all involved) and I was wondering why Blier made this film. All is revealed in the ending, when Blier, directing Claude Brasseur, gets a phone call from his dad (Bernard Blier) - from heaven, and gets the chance to say how much he misses him. An effective emotional capper and obviously heartfelt. But there isn't really sufficient dramatic tension or emotional involvement to keep the rest of the film interesting throughout it's entire running time. Some really nice scenes and sequences, however, and anyone who likes these 'mosntres sacrés' of the French cinema should get a fair amount of enjoyment out of this film.
|
positive
|
I saw that movie few days ago. This movie is so great that it makes me feel that if you want something really bad that you have always dreamed about it - you can have it. This shows a big wish come true trought happiness and sadness, hopeless and failure. But if you are strong enough and your heart really belongs to something that you love you can make things different and be happy.
|
positive
|
I married a Japanese woman 14 years ago. We're still together.<br /><br />However in the 1950's it would never have been as easy.<br /><br />Life in the military had been mined for action, drama, and comedy for years by this point. Mined to death. The mixed relationships gave it new ground to cover. This is old hat today, but then...? Marrying an Asian back then meant you either owed somebody something or you were a freak of some sort. This touched on both possibilities along with the third. Maybe it IS love? <br /><br />Brando did his usual good job. Garner did a better job than he usually does. He's good, but this showed how good he could be. Umecki-chan had a helluva debut here and while I think she earned her statue, she didn't really stretch. It was a role that no one who hadn't been overseas would have recognized and the newness was the corker.<br /><br />The real scene stealer was Red Buttons. Red was the best thing in this film. Bank on it. And the Japanese lifestyles were shown in an admirable light as well.<br /><br />A classic.
|
positive
|
The Invisible Maniac starts as a young Kevin Dornwinkle (Kris Russell) is caught by his strict mother (Marilyn Adams) watching a girl (Tracy Walker) strip through his telescope... Cut to 'Twenty Years Later' & Kevin Dornwinkle (Noel Peters) is now a physics professor who claims to have discovered a way to turn things invisible using a 'mollecular reconstruction' serum. However during a demonstration in front of his fellow scientists it fails & they all laugh at him, Dornwinkle goes mad kills a few of them & is locked away in a mental institute from which he escapes. Jump forward 'Two Weeks Later' & a group of summer college students discuss the tragic death of their physics teacher when the headmistress Mrs. Cello (Stephanie Blake as Stella Blalack) says that she has hired a replacement, yes you've guessed it it's Dornwinkle. The student don't take to him & treat him like dirt, however Dornwinkle has perfected his invisibility serum & uses it to satisfy his perverted sexual urges & his desire for revenge...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by Adam Rifkin wisely hiding under the pseudonym Rif Coogan (I wouldn't want my name to be associated with this turd of a film either) The Invisible Maniac is real bottom of the barrel stuff. The script by Rifkin, sorry Coogan & Tony Markes is awful. It tries to be a teenage sex/comedy/horror hybrid that just fails in every department. For a start the sex is nothing more than a few female shower scenes & a few boob shots, not much else I'm afraid & the birds in The Invisible Maniac aren't even that good looking. The comedy is lame & every joke misses by the proverbial mile, this is the kind of film that thinks someone fighting an invisible man or having Henry (Jason Logan) a mute man trying to make a phone call is funny. The Invisible Maniac makes the Police Academy (1984 - 1994) series of films look like the pinnacle of sophistication! As for the horror aspect that too is lame. It's also an incredibly slow (it takes over half an hour before Dornwinkles even becomes invisible), dull, predictable, boring & has highly annoying & unlikable teenage character's.<br /><br />Director Rifkin or Coogan or whatever does absolutely nothing to try & make The Invisible Maniac an even slightly enjoyable experience. There's no scares, tension or atmosphere & as a whole the film is a real chore to sit through. He does nothing with the invisibility angle, just a few doors opening on their own is as adventurous as it gets. There is very little gore or violence, a bit of splashing blood, a few strangulations & the only decent bit in the whole film when someone has their head blown off with a shotgun, unfortunately he was invisible at the time & we only get to see the headless torso afterwards.<br /><br />The budget must have been low, & I mean really low because this is one seriously cheap looking film. Dornwinkles laboratory is basically two jars on his bedside cabinet! When he escapes from the mental institution he has all of one dog sent after him & the entire school has about a dozen pupils & two teachers. The Invisible Maniac is a poorly made film throughout it's 85 minute duration, I spotted the boom mike on at least one occasion... Lets just say the acting is of a low standard & leave it at that.<br /><br />The Invisible Maniac is crap, plain & simple. I found no redeeming features in it at all, there are so many more better films out there you can watch so there is no reason whatsoever to waste your time on this rubbish. Definitely one to avoid.
|
negative
|
I remember this film fondly from seeing it in the theatre. I recently found a copy on VHS & it held up to my memory of it. While obviously not a "big budget" film, the acting is quite credible & the scenery, locales, & costumes are very well done. I only wish the Mammoths had been in more of the picture, but when you see them, they are also well done (remember, SFX was done in those days without benefit of computers, some poor devil had to actually put all that hair & fake tusks on real elephants!)...the same effect was used on the elephants in "Quest for Fire". A better than average adventure film & a chance for the star, Rod Cameron to play something besides a cowboy, which he also did very well over the years.
|
positive
|
Okay, I am a fan of the Nightmare series and everyone says on here that this is the worst! But it's NOT!!! Haven't's you seen Freddy's Revenge??? WTF! That was the worst of all!!! Now this movie is pretty decent and it sticks to the Freddy story and it's cool that he had a daughter etc. etc.<br /><br />And then I found out it was in 3-D!!! I was so excited, I remember when I saw it on the DVD box set I instantly skipped to the 3-D sequences. Quite a lot was in 3-D though like Lisa Zanes hand, Dream Demons, Freddy's Claw (more than once), Lezlie Dean holding a knife, Lisa Zane with a Baseball Bat, Doc's hand, Freddy's head exploding.<br /><br />I truly loved this movie because it was in 3-D, but I wish the whole movie was in 3-D not just the last 15 minutes.<br /><br />By the Way it's 15 minutes NOT TEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
positive
|
This film is as good as it is difficult to find. The film's hero (and writer and director) is Simon Geist- a man "with an agenda." He creates a fake magazine just to have the authority to interview the swine of Los Angeles- the actors, the models, the musicians- who believe that their own defecation doesn't smell. With clever dialog, Zucovic succeeds in doing this. Sure, the budget for this film was probably what he paid for a used car, but this film is so solid and so well written that it works very well. Any person who can reenact Edward Munk's 'The Scream' in the reflection of a silver trashbin at a local coffee house should be nominated for some type of award. Give this film a chance and listen to what it says... because they HAVE been making the same car since 1986... it's called 'the car.' Bravo, Zucovic, bravo!
|
positive
|
In yet another case of misleading marketing, this film is included in a 10-movie DVD set called "Women Who Kick Butt", but even in its original cover it seems to promise Shannon Tweed in an action role. Actually, during most of the movie Tweed plays the typical whiny and prissy female character who has to be rescued by the male lead, and even when she's trained in jungle warfare she still has to be dragged around by him! There is one female rebel who is a stronger character, but she's mostly kept in the margins of the movie. The male lead is Reb Brown, and he does have some (unintentionally, I think) funny moments (like when he gets electrocuted). The action scenes are badly directed and poorly acted: some of the stuntmen needed a few lessons on "how to get shot and die convincingly". I suppose if you're in the right mood you can find some things in "Firing Line" to laugh at (at one point, we can hear Tweed speaking but her lips are not moving!), but mostly I was just bored. (*)
|
negative
|
Physical Evidence is one of those films that you want to like but really should be a lot better than it actually is. Developed as a sequel to Jagged Edge for Glenn Close and Robert Loggia, it gives the impression that all involved only made it while they were waiting for something better to come along. The premise is perfectly serviceable, it's mostly technically efficient if horribly uninspired with even Henry Mancini's musacky score surprisingly pleasant, but you can't help feeling that things would have turned out better if one of the leads had turned out to be the killer (as is rumoured was originally the case). As the opening scene of his little-seen, personally disastrous Heat (1986) showed, Reynolds has all the makings of a great screen villain. As is, there are few surprises and a feeling of half-hearted filming by numbers as it builds up a head of intertia as it ambles disinterestedly towards a less than grand will-this-do? finale.<br /><br />Reynolds is fine, sailing through on charisma in what is clearly a star vehicle. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Theresa Russell. An impressive and fearless actress in husband Nic Roeg's films which allow her to delve into the darker side of human nature, she's trapped in a part that requires star quality rather than depth, and she ain't got it in spades. She doesn't fluff her lines or bump into the other actors, but that's about all that can be said in favour of her astonishingly stilted and often amateurish performance that lets the film down badly. Aside from Ned Beatty's prosecutor the supporting cast add only a slightly surreal presence in a Boston where everyone seems to have a badly disguised Canadian accent and the streets bear a startling resemblance to Toronto and Montreal.<br /><br />Likewise, director Michael Crichton, who in Westworld, Coma and The First Great Train Robbery showed that he knew how to lean an audience to the edge of their seats, seems to handle the action in a purely perfunctory fashion - indeed, in one brief chase the shots don't even match and seem thrown together almost arbitrarily. The climax itself has no flair and is completely bereft of threat or danger, and many scenes are played for far less than they are worth. It's no great surprise that, aside from uncredited reshoots on The 13th Warrior, Crichton hasn't directed since.<br /><br />Its watchable enough in an 80s TV movie sort of way, even if it never lives up to the promise of its opening. Whether that's enough of a reason to see it is down to individual taste.
|
negative
|
MCBOING BOING is one of the cartoons that have stuck in my head over the years and finally decided to look into it as was pleasantly surprised and was also surprised on the people involved with the production. If I remember correctly we had to watch it on a UHF station and this meant using a converter in those days UHF not part of regular TV to tune in the local station to watch the cartoon a big deal in those days which made the show even more mysterious. I remember all the sound effects that Gerald used to talk. A great memory from 50+ years ago. I'll have to see what other memories might be hiding on the web. By the way I try to do computer animation thats where the johnl3d comes into the picture
|
positive
|
This is a total piece of crap. It is an insult to the awesome book by Frank Herbert. They have mangled the story and characters. The acting is average to bad. The only character done right and played well is Duke Leto, played by William Hurt. Unfortunately, he dies pretty early in the story and then its all downhill from there (not that its a very tall hill to begin with).<br /><br />The 1984 movie was directed by the legendary David Lynch. I was not overly impressed with the movie, but considering the technological limitations of the time, they tried their best. Amazingly, the crappy mini series makes it look so much better by comparison. It was at least somewhat true to the book, which I really love. <br /><br />They had the chance to do it right this time, sadly it was not taken.
|
negative
|
Based on the book "Space Vampires" by Colin Wilson. This is (in my humble opinion) one of the best pieces of Sci-Fi Horror to come out of the eighties. The effects (done by ILM) still hold up by todays standards. The actors are mostly British and being british seem to give this film a greater depth of realism.<br /><br /> The film was panned by the critics and sadly failed to do well at the box office on both sides of the atlantic. Tobe Hooper blamed the promotional work that was done before its release as the main cause for it's low takings. But for whatever reason, it still does not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film with a great cast and well-paced plot.<br /><br /> Not to be over-looked.
|
positive
|
I watched this as part of my course at Aberystwyth University and it baffles me how this does not have a distributor in the UK. Well actually, it doesn't, because this film is everything a Hollywood film isn't - original, creative, quirky and humorous. It seems that today no-one really wants to see this type of movie as, in the simplest terms, it doesn't conform to the generic conventions most young viewers look for in a film.<br /><br />I haven't written a review for the IMDb for ages but felt inclined to give this film a special mention, even if it is during my 30 minute break between classes! Essentially, it is about nothing, as the two main characters are plunged into their own world of nothingness through a hate of the world. The brilliance here is how the director sustains interest through the majority of the run time with only two characters and when the only mise-en-scene consists of half a house and a vast white, empty space. This is due in large part to the stellar performances of the actors, both of whom offer some great laughs while at the same time being able to add significant emotional depth to their roles.<br /><br />I'd love to write some more but am on quite a time limit. However I encourage anyone and everyone to give this film a try. A very unique concept is brought to the screen in a coherent and well-executed fashion, with the combination of good performances, a strong script, nice sound design and (fairly) impressive visuals creating a very entertaining movie.<br /><br />It's just a shame so few people know about Nothing....
|
positive
|
I had been delighted to find that TCM was showing this, as I love the 1992 version with Josie Lawrence, Jim Broadbent, Joan Plowright...This film had a luminous Ann Harding, a wonderful performance by Frank Morgan, but others' acting made the film more of a farce then the wonderful unfolding that the later film. Reginald Owen's Arbuthnot is painful to watch and you can't understand why his wife adores him. I found out after watching the film that it was based on the stage play where the 1992 film is based on the book. The original film also felt like it was a snippet of a larger piece and felt incomplete. Too bad it was such a let-down.
|
negative
|
'Wicked Little Things' really separates itself from other zombie movies.First off, all of the zombies in the movie don't exactly starting biting at you and tearing your flesh apart with their bare hands.They kill you with either a pickax or shovel and eat you after wards.Second, they can't die.In most zombie movies, you can shoot a zombie in the head and kill them, but these simply won't die.Third, which is the biggest reason why this movie separates itself, all of the zombies are children.How did they die exactly to become zombies? They were working in a coal mine when suddenly they were all killed in a collapse.Now they wander the forest carrying their pickaxes and shovels, waiting for someone to come by so they can kill them and eat them.Oh, they also come out at night.Yep, only at night.That makes the movie even more fun then it would be if they came out in the morning.Despite all of the violent and gory mayhem in this movie, 'Wicked Little Things' is a great choice if you're looking for a movie about zombie children.Don't expect anything great like 'Dawn of the Dead' or 'Land of the Dead', but do expect lots of gore and violence that makes this movie a real zombie fan pleaser.Everyone give Scout Taylor-Compton from Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' a big hand for delivering a great performance like the one she did in 'Halloween'.She really needs to start starring in more horror movies.
|
positive
|
After his widower father dies in a horsing accident, young Tom Burlinson (as Jim Craig) is left to manage his Australian "Snowy River" farm, with only wizened, peg-legged prospector Kirk Douglas (as Spur) to help. Times are hard, so Mr. Burlinson goes to work for Mr. Douglas' wealthy, silver-haired brother rancher "Mr. Harrison" (also played by Kirk Douglas). When a big job comes up, the silver-haired (older?) Douglas feels Burlinson is too young and inexperienced to go along; so, Burlinson stays behind, and falls in love with the boss' daughter, Sigrid Thornton (as Jessica Harrison).<br /><br />The least satisfactory aspect of director George Miller's "The Man from Snowy River" is a weak storyline. Observe, for example, the "Jessica is lost" sequence of events. The damsel gets lost in one of those "freak" storms, while running away. Her worried father rounds up a posses of drunk men to find her, after predicting bad weather. Damsel "Jessica" rolls herself on to the edge of a conveniently appearing cliff. Father and the suddenly sober men don't check Burlinson's farm. Hero Burlinson discovers the damsel. After building a fire, he decides to kiss her.<br /><br />The "romance" is played too innocently for as obvious an attracted man and woman as Burlinson and Ms. Thornton. To make matters worse, the Douglas brothers have a "dark history" which is revealed before any mystery is built up regarding the matter. The main attraction, herein, is the Australian scenery.<br /><br />**** The Man from Snowy River (1982) George Miller ~ Tom Burlinson, Kirk Douglas, Sigrid Thornton
|
negative
|
Essential viewing for anyone who watches TV news as it may help to become a little more sceptical, or even cynical. On a personal note I recall taking a course some years ago about being interviewed for TV - what to do, what not to do. The course instructors impressed on us that TV news was a "branch of show-biz". That depressing view, which is probably even more valid today than when it was made, is reinforced by this film. Never mind journalistic integrity, what counts is the ability to look good and smile nicely. And make sure you don't sweat on camera.<br /><br />The interactions between the three main characters form the centre-piece, each with his or her own ambitions, capabilities and beliefs. Brooks takes these differences and sets them into the volatile setting of a TV news studio, and adds more than a pinch of love interest to the mixture. The result is a complex, if somewhat overlong, portrayal of how we compromise every day in order to meet our ambitions and take others with us. It is always entertaining, although the final scene was, perhaps, unnecessary given everything that had gone before.
|
positive
|
I'm not really sure how to even begin to describe how bad this movie is. I like bad films, as they are often the most entertaining. I love bad special effects, bad acting, bad music, and inept direction. With the exception of the music (which was better than I had expected), this movie had all of those qualities. <br /><br />The special effects were amazingly bad. The worst I've seen since my Nintendo 64. Some scenes to watch for include the Thunderchild, the woman being crushed by the mechanical foot, the Big Ben scene, the train wreck... Wow, there are so many bad effects! On the plus side, though, SOME scenes of the alien walkers are well done.<br /><br />The acting was about as bad as it could possibly have been, having been based directly on H.G. Wells' book. For having such good source material, it's almost as though the actors were trying to be so over-the-top as to make it funny. And then there's the mustache... the single most distracting piece of facial hair I've seen in a long time. Of course, only half the movie contains acting. The rest is characters walking around aimlessly and poorly rendered effects shots.<br /><br />To say that Timothy Hines is an inept director would be an injustice to inept directors. With the use of different colored filters between shots for no particular reason, the use of poorly rendered backgrounds for even inside scenes, the bad green screening, it's amazing to me how this man ever got approval to direct a movie. I wouldn't imagine it would be possible to turn a brilliant book into this bad a movie. Bravo, Mr. Hines. Bravo. <br /><br />My advice to anyone who plans to see this movie is to do what I did: have some friends who enjoy bad movies over, drink, play poker while watching it, keep drinking, and maybe you'll make it all the way through. It does make for an excellent bad movie, so have fun and laugh yourself silly with this disaster.
|
negative
|
"Un Gatto nel Cervello"/"Cat in the Brain" is one of the goriest horror movies ever made.There is a lot of blood and gore,including chainsaw butchery,bloody stabbings and numerous decapitations.The film is also interesting as "self parody" of Fulci,but the gore and violence is the key element in it.Some of the gore FX were taken from own Fulci's movies "Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio" and "I Fantasmi di Sodoma"(both 1988),plus gore FX taken from Fulci-supervised "The Snake House" aka "Bloody Psycho" by Leandro Lucchetti,"Massacre" by Andrea Bianchi,"Non Avere Paura Della Zia Marta" by Mario Bianchi,"Non Si Sevizia i Bambini" by Giovanni Simonelli and "Luna di Sangue" aka "Fuga dalla Morte" by Enzo Milioni(all 1989).The scene where Brett Halsey beats the woman's face to pulp is from "Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio",a film Fulci had made for Italian TV in 1988.The chainsawing of the female corpse at the beginning is taken from the same film,as is the head in the microwave and the guy that gets driven over and over again.Highly recommended,especially if you like extreme cinema!
|
positive
|
The Sunshine Boys is a terrific comedy about two ex-vaudevillians who reluctantly reunite for a TV special despite the fact that they despise each other.<br /><br />The comic genius of two masters at work, George Burns and Walter Matthau are stellar! Some of the best scenes are when the duo is fighting over the silliest little trivial things! The material is fast-paced and witty, appealing to all ages.<br /><br />MILD SPOILER ALERT: There are some mildly sad moments toward the end of the movie that deal indirectly with the affects of aging that gives the film a soft, sincere, tenderness that shows to this reviewer that what the pair really need the most for success, are each other.<br /><br />If anyone loves The Odd Couple, you'll adore this movie. An excellent film!
|
positive
|
Both my friend and I thought this movie was well done. We expected a light hearted comedy but got a full blown action movie with comic thrusts. We both thought that this movie may have not done so well at the box office as the previews lead us to believe it was a comedy. I was impressed with the supporting actors and of course Dave Morse always puts in a terrific acting job. Most of the supporting cast are veterans not first timers and they were solid. We both felt that the writing and direction were first rate and made comments to each other about buying this movie. If you don't buy rent it for a good time.
|
positive
|
I turned over to this film in the middle of the night and very nearly skipped right passed it. It was only because there was nothing else on that I decided to watch it. In the end, I thought it was great.<br /><br />An interesting storyline, good characters, a clever script and brilliant directing makes this a fine film to sit down and watch. This was, in fact, the first I'd heard of this movie, but I would have been happy to have paid money to see this at the cinema.<br /><br />My IMDB Rating : 8 out of 10<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I'm afraid I only stayed to watch the first hour of this movie as it really seemed to me to be mindless TV-trash and a waste of talent. Liv Tyler plays a sumptuous beauty, but her acting skills are not yet sufficiently developed to give the part any real kick. As she slowly seduces a bartender into a life of crime it is difficult to feel any real concern over any of the characters. Even John Goodman delivers his weakly comic lines with an absence of panache, as if the witless humour needs to be recited slowly in case anyone misses the joke. The ending is supposed to be good, but the starter and main course left me with no appetite to find out.
|
negative
|
Aside from the discotheque scenes that epitomize the swinging sixties (especially with everyone dancing to instrumental versions of Monkees hits), I am surprised how well this lightweight farce holds up 37 years later, but indeed it does thanks to the breezy execution of its deception-based plot and the sharp interplay of the three leads. Directed by the redoubtable stage-to-screen expert Gene Saks, this 1969 comedy is about Julian Winston, a successful Manhattan dentist and confirmed bachelor, who pretends to be married in order to avoid long-term commitment with his young girlfriend of a year, Toni. In response to Toni's half-hearted suicide attempt, Julian agrees to marry her, but Toni first insists on meeting his wife to alleviate her conscience. Enter Julian's devoted nurse Stephanie to play the wife, and the inevitable complications ensue with white lies growing into major whoppers that lead to presumed couplings and de-couplings.<br /><br />As Julian, a relaxed Walter Matthau dexterously plays the deceptive dentist in his typically sardonic manner, but he lets his two female co-stars walk off with the picture. In her big screen debut, a pixyish 24-year old Goldie Hawn is still retaining her giggly "Laugh-In" persona but provides unexpected savvy and depth as Toni. She and Matthau have great, unforced chemistry in their scenes together. Screen legend Ingrid Bergman, still serenely regal at 54, is obviously having a ball playing Stephanie, initially starchy and quick-witted but blossoming into a liberated spirit as the story evolves. I particularly like how casual she appears after her overnight romp. There is nice supporting work from Rick Lenz as Toni's bohemian neighbor Igor and Jack Weston as Julian's smarmy actor buddy Harvey. Billy Wilder's longtime collaborator, I.A.L. Diamond, provides the sparkling screenplay and opens up the story beyond its stage-bound origins for Saks, who is not the most cinematic of directors. Other than a couple of trailers, there are no significant extras with the DVD.
|
positive
|
I liked the first The Grudge. It really creeped me out and it had something to it that made me want to see it twice. That something was missing from this sequel. There was no creativity, nothing new or original, nothing that really sticks to your mind. It's people dying because a scary ghost comes out of the shadows and says boo. And most of the time, it wasn't even all that scary.<br /><br />Plot-wise this movie is a dead end. Amber Tamblyn is a good actress, but she was given nothing to do, and Karen's death seemed really unsatisfactory because it came so quickly. I was also disappointed in the Kayako's mother subplot. I was thinking that she might provide some way to fight the Grudge, but she dies in the hands - hair? - of Kayako. That was such a stupid twist. All in all, it's difficult to feel for characters that you know from minute one are going to die. All in the same way. And there's nothing they can do. It doesn't feel like a cruel destiny awaiting them. It's just boring, because you know what's going to happen. If they had anything to fight it with, that would have added suspense, even if they failed. If there was any hope, it would make the scares more justified. Now you're just waiting for them to die.<br /><br />Kayako was really scary in the first movie, but this time we saw her too many times and that took away some of it. I was still scared during some scenes, but I actually got used to the huge eye and blue face. The makers obviously realized this would happen as they added other scary ghosts. Yes, I was scared at the school psychologist scene - even if I knew where it was going as soon as she said "I've been to the house". A nice touch. Toshio, however, was not scary at all in this movie. I was much more creeped out by the non-blue Toshio with black eyes and a blank stare that sometimes appeared in the first movie. A blue boy sitting in the corner does nothing for me.<br /><br />Some of the characters seemed really unnecessary - the notorious milk-scene with the girl whose name I can't even remember comes to mind. I wasn't scared, it was just "Huh?" I'm not sure if the schoolgirls were even really needed. Karen could have brought the grudge to the US with her. It could have killed people related to her life, everyone at the funeral, or something like that. Even so, it would have been dull to watch them all die, but being introduced to so many unrelated people really felt annoying. Hated the "I won't call you mother" scene. Aubrey's mother issues were equally dull. The little boy was a touching character, though.<br /><br />The Ju-On sequel was much scarier than this one. It had some new twists - dreams and reality blurring much more, for instance - and even if it left me feeling quite down, I was also somehow satisfied. I got to think a bit and be left wondering. This movie only provided cheap scares.
|
negative
|
Just a note to add to the above comment. Fear of a Black Hat doesn't have the criminal who's image has been ripped off by the band, that's in CB4. Easily confused as the two films are so similar, but Black Hat is vastly the superior of the two..... yeah.
|
positive
|
This is one of the worst films ever. I like cheesy movies but this is simply awful. Where are the images in the film that are on the box? I think more money was spent on the DVD box illustrations than on the entire film. <br /><br />Why would a company release a DVD that the cover is so misleading? I feel like such an idiot for renting this movie based strictly on the box. As much as I explore IMDb I should have done a little research and made a list prior to visiting my local video rental store. I have no one to blame except myself. I want my money and time back. <br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. <br /><br />Even if curiosity is motivating you, stick cocktail umbrellas in your eyes instead. It will be much more enjoyable. You have been warned!
|
negative
|
I really do not know what people have against this film, but it's definitely one of my favourites. It's not preachy, it's not anchored by it's moral, it shouldn't be controversial. It's just God. Any possible God, no matter the religion. And it's really funny.<br /><br />Jim Carry plays Bruce Nolan, a TV reporter usually stuck on the lighter side of the news, desperate to prove himself (more or less TO himself) that he can be taken seriously and do a good job in an anchor job. This drive is what is slowly driving his beautiful girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) away. When the final straws are executed, he's quick to not laugh, but yell in the face of God, who in turn gives Bruce his powers. Bruce then makes his life better for himself, until he's guilted into helping others, where he then continues to miss the point of his powers. Meanwhile, his constant excitement about his own life makes him more selfish, leaving his relationship on dangerous ground.<br /><br />OK, that was kinda long. But as a plot, it works well. The step-by-step fashion in which we meet the challenges of being God is much better than clustering his problems together, and is able to hide itself fairly well.<br /><br />As you probably know from hearing about this movie in the first place, Carrey's pitch-perfect acting stays in character (which, luckily enough, is him), and controls and gives atmosphere to the movie scene by scene. Whether they would admit it or not, the role was written or rewritten exclusively for Carrey. Without him, the humour would turn flat, as humour is half execution. And the humour is very good in the first place. But without Carrey, it would kinda feel like a It's a Wonderful Life wannabe.<br /><br />Jennifer Aniston is great and, no matter what some may say, does not act like the only excuse for the third act. At least, you don't think that when you see her. She gives a heartfelt performance and makes you forget you're watching a movie, she and Carrey feel very much like a real couple.<br /><br />The movie feels ggooooodd (see the movie to understand), has a very nice feeling, tackles the idea appropriately and better than expected and overall should never have been called slapped together just to save Carrey's career (which wasn't goin' anywhere.).
|
positive
|
This early Sirk melodrama, shot in black and white, is a minor film, yet showcases the flair of the German director in enhancing tired story lines into something resembling art. Set in the 1910's, Barbara Stanwyck is the woman who has sinned by abandoning her small-town husband and family for the lure of the Chicago stage. She never fulfilled her ambitions, and is drawn back to the town she left by an eager letter from her daughter informing her that she too has taken a liking to the theatre (a high school production, that is). Back in her old town she once again comes up against small-mindedness, and has to deal with her hostile eldest daughter, bewildered (and boring) husband (Richard Carlson) and ex-lover. The plot is nothing new but Sirk sets himself apart by creating meaningful compositions, with every frame carefully shot, and he is aided immeasurably by having Stanwyck as his leading lady. It runs a crisp 76 minutes, and that's just as well, because the material doesn't really have the legs to go any further.
|
positive
|
This (extremely)low-budget movie is compared to the great classic "Silent Night Deadly Night", since it is labeled as a Slasher Flick. First let me say that I think that even "Silent Night Part 2" is better than this (that one was filled with flashbacks of the original for more than half of the movie). "Christmas Evil" tries to get psychological by introducing the main character as someone who goes insane,(a strong word), slowly (very slowly). He is irritated by people who do not get the true meaning of Christmas and at work he can't stand how the fabricated toys are made with such lack of quality and love. Dressed up as Santa he finally goes on a killing spree. Also a strong word, since only 3 people are killed without the real need for special effects. No tension, no thrills, no gore, no cast. For one exception that is: Jeffrey DeMunn is in it. He is best known for playing aside Tom Hanks as one of the guards in the classic "The Green Mile". He still must be kicking himself these days for ever accepting the role. He truly is the only one who really can act, his supporting role is better than the main lead. (who also isn't that bad, but if you're overshadowed by a little supporting character, you're not great either.). And what about that strange ending ? (you have to see it, to believe it). "Christmas Evil" is downright boring, nothing happens and the artwork is just misleading. This is not a slasher. You wanna see a real Christmas slasher, check out the all time greatest: "Silent Night, Deadly Night".
|
negative
|
This highly underrated film is (to me) what good writing in a movie should be all about. Kasdan takes the search for meaning in our lives and lays it out for all to see and wonder at. The movie is about the divides people create to insulate themselves from the violence and hatred and bigotry of everyday life. <br /><br /> Along the way we are asked question after question about life. Davis (Steve Martin with a great beard) asks himself 'Is my making a violent movie (and by extension our enjoyment of it) causing the violence in society?' Claire asks "What kind of world throws away something as precious as a human life?' Mack is not immune as he asks 'Is it possible to pass beyond the bounds of race and (an even harder step) finance? These are of course not quoted from the film, but generalities. Others ask their questions too, and to be honest it raises more than it answers.<br /><br /> But that is the nature of life. We strive all our lives to find answers to questions we will never totally answer, and in certain cases have to make answers fit to our own needs and desires. As humans we thrive on questions we cannot answer. Some answers are real. Claire and Mack come to realize that even though they could take the easy road and let the state take the baby, their finding it placed the responsibility for her life in their hands. Some answers are not. Davis `Sees the Light' and decides not to make violent films, but the next day turns around and dismisses his epiphany as subordinate to his art.<br /><br /> We all seek answers. This movie does not answer them for; it simply reminds you to keep looking for the answers.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Okay, I was bored and decided to see this movie. But I think the main thing that brought this movie down was that there would be a hour of footage, then basically that same hour repeated 4 times. It consists of 1. Gathering the troops and discussing the attack plan, 2. Flashbacks to the men's wives 3. The approach of the troops marching in a long line 4. Men running up hill and shooting, usually the first getting shot in the head then 3 other men rescuing him. 5. Defeat of the enemy and calling to base to tell of success 6. Men flashing back to wives and singing 10 minute songs. That was the basic movie, and that same order of events happened about 4 or 5 times. and every time it did a flashback to the wives, it would show the man, then his wife and him. There were about 10 men or more who would have a flashback so this took up tons of time. Other than that, the men couldn't kill their enemy except with either bayonets or grenades. I liked the music and there was a lot of action, though the action was repetitive. Overall, I probably wouldn't see it again, but it wasn't too horrible.
|
negative
|
Watching "Death Bed: The Bed That Eats" is like waking up in the hospital, two days into a suicide<br /><br />watch, disorienting but oddly stimulating. There are few cinematic equivalents to this disturbing yet often humorous lesson in mythology, morality and surrealist ideology.<br /><br />Cocteau's "Blood of a Poet" and Maya Deren's<br /><br />experimental works evoke a taste of the strange atmosphere found in DEATH BED. A close comparison are the dark adult fairy-tales by literary genius- author Angela Carter, the short disturbing stories of Unica<br /><br />Zurn or E.T.A. Hoffman. <br /><br />DEATH BED has many recognizable elements of the<br /><br />past, but displays a wholly unique and original storyline.<br /><br />As a story, DEATH BED is an amazingly simple yet original<br /><br />vision, something which only one-in-a-thousand independent releases will manage to accomplish. This unassuming film has its technical flaws but overcomes them all with a cast of beautiful non-actors<br /><br />and lost creepy locations- a true 1970s independent classic. <br /><br />DEATH BED also displays a unique, subversive, 3-dimensional personality-- a deep and continuous layering of dream images and ideas that lend it a "fun-house" type of construct. The passage of time told in flashbacks and historic time travelogues, the bed with its sinister black humor, the rich yet understated symbolism used within its imagery. Most pleasing is the image of Aubrey Beardsly, the suffering artist, forever trapped inside the frame of his own painting as he comments on and fondles with the murdered victim "offerings" gifted to him as love offerings by the demented bed's spirit. -- A sick refrain and wonderful element /metaphor for the "trapped artist" -- Nothing but the weirdest in POE or MALLARME can equal that. <br /><br />Anyone who values the spirit of independent cinema and craves the multi-layered symbolist experience, or craves the Surrealist concept of "convulsive<br /><br />beauty" and the Gothic-horror leanings of low budget exploitation film-making will dig this totally unique vision. A simple and fun film with deliciously deep psychic undercurrents. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. *****
|
positive
|
This train-wreck begins with Brujo and Alma crossing the Mexican border. Alma is suffering from some horrid curse that causes her to vomit garden snakes and Nickelodeon Gac every few minutes as well as clench her teeth and mutter nonsense. So Apparently Alma has this uncle in Los Angeles who knows of a cure for her. They hop aboard a train to get there and luckily a friend of theirs pays their way. Alma and Brujo stay in the luggage cart the whole movie since they can't afford upper class seats. Meanwhile in the higher class we see a bunch of nobodies on their way to LA for whatever reasons. A balding guy on a business trip, two girls, one of whom is carrying $5 grand and a wad of cocaine, three stoners, and some Mexicans. The Mexicans rough it up with Brujo and try to take his "weed" which apparently is a sedative for Alma's snakes slithering inside her. They realize that the snakes don't attack, they Enter Your Body Through Your Veins! Very twisted and B-Movie. Brujo saves the guy by ripping out his heart (Temple Of Doom style) and procuring the snake. For some reason he cannot have the snakes harmed or it'll hurt Alma. While this is going on a narcotics expert tries to bust one of the girls and gets a little action (topless) in exchange for not telling about her shipment of drugs. A mystery guy shows up and has a gunfight with him. As a grand finale Alma turns into a vampire, bites her man and then becomes a giant pathetic excuse for a CG snake the size of the train, eats the train and is blasted into a nuclear bomb hurricane whirlwind and disappears. Everyone then heads to LA on foot.<br /><br />The credits actually say at the end "Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental, and very weird. We suggest moving and/or taking a plane". Odd since a line in the movie from the bald guy is "Yeah, I HATE planes!" The credits go on to say "No snakes were hurt during the production of this screenplay. Only a small child but it's cool." There actually were a LOT of real snakes used in the movie, and all of them very tame. There is actually no scene of CG snakes attacking anyone unless you count the large one, but then it just eats the train and the other fake snake is just the head and it looks like a muppet. The snakes don't really attack anything, they're just...there. One crawls out of toilet paper actually!<br /><br />the movie isn't funny, isn't scary (as there's no real snake attack), and is just a 'quickie cash-in' which is when a low-budget movie company hears about a big budget Hollywood release, then they rush to put out a similar film, or even a parodic version, for release just prior to, or simultaneously with, the big name flick. The effect of this being that many people will either confuse one for the other, and go see the quickie rather than the 'biggie' or, they will want to see both, for whatever reason... like myself. Avoid at all costs.
|
negative
|
I don't think I'm spoiling anyone's experience of this film by telling you not to see it if you have anything better to do, like clean under the stove. It gets dirty under there and you've gotta clean it sometime. <br /><br />I think the movie suffers from a lack of sex and violence, though there is one car chase stunt that looks so dangerous it could only have been filmed in a country where life is cheaper than beer. "Gargoyle"'s heart is in the right place, but its aspirations are conservative. It is at least not pretentious. But I had a great time acting in it, playing the perennial idiot in the horror movie who says "What's down this hole?" and dies for his hubris. Plus I got to meet Michael Pare. Every film junkie should work with a B-movie staple at least once before death. And Romanians are the loveliest people I've met. Literally the loveliest. Walk down the street in Bucarest: if 7 of every 10 women aren't absolutely beautiful, you're walking down a street I didn't come across; and be consoled by the fact that at least 5 of the 10 are available for drinks.<br /><br />Part of the film was shot in Casa Radio, an abandoned, unfinished Classic Communist Bloc-cum-Georgian Nightmare edifice originally intended to house KGB propaganda ministries, i.e. Radio Not-so-Free Europe. The building's five stories tall and takes up a city block; best of all, while its facade radiates Big Brotheresque state solidity, it resides near the city center like a post-apocalyptic ruin in a jungle of burdock and hemp peopled by dozens of Gypsies and scores of wild dogs. Construction on Casa Radio was suspended when Caucescu and his wife were executed on TV in 1989, and still there are gaping holes that drop from the sun-baked top floor (offering surreal vistas of a modern quarter-mile stretch of concrete roof, decorated with jutting rebar and old car parts, overlooking a crumbling ancient city) all the way down to the damp, creepy sub-basement (which doubles in the film for the Gargoyle lair.) No American-style guardrails or warning signs for Bucarest. <br /><br />Since the demise of the Soviet Union, Casa Radio has hosted several non-union film shoots, including "Highlander III". It is attractive to producers because it's a cheap location, massive in terms of scale and available space, bizarre looking, and free of insurance headaches as it's still state property. Plus no one complains if you don't clean up after your production: anything left onsite is interpolated into the resident Gypsies' construction of their shanty town in this actual urban jungle. <br /><br />An assistant director was bitten bloody by a wild dog during the shoot of "Gargoyle". The apples provided by catering were pressed into service by cast and crew as projectiles in order to keep the prowling dogs at bay. I too was bitten by wild dogs in Bucarest, once in a bar (!) and once in a city park. I also survived two car wrecks in two weeks, both in taxis and neither of which was seen by the drivers involved as grounds for stopping the cars.<br /><br />GEEK NOTE: The Sci-Fi Network or Channel or whatever was one of the backers of this film (the smaller the budget, the more producers on set), so it's a little weird that nobody had a problem with the original title, "Gargoyles", until it was almost time to show it on the network, even though Sci-Fi already had an unrelated series of that name. The title was changed sometime relatively close to release, as I have a color-corrected copy labeled with the former title.
|
negative
|
As a veteran of many, many pretentious French films I thought I'd taken the worst the industry had to offer and was able to stomach anything. But not this. Pointless, relentless, violent, unpleasant, meaningless ... The film has nothing to offer and is random hatred and aggression dressed up as pretentious art. Avoid at all costs.
|
negative
|
In all my 60 years of age, I have learned that when we watch a movie there is an identification (whether we want it or not) implicit with an specific character.<br /><br />Sometimes because the character executes certain gesture, sometimes because the character speaks determinate word, or sentence that we use or that we would like to use in determinate situation.<br /><br />The movie in question, should be seen by this point of view. Who now find a parking space in a mall,downtown, or in the street - taken by a car whose driver can't remember to think that he is not the only driver in the world?<br /><br />Who hasn't the urge to "rubber out" the ill mannered spat?<br /><br />Haven said that I ask: - Did you identify with DELLA (played by Kim Bassinger)? If your answer is: YES!, then try not to find absurd details comparatively with life's reality in the movie, because you'll certainly find the movie ridiculous.<br /><br />Abstractions made, you will see that the movie has moments of surprise, such as: 1- In the sequence in which Della grabs the box of tools in the trunk (does that box contains a gun, and does she haves the guts to use it?); 2- In the sequence in which Terry dies whilst falling; 3- In the sequence in which Della gets attracted by Chuckie's "mermaid's call".<br /><br />If you have already seen the movie, or if are planning seeing, keep in mind that there are "realistic" movies, "fiction" movies, "political" movies, and movies in which you can "wash your soul"
To exemplify the last one, we can quote: "Tropa de Elite".<br /><br />According to newspaper's , there was unanimous applause when BOPE officials take certain attitudes. (As I have seen the movie in DVD, I could not ascertain the audience's reaction)
<br /><br />As for the direction part (Susan Monford), interpretations (Kim Bassinger, Lukas Haas, Craig Scheffer, etc. Edition (William M. Anderson 'Dead Poets Society', 'Green Card' exceptional edition, 'Robocop 2', etc. It is well situated in context. In a scale of 1(Awful) to 10(Master Piece), I rate "When She Was Out" a 7(Regular).
|
positive
|
Billy Wilder continues his strong run of films during the 1950s with a biopic of Charles Lindbergh, the young American pilot who became the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1927. Jimmy Stewart plays Lindbergh, and while he might be a bit too old for the part, he still brings the sincere warmth and confidence needed as well as his trademark down-to-earth goodness that makes him an iconic film star. Wilder directs solidly, balancing the background story with humor and drama to give us a clear description of what Lindbergh was up against when he decided to take this challenge. It certainly isn't his nor Stewart's best work, but it is a gem of a movie. It lifts your spirits with the plane and makes you proud to be an American. Overall, it is just plain good.
|
positive
|
Saw this on TV. I'm glad I didn't go to the cinema to see this or spend the money on rental. The movie is totally predictable - from the corrupt owner and planner, to the snaking electric cables. The plot is really weak and unbelievable - the avalanche expert guy gets hit by a 20 foot wave of bone breaking avalanche (using actual footage) and all he has to do is get up and shake himself down. The avalanche thunders down at a million miles an hour and stops dead at the side of the road.<br /><br />Some of the actual avalanche material is impressive and shows its devastating power. But the contract between the real avalanche and the staged stuff makes this film look even flimsier.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour, don't bother with this one not even on T.V.
|
negative
|
This is easily one of the worst movies i have ever seen. There is so much at the house that goes wrong that would not happen it isn't even funny. Granted this is a movie meaning things that won't happen in normal life happen here, however this movie is more far fetched than theories that no child left behind is working. All of these people are in the house and nobody has noticed another, not to mention the damn owl that seems to be coming everywhere but in its cage. I could deal with an owl joke the first few times, but after an hour i just can't take it, i would rather kill myself than see that damn owl again. Did i laugh during this movie? no. Not even once? no. Horrible, Horrible, Horrible. The fact that this pile of garbage is capped off with Ashton Kutcher bending his boss over and taking his pants off in front of everybody just makes this movie ever worse. But wait, the day is saved because the damn owl can fly. WOW AMAZING! However, i do give this movie some cred, its not as bad as Epic Movie.....
|
negative
|
I recently watched this film on The Sundance Channel and it kept me interested from the start. However, it seems to take forever getting itself where it wants to go and in the end, I felt somewhat cheated. In a nutshell, Noble Willingham (of Walker, Texas Ranger fame) plays a boat salesman who starts getting harassed by telephone from a man claiming to be his son. According to the mysterious caller, Willingham has a dark, dirty little secret that affects the son and he (the son) is enjoying reminding him of it. I won't spoil anything for anyone but for me three things kept me from liking this movie a great deal. One, the movie has more foul language than Goodfellas, Scarface, Casino, and Glengarry Glen Ross combined. 99% of it is spewed from Willingham himself. It didn't take long to wear me out with constant four-letter words. Two, I simply could not believe that anyone would answer the telephone that many times, especially when one knows that a crank caller is on the other end of the line. No matter where Willingham is in the movie whether it be at work, home, a diner, etc., the phone rings and he always answers it spewing venom at the "son", and then hanging up ONLY TO ANSWER IT AGAIN WHEN THE CALLER CALLS BACK IN ABOUT TEN SECONDS! How many of us would do that? Now I realize that we probably do not have a movie if he doesn't keep answering, but I just could not suspend disbelief on that particular matter. Three, and this is the most minor of the criticisms, why is the director so opposed to showing us the "Corndog Man" (a.k.a. the caller/son)? Most of the time he's just a redneck sounding voice on the other end of the phone. I could have lived with that one if other things had fallen into place, but since they didn't it's just one more to tack on. I do give the movie credit for being a somewhat original idea and for holding my attention with suspense from the beginning but that's about it. Do see it, if only one time. However, if you're like me, you'll be saying "Triple K Marine!" in your sleep for a night or two after you finish watching it.
|
negative
|
What happened to Peter Bogdanovich? Once a brilliant director, a trail blazer... is now scraping the very bottom... Is this the same man who directed "The Last Picture Show"? Here, he takes a somewhat interesting (albeit farfetched) premise, and turns it into bubble gum that loses flavor the moment you take the first bite... Dunst is not bad, but Izzard is miscast as Chaplin, and all the other actors seem to have been cast for their "looks", and not because they were right for the part. Too bad. I'll go rent "Paper Moon" again.
|
negative
|
Return to Cabin by the Lake is Perhaps one of The Few Sequels that Can Live up to The Original. It Had Black Humor, Good Suspense, Nice Looking Girls, and Of Course, a Psycho Killer. What are We Missing? I Think Nothing. Except we Are Left with a Small Amount of Gore and Nudity because It Was Made for Television. Besides Being one Of The Best Sequels, it is one of The Best Thrillers to Watch as a Family. Recommended for Everyone.
|
positive
|
Reign Over Me is a success due to the powerful work by Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. While comedic actors going dramatic has been seen as somewhat of a distraction, Sandler is no stranger to playing more serious roles. Most of the characters he portrays have an unstable temperament and a vulnerability that can burst at any moment. He might even be typecast for characters with such hidden anger problems. However, this performance has some considerable dramatic weight, unlike his roles in less comedic fare like Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish.<br /><br />In the film, Alan Johnson (Cheadle) runs into his old college roommate, Charlie Finerman (Sandler), whom he hasn't seen in several years. Five years before, Charlie suffered the overwhelming loss of his wife and three daughters in a plane crash. Charlie barely even recognizes Cheadle's character due to the repression of his memories and consequent reclusive childish lifestyle since the accident. It isn't until Alan persists in engaging him in conversation that Charlie remembers who he is. Their renewed relationship that follows will allow Finerman to have a friend who doesn't speak about his loss, eventually enabling him to confront the thoughts and feelings he has suppressed on his own terms.<br /><br />Though writer-director Mike Binder doesn't show much sense of an individual style and some of his shots and transitions are a bit awkward, he does have a knack of getting decent to great performances from his actors while being a talented and funny writer. He shot this film with a digital camera, as more and more filmmakers are doing today, enabling the crew to shoot the night scenes with limited lighting. This kept the colorful backgrounds of New York City in focus, but resulted in creating frequent digital grain, which resembles blue specks scattered and moving on the screen.<br /><br />Almost every main character in Reign Over Me gives a great performance. Jada-Pinkett Smith and especially Liv Tyler are memorable in their respective roles as a frustrated wife to Cheadle's character and a psychiatrist. However, it is Sandler and Cheadle that give some of their finest work to date. They completely owned this movie. Sandler actually plays a character that doesn't outwardly resemble or act like himself at all, partially credited to his Bob Dylan-esquire wig. Though Cheadle's character has more screen time than Sandler, they both should be considered to be leading roles, as they equally support and help each other throughout the film.<br /><br />Music also plays a great part in this film, especially the title song "Reign Over Me," or "Love, Reign O'er Me" by The Who, and later covered by Pearl Jam. In one of the most powerful moments of the film, Binder shows Sandler using music to shut out his feelings and memories, but this particular song provokes such intense emotion that rather than diminishing his anger, it incites his emotions. All an all, Reign Over Me is an enjoyable, sad, yet many times funny film, driven by its amazing leading performances.
|
positive
|
Wow this Wrestlemania took place from 3 different cities. This was the very first wrestling pay per view I ever saw and it's a good one indeed! There is a great steel cage match for the main event as Hulk Hogan takes on King Kong Bundy!
|
positive
|
With this movie only running 61 minutes and nothing all that good on television, I decided to pop Revolt of the Zombies into the DVD to pass the time. Even while realizing the era from which it was coming, I was sorely disappointed. It started with the oddly upbeat quality of the opening score (what - no brooding music?) and then the rather slow moving opening sequences. Gosh, I figured a movie about zombies - even from the 1930s - would have SOME chills to it (White Zombie, with Bela Lugosi, certainly did) but this had none. Zero. It was scarcely even dramatic (except for the few moments with the burning eyes superimposed on the film to indicate the mesmerization of someone). Like the equally dull King of the Zombies, this movie may be an interesting curiosity to own, but nothing more.
|
negative
|
I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary
but not intentionally.<br /><br />Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.<br /><br />Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as "There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing" and "I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel
or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney
thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else
avoid like arsenic.
|
negative
|
When a rocket from a government experiment on the effects of cosmic rays on animals crashes in a small Texas town, people start to die. The county sheriff tries to investigate but is hampered in his efforts by other government officials. It turns out that there is a mutant space gorilla on the loose killing teenagers in the woods.<br /><br />I like low budget science fiction and horror movies. I like monster movies. So I thought that there would be a good chance that I would like this movie. Sadly, I didn't.<br /><br />I don't mind the bad acting, the corny dialog, the atrocious musical score or the giant plot holes that this movie has. There are a lot of movies that have the same problems that I have seen and enjoyed in a so bad it's good kind of way.<br /><br />But where others of that type and Night Fright differ is that Night Fright just has terrible pacing. And it drags on because of that. There are scenes that just go on and on without anything happening-the searching the woods for clues is just people walking in the forest for a long time; there are several seemingly endless dancing teens at a party in the woods...but nothing interesting is going on. If these scenes were shorter, the movie might not have been as boring (though I don't think simply cutting those scenes would save this one).<br /><br />I have now given this movie three viewings to make sure that I gave it a chance before slamming it in this review. Sadly, it has gotten worse with each watch. There won't be a fourth.
|
negative
|
I am 17, and a biased Muppet fan, and while I love Treasure Island, Christmas Carol and Great Muppet Caper, The Muppet Movie absolutely deserves to be up there with the best of them. It is enormously entertaining, thanks to the snappy script by Jerry Juhl, and the film looks lovely, with some beautifully staged musical numbers. Speaking of the songs, I really liked them, sure they aren't the best song score out of the Muppet franchise, but they were very nice to listen to, especially Never Before. Never Before is now one of my favourite Muppet songs along with First Time It Happens and Professional Pirate. The Muppets as usual were fantastic, particularly the always delightful Miss Piggy, and the chemistry between Kermit and Fozzie was great. And what a brilliant human cast- from Bob Hope to Orson Welles, from Madeleine Kahn(the same wonderful actress who brought us hilarious movies like What's Up Doc?, Blazing Saddles and Clue) to Cloris Leachman, from Steve Martin to Richard Pryor, all of whom made memorable guest appearances, if careful not to overshadow the Muppets in a fantastic film. 10/10 Bethany Cox
|
positive
|
I was 13 when this mini-series (and its sequel North and South, Book II) first aired. I had already been captivated by the personal interest stories in/around our American Civil War, which is what interested me in watching this made-for-tv program.<br /><br />I loved it. And now I'm 29 years old and I only love it more. It is full of history, beautiful costuming, real-life characters woven in and out of the lives of fictional characters, all of whom you come to care deeply about. There is intrigue, love, loyalty, betrayal, family, extended family, lust, battles, victory, defeat and reconstruction.<br /><br />Even though I had the full set of episodes on tapes I recorded back when it originally aired, I purchased the full set of both N&S and N&S II from Columbia House some years ago when they became available. Once every few years I'll take a whole weekend and watch all the installments back to back - and am sad when the last episode rolls to an end, because I find myself wanting to continue watching the story of the lives of these characters.<br /><br />I cannot recommend this mini-series more highly.
|
positive
|
OK, I admit that I still associate Sophie Marceau with La Boum. That was the main reason I went to see this film. But it was so boring, that I nearly felt asleep. Sorry, but her talents as actress are not very convincing. Furthermore, this film was presented as having outstanding special effects and CGI. Yeah, for a B-Movie it is not that bad. After having seen her in "Marquise" some years ago (also a very crappy film), I thought that she would play more convincingly. But La Boum (and may be the James Bond "the world is not enough") seem to be the only good films with her. Is it her "talent", does she have a bad taste when choosing her films or simply bad luck ?
|
negative
|
Sort of like a very primitive episode of "General Hospital" set in a natal ward (and one for tough cases at that), this fast-moving programmer has a satisfying emotional impact -- mainly because Eric Linden, as the distraught young husband in the main plot, is so palpably a wreck, and with such good reason. His expectant wife, Loretta Young, is brought to the ward at the beginning of a 20-year prison sentence for offing a lecher who probably had it coming to him; Ms. Young, as always, doesn't do anything to disinvite audience sympathy, and she's a little too good to be true, though sympathetic and lovely to look at, of course. Her difficult pregnancy and relationships with the other girls of the ward form the heart of the movie, and the outcome -- not an entirely happy one -- feels right. Aline MacMahon, "one of the cinema's few perfect actresses," in the apt words of film historian David Thomson, exudes warmth and authority as the head nurse, and Glenda Farrell, as a none-too-willing new mom of twins, gets to croon "Frankie and Johnny" as a drunken lullaby. Frank McHugh figures in another subplot, and he gets to show more range than Warners usually permitted him. It's scaled and paced modestly, and Linden's expectant-dad panic stays with you for days -- this sort of part was often played for laughs, but he's a terrified young kid in trouble, and very persuasive.
|
positive
|
This picture in 1935 walked away with all kinds of Ocars for Best Director, John Ford, Actor Victor McLaglen and music by Max Seiner. Victor McLaglen,(Gypo Nolan), "Call Out the Marines",'42, gave an outstanding performance as an Irish rebel who belonged to a rough and tough crowd who were all fighting for a cause and at the same time getting poorer and poorer with plenty of drinking. Gypo Nolan made a bad mistake when he decided to become an informer for his best friend in order to take a trip with his gal to America and a new way of living. Preston Foster, (Don Gallagher),"Guadalcanal Diary",'43, gave a great supporting role as the leader of the Irish rebellion and was anxious to capture the informer of his group. Gypo Nolan becomes haunted by his betrayal of his friend and begins to feel just like a Judas. Great film for 1935 and wonderful acting by McLaglen, but rather depressing in every aspect of the film.
|
positive
|
"Raw Force" is like an ultra-sleazy and perverted version of Love Boat, with additional Kung Fu fights, demented cannibalistic monks, white slaves trade, energetic zombies and a whole lot of lousy acting performances. No wonder this movie was included in the recently released "Grindhouse Experience 20 movie box-set". It's got everything exploitation fanatics are looking for, blend in a totally incoherent and seemingly improvised script! The production values are extremely poor and the technical aspects are pathetic, but the amounts of gratuitous violence & sex can hardly be described. The film opens at a tropically sunny location called Warriors Island, where a troop of sneering monks raise the dead for no apparent reason other than to turn them into Kung Fu fighters. The monks also buy sexy slaves from a sleazy Hitler look-alike businessman, supposedly because the women's flesh supplies them with the required powers to increase their zombie army. Tourists on a passing cruise ship, among them three martial arts fighters, a female LA cop and a whole bunch of ravishing but dim-witted ladies, are attacked by the Hitler guy's goons because they were planning an excursion to Warriors Island. Their lifeboat washes ashore the island anyway, and the monks challenge the survivors to a fighting test with their zombies. Okay, how does that sound for a crazy midnight horror movie mess? It's not over yet, because "Raw Force" also has piranhas, wild boat orgies, Cameron Mitchell in yet another embarrassing lead role and 70's exploitation duchess Camille Keaton ("I spit on your Grave") in an utterly insignificant cameo appearance. There's loads of badly realized gore, including axe massacres and decapitations, hammy jokes and bad taste romance. The trash-value of this movie will literally leave you speechless. The evil monks' background remains, naturally, unexplained and they don't even become punished for their questionable hobbies. Maybe that's why the movie stops with "To Be Continued", instead of with "The End". The sequel never came, unless it's so obscure IMDb doesn't even list it.
|
negative
|
OK i have seen Hershall Gordon Lewis movies before but this one really takes the cake,its really gory and gross,not to mention disgusting the way the strippers are done in,I'm talking bad acting that makes plan 9 from outer space look like hamlet,the only saving grace is the late great Henny Youngman as the strip club owner,yeah take my wife..., please.the stripteasers are real sexy for 1972,i believe they used this same plot again in the Roger Corman movie;stripped to kill in 1987.i did enjoy the earlier H.G.Lewis flick 100 maniacs,which was a mini masterpiece of sorts,but bad acting,no awards here,but be aware this is a splatter movie that paved the way for Friday the 13th,and saw.in one disturbing scene a half naked stripper has her butt spanked with a meat tenderizer.ugh!morbid stuff here.H.G. Lewis strikes again. 2 out of 10.
|
negative
|
The Blob starts with one of the most bizarre theme songs ever, sung by an uncredited Burt Bacharach of all people! You really have to hear it to believe it, The Blob may be worth watching just for this song alone & my user comment summary is just a little taste of the classy lyrics... After this unnerving opening credits sequence The Blob introduces us, the viewer that is, to Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen as Steven McQueen) & his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) who are parked on their own somewhere & witness what looks like a meteorite falling to Earth in nearby woods. An old man (Olin Howland as Olin Howlin) who lives in a cabin also sees it & goes to investigate, he finds a crater & a strange football sized rock which splits open when he unwisely pokes it with a stick. Laying in the centre of the meteorite is a strange jelly like substance which sticks to the stick, if you know what I mean! It then slides up the stick & attachés itself to the old man's hand. Meanwhile Steve & Jane are quietly driving along minding their own business when the old man runs out in front of Steve's car, Steve being a decent kinda guy decides to take the old man to Dr. T. Hallan (Alden 'Stephen' Chase as Steven Chase) at the local surgery. Dr. Hallan says he doesn't know what the substance on the old man's hand is but it's getting bigger & asks Steve to go back where he found him & see if he can find out what happened. Steve agrees but doesn't come up with anything & upon returning to Dr. Hallan's surgery he witnesses the blob devouring him. The town's police, Lieutenant Dave (Earl Rowe) & the teenage hating Sergeant Jim Bert (John Benson) unsurprisingly don't believe a word of it & end up suspecting Steve & his mates Al (Anthony Franke), Tony (Robert Fields) & someone called 'Mooch' Miller (James Bonnet) of playing an elaborate practical joke on the police department. However as the blob continues to eat it's way through the town Steve sets about finding proof of it's existence & convincing the police about the threat it posses not just to their town but the entire world!<br /><br />Directed Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. & an uncredited Russell S. Doughton Jr. I was throughly disappointed by this, the original 1958 version of The Blob. The script by Kay Linaker as Kate Phillips & Theodore Simonson is an absolute bore & extremely dull not making the most of it's strongest aspects. The Blob focuses on the tiresome dramatics & conflicts between the teenagers & police, in fact the majority of The Blob is spent on Steve trying to convince the police of the blob's existence. For most of the film the blob itself almost seems inconsequential & somewhat forgotten. It only has two or three scenes for the fist hour & a bit until the less than exciting climax when the adults & teenagers have to work together to defeat the blob & have a new found appreciation of each other afterwards, yuck! Why couldn't the blob just eat the lot of 'em? No explanation is given for what the blob is or it's origins other than it came from space, how long did it take them to come up with that? The dialogue is clunky & silly as well, as are people's actions & decision making, I love the part when a nurse named Kate (Lee Paton as Lee Payton, did anyone use their real name in this thing?) is confronted by the blob, she throws some acid over it & calmly proclaims "Doctor, nothing will stop it!", how does she know 'nothing' will stop it exactly? There's no blood or violence so don't worry about that, the special effects on the blob itself aren't too bad considering but it barely has any screen time & moves very slowly, a bit like the film in general actually. The acting is terrible, McQueen is supposed to be a teenager when in reality he was 28 years old & it shows, he looks old enough to be his own dad! Same thing goes for most of the other 'teenage' cast members & everyone generally speaking are wooden & unconvincing in their roles. Technically The Blob is very basic, dark static photography, dull direction & forgettable production values. The Blob is one of those films that probably sounds good on paper & is well known as being a 'classic' but is in actual fact a huge disappointment when finally seen. This is one case when the remake The Blob (1988) is definitely better than the original. The original Blob is slow & boring & the remake isn't, the original Blob contains no blood or gore & the remake does, the original Blob has incredibly poor acting & casting decisions & the remake doesn't & the original Blob itself gets very little screen time eating only three or four people throughout the entire film & the remake features the blob all the way through & it virtually eats an entire town. The choice is an easy one, the remake every time as it's a better film in every respect. I'll give the film two stars & give that wonderful main theme song one on it's own. Definitely not the classic many seem to make out.
|
negative
|
I'm glad the folks at IMDb were able to decipher what genre this film falls into. I had a suspicion it was trying to be a comedy, but since it also seems to want to be a dark and solemn melodrama I wasn't sure. For a comedy it is amazingly bereft of even the slightest venture into the realms of humour - right up until the ridiculous "twist" ending, which confirms what an utter waste of time the whole movie actually is. It is hard to describe just how amateurish THE HAZING really is. Did anyone involved in this film have any idea at all what they were supposed to be doing? Actually worth watching so that you can stare at the screen in slack-jawed disbelief at how terrible it is.
|
negative
|
"Tourist Trap" is a genuinely spooky low-budget horror film that will surely satisfy horror fans.It contains extremely strange atmosphere and there are some quite unnerving moments of total dread and fear.Some scenes are downright bizarre for example there is one scene when Chuck Connors sits down to have dinner with a mannequin that comes to life and starts conversing with him before its head falls off.There is very little gore,but the violence is quite strong for PG-rated horror film.The mannequins look very sinister and the climax is horrifying.David Schmoeller returned to make several other genre films including "Crawlspace","Puppet Master" and "Netherworld".Still "Tourist Trap" is definitely his best horror film,so if you want to be scared give this little gem a look.<br /><br />Rated PG for Brief Nudity, Violence and Profanity.
|
positive
|
If you want to watch something that is for 'him' and 'her' so to say then this is the film to pick. I am a sucker for rom coms but my husband is not always so keen (what a guy!!!). Anyway I managed to get him to watch it because I told him it was about sport, and you know what, he loved it!!!<br /><br />Drew Barrymore is very funny and her leading man (sorry but can't remember his name) is equally as good. When I watched the film it was called 'The Perfect Match' but I think the title was changed for the UK as it is based on the book Fever Pitch and there was already a film made about football with that title (the same film but the UK version - phew!),<br /><br />Anyway all of the reviews on here will tell you more details if you need them buy girls, take it from me, get your hubby/boyfriend in front of the television on a Saturday night and you will both laugh and cry together. A real gem.
|
positive
|
My complaints here concern the movie's pacing and the material at hand. While using archival film and letters lends the film a fresh and interesting perspective, too often the material selected to highlight simply isn't very interesting (such as when Goebbels complains about this or that ailment, &tc., or the ad nauseam footage of his small German hometown). Also, the movie crawls along in covering c. 1920-1939 and then steams through the war years. In sum, the film is little better than a History Channel documentary, with the exception that the filmmaker has a slightly greater sensibility than your average History Channel documentary editor and thus can more artfully arrange the details of Goebbels' life. Still, I found it wanting.
|
negative
|
A space ship cruising through the galaxy encounters a mysterious cargo ship apparently adrift in space. The crew investigates, hoping to lay claim to its cargo and acquire the ship. However, once aboard the ominous vessel, their own ship mysteriously disengages, leaving them to fend for themselves and battle none other then Count Dracula or Orloff as this creature calls himself.<br /><br />Not a bad start. I mean it follows any number of typical sci-fi/horror plots. The genres have been around enough that even the most original story will inevitably invoke comparison to some other film. But, when you start with a fairly typical horror convention, the legend of Dracula and vampires in general, and combine it with a fairly typical sci-fi convention, a crew happening upon something and becoming marooned to battle whatever they're forced to confront, the filmmakers better have some clever up their sleeve to imprint their own mark on the familiar genre staples.<br /><br />Director Darrell Roodt, who also wrote Dracula 3000 with Ivan Milborrow, is primarily responsible for this utter failure. So, no, Roodt and Milborrow have nothing up their sleeves but their arms.<br /><br />This film begins ominously enough, with a very poorly delivered voice over by Caspar Van Dien, essentially providing enough exposition to explain who the crew on his ship are. I should also point out that Van Dien's character is named Van Helsing. And, oh so very cleverly, this Orloff character is from planet Transylvania in the Carpathian System. No kidding. I mean, come on guys, we get it. And, again, don't be goofy and use such names unless you got something special in store.<br /><br />So, after Van Helsing's introduction of the crew, we have, essentially, a film about this crew trapped in a space ship with a vampire lurking about.<br /><br />I'm a very forgiving viewer when it comes to low budget films. Occasionally, they can be brilliant, see Raimi's first two Evil Dead films. Dracula 3000 had a decent budget, enough for some decent special effects and for the salaries of 3rd stringers like, Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, etc. However, unlike, the EVIL DEAD flicks, there is no talent behind the camera. In front of the camera, the talent is marginal, but I'm going to give the actors some benefit of the doubt. It really seems like they don't know what to do. The best actor of the bunch, Alexandra Kamp-Groenveld, gets killed off quickly and the ever-enjoyable Udo Kier is reduced to being an exposition vehicle for the viewer as the deceased captain we hear and see via a video journal. Grant Swandby is also okay as the Professor, but it's hard to take seriously a scientist in the year 3000 who wears glasses and rides a wheel chair. And, yes, it's a WHEEL chair as in there is nothing futuristic about it. As for the rest of the actors, well
.I'm sure Coolio really tried to be scary after getting turned into a vampire, but, well, I don't think irritating qualifies as scary in most people's book. Tiny Lister and Erika Eleniak don't really provide much either. Lister is never really more then the IL' big brawny black stereotype. Eleniak actually appears unhappy throughout the film and never tries very hard. Eleniak is a pretty girl, even in her mid thirties, but looks a little worn out and uninterested for the movie's duration.<br /><br />This brings us to Count Dracula/Orloff played by Langley Kirkwood. To be honest, I can't recall who exactly the vampire is supposed to be. He introduces himself as Orloff but at some point he acknowledges himself as Count Dracula as well. Go figure. In any case, you will be absolutely astounded by just how lame this vampire is. Have you ever scene those cheesy horror show hosts local networks would have on their creature feature time slots? Yes, it's that bad. Langley Kirkwood, the actor playing Orlock, must have found it almost impossible to concentrate in such a ridiculous outfit. I'm sure he's still getting hassled by his friends.<br /><br />There isn't much to the plot. The vampire is the last of it's kind and wants to go to Earth, for some reason, and also, there is some lip service about wanting to defeat Caspar Van Dien's character, Van Helsing. Most of the crew get turned into vampires, including Van Helsing, and the crew use conventional machine guns and pistols to try and defeat them before they figure out the old stake in the heart routine. Yeah, that's right, bullets, and yes, the year 3000. Keeping in that baffling vein, one of the main areas the crew hole themselves up in while battling the vampires, or vampire, since there is really never more then one threatening them, is filled with old Soviet posters and insignia and such. What the? There are also references to God/religion being antiquated systems. But these references only confused me. Did the Soviet Union make a comeback? Is there some point Roodt and Milborrow want to make with this? It never really goes anywhere, seems dumb and the posters, etc. just look cheap.<br /><br />On the positive side, the film is competently shot and edited. The cinematography is nothing spectacular, but it's clearly done by professionals and, I had no problem with the special effects. The ships look like ships in outer space. Although, as I write this, I recall how god awful the corpse of the captain looks when the crew discover him. What were they thinking? Why didn't someone say something? See how difficult it is to say something positive about this film without falling back on the negatives? I guess, ultimately, that's the thing. Whatever positives you try and grant this sci-fi/horror debacle, you become overwhelmed by it's lack of quality.<br /><br />Poor Udo Kier.
|
negative
|
I originally saw this several years ago while I was sitting on the couch and got stuck watching it on HBO. With the remote out of my reach I decided to go with it and was awaiting a miserable movie that I had been avoiding for a year. So it started off and I wasn't very optimistic about it, but after about ten minutes I found myself laughing. The complete opposite as I was expecting. The comedy was smart, the acting pretty good considering, the cast worked very well together, and the story (though slightly awkward and fake) was actually quite entertaining.<br /><br />Three convict brothers manage to escape their sentence and eventually go in search of their fortune. The movie is set in the 1930's. So along the way, they encounter a number of funny and interesting charatcers. All have a different story or achievement they are striving for. Really the majority of the movie may seem random. Some may say it was pointless and boring, but if you look for the smart comedy (and occasionally stupid) that is integrated into the movie, I'm sure you'll enjoy this one.<br /><br />I liked the performances given by George Clooney, John Turturro, and Tim Blake Nelson. All of them did very well in their roles, an they worked great together. But to finish this off, "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is a smart, funny, and a movie adventure that I wouldn't let pass up.
|
positive
|
I decided to hire out this movie along with a few other old horror movies.This was the worst,some of the killings were good and theres a bit of humour but i couldnt stand this,everytime a killing happened they would show scenes of all these old movies that the killer used to be in,i give this 2/10.
|
negative
|
While to most people watching the movie, this will be of little interest, but out of the many hundreds of movies dealing with magic and the occult in one form or another, this one is probably the best in many ways.<br /><br />From The Golem to The Craft the subject seems to be of endless interest to the movie industry. The majority of movies which touch on it in any way do so childishly (for example "Witchboard", a true piece of utter garbage in every way) either taking the transcendental elements as cheap excuses for cheesy special effects or cardboard cutout villians (cf "Warlock"). More frequently the subject comes up in an hysterical religious context (in the various Revelations-oriented movies, the antichrist is inevitably an advocate of some kind of new-age style practice). Rarely, a movie seems to show at least some passing experience with magic as it is practiced in real life, but the presentation of the occult in such movies can at best be described as allegorical and not literal, or symbolic, or ... just not quite right.<br /><br />I watched this movie again after many years tonight. I had seen it before on VHS; it is a dark, moody piece, and after watching it on DVD, I would say if you have any intention to watch this movie, watch it on DVD, don't watch it on VHS.<br /><br />The darkness and moodiness are overpowering in VHS but in DVD the movie takes on a very different tone. I think Weir pushed the dark aspects intentionally for style, but when the movie is converted to the lower color medium of VHS this goes over the edge. DVD brings the movie to life again and I saw it differently.<br /><br />Anyway, seeing it as if for the first time, I realized that the treatment of magic is extremely good in this movie. It's difficult to go into all the reasons why, I don't care to take the time to do so.<br /><br />For anybody who's curious, anyway, if you want to see what it is like in real life, this movie is just very right on countless levels.<br /><br />And for anybody who isn't, you really wasted a lot of time reading to this point.
|
positive
|
I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.<br /><br />Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.<br /><br />Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit.
|
negative
|
I haven't actually finished the film. You may say that in this case I have no right to review it, especially so negatively. But I do, only because I stopped it on account of I couldn't watch anymore...I got over halfway, and I only got there by promising myself something good was just around the corner. This film is so tiresome, so lackluster that I was actually insulted. I haven't read many of the other reviews, so I'm not sure if there are other homosexual teens who have suffered through it, but I am homosexual, and I did go through "similar" revelations, day dreams, issues etc etc. There were maybe two moments where I actually felt this film could go somewhere, where I felt it may have some inkling of meaning, or relativity, but these hopes were dashed the moment the next set of cliché-ridden narration came on. I mean, just look at the quotes on the IMDb page. Unfortunately you're not able to hear the scratchy play back, nor the echo-ey fades if you're just read the quotes, because they are just too painful/ridiculous/stupid to miss. I did give the film three stars, and all three of those stars go to the films cinematographer who did a fantastic job attempting to transform Archer's tired "concepts" into something watchable. Mind you, I pray he wasn't the one who decided to include all the long shots of TV closeups...another unnecessary cliché already over done in films such as Korine's Gummo... I think it is extremely fitting that this film premiered at Sundance (only because Archer had connections in the festival via volunteer work he did, by the way...) because Sundance seems to be the one festival where cliché heavy drivel like this is still accepted as "arthouse". No, it's not art house, I'm afraid it's just plain s**t-house. Do not watch.
|
negative
|
This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under.
|
negative
|
Great adaptation of the Christie novel. Surprising attention to authentic period details for the time (Many films of the mid-1970s-early 80s that try to do 1920s-early 30s look far too mid-70s-early 80s for my liking, so expected the worst here, and was gladly proved wrong)The costumes and sets are very well done. I liked this production very much largely due to the adorable Francesca Annis' portrayal of a carefree bright young Lady "Frankie" and James Warwick's charming Bobbie. The pair would go on to portray Christie's Tommy & Tuppence, which is funny as some contemporary book critics compared Frankie and Bobby to her earlier characters of Tommy & Tuppence. The supporting characters were equally well done the over the top Mrs. Rivington (acted by Miss Marple-to-be Joan H.) and "Badger" is played perfectly as the post WWI, "Bertie Wooster type."
|
positive
|
The one thing that can be said about RUNNING OUT OF TIME is that it's an immensely clever film. It's interesting to note that the film's writers are French, which may explain the movie's "out of the norm" vibe, as it doesn't really fit in with what is commonly called "Hong Kong Cinema".<br /><br />The movie concerns a thief who plans revenge on some criminal types using the assistance of an equally clever cop. But first he has to convince the cop to join his personal crusade, and so begins a series of games where the thief manuevers the cop into his plan.<br /><br />Quite a clever movie.<br /><br />7 out of 10<br /><br />(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie or full-length reviews of other foreign films)
|
positive
|
It plays like your usual teenage-audience T&A movie, but the sentiment is incredibly bleak. If it was made today, it'd be considered an art house movie. It goes through the usual routine of a guy trying to get laid, but the results of his efforts are harsh and cruel and unsatisfying.<br /><br />The whole teen flick formula is adhered to, but nothing turns out the way you'd expect. Imagine a director's cut of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where, at the end, James Stewart wasn't allowed to return to the real world. An incredible film that subverts all of the expectations of the genre. It makes you feel dirty afterwards: there is no redemption for the characters. I'm amazed it ever got made. The eighties version of Detective Story.
|
positive
|
This is a pretty obscure, dumb horror movie set in the 1970s Everglades. It is really stupid and lame for the first half, then it actually starts to get good for the last half. There is a scene with the hero running to save his friends interspersed with shots of a church group singing, I don't know. It is mesmerizing. I was impressed with the night time scenes, because it actually looked like night, unlike most low budget horror films where it still looks like daytime. I feel like the director was really talented but was working with a miniscule budget and a tough schedule. There are a few scenes towards the end, the one mentioned above and also the end credits that are extremely cool. This movie could have been a genuine classic if it left its Scooby Doo conventions behind and went straight for the throat. I was surprised at how good this movie turned out to be. I couldn't take my eyes off of it, and I had to ask myself "why?"
|
positive
|
The only reason I watched this is because of its stars, CASPAR Van Dien, Micheal Pare & Eric Roberts & catherine Oxenburg * & Jeniffer Rubin, All capable actors & have given good performances in the past,. NOT THIS TIME,, a weak serial killer story, You can guess who the killer is in the first scene. Very contrived in all aspects there is nothing to recommend in this disaster, my rating is *1/2 POOR
|
negative
|
Farewell Friend aka Adieu L'Ami/Honour Among Thieves isn't perfect but it is a neat and entertaining thriller that sees mismatched demobbed French Algerian War veterans Alain Delon and Charles Bronson trapped in the same basement vault, one to return stolen bonds, the other to clean out the two million in wages sitting there over the Christmas weekend. Naturally things aren't quite that simple even after they open the vault, leading to some neat twists and turns. On the debit side, there's a very bizarre striptease scene in a car park, Bronson has a very irritating Fonzie-like catchphrase he uses at the most inopportune moments, Brigitte Fossey, sporting perhaps the most hideously misconceived hairstyle of the 60s (it makes her look like a bald woman whose wig is blown back off the top of her head by a high wind), is something of a liability her "I'll cook spaghetti! I'll learn to make love well! I'll read Shakespeare!" speech is hysterical in all the wrong ways and it's a shame about the horrible last line/shot, but otherwise this is a surprisingly entertaining and unpretentious number that's worth checking out if you can find a decent print.<br /><br />Cinema Club's UK DVD only offers the English soundtrack, but since Delon voices himself and the rest of the cast are fairly well dubbed that's no great problem, especially since the widescreen transfer is pretty good quality.
|
positive
|
They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. <br /><br />So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel "The True History of the Kelly Gang" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.<br /><br />Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.
|
negative
|
This film promised a lot, so many beautiful and well playing actors but with a plot that had virtually NOTHING to say. So many potentially promising conflicts between the family members that could have been developed and elaborated but it was all dropped and not taken care of. There was no story to be told, just a show off of acting, technique, beautiful scenes - that were all EMPTY. But again, the acting was excellent so many of the individual scenes were entertaining, but as you became increasingly aware of the lack of underpinning ideas, even the acting lost its sense. So from the promising start you became increasingly disappointed as the non-story went along.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.