review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This movie tries to hard to be something that it's not....a good movie. It wants you to be fooled from begining to end,But fails.From when it starts to get interesting it falls apart and you're just hoping the ending gives you some clue of just what is going on but it didn't.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Shame on Julia Roberts and John Cusack. They are so talented and should not have had any part in this movie. The storyline was dumb and predictable. The jokes were not funny. The romance was not really romance. I was all too happy when this movie ended.
|
negative
|
The many comments made by others have been very informative and I join in their calls for the release of Porgy and Bess, the 1959 film.<br /><br />In my early teens I joined a record club and this album was one of the free ones I chose for joining. I knew some of the voices were dubbed, but only Robert McFerrin was acknowledged on the album. Recently my daughter purchased a CD from Austria, I think. The quality is excellent, so I am confused about why it is available in Europe by CBS Records, Inc, when I have had no luck in local stores.<br /><br />Actually, I never saw the movie but for years have pleaded with local video stores to get it. Now I know why it has never been available.<br /><br />I add my voice to others who plead with the heirs of the property and rights and that they agree to release it, however imperfect they perceive it to be - the beauty of the music and story reached so many of us who would never have had the experience otherwise.<br /><br />Trudy
|
positive
|
It may have been inevitable that with the onslaught of "slasher" movies in the early 1980's, that a few good ones might slip through the cracks. This is a great "rare" film from Jeff Lieberman, who insured his cult status with his memorable 1970's films "Squirm" and "Blue Sunshine".<br /><br />Five young people head into the Oregon mountains (this movie was actually shot on location) to do some camping and check out the deed to some land that one of them has acquired. Before long, they will predictably be terrorized by a bulky killer with an incredibly creepy wheezing laugh.<br /><br />"Just Before Dawn" is noticeably more ambitious, "arty", and intelligent than some slasher films. Lieberman actually fleshes out the characters - well, two of them, anyway - as much as a 90-minute-long film will allow him. The film has genuine moments of suspense and tension, and actually refrains from graphic gore, save for one killing right at the beginning.<br /><br />There is an above-average cast here, including Oscar winner George Kennedy, as a forest ranger who's understandably gone a little flaky from having been alone in the wilderness for too long. Jack Lemmon's son Chris, future Brian De Palma regular Gregg Henry, blonde lead Deborah Benson (it's too bad she hasn't become a more well-known performer, judging by her work here), Ralph Seymour ("Ghoulies"), Mike Kellin ("Sleepaway Camp"), and Jamie Rose ("Chopper Chicks in Zombietown") round out the cast.<br /><br />Some of the shots are interesting, and the early music score by Brad Feidel (now best known for his "Terminator" theme) is haunting and atmospheric.<br /><br />This is worth catching for the important plot twist at about the one hour mark, although a moment at about 75 minutes in involving the heroine and a tree and the killer is almost comical; it may actually remind a viewer of a cartoon! One of the most clever touches is the final dispatching of the killer, which I'd never seen before in a horror film and probably won't see again.<br /><br />I didn't give it 10 out of 10 because I can't honestly that I was that frightened. Still, it's an interesting slasher that is worthy of re-discovery.<br /><br />"That deed don't mean nothing, son. Those mountains can't read."<br /><br />9/10
|
positive
|
The best thing one can say about the film "Traffic" is that it brought attention to the superior British mini-series "Traffik". As many people have noted, the current film suffers from truncating the story to accommodate the short attention span of cinemagoers and the turn-around time of the theater owners, who measure a film's success by the overpriced food sales.<br /><br />I first recorded this mini series in 1990 when it was shown on Public TV and have watched it many times. The whole documentary-style series has a strong element of tragedy and doom about it, as the characters are all moving toward their eventual fate. The strongest of the three tales is that of the Pakistani family forced into the City to find a way to keep body and soul together after the poppy crop is burned by the army in a staged show of force put on for the benefit of western politicians. The hardships of the family are similar to that of the rickshaw pullers family in "City of Joy". Eventually the farmer finds work, but he compromises his pride and honesty.<br /><br />The Pakistani segment of the film has a particular relevance to today, with the fight against the supporters of Al Quaeda, and gives some understanding of the support for such movements among the disadvantaged poor of Pakistan and Afghanistan who rarely receive any of the money going into those countries. The film makes a point that the farmers see barely 25% of the aid which is supposed to encourage them to grow other crops.<br /><br />With the American inability to see anything other than in terms of black and white - good guys v. bad guys - it is interesting to see another view where there is no black and white, only shades of grey. <br /><br />Possible spoiler ahead. The only problem I had with the story was that rather than things continuing as they did before, as they would in real life, being a work of fiction they had to wrap it up with the "bad guys" getting what was coming to them. Other than that, this was a fine piece of work of the kind we see all too rarely. The cast was outstanding and the German and Pakistani locations helped give the film a "different" feel (what a change it made seeing Germans as something other than the villains in a WWII film).
|
positive
|
Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.<br /><br />I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break.
|
negative
|
I recently had the pleasure of seeing The Big Bad Swim at the Ft. Lauderdale Film Festival and I must say it is the best film I have seen all year and the only film I have ever felt inspired to write a comment/review on. This film was beautifully directed and combined a script with realistic dialogs, excellent acting, and an inspiring message. Ordinary lives come together in an adult swim class and become extraordinary in a celebration of the diversity of life. This is poignantly illustrated by the imagery in the first minute of this captivating film where we see only the legs and torso of individuals in various shapes and sizes enter into a pool of water. This film is brilliantly directed as the actors are placed and positioned in captivating scenes, which hold your attention and imagination.
|
positive
|
As if there weren't enough of those floating around at the time already, we have here another lame GODFATHER clone from the director of IL CONSIGLIORI (1973) which I had watched earlier this year. The marquee-value name roped in this time is Telly Savalas who belatedly enters the proceedings and is first seen from behind, rather campily tending to his flowers and wearing a beret in the style of French painters! Apart from not looking minimally Sicilian, he sports no accent of any kind other than his familiar drawl. Antonio Sabato, then, makes for an unlikely gangster - apart from being a resistible leading man; his relationship with Savalas, which becomes paternal at the flick of an eye, is also unconvincing (especially since he subsequently becomes romantically involved with the latter's spirited teenage niece)! Besides, for a gangster flick, there's precious little action to speak of and none of it is in any way memorable (though the finale set in a clinic is well enough handled); furthermore, the score by Francesco De Masi is serviceable but nothing else. Incidentally, the bargain-basement DVD I rented starts off midway through the credits so that none of the cast members - or even the film's title - is ever listed!
|
negative
|
When I was little, my parents got this movie for me to watch. I really liked it, and I watched it over and over again. Even when I was in 3rd grade I still watched it from time to time. Recently, I watched it again, just for the sake of nostalgia, and though the show was not aimed for my age group (I'm in my late teens), I still found it entertaining and educational. This show teaches good lessons about imagination and getting along well with others. Some parts I found quite entertaining. Also, this show does not have any bad content, so you can leave kids alone with this show and not worry about them picking up any bad language or whatnot. I would recommend this.
|
positive
|
Until I saw this film, "life is beautiful" was my favourite film of all time. This film is everything a great film should be. Great script, unsurpassed acting and direction that neither approaches the sentimentalism the subject tempts nor leaves it without the emotional impact it demands. This film contains the taste that could not come from Hollywood and lacks the pretencion that would come from France. A wonderful movie even above the calibre I have come to expect when I see the handmade films logo come up. I need not go into detail as the previous posts encompass everything why this movie has to be seen by everyone on this planet.
|
positive
|
Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad. Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong. The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off. Also, they made a lot of mistakes on how proper archiological digs are done. For instance you don't handle artifacts untill they are catologed and accounted for. The biggest crime in casting was the archiologist girl. She is a weak actress and I felt that her acting really made the movie less realistic then it already was. The whole concept of the knights templar being underground all these years seemed pretty stupid to me. I like the idea of how they disappeared and stuff, so that almost seemed depressing. I thought that the characters wern't explained well enough. You didn't find out much background and that made it harder to relate to them.
|
negative
|
A fairly enjoyable kidnapping caper set in New Orleans, but its main downfall in my opinion is that it packs way too much political intrigue and double-crossing, and not enough of the sexy young actors, scenes of vibrant colour, original cinematographical style and biting humour. These aspects combine to give refreshingly daring cinema, which makes a whole bunch of recent stuff look unbearably dull. Let's hope Sébastian Gutierrez continues with such flair - he looks like a talent to watch out for. The mismatched bunch of small-time crooks in the film are outshadowed by the investigative partnership of Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, the humour of whose scenes is much needed in making the movie what it is. The pair pull off their obligatory southern drawls just as well as the Yanks, and it's a delight to hear these two stalwarts of British cinema yapping away to each other with Lethal-Weapon-style fluidity...just a pity that the only scenes they have the opportunity to steal are exclusively theirs. Anyway, with a bit less politics and authoritarianism (!), the film would be near-perfect, so I'll give it a healthy 8/10 and hope that a few people remember it a bit better than the box-office did.
|
positive
|
I have to say that I used to be a huge fan of the series. The first 3 were great and the others had their moments, but this new BETA HOUSE is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is a shame since this was a great series and it just keeps getting worse. I know they are made for DVD films but some effort would be nice.<br /><br />There are no laughs, just a couple of good one-liners that will bring a smile if that. There is pretty of nudity and very hot chicks. But neither the sexy stuff nor the jokes really work.<br /><br />To add to all that this is a RACIST film too or as racist of a film one can make without asking to be called racist. I am NOT one of those people who think everything should be politically correct. But the portrayal of minorities is very offensive.<br /><br />I wouldn't waste any time on this garbage. See the previous versions, they will make you laugh not sick.
|
negative
|
I must preface this by saying I am a huge romantic. Hence I really wanted to like this film. So I'm writing my thoughts to save the rest of you from the disappointment I felt watching it. The Leap Years tells the destiny-filled tale of Li-Ann who falls for the suave Jeremy and they commit to meet every leap year. A very romantic premise, based on a great short story and with a cast that doesn't feel like you're watching yet another Jack Neo flick. Then why oh why is it so bad? Firstly, I feel the filmmakers thought they were shooting a music video, because they chose to replace storytelling and any true emotions with cheesy montages, predictable actions and clichéd lines. I am both upset and embarrassed to have been one of the first few in Singapore to watch The Leap Years, but those of us in the cinema would agree that our muffled groans at the cringe-worthy performances spoke volumes. My hope was to watch a romantic movie that would surpass Forever Fever, the best Singaporean romantic comedy so far, and The Leap Years does not even come close. Some blogs have called it The Crap Years which is harsh but ultimately true. Don't waste your money or your emotions like I did. The movie will make you give up on love forever.
|
negative
|
A scientist (George Zucco) wants to create wolf men out of American soldiers to fight the Nazis, but is branded as mad. He uses a simpleton gardener (Glenn Strange) to experiment on by mixing his blood with the blood of a wolf. Strange, constantly embedding his dialogue with the tones of Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men", has no idea what's going on, only that he sleepwalks. The victims begin to pile up (including a little girl, which modern viewers might find rather disturbing, and two of Zucco's rivals). There is some good dialogue on how man should not mess with nature (still prevalent today) and play God. Zucco's motives may be honorable, but his methods are most questionable. And then there is his daughter, Anne Nagel, who is sympathetically nice to Strange, yet has no idea of her father's deeds. Johnny Downs is a reporter who gets on Zucco's bad side by questioning him, but wins Nagel's heart, thus creating the usual and always dull romantic subplot in classic horror films. At 77 minutes, this is about 15 minutes longer than usual for a horror film of the early 40's (particularly one out of PRC, who released this one), so the romantic story could have been trimmed for costs and to speed things up a bit. Zucco, fortunately, is never hammy; He left that to Bela Lugosi (who always hammed in a deliciously theatrical manner which endeared him to audiences) and England's Todd Slaughter. But try not to think of "Bride of the Monster's" laboratory while looking at the one Zucco works in, or some of Lugosi's dialogue in that now classic cult film. "Mad Monster" lacks a cult following more because it is not delightfully bad, just has dull pacing in more than a few spots. For PRC and Monogram lovers, I would recommend "The Corpse Vanishes" or "Fog Island" higher than this
|
negative
|
Throughout the world the unmistakable imprint of the American C.I.A. can be found in many a muddled mess they have left behind. In the beginning, their objectives were simple: spy, remove enemy agents, steal classified information and destabilize unfavorable governments. Years have elapse and although their mission remains similar, their clandestine black operations now include domestic spying, discrediting U.S. citizens and infiltrating American organizations who criticize the U.S. government. This movie however, centers on the C.I.A.'s world manhunt for the infamous 'Carlos, the Jackel.' The film is called " The Assignment " and tells the story Lt. Cmdr. Annibal Ramirez, (Aidan Quinn) a U.S. naval officer who bears a striking resemblance to the mastermind of so many terrorist bombings. Recruited by Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland) of the C.I.A. and Amos (Ben Kingsley), a special agent from the Israeli Mosad, Ramirez is secretly trained to look, pose, infiltrate the elusive organization and to thereafter discredit the real Jackel working for the Russians. This film is Explosively exciting, and packed with wild chases, killings and inter-country mayhem. Quinn is wonderful and surprisingly artistic playing both sides of the war. Easily one of his best efforts. ****
|
positive
|
I watched SCARECROWS because of the buzz surrounding it. Well, I can't imagine anyone liking this movie because it's just bad, bad, bad.<br /><br />It's obvious that whoever made this movie doesn't know a single thing about horror. The whole story is an unsuccessful marriage of two genres: action movie (guns and criminals) and horror (living scarecrows). When the criminals are killed one by one by the poky looking scarecrows, the two genres automatically cancel each other out because, first, they're criminals and who cares about criminals, and second, because they're stupid criminals to boot! Having zombie scarecrows go after them just doesn't work here. Where's the horror in that? I wanted the criminals to die horrible, painful deaths.<br /><br />But the story is so badly constructed that this marriage of genres, which could have been original if handle well, NEVER gels. We're simply left with is a bunch of super dense criminals and a bunch of scarecrows, which are "alive" for whatever flimsy reason the filmmakers thought up. Making things even worse is the fact that the cinematography is terrible (TV like) and, worse offense of all, whole bunches of the dialogue are told on CBs, and we continuously hear inane dialogue spoken over disconnected images as if we're watching some sort of Radio show. This part was really BAD. The director should have been shot on the spot for coming up with such a stupid idea! I can't tell you how annoying that was.<br /><br />As I've already mentioned, the criminals in SCARECROWS are amazingly stupid. For instance, when someone suddenly shows up, gutted and filled with money and straw (yep, straw) in his huge open wound, the others ask "What drug is he on?" after they shoot tons of bullets in him, unable to kill him (he's been "zombiefied" by the scarecrows. Don't ask...). Get a freaking clue, morons. I've never seen such stupid people in a movie. And then there's the girl. I wished one of the scarecrows had killed her quickly because she was a pain in the butt. When she finds her father nailed to a scarecrow "cross", she actually blames the criminals in an embarrassing scene (bad acting), even though the criminals couldn't have done it. What a dimwit she was! But the scarecrows are the biggest weakness in this very weak flick. They're not scary. Nothing much is explained about them. They're just a plot device in this plot device filled movie.<br /><br />Mr Wesley, filming the face of a scarecrow for 30 seconds nonstop doesn't elicit anything but sheer boredom. And that scene with the talking head in the fridge. Thanks for the laughter.<br /><br />All in all, this had to be one of the worst movies I've seen recently (and I've seen a lot of movies these days!) Between the equally woeful SILO KILLER or SCARECROWS, I'd rather watcher SILO KILLER again. Yep, SCARECROWS is that bad.
|
negative
|
Mild spoiler in the second paragraph.<br /><br />Anna Christie was Garbo's lackluster 1st talkie. She and Dressler look like the only people who know what they're doing in this movie. The old guy who plays Garbo's dad (George F. Marion) in the film is soooo ah-noying!! All he does is stumble around drunkenly in a totally fake way and yell about "dat old dah-veel sea". He blames Garbo's "past", his whole life, and Everything on the sea! He comes across as stupid x 10. Charles Bickford is Matt, the rough 'n' tumble sailor Garbo falls in love with, and he's fine in his role, but nothing really outstanding.<br /><br />The best part is when Garbo unleashes her "terrible secret" on Bickford and her dad. Finally, Marion stops talking about the evil of the sea and beats his head and fists on the table in perfect time with Bickford. Then soon he goes on a tirade about the sea.<br /><br />I had to practically force myself to finish Anna Christie. It's too melodramatic in many parts and creaky. There are many good early talkies but this is not one of them. If you haven't seen Garbo before try something else before Anna Christie, like CAMILLE or GRAND HOTEL.
|
negative
|
Stupid and just plain weird movie about some kid who becomes traumatized when he finds out Santa isn't real (???). He grows up and becomes an adult (Brandon Maggart) who makes lists of people who are naughty or nice. One Christmas he snaps and sets out to kill the naughty people--dressed as Santa of course.<br /><br />Boring and just plain bad killer Santa movie. If you're looking for gore, it's not here. Only a few of the murders are shown and they're not that gory with VERY fake effects. Most of the movie just contains Brandon Maggart talking to himself and slowly going crazy. The script is trite, the acting is terrible and it leads to an ending which had me staring slack-jawed at the TV. Seriously, I had to rewind the tape and watch it again to make sure I wasn't hallucinating! Really REALLY poor ending.<br /><br />If you want a scary Christmas flick rent "Black Christmas" (the original 70s version---NOT the terrible remake). Avoid this one at all costs.
|
negative
|
It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.<br /><br />The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.<br /><br />HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.<br /><br />The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.<br /><br />Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.<br /><br />It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.
|
negative
|
I expected a good movie. What I got was an even better movie. The chemistry between James and Smith is just incredible. Glad to see him in a major motion picture for once!<br /><br />The movie works, because the actors play their parts perfectly. Will Smith is fantastic with his never ending charm; Kevin James is hilarious, and Eva Mendes...well, let's just say she plays that bitch/sweet/annoying role to the best of her ability.<br /><br />What I loved about the movie was the fact that Will Smith didn't even have to try to be lovable. He just was!! The "date doctor" had all the right moves, said everything in the most perfect of ways, and never ever went over the top.<br /><br />The funny parts are hilarious...and the cute, romantic parts are unforgettable.<br /><br />I totally recommend this movie. And no, it is not a chick flick.
|
positive
|
This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.<br /><br />This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.<br /><br />With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.<br /><br />But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.<br /><br />With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).<br /><br />The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the "Best Film of the Year". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement.
|
positive
|
This version did not move me as deeply as the later, Hollywood version starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger. While it was beautifully filmed and superbly acted, the BBC version was more packed with dialog that imparted information which I found fascinating. It gave me a detailed glimpse of the intellectual, theological and moral considerations that motivated C. S. Lewis. It was therefore more interesting and stimulating than the Hollywood version, but not nearly as visually stunning or viscerally affecting. Still, while I did not leave a heaping mound of sodden Kleenex in the theater, I did use one, and at frequent intervals. I enjoyed this film every bit as much as the Hollywood version, and was grateful for the increased understanding I gained.
|
positive
|
I saw 'New York: I Love You' today and loved it! I was really looking forward to seeing this after watching 'Paris je t'aime' and overall I think I liked this one much better... Perhaps I need to watch 'Paris je t'aime' again I don't know... I read few of the reviews here about NY:ILY and yes, the movie is not without its faults. When you're paying tribute to a city like New York - it can get rather overwhelming and nothing seems fair enough to do the city due justice... so without elaborating on any of the film's shortcomings, I'll just write about what I liked.<br /><br />Unlike 'Paris je t'aime' in which each director's short film was properly segmented and titled, NY:ILY isn't and many reviewers over here have found the seamlessness of stories and overlapping of characters here annoying and even confusing. I thought otherwise. I loved how the stories just flowed one after the other and I especially liked the overlapping of characters - it might be gimmicky because it's done so often in films now. But I still liked it because I didn't find it forced. And the idea that we're all connected in the end has a wistful, even whimsical quality to it - which some might find corny but I find beautiful.<br /><br />I liked all the films but the one that touched me the most was the one by Yvan Attal with Robin Wright Penn and Chris Cooper. It was so well-acted and scripted that the reveal in the end - again not unused in the past - brought me to tears and I was crying throughout the segment that followed. I always liked Wright Penn and now I'm also a fan of Chris Cooper. Those precious initial few seconds when he's standing alone outside the restaurant, just before he gets the call - speak volumes about Cooper's ability to convey a character by just being there without saying anything.<br /><br />Most of the stories in this film involve characters who are either meeting each for the first time or have met each other just recently with the exception of 4-5 stories in which the characters have known each other for a long time. It seemed to me (and I might be wrong) that the stories were different but they were all trying to drive home the point, the need even, to just step back and view in a new light the people and the things we've known in our lives for a long time; to see the people and the things around you with the eyes of a stranger and appreciate them just as you did when you met them and saw them for the first time.<br /><br />The other films that I liked were the ones by Shunji Iwai with Orlando Bloom and Christina Ricci, by Natalie Portman with Carlos Acosta and Taylor Geare, by Brett Ratner with Anton Yelchin and Olivia Thirlby, by Shekhar Kapur with Julie Christie, Shia LaBeouf and John Hurt and once again the one by Yvan Attal with Ethan Hawke and Emilie Ohana when they're in the café. I really need to see more work by Yvan Attal as I seem to like him a lot! <br /><br />Overall, watch this movie with an open mind. Don't read the reviews before watching it! It might not live up to your expectations of what a movie on and about love in New York should be and I doubt any movie will really live up to that conception. Just watch this movie for some good music, beautiful landscape cinematography, some slice-of-life comfort and a story or two that might just tug at your heartstrings.
|
positive
|
****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****<br /><br />A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.<br /><br />The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.<br /><br />The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. <br /><br />The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this?
|
negative
|
The Toxic Avenger... <br /><br />The idea of this movie is that a person that the common population would call this person a looser and then after being thrown into a barrel of toxic waste, mutated into a superhero that is completely disfigured sounded OK even for 1985. This movie is listed as a horror... I even have read of a cult following with this series.... <br /><br />Now this movie even given when it was made was so bad that I couldn't stop watching... the acting is horrible even for an independent film that I think was to be the horror part of this movie...<br /><br />drug dealing, sumo, Godzilla entrance.... I'm all for movies that promote anti-drugs... heck I even like Godzilla and well sumo... I'm not into it but even still I think that the heights of sumo would love to give this movie the 1000 hand slap and ground salt into the eyes of the people that made this movie... <br /><br />Personally I am almost ready to write to the film company that made this and ask them for the 87mins or so of my life back.<br /><br />To me 1 out of 10 is too high it's too bad that there isn't a 0 (zero) or even negative integers to place on a movie here.<br /><br />In other words this movie is J-U-N-K...... would rather watch paint dry and deal with explosive diarrhea then have to watch this movie ever again... I would be the first person that would use not only the packaging of this movie as kindling but I would be up for a good'ol movie and script burning.
|
negative
|
One star for the "plot". One star for the acting. One star for the dubbing into squeaky-voiced American. Five stars for Monica Broeke and Inge Maria Granzow, with their propensity for taking all their clothes off. And ten out of ten for the divine Emmanuelle Béart, two years before she made 'Manon des sources'. Béart also undresses a couple of times, but even fully-clothed her presence is enough to make this film eminently watchable. Watch out for the scene where she tells her friend about the three "first times" for a girl. It's corny, but still far more erotic than the rather laughably choreographed "love scenes" featuring Broeke, Granzow and Patrick Bauchau. Incidentally, the cinematography is not great; the stills for the closing credits are a better indication of what David Hamilton is capable of.
|
negative
|
Rowan Atkinson delivers an unforgettable performance as the clueless Mr. Bean who never goes far without his Teddy Bear. The appeal of Mr. Bean is largely his childish behavior and innocence. We don't know if he came from the sky or another planet. He is the kind of strange character that you can't make up quite easily. He is often alone and used to it. He has a hard time communicating through speech which might be why we only hear his grunts at times. There are other characters who speak to him and he responds. The character of Mr. Bean is a mystery and still is. He lives alone and does the unthinkable when he can do the sensible thing. Mr. Bean is rather an odd man out who does not mind it much. He rather live a simple life with his yellow car and teddy bear and hopes to get to work on time.
|
positive
|
I was amazed about this early performance of Clint Eastwood. I had not read a summary of the film, when I decided to watch it on TV. Due to Mr. Eastwood, I expected some nice shootings and no deep story. I was quite mistaken. I found a couple of topics unusually explicitly addressed, and until the end, I couldn't make up my mind about who's good and who's bad. This movie is definitely not typical Eastwood, but surely worth watching.
|
positive
|
Ah! When good actors take on bland material! If you are thinking of this movie as a tight police thriller you may be disappointed. While the situations are very true to life, the plot proceeds at a very predictable clip and you can pretty well see what lays ahead way before the actors take you there. Many of the criminals and secondary figures are really just stereotypes in motion. Much of the dialog is just plain silly.<br /><br />But! If you love to see good actors rise above this kind of material and make something of it, then you will LOVE this movie! Sam Elliott is nothing short of brilliant in taking the one-note character of Detective Falon come alive with depth and pathos. Those of you who have never seen Elliott emote that much beyond his usual scowling stoic stances will be delighted at the range of emotion he depicts in this film. And also, in his early fifties in this film, he looks fantastic! His bare chest scene gives hope to middle aged men everywhere! Esai Morales does a wonderful job elevating his role as Det. Falon's eager beaver new police partner. He could have easily played it as a Robin to Elliott's Batman, but instead he breathed a genuineness and passion into this role. He makes it work despite some of the lame lines he is given to say.<br /><br />Paul Sorvino is fun to watch! He plays the eccentric police captain. He seems to know he is slumming in this movie and is having a ball doing it. He makes it fun for us too.<br /><br />This movie is very by-the-numbers in plot but makes up for it with great performances! Sam Elliott fans should definitely get this one as it is suck a kick to see him spread his wings and do so much more than he usually is allowed to do!
|
positive
|
"Rois et Reine" is a sprawling mess of a movie which will probably irritate as many viewers as it delights. It focuses by turns on ex-lovers Nora (Emanuelle Devos)and Ismael (Mathieu Amalric) as they each confront a major crisis in their now separate lives. While Nora's story is played straight and is sombre in tone, Ismael's is played mainly for laughs, although it's not particularly funny. Nora's crisis is triggered by the terminal illness of her father Louis (Maurice Garrel), and Ismael's by his sudden incarceration in a mental hospital at the instigation of a mysterious third party. Ismael and Louis are just two of the males who have shaped Nora's life, and in turn have been shaped by her, the most notable others being her now deceased first lover Pierre and their young son Elias. As events past and present are played out for the audience, and the ex-lovers become involved in each other's lives once more, it gradually emerges that Nora's personal take on her life story may be less reliable than first meets the eye.<br /><br />Cult director Arnaud Desplechin has fashioned a considerable oddity here, one which has garnered major plaudits in France. He wilfully eschews established narrative convention and develops the movie via a series of dramatic shifts in mood and tone. Had this approach been founded on a coherent unifying core idea or theme it might have worked, but it's not clear in the end what exactly Desplechin's film is actually about. Heavy-handed allusions to Greek mythology and Freudian theory are evidently freighted with meaning but, at least for this unschooled movie-goer, remain less than helpful in illuminating and interpreting the lives of the characters. At other times the treatment lapses into kitsch but the use of the anodyne "Moon River" as the film's theme tune suggests this is probably deliberate.<br /><br />**Spoiler alert** I suspect a major theme of the movie is the not very original observation that how we see ourselves can differ radically from how others see us or even how we think others see us. This idea is most obviously represented in the film by the violent death of Pierre and the revelation contained in Louis' secret diary, but unfortunately both events seem entirely disconnected from what has otherwise been revealed to the audience of Pierre and Louis' respective relationships with Nora. This seems a cheat on Desplechin's part, as if he is thrusting the idea upon us in unmediated form rather than illustrating it more subtly in the natural course of the narrative. One or two darkly surreal touches imply the presence of an alternative but largely unconscious world of persons stripped frighteningly bare, but again these are felt more as pretentious intrusions of film-making technique rather than eruptions from a deeper reservoir of truth inherent in the story. In fact, for all its heavy-handed hints at depth, the characters are curiously undeveloped and unnuanced, as if they function more as ciphers for their creator's many ideas about people rather than as real people in their own right. Much of the detail of their lives seems arbitrarily applied rather than organic. For example, Ismael, as we are constantly reminded, is a viola player, but more than two hours pass before we actually see or hear him play, and the effect of his chosen instrument or profession upon his personality is never elaborated. Hence, he may just as well be a marine biologist or a trapeze artist. <br /><br />Amalric brings a certain manic charm to the unhinged but ultimately sane Ismael, but I found Devos cloying and monotone (which may be intentional, however) as the elusive Nora. Meanwhile Jean-Paul Roussillon as Ismael's father, Elsa Wolliaston as his psychoanalyst and Magalie Woch as the psychically wounded but defiant Sinologist he befriends in hospital make the biggest impact amongst the supporting actors. Catherine Deneuve's in it, too, though her role is little more than a self-referential cameo.<br /><br />Ultimately, "Rois et Reine" is very much an acquired taste. Should it fail to push your buttons, it's very likely that Desplechin's undisciplined and florid approach will frustrate and exasperate even as you somehow keep watching.
|
negative
|
A thinly veiled attempt to push Hulkamania to the film going non-wrestling fan. What could be worse than Hogan in the movies? Bad actors in the wrestling ring, and this film produced both, as Tiny Lester made his way to the WWE that summer in the mother of all promotional blunders. See the dictionary under Oops. As a card carrying member of the stupid kids of the world paid to see this in theaters and when I came out I immediately checked into H.A. - Hulkamaniacs Annoynimous. I am proud to say I have been off the Hulk for 17 years now and have never had a craving since. Since this was made to bring in more fans to the juggernaut that was the WWE in Hogans hey day one has to wonder if there weren't more fans like me who turned to other past times that did not poison ones mind like this offense to celluloid did, such as huffing gas or Russian Roulette.
|
negative
|
The first 2 parts seek to reduce to absurdity the rise of wasteful wars and rule by nationalist barbarians. The 3rd part speculates that progress and exploration toward the moon and beyond is the key to ensuring a meaningful use of human talents and resources. It has speeches that some viewers dismiss as naive or bombastic but that make others tingle with excitement. It depicts a space gun/launcher and a helicopter, along with inventive mass communication devices, elevators, flat screen panels, and wireless intercoms. It's probably incorrect about windowless buildings in the future. But it portrays a child-like vision of boundless scientific/technological investigation.<br /><br />To me, it seems like a movie about a group of rational minded thinkers guided by a Spinozean-like morality in their quest to immortalize themselves and live ethically through scientific advancement and a unified world government. The pro-progress characters (such as the two Cabals) believe humanity could 'live forever' by preserving our experiments and progress for future generations, always standing on our humanity as if on the shoulders of giants.<br /><br />Arthur C. Clarke (author of 2001: A Space Odyssey) suggested this film to Stanley Kubrick as an example of an excellent SF movie. Kubrick hated it and said he would never watch another movie based on Clarke's suggestions (source: Clarke's special millennial introduction to his 2001 novel). Though the late Clarke kept suggesting it at the top of his list whenever someone asked him about the best SF movies. It has a beautiful Menzies art design, but mediocre special effects (esp. the toy tanks).<br /><br />I personally loved it and think it excellently captures the zeitgeist of modernity. It is a bit naive about the plausibility of creating a society without crime for an extended period of time. It also seems implausible about the inevitability of progress. It seems to me we could just as easily go right back to the dark ages or at least become so stagnant in science that we kill ourselves off through overpopulation or through our inability to escape the next major natural disaster. But it nicely portrays the importance of taking risks against public and nanny outrage for potential threats of space accidents and deaths. It challenges us to choose the side of progress over petty desires for safety or comfort or happiness:<br /><br />CABAL: "Too much {rest} and too soon, and we call it death. But for MAN no rest and no ending. He must go on--conquest beyond conquest. This little planet and its winds and ways, and all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him, and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when he has conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time--still he will be beginning." <br /><br />CABAL: "If we are no more than animals--we must snatch at our little scraps of happiness and live and suffer and pass, mattering no more--than all the other animals do--or have done." {He points out at the stars.} "It is that--or this? All the universe--or nothingness..." (quotes from screenplay).<br /><br />If this sounds like a rationalization for devoting all of society to progress, then the council members (of the world government) will seem like technocrats. But actually those "technocrats" allow their citizens to become artisans or pursue other passions freely, and they would have to be suppressed by government bans, laws against science and experiment, and other mandates and restrictive uses of power that would turn their critics into tyrants.<br /><br />In fact a huge group of rebels in the plot feel belittled by all the council's developments of science and technology, so they try to put a stop to progress and an end the council's freedom to experiment. The progress oriented council will not suppress the free speech of the rebels though, only preparing its 'peace gas' in times of emergency and merely wanting the freedom and space to pursue its progress.<br /><br />So it's also a story about the freedom to do science, just as much as it's about the wonders of progress. Many people in our society would actually agree with some of these basic premises, except in cases of social bias (many want to ban cloning, for example) or naturalism (some don't want us to progress freely, and would rather we just become extinct in due time while enslaved to the earth) or fear/reason (some believe we aren't ready for advanced science/technology since we might destroy ourselves). But Cabal (the president of the council) has an answer to the problem of danger: "Our {scientific} revolution did not abolish death or danger. It simply made death and danger worth while" (screenplay).
|
positive
|
Im a big horror fan and I quite enjoyed this remake. With all these horror remakes floating about I think this is one of the better attempts.<br /><br />I watched it with my two little sisters and I think it made it even better as they were quite scared. Also with the shouting at the screen "Dont do that!", "Not that way!", etc. I thought there were some good little jumpy moments and it built the tension well.<br /><br />Camilla Belle is absolutely stunning in the lead role and a very good actress - So she holds your attention well. <br /><br />Overall a decent film.
|
positive
|
Many films attempt the ambitious. Few succeed. This film is one of them.<br /><br />Though billed as a black comedy, that term seems too limiting to express the true nature of the story behind Max and Grace. Multi-hyphenate Michael Parness has managed to weave elements of absurdest comedy with incredibly real human emotion. Quite a remarkable feat, to be certain.<br /><br />While the comedic aspects are certainly present, the heart of the film lies in its leads: David Krumholtz and Natasha Lyonne. The delicate balance of the film - really crazy versus real love - falls to them and they achieve it, carrying it through from the opening scene to the heart wrenching climax and on to the heartwarming ending. David Krumholtz, in the titular lead role and as narrator, anchors the picture and does an exceptional job. We see the world through Max's eyes and Krumholtz imbues them with a sort of wonder and hopefulness that one would not expect to be believable coming from a character who had previously attempted suicide. There should be no doubt from this point on that he has truly achieved leading man status, well deserved after more than a decade of memorable supporting roles. Natasha Lyonne might be something of a revelation for anyone who has seen her only in less challenging roles. The role of Grace is expansive in scope, requiring her to show both great rage and great tenderness - sometimes within seconds of each other. She manages to convince us of Grace's deep seated desperation that lies just beneath her alternating torpor and mania.<br /><br />This is not a laugh a minute type of comedy so don't see the film expecting strictly humor from start to finish. Think more dramedy than comedy. There are some very dark moments, as one would expect given the subject matter of suicidal individuals, and some oddly real moments delivered most notably by Emma Adele Galvin as Max's sister, Sis. The most humorous scenes are those populated by the myriad of name actors in supporting roles. While Lorraine Bracco and David Paymer lend the most surreal aspect with their scenes the other supporting characters who populate the institution where Max and Grace meet are the real treat. Guillermo Diaz is a wanton scene stealer as the delightfully frenetic oddball, Hector. Ralf Moeller, as Bruno, acts as his straight man but has his own charm and appeal. Rosanna Arquette fully inhabits the role of Vera with the crass vitriol of an embittered truck stop waitress. Even her hardhearted character melts eventually, as does everyone who is touched by Max's literally undying love for Grace.<br /><br />Can love conquer all might be the question behind the film and even though the realist within says no, movies are about an escape from reality, even if only for a few brief hours. I recommend seeing this film as an antidote to not just reality but to the cynicism that says that a love story like this never happens. Spending a few hours immersed in a world where it can and does works wonders on the psyche.<br /><br />(Seattle International Film Festival - June 2005)
|
positive
|
The film is based on Kipling's heroic lines that inspire Hollywood's biggest movie 1939.Out of the drumbeat rhythm of Kipling's most famous 85 lines rises a picture that will become known as the one great movie of the year.Big on the score of its armies in battle,its war elephants,its bandit hordes,its terror temples Thugs and mystic mountains of India .The picture is bigger still in its scope and sweep,is thrill and action but biggest biggest of all in the life breathes through three(Gary Grant,Victor McLagen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr) roaring,reckless,swaggering sons of the thundering gunfighters men who stride its mighty scenes in the flesh and blood of high adventure,it's a honest film of it all that makes Gunga Din a new experience in entertainment .Joan Fontaine gambled her against the valiant sergeants three.The romance between Fontaine and Fairbanks Jr aflame through dangerous days and nights of terror in a land where anything can happen. The motion picture has thrills for a thousand movies plundered for one mighty show.It's a fabulous,furious and far-flung adventure with the red-blood and gunpowder heroes who rise from the storied mystery of India and storm the screen with the lusty,rousing,robust life-thunder of men who fight for the love of it and love for the fun of it.The pictures is interpreted for the brave and roguish Gary Grant who rounded hundred villains Thugs and the mean Guru(Eduardo Ciannelli), Grant shouts : You're under arrest!.Besides is the heroic water man,Sam Jaffe,who regiment colonel(Montagu Love) says of him : You're a better man than I am,Gunga Din!
|
positive
|
At the time I recall being quite startled and amused by this movie. I referred to it as the most important movie I'd seen in ten years, and found myself bumping into people who said similar things. <br /><br />Bernhard has an unusually perceptive behavioral notebook. And she has shaped the bitter adolescent personality that we all had, into a corrosive, adult world-view. The two together provide a startling mix which may be too edgy for some viewers. (Hi Skip. I wish you weren't my brother so I could **** you!) <br /><br />Bernhards search for herself after returning to LA from New York, results in the immersive trying-on of various personas (all of which fit poorly) for our amusement, but enough of them involve acting out to appeal to a "black imperative" values system that the real barometer of her resituation is whether black culture accepts her. (It's been a while. Nina Simone comes to mind. And she has an impressive, solidly-built black lover in the movie) A pretty black girl attends the shows, and seems to be authorizing Sandra's faux-blackness, but ultimately rejects her.<br /><br />Just as Catholics deem themselves lucky to suffer for Christ, here Sandra depicts herself suffering at the hands of a black culture in which she craves a place; as if she cherishes her worthiness and her rejection. It's the only value system implicated in the films world, outside of Bernhards arty confusion.<br /><br />For a nation whose chief issues are racism and money, it's refreshing to see one of the 2 topics dealt with in an atypical way.
|
positive
|
How amazing this film is! I've seen it over and over throughout the years and I'm always spellbound by it. The reason why the film is so easy to re-watch is, of course, the arresting performance given by the young Bette Davis. She not only steals every scene that she's in, but is actually much prettier and better photographed here (not to mention sexier) than she was in any of the films that she had made thus far at her home studio, Warner Brothers (this film was made by R.K.O. Radio Pictures). She wears a very flattering make-up and has very attractive hairstyles and oh, those lovely big eyes (especially, in the restaurant scenes that take place in London's Soho). Her body was so curvy when she was young. Get a load of it in the cheap negligee that she wears for her big explosive confrontation scene with Leslie Howard. And oh boy, she is an absolute powerhouse in that scene. Howard is a little too nervous throughout, but he does captures the hero's sensitivity. Frances Dee scores as the sweet, pretty young Sally who truly loves him. Max Steiner's score is both charming and poignant. Splendid performances and thirties flavor make this the must see version of the classic novel.
|
positive
|
This movie was very good. If you are one who likes to watch horror movies, I recommend it. The acting was very good although I thought that the actress playing Julie could have had more emotion behind her lines. Allan was very good and I thought the cinematography was amazing. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time while my friends were freaking out and screaming. It was a complete success in my opinion and should have made it to the big screen. I give it two thumbs up! I definitely would say that if you haven't already seen it then go rent it. If you have seen it and didn't like it go and watch it again because there are parts that were completely unreal. I also liked how a lot of the movie was filmed around and on my school's campus.
|
positive
|
do not be suckered into renting this movie. It has nothing to do with an escape from death row, despite the (english) title. I can't think of a single good thing to say about the movie. Poor acting, poor editing, poor directing... laughable "plot", and the sound/music was so irritating, it's a wonder this movie doesn't come with a warning label. The only possible way to sit through this movie and enjoy it is for it's historical cheesiness quality. They just don't make films this bad anymore.
|
negative
|
Everyone plays their part pretty well in this "little nice movie". Belushi gets the chance to live part of his life differently, but ends up realizing that what he had was going to be just as good or maybe even better. The movie shows us that we ought to take advantage of the opportunities we have, not the ones we do not or cannot have. If U can get this movie on video for around $10, it´d be an investment!
|
positive
|
This existential thriller, in Portuguese with English subtitles, is a modern version of the American filmes noires of the 40s, complete with a surprise twist at the end. It is riveting from beginning to end. My only criticism is its poor production values. The film looks cheaply made, and it probably was, so the black and white cinematography is vastly inferior to that of Godard in Vivre Sa Vie, to cite another film noir of more than 30 years earlier. Most maddening of all, the subtitles are often hard to read. When will filmmakers learn and provide yellow subtitles so that they can be read against a white background. I'd give this an 8 overall, although with better production values it could have been higher.
|
positive
|
First off I want to say that this film is worthy of more than the four stars I rated it. I gave it four stars because for me this 86 minute movie always seems like 2 and a half hours and is not engaging enough to sit through it all. However, "The Big Alligator River" (the title my DVD calls it) is better than your average nature strikes back movie.<br /><br />A tourist resort in the jungles of Southeast Asia is just opening and employs the natives while trying to manipulate the wildlife around. Mother Nature seeking revenge comes in the form of the god Kroona, a giant Alligator. But the creature isn't the only thing the tourists and the main characters (a photographer and the resort staff) have to worry about, the natives are getting rubbed the wrong way too.<br /><br />This movie is a pretty well-done adventure/horror story with a good musical score and direction. But the alligator itself, the main attraction of the movie, is obviously fake looking. Some of the close-ups of its jaws are good but that should be all we need to see. Some of the underwater far-away shots make it painfully obvious that what we are really dealing with is an alligator squeaky-toy you can probably get at a zoo souvenir shop. But the natives are believable, if not authentic.<br /><br />Probably not the movie that will give you non-stop thrills, if any, but shot and produced well enough to be given good mention. And like a lot of creature movies, this one ends with an extremely high body count. It also has lots of good jungle scenery. Acting is below par though, but who was expecting it to be better, eh? <br /><br />Much, much better than its recent American counterpart "Primeival" but nothing to be compared with "Jaws". But remember it may not be engaging at a few points.
|
negative
|
Firstly let me get this of my chest I hate Octopussy with an absolute passion. What is so frustrating is that it had so much potential and had a very good opening sequence, unfortunately post the opening sequence it all goes downhill. Firstly there was absolutely no plot to begin with, just an excuse for Moore to tell his corny jokes. Next there are several sequences that would make a Bond fan cringe,for instance the sequence in which Bond turns up to diffuse a bomb dressed as a clown. The villains are pretty poor, Louis Jordon fails to make an impact as Kamal Khan and Bollywood veteran Kabir Bedi is equally poor as his henchman. It's funny that when people debate over what the worst Bond movie is and Octopussy gets overlooked when it can easily give them a run for their money.
|
negative
|
Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable.
|
negative
|
I am starting this review with a big giant spoiler about this film. Do not read further...here it comes, avert your eyes! The main heroine, the girl who always survives in other slasher films, is murdered here. There, I just saved you 79 minutes of your life.<br /><br />This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk.<br /><br />Both priests and college students get a bad rap here. They are pictured as oversexed, sociopathic morons who have way too many internal problems to deal with what looks like junior college campus life...and the college students come off even worse.<br /><br />"Splatter University" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, and sexual references.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
When I saw that this film was being aired on late night TV I initially decided to give it a miss. I am glad that I then started watching. Yes the special effects are the same as Gerry Andersen's puppet shows. Some of the actors/actresses are from his other productions, he obviously used the same composer later on, as the cheesy soundtrack could only have come from one of his productions, and the plot is as slow as a wet weekend. Get by all that and you have a film that shows up intriguing possibilities. Is there a planet on the far side of the sun? Is it a duplicate earth? Is everything about it reversed and if so do they speak English in reverse? I love this dated SF if only for Gerry's wonderful model cars, planes, buildings and spaceships. Some of them are not so far fetched as they seemed back then. And did you see the European Space Centre logo? Very reminiscent of the Euro logo of today. Suspend belief and spend a couple of hours watching this, you will be glad you did.
|
positive
|
This movie is not that interesting, except for the first ten minutes. The pace and editing are a perfect introduction in an ensemble piece, even better than say Gosford Park. Then it inexplicably slows down, loses focus and starts resembling a traditional French movie only to regain focus in the end with the love relation between Antoine (Depardieu) and Cécile (Deneuve). In the middle there are too many sidelines and loose ends in the story, several threads started are not ended.<br /><br />*******SPOILERS AHEAD The main story is the relation between Antoine and Cécile. He has been loyal to her after his relation with her many years ago, despite her remarrying and setting up home in Morocco. As builder he now rebuilds his own life and recovers hers by taking the mask of Cécile's marriage. Having accomplished this, he is buried after a freak accident (literally) and becomes a comatose. He wakes only after she has burned their old picture as indication that they've reconciled with the past and can properly start their lives again together. *******END OF SPOILERS<br /><br />It remains unclear what vision this director wants us to see us because there are so many other stories here: Illegal immigrants want to enter Europe, there are frequent radio broadcasts about the overthrow of Iraq's former regime. Cécile's child is bisexual and is bitten by dogs (loyalty) once he meets his boyfriend, whereas the girl he lives with seems to be sick (of that?). Her sister is traditional Islamic, and enters a relation with Cécile's husband. It portrays Morocco as unnecessary backward, despite all the building there is a strange colonial vision shining through that almost glorifies the past. It portrays Islam as backward and prone to extremism, which may sometimes be true, but certainly not in general. In the end it can all best be described as adding some couleur locale and l'art pour l'art.<br /><br />Deneuve and Depardieu are great. With this material they are so familiar they are able to spin something extra in every scene: lifting an eyebrow, body language, radiating pride, awkward behavior. The movie itself is disappointing and only confirming the limited role of French cinema in the world nowadays. With some notable exceptions of course.
|
negative
|
I saw this movie once in or close to its release year 36 years ago (1969). Although I can now only remember bits of it, I long to see it again. The parts I remember, rightly or wrongly, include Mustard gas in the trenches and Suzie Kendall as a German spy, offering some bloke sexual favours in the back of an enclosed truck to get military information from him. The music score was especially memorable and emotion stirring in the league of Gone With The Wind and I would love to hear it again. There must be some commercial or copyright reason why this movie is not available. Anyone know why? I doubt its anything to do with a lack of quality or interest.
|
positive
|
I ended up watching this movie before even going through any of the reviews, on the request of a female. Just out of curiosity, I thought, let me find out if there are people who actually recommend others to watch this movie. I am quite shocked to find such long and positive reviews on this website that makes me conclude that it's a scam.<br /><br />As far as my opinion goes, I have to ask,"are these filmmakers retarded or do they assume that the viewers are retarded?" The movie is atrocious on so many levels and I'm not even talking about the story or presentation.<br /><br />So, these bunch of guys plus one girl (the lead actress) form a Music band; guessing from the constant presence of guitars it is supposed to be a ROCK band. Hell, when did dancers started becoming the part of a Rock band??? Anyway, let me accept it as the-Bollywood-version-of-a- Rock-band, but amusingly enough all the scores which actually had these two guitarists doing all kinds of cool "ROCK GESTURES" and I am assuming they were playing the instruments, the sound of the guitar was completely missing!!! I simply can't comprehend the magnitude of stupidity here....<br /><br />I am just going to conclude here because it is absolutely not worth pointing out any further flaws in the movie. Bollywood directors seem to have no shame anymore!!!!!!!!
|
negative
|
Traffik is a really well done 6 hour drama about drugs (circa 1987). It tells three stories, in parallel, about how opium is grown in North-East Pakistan, how drugs are smuggled from Pakistan into Europe, and finally, how people addicted to drugs spiral out of control. All three stories are told realistically and with empathy. You see enough of the characters lives to understand how ordinary people can get sucked into a life that is really immoral.<br /><br />These aren't card-board cutouts, the opium grower is trying to feed his family in a dry area filled with guns and other opium growers. The drug smuggler is a rich German with no heart but his wife (one of the three main characters) is just an ordinary woman who has to choose between leading her life "the old way" or giving up. Finally the main character, the government minister has the toughest role as he must deal with the emotional devastation caused by his own daughter. She slips into the world of drug addiction and starts stealing, suffering from ill-health, attacking her parents emotionally, all so she can continue to satisfy her craving for the drug (heroin) that is destroying her life.<br /><br />Traffik is one of the best dramas I have ever seen on TV. The scenes in this show will remain with you for a long, long time. Highly recommended. -- Colin Glassey
|
positive
|
This film is a great disappointment. Director Vicente Aranda has provided many interesting films throughout his long career, some of them were highlighted by strong and powerful performances by Spanish actress Victoria Abril. In JUANA LA LOCA, he relies on a gifted actress as well , newcomer Pilar Lopez de Ayala, but this is barely the sole positive element in an otherwise terrible mess of a movie. While Lopez de Ayala tries hard to portray Juana as a romantic and passionate young woman, completely obsessed by love to her handsome husband, it seems as if she weren't able to develop her character over this one-dimensional feature; Juana was an important figure in Spanish history, and politics of that time were essential in her storyline... but here she's introduced as a romantic leading lady out of a soap opera; this is a real pity, and the film a missing opportunity to show the way personal lives can influence History and vice versa. Worst of all, Italian actors Daniele Liotti and Manuela Arcuri turn out in real bad performances, which, in the case of Liotti is a real problem as he portrays Felipe el Hermoso, a pivotal role in this story. It seems a clear choice to attract young audiences, as both of them look like top-models of this era. On the other hand, talented actors such as Giuliano Gemma and Rosana Pastor are completely wasted in supporting roles clearly underdeveloped. Even if this was a big-budgeted film, little care was taken in bringing a good screenplay or creating "period pieces" on the screen. Costumes are particularly grotesque in some of the group scenes, as if they were taken from stock material,without regarding of a real coherence. All in all, the main problem with JUANA LA LOCA (and this is what makes the difference with far superior historical films as LA REINE MARGOT or ELIZABETH) is the lack of a director's point of view. This a strange turn in Aranda's career, as he was able to develop it in other works (LIBERTARIAS and AMANTES come to my mind), creating very personal and interesting movies, while this JUANA really is no more than a routine academic historical piece... and a not very good one at that!
|
negative
|
Surely one of the lamest shows ever to be produced on these shores and thats saying something. Even many of the lead actors didn't stick around for the duration. The fact that it ran for eight years is a sad indictment on the average intelligence and cultural nous of the Aussie viewer. It went round and round in circles, with repetitive gags and poorly-drawn characters. Arthur MacArthur, for god's sake. did they actually pay the writers of this show? I wonder if anyone checked their qualifications. There were tired gags about rural people and second-rate farce situations that were poor imitations of a thousand English and US sitcoms that had gone before. I think that's what I hate about it so much, that it appears no one involved wanted to make it memorable, original or clever, instead opting for the lowest common denominator each time.
|
negative
|
Sherman, set the wayback machine for... 1986. The United States was just climbing out of its worst postwar recession, while Japan was enjoying an unprecedented industrial boom. Manufacturing industries were still a significant part of the US economy, and factory workers were a good example of the "average American". The word "downsizing" hadn't entered the general vocabulary yet, but everyone knew the phenomenon. Bruce could be heard on the radio singing, "Foreman says these jobs are going, boy, and they ain't coming back to your hometown." Chrysler had just been bailed out by Uncle Sam. Bumper stickers could be seen saying "Buy American -- the job you save may be your own."<br /><br />"Gung Ho" does a better job of capturing the mood of the American industrial workforce than just about any other popular movie made during that period. Certainly the movie has its flaws -- some loose plot threads and mediocre acting jobs by everyone except Michael Keaton and Gedde Watanabe. But the story really is about the meeting of East and West: Keaton's Hunt Stevenson personifies America, brash and confident on the outside yet insecure underneath. Watanabe's Kazuhiro personifies Japan, on top of the heap with a successful system, but wondering if there is more to be learned from their Western rivals. The movie's plot, flawed as it is, simply provides a framework for the conflict, and eventually synthesis, of their two personalities.<br /><br />Keaton's acting overshadows everyone else's, and practically makes the movie by itself. I've always admired Keaton for his ability to deliver lines that feel improvised, no matter what script he's following. His character, Hunt Stevenson, is a likable, affable everyman, a natural leader with a wise-ass streak. But he has a fatal flaw common to many of us: he doesn't want to disappoint anyone. He'll distract the crowd with inspirational anecdotes, and even lie, rather than point out the ugly truth.<br /><br />Kazuhiro is the mirror image of Stevenson: shy and introspective, but also, because of his Japanese upbringing, reluctant to be the bearer of bad news. The scene in which Stevenson first comes to Kazuhiro with the employees' grievances captures perfectly the Japanese approach to workplace conflict. Kazuhiro replies to Stevenson's complaints with "I understand what you are saying," but won't refuse his requests out loud. Stevenson misinterprets this as agreement, and goes away saying, "Okay, we've got that settled." (This is still a problem in Japanese-American business relations in the 21st century!)<br /><br />Ultimately, Kazuhiro and Stevenson have the same problem: get the factory working smoothly, meet production goals, and fulfill their responsibility to the workers under them. In working towards this goal, they each have to take a page from the others' book. Kazuhiro's family becoming more "Americanized" is an obvious example. Also note that Stevenson thinks it's odd when Kazuhiro explains how he had to make a public apology to his workers for failing them -- and yet, later in the movie, Stevenson does exactly that himself.<br /><br />The plot and its resolution are a little cornball, but hey, this is a comedy. If you can overlook the movie's flaws, there is a great story about self-realization and open-mindedness here.
|
positive
|
Not many movies were made about the Lighter-Than-Air (LTA) aspect of aviation, but this is one of them and it's damn good. Just a fun film to watch.<br /><br />Most of the movie takes place at the Navy blimp operations at NAS Lakehurst (with NAS Tustin playing the role). Wallace Beery plays a likable but Munchausen-like Senior Chief Ned Trumpet, an enlisted pilot, whose tall tales have gotten so frequent nobody really believes him. Half the fun is near the end of the movie when events start proving that most of his more outlandish tales are actually true.<br /><br />Set during WWII, the main plot centers around bachelor Trumpet wooing a local widow only to end up having a father-son relationship with the widow's crippled son, Jess. Told he would never walk without crutches by doctors, Chief Trumpet pulls some strings and a Navy flight surgeon helps in restoring the lad's crippled leg. Jess goes on to join the Navy to become a flight officer, flying blimps back at Lakehurst and facing a whole new set of challenges.<br /><br />A very well-done movie, albeit not without some corny Hollywood dialogue slipping past the technical advisers, and Beery's apparent inability to march in step. Otherwise this movie gets good grades for technical accuracy, and gives a rare look into the Navy's LTA operations. The Cash Register Scene, an exchange between Trumpet and Jess's future love interest Cathy, is an absolute hoot.
|
positive
|
Everybody interested in Texas needs to have this DVD. It's just a good movie about real Texas with great scenes. It took a bunch of Texans to do this right. Hollywood never would have gotten it. There are so many subtle things that Tubb put in the movie and may not have even thought about, but it makes the show.<br /><br />Guest cameos are not seen as cameos at all. Each star fits in perfectly and does not distract from the film. Many of the guests spots blend so perfect that when the credits roll you will go back through the movie to find the character. Strait's roll is dead on, it could not have been done any better in real life.<br /><br />The second half of the movie is completely different from the first, it get's a little "hokey", but that's alright. Somehow the storyline works. The "hokey" stuff is like an after school special but it looks believable and natural.<br /><br />I have never heard anyone use the Sonny Pruitt line before, other than locals that I grew up with. That was the icing on the cake for me.<br /><br />Definitely a collectible, right up there with Pure Country, Sugarland Express, Jr. Bonner, Texasville, The Last Picture Show, Giant, and of course Hud.<br /><br />Gig'em Aggies '86
|
positive
|
I just finished screening El Padrino in Germany. A great film. We look forward to seeing more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It was wonderful to see such a well put together film with such suspense and a story that shall remain an instant classic. The ending with little ambiguity leaves the story open for a sequel. Seeing a film with great quality truly outlines Chapa's serious potential and his adept skill as a writer, actor, director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many with his triumphant performance in "blood in and blood out" and now he has proved to all who have see his works his potential to become a critically acclaimed film maker with genuine artistic control. Something that few film makers can afford.
|
positive
|
So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.<br /><br />The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.<br /><br />One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.
|
negative
|
Okay -- the title "House of Frankenstein", was a reference to a line from the original Frankenstein movie. When they follow it up with a movie entitled "House of Dracula", which makes no real sense, you know that it's just beginning to turn into a franchise.<br /><br />Without explanation, Dracula is back, and he's calling himself Baron Latos. He infiltrates the home of a Doctor Edelmann, with the claim that he is seeking a cure for his vampirism. Edelmann has a hunchback nurse who assists him (what is it with hunchback assistants in these movies?), but what Dracula is really interested in is his other, more beautiful assistant. At this point, Larry "Wolf Man" Talbot returns (again, no explanation given) and just happens to be seeking the same doctor for a cure to his lycanthropy. And then he just happens to fall into a cave in which plants can be grown to help him, which also just so happens to contain the Frankenstein monster. Dear God, when will it end ... sure, the other Universal monster sequels were silly, but this is just ridiculous.<br /><br />First the good stuff. There are some great settings, and the vampire bat effects are slightly better than usual. Some of the other effects are pretty neat too. John Carradine isn't bad as Dracula once you get used to him, but still nothing like as brilliant as Lugosi was. In my opinion, Onslow Stevens plays a much better vampire in this movie, although he has exactly the opposite problem to Carradine -- all of the creepiness and none of the class. None of the performances are that great, but it's more due to the atrocious script than anything else -- the female parts are particularly badly written. But stupid as it is, it remains reasonably entertaining for the most part. The best thing about it is it's short length.<br /><br />Now the bad stuff ... it's not creepy, it's poorly written and it doesn't work. I was hoping the three monsters would begin some kind of a supernatural struggle for power, but it doesn't happen. The focus is almost entirely on Dracula, who isn't particularly well portrayed. On the other hand, this is the only movie in which Dracula infects another man, but it is done via a blood transfusion rather than a bite as Universal were always uncomfortable with the possible homosexual subtext. Larry Talbot is decent as always as the Wolf Man, but he plays a comparatively small part. Once again the part of Frankenstein's monster is reduced to the anti-climatic closing moments. For God's sake, Glenn Strange was fantastic as the creature! Why not give him more screen time? It's unfortunate that the series had to end on this note (not counting the classic comedy "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein"). In the end it just fizzled in the sunlight and died, much like Dracula himself.
|
negative
|
Full marks for the content of this film, as a Brit I was not aware that there was segregation in the US Navy during WWII. A very brave attempt to bring this fact to the world. However, the movie is pathetic, direction is non existent, the acting is wooden and the script is just one cliché after another. I can honestly say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I sat and cringed from the start until the end at the very poor way that this had been put together. This could have been a great movie, the story for many of us outside of the US was new, unique and also interesting. The sad fact of the matter is the way that it was put together. It is unfortunate that a true story like this, which could have changed people's attitudes, has been squandered on a low budget, badly directed movie. I only hope that some time in the future, one of the major studios will take this theme and do it justice.
|
negative
|
This is the only full length feature film about the world of bridge. I found the first 10 minutes a bit slow, but after that, the movie is absolutely perfect in describing professional bridge players and how they go about earning a living. <br /><br />Some of the scenes are very funny. I don't think that a non-bridge player would get the charm of this movie. <br /><br />Some of the dresses are really beautiful, pity the movie is in black and white - I can only imagine what they would look like in colour. The way the media are portrayed is absolutely hilarious. There is no way on earth bridge will ever be like that. <br /><br />Watch it as soon as you can, and tell your friends about it.
|
positive
|
The young Dr. Fanshawe(Mark Letheren), an avid archaeologist, is dispatched by his Museum boss to the large country home of Squire Richards(Pip Torrens), where his task is to find provenance for and catalogue the collection of antiquities and curios belonging to the recently deceased father of the Squire. The Squire is surprised by the arrival Fanshawe, he hadn't been expecting him for another week, but none the less welcomes him and gets his only servant, Patten (David Burke..of Dr Watson fame), to show him to his room, as Fanshawe must stay over for some days in order to finish his rather large task. Patten it would seem is not the friendliest sort and seems to resent the extra work that Fanshawe's visit will entail, the large empty house providing an endless amount of cooking, cleaning and maintenance for him. Fanshawe is a fussy sort, very neat and precise with everything having its place, whether they be his clothes or his books and papers and he is rather disgusted by the dirt in his room. Needless to say he is rather eager to begin his work, but unpacking he finds his binoculars have been damaged in transit, so he asks the Squire for a replacement pair, The Squire who is a modern thinking man but also it would seem rather uncultured with such matters, is also eager to get rid of the clutter around the house, so he obliges and walks Fanshawe to the top of the hill so that he can survey the estate and the surrounding villages, there the Squire directs him to points of interest, including Gallows Hill, where locals were hung for their crimes and misdemeanours, his interest is also taken by a local abbey which the Squire describes as a ruin, but Fanshawe can see through the binoculars that it clearly isn't, he investigates further and pays a visit to the site of the abbey and is shocked to find that there are but a few stone remnants? Fanshawe doesn't have too much time to think about this conundrum as he darkness falls he feels he is being watched, he feels a presence, he begins to see moving shadows in the woods, startled he runs home. Over dinner he imparts details of his harrowing day to the Squire, Patten overhears the story and suggests an explanation for it..The Binoculars! they used to belong to a local man called Baxter, whom it would seem collected bones and skulls from Gallows Hill, boiling them up for some concoction or other, Baxter had disappeared mysteriously one night, the late Squire had acquired his belongings, including a mask made out of a skull and some old etchings of the area. These etchings fascinate Fanshawe as they portray the Abbey he seen through his binoculars, but he learns that the abbey had been destroyed during the reign of Henry VII and so it would be impossible for Baxter to have drawn the sketches, never the less they are signed and dated by Baxter to the recent past so he concludes that the binoculars have some special power. That night he has horrifically vivid dreams, when he wakes, he sets off with the binoculars to have a closer look at the abbey through them, what he finds surprises him but has he put himself in perilous danger by doing so? Fanshawe finally becomes trapped in his dangerous obsession, as darkness falls the Squire and a search party go in search of the now missing archaeologist, they are alerted by dozens of loudly cawing crows circling above Gallows HIll, they quicken their speed, but will they be in time to help or save Fanshawe from his destiny? The Ghost Story for Christmas series of films made by the BBC sadly ended its initial run of films in 1978 with The Ice House, they were for the most part based on the work of the great M.R. James. In 2005 and 2006 the series was revived briefly and thankfully A View from a Hill also marked a return to the work of James, whose ghostly writings have haunted many generations of readers. Director Luke Watson being new to the series might have worried fans of the older films, but he returns to the period setting abandoned by the later films which immediately sets the tone for a great Ghost story, his direction is assured as he stays true to the mood of the masters works and gradually builds up the fear factor to a terrifying climax, all the while keeping what the viewer sees to a minimum, thus upping the tension and mystery. The Autumn countryside provides oodles of atmosphere, the falling leaves and low lying sun providing an unsettling backdrop for the sinister events to come. The cast it must be said are all superb and are perfectly cast in their respective roles. The idea behind the binoculars is simple but very effective, the use of a man made object to see supernatural beings and events that the naked eye cannot see, may even have influenced Álex de la Iglesia in his film La habitación del niño (2006) of the following year, with which it bears striking similarity. I had heard mixed reviews of this particular film, but i must say i found it at all times intriguing and it even raised a few hairs on my head and gave me a few shivers, something that doesn't happen much these days, i think any negativity surrounding the film can only be attributed to its pacing, which to my eyes is perfection but to modern audiences it will be seen as deathly slow. Plenty of time is given, even within its brief 40 minutes running time, for character development and plot expansion and i must say its a new favourite of mine and certainly one of the better films of the decade.
|
positive
|
This movie should not be compared to "The Sting", or other caper/heist/con game films. What makes it such a great movie experience is what it has to say about relationships, deceit and trust. It's also a fairly cutting critique of psychiatry, given that the female protagonist is a shrink who is so easily deceived and then acts out in such a primitive manner in the finale. Has Mr Mamet had an unfortunate experience in therapy? Highly, hugely recommended!
|
positive
|
I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of this two parter, The Impossible Planet, and was slightly worried that the second part wouldn't hold up quite so well as has been true in the past of the two parters of the past 2 Who series. But thankfully my fears were unfounded as I found myself enjoying this episode as much as the previous one. Anyway we start off with the surviving crew members on the run from the Ood, whom have become the Devil's pawn. There is also a bit of philosophizing on the Doctor's part in the episode that I quite enjoyed. Needless to say it was a good solid Doctor Who story. Might be a tad too intense for the younger viewers though.<br /><br />My Grade: B+
|
positive
|
Want to know the secret to making a slasher film set at a fitness center work? Just pad the film out with lovely ladies in super tight workout outfits and have them bump and grind the floor like they are at a gentleman's club. That's what the makers of this horrid slasher film did and that little gimmick kept me watching till the bitter end. This is the worst slasher film I have ever seen, but every time I was ready to switch the channel, they'd add another scene with the workout girls and I'd stay put. As a slasher film, Killer Workout fails in every category I can think of. As a showcase for beautiful girls working out, it is a success. Strong recommendation to avoid, unless the thought of half the film being a big T&A show appeals to you.
|
negative
|
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) was the last film to feature Freddy Krueger as a solo act (not as an entity or a co-star). The years of killing have taken a toll upon the town of Springwood. It has gotten to the point that the little city has become a virtual ghost town. The parents who killed Freddy Krueger so many years ago have all paid the ultimate price. Only the mad inhabit the town and the survivors are scattered everywhere. But that doesn't stop Freddy from seeking out his final revenge. No matter how they try to stop him, he always comes back for more. But this time he finds out a little more about his old life. Can the kids finally stop Freddy for good? What is this secret that is buried in Freddy's twisted mind? to find out you'll have to watch Freddy's Dead. the end was originally filmed in 3-D.<br /><br />A fitting way to end the franchise. Freddy learns something about himself and his perverted life and he gets to go out in a bang! Lisa Zane, Yaphet Kotto and Freddy Krueger star in this final installment. Rosanne, Tom Arnold and Johnny Depp make special appearances. A whole lot better than the last one but it's filled with a few dated jokes. If you enjoy the series then you don't want to miss out on this one.<br /><br />I have to recommend this movie for Freddy fans.
|
positive
|
A surprisingly beautiful movie. Beautifully conceived, beautifully directed, beautifully acted, beautifully acted and most beautifully photographed.....the cinematography is nothing short of splendid. It is a war movie but is epic in it's scope and blends romance, tragedy and comedy into a story that is as harrowing as it is provoking.
|
positive
|
This movie is a nonsense/spoof comedy, in the lines of The Airplane or Naked Gun, but it doesn't even come close to this two, because it lacks originality and a little more intelligent jokes, rather then just throwing you with the same old easy jokes.<br /><br />You can figure out some references to other movies, from the top of my head I identified Dodgeball and Rocky, so you can have some fun with that, trying to find out what movies are spoofed.<br /><br />The movie also offers you an occasional laugh, but nothing that can cause you injuries, thus nothing really funny.<br /><br />I liked the character IPod in some ways (even though some of the jokes with him are standard comedy 101).<br /><br />I think this movie (and like most of nonsense/spoof comedy) depends on the mood you are in, so if you think you will laugh to any joke watch this movie. If you are in a serious mood forget about this (re)watch The Airplane instead, it will definitely make you laugh
|
negative
|
What on earth? Like watching an episode of Neighbours after drinking two bottles of cough medicine- nightmarish and making no sense at all. I was waiting for the clever part where everything fits into place and saves the film. Maybe it was there and i just missed it, or was lost on me.<br /><br />My strongest suspicion is that it is a thinly veiled attempt to market a new drug thats about to hit the streets. I wouldn't say "don't watch it" but I will say its pretty poor on every level- like am dram in high def. Whack. Unless you drink two bottles of cough syrup. Then it's just dandy.
|
negative
|
How good is Gwyneth Paltrow! This is the right movie for her... too bad she's completely out role. I haven't read the book by Jane Austen, but I can't believe it is so superficial and the characters aren't much more than caricatures. It wasn't probably that easy to reduce in 2 hours of show about 600 pages of the book, but I had expected more than just seeing old pieces of furniture and tea cups. I was taking a sigh of relief every time I saw an actor who didn't overstep the mark of overacting (a couple of times).
|
negative
|
"Kings and Queen" is a bloated French drama that rambles on for an interminable two hours and thirty-two minutes to no discernible point or purpose.<br /><br />The film features two stories that seem unrelated at first but which eventually connect with one another about halfway through the movie. The first centers around Nora and her struggles with various men in her life, including an elderly father who discovers he has only a few days left to live. The other story involves a young man named Ismael, a violinist who finds himself placed - unfairly, he believes - in a mental institution through the machinations of an unknown third party. After traveling along on separate tracks for awhile, these two narrative strands eventually come together when we learn that Ismael is a former lover of Nora's and the man she has chosen to adopt her son from an earlier, tragic relationship.<br /><br />With a bit more focus and a considerable amount of streamlining, "Kings and Queen" might have been a potent, engrossing drama about modern day relationships. It certainly has moments of tremendous insight and emotional power, and the performances are, for the most part, complex and touching. But, taken as a whole, the film meanders and maunders to such an extent that, quite frankly, it begins to wreak havoc on our patience and to wear out its welcome early on. Even more distressing is the fact that, even though we spend what seems like a mild eternity in the company of these people, we really don't know quite what to make of any of them when the show is finally over. For instance, Nora's father, on his deathbed, writes a withering diatribe against his daughter's character that simply doesn't gibe with the woman we've been looking at for well over two hours. Nora is admittedly no Mother Theresa (then, again, who is?), but she certainly doesn't deserve the invective thrown at her by her very own father. Nora could be accused of being confused, indecisive, a bit self-absorbed at times, but evil enough to have her father wishing he could give her his cancer and make her die in his place? I don't think so.<br /><br />Perhaps this film is simply operating at a level of depth that I was unable to fathom. But my suspicion is that even writer Roger Bohbot and co-writer/director Arnaud Desplechin would have trouble fully explaining their purpose here. This is a well acted, pretentious bore of a film that takes the viewer on a long, rambling voyage through a sea of personal crises, a journey that leaves him no wiser or more enlightened at the end than he was at the beginning.
|
negative
|
this film is really bad....... no i mean really really bad. Tony Scott is a terrible director. out of all the films he has made i only like enemy of the state, besides that he is one of the worse directors of all time. what appalled me the most is Richard Kelly (director of Donnie Darko) did the screenplay to this. now Richard Kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes hope he has learnt his lesson.<br /><br />now i love Mickey Rourke's new roles but i cant even like him in this because of the terrible story and look of it. don't get me wrong i still love Mickey Rourke but he has made a few accidence's in his time and this is one of them. i don't know what to say about Keira knightly, i think she's a little too overrated. i just cant feel for her in films.<br /><br />all in all this film is bad. thats it....... 1/10.......j.d Seaton
|
negative
|
This movie is way too long. I lost interest about one hour into the story. Saratoga Trunk tells the story of Ingrid Bergman, who is an the child of a prominent New Orleans man and his mistress. After her mother dies in Paris, Bergman comes back to New Orleans to scandalize her father's "legitimate" family and to blackmail them. She meets Gary Cooper, who is likewise seeking revenge against the railroad tycoons who cheated his father out of his land in Texas. She draws him into her schemes, and the movie climaxes at a Saratoga resort. Long and boring, but worth watching if you are a Bergman or Cooper fan. The midget Cupidon provides the only bright spot in this meandering story.
|
negative
|
SPOILERS ALERT<br /><br />Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey is an important film from my life because it's the first film I remember seeing in the cinema of my home town as a 4-year old scamp. The story is based on the Sheila Burnford novel, and is a reason why it's not possible to write this one off as a brainless Lassie clone.<br /><br />The basic story: Two dogs and a cat happily live in the Seaver family when the new husband to the mother of the three children, gets a job in the city and they have to temporarily move into inner San Francisco while the animals are sent to a ranch to live for a couple of months. The bonds between the animals and the children they watch out for are especially strong, and Shadow the golden retriever and Sassy the Himalayan cat are heartbroken as the children are, though the young and happy-go-lucky American Bulldog known as Chance is a little less concerned and somewhat cynical (due in part to his voice-over explaining his being abandoned as a pup, picked up to an animal shelter, and being bought by the family), though his growth as a character during the story provides much of the important storytelling.<br /><br />The three pets escape the ranch and head off into the wide and dangerous wilderness (fantastic wilderness settings by the way), driven on by Shadow's instincts of direction. They meet several perils along the way, hoping to make it home, while the family and the ranch hosts are suddenly concerned about the animal disappearance. There are funny moments all the way through, great dialogue between the three animals and hilarious lines (see - memorable quotes), and a touching comradeship that grows between the main characters during the course of the storytelling, punctuated by moments of sadness (such as when Sassy's arrogance of trying to cross a river without getting wet causes her to fall in the river and get washed down a waterfall, leaves a moment of loss that is felt deeply by the viewers).<br /><br />Somehow though, I fail to see what the inclusion of saving the girl lost in the wilderness adds to the story and the journey they take. Somehow, it seems a little unnecessary as part of the story.<br /><br />The ending cranks the stakes higher when shadow falls into a pit in a trainyard and having hurt his leg, finds it hard to get out and gives up, exhausted, followed by Chance climbing in with him to persuade him to climb out, telling him how important he is to him and how he's pushed them this far so he shouldn't throw it all away so easily. <br /><br />The way that this scene (brilliantly done) isn't concluded leaves an ambiguity that carries on into the final scene when Chance and Sassy return home, but Shadow is nowhere to be seen. Then just as all seems lost, he slowly appears, and is reunited with the family. Chance's conclusion at the end speaks of the comradeship that has developed between he and his fellows on the journey, and the realisation to what home really is from his long journey to get there, leaves a fine epilogue to demonstrate how much his character has grown, but also how the other two have as well. Hang on a second, I think I'm going to cry...<br /><br />Anyway, I haven't read Sheila Burnford's book, so I don't pretend to know where the differences between book and film lie. But this is a film that all the family can watch, and while the tots will love the talking animals, older viewers will understand the plot line better (as I found when I watched the film again after several years without seeing it). This film is a masterpiece in cinema, and I suggest that if you haven't seen it you go out and get it!<br /><br />And please avoid the sequel (see my review for Homeward Bound II!)
|
positive
|
Stanley Stupid (Tom Arnold) and his wife, Joan, like to sleep in bed with their heads under the covers and their feet on the pillows. They have two equally challenged children, Buster and Petunia. One day, Mr. Stupid notices their garbage is gone again....there must be someone stealing it from the curb. He goes off in roller blades after the garbage truck. When he finally gets to the dump, he is startled to learn not only that "other folks garbage" has been stolen, too, but that there is a secret organization meeting at the landfill. He is determined to defeat the garbage nappers of the world, it seems. Meanwhile, Petunia and Buster visit the police station and a Chinese restaurant in search of their parents, for Joan comes up missing, too. Will they bumble their way through their problems? This is just a stupid, stupid movie, with the culprit being the terrible script. The books by Allard and Marshall are hysterical and only a couple of situations from the books ends up in this film. Arnold is actually quite nice as Mr. Stupid and the other cast members try very, very hard to make the film work. The production values are very high, with the dog and cat belonging to the Stupids adding a little oomph to the film. But, it is all for naught, as the plot is wandering and weak. Perhaps, someday, someone will take another stab at translating the very funny Allard books to the big screen. Therefore, if you love to laugh, rent something else while you await a new production and, by all means, go get the books, too. But, stay away from being stupid yourself, as anyone who watches this movie to the end could hardly be called intelligent.
|
negative
|
Kate Beckinsale steals the show! Bravo! Too bad Knightly ins't as good looking as Jeremy Northam. Mark Strong did a fabulous job. Bernard Hepton was perfect as Emmas father. I love the end scene (which is an addition to the novel-but well written) when the harvest is in and Knightly dines with his workers and high society friends. Emma must show that she accepts this now. She is a changed woman. That is too much too quick, but OK. I'll buy into it. Samantha Bond plays Emma's ex-governess and confidant. She is wonderful. just as I would have imagined her. I believe that when the UK does a Jane Austen its the best. American versions of English literature are done for money and not for quality. See this one!
|
positive
|
Many people are making fun out of Steven Seagals acting abilities. And I really see why if I remember Fire Down Below. Well...ok his other films are acceptable (regarding to his acting!). <br /><br />After reading reviews about The Patriot I didn't expect anything from this film. I barely came through Fire Down Below and I read a lot that The Patriot was even worse. So I was really surprised about this one. In my opinion it is one of his very best movies. If it had have more action sequences and a couple more fighting scenes it would be THE best. I liked the story the directing and the actors. Cammilla Belle was just incredible. She will have a great movie-career in the future. The few action scenes were very well made. And Steven Seagal was very believable in his unusual role.
|
positive
|
The artist Daniel King (Chris John) and his mate Laura Peters (Lara Clancy) are invited to move to an old house in Cornwall, in Great Britain, by his childhood wealthy friend Natasha Carlton (Carol Kentish). Natasha has a crush on Daniel, who is an ambiguous man regarding his sentimental life. While alone in the house, weird things happen and Laura is startled and scared. When Laura meets the old insane priest Gabriel Norton (Brian Blessed) on the road, she is advised to immediately leave the house, since evil lived there. But the couple stays and has to face tragic consequences.<br /><br />What a messy screenplay and awful and cheesy movie this "Devil's Harvest" is! The cinematography and the camera work is not totally bad, but the amateurish performances of Chris John and Carol Kentish and direction of James Shanks, together with the terrible story, ridiculous situations and dialogs make this movie one of the worse I have ever seen in the genre. I have occasionally seen in YouTube a couple of shorts from cinema college that are better and better than the pointless and dreadful "Devil's Harvest". In the end, it is not a horror movie but a horror of movie. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Colheita do Diabo" ("The Devil's Harvest")
|
negative
|
Love the characters and the story line. Very funny with plenty of action. Thomas Ian Griffith and Tia Carrer give great performances. I enjoyed the dynamic and comical interaction of Griffith and Career. Donald Southerland plays a very likable, and surprisingly sympathetic, burnt out hit man. All three actors are among my favorites and having them in this movie made for a special treat. A nice addition to my extensive DVD collection. I highly recommend this movie. If you like... Mr. and Mrs. Smith, The Replacement Killers, L.A. Confidential, The Long Kiss Goodnight, The Abyss and, The Whole Nine Yards... you will love this movie.
|
positive
|
I am a Jane Eyre lover and a purist, and this version includes almost all of the important details of the book, and the characters are portrayed as I imagined them. Jane Eyre is a complex story of great richness and can't be delivered properly in a feature-length format, so it needs a TV mini-series. Timothy Dalton's Rochester is probably the best ever. There has been a lot of discussion about how attractive he is and his age. In the book, Jane (the narrator) describes him as "about 35" and not young, but not yet middle aged. I think Timothy Dalton was about 38 when he made this, so that is about right. Also, we only have Jane's opinion of whether Rochester is handsome. She only just met him and he asks her bluntly what she thinks. As an inexperienced and humble girl, I can't imagine her saying she did think him handsome. The actor playing Rochester needs to show us the character of the man, and this is fulfilled to perfection. I love the relationship between the two leads, which is the crucial thing about this story, and the humour of their encounters. Other versions have blown it, but this gets it right. The 2006 version with Toby Stephens (aged 37 years) is in progress on BBC1 and is very good indeed, so I will decide whether that is my favourite when it is completed.<br /><br />On viewing this series again, after watching the 2006 version, I have decided that this version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clark is the best! Charlotte Bronte's dialogue is preserved and this is essential to the power of the story. Modernisation just doesn't work - it's a Victorian story and having archaic poetic speech suits the characters. This version has an excellent cast - Zelah Clark is tiny and the difference in height between her and Rochester is important; Timothy Dalton has real presence and is an amazing actor. There are no extra scenes to divert from the plot and the screenplay includes all the essential scenes, but leaves out unnecessary details, making it to the point and gripping. I recommend it to all true Jane Eyre fans.
|
positive
|
THE BEAVER TRILOGY is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant films ever made. I was lucky enough to catch it, along with a Q&A session with director Trent Harris, at the NY Video Festival a few years back and then bought a copy off of Trent's website. This movie HAS to be seen to be believed! I sincerely recommend searching for Trent's name on the web and then buying the film from his site. He's an incredibly nice guy to boot. Don't get confused: The cameraman in the fictional sections of THE BEAVER TRILOGY is NOT Trent!<br /><br />After having seen the TRILOGY a few times, I do have to admit that I could probably do without the Sean Penn version. It's like a try-out version for the Crispin Glover "Orkly Kid" section and is interesting more as a curiosity item if you're a Penn fan than it being a good video. Penn is pretty funny, though, and you can see the makings of a big star in this gritty B&W video.<br /><br />This is probably also one of Crispin Glover's best roles and I would just love to see an updated documentary about the original Groovin' Gary. Once you see this film, you'll never get Gary's nervous laughter out of your head ever again.
|
positive
|
I'd honestly give this movie a solid 7.5, but I clicked 10 to try to offset the 5 pages of imbecilic, unjustified 1-star reviews. This is an interesting story, all of the acting is good to very good (even Ms. Diaz, who is totally out of her usual grinning-bimbo role here, yet plays it well.) The sets are perfect and the cinematography is consistently appropriately creepy. It's a fine morality play and there is *no* reason to explain the origin of the god/supernatural being/alien/whatever that's "running the show," so I'm glad the movie doesn't try. It's really irrelevant to the story, which is relatively long but quite compelling and summed up quite satisfyingly in the ending. <br /><br />Before you decide this movie is terrible (or really, anything under a ~7.5) read some of the dozens of 1-star "hated it" reviews that are rife with misspellings, lack of punctuation and capitalization, and juvenile criticisms. Maybe the trailer was misleading or something -- I didn't see it -- but some of these reviewers were apparently expecting Terminator 4 or Saw 5 (one reviewer actually compared this movie to Saw! How utterly inappropriate and unrelated!) <br /><br />Seriously, most of these reviews read like you-tube comments -- according to these "critics" this movie is too confusing yet too predictable, not enough action yet there's too much going on, too smart yet too dumb, explains too much yet leaves too much unexplained... oh -- and it's apparently a "waist (sic) of time." Do consider the quality and source of the reviews before taking them to heart. I'm afraid these 1-star kids failed to understand the phrase "altruism coefficient" and were therefore utterly incapable of understanding the movie's premise (despite adamantly claiming that they "get it" right before explaining how confusing it was!) If you know what those two words mean you will have no trouble understanding (and enjoying) this movie.<br /><br />I really wish there were a reviewer reputation system here so I could be sure to ignore the rating of everyone who gave this movie 1 star forever.<br /><br />See it for yourself and enjoy the fine presentation of an interesting couple taking an interesting moral "test" and facing the consequences. It's a good time, in my opinion.
|
positive
|
at first i thought it was bad because i had great expectations for this movie, but after giving some thought it IS that bad. i was almost caught up in hk's promotion of bad stars in bad movies. hk's new generation of actors and actresses not to mention bad script writers are bringing the industry down. at the moment im still trying to figure out how it gross so high. normally you cant lose in a movie with donnie yen and ekin (forget jackie, he's past his peak). but then i shouldve figure it out when twins was on the cover. it is cheesy, campy, very corny, i try to laugh from some of the jokes, but not only is the effect very minimal but the jokes are very recycled and not funny. im sorry i bought the movie. the only reason why some people think it is so good is because they are brainwashed into the hype that the twins are cute, and everybody likes them, and that everything they make is good and funny. and that if you like twins, then you are up to date...<br /><br />sigh... i miss the good hk movie days when jet li and stephen chow movies dominated the box office...<br /><br />movies from mainland china are much better than this, and they are shot for lower budgets.
|
negative
|
I was very happy and at the same time quite surprised by other positive comments written by non-Koreans below. This movie is amazingly heartshaking, and shows very 'sad but warm' view toward life which is typical to Korean people. I thought other foreigners would not understand this delicate feeling and under-rate this quiet film as a boring one, but I was wrong. The attraction of this film might be hard to avoid to foreigners, too. (Even without subtitle...)<br /><br />I would like to mention some points others have missed. Of course, this film depicts love between a man and a woman. However, the very theme is way beyond that. Actually, it is about time, value of remembrance, and death. In this film, the focus is not on the 'love affair' between two people. As some pointed out, they do not kiss, they do not hug each other, even without holding hands. So love itself is not completed (whether positively or negatively) in the film. Rather, what haunts Jungwon (a leading actor) is his impending death. He's running out of time, he can't hold it, leaving a few behind including his father and of course, Darim (a metermaid). So the problem is how he can face the death and leave something valuable in his short life, not how he can make love with Darim.<br /><br />This kind of theme sounds very familiar to us. There are lots of movies regarding patients with uncurable disease such as 'Love Story'. However, what makes this film outstanding is the way Jungwon deals his death. He is a loser, but tried to do his best while he's alive, IN A SILENT WAY. He does not tell anybody around him about his death. He hides something in his mind but without rage, hate, vengeance. He just tried to do best while he was alive. This limited communication and obedience to fate is the typical mindset of Koreans and the point most Western people don't understand or at best, misunderstand.<br /><br />This theme is very effectively expressed by the director of this film (surprisingly, his debut). Some say he's much influenced by Japanese director Ozu Yasujiro, who directed Tokyo Story. Indeed, I remember I read in some magazine that the director himself admitted he was influenced by Ozu. I'm not that knowledged to analyze his style comparing to Ozu's, but they have some in common and some not. Low angle and static camera, especially remind us Ozu's style. But, in terms of theme again, this Korean director seems to have somewhat warmer and hopeful vision.<br /><br />It is expressed concisely with Jungwon's last photograph. Very well done and really heartbreaking scene, I think. Actually, the director first had the idea of this film when he participated the funeral of a very famous Korean folk singer who died young of mysterious suicide. They say he saw the photograph of the singer at the funeral and thought of a film on death and remembrance. (And possibly hope for the remnants, I think...)<br /><br />I highly recommend this film to anybody who has deep interest in film art as well as Korean culture. This film, in my opinion, can be rivaled with other movies like Tokyo story, and a sort of American Beauty. It is that great if without language barrier. DVD version is going to be out in the market this February, so it might be a little help for foreigners with English subtitle.
|
positive
|
I am completely shocked that this show had been cancelled.Ity only lasted one year.I just recently started watching it and I love it.Its a show that could of gone as far as Friends went.It had the humour and was extremely enjoyable.<br /><br />It is about 2 brothers and 2 sisters living under one roof without their parents.Kurt(Joey Lawrence) plays the part of the oldest sibling and takes on the more fatherly role.<br /><br />This should of lasted much more than year as it was fantastic. Amazing show with all the best actors.<br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
I was not very excited to see this movie in the first place but a group of us decided to go see it on opening night. I felt like getting up and walking out and attempting to get my money back 20 minutes into this film. I felt that the movie was very boring, uninteresting, and not true in many aspects including "gaming". I tried my best not to fall asleep during the movie as i watched one of the worst horror films i have ever seen. The scary movie series was scarier than this movie. The sad attempt to pull in a Gothic girl, an overworked business man, and 15 year old geek, and some random guy into a video game that kills you is a bad plot to begin with. Then they try to throw in a very horrible love scene where the main character kisses another girl after saving her 10 minutes after his girlfriend was murdered. The theater was packed when the movie started by then end a little over half of the people had left before it was over. If you feel the need to waste only 1 hour and 16 minutes of your time seeing this movie ... prepare to feel cheated.
|
negative
|
The Omega Code was a model of cinematographical inconsistency. There was a bit (but precious little) of good acting, primarily by the two prophets and Rostenberg, who only appeared once and had no lines. Otherwise the acting was decidedly bad. The plot line was rather weak, and only partially based on already questionable Biblical interpretation. Certainly not one of the year's best.
|
negative
|
This movie was just horrendous. How could anybody like this movie, and for the ones who liked it because of the jokes, they should really take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if stereotypes are not bad. Ignoring the face of the racial stereotypes, this was just awful. It never had its moments, if it paid homage to 1980's, "Airplane!", it needs to pay some more. Awful acting, terrible script writing, even for a movie with Mo'Nique or Tom Arnold. This movie was bad from the beginning, but people might have seen the whole thing, by the thought that the plane would crash. One of the worse movies ever, stay away.
|
negative
|
Critters 4 starts, & I quote 'Somewhere in Kansas 1992' & a replay of the last few minutes of Critters 3 (1991) as the recurring character of Charlie McFadden (Don Keith Opper) is about to shoot the last two remaining Critter eggs in the universe which, we are informed, would mean the extinction of the entire Critter race which is against some sort of intergalactic zoological law or something like that. Charlie's bounty hunter friend Ug (Terrence Mann) is now known as Counsellor Tetra & is a top ranking official at the intergalactic council & orders Charlie not to shoot the eggs but instead put them into a pod that will land nearby very soon, the pod does indeed land nearby very quickly & Charlie does indeed put the eggs into it but he is also caught in the pod which I presume cryogenic-ally freezes him as it's never really explained. Critters 4 then informs us that we are 'Somewhere in Saturn Quadrant 2045' where a salvage ship comes across the pod drifting in space (the credits have barely finished & Critters 4 is already stealing entire ideas & scenes from Aliens (1986)). Rick (Anders Hove) decides to claim the unidentified, to them anyway, pod & try & make a bit of cash out of it. With the help of his crew, Ethan (Paul Whitthorne), Fran (Angela Bassett), Al Bert (Brad Dourif) & Bernie (Eric DeRe) the pod is successfully recovered. They get in touch with the intergalactic council & Counsellor Tetra say to go to an abandoned space-station where a trade will be made for the pod & it's contents, Tetra also specifically tells Rick not to open the pod. So in true horror film tradition Rick opens the pod, thaws Charlie out & the Critter eggs which hatch, kill Rick & escape into the space-station...<br /><br />Co-produced & directed by Rupert Harvey I thought Critters 4 was a pretty useless film & rounds the Critter series of films off with a whimper rather than a bang. The script by Joseph Lyle & David J. Schow is both predictable & clichéd, the space-station with an unstable reactor that will blow up in a few hours, the protagonists only means of escape being neutralised early on so they are stuck, the race against time to save themselves, the constant bickering & arguing amongst the crew, people splitting up & the loser who turns into a hero & saves the day, yawn. A lot of plot devices seem to come straight from Aliens & it rips off Star Wars (1979) with a tacky waste compactor scene. The characters are no better & you probably won't give a damn about any of them. While the other Critter films could be described as comedy horrors part 4 cannot, it appears to be deadly serious throughout. Critters 4 is also incredibly slow, uneventful & dull. It's over 30 minutes before the Critter eggs hatch & after this brief sequence it's nearly the hour mark before their seen again, why make a Critter film & barely feature them? It can't be because of the expensive special effects as they look like glove puppets anyway, oh & how can a mere hours old Critter operate an entire space-station & set a course for Earth? How do they even know what Earth is? Why did Capatin Rick want to open the pod anyway? What is all that stuff about with the female scientist & a rubber alien thing that is mentioned only once? Why do the intergalactic council want the Critters so badly? Why only send four men? Why is this perfectly good looking space-station totally deserted again? Critters 4 looks cheap throughout with bland, dark unimaginative sets & it even steals footage from Android (1983) for it's ships & space scenes, Critters 4 was apparently so low budget that the filmmakers couldn't afford any optical effects & the ones it takes from Android look seriously dated. For the most part only two Critters are used although some-more start to hatch but it's pretty late in the day when this happens, for most of the film they are barely seen & the effects for them are the worst of the entire series. Forget about any blood or gore as the Critters only kill two people during the 90 plus minute running time which just wasn't enough to maintain my waining interest. The acting is pretty poor as well with Angela Bassett's over-the-top melodramatic reaction to seeing a few Critter eggs particularly cringe worthy. To look at Critters 4 it is as cheap & unspectacular a production as you could hope to (not) see. The ending of Critters 4 has the universe finally being saved form the Critter menace, lets hope it also saves us & our local video-stores from the menace of a part 5...
|
negative
|
A most awaited film of the year 2002. After three and half years of hibernation,Rajini has acted in this movie. The hype for this film was toooooo high..<br /><br />This is not a typical Rajini film, in this film he gives some spiritual messages also. But it also includes typical Rajini actions,style,songs etc. Its a good entertaining movie and gives good messages also.<br /><br />I will rate this movie as Good instead of Excellent because of the screenplay. Its a must watch movie. Dont miss it!
|
positive
|
Space Camp is a pretty decent film. The plot is predictable, but the actors do a good job, and the special effects are decent for the time.<br /><br />This film was originally released about the time of the shuttle disaster, and that really put a hamper on how popular it was.<br /><br />The scene where the shuttle doors open in space is simply spectacular... on the big screen, that is... on a TV... it just looks average. I remember this scene in the theater. It made you feel like you were really up there.<br /><br />This would be a good film to see on IMAX, but I'm sure that will never happen.
|
positive
|
This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.<br /><br />EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.<br /><br />INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.<br /><br />STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.<br /><br />ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.<br /><br />With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.<br /><br />4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.
|
negative
|
I'd chose either over this film. This film has been in my "must see" list for a while because people talked about it being "disturbing" and also the VHS box contains lots and lots of quotes from people saying how "amazing" it is, or how "as close as you can get to texas chainsaw massacre" and lines like that. But, sorry folks, I was disappointed big time. The idea is interesting, but the script is SO underdeveloped that each character becomes a mistaken creation of evolution and people do indeed to the dumbest films in the film.<br /><br />That, in turn, takes away any credibility that the plot may have otherwise had. I couldn't believe how unnecessarily loooooong some "where is he, let's find him" sequences were. A few gory moments to please the gore fan, but they are so few that by the time we get to them there's no point. If Luther's a geek, then the filmmakers must really be down on the food chain.
|
negative
|
Oh this was a really bad movie. The girl who plays Jennifer is OK, but I think she acts bitchy through the movie, not because she is having her organs ripped out by a raven at night, but because she is thinking of firing her agent for putting her in this piece of crap. Faye Dunaway acts like she is remaking Mommy Dearest and the ending is completely silly. I really can't recommend this movie at all even though as a fan of Edgar Allen Poe, I was intrigued a bit by the references to his work(Ravens, House of Usher-like family curse,and being buried alive)-still he would probably turn over in his grave if he knew about this film.
|
negative
|
... Hawk Heaven for lovers of French cinema and by extension French Screen actors/actresses. At its worst it's an indulgence, actors getting to bitch about other actors, question the validity of acting as a profession at all, etc whilst at its best it's a glorious celebration/send-up of some of the finest actors currently working. From a simple premise - Jean-Pierre Marielle's request for water being ignored in a restaurant - Blier spins off in all directions and allows the cream of French cinema to strut their stuff before the camera even throwing in nods to those no longer around (Jean Gabin, Lino Ventura) including the Director's father, Bernard, one of the great stalwarts of French cinema, from whom he fields a celestial phone call at the end of the film. Discursive and prolix, yes, guilty as charged but also something of a guilty pleasure.
|
positive
|
Every now and then some amateur will come out with a tired piece of action film making. this one is just so wrong I don't think i even need to comment about the plot, acting, script, camera work. because it have none!! If putting a muscle guy in cool leather jacket walking in slow-mo and throw in a funky rap song is the main ingredient of making a great action movie, then sayonara action movie!!
|
negative
|
Predator Island starts as six friends, Eric (Tom Dahl), Chris (Dan Gordon) along with Heather (Iris McQuillan-Grace), Kim (Iana Baker) & Denise (Melissa Roby) get invited to spend sometime on Kevin's (Michael Wrann) father's boat partying in the open sea. What could go wrong with such a super sounding idea? Well for starters a big green meteorite could crash into the sea near your boat & an alien life-force could emerge from it & try to kill all of you, then again that's just a ridiculously stupid idea, isn't it?<br /><br />Co-edited, written & directed by Steven Castle I thought Predator Island was crap & it's a simple & straight forward as that really. The script is of the worst kind, you know the sort of abomination that's full of highly annoying teenage character's who do & say the most stupid things, it's full of clichés & is utterly predictable, it makes next-to-no sense, things just suddenly happen without any build up or explanation, it's boring even at only 70 odd minutes & it has virtually no entertainment value whatsoever, not even unintentional laugh value. The film doesn't really have much of what I would call a plot, there's no explanation given as to why or how this alien creature can take over people's minds or why it can be selective in the sense that one moment the person will be 'normal' the next, when the story calls for it & with no apparent cause, they suddenly get green glowing eyes & a sudden urge to turn cannibal. There's not enough horror in it, the so-called action scenes are pitiful & I really don't want to waste another second thinking about Predator Island let alone wasting my precious energy typing these words...<br /><br />Director Castle doesn't do anything to make this thing watchable & the 'special effects' are absolutely terrible, this alien creature dude wouldn't even get into a 50's sci-fi film. The filmmakers even play some blooper footage over the end credits but this has to be the least funny collection of mistakes ever, I mean they can't even get it wrong right if you know what I mean! Forget about any decent gore as there isn't any, there's a bit of cannibalism & some intestines placed on the unfortunate actors stomach so another unfortunate actor can pick them up & pretend to eat them.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $150,000 I have to concede that the filmmakers were working on a seriously low budget, that's still no excuse for making such a poor film. The whole thing looks very cheap & the acting is pretty bad.<br /><br />Predator Island is crap, I'm sorry but that's the way it is & I just fail to see what anyone would get out of it. In my humble opinion this probably one to avoid.
|
negative
|
This is one of the greatest films ever made. Brilliant acting by George C. Scott and Diane Riggs. This movie is both disturbing and extremely deep. Don't be fooled into believing this is just a comedy. It is a brilliant satire about the medical profession. It is not a pretty picture. Healthy patients are killed by incompetent surgeons, who spend all their time making money outside the hospital. And yet, you really believe that this is a hospital. The producers were very careful to include real medical terminology and real medical cases. This movie really reveals how difficult in is to run a hospital, and how badly things already were in 1971. I loved this movie. P.S. - I noticed that the incompetent, wheeler dealer surgeon played the head of the firm in LA Law. The young doctor played in Lou Grant. I also noticed that the registration nurse has appeared since in Becker and other shows.
|
positive
|
The focus of the key relationship in a young man's life, that of his relationship with his father, was excellently portrayed in this movie, "The Greatest Game Ever Played." The movie captured the essence of how important it is for a father to validate his son and let him know that he has what it takes to follow his dream.<br /><br />It didn't matter that economic and social class mores presented obstacles to be overcome by both father and son. It also didn't matter that others were acclaiming the son in exuberant celebration. What mattered the most was that he saw his father's hand and then his face of approval. The real life challenge for both father and son had been met.<br /><br />Considering that in real life the hero of the story kept his amateur status and became a businessman pretty much verifies that all that went before the match was the training ground for a valid father and son relationship.
|
positive
|
Good idea....shame about the actual movie. Would of liked it to be a bit more scary, and explain more about the characters and who exactly the evil woman was? If she was torturing those kids why were they helping her kill and not helping others kill her?? Its a bit of a come down from Malcolm in the Middle!<br /><br />I think it would of benefited from being slightly longer and going into more detail with the characters, although after about an hour I was wondering when it would end!!<br /><br />Would of been better too if the actual characters that killed them were not computerise in reality, it sort of made them crap looking. And what happened to the Frankie Munitz character? He fell into a bed of wild roses so should of been safe, however the computer game showed him as game over, ie dead. Next thing he appears with that irritating blonde lass to rescue the guy afraid of fire who, I noticed, had no qualms about flipping the lighter when demon lady was after him!!<br /><br />Too many inconsistencies in this movie to really enjoy it, however, might make you think twice about playing that new computer game!!
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.