review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I am a fan of good historical fiction, and was thrilled at the thought that someone would take a well written book series and film it. Writing scripts is not like writing regular fiction, but when you have a book you are adapting, it would be nice to actually follow the plot line.<br /><br />The portrayals of the Vespasians (the actual Emperor, and his 2 sons Titus and Domitian) was horrid. They acted like a cookie cutter Caligula, and were the 'bad guys' in this adaptation. There was a scene with Titus dispensing justice as if he was Caligula (from the movie of the same name.) The way the Vespasianii are portrayed in the books mostly follow the reports of historians writing in that time period - they were fair, and sane, not tainted by the Imperial Claudian insanity.<br /><br />Helena (the love interest of Marcus Didius Falco) gives as her reason for divorcing Pertinax (one of the traitors referenced in the title) was that he was a traitor, yet in the books it was because he ignored her and she felt that she would be better off marrying someone who valued her as a person.<br /><br />Marcus in the movie gets a slave named Justus, yet in the books he could barely afford his apartment, let alone afford a slave. There was certainly no romantic interlude between the nonexistent slave Justus and a female gladiator...<br /><br />On the whole, if you want good cookie cutter roman stereotypes get Caligula, if you want good roman from the classical history viewpoint, get I, Claudius.
|
negative
|
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is not a shred of historical accuracy, in fact reality is reversed. Just one example: Morgan preyed on the few ethnic Chinese he encountered. The acting is over the top, the script is a poorly written lie. I have never seen worse fake beards.<br /><br />Hopper arrived in Australia and reportedly only would make the film if the script was totally rewritten so he could be a hero. Since the script was ten made up on the fly, the may explain how bad it is and how disjointed the movie is.<br /><br />Any movie about Ned Kelly is a lot better than this film.
|
negative
|
I've been a fan of Heaven's Gate since its first release. I've seen it at least half-a-dozen times and have long thought of it as a masterpiece. So, it was with excitement and a sense of anticipation that I took myself off to see the restored director's cut.<br /><br />To my surprise, I was disappointed on seeing it again and have since revised my estimation of the film. Heaven's Gate touches upon greatness in parts, but overall, lacks the thematic and narrative consistency and the passionate urgency characteristic of a truly great film.<br /><br />Firstly, two technical problems: The sound quality is diffuse throughout the film, verging on inaudibility at times. Some of this, perhaps, is intentional - a way to mimic the chaos and confusion of history as it is unfolding. But at key points, one is unable to register what it is the characters are saying.<br /><br />The cinematography is similarly diffuse. The images lack sharpness and particularity of detail. The result is a certain graininess and lack of pictorial sharpness which succeeds in blurring foreground and background.<br /><br />Structurally, the narrative is off-key throughout, as if Cimino can't quite make up his mind as to the effect he is after. He wanted an epic, for sure. But a pastoral or dramatic epic? The film sits uneasily and unconvincingly between styles, and perhaps even genres. At times it reminded me of Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven' or even 'Elvira Madigan' in its languid pace and elegant scene painting. At other times it threatens to turn into a robust 'western' more akin to 'The Wild Bunch'. In fact the latter film offers an instructive reference point for an assessment of 'Heaven's Gate' as it shares the same period concern and employs a similar tone of ambivalent nostalgia for a darker yet more heroic America. <br /><br />This structural and thematic uncertainty isn't helped by the poor-quality script which often sounds forced and jarring to the ear. The result is an inauthentic sense of period speech. <br /><br />The near-greatness of Heaven's Gate resides in its set pieces. The roller skating sequence, in particular, is astoundingly beautiful, one of the most evocative scenes ever put to film.<br /><br />Another set piece which works very well in terms of unifying theme, mood, and setting occurs when Kristofferson and Huppert go riding in the new rig to the lake and she washes herself while he naps in the shade. The languid pacing, evocative music and monumental scenery combine in this scene to convincingly portray the love story which might just lie at the heart of the film - and which could have been its saving grace if pursued more convincingly.<br /><br />Some critics have complained about the length of the film. This in itself doesn't bother me. A good film can't be long enough. The restored minutes are critical in restoring the motivation and characterization absent from the cut version, and they are full of pictorial interest.<br /><br />Perhaps the chief glory of Heaven's Gate lies in the achingly evocative soundtrack. The repeated waltz motif and its different scorings throughout(full band, guitar, solo fiddle etc,)lends a haunting quality to the foreground action and establishes a thematic consistency lacking in the narrative itself.<br /><br />Despite its obvious flaws, most notably the absence of a compelling narrative, there is a sense of grandeur about the film. One leaves the cinema with a rueful sense of missed greatness and a wish that Cimino could revisit the film -with the wisdom of time and hindsight, to put right what is so badly amiss.
|
positive
|
This movie was playing on Lifetime Movie Network last month and I decided to check it out. I watched for the first 20 minutes and then shut it off b/c I am sorry but plot holes that are integral to a movie's plot make the movie nothing but garbage.<br /><br />The movie is about a woman who accidentally runs a child on a bicycle off the road, leaves to get help, returns only to find out that it's being called a hit and run and there's a hunt for the 'monster' that hurt (in the end killed) her.<br /><br />This is a movie about a female in an affluent neighborhood who has 2 small grade school children and who is an active, sociable woman and yet in order for this movie to work, it needs to be believable that she does not own a CELL PHONE. Sorry, but that's complete BS especially when everyone else seems to have one - they used theirs to call 911 when they found the girl lying on the side of the road - when our lead female left the scene of the crime to go phone 911 at some payphone. When the lead female comes back, the ambulance is already at the girl's side and there is chatter about how horrible the person is who hit and left her.<br /><br />Just DUMB. Sorry but I am not willing buy that this woman doesn't own a cell phone which is needed for the movie to work. Please don't insult my intelligence movie, thanks. Maybe if this took place in 1970 or 1960, I'd buy it but it's clearly a present day (1999 at the time) movie. ..but wait, if she had a cell phone, there would be no movie. Pfft.<br /><br />The woman clearly knows about technology since she had computers in her house, ones the kids played games on so all the movie had to do was make her cell phone dead in the car, making her resort to another way to call the cops.. leaving out a cell phone altogether just created a ridiculous plot.
|
negative
|
The first was good and original. I was a not bad horror/comedy movie. So I heard a second one was made and I had to watch it.<br /><br />What really makes this movie work is Judd Nelson's character and the sometimes clever script. A pretty good script for a person who wrote the Final Destination films and the direction was okay. Sometimes there's scenes where it looks like it was filmed using a home video camera with a grainy-look.<br /><br />Great made-for-TV movie. It was worth the rental and probably worth buying just to get that nice eerie feeling and watch Judd Nelson's Stanley doing what he does best.<br /><br />I suggest newcomers to watch the first one before watching the sequel, just so you'll have an idea what Stanley is like and get a little history background.
|
positive
|
An innocent man (Steve Guttenberg) has a one-night stand with his boss's wife (Isabelle Huppert). She spots a woman (Elizabeth McGovern) being attacked outside but she can't call the cops because it would blow her marriage to Gutenberg's boss (Paul Shenar). So Guttenberg, honest citizen that he is, when he discovers that another woman was attacked and killed nearby only half an hour later, comes forward and claims to have witnessed the first attack, merely intending to pass on the information given to him by Huppert. Well -- never bear false witness against thy neighbor, as they say.<br /><br />This simple attempt to help the police nab a murderer turns rapidly twisted. When he meets the first near-victim, McGovern, she immediately twigs to what happened, but agrees to keep quiet for the moment. But then Guttenberg finds himself in court, supposed to identify the heavy (Greenquist) and we discover through cross-examination that he is NEAR-SIGHTED and can't identify objects at a distance, let alone faces. (Not that it matters because, after all, he never saw the creep in the first place.) The plot gets practically labyrinthine. Guttenberg winds up the chief suspect when Huppert is murdered too.<br /><br />He barely escapes arrest and holes up with the now-sympathetic McGovern. Guttenberg and McGovern hatch a plan to trap the murderer. She will serve as bait. They'll follow the flagitious creep into one of his seedy haunt and McGovern will act like the doxy that the murderer is attracted to, just to get him to try to kill her. But everything will be okay, see, because not only will Guttenberg keep a close watch on her, and not only will he alert the police a few minutes after she enters this dive, but she will keep a can of mace handy -- just in case.<br /><br />I ask you, the alert viewer, does this scenario unfold as planned? Elizabeth McGovern has a quirkily interesting bone structure. She seems all mandible and tiny mouth at times, but she's vibrant. Steve Guttenberg has hair on his brawn and that's about it. Otherwise he's as helpless as the character he plays. If Isabelle Huppert can act, it isn't evident in this film. The killer is so formed and so groomed that he looks like he's wearing one of those masks of deformity in that Twilight Zone episode about greedy heirs.<br /><br />Didn't the director, Curtis Hanson, go on to make "L.A. Confidential"? That was a nicely done piece of work. Here, everything seems clumsy and contrived, down to the small bit parts. Just before the inevitable violent climax, a uniformed police officer is introduced to delay McGovern's rescue, and the scene is embarrassing to watch. Dick Olsen has a bit part as a late shopper. He's a neat guy and always reliable. Paul Shenar as the cuckolded hubby has a striking face that seems made for the stage and he does a fine job too.<br /><br />That louche joint where McGovern attracts the attention of the murderer, where she plays pool with a couple of hairy apes, was shot at a bar in Carolina Beach, in North Carolina, not far from where I lived. The way the interior is set up, it's clear that this is supposed to be a dangerous and dirty dive. Actually it appears rather more elegant on screen than it did in reality.<br /><br />Overall, this is Hitchcock territory and it brings tears to the eyes to imagine what he would have done with this story.
|
negative
|
**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.<br /><br />Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.<br /><br />Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.<br /><br />At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.<br /><br />The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.<br /><br />We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.<br /><br />With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway.
|
negative
|
I gave "Airport '79" only two stars because it's a truly lousy film. Nobody who had anything to do with it deserves any praise (except for Charo's Chihuahua, who does a pretty good job in his role.) This is not to say that the film isn't worth watching. It helps if you have a buzz on, but this is not essential.<br /><br />A'79 really does seem like an early version of "Airplane!" Every scene has a set-up and a payoff, and the scenes blunder after one another as if they were totally disconnected. One of my favorite recurring points is that the passengers, crew, and airplane get to keep going, no matter what. You're a news reporter and a strange guy gets murdered at your house in your presence? The hit-man then chases you onto your greenhouse roof? No problem. You can still catch that early-morning flight to Paris...no need to get the cops involved. Your plane dodges one unmanned "drone" missile, four heat-seeking missiles, and cannon fire from an unidentified Phantom fighter, doing barrel rolls, an unpowered dive, and a crash-net landing without thrust reversers in the process? No problem, we'll have the mechanics check the oil and get you on your way in just a few hours. It's truly funny.<br /><br />And I'll admit that there's a bit of the anarchist in me that comes out when the passengers pay no attention to the cabin attendants. The highlight is when the attendant tells Jimmie Walker he'll have to put away his saxophone (God spare me from a flight seated in front of a saxophonist playing jazz!) prior to take-off. Jimmie basically says, "Nope." Later in the flight, the sax is damaged during a barrel-roll and Jimmie actually shows up on the next leg of the flight with yet another sax that he won't put away. This aspect of the film is just fun. (ONE passenger actually obeys the attendant. When Charo is told she can't take her dog on the flight, she leaves the plane. Naturally, this is because you can't get a good view of her ass and boobs while she's seated.) <br /><br />In summary, a terrible movie, but terrible enough to be a bit amusing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers and cast deserve no credit whatsoever for this, as it was probably entirely unintentional.
|
negative
|
"Visitor Q" is a failed attempt at black comedy which focuses on what might be the world's most dysfunctional family including physical abuse from beatings to murder to incest to sodomy to necrophilia to a lactating mom who nurses her husband and adult daughter, etc. The film is so outrageous it garnered some critical praise and established a small cult following. However, with home video quality and a slapdash production, "Visitor Q" just doesn't hold up even as a curiosity. Genitals are blurred out and sanitary appliances clearly visible, make-up is awful, and everything else is amateurish at best. A waste of time. (C-)
|
negative
|
OK, when I was little (and I mean like 2 or 3, not 6 and 7) Barney was one of my favorite shows. I then grew out of it and threw all my old Barney tapes away. So one day as I'm flipping through channels, I see that Barney now takes place in a caboose, and I thought "Um huh is this the right show?" Once I realized it was, I freaked. Why did they change the show's setting from a school to a CABOOSE? Ever since then, the show has been absolutely terrible, and the only reason I'm giving it a 2 is a) because I'm nice, b) because of Riff, and c) because in the old times the show was tolerable. Now I just hate it. HATE IT.<br /><br />2/10
|
negative
|
I got this film from a private collector and was very curious about it. It had a 7,8 in IMDb (9 votes only) and some external comments were pleasant. But I have to say that it is a very usual and uninteresting giallo. Yes, great cinematography, the film is well directed, but it never freaked me out. It starts well, but although it not bored me at all, the story is so ordinary and the things that occur so normal, that I didn't like it very much.<br /><br />You can make a few laughs. And you can see some little tits. But if you like the kind of giallos I like (bizarre, surreal, nonsenseful, gory, atmospheric, brutal murders...) you won't appreciate much this film.<br /><br />I give it a 4 for the good directing and editing, and the final twists, that make the film entertaining. But it could be much better.
|
negative
|
...for the Lt to have chosen this one. First, the film wasn't horrible, it was just Hollywood. Worst case I-need-this-to-happen-or-we-have-no-movie scenario: if Willis' mission was to save the doctor, but she was adamant that her "people" make it out of the missionary, he would have put her on that first chopper and marched those refugees to the border without her. He would not have compromised his package for the refugees. That's not how it works. But, as I pointed out, this is Hollywood, we must have drama. This is why we make movies, because reality isn't quite so complicated. However, I did think that Willis and the good doctor had workable chemistry. That said, there are also some well done battle scenes in the film. It's not a waste of time, "Tears of the Sun" is worth the dvd rental fee. Check it out on a rainy day and you'll be satisfied.
|
negative
|
Some people seem to think this was the worst movie they have ever seen, and I understand where they're coming from, but I really have seen worse.<br /><br />That being said, the movies that I can recall (ie the ones I haven't blocked out) that were worse than this, were so bad that they physically pained every sense that was involved with watching the movie. The movies that are worse than War Games 2 are the ones that make you want to gouge out your eyes, or stab sharp objects in your ears to keep yourself from having another piece of your soul ripped away from you by the awfulness.<br /><br />War Games: The Dead Code isn't that bad, but it comes pretty close. Yes I was a fan of the original, but no I wasn't expecting miracles from this one. Let's face it the original wasn't really that great of a movie in the first place, it was basically just a campy 80s teen romance flick with some geek-appeal to it.<br /><br />That's all I was hoping for, something bad, but that might have tugged at my geek-strings. Was that too much to ask for? Is it really not possible to do better than the original War Games, even for a straight to video release? Well apparently that was too much to ask for. Stay away from this movie. At first it's just bad, like "Oh yeah, this is bad, but I'm kind of enjoying it, maybe the end will be good like in the original." And then it just gets worse and worse, and by the end, trust me, you will wish you had not seen this movie.
|
negative
|
I wasn't sure about getting this movie on DVD because I really do have something against people making black and white films in the 21st century, but I ended up buying it anyway. I still don't understand why it had to be black and white, but that's the only negativity I can see about the film, and it sure is a perfect example to see the definitive rise of Brazilian cinema. Not everyone can understand a film like this, but it's quite rewarding to those who do. Unlike O Homem Que Copiava, the surrealism fits this movie pretty well, and the acting is at least as good as that one, or other successful Brazilian films such as Bicho de sete cabeças, Cidade De Deus, Brava Gente Brasileira, etc.. <br /><br />My only hope is that this gem doesn't get insulted and raped by a crappy Hollywood remake. It's amazing to see how those guys spend zillions of Dollars and still can't make a movie that's 1% as good as this possibly low-budget flick. <br /><br />Bravo to the entire crew! 10/10
|
positive
|
(Contains spoilers)<br /><br />Russia in the 13th century. The opening shot shows the relics of the last invasion: moldering uniforms, human skulls and a horse's skeleton. Prince Alexander Nevsky (Nikolai Cherkasov) chased the swedish army away and impressed the mongol ruler to such a degree that he proposes to promote him to the rank of captain. But Nevsky replies: "Die in your homeland but don't leave it". He intents to fish, build ships and trade. But he warns of a more dangerous enemy: Nearer, meaner and no possibility to buy oneself out: Germany. Their objective is Novgorod. They have already reached Pskov: Mothers and daughters suffer for their fathers and sons. The marauding occupation forces distribute the looty. Rich merchants want to purchase their liberty (always a place for some anti-capitalist p. r.), but the "common people" are ready to fight. They want Alexander as their leader. Pskov is burned to the ground. The teutonic knights feel invincible and have just a smug smile for the russian women who witness helplessly how their fathers and sons are butchered. Babies are thrown in the fire while high dignitaries of the church look on and remain idle. In Novgorod: Olga Danilovna has two admirers: rich and staid Gavrilo and tall and jolly Vasili. She promises to marry the most valiant. Vasili calls on Alexander Nevsky in Perejaslav. The prince decides not to wait for the attack but to strike at once. Even women put on a chain armor...The invaders want to bait the "russian bear", but Nevsky's stratagem stands the test: Lake Peipus is his war zone : His men know the territory but the germans, who are heavier, will break through the ice...<br /><br />Open your eyes and watch the most impressive battle scenes ever filmed. It's not just the multitude of extras (Who were, I think, pressed in this patriotic exercise), but Eisenstein's masterful management of such a large number of individuals: he displaces divisions like pieces on a chess board and nearly every shot resembles the composition of a painting by Rembrandt or Rubens (Including horses in phantastic outfits). Russia in winter looks intimidating in itself, but Eisenstein's visual imagination is hors concours. Heaps of corpses are plunged in cosmic light under an endless horizon. At nightfall, Olga and other women search with torches for survivors. A devoted falcon sits on his master's dead body while a crow waits for the right moment to pick out the eyes of the deceased. Eisenstein's direction and Prokofiev's score make ALEXANDER NEVSKY the "Rolls Royce" among propaganda films. Nevsky is, of course Stalin's alter ego, and the russians are tall, good-looking, heroic, and they have a perfect hairdo. The germans are bearded savages and look like members of the Ku-Klux-Klan. The actor who plays Vasili gives a one-man-four-characters performance: first wavering, then heroic, youthful lover and comic relief. Cherkasov's main duty is to look heroic. At the end, Nevsky-Stalin displays his generosity: He pardons the "little soldiers" and barters the knights for soap. Only a bearded killer and a traitorous cleric are turned over to the mob. He does not forget a final warning: Who comes with the sword will die by the sword...He kept his promise. 10/10
|
positive
|
Farscape totally rules! In my opinion it's very close to Babylon five although there are only 7 main characters in the series (spaceship included). The humour is excellent and the writers manage to keep the show interesting though pretty much everything happens on the ship.<br /><br />What I really love and appreciate in Farscpae is,that they don't use CGI for the alien characters or if they do, it's unnoticeable. They use those lovable, crappy rubber animatronic puppets very similar to the ones used in the original Star Wars.<br /><br />Farscape is something you definitely want to look into, if you already haven't.
|
positive
|
This production has absolutely no storyline. The acting is embarrassing. The promising Dutch television Sophie Hilbrand star should not add this movie to her CV. Her acting is far from flawless and personally I think she has crossed boundary of professional decency; relating to the way she exposes herself in this movie. This movie contains too much unnecessary nudity, vulgar sexual scenes and rude language. It also shows a wrong image of the Netherlands (as most movies do). Do not bother to watch this movie: a waste of time, a waste of money and an embarrassing record for Hilbrand, who has proved to be better with her close on on the screen.
|
negative
|
An attempt at crossover to appeal to those who don't appreciate opera, exploiting the fame of one of the greatest opera singers of all time, it fails badly. All that is desirable in this movie is the opera, and one can best find a recording of Pavarotti doing what he does best. The plot revolves around a romance with a doctor who heals his throat which has suddenly become troublesome. <br /><br />Only because it came out so long ago is it largely forgotten. Like most opera stars, Pavarotti is a decent actor and has stage presence aside from his singing talent, and nothing that he does in this movie negates that opinion. His culpability lies in not rejecting the horrid script. Perhaps because great operas can have silly stories he tolerated this one.<br /><br />Who knows, except those involved? Do we need to know? <br /><br />The plot is weak and trite. This movie is like trudging through cold mud to pick off a few juicy tidbits (the opera music) hanging above the mud. We have other ways in which to appreciate the great Pavarotti, and this one isn't one of them. Just get one of his many superb opera or vocal-concert recordings and recognize the master tenor where he is most suited.<br /><br />It would be one of IMDb's 100 Worst Films if more people remembered it and gave it some votes; it would fit neatly in a list including several efforts of singers, actors, models, and athletes to exploit their popularity through film. Very often it all goes badly wrong due to incompetent acting or a horrible script. Pavarotti would have been a decent actor had he not shown such a superb voice. However effective he is as an actor (opera requires it), not even Jimmy Stewart could have rescued this turkey of a script.<br /><br />I give it a polite 3 of 10 because someone may have become a fan of Pavarotti's singing and of opera because of this movie.
|
negative
|
I was shocked at how good this German version of films such as Scream was. Surpassing all the modern American efforts at slasher films.<br /><br />It as what all those films don't. Likable characters, genuine mystery, suspense, graphic murders and a brilliant soundtrack.<br /><br />This stylish horror film is one of the best of its kind to come out in years. German cinema is going from strength to strength just lately. Its a shame more people wont go to see such films because they are missing out. It is easily available on DVD so even if you hate subtitles I think you should see it. It will be one of the best horror films you will see all year.
|
positive
|
By Randolph Scott standards of the 1950s, this is a disappointing and heavy-handed star western. Two or three of the characters could be dispensed with, while two or three other characters could be given more prominence. (The humour needs to be completely rewritten.) De Toth handles the action well - as always - but his grasp of the overall narrative is weak.
|
negative
|
I'm a fan of good, plausible, action movies. And I'm a huge fan of the elite military units such as the Navy SEALs. Finally, I'm a huge fan of Michael Biehn. Sadly none of those allowed me to really enjoy this movie at the time. I gave it another chance more recently when I bought the DVD. Here's the problems with this movie in a quick list: 1. It's a poor mans top gun, for example including a virtual music video of the SEAL team playing golf with a soundtrack of "The Boys are Back In Town", which concludes with Charlie Sheen doing an inane chase to get his towed car back.<br /><br />2. This is quite simply a Charlie Sheen movie, when Sheen was trying to be famous before he started doing stuff like Hot Shots. Reports I've heard indicate that Sheen was a baby on the set and it affected the roles and Direction the rest of the actors in the movie got.<br /><br />3. Biehn is the head of the SEAL team yet Sheen seldom obeys him. Any SEAL showing the lack of discipline that Sheen's character does, or who endangered the team as he does, wouldn't even have made it through BUDS training let alone gotten on a team.<br /><br />4. SEALs are cross trained on weapons. Yet in one part of the movie a SEAL has to "figure out" how to use a U.S. Stinger Missile.<br /><br />There are a few good scenes in the movie. The assault entry at the beginning, Bill Paxton as "God", and some of the footage in what was supposed to be Beirut at the time. Overall though this movie is a loser.
|
negative
|
I never bothered to see this movie in theaters although I remember hearing the name over and over. I finally watched it this week and what a delight. For some reason, I was expecting it to not be very good so I was completely surprised when I sat down and stuck with it and then found myself completely pulled in. I read a lot of the other user comments and it impressed me how much people talk about her fighting in the ring, but what was wonderful about Diana is that she's a true fighter in life. All she needs to do is find her place where she be who she is and the ring helps her to get there. A very intelligent story and I'm amazed that this is the first time up for Michelle Rodriguez - what an excellent job she did. Adrian and her coach were also quite good.<br /><br />This film is a little rough around the edges, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. The story, the will, and the performances completely outweigh any flaws (that usually come with indie filmmaking anyway). A compelling portrayal of a girl finding herself and triumphing over her circumstances and a K.O. for Michelle Rodriguez!
|
positive
|
I really like this film because of all the stars and the dancing and the story that goes along with it. Rita Hayworth was at her most glamorous in this musical and the costumes were gorgeous. Although a musical, I thought Rita Hayworth did a fine performance of dramatic acting in this film as well. As far as her dancing, I think she was excellent. Even Betty Grable pretty much endorsed Rita's dancing in this film as she commented that Rita danced rings around her own dancing and let's face it, Betty Grable was an excellent dancer. The cinematography and vivid colors are also noted. Rita wants to be a cover girl for a magazine but she's also in love with her mentor played by Gene Kelly. Does she leave Kelly to fulfill her dream and bypass love and Broadway stardom or does she stick around to find that unique pearl that will change her life forever? You'll have to watch the film to find out!
|
positive
|
Laura Fraser creates her ideal man on a virtual reality machine and he's suddenly brought to life, of course. Oh what jolly japes don't ensue in a Britcom flop so Day-Glo bright yet so dismal it manages to make the execrable 1980s American teen flick Weird Science look almost decent. The sex-obsessed script is by The Sun film critic Nick Fisher, a former teeny-mag 'agony uncle' who's obviously never watched an episode of Smack The Pony in his life; shame, because then he might at least have been in with a shout of writing female characters that were recognisably members of the human race. This knicker-twisting lot have all too clearly emerged from the virtual brain of someone who imagines they're amusing. Suddenly, the thought of new-wave Iranian cinema is somehow attractive.
|
negative
|
I loved the original, I watch it every year. but the second is a piece of garbage and it never should have been made. The second could have worked if there was a different location. The son was not an original or didn't even act like one of Eddie's kids. Third was too smart for Eddie which downplayed his father role. None of the other kids where in it. It just could of been a lot better. I don't know why they even tried to make this movie. There was no continuncy from the first movie. I will pretend that this one doesn't even exist. It is sad that the actors didn't even see that they where made fools of. A really bad movie. I just think that i wasted an hour or more on a bad movie and i really love all of the national lampoon films.
|
negative
|
this one is out there. Not much to say about it except that it deals with a rarely touched topic in films of beastiality. I can see why this film was banned for so long, the topics dealt within the film are still a little taboo for most of the world will say the eroticism in the film is well deserved and fits in with the mood of the film. It's a good film that is well acted and serves a purpose ...to shock the viewer and cross boundaries that we don't see to often in films. I came across this film on the net that I thought I might check out. I enjoyed the film as it is thought provoking and somewhat erotic at the same time. Something you don't rarely see in films today.
|
positive
|
Sally and Saint Anne is a very funny movie. The first time my Mom told me about it I was 7 and Saint Anne had just been the Saint I had for my Communion Saint. My Mom knew this, so she told me to watch this with her. I did, and have seen it many times since because it is really funny. Aunt Bea from the Andy Griffith Show was in it and Sally's grandfather was the guy who played Santa Claus in Miracle On 34th Street. So, there were lots of actors we seen on TV shows too. There is a bad guy who keeps trying to steal the house away, and Sally keeps trying things with St. Anne to help raise money so they can keep the house. That includes a boxing match with Hugh O'Brian who plays her older brother. This is a good and funny movie that I still love.
|
positive
|
This is one of my favourite Disney films. It has everything you could hope for in a Disney animation: cute animals, great songs, a nasty villain and lots of adventure. The story begins in Paris, where aristocat Duchess and her three kittens live with their Mistress in a mansion. Life is perfect for them until the Mistress' fiendish butler Edgar discovers that she plans to leave her entire fortune to the cats. He realises that if he even stands a chance of claiming the fortune, the cats will be out of the way. An excellent, often forgotten masterpiece from the 1970's - a time when the Disney studio made few animations - which features songs such as the title number "The Aristocats" as well as "Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat", this will enchant viewers young and old with its enduring jazziness.
|
positive
|
I don't understand what is hard hitting about this movie! I don't understand why high school kids should watch this! I don't understand why this should have made me think about anything in the slightest!<br /><br />*Spoiler*<br /><br />When the un-noticed girl is on her way to commit suicide, was I the only person cheering her on? The cliché'd classical music, long tracking shots, melancholy emotion of the film by that stage had me in reversal to what was intended. I would have only been happy if she walked into the room and the entire cast was in there with her holding scissors to slit their wrists up. <br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Cause I went to high school.... and frankly im sick to death of seeing movie after movie in Australia with teenagers in it being solely based on terrible clichés. I've been waiting ages for a younger person to write a movie that im able to relate to and this stereotype driven piece of emo garbage is what I got instead. It was like a dark version of heartbreak high that needed a predictable ending. <br /><br />Why are all teenagers in Aussie dramas depressed or have really weird problems that just aren't plausibly told? <br /><br />On the plus side, this was funnier then 'Blurred'. And I needed a good laugh.
|
negative
|
Documentaries of this kind are often very opinionated. This film seems to take all opinions out and let the viewer decide what to do with the information provided. It is sad the conditions these poor people have to work in, this film does a great job of showing the ugly side of sweat shops. The film Mardi Gras: Made in China was a good way of showing the world how something as petty as beads for a celebration can effect the lives of so many people in another country.<br /><br />I had to watch this film for an English class where we spent our time talking about sweat shops and how some people are trying to eliminate them and this film helped get the topic rolling. It was a great, very informative movie and I'd recommend anyone see it, it kinda opens your eyes.
|
positive
|
Just see it! It's a smart movie but too hard to understand the first time. See it more than once. Everything that is seen or heard on the screen is intentionally crafted to evoke a feeling, sensation or tone. The clarity of certain visuals and the crispness of certain sounds are deliberately contrasted with blurred images or pops, crackles, hisses and barely audible sounds. The structure is non-linear and cyclical. Motifs recur as time runs both clockwise and counterclockwise. Expectations regarding "plot" and character" are broken signaling a non-traditional use of film to tell a story that is both contemporary and as old as humanity. This is a part of a review: "USA The Movie is emotionally intense, intellectually intriguing and profoundly disturbing, in surprising and unconventional ways." Dion Dennis, PhD
|
positive
|
I had to walk out of the theater. After an hour, all I was seeing was people cheating on wives, schtupping like dogs in a rut, and using the f-word like a diabetic using Equal.<br /><br />No thanks.<br /><br />It was especially frustrating because the movie could have done a lot. Any one of the characters could have been quite interesting if they were given more to do than fornicate, talk about it, and swear at each other.<br /><br />The few times that it looked as if there were about to be some sort of character development, all that happened was another sex scene. Plot development in the 1st hour can be summarized as 1)several murders occur, 2) Vinnie sees murder scene 3) Vinnie stares moodily across Atlantic/East/Hudson River 4) Vinnie cheats on wife, and 5) Joey (most sympathetic character in the show) gets kicked out of his parents' house. More than that, I didn't wait to see.<br /><br />The photography and the interplay between the characters were superb, but THERE WAS NOTHING for them to DO. The flood of sex and vulgarity was hardly worth waiting another hour for SOMETHING to happen.<br /><br />Sorry, Spike. Take some lessons from Notting Hill, or Shawshank Redemption. Either one is a better study in community and interpersonal relationships.
|
negative
|
It has singing. It has drama. It has comedy. It has a story. It's one of the greatest movies ever made ... period. If you can't enjoy this movie, then you must be either asleep or in some kind of mental disarray. In "Yankee Doodle Dandy" James Cagney sings and dances his way to an Academy Award; but in this movie he is BETTER! This is James Cagney at his quisessential BEST! He's fast with the one-liners! He's fast with his feet! It's nonstop action. And the song-and-dance skits are classics, especially "Shanghai Lil." And the supporting cast is great; and the entire movie is upbeat, fast moving, and exudes confidence. And even though this movie was made over 70 years ago, it's still watchable, even today. And of course, this movie features Miss Ruby Keeler (who was married to Al Jolson). She is the perfect partner for James Cagney ... and Dick Powell too! If you like upbeat, fast paced movies, with lots of singing and dancing, this is the movie to watch.
|
positive
|
I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.<br /><br />Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.<br /><br />Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10
|
negative
|
Basing a television series on a popular author's works is no guarantee of success. Yorkshire Television learnt this the hard way when in 1979 they bought the rights to the books credited to Dick Francis, three of which were broadcast under the collective title 'The Racing Game'. Mike Gwilym was Sid Halley, a former jockey turned private eye following an accident in which he lost his right hand, only to have it replaced by an artificial one. Gwilym suffered from an acute lack of charisma ( and looked like one of the bad guys ) while Mick Ford ( who played the irritating Chico Barnes ) made me think of a horse's arse whenever he was on screen. For six weeks, this less-than dynamic duo charged about the countryside, foiling nefarious plots to fix races, usually by the same methods - blackmail, kidnapping riders or doping horses. Yorkshire Television threw money at the show, but to no avail. Violent, sexist, far-fetched and repetitious, it was quickly carted off to the knackers yard.
|
negative
|
This show has an amazing plot with good and recognizable actors (like the girl from Boston Legal and Boris the Butcher from Snatch). Even the extras and the kid, whom i thought from the commercial might be a weak link, surprised me with his skill. It's just the little things that the director needs to tweak. Like the guy who does the recap of the last episode at the beginning of each new episode needs to be fired. Having a narrator tell you what happened kind of ruins the story. The only other small problem I had was that sometimes they take too long to do things, but no where near as long as some shows like Prison Break. Anyone know when they will resume the season??
|
positive
|
The problem with portraying a real life individual is that the performance can be good, but still not work if the audience doesn't believe that the actor is portraying the person. That's the main issue with "Young Mr. Lincoln:" Henry Fonda gives a terrific performance, but I found it hard to believe that Abraham Lincoln was as soft-spoken as Fonda portrays him.<br /><br />This is essentially a courtroom drama with a young Abraham Licoln at the forefront. Whether or not this was a true story, I don't know, but if it isn't, then why tell it using Lincoln as the central character? Never mind though. In the film, Lincoln is defending two young men who are accused of murder.<br /><br />There's really not much to the film, and as a result, it seems rather empty. I wanted more story and character development. The film is 100 minutes long, but it doesn't feel like it. There are some little scenes featuring Lincoln and the blooming relationship with Mary Todd, but they seem superficial.<br /><br />The acting is good all around, but as I said, Fonda's performance works as a character, but not Abraham Lincoln. I just don't believe that the real Lincoln was that soft-spoken. True, he has a big voice when he needs to, such as when he persuades a drunken lynch mob to let the accused stand trial, but Fonda portrays Lincoln too meekly. The other performances are solid though, especially Alice Brady as Abigail Clay, the mother of the accused. She's a nice lady who we can really feel for. Simple and uneducated, yet very sweet; we can see why Lincoln wanted to help her.<br /><br />John Ford seems to think of this film as an epic, and at the time of its release, it probably was. But even then, there's just not enough material to present it as such.<br /><br />It's a nice watch, but not a classic.
|
positive
|
Margaret Colin stars as the principal figure in this story; as I watched it, I remembered her bit part in Adrian Lynes's "Ünfaithful" as Diane Lane's neighbor in a tony NY neighborhood.<br /><br />This movie was surprisingly good, and Diane Stillman deserves credit for an accurate portrayal of class, crimes, and misdemeanors, which actually occur in upscale neighborhoods (perish the thought!!!).It is real but not over-dramatized; the audience lives through her accident, the pain it has caused;denial; and the ultimate resolution.<br /><br />It is more than just a question of "what is a good person" as Colin speaks to her husband....is a person's character defined by one single act; and should they be condemned forever because of their action?? The questions are pertinent; It is also amusing to see several cinematic references to Martha Stewart (i.e. the fussy, bothersome mother);Colin is reputed by her sometime friends to be a "perfect hostess, with perfect genes"....(gag); and a scene wherein Colin is confronted by police;(the "friends" also betray her, later)....<br /><br />The denial and facades of American society are addressed; (Oh, murder doesn't occur here; similar to the theme in "Ä Season in Purgatory", by author Dominick Dunne, about the true murder of Martha Moxley; in Greenwich, Connecticut); Colin is aware of her crime; but consciously finds herself perpetuating the facade, until she finally breaks down;rent or buy this film; she is an underrated actress who does quite well in these roles.
|
positive
|
This is a modest ,unassuming traditional Western with a formulaic plot about opposition between ranchers and crop farmers around the town of Liberal ,Kansas .The story is essentially routine and features a number of the classic Western conflicts .There is the farmer versus the cattleman;there is the clash between cultivated land and "civilizing" tendencies on the one hand and the wilderness/frontier ethos on the other and what this represents ultimately is the opposition of two value systems -democratic and community values as set against rugged individualism .<br /><br />Randolph Scott plays legendary lawman Bat Masterton who rides into Liberal at behest of a land agent (Robert Ryan ) to help him sort out the bad guys who are the hard drinking ,brawling cattlemen .The two men quarrel but reunite to tackle the troublesome elements in the town .<br /><br />The script is clichéd but the action is propelled along with vigour by director Ray Enright and there are solid performances all round .In addition to rugged performances by the male leads there is comic relief supplied by George Gabby Hayes ,an oily villain nicely played by Steve Brodie and attractive contributions from Maggie Meredith as a prim and proper Easterner wooed by Ryan and Anne Jeffreys as a saloon singer As long as you do not place a premium on originality this is good sturdy entertainment for Western lovers
|
positive
|
Overall this movie was excellent for its time and will be interesting for many more generations to come. Although the plot is not 100% accurate to the book most everything is correct. The movie does skip far ahead and does miss some important parts. I found the book and ready and immediately wished that they had made a movie (because I hadn't found out about the movie yet) but later I found the movie in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart and decided to buy it and see if it was what I had expected. Overall I give this movies a 7 out of 10 for its good parts (relative accuracy and overall making sense) and for its bad parts (large time skips and small but noticeable inaccuracies).
|
positive
|
The script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera.
|
negative
|
I was 10 years old when this show was on TV. By far it was my favorite. The actors were very credible. Alexandra Bastedo was just gorgeous.... I just order the DVD (15 episodes). They didn't have super-powers. They just had superior human skills (strength, hearing, sight). The 3 actors were very good in their rolls, very believable. There was a good story in each episode. At the time, there were no special effects or explosions everywhere, so the script was suppose to be good, and the characters performs were great. There was no fancy stuff, like in other shows. They didn't try to make a joke every 2 minutes to make a light show. I highly recommend this TV show to anybody that like good stuff.
|
positive
|
I just saw this movie premiere on MTV. I must say this was extremely mediocre (at its best). The dialogue doesn't explain the story very well, and I was left feeling like there were a lot of plot holes. There isn't one likable character in this adaptation due to poor acting. I just find that all of the characters are way too possessive when it comes to someone they love. Also, Cate and Heath's love seems very incestuous. They seem more like brother and sister rather than lovers. I don't understand why the father would accept something like that under his roof.<br /><br />I watched this movie because of a few actors that I respected and enjoyed to watch in previous films, but like I said, it's extremely hard to like any of the characters. Katherine Heigl's performance was horrid which was a complete shocker. She was terrible at being the bitchy older sister of Edward, and there just wasn't enough lines for Aimee Osbourne for me even to critique her performance. Johnny Whitworth did well and it was great seeing him in something recent and even though his character was a bit kooky, he was the only person I sympathized with. As for Erika Christensen and Mike Vogel, they were supposed to be our heroines, but came off as whiny and overdramatic.<br /><br />I just didn't enjoy this movie very much or the music in it. There was a brief appearance of the Christian punk band, MxPx, but that small appearance would not convince me to watch this movie again. MTV did a tremendous job in convincing me this was a movie it was not. I just pictured something so completely different.
|
negative
|
...am i missing something here??? "unexpected plot developments"? "plot twisting with subversive glee"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted "howard the duck"...don't give me that, "it was a hit play" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised "surprising corners" and a "twisted story..." Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his "hidden millions"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the "athlete's foot in my crotch" gag??? are you worse in this or "just cause"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with "jersey girl" and "white chicks" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....
|
negative
|
Before I really slag this film off, I just want to say I absolutely loved it. <br /><br />Firstly, how many times in the film did the characters use the phrase "You're Right."? I'm sure i was counting in the hundreds before I gave up and started watching the film again.<br /><br />Secondly, what the hell is with those blue monkey things? OK, so the Dansen family led very private lives and had one brown eye one blue eye, but since when does that transform people into subterranean carnivorous blue zombie-creatures?<br /><br />and finally, 'Old faithful here will protect me' hahaha :)
|
negative
|
Perhaps this movie was meant to be nothing but funny. Maybe it was meant to get teenage boys excited at all the nudity in it. But what I got out of it was actually something that many people believe in. And that is, " Nice guys finish last ".<br /><br />There is a line in Angel Heart from Lisa Bonet's character that says " It takes a bad ass to make a girls heart beat faster. " True. Most likely. Women always say that they want the flowers and the candy and politeness and whatever. But ( at least at an early age ) they end up going for the good looking, slimy, disrespectful, untamed guy. The one they know they can't conform to their beliefs. And that is part of the attraction. After all, what is exciting about a guy that is already the way you want him to be? I believe this may have happened to Boaz Davidson. And what he has to say in this film that is disguised with sex and nudity and parties and everything else that teens can relate to, is that you will get your heart broken. It happens to everyone and it will happen to you. And that is a strong final statement in the film. But having said all that, the movie is fun. It is funny and it shows the antics of highschoolers quite well.<br /><br />This is a rare film that is sleezy enough to please the teenage crowd it caters to but also intelligent and poignant enough to show what it;s like to get your heart broken. No highschool film has ever done this better. Like I said, I think the writers must have experienced a situation like this first hand. Maybe we all have.<br /><br />This is an old film, but if you ever come across it gathering dust on a shelf in your local video store one night, pick it up, you may be surprised. It is a hell of a lot better than Never Been Kissed.
|
positive
|
I went to see suspecting I would hate it, I did. Everything about it was wrong; it was like they were filming a different book. Granted the locations and houses very lovely (if not a little miscast-yes even the house were wrong for their parts) Keira was too modern, dull and frankly I found it unpleasant to watch her. Were everyone else sees Darcy as a sex god the writer of this saw him as sexually frustrated and inadequate. Bingley was stupid and dippy (he isn't meant to be) and the Bennett's were shown to be destitute and for some unknown reason farmers, this is incorrect and ludicrous. The very idea that Mr Bennett would answer the door in his night gear with the rest of the family dressed in their underwear to in the middle of the night is stupid. They had servants. Mr Collins was not repulsive and greasy merely stupid and obnoxious, Georgina Darcy was ugly and old and Miss Bingley wore a sleeveless dress, what! As if! It is Historically inaccurate and even the ending is unsatisfying. I could go on for days. I hated it so much as not only was it nothing like the book but I fear that for many people it will be their fist experience of this great novel and it will give them the worst possible idea of it. The BBC version is so superior it's not even funny and everything about this version is an insult to its memory. In short if you must see it be sure you have read the book first or seen the BBC version other wise you will be lead done the deluded road that this is what it's like, which its not!
|
negative
|
This film is about the worst I have seen in a very long time. Terence Stamp's talent is totally wasted and just about the only thing that I enjoyed was hearing a favorite song of mine, "If I Had a Million Dollars" by BNL, in the opening credits.<br /><br />Ashton Kutcher plays the main character, a nice guy who gets roped into house sitting for his boss. Misadventures ensue. Blah blah blah. If you have time to kill and having nothing better to do, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, watch something else.<br /><br />There are not necessarily any redeeming moments, but it is nice to see Molly Shannon and Jeffrey Tambor on the screen. They are always pleasures to watch though this film managed to dampen even these bright spots.
|
negative
|
This oddity from Roman Polanski clearly shows where his preoccupations lay at the time he made it. Polanski himself plays a timid man who rents a Parisian apartment where the previous tenant committed suicide. He becomes obsessed with discovering what led her to it, to the point that he's dressing in drag and reenacting events the way they might have unfolded. The movie's unsettling to a point, and it has that atmosphere of creepy dread that Polanski excels at, but it comes off too much as a rehash of "Rosemary's Baby" and "Repulsion," two other better Polanski films that deal with the eerie goings on in moody apartments.<br /><br />But as for the preoccupation....unless I'm reading too much into the film, I have to believe that this was Polanksi's reaction to the feelings of persecution he felt at being labeled a sexual pervert and exiled from America. Not making a judgement about him one way or the other myself, but it's hard to deny the evidence of that in the movie itself.<br /><br />Grade: B+
|
positive
|
It pains me to see an awesome movie turn into some lame, repetitive and lazy series. It is filled with plot holes and the plot is confusing, in a BAD way. Whoever the prick writers were that decided to turn such a great movie into this garbage should have done some research, instead of filling it with one-liners and hollow new characters, and the classic jokes from the first movie OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Sure they get a little creative, but its like seeing the same episode with a small twist. Pretty much like listening to Creed, or Nickleback. Kuzco has to prevent himself from failing, Yzma has a complicated plan, but decides to go the easy way to save time and just use a potion, someone questions the monkey and the bug, Bucky appears in the background, Kuzco flirts with Malina, she disses him without sounding like a bitch, Yzma disguises herself as "Principal Amzy" and she calls Kronk, and he forgets that she is Yzma. I admit, this show does have it's moments. Another problem is the fact that Yzma looks younger and Pacha looks....weird. Also, no one can replace David Spade and John Goodman! Their the ones who made Kuzco and Pacha Kuzco and Pacha! Sorry, but i give this show two thumbs down.
|
negative
|
Written by someone who has been there, you can tell, but only if you've been there. Excellent performances by Meryl Streep (of course!), Renee Zellweger and William Hurt.<br /><br />Many people have said that it is about a dysfunctional family, I think every family is dysfunctional when they are facing this kind of torment. To NOT be dysfunctional would be dysfunctional! You are losing your family as you know it, can anything be worse? People need to see this movie so when they are faced with this nightmare maybe they will change how they do it. Maybe they will see that the father is denying himself valuable time he'll never get a chance at again. Maybe they will realize how hard it is to die, or to watch someone you love die. They didn't miss much of the nightmare, it's hard to forget.
|
positive
|
Cassie (Sandra Bullock) is a hyper-serious police detective. As an ex-boyfriend once tried to kill her and, indeed, left her grievously wounded, she is determined to bring those who harm others to justice. As the result of her near-death experience, also, Cassie favors one-night stands and trusts no one. One day, a woman is found dead in the woods near Cassie's community. She has been murdered heinously, beaten severely and left to die alone. Naturally, Cassie will stop at nothing to find the murderers. Assigned to help her is fellow officer, Sam (Ben Chaplin). He soon discovers Cassie's relentless attitude and all-consuming instincts when she asks him to pick up a sample of vomit that has been left at the scene for analysis, among other actions. The trail soon leads them to two high school students, Richard (Ryan Gosling) and Justin (Michael Pitt). Could these teenagers really be responsible for the planning and execution of the perfect "joy" killing? This is an intriguing film, but viewers should be warned that the subject matter is grim indeed. Killing for the "sport" of it is seldom the topic of films that are of the "all sweetness and light" variety and this one is no different. That said, the cast is great. Bullock, without a hint of her talent for comedy, is terrific as the police officer whose own past compels her to lock up the evil folks of the world. Chaplin, too, is quite nice as the detective who is both attracted and repelled by the forceful Cassie. As for Gosling, he gives a most memorable performance as a brilliant mind with a satanic soul. The production values for the movie are good, too, with appropriately fine costumes, settings and photography. If you are a fan of Bullock's looking for a laugh, this is not the one for you. But, if you adore mysteries, even those with the grimmest of plots, you will find this tale enthralling.
|
positive
|
...that Jamie Foxx would ever deliver such a wonderful, Oscar-winning performance. One of the reasons why I was so impressed with Foxx's performance in "Ray" was because from watching his hammy, obnoxious acting in movies like "Bait" and "Booty Call," I would never imagine he would ever hold the Oscar. If people told me five years ago that Jamie Foxx was one day going to win an Oscar, I would laugh right in their faces. Who knows? Maybe he's better off sticking to drama, because if you watch "Bait," it's clearly evident that comedy is not his forte. I swear, Jamie mugs so much in this movie that I'm surprised his face didn't fall off. And why does he have to do those stupid voices at every chance he gets? Anyone familiar with comedians like Bob Newhart and Steven Wright knows that doing comedy doesn't require being loud and obnoxious. If a joke is funny, it's funny. If it's not funny, then doing some crazy accent is not going to make it any funnier. The problem I have with some comedians who decide to try acting is that they favor getting laughs over being in character. In real life, normal people don't always have witty comebacks and quips. Like Albert Brooks said in an interview discussing his character in "Taxi Driver," it's important to be funny as your character, rather than be funny as a comedian. A prime example of Jamie violating that rule is the nauseatingly awful scene where his mug shots are being taken, and he starts posing for the photographs like a model. If a regular person were being thrown in jail, would he really be acting goofy while having his mug shots taken? And wouldn't the police try to scold him if he was? There are many scenes like that throughout the film. Another awful sequence is one where Jamie is on the unwittingly on the phone with the villain, and he starts doing a phony Caribbean accent. Not funny! Not to mention Jamie never seems to acknowledge the timing of a joke. Giving a comedic performance requires patience, whereas he goes straight to the punchline, whether it's the right time for it or not. I'm not even a big Mike Epps fan, but even his performance is good in comparison to Jamie's. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I felt somewhat relieved whenever he would appear on screen. Epps has the same flaws when it comes to comedy, but at least he chooses a more low-key approach. One of the few bright spots in this clunker of a comedy is David Morse, a highly underrated actor mostly known for his supporting roles as villains. He seems to be the only actor in the film concerned with grounding it in reality. However, fellow "Green Mile" star Doug Hutchison is disgustingly over-the-top as the villain. A big surprise, considering he gave a superb performance in "The Green Mile," also playing a heavy. Antoine Fuqua has proved his directing chops in movies like "The Replacement Killers" and "Training Day." Even in "Bait," he shows he can direct a hell of an action sequence. His only problem seemed to be in disciplining Jamie Foxx, who probably improvised half the script with one bad joke after another. Unless you're a die-hard fan of Foxx, please don't take the bait.
|
negative
|
of the films of the young republic few in number as they are The Buccaneer (1958)stands out as a finely crafted film. Charleton Heston excels in his portrayal of Old Hickory's defence of New Orleans with a thrown together force of militia, regulars and pirates promised a reprieve.<br /><br />after Christmas 1814 peninsula veterans led by sir edward packenham, the duke of wellington's brother in law bore down on the city of new orleans. andy jackson had a day to draw together a scratch force to defend the city behind bales of hay.<br /><br />Charlton Heston projects Jackson's terrifying presence and awe inspiring power of command. Yet there are a few colorful comic relief. With the might of the English lioness about to pounce, a young blond haired voluteer from New Orleans asks: I guess the ruckus is about to start.<br /><br />the battle was about to rage but not for long. true to form the British marched straight into withering American fire. in less than a few minutes an attempt to reconquer lost north American territories had been foiled.<br /><br />the battle scene in this movies lasts slightly longer than the actual battle itself.<br /><br />there are colorful side stories in this film of the young volunteer at his first dance to celebrate the victory.
|
positive
|
Despite myself, I really kinda like this movie. Pauley Shore is invariably laugh-out-loud funny, and here is no exception. He is just excellent at playing the weirdo with a heart of gold.<br /><br />His performance in this, although nothing out of the ordinary for him, is so good, it seems to lift other cast members' performances. Perhaps this is because he's the kind of guy it's easy to bounce off of.<br /><br />The clichés about country life in this movie are hilarious and the way Shore's "city boy", Crawl is so at odds with the way of life, is funny too, but it's not only he who's a fish out of water; comedy also comes from the fact, that to any "ordinary" person or people, Crawl is a freakish nightmare of a person. That's why this movie works in such a great way: we love Crawl, he's a breath of fresh air, but we can also sympathise with the Warners. He is one hell of a culture shock.<br /><br />Although this movie is classic Pauley Shore, so there's no great brain power needed to enjoy the movie, enjoy it you do, and there's even a "never judge a book by it's cover" type moral here somewhere. Not bad, not bad at all.
|
positive
|
I love Das Boot. I hoped for something along similar lines -- a realistic war movie, portraying soliders and civilians on both sides as real people, with both the joy and pain of combat.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Stalingrad appears to have been written by a third grader and directed by a fifth-grade student. Major pieces of the movie simply appear missing, leaving it completely disjointed. The dialogue in translation is ridiculous, but appears no better in the native tongue; you only have to watch the actors' faces during the bad moments of dialogue to realize just how bad this movie is.
|
negative
|
"Mame" is a disgrace to many things--to Lucille Ball, to a story which has been told better many times over, and to the musical genre altogether. Ms. Ball does not understand her character at all and she seems to be heavily sedated. Bea Arthur is good, but it is not enough. The production is very shoddy and cheap looking, the songs are sub-par, and nearly every joke misfires. Also, Lucy couldn't dance well, so the music had to be slowed down to a funerial pace. Avoid at all costs, but DO see the delightful "Auntie Mame."
|
negative
|
If there was justice in the cinematic universe, director Lewis Schoenbrun would never be allowed to set foot on a movie set again. It would seem inconceivable that anyone who spent two full decades in an editing room, where LS started his movie career, could be so utterly devoid of any sense of pacing or dramatic staging, but this film is damning evidence.<br /><br />As bad as it is, it is fascinatingly so. From the opening scene, where a nurse is clad in a costume appropriate only for a porno film or a skit on a Mexican variety show, the viewer is compelled to see just how low it can go. The answer isn't far away, as in the next scene we move to a funeral parlor, where the next stunning fashion statement comes in a sexy off-the-shoulders black dress worn by one of the mourners.<br /><br />Aggressively inappropriate costuming isn't the film's only flaw. The dialog is a treat for connoisseurs of bad writing. "You turn my tears into wine," is a sample gem. The actor deserves an Oscar for delivering that one with a straight face.<br /><br />The director reinforces every cheeseball scene with what is possibly the schmaltziest soundtrack score ever recorded, which veers from embarrassingly maudlin in the dialog scenes to cheesy groovebox wannabe rocknroll in transitional scenes.<br /><br />The script introduces characters with no rhyme or reason and story beats are doled out as if with a broken ladle.<br /><br />Let's not forget this is a "horror" film, though. Our characters find themselves in a forest wherein lurks Dr. Chopper and his two "scary" henchwomen, who are supposed to be some kind of Frankencreatures but look exactly like Valley Girls with fake blood dabbed beneath their Supercut shags. I've honestly seen scarier make-up on eight-year-olds out trick-or-treating on Halloween.<br /><br />And again we get a whiff of the costume designer's malodorous handiwork, as Valley Ghoul One prances around in a pseudo-Victorian polyblend smock while her buddy wears a nondescript ensemble that might have been almost fashionable in less hip corners of the 1980s.<br /><br />Dr. Chopper makes the big fashion statement though, looking like a Crisco cowboy who got lost in the woods on his big black Harley, clad from head to toe in zippered black S&M leather.<br /><br />If this sounds intriguing, by all means check it out. There is plenty of side-splitting and belabored dialog (like the precious "elephant's graveyard" scene or the "intellectual" discourse on Ginsburg).<br /><br />To be fair, the cinematography is good, considering what was put before the camera, and the actors strive (with wildly extreme results) to make something from a scrap heap of clichés and inanities. You do have to wonder if they were really really stupid or just blindly desperate, not to walk off the set after catching one glimpse of the ridiculous-looking villains with their 99 Cent Store weapons.
|
negative
|
LTL is the kind of formulaic, hopeless comedy to be enjoyed by the sort of sheep that stop and listen when they come across a band playing in a shopping mall.<br /><br />I remember Murray promoting LTL on Larry King's crappy CNN show, where he said something like "if this movie doesn't become a hit I'll stop making movies (or comedies)". He wasn't being nearly as jovial as one might think; he must have felt that LTL was a sure-fire hit and that its failure would mean his status as a star had markedly fallen - hence a sort-of ultimatum live-on-air to his fans to spend their hard-earned money on a dumb elephant comedy. (The comedy being dumb, not the elephant...) Or maybe he simply realized during the shooting (or when he saw the final cut) what a turkey this was, so he tried desperately to convince everyone how much optimism he had regarding LTL's quality. "Go see it, it really is good!" Actors are prostitutes inter-bred with car salesmen.<br /><br />LTL is the sort of lousy project that comes from the "Friends" school of comedy; their motto: "If you ever run out of ideas - or if you never had any in the first place - then stick an animal into the plot and that will at least inject an element of cuteness". Cuteness = a sad substitute for lack of funny gags. The other motto "Friends" had was: "always include pointless, dull sentimentality", which this movie so predictably ends with, when Murray rather pathetically says: "what they forgot to tell you is that you never forget an elephant". Maybe not an elephant, but I certainly managed to easily forget this turkey, which I saw many years ago. I was suddenly reminded of it when I saw a scene from it on TV today (hence this equally pointless review).<br /><br />Murray wastes his talent on this turkey (disguised as an elephant), but he isn't nearly as uninteresting/bad as McConaughey (or however that man's name is spelt); one would think that M.M. would have an easy time playing himself, i.e. a hick, but he is so painfully unfunny and unconvincing that I could barely stand to watch him make such a jackass out of himself. It was cringe-worthy. To round off this nonsense, we have that generation-X buffoon, Garofalo, in a rather useless role. Then again, everything about LTL is useless...<br /><br />After LTL, which bombed as far as I know, Murray went on to become more of a "serious actor". What is it with these comedians and their inferiority complex? Is it all just about getting awards, i.e. "recognition from their peers" (read: votes from their moron colleagues)? This piece of crap marked the end of a string of good and great movies Murray made in the early- and mid-90s, such as "Groundhog Day", "Quick Change", "Mad Dog & Glory", "Kingpin", "What about Bob?" and "Ed Wood". Recently we've had the immeasurable pleasure of seeing him in garbage/mediocrities such as "Hamlet", "Lost In Translation" (you just can't get away from these "ultra-talented Coppolas"), and "Broken Flowers". Compare those two batches.<br /><br />One guy described LTL "funny as heck". Now THAT'S the kind of audience this movie was hoping for... Shopping malls and trailer parks...
|
negative
|
An opium den, a dirty little boy (actually a midget), prostitutes galore, a violent fracas in a dive, a motel for sexual shenanigans, scantily clad babes with cleavage a lot, a boozer falling down the stairs, a racially mixed clientèle in a bar with Asians, Africans, and Anglos treated equally, does this sound like a film playing at the local shopping mall? Wrong. These are all scenes from a 1933 musical.<br /><br />The first half of "Footlight Parade" is preparation for a musical extravaganza which occupies the last half of the film. Chester Kent (Cagney) is about to lose his job and does lose his playgirl wife as a result of talking pictures squeezing out live stage musicals. His producers take him to see a popular talky of the day, John Wayne in "The Big Trail." Before each showing of the flick, a dance number is presented as a prologue. Shorts, news reels, serials, and cartoons would later serve the purpose. Kent gets the idea that a prologue chain would be the road to salvation for the dwindling live musical business. Kent is basically an idea man along the lines of choreographer Busby Berkeley. Could it be that Cagney's character is patterned after Berkeley? Could be. <br /><br />In preparation for the prologues, Kent learns that his ideas are being stolen by a rival. He uncovers the traitor, fires him, then unbeknown to him a new leak is planted in the form a dazzling temptress. His assistant, Nan Prescott (Joan Blondell - soon to be Mrs. Dick Powell) has the hots for Kent and is determined to expose the wiles of the temptress. A new singer from Arkansas College shows up in the form of Scotty Blain (Dick Powell) who turns out to be a real find and is paired with Bea Thorn (Ruby Keeler). The resulting three prologue musicals, which couldn't possibly have been presented on any cinema stage of the day, are as fresh and enjoyable today as they were over seventy years ago, "Honeymoon Hotel," "By a Waterfall," and "Shanghai Lil."<br /><br />Of special note is the song and dance of tough-guy James Cagney. Like Fred Astaire and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, Cagney's dancing appeared natural and unrehearsed, although hours went into practice to get each step just right. Not as good a singer as Astaire, Cagney's singing, like Astaire's, sounded natural, unlike the crooning so popular at the time. It's amazing that one person could be so talented and so versatile as James Cagney.<br /><br />Most critics prefer the "Shanghai Lil" segment over the other two. Yet the kaleidoscopic choreography of "By a Waterfall" is astonishing. How Berkeley was able to film the underwater ballets and to create the human snake chain must have been difficult because it has never been repeated. The close up shots mixed brilliantly with distant angles is a must-see. The crisp black and white photography is much more artistic than it would have been if shot in color. <br /><br />Though not nearly as socially conscious as "Gold Diggers of 1933," "Footlight Parade" stands on its own as one of the most amazing and outrageous musicals ever put on the big screen.
|
positive
|
Caught this film in about 1990 on video by chance and without knowing what i was in for. Many horror fans may have missed this thinking it was a typical prison film and the ones who did get it didn't like it as it was not what they wanted to see. The above mentioned factors are probably the reasons it is low rated but just ignore that and give it a whirl if you're a fan of the genre.<br /><br />It has strong suits in all departments from script and atmosphere to acting and the prison itself. <br /><br />An absolute diamond, a film i still have on video to this day. Check it out.
|
positive
|
Naked Deanna Troi! <br /><br />Richie's brother Chuck (from "Happy Days") with a reverse mohawk!<br /><br />Death Wish 3 has all this and more, including one clever scene where Chuck Bronson's character sets up a mousetrap like device that brains a punk when he opens the window.<br /><br />Chuck also places a board with a bunch of nails on the floor near another window and smiles when he returns and sees bloody footprints leading away.<br /><br />All I can say about Death Wish 3 is that it is one of most incomprehensible "serious" movies that I have ever seen--loaded to the hilt with mayhem, and nearly zero police response, despite the use of military weapons to mow punks down by the score.<br /><br />As I understand it, Bronson disowned this film, but happily cashed the check from Golan Globus.<br /><br />If you enjoy quality movies, avoid this one, but if you're in for a cheap "Jackass" kind of thrill, check it out.
|
negative
|
This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, its horrible. Christopher Lee is good but he is hardly in it, the only the good part is the opening scene.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the title. "End of the World" is truly a bad movie, I stopped watching it close to the end it was so bad, only for die hard b-movie fans that have the brain to stand this vomit.
|
negative
|
JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the box<br /><br />To give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wants<br /><br />The film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculous<br /><br />One wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?<br /><br />The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the story<br /><br />Even there are several cringeworthy scenes<br /><br />Direction by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forced<br /><br />Anil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent
|
negative
|
I didn't really like this movie that much at all. It wasn't really funny and in some cases it was just downright stupid. Rob Schneider is definitely one enormously talented individual and while his acting was fine in this, it just seemed like a real waste for him to star in. I mean there were some parts that were okay and somewhat humorous in a cute kind of way but that's about it. The only thing that actually caught my attention during this whole ordeal of over the top jokes was that there were some very good looking females present and I'm not one to watch a movie solely because of that but in this case it was the only nook where even the slightest case of redemption could be found. All in all it was a couple notches below an average movie!<br /><br />Final Query:<br /><br />Theaters: So glad I didn't squander too much money on this.<br /><br />DVD Purchase: Ummm, let me think....no!<br /><br />Rental: If you have a prehistoric sense of humor then why not.
|
negative
|
This has got to be the cheesiest, stupidest, most retarded monster film of all time. It's a complete joke that this even surfaced into theaters. This is sort of like watching the Loch Ness monster in rural America. This movie deserves to be thrown in a toilet and completely forgotten. John Carradine, shame on you. The people involved in this moronic pile of trash need to be lobotomized. Wait! Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I'm sure they were lobotomized before the filming. How else can one explain the utter and sheer stupidity that this bucket of crap contains. Don't waste a minute of your life watching this. Don't even waste your time sending a review.
|
negative
|
This relatively obscure Hong Kong "minorpiece" is the perfect desert island movie for video age peeping toms (at least its first half is). Every set-up, every scene, every sequence is an excuse to look up a girl's skirt, stare down at her breasts, gaze at her bottom and leer at her tight crotch. What it's establishing is the lead character's perverted proclivities, of course(!)<br /><br />Genre stalwart Anthony Wong is a marginally perverted married man who is plagued by erotic daydreams and outrageous fantasies. All involve scantily clad, sexy Chinese ladies with nothing but sexual servitude on their minds.<br /><br />The plot is thickened by a homicidal subplot, voodoo doll skewering and a little rape and pillage.<br /><br />Some of the sex scenes are fairly hot and the gore is liberal, but the supernatural elements introduced into the second half feel half-baked and the plot developments are ludicrous.<br /><br />Clearly, producer of garish garbage Wong Jing was in a terrible hurry to get this into and out of theaters.<br /><br />The arty title sequence did not fool this jaded punter.
|
negative
|
A film is beyond all expectations, an excellent insight into the human condition. What exactly drives Mila to have her ass painted. What could push a human so far that there only way to escape is to have there rear passage repeatedly painted by strangers.<br /><br />This film is not afraid to stair squarley in the face of the ass painting issue. Simply breathtaking. Roll on the sequel or whatever comes next from the geniuses who made this.
|
positive
|
The movie "Holly" is the story of a young girl who has been sold by her poor family and smuggled across the border to Cambodia to work as a prostitute in the infamous "K11" red light village. In the movie, Holly is waiting to be sold at a premium for her virginity when she meets Patrick who is losing money and friends through gambling and bar fights. Patrick and Holly have an immediate bond over their "stubbornness", but this is all disrupted when Holly is sold to a child trafficker and disappears. As movie goers, we are then thrust into Patrick's pursuit to find Holly again. Holly then shows her willingness to leave this lifestyle but her confusion on what is right and wrong. "Holly" carries us through the beautiful and harsh Cambodia while discovering that HOLLY is not just one girl. She is the voice of millions of children who are exploited and violated every year with no rights or protection.<br /><br />Holly is less extreme than its subject matter might suggest, such as documentaries that involve 4-year olds and sexual trafficking, but does manage to shed considerable light on Cambodian / Vietnamese trafficking of children into prostitution. It is a moving story that helps to shed light on the horrible situation in which many children face and their struggles to trust and realize what is right and wrong.<br /><br />Patrick, the antagonist of the film is an American dealer of stolen artifacts who is also losing money and friends while playing cards and getting into bar fights. While on a journey, his motorbike runs out of fuel, and he is forced to rent a room at a brothel. During his stay he comes across Holly, a twelve year old girl who has been sold by her parents and is being abducted into slavery and prostitution. Holly and Patrick begin a friendship of trust and understanding. He discovers a clever, stubborn girl beneath the traumatized exterior and becomes determined to save her -- though their strictly platonic relationship is misinterpreted by almost everyone they meet. When she suddenly disappears, he starts a journey to track her down, without having thought if he can really help her.<br /><br />Holly is able to escape on her way to another brothel, when she jumps from the truck and runs into a field filled with mines. A mine is set off by a cow and the truck driver believes she is dead, so Holly is then left on her own. During Patrick's journey to find holly he meets a social worker who tries to talk some sense into him and shares the facts with him that haunts the Cambodian region. The idea of paying for her freedom simply fuels the demand, she explains: 30,000 children in prostitution in Cambodia - next year it could be 60,000. "I'm not trying to save 60,000," he tells her, "I'm trying to save one." Patrick discovers that the idea of whisking her to safety is quickly put to rest when the social worker tells him that the US will not let him adopt and, although it takes five minutes to 'save' a child, it takes five years to reintegrate her into society. Patrick is not affected by the information and he continues his quest to find Holly.<br /><br />The audience is then shown that Holly makes it to a small town and is foraging for food with other homeless children. She is then befriended by a local policemen who seem little better than criminals with a badge, when they sell her to another brothel and then make a deal to a Vietnamese businessman who then takes her virginity. Holly then seems to think that this is her destiny and when Patrick finally find her, she is willing to "yum yum" and "boom boom" her distant friend. Patrick is utterly confused by this change in behavior, but he is not deterred in his plan to take her away from this world. In the end, he steals her away and brings her to a safe-land in the comfort of the social worker. Holly is given fresh clothes, if feed and brought to a dance class, but she is forbidden to see Patrick. This intense yearning to be in the comfort of Patrick's friendship, she runs away from the safe house and back onto the streets in Cambodia.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Patrick is dealing with the decision to leave the country and flee back to the United States or to stay in Cambodia. His thoughts continue to revert back to Holly and during a visit to a bar; an older male sees the picture he is holding and comments on his sexual appetite when he had sex with her. This enrages Patrick and he hits the man and runs out of the bar. Eventually, Patrick is caught by the police in the eyes of Holly, who is hiding behind a pole.<br /><br />The movie "Holly" may make the audience want to donate money towards organizations that improve the life for these poor youngsters, and even campaign to reduce the amount of brothels in the region, but the film's dramatic weaknesses may reduce its chances of being seen by enough people to make a difference. Overall, I think the concept is better as a documentary and it was not as touching as a movie. The actors did a great job of showing their raw emotion and the true confusion of the youngsters who are affected by this lifestyle, but in the end, the harsh lifestyle of the region and the desperate notions of the parents who sell their children to uphold their own starvation, does nothing to help the children's situations.
|
positive
|
So far only the first episode has been shown, and a great fuss has been made about the lesbian sex scenes. But for those who bother to look past that they will find an incredibly beautiful love story and one that has in this episode ended in an upsetting climax/cliffhanger. I have found the story so powerful that I have been inspired to read the novel on which this fantastic series has been based.
|
positive
|
I watched the 219 minute version and have to say that dollar-for-dollar, it it probably one of the worst films ever. Now I am NOT saying it's THE worst film ever--but if you look at a ratio of cost over how much an average person would enjoy it, this is a very, very bad film.<br /><br />I would say that the single biggest factor making this a bad film is the writer/director, Michael Cimino. Rarely can so much blame be placed on a single person. Had he not been so self-indulgent, a film just as bad could have easily been made at about 90 minutes--saving the studio millions! <br /><br />The film begins with a completely unnecessary prologue that's supposed to be set at Harvard. The scene is HUGE but completely without context. You have no idea exactly what is occurring nor do you know why the students (in particular, John Hurt) are behaving so boorishly. I find it very hard to imagine a commencement going like this in 1870--and it looks a lot more like 1970. This is a half hour where you have no idea what is happening, who the characters are or their motivations. <br /><br />The next scene is 20 years later. Inexplicably, the two Harvard grads (Hurt and Kris Kristofferson) are in Wyoming. So, they went to the best school in America and now one is only a law man in the middle of no where and the other is....well, what IS John Hurt in the film?!?! He just appears here and there and seems to be either a jerk (the prologue) or a pathetic and pointless drunk who hangs out with murderers--even though he is apparently against them!? His entire character made no sense. They never explained why he was a Brit living in the middle of nowhere (it was impossible to hide his accent), why he bothered to come along with the hired army IF he was so against their wicked plan nor why he would risk his life for a cause he didn't believe in at all. As for Kristofferson, his excellent acting and better defined character made his character more believable, though having him move to Wyoming AND risk his life for a prostitute made no sense at all.<br /><br />This brings up the worst aspect of HEAVEN'S GATE. While the scenes are WAY TOO LONG and needed trimming, the worst part of the film is that the characters were like cardboard. John Hurt (a wonderful actor with nothing to do in the film), Jeff Bridges and many other big names are there but you have no idea why. In fact, other than Kristofferson, Isabelle Huppert (as a hooker with a heart of gold--quite the cliché) and perhaps Christopher Walken, EVERYONE is completely one-dimensional. It's hard to imagine a movie THIS long where you don't know or understand the characters. <br /><br />Much of the film also seems anachronistic. Who would have thought to have a giant roller rink constructed in the middle of no where in 1890? I am sure that just getting the basic supplies in this region in the West would have been very, very difficult--and yet we are expected to believe that trains filled with roller skates and lumber arrived instead of FOOD. Maybe if they hadn't spent a bazillion dollars building and frequenting the roller rink, the farmers could have afforded to BUY food and avoided this war over purloined cattle!!! And what's with the guy on roller skates with the fiddle? What did this have to do with a land war? <br /><br />The most obvious problem you are left with is that it's a film where very, very little actually happens until the big battle late in the film. There are lots of scenes of filth and flat nothingness. So much nothingness that by the time the battle occurs, many audience members would have left or are now so hostile to the film that it's inevitable that nothing could salvage the film.<br /><br />As for the final battle, it was done reasonably well but had problems. First, this minor skirmish on the prairie lasted longer than the D-Day invasion!! Second, while details of the actual events of the so-called "Johnson County War" are a tad sketchy, we do know that the characters played by Huppert and Kristofferson never actually were there, as they'd both been hung BEFORE the battle. Third, I can't believe that Cimino actually killed animals throughout the film--especially during the final battle. While I am far from a bleeding heart about animal rights, his need to use animal guts and actually kill some of the horses is a low point in cinematic history. Watching and knowing that some of the horses died to achieve Cimino's "vision" for the film is very sad.<br /><br />Finally, after the big battle, we have an epilogue. While it is blessedly short, it also seemed completely unnecessary and vague. We see Kristofferson on a fancy yacht, so we can assume that he's finally putting some of that Harvard education to work for himself. We also see a woman who appears to be one that Kris looked at a couple times during the prologue. Most importantly, nothing is said and you have no idea what the final outcome. I read up on it myself and found that the film often got the facts wrong.<br /><br />Overall, to say the film is long and needed tons more editing was like saying WWII was a "minor tiff". Well, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but if you factor in the cost of production, I truly think it might just be one of the worst films in history.<br /><br />Finally, when a film has this much explicit nudity I warn parents. However, as no child COULD sit through this film (even with a promise of sex), the warning is not necessary.
|
negative
|
The filming crew did not have good access to the occupied territories, so filming of the Israeli side dominated. I was struck by the nearly completely opposite points of view of the mothers. The Israeli mother lost a child who had the possibility of a life of tremendous happiness. The Palestinian mother lost a child who had only the possibility of a life of privation and despair. With such completely different viewpoints, any meeting had no real chance of any meeting of the minds. The word "peace" did not have the same meaning to each of them. Peace to the Palestinian was freedom. Peace to the Israeli was security. With such an abyss, is this sort of film really worth much? I finished with the feeling that I had watched pointless propaganda -- both sides were unconvincing.
|
negative
|
I am right now watching "The Big Chill" on DVD. One of its actors is Meg Tilly. I looked it up on IMDb which led me to reading Meg's bio which mentioned and reminded me of Meg's sister Jennifer Tilly whose filmography included "Key West", which was one of my wife's and my favorite shows. I then read this entire thread of reviews.<br /><br />Wow, I really loved that show also and agree with all of the sentiments about the quirkiness and uniqueness of the characters and situations.<br /><br />As most everyone else, I wish it was on DVD or otherwise available.<br /><br />The last reviewer says he watches it on reruns so I wish I knew what network, channel, day, times it is on.<br /><br />So if anyone knows how we can watch episodes of "Key West", please let us know.
|
positive
|
I am a huge fan of Say Anything, Jerry Maguire, and Almost Famous (I wasn't that big on Singles), so it's safe to say that I look forward to anything that Cameron Crowe attaches his name to. I went to see Vanilla Sky having been told that it was a very weird movie and that I probably wouldn't like it if I was expecting anything similar to Crowe's other films. Well, having just seen it, let me say that the former was correct, and the latter couldn't have been more wrong. It is a very weird movie, and nothing really comes together until the end. Anyone who tells you that they saw it coming halfway into the movie is either lying to you or is unable to detach their hindsight from their memory. Anyway, the movie was stellar, and I look forward to owning it as soon as the DVD is released. I was moved by the film, and felt emotionally spent by the end. This is an experience that will draw from the viewer the entire spectrum of human emotion, if the viewer allows him/herself into the plot. In the theatre in which I saw the movie, there were more than a few people who clearly lost track of the movie and were bored by it when they found that they were unable to get back into the plot. I'm sure others just lack the ability to properly follow any movie like this. I don't mean that to sound pompous, but some people are more cut out for the Seagal, Chan, Van Damme genre of movies, and these are the types that probably would not enjoy this movie. It is very cerebral, so make sure you are prepared for a two hour mental bender, as well as much thought afterwards.<br /><br />As far as comparing this film to other Crowe movies, it is very similar in at least one regard, in all Crowe movies, the soundtrack is a character unto itself. This is almost definitely due to Crowe's longstanding ties to music, as anyone who has seen Almost Famous knows, and to his marriage to Heart star Nancy Wilson. It was also worthy to note that there was a definite chemistry between Tom Cruise's acting and Crowe's directing that made the movie seem familiar to anyone who has seen Jerry Maguire. In my mind, that is not a bad thing.<br /><br />Anyway, if I had to compare this movie to any one other film, I would say this: if you enjoyed David Fincher's The Game, you will almost certainly be a fan of Vanilla Sky.
|
positive
|
"Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow" was one of the many '50s movies about hot-rodding teens encountering the supernatural. In this case, the teens can't pay the rent for their hangout and get evicted. With nowhere else to go, they decide on an apparently haunted house. As you may have guessed, once they arrive, some weird things start happening. And there's a twist at the end.<br /><br />There's nothing in this movie that you haven't seen in other movies, but it's nice entertainment nonetheless. My favorite character was the foul-mouthed parrot. Well, let me rephrase that: he didn't talk like a character in a Quentin Tarantino movie, but he said things that we don't expect out of a bird. The movie's pure hokum, but harmless.
|
negative
|
I have a friend that works at blockbuster, and he gets 5 free movie rentals a week, so one day as we were scouring the aisles for something interesting, i stumbled across 18 Weapons of Kung Fu, and judging by the box alone, this movie seemed pretty wack, but nonetheless we gave into temptation and rented it -- afterall, it was free.....and thank god it was....this is by far THE WORST movie i have ever seen....the budget must have been a pickle and a piece of string...the plot was ridiculous, the only mention of the "18 weapons" is that there is some book that teaches the ways of the 18 weapons that some bad guy is after -- and thats it! there isnt even any weapon fighting in this movie...that and the action sequences are just flat-out BAD....9 times out of 10 the other guy's punches and kicks come about a foot away from landing on the other guy's, and there are MANY times when the the movie will skip frames (a result of ridiculously poor editing)....the dubbing is as well laughable, and it is hardly even understandable....and we wont even get into the acting...the ending will definitely leave you saying "wtf??", however to be fair i must mention that the fighting techniques used by the actors were somewhat decent, and the old guy is a mad chump....but thats about it...thankfully i didnt have to pay for this movie, but i guess at least now i know exactly how bad a movie can actually be....
|
negative
|
Watching "Der himmel über Berlin" as a teen in the late 80's was a profound experience for me - "so this was what the movies could be". Along with "Paris, Texas" and "Until the End of the World" it still holds a special place in my heart and mind - a testament to the genius of Wim Wenders.<br /><br />Unfortunately later years has seen a steady decline in the quality of his work with "Million Dollar Hotel" and "Land of Plenty" hitting a terrible low point. Gone are the captivating pictures or music. No search for or display of great insight. All that is left are characters and thinly veiled political statements, that boils down to nothing but clichés, and quite frankly mock the intelligence of a mature audience.<br /><br />Has the well run dry? Whatever the reason, it's time for Mr. Wenders to either step it up or stop altogether.
|
negative
|
I gave it a rating of 3 out of 10.<br /><br />And what's sad is, I made a point of looking up the movie schedule for that channel so I wouldn't miss seeing it. I wanted to watch this film because it is based on a book by one of my favorite authors, Barbara Wilson. As a lesbian, I expected to love this film.<br /><br />I don't know how Ms. Wilson felt about the film, but I found it a major disappointment.<br /><br />It should have been intriguing - it was a mystery - set in Spain, and the main character, Cassandra, is a language translator who gets contacted by a mysterious, beautiful woman who offers Cassandra a great deal of money to locate her ex-husband, Ben.<br /><br />There are secrets galore revealed, but for some reason it just didn't matter. It was like, oh, so what. I could not get involved with these characters or come to care about them, or feel for them. I couldn't even identify with these characters.<br /><br />I think a large part of the film's failure was the actress playing the main character. She looked old, tired, worn out, and as dull as dishwater. Her hair was a perpetual mess, her baggy clothes were boring, and she just was not appealing or interesting.<br /><br />The best part of the film was getting to hear a Dean Martin recording, but even that was ruined by the weird make-up worn by the man who was dancing and lip-synching to the song. Believe me - it was nothing like getting to see the suavely handsome Mr. Martin performing it.<br /><br />The ending is so syrupy you'll wish you had some pancakes to go with the syrup.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
technically, this movie would have had it all: decent actors, a nice landscape, no obvious sights of a lack of budget, a celebrity like richard attenborough. the plot summary also sounded promising, suggesting a satire on silly bureaucracy and common people outwitting it.<br /><br />however, it never delivers. the plot is simply too illogical. throughout the whole movie, not one person does a single sensible thing. mad politicians, ridiculous soldiers, brain-dead villagers - all just hustle from one incredible situation to the next. what they all do never makes sense in a context beyond the current scene.<br /><br />of course, this kind of movie has to be absurd and exaggerated. however, it's also supposed to have at least one instance to point out the madness behind splitting a city in the middle. actually, there are (at least) two attempts, which unfortunately fail: the main character, who doesn't seem to have a clue about what's happening to him, and the "writer", who occasionally cracks jokes from the off that might be considered funny by an audience consisting solely of 12 year olds.<br /><br />what i found most impressing is that the movie tries to be funny all the time, but didn't made me laugh once. i've seen several bad "funny" movies, but until yet every single one of them featured at least 2 or 3 good laughs. so in this sense, "puckoon" is really remarkable.<br /><br />if you want to see a great movie with a comparable plot, check out "brazil". don't waste your time on "puckoon".
|
negative
|
I saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid and always remember it as my first experience with getting ripped off by a horrible movie with a good commercial. The commercial was great, but it I found out later that it had every explosion or 'special effect' in the entire movie (about 4) and even some that weren't in the movie. There was some sort of plot relating to the aliens but the aliens were never actually shown in the movie as far as I remember. It was clearly a case of someone making a buck off a cheap movie designed to scam people. I guess my world of innocence ended that day, when I found out there were bad people out there who make bad bad movies.
|
negative
|
Starring: James Belushi; Peter Dinklage; Alex Neuberger and Jason Lee Underdog is a true hero's tale. Here is the story of Shoeshine, a regular, playful little beagle. When he is dog napped by a megalomaniac midget hell-bent on destruction, something freaky happens.<br /><br />Our quirky little neighborhood pooch gains extraordinary powers. He can run as fast a cheetah; fly as fast a superhero and has the power of thunder. He is no longer Shoeshine; he is Underdog the best crime-fighter in the animal kingdom. The city cannot sleep until Underdog rids it of the evil midget Dr. Simon Barsinister and his cronies.<br /><br />If you fancy some really light-hearted entertainment with all the clichés of superhero action flicks, then this one is for you. As for quality entertainment, this one is strictly for the juniors. Those of you hoping to enjoy the comedy of the fast-fading star -James Belushi - a word of caution: this is not one of his finer works.
|
negative
|
This was a great movie with a good cast, all of them hitting on all cylinders. And when Dianne Keaton is at her best, well, it just doesn't get any better than that. But Tom Everett Scott, always underrated, was even better. He should be a star. <br /><br />My only complaint is with one aspect of the screenplay. None of the characters ever acknowledged that the dead daughter wasn't always a good person. And neither was her mother, played by Keaton. At one point she breaks a promise she made to one character not to reveal that he had been sleeping around. <br /><br />One of the other commentators said the movie had a "political agenda". That is a baffling thing to say. There was no politics at all in this movie.
|
positive
|
This story focuses on the birth defect known as FAS, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, a disease diagnosed too often among Native Americans. In spite of the down-beat nature of this drama, the great script and the characterizations move the story along very well. This is arguably Smits best performance.
|
positive
|
I've watched this film a few times and I never really liked it. I'm not a fan so termed "nu horror", so I can't be dismissed on that account. I found it a little sleazy, I think the thing that irks me about Hammers is the sexploitation aspect, not sex mind you, but Sexploitation. I'm surprised at how many people have rated this film so highly, so I'll have another look at it. But for me, it wasn't creepy, it had no atmosphere, just a bit of "omigod, look at those bad/stupid London prostitute women and that little innocent Anna about to get raped by yet another nasty man, ooherh!" I suppose ultimately for me, the film had no depth whatsoever, just a bunch of nasty priggish men and women only there for the titillation value. This no doubt was to some degree what Victorian England was like, but the sets are even too clunky and dull impart a sense of Victorian menace. Roger Corman's horrors on the other hand, now that's style, atmosphere and elegant horror. For me, this was just exploitative, flat footed trash.
|
negative
|
i just watched the movie i was afraid it's gonna disappoint me. i was rather surprised at the end though. The American pie franchise is still in my favorite franchise movies of all times. yes, it won't be true if i say that i enjoyed it as mush as i enjoyed the original ones. beta house along with the previous two pies definitely lost something that the first two pies had.it is not gonna become a classic as the first two already did. but what the hell-it is still funny with a lot of good moments and i think it should be the first movie to pick if you wanna have fun and relax after a hard day at work or school. beta house deserves 6/10 but i gave it 7/10 just for being another slice of PIE.
|
positive
|
Despite being told from a British perspective this is the best WW II documentary ever produced. Presented in digestible (as digestible as war can be) episodes as the grave voice of Laurence Olivier connects the multitudes of eye witnesses who were forced to live the events of that horrific time. Eagerly awaiting its appearance on DVD in the U.S. The Europeans had their opportunity with a release in DVD earlier this year.
|
positive
|
....this mini does not get better with age. I saw this and it's sequel when originally broadcast, and like so many others was blown away. In early 2002 I borrowed the novels for both WOW and W and R and was even more impressed. I then decided that I had to see both again and invested $200 plus on the DVD sets. I watched both minis again in painful detail and realized I had done things backwards - I should have purchased the novels and borrowed the DVD's.<br /><br />Don't believe it is abysmally miscast? Read the novels and see for yourself. Don't think this is dated? Screen it for somebody not old enough to have seen it originally broadcast and watch the reaction you get (warning - reactions from such people range from looks of horror to belly laughs).<br /><br />According to the trivia section for this mini - Dan Curtis himself chose Ali MacGraw and Robert Mitchum. Yikes!! Production quality, music scoring, dialog - a great story was turned into a late 70's soap opera by an overly ambitious producer/director who was in way over his head. This thing was dated the minute it was completed.<br /><br />These two minis were great when original broadcast and to those of us who saw them then, tug at a nostalgic string that reminds us of younger days. IMO - this mini does not nearly live up to its reputation and severely disappoints.
|
negative
|
Got into this flick, just as it was beginning, on an afternoon where I was home with a touch of flu - otherwise I'd have missed it. That probably would have been best.<br /><br />I noticed the presence of Lindsay Crouse and Jay Thomas - both very good performers - and thought this might be worth a look. It proved to be to some extent, but only because it is one of those stories so awful it fascinates.<br /><br />Zoe McLellan has little to recommend her talents, except for her Jayne Mansfield- or Loni Anderson-like bosom. Unfortunately, her acting prowess - at least here - makes Mansfield and Anderson seem to be Garbo or Davis by comparison.<br /><br />The young nut case's white rat, the owner's cat, the young nut case having the owner evicted and restrained in her own home, and a bunch of doophus's (including the young nut case) running around a bio hazard facility, and the absurd conclusion. I kept waiting for at least some scene or plot element to contain at least a modicum of realism, believability or being capable of evoking some empathy/sympathy -- but this proved to be in vain.
|
negative
|
First off, Mexican Werewolf in Texas' title is misleading as many others have pointed out. It is actually about El Chupacabra, which is a similar creature to a werewolf, but by no means the same.<br /><br />The production and editing just plain suck. When it was over, I probably wouldn't be able to give a very accurate description of what exactly the Chupacabra looked like, for whenever it was in a scene(despite one or two exceptions) the camera turned all shaky and you could only see the monster's face clearly. The special effects were laughably bad, but that has to be expected from a low budget horror movie.<br /><br />Along with the terrible production comes the bad actors. Now a couple give fairly plausible performances(Erika Fay and Martine Hughes), but then there were the bad actors(everybody else), who seemed to have no emotions whatsoever when people died. Then there's the absolutely terrible actor(Sara Erikson), who gives one of the 2 worst performances I've ever seen in a movie. I mean my god, she was indescribably bad.<br /><br />The plot was very simple. Basically, a Chupacabra is in a small Texan town killing off local residents and a group of teens look to stop it. However, even with the plot being this simple, a few plot holes managed to leak through.<br /><br />Anyways, horrible movie. However, if you are looking for a movie to make fun of and laugh at with your friends one night, this would be a pretty good one. My friends and I had a good time watching this. Probably the 2nd worst movie I've ever seen, 1/10. Awful.
|
negative
|
Hey now, I have never laid eyes on a Manga comic, but apparently this movie is based on one. Ah well, such is life. Anyway, this is a pretty bizarre, to say the least, movie, as things literally spiral out of control in a small Japanese town. People are becoming obsessed with the uzumaki (spiral) and this young girl watches her friend's father videotape a snail, and later in the movie, people start becoming snails? It also seems this boy's dad becomes so obsessed he somehow commits suicide in a household appliance. There is some bizarre humor here that might be at home in a Tim Burton movie, but there is some nastiness & gore like only the Japanese can do with justice. As with a lot of Japanese films though, the ending is the ending, and did anything get resolved? Well, not to my mind, it didn't. There are some hints as to why this is all happening but they aren't explored and there's a lot left to either the imagination or else it wasn't deemed important. Still though, there are lots of things for the eye to feast on and if you aren't obsessed with everything making perfect sense, this is well worth seeing, because it's just so original and bizarre. My favorite was the father with the spinning eyeballs, personally. 8 out of 10 stars.
|
positive
|
I believe the reason this movie did not get the recognition it deserves is because of the many misconceptions of Darwin, pro and con. I would say the real man is depicted here without sterility. He is what he is. Although the movie is but a snapshot of the man the technique of storytelling expanded his life far beyond the years touched on in the movie. This is deep movie, a pondering of modern life and the way we think, and can provoke a study into the man whose thoughts (and other who used him) have certainly affected our lives. There are some movies that the historical context is so great that it is the primary job of the actors to stay out of the way. The history carried the day and the actors did their job. Good work to them, I say.
|
positive
|
As a movie, THE ITALIAN JOB is ok at best; good (not great) acting,<br /><br />nice visuals and pacing, a mediocre plot, but nothing bad enough<br /><br />to walk out on. But as a car commercial for the new breed of MINI<br /><br />Coopers, this film is spectacular!<br /><br />*SPOILERS*<br /><br />Ok, it's a typical heist film with the odd twist (the underwater safe- cracking was nice, if not improbable), and the cast was fairly solid<br /><br />(with the exception of a putrid Wahlberg), but when it all came<br /><br />down to it, the real "stars" of this picture were the three MINI<br /><br />Coopers, in all their high-flying, speed-racing, ramp-jumping,<br /><br />bullet-taking, gold-lugging, shiny new glory. The audience I was<br /><br />sitting amongst actually "ooed" and "aahed" when Theron's little<br /><br />red number first hit the screen (strangely enough, neither she nor<br /><br />Wahlberg garnered the same reaction).<br /><br />The film starts out promising. Mos Def, Seth Green, Donald<br /><br />Sutherland, Edward Norton and Jason Statham all begin as an<br /><br />interesting and humourous band of characters, with the only real<br /><br />uninspired performance being that of the usually good Mark<br /><br />Wahlberg. Why he claims this is his best film I can't imagine; his<br /><br />character is completely one-note, and he plays him so blandly it<br /><br />was as if Mr. Rogers came back from the dead and was inhabiting<br /><br />his body. Charlize is fine as Sutherland's daughter, though<br /><br />nothing magical. Seth Green's character is perfect and the<br /><br />running Napster jokes (including a cameo by Napster founder,<br /><br />Shawn Fanning) are hilarious; he and some of Mos Def's early<br /><br />lines add some much needed sparks of humour. Unfortunately,<br /><br />Edward Norton and Donald Sutherland don't get near enough<br /><br />screen time.<br /><br />You can see most of the plot coming from a mile away, and the<br /><br />dialogue is rife with bad one-liners and give-aways, but I doubt the<br /><br />filmmakers were out to re-invent the wheel here, so taken as a<br /><br />typical action/suspense flick it comes out alright. Worth seeing on<br /><br />cheap night I'd recommend.<br /><br />7/10. Not worth it's weight in gold, but makes for nice fillings.
|
positive
|
I hadn't laughed this hard for a movie in a really long time. The garbage that Hollywood has been putting out lately drives me up a wall! This one was definetely fresh and witty. If you look at the demographic figures for the ratings, only a few women have voted! I don't want to ruin the movie for you but I'm sure that every guy who saw this ran to their computers to rate it and gave it a poor score, why? Because the movie puts men in their place, that's why. If more women vote for this movie because of its actual humor value and not because it is damaging to men...it could easily be a "7" rated movie!
|
positive
|
Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.<br /><br />If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.<br /><br />Awful.<br /><br />Ridiculous.<br /><br />Waste of two hours of my life.
|
negative
|
I normally don't try and second guess a crime thriller, but Cleaner was just entirely too predictable. Samuel L. Jackson playing the character Tom Cutler, along with his profession created an interesting twist in the beginning of the film, however, that was about it. Without even thinking I knew where the plot would be taken and within 30 minutes I had already figured out who the killer was. Rather then trusting myself and having seen several films that make a turnabout, I watched to its completion. What a disappointment, I was right from the beginning.<br /><br />The casting of characters was a good, as well as the acting from Jackson and Harris...except for Eva Mendes. From the starting gate she didn't play a believable character in correlation to the script and this ruined the entire plot too soon. Maybe this was a directing mishap or just weakness in the story itself. Her role as Ann Norcut should have shown more emotion and distress for the situation that was building around her. This would've made the build-up a bit more compelling and the ending more dramatic. Nevertheless, Cleaner is watchable, not memorable. I've seen episodes of CSI that were more thrilling then this.
|
negative
|
The world is made up two different types of moviegoers... There are the "English Patient" types, who can't be bothered to enjoy anything that isn't high-brow enough to be shown on PBS, and there are the "Happy Gilmore" types, for whom an hour and a half of genitalia puns are definitely worth the $7.<br /><br />Certainly, there's a ton of gray area, but you know to which side you're leaning. If you're an English Patient person, save your time, save your money, and save us all your "Oh, this movie is so childish and stupid" comments. I know, you thoroughly enjoy belittling every movie you don't like, and every person that likes them, but maybe you could hold off just this once.<br /><br />But if you're a Happy Gilmore type... go see this one... You'll find it hilarious. Tim Meadows has created a hilarious character, and Will Farrell continues to be hilarious in just about everything he does. Go check it out. You'll be glad you did. And that's OK.
|
positive
|
"Valley Girl" launched Nicolas Cage's career and was an 80's version of "Romeo and Juliet." It is a definite example of an 80's teen classic. Nicolas Cage, Deborah Foreman and Elizabeth Daily all have brilliant portrayals in this movie, but it will never top "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" as the ultimate 80's teen flick because if it weren't for "Fast Times," then the 80's generation of teen flicks would just be a big blow to the head. That's for sure.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie first on the Berlin Film Festival, and I had never seen Hong Kong cinema before. I felt like sitting in a roller coaster: the action was so quick, and there wasn't one boring moment throughout the film. It has martial arts, love, special effects and a fantastic plot. My favorite scene is when the Taoist drinks, sings and fights for himself - one of the many scenes which stress the extraordinary musical component of the movie. This film is a definite must!!
|
positive
|
<br /><br />Cheap-looking and ugly, this film didn't even seem to entertain the kids in the audience, except for one fairly amusing toilet joke. Christopher Lloyd is way past his prime and actually quite tiresome in this role, although the sorry excuse for jokes by the writers don't help. Elizabeth Hurley is embarrassingly amateurish in a supposedly comic role. Jeff Daniels and Darryl Hannah avoid humiliation. There is really no reason to make this movie, especially since it is unavoidable that one will compare it with Robin Williams's often brilliant improvisations in Mork & Mindy.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
I don't know if I'd consider it a masterpiece of not, but it's damn near close; it's extremely well made, artistic, suspenseful, intricately plotted, thematically challenging and full of bleak foreshadowing and sexual-religious imagery. There's also some great camera-work from Jan de Bont, an atmospheric score from Loek Dikker and outstanding acting from Jeroen Krabbé and Renée Soutendijk, the latter giving one of the most sneaky, subtle 'femme fatale' performance I've ever seen. Like many other European movies, this movie has an unashamed, non-judgmental attitude toward sex, nudity and the complexities of sexuality and has zero reservations about mixing it all up with religious and/or surrealistic (some would say blasphemous) images. In other words, if you can't bear the thought of seeing a lust-driven homosexual envisioning the object of his carnal desire as Jesus crucified on the cross before the two of them go at it inside a cemetery crypt then this might not be the movie for you. What surprised me more is how this bizarre movie managed to completely dodge being a pretentious mess. It mixes the abstract/surreal/parallel fantasy-reality scenes and somehow makes it all work. Like any good mystery, you can see the pieces slowly falling into place as the movie progresses. There is NOT an out-of-left-field resolution here. The movie has direction, there's no needless filler and once it concludes, you begin to understand the purpose of what may have confused you earlier. If you like the work of Ken Russell and David Lynch, I can almost guarantee you will love this movie. Hell, if you have no idea who they even are, you still might like it.<br /><br />I'm not going to spoil the plot by getting too detailed, but the film's opening shot - through a web as a spider catches its prey - sets the stage as Krabbé, as unshaven, smug, bisexual writer Gerard Reve (interestingly, also the name of the writer whose novel this is based on) crosses paths with a wealthy, mysterious, sexy woman named Christine (Soutendijk, melding androgynous stylings with Simone Simon-like innocence/cuteness that's pretty unnerving), who may be a literal 'black widow' responsible for the deaths of her three previous husbands. The two become lovers and move in with one another, but we're led to believe (through Christine's bizarre behavior and the frequent appearances of another woman - played by Geert de Jong - who may or may not actually exist) something terrible is boiling under the surface. When another of Christine's lovers, the young and "beautiful" Herman (Thom Hoffman), shows up at the house, things take an unexpected turn. And that's all you need to know.<br /><br />THE 4TH MAN was a huge art-house success in much of the world, but didn't make it over to the US until 1984, where it was awarded the Best Foreign Film of the year from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. The most common video is the Media release, which has been horribly dubbed. Try to avoid that one and head straight for the newer subtitled Anchor Bay DVD release. Since coming to America, Verhoeven's career has had its ups and downs. He has made a few decent films (Flesh & Blood, RoboCop) and some lousy ones (Showgirls). In fact, Verhoeven's big hit Basic Instinct is almost like a less interesting, junior league version of The Fourth Man. Soutendjik also tried her hand at acting in America and since GRAVE SECRETS (1989) and EVE OF DESTRUCTION (1991) were the best offers she was getting, she headed right back home to the Netherlands.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.