review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Of course you could never go into a theatre and witness the types of sets you get in this film. From that point of view it is utter fantasy. But who cares? It is certainly true that you will not find this film listed in with Citizen Kane, Battleship Potyomkin and all the other films the pseuds tell us we should be watching. Films like this are worth a hundred Citizen Kanes.It is about what cinema does best: great camera-work, great settings and great performances.<br /><br />The three spectacular scenes at the end are probably best in the order they are presented, keeping the best till last.<br /><br />I will gladly watch this film again and again and again and...
|
positive
|
As a matter of fact, this is one of those movies you would have to give 7.5 to. The fact is; as already stated, it's a great deal of fun. Wonderfully atmospheric. Askey does indeed come across as over the top, but it's a great vehicle for him, just as Oh, Mr Porter is for Will hay. If you like old dark house movies and trains, then this is definitely for you.<br /><br />Strangely enough it's the kind of film that you'll want to see again and again. It's friendly and charming in an endearing sort of way with all of the nostalgic references that made great wartime fare. The 'odd' band of characters simply play off each other as they do in many another typical British wartime movie. It would have been wonderful to have seen this film if it had been recorded by Ealing studios . A real pity that the 1931 original has not survived intact
|
positive
|
I watched an episode. Yes I sat through the entire miserable experience, and I have to say, this brand of comedy is one of the worst you will get. Imagine Peter Griffin, of Family Guy fame. Now imagine Peter Griffin as a(admittedly slim and minus the glasses) woman, except that he now lacks the something that made him hilarious. Peter Griffin is an idiot, but he doesn't know he's an idiot. Sarah has none of the genuine character, none of the acting ability to pull her character off. Maybe its the trite, formulaic jokes that pull her comedy even lower than her character can take it by herself. Maybe it's the lack of believable foils. Her insensitive, bigoted persona may appeal to insensitive, bigoted people unlike the mass appeal that Stephen Colbert's insensitive, bigoted character has. Like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah creates an annoying, unfunny character. She lacks something that is necessary for the genre of satire, let alone for the entire world of comedy. What Sarah Silverman lacks, its noticeable. And when you don't believe it and identify with it, it's not funny anymore.
|
negative
|
Ha ha. - oh no - what to say about this film? Yes - green eggs and ham makes more sense than this movie. Where does one start? A lot of the good stuff has already been said - so I won't divulge into the same territory. I believe you already have the movie summary - so I won't paraphrase the movie.<br /><br />First - let's start the with good.<br /><br />1). If you like psychological thrillers that make you think (as I do) the first 29 minutes of this film will be for you - this is one of those films that illustrates the question that you always talked about on long car drives when you were kids like (what if you had to chose one family member live, another to die, or, what if you had to die by drowning or fire) This movie is a great concept - bottom line.<br /><br />2) The wardrobe group did a fine job with bringing us back to the 70's. Realistically though, how difficult is that to accomplish? .....Okay, that's about all for the good. Let's talk about the bad.<br /><br />1). This movie feels like a 2 hour "Twilight Zone" episode. This could easily be 90 minutes. That might have made the movie tolerable.<br /><br />2). Do you remember in the movie "From Dusk til Dawn?". The movie started out interesting, then halfway through the movie it just took a degrading turn? Yep - same thing here. I would venture to say that the writers started with a concept, then had no idea what to do with it. I've gotten deeper thought provocation out of Transformers 2.<br /><br />3). Yes - we get the dilemma in the film. We understand the philosophical undertones and Utilitarian approach - but the story jumped around way too much, didn't elaborate on the current story arc, and took a(forgive me)completely insulting direction.<br /><br />4). The ending didn't make sense. Not at all. None.<br /><br />This movie would make a great term paper in college philosophy 101. If you're board out of your mind, in bed sick, or have ever enjoyed being hit in the face with a pie, and can view this free on-line - by all means, go for it.<br /><br />If you need to pay anything to view this movie, don't waste your time - you're better off watching old Howie Mandel stand-up on You Tube. You will get more philosophical stimulation reorganizing your sock drawer.
|
negative
|
I couldn't' agree more than with the comment left by "coldshitaction" and how this film is a masterpiece. I have never seen a film that had my adrenalin flowing that this film did, and that mostly happened when Bronson comes running out a fire escape with like an M-60 and plows down like 20 dude from a gang, it's genius. Quite possibly the best action movie ever made (no exaggeration either), it really could be the best action movie ever made. From the start, one should know that you;re in for something sweet when the police let Bronson go and tell him, tell him, to clean up the slums. Once again, genius. And once again Bronson is a bad ass. Paul Kersey is just as cool, maybe even cooler than John McClain or the Terminator, he's just simply a bad ass. And what else is great is the fact that he's a nice guy and buys a kid some ice cream and helps out an old couple all before he kills some scum bag. genius. Highly recommended, if you hate this movie you're crazy.
|
positive
|
It's along the line of comedy of errors, mistaken affection transferring from one to another, blossoms and passes on
kinda cat and mouse situations
Flares of passion, sparks of fire fanned and put out
guessing maybe she loves, he loves or they love
Circle of emotions, evolving, releasing
hiding, yet not hiding
wanting to let him know, wanting to let her know, let them know
Good ensemble cast in spite of the seemingly confusing mix of emotions from different parties involved. <br /><br />It's a refreshing charmer, casual, free and easy and rather down to earth -- not Hollywood glamorous like "Notting Hill", but lots of human feelings, frailty, vulnerability a-flowing. Yes, all revolving around an accidentally (lost &) found love letter. Kate Capshaw as the owner of the town's bookstore, with a variety of characters portrayed by Ellen DeGeneres, Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Tom Everett Scott, Gloria Stuart, Alice Drummond and Geraldine McEwan as the seemingly unaffected Mrs. Scattergoods. Romance is in the air, love lurking everywhere. You get to appreciate the talented Kate Capshaw. ("The Alarmist" is another quirky little movie which is fun to watch: Capshaw has a wonderful chemistry with David Arquette, and Arquette with Stanley Tucci).<br /><br />"Notting Hill" is satisfying in its story revolving around the glittering pairing of Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant, and the wonderful support of his circle of (London) friends. "Love Letters" is delightful in its quirky (Loblolly) small town-ness, and its story involving Kate Capshaw's centrifuged ripple effects on her friends and neighbors. Both maybe fantasies, somehow, the latter felt more attainable if it should happen to you. And if you appreciate words or poetic lines, it could be the movie for you.
|
positive
|
I haven't seen every single movie that Burt Reynolds has ever made, but this one (which I've just finished watching, for the third time) may very well be his best! It suffers only from some slow stretches; Burt perhaps tried to make it more "arty" than it should have been. On the other hand, he managed to avoid many of the usual cliches in the presentation of the "tough cop" role he plays (notice, for example, the scene in which he attempts to kiss Rachel Ward for the first time, or the fear he expresses just before the final showdown with the indestructible Henry Silva). In fact, Silva and those two ninja assassins are three of the most memorable villains of cop thrillers of the 80s. The film also has some offbeat touches, a surprising amount of humor, a brutal and gripping fistfight and many well-directed shots. (***)
|
positive
|
Wendigo is a pretty good psychological thriller, the film has some great drama between the characters and some good creepy scenes. The acting is good, the characters act like a normal family. The Wendigo effects are good, the Deer Form reminded me a little of the Rabbit in Donnie Darko.<br /><br />The film sees a family going to stay at a house for a while but accidental hit a deer, a group of hunters arrives and one of the hunters named Otis starts to argue with the Dad George, after the car is lifted they drive off to the house. The Son Miles is a little shook up about the Deer but his Parents try to tell him that it's natural for things like that to happen. That night while he's in bed he starts to see weird things in bedroom, the next day they go into to town and Miles meets a man at the counter who gives him a little statue of the Wendigo, when Miles shows Kim the statue and tells her that a man at the counter gave it him the owner says the she only works there. Once returning home George takes his son sledding and while there sledding he's knocked off the board and Miles is chases by the wind, after gaining conciseness they go looking for George, they find him outside the house where he tells them he was shot, in the Hospital Kim tells the Sheriff that Otis may have shot him, the Shrieff goes to Otis's place where he's bashed over the head with a hammer, as Otis drives down the road he finds that the Wendigo is after him.<br /><br />Wendigo is a pretty good thriller that has some chilling moments. Check this out. 10/10
|
positive
|
Honestly, this is one of the BEST horror movies I have ever seen. I was captivated by the story, petrified of Captain Howdy and on the edge of my seat for the whole ride. I do not really understand all the negative reviews.<br /><br />The set up has already been discussed in depth; Captain Howdy is an on-line predator who sets up meetings with teenagers, abducts them and introduces them to his favorite pastime of body modification and piercing. Dee Snider is Captain Howdy and he is one of the scariest psychopaths ever created; maybe the scariest because he is so human and you get the sense (especially if you are into body modification at all) that there are really people like this in the world.<br /><br />But the biggest reason I liked this movie and the reason it is so horrific is that Captain Howdy becomes the hero. At the beginning of the movie, the roles are clear-cut; the victims are innocent, the cop is the good guy and Howdy is pure evil. By the second act, however, things have changed a little. You want Howdy to be evil but it turns out that he is really just a victim of circumstance and maybe the good and the bad are not obvious. It is terrifying to find yourself cheering for the "bad" guy.<br /><br />A couple people have mentioned that Strangeland should have been broken into two separate movies. To be sure, there are definitely two separate "acts" but this movie works so well because the two acts are back to back. The first act is the typical psycho-thriller but the second act is the most disturbing because of the viewers reaction to the situation. I do not think it would have worked quite the same if the second act were expanded and turned into a sequel.<br /><br />As a big horror movie fan, I highly recommend this film. It is the first horror movie EVER to give me nightmares.
|
positive
|
...I saw this on cable back in the late 1980's as I was a big wrestling fan since 1986. I saw this on VHS in a 'for sale' bin and bought it.<br /><br />In 1998, I started training as a wrestler after the Air Force and would always go back to watching this to see how it was a very accurate portrayal of people that are involved with wrestling ( families and friends that wouldn't understand us, the travel, the heartbreak, etc. ). Henry Winkler is funny and sometimes sad to watch as nobody else can understand what a genius he is creatively. A great way to separate himself The Fonz character he played on Happy Days at the time. Plus, look at the cast...William Daniels ( Knight Rider ), Polly Holiday ( Alice ), and wrestlers Roddy Piper and Chavo Guerrero Sr. If you get a chance, watch it.
|
positive
|
"The Groove Tube" was one of only two Ken Shapiro movies, the other one being the equally zany "Modern Problems". This one is just a full-scale parody of TV. Aside from Shapiro - who apparently didn't do anything after "Modern Problems" - the movie also stars Chevy Chase and Henry Winkler's cousin Richard Belzer. The three cast members (plus some other people in smaller roles) appear in various skits. One of the funniest ones features Chase in a Geritol-spoofing commercial, in which he's describing the medicine as his wife strips, and it ends with her humping him. There's also a pornographic news program, an irritating cooking show, and the epic tale of some drug dealers.<br /><br />Anyway, the whole thing's just a real hoot. In my opinion, the three best TV-spoofing movies are this one, plus "Tunnelvision" and "Kentucky Fried Movie" (although I might also include "The Truman Show"). Really funny.<br /><br />I wonder what ever did become of Ken Shapiro.
|
positive
|
I can't believe it, IMDb really does have every TV show known to man! I have not seen this show in over 20 years. I only remember two episodes, and I barely remember those. I remember that Tony may not been on from the start, because one of the episodes I remember is the one in which everybody trying to get Tony to join, but he rejects them, but typically at the end of the show he becomes a member of Power House, with everybody cheering.<br /><br />The other one I remember is the one where Lolo for some reason pretends to be dead,(complete with funeral and mourners). I don't remember why he plays dead, or how the show ends.<br /><br />This is one of those shows that I convinced myself that I must have dreamed up since no one else had ever heard of it.
|
negative
|
I'm a dance teacher and was looking forward to some good dance routines in this film. How sad to have been subjected to such a painful experience. <br /><br />I had major problems with Jennifer Beals and her character. I found Alex extremely repellent. Beals' face is so young, sweet and innocent, and this very incongruous with Alex's very disturbing lewdness, especially in that disgusting restaurant scene. She also has the temper tantrums of a toddler. It is very difficult to believe that Nick would keep coming back to such a moody teenager after her frequent rantings and ravings, especially after she opens the door of a moving car and chucks a stiletto at him, opting rather to walk home - in the middle of the road - with only one shoe!!!. And what about after her idiotic behaviour after the night at the ballet. In fact, the whole romance was very disturbing - the 30 something year old man going after a girl who looks about 16. Yuck. <br /><br />As for the dancing, I'm afraid this 80s style is totally dated. What on earth was that TV dance sequence about in the club? Who was supposed to be dancing? I wasn't even sure if it was a woman or a man in drag! And even that famous final sequence is pretty disappointing, especially given the context of an audition for a ballet company. The camera shots of her leap actually ruin it's effect because you can't see what she's doing. And what on earth was she doing when she went past each of the panel pointing at them? And as many other comments have pointed out, she would NEVER get into a ballet company on the strength of that audition - perhaps that's why they don't actually say at the end whether she was successful or not, the closure is the fact that she overcame her fear in the end. Of the 'Flashdancers', I actually thought the best sequence belonged to Cynthia Rhodes (Penny in Dirty Dancing). You could see that she was a real dancer, and her acrobatics were very impressive. This is of course if you can get past her appalling costume and makeup. <br /><br />There were two good bits in this film - the ballet dancers stretching when Alex goes for the first time to apply for an audition - they look so lovely and classy, and at least this helps to underline the difference between her current dance career and the one she aspires to. The other good scene was the break dancing in the street. I also liked the ice skater's parents, they were funny.<br /><br />Some other random points - who was Hanna and how did Alex get to know her? What was an 18 year old doing living in a converted warehouse all alone? How did she afford that lovely barre and all the furniture?Where were her family? Was that scene in the 'nude' club really necessary? The person who wrote in their comment that it was something like a Disney film needs their head examined. And anyway, what happened to the ice skater? <br /><br />Many people said the film was poor but they liked the message - don't give up hope, keep on trying, and your dreams will come true. Watch "The Little Mermaid" instead.
|
negative
|
I saw this film many years ago (along with another of Shepitko's films, Wings) as part of a Soviet film series at a local film archive. But none of Shepitko's films, as far as I can tell, have ever made it to video or DVD in the United States. Ascent is a great film by any standard, with stunning black and white photography, hypnotic direction, and actors so deep into their roles that you have no sense of them merely giving a performance. Although the period details of Russian resistance to (and collaboration with) German occupation are very telling, the story is timeless. Two Russian partisans are captured by the Germans, and the interrogation tests their integrity as well as their courage. I suspect the reason why it has not been released on DVD by the Russians (here comes the spoiler) is that the Jewish intellectual (and not the tough Russian peasant) is the partisan who resists both threats and temptation, goes serenely to his death, and sets an heroic example for the villagers.
|
positive
|
I did not like this movie. I rented it hoping it would be something like the 10th Kingdom. I was disappointed when I discovered it wasn't. I also found it just plain nervracking. The acting was bad, the characters where unbelievable and the time jumps were crazy. I only recomend this film if your in the mood to see a crazy dude running around, but I'm sure there are better films with the same thing. I can't believe I wasted my time on this one.
|
negative
|
Yes, I felt like I had been gutted after first seeing it. But not until the next day did I begin to see the true brilliance of this creation. I won't repeat much of what has already been said by those who appreciate the film, but there is one new area I want to touch on... **SPOILERS** Why exactly did the teacher put the broken glass in the student's pocket? Most reviewers have noted that it only reflected her cruelty and reaction to an unsatisfactory performance. I must disagree. Watch the scene again. Huppert is moved to tears as she watches her student playing on stage. The student is quite an expressive girl (crying & vocalizing her fears)- just the opposite of Huppert's character. There is a scene later in the film, after the girl is injured, when Huppert discusses the accident with the girl's mother. The mother, visibly upset, states "We gave up everything so she could study piano" and Huppert immediately snaps "You mean SHE gave up everything, don't you."<br /><br />So it was my thought that Huppert was simply saving this young expressive student from her own destiny. She didn't want the girl to end up like HER, repressed & hardened, condemned to a life of recitals...gradually killing the soul in the pursuit of perfection. Maybe she saw herself on the stage years ago, before things grew bad. Maybe she wished she had escaped when she was that age. Is she ruining the student's life, or simply freeing her?<br /><br />For me, that realization made all the difference in what I experienced through this film. Brilliant.
|
positive
|
In the voice over which begins the film, Hughie(Billy Connolly), a roadie for the great 70's band Strange Fruit, said the reason lightning struck at a rock festival to stop Strange Fruit's set was that God was sick of 70's excess. Indeed, it's been popular to put down that era of music, and see punk as a welcome antidote to it. While I agree the excess was tiresome(as well as the misogynistic urges which came out of it), and like punk, I still am a fan of what is considered classic rock or glam rock, and this film about Strange Fruit's long, strange reunion is an affectionate tribute to those days.<br /><br />One of the reasons the film works is the care of the people behind the scenes. Brian Gibson directed WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT, about Tina Turner(while I had problems with the dramatic parts of the film, the music was handled very well), writers Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais co-wrote THE COMMITMENTS and were behind the music-oriented British TV show OVER THE RAINBOW, and the songs Strange Fruit played were co-written by Foreigner's Mick Jones(not to be confused with The Clash's Mick Jones), so it was a meeting of people who knew what they were talking about. Also, two cast members are musicians in their own right(Bill Nye I don't know about, though the film credits him with his own singing, and he certainly looks like a lead singer of that era, while Jimmy Nail was in another British TV show which was music-oriented, though I forget the name, and he was in EVITA), and the others are convincing at it. And while, as I said, a lot of 70's bands like Strange Fruit behaved badly towards women, the movie doesn't make the same mistake(except for the woman who follows Timothy Spall around); as the manager of the reunion, Juliet Aubrey is quite good and plays a fully rounded character.<br /><br />The other actors are all good as well, with special praise to Stephen Rea, who handles the more dramatic role well without sentimentality. There are a couple of plot points which don't work, but overall this is quite enjoyable. Oh yeah, and the music is good too.
|
positive
|
For a horror film, this is criminally dull. A few memorable, gruesome bits can't compensate for a really poor script. Very little coherence is achieved, and the movie relentlessly overplays its one basic idea (a killer cat), until it becomes repetitive - and things are made even worse by the constant use of shots from the cat's point-of-view. (*1/2)
|
negative
|
This is a simple tale but it feels very manipulative. It lacks pathos for it does not leave a room for imagination or a personal thought or time for reflection.<br /><br />The animation is well done but I feel like it is too presentational. I would have preferred more images from behind, more space in the background and maybe then this would not feel so kitsch to me.<br /><br />But for a Hollywood style film it works OK but it is very derivative of Aardman films and this is bothering to me. Perhaps a longer film will test if this maker can do without the voice-over.<br /><br />I think the voice over is too glib.
|
negative
|
A young couple Mandy Pullman (Mitch Martin) and Roy Seeley (Matt Birman) are relaxing on a beach in the small town of Galen. They decide to start playing practical jokes on each other. Mandy hides in an old run down cabin, she is attacked and raped by an unknown assailant. Roy tries to help her after hearing her screams but is killed. Dr. Sam Cordell (John Cassavetes) and his daughter Jenny (Erin Flannery) are both new to Galen after the death of Sam's wife. Sam is called into action by Police Chief Hank Walden (John Ireland) when Mandy and Roy are found. He performs the autopsy on Roy and treats Mandy for her horrific injuries. Soon after a curator at the local museum named Carolyn Davis (Denise Furgusson) is also attacked and raped. A local journalist named Laura Kincaid (Kerrie Keane) reports the events and suggests to Sam that a similar string of rapes and murders occurred in the town 30 years earlier. More rapes and murders occur. Meanwhile Jenny's boyfriend Tim Galen (Duncan MacIntosh) has been having strange dreams and nightmares and is convinced that he has something to do with the horrific acts. Tim's story and digging into the towns past makes Sam become convinced of the existence of a creature known as an Incubus - a shape-shifting demonic entity that exists only to reproduce! Directed by John Hough this is one seriously dull horror film. The script by George Franklin based on the novel by Ray Russell is slow to say the least. Nothing interesting or exciting happens and it finishes with one of the most boring none event of a twist ending I've ever seen and frustratingly it just finishes suddenly. As the story plods along at a snails pace there are a few rapes, but none are shown on screen. There is only one gore scene in the entire film too. The monster itself is only shown at the very end and has all of three short scenes. Everything about this film production-wise is very static and flat, the film has no energy or pace. The acting is dull and you don't feel or care for anyone. Check out the scene in the autopsy room where you can clearly see the boom mike at the top of the screen on several occasions. The type of rubbish horror film making that you'll forget within a day. A real waste of time, don't bother.
|
negative
|
Although there's Flying Guillotines as part of the title of this movie, it has no connections to the original Flying Guillotines (1975) and its sequel Flying Guillotines II (1978). The two originals are masterpieces of kung-fu movie and still stands out as a classic. This is a much inferior copy of the original, and even as a regular kung-fu movie, it's below average.<br /><br />First of all, this movie doesn't have much acting. It's one senseless fight scene after another, and flying guillotine doesn't even play a major part in them. Story is about some Shaolin monks who are tracking down some villains who've took off with a sacred book, and an evil prince who owns part of this book is part of the plot. The same evil prince has plans to lure the monks in and use the flying guillotines on them.<br /><br />There are four movies with Flying Guillotine as part of its title. This in my opinion is of least quality. The design of the flying guillotine in this movie is different from the other three indicating that this movie was produced by a different entity from the other three.<br /><br />The movie has no chemistry asides from being unintentionally funny due to poor production. <br /><br />Best skip this and watch the two originals.
|
negative
|
I didn't know what to expect when I rented this widescreen DVD. I knew it had a cult following but I had also seen a lot of the director's later works which although delightfully gory were also pretty much incoherent. DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING actually had a linear storyline and a mystery that kept me guessing almost until the end. And after all was said and done, it was a genuinely unsettling and creepy experience. One major caveat: I would much rather have heard the original soundtrack and read English subtitles than the uneven dubbing found here.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie at an actual movie theater (probably the $2.00 one) with my cousin and uncle. We were around 11 and 12, I guess, and really into scary movies. I remember being so excited to see it because my cool uncle let us pick the movie (and we probably never got to do that again!) and sooo disappointed afterwards!! Just boring and not scary. The only redeeming thing I can remember was Corky Pigeon from Silver Spoons, and that wasn't all that great, just someone I recognized. I've seen bad movies before and this one has always stuck out in my mind as the worst. This was from what I can recall, one of the most boring, non-scary, waste of our collective $6, and a waste of film. I have read some of the reviews that say it is worth a watch and I say, "Too each his own", but I wouldn't even bother. Not even so bad it's good.
|
negative
|
Expectacular THE ATOR's second part!! Directed rapidly by JOE D'AMATO, specialist in all kinds of subkinds(subgenres) of exploitation, and interpreted again by MILES O'KEEFFE. the budget of the movie debio to be derisory or minimal. In spite of not being a better movie of his antecesora not mas entertained, ATOR 2 either, it has something, something that makes it enterteining. His introduction you prop it explains ATOR's origin to us with images of the first part. The script is incredible, is like any comic-book of the brilliant ROY THOMAS. has so fantastic elements inside dle world of the SWORD and such FANTASY as invisible men, black gentlemen, cannibals - monkeys ... the role of the villain this one interpreted brilliant. The final this struggle very well. lacking mas violence and blood, but this one well. Never it becomes boring. It has everything what there was lacking ATOR 1. Be charmed with to my me!! 4/5
|
positive
|
Gave it two stars because the DVD cover was good enough to make me buy this piece of horse manure. I paid a dollar for it at the local DVD exchange and I want my money back. I have a couple of good movies(at least I think they're good) that have never seen the inside of a video store. After seeing this, I'm really insulted by that. Light years worse than anything I've ever seen, I can't even recommend this as a campy joke movie. It is so bad, instead of making you laugh it makes you angry. How did this awful film find any kind of distro? I can only believe it was self distributed as the amateurish DVD authoring would suggest. To the producers of this "movie" get out of the business, it's obvious you have no talent for it.
|
negative
|
Criminals Perry Smith and Richard "Dick" Hickock believe Mr. Clutter of Holcomb, Kansas keeps a large supply of cash on-hand in a safe.On November 15, 1959 at two a.m. they end up murdering Mr. and Mrs. Clutter and their teenage son and daughter.After a little police investigation the two men are found and sentenced to be hanged.In Cold Blood (1967) is directed by Richard Brooks.Now, I haven't read the Truman Capote novel this movie is based on, so I can't make any comparisons.The movie does a brilliant job telling of those horrific events that actually took place.Robert Blake is excellent as Perry.Of course, Blake had the murder case of his own a few years back, being accused of murdering his wife.He's free now, but we still don't know the truth.What ever that may be, he's still a very fine actor.Scott Wilson does remarkable job as Hickock.John Forsythe is terrific as Alvin Dewey.Paul Stewart is very good as Jensen.Jeff Corey is marvelous as Mr. Hickock.Same thing with Charles McGraw who plays Tex Smith.John McLiam portrays Herbert Clutter, Ruth Storey is his wife Bonnie, Brenda Currin is the daughter Nancy and Paul Hough is the son Kenyon.Great job by each of them.There is much to remember from this film.Let's start from the lighter side.It's pretty great when Perry wants to go hunting for gold in Mexico and says to Hickock: Remember Bogart in Treasure of the Sierra Madre?" And Blake himself was in that movie as a boy! And it's a fun moment when they, giving a ride to that boy and his granddad, collect bottles and turn them in for refund money.Those darker moments are the most haunting ones.The flashback sequence, where you see the murders happening, is extremely terrifying.When Perry goes to kill the girl, Nancy last, and she says "Oh, please, don't"...The brutality of man, it's impossible to explain.Then the hanging scene.First there goes Hickock and then Perry, first talking to the minister.In the last image of the movie we see Perry hitting the end of the rope.Sure movies,and books may try to sympathize these villains.Especially Perry's character is someone you could feel sorry for.He thinks of his mom, and dad who he hates, but still loves.But it doesn't change the fact both of these men these actors portray are brutal murderers, who don't feel sorry for anybody.They go to this house and murder an entire family, in cold blood.How could you sympathize these people?
|
positive
|
I never heard of this film til it played as part of a Robert Mitchum retrospective at the National Film Theatre in London. Almost 60 years on the cast list looked tasty to say the least with seven names - in addition to top-billed Mitchum - in the public domain; Charles McGraw, not long off The Killers, Barbara Bel Geddes, long before Dallas and arguably still better known as the daughter of Theatre Set Designer Norman, Walter Brennan, who needed no introduction, Frank Faylen, the sadistic male nurse in The Lost Weekend and the much nicer small-town mensch in It's A Wonderful Life, Robert Preston still a decade away from Harold Hill in The Music Man with Tom Tully and Phyllis Thaxter making up the numbers. Alas, most of them were wasting their time. I looked in vain for any 'signature' scenes given that it was Robert Wise on bullhorn. By this time he'd made around a half dozen films and had still to find a style. The story is our old friend the range war and Mitchum must have thought it was barely a cut above the Hopalong Cassidy oaters on which he'd cut his teeth. There are no new twists - if you don't count the unbelievable scene when Mitchum accuses Preston of sleeping with Thaxter to gain information about her father's plans to move his cattle. This is perfectly true but how did Mitchum KNOW? We've seen or heard nothing to indicate how he discovered it. On balance not a lot to be said for this.
|
negative
|
If you're even mildly interested in the War between the States, this film is worth watching. It is great historical story telling. No flashing sabres, no cavalry charges, no carnage -- just the story of a sorry group of Union soldiers stumbling into the farm of a Confederate woman and her son and taking as much as their captain's conscience allows. This quantity moves up and down as events unfold affecting his sense of humanity in conflict with his sense of duty to his men and his cause. Ultimately, he reaches a compromise that any of us would be hard put to top. <br /><br />I appreciate the historical treatment of the war in Kentucky, a slave state that tried to stay neutral but eventually opted to remain in the Union under mysterious political circumstances involving the detention of certain legislators. Roughly half the soldiers from Kentucky fought for each side, but there's never been much treatment of what it was like to have lived there through those times. This film makes a great contribution simply in the "look and feel" of the time and place.
|
positive
|
"Citizen X" is the superbly told true story of the hunt for one of history's worst serial killers. What makes this story even more compelling is where and when it took place; the Soviet Union in the 1980's.<br /><br />** Mild Spoilers **<br /><br /> Viktor Burakov (magnificently played by Stephen Rea) is a newly promoted forensic investigator for the Rostov oblast militia. He discovers past and present unsolved murders, apparently by the same person. The murders are unsolved because no one has ever taken the trouble to properly investigate the evidence. He is driven to find and stop the killer. His only tools are his dedication, skill and honesty. His obstacles are the corruption and political ideology of the Soviet system that discourages the search for truth. His naiveté would have led to failure were it not for his boss, Col. Mikhail Fetisov (Donald Sutherland). Fetisov is a politically astute cynic who understands the game and knows how to deal with the Soviet bureaucracy. However, he also shares Burakov's desire to bring a murderer to justice, even if the official party line is "There are no serial killers in the Soviet Union!"<br /><br /> The cast is outstanding. The locations and sets are perfect recreations of latter day Soviet life. Randy Edelman's score is particularly good.<br /><br /> More important, this film shows a dark and disturbing criminal phenomenon with both intensity and poignancy. This was a made-for-cable movie by HBO Films and they have become a great resource for films that would otherwise never be made.
|
positive
|
Kubrick meets King. It sounded so promising back in the spring of 1980, I remember. Then the movie came out, and the Kubrick cultists have been bickering with the King cultists ever since.<br /><br />The King cultists say Stanley Kubrick took a great horror tale and ruined it. The Kubrick cultists don't give a damn about King's story. They talk about Steadicams, tracking shots, camera angles.This is a film, they insist: It should be considered on its own. As it happens, both camps are correct. Unfortunately.<br /><br />If one views it purely as an adaptation of King's novel, "The Shining" is indeed a failure, a wasted opportunity, a series of botched narrative gambits. <br /><br />I used to blame that on Kubrick's screenwriter. The writer Diane Johnson (author of Le Marriage, L'Affaire, Le Divorce, etc.) has a reputation as an novelist of social manners. Maybe she was chosen for her subtle grasp of conjugal relations or family dynamics. But the little blue-collar town of Sidewinder, Colorado doesn't exist on any map in her Francophile universe. <br /><br />Kubrick the Anglophile probably found her congenial, however. He, of course, is the real auteur. And considered on its own merits, his screenplay for "The Shining" -- with its mishmash of abnormal psychology, rationalism, supernaturalism, and implied reincarnation -- just doesn't stand up to logical analysis.<br /><br />I'm willing to consider Kubrick's "Shining" on its own terms. I'm even willing to take it as something other than a conventional horror-genre movie. But it doesn't succeed as a naturalistic study of isolation, alienation, and madness either. Parsed either way, the film pretty much falls apart.<br /><br />Are the horrors of the Overlook Hotel real? Or do they exist only in the mind -- first as prescient nightmares suffered by little Danny Torrance, then as the hallucinations of his father? One notes how whenever Jack Torrance is seen talking to a "ghost" he is in fact looking into a mirror. One notes how the hotel's frozen topiary-hedge maze appears to symbolize Jack's stunted, convoluted psyche. Very deep stuff.<br /><br />But if indeed the Overlook's "ghosts" are purely manifestations of Jack Torrance's growing insanity, then who exactly lets the trapped Jack out of the hotel kitchen's dead-bolted walk- in closet, so that he can go on his climactic ax-wielding rampage?<br /><br />And can ANYONE explain, with a straight face, that black-and-white photograph (helpfully labelled "1921") of Nicholson as a tuxedoed party-goer that pops up out of left field and onto a hotel-ballroom wall during the film's closing seconds? Are we to seriously conclude that Jack Torrance's Bad Craziness stems from a some sort of "past life" experience? (And if you swallow that, since when are reincarnated people supposed to be exact physical replicas their past selves?)<br /><br />Maybe Kubrick didn't care about his storyline. Maybe only wanted to evoke a mood of horror. Whatever the case, the film tries to hedge its narrative bets -- to have it both ways, rational and supernatural. As a result, the story is a mess. This movie hasn't improved with age, and it certainly doesn't improve with repeated viewings.<br /><br />I don't deny that a few moments of fear, claustrophobia, and general creepiness are scattered throughout this long, long film. But those gushing Elevators o' Blood, seen repeatedly in little Danny's visions, are absurd and laughable. And Jack Torrance's infamous tag lines ("Wendy, I'm home!" and "Heeeeeere's JOHNNY!") merely puncture the movie's dramatic tension and dissipate its narrative energy. (I know: I sat in the theater and heard the audience laugh in comic relief: "Whew! Glad we don't have to take this stuff seriously!") Finally, Kubrick is completely at sea -- or else utterly cynical -- during those scenes in which Wendy wanders around the empty hotel while her husband tries to puree their son. A foyer full of mummified guests, all sitting there dead in their party hats? Yikes, now I really am afraid.<br /><br />Given Jack Nicholson's brilliance over the years, one can only assume that he gave just the sort of eyeball-rolling, eyebrow-wiggling, scenery-chomping performance that the director wanted. The performance of Shelley Duvall, as a sort of female version of Don Knotts in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken," is best passed over in silence.<br /><br />This movie simply doesn't succeed -- not as an adaptation, not on its own terms. It probably merits a 3 out of 10, but I'm giving it a 1 because it has been so GROTESQUELY over-rated in this forum.
|
negative
|
Great movie. I thought it would never be as good as it was. Great special effects, great story, big laughs. It didn't take itself seriously, which is why I think it worked so well. Even the acting was surprisingly good. Overall a very funny and sometimes chilling story.
|
positive
|
This movie is filled with so many idiotic moments, that you wonder how it ever got made. For example, they get into the sewers from the Capitol and while they're in the sewers you can see signs pointing to various government buildings, and then they come up in the middle of the street! I highly doubt that government buildings would provide public access through the city sewer system. Anyways, I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 just because of its comic value. I laughed the whole way through at the idiocy of everyone involved in this movie.
|
negative
|
This is a case of taking a fairy tale too far. The Enchanted Cottage delivers Dorothy McGuire as a "terrible ugly" spinster and Robert Young as a disfigured pilot. Long story short: Scarface marries Spinster, after which their love transforms them, miraculously (lighting, cosmetics and the removal of fake scars), into beautiful peoplea magical change that they attribute to the enchantment of living in a seaside cottage that has been the abode of generations of honeymooners.<br /><br />If the story stopped there, fine; it would be a fable with a proverbial message: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it lurches ahead, reaching for reality. When Mr. and Mrs. Scarface greet their public, it comes as a painful shock to them that they're still homely. You see, they only appear beautiful to each other a situation which the audience is well prepared for because all the secondary characters have been sermonizing that ill-favored people really need to lower their expectations, and find other ways to be happy. You know. Take up hobbies. Spinster does woodcuts, for instance. Scarface considers collecting driftwood.<br /><br />The original playwright (Arthur Wing Pinero) and the filmmakers have zero faith in human nature. Their message is: You're either ugly or pretty, and no pretty person would ever love an ugly one. What's even worse, ugly people evidently need to imagine their lover as pretty. Reality just won't do.<br /><br />One wonders what Elaine Mason saw every day when she looked at her husband, Stephen Hawking.
|
negative
|
The accountant Shohei Sugiyama (Kôji Yakusho) is feeling bored with his routine life, limited to hard work and stay at home with his wife Masako Sugiyama (Hideko Hara) and his teenager's daughter. One night, while traveling home by train, he sees the beautiful face of Mai Kishikawa (Tamiyo Kusakari) in the balcony of a dance school, and a couple of days later, he decides to visit the school and secretly take ballroom dance lessons every Wednesdays night. However, he becomes ashamed to tell his family his secret. Meanwhile, Masako feels the changes in the behavior of her happier husband, and hires a private eye to investigate whether Shohei is having an affair.<br /><br />I have just finished watching "Shall We Dansu?" and I really loved it. What a lovely and delightful movie! The story is amazingly good, with drama, comedy and romance. The cast is excellent, and I was particularly impressed with the cold beauty and graciousness of the wife of the director Masayuki Suo and professional ballet dancer Tamiyo Kusakari. On last September 06th, I saw the American remake of "Shall We Dansu?" for the first time, and I found it a delightful entertainment. But now I can say that it is another unnecessary remake, and I recommend this original film instead. My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Dança Comigo?" ("Dance With Me?")
|
positive
|
I bought the DVD to get Julia Ormond. Well, I got that in spades. She was lovely in the romantic scenes; too bad Bill Paxton was flying on autopilot for the whole effort. I almost lost my lunch when he popped his big fat white behind out of his flight suit to shall we say 'engage' with Julia.<br /><br />I realized Julia was very proficient in French while watching her in 'Sabrina'. I watched 'Sabrina' with the French soundtrack to see if Julia dubbed her own dialog. They used someone else. In any case, Julia was chosen for this Dutch film over a native French speaker with sufficient English to communicate with the American flier. Perhaps they wanted at least one familiar name for the British/American market. To my unfamiliar eye, Julia's features could pass for Belgian.<br /><br />The whole film had an odd nature. It was a Dutch film about Belgium in World War 2. I would imagine that national pride would have required a theme of heroic Dutch resistance to the German invaders. The Belgians were much more passive during the occupation period than were the French or Norwegians. The most savage fighting of all came in the Balkans where Tito's communist partisans gave the Germans fits.<br /><br />I noted in another review that 'dbdumonteil' believed Julia Ormond to be an American instead of the actual British nationality. Perhaps Julia's acting skills were great enough to carry off that impression.<br /><br />After watching this film several times, it suddenly dawned on me how out of season, the film is. It is set on Junuary 16, 1944 when the American plane crashes in Belgian farm country. The trees look to be in mid-Fall with lots of leaves and the weather is warm. People walk about in light clothing and the grass is still green. There is not the smallest trace of snow or ice. This must have been the mildest winter in Belgium ever.<br /><br />The actual plot of the film was a mess. Where to begin? For anyone interested in World War 2 history, the film came across as farce. The reconnaissance plane used was a huge 4-engine converted bomber. Such aircraft did exist, but they would have required massive fighter escort to have any chance of survival. In reality, smaller and swifter aircraft were readily available and would have been far more suitable for the task. The vital code books in the film would never have been carried on the plane. The crew had no need of this information to complete their mission, while compromise of this information would have been a huge intelligence defeat. Even given the premise of the film, the first items to be stripped from the aircraft would be the code books. They would have been on their way to Berlin within 10 minutes of the arrival of German troops at the crash site.<br /><br />The Daussois home, where 'Major Brice' took refuge was a farm where no one had the least interest in farming. Food would have been very scarce in Belgium at this time. The Germans would have required substantial quantities of locally-produced food to support their forces. The family truck would have been expropriated long before the arrival of the American flier. There would not have been any fuel available to run it anyway.<br /><br />The plot twist where Henri Daussois turns in the American out of jealousy is pathetic. He would have had to reveal all he knew about the resistance in order to be allowed to live. He would have had to function as a double agent to frustrate any effective opposition. The woman with the secret radio would have never survived the war.<br /><br />'Major Brice' was caught in civilian clothing toward the end of the film. That made him a spy under the laws of war and liable for execution with no defense. He would not have meekly surrendered to face interrogation unhindered by the Geneva Convention. Better to force them to kill him and spare his friends if possible.<br /><br />I have not read the novel upon which this film is based. If this film is a faithful adaption, it shows an abysmal lack of development in the novel. Regardless of the novel, the screenwriters could easily have produced a superior script that would not waste this opportunity to deliver a much better film.
|
negative
|
This movie is a real waste of time and effort. The film lacks plot and depth. The visuals are decent but nothing to write home about. There are far better films out there.
|
negative
|
Excellent and highly under-rated from beginning to end. One of Oliver's best. Well Scripted, Directed, Shot, Acted and Stuarts Copeland's soundtrack (Trivia: the music during the end credits vaguely sounds like a late 90's Pop hit by "Spacehog" Band <br /><br />Eric and Cast are Brilliant, let alone the Callers. What a whirlwind of emotions. It make's your hair stand on end. (..."Necks will be broke and whips will Crack"--in a old female southern accent.. Yike! creepy. Scary than any Horror Movie.<br /><br />10 out of 10<br /><br />Em
|
positive
|
Heart of Darkness Movie Review Could a book that is well known for its eloquent wording and complicated concepts ever be made into a movie good enough to portray the deep meaning in the book? So far, that goal hasn't been achieved. The Heart of Darkness was attempted to be made into a movie in 1993, but it was a failure in comparison to the book.<br /><br />It is hard enough to make any book into a movie. There always is the worry that it won't be as descriptive or have the same meaning. So why the novel, The Heart of Darkness, is made into a movie, I am clueless. There is so much description and hidden meaning throughout the entire book. When just reading the words plainly, I think that a person would think it is pretty boring and wouldn't get the symbolism. I think that is what happened in the movie; the movie just skimmed the story at the surface.<br /><br />The movie didn't even follow the full storyline of the book, major changes were made that I thought made the movie worse. For example, the manager did not go along on the boat with Marlow and the rest of the crew, the spy did instead. I think that took out some major plots and took out the great deception of the manager in relation to Kurtz. Also, Kurtz wasn't even on the steamboat when he died, which especially made the entire journey even more futile, which just got annoying after a while. And when Marlow was telling Kurtz's fiancée about his final moments and words, it was no where near as descriptive or important, the fiancée didn't even get that upset.<br /><br />As far as the acting went, none of the actors did a very good job except for the actor that played Mfumu. In my opinion, Kurtz was not very evil, and that was kind of an important thing in the book. Also, other characters such as Marlow, the manager, and the fiancé didn't do the characters justice that they deserved from the book. Their acting wasn't very exciting or memorable at all. Over all, I don't think that this book should have even been attempted to be made into a movie. I think it is fine to use some of the themes in a different story line like in Apocalypse Now. But as for following the same exact story line of the book, it just does it shame.
|
negative
|
Sometimes reading the user comments on IMDB fills me with despair for the species. For anybody to dismiss 2001: A Space Odyssey as "boring" they must have no interest in science, technology, philosophy, history or the art of film-making. Finally I understand why most Hollywood productions are so shallow and vacuous - they understand their audience.<br /><br />Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.<br /><br />2001 is primarily a technical film. The reason it is slow, and filled with minutae is because the aim was to realistically envision the future of technology (and the past, in the awe inspiring opening scenes). The film's greatest strength is in the details. Remember that when this film was made, man still hadn't made it out to the moon... but there it is in 2001, and that's just the start of the journey. To create such an incredibly detailed vision of the future that 35 years later it is still the best we have is beyond belief - I still can't work out how some of the shots were done. The film's only notable mistake was the optimism with which it predicted mankind's technological (and social) development. It is our shame that the year 2001 did not look like the film 2001, not Kubrick's.<br /><br />Besides the incredible special effects, camera work and set design, Kubrick also presents the viewer with a lot of food for thought about what it means to be human, and where the human race is going. Yes, the ending is weird and hard to comprehend - but that's the nature of the future. Kubrick and Clarke have started the task of envisioning it, now it's up to the audience to continue. There's no neat resolution, no definitive full stop, because then the audience could stop thinking after the final reel. I know that's what most audiences seem to want these days, but Kubrick isn't going to let us off so lightly.<br /><br />I'm glad to see that this film is in the IMDB top 100 films, and only wish that it were even higher. Stanley Kubrick is one of the very finest film-makers the world has known, and 2001 his finest accomplishment. 10/10.
|
positive
|
Ruggero Deodato is often credited for inventing the cannibal subgenre with JUNGLE HOLOCAUST in 1975. But director Umberto Lenzi, usually acknowledged as a Deodato rip-off, directed THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER 3 years earlier in 1972. Is it a worthy start for the genre? Well....not really.....<br /><br />A photographer accidentally kills a man in self-defense and while retreating into the jungles of an Asian country, is captured by a native tribe who hold him captive, force him into slave labor, and eventually accept him when he marries the chief's daughter. Throughout the whole film, I never felt this was a horror film. It was more reminiscent of a drama, like A MAN CALLED HORSE, which I liked better. Ivan Rassimov is pretty good as the photographer, but it is Me Me Lai as the chief's daughter who is memorable and great. I have always been a Me Me Lai fan ever since her breathtaking performance in JUNGLE HOLOCAUST and she is never given credit for her acting chops because she hardly speaks in her films. She is still very talented and charming. Lots of real animal mutilation is the one thing about DEEP RIVER that could make it a horror film, but even that doesn't execute well.<br /><br />THE MAN FROM DEEP RIVER is good to see for those who want to see what started the cannibal subgenre, but as an entry in the genre, is easily eclipsed by Deodato's entries and even Lenzi's own later entries. Recommended only for completists and Me Me Lai fans.
|
negative
|
This event defined an era of wrestling entertainment that, I believe, is not equaled today. The colorful characters - in their stereotypical garb - brought a certain charm to the show that has since been raped by society and overexposed. Wrestling had a bit of an innocence back then. A kid could watch it without watching an episode of Jerry Springer.<br /><br />Looking back now (I was 5 at the time), although I loved both Warrior and Hogan, I think I enjoyed Warrior more because of his mystique. Hogan was the branded hero who weilded an impressive public image. The Ultimate Warrior, on the other hand, was a masked man of few words - an out-of-the-limelight hero for a different audience.<br /><br />This rivalry was so exciting as a kid because of this duality in me duking it out for each combatant. I had a place for both of them. Because there was bloodshed too in this long, heavy battle, the stakes were high - at least to me as a kid. On a similar note, because of Hogan's defeat, this made him more human - I remember feeling kind of sorry for him.<br /><br />All of these emotions at play in the juvenile boy's soap opera made Wrestlemania VI such a great time to witness this game.
|
positive
|
It's wartime drama - WWII, with French and Jews and Germans, but this one is somehow fun, earnestly so. Director Jean-Paul Rappeneau co-wrote the script to his well-received film "Bon Voyage" (2003). Unlike director Bertrand Tavernier's "Safe Conduct" aka "Laissez-passer" (2002), w-d Rolf Schubel's "Gloomy Sunday" (1999), or w-d Claude Berri's "Lucie Aubrac" (1997), "Bon Voyage" is as chipper as its title sounds - c'est la vie (whatever) - and we have the beautiful talented Isabelle Adjani to thank for. It is her delightful performance throughout as the center of attraction (and attention), the cause and effect of it all, that made the film so enjoyable as it is. Hell, what's another derailment of her plan and expectations - will worry about that another time. The backbone of the story does revolve around a pair of young enthusiasts: Grégori Derangère as Frédéric and Virginie Ledoyen (from Francois Ozon's "8 Women") as Camille. The incomparable Gérard Depardieu, the witty Yvan Attal (of "My Wife is An Actress") and versatile Peter Coyote (juggling French, English and German here) are some of the stellar cast involved. <br /><br />There are many characters coming and going in this plot of a movie, and how it's all juggled is a skilful knack that requires no analysis - Rappeneau is simply a genius. The story just builds upon itself, one episode after another, or even with overlapping events, but never confusing - that's the delight of it all, somehow every detail turns out right on the screen and we just lap it all up like a tastily presented French dessert, literally so. There's thrills, trills, tender hesitant moments and taut ominous escapes, all playing out in front of our eyes. <br /><br /> From reading the Director's Note on the Sony Pictures Classics' Bon Voyage official site, Rappeneau indicated this is his most personal and successful work ever. Depicting Bordeaux 1940 from memories of his childhood years is very much close to his heart and he "had worked and reworked the script for almost 3 years." This film is a labor of love all round, the cast and crew complementing the director's passion and a formidable script by collaborative writers along with the director and his son Julien - adaptation efforts by Gilles Marchand, Patrick Modiano, and Jérôme Tonnerre.<br /><br />Music by Gabriel Yared (varied in tone from his previous film scores like "The English Patient" or "Talented Mr. Ripley"), who provided a befitting theme that kept the pace and rhythm of the plot going - almost like a train going non-stop, reflecting Adjani's Viviane's vivacious energy (even when she's tired), keeping her going as she meets whatever comes, walking on with head held high and stylish attire always, no looking back, let alone time for regrets. <br /><br />Ah, mustn't forget the wonderfully translated, skilful subtitles by Ian Burley, who also did subtitles for films in Italian: "Bread and Tulips" (2000) aka Pane e tulipani, "The Last Kiss" (2001) aka L'ultimo bacio, and Tom Tykwer's "Heaven" (2002).<br /><br />If you find this much too light a wartime relationship drama, try w-d Mäx Fäberböck's "Aimée and Jaguar" (1999, in German, based on a true story) with brilliant performances from Juliane Köhler as Aimée and Maria Schrader as Jaguar.
|
positive
|
One of, if not THE most visually beautiful film I have ever seen in my life...there is so much to learn here in how to play with the camera, color, costumes and set up a shot. The work that went into the official film web sites in English and French also give you a good idea of the sheer beauty contained in the film.
|
positive
|
This is an amazingly well-filmed early talkie adaptation of the Eugene O'Neill play. Its major drawback is a static camera, and as a result it comes off much of the time as the filmed play it is, which is a pity, for it's a good piece of primitive moviemaking, made at a time when sound was posing all kinds of technical problems, and as a result most films were experimental whether or not this was their maker's intention. Garbo is as mysterious and charismatic as she was in her silent films, and her entrance is still classic. Her voice is strangely deep, almost boyish, which only enhances her already seductively eccentric persona. As her boyfriend, Charles Bickford is appropriately virile,--he was apparently born craggy--and a perfect counterpart to the divine Garbo. His Irish brogue is not bad at all, and he seems always a natural man of the sea, very O'Neill-like in his independent, brooding nature. As Garbo's (very) confused father, George Marion seems truly from another time. He has the sort of face and voice,--open, unmannered, totally without guile--that has vanished from the earth. Marie Dressler is also in the O'Neill swing of things. Her blank expression and intensity around the eyes speaks volumes, as she plays her boozy character as a woman at times bordering on psychosis. Poetic license, perhaps, as this is not in the script, but we can forgive Miss Dressler's excesses; she is too good at it not to. The story ends with a movement to the next thing, as distinct from resolution, which isn't the author's cup of tea; and those who like their films neatly worked out in the end will be disappointed by the absence of any real surprise. In Anna Christie we are in O'Neill country, a place of sea, storms and fog, a feeling of all-pervading and damnable uncertainty, which we would now call ambivilance, or anxiety neurosis. Rather than analyze this mood the author simply and wisely presents it, as weather, land, ocean and people intertwine and address one another in a unique language we feel priveleged to have heard.
|
positive
|
What an inspiring movie, I laughed, cried and felt love. For a true story,it does give you hope and that miracles do happen. It has a great cast. Ellen Burstyn, Samantha Mathis, Jodelle Ferland(she's 4 or 5yrs. old) what a actress. Its on Showtime. A Must See Movie!! :)=
|
positive
|
Another of the endless amount of cookie-cutter 'Kickboxers Fight to the Death for the Amusement of Wealthy Scumbags' films that there were so many of in the 90s... Y'know, the ones created by taking the words 'Death', 'Blood' and 'Steel' and the words 'Ring', 'Fight', 'Match' and 'Cage' and putting them in a random generator! Saying that though, Death Match is a pretty good entry in the over-used genre, thanks to its exciting fight scenes and the surprisingly good acting of its kickboxer cast.<br /><br />The story concerns two buddies - ex-Kickboxing World Champion John Larson (played by pug-faced Middleweight Kickboxing Champ Ian Jacklin, probably previously best known for his awful performance as the main villain in Ring of Fire 2) and Nick Wallace (Nick Hill, a likable guy probably best known for the role of street-fighter Sergio in Bloodsport 2) who work the L.A. docks loading crates onto ships. One discovery of a boxful of guns and a brief fight later, our two heroes are jobless and propping up an L.A. bar. Sensible John Larson decides to head North and look for a job; headstrong Nick Wallace has heard of a guy paying good money for fighters to fight in private kickboxing matches. "Why should things change?" says John, " If you need me, i'll be there." Predictably enough, it isn't long before Nick has gone missing and his good friend is fighting in the deadly 'ring of death' trying to find a lead to his missing buddy.<br /><br />Sure enough, there are no prizes for originality here, but like i said before, this films strength lies in its action, its cast of real-life fighters and the fairly good performances it manages to wring from them. Ian Jacklin in particular surprised me. Previously i'd just seen him as the bad guy in Ring of Fire 2 and in bit-parts in tripe like The Steel Ring, and i've always been quite amused at how bad an actor he is (good fighter though!). But in Death Match, he's pretty good! Given a decent script and a haircut, he proves himself to be quite the charismatic leading man! And his friendship with Nick is very well portrayed. Jacklin and Hill have a nice chemistry and you really believe these two characters care for each other. Enough for one of them to lose a job, travel halfway across the country and risk death to save the other - I wish i had a friend like that! <br /><br />It was also nice to see Matthias Hues as a villainous henchman with a little more depth than we're used to seeing from his many 'villainous henchman' roles. However don't be fooled into thinking he's the star just because he's on the video cover (with, it seems, his head stuck on the body of Michael Bernardo from the cover of Shootfighter) - he is good while he's on screen, but he isn't on much..<br /><br />On the negative side, the film is pretty slow when there's no fighting going on, with lots of unnecessary scenes (whats with gangster Jimmie Fiorello's pointless story about his grandfather??), and the end fight is disappointingly short, but on the whole i enjoyed it! Plenty of fights, most of them good. Isn't that all we martial arts really need? And of course eye-candy, here in the lovely form of the very pretty Renee Ammann. All in all, a pretty entertaining kickboxing movie.
|
positive
|
This movie is certainly well-constructed, beginning and ending in the dark, with focus on Lili Smith /Schmidt, Julie Andrews,initially the singing 'angel' later the notorious spy.<br /><br />It's beautiful! I saw the movie about 15 years ago and watched it again recently. While it was dismissed by critics in the 70's as overblown, 'cinema vulgaris', and lacking in structure (among others) time has proven them wrong. Blake Edwards certainly has produced a film that is almost of lyrical quality.<br /><br />The film soars and swirls (aerial photography; Julie Andrews in motion) and captivates. One must just buy into the premise that Julie Andrews is a spy whose mission has gone wrong. Overlooking the tepid chemistry between Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson, one must believe that these are lovers - who in all innocence fall for each other. And in the end, love is far more important than winning wars. And so is maintaining innocence.<br /><br />There is a lot of understated acting, and the film certainly reaches emotional depths often not seen in comedies.<br /><br />There are wonderful comedic elements (foreshadowing the French goons in Victor/Victoria), interesting diplomatic asides (reminding me of The Tamarind Seed, seen about 18 years ago) and a general sense of good-will.<br /><br />Suspend all disbelief and this movie will carry you away. Julie Andrews' belting out of war songs and the haunting 'Whistling Away the Dark' are reason enough to turn the TV on, just for the soundtrack. And the striptease number, like the 'Jenny' number in Star! works. <br /><br />This film has, like a good champagne, aged well. Paramount should bring it to DVD as soon as possible. The same applies to transferring the laser disk of Star! to DVD. These are both interesting pieces of Julie Andrews' meticulous and then underrated works.
|
positive
|
Whether it's three guys in their tighty-whiteys rapping to a dude bound in twine or a girl saying "What up, dog?" to a lump of roadkill, there's something please everyone in Knuckleface Jones. It is strange and surreal and not altogether a completely comprehensible yarn... yet it never loses you. The first time I saw it, I nearly laughed myself sick. And every night after I would come home and watch it again. Forget Coyote Ugly... this is the movie that cemented my crush on Piper Perabo. See it... before it's too late!
|
positive
|
I had initially heard of TEARS OF KALI a while back and it sounded like something I'd be into, but with all the films I have coming in on a regular basis, it kinda fell off my radar. While roaming around the local WonderBook...I spotted the box for this one and grabbed it up. I have to say I'm pretty glad I did. TEARS OF KALI is a strange, gory, sometimes downright creepy film which is somewhat constrained by it's obviously low budget - but is still an entertaining and worthwhile watch.<br /><br />TEARS OF KALI centers around the fictional India-based Taylor-Erikkson cult group, that practices meditation and other rituals in the pursuit of facing and banishing the individual's "inner demons" - but apparently these techniques work either all too well or not well enough (depending on your viewpoint...) as dark forces are not only exorcised, but also unleashed upon hapless victims.<br /><br />The film is told "anthology-style", with a short but memorable and "eye-opening" intro sequence, and then proceeding into the three stories that make up the bulk of the film.<br /><br />The first (SHAKTI) is about a journalist who visits one of the cult-members who is being held at a mental hospital. The journalist goes in under cover of wanting to research the Taylor-Erikkson cult, but we find that her true motives may hit a little closer to home. When the interview takes a violent turn, the journalist finds that she may have gotten in over her head...<br /><br />The second part (Devi) concerns a violent young man who is sentenced to psychological rehab in lieu of a prison sentence for beating a young man into a coma. We find that the treating doctor in question is actually a Taylor-Erikkson "alumni", and his rehabilitation methods are far from the norm...<br /><br />The closing story (KALI) revolves around a quack "faith-healer" and his assistant who perform "miracles" for a fee. When the healer unwittingly helps one of his clients and actually expels a force which had been possessing her, the demon is now free to roam and looking for a new host...<br /><br />I gotta say I really enjoyed TEARS OF KALI. There are some faults with the film that keep it from being truly excellent - but it is an original and ambitious film for what it is. My biggest gripe with the production is the poor and uninspired over-dubbed dialogue. The dubbing is sub-par and I would have much preferred to have a subtitled option with the original language track. Some reviewers have said the acting is poor, which I don't necessarily agree with. I think that the dubbing is so lack-luster that it makes the performances seem stunted, which isn't really the case. In fact, a few of the performances are pretty damn chilling (the "doctor" in the second segment, and the "client" in the third readily come to mind...) and notable. The gore FX are very well done for a low-budget film, with some graphic scenes of eyelid-removal-via-cuticle-scissors, a pencil-in-the-throat-suicide, some decent (but irritatingly "shaky") self-flaying, and a few other goodies thrown in for good measure. Not as rough as some of the more "extreme" gore films out there, but definitely stronger than your average horror fare. I also found the story concerning the cult-group to be intriguing and a welcome change to the typical horror-story nonsense. There are plenty of scenes of genuine atmosphere and tension, the likes of which I haven't come across in a while. Although flawed in some fundamental ways, I still think TEARS OF KALI will appeal to most "underground" horror viewers - some scenes may prove too much for the more mainstream viewer. Definitely Recommended - 8.5/10
|
positive
|
Don't waste your time on this film. It could have been good, but the ending was one of the lamest I've ever seen. I seriously have to wonder how the people involved with the making of this film could've looked at that final scene and thought, "yeah! now there's an ending!" and patted themselves on the back about it. To me it seemed more like they just ran out of ideas! They built up the final scenes to have a cool twist, but instead just let the whole build-up fall flat on it's face. When the last shot faded to black and I heard the credit music starting I was in shock - I could not believe what I was seeing and that someone could even call that an ending. The best thing anyone could do with this film is rewrite the end and give it some substance. Seriously, I'd really love to get whoever came up with that one in a room, look them in the face and say - WTF??!!!!
|
negative
|
A great movie about triumph over all the nay-sayers who try to kill your spirit, achieving the impossible. I won't go on about it, other than to say that I liked to reflect on the this film when I'm facing something particularly daunting, and realize that if Lindberg could do what he did, I can certainly face the task before me. Definitely a "feel good" movie.<br /><br />See it. You won't be disappointed.
|
positive
|
Most of the Brigitte Bardot movies I've seen have failed to take full advantage of her captivating screen presence. Unfortunately, she was given few really good roles in movies of undeniable quality, which was a real oversight. She deserved them and was able to demonstrate her full cinematic power when they came her way. As Genevieve in "Love on a Pillow" we had a clear exception to the trend of light, fluffy vehicles, for it was an interesting, artistic film by any reasonable measure, and in it, a 28-year-old BB was at her most alluring. "Une Parisienne" is another, featuring an extremely captivating Brigitte in an interesting, well-crafted comedy that explores how an ambitious lady's man can be convinced to remain faithful to an incredibly beautiful young wife. There are several good performances here. Her playboy husband, Michel, is one, "the prince," played by Charles Boyer, is another, with entertaining efforts by a good supporting cast. As for Brigitte Bardot, the way she looks in this movie is the way I remember her as a kid in the fifties. She was 23 in 1957 and way ahead of her time, more beautiful than any other actress of the period, including Marilyn Monroe. Her curvy, coquettish sexuality, amply displayed in several bosom-baring, skintight dresses, simply jumps off the screen. She was more hip and cute than the women of America are today, nearly fifty years later. Obsessed with their careers and still desperately clinging to feminist politics, they come off like a bunch of clueless lesbians. In stark contrast, the sex kitten was sexually liberated, intelligent, and clearly independent long before it was fashionable, yet while fully understanding the power of her exceptional femininity, she used it for a higher purpose than mere self-interest -- she believed in love. A still photo simply could not do her justice. You had to watch her slender yet voluptuous form (with its 20-inch waist) lightly cross a room. You had to see that wild blonde mane, gaze into her big, brown, seductive eyes, and listen as her full, pouting lips spoke French. In a closeup at the end of this movie she winks and flirts with the camera, her beautiful orbs twinkling. What a babe! For fans of Brigitte Bardot, "Une Parisienne" is not to be missed.
|
positive
|
People tried to make me believe that the premise of this rubbishy supernatural horror/thriller was inspired by the actual last words spoken by an authentic serial killer (whose name escapes me at the moment). Whilst awaiting his execution in the electric chair, he claimed that his soul would return to life and continue to go on a never-ending murder spree. It's not a highly original idea to revolve a horror film on, by the way. Other low-budget turkeys implemented the exact same basic premise, like "House 3", "Shocker" and "Ghost in the Machine". Anyway, "The First Power" (a.k.a "Pentagram") isn't a completely terrible effort, but the script overly reverts to clichés and lacks genuine thrills. The film starts off as an okay, albeit mundane serial killer flick in which obsessive cop-hero Lou Diamond Philips pursues a maniac who carves bloody pentagrams into the chests of his victims. He receives unexpected help from a spiritual medium, played by the gorgeous and underrated Tracy Griffith. She leads him to the killer but also begs not to execute him, as that would result in an even bigger catastrophe! Thanks to Tess' helpful hints, Detective Logan quickly captures the killer and celebrates his death penalty, but Patrick Channing made a pact with Satan Himself and returns to the rotten streets of California to do some more killing. "The First Power" gets pretty bad once the murderer reincarnates as a vengeful spirit. Instead of using his newly gained satanic powers to wipe out the entire world (that's what I would do in his position), Channing simply prefers to play cat and mouse games with his nemesis the copper. He annoyingly calls him "Buddy-Boy" all the time and possesses the bodies of Logan's friends and colleagues in order to trick him. Even though never really boring or poorly realized, it's a very weak film to endure, mostly because you constantly get the feeling of déjà-vu. Writer/director Robert Resnikoff shamelessly uses every dreadful cliché (the killer got sexually abused as a child) and even the players' lines can easily be predicted. As soon as Griffith explains she's able to predict the future, you just know that, somewhere at some point in the film, she's going to say the ridiculously overused line "I tell people who to live their lives, but my own life is a mess". Yawn. Lou Diamond Philips' performance is adequate enough, but it's rather difficult to take that youthful rebel of "La Bamba" and "Stand And Deliver" serious as a tough copper. There also are decent supportive roles for Mykelti Williamson ("Forrest Gump"), Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls") and B-movie horror legend David Gale ("Re-Animator") appears in a minuscule cameo at the very beginning of the film.
|
negative
|
I find it so amazing that even after all these years, we are STILL talking about this movie! Obviously this movie wasn't THAT bad or else people wouldn't even BOTHER to talk about it. I personally enjoyed this film immensly, and still do! I guess this film isn't for everyone, but it certainly did touch the hearts of many. <br /><br />As for those that think that this film is "overrated" or "over-hyped"...well, we only have the movie-going public to thank for that! lol* You see, it's not CRITICS/article writers that make a film "HUGE" or a "HIT" with the general movie-going public. PEOPLE make the film a huge success. With Titanic, everyone was in awe. Let's face it, a film like this had never been made before. At least not with the type of special effects needed to really capture the essence of the ship actually sinking. This film is so accurate that even James Cameron timed the actual sinking of the ship in the film with the REAL sinking that fateful day in April 1912. Even the silverware for goodness sakes matched! <br /><br />Give this movie a break you guys! The critics thought this movie would sink BIG time! When this movie actually came out and people started hearing by WORD OF MOUTH (which is the BEST form of advertisement mind you) that this was a good/decent/movie worth seeing, then everyone started flocking to the theaters in droves to see this movie...not once, not twice, but maybe 3 times and more! So, I really wouldn't say that this movie was "overhyped"...at least not like the buildup for the MATRIX reloaded or the HULK is being "overhyped". ha! Critics didn't even think that Titanic would make enough money to cover Cameron's gigantic film budget that it took to make this mammoth of a film. However, the films money took care of that 200 million budget and MUCH more! <br /><br />Personally, I LOVE this film. However, this film might not be for everyone. DOn't say that this film sucks just because of romance though! THat is the most sexist thing I've ever heard! Disliking a movie just because it has romance in it! The story was sweet. The dialogue could have been better, but let's face it...the REAL star of the movie wasn't Leo or Kate...it was that GIGANTIC Ship! I think all of the actors including DiCaprio and Winslet did a fine job. It's not thier best work (I've seen much BETTER work from both of them) but it wasn't the WORST I've seen on screen before. Give them a break!<br /><br />
|
positive
|
If you want to see a film starring Stan laurel from the Laurel & Hardy comedies, this is not the film for you. Stan would not begin to find the character and rhythms of those films for another two years. If, however, you want a good travesty of the Rudolph Valentino BLOOD AND SAND, which had been made the previous year, this is the movie for you. All the stops are pulled out, both in physical comedy and on the title cards and if the movie is not held together by character, the plot of Valentino's movie is used -- well sort of.
|
positive
|
When Marlene Dietrich was labeled box office poison in 1938 one of a handful of actresses so named by the trades papers, it was films like The Garden Of Allah. How a film could be so breathtakingly beautiful to behold and be so insipidly dull is beyond me. Also how Marlene if she was trying to expand her range and not play a sexpot got stuck with such an old fashioned story is beyond me.<br /><br />The Garden Of Allah, one of the very first films in modern technicolor was a novel set at the turn of the last century by Robert Hitchens who then collaborated on a play adaption with Mary Anderson that ran for 241 performances in 1911-12. It then got two silent screen adaptions. The story is about a monk who runs away from the monastery out in French Tunisia to see some of what he's missed in the world. He runs into a similarly sheltered woman who was unmarried and spent her prime years caring for a sick parent. She's traveling now in the desert and the two meet on a train.<br /><br />The woman is of course Marlene and the runaway monk is Charles Boyer. I'm not sure what was in David O. Selznick's mind in filming this story. Someone like Ingrid Bergman might have made it palatable for the audience. But you can bet that the movie-going public of 1936 when they plunked their money down for a ticket they expected to see Marlene as a modern day Salome rather than a saint with that title. The public still remembered Rudolph Valentino and you can bet that it was some desert romance and seduction that they were expecting.<br /><br />As for the monks you have to remember that they are self supporting in their monasteries and this particular one bottles a special wine of which Boyer happens to be the one with the secret. The monastery will have to rethink it's economics if Boyer leaves. The monks are a sincerely pious group, but from the head man Charles Waldron on down they've a right to be a little concerned with some self interest.<br /><br />Anyway a whole lot of religious platitudes get said here by a pair of leads that really are not suited for the parts. Most especially Marlene Dietrich. I would watch this film with an eye for the special color desert cinematography and forget the plot.
|
negative
|
I have to say that some of the other reviews of this film I have read show very little understanding of it or the original TV series it stemmed from. Dad's Army was a sitcom and therefore had humour and so is bound to have put a smile on the face of the dire situation. However the series carried very many serious messages such as the episode 'Branded' about the bigotry and ignorance that was attached to conscientious objectors. The film was faithful to the series and was simply like an extended episode. So I'm afraid the reviewer who claimed that Columbia improved the humour was quite wrong and let's face it - the BBC sitcoms of this period beat anything that came out of America hands down. Also comments referring to propaganda were also way off the mark. The Homeguard were people considered unfit for frontline service who still wished to serve. They were very brave men who knew they were sentenced to death as soon as they signed up as Hitler announced that anyone who did so would be executed if and when Britain was invaded. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to set the record straight as it is always good to actually speak and comment on what has been seen rather making it up as you go along I find.
|
positive
|
First off, if you're planning on watching this, make sure to watch the UNCUT version (although it is very interesting to go back and then watch the scenes that were tampered with due to censorship), it makes a HUGE difference. This film is about a young woman, played by Barbara Stanwyck, who since the age of 14 has been forced into prostitution by her own father. When her father suddenly passes away, she is able to go out into the world on her own. After reading about Nietzsche's philosophies on life, she uses her sexuality to manipulate men into giving her what she wants and leaves them in ruins and desperate for her love. Throughout the movie she becomes increasingly materialistic and manipulative and the audience begins to wonder is she has any sense of morality left at all. Overall, Baby Face is a very shocking movie with blatant scenes of sexuality that most people would not expect to see in a black and white film. While no sexual acts are explicitly shown on screen, it is very obvious what is happening off camera.<br /><br />I enjoyed watching this film very much and I believe most modern audiences will get at least some enjoyment out if it, especially with the films shock value. I did think while watching it that the pacing seemed a bit slow at parts, but I think that about most movies the first time is see them. Actually, I think that almost all movies I've seen made from the early 30's had some minor pacing problems or certain parts just didn't quite "flow" right. This was probably just the craft of film-making wasn't quite perfected yet it would take just a few more years. Compare a film from 1939 and compare it with an early 30's film and I think you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />Once again, I'm very glad I was able to watch the original cut; it really does make a big difference. Also any John Wayne fans will be surprised to see him in this movie before he was famous in an uncharacteristic role.
|
positive
|
Surprisingly Kieslowski's this movie is disappointing to me because of the sometimes weird and sometimes cliché script that also seems a work of a poor observation sometimes. There is an isolated young boy. He lives with one of his relatives, but he is lonely and every night watches a woman who lives across their building. It seems! that he wants her. He is one of the youths who are not good at communication with the opposite sex. However, he likes that woman, when the woman comes to his house with a man, Tomek gets pain. Then, we understand that Kieslowski tells us a story about an isolated young boy who needs a female to flirt or who falls in love with a mature woman. He does not do something else, because may be he knows that it is his salvation. One day, he stops that woman, suddenly, he seems a shy boy, but proves that he is not, so he explains her almost everything. She lectures and refuses him. Everything is so realistic like the other Kieslowski films, no problem. The problems start when Tomek visits her, the story of a lonely young boy who falls in love with a mature woman (but an unrequited love) turns into the story of a lonely young boy falls in love with a mature woman, at the beginnings the woman refuses, but after a short time, she starts to change her mind. This U-Turn makes the movie cliché firstly. The personality of Tomek is weird? or a result of a poor observation? I disappointed with this character, this is my opinion and I will try to tell why. When he goes to her house, Magda treats him very friendly. She asks what do you want from me? To kiss me? to make love with me? to go out with me? At this point, I remember the people who say she is a femme fatale. See? Returning to the scene, Tomek rejects all the proposals. Why? Because he is shy? I don't think so, but his communication is blunt, OK. After the leg scene at home, some events make the movie misses its aim. I think that the aim of the movie is (should have been according to the story) to show us there are some people who suffer from lack of endearment and to save from this situation is not easy owing to lack of communication and being aloof especially for men. I mean that at this point, what does the movie say? It is blurred and disappointing. It is seen that he is not hunger for love or a female or sex. Then, what? And the suicide attempt scene support this weakness. So that he touches her legs, he wants to kill himself! By the way, as I mentioned before, some say Magda is a femme fatale. Totally not. She endeavors in order to make Tomek happy. Does she avoid having contact with him? No. Does she insult him? No. Does she amuse him? No. And Does she deceive him? No. She has some troubles with her (ex) lover, so she is not O.K. However, she does not take revenge for it from Tomek. She is not an angel, but not a femme fatale also.
|
negative
|
Jeremy Irons and Forrest Whitaker are good actors. But this movie was badly written. First of all, during the hijack scene, Irons sits too comfortably in his chair...he appears to be READING something, and rather calmly too! Perhaps the director shot the actor in between takes? Also, the violence at the hijacking was a big letdown. Slow-mo, bullets flying--how his wife and daughter get killed is just not that interesting and the tension is lost. His grieving afterward wasted another 10 minutes. Then he decided to "get revenge" and talk to all his industry journalist friends and ambassadors (he's a journalist for the stuffy Economist rag) and lo and behold, they actually give him tips on where to find the bad guys! How do they know? But what really made me turn the movie off halfway through was when Irons finds his way into a warehouse where baddies are hanging out--BUT NOT THE BADDIES WHO KILLED HIS WIFE--and blows them away anyway. so he's just a murderer. he gets away and, well...I shut it off. I mean I couldn't figure out how his friends knew anything, and also I thought he was after the remaining 2 guys in custody who were the original hijackers. Instead he's going after their friends, I guess, or anyone who hangs out in warehouses and leaves automatic weapons laying around. The suspense was just totally conventional and the dialog was lame ("it's OK son, crying helps," he says to his son. Son says "no it doesn't" and father says "You're right..it doesn't.")Irons takes on questionable roles--like that one dragon movie he did. He was excellent in Brideshead Revisited, which is a completely different animal than this lukewarm thriller.
|
negative
|
The "film" consists of the audition tapes of the "Surrender girls" and some footage from previous films. It's not hot or even suitable for late night viewing on Cinemax. Only an adolescent boy could be interested in Auditions from Beyond. I recommend avoiding this one.
|
negative
|
Move over Manos. Back off Boogens. It doesn't take a Baby Genius to know that Malibu Beach Vampires (MBV for the rest of this tome) is now and always will be (unless someone makes a sequel to Zarkorr The Invader) the worst film ever. The only horror in this thing is watching it. I wonder if this was an attempt for someone to meet babes by casting a movie. If this was the case, the babes ain't babes just like this ain't a movie. It's dreck. No wait. I dishonor the word dreck by calling it dreck. Ulli Lommel (of Boogey Man fame) would call it "uber dreck" or Scheiße. It should be used to torture prisoners. If you find it on a shelf in a video store, back away from it quietly and notify the authorities.
|
negative
|
Captain Corelli's Mandolin is one of Nicolas Cage's better films. He turns a fine performance as the title character. This is a romance set against the backdrop of a worn torn island. John Hurt's character gives his daughter, played beautifully by Penelope Cruz, some honest advice about love. This movie doesn't have the fault of being completely predictable. This movie also allows Cruz to turn in a performance as a strong woman who knows her own mind and heart. Once the film warms up beyond the opening sequence this film keep you focused on it. Again, Nicolas Cage did not disappoint.
|
positive
|
Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes too long.
|
negative
|
Okay, I saw this movie as a child and really loved it. My parents never purchased the movie for me, but I think I'll go about and buy it now. I'm a sucker for pre-2000 animated films. Anyway, onto the actual review.<br /><br />WHAT I LIKED: There was an actual portrayal of heaven and hell, one of the few I've seen in animated films. Character development existed! It's easy to classify characters in this movie (i.e.: Charlie is the selfish mutt, Itchy is cynical but believes Charlie, Carface is obviously the relentless villain, etc.). I also loved King Gator's song. I've always loved loud, annoying, flamboyant guys. This song may have been random, but it was so fun. Finally, the detail of the animation was beautiful. You could tell Charlie was all gruff and stuff and the backgrounds were beautiful.<br /><br />WHAT I DID NOT LIKE: The actual portrayal of heaven: The way Charlie reacted to it, "no surprises whatsoever", made it actually seem very boring. He denied a place in heaven and STILL got to return to it in the end. I remember a few lines of certain songs such as "... you can't keep a good dog down", "... let's make music forever", and "... welcome to being dead" but I can't remember the majority of any of them. The songs weren't that catchy, to be honest. Whippet Angel: She's annoying and that NECK! AUGH!<br /><br />WHAT PARENTS MAY NOT LIKE: A few very scary (depending on the viewer) images of Hell are shown during the movie. Carface is quite threatening. Beer is also implied, but not actually DUBBED beer. Gambling is a key element in the movie. The good guy dies.<br /><br />OVERALL: I LOVE this movie, even if it is a bit forgettable at times. The scarier children's animations are always my favorite ones. This was created back in a time when producers and writers weren't afraid to give kids a little scare now and then. Nowadays, this probably would have been rated PG. Kids under the age of 8 (or easily disturbed kids) should not watch this. Other than that, I give it 9/10. :)<br /><br />Happy Viewing!
|
positive
|
Before watching this film (at a screening attended by the director herself) we were informed this had won the short film prize at the Galway Film Fleadh. Surely this result will give filmmakers hope, anyone can do better than this!<br /><br />How anyone cannot notice the flagrant rip-off of Donnie Darko in this I'll never know. The film is pure drivel, the acting cardboard, the dialogue ridiculous & the ending just flat! The only crumb of comfort we enjoyed after seeing this rubbish was to loudly comment on how dreadful it was, in front of the director! Yes that was mean, but liberating!<br /><br />At least Irish film-making can't sink any lower!
|
negative
|
Shot entirely on location in Bulgaria, The Man With The Screaming Brain is a hilarious love story between two rich ugly-American types and a murderous hotel maid gypsy. <br /><br />William Cole and his wife Jackie arrive in Bulgaria on a business trip and catch a cab driven by hustler Yegor. Things start to go awry when Tatoya, the maid, murders Yegor and William and a mad scientist implants a piece of Yegor's brain in William's head. Robots eventually become involved, as do gypsies with broken fingers, head injuries, Bruce Campbell riding a pink Vespa with prissy little streamers, and All-Of-Me-style physical comedy by a character at war with a voice in his brain who controls half of his body.<br /><br />The Man With The Screaming Brain is an incredibly funny film. It has the most hilarious tracking shot I have ever seen (when Bruce Campbell's character, fresh from the lab and complete with giant forehead scar and blue hospital pajamas, runs into a square and scares a crowd of people) and a falling-down-the-steps murder scene that had the entire test screening audience screaming laughing. The whole thing is a damn riot from beginning to end and I would recommend it to any fan of physical comedy, Bruce Campbell, or B-movies in general.
|
positive
|
Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" has been filmed again and released to home video in the US via Faith Films.<br /><br />The original story concerns a priest who has to watch over the body of a witch with only his faith to protect him. Greatly expanded and set in America, though clearly filmed in Russia (the houses,clothing and furnishing are all wrong despite the English signs), this is an odd film that doesn't really work.Part of it is the weird setting that tries very hard to be backwoods America but clearly isn't.There are also some weird, intentionally oblique moments as the main character being a reporter at the start and a priest a short time later. I'm not sure why they did that, even after watching the making of piece on the DVD) The other problem is the dubbing which is beyond awful. Its done in such away that everyone speaks when their lips are not on camera- or if they are the voices don't even remotely match the lip flaps. I don't know if its Faith Films fault or that of the producers who made the film hoping to dump into the West (revealed in the making of piece).<br /><br />The film isn't very good. As I've said it has all sorts of technical issues that just make this an odd ball curio. Despite some really good looking horror images the film never works as a horror film. As film to engender faith its much too confused in this retelling to amount to make anyone feel anyone closer to god.<br /><br />Given the choice I'd give it a pass, even at a bargain bin price. My advice would be to find the 1960's version of the tale called Viy which will bring both some shivers and some understanding about a belief in god.
|
negative
|
All Hype! What better way to describe a movie about people who are upset because they can't release their film through a mainstream distributor? Consequently, they do it themselves. Otherwise, the hype of the film doesn't justify the content in the film. The story is absent and could easily be a short. The acting is poor, but the animation and music is pretty good. Otherwise don't waste your time - don't believe the hype! However, if you have the chance to see the film for free, do so. Then you won't have to waste money. Still, the filmmakers do a good job of pressing their story and creating cliffhangers with their self-indulgent mini-series. Otherwise, they're one hit wonders who never had a hit.
|
negative
|
Adrianne, should really get a life-without Mr. "Brady". She nauseates me, and has been one of the main reasons why I know longer tune in to the show. It's pretty brainless show, and every little argument or disagreement seems to be put under the scope and analyzed to death. This makes them look/sound they are anything but ready for marriage, and yet, I know these disagreements are all part of life. I guess to some people this is entertainment. If this happens to fall into next season I will feel sorry for anyone who has nothing better to do with their life but watch this trash. Though I would not be terribly surprised. can't even stand the commercials for this show anymore! I hope they're getting enough money to constantly embarrass themselves in front of a camera week after week. However, the "A" girl has one heck of great butt!
|
negative
|
As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...<br /><br />As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the "team" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...<br /><br />I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...<br /><br />Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series...
|
negative
|
On the 28th of December, 1895, in the Grand Café in Paris, film history was writing itself while Louis Lumière showed his short films, all single shots, to a paying audience. 'La Sortie des Usines Lumière' was the first film to be played and I wish I was there, not only to see the film, but also the reactions of the audience.<br /><br />We start with closed doors of the Lumière factory. Apparently, since the image seems a photograph, people thought they were just going to see a slide show, not something they were hoping for. But then the doors open and people are streaming out, heading home. First a lot of women, then some men, and one man on a bike with a big dog. When they are all out the doors close again.<br /><br />Whether this is the first film or not (some say 'L'Arrivée d'un Train à la Ciotat' was the first film Lumière recorded), it is an impressive piece of early cinema. Being bored by this is close to impossible for multiple reasons. One simple reason: it is only fifty seconds long. But also for people who normally only like the special effect films there must be something interesting here; you don't get to see historical things like this every day.
|
positive
|
This is easily the most underrated film inn the Brooks cannon. Sure, its flawed. It does not give a realistic view of homelessness (unlike, say, how Citizen Kane gave a realistic view of lounge singers, or Titanic gave a realistic view of Italians YOU IDIOTS). Many of the jokes fall flat. But still, this film is very lovable in a way many comedies are not, and to pull that off in a story about some of the most traditionally reviled members of society is truly impressive. Its not The Fisher King, but its not crap, either. My only complaint is that Brooks should have cast someone else in the lead (I love Mel as a Director and Writer, not so much as a lead).
|
positive
|
Being a child of the 1980s, I grew up with numerous educational as well as diversionary programs (or both), and continue to learn so much from them now that I admire the wisdom of those who worked on them. After learning that Sesame Street, to name the best example, was not solely responsible for the fact that I could read at an adult level before I could walk, it only increased the level of disgust I feel not only towards the Lyons corporation and its product, but those who defend them, too. As if I had faith in those we assign to protect us or our children to begin with, the fact that Barney & Friends still pollutes our airwaves after more than a decade later is a discredit not only to the FCC, American commerce, and its makers, it is a discredit to all of humanity. In a world where I can be harassed without recourse by the police, welfare services, and child protection agencies simply for being born different to those in power, yet broadcasters are allowed to pump this drivel into my home uncontested, you have to ask what is wrong with people.<br /><br />You see, in a world where we are expected to behave like adults and account for ourselves, what we say to our sons and daughters is of importance because it will often have consequences long after we are gone. Not only are our attempts to make our children more normal, more alike, more think-alike, potentially devastating, what we end up teaching them to be normal has a big part to play, too. So the question becomes one of what Barney is teaching our children to be normal. Apart from lessons such as that we are not good if we do not have good feelings, or that someone will change the rules to make us happy when we come up short, other shocking things we are shown on the Barney show include Barney molesting children. The issue of child abduction and child molestation is a big one in our society, and has been ever since we started trying to pretend it was not, but that would qualify as one of the most inappropriate ways in which to present the topic.<br /><br />So far I have only mentioned the inappropriate and emotionally damaging lessons Barney himself presents. Adding to the problem is the children shown on the show. I use the word children loosely here, as the range of ages shown goes as low as three years and as high as fourteen. Yet no difference in emotional response is shown at either extreme. Fourteen year olds react to Barney and his proposed situations in the exact same way as five year olds. Experts in childhood and adolescent autism especially consider this an incredibly foul thing to expose children to. Adults on the autistic spectrum who faced increasing problems as their needs were not only not met but flat-out ignored have a tendency to watch this and feel an urge to do the kinds of things with Barney that would make fourteen year olds cry. As irreverent and sick as shows targeted toward the elder-child market such as You Can't Do That On Television were, they stamp all over Barney by demonstrating that not only do different ages respond to the same thing in different ways, so too do different people.<br /><br />So in response to mdmireles1295, I have to say that I hope like hell they do not have children. For every time I see a parent showing their child this drivel, it gives me an overwhelming urge to report them to the police for child abuse. And I speak as a man whose entire upbringing was dominated by abuse. They might sing about manners, loving, caring, or sharing, but the examples they show are not only so lopsided as to be the opposite of educational, they are so devoid of realism as to become dangerous, as The Light Triton has already pointed out. The kind of lessons children learn from Barney are that people do not vary, feelings must be suppressed at all costs, and rules are entirely arbitrary. When compared to the lessons that variation is what makes the world go around and even the most bitter feelings have a purpose that television taught me as a boy, it still boggles the mind that the authorities have yet to step in and yank this trash off the air. If a parent did to their child what Barney does around the world, they would face criminal charges.<br /><br />Hence, I gave Barney my favourite two out of ten score that I give to all rubbish with absolutely no redeeming value. In a world of adults that know how to properly respond to their children, it has no place.
|
negative
|
As part of an initiation prank Julie (Meg Tilly of Psycho 2) has to spend the night in a mausoleum, but Karl Rhamarevich, a master of telekinesis has recently died and been put in there. When Julie's fellow sorority sisters desecrate where he's housed the real terror starts.<br /><br />This little flick had a good deal of atmosphere and I enjoyed the build up, plus the last twenty minutes are just plain great. Anyone who's looking for a lost gem of an '80's horror movie needn't look any further. Highly under-appreciated. Plus Elizabeth Daily is adorable.<br /><br />My Grade: B <br /><br />Media Blaster DVD Extras: Disc 1) Commentary with director Tom McLoughlin and co-writer Michael Hawes; and trailers for "the Being", "Frankestien's Bloody Terror", "Just Before Dawn", & "Devil Dog" Disc 2) Alternate director's cut (that's almost unwatchable due to a bad print) & Behind-the-scenes featurette
|
positive
|
Kalifornia is the story of a writer and his girlfriend photographer who are looking for someone to help pay gas money and take turns at the wheel for a cross country road trip to famous murder sights. Ironically a serial killer and his girlfriend answer the post. Kalifornia is a diamond in the rough and a very intriguing journey with a serial killer. Great performances all around by the leads with Pitt in particular being exceptional. Check it out!!
|
positive
|
I cannot understand why so many people did not like this film. Robert De Niro was on top of his game, delivering his lines with such aplomb, one has to believe this is his everyday demeanor. Granted, the film seemed to take on many buddy-film conventions while trying to make fun of the concept, it goes without saying this film was genuinely funny. From the police dog, to the fact Eddie Murphy didn't annoy the heck out of me, this film is a real keeper. Rene Russo also evened out the rest of the cast perfectly, establishing her role so it does not interfere with the budding relationship between De Niro and Murphy.
|
positive
|
An old intellectual talks about what he considers art in movies. You get your Hitchcock, your Chaplin, your Bergman and some other stuff prior to the 80ies. To disguise that he has no clue what is going on in cinemas these days, he throws in The Matrix.<br /><br />But it's not only the same lame film-as-art speech all over again. This speech is reduced to outdated psychological platitudes: it-ego-super ego, anal phase, sexual insufficiency. <br /><br />It is garnished with the cheesy effect of having Zizte edited into the movies he is taking about. For someone who is supposed to know much about movies, his own is, cinematographicly speaking: yeiks.<br /><br />To put it in Zizek's own words - I saw 5\-\!7 on the screen, last night, or in the words of a great movie maker:<br /><br />Mr. (Zizek), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you (two) points (only), and may God have mercy on your soul.
|
negative
|
Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?
|
negative
|
When I first saw the trailer for The Comebacks, it looked absolutely horrible and I had no interest in seeing it, but when it came out on DVD today, I figured since there was nothing else that caught my interest, I would rent it and give it a shot. I watched it tonite and it really wasn't that bad. I think it was immature and stupid at times, but there were a few funny moments that made me laugh. I don't really watch many sports movies, so I wonder maybe if I saw more, maybe this movie would make more sense to me, but it's all good, I still didn't mind so much watching The Comebacks. I admit, these "stupid spoof" movies are lame, but what's the harm in a stupid joke every once in a while? The Comebacks isn't really that bad if you give it a fair chance.<br /><br />Coach Fields is failing in life, family and career both, but when he is offered a chance to bring his career back to life if he can bring a looser football team into the championship. But the team is really really terrible, like beyond terrible. But with a little work and team effort they try to give it their all, even though that might turn into something more sad.<br /><br />The Comebacks over all isn't the worst film I've seen, I think it's good for a couple laughs and giggles. I know that this was stupid, but I couldn't help but laugh when the coach comes in the middle of a fight in the locker room and he's beating the nerd's head against the locker, just him and the nerd in general were so funny together. If you have an open mind and don't take this movie too seriously, I think you'll have a fun time watching it, if you watch it expecting it to be Oscar worthy material, this is not the movie for you.<br /><br />4/10
|
negative
|
Twisted Desire (1996) was a TV movie starring Melissa Joan Hart. Melissa's character, Jennifer Stanton, a seventeen-year-old seduces her current boyfriend Nick Ryan into murdering her two parents. The movie is based on the 1990 murders of the parents of 14 year old Jessica Wiseman. Jessica had her 17 year old boyfriend Douglas Christopher Thomas shoot and kill her parents! Thomas was executed in 2000! Jessica was released from prison when she turned 21 years old. Evidence now suggests that it was Jessica who fired the fatal shot that killed her mother. Jessica is known to now be residing somewhere in the state of Virginia.
|
positive
|
but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.<br /><br />After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.<br /><br />Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.<br /><br />Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact.
|
negative
|
1933 seemed to be a great year for satires ("Duck Soup" for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the "Goings On About Town" page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire.
|
positive
|
This movie has EVERY cliché of every terrorism or airliner crisis movie.<br /><br />However, it is not entirely unwatchable, thanks to good performances by Rowland, Loken and Smallwood (and maybe Enberg).<br /><br />What IS amazingly bad, though, is the computer animations they try to pass off as live action scenes. Boy, oh boy, the CGI scenes in "The Last Starfighter", filmed in 1984, are better than these (filmed 17 years later). The feeling of cheepnis really sends shivers down your spine.<br /><br />A pity, this could have been a much better movie with a little more budget and taste.
|
negative
|
Tom Hanks like you've never seen him before. Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, "The Angel of Death". He is a hitman for his surrogate father John Rooney(Paul Newman)an elderly Irish mob boss. Sullivan's young son(Tyler Hoechlin)witnesses what his father does for a living and both are soon on the road for seven weeks robbing banks to avenge the murder of Sullivan's wife and other son. Enter Jude Law as a reporter/photographer willing to kill Sullivan himself for the chance to add to his collection of photos of dead mobsters. Filmed beautifully catching the drama of life in the 30's. Sometimes the pace bogs down, but then a burst of graphic violence sustains the story. Director Sam Mendes directs this powerful drama about loyalty, responsibility, betrayal and the bonding of a secretive man and his young son. Other notable cast members are: Dylan Baker, Stanley Tucci, Daniel Craig and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Hanks again proves to be excellent in a very memorable movie. Make room for some Oscars!
|
positive
|
Wow! Why aren't more British movies like this. Great rights of passage money with a big heart and some stand out performances. The comedy is quirky and original and the kid is really great. One to hunt down and watch. Look out for it! Ten out of ten.
|
positive
|
Anthony Perkins and Sophia Loren are absolutely gorgeous in this ca. 1840 "Western". That alone, however doesn't help a ridiculous story, with countless historically incorrect elements.<br /><br />Byrl Ives is convincing as the 70-something tyrannical patriarch, an egomaniac who swears to see his 100th birthday. His wild dancing at a party he gives for his neighbors will make anyone take notice (this guy is SEVETY SIX?). Always mumbling Bible verses, he demands respect, while driving sons and friends away with his self-righteous rantings and emotional cruelties.<br /><br />The love affair between Perkins and Loren at first appears absurd, but becomes believable near the end. There is plenty of drama, but not enough to feel good about. Clearly written for the stage, this story was dated even when it was filmed. Perkins whistles "My Bonnie" in the 1840s, although the song wasn't composed until 1882.<br /><br />Critics knocking Sophia Lorens "command of the English language" are rather petty. I found her English flawless and completely audible. As a Neapolitan, Loren speaks a distinct dialect that often had to be dubbed into "proper Italian". Her "accent", however, hardly affects how she speaks English. As a first Generation German American, I can appreciate the efforts of those who learn English as a second, or even third or fourth language.<br /><br />"Desire Under The Elms" is a drama (or even a tragedy) in the Classic Sense. For my enjoyment is was missing a logical story and an overall "pay off" for the time invested. Fans of the stars won't want to miss it, others, however, tune in at your own risk!
|
negative
|
A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is flatter than a stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the desert, there's nothing much to distinguish it, not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No one in the cast comes off too well; with this lame script that's not surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, won't give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I don't think.
|
negative
|
I don't know what some of you are smoking, but i suspect it's potent.<br /><br />To call Swept Away awful would be an insult to the very concept of terribleness. The acting is hideous and i'm not picking on Madonna here, we all know she's useless, but someone should have warned everyone else that her ailment is contagious. My back literally hurts from cringing so much at poorly delivered lines. The editing is so sloppy, it beggars description. The photography and composition (which in this era, competence should be a GIVEN for any film with a budget) are astonishingly inept, even the lighting is horrid and unnatural looking. These are BASIC elements of filmmaking, if you can't get them right, you should seek another line of work. It's as contrived as a grade 3 production of Snow White, except nowhere near as well made or interesting.<br /><br />The original film by Lina Wertmueller is a wonderful satire and metaphor, superbly acted and written, featuring breathtaking visuals - you can practically taste the sea salt and feel the windswept sand in your hair. The sexual tension feels real and immediate...those of you who found Guy Ritchie's version deplorable, should see it, it really is one of the landmarks of world cinema.<br /><br />Those of you who thought the remake is some kind of masterpiece should have your heads examined.
|
negative
|
Truly awful. Obviously an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars craze, but there's no excuse for this insipid piece of garbage. The storyline gets lost before the middle, the characters are forgettable and the kid is such a non-talent that all he does is pose for the camera. An alien planet they land on is actually the Naval stockyards in Long Beach, California. <br /><br />This movie actually made me physically ill watching it.<br /><br />Roger Corman has made some good, some bad movies in his career, but there's no excuse for this one. <br /><br />0/10 - IMDb won't let you score a zero.
|
negative
|
A group of extremely unlikable A-holes are tormented by lame puppets that some elderly douche bag night-watchman has kept locked away in a film vault for twenty years for no reason whatsoever.<br /><br />Many people know this film merely from MST3K's spot-on ribbing of the flick. But I've seen the actual movie and can safely say that yes it's bad, really, REALLY bad. From the one of the most awful 'fight' scenes I've ever witnessed to the stuffed toy 'aliens' that suffer from a lack of motion (I had a My Pet Monster that was scarier) right up to the atrocious acting (I had a My Pet Monster that was more charismatic) However, that being said Rick Sloan's "Vice Academy" films are somehow, and trust me I have no earthly idea how, much worse. That's not to suggest that this film is anything but crap, because it isn't. Just throwing it out there.<br /><br />Eye Candy: no nudity in the movie proper, but there's 2 pairs of tits in the DVD Introduction to the film <br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />Retromedia DVD Extras: Introduction by Jim Wynorski; Stills gallery; and Trailer for this film
|
negative
|
A bit "the movie in the movie" case, or as the theme is virtual game here, which is the reality or even more frightening which reality is the "real" one.As any Cronenberg there are organic things, like the pod and that wonderful idea:the organic gun, a weapon made of bones and tissues that shoots teeth. If there are some slower moments, the sets, designs and ideas are there with some thoughts of revolution. Can be not liked because the way the movie is happening is quite unusual and sometimes disturbing, but it's definitely worth it.
|
positive
|
This film revolves as much around Japanese culture as it does the lives of one modern Japanese family. Physical contact is frowned upon for those over 7 (especially in public) hence all that bowing instead of hugging even when you are close friends/ relatives. Ballroom dancing involves putting your arms around someone else and that in public too! Never the less Ballroom dancing is (on the quite) immensely popular. People who do Ballroom dancing in Japan are viewed a bit like nudists in the west... many more would like to than do but are inhibited by the culture. A delightful family film, which any amateur dancer would enjoy for the dance sequences alone. I understand that it was more popular than Titanic in Japan. I guess the Japanese are just like the rest of us - they like to be hugged too.
|
positive
|
Bergman's Skammen is one of the most realistic depictions of war ever set to film. This is not an action film by any means, though the pacing is faster and there is most action than in most any other Bergman movie. Nor is this a romanticisation of war or patriotism, unlike most war movies. In fact, the gritty realism and the deliberate ambiguity of the character's loyalties has a very contemporary feel.<br /><br />Skammen is a darkly lit movie, that should be watched at night, so as to let it work it's magic. Many of the effects are conveyed indirectly, but so effectively that some scenes compete in intensity to a contemporary, insanely huge budget film like Saving Private Ryan. Of course, the action in Skammen is on a much smaller scale but it is impressive none-the-less.<br /><br />While the film-making style feels contemporary, the setting of the film feels timeless and placeless. The war-torn countryside, and even the yet intact provincial hamlet could be anywhere, any time. And this film is not so much about specific historical events, with specific names and dates, but about universal human reactions to adversity and chaos.<br /><br />The acting in Skammen, though typically impressive from Ullman and Sydow, is not of primary importance in this film, unlike most other Bergman movies. Through much of the film they are spectators, much as we are. Bergman has the war imposed on them, and through them on the audience, and their reaction is perhaps what any of our reactions might be.<br /><br />Highly recommended. 10/10
|
positive
|
This is definitely a girl movie. My husband found it utterly boring, but I think this is a really sweet movie. It's amazing to think that just a note can bring so many people together. This is a great get-away for anyone who loves a cute, funny romance!
|
positive
|
This was one of the worst movies EVER!!!!!!!! It was so bad, I was laughing through the WHOLE movie! The plot was SO cheesy; especially the end. This movie turns from an end-of-the-world-disaster to save-the-eels! I mean, c'mon! And I swear...I think they use SOCK PUPPETS for the eels! And there was this horrible kiss scene in the middle with the two main characters who happened to be divorced. How predictable! It was SO terrible that my mom, my sister, and I couldn't finish it, and when we DID finish it, it was about a year later! The second time we watched it and we finished it this time, we did MST3K-like comments throughout the movie.<br /><br />Summary: Only watch this if you're a movie basher! Make hilarious comments, watch this at a sleepover for laughs, and I mean HUGE laughs. Also watch for mockery. The metaphor that explains this movie: This movie is a very shallow field full of cheese and sock puppets!
|
negative
|
"Journey of Hope" tells of a poor Turkish family and their odyssey of hope which spirals downward into despair as they travel to Switzerland in search of prosperity. Although this Oscar winning film is fairly well crafted, it is lacking in substance and has many implausibilities. Much of the film's 1.7 hour run time is get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the boat, get off the boat, get in the van, get out of the van, etc.; time which could have been better spent or left out completely. The story has a predictable conclusion, especially for those who have an awareness of the common crime of trafficking in illegal immigrants. A worthwhile and reasonably entertaining watch but over-rated.
|
positive
|
Most likely "Cleopatra 2525" will be of little interest if you did not watch the series when it was broadcast; and I don't think that many people did. But if you are still somewhat intrigued it is a "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" premise without space ships and with no budget for wardrobe or production design. <br /><br />In this case the Buck Rogers part (Cleopatra) is played by Jennifer Sky. Which one might expect to be a good thing as Jennifer is very beautiful and quite talented; and has a nice comedic touch. But a quick glance at the promotional material will show that she is somewhat the worse for having a bad haircut and a Salvation Army Thrift Store wardrobe. If you remember how fetching Jennifer was during her time on "Xena" her dowdy Cleopatra look will be a huge disappointment. With a target audience of "teenage boys looking to burn their eyeballs looking at "hot fetish-attired girls" it is not a good idea to skimp on the exploitation value of your heroine or her costume. And they wonder why some series don't attract much of an audience. Love it or hate it, "Buck Rogers" had hotter costumes and much better looking guest stars. <br /><br />The other two exploitation elements are Cleopatra's two female associates; Hel (Gina Torres basically playing her stock "Firefly" character) and Sarge (Victoria Pratt-another "Xena" connection-an extremely wooden version of Natasha Henstridge). Torres does a good job playing off the Cleopatra character, providing most of the show's comic relief. <br /><br />Torres sings the theme song, a somewhat lame parody of Rick Evans' "In the Year 2525 (Exordium and Terminus)" (1969). You remember the one that opens with the words "In the year 2525, If man is still alive, If woman can survive, They may find..."I suspect that they gave the series its title so that they could butcher this catchy little song although who knows, perhaps the title is a homage to "Buck Rogers" and they thought of using the song later. <br /><br />So, the premise of the show is that the Earth's surface has been taken over by aliens called Bailies (not the WKRP one) and the humans have been driven underground. Our three heroines fight against the Bailies under the direction of a disembodied (presumably) female voice (appropriately referred to as "Voice"). Unlike Buck Rogers, Cleopatra is kind of a wimpy third stooge, still dazed and confused from her cryogenic sleep or maybe just disoriented from the creepy haircut. There are a lot of nice close-ups of Sky wide-eyed and bewildered. Like "Buck Rogers" the running gag is Cleopatra using a common 21st century expression and everyone finding it either totally profound or completely baffling. <br /><br />Unlike "Firefly" the action is more of that hyper edited "Xena" garbage which is neither realistic nor particularly entertaining. One good gimmick is that the girls travel around "Spiderman" fashion, a sort of web slinging through tunnels and shafts in the labyrinth of their underground world. <br /><br />Strangely (or maybe not considering the budget) these are only half hour episodes and except for one two-part show there is not enough time for any subtlety and nuance. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
|
negative
|
We saw the silent version of this film, and it is quite simply shimmeringly beautiful. It's quite hard to see how a sound version could have been created, since it is shot with pure silent technique, long wordless sweeps of narrative without a single intertitle -- save for a few disconcerting sequences where Louise Brooks, playing a French typist, is quite visibly speaking in English... The only section that obviously cries out for sound is the final scene, where Brooks is watching the rushes for her test 'for a sound film': footage which plays constantly in the background as the action unfolds, with her mouth moving in ceaseless soundless song. I was unsurprised to learn afterwards that this passage alone in the talkie version had been hailed as an exemplar of new technique! <br /><br />In the sunny beauty of its opening scenes and the fairy-tale inevitability of what follows, the film resembles a dream. As a 'Louise Brooks movie' it was not at all what I was expecting, either from her Hollywood comedies or from G.W.Pabst's German melodramas: I found the idiom more fluent and enjoyable than either, and Brooks herself is a different creature, a sturdy laughing young animal rather than a shop-window vamp or manipulated doll.<br /><br />But what gives this film greater depth than at first appears is the unexpected second half; repelled by the rich parasites who cluster around her beauty, the pauper princess returns to a tear-stained reunion with her humbly-born true love... and the tale might very well have been ended there. Fairy-tale, however, turns to tragedy. The dilettante Grabovsky, confident in his ability to manipulate the woman he desires, is yet all too correct in his self-interested prediction -- the young lovers cannot make each other happy -- and André, ironically, was right to mistrust the social influence of beauty contests: after the intoxication of her moment's glory, Lucienne frets herself to despair over the humdrum routine of married life while her husband, in turn, is driven wild by any reminder of the whole affair. If it were a simple case of a mis-matched marriage, that would be one thing... but the true tragedy is that they do love each other.<br /><br />In many ways "Prix de Beauté" reminds me of Murnau's "Sunrise". But if so, the fairground and photographer scenes here would form a distorted mirror-image of the joyous reconciliation in "Sunrise"; no dream but an alienating nightmare. And the following dawn brings not a miraculous reunion but an empty bed and deserted home. Leaving a letter to say that she loves him and will always love him, Lucienne vanishes again from André's life in quest of brightness and freedom; and this time she will never come back.<br /><br />Gossip columns confirm all André's worst convictions, as he learns of his wife's whereabouts through reports coupling her name with Grabovsky. When the young workman penetrates at last to the lavish sanctum of the screening-room, it is with drawn gun -- to be greeted by the sight of his rival courting and caressing a laughing Lucienne, the same woman who had pledged her undying affection as she left him. He kills her, but even as he kills is transfixed by the living image on screen, Lucienne in all her transformed glory as he never saw her. The two women are juxtaposed in an endless, powerful moment, as André is seen, seized, unresisting, and pulled away: the dying girl and her singing self still projected above, caught unknowing out of time into celluloid eternity, playing on unconscious of life or death or love beneath her...<br /><br />The main jarring element in the film is the character of André's co-worker Antonin, who appears to serve no role throughout other than to be the licensed butt of his contemporaries' malice. He is the ugly one who can never get the girl, the ungainly wimp who is tripped and tormented in the washrooms and at work, and must take it all with an uncertain ingratiating smile in his fruitless hope for social acceptance: a typical product of the bullying of the more gifted and popular, in other words, but one the audience is apparently being invited to laugh at along with his tormentors. Unless the intention is to expose a darker side to the protagonists (for which I perceive no sign), the character seems to exist merely as comic relief, but comic relief with a distinctly nasty edge. When we know him only as an inept Peeping Tom at the waterside, it's easy to laugh, although the others' revenge seems a little over the top; when we discover that he is no chance-met stranger but André's colleague and regular sidekick, the continuing attacks rapidly cease to be very funny.<br /><br />But it is the images that remain. Beauty, nightmare, and dream.
|
positive
|
The film is excellent. One of the most noteworthy things about it is that Flynn's performance is superb. This is worth stressing, as he was often derided as an actor by Bette Davis et al.<br /><br />I remember the scene where Flynn gets Arthur Kennedy drunk in order to take him to his doom at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. The cold, calculating look on Flynn's face as he does so is extraordinary - much better than the much vaunted Spencer Tracy or many other stars could have done.<br /><br />The other thing to note is the excellent performance by George P. Huntley Jr as Lt "Queen's Own" Butler. It is baffling why he stopped making films shortly afterwards - one would have thought that he would have been set up for years after as a character actor.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.