review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
The Kinks warned about media heroes. Outside the movies, most heroes are also "Ordinary People." Society demands some role playing, but what happens when that extends to the parent-child relationship? Do some parents try to improve themselves through their children rather than vice versa? How do you provide a role-model but not a role? A brilliant swimmer who hates to swim; a brilliant musician who won't play. Offbeat, funny (despite depiction of "serious" problems), very good multi-dimensional acting by everyone. Lots of plot twists complement the emotional tension. Celluloid heroes never feel any pain. I don't recall ever being disappointed in a Sigourney Weaver film (I even liked "The Village"!).
|
positive
|
I'm usually not inclined to write reviews about films I don't think deserve a mention. But, in the quest to grow as a writer and film critic, I feel it is important to express my thoughts when I DON'T like a film. "Queen of the Damned" is one of those films.<br /><br />Anne Rice's popular horror stories of Lestat, a bisexual Vampire, first took to the screen in 1994 in the successful "An Interview With A Vampire". Starring two of Hollywood's biggest heavyweights in Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, the film's stylish aesthetic and gothic mise en scene captured the audience. While it may have been a case of style way over substance, there was something about it that worked, despite its chessiness (I have never been that enamoured with the Vampire genre in general).<br /><br />Since that time Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have gone on to much bigger things. It's likely both would have roared with laughter when asked to appear in a sequel. They would have been laughing even harder when they saw the final outcome. "Queen of the Damned" typifies the type of cr*p Hollywood is content to put out at a low cost with the hope of earning a quick buck thanks to an average soundtrack and big marketing campaign aimed at 13 to 17 year olds.<br /><br />Needless to say this film is terrible from the start. Lestat, now played by Brit Stuart Townsend of "Shooting Fish" fame, awakens from his dark grave to the sound of... you guessed it, Nu-Metal. He freaks out some confused punkish musicians and joins their band, under the proviso that he only appear at night, what with the sun burning his skin and all during the day...<br /><br />Jesse (Marguerite Moreau), a student studying the paranormal (Vampire Studies 101 perhaps?), tries to find out if Lestat really is who he says he is. Along the way she falls for him (something to do with her odd past), but has a little competition in Queen Akasha (Aaliyah), a Vampire demon queen who is returning from the underworld to acquire Lestat as her chosen King.<br /><br />The film is shamefully self-indulgant, yet its campy tone leaves some room for its depreciating humour. Anybody who sees this film for anything but a good laugh needs to see more films in general! Watching Townsend is enjoyable. He knows the role is utterly over the top and does his best to walk the tightrope between utter hamming and serious acting. The late Aaliyah is, unfortunately, terrible in the title role. She has minimal screentime, and what she does have she does not use to the fullest. The poor makeup and special effects do not help; at times she sounds like she's talking through a voicebox.<br /><br />It is rumoured that this film was heading straight to video until Aaliyah's untimely death last year. With the possibility for people to see her final film, Warner Bros put this out to a general release. Otherwise this would have been one of those movies you see on the shelf at video shops but avoid because you can tell it is going to be simply terrible.<br /><br />No doubt films like this will continue to be made. Look at the spate of teen rom-com rip offs around or the spoofing of that genre itself with films like "Not Another Teen Movie". If there is a market to exploit Hollywood will do so.<br /><br />The biggest issue I have with this film is not the film itself. Hollywood is about making money, so if there is a market for this film then they will pursue it. That's business. But what concerns me the most is that people will actively go out to the cinema and pay money to watch it! I guess that's the biggest argument in the world of cinema: is film art first and entertainment second, or is it the other way around? The only people who can decide that is the audience. If you like and are intrigued by good films, stay clear of this turkey.
|
negative
|
Prom Night 2 is an OK horror movie but prom night is way better and this movies about how the prom Queen Mary Lou in 1957 gets killed by her boyfriend and comes back 30 years later for revenge.The best actor in this movie is Micheal Ironside and the movie stars other OK actors and actress like Justin Louis (I),Wendy Lyon,Lisa Schrage and Richard Monette(I).And there are some good gore scenes like when Mary Lou kills the girl that is trying to hide in her locker by crushing the lockers together and how one of the students are on the computer and Mary Lou electrocutes him to death.Over all this is an OK/good horror movie and my rating is 4 out of 10.
|
negative
|
Well, "Cube" (1997), Vincenzo's first movie, was one of the most interesting and tricky ideas that I've ever seen when talking about movies. They had just one scenery, a bunch of actors and a plot. So, what made it so special were all the effective direction, great dialogs and a bizarre condition that characters had to deal like rats in a labyrinth. His second movie, "Cypher" (2002), was all about its story, but it wasn't so good as "Cube" but here are the characters being tested like rats again.<br /><br />"Nothing" is something very interesting and gets Vincenzo coming back to his 'Cube days', locking the characters once again in a very different space with no time once more playing with the characters like playing with rats in an experience room. But instead of a thriller sci-fi (even some of the promotional teasers and trailers erroneous seemed like that), "Nothing" is a loose and light comedy that for sure can be called a modern satire about our society and also about the intolerant world we're living. Once again Vicenzo amaze us with a great idea into a so small kind of thing. 2 actors and a blinding white scenario, that's all you got most part of time and you don't need more than that. While "Cube" is a claustrophobic experience and "Cypher" confusing, "Nothing" is completely the opposite but at the same time also desperate.<br /><br />This movie proves once again that a smart idea means much more than just a millionaire budget. Of course that the movie fails sometimes, but its prime idea means a lot and offsets any flaws. There's nothing more to be said about this movie because everything is a brilliant surprise and a totally different experience that I had in movies since "Cube".
|
positive
|
It's really a shame there was so much controversy surrounding this picture (in other words, the infamous affair between Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rossellini), as this drew a lot of attention to a very forgettable film. The story is incredibly slow, cheap looking and uninteresting. And, to top this off, the film is stuffed to the brim with amateurish actors who can barely speak any English. I really would have preferred subtitles--it would have made the experience less exhausting. Back to the rotten acting. The Neo-realist movement was big in Italy at the time this film was made. Many of these films are absolute masterpieces (such as De Sica's Umberto D., The Children Are Watching Us and Miracle in Milan) because they got so much out of the non-professional actors. They behaved like normal people, but in Stromboli they act like normal people TRYING to be actors and come off very badly--like kids in a school play. <br /><br />By the way,...if you are hoping the movie has a good ending (thereby making your time commitment to the film worth while), DON'T bother. The plot was just totally uninvolving and silly--so much so, that I really found that I could have cared less about the characters. Like the island they all inhabit, the film is desolate and without color or life.
|
negative
|
Ah, Domino is actually a breath of fresh air, something new to the cinema world. I enjoyed the movie a lot because of the intricate plot, the varied characters, and the intense camera effects. I've seen some complain about the camera work and, in fact, according to the creators themselves, the flashy and wild shots were all the culmination of mistakes made through time. All of what you see was the desired effect. Perhaps some complain because something quite like this has never been done before, although that's what sets it apart. In a deeper aspect, what you are seeing is just how Domino sees things through her eyes, think about it.<br /><br />When it comes to the story, I don't see anything quite bad about it. Despite it's "messy" nature, according to some, it is in fact just a rapid form of storytelling. The plot really isn't all that hard to follow, if you actually focus on what's going on. Maybe it's just me because I see movies from many different aspects such as the acting, the plot, etc. I'm no "interpreter" or anything who picks movies apart, it just comes to me. With that said, I believe this is quite an excellent movie indeed, despite it's future as a cult-classic, blockbuster, or whatever.<br /><br />And the characters, well there's no doubting how varied the cast is. I believe the cast is excellent as they all do fine jobs portraying their characters effectively, that's what makes a movie ladies and gentlemen. The characters are all very unique and a plus is that you get to witness a small piece of each one of their lives, setting them apart even further. Basically, I personally loved the cast and characters.<br /><br />All those who bash and burn this film perhaps just don't see it as I do, or it just doesn't appeal to them. No matter, this is a great film in it's own right, no, it's a great film period.
|
positive
|
What a waste of great acting talent. This is a shame because with Catherine Deneuve, Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Devos, Chiara Mastroianni, and Melvil Poupaud (not to mention others less well known in America) that's a lot of acting talent to waste. This film by Arnaud Desplech was a terrible disappointment. After having enjoyed his "Kings and Queens" and this film left me completely bored and frustrated to the point where I actually left before the movie ended. The movie wandered around its central storyline (involving Catherine Deneuve's illness) getting sidetracked by every peripheral storyline and supporting character that appeared on screen. The movie also gave us too little character development to understand why the different characters disliked each other so much (this was a story of family dysfunction) so that the dearth of coherent narrative became even more critical. Finally, the soundtrack (which ranged from hip hop to Bach to Mendelhson's Midsummer Night's Dream) was at odds with the emotional temperature of the movie and further obscured any emotion the viewer should have been feeling at the time. The photography (the director often began scenes with a mainly dark screen, where our only sight is through a small opening, making feel as if we are watching through a peephole, that then expands) was also pretentious and inscrutable.
|
negative
|
Although it isn't half as hilarious as "Chicken Run," the new Wallace and Gromit comedy "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" (*** out of ****) yields more laughs than most live action comedies. British director Nick Park, who created the Wallace and Gromit characters, and co-director Steve Box rely on the old-fashioned, stop-motion method of animation--known best as claymation--to create several visually adorable characters in more than enough side-splitting scenes about a monstrously mutant hare out to devour every vegetable in sight. Amusing as its whimsical storyline is, the heart of the hilarity lies in the imaginative way with which Park and company have painstakingly constructed characters and gags out of a brand of modeling clay called Plasticine. Basically, every shot that you see in "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" required patient souls that made minor alterations in the clay characters for a series of individual shots that merge into a veritable montage of merriment. Hollywood pioneered claymation as a form of animation as far back as the silent movies of the 1920s, before the industry turned its back on the complicated process. Aardman Studio animators managed to crank out a mere three seconds of usable footage per day. For the record, "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" took five years to make. The lumpy looking characters, with thumb-prints clearly visible in their respective clay complexions, look incredibly funny with their ping-pong ball eyes and over-biting mouths. Interestingly, Gromit emerges as the funniest character, a lovable mutt with no mouth but an expressively inexpressive face who says more than most of the talking characters.<br /><br />Wallace and Gromit are respectively master and pooch. As the human half of the duo, Wallace is a homily looking moron without a clue who somehow manages to construct machines that do some rather incredible things. One of the funnier scenes shows master and pooch awakened by a system of chutes, hatches, and spring-operated contraptions that dress and feed them. Meanwhile, Gromit is the animal half. The running joke is that Gromit shows more common sense than his genius of a master. As good as his ideas and inventions are, Wallace could not succeed without the loyal Gromit giving him a hand. Our heroes run a pest protection business called 'Anti-Pesto.' Essentially, they must protect every vegetable patch for miles around using an ungainly looking device called a Bun-Van 6000 that literally sucks rabbits out of their ground and into a huge glass container. No, Wallace and Gromit don't kill the critters. Instead, they keep them as pets, and Wallace experiments with an inventionMind-O-Matic--designed to convert hares into carrot-haters. This "Frankenstein" meets "The Fly" approach plunges poor Wallace into deep trouble when he swaps bits of his brain with that of a rabbit. Not long thereafter, a mysterious towering terror stalks the vegetable patches on full moon nights and creates chaos for everyone as the village's 517th annual Vegetable Contest approaches.<br /><br />Initially, Wallace and Gromit appeared in Park's Oscar-nominated, film school project "A Grand Day Out" (1989). Since then Aardman has released ten other animated shorts, among them "Wallace and Gromit: A Close Shave" (1993) and the Oscar-winning Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers" (1995). "Curse of the Were-Rabbit" differs not only because it represents the duo's big-screen debut, but also it runs a whopping 85 minutes. The first two-thirds of "Were-Rabbit" contain better gags than the last third, but Park and company never miss a chance to slip in an adult joke that kids won't get but attentive grown-ups will appreciate. "Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is hare-raising fun.
|
positive
|
I am usually disappointed by network movies. Even flix that attract big name actors are usually ruined by the TV people. However, this one is the worst of the worst. The screenplay is weak and the acting, especially that of Tracey Pollan is abominable. I've trudged off to see my kids'high school plays and been treated to better acting. Pollan acts as if she is reading the script as she speaks. When she tries to express fear, anger or grief, it's extremely hollow. Because of the overall quality of the production I found it difficult to take it seriously. If you decide to brave this one just be prepared for a big disappointment. Scary things won't scare you, sad things won't make you sad, romance won't make you feel warm and fuzzy and you will likely be as anxious as I was to see the end arrive. "First to die" says a lot about this movie.
|
negative
|
Quite simply this shouldn't have been made. It's predictable and clichéd. The on screen chemistry which made the first "My Girl" so captivating is nowhere to be found here, and the acting as a whole is stilted and forced. The writing also leaves much to be desired, some of the 'memorable' lines such as "earpeircing a barbaric custom" are just shocking. Where "My Girl" provoked a genuine feelings of sadness and some genuinely funny moments, like so many sequels "My Girl 2" tries to recreate these emotions generated by the audience, and fails miserably. Maybe i'm being hard on this film because of how great the first one was, but quite honestly it insults the quality of the original with the sort of drivel this installment serves up. Surely this has to come close to "Son of the mask" as being one of the worst sequels of all time. In both cases, the old saying rings true; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
|
negative
|
By some happy coincidence the same year that Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak made Alfred Hitchcock's haunting masterpiece "Vertigo", they also made this light comedy. Perhaps the two actors needed to do it after undergoing the heaviness of the Hitchcock film . At any rate this a great companion piece to "Vertigo" as it again explores a very un-likely but powerful romance. In fact the film can be seen as the flip side of "Vertigo" with it's happy ending. Here again Novak undergoes a transformation, in Vertigo she essentially plays two women and here she 'transforms' from witch to mortal. Stewart is again bewitched and for awhile tormented by his love for her. Unlike Vertigo the two come together in "Bell Book and Candle" , a perfect antidote for the Hitcock movie. Again the dynamics of love and attraction are examined but in an altogether different vein. The cast is terrific. Lemmon hilarious as Novak's warlock brother and Elsa Lancaster giving a classic performance as the Aunt. Ernie Kovacs as the alcoholic cult writer and of course Hermoine Gingold playing Novak's competitor are all great. The scene with Stewart drinking the potion is comedy at it's best. Anyone who has seen Vertigo or even if you haven't should see this memorable light comedy.
|
positive
|
Wow, praise IMDb and Google, for I have been trying to remember the name of this f'ing awesome movie for over 15 years now. Slaughter High, man! Hells yeah!<br /><br />I'm not going to bore you with a plot summary, and actors, and yadda yadda yadda, 'cause you all know what's up. That's why you're here anyway. What I will do, however, is explain the fond memory I have of this quintessential 80's D-Movie slasher joint.<br /><br />In 1987, when I was around the age of 7, my father used to rent all these horror movies. Would he care that his kids were watching them with him? No. So, at that young age i saw Slaughter High. What I saw in that movie stuck with me big time. I haven't seen it since, but I remember to this day most of the ridiculous kills in the movie. For example, the post-sex scene (why is there a metal bed in a school?) gets electrocuted. Or, the guy being drowned in a cess pool. Come on! My personal favorite, though...the exploding stomach from the tainted beer. Amazing! How can you honestly hate on a movie where one of the characters finds a beer in an abandoned school, like, 10 or 15 years later and thinks it would be a good idea to drink it? Then his stomach explodes? What!? And that great line: Let's take my car...it always starts. Classic crap all the way. <br /><br />I mean, I look back now, almost 20 years later, and laugh at it. But when I was 7, I was scared sh!tless. That jester hat (or was it a mask?) that the killer rocks throughout freaked me the f*ck out!<br /><br />All in all, yes, a crappy movie. But for nostalgia purposes and for humor factor this movie gets a 9 out of 10 from me. Either stay up every night real late and hope to catch this on same Late Late Late Movie show, or hunt down a VHS copy and dust off your VCR.
|
positive
|
A real disappointment from the great visual master Ridley Scott. G.I. Jane tells the story of a first female ever to go through the hellish training at the Navy SEALs. The training is the most difficult and hard in existence as the instructor says in the film to the lead character O'Neil played by Demi Moore. There is no particular message or point in this film or then I couldn't reach it properly. It may be a some kind of a statement of female rights and abilities but it all sinks under the tired scenes and stupid gun fight at the end of the film.<br /><br />I really can't understand why Ridley uses so much zooms in that mentioned last gun battle at the desert?! It looks sooooo stupid and irritating and almost amateurish so I would really like to know what the director saw in that technique. When I look at his latest film, Black Hawk Dawn, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the battle scenes (which are plenty) and they are very intense and directed with skill. The whole finale in G.I. Jane looks ugly and is nothing more but stupid and brainless shooting and killing.<br /><br />This is Ridley Scott's worst movie in my opinion and there are no significant touches from which this great director is known. Still I'm glad I saw this in Widescreen format because there are still couple of great scenes and samples of Scott's abilities, but they are very few in this film.<br /><br />A disappointment and nothing compared to the classics (Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Alien and so on..) of this talented director. So I'm forced to give G.I. Jane 4/10.
|
negative
|
This was the worst film i have seen for a long time. <br /><br />Not only that it has nearly nothing to do with the other American Pie movies, the story is obvious, flat and absolutely not funny. <br /><br />The girls are nice though, but spending your time watching a cheap soft porno would possibly be greater than watching this film.<br /><br />This film seems to be a very bad made sex ad, made for an audience that is not older than 12.<br /><br />I never visited an American college, but i would seriously doubt that anyone who did could really laugh about any of the scenes.<br /><br />Save your time, do something else.
|
negative
|
The Director of Kannathil Muthamittal directed the first Indian film I had seen "Dil Se" which led me down the path of buying well over 122 Hindi DVDs in the<br /><br />course of four months. I can say I understood the total attraction, I was<br /><br />somehow confused as to why the film would stop for "music videos". It was an excellent movie, I didn't know what to make of the dancing and the female<br /><br />vocals were a bit shrill for my western ears, but somehow I found AR Rahmen's score hypnotic. I bought the soundtrack the following day and then Lagan, Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and K3G the following week and with the exception of "Ichi the<br /><br />killer" a few other Korean films , I can't be bothered to watch much else. Kind of strange for someone who has only watched a strict diet of Hong Kong, Horror<br /><br />and Action/Science fiction films for the past 30 years.<br /><br />But I should get back to Kannathil Muthamittal, It is one of the Mani Ratman's latest efforts and I laughed, Cried, Got totally mad, terrified and most of all I didn't feel manipulated. The acting was superb, the photography was beautiful, I think you could stop the movie at any given time and would notice that any give frame would be worthy of painting. The music fit the movie perfectly and after the<br /><br />credits rolled, I wanted to watch again... so I did.<br /><br />It would be foolish to discuss the plot for fear that you may miss the pleasure of watching the events unfold and the characters develop. This is what great film is all about! I stood and applauded in my home theater when it was over!<br /><br />My wife is watching now, and I can't wait for her reaction, I can't expect it will be anything less than mine.
|
positive
|
Put this movie out of it's misery and burn the negatives. What am I saying? The whole movie was negative. Fortunately, only a very few would find this movie the least bit appealing. This is what the vast American majority would call too much sex and violence. It will probably show up on some non-premium cable channel someday just for the shock value, but after editing out the nudity (most of the violence will stay) all that will be left is 45 minutes of really bad acting interspersed with 45 minutes of commercials. There are just too many starving actors in Hollywood.
|
negative
|
I read nothing but good things about this movie and finally had a chance to watch it late last night and it was everything I expected it to be and more.This is the way a proper horror movie should be.I think the reason it was so scary was because it was so realistic. The spooky sounding score was perfect for setting a dark mood.I liked the dramatic opening scene and enjoyed how the rest of the movie played out.It was very easy to follow and understand unlike some movies which are way too complicated.The special effects were very good.I would love to see more horror movies like this one.This is easily one of my favorite's.A realistic thunder and lightning storm would have set a nice atmosphere for this movie.Other then that it had all the elements a good horror movie needs.I highly recommend this movie to anyone who can appreciate a good scary movie that pulls no punches.I will be adding it to my collection.The DVD has some interesting special features.
|
positive
|
I really liked this movie.<br /><br />Everyone has something to be blamed for, everyone is real. No paperboard heroes or cold, omnipotent, know-all characters.<br /><br />I read many others viewers here complaining about Anne morality and about James will to maintain his love for her, despite her cheating on him, but I don't agree.<br /><br />I found Anne (Emily Watson) absolutely wonderful and I felt love for her.<br /><br />She was a heavily repressed woman, her actions were not planned: once she started to break free she was in confusion and did many errors. But so it's in real life, when you gain freedom you are likely to do errors (expecially at the start point).<br /><br />Was she a little too ungrateful? Maybe. But we must remember that she is running with her feet for the first time. She knows that James after all is a good man, maybe a little too stiff, serious and work centered; but she also feels the urge to live the life as herself.<br /><br />Is she to blame more than him? I think no.<br /><br />But the turn happening into their lives generates some changes.<br /><br />James instead of letting his wife go out of his life (as other viewers suggested as the right choice) bites the bullet and waits, hoping for the better. He starts to understand that what he superficially though was OK (his marriage) in reality was a control game played by him on his wife.<br /><br />This is not a story with characters having over-emotional and precarious nature (i.e. the usual clichè Latin American or Italian jealous guys), this is a story of men and women that use both heart and brain.<br /><br />It can be very painful but if you really love a person (women or man) and if you are not a terribly unstable nature, you are likely to forgive his/her cheating and let him/her go. Unless you are a jealous, prehistoric, crime-of-passion inclined, possessive and mentally instable individual.<br /><br />A really good movie. The last scene, when James - despite all the things happened before - goes with Anne to the train station is really moving: She is free and He understood what freedom means for a person.<br /><br />Guido
|
positive
|
The beginning of this movie had me doubting that it would be little more than a typical B sci-fi flick. But, as it progressed I began to get interested and I saw the whole thing through. The premise is interesting, original, and has the makings of making a classic. Alas, it instead ended up a mediocre movie, done in by the usual factors which turn a potentially good movie into a bad movie (bad acting, low budget etc.). I'm interested to see how this would turn out if it were remade with good actors and a big hollywood budget.
|
negative
|
Film version of Sandra Bernhard's one-woman off-Broadway show is gaspingly pretentious. Sandra spoofs lounge acts and superstars, but her sense of irony is only fitfully interesting, and fitfully funny. Her fans will say she's scathingly honest, and that may be true. But she's also shrill, with an unapologetic, in-your-face bravado that isn't well-suited to a film in this genre. She doesn't want to make nice--and she's certainly not out to make friends--and that's always going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. But even if you meet her halfway, her material here is seriously lacking. Filmmaker Nicolas Roeg served as executive producer and, though not directed by him, the film does have his chilly, detached signature style all over it. Bernhard co-wrote the show with director John Boskovich; their oddest touch was in having all of Sandra's in-house audiences looking completely bored--a feeling many real viewers will most likely share. *1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
This is amazing-looking movie with the whole thing done in just six or seven colors. When it came out over 15 years ago, it stunned audiences with its color scheme, being so different from anything else that had ever been put on film. Those colors, for me at least, make this an absolutely fascinating film to watch. There are literally thousands of scenes I wish could freeze and somehow convert them to a painting to study for their artwork.<br /><br />The characters and the story don't match up to the greatness of the photography, but they are all over-the-top, especially the villains. The famous actors who played them here must have a had a lot of fun on the set playing "Flatop," "Pruneface," "Lips," "Mumbles," etc.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Warren Beatty and Gleanne Hedley are good as Dick Tracey and girlfriend Tess Truehart, and she's as sweet and soft as her name. Another good addition is Charlie Korsmo as the delinquent young boy Dick and Tess take under their wing. The colorful other characters are played by Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, William Forysthe, Paul Sorvino, Mandy Patinkin, Madona and other names you know but are too numerous to list here. Check the full credits on the main page and you'll amazed.<br /><br />The only negatives I found were Pacino's voice which grates on you after awhile, Madonna's off-key singing voice and the fact that the film would have been better trimmed about 10 minutes. Those "faults" are all minor because overall, this is a fun movie....a cartoon strip coming to life in an incredibly-colorful fashion.....like nothing you have ever seen.
|
positive
|
This movie is beautifully designed! There are no flaws. Not in the design of the set, the lighting, the sounds, the plot. The script is an invitation to a complex game where the participants are on a simple mission.<br /><br />Paxton is at his best in this role. His mannerisms, the infections used in the tones of his voice are without miscue. Each shot meticulously done! Surprises turn up one after another when the movie reaches past its first hour. This may not be the best picture of the year, but it's a gem that has been very well polished. It's not for the simple mind.
|
positive
|
In addition to his "Tarzan" series, the prolific Edgar Rice Burroughs did write many other books, although, aside from the popular "At the Earth's Core", few of these have been filmed. One exception is the novel entitled "The Lad and the Lion", brought to the screen as "The Lion Man" (1936), an over-talkative, static, old-hat, slow-moving and rather dull movie, despite being filmed on real desert locations. Actually "movie" is the wrong word. The narrative doesn't move but proceeds at a snail's pace in an abrupt series of jerks. For instance, at least five characters are given elaborate opening scenes and then just disappear. Even more frustrating for the keen movie fan, are the characters who make an impression of sorts (like the lass who plies Hall with drugged wine) but are enacted by players who are not credited! The credited thespians generally come off worse than the unknowns. One exception is Australian actress Finis Barton who gives a good account of the kidnapped harem girl who rescues young Master Fairy. Admittedly, most of the cast are saddled with atrocious King James dialogue which has to be heard to be believed! But the way to play this rubbish is tongue-in-cheek, a stratagem which does not seem to have occurred to a single one of the film's roster of no-talent players. Maybe director J.P. McCarthy scotched that idea. Anyway, it's sad to see the lovely Kathleen Burke forced to trade lines with the likes of Richard Carlyle (her dad) and Jon Hall (her suitor). Admittedly, Mr Hall delivers his lines with marginally more conviction than Mr Carlyle, but that is no recommendation.
|
negative
|
House of Games is a wonderful movie at multiple levels. It is a fine mystery and a shocking thriller. It is blessed with marvelous performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Montegna, and a strong, strong cast of supporting players, and it introduces Ricky Jay, card sharp extraordinaire, prestidigitator and historian of magic. Its dialogue, written by David Mamet, is spoken as if in a play of manners and gives the movie (in which reality is often in question) an extra dimension of unrealness.<br /><br />On the face of it, House of Games is a convincing glimpse into the unknown world of cheats and con men, diametrically different from The Sting, which was played merely for glamour and yuks. At this level it does succeed admirably.<br /><br />However, you cannot escape the examination at a deeper level of the odyssey of a woman from complacent professional competence to incredible strength and self realization. The only movie I know of which treats the theme of emergence of personal strength in a woman in as worthy a way is the underrated Private Benjamin. That thoroughly enjoyable movie unfortunately diffuses its focus, hopping among several themes and exploiting the fine performance of Goldie Hawn to chase after some easy laughs. House of Games sticks to its business. As Poe once said of a good short story, it drives relentlessly to its conclusion.<br /><br />There is another strain of movies-about-women, epitomized by Thelma and Louise, a big budget commercial money maker with the despicable theme that women are doomed, whether or not they realize their inner strengths. What tripe.<br /><br />As usual you really ought to see this film in a movie theater. It should be a natural for film festivals. Nominate it for one near you if you get the chance.<br /><br />I bought the original version of House of Games and gave it to my 23 year old daughter. Better she should see it on a TV than not at all.
|
positive
|
This is a film that I keep coming back to, for a variety of reasons. As a testament to the suffering of the ordinary soldier on the Eastern Front in the Second World War, it is a powerful one. There are a number of very powerful scenes in the film which help to capture the horror of war, such as the tank battle for instance. Furthermore, from what I can see the experiences documented in the film are by and large 'true' - if you read A. Beevor's book 'Stalingrad' you will know what I mean. The film is also successful in the sense that it doesn't allow character or plot to dominate it - it is simply a tale of survival, that attempts to depict the battle mainly from the ordinary (German) soldier's point of view. I've read somewhere that the original screenplay had to be toned down, which doesn't surprise me at all - if they tried to really show what the battle was like, it would have been almost impossible to make I'm sure. Even so, there are still some moments that are difficult to watch - this was made before Private Ryan but is possibly even harder-hitting in places. Just one word of caution - don't buy the dubbed 'English' version, it's pretty awful and spoils the film - try to get a copy in the original (German) version with English subtitles, it's far more powerful. You may need to buy a Region 1 DVD of the film in this case, as I did.
|
positive
|
A terrific comedy-drama about the powers of friendship. Despite it's a remake of a 1939 film of the same title, it would probably be compared to Sex And The City. I would not compare to it totally. The story starts with Mary(Meg Ryan) who seems to the life most women would envy, she's happily married, has a good daughter, great friends, and a great home. But Marys perfect life isn't what it seems, when she discovers her husband is cheating on her with Crystal(Eve Mendes) from Zach's. Mary is puzzled and doesn't know what to do. But her four good friends, Sylvia(Annette Bening), Edie(Debra Messing), and Alex(Jada Pickett Smith) try to be there for her in anyway they can. I really don't want to give anymore away. But I found this enjoyable, and I'm a man. Meg Ryan is great, it is nice to see her in on the screen again, after a series of flops. And the rest of the cast are also great including Eve Mendes as Crystal. Just an enjoyable lighthearted comedy.
|
positive
|
Where do you begin with a movie as bad as this?<br /><br />Do you mention the cast of unlikeable heroes? The over-the-top acting? The dreadful script?<br /><br />No. You just say that anyone who pays money to see a film as poor as this needs their head looking at. I know I do. I respect those poor guys who saw it with little or no advance word from mags like Empire (usually a bad sign if a preview copy isn't available to the quality movie mags). However, cinemas really should start thinking about giving out refunds if the customer isn't happy with the finished product.<br /><br />I went three days after it opened with two other mates. The only other person in the cinema was one bloke on his own.<br /><br />And that was on cheap night.<br /><br />Either the ad campaign had failed dismally or word had spread through most of the country of just what a stinker this is.<br /><br />Not since the days of The Avengers (1998) have I felt so short changed since watching a movie. If a mate comes round with this on video in a few months make sure he pays your electricity bill while watching it.<br /><br />Tara Fitzgerald deserves an award for not cracking up - or walking off the set; Keith Allen retains some dignity amid the cinematic carnage; Barry Foster should have been arrested on the set for his performance, Rhys Ifans does his career no favours after the success of Notting Hill and only Dani Behr is halfway likeable as a busty secretary.<br /><br />Mind you, considering she used to be in The Word, any viewers' expectations of her acting ability had to be pretty low to begin with.<br /><br />The production values aren't bad considering the obviously limited budget but that script is atrocious. If you want to hear a bunch of unlikeable characters say "Fak!" for a couple of hours then this should be right up your street.<br /><br />Otherwise, bargepoles required.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
I think Gerard's comments on the doc hit the nail on the head. Interesting film, but very long. It's definitely the antithesis to the new school of flashy, sexy, Moore-style docs. There is no narrator, no facts or side info interlaced, and no other gimmicks. What you see is what you get - a glimpse into the vanishing world of the Saltmen of Tibet. As a huge doc fan, I was surprised how much I lost attention with this film, namely due to the length and lack of dialogue. In the end though I would recommend it if the subject matter sounds interesting to you. It's beautifully shot, informative, and presents a valuable (and closing) window into the way of life of the Tibetan saltmen (and women :) - all important attributes of a good doc. But do put on a big pot of coffee, it'll help.
|
positive
|
I wasn't sure how to rate this movie, since it was so bad it was actually very funny. I'm not a Gackt fan by any means, though he is talented, despite the weird pseudonym that sounds like a cat coughing up a hairball. I always thought Hyde was talented though, Faith is an interesting album.<br /><br />But on topic here folks. This movie is ridiculous. It's so over the top and nonsensical it's almost like a parody of supernatural action films.<br /><br />The movie has almost no plot here, except it's just about vampires with gangster friends. In a way, this film almost reminded me of Spider-Man 3, with how there were too many ideas, which resulted in not enough time to pay attention on one of them.<br /><br />The action scenes were laughable. Quickly edited, almost hard to understand, with choreography that's so laughably bad. Though Hyde looked very stylish during the action scenes, but that's this film's only such redemption. I'm a sucker for good action movies, but the action was horribly done. Though the final shootout was OK and the highlight of this otherwise depressing movie.<br /><br />It keeps jumping between genres, not a good thing. It wants to be a drama, or an action flick, or a horror, or a romance... what the hell.<br /><br />If this review is making you mad, why? Is it because Gackt and Hyde are your love? Don't fool yourself, this MOVIE IS BAD.
|
negative
|
A great suspenseful thriller the acting is first rate and the plot keeps you guessing. This well performed and directed movie is based on a true story and well worth while Joe Penny is cast extremely well and Ann Gillian is convincing as the concernened and terrified sister. Joe again prove he's acting ability is amazing and the ending well done. It,s worth watching I hope they repeat it soon on any channel, I will definitely record it. For Penny and Gillian fans it's worth your time. Rent it if you can better still try to buy it I going to. Perfect early nineties thriller watch this<br /><br />movie it's great.
|
positive
|
I am an avid B-Rate horror film buff and have viewed my fair share of slasher pictures, so I have a substantial gauge to judge this film by. It easily ranks in the upper echelon of the worst horror films the 1980's has to offer. It isn't as scary as Night of the Demons, it isn't as gory as Re-Animator and lacks the camp value of There's Nothing Out There. That being said, this film has no value. Keep in mind, the movie artwork is for a completely different film. The stills shots on the back of the DVD box aren't taken from this film.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$ (There is plenty of violence but we've seen it all before. A murderer kills nubile students and the occasional facility member by slitting throats and all the other tired methods of murder that horror films utilize).<br /><br />NUDITY: None <br /><br />STORY: $$ (The story focuses on Francine Forbes - who wisely changed her name to Forbes Riley after this film was made - who accepts a job teaching at a university. People start to die and Forbes believes the killer is targeting her. Is it her new heartthrob with a checkered past or the libido-crazed student? To be honest, it is impossible to care because the script doesn't flesh out any character outside Forbes).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (Terrible on all levels. This slasher has the feel of a school production -high school that is because college students could make a better flick than this. Forbes showcases a modicum of talent as does Seminara as one of the students, but everyone else is of the "extras" caliber of acting).
|
negative
|
This was a riveting film, one that really drew me in. I'm a big fan of William H. Macy, and he puts in a wonderful performance. His great likeability, coupled with the way his character breaks the fourth wall, really gave me a sense of complicity in his actions. I found myself waiting tensely for the whole house of cards to come collapsing down around him (and by extension myself, as his confidante and silent witness). It took several minutes for me to relax once the film had ended, I was so wrapped up in it. <br /><br />Good performances all around, too, not just with Macy. Arkin was quite good, as was Cromwell (he was surprisingly fierce). In short, I highly recommend this film to any fans of Macy and/or the murder mystery. But you may want to prepare to feel a little guilty.
|
positive
|
This is a complex film that explores the effects of Fordist and Taylorist modes of industrial capitalist production on human relations. There are constant references to assembly line production, where workers are treated as cogs in a machine, overseen by managers wielding clipboards, controlling how much hair the workers leave exposed, and firing workers (Stanley) who meet all criteria (as his supervisor says, are always on time, are hard workers, do good work) but who may in some unspecified future make a mistake. <br /><br />This system destroys families - Stanley has to send his father to a nursing home (where he quickly dies) after Stanley loses his job. Iris' daughter is a single teen mother who drops out of high school to take a job in the plant. References are made to the fact that now, with declining wages, both partners need to work, the implication being that there's nobody left at home to care for the kids. Iris' husband is dead from an illness, and with the multiple references in the film about the costs of medical care, the viewer must wonder if he might have lived with better and more costly care. Iris' brother in law gets abusive after yet another unsuccessful day at the unemployment office when his wife yells at him for buying a beer with her savings instead of leaving it for her face lift and/or teeth job (even the working class with no stake in conventional bourgeois notions of perfection and beauty buy into them). The one reference to race in the film is through a black factory line worker whose husband is in jail (presumably, he's also black, and black men suffer disproportionally high incarceration rates). She remarks that he, like her, "is doing time" - her family is composed of a prisoner and a wage slave.<br /><br />Stanley, however, still believes in human relations and is therefore for most of the film outside of the system of Fordist capitalism. He cares for his father in spite of the fact that it was his father's traveling salesman job that resulted in his illiteracy - he has not yet reduced human relations to a purely instrumental contract, as Iris' brother in law does (suggesting that he "married the wrong sister"). He does not, as Iris says, conform to the work-eat-sleep routine of everyone else; rather, he uses technology and the techniques of industrial production in an artisanal and creative way, in a sort of Bauhaus ideal. This was the dream of early modernists and 1920's socialists (such as the Bauhaus) - to use technology to provide for all basic needs, allowing for more free time for creative human work and fuller human relations. He is also outside of traditional gender relations. He cooks, he cleans, he cares for his family, and he knows how to iron. Iris, on the other hand, lives in a traditionally male role - she's a factory worker, the mains source of income for her (extended) family, and she brings Stanley into the public realm, traditionally off-limits to women. By teaching him to read and write, she gives him access to the world of knowledge, also traditionally gendered male.<br /><br />Literacy here is used as a metaphor for the (traditionally masculine) public realm and the systems of circulation (monetary, vehicular, cultural) that enable participation in the public realm. Without this access, Stanley is feminized - the jobs open to him are cooking and cleaning. He is excluded from all regular circulations, unable to participate in the monetary (can't open a bank account), in the vehicular (can't get a driver's license, can't ride the bus), and in the social (he asks if he exists if he can't write his name).<br /><br />After learning to read, he grabs books on auto repair, farming, and spirituality (the Bible). The Word of God is therefore relativized, placed on the same value plane as how-to books. In fact, organized religion in general is only very occasionally present - the Bible also appears on a dresser as the camera pans to find Stanley and Iris having sex. It is, however, acknowledged as a moral force - Iris, clearly a character devoted to living a "good" life, mentions at the beginning of the film that her rosary was among the objects lost in a purse snatching.<br /><br />Once able to read, he enters the system and lands a managerial position with a health care plan, a car, and a house, taking his place at the head of the family, the breadwinner. Presumably, he's an industrial designer, dreaming up products that will require others enduring the drudgery of the assembly line to produce. This ending, probably the only bit of conventional Hollywood in the film, is so incongruous with all that has come before that I at least wonder if it wasn't forced in by some Studio exec suddenly worried about the lack of a feel-good ending and its potential effect on the bottom line.<br /><br />Now that, according to the pundits, we've comfortably moved on to post-industrial capitalism, the film also has a slightly nostalgic feel, as though we needed the historical distance to really analyze what happened during that period. <br /><br />Nevertheless, it's highly recommended - at least if you want to exercise your brain. Disregard the ending, and it's close to a perfect 10.
|
positive
|
I cannot believe that the actors agreed to do this "film". I could not stand to even watch it for very long for fear of losing I.Q. points for each passing second. I guess that nobody at the network that aired this dribble watched it before putting it on. IMDB ratings only go as low 1 for awful, it's time to get some negative numbers in there for cases such as these.
|
negative
|
Adam (Eric Jungmann) and obnoxious best friend Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to a wedding. Along the way they pick up sexy hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Then, for no reason, a monster truck keeps trying to run them off the road...and maybe kill them. Who is doing this and why?<br /><br />Pretty good horror film. Its energetic and full of flashy direction which gets you right into the action. It's also a horror comedy. Most of the humor is infantile and REALLY gross but actually somewhat funny. Also this movie really piles on the gore at times--but that's a GOOD thing! The acting is OK--Jungmann overplays his nerd role a bit much; Urich is stuck with the hopeless role of the foul-mouthed, sex-obsessed best friend--but pulls it off; Brooks is good too in a limited role.<br /><br />BUT I could see the "twist" ending coming long before it happened and logic totally disappears at the end (especially the rescue). Still, this is a gory, sometimes funny and sometimes scary horror movie. I give it a 7.
|
positive
|
An Inconvenient Truth is as entirely simplistic and demagogic as the turgid slop created by the rabid and idiotic Republicans, it meanders along intangible lines until it attempts to gorge something into your face, namely that we'll all be dead in a few hundred years, which is already indisputable, but who cares, humans are selfish, destructive creatures, I frankly do not waste my time caring about human extinction. I'll just call it a "natural progression". Let the apocalypse begin, but meanwhile, we have to listen to the same brazen, slanted politicians who propose another "new society", well, don't be fooled, we'll all still be controlled by the wealthy, by those in power and by those idiots who created the catastrophes in the first place. Nothing will ever change.<br /><br />Al Gore, whose hypocrisy is quite evident in the film, as he is being driven in a gas guzzling car all alone using a consumerist computer, he also lives on huge acres of land in a rather large mansion, the land itself was used for destructive erosive purposes including cattle, tobacco, pig farming (which accounts for methane gas traces) and who knows what else, his wealth is predicated on exploitation, greed and his investments include numerous large companies in the world with disputable records. I hardly think this man is qualified to lecture the less fortunate, but his prestige is based on his opposition to another ludicrous political party, that is all, meanwhile he emits those very same rancid characteristics that make politics and politicians so appalling. This bozo happens to be living the comfortable life and yet he's lecturing poor people in Africa about crop farming and cut and burn techniques? He travels across the world in first class seats in fuel wasting jets, uses product placed computers in the documentary, and yet he thinks everything is a "moral issue". He's entirely absorbed in his own deluded nightmares, he says he came to these conclusions because of the death of his sister (from tobacco induced cancer and the near death of his son by an automobile of all things). Did he fight against the tobacco companies or propose that automobiles be banned because they are dangerous hulking machines? NO. Everything must serve the "economy", so why is he any different, the answer is he is not.<br /><br />His forlorn and exhausted attempts at humanistic philosophy are disastrous, all this while he's being filmed in the forest or along a little river eschewing stale life affirming quotes. Well Mr Gore, why don't you try living like the common people then? He is a politician, plain and simple, he has a career invested in the power structure. My question is, why doesn't he concentrate on the powerful industrial nations of the earth who are to blame for most of the complications? He doesn't do that because it would be unwise for "investments, stocks and corporations".<br /><br />Al Gore gives monotonous lectures about the subject in the documentary, namely to wealthy white people in the audience, who clap on cue, while showing them graph charts, numbers and percentages, and speaking in a dreary tone, no one without a Harvard (which the elites control) education can make sense out of it, but he tells us everything is going to hell. No kidding, but I think he fails to account for this problem precisely in the approach that capitalism has taken for the planet, namely that it is expendable and a waste dump. He never once mentions how industrialization has created these problems, he just wants to put mild bandages on them but not eradicate the whole oppressive system. Its obvious he was spoiled, sent to the schools for elites and has the same basic temperament for politics as any other back stabbing, inconsistent dullard in Washington. Whoever made this propaganda, as it is in no way different than what the Republicans have conceived, had only goals in mind that were directed by capitalistic impulse. That is to say, someone is going to benefit, and it seems the "new green" politicians who support venture capitalist companies who are buying up hordes of land in an attempt to develop the "new Utopian future" with "new technologies". It's the same old story, Al Gore is a believer in the elitist structure, he actually believes there is a "democracy" in the US which I find very naive. If we aren't paying wages to the oil companies, then we'll be paying them to the wind and solar companies.<br /><br />I find the speech at the end quite rancid, along the lines of something GW Bush would have oozed over to the dumb downed masses, Gore speaks about "people uniting together to defeat communism" in the 1990's, what it had to do with global warming, absolutely nothing but he attempts to get base emotions ruminating in people. With that said, he didn't understand that communism never existed in the world, the systems in Europe and USSR were merely a tyrannical form of authoritarianism and capitalism, no less different than what controls the US interests. Social ecology was not even mentioned here, which is really a travesty. If you want to change the world, then one must dispose of those antiquated systems that are based on greed, exploitation and violence.
|
negative
|
This movie was so awful that I can't even describe it. I was amazed that I even sat through this pile of trash. I couldn't believe that a movie like this was even thought of. It was a about a serial killer that clucks like a chicken. He doesn't just cluck a couple of times, he clucks non-stop through out the whole movie. He even flaps his arms like a chicken which is even stupider than anything I have ever seen. I couldn't believe this came out in 1990. I thought it came out in the early '80's or something. Then the daughter isn't very smart either because she was protecting the geek or man chicken. The end just gets worse and is the worse ending I have ever seen. This movie is just chicken s**t. I was laughing more than I was scared and I strongly suggest going out and getting a bucket of fried chicken instead of seeing this movie.
|
negative
|
This tatty am dram adaptation scrambles soulessly through the plot of Dickens' wonderful book, replacing the emotional impact with hurried transitions and any exterior locations with drawings. It's not the fault of the actors and the production team that the budget is so low, of course, but you have to question the point of making this in the first place when there's neither the time nor money to do it justice. Michael Hordern's Scrooge is far too gentle at the outset, making his transformation lack power, and this isn't helped along by a lack of reaction from him as he watches the visions. The other actors range from acceptable (Clive Merrison, Paul Copley), to non-committal (Bernard Lee) to seeming like they're about to forget their lines (John Le Mesurier). It doesn't even score points for effort, to be honest.
|
negative
|
The movie opens with Charlie (Jeff Daniels), a business man just finishing his lunch in a neighborhood deli. It appears he doesn't have enough cash to cover the check. Instead of reaching for his plastic, he furtively glances around to see if the coast is clear and ducks out of the place without paying. Unbeknownst to Charlie, "Lulu" (Melanie Griffith) had been observing him from the other side of the deli.<br /><br />"Lulu" is decked out in what passed for cool back in the 1980's with a brunette page-boy cut. She follows him out to let him know that she saw what he did. He tries to deny it but can't escape her accusation. Thinking he's in it, Charlie is surprised when "Lulu" says she doesn't work for the deli and then offers him a ride back to work.<br /><br />When she heads in the opposite direction, thus begins their cavorting across the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.<br /><br />We're supposed to get titillated as thoroughly modern "Lulu" puts straight-laced Charlie into humiliating situations. It's all right when the two consenting adults get a little kinky in a motel room but off-putting when they wriggle out of paying the check at a family-style restaurant. Stealing the labor from hard-working people is not my idea of "wild". Charlie is a jerk.<br /><br />"Lulu" is a loony jerk. She starts to pass off Charlie as her husband. First to her mom (who blithely tolerates the charade) and then at her conveniently timed 10-year high school reunion (an event used later by another too-cool-for-its-own-good movie "Grosse Pointe Blank").<br /><br />The "marriage" comes as a surprise to "Lulu"'s real husband (Ray Liotta)who's just been recently released from prison for armed robbery. Ray gives the two a welcome comeuppance and shows them how nasty crime really is.<br /><br />I can't add any irony by writing that I first watched this by sneaking in the movie theater. No, I don't do that sort of thing. I taped it off of cable TV and assure you I view it strictly in the privacy of my own home.<br /><br />So I got to thinking why I taped it when I don't like it very much and conclude that 20 years ago I was on a reggae kick and the soundtrack of "Something Wild" does prominently feature reggae. The closing credits start with the treat of Sister Carol performing her version of "Wild Thing".
|
negative
|
I saw the short titled "The Reader" recently and found that the movie was well planned and executed. I really felt for both characters that Morgan Hallett and Elizabeth Franz portray in this film. Elizabeth was able to show great range with her blind character and left me feeling emotionally connected. Morgan was able to sell to me that she was totally committed in keeping "Sissy" or Franz protected from the grief of losing her sister who had been living in Copenhagen. The great thing about the film was in the short running time and budget of only ten thousand dollars, Duncan Rodgers was able to make a very well made film that kept the interest of the viewer. Rodgers has a great insight into the actor's ability and transition great camera angles to showcase their talent. I always feel if a director can make a great film with a small budget then what can he or she do with a much larger one. Great job Duncan!!
|
positive
|
This film has the kernel of a really good story. The work of the men and women of the Coast Guard, especially in the North Pacific, is the stuff of heroes and legends. This film mucks up a good story with three endings (none satisfying), a couple of unneeded and pointless bar fights and two alleged "romantic" relationships that have as much spark as dead campfire. The rescue scenes are great - even if the computer generation is hokey and the scenarios are pretty unreal - but the backstory is lame and disappointing. Costner is good - especially his hand acting (watch for it). Ashton Kutcher is flat but not terrible. The main female characters are one dimensional. The best female is one of the Coast Guard sailors in the rescue center and she's on camera for about two minutes in the whole film. It could have been an excellent film - and Costner needs one!
|
negative
|
Jim Brown stars and produces a tale set in the Philippines just after the Japanese invasion. The story has the Japanese taking several navy men prisoner including some divers, who they use to retrieve the gold that MacArthur had dumped into the Manila bay.<br /><br />It's a messy movie aiming to make a statement about war and racism (The film uses Edwin McCain's War in a not so subtle montage). The performances are just adequate at best. Jim Brown is okay, but he doesn't really show any sort of range in a performance that just has him standing there looking annoyed. The sets are serviceable but seem rather cheap. The film suffers from the outset due to a great deal of stock footage including many of the best known shots from the Japanese attack in Tora! Tora! Tora!. The use of such big budget sequence effectively makes the rest of the film look positively anemic; it also reminds one that there are better films out there one could be watching. For me the film seems to have half a real plot, the retrieval of the silver, and half a plot that is there just to fill time. None of it is particularly exciting even with the explosive finale.<br /><br />Given the choice I'd take a pass.
|
negative
|
The Five Deadly Venoms is easily the most memorable K.F. flick from the Shaw Brothers' stable (exc. maybe Master Killer). It has the artists who came to be known as simply "The Venoms", some of the best fight choreography ever, and, surprisingly for a Kung Fu movie, a great plot! One of my all-time favorites!!!
|
positive
|
There is certainly emotion between the two main characters as they explore their relationship--one based primarily on physical attraction from the beginning. And there is also emotion in the inner-workings of Mathieu's family dealing w/ his mother's problems--and how that comes to bear on their relationship. But the problem is it leaves a lot of things unanswered (unless I'm just too dumb to pick up on them). Why is Mathieu in a mental hospital? What led to the boys' break-up? And the flashing back between present and past is a little hard to follow at first. It seems like the main reason to rent this movie is to enjoy some homoerotic vicarious thrills, or some male nudity. But as a love story or character study it is lacking and unsatisfying.
|
positive
|
A great film in its genre, the direction, acting, most especially the casting of the film makes it even more powerful. A must see.
|
positive
|
Yes, this is one of the great musical movies I grew up with with such great entertainers as Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly, not to mention the petite and glorious voice of Kathryn Grayson. The music and dancing is superb. I understand Frank took lessons from Kelly; and there is Kelly dancing with Jerry Mouse, which is quite unique for the time. Betty Garrett plays the waitress who falls in love with Sinatra. She is one of Hollywood's great underrated stars. I saw this again on A&E TV and as well have it in my old VCR tapes. Never get tired of these old musicals. Whatever happened to Hollywood??
|
positive
|
This is one of the best and most under rated teen movies ever made.<br /><br />I saw this growing up and it was, and is one of my favorites, maybe not as popular as "Fast times" but just as great.<br /><br />There is a serious side to this movie, as mentioned by other reviewers it starts as a comedy and morphs into a drama about halfway through. That's the beauty of it though and what sets it apart. You get it all. Humor(not unlike that of "Fast times" ), Drama, and a GREAT GREAT soundtrack.<br /><br />I personally think every kid about to enter high school should see this, it would give an idea about the journey their about to embark on. Cmon-what kid watching this, wouldn't be able to relate to SOMEONE in the movie? The fact that it becomes so serious halfway though is also cool and just superbly well done.You don't even see it coming. Definitely a lot of surprises.<br /><br />SPOILERS:DON'T READ ANYMORE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.<br /><br />Great, knee slappping humor.(who could forget the scene between Gary and Camilla?). I can still hear it:"Oh my big strong burrito!!" Priceless!!<br /><br />Some of the scenes between Gary and Karin are hard to watch(particularly the final scene of coarse). There are SO SO MANY women like Karen out there who would have made the exact same choice she did. Think about it-how many women reject men with hearts of gold(like Gary) for jerks? I know I've done it-and so have many females I know. This movie will inspire discussion and, despite the countless times I've seen it, still leaves me filled with admiration for the film makers and performers. Everyone will find someone to relate to in this movie or what's more likely more then one person.<br /><br />Lastly, the music used is just great(a lot of Cars, u2,lots of obscure(now) songs from the 80's.-an 80's purist's dream.)<br /><br />But make no mistake, it is not the music that makes this movie unique, it is the story itself, plain and simple. One of the best of it's kind and a teen movie classic.
|
positive
|
As a fan of the old series I must say that this is at best a parody of a much beloved series. First the old series would at least attempt to follow some military structure. I know in this P.C. world it is not the thing to do but hey don't turn it into the care bears. In the old series Beachead was a hardspoken soldier, now he is a teenage mutant turtle. Another thing is the flying tank, ok it flies out of the cobra base and bounces off the copter and they are both ok???? Lets face it if the next one is not better this could spell the end of G.I.joe.
|
negative
|
Square pigs as a way of efficiently utilizing cargo space is the one and only clever moment in "Space Truckers". Believe it or not, Dennis Hopper has done worse, see "The American Way", but this movie is way up there on the "cream of the crap" scale. I think the best way to describe the viewing experience is that "Space Truckers" will please no one. Too cartoon-like too be taken seriously, an almost total lack of humor, and poor character development, virtually assures disappointment. The beer and popcorn crowd might tolerate one viewing, but all others have been warned to avoid "Space Truckers" for all of the above reasons. - MERK
|
negative
|
They had me from the first show.<br /><br />Welcome to Trinity County. A sleepy little Mayberry-like place with one slight difference. The sheriff is really Satan. There's the spoiler. Not like you wouldn't figure it out in 10 minutes anyway.<br /><br />Oh, but that's not all. It turns out that Satan has a son named Caleb. Some people are trying to keep him good, but it's an uphill battle. Sheriff Buck (Satan) knows who Caleb is and likes to spend time with him teaching him the ways of darkness. Subtle. Sneaky. He doesn't always come off as evil. Most of the time he's a hero. Everyone owes him a big favor, because he often sets up a calamity and saves them from it. So every time you think someone will finally take him down, one of his friends comes out of nowhere to sabotage it.<br /><br />In one of my favorite episodes, Lucas and Caleb were out in the woods in a cabin and some guys with guns decided to rob them. Lucas used it as an excuse to teach Caleb a lesson about evil.<br /><br />The robber (Ted) was hesitant to shoot them. Lucas told Caleb that Ted had half a conscience. If he had no conscience, he would have shot them by now. If he had a real conscience, he never would have become a criminal. So he started calling him Half-Ted. It was pretty funny. He was taunting the criminals. And of course he stayed 10 steps ahead of Half-Ted at all times. And of course he was in complete control at all times. They actually had you favoring Satan.<br /><br />Very very excellent show. it was one of my favorite horror shows of all time. Twilight Zone Night Stalker Circle of Fear American Gothic Supernatural<br /><br />That's good company.
|
positive
|
Wow! It's hard to put into words my feelings for this episode. Ice is one of the best episodes of season one for sure. It's my favorite of the season. Six people and a dog in a claustrophobic structure isolated in the middle of the arctic with an unknown organism that causes murderous aggression, the drama can't get any better than that. Paranoia reigns supreme as even Mulder and Scully have doubts about each other's sanity. I've heard people complain about this episode's similarities to the movie 'The Thing'. I haven't seen it, so I wouldn't know. Ice is more than worth watching just to see Mulder and Scully truly testing their still developing trust of one another. This episode is intense and suspenseful to the end. You won't be disappointed!
|
positive
|
The writers of lost have outdone themselves. Season two's finale is even more heartbreaking and intense than the finale for season one. Locke's lack of faith has not only resulted in spiritual consequences for himself, but in tragic physical consequences for the lives of the other castaways. Michael's betrayal resulted in a success for him but can he possibly escape the island? He will have to if he wants to stay alive. I don't doubt that one or more of his former friends would be willing to kill him in revenge. This finale has left more questions than the previous finale; and I can't wait for fall.<br /><br />A side note: What is the point in posting a review just to write out all the spoilers? Where is the pleasure in ruining the surprise for everyone else? The current review on this page is nothing but a big fat spoiler fest, poorly constructed in barely readable English with the express purpose of making someone mad. Good job.
|
positive
|
Movies like these are to the originals what Album Oriented Rock stations are to what music used to be like - repetitive, boring, and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. I AM glad that Aragorn wasn't typecast as an expectant psycho by this P.O.S. Go back and watch the 1971 version, count the things that would NEVER be included in a modern version, and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn't based on someone else's ideas, and wasn't passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day.
|
negative
|
OK. Who brought the cheese. I love it. During it's run it became a phenomenon. The Anorexic Twins became popular.Bob Saget started making a paycheck (Instead of his REALLY funny stand-up). And people knew who Dave Coulier was. This is when life was good and simple. This is one of the great American classics. It was humorous and always brought home a good lesson. And this is where I differ from the norm: I liked the last few seasons. Like Home Improvement, when children get older there are a lot more you can do with the script. This is why I dare say...It could have gone much later than it did. But anyway. I gave it an 8/10 because of its wholesome, funny story lines, and because of Bob Saget!
|
positive
|
I put this film in the queue on a whim after a recent trip to NYC, and I couldn't believe I'd never heard of it anywhere! It has all the makings of a cult classic, starting with the characters. They are archetypal roles we recognize from every stretch of daily life, but were so nuanced and fully realized by the actors playing them (Peter Stormare and Bai Ling's performances were particularly strong). Their interactions are poignant and grounded while at the same time brimming with a subtle, quirky humor that is (sadly) all too rare in American films these days. Writer/director Ramin Niami does a beautiful job of weaving these scenes together into a funny and moving portrait of a city of the past. Highly recommended!
|
positive
|
One comment said it wasn't a comedy...Mistake! It was a delightful comedy of a period of history that doesn't lend itself easily to that genre. Very busy...and active film from beginning to end. Often the shots out the window of the train, or car, were just beautiful. An enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours in a theater. All the French historical figures, like Charles de Gaulle and Petain and the some of the people involved in the French Resistance were included in the script, which might send those who are unfamiliar with the collapse of France under the German invasion might want to research. The characters were engaging and the actors portraying them were excellent. Recommend it, 9 out of 10.
|
positive
|
You know, before seeing this film I had little sympathy for those caught up in criminal cases. I mean if they were arrested and charged, "they must have been guilty" I reasoned?<br /><br />I formed this opinion over some years. You see a good friend of mine once worked as a detective in some of the more seedy areas of Sydney. He frequently complained that his policing efforts were wasted due to 'bleeding heart' lawyers and magistrates. He would "bang the crooks up in the morning and they would be "back on the street by noon". It took its toll... they wore him down. He quit.<br /><br />He has argued since, not unreasonably I thought, that creative evidence gathering, to keep the baddies "where they belong", was... well... "acceptable". <br /><br />My arguments about the rights of innocent people weren't valid he claimed. "What are the chances that you will ever be arrested and charged with a serious crime"? he would argue. And, being a law abiding citizen, the weight of his argument convinced me he was right. The chances of me, or any of my family or friends, being charged with murder or a serious offense were zero to none I thought. <br /><br />Hmmmmm. Well as mentioned earlier, seeing this wonderfully enlightening documentary changed all that. <br /><br />I'm sending him a copy.
|
positive
|
I am right now in front of the tv, watching Casomai. It is changing, it id evolving or better...devolving. It begin with a courius wedding of the two protagonists where their love-story is reported. After that everything change, a child was born, and all the rest usually happen in a couple. It is a not a special movie because it talks about a normal couple, and normality is the center of this movie. It doesn't want to show us something particular, there is nothing new, it is just a normal love-story, the story of a couple, and being normal it become different from the rest. It is also a flashing movie, everything is short, every scene is long just some seconds. It is a reported story, many things are known because friends and parents talk about that, and their opinion is central, the opinions create the story and destroy it. It is a simple story of a couple as I said, but it is not boring, it just show a couple, should be everything known, it is, but I am sure that every one of you will want to know what happen, so don't forget to watch the end!
|
positive
|
Brothers with psychokinetic powers (yes, really) duel not just for Debra Winger's affections but really over a secret from their childhood that left them at odds over their powers.<br /><br />There are surreal touches (the fire brigade that act like a singing Greek chorus), but there is also humour, wit and romance. The soundtrack is great also. And similar to the way American Werewolf in London used every great Wolf song they could get ~ but with fire and I don't think I'll ever forget Dennis Quaid (mmmmm Dennis Quaid), setting his own trailer a rockin' too 'She's a lady' ~ priceless ;)<br /><br />Best line missing from the quotes section btw ~ 'Once you've had a clown, you never go back!'<br /><br />I love this movie (I just ordered the DVD from the US) and if the comments written by the kind of people who'd be happier with Legally Blond 3 don't put you off ~ give it a try :)
|
positive
|
A good cast... A good idea but turns out it is flawed as hypnosis is not allowed as evidence in courts. So many good actors and they are all acting so badly! So why did they all get attracted to this mess... And yes it has its good points such as lighting etc... But ultimately I wondered two things.... How could so much talent lead to such a bizarre mess? What is that accent that Nigel Hawthorne is putting on? He is/was a great actor and so what is that accent all about? It is impossible to identify? What was he trying to do? Maybe it is his subtle indication as if to say to us: 'I've got involved with a turkey so here's a crap accent to go with it!'
|
negative
|
Stack should have received the Academy Award for this performance, period. Its a crime that he did not. Amazing how he humanizes a rich worthless character. <br /><br />Dorothy Malone did earn a well-deserved Academy Award for her performance. In fact, all of the acting in this film is excellent.<br /><br />The plot begins with a taxi ride, then an airplane ride, then keeps moving on an emotional ride that will hold your interest throughout. You will be entertained!<br /><br />However, this is only a blatant soap opera. One-dimensional, 100-percent soaper. You might call it the ultimate soaper, because the acting so thoroughly triumphs over the material. Excellently acted, well directed, but strictly within its soap genre. I wouldn't even call it a melodrama (such as "Mildred Pierce" or "Imitation of Life"). While not denying the great entertainment value of this film, you can only imagine what this talented cast and director might have achieved with more substantial subject matter.
|
positive
|
This film is a study piece for my english class, but it's depth and meaning has amazed me. Since we're looking closely into all the facts and characters in this film, its and interesting tale of love, hate, war, and prejudice. Well Recommended!<br /><br />Story: A girl named well-off jewish Patty Bergen meets an escaped prisoner of war, she then hides him in her playhouse in her huge gardens, and as they get to know each other, they begin to see the others qualities, and they earn each others love. Patty's father despises her and treats her like dirt. Anton (the prisoner of war) almost blows his cover to protect her, but patty manages to stop him before he is seen by anyone.
|
positive
|
Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and "the cat" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.
|
negative
|
The Mascot is Ladislaw Starewicz's masterpiece. It tells the tale of a stuffed toy dog who searches for an orange after he overhears the mother tell her daughter she hasn't any money. The dog gets picked with other toys to be sold off. In the truck, after the others jump off while the vehicle runs, the dog stays and waits to be picked up from store before setting off on his own. He manages to get orange after biting woman's leg as she was holding and selling the fruit. As he runs, he encounters the devil and accepts his offer to stop at nightclub. There, he meets the other toys who jumped off truck. The cat who was next to him in vehicle is especially determined to get dog's orange. I'll just stop here to mention that other wonderfully bizarre things happen in nightclub that you'll have to see for yourself. Suffice it to say, if you love Starewicz and is interested in all animation from the past, I most definitely recommend you seek this one out!
|
positive
|
I wish there was a category to place this in other than Horror. It simply isn't. Granted it has it's horrific moments, however I don't feel that makes it a horror film. I will give that this movie could have been better. A million little things could have been changed to make it better.<br /><br />That having been said I love this movie. I'm often sad that people misunderstand the whole point of it. It has always been clear to me that the point of this movie was to say... things aren't always what they seem. Sometimes 'evil', isn't. <br /><br />Barker was at a Con I went to and he did a little talk then watch the movie thing. It was very interesting. Many things he wished to put in the movie couldn't be, and a chunk was cut out of the movie that he believed to be long lost. This was a chunk that helped shed light on Boone and his Girlfriend, as well as some other details.<br /><br />I know some people are bothered by not having more information about all of the 'breed' in the background, however I always felt that gave the movie a more 'real' fleshed out feel. I have read the novella this was based off of as well as many of the comics. Because of this, the movie just always seemed like a staging ground for the whole story. A much more involved story that sadly has never has a chance to live. <br /><br />Despite all of the flaws this movie might have I believe it has a lot to offer. The 'monsters' are wonderful, very imaginative. While the acting is sometimes a bit stiff there are some very quotable lines. Whenever I watch it I find something new. Keep and eye on Boones chest toward the end. At one point Decker stabs him and shortly after Boone falls on a card table. He ends up with a card stuck to his chest. This card stays there for a while even after Lori pulls the knife out. It stays there until Boone casually removes it. I love that. That was a lovely little detail I thought.<br /><br />Basically what I want to say is that... if you are looking for a horror movie, don't watch this. If you believe that at times men can be more evil than anything we have ever dreamed up. This is the movie for you. This is a movie about how men destroy what they don't understand or fear.
|
positive
|
Two things are changed from then.First of all i am not a kid anymore,and second most of new Seagal movies are just terrible.This is on my opinion the worst movie ever made with Derailed starred by Jean Claude Van Damme.There is no plot in this movie,the plot is just an excuse to shoot some terrible action scenes which are painful to watch.I love action movies,but this is not an action movie....This isn't a movie...this is a group of irritating scenes which are connected in annoying way to kill the viewers love for the action movies.I am sorry but i don't have any respect for anyone who liked this movie.He has a serious intelligence problem then.I hope that Seagal will make some new good movies in the future.Good luck for him !
|
negative
|
i love this film. the songs and story lines are great fun. and the song "saying goodbye" always moves me. what a brilliant thing to do to bring puppets to life, in a way that you actually care about these things made of cloth and fabric and whatever. great voices and great talent. why were all the other muppet films that came after this one so much less interesting, moving and funny? is it that mr. henson is just so very missed?
|
positive
|
Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from ****
|
negative
|
Before viewing, please make sure you have seen Night of the Living Dead... This might well be THE best 7 minute parody I have ever seen! Absurd, crappy 'special effects' (the rope, the rope!!!), and maneating slices of bread... what more do you need???<br /><br />(Do not watch this movie while eating bread... you might get scared!)
|
positive
|
As a comic book reader, who still sees myself as a total kid at heart, I admit I might have been a bit biased towards this movie. I mean, there hasn't been a good superhero movie out for quite some time (NOTE: Batman Forever was NOT a good superhero movie). I really wanted this film to be good, and unlike most of my recent trips to the cinema (read Blair Witch Project) I wasn't disappointed.<br /><br />Mystery Men was definitely not a high-effects, tension-filled action flick, it was a comedy. And on that basis, it was a success. It had everyone in the small theater laughing, and got applause and laughs right through the final scene. Stiller and Garofolo are hilarious together, as always, and Azaria adds just the right touch of craziness. William H. Macy plays a great straight man, while Kel Mitchell and the fart-powered Paul Rubens are added just to keep the kiddies happy.<br /><br />Though the sets are bizarre (and at times seem like ripoffs from both Batman and Blade Runner), and some of the jokes are obvious, it is still just plain funny. There are some lines that will catch even the most jaded viewer off-guard, and bring tears from the belly-laughers among us.<br /><br />I definitely recommend this movie. Although not an all-time classic, it is twice as funny as the latest Austin Powers retread. The writing is good, and the cast is GREAT. If you're worried, plan on the matinee and pay less, but either way you'll be pleasantly surprised. I mean, who among us doesn't root for the losers once in a while?
|
positive
|
I am from Romania ... and for that i apologize if my English is not so good.<br /><br />i just finished watching this movie and i must say that i am extremely disappointed. I always liked Wesley Snipes's movies but this one is terrible. I regret that I spent over 3 hours downloading this film. There are a lot mistakes in the film. For example, the stadium in the film is not Lia Manoliu. The name of the stadium is Ghencea. The name of the soccer team is called Steaua Bucuresti, not Uli.The scoreboard of the stadium is not capable of showing graphical images: video replays, live images etc. It's a simple scoreboard that can only display letters and numbers. The Uli(Seaua) team's opponents are displayed on the scoreboard as Din ( probably from Dinamo Bucuresti - who are Steaua's main rivals in the Romanian soccer championship). The images from the soccer match are from a match between Steaua Bucuresti and Poli Timisoara (my favorite team and my only love - look it up on the internet and you will see why). The police cars in the movie are not properly made. There isn't a single dark-blue police car in Romania! They are all white! The "mistake list" can go on and on and on ... but i will stop here! In short terms this movie is horrible. It does not worth renting it, it does not worth buying a cinema ticket for it, it does not worth downloading it! I honestly feel sorry that Wesley snipes played in this movie. A previous movie of his ... 7 seconds ... also filmed in Romania ... was OK but this is terrible!
|
negative
|
First separate the story from the film. The story about a second continuing war in heaven is good, very good. Religious themed films aren't the main choice for a lot of people but angels at war is. I really loved the story, and some of the imagery provided to back it up like the field of angels on spikes....awesome imagery. The actual film though was just poor, i can't find any reason for the main character - the priest-cum-cop being in there at all. The lead female also...no reason to be there, the main characters dialogue was just empty, it had no substance, the story could have been told well without them. Now, some sterling performances did feature, Walken, Stoltz and Mortensen pulled off some wingers, though their scenes were mostly with the lifeless leads.<br /><br />One other thing i am not getting from this film is why it features native American rituals to purge the dark soul. The child that carries it is clearly of native American origin but apart from the end scenario there is nothing that connects here with that heritage. The plot concerning the dark soul itself it barely told, odd considering that the dark soul is the driver for the whole premise of the film. The back story of its original owner (the colonel) is briefly touched but not enough to allow understanding as to why its his soul that is the special one.<br /><br />I cannot find a justification for the scrolling scenery shots in this film either, several of the plains around 'chimney rock'. I get the feeling they had a helicopter and wanted to make the most of it as none of the shots have any relevance, nor are they in keeping with the mood -> Horror. The film falls into the sci-fi category more than it does horror. There was no real shock or scare scenes, some mild gore and blood but no fear element.<br /><br />So, aside from 3 roles played damn well this film is a big ole' dud. Unfortunately the dud factor outweighs the good acting factor, just too many weekend actors.
|
negative
|
A brilliant Sherlock Holmes adventure starring the brilliant Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Despite many other actors brilliantly playing Holmes and Watson and making a great job of it- Rathbone and Bruce will always be the best two.<br /><br />Holmes takes a Professor Tobell from Switzerland to London. Tobell is wanted by the Nazi's. He has a bomb sight that could win the Second World War. His bomb-site has been split into four parts, each hidden in books. Tobell agrees to give his bomb-site to the British government. On the night of his arrival, Tobell goes to the house of his girlfriend. He has drawn some figures of men, if Tobell was to disappear, the lady was to give the drawings to Holmes. On his journey home he is attacked, but a Policeman stops this and the attacker runs away. Tobell is happy for the British government to use his bomb-site but refuses to give it to them, Tobell wants to look after it. The bomb-site is split into four parts, each part completely useless without the other. He gives one part each of this bomb-site to one of his scientist friends. Then Holmes's greatest fear happens, Tobell goes missing. Holmes visits the young lady Tobell was with the night he was attacked. She tells him about the drawings. The drawings have been stolen. She says only one man came in during the time Tobell left, to fix the light-bulb. The man she describes is Professor Moriarty. He is working for the Nazi's. Seen as he has the drawings, Holmes is done for. But he finds the writing pad he used and using Science, he manages to see what Tobell drew by looking at the next page on the pad. He sees it's code. He sees it's the name of four scientists. The first three he works out the code for, but he can't work out the fourth. The three scientists he has worked out have been murdered and the bomb-site has been taken. Holmes can't work out the fourth scientist, but neither can Moriarty. Disguised as a sailor, Holmes manages to get in Moriarty's office. Moriarty sees straight away it's Holmes, puts him in a box and has him thrown in the sea. But Watson and Lestrade insist they search the box and find Holmes in it. It's now obvious Moriarty is at large. Holmes manages to work out the fourth code, a Frederick Hoffner. Holmes gets round to his house straight away and get Hoffner and the decisive fourth part to safety. Holmes now needs to get Moriarty charged for working with the Nazi's. He pretends to be Hoffner. Moriarty works out the fourth code and gets two men to go round and get Hoffner. They take him back and he comes face to face with Moriarty. Meanwhile Tobell is not in a good way, he has been tortured and tortured to get the name of the fourth scientist. Moriarty has had it with Holmes now, he has got him and his death must be a long one for Holmes. The idea is to put him in his hospital, put a needle in his vein and watch him die of blood loss, drop by drop. Watson runs in and saves the day though. Moriarty gets away, but Holmes was only careless enough to leave Moriarty's trap door open. Moriarty plunges sixty feet.<br /><br />So, Moriarty dead. No. He makes his final outing in the film 'The Woman in Green' but in 'Green' he is definitely dead, a suicide, he jumps off his roof. It was Moriarty's second of three appearances in the Rathbone series, a different actor playing him on each occasion. His first appearance in 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' was played by George Zucco, his second in this film he was played by Lionell Atwill and Henry Daniels plays him in his final outing in 'The Woman in Green' The first three Holmes films made by Universal were set in the war as Holmes triumphs over the Nazi's. 'The Voice of Terror' was the first, then this film and then 'Sherlock Holmes In Washington' Then it was back to Victorianish times, with definite relations to Edwardian and Georgian (George the fifth and sixth) times. This film had a close link to the Sherlock Holmes short story 'The Dancing Men' which can be found in 'The Return of Sherlock Holmes' A great film, though obvious propaganda, it was a brilliant Holmes outing.
|
positive
|
11:11 a.k.a. Hell's Gate (2004) is another bad horror movie that tries too hard to be something it's not. A young girl has an imaginary play mate. One day whilst out in the fields playing with her friends, a couple of fugitives visit her parents and whack them off for no apparent reason. The young girl runs off and hides from the bad men. Years later, the girl grows up into a woman with problems. Losers at her school (looking like repressed homosexuals) flaunt their manhood in front of her when she rejected one of them. The girls hate her and life in general is miserable for her. A secret from her past returns to visit her. Who or what is it? Why does everyone hate her? What's her Guardian's problem with her? To find out you'll have to watch Hell's Gate.<br /><br />The new title makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't know why people are given money to make such bad movies. This film is not even good enough to make fun of. It's a head ache inducing mess that'l confuse anyone who tries to make some sense out of it. Not worth your time.<br /><br />Not recommended.
|
negative
|
A bare-faced rip-off of Se7en and not fit to clean its shoes. The word 'predictable' must have invented for just such an occasion as this. Lambert is wooden, as always (his moments of 'emotion' are laughable, as is his accent). The 'climax' is not that at all as we've had so many signals, and by the end we're simply immune to flesh, rotting and otherwise. Altogether a real mess.
|
negative
|
There are no spoilers for this film as nothing could be written that could make it any worse! The dictionary definition of "puerile" should now read: "sex lives of the potato men"! Unless, that is, you like dog poo and mucous; in which case - this is the film to see! Johnny Vegas et all - what WERE you thinking!
|
negative
|
What starts as a homespun comedy-drama and then halfway turns into a melodrama made a major star of John Garfield - and justly so. But Jeffrey Lynn is not to be dismissed as the object of affection of the four daughters. Lynn is very handsome and is so charming it's easy to believe that all four daughters could fall for him. Although Garfield received most of the kudos, Lynn became a major leading man at Warner Bros. as a result of this film.<br /><br />Michael Curtiz insisted on location shooting for the picnic scene, making it the highlight of the film. Throughout, the craftsmanship is enough to inspire awe. A soap opera by Fanny Hurst has been turned into a cinema masterpiece.
|
positive
|
A true hero of modern times , Chuck Norris has left TV "Walker , Rexas Ranger ", and is looking new steps for his artistic career. The President´s man is the second movie of a future TV series , with Norris in the title role, and with young actors like Jennifer Tung or Judson Mills ( one of the young rangers of "Walker " ) . The old master teachs to young aspirant . It´s one of the most powerful themes of "The president´s man ". In this tima, "A line in the sand " has reached world surprise for his tratment of terrorism in USA , months before the tragic September 11. Eric Norris, son of Chuck is the director . The movie is amusing, a good action work , plenty of fights and heroism . Chuck Norris have many plans for the future . Bells of innocence , his next picture, will be the following.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I personally hated this movie because it was predictable, the characters were stereotypical ,and the whole idea was a rip off of "The Cutting Edge", and "Cadet Kelly". <br /><br />The main character is a snotty girl who gets shipped of to a place where she doesn't belong. The whole place hates her, and to make things worse there is a hot guy that seemingly doesn't like her ( well duh the whole damn school can't stand you). Amazingly she finds a way to fit in and make everyone to like her plus, gets the guy to fall head over heels in love with her. Then comes the choice, where she must choose between figure skating and hockey. She chooses hockey then she goes to the figure skating nationals,and gets to be on the Olympic team. No real surprise there.<br /><br />This whole movie was so damn predictable You knew what was going to happen before you even saw it. This was so awful I nearly puked, and by the time I was finished watching it, I had an awful headache and the urge to shoot myself for watching such crap. Don't watch this unless you are under ten, or actually like crappy tween movies.
|
negative
|
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this misrepresentation of Canadian history, particularly the disservice done to the history of the Mounted Police in the Yukon.<br /><br />I'll leave it to Pierre Berton, noted historian, born and raised in Dawson City Yukon, and author of the definitive history of the Klondike gold rush, Klondike: The Last Great Gold Rush, 1896-1899 to express my exasperation with this silly movie: <br /><br />The American idea of an untamed frontier, subdued by individual heroes armed with six-guns, was continued in The Far Country, another story about a cowboy from the American west - Wyoming this time - driving his herd of beef cattle into gold country. The picture is a nightmare of geographical impossibilities, but the real incongruity is the major assumption on which the plot turns that there was only one mounted policeman in all of the Canadian Yukon at the time of the gold rush and that he could not deal with the lawlessness. When James Stewart and Walter Brennan reach the Yukon border with their cattle, the customs shack is empty.<br /><br />"Where is the constable? asks Brennan.<br /><br />"Up on the Pelly River. Trouble with the Chilkats," someone replies. He's got a real tough job, that constable. He patrols some ten or twenty thousand square miles. Sometimes he don't get home for two or three months at a time." <br /><br />The historical truth is that the Yukon Territory during the gold rush was the closest thing to a police state British North America has ever seen. The Northwest Mounted Police was stationed in the territory in considerable numbers long before the Klondike strike. They controlled every route into the Yukon and they brooked no nonsense. They collected customs duties, often over the wails of the new arrivals, made arbitrary laws on the spot about river navigation, and turned men back if they didn't have enough supplies, or if they simply looked bad. In true Canadian fashion, they laid down moral laws for the community. In Dawson the Lord's Day Act was strictly observed; it was a crime punishable by a fine to cut your wood on Sunday; and plump young women were arrested for what the stern-faced police called "giving a risqué performance in the theatre," generally nothing more than dancing suggestively on the stage in overly revealing tights.<br /><br />In such a community, a gunbelt was unthinkable. One notorious bad man from Tombstone who tried to pack a weapon on his hip was personally disarmed by a young constable, who had just ejected him from a saloon for the heinous crime of talking too loudly. The bad man left like a lamb but protested when the policeman, upon discovering he was carrying a gun told him to hand it over. "No man has yet taken a gun away from me," said the American. "Well, I'm taking it", the constable said mildly and did so, without further resistance. So many revolvers were confiscated in Dawson that they were auctioned off by the police for as little as a dollar and purchased as souvenirs to keep on the mantelpiece.<br /><br />In 1898, the big year of the stampede, there wasn't a serious crime let alone a murder in Dawson. The contrast with Skagway on the American side, which was a lawless town run by Soapy Smith, the Denver confidence man, was remarkable. But in The Far Country Dawson is seen as a community without any law, which a Soapy Smith character from Skagway he is called Gannon in the picture can easily control. (In real life, one of Smith's men who tried to cross the border had all his equipment confiscated and was frogmarched right back again by a mounted police sergeant).<br /><br />{in the movie the lone Mountie says} "Yes I'm the law. I represent the law in the Yukon Territory. About fifty thousand square miles of it."<br /><br />"Then why aren't there more of you?"<br /><br />"Because yesterday this was a wilderness. We didn't expect you to pour in by the thousands. Now that you're here, we'll protect you."<br /><br />"When?"<br /><br />"There'll be a post established here in Dawson early in May."<br /><br />"What happens between now and May? You going to be here to keep order?"<br /><br />"Part of the time."<br /><br />"What about the rest of the time?"<br /><br />"Pick yourselves a good man. Swear him in. Have him act as marshal
"<br /><br />The movie Mountie leaves and does not appear again in the picture. His astonishing suggestion that an American town marshal, complete with tin star, be sworn in by a group of townspeople living under British jurisprudence is accepted. Naturally they want to make Jimmy Stewart the marshal; he clearly fits the part. But Stewart is playing the role of the Loner who looks after Number One and so another man is elected to get shot. And he does. Others get shot. Even Walter Brennan gets shot. Stewart finally comes to the reluctant conclusion that he must end all the shooting with some shooting of his own. He pins on the tin star and he and the bully, Gannon, blast away at each other in the inevitable western climax.<br /><br />To anybody with a passing knowledge of the Canadian north, this bald re-telling of the story passes rational belief. <br /><br />
excerpt from Hollywood's Canada, by Pierre Berton, 1975.
|
negative
|
Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou. <br /><br />Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie. <br /><br />Beyonce ??? That was acting??? <br /><br />This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical. <br /><br />If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.<br /><br />And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap.
|
negative
|
So one day I was in the video store looking for a movie. I came across this and rented it because it was a film I hadn't seen or even heard of.<br /><br />Now I like slasher movies in general, but this is just abysmal, not even good for laughs. Besides being ultra ultra cheap and containing all slasher film cliches and terrible acting it has the most incompetent and inept direction I have ever come across. Now sometimes the aforementioned traits can be present in a film and some enjoyment can still be had, but not here. Painful example of home-made horror.
|
negative
|
I knew little of this movie when I entered the theatre for an advance screening. I gathered from the ads that it was a thriller.<br /><br />What we have is like "Compulsion" meets "Matlock". Two teens decide to commit a perfect murder. A victim is selected at random and then carefully executed so that no traces of the actual murderers is found. Then a bunch of false leads are planted that point to an innocent bystander. (Innocent of the murder anyway)<br /><br />Enter Sondra Bullock as the investigating officer. (IMDB says that she's FBI, but I don't remember that. I thought that she was a regular cop) She's frustrated by the inconsistency of the killers profile ("The profile doesn't fit the profile!") and by the power and influence of the father of one of the boys.<br /><br />She's also has demons of her own which figure prominently in her decicision to become a cop. But this is the only character that is really more than one-dimensional. All others are pretty flat.<br /><br />For a thriller, there are really no big thrills. It's mostly a cat-and-mouse game like an episode of "Matlock" (which she's watching at one point in the film). The twist is that there are two involved in the killing. Just who is the real murderer, Justin or Richard? It'll cost you eight bucks to find out.
|
positive
|
OK here is how I do this. I grade movies on 10 components. Each component will inherently start with 5 points. It can then lose or gain 5 points for a possible 10 or 0.<br /><br />Mood: Action, Romance, Comedy, Drama, Suspense - I give this component 10 points. It had a perfect balance of all five aspects. The Action was fun and exiting. The Romance was not overdone, but still very emotional and moving. I laughed hard and long throughout the movie and still I was captivated by the fantastic drama, and riveting suspense.<br /><br />Plot - I give this component 10 points. I thought all the good fairy tales had already been told. I found my self, sitting in the theatre, returned to my childhood, and in that instant I again believed in unicorns, wicked witches, and falling stars that make dreams come true.<br /><br />Cinema Photography - I give this component 8 points. While the movie captured the story very well in the majority of the angles, I found my self more than once trying to figure out what happened just off camera.<br /><br />FX - I give this component 10 points. I love that they used C.G.I. sparingly. The epic scenes were believable. The magical powers were frighteningly realistic. All in all less is more, and this had it ALL! Cast - I give this component 10 points. No names and seasoned actors alike, the cast was amazing! Michelle Pfeiffer was wonderfully wicked, Charlie Cox made Tristan come to life, Claire Danes gave emotion to the stars, and I will never look and Robert De Niro the same again.<br /><br />Acting - I give this component 10 points. Even the newbie actors played their rolls to perfection. Once again, I will NEVER look and Robert De Niro the same again.<br /><br />Character development - I give this component 9 points. This felt a little rushed and I think if the movie had been a bit longer they could have done the characters a little better justice.<br /><br />Dialogue - I give this component 10 points. The dialogue was smart, witty, fun
even the mush had good dialogue.<br /><br />Score - I give this component 7 points. I can honestly remember only one small piece of music from the entire movie. I am not complaining beyond the fact that the music could be more memorable.<br /><br />Ending - I give this component 9 points. Almost perfect ending! I feel that certain aspects of the ending should have been more pronounced, while others could have been more subdued, but no threads were left untied.<br /><br />Total: 93% Buy the DVD? HEL YES! See it in the Theatre? Most definitely! Bottom Line: Excellent movie for everyone! EPIC! I strongly recommend seeing it in the theatre, I know I'll be going back for seconds!
|
positive
|
This is a complex documentary that shows many things about early Gay life. To put it in perspective it was when Gay was the word used for the homo-sexual revolution, and not just Gay as a descriptor. Or is it still used that way today? I believe most of the film comes from circa 1968 to 1989. It was released in 1993, so it's been around.<br /><br />I was touched by the documentaries capturing of one man's love for another over a 20 some odd year period. A love expressed in ways that only true love can be. There are many scenes of incredible empathy and pain, along with scenes of joy and pleasure. There are scenes of life as a homo-sexual and life as a gay. The film itself was a work of love, and I believe it to be a diamond.<br /><br />At the very least one will get out of this film an understanding of the devastating impact of AIDS. As I write this, I am thinking how much earlier this film seems to me to have been set. The advances in medical, political, and social sciences and culture that have taken place since this film was set (some 15 years ago) are amazing. However, obviously, in the case of the disease of AIDS itself, we are not done yet. Heck I guess we aren't done on all fronts.<br /><br />Anyway, it's just a pretty darn good documentary. I'd encourage anyone that feels that they don't quite understand gay life, gay issues, or the devastation of AIDS to watch this film.
|
positive
|
No, not the administration of GWB, the Decider/Strutter/Smirker--but the mini-series "Monarch Cove." Lifetime must have realized what a dog this was because the series was burned off two episodes at a time, most of them broadcast between 11 p.m. Friday nights and 1 a.m. Saturday mornings. As to why I watched the whole thing, I can only plead to weekly sudden convulsive attacks of masochism.<br /><br />Most of the cast are unknowns who are likely to remain unknown. The only two recognizable names are Shirley Jones and Rachel Ward, who turn in the only decent performances (Jones doesn't make it through the entire series--lucky woman). Ward, by the way, is aging quite well since her "Thorn Birds" days.<br /><br />The one main thread to the plot--who murdered the father of the heroine who is wrongly convicted of Dad's murder but is freed after six years in the slammer--is stretched out for so long and concluded so hastily that you won't especially care who dun it. There is a great deal of "steamy" sex, several murders, and all sorts of rude behavior--virtually none of which is either interesting or credible. Most of the cast is not particularly attractive and definitely not talented. The writing and direction is on a par with the cast.<br /><br />If you stick around to the end, the post card is a (very minor)hoot.<br /><br />CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!
|
negative
|
I first saw this film in the late 60's, and try to see it every time it comes on TV, which, unfortunately, isn't often. Now that I have TCM and FMC, I hope it will be on at least once a year. Like Louis Gossett Jr. in An Officer and A Gentleman, Jack Webb delivers an unbelievably great performance as a Parris Island Drill Sergeant with the classic screw-up recruit, and the story line in this one, though dated, is touching and very well acted. And having real jar-heads in the cast certainly helped in the realism of the film as well. It's a great film with top-notch acting and a superb story. See it if you have the chance-It's well worth the time!
|
positive
|
While it was filmed at a Florida National Guard site, "Tigerland" totally reminded me of Fort Polk, LA., firing ranges, maneuver areas, waist-deep water and all. The movie was fairly authentic and the characters similar to those same ones at my AIT in 1974. The difference between the Tigerland year, 1971, and mine of 1974 is all the drill sergeants and instructors knew they weren't going back to Vietnam, as it was pretty much all over, so training was very relaxed - not a challenge at all. That was the precursor to all our troubles in the 70s and 80s, which I know for a fact as I stayed in until 2004. I never heard anyone mention "Tigerland" but the Army did have realistic Vietnam training villages at different bases across the U.S. Vietnam Vets tell me that up to 1972 Basic & AIT could be pretty rough and rugged, because the trainers had been there and were mandated to train Vietnam-bound men those skills to make it, although that was not always the case. Both a drill sergeant at Polk and later one of my Vietnam Vet NCOs, when we had become instructors at a basic training brigade at Fort Bliss, told me there was nothing they could do to get anyone ready and people just had to find out and figure out for themselves. This movie rates high.
|
positive
|
I just rented this movie to see Dolph Lundgren, whom I hadn't seen in any movies since Rocky IV. Unfortunately this movie was a big disappointment. The acting of all the parties was bad except for Mr. Lundgren, who was okay-ish. Kata Dobó was something nice to look at despite her ridiculous outfit and make-up.<br /><br />The plot is not at all clever, it's something that's been repeated a million times in different movies. The crooks were utterly stereotypical, and Lundgren's character hadn't any depth in it. I didn't really expect a movie masterpiece, but unfortunately this is not even decent action. Every turn in the plot is extremely predictable and the unbelievable amount of over-the-top unrealism and comic-book like characters started to annoy me strongly pretty soon.<br /><br />I would recommend this to young kids wanting some comic-like action, but only if nothing else is available.<br /><br />1/10. (I guess the current average vote of 7.0 with 6 votes must have been influenced by somebody involved in making this movie)
|
negative
|
Some movies you'll watch because they touch your soul or challenge you in ways that grow.<br /><br />Some you'll watch because you want to be exposed to adventure or shock outside your experience; these won't directly feed you, but they'll help you situate yourself in a larger world than you otherwise would have. And after all, the hard parts of life are in what you choose not to accept.<br /><br />And then there are movies that do neither of these things, that you will watch out of obligation, or because you have a need for historical context. These are pretty worthless experiences in terms of building a life.<br /><br />The problem is of course that often you don't know which of the three a film will be, going in. You might get some indication from people you trust, but because a life in film is so personal, you really won't know until you go on the blind date.<br /><br />For me, this was pretty worthless. Yes, yes, I know for many Bunuel is the epitome of the sublime and rich. And you should know (if you don't) that among my greatest film experiences are some very strange films, very strange indeed.<br /><br />It isn't that this isn't cinematic, or symbolically deep, or apolitically/politically friendly to the way I think. Its how it gets there that is off base. Its the deviance from real deviance that annoys me.<br /><br />Part of the problem is that this is successful alternative art, which means that it is successful commercial art. Which in turn means that it can be simply explained and the explanation is not only widely acceptable but simply coded in shorthand. Surely all this is true.<br /><br />When the term "surreal" is used, generally it is used incorrectly to denote any film image or world that differs from reality or seems strange. But when it is used correctly, meaning according to consensus theory, it always revolves around Bunuel, and in particular this film and the one he genuinely did with Dali. So because they invented surreal cinema, they define and control the term. That by itself chafes me, and I have my own alternative definition that doesn't come from their philosophy.<br /><br />Its because the philosophy is wholly contrary. It isn't a philosophy at all but a rejection of philosophy, an anti-order. Its packaged anarchy, carefully selecting the things that they use and the things they oppose without clearly differentiating them.<br /><br />So okay: against linearity, against narrative, against history, against religion (an easy one), against deliberate love. But for an illinear linear narrative, for establishing its own history (celebrated by countless film school professors; what else can they do?); for a sort of transcendent "accidental" love.<br /><br />It is its own enemy. If there were a Bunuel alive today as he sold his image, the first thing he would do is attack the church or the surreal.<br /><br />My regular readers know that in nearly all matters cinematic, I cleave to the Spanish and avoid the French. But in the matter of the surreal, I'd like to you consider the reverse: get your surrealism from Alfred Jarry, not Bunuel.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
|
negative
|
Okay, I seriously CAN'T think of anything worse than the PR series. There are many bad things in life...traitors, liars, etc. But seriously, Power Rangers has GOT to be at the bottom of this list. Can you think of anything more stupid than five-six teenagers (who don't even act like a normal teen) dancing around in identical suits WITH DIFFERENT COLORS SO THAT YOU CAN TELL THEM APART? Fans, have you ever come across a real person who gets flung against a mental wall and gets up almost immediately and continues to fight without getting injured? Power Rangers are for five-year old boys, and believe me, I never liked this show even when I was five.<br /><br />I guess you can say Dino Thunder is an exception. The teens actually ACT like teens, and Tommy Oliver actually acts like a mentor, or no, a teacher. It's got teen-humor, though the fighting is lame, I don't hate Dino Thunder.<br /><br />Many people say Power Rangers are crap, but I wouldn't. It would be an insult to crap. So face it, five year old boys, Power Rangers is rubbish.
|
negative
|
I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed: At first there is a gentle breeze And the leaves on the trees Softly sway; Out there, far away, The bells of water-carriers unceasingly ring; I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.<br /><br />I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed; Then suddenly birds fly by, Flocks of birds, high up, with a hue and cry, While the nets are drawn in the fishing grounds And a woman's feet begin to dabble in the water. I am Iistening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.<br /><br />I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. The Grand Bazaar's serene and cool, An uproar at the hub of the Market, Mosque yards are full of pigeons. While hammers bang and clang at the docks Spring winds bear the smell of sweat; I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.<br /><br />I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed; Still giddy from the revelries of the past, A seaside mansion with dingy boathouses is fast asleep. Amid the din and drone of southern winds, reposed, I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.<br /><br />I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. A pretty girl walks by on the sidewalk: Four-letter words, whistles and songs, rude remarks; Something falls out of her hand It is a rose, I guess. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.<br /><br />I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed. A bird flutters round your skirt; On your brow, is there sweat? Or not? I know. Are your lips wet? Or not? I know. A silver moon rises beyond the pine trees: I can sense it all in your heart's throbbing. I am listening to Istanbul, intent, my eyes closed.<br /><br />FOR YOU<br /><br />For you, my fellow humans, Everything is for you, Nights are for you, days are for you; Daylight is for you, moonlight is for you; Leaves in the moonlight; Wonder and wisdom in the leaves, Myriad greens in daylight, Yellow is for you, and pink. The feel of the skin on the palm, Its warmth, Its softness, The comfort of lying down; For you are all the greetings And the masts winnowing in the harbor; Names of the days, Names of the months, Fresh paint on rowboats is for you Mailman's feet, Potter's hands Sweat on foreheads, Bullets fired on battlefronts; Graves are for you and tombstones, Jails and handcuffs and death sentences Are for you Everything is for you.<br /><br />SEA NOSTALGIA<br /><br />Vessels sail along my dreams, Over the roofs, ships in a feast of color, And poor me, Yearning for the sea year in year out, I gaze and weep. I recall my first sight of the world Through a mussel shell I pried open: The greenest water and the bluest sky And the rippliest of lump-fish... My blood still flows salty Where the oysters slit my skin. What a mad speed plunge was ours Into the high seas on the whitest foam! Foam bears no malice, Like lips Whose adultery with men Is no disgrace.<br /><br />Vessels sail along our dreams Over the roofs, ships in a feast of color, And poor me, Yearning for the sea year in year out.<br /><br />-- Orhan Veli<br /><br />I could not have said anything better than what Orhal Veli Kanik said about Istanbul. About this movie, all I have is praise. A very nice and balanced introduction to a city and its music that connected Asia, Europe and Africa at one point of time.
|
positive
|
I have nothing to comment on this movie It is so bad that I had to put my first comment on IMDb website to help some viewers save some time and do something more interesting, instead of watching this "movie" ... anything will do, even stare at the walls is better.<br /><br />And because I have to write minimum 10 lines of text, i tell you also is a low budget movie, bad acting, no name actors, a stupid mutt as the wolf, and so on... Also the story brings nothing new, the special effects are made in the 80's style.<br /><br />The movie is almost as bad as the movie "Megalodon".<br /><br />So have fun! ;) (not watching this movie)
|
negative
|
Oh man, this movie was toe-cringing bad. Bad look, awful story...the list of good things is shorter than the list of bad things about this movie.<br /><br />Yes sure it's supposed to be a comedy and all but something tells me that this movie was supposed to be the real deal. The movie most certainly does not start of as a comedy but more as an adventurous movie with fun elements put in it. You can especially tells they were serious with this by the acting, that was in a serious and non-comical way, with the exception of a couple of over-the-top sequences obviously. It seemed to be me that at first they tried to make a real and serious adventurous science-fiction movie, perhaps even a franchise but soon began to noticed how bad it all was and simply decided to insert some more and deliberately overdone comical sequence, to make the movie seem more like a comedy and prevent it from turning into a complete disastrous mess.<br /><br />The movie is a weird attempt to mix adventurous swashbuckling pirate movies with serious science-fiction action. The movie was obviously inspired by the "Star Wars" movies and its success. The movie isn't even too ashamed to copy entire sequences and even the way the story progresses, sets, characters and robots show similarities. They tried to hide this by putting in some obviously spoofing sequences but I'm not falling for it. So the movie is not even original on its own, despite its original concept. You can say that this movie is a poor man's "Spaceballs", without even really being fully a spoof.<br /><br />The movie is bad looking, with some video games special effects (in some sequences even literally), awful looking costumes (coat of mail and swords in outer space?). The sound is at times even laughable. Seems like they shot some sequences without sound and then forgot to add all of the required sounds later again in post-production. the mixing is also really bad. They tried to conceal this by putting the sound down to a minimum at times and by tuning up the Bruce Broughton musical score.<br /><br />At times the movie is so busy trying to make the movie look humorous that it totally forgets to tell the story. It makes the story of the movie seems extremely messy and poorly written, with an almost completely undeveloped main plot. It also doesn't help to make the movie really ever flow. Lots of thing don't get explained and some are even dropped after a while. The movie begins as a 'pirate' movie, who constantly are looking and steal water, since its scarcely and there is only one planet in the entire galaxy remaining with water on it (yeah right!). However this plot line gets soon abandoned, especially in the middle part of the movie, in which the movie seems to become a totally different one, with different motivations. It's just like the one weird and bad, silly sequence after the other, without really making a click. It also keeps the characters way too shallow and uninteresting to care about.<br /><br />Sad to see that actors like John Carradine, Anjelica Huston and a still young and unknown Ron Perlman were attached to this disastrous movie.<br /><br />OK I admit that I liked some of the moments, especially the ending when they go through the time-warp was original and fun but really, non of this all was enough to save the movie.<br /><br />I didn't even liked the movie in a campy kind of way.<br /><br />2/10
|
negative
|
I remember when this show came out. It was originally advertised as a mini-series. At the end of the last episode it said "To Be Continued" to the dismay of all the people who had watched the whole boring beyond words thing. It ended as it was supposed to, so yes, you can blame the series for having no ending. The plan was for there to be another obviously if ratings had been higher, but it was a boring show that way too long, and annoyed people by not ending when it said it would, so they never made any more. Quite a few of the comments blame its cancellation and lack of ending on the viewing public, when the truth is that for this show that is not the case, it ended the way it was actually planned to end, it is just a lousy ending.
|
negative
|
his costume drama is ill cast and without charm.<br /><br />George Sanders was a superb character actor. But he is thoroughly implausible here as the lead, an Eighteenth Century rogue known for his philosophy and great good looks. His costar is, of all people, Akim Tamiroff. Some Frenchman! Then there's Signe Hasso, in a dark wig, as the virginal daughter of a wealthy family. Carole Landis fares best. The movie opens with her in silhouette. She is a soubrette, and a naughty girl at that. She disappears for a while but turns up in an improbably situation. But she's good. She was always an appealing actress. Here she is cast closest to her usual type of role.<br /><br />It's meant to be a little naughty, kind of ooh-la-la. It ought to have had a light touch but it's a leaden affair from start to finish.
|
negative
|
Oh dear!What a disappointment. I've been watching old Westerns on British TV for decades, and I wasn't aware of this one until its showing yesterday - most other Scott Westerns come around every few years or so and are usually worth watching again.<br /><br />The rich colour and outdoor sets were good, but that's all I can say about this film. I have to agree with most of the other negative comments already made. Several times I felt like turning it off, and finally I did, halfway through, something I hardly ever do.<br /><br />Scott seemed unusually oily in charming the girls, his two sidekicks were annoying and so was the Mexican bandit lad. And I've a feeling the army uniforms were 20 years or so too modern, not that this has bothered makers of many other Westerns.<br /><br />Perhaps it got better in the second half, but I couldn't be bothered to wait and see.
|
negative
|
While this isn't one of Miss Davies' very worst films, it is pretty bad. And it's sad that in a revisionist fashion, recent IMDb raters have deliberately over-inflated the scores on some of her films to make up for her being slighted in the past--or so it seems. For years, conventional wisdom has been that Davies was a terrible actress and only got the roles she got because her beau, William Randolph Hearst, bought her way into Hollywood. This certainly is the image created in Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE. It is true that Hearst did use his considerable wealth and clout to build Davies' career. With all this money, it's not surprising that she made some excellent films and it isn't surprising that people got snippy due to all the extra attention she got. Sleeping with the man who finances your films is bound to get noticed. However, despite this edge, she also made a decent number of bad films and I think we really need balance when it comes to the scores of her movies. After all, no rational person could believe that as of today (1/5/08), PEG O' MY HEART and two other Davies films recently shown on Turner Classic Movies (THE FLORODORA GIRL and MARIANNE) deserved the exceptionally high scores--ranking them higher than such films as HIGH NOON, BEN HUR, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT!! In fact, MARIANNE would now rank as the fifth best movie ever according to IMDb with a score of 8.8!!! Considering most people out there don't even know who Marion Davies was AND most of her movies were financial disasters, this is a serious problem!! However, she was a much better actress than CITIZEN KANE implied and initially broke into films before she began sleeping with Hearst.<br /><br />What sets PEG O' MY HEART apart from these two other movies, is that MARIANNE and THE FLORODORA GIRL were pleasant little films--while PEG O' MY HEART is in some ways just terrible. Much of the reason was the terrible miscasting of Marion. While her French accent in MARIANNE was cute, in PEG her Irish accent just sounded bizarre--not particularly Irish. Plus, and perhaps I'm mistaken, but her continual use of the word 'ye' makes her sound like she should be doing Shakespeare, not a film set in 1933 Ireland! Also, there was a bizarre insistence that Marion should be the consummate multi-talented star--so they had her not just act but dance and sing. The singing actually fit the scripts in some of her films, but here it seemed out of place and seriously detracted from the film. It just seemed like you could almost hear Hearst shouting out "see--she IS a great actress---look at her sing and dance". Sadly, Marion just looked uncomfortable and out of place in many of these scenes. But for me, the biggest problem was the idea of having 36 year-old Marion playing such a youthful role. It was obvious that the character she played at the beginning of the film was supposed to be like the ones Mary Pickford played in the teens and twenties--complete with the pig tails and plucky attitude. Miss Pickford COULD carry off these roles even though she, too, wasn't a girl any more. But here, Marion had put on a bit of weight and looked at least 30. No offense--she looked fine for her age--but she DID NOT look like a teen! <br /><br />Oddly, with the millions that Hearts spent on Marion's career, he never realized that the most important thing he needed to spend his money on was a good script and one that fit Marion's talents. Believe me, I have rated several of her films very high (I especially adore SHOW PEOPLE), but here she just couldn't help but flop--this film was a turkey.
|
negative
|
I've been largely convinced to write this review for a number of reasons:<br /><br />1) This is, without doubt, the worst film i've ever seen 2) Unless it gets more reviews it will not be listed in the all time worst films list - which it deserves to be 3) I was kinda lucky - i paid five pound for it. i've seen it in shops for 15 pound. DON NOT PAY THAT MUCH FOR THIS FILM! You will be very angry 4) There are a lot of films out there in the horror genre that are not given a fair rating (in my opinion) and giving this film a higher rating than them is criminal<br /><br />The plot summary: a guy with no friends meets a tramp who promises the world - well, the magic ability to appear to everybody else like somebody else. Our hero cunningly turns into a teenage girl and joins their gang - sitting on swings, baby-sitting. He kills them one by one until he is tracked and found by the police.<br /><br />Why is it so bad? To begin with the acting is VERY VERY bad. Someone else compared it to a school production. No, this is worse than any acting i've seen on a school stage.<br /><br />I've bought a number of these previously banned films from the DVD company vipco and not been as disappointed as i was at this. okay, the acting is bad but the film fails to deliver in every other sense. What was the point in making this film when there isn't even any gore! okay, no gore. What else can a film like this offer? Breats? No, not even any titillation!<br /><br />it's true this film may have a certain charm in its unique naffness but any potential buyer/watcher of this film should be fairly advised that this film is, at best, worth only one out of ten.
|
negative
|
Try as I might, I just simply couldn't get into this one. Perhaps it was the washed out tones; perhaps it was the drawn-out approach--I'm not really sure, but though this was by no means a "bad" movie, I didn't really find it to be very much of an "effective" movie (words that I understand are so much more arbitrary than their common uses).<br /><br />So, basically, the deal here is that a series of adolescent boys' deaths sets off an investigation and anxiety in a small provincial town, triggering a witch hunt. What do the boys' death have to do with the mysterious, sexy woman who has appeared in town? Is the crazy hermit woman involved? Is it voodoo? The story is a mixture of crime drama and horror as the various townspeople are all suspect and corpses keep appearing while bloody violence ensues.<br /><br />Good enough, but to me, most of it fell a little flat. Oh, it had it's moments... the one boy walking in on a beautiful naked seductress was pretty good, and the scene where the fathers beat the hermit was a bitter commentary (even if the effects themselves failed, considering her skin seemed to peel off as if they were whipping her with red-hot irons).<br /><br />My biggest issue was the ending. I've already put spoiler tags on this review, but BE WARNED, HERE'S THE BIG SPOILER: I don't believe it. I don't believe that a priest could convince himself to kill young boys for becoming sexually aware without some hint of that psychosis appearing earlier, with other boys, with a history, or some other personal affect. The movie didn't really earn its ending. END SPOILERS.<br /><br />Nonetheless, Fulci is a big name and I'm more than certain there's an audience out there for this. I definitely need to check out more that he's done, because this may have been a poor introduction. Most Italian giallo is hit-or-miss anyway, so I'm waiting to see what else this guy can do before writing him off.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.