review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
THE RAP, the book this movie was 'based' on was one of the most difficult books I've ever read. Yet I could not put it down. Raunchy, crude, foul, lewd...you name it, it had it. It also had some of the best characterizations of any novel I've ever read.<br /><br />Well, as for the flick...it was deplorable. I mean, Tim Mcintire as Wasco? Wasco was the baddest mutha...talking 'bout WASCO...Mcintire as Wasco is like casting Tim Conway as Charles Manson.<br /><br />What happened to the MAIN character in the book? Little Arv. He doesn't even exist in the movie...Fast Walking WAS NOT the main dude in the book. Why even name credit this thing with THE RAP? None of the spirit, atmosphere, nastiness, or drama of the book was captured in this movie.<br /><br />For me it was not only a disappointment, but a total waste of time and celluloid. | negative |
Like A Streetcar Named Desire (also directed by Gadg both on stage and screen) Panic In The Streets depicts a New Orleans in which its major claim to fame - the birthplace of Jazz - doesn't even rate a mention. It was Richard Widmark's seventh film and arguably went a long way to establishing him as the fine actor he really was rather than merely a psychotic killer. Gadg himself appears in an uncredited small role as a morgue attendant but the film is rich in talent beginning with Jack Palance (still being billed as Walter Jack Palance)as the local Mr 'Big' followed side-kick Zero Mostel, Barbara Bel Geddes, Emile Meyer, Tommy Rettig plus the rock-solid ever reliable Paul Douglas as the cop who comes round to doc Widmark's point of view. It's a very rewarding movie more so for being little seen. Catch it if you can. | positive |
Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind. | negative |
The story of Farewell to the King is intriguing. An American "deserter" (I had the impression he and his 3 comrades were only trying to escape capture in the Philippines as their desperate escape by raft to Borneo is not your classic desertion). But no sooner do they come ashore when they are discovered by the Japanese. Nolte's character (a sergeant) has only moments earlier walked down the beach alone and was not noticed. And incredibly, no one noticed his footprints in the sand which would have led the Japanese right to him. But anyway, Nolte is taken in by a tribe of headhunters and becomes their king after defeating another tribesman. So he's out of the war. Then the British commandos show up and want the tribe to assist them in fighting the Japanese.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Nolte's incessant hamming ruins an interesting story. Instead of acting like a former soldier thrust back into the war, now with a tribe of warriors under his command, Nolte acts like he was raised by the tribe. He speaks as if English is almost a foreign language, rarely using contractions. He makes sweeping gestures when he talks, and acts like he is one with nature, as if he was raised in the jungle.<br /><br />There is plenty of action and many interesting scenes with the British interacting with Nolte and the tribe. But Nolte's character is never believable. It always looks like he's overacting. He needed to be a little more of an American soldier and a lot less of a tribesman. As it is, he comes across, not as a regal king, but as a lunatic who has forgotten who he really is. But that is not the intent of the film, as the script has him being admired and trusted by the British commandos. There is never any suggestion that the British thought his behavior was strange. He is simply viewed by the British as the defacto leader of the tribe. Thus, it always seems that Nolte's character isn't fitting in with what's supposed to be happening in the film.<br /><br />Another actor might have done a great job with the role, delivered his lines believably, and made it an outstanding movie. But Nolte ruins the film by hamming up every scene and appearing to not understand what his character is supposed to be.<br /><br />What a waste. | negative |
Many people like to point to this TV movie when arguing with the vast legions of Hanks-philes out there that Tom did in fact make crappy films (I think "Bachelor Party" was great, but that's another story). The movie focuses on a "Dungeons and Dragons-style game" that eventually drives our young Gump to hallucinatory madness. The story is charmingly early 1980s, focusing as it does on the imminent threat to our youth posed by those evil role-playing games.<br /><br />I, however, prefer to view "Mazes and Monsters" as the turning point in the "Whatever Happened to Chris Makepeace?" story. we all remember him as 'Rudy the Rabbit' in "Meatballs" and as the hapless Clifford in "My Bodyguard", where he gave us all a vicarious thrill by beating the crap out of Matt Dillon. Few could argue (especially those of us who read "Dynamite!" on a regular basis) that great things were in store for him.<br /><br />And then came Rona Jaffe. The line between bad acting and bad writing is razor thin, so I leave it to you to decide whose fault Makepeace's performance in this is. All I know is that the last major release I saw him in was "Vamp", and that was 1986. He had a small role as Sean Penn's brother in "Falcon and the Snowman", but by that time the Brat Pack torch had been passed to others with straighter hair and flashier resumes.<br /><br />I can't in good conscience recommend this movie. Watch it if only to see a younger, more idealistic Chris Makepeace, before Rona Jaffe feasted on his soul. | negative |
It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.<br /><br />I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.<br /><br />Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette. <br /><br />With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.<br /><br />There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.<br /><br />After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either. | negative |
I hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. Hyung-Rae Shim is lucky that bad film-making isn't a capital crime or he'd be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. I'm amazed that this film had a $75m budget, but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop, that Shim will hopefully, never get to make another movie the rest of the life and, therefore, not waste any more of filmgoers time. I would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now.<br /><br />With the effects resources available to them, a great film could have been made with this budget. As usual, the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. "Transformers" was another visual feast with a weak script, but this makes it look like "Citizen Kane". | negative |
WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS<br /><br /> The ripples in the wake of the first "Jaws" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although "Jaws" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. "Shark rosso nell'oceano" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original "Jaws" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.<br /><br /> The most sickly compelling feature of "Devil Fish" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms "fade", "wipe", or "dissolve". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.<br /><br /> The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the "Jaws" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as "soft core porn music". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to "Devil Fish". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.<br /><br /> Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If "Jaws" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese. | negative |
When I bought 4 DVDs for £5.oo in a local shop it should have been warning enough that this movie was not up to the usual standard of David Selznick Productions. With a cast containing such names as James Stewart and Carole Lombard I was looking forward to a real treat. As many other commentators have said it is an odd mixture of plot and scenes that doesn't quite convince. HOWEVER, I am so glad that I did view this film as I now have the memorable saying 'Never let the seeds stop you from enjoying the watermelon.' to live by. This should sum up everyone's life. Pick out those seeds or spit them out or swallow them - and then enjoy the watermelon - life itself. | negative |
back in my high school days in Salina Kansas, they filmed something called "The Brave Young Men Of Weinberg" locally, and the film crews were rather prominent for weeks. eventually, we learned that the film was "Up The Academy", and was a bit ummm, "lower brow" than we had been led to believe. <br /><br />I had to see it, since I was there, and the local audiences seemed less than pleased at the showing. I was 17, and thought it was a rather artless attempt at a post "Animal house" type of comedy, right down to the fart jokes. <br /><br />Watched it many times since, and my opinion has mellowed a bit. it's dumb, but at times it catches a bit of the "mad" magazine humor, at least as well as most "Mad TV". Ron Liebman might hate it, but he is nearly perfect, and unforgettable. For me, my favorite moment would have been a brief scene on Santa Fe avenue, where I had parked my car, while I was buying some guitar strings. Too bad my Pinto's brief appearance, usually seems to get cut for TV. haven't seen the new DVD, but if my old pinto is visible, they've got a sale. | positive |
"House of Games" is a flawlessly constructed film, and one of the few films I have seen that had me gaping at the screen in astonishment at how cleverly and unexpectedly it ends. I first saw it on video a few years back after reading Roger Ebert's review, which proclaimed it the best film of 1987. I had my doubts, mainly because it is not quite as well known as other films from that year. Boy, was I in for a surprise. This was one of the smartest, most well-written movies I had ever seen.<br /><br />The screenplay is quite a piece of work, not only in terms of the plot (which twists and turns and pulls the rug out from under you just when you think you have it all figured out), but also in terms of character development. On my second viewing, I began to realize that Mamet's screenplay succeeds not only as a clever suspense film, but that each plot development contributes to our understanding of the characters and their motivations. The climax of the movie is particularly effective, because it is absolutely inevitable. It stems naturally from what we know about the characters, and it is therefore much more than just an arbitrary twist ending. The performances by Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna also add enormously to the film. I cannot picture any other actor besides Mantegna playing the role of Mike, and Crouse plays her role with just the right amount of restraint to suggest a repressed criminal mindset. Their work, plus Mamet's extraordinary screenplay, combine to create one of the greatest films of the 1980's. It is truly a must-see. | positive |
One of the cornerstones of low-budget cinema is taking a well-known, classic storyline and making a complete bastardization out of it. Phantom of the Mall is no exception to this rule. The screenwriter takes the enduring Phantom of the Opera storyline and moves it into a late '80s shopping mall. However, the "Phantom's" goal now is simply to get revenge upon those responsible for disfiguring his face and murdering his family. The special effects do provide a good chuckle, especially when body parts begin appearing in dishes from the yogurt stand. Pauly Shore has a small role which does not allow him to be as fully obnoxious as one would expect, mostly due to the fact that his fifteen minutes of MTV fame had not yet arrived. If you're looking for a few good laughs at the expense of the actors and special effects crew, check this flick out. Otherwise, keep on looking for something else. | negative |
Now, I flicked onto this just out of curiosity and had to keep watching - in the same way that you watch a car crash...<br /><br />I appreciate the fact it's a spoof, but that should not stop me from criticising the god-awful directing, acting and dialogue. Seriously, this rated as one of the poorest movies I have seen - it looked more like an episode of Tales from the Cryptkeeper, and a poor one at that...<br /><br />Okay - a few criticisms (1) when the doctor had his heart attack in front of the monster (we never see the monster attack him, so we assume its a heart attack), the army then launch shells, rockets, bullets at the monster - which was feet from the doctor - yet the doctor is not touched by any missile and is still alive (2) the army attack from about 100 yards away, and we see a flame-thrower being used - geez, those things have a range of no more than 30 metres! (3) when the monster tries to take the professor, the soldiers run into the classroom and fire into the ceiling; the monster drops the kid, and the soldiers don't try to shoot the monster??? come on! (4) the monster looks like it something out of Power Rangers! (5) there is one scene where the five "good guys" (the priest, the girl, the doctor, the reporter and the kid) all look shocked and we get reactions (along the lines of hand to mouth) one after the other - so natural! (6) the general just runs away, time after time (7) the general refuses to try electricity and wouldn't listen (8) the acting is awful (9) did I mention the rubber suit monster???? (10) that god-awful music, non-stop! | negative |
This is primarily about love in WWII, yet we must remember that it's also a biopic for Dylan Thomas and those around him at this particular stage in his life.<br /><br />The movie's timing is just great. It really captures what I think would have been the spirit during those times; smiling and hoping you're not going to get bombed. While it may prove boring to some, the movie does have a particularly dangerous edge to it.<br /><br />At one point, my heart was racing towards the end as the movie hits its climax. It really does feature some poignant moments that are handled with skill by the four main actors. Cillian Murphy is on fine form here, as is Matthew Rhys. Both are polar opposites and it makes for an interesting watch. The relationship formed between Sienna Miller and Keira Knightley's characters is wonderful and we have the acting to thank (and watch out for a cameo by Suggs of 'Madness'). <br /><br />Despite all of this, it's a rather slow movie. Coupled with the fact it's just shy of two hours, it's quite a slog to get to the conclusion.<br /><br />Overall, it's a solid non-fiction war movie with many wonderfully crafted moments that were no doubt helped by the splendid number of well-known British names behind the scenes. But it really does drone on for too much at times. Still, a worthwhile watch. 7/10 | positive |
Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon! | negative |
To sum this movie up, it is LaBute carrying his sadism over into the realm of comedic farce. The predictable result is that he is constantly stepping on all the jokes by insisting on surrounding them with blood-curdling violence and extremely hateful characters. There is also evidence of his continuing efforts to insult and ridicule everything in sight but then to apologize for it with weak gestures to the PC. Basically the movie just doesn't work, its plot is beyond contrived, the characters are one-dimensional cliches, there is no consistency or development of anything, and the comedy (where it is not totally out of place) is the worst kind of High Concept drivel.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman and Renee Zellweger are completely wasted on characters that seem like parodies of studio-driven audience pandering--no matter what, make them likeable, neutral (and neutered), and full of moral platitudes. Crispin Glover is in here just long enough to convince you that he doesn't belong in movies anymore. Chris Rock actually has negative chemistry with fellow hitman Freeman--it's as if they are acting in different rooms even when they are two inches away from each other. In effect, Chris Rock seems like a digital insert. At least he isn't as annoying as Jar-Jar.<br /><br />LaBute's 15 minutes may well be up by now. It's already looking like he's overstayed his welcome. | negative |
Cave Dwellers, or The Blade Mater, or whatever it's called, is in one word: VILE! I saw this on MST and I laughed not only at the great running commentary, but at the inept film making that was demonstrated. Sunglasses, tire tracks and where did Ator get a hang glider? Then they lift a few shots from another movie, Where Eagles Dare as Tom Servo points out. To show just how cheap this movie really is, watch the scene where Ator and Thong have to battle invisible swordsmen. Or even better, look for the giant hose dressed up like a snake that Ator must wrestle! And what exactly do those scenes in the credits have to do with the movie? | negative |
This one hearkens back to the days of the matinée, when kids with nowhere else to hang out took their dates to the balcony after dumping their younger siblings below. It didn't matter what was on the screen - the little kids would sit through it and the big kids would ignore it. The adults, of course, would never see it.<br /><br />But they put it on video, anyway, along with most of the other creaky, low-budget "B" horror flicks of the golden age...of television. This film's inherent and unintentional humor is derived from stale ideology (the "bad girls" harvested to replace poor Jan's crushed body - they had it comin'), overused plot (a mad scientist, trying to play God), violent yet conscientious monster (whose presence in the heretofore-normal-seeming scientist's rural lab is never fully explained), and acting that polarizes at wooden or over-the-top.<br /><br />This is a great party film, assuming your guests enjoy adding dialog and commentary to otherwise abominable cinematic exploits. In fact, should you or your guests prefer more passive entertainment, this film is also available on video in its "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment, in which the host and puppets of the cult TV series make the necessary additions for you. | negative |
I watched the show 10 years ago and loved it!!! Am now in possession of the DVD and was watching the series, and waiting for scenes I knew were in the show (when Lucas confronts Gail in his house)and realized it was missing - all of a sudden I was watching the seduction without the lead up. Then I went on line to check out all the BIOS of the stars and came across the comments about the shows being out of order. Thank You!!!!! But there seems to be some conflict. Some comments state "Strangler number 19 then Triangle 20, when another had them around the other way. And also Potato Boy 5, and Dead to the World 6, were reversed as well. Can someone clarify????? | positive |
For three quarters of an hour, the story gradually develops towards a pivotal point of some sort. Although it is overburdened with scenes that just seem to be intended to dull the viewer and lure him away from the actual plot, there is something happening. It is not much and it certainly is not obvious. The combination of palace impressions and story-driving scenes do not add any depth or insight to the whole cast of characters. In fact, they keep them sterile as there is no character development at all. Everybody just remains spinning and centered around their own cliché and role - the cute, kinda headstrong girl; the fighting überwoman, the snobby aristocrat. The male lead does not seem to have any distinction at all, he is a shallow presence, which, actually, doesn't even matter as he is only there because the storyboard required him to - it seemed like he was on vacation and got caught up. When the point comes of turning the corner in terms of what happening, the movie first snaps completely blank for a couple of minutes and then becomes ridiculous. It solves - or better, dissolves - itself with a by-the-book Deus Ex Machina, more clichés and some of the most crude plot devices and choices I have ever seen. It's history, alright. First the movie's a drama though it's supposed to be comedic, and then it turns into a farce. The protagonists do what they are expected to do, and there are no surprises. The first set of somewhat serious antagonists however gets replaced by a couple that literally was just bored. Maybe that was some kind of nod towards the audience.<br /><br />This movie does not get any bonus from me for underlying philosophical meaning (since there is none) nor for its technical realization. The animation and editing is fair and so's the sound mixing; but it is by no means outstanding or even above the average Japanese productions of the late 1980's. In fact, the visual treats seem static, un-inspired and un-original.<br /><br />Worst of all - it totally fails to entertain, even if you don't bother with characters and all that stuff. There's too little going on here, and the rest is corny at best. Get a real Ghibli instead, have a feast with it and keep your fingers off this one. | negative |
This is a film where the actors are all fine, especially Brigitte Bako and Erik Palladino, in a film where every one of the three couples meet in a situation that feels verrrrry forced to be either cute or to set the story in motion. In other words, it feels like they are contrived movie scenes, not like real life. Even if women who work at peep parlors ever go out with one of their customers, it just doesn't seem realistic at all the way it is written in this film. Also, when one of the characters meets the overweight woman in the film, it feels artificial, the way they look at each other seconds after arguing. Again, the actors are all good, and moments of this film are nice, but overall yet another indie that could have used some rewriting before production got rolling. | negative |
Martin Lawrence is not a funny man i Runteldat. He just has too much on his mind and he is too mad which trips his puns pretty early in the game. He tries to make fun of critics, which boils down to "f*** them". Then he goes on to rather primitive sexual jokes on smokers with throat cancer and it just goes downhill from there. 3/10 | negative |
This is a thriller with a good concept, good acting, good photography and good intentions all around, but which is confused and disjointed in execution.<br /><br />Garcia stars as John Berlin, an L.A. forensic detective who has moved to a small California town at the behest of a friend of his on the force there. He soon becomes involved in the investigation of an unsolved murder which leads to his theorizing about the existence of a serial killer whom no one else believes in. The known victim is theorized to be blind, which leads to a romance with a blind girl - believed to be a witness - at a nearby school for the blind.<br /><br />Despite a basically intriguing story there were too many quantum leaps and plot holes in this movie where I found myself wondering, 'how the hell did we wind up here?' or 'how did we find this out?' I found it confusing and disjointed, despite the good acting, etc. John Malkovich has a small part toward the end as an F.B.I. investigator out to get Berlin.<br /><br />Not recommended. | negative |
This movie was beyond disappointment. Well acted story that means nothing. The plot is ridiculous and even what story there is goes absolutely nowhere. It truly isn't worth a nickel, buffalo or otherwise..pun intended! | negative |
Doyle had never wanted to resurrect Holmes from his joint death with Professor Moriarty in THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM. However,financial considerations made him willing (in 1901) to write THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, which is still considered his best Holmes' novel and possibly his best novel. But it was a "memoir" of the great detective, written before his death. Only a greater outcry from his public led Doyle to fully resurrect Holmes in THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE, published in 1905.<br /><br />It is not that the new short stories (and the last novel) are really bad. Maybe three of the stories are really terrible, but even the terrible ones are very readable. Several of the later ones (like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SOLITARY CYCLIST) are really very good. But the unevenness of production (in particularly after the stories in HIS LAST BOW (1917)) become increasingly apparent. He repeats past story lines, and he shows really negative aspects of Holmes. In the story THE ADVENTURE OF THE THREE GABLES Holmes shows a sneering sarcasm at a character who is of African ancestry. <br /><br />SPOILER COMING UP:<br /><br />THE ADVENTURE OF CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON deals with Holmes trying to recover compromising letters from Milverton, a hugely successful blackmailer. It is an interesting example of how Doyle could make a highly readable story with a minimum of plot for there is little real detective work in the tale. Holmes is hired to try to negotiate with Milverton regarding the purchase of the letters, but to get them back no matter what! Milverton proves not only unwilling to consider a smaller amount for the papers but prepared to protect himself from Holmes attempting a search of his person. Later we learn Holmes has gotten into the household of Milverton by romancing a maid while disguised. At the end Holmes goes with Watson to burglarize Milverton's home. He and Watson are in the house when they find that Milverton is awaiting some new business deal in his study (someone with information that Milverton can use). Carefully hiding, Holmes and Watson watch as a woman comes in, who turns out to be a victim of collateral damage from Milverton's past activities, and who shoots the blackmailer to death. Holmes and Watson are able to set fire to Milverton's collection of compromising documents before fleeing the house, and subsequently discover (for themselves) the identity of the woman. The police (under Lestrade) don't discover who the two mysterious men seen running from Milverton's home are, and they are so disgusted by Milverton's activities (they never were able to bring anything home against him) that it is obvious the murder will never be solved.<br /><br />The tale is not one of the fascinating ones with real detective work involved like THE ADVENTURE OF THE SPECKLED BAND or SILVER BLAZE. It is a tale of mood and late action - the issue being will Holmes and Watson get the papers or will they be caught by Milverton? It is not one of the best stories, but it is in the bulk of the tales as being really well told and interesting.<br /><br />At the time he wrote CHARLES AUGUSTUS MILVERTON, Conan Doyle had an experience with the police regarding his sometimes activities as a highly respected amateur detective/crusader. An artist was found murdered in his studio in London, and Conan Doyle began writing his opinions about how the killing was committed. Then he stopped - apparently warned by his friends at Scotland Yard that the murder did not bare looking into. The victim had been a homosexual, and the police were certain that it was a lover's spat gone horribly wrong. For the sake of the family of the Victim (this was in 1905) Doyle dropped his interest in the case. So he was aware that sometimes the British police behaved with restraint on matters that did not seem to justify their full probing - as Lestrade's restraint towards whoever did kill the villainous Milverton in the story.<br /><br />Given the description of the story it could have been told in the normal hour long version of the series. But the teleplay for THE MASTER BLACKMAILER spent some time showing the horrible dilemma Milverton's victims (in Victorian/Edwardian England) faced. We see a promising young aristocratic army officer kill himself when faced with a homosexual exposure because of Milverton's extravagant demands, all at the start of the teleplay. And it is not only homosexuals. Men and women of good reputation in heterosexual marriages could be smeared by uncovering illegitimate children or past indiscreet relationships. Indeed, in the story, the woman who kills Milverton is avenging the destruction of her husband (a prominent nobleman) destroyed by the blackmailer. <br /><br />Milverton is well played at his most poisonous blandness by that fine actor Robert Hardy, who even when confronted by the unexpected furies he has unleashed is totally unperturbed (he looks like he will just have the angry woman showed out of his home in a moment). Brett and Hardwicke do quite well in their Holmes and Watson roles, as to be expected.<br /><br />How serious was the loss of character by rumor or innuendo in 1905? In 1898 one of the heroes of the various imperial wars, and the leader of the last victorious charge at the battle of Omdurman that destroyed the Mahdist army (see FOUR FEATHERS) was Sir Hector MacDonald. He was governor of Ceylon in 1903 when he suddenly, unexpectedly resigned. Sir Hector returned to London, and shot himself in a hotel while awaiting some sort of hearing. It later came out that "Fighting Mac", frequently considered the most popular army commander in Britain, had been caught having sleeping arrangements with native boys. Milverton would have eaten him up very quickly...or his real life counterparts would have. | positive |
It was disgusting and painful. What a waste of a cast! I swear, the audience (1/2 full) laughed TWICE in 90 minutes. This is not a lie. Do not even rent it.<br /><br />Zeta Jones was just too mean to be believable.<br /><br />Cusack was OK. Just OK. I felt sorry for him (the actor) in case people remember this mess.<br /><br />Roberts was the same as she always is. Charming and sweet, but with no purpose. The "romance" with John was completely unbelievable. | negative |
"Life stinks" is a parody of life and death, happiness and depression. The black and the white always present in our lives. Mel Brooks performance is brilliant as always, and the other actors work is fine too. This movie has some Capra flavor, that´s why is so good.<br /><br />There are some unforgettable gags such as the one when Brooks tries to earn some money dancing in the street, and all the people passing by just ignore him, or when he meets a funny crazy man who believes is Paul Getty and then start arguing and slapping each other.<br /><br />If you haven´t seen it, you don´t know what you´ve missed.<br /><br />This movie tells us about the old and eternal struggle of the poor against the rich. <br /><br />The only difference between this movie and reality is that this movie has a happy ending, and reality hasn´t.<br /><br />Yes indeed, Life Stinks. | positive |
This was such a terrible film, almost a comedy sketch of a noir film.The budget was low compared to a blockbuster, but still higher than most.But its where they've decided to cut costs that is totally weird.Some actors are at least competent, while others look like they just been dragged off the street.One of them being the lead actor, hes so very bad that i cringed when ever he said anything (he talks through the ENTIRE movie).Then there's the weird costume choices.At the start of the movie all characters are wearing 1930's clothes.They drive a classic car, but the background is a modern day windfarm thats blatantly state of the art.And the costumes and some settings continue to follow this 30's film noir theme.Then BAM in drives a brand new escalade with 24 inch rims....WTF.Same thing again when a guy has a night scope on his rifle, you get a shot down its sight.Hes aiming at a guy with an mp5 and tactical gear on.In a even stranger contrast the locations are brilliant, and seem to have cost more than the rest of the entire film.The camera shots/angles a very good, and show these locations brilliantly in the scenes.The director has a keen eye for a good looking single shot, but no idea how to do much else.<br /><br />People who should be shot for this film▼<br /><br />The writer The director The casting agent The costume designer<br /><br />People who should be tortured to death for their monotone, monotonous nails on chalk board voice.▼<br /><br />Anton Pardoe- the lead actor, writer, producer If you ever seen the movie Hostel, i wish that would happen to this guy, but he doesn't escape. | negative |
Because I would have never ever seen this movie through to the end. Although there are some, but not many, funny moments in this movie I couldn't understand more than about 15%(the fancy English couple in the 3rd story included) of what people were saying. Three short stories, none with a real point, with just some of the most miserable and lifeless people I could have imagined and a load of foul language. Didn't find it funny, didn't find it amusing, didn't find any sense in it. 4/10 | negative |
All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.<br /><br />I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.<br /><br />Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.<br /><br />The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.<br /><br />I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.<br /><br />Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.<br /><br />Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.<br /><br />I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars? | negative |
This film takes a lot of liberties with the known historical facts.Even little things like Flynn licking one stamp after another, when he almost certainly would have used a moistened sponge, is one of the annoying things. Flynn was never tried of manslaughter or murder. He is not known to have caught his mother making love to another man, and is not known to have had an homosexual relationship with anybody, and he did not end up on skid row in Sydney. He did not get his twopenny-halfpenny role in In the Wake of the Bounty by imposture and this role did not turn him into a well-dressed film star. <br /><br />This is just a mediocre film where the name of Errol Flynn has been tacked on just to sell more tickets and more videos. | negative |
Some amusing humor, some that falls flat, some decent acting, some that is quite atrocious. This movie is simply hit and miss, guaranteed to amuse 12 year old boys more than any other niche.<br /><br />The child actors in the movie are just unfunny. When you are making a family comedy, that does tend to be a problem. Beverly D'Angelo rises above the material to give a funny, and dare I say it, human performance in the midst of this mediocrity. | negative |
I feel really bad for reviewing this movie because I wish that I had only watched it as a concept production. The Covenant looked like it could have been a really original piece, but sadly they lose the great idea in the translation to the screen.<br /><br />The story follows four (five) teens that are the descendants of the families that started the town of Ipswitch a survivors of the Salem witch trials. They also happen to be a part of the secret sect called "The Covenant". Their power must be used sparingly as it drains their life-force in small amounts and is highly addictive. In theory this would make a pretty good action sci-fi movie
or at least an interesting teeny flick.<br /><br />But there were just too many glaring downfalls that don't allow this movie to reach its plot's full potential. That acting wasn't good, the sound track was mediocre and we found a lot of unnecessary sync issues. For sure the biggest issue is the poor editing job. The movie has little to no coherent flow and makes one fight to keep a mental timeline or any feel of pacing.<br /><br />The movie has it's moments, but overall was a little disappointing.<br /><br />A witchy 4/10 | negative |
Book of Revelations starts very well. Daniel, an egomaniac dancer is kidnapped, abused and sexually raped by three masked women.<br /><br />After that, nothing else really happens. There is some hint of rediscovery but the movie gives nor explanation nor a real ending. Daniel reactions after the abuse are very basic. He quits dancing, has sex with every women around and finally starting a relation with very simple and common woman.<br /><br />I have seen a good share of art-house movies but this has something missing in it.<br /><br />The main leads are fine; but some characters does not seems to be completely defined. | negative |
It's boring.<br /><br />It's slow.<br /><br />Where are the nasty and brutal murders? Where is the tension that is supposed to scare us? This is like watching Sesame Street without the funny characters of Ernie and Bert or Grover.<br /><br />It's really lame.<br /><br />Maybe it was the writing...maybe the direction...maybe the acting, maybe the editing, maybe the cinematography, maybe the special effects, maybe the makeup.<br /><br />Maybe all of the above brought this to something barely able to keep your eyes focused on.<br /><br />I wanted to get scared...not bored.<br /><br />This didn't scare me...it didn't even interest me...I had more fun watching the time on the microwave instead of watching this film.<br /><br />Don't bother to buy it..and if you see it on television by some freak chance, there is no need to tuck the kids asleep. | negative |
Another lame attempt to make a movie "gritty" and "thought provoking"- whatever the hell that means. They have Al Pacino say a lot of words like - "Television killed football." Yeah whatever. This is another movie that showcases Oliver Stone's Delusions of Grandeur. If Stone is trying to show us that football will be our downfall or something, why does he insist on romanticizing the sport with his stilted camera movements and Kid Rock songs? He even throws Cameron Diaz into the fray for purely aesthetic reasons. It's a shame that Diaz and Pacino have to meet in a movie that is so bad.<br /><br />Ever since "Scent of Woman," writers and directors have used Pacino to romanticize their pathetic lines. His characters are nothing more than loudspeakers - their voices covering up what would normally be redundant and trite. He needs to reinvent himself, showing how he can act without yelling. He has to stop feeling sorry for hokey scripts with cheesy lessons like "Organized football is messed up," and act out a good story. | negative |
A delightfully unpretentious send up of Romeo and Juliet. Approach with no expectations other than having a good time and you will enjoy this one. A talented group of comic actors let go and have a riot in this light-hearted performers' vehicle. Bad reviews were due to a snobbishness about treatments of Shakespeare. Some people feel that all film must be "important" ---If you share those views, don't bother. The credits read "introducing" Angelina Jolie, which is not even close to being true, but she is astoundingly beautiful as the Juliet character, and, as always, her acting is wonderful--- and, considering her age at the time, even her dialect is pretty good. Recreating this classic tale with feuding Italian families in the catering business in New York results in great fun. See it in the right frame of mind and you will laugh out loud. | positive |
Ostensibly a story about the young child of Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day. The kid gets kidnapped to keep his parents quiet. They know something about a plot to assassinate the ambassador of an unnamed country during a performance at Albert Hall in London.<br /><br />The movie is rich in Hitchcockian incidents. A friendly but opaque Frenchman seems to grill the innocent Stewart -- a doctor from Indiana -- a little too intensely to be merely idly curious. Later the Frenchman shows up in Arab disguise, a knife in his back, and whispers some information about the murder plot to Stewart. Stewart tells his wife -- Doris Day looking very saucy indeed -- but refuses to cooperate with the police and risk his son's life.<br /><br />Instead the couple try to track down the assassins, buy them off, and get their son back, taking them from Morocco, where Hitchcock has given us his usual tourist's eye view of the customs, locations, and food, to London. There is a hilarious wild goose chase involving a set-to between Stewart and the staff of a taxidermy shop. The staff are more concerned about guarding their half-stuffed specimens than anything else, and they shuffle around protectively holding the carcasses of a leopard and a swordfish. In the course of the scuffle, Stewart manages to save his throat from being cut by the swordfish bill, but is bitten on the hand by a stuffed tiger, the action boosted along by Bernard Hermann's bumptious score. The scene ends with Stewart rushing out the door. Hitchcock ends it with a shot of a lion's head gaping at the slammed door. There is also a running gag, well done, about some visitors waiting around the couple's hotel room in London, waiting for things to be explained.<br /><br />There are two serious issues that are lightly touched on. One is the relationship between Stewart and Day, which is not as rosy as it ought to be, considered as a bourgeois ideal. She's been a stage musical star for some years and is internationally known. And she's given it all up to marry an ordinary guy who happens to be a doc. That's understandable in, say, a nurse or a flight attendant or almost any woman other than an international star with a promising career in her own right. It isn't delved into, but the edginess is noticeable, as it was not in the original version. It reminds me a little of an exchange between Joe Dimaggio and his then-wife Marilyn Monroe, who had just returned from entertaining the troops in Korea. "Oh, Joe," she gushed, "did you ever see ten thousand people stand up and cheer?" "Seventy thousand," muttered Joe, former hero of the New York Yankees.<br /><br />The second problem is one of allegiance. Who is of greater social value? One's own young son? Or an unknown ambassador. Do we put ourselves or our loved ones at risk for the sake of national stability? Day is faced with this dilemma in its starkest form at the climax in the Albert Hall. Her solution opts for allegiance to political stability, although her motives are problematic. Does she scream to save the ambassador's life, or does she do so just to release the anxiety that is overwhelming her? (Cf: Alec Guiness falling on the detonator at the end of "The Bridge on the River Kwai.") The photography is extremely good, and the settings can be menacing, even on a quiet street in a residential neighborhood of London. It's mid-day, and Stewart is alone and determined, but frightened too. There are footsteps echoing on Gulliver Street from someone, somewhere. Is he being followed? Is his life in danger? And where the hell is everybody who lives on this street? Hitchcock pays such close attention to location details that we can make out the garden wall bonding of the bricks beside him.<br /><br />The director had a rare disagreement with Francois Truffaut while being interviewed for Truffaut's otherwise laudatory book. Truffaut argued that the earlier version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" lacked the depth of the later version. Hitchcock replied, "It seems to me you want me to make films for the art house audience," but finally agreed that the 1930s version was the work of a talented amateur and this version was the work of a professional. No argument there.<br /><br />This is Hitchcock pretty much near his zenith. | positive |
Just saying you've got a movie about John Holmes is a guarantee to get some folks in front of the screen, but writer/director James Cox delivers oh so much more. A "Rashamon" of the sleazy Hollywood set, the film splitters the July 1981 Wonderland murders through a variety of angles (and film stocks), but mostly through the filter of John Holmes' coked out weasel brain. In a film full of bad guys Holmes is either the most vile, the most pathetic or both. Several versions of the story emerge and merge as Cox flashes jump cuts and twisting title cards amid effects and emoting. The dialogue is fast and naturalistic and never once rings false. While the film takes places two years after Holmes had fallen out of porn and into a truly wicked drug fueled depravity, Kilmer relentlessly exudes a sexuality so intense it can be measured in inches. This sexuality at its edges creates a sense of foreboding that hangs over the entire film almost as heavily as the violence at its center. Those murders are teased at through the whole film though are never clearly shown, not even at the climax,though the violence of them relentlessly infuses the whole picture and much blood is splattered across walls and crime scene photos. Once again Val Kilmer as Holmes shows he can act wacko better than anyone else working. Strutting, cringing, bragging or begging, Kilmer is constantly in character and the character is constantly a fascinating car wreck. Stand out performances beside Kilmer definitely include Ted Levine as the lead cop in the investigation and Lisa Kudrow as Holmes estranged wife. The trio of criminals Holmes falls in with include the frighteningly high energy Josh Lucas, the ever interesting Timothy Blake Nelson and an absolutely unrecognizable Dylan McDermott in a pivotal role as the teller yet another version of the murders. Cox suggests that no matter how much we learn about Wonderland, there is always a worse version possible, but looking through the debauchery surrounding it is much more fascinating than understanding the truth. | positive |
If you feel like wasting 86 minutes on a film that makes no sense, is badly written ,with a bad plot and bad acting then this little gem is for you. Recommended for those who are about to fall asleep. Major annoyance will be felt by the awake viewer. Do not pay to see this movie! | negative |
Poor Whoopi Goldberg. Imagine her at a friend's dinner party, and she adds a comment to the in-depth political discussion going on. People just look at her and say, "Oh what would YOU know, you were the star of 'Theodore Rex'". How could anyone take her seriously after she lowered herself to be the star of this appalling piece of crap? Even little kids would be cringing in horror at this Thing. It reminded me of a particularly bad episode of 'Sigmund And The Sea Monsters'. Actually, come to think of it, 'Sigmund' was vastly superior to this.<br /><br />And however did it get made? By plying the producer with an illegal substance before telling him about it? Watch this hideous abomination at your own peril. | negative |
Despite a great soundtrack and the presence of the ever amazing Rappaport and Woods, this is another one of those moronic comedies where New York throws itself at the hero in an effort by the writer and/or director to show what a zany place it is. Yeah there's some other stuff in the movie that sucks too, but that's what's important. The trend for New York independent filmmakers seems to be "I don't need to be talented, I have NEW YORK!" Okay, to be fair, the movie has its moments. The flashback bit about why the one guy is called Wacky Jack was pretty amusing. The script isn't a story or a plot, it's a bunch of not-good scenes tied to each other by featuring the same character.<br /><br />One of the worst things is that there's no motive behind what the characters do. Uncle Sam has the kid deliver the drugs, why? If its so important why didn't Sam do it himself? Then the lead character lies his ass off in scene after scene with absolutely nothing to gain from lying. The guy falls in love with a flight attendant with neither of them having any reason to fall in love. The characters are a bunch of pawns for the writer to move around to see if he can get anything zany to happen.<br /><br />If you're easily amused or like watching bad indie movies because they make you feel smarter than watching bad mainstream movies, watch this. If you want to see what a GOOD light hearted crime movie looks like, watch Takeshi Kitano's "Brother". "Kicked In The Head" is the perfect example of why so many people hate offbeat indie movies: A LOT OF THEM SUCK. And a note to the director: Don't be afraid to excite, amuse, enlighten or entertain the audience now and then. Being boring doesn't make you a better filmmaker than the ones who can interest me. | negative |
I was impressed with this film because of the quality of the acting and the powerful message in the script. Susan Sarandon plays the part of a flighty, irrational and possessive mother, who constantly gives her daughter the message that they must stick together. She removes her daughter from a dysfunctional but loving family in Indiana to pursue an exciting acting career in Hollywood. The daughter is dubious, but at first she has no choice--- the bond with mother is pathologically strong.<br /><br />In time the girl sees that the mother is off into flights of fantasy and does not have her feet on the ground. She sees her mother go head over heels for a handsome, seductive guy who loves 'em and leaves 'em. She sees that the mother doesn't get it. So how can she look to her mother for guidance?<br /><br />The mother directs the girl to a drama try-out and sees the daughter act out the part of the mother in such a way that a shockingly painful mirror is held up to the fly-by-night mother. This causes a period of depression and the girl is horrified at the impact on the mother and is apologetic, but the lesson takes hold.<br /><br />There is character-growth as the mother realizes her selfish claim on the daughter and eventually is persuaded to let the girl go. It is a touching scene and a valuable lesson, that parents, however emotionally dependent, have to let the child go and become her own separate person. | positive |
Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said. | negative |
The original "Assault on Precinct 13" is gritty, witty, and - perhaps most importantly - short. This remake is mercilessly padded out and talky. Worse yet, the African-American hero of the first movie is here replaced with handsome white boy Ethan Hawke, which makes this "Assault" less progressive than the 1970s one. God, how I miss John Carpenter and his improbable plot line and his weird sense of humor. I even miss his B-list actors, who are leagues better than Hawke and company.<br /><br />I can't say I care for the new villains in this version - they stretch what little credibility the story ever had to the limit. The female characters are useless, the criminals are all generic hoods, and Gabriel Byrne gives another of his bored performances. The music's all wrong, too - it's bland action stuff that actually detracts from the tension. Simply awful. | negative |
First off, let me start with a quote a friend of mine said while watching this movie: "This entire movie had to have been a dare. You know, like, 'DUDE, I BET YOU COULDN'T MAKE THE WORST MOVIE EVER'". With this movie, they've made a good effort at achieving that title. The effects are, of course, poor. The plot/dialogue is like a collage of of bits stolen from every B horror movie ever made. The actors, I'm assuming, are supposed to be in college. Yet parts of it (especially at the beginning) make it seem like they're supposed to be in high or middle school. It makes no sense. The Scarecrow going around killing people isn't the least bit enjoyable. (SPOILER: At the end, when they chant Lester's name and he reappears, the black guy and Scarecrow are both laughing, probably out of relief they were on their last scene, and at the cheesy dialogue.) | negative |
I was quite impressed with the narration by Martha and how it pulled on the emotional heartstrings of the audience as well as how it must have impacted the family. The forward-backward motion of the storyline was well-done, and normally I don't enjoy movies with the flash-back/flash-forward effects. I felt during the whole evolution of the movie that "surely Tommy did it". It leaves you with a sense of how these people lived their lives almost totally devoid of each other and the consequences of not having any desire to answer the question, "It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are?" And furthermore, "What the heck are they doing?"!! Or "Do I care?"!! Rich, spoiled brats literally getting away with murder. Or so they thought....... | positive |
This in-name-only sequel to the classic ROADHOUSE has a DEA agent (John Schaech) coming to the rescue of his uncle (Will Patton) when the uncle is badly beaten up by a local drug gang, headed by that Wooden Indian of an actor Jake Busey. The gang wants to take over the poor guy's bar for nefarious reasons. Patrick Swayze is sorely missed here. Schaech is an indifferent actor and not convincing as an ass-kicking lawman. The fights here are intermittent and not nearly as powerful or vicious as the fights in ROADHOUSE. The finale is equally weak. Some good-looking women keep things afloat for a bit. There is a terrific fight between a Daisy Duke-type who turns out to be handy with both fists and weapons, and a nasty-looking babe of Busey's who is handy with sharp implements. There's also a scantily dressed gal at the beginning who is a fellow agent of Schaech's, but unfortunately she never reappears in the film. Too bad. She does a brief lap dance for Schaech that had my full attention. If nothing else, ROADHOUSE 2 kicks off with a strip club scene that comes darned close to what a real strip club looks like, a rare circumstance in any movie. The rest is snooze time. | negative |
The main problem with 9th Company (9 Rota) is that it is not sure whether it wants to be Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket. The attempts at Spielberg sentimentalism are embarrassing, such as the burley sergeant crying in a field of red flowers!!! The training sequences have none of intensity or realism that Kubrick gave them in his masterpiece.<br /><br />A further bone of contention is that the Afghan fighters are called Ghosts because they strike and are hardly ever seen. Here they attack a Russian strong hold almost in formation with no attempt to use cover. I am sure tactics have move on since Waterloo.<br /><br />Every scene in this film has been seen before in other war movies and done considerably better. <br /><br />I have to ask: Why do all talented marksmen need to chew on a match?<br /><br />Finally, I am always suspicious of a film that starts with no narration yet needs to qualify the end.<br /><br />"We won!" ...errrr....... no you didn't. | negative |
The only reason The Duke Is Tops, one of several "race movies" made during the times of segregation, would be worth noting today is because it made the film debut of a 21-year-old singer named Lena Horne. She plays Ethel Andrews, a singer who has to leave her producer mentor Duke Davis (Ralph Cooper) in order to branch into the big time. Davis, however, has to fake having taken the money for her services in front of her so she won't feel sorry for having done so. He then teams up with Doc Dorando (Lawrence Criner) for a series of medicine shows throughout the south. Meanwhile, in New York, her new producers have bombed big time because they made her the whole show instead of simply the specialty act. Davis finds out from the radio and offers his services as producer and band leader to bring his lineup of other specialty acts, many of whom make their one of their few or only film appearances here, for his chance at the big time with Ethel next to him. Guess what happens? While the plot is the kind you've seen in thousands of other movie musicals during this time, the fact this was made for a certain audience makes this one of the more fascinating features I've seen during this Black History Month. Ms. Horne's singing is on good display here and it's interesting seeing her so young before her professionalism takes full hold later in her career. Among other supporting players there's an unconfirmed, according to IMDb, appearance by Lillian Randolph, Annie in my favorite movie It's a Wonderful Life and sister of Amanda Randolph who I just saw in the musical short The Black Network, as the woman with Sciatica who complains of not being cured after taking the Doc's medicine before Duke explains it's for the feet! And as a longtime Louisiana resident, I'd like to take note of two players from here in this movie: Joel Fluellen from Monroe as a tonic customer and Marie Bryant from New Orleans as the sexy dancer who appears near the musical climax. So for just Lena Horne alone, The Duke is Tops is worth seeing at least once. | positive |
Once again Bronson's talent is mostly wasted on this shock value 1984 thriller which (uncut) is far more disturbing than most of what is out even today. The fact that "The Evil That Men Do" is very disturbing (in its verbal and visual depictions of torture) is not the problem. It is the shameless gratuity in which it is presented. Interestingly, this film seems to symbolize that latter part of Bronson's career in which he has tortured many of his fans with the same egregiously predictable and uncreative plots. One hopes this fine actor will rise again. | negative |
Garlin did a great job. Nice concept well executed, and tightly produced. Came across as a very sincere story. As a fan of "Curb Your Enthusiasm", where Jeff was pretty much the straight guy role, I was delighted with how much depth he brought to this role in a simple yet effective portrayal.<br /><br />Much of the humor was understated and subtle and drew on poignancy, which I really liked, rather than being slapstick or over-explained. And there were some nice little surprises and twists. The convenience store vignettes were a delight.<br /><br />When I say it is a wonderful "small" film, I don't mean budget or quality. It is simple, intimate and hand-crafted. It tells a highly believable everyday story. Relax and go see it. Let it wash over you, and you will feel good for having done so. | positive |
Wow, not only is this film a "new lesson in real bad taste," but also a lesson in "real bad film making." Don't get me wrong, I appreciated the concept of 'Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence,' but at the same time one must realize when a movie is terrible. In case you missed out on the storyline, the plot of 'Zombie '90' is about a government plane carrying toxic chemicals that so happens to crash into the wilderness, causing the chemicals to spill, turning locals into hideous looking zombies. The next thing you know, zombies are all over the city eating people alive, while a goofy-looking doctor and a government agent are trying to figure out the disease that's making these people eat one another - hence the name "Extreme Pestilence." From then on, all we see is zombies having a field day on every local in sight - nothing but extreme and sickening disembowelments and dismemberments accompanied by endless buckets of guts and gore. Since this is a German film, the film had to be dubbed into English and when you're not laughing at the feeding frenzies of the zombies, the voice-overs are quite hilarious and entertaining as well. As user UnratedX mentioned *SPOILER* *SPOILER* *SPOILER*, there is a scene in the film that crosses the line between what's acceptable and not acceptable, hence the scene in which a woman, who is carrying her infant baby, is being wheeled around in her wheelchair by some dude and a horde of zombies come out of nowhere and attack them. One zombie grabs the baby and rips it into pieces, eating its organs as you hear the baby crying. Wow, that is a new lesson in REALLLLLLLLLY bad taste. Atrocious I tell you, atrocious. | negative |
A great ensemble cast! A fond remembrance of younger carefree days. This movie takes me back to when I went to summer camp. Indian Summer, while full of practical jokes and pranks, is about growing up and coming to terms with life with middle-age life. My family & I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. | positive |
Illudere (to delude) comes from Latin verb 'ludere' (to play), so you're warned about the 'spy game' as a cruel and yet elaborate and intelligent (!) activity stemmin' from a complex and as it may appear absurd and vain personal history, whatever it may be; and yet I feel fascinated by the mechanism of treason and loyalty, the raw material of any relationship, from the personal to the social; after, many years ago, I was ABLE to finish the book it was a revelation! At the beginning I was so bored if not for the surprising style of the writing (I really started to LOVE Le Carre after that novel). The main character is not wavering at all: he has made a choice to redeem his weakness by following the path of faith to friendship and love, or is he not? After this novel you can clearly understand the darker version of Green's 'Our Man in Havana' wrote by LeCarre with 'The Tailor of Panama'; there is no game left, there it ends either in tragedy or in a grotesque comical way, or both. There is no Smiley here to upheld decent human qualities in 'the service', or at least there is no point to introduce him in this case. The BBC has done a superb work with these series from LeCarre's novels: the actors are excellent, as are the locations and sets; of course the script here is brilliantly adapted. Be warned though, even if someone may find it laughable, the after taste IS bitter. | positive |
A glacier slide inside a cavernous ice mountain sends its three characters whoosh down a never-ending wet-slide tube that has enough kick to dazzle kids the same way mature audience may be dazzled by the star gate sequence that closes 2001: A Space Odyssey. Miles apart in vision, but it is a scene of great rush and excitement nonetheless. A magnificent opening sequence also takes place where a furry squirrel-like critter attempts to hide his precious acorn. You've probably seen this scene in the trailer, but as it takes place he starts a domino effect when the mountain starts cracking and, results, an avalanche. The horror just keeps going as the critter tries to outrun the impossible. <br /><br />The movie traces two characters, a mammoth named Manfred (Ray Romano) and a buck-toothed sloth (John Leguizamo) as they try to migrate south. They find a human baby they adopt and then decide to track the parent figures down to return to them. They are joined by a saber tiger named Diego (Denis Leary) whose predatory intentions is to bring the baby to his tiger clan, by leading the mammoth and the sloth into a trap. Diego's meat-eating family wants the mammoth most of all, but Diego's learned values of friendship make easy what choice to ultimately make at the end. <br /><br />There are fatalistic natural dangers of the world along the trip, including an erupted volcano and a glacier bridge that threatens to melt momentarily that is reminiscent of the castle escape in Shrek. Characters contemplate on why they're in the Ice Age, while they could have called it The Big Chill or the Nippy Era. Some characters wish for a forthcoming global warming. Another great line about the mating issues between girlfriends: `All the great guys are never around. The sensitive ones get eaten.' Throwaway lines galore, whimsical comedy and light-fingered adventure makes this one pretty easy to watch. Also, food is so scarce for the nice vegetarians that they consider dandelions and pine cones as `good eating.' <br /><br />The vocal talents of Romano, Leguizamo and Leary make good on their personas, while the children will delight in their antics, the adults will fancy their riffs on their own talents. There is some mild violence and intense content, but kids will be jazzed by the excitement and will get one of their early introductions of the age-old battle of good versus evil, and family tradition and friendship are strong thematic ties. The animators also make majestic use of background landscapes that are coolly fantastic.<br /><br /> | positive |
One of the oddest, most strikingly eerie and creepy horror films to come out of the 70's, "Tourist Trap" even by the loose, free-wheeling, convention-defying "anything goes" standards of its time rates as a real weirdie. Yet, it's the picture's very strangeness -- a masterfully mounted uncanny atmosphere of pervasively off-kilter supernatural dread which from the get-go registers as powerfully spooky and becomes more increasingly opaque and frightening as the film progresses, offering up ample shocks amid a few scattered moments of surreally lovely dream-like elegance and ending on a bitterly ironic, crushingly nihilistic note with a haunting final image that's hard to shake -- which makes it such a unique and singularly unnerving experience.<br /><br />Five teenagers traveling through the desolate California desert by car get hopelessly lost. They stumble across "Slausen's Lost Oasis," a seedy, rundown roadside dive that's one part gas station, three parts crummy wax museum, and all parts ratty and foreboding. The joint's lonely, seemingly friendless and harmless owner Slausen (juicily overplayed with infectiously hammy brio by Chuck Conners) turns out to be a deranged psychic killer with lethal telekinetic powers. Slausen brings his freaky assortment of uncomfortably human-like mannequins to life and picks off the kids one by one so he can add them to his ever-growing collection of victims.<br /><br />Director David ("Puppermaster," "The Arrival") Schmoeller adeptly wrings every last ounce of tension he can squeeze from the pleasingly ambiguous and open-ended script he co-wrote with J. Larry Carroll. (Said script's stubborn refusal to provide some rational excuse for all the bizarre stuff which transpires throughout the movie, often wrongly criticized as one of the film's principal weaknesses, is actually the movie's key strength, giving the picture the scary, anything-and-everything-can-happen, common-logic-be-damned quality of a true nightmare come horrifically to life which never would have been achieved if there was some kind of credible explanation offered for what's happening.) Pino Donaggio's beautifully chilling, understated score, Nicholas von Sternberg's shadowy cinematography, and Robert A. Burns' grubby, cramped production design add immensely to the film's profoundly unsettling mood. Excellent performances are another significant plus, with the pretty, perky Jocelyn Jones (Ellie-Jo Turner in "The Great Texas Dynamite Chase") particularly fine and personable as the most resilient and sympathetic of the endangered teens. Even Tanya Roberts fares well as a luckless lass who has a knife levitated into her head. Offbeat and unusual, "Tourist Trap" is well worth visiting. | positive |
Arthur Hunnicutt plays a very stereotypical role as a mountain man (probably the Ozarks) who goes hunting with his favorite coon dog. However, the dog appears to be drowning when Hunnicutt jumps in after him. It becomes obvious pretty soon that despite Hunnicutt and his dog roaming about after leaving the water that they both died in the water--as no one responds when he talks to them and sees and hears people talking about his and the dog's death. Yet, oddly, Hunnicutt is REALLY slow on the uptake and it takes him a while to understand they are talking about him! I think this was actually done as padding, as there really wasn't enough material to fill the half hour time slot.<br /><br />Later, in the "surprise twist", he comes upon Heaven--or at least his concept of the place. He's invited in, but since they won't allow dogs, he has other ideas! Overall, reasonably well acted but of dubious spiritual value! With no twists or irony, this episode is a bit dull--not "Twilight Zone-y" enough for my tastes. | negative |
Watch it with an open mind, it is very different, nothing's cutesy about this. Very well done realistic tale of Tarzan. The animatronics chimpazees are well done for '84, Christopher Lambert was brilliant imitating chimpazee language and behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if he took lessons from Jane Goodall. | positive |
I had the privilege of being one of the Still photographers on the set of "Grand Champion" and enjoyed every minute of the 42 days I worked on the movie. I have been in the Photography business for 25 years and have worked on 16 movies and I can't think of a time when I enjoyed providing my craft more. The Kids were wonderful to work with and little Emma Roberts has so much energy she's a real trip. She even grabbed one of my camera during the stockshow scene rehearsal and started shooting. Some of her images were used for PR. I could have made more money working for a production with a bigger budget but I doubt I would have had the fun and been around so many great actors and the great people of West Texas as I was. | positive |
Despite a tight narrative, Johnnie To's Election feels at times like it was once a longer picture, with many characters and plot strands abandoned or ultimately unresolved. Some of these are dealt with in the truly excellent and far superior sequel, Election 2: Harmony is a Virtue, but it's still a dependably enthralling thriller about a contested Triad election that bypasses the usual shootouts and explosions (though not the violence) in favour of constantly shifting alliances that can turn in the time it takes to make a phone call. It's also a film where the most ruthless character isn't always the most threatening one, as the chilling ending makes only too clear: one can imagine a lifetime of psychological counselling being necessary for all the trauma that one inflicts on one unfortunate bystander.<br /><br />Simon Yam, all too often a variable actor but always at his best under To's direction, has possibly never been better in the lead, not least because Tony Leung's much more extrovert performance makes his stillness more the powerful. | positive |
Meatballs is a classic comedy with so many laughs that it's impossible to count.<br /><br />In what was merely a precursor of what was to come, Murray rules the screen in what can only be described as comic mastery. Tripper Harrison is one of the greatest comedy characters in the past 50 years. Sarcastic all the time, smart when he has to be, stern when he needs to be, and caring when it suits him, Murray infuses Tripper with that SNL glint in the eye.<br /><br />The C.I.T's are merely in awe as they cower beneath the comic genius that is Mr. Murray.<br /><br />Summer isn't summer without a viewing of Meatballs. One of the best comedies to ever grace the screen. | positive |
It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good "B" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you. | negative |
Much has been made of Rohmer's use of digital technology to 'fill in' the background. At times it works well, the scene where Grace and her maid witness from afar the King's execution is particularly striking. At other times it gives the film a strangely amateurish look, resembling a home video. However, the major failing is that the sheer artificiality of the mise en scene creates an alienating effect in the viewer. We know that what we are watching is not real so how can we feel for the characters? To be frank, I did not care at all what happened to the Lady or the Duke.<br /><br />The other major failing, I regret to say, is the performance of Lucy Russell in the leading role. She is in virtually every scene and the success or otherwise of the film rests on her performance. OK she is speaking a foreign language but she is incapable of expressing real emotion. Her emoting in the scene where she recounts to her friend Mme de Meyler (an excellent performance by the debutante Helena Dubiel) seeing the head on a pole caused some embarrassed laughter in the audience. Also, watch her hands when she is expressing emotion!<br /><br />All in all a very disappointing film, particularly given the positive reviews on this site. | negative |
The old man mouse in this cartoon would have you believe that all men are created equally EVIL............so if we have to kill men in order to stop Hitler..........we are just as bad as Hitler was killing the Jews........ Well.....I don't buy it Mr. Mouse............but I guess it paints a pretty picture and makes a cute cartoon.......but it wasn't the reality then and it ain't reality now. | negative |
The pace of this movie is quite slow. It takes about 70 minutes to get Katie to China (which we know that she will) and leaves 30 minutes to wrap things up. The storyline is so predictable that you know everything after about 5 minutes. Nothing surprises you. I guess that the movie is a coming of age movie but the movie is full of stereotypes that are quite over the top:<br /><br />Katie - A beauty that realizes that looks, boys and shopping isn't everything. She realizes that she can "feel" and "see the real world". Touching.<br /><br />The mother - high strung, nervous, screaming mother (wow very innovative) that need taking care of by a strong man.<br /><br />The father - patient and always understanding and takes care of the incapable woman.<br /><br />The boyfriend that only wants to get into her pants.<br /><br />The comedian clown Chinese guy that doesn't know how to speak English properly and made a laughing stock. Thought Hollywood dropped those characters in the mid fifties.<br /><br />The nurse that at times knows everything how to get around in China that in the next moment is a carbon copy of The mother i.e. a woman who cant handle the situation or knows anything.<br /><br />The deformed Chinese girl that with the help of us westerns get help and become a beautiful girl. Because in China (a third world country according to the film) don't have anything and hence needs our charity. Gah, wake up and smell what you are shoveling.<br /><br />Sure that there are some poverty in China but the portrayal of the aid from western countries (read USA) is so shallow and happy ending-ish that it is sad and revolting. Shanghai (where the movie is set) is the most expanding and evolving city in the world at the moment.<br /><br />The Chinese father that is so nice and goodhearted that in the end has one wish ... to be a cowboy with a white hat ...<br /><br />The teacher (Sean Astin) that has this really heart ripping story (not) that he tells without feel. Why Sean? WHY!?<br /><br />Etc etc. It is difficult to actually finding a "real" person in the entire movie.<br /><br />This is nothing but a feel good movie for Americans below age 15. If you want to learn anything about the world watch e.g. Hotel Rwanda instead. For a better life story or coming of age movie I suggest you watch the Italian "Cinema Paradiso" that won the best foreign film academy reward some years back.<br /><br />The only nice thing in the movie were the small town sceneries that truly capture some (not all) of the beautiful Chinese country side. I have been there and seen some of it. | negative |
The funny sound that you may hear when you eyeball this execrable version of Jules Verne's classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is Verne spinning in his grave. The only thing about this 80 minute opus that has anything to do with "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is the title. Otherwise, everything else in this lackluster production is new and not worth watching. In fact, the director has written here at IMDb.COM that he directed only eight minutes of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and the studio tacked on part of "Dollman" helmer Albert Pyun's sequel to his own "Alien from L.A." with Kathy Ireland. Evidently, the producers ran out of money and to satisfy overseas contractual obligations, they grafted Pyun's sequel onto director Rusty Lemorande's movie. Please, don't rent or buy this wretched piece of garbage.<br /><br />Unlike director Henry Levin's period piece "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (1959) with James Mason and Pat Boone, Lemorande's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" takes place in contemporary times in Hawaii. Two fellows, a British nanny, and a dog are brought together for the adventure of a lifetime purely by coincidence. Richard (Paul Carafotes of "Blind Date") and his comic book obsessed brother Bryan (Ilan Mitchell-Smith of "Weird Science") are going out to explore a cave. The heroine, Crystina (Nicola Cowper of "Underworld"), works for a domestic service called 'Nannies R Us.' Being a nanny has been Crystina's life-long dream, but she has made a less of all five of her nanny jobs. Nevertheless, her sympathetic supervisor, Ms. Ferry (Lynda Marshall of "Africa Express"), sends her to Hawaii. Crystina's new client, rock star Billy Foul (Jeremy Crutchley of "Doomsday") who is scheduling one last concert to revive his flagging career, has a dog named Bernard. Foul wants Crystina to take Bernard to a doggie day spa. Crystina is waiting on the arrival of her taxi when a careless motel attendant accidentally puts the basket that conceals Bernard in Richard's jeep. You see, Foul has hidden his canine in a basket because motel management strictly prohibits pets on their premises. Foul has disguised the dog as a human baby. Anyway, Crystina catches a cab and tells the driver follow Richard.<br /><br />After she catches up with them to get her dog, the cabbie cruises away and abandons her. Crystina demands that Richard drive her back to town, but he has other plans. Unhappily, Crystina joins the guys and they get lost, and then find themselves in the lost city of Atlantis, a police state ruled by a dictator, at the center of the Earth. The rulers of Atlantis repeatedly notify their citizens that life on the surface does not exist. Our heroes and heroine stumble onto Atlantis quite by accident. Atlantis resembles a disco and everybody looks like they are straight out of a punk rock opera. The ruler of Atlantis, General Rykov (Janet Du Plessis of "Operation Hit Squad"), is orchestrating a raid on the surface with clones of the first human, Wanda Saknussemm (Kathy Ireland of "Necessary Roughness"), to visit Atlantis. Predictably, General Rykov machinations to rule Atlantis and overthrow the Earth fails, and our heroes and heroine save the day.<br /><br />"Journey to the Center of the Earth" is an abomination. The movie seems to be a comedy despite its superficial satire about dictatorships. Albert Pyun is one of my favorite low budget action directors, but he blew it on this lightweight shambles of a science fiction saga. | negative |
As noted by other reviewers this is one of the best Tarzan movies. Unlike others however, I like the beginning of the film as it feels like a pretty accurate depiction of what a trading post must have been like. Plus the exposition is needed so we know why Harry wants to go back into the jungle. In addition the beginning of the film contains one of the most thrilling and terrifying chase sequences ever made.This occurs when Harry's safari group has to outrun a tribe of cannibals. The pre-censorship production values add a lot of realism, genuinely depicting the terrible dangers that awaited Europeans going into the jungle. The film also offers, though perhaps antecedently, an accurate account of how horribly treated the native Africans were by their white employers. In addition sexy Jane, thousands of elephants , some great sets and two chetas! Not to be missed an adventure classic. | positive |
*** Contains Spoilers ***<br /><br />I did not like this movie at all.<br /><br />I found it amazingly boring and rather superficially made, irrespective of the importance and depth of the proposed themes: given that eventually we have to die, how should we approach life? In a "light" way, like Tomas; in a "heavy" way like Tereza; or should we find ways not to face that question, like Sabina? How much is fidelity important in a relationship? How much of the professional life can be mutilated for the sake of our loved ones? How much do we have to be involved in the political life and the social issues of our Country?<br /><br />Unfortunately, I haven't read Kundera's novel but after having being let down by the movie I certainly will: I want to understand if the story was ruined by the movie adaptation (which is my guess) or if it was dull from the beginning.<br /><br />I disagree with most of the positive comments that defined the movie as a masterpiece. I simply don't see the reasons why. What I see are many flaws, and a sample of them follows.<br /><br />1) The three main characters are thrown at you and it's very hard to understand what drives them when making their choices.<br /><br />2) The "secondary" characters are there just to fill the gaps but they don't add nothing to the story and you wonder if they are really necessary.<br /><br />3) I did not like how Tomas was impersonated. Nothing is good for him. He is so self-centered and selfish. He is not human, in some sense. But when his self-confidence fails and he realizes that he depends on others and is emotionally linked to someone, I did not find the interpretation credible.<br /><br />4) It's very unlikely that an artist like Sabina could afford her lifestyle in a communist country in 1968. On top of that, the three main characters are all very successful in their respective professions, which sounds strange to me. a) how can Tereza become effortlessly such a good photographer? b) how can they do so well in a country lacking all the economic incentives that usually motivate people to succeed?<br /><br />5) The fake accents of the English spoken by the actors are laughable. And I am not even mother tongue. Moreover, the letter that Sabina receives while in the US is written in Czech, which I found very inconsistent.<br /><br />6) Many comments praised the movie saying that Prague was beautifully rendered: I guess that most of the movie was shot on location, so it's not difficult to give the movie a Eastern European feeling, and given the intrinsic beauty of Prague is not even difficult to make it look good.<br /><br />7) I found the ending sort of trivial. Tereza and Tomas, finally happy in the countryside, far away from the temptations of the "metropoly", distant from the social struggles their fellow citizens are living, detached from their professional lives, die in a car accident. But they die after having realized that they are happy, indeed. So what? Had they died unhappy, would the message of the movie have been different? I don't think so. I considered it sort of a cheap trick to please the audience.<br /><br />8) The only thing in the movie which is unbearably light is the way the director has portrayed the characters. You see them for almost three hours, but in the end you are left with nothing. You don't feel empathy, you don't relate to them, you are left there in your couch watching a sequence of events and scenes that have very little to say.<br /><br />9) I hated the "stop the music in the restaurant" scene (which some comments praised a lot). Why Sabina has got such a strong reaction? Why Franz agrees with her? I really don't see the point. The only thing you learn is that Sabina has got a very bad temper and quite a strong personality. That's it. What's so special and unique about it?<br /><br />After all these negative comments, let me point tout that there are two scenes that I liked a lot (that's why I gave it a two).<br /><br />The "Naked women Photoshoot", where the envy, the jealousy, and the insecurities of Sabina and Tereza are beautifully presented.<br /><br />The other scene is the one representing the investigations after the occupation of Prague by the Russians. Tereza pictures, taken to let the world know about what is going on in Prague, are used to identify the people taking part to the riots. I found it quite original and Tereza's sense of despair and guilt are nicely portrayed.<br /><br />Finally, there is a tiny possibility that the movie was intentionally "designed" in such a way that "Tomas types" are going to like it and "Tereza ones" are going to hate it. If this is the case (I strongly doubt it, though) then my comment should be revised drastically. | negative |
It is unusual to see a film where the performance of a single actor is so good that one can feel that the film would be of little interest, if any, without his presence.<br /><br />Despite a not outstanding direction - in fact, there are many scenes that seem to have been shooted too quickly and carelessly -, a seemingly low budget, a strange plot about a man who wants to take the place of a defrocked priest and another week points, the presence of Pierre Fresnay is so impressive that one gets shocked from the very begining to the terrible end.<br /><br />I have never seen nor can iomagine for future a better performance, even Paul Scofield acting in "A man for all seasons".<br /><br />Actually the end could be considered even ridiculous if Fresnay were not playing the transtorned priest who returns to Church by performing a crime.<br /><br />"Je suis Maurice Morand, prètre catholique" ("I am Maurice Morand, a catholic priest")is said with such a brilliancy that one may forget the madness that conducted to that end.<br /><br />The other impressive thing this film has is a single scene in wich Morand - who despite being a defrocked one is stil a priest - consacrates in a cabaret a huge amount of vine turning it into Christ´s blood.<br /><br />Gérard - the man that wants to return Morand to the Church or replace him by himself - has to drink it if he doesn´t want to leave it in the cabaret. He does so in mid of cheers and applauses from people who think that he is simply drinking three of four litters of vine.<br /><br />In next scene, the dialoque between Morand and a garbage collector is also remarkable. "Do you carry away men too?" asks Morand, who hates himself for what he has just done. "That would be too much work" is the smart answer.<br /><br />The rest of the film is not worth commenting but it is certainly worth seeing due to the very strong and strangely emotive atmosphere created all the time.<br /><br />I think that "Le défroqué" is a very strange film, but has to be seen by all viewers - if the are good catholiques it is mandatory - because it is a very rare jewell in film history.<br /><br /> | positive |
This overheated southern Gothic "mellerdramer" has a few decent moments --but is too often spoiled by a novice director piling cliché upon cliché, and a star who apparently decided to take it upon himself to turn the picture into his personal showcase, rather than allowing writer/director Gabel to update Inge or Williams as a sort of contemporary "Midnight Cowboy" meets "Lolita" tearjerker.<br /><br />Close your eyes, listen to the exaggerated southern accents, and try to decide if you're witnessing a feature film, or an acting class -- full of eager amateurs. <br /><br />Johansson is for once tolerable (i.e. less pouty than usual) -- though by no means good, Macht is decent, though a little too pretty-boy cute to be believed, and Travolta chews the scenery as never before (with the help of a decent editor and some directorial restraint, his performance might have been really touching; as it is, he -- and almost everyone else -- is too unlikable to ever move us past the point of boredom or revulsion). Kara Unger is perhaps best of all; had her role been developed beyond a few lines, she might have even found herself with a Best Supporting Actress nomination. <br /><br />Pic is almost saved by Leonard Cohen-style growling theme song, decent production design and locations, and continual reference to literary works (which has earned the otherwise standard screenplay reviews such as "poetic.") Also helpful are a few old pros in the cast like Sonny Shroyer, and perhaps most importantly, Soderbergh cameraman Elliot Davis -- whose fine work will no doubt be credited to the first-time director, who, ten or twenty years from now, may actually learn how to direct.<br /><br />But probably not. | negative |
I'm a sucker for a decent superhero movie. (I'm not counting super bug budget, no storyline Batman's either)<br /><br />A couple of my favorites are The Phantom and a budget movie called The Demolitionist. The Black Scorpion can be added to that collection.<br /><br />If you've seen the Demolitionist then get this movie. It's basically a copy of that heroine. (It even stars the same guy in both movies)<br /><br />If you haven't, then let me explain...a cop's father is murdered and she seeks vengeance. She laces up the black outfit (a sexy catwomanish, skimpy outfit that looks absolutely great on Joan Severance) and goes out to kick some booty.<br /><br />It's a fun, action packed movie, mind you, you may not wish the kids to see it...without screening it first to see if you approve of the pretty graphic sex scene Severance has in it. Which in my opinion, was a bonus (alright, give it an extra star <grin>) | positive |
This film is very interesting. I have seen it twice and it seems Glover hit the nail on the head with what he claims to he wants to accomplish. I for one can relate to the outrage that the filmmaker clearly expresses against the current thoughtless corporate drivel that is an onslaught in our every media center, and the things that we as a culture are supposed to not "think" about due to corporate media control. The outrage that Glover expresses through the "outrageous" elements in the films is both clear in its visceral aggressiveness and beautiful in its poetic potency. I am glad I saw this film and it is even clearer that Glover is up to something interesting with part two of what will be a trilogy. It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. See that also. People that dismiss this film as "thoughtless" or "pretentious" are really missing the boat. This is an intelligent films. If you can see it with his live show he performs before with his books, that is also very wroth while. The way you get in to his mindset is really something. You will have an experience! | positive |
I watched this movie after having so much of trouble in downloading it through rapidshare. And I have to say, it did not deserve it.<br /><br />Parinda was so hyped, that I was really looking forward to watch it.<br /><br />Parinda is one of those movies which fail to satisfy the standards set by other good Indian film-makers, despite having a great story. It was even more pathetic to know, that the story itself was not original, it was loosely based on the classic "On the Waterfront".<br /><br />Anil Kapoor was irritating, especially when he comes from America. The direction lacked quality many a times, except a few in-between scenes.<br /><br />Give this script to any of them - Ram Gopal Verma, Deepa Mehta, Mahesh Bhatt, Sudhir Mishra, and I'm 100% sure, they'll make a mind-blowing movie out of it.<br /><br />I'm not saying Parinda was bad. It was just not good enough. | negative |
I didn't even know this was originally a made-for-tv movie when I saw it, but I guessed it through the running time. It has the same washed-out colors, bland characters, and horrible synthesized music that I remember from the 80's, plus a 'social platform' that practically screams "Afterschool special". Anyhoo.<br /><br />Rona Jaffe's (thank you) Mazes and Monsters was made in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, a pen-and-paper RPG that took the hearts of millions of geeks around America. I count myself one of said geeks, tho I have never played D&D specifically I have dabbled in one of its brethren. M&M was also made in the heyday of D&D's major controversy-that it was so engrossing that people could lose touch with reality, be worshiping Satan without knowing, blah blah. I suppose it was a legitimate concern at one point, if extremely rare-but it dates this movie horrendously.<br /><br />We meet 4 young college students, who play the aptly named Mazes and Monsters, to socialize and have a little time away from mundane life. Except that M&M as presented is more boring than their mundane lives. None of the allure of gaming is presented here-and Jay Jay's request to take M&M into 'the real world' comes out of nowhere. It's just an excuse to make one of the characters go crazy out of nowhere also-though at that point we don't really care. Jay Jay, Robbie, Kate and Daniel are supposed to be different-but they're all rich WASPy prigs who have problems no one really has.<br /><br />But things just continue, getting worse in more ways than one. The low budget comes dreadfully clear, (I love the 'Entrance' sign and cardboard cutout to the forbidden caverns) Robbie/Pardu shows why he's not a warrior in the oafiest stabbing scene ever, and the payoff atop the 'Two Towers' is unintentionally hilarious. Tom Hanks' blubbering "Jay Jay, what am I doing here?" made me laugh for minutes on end. Definitely the low point in his career.<br /><br />Don't look at it as a cogent satire, just a laughable piece of 80's TV trash, and you'll still have a good time. That is, if you can stay awake. The majority is mostly boring, but it's all worthwhile for Pardu's breakdown at the end. At least Tom Hanks has gotten better. Not that he could go much worse from here. | negative |
This is, without doubt, one of my favourite horror films ever! I really cannot believe that it didn't gain much more popularity when it was released, especially when the main contenders at the time were the usual Wes Craven sequels and copycat horrors, Mute Witness has all the style, suspense and quickfire plot twists of a Hitchcock/DePalma movie, coupled with some very sharp black comedy and a great plot. It never promises to be any more than a good popcorn-and-hot-dog movie, but it is difficult not to just enjoy the film for what it is.<br /><br />The plot centres on Billie Hughes - a mute girl working on the set of a horror film being made in a Russian factory. By a series of events, she finds herself accidentally locked in, and stumbles on the filming of a snuff movie.<br /><br />One of the best things about the film is the lack of screaming that seems to invade every horror film ever made. As the main character is mute, she cannot make a noise - something which is a blessing at some stages of the movie, and a curse in others.<br /><br />The director seems to have studied his Hitchcock very well, Even the opening scene is a tongue-in-cheek nod to both Hitchcock's "Psycho" as well as fairly generic slasher movie scenes.<br /><br />While the acting can be hammy at times, the whole film does hold it together, not only throwing in a couple of excellent scenes that put you right on the edge of your seat, but a few neat little questions about how the film is going to end.<br /><br />All in all, a hugely overlooked, well-paced and action packed psycho-thriller which I would recommend for any jaded viewer looking for something a little different from the usual Freddy/Jason/Scream/Michael Myers/Damien regurgitation's at hallowe'en. | positive |
Kar Wai Wong's incredibly impressive romance that is to me, perfect. Set in 1960's Hong Kong. As we are shown, this is set in a turbulent time. Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung play Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan. A man and a woman who meet each other in a Hong Kong apartment, in which they both move in. Chow Mo-wan works for a newspaper company. Su Li-zhen Chan is a secretary. Two very different people. Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan create a special bond after they both find out their spouses, constantly away are committing extra-marital trysts. With each other.<br /><br />The characters of Chow Mo-wan and Su Li-zhen Chan are nothing short of amazing. Both Leung and Cheung manage to strike such amazing chemistry with one another, it's better than any Hollywood romance that is put out today. Combined. The film is all about the focus of the two leads and their feelings after the infidelities of their partners. Kar Wai Wong manages to create such strong character development between these two characters, you really start to feel for them. Leung and Cheung are both wildly amazing, are better than any Hollywood pairing shown on the screen today. Combined.<br /><br />There's nothing much else to describe Fa yeung nin wa other than beautiful, energetic romance that also features a moody, atmospheric piece with gorgeous cinematography. So much elements of this movie help create it to be flawless. As well as Kar Wai Wong and the acting, the cinematography from both Christopher Doyle and Pin Bing Lee is haunting. Beautifully understated. The shots from Kar Wai Wong help makes your mind create a world of it's own. A world that creates these characters. Original, melancholic and nostalgic. This film is incredibly unforgettable.<br /><br />The costumes created by Kar Wai Wong regular William Chang are absolutely beautiful. Cheung, who wears an elegant, ankle-deep, beautifully patterned dress in every scene. She's a scene-stealer. Her costumes say a lot about her character and an emotion is fitted in all of her dresses colours which are vividly and smartly used. Highly original. Chang, also the production designer creates a brilliant setting for the movies moody piece. Especially with the help of the marvellous music used in scenes and masterful film editing, again by Chang. William Chang seems to be incredibly versatile and is an unsung hero for this movie.<br /><br />Overall, this movie is one of the best from this millennium. Incredibly compelling and filled with nostalgia. The shots are mesmerising and haunting. Kar Wai Wong somewhat proves to be a master at the top of his game. The acting; music; cinematography; editing; production; costume and direction all help create ONE small, little perfect film. A masterpiece in romance film-making. Visually spectacular. Overall, a masterpiece to film-making. A film that reminds me of old classic Hollywood, was the one that never was. Never forget Fa yeung nin wa. I know I won't. | positive |
Chuck Jones's 'Hare Conditioned' is a fast paced, often hilarious cartoon. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a strange, yellow-skinned apartment store manager who wants to have him stuffed, 'Hare Conditioned' takes full advantage of its multi-purpose setting. The chase takes Bugs and his pursuer through a variety of departments, leading to an inspired gag in which they quickly emerge from various departments wearing whatever clothes are associated with that part of the store. This great gag is trumped, however, by a truly inspired sequence involving elevators in which Bugs, disguised as an elevator boy, tricks the store manager into relentlessly getting on or off elevators at the wrong time. It's a brilliant climactic set piece which unfortunately gives way to a not very funny final gag. By that time, however, 'Hare Conditioned' has made its mark as one of the great chase films, bursting with wild energy. As Bugs was becoming more refined in some of the other cartoons from this period, 'Hare Conditioned' showed that he could still be just as appealing as a more anarchic character. | positive |
First week of May, every year brings back the memories of the holocaust, through movies on televisions. Among many movies they showed, this was the one I had not seen.<br /><br />The story is about Hilter's life and how he came to power. It starts with his childhood and ends with his holding the top most position of power in Germany.<br /><br />The movie was earlier presented as a TV series and later converted into a movie format. Scottish actor Robert Carlyle plays Adolf Hitler with great guts, conviction and flare to give a real portrayal of this man.<br /><br />It is a good screenplay and narrative, that educates the audiences on the main events that lead Hitler into power, and also tries to show the probable psychological make up of Hitler. The movie is a biased viewpoint of the director Christian Duguay who shows Hitler as a one-track, menacing, angry, and shouting person who had such a strong hold on the Germans and people around him. Hitler is not shown as someone having charishma and attraction, and there the movie fails to convince Hitler's portrayal.<br /><br />Even though the venture was for TV, all the ingredients of production are first class and at par with any main stream movie. The production value, sets, costumes, etc. were perfect.<br /><br />There is a lot of criticism of this movie, in the authenticity about the historic events that is presented. But still the movie is gripping, every engaging and entertaining. Robert Carlyle overpowers and dominates the screen as no one else does. He is amazingly good brilliant! I would have liked a more balanced view of Hitler's life, because I think, Hitler was able to bring out the dormant feelings of million of Germans and it is not only him who should be blamed for the holocaust. As I have told several times, that very sadly - our society loves to garland or prosecute one person, as a representative of the society's good or evil respectively. | positive |
...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre. | negative |
I saw this in the market place at the Cannes Film Festival. <br /><br />It's a real cheapo prod - nothing wrong with that but you have to make up for it with a bit of sex or gore or both. <br /><br />Think Larry Cohen. <br /><br />Sean Young is an interesting actor - well done to the producers for hooking her I guess.<br /><br />The opening scene in the space-ship coming down is hilarious - you could picture all the crew hands shaking it around! <br /><br />Ha ha - but I wish the people who made this well - at least it's not pretentious. | negative |
... And being let down bigger than ever before. I won't make any direct references or anything here, but to say the least, this film is pathetic. If you're military trained, don't bother watching. I put it on the DVD with 2 friends wanting to watch a somewhat interesting action / war flick. Why couldn't I just have read the reviews first.<br /><br />Already at the first "bomb" scene the film has huge glitches, and they continue to show and become bigger and bigger. My 2 friends, not connected to the military in any way spotted a couple of the filmmaker's mistakes almost as fast as I myself did and asked me if some of the things going on we're realistic. Well, as you might have guessed, they're not - at all.<br /><br />Avoid this movie unless you're able to overlook these completely idiotic and re-occurring mistakes being made. 2/10 for catching my interest at first. | negative |
I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation! This film tells a story that to my knowledge has never been told before--namely about the Rosenstrasse (a street in Berlin)uprising of German gentile women who were married to Jews at the end of the Second World War. As such, it is a unique story, and what's more, is the only film about the Holocaust that I have ever seen that shows that there were GOOD Germans (the helping family in "Anne Frank" for instance was Dutch) who did NOT support the Nazis, and, in fact, had the fortitude to stand up against their own country's immorality and brutality during the Nazi regime, at the risk of their very lives. The acting is great across the board, the framing story in New York interesting and intricate, the direction from Von Trotta masterful in every scene, and the production values, including the gorgeous cinematography, outstanding. Of course the family in New York could be speaking German. Many immigrants in this country choose to speak in their native tongue with their family--a common occurrence. So that criticism is unwarranted. To say more would spoil the experience. The film is long, but I did not look at my watch once. I am hoping this film gets some distribution is North America, for not only is this film a masterpiece, but it can actually help heal any animosity people have towards the Germans because of their support of Hitler. If this film is playing in your area, I URGE YOU TO SEE IT! You will be glad you did! | positive |
I'll start off right at the beginning by saying "I like this movie." It's sweeping, it's grand, it's gripping and it's fun. Sinhue the physician,sits in front of his small stone hut writing his memoirs. And what a story it is! Taken from a river and reared by an elderly couple who doted on him, he becomes a physician to the poor. He befriends Horemheb who sees glory while Sinhue sees healing. And both run into the future pharaoh Anknaten (forgive my spellings), who endures an epileptic fit.<br /><br />And this pharaoh has another "flaw": He believes in one god instead of a pantheon of gods. Back then, this was totally revolutionary. Sinhue and Horemheb grow up. One night, Sinhue sees a woman who makes him lose his senses. He gives up his practice, sells his parents' home and even their tombs just to spend a night with her. Does he? I won't tell. Meanwhile, Merit, a tavern maid played with sweet simplicity belying strength by Jean Simmons, falls in love with Sinhue. She falls under his spell and under the spell of the belief in one god.<br /><br />Victor Mature overacts perfectly as Horemheb. Edmond Purdom is sincere as Sinhue the lost physician (does he find redemption? Stay tuned). Even Bela Darvi, the woman who steals Sinhue's heart isn't as bad as everyone has said. The fact that she was Daryl F. Zanuck's mistress had nothing to do with the casting - right? Yeah, right...still, she wasn't that bad _ I've seen worse. I think she did better in "The Egyptian" than many of today's young actresses have done in anything. I said it before and I'll say it again -- I like this movie. I recommend it. It makes you think despite some hammy acting. Have fun with this movie; it's worth it. | positive |
Young and attractive Japanese people are getting on the wrong side of some curse again, this time it involves mobile phones. Various people die until the disgruntled spirit behind it all is unearthed, so essentially if you've seen more than 2 recent Japanese horror films you can plot this film in the dark with your hands tied.<br /><br />The main attraction here is the fact that Takashi Miike is behind the camera. So far I've been more impressed with his low key works like City of Lost Souls, however as One Missed Call plodded along I was yearning for his more renowned envelope pushing of Dead or Alive or the overly pseudo-Cronenberg style of Audition. Despite a lot of his films being essentially empty, at least they do have merits such as these, or at least something to keep your attention like Tadanobu Asano prancing about in shiny suits impersonating Johnny Depp. There's none of that in One Missed Call; there's just very little of credit: the acting is bland and average, there is very little (nothing, in all honesty) in the way of scares or suspense, and in places it's just downright boring.<br /><br />However, there are moments where Miike's glacier-like sense of humour seeps through the bland commercialism; most notably with the instance of the TV show intent on filming the demise of one of the cursed subjects, and the TV programmer more concerned about his ratings than the girls' life. But aside from this there is nothing to suggest it is Miike behind the camera; most notably his usual visual flair has vanished without a trace (and that includes his famous gore), although it's more likely he just didn't have any enthusiasm for the project, and I can understand why. One Missed Call isn't offensively bad. It's just frustratingly average.<br /><br />Miike obviously loves directing. With his huge yearly output it's obvious he isn't going to be 100% concerned about all his projects. But even with this in mind, One Missed Call felt like he was just paying the bills. | negative |
This is a good film, no doubt, but with some odd aspects. Without spoiling anything it takes place in 3 places only- a Sicilian farm, the boat,and Ellis Island New York. All shots are close up so we never see a broad sweep of anything. I wonder if this was to save money? No street scenes anywhere, and we don't even see the boat except in close ups. And the music...what on earth was going on with playing Nina Simone songs, decades before they were out? I could have done without the milk river business too......But hey, before you think of me as a pure misanthrope, let me repeat, this is a very good film, with heartbreakng moments, wonderful photography, great characters and more accuracy than the usual (American) efforts at the immigration experience. | positive |
THE D.I. (4 outta 5 stars) Wow, I certainly did not expect to be enjoying this movie as much as I did. I had never even heard of it until I saw it sitting in the discount video bin one day. I figured Jack Webb playing an army drill instructor might be good for a chuckle but figured the drama would pale in comparison to such recent movie D.I.s as portrayed in "Full Metal Jacket" or "An Officer and a Gentleman". Boy, was I wrong. This is probably the best work Webb has ever done... far and away better than his one-note "Dragnet" performances. The delivery of his tough guy dialogue is just brilliant... done in his patented deadpan monotone and yet you *know* that the guy means every word of it. The story might seem a little hokey compared to the grittier military movies that have followed but I still found the movie fascinating and compelling. Even a completely unnecessarily musical interlude in an army nightclub had me hooked. Anyone know where I can get a copy of that terrific Ray Coniff song "If'n You Don't, Somebody Else Will"? Webb plays the toughest dang drill instructor ever... and he's under pressure to kick out the deadbeat Private Owen but, by golly, he sees a man buried somewhere in that sissyboy and he's gonna drag him out kicking and screaming! Great stuff! | positive |
I enjoyed this film very much. I found it to be very entertaining for me in that I feel that it captured the romanticism of turn of the century Irish-American culture. There's no messages. There's no violence and there's no overt sex, just wholesome 1947 style entertainment and Dennis Morgan had a chance to sing some really good songs. A really good movie. | positive |
As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.<br /><br />Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques. | negative |
This was the second of two filmed "Hamlets" in the nineties, the first being Franco Zeffirelli's, starring Mel Gibson, from 1990. Zeffirelli's version, like Laurence Olivier's from 1948, was based upon an abridged version of the play, with much of Shakespeare's original text being cut. (I have never seen Tony Richardson's 1969 version, but as that ran to less than two hours, shorter even than Zeffirelli's, I presume that was also abridged). Kenneth Branagh was attempting something much more ambitious- a film based on the complete text of the play, with a running time of around four hours.<br /><br />With his "Henry V", Branagh claimed Olivier's crown as the cinema's leading Shakespearean, confirming his claim with his brilliant "Much Ado about Nothing", a rare example of a great film based on a Shakespeare comedy. "Hamlet" was his third Shakespeare film as director (he also acted as Iago in Oliver Parker's 1995 "Othello") and, as one might expect, it is very different to "Much Ado
.". The earlier film, shot in a villa in the hills of Tuscany and the beautiful surrounding countryside, is a joyous, summertime film about everything that makes life worth living.<br /><br />"Hamlet", by contrast is set in the depths of winter. (The flowers in the description of Ophelia's death suggest that Shakespeare himself thought of the action happening in summer). The look of the film is particularly striking, both sumptuous and chilly. It was filmed at Blenheim Palace, possibly England's most grandiose stately home, but also a rather forbidding one. The snowy exterior scenes are cold and wintry; the interior ones formal and elaborate. The action is updated to the mid nineteenth century; the female characters wear the elaborate fashions of that era, while the principal male ones mostly wear splendid military uniforms. (There is a contrast here with Zeffirelli's film, where both the interiors and the costumes were deliberately subdued in tone). The play is dominated by images of corruption and decay; Branagh's intention may have been to contrast a splendid surface with the underlying "something rotten in the state of Denmark".<br /><br />The film is notable for the large number of big-name actors, some of them in very minor roles. (Blink, and you might miss John Gieldgud or Judi Dench). Apparently, an all-star cast was required by the production company, who were nervous about a four-hour film. Some of the imported Hollywood stars, such as Robin Williams' Osric, did not really come off, but others, like Charlton Heston's Player King or Billy Crystal's First Gravedigger, played their parts very well. Yorick, normally only seen as a skull, is here seen in flashback, played by the British comedian Ken Dodd. Brian Blessed, who often plays jovial characters, is cast against type as the Ghost, and makes the scenes in which he appears genuinely frightening.<br /><br />Of the major characters, perhaps the weakest was Kate Winslet's Ophelia. Branagh's leading lady in his first two Shakespeare films was his then wife Emma Thompson, but their marriage ended in divorce in 1995. I did, however, find myself wishing that Thompson had been cast in the role; although Winslet came into her own in the Ophelia's mad scenes, she seemed weak in the earlier ones where her character is still sane. (I preferred Helena Bonham Carter in Zeffirelli's version). Richard Briers plays Polonius with a greater dignity than he is often given, a wise and experienced counsellor rather than a prating old fool. Julie Christie also brings dignity to the role of Gertrude; there is no attempt here, as there was with Gibson and Glenn Close in the Zeffirelli version, to suggest an incestuous attachment between her and Hamlet. (An interpretation which owes more to Freud than it does to Shakespeare). The age difference between Christie and Branagh is great enough for them to be credible as mother and son, which was certainly not the case with Close and Gibson. (Olivier's Gertrude, Eileen Herlie, was, bizarrely, thirteen years younger than him).<br /><br />Branagh stated that his intention in restoring those scenes which are often cut in cinematic versions was to "reinforce the idea that the play is about a national as well as domestic tragedy." Much stress is placed upon the war with Norway and the Norwegian Prince Fortinbras- a subplot ignored altogether by Zeffirelli. This emphasis on national tragedy is perhaps best shown in the character of Claudius, sometimes played as a one-dimensional villain. There is something about Derek Jacobi's performance which suggests that Claudius could have been a good man under different circumstances, but that he allowed himself to be led astray by ambition and lust. He could have been a good and loyal servant to his brother, but chose to rule as a bad king. Although he is tormented by guilt, he can see no way to make amends for the evil he has done.<br /><br />Branagh, a wonderfully fluent speaker of Shakespeare's verse, is superb in the main role. Like Gibson, he has little time for the old concept of Hamlet as indecisive, passive and melancholy. His is an active, physical, energetic Hamlet, something best shown in his fatal duel with Laertes. His guiding principle is not world-weary despair, but an active disgust with evil and corruption.<br /><br />It was a gamble for Branagh to make a four-hour epic, and the film did not do well at the box office. It was, however, praised by many critics, James Berardinelli being particularly enthusiastic. My own opinion is that, whatever the financial returns may have been, Branagh's gamble paid off in artistic terms. By concentrating on the full text, he was able to bring out the full meaning and full emotional power of Shakespeare's most complex play. When I reviewed his "Much Ado
", I said it was the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare comedy. His "Hamlet" may just be the greatest ever film of a Shakespeare tragedy. 10/10 | positive |
Zombie movies are hot, I love 'em. Can't get enough. Why I would purchase a film of this caliber goes without explanation, I just really love zombies. Surprise, this really isn't much of a zombie movie; low-budget I can handle, being duped just irritates me.<br /><br />A group of horror-film clichés hold up in a warehouse/lab/who-knows-what to escape a fire storm outside. Panic, yelling, low-light, and (eventually) zombies ensue.<br /><br />I kind of feel bad for the film makers, as it is obvious that they really thought they were putting together something good; a serious, scary horror film. It isn't, far from it, it's a boring mess of wooden acting, cheesy FX, poor lighting, excessive dialogue, and over editing.<br /><br />Things first go awry when it takes a good 10+ minutes for the characters to ever sit down and start to figure out what is going on. It gets worse when another 20 minutes go by and they are still sitting around trying to figure out what is going on. All of this is littered with non-acting and bad dialogue.<br /><br />Finally some one gets attached (not by a zombie though) and hope flickers just a touch before the characters are again lounging around whining (the only emotion any one every generates) about how much this sucks. Me too guys, me too.<br /><br />Finally zombies are in the mix, but no one watching cares any more. I think there was some blood and gore tossed in, but I was too busy praying for the credits to roll to notice. And when the screen finally did fade to black I felt even more cheated by the pointlessly 'Cube' inspired ending.<br /><br />I will give credit for trying very hard, even if it failed miserably. That and the punk chick was very hot if totally under used.<br /><br />Can't really recommend this to anyone, save for film students looking for 'no-no' pointers.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
I don't remember the last time I reacted to a performance as emotionally as I did to Justin Timberlake's in "Edison." I got so emotional I wanted to scream in anguish, destroy the screen, readily accept the hopeless cries of nihilism. Timberlake is horribly miscast; in fact, casting him is like casting Andy Dick to play the lead role in "Patton," or Nathan Lane to play Jesus. But that is almost beside the point.<br /><br />Timberlake is simply a bad actor and he would be equally terrible in any role. I used to have problems with Ben Affleck's acting talent, but Timberlake makes Affleck look like Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Judi Dench. With his metrosexual lisp (read lithp), his boyish glances and emotional expressions which derive from something like "The 25 Cliché Expressions for Actors," he poisons the screen upon which he is inflicted mercilessly, and no matter how you slice it, I do not and will not buy his role as an amateur-turned-crusader-for-justice journalist. It simply will not fly.<br /><br />However, Timberlake alone isn't to blame for his failure. Director David J. Burke puts him not only in the (essentially) primary role, but also places him aside Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, John Heard, Dylan McDermott, Cary Elwes and (I'm surprised he was as good) LL Cool J. I can imagine one almost physically suffering watching some of this cast interact with Timberlake.<br /><br />There is an upside to this of course: the moment any of these actors interact without Justin there it feels like a double relief. A pleasure, if you will. Freeman and Spacey may not have more than 10 minutes of screen time alone together, but that ten minutes is blissful in contrast to their scenes with our so-called hero. Dylan McDermott is also a breath of fresh air.<br /><br />But enough of Timberlake bashing - words aren't enough in this particular case to do the trick. "Edison" is a very, very run-of-the-mill corruption story. It's plot ranges from cliché to simply preposterous. I do, however, admire the motivation behind making it, which I interpret as an homage to films like "Serpico," or "Donnie Brasco," or maybe even "Chinatown." Don't get me wrong - "Edison" is not even in the same ballpark as these films, but I can stretch my suspension of disbelief to admire its reason for existence, perhaps to justify my sitting through it.<br /><br />The script, in and of itself, features some surprisingly bad writing. Yes, it has some decent interchanges, but any conversation between Piper Perabo (who is wasted here) and Timberlake seems like it was lifted straight out of a Dawson's Creek episode. It's your typical far-too-glib-for-reality, let's-impress-the-audience-with-how-well-we-articulate (and fail) dialogue. This dialogue, mind you, is punctuated by great music at the wrong moments - sometimes it feels like "Edison" wants to morph into a music video, where the emotion of the scene is not communicated through acting, but precisely through the badly chosen music and variant film speeds (read slow-motion).<br /><br />Thinking about it, "Edison" is a curiosity. It's sure as hell got a cast to kill for but the performances are marred by Timberlake who simply doesn't work. In film as in most art, if one thing is off, the whole thing feels off. Directors must make tough choices. David J. Burke missed the mark here. Some of the scenes play well in and of themselves, but as a whole, they don't seem to fit like puzzle pieces from different puzzles forced into one incoherent picture. And it's not particularly an exciting puzzle to begin with. | negative |
In the beginning and throughout the movie, it was great. It was suspenseful and thrilling. Yet in the end it gave no answer to what had happened. They mysteriously turned into zombies by a raven or crow? It did not answer the questions that we all had and therefore, was not as good a movie as I thought that it was going to be. | negative |
Ever once in a while I run into a movie that is so embarrassingly bad I wonder why movies exist. This is one of them. This is a terrible attempt to parody The Godfather with annoying cartoon sounds, and bad dialogue. Eddie Deezen is just plain annoying as Tony, an annoying twit who upon his father, Don (William Hickey)'s request, takes over the family business. Tony, as I said, is an annoying little twit. This makes the whole movie a complete mess. The movie is terribly daffy. It's too cartoonish. The main point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a parody of an acclaimed drama like The Godfather with so much cartoonishness. It doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, you have to take a parody of a dramatic movie seriously. If you don't take it seriously, it will feel too much like a parody. The thing about doing a parody is that you can't seem too much like you're doing a parody. You have to make it seem like you're taking the movie at least a little bit seriously. It also feels like they're just mocking Woody Allen, and that's what makes this movie absolutely terrible. | negative |
When I first saw this movie, the first thing I thought was this movie was more like an anime than a movie. The reason is because it involves vampires doing incredible stunts. The stunts are very much like the Matrix moves like the moving too fast for bullets kinda thing and the jumping around very far. Another reason why I the movie is good is because the adorable anime faces they do during the movie. The way Gackt does his pouting faces or just the way they act, VERY ANIME. I think that it's a really good movie to watch. ^_^ The action in this movie is a 10 (not to mention Gackt and Hyde too are a 10). ^_~ If you are Gackt and Hyde fans, you have to see it. | positive |
Worst horror film ever but funniest film ever rolled in one you have got to see this film it is so cheap it is unbeliaveble but you have to see it really!!!! P.s watch the carrot | positive |
I loved Dewaere in Series Noir. His talent is trivialized in "The Waltzers" aka "Going Places". Okay, it's a couple of guys flaunting convention in the most absurd and irredeemable ways; many folks find such behavior amusing. This was a boring, pointless exercise designed to shock. I find the smirk on Blier's face, the face behind the camera, annoying. Series Noir was a valid expression of personal liberty and licentious behavior. From the first moment when we see Patric Dewaere prancing in the abandoned lot we get an idea of the bewilderingly beautiful anti-hero we'll be spending time with for the next couple of hours. When we see him chasing the hapless middle aged female with his buddy Depardieu in "Going Places" we have fair warning that two hours spent with these chaps will be soul-draining. I have trouble eking even a "3" for this annoying distraction. | negative |
I saw this movie when it was first released and thoroughly enjoyed it. What a movie. I am in my 40s now and have 2 teenage kids and I would like them to see this movie. I would recommend it to anyone who loves a romance movie or older Elton John music.<br /><br />I have searched most of the stores that sell both new and old movies but have not come across any.<br /><br />I bought some old movies like " Melody" in Hong Kong, who had quite a collection of old movie, but they did not have this. <br /><br />I am also looking at the sequel, Paul & Michelle.<br /><br />Can anyone please tell me how to get a copy of the VHS or DVD or VCD.<br /><br />Really appreciate it.<br /><br />Many Thanks. | positive |
this movie delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.<br /><br />but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer. <br /><br />stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home. | negative |
I read all of the other comments which made this movie out to be an excellent movie. I saw nothing of the excellence that was stated. I thought it was long and boring. I tried twice to watch it. The first time I fell asleep and the second time I made it to within six minutes of the end and gave up. I suppose that it was mainly my fault going in with great expectation, but I don't think that this would have completely ruined the movie for me. The movie was just bland. It had nothing that was spectacular or unique to it. The plot was not half bad, the action sequences were non-existent, the dialogue forced and the movie just went on forever. I would not recommend seeing this movie. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.