review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I remember this movie. Quite intense for an 11 year old. Good editing, I felt terrible for the St. Bernard. I'd watch it again if it were rebroadcast, but the signal is passing Pluto as I write this. Robert Culp. A highlight of his career. I am just glad I didn't live in THAT neighborhood. Oh those 70's. What a decade. If they remade it I bet it would be very violent and bloody. So what are they waiting for? An excellent movie for pre-pubescent suburban boys. It was very intense. I think it was filmed in Los Angeles. Certainly not made in Lodi NJ. The shot with the St Bernard was the best and obviously the most haunting image from the film...and then they left the carcass on the stoop. Rotten kids. | positive |
This was by far the best war documentary ever made. From the very beginning of the first episode when Sir Laurence Olivier described the horrific events in Oradour-Sur-Glane 'The day the soldiers came'. To the final days of the war when the mushroom clouds appeared over Japan, I never missed a second of this classic series and I remember it well even though it was screened way back in 1974. Each and every aspect of this tragedy was covered in detail. This whole series should be compulsory viewing for as many of the world's children as possible so that the tragedy of World War Two is not repeated and that bigotry, hatred, greed and intolerance are not confused with patriotism or religious zeal. | positive |
From hardly alien sounding lasers, to an elementary school style shuttle crash, "Nightbeast" is better classified as a farcical mix of fake blood and bare chest. The almost pornographic style of the film seems to be a failed attempt to recover from a lack of cohesive or effective story. The acting however is not nearly as beastly, many of the young, aspiring, actors admirably showcase a hidden talent. Particularly Don Leifert and Jamie Zemarel, who shed a well needed shard of light on this otherwise terrible film. Nightbeast would have never shown up on set had he known the terrible movie making talent of this small Maryland town. | negative |
This movie was terrific and even with a less than convincing ending, it's still well worth seeing. The film begins as Claudette Colbert is about to marry Robert Ryan. When the minister asks if anyone has any objections, a guy jumps up and announces that Colbert CAN'T get married because she already is married!! Colbert insists this isn't true, but when they investigate they find that the Justice of the Peace and many others remember her wedding and there is even a signed wedding license! Slowly, it becomes apparent that Claudette's mind is slipping and people around her seriously doubt her sanity. Then, when the supposed first husband is murdered, all evidence and suspicion falls on Colbert.<br /><br />The film is an exciting mystery suspense film, as what I have so far described is only the first half of the movie. What follows is amazingly intelligent and captivating. Unfortunately, the conclusion, though, is a bit of a let-down, as the guiding force behind all this turns out to come "right out of left field"--and is baffling since it was so unexpected and impossible to guess based on the information given to the viewer. However, in spite of this, the film was so good, I can even excuse the limp ending. In particular, Robert Ryan did a great job as the "knuckle-busting" fiancé, though apart from him the other performances were also excellent. | positive |
I first saw this film around ten years ago and I thought it was very funny indeed. It was not as bad as some critics were making it out to be. The fact that it was written by the usually dependable John Hughes shows that you can at least expect some funny dialogue. (By the way, I also think Weird Science is quite good which was also penned in lightning speed by Hughes).<br /><br />The film has a very garish look to it using all the primary colours - reds, yellows etc - which makes it look quite unique. The cast are also quite good. The prudish Bunny Packard and the devil-possessed Delores Salk are a stand out.<br /><br />The film has certainly dated a little but I personally prefer it to all the other 'Lampoon' series. | positive |
This is my favorite of the older Tom & Jerry cartoons from the early 40's. The original version with Mammy Two Shoes is on the Tom & Jerry Spotlight Collection 2 set, disc one, and showcases the wonderful detailed animation of the early cartoons. The gags on this one aren't all madcap Avery style, but more subtle and aimed at anyone who's ever stayed up late watching scary movies (or radio programs)! Tom is listening to a creepy radio show, and Jerry decides to play a number of tricks to spook him. The nine-lives gag is well done here, and I don't know how many times I tried to make a vacuum and a sheet that scary when I was a kid. When Tom's owner is awakened by the ruckus- Mammy was NOT the maid, it was HER house- she gets one heck of a surprise, with a big laugh. Get your pause button ready, it's worth it! | positive |
I was rather appalled to see the low rating this movie received here, personally considering it fun family fare. It revolves around a young teenager, Sandy Ricks, who is sent by his mom to Coral Key to spend the summer with his Uncle Porter. While there he befriends a dolphin named Flipper. Lots of adventures ensue amid the predictable nephew / uncle bonding as well as a little romance for Sandy with a local girl.<br /><br />I'm a great Crocodile Dundee fan myself so absolutely loved Paul Hogan in his role as crusty and comical Uncle Porter. For starters, he keeps an endless stock of Spaghetti-O's in his house to serve as his usual meal, heated with a blowtorch! Elija Wood, Frodo from The Lord of the Rings, appeared quite competent playing the young Sandy, a boy at first none too fond of his forced summer vacation locale.<br /><br />Of course the dolphin is magnificent and there are some wonderful underwater scenes. Set in the Florida Keys, it was apparently filmed in the Bahamas. This adaptation of Flipper makes great family entertainment, a sweet, sentimental, and fun movie that is infinitely superior to many of the cinematic offerings for youngsters nowadays. | positive |
Dripping with symbolism and filled with marvelous cinematography, Extase is so much more than the erotic drama we've all come to expect. This is almost a silent film, with what dialogue there is in German, and highly simplified German at that. Perhaps the filmmakers intended the film to reach the widest possible European audience, as anyone with even a little high school level Deutsch can easily dispense with the subtitles. The story is of little importance anyway, with the film succeeding on a cinematic level, not a narrative one. Symbols of fecundity and the power of nature overwhelm the human characters--there are even scenes where flowers obscure the face of supposed star Hedy Lamarr--and there are moments here that will remind viewers of the works of Dreyer, Vertov, and Riefenstahl. If the film has any message to convey, I think it's a political one: bourgeois man is timid and impotent; working class man is a happy, productive creature; and woman is the creator, destined to be unfulfilled until she has borne a child. This blend of Soviet socialist realism and National Socialist dogma doesn't overwhelm the film by any means--it's a beauty to watch from beginning to end--but it does place it in a very distinct artistic era. And, oh yeah, Hedy does get her kit off. | positive |
This movie wasn't just bad - it was terrible. After I watched it, I actually felt the need to TAKE A SHOWER to get the filth off of me. There is running 'gag' with an elderly couple making out, it is not funny, but it is disgusting. The monster make up was cool, but that is all. The continuity errors alone will have you angry - at least I was. The editing is really poor.<br /><br />Almost anything else you could possibly do would be better than spending time watching this movie. Even if your group of friends are into 'bad movies' this one is exceptional in its ineptitude, I couldn't even bring myself to laugh at it. You have been warned. | negative |
Eddie Izzard is nothing short of a comedic genius, and this is Eddie at his very best. His material is extremely witty and hilarious, and his delivery is some of the best ever witnessed on stage. Instead of insulting the audience's intelligence, he relies on it to draw humor from his wardrobe preferences, Hitler, the moon landing, and the British. With so many memorable laughs, one can't help but repeat some of his lines. Forever more, "Do you have a flag?" should be considered one of the funniest lines ever delivered in a standup routine. Every fan of top notch standup comedy needs to see "Dress to Kill". By far the best British standup comedian I've ever witnessed, Eddie Izzard has struggled for success off of the live stage. However, his lack of commercial success in film should not be indicative of how extremely talented he genuinely is. "Dress to Kill" is a treasure, one that luckily has found its way to home video, and can and should be enjoyed again and again. | positive |
This is by far the worst movie I've ever seen. From the plot, though the shots, the "special effects", the acting, and did I mentioned the plot? Every single thing in it sucked ass!<br /><br />This is a good example of what "over-doing" means and I'll try to explain:<br /><br />I understand what the creator of this movie was trying to do; this was supposed to be one of those movies you can't really tell what the hell is going on up until the end. You sit mesmerized, not knowing who's dead and who's alive and who killed who and why and just when you think you got the timeline right you find out you're wrong and the movie ends - leaving you with an opened mouth for the next 5 minutes! Something like "Unbreakable" or "The Job" if you know what I mean.<br /><br />But Olga Levens, the writer of this junk, yes, Olga The writer, Director, Producer, Screenplay author, Caster, Production designer, Art Director, Costume Designer and also a double for one of the characters is some scenes... this is basically a one woman movie and when it comes to Olga Levens from "Levens Productions" you can't go wrong :-)<br /><br />Well this might come as a shocker but "this time" Olga over did this big time, jumping from scene to scene, from dreams to reality... but wait! this was all a dream after all... or was it??? The picture fades and I realized none of this ever happened, the girl was all alone on the ship... actually there was no ship... no wait! There's the ship again, and the guys! They're alive! Thank god! No they're calling her to join the cruise... but then the ship disappears so maybe they're dead after all??? or maybe they never were alive to begin with???<br /><br />If you understood what I just said you might like this movie - otherwise it's a boring piece of work and the only reason I set through this entire crap is to find out how the hell can they finish this movie...<br /><br />Don't watch this if you value time, ever 90 minutes are a waste in this case... | negative |
I admit creating great expectations before watching because some friends mentioned it (and they are not pervs!) as a must see. And it is a must see! Just don't expect to see something outbreaking.<br /><br />The Freudian psychoanalyzes are interesting in many parts of the film, but there's just too much perversion and it doesn't stick in the end.<br /><br />Some of the good things are the analyzes of Kieslowski's Blue, most of David Lynch's, some of Hitchcock's and perhaps a couple more I missed (I just remembered...Dogville), and I usually don't miss things unless they are too obvious or loose in the air.<br /><br />Other than being repetitive, which makes it too long, the documentary is enjoyable in the sense of noticing some perversions fed by our unconscious, hence the commercial success of most thrillers studied and used as basis for this theory.<br /><br />I really enjoyed the energetic tone of the narration and the effort of Mr. Zizek to revive Freud's theory, which has been numb for too long, specially in north America. Again, it's way over the top and I believe not to be a completely waste of time for I do believe most humans have a dark appreciation for death and blood. | positive |
This movie is actually worse than most movies I've ever suffered through, and I've suffered through a lot. Absolute nonsense. It's got terrible, forced dialogue; pointless plot developments; really drawn out 'spooky imagery' scenes, which look more like a high school remedial art project than a horror movie; 5/10 at best attractive women; long, boring sex scenes involving said women (forget what you know about virgins! especially ones with lop- sided fake breasts); muttered, difficult to understand speech from some of the characters; and they actually used the masks from Killer Klowns from Outer Space during a masturbation scene, which should be a saving grace because that movie was pretty funny, but it isn't. Veden Fell is the lamest bad guy in the history of film. <br /><br />Absolutely give this one a miss. | negative |
Like Richard Pryor, Mason never got the material he deserved. Whatever you know of him is probably wrong. Get past the accent and go see his stand-up. You'll be very surprised -- he's one of the best stand-ups I've ever seen and I have seen a lot of stand-up comedy (from Lenny Bruce to Eddie Murphy to Jerry Seinfeld to Chris Rock -- Jackie Mason is definitely up there). He's known for being a comic's comic. Even Howard Stern said he is one of the top 3 funniest comedians ever.<br /><br />The accussation that Mason is no Dangerfield is ridiculous. Dangerfield is known for having been a huge Mason fan. Dangerfield's career was going nowhere for a long time until he started following Mason's shows. That is when Mason provided Dangerfield with inspiration for his, "get no respect" routine. While I think Dangerfield is great, see them both do stand-up and you'll see Mason is the better comedian. | positive |
I guess those who have been in a one-sided relationship of some sort before will be able identify with the lead character Minako (Yuko Tanaka), a 50 year old woman who is still in the pink of good health, as demonstrated by her daily, grinding routine of waking up extremely early in the morning to prepare for her milk delivery work, where she has to lug bottles of Megmilk in a bag in a route around her town like clockwork, to exchange empty bottles for full ones, and to collect payment and issue receipt. And there's always be that one delivery stop that's right at the top, needing to scale a long flight of stairs in order to achieve customer satisfaction.<br /><br />And peculiar enough, that stop happened to be a stop delivering to a man with whom she has been in love with for almost all her teenage to adult life, and not having the product appreciated, but poured down the sink. Having gone to the same school, we see that they're not talking to each other, and in their daily life always seem so close physically, but yet so far away. There's no eye contact, save for cursory glances by chance, and little acknowledgement of each other's existence. We learn that they share a past that probably destroyed all notions of being together, where clear attraction between the two was hampered from developing further by the earlier generation.<br /><br />While I thought Minako was an interesting woman in herself, one who has kept her feelings suppressed for so long, one can only wonder what kind of damage it would do. If I read that the original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books" and it's accurate, I felt the movie had a wonderful finale with that shot of her well stocked bookcase, likely alluding to the fact that she's not alone after all, and had probably fallen back on her crutch of sorts to deal with the pain of being alone, and back to a lifestyle which she had already been accustomed to for 50 years. Besides immersing herself in two jobs, she has those books which serve as a form of escapism, and occasionally pens little sweet nothings to song dedication shows on the radio.<br /><br />Yuko Tanaka did a commendable job as the emotionally strong woman resigned to her fate and her decision to love none other, her object of affection, Takanashi (Ittoku Kishibe) was a more interesting character who has more facets. Staying true to marriage vows, he spends significant amount of screen time looking after his sickly bedridden wife (played by Akiko Nishina), while juggling with his job of social welfare in the Children's Affairs department in City Hall. I felt that as a childless couple, the job provided him a means to care, not for his own, but for other people's children, the troubled ones who are neglected and left to fend for themselves. In a rare moment of rage, we see how he angrily chides such wayward parents who don't appreciate and wastes their children's lives away.<br /><br />The story by Kenji Aoki provides little quirks to make its characters appeal and successfully attempted to provide a lot more glimpses and dimension into them as well, such as how Takanashi is a hopeless Haiku poet despite being a member of the Haiku club, and supporting characters such as the aged Minagawa couple, where Masao (Koichi Ueda) lent some comical though sad moments as he slowly turned senile, while wife Toshiko (Misako Watanabe) narrates and brings us through this love story of a single woman at 50. Even Akiko Nishina's performance as the bedridden wife was nothing short of arresting, with her character's enlightened state of knowing her husband's past, and making unselfish, and painful decisions in her sickly state.<br /><br />It's what you can expect from a typical Japanese romantic movie, sans young, nubile leads as star-crossed lovers, but with all other elements in place such as romantic set ups, love songs and those quintessential restrained but affectionate behaviour. I thought the story was in danger of going down the beaten track when unrequited love gets consummated, but director Akira Ogata managed to steer clear of the usual melodramatic moments in such stories, though the story did call for some obvious plot development into the final act that you can predict, especially if you're already way past your Romance Movie 101.<br /><br />Not being your average lovey-dovey story, I thought The Milkwoman told a strong story with unrequited love as a central theme, and frankly a recommended romance movie (though told at a measured pace) if you're in the mood for some bittersweet loving, reminiscence, and seeking to live without regrets. | positive |
I give 3 stars only for the beautiful pictures of Africa. The rest was... well pretty boring. For about 50min we have the outline of the plot... In War of the worlds, the introductory part lasted, oh, about 10min? Then was real action! This is something like:"Let's take a walk in the savanna and gasp at the beautiful sunsets!". And maybe deliver a message, like "Don't kill elephants!". Very ecological. I would have expected this out of a "new" Steven Segal movie, not from this... The leading actress makes me think about artificial sun-tan, dyed hair and too much foundation! And I didn't see one scene where her hair is messed up, or she sweats, or her clothes are dusty. She just doesn't look like a 19 century woman! And in the bar, where they seek up our hero, Swayze makes a comment about the commander that he looks like Dracula. Hmmm, Bram Stoker wrote his book and published it in 1896, and it became famous in the next years. Livingstone and other explorers went to central Africa from 1840 to 1880. So unless the action takes place between 1896 and 1900.. Houston, we have a problem. :) Swayze makes a nice impression.. as a nutshell - hard on the outside, but soft and cuddly on the inside. Not that I would cuddle with a nut, but you get the point. He really manages to have that beaten puppy look on his face on several occasions. The movie stank. Way too long and increasingly boring. don't watch it! Don't buy it! It's a waste of your money! | negative |
OK. There are people who should not see this movie.<br /><br />1) Don't see it if you don't like satire or black humour. 2) Don't like it if you got offended by _The Watchmen_. 3) Don't see it if you want a serious superhero movie.<br /><br />The rest of you, run, don't walk, to see _Mystery Men_. It's funny, it's quirky, it's a delightful sendup of every bad superhero cliche known to man. Occasional forays into junior-high humour don't ruin the tongue-in-cheek low-key fun of Jeanane Garafalo, Ben Stiller, and Hank Azaria, as well as a couple of amusing smaller parts by Geoffrey Rush and Greg Kinnear. (Good to see Louise Lasser getting work, too.) I laughed all the way through. Utterly unserious, somewhat weird, but -good-. | positive |
When taken as a whole for its ideas and dissection of the current 2-party system and political process, I think this is a great film. Granted the movie was not the comedy I expected, but once I got over that this film really made me think. So much of what we see and hear in regards to any election is such a joke. There is in particular a debate scene in this movie that I felt was a masterful critique of our political debates and how policies are "discussed" at them. I encourage anyone who thinks our process is fine to go see this film. If you want something to laugh at however, Robin Williams and Christopher Walken are not their usual selves. In this movie they show us that the truth hurts, not that the truth is funny. | positive |
(First of all, excuse my bad English) Of course only a movie starring Jessica Simpson can include serious goofs like this.. I'm a norwegian and I felt offended and shocked the makers of this movie did not take the time to do their research upon making this American/"Norwegian" movie. Even Wikipedia is more accurate when it comes to facts about this country.<br /><br />So I'm posting my corrections out of my frustration: -The Country is named Norway, not Norwegia. -"Da" is Russian, not norwegian. -Norwegian priests never use those black capes with that white paper by the neck as the protestant church is the dominant by far -It's true we have a native traditional folk-outfit (that we only use like twice a year) but the outfit in this movie is more like a German outfit. -I could NOT understand the so called "norwegian" in this movie.. Jessica was not making any sense.. neighter did the "norwegian priests"<br /><br />The only thing I recognise is the norwegian flag (and the viking hats, but that's so stereotypic what people think about norway - vikings!:O gosh)<br /><br />Well.. I guess the people who made this film will never read this comment. but at least I cleared some things up and got rid of some of that frustration..!<br /><br />I'm proud of my country and I'd love if people in the US were less stereotypic and more accurate when they talk about this country.<br /><br />That was all.. Lenge leve Norge ! ;p | negative |
I'm sorry to say that there isn't really any way, in my opinion, that an Enzo would really be able to keep up with a Saleen S7 Twin Turbo. The power to weight advantage possessed by the S7 would just be too great. The S7 has a power:weight ratio of 3.93 lbs/hp while the Enzo has 4.61 lbs/hp. The S7s low end is much better too. Sorry Ferrari fans but the Saleen just gets it done so much better.<br /><br />As for other parts of this film, I just have to say it's so substandard as to be pathetic. The story is way too weak. The acting in this lemon is worse than daytime soaps.<br /><br />I can say that as far as it being a treatise on negative psychology its kind of a gem. This film is nothing if not a glaring definition as to what narcissism and sociopathy are all about. Its all about these rich punks getting their rocks off while showing only traces of feigned remorse for all the innocent road users they cause injury or death too.<br /><br />I can't give the film a "1 Star" rating because it didn't compel me to actually walk out of the theater. I also think that having an amazingly beautiful brunette with killer blue eyes as the leading female saves it from being completely abysmal....although there is no way her singing would put her on the cover of 'Variety'.<br /><br />ps: the guy who plays Jason is SOOOOO the skid row version of James Vanderbeek. | negative |
... and how they bore you right out of your mind! The Crater Lake Monster is one of the classic BAD films from the 70's made with no actors of any note, an embarrassing script, woeful direction, and a tireless desire to fuse "horror" with light comedy. This movie introduces a paleontologist who finds drawings of an aquatic dinosaur underneath Crater Lake...a meteor falls from the sky, and an aquatic dinosaur of the claymation variety begins to terrorize and eat the inhabitants surrounding Crater Lake. The whole matter is taken care of by Steve our local sheriff. Much of the film - when not showing pools of blood left behind from what we imagine must have been the beast dining - is spent following the bumbling antic of two guys named Arnie and Mitch who run a boat rental place. They try so bad to be funny, that we get lines like, looking at a business sign, Mitch saying to Arnie "You spelled bait wrong, it's spelled B-A-T-E." The laughs were rather scarce here. We then see them get drunk together and imagine a tree trunk to be the dinosaur. Laurel and Hardy watch out! The dinosaur looks fake, but the movie is fun in a bad way. And at the very least, the lake is beautiful. | negative |
Did I step in something or is that bad smell coming from Daybreak 1 + 2? God was behind everything? What has God got to do with Sci-Fi? God is only the answer when you can't think up a sensible explanation for something. In fact, this is exactly the problem with the series finale - they obviously couldn't think up sensible explanations for the multitude of big questions that were raised throughout the series such as how Kara Thrace come back from the dead in a brand new viper, how her old viper and charred body ended up on Earth 2, why Baltar has an imaginary 6 in his head, why 6 has an imaginary Baltar in her head, etc. so they explain it with "angels" or just don't explain it at all.<br /><br />The plot of the last 2 episodes had holes big enough to fly a Basestar through. For example, why does Galactica and its crew go on a suicide mission to rescue one girl (Hera), particularly after Adama said there was no way he'd attempt a rescue? Because they found out the location of the Cylon base? That's not a good reason to sacrifice the crew's lives. And how did Anders know the location? And what was the point of the flashbacks to the major characters' lives before the war? It's like they forgot to do it earlier so they threw something in at the last moment.<br /><br />The people who wrote the last two episodes could not have been the same writers who created what has been so far a sensational series. Feels like the script writing was take over by evangelical Christians on a mission to spread 'The Word'. Forget trying to tie up the loose ends in the plot, the important message the writers wanted to get across is: don't put your faith in technology as it will lead to your destruction; God is your ultimate salvation (tough luck if you have an illness that needs medical treatment).<br /><br />Imagine in the final movie of the Star Wars series they tell you there is no "force"... instead, a Jedi actually gets his power from Jesus. Then they fly their spaceships into the nearest star and go live in the forest with the Ewoks. Would this be a good ending? No it frakken' wouldn't. | negative |
Vertigo co-stars Stewart (in his last turn as a romantic lead) and Novak elevate this, Stewart's other "Christmas movie," movie to above mid-level entertainment. The chemistry between the two stars makes for a fairly moving experience and further revelation can be gleaned from the movie if witchcraft is seen as a metaphor for the private pain that hampers many people's relationships. All in all, a nice diversion with legendary stars, 7/10. | positive |
While this isn't an all time classic comedy it is a pretty good little movie to watch if you catch it on a rainy Saturday morning with not a lot else going on right then.<br /><br />Harold Lloyd plays Ezekiel Cobb, an American coming home after growing up in China where his dad was a missionary.He has come home from China to find an American wife and plans to return to China to continue his father's work.Cobb unwittingly is recruited to run for mayor of his corrupt home town when the existing political machine that controls the town realizes that he would make a perfect patsy to run against the current mayor who also is the head of the town's underworld.They figure the bumbling ,stumbling Cobb has no chance to win and therefore the current mayor continues to run the town and run his schemes which makes them all rich.<br /><br />Lloyd isn't doing the physical comedy here like he did in his silent films.He does a convincing portrayal of Cobb with a reserved understated dignity.The acting was good from all involved and the story and script were also quite good.<br /><br />Being made in 1934 the film does have some rather racist language when talking about the Chinese and it also has a typical black character from that era but these stereotypes aren't nearly as mean as I've seen from other films from that time.<br /><br />Although not close to being Lloyd's best film ,this movie does entertain and Lloyd is very good as Cobb.You won't be blown away by this film but it may be enough to peak your interest in Lloyd and make you want to see more of his work. | negative |
What an utter disappointment! The score of 6,1 here on IMDb built up some mild expectations but, oh my, was I disappointed. The first thing that bugs me are those braindead, stereotyped university kids. Yes, I know teens can be childish and so on, but why are they in movies always portrayed as complete braindead morons? There was one character that I thought was alright, but he/she (not revealing it here) was killed off way before the end. The other characters was poorly executed and even the supposed hero/heroine just didn't do it for me. On the plus side: The plot is pretty good and the productions values a cut above for these kind of flicks. The acting was generally not very good, Rutger Hauer stands out in a small role. But it all fails with bland and braindead characters. You just stop caring about them after 10 minutes. 4/10 (and thats being generous). | negative |
As far as HEIST movies go, this one is pretty weak. Continuity is pretty lousy, there isn't enough character continuity to really feel like you understand any of the characters. Peter Falk is great, and he is one of the reasons its worth watching. Falk has some great lines, like "he'll be right back, he goin' buy to some saugages" or something like that... there are a few nice scenes, although they are entirely due to the efforts of the actors. Direction, script, and editing is pretty lousy. | negative |
I saw the movie last night and I really wanted to like it. My expectations for the movie had been going up and down ever since I heard it was being made. Some days I'd see something spectacular and some days I'd be disappointed.<br /><br />Yet being the kind of fan I am, I had high hopes for this movie but in the end I was sorely disappointed.<br /><br />While I love the Richard Donner movies I didn't like their sometimes campy nature or the changes they made to Superman's character and his powers.<br /><br />Singer however chose to take the worst elements of the Donner movies and put them in his version.<br /><br />While his Lex Luthor is slightly darker he's still nothing more than a shyster, a conman and a common criminal. He's no more intelligent than when Gene Hackman played him. Kevin Spacey does his best to play Luthor well but ultimately he falls victim to shoddy writing and unremarkable dialog.<br /><br />His henchmen are more two dimensional than even comic book henchmen. Most of them literally have no dialog in the movie.<br /><br />****SPOILERS AHEAD**** Kitty Kowalski is almost exactly the same character as Ms. Tesmacher. She seems to be as evil and cold as Lex Luthor but she proves to be just an underling who melts after seeing Superman in trouble and quite predictably betrays Luthor.<br /><br />The biggest disappointment in the movie was Frank Langella as Perry White. I wasn't a huge fan of the over the top Perry White in the Donner movies but at least he had a soul. He was after all said and done, a veteran reporter who cared about the truth and a good story. Langella's Perry White is nothing but a corporate stooge. He wants everyone to concentrate on the Superman related stories because they sell papers even though every other paper is doing the same thing. He doesn't care about the real stories, the real mysteries like the black out and what Lex Luthor is up to now that he's out of prison.<br /><br />The worst thing about Langella is that he's DULL! Some actors can be quiet and sober and yet have an undercurrent that lets you know that still waters run deep. Frank Langella is puddle.<br /><br />Brandon Routh is not a bad actor. He's OK but again there is not a single memorable line in the whole movie. Not the actor's fault. His movements are clearly meant to look graceful, like even the slightest movement of his fingers effects the way he flies. But it still looks choreographed and artificial.<br /><br />Lois Lane while badly written was surprisingly well acted by Kate Bosworth. Unfortunately, again, for a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and writer, she is about as eloquent as any teenage on Dawson's Creek.<br /><br />James Marsden was my favorite actor in the whole movie, mostly because he looks more like Superman than even Routh. Without any superpowers he manages to figure out Lois Lane's message, flies a plane to the location, gets on board Luthor's yacht and rescues Lois and her son.<br /><br />The only moving moment in the movie is when they are all trapped pantry as it is flooding with water and the ship is sinking. You see them slowly going being immersed in the water. You know Superman's going to come by at the last moment to rescue them but still you can't help but feel sorry for them.<br /><br />As I said before the plot is very haphazard. Unlike Singer has said, this is not a movie about a superhero returning and trying to find his place in the world. As soon as he returns the world welcomes him back with open arms. Lois is the only one who's not happy to see him back. Even Luthor is happy to have Superman back because it gives him a chance to settle the score with the man of steel.<br /><br />Superman is shown to be probably one of the dumbest heroes in the universe. A big green piece of meteorite is stolen from a museum, Lex Luthor is out of prison, he now has knowledge about Superman's powers and weaknesses, and yet he's still not able to connect the dots enough to know Luthor would be using kryptonite against him.<br /><br />According to the movie the only thing Superman is good for is lifting really, really heavy things. The action sequences are all incredibly predictable. | negative |
I had the pleasure of watching this two chairs down from (one of?) the Executive Producer at the Atlantic Film Festival, Which was interesting because he laughed at very different times than the rest of us.<br /><br />Filmed in Atlantic Canada, the movie is about three teen-aged girls who in one of their last summers of their youth, devote a large deal of energy to sleeping with a married 30-year old man, despite much protestation.<br /><br />It's definitely worth a watch, but the humour was geared a completely different demographic than the one I inhabit (Male 18-25), so I was shaking my head at the character's antics rather than laughing. Inspite of this, the story is strong enough to hold up for itself make it entertaining, without so much laughing. | positive |
The Odd Couple is a comic gem. One the funniest script ever committed to celluloid - exceeded only by Strangelove, Spinal Tap and Lebowski! Lemmon and Matthau are best friends: obsessive compulsive Felix and sloppy, irresponsible Oscar. Oscar's wife has already left him because he is impossible to live with due to his irresponsible attitude. Felix's wife leaves him at the start of the movie, and after an aborted suicide attempt he moves in with poker buddy Oscar. Thats when the fun begins.<br /><br />The entire script is brilliant and filled with brilliant one-liners. You are probably already familiar with the "F.U." joke but it still works brilliantly due to Matthau's comic timing.<br /><br />My favorite moments are when Lemmon tries to clear his sinus in the diner and when the Pigeon sisters are being charmed by a very suave Matthau and Lemmon is totally out of his element. This one requires repeat viewings! | positive |
Having read Diamond's book, I was slightly disappointed in the series, but all in all, it is quite informative. Reading the other comments, it is comforting to know that the 'culture warriors' are hard at work, seeing 'attacks' on 'Western Civilization' under every rug.<br /><br />Is Diamond a little preachy ? Sure. Like a lot of academics, he sees his theory as the most important thing ever. He uses the phrase 'guns, germs, and steel' at seemingly every opportunity during the series. We get it, after about the first 10 minutes.<br /><br />Is Diamond a little simplistic (in the series) ? Sure. The part about the Spaniards in South America is particularly amusing, condensing some very long, complicated history down to 'smallpox, swords, and horses', wrapping up the whole conquest of South America in about 15 minutes. But the point remains valid - these things did in fact contribute (but not totally define) the reasons for the Spaniard's success against the established cultures.<br /><br />Is he preaching *against* Western Civilization in any way ? Nope. Not a word. Not to my ear. All he says is that luck played a large part in determining which cultures advanced more quickly, *not* that luck is the only reason.<br /><br />In the end, if you're looking for something that validates your own sense of superiority, then this series is not for you. But if you are interested in all of the factors than influence how societies succeed or fail, this series presents a useful interpretation of the historical evidence. | positive |
It's amazing that this movie turns out to be in one of my hitlists after all. It is by far the number 1 worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />Not only have I ever been this bored before (luckily not for more then 1,5 hours), the pre-adolescent attempts at humor that feature it are not even close to getting but one of the corners of my mouth slightly tilted. After the first very awkward part, you tend to hope that the other parts will be at least slightly better. You hope in vain, it only goes downhill from there.<br /><br />The movie has no story worth telling whatsoever and repeats this non-story three times. One can only hope that by some miracle all remaining copies of this movie are lost forever and Trent Harris never lays his hands on a camera again... | negative |
Im a die hard Dads Army fan and nothing will ever change that. I got all the tapes, DVD's and audiobooks and every time i watch/listen to them its brand new. <br /><br />The film. The film is a re run of certain episodes, Man and the hour, Enemy within the gates, Battle School and numerous others with a different edge. Introduction of a new General instead of Captain Square was a brilliant move - especially when he wouldn't cash the cheque (something that is rarely done now).<br /><br />It follows through the early years of getting equipment and uniforms, starting up and training. All in all, its a great film for a boring Sunday afternoon. <br /><br />Two draw backs. One is the Germans bogus dodgy accents (come one, Germans cant pronounced the letter "W" like us) and Two The casting of Liz Frazer instead of the familiar Janet Davis. I like Liz in other films like the carry ons but she doesn't carry it correctly in this and Janet Davis would have been the better choice. | positive |
Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's. | negative |
I will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original "day of the living dead". 6. Acting not as good as the "Bold and the beautiful". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.<br /><br />Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish. | negative |
Being a fan of Marlene Dietrich's films, I was very anxious to see this "documentary." I also got sucked in by reading rave review after rave review from the national critics. That should have tipped me off.<br /><br />The movie is just plain boring and obviously extremely overrated. You don't even see Dietrich. She is heard in the background, discussing her movies and this video. She does almost nothing but complain about everything. What a drag! <br /><br />The filmmaker, Maximilian Schell, constantly complains himself and pleads with her to be on camera.....all to no avail. She just keeps refusing to cooperate. After awhile, this sort of thing gets really tiring. With her attitude, why would Schell continue with this project? He should have just told the prima donna to "shove it."<br /><br />Regardless of what you read, do not waste your time with this. | negative |
"Wagons East" is widely known as John Candy's last movie, as he died on the set. That's just what makes it so sad: not simply that Candy suffered a fatal heart attack, but that it was on the set of such a crummy movie. Seriously, I don't know what they were thinking when they came up with this piece of crap, but the flick has NO redeeming qualities. It's as if they took every unused script for stupid westerns and just mixed them together and filmed it. No wonder John Candy didn't want to make the movie; maybe his contractual participation was what did him in.<br /><br />Anyway, the point is that Candy did much better than this throughout his career. To be certain, he had already completed Michael Moore's "Canadian Bacon", in which the United States declares war on Canada. Just stick with that one and you can say that Candy ended his career honorably. As for Richard Lewis - who previous had co-starred with Candy in Eugene Levy's absurd but hilarious "Once Upon a Crime" - he made up for this piece of crap by frequently guest appearing on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" in later years. | negative |
This horror movie starts out promisingly enough and there is a moment where I thought to myself "this is going to be really good". However, it gets rather boring rather quick at the end. The acting is fairly good, as is the location and the story starts out rather well too. The problem, not enough kills on screen and an ending where you have the monster basically turning tail and running. I wanted to see more, especially after a very good sleeping bag scene where I thought the movie was picking up and going to be a winner. Unfortunately after that the movie showed the monster very little and the back of the DVD lied as it told me that the desert beneath the people literally came alive and was capable of devouring their flesh...now that would have been some movie, a nearly inescapable situation. Granted that would have made viewers uncomfortable and it might of ramped up the tension, but that is what horror movies are supposed to do! Instead we have very few shots of the creature or creatures as it were and when we do see it, it is mainly on the defensive. Still it wasn't all bad, it just needed more horror less hunting and more chomping. | negative |
Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews. <br /><br />This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about! <br /><br />The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford. <br /><br />The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.<br /><br />The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between "Days of Thunder" and "Apollo 13." <br /><br />And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of "Thunderbird 6" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.<br /><br />There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.<br /><br />The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells | negative |
This movie was so heart warming. A true testament to an actors real life everyday ups and downs.It was truly a wonderful experience to share the passion of the actor on film and respect for what it must have taken off screen. This film is a reminder to everyone to go for there dreams!Never give up!Hurray for The Stand -in!!! | positive |
Remember H.G. Wells' "The Invisible Man"? Well here's another movie like it, only more extreme. "Hollow Man" is like no one story about invisibility as a weapon of choice. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientific genius who goes out into the world of invisibility and making it useful for military purposes. At first making the serum was the easy part, making the person come back was not. Most of the first tries ended up unstable. Until one night, when he perfected the formula. And who else, but Caine would be the lab rat. The gorilla was the first and almost died, so when he came to, it was a close one. So when the did Caine, he decided to use it for fun. Then when he got tired of being not seen, the team tried their best to bring him back to the world of the flesh. However, the visibility formula happens to not work the way it should, and Caine would delve into madness. So he ends up being one mad invisible killer. It would be best to just get out of town instead of taking the lives of people that are close to you. I would care less about the ones who did you wrong. Great movie, plenty of fun. 3 out of 5 stars! | positive |
This is a film that really makes me cringe. In 1951, MGM and Looney Toons were making some of their very best cartoons--with amazing animation, exceptional backgrounds and great stories. Then, in the late 40s, a new style of animation began to appear (such as the "Crusader Rabbit" series on TV)--animation with extremely simplistic artwork in order to save money. Unfortunately, Columbia Picture's cynical ploy worked!! Instead of the public hating the toons (as they should have), many accepted them and the Oscar people (AMPAS) actually gave this film the award for Best Animated Short--giving legitimacy for an inferior product. Unfortunately, in the dollars and sense world of Hollywood, this soon began to creep into the products of legitimate studios--resulting in rather crappy cartoons. Later, it got even worse as in addition to lousy animation and backgrounds, the stories themselves became almost unbearable for adults to watch. The cleverness and style of the classic cartoons were gone. And for this tragedy, I blame, in part, GERALD MCBOING-BOING--one of the granddaddies of cheap cartoons. The story isn't that bad but the animation is a horror and listening to the kid saying "boing-boing" incessantly is a pain. | negative |
I've seen Lonesome Dove, Dead Man's Walk, and The Streets of Laredo, and now The Return to Lonesome Dove. If you are hungry for more after watching Lonesome Dove, this'll fill yer belly. Great cast, great story. Most definitely a close second to Lonesome Dove. I will be purchasing this movie to add to my collection. This is the best, or at least my favorite performance by Jon Voight. He is Captain Call. Lou Gossett Jr. playing Isom Pickett is not somebody I'd mess with, he is a bad ass with perspective. William Peterson does a great job as well. Rick Schroder is back as Newt with an angst filled performance that reminds me of his stint on NYPD Blue. My only problem with this film (and it's really picking nits) is that I had the impression that Call wanted to be "the first man to graze cattle in Montana", and it's obvious that Dunnigan had already been there a while. A little inconsistent, but easily overlooked as you lose yourself in the fantastic tale. I especially love the apparent character growth of Jasper Fant and July Johnson. I've watched this movie several times and am ready for another sequel. | positive |
Both the book and the film are excellent in their own right. They do differ slightly but that enhances and not detracts from what is an excellent script and acting. The historical atmosphere, the young girl looking for love, the amazing background of music hall and the voyage into the lesbian world of London early twentieth century make this an exceptional movie. Andrew Davies as the scriptwriter excels himself as he writes this lesbian love story with such sensitivity. Rachael Sterling and Keeley Hawes are both excellent actresses and give these parts their best. The rest of the cast are very good. If there was higher than 10 out of 10 I would give it! | positive |
To some, this Biblical film is a story of judgment and condemnation... Others see it as a story of grace, restoration, and hope... It is actually both Henry King illustrates the portrait of a mighty monarch almost destroyed by his passion, his downward spiral of sin, and his upward climb of healing..<br /><br />'David and Bathsheba' is an emotional movie full of vividly memorable characters who attain mythic status while retaining their humanity... Henry King handles the powerful story, taken from the Old Testament, with skill...<br /><br />David, 'the lion of Judah,' having stormed the walls of Rabgah, saves the life of one of his faithful warriors Uriah (Kieron Moore), and returns to Jerusalem... <br /><br />Back at his court, his first wife complains of neglect, and offends him for being a shepherd's son, distinguishing herself for being the daughter of King Saul...<br /><br />One evening, and while walking on the terrace of his palace which evidently held a commanding view of the neighborhood, David's eyes happened to alight upon a young lady who was taking a refreshing bath... She was beautiful and attractive... David could not take his eyes off her... He finds out later on that she was the wife of one of his officers... <br /><br />Sending for her, he discovers that she, too, is unhappy in her marriage... By this point, it's apparent that David's intentions shift from an interest in taking Bathsheba as a wife, to just plain taking Bathsheba... As usual, sin had its consequences, and David hadn't planned on that possibility...<br /><br />When a drought sweeps the land and there is a threat of famine, David suspects that the Lord is punishing him and his people for his sin... But when Bathsheba tells him that she is pregnant and fears that she may be stoned to death according to the law of Moses, David tries to cover up his sin... <br /><br />He sends word to Joab, the commander of his army, and ordered him to send to him Bathsheba's husband... David did something that was abominable in God's sight... He sends the man to the front line where he would be killed... <br /><br />The soldier is indeed killed and with him out of the way, David marries his beloved Bathsheba in full regal splendor...<br /><br />God punishes the couple when Bathsheba's child dies soon after birth... Meanwhile, a mighty famine has spread throughout the land and the Israelites - led by Nathan - blame the King for their plight... They storm the palace and demand that Bathsheba pays for her sin...<br /><br />Peck plays the compassionate king whose lustful desire outweighed his good sense and integrity.. <br /><br />Hayward as Bathsheba, is a sensitive woman who begins to believe that every disaster occurring in her life is the direct result of her adultery... The sequence of her bath which could have been a great moment in Biblical film history, is badly mishandled, and the viewers eyes are led briefly to Hayward's face and shoulders...<br /><br />Raymond Massey appeared as Nathan the Prophet, sent by God to rebuke David after his adultery with Bathsheba; Gwyneth Verdon is Queen Michal who tries to resist the ambition and greed that have become integral to David's personality and kingship; ex-silent screen idol, Francis X. Bushman, had a brief part as King Saul... <br /><br />The best moments of the film were: The Ark en route to its permanent home when God breaks a young soldier who tries to touch the sacred object; the defining moment in David's life when he confesses his sin and is prepared to accept his punishment of death; and for the film's climax, inserting it as a flashback, David remembering his fight with the giant Goliath... <br /><br />With superb color photography and a masterly music score, 'David and Bathsheba' won Oscar nominations in the following categories: Music Scoring, Art and Set Direction, Cinematography, Story and Screenplay, and Costume Design.. | positive |
After just viewing the movie, I must say this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. This takes my worst movie award away from Komodo, which is no easy feat. It is neither a porno nor a legitimate film and it gives them both a bad name. The acting, camera-work, plot, script, and sound are all awful. My personal favorite part of the movie is the duck asking the bartender if he has any grapes. Why was a joke such as this put in the film? Was the director thinking; "I need a humorous scene to balance out the great acting so I will use some lame ass joke I read on a Laffy Taffy wrapper." Another retarded part is when Norman spills the invisibility potion on himself as he attempts to keep it from spilling. Why did they even bother to give the film a NC-17 rating, were they hoping to get as large of an audience as possible? At least if it were rated X it would be more sexual and therefore taking the viewers focus away from the overall low quality. I pray for someone who worked on this panty waste of a flick to respond. | negative |
Rajinikanth becomes born again after getting a magical power which he can use seven times.<br /><br />There are several problems with this movie that are obvious to the casual audience: the 50ish Rajinikanth is still at home with his parents; the father of the girl next door thinks that he is a compelling "boy" ('vaseekaramaana paiyan'); Rajinikanth suddenly interrupts the movie with his sermons, the worst being how women of yesteryears got their exercise through household work--yet we are to believe that he is not a theist; even though he was well read, he wastes six of his seven powers on a stupid kite; I can go on, but you get the picture.<br /><br />There are god-men, there are gods, and there is Rajinikanth. The directory has difficulty fitting Rajinikanth into one of these categories. Initially, Rajinikanth is just Rajinikanth doing what Tamil heroes do--stand up to villains and, in spite of being the oldest, getting courted by the prettiest girl in the movie. Rajinikanth does this well and some of Rajinikanth's trademark styles are actually enjoyable--"baba count" is a novelty. What makes this movie unbearable is that those few initial minutes are just a preface to an worst book to be ever written. Even that preface is punctuated with some comedy which are forced and obvious.<br /><br />The director doesn't explain the purpose of the hero; we see that the hero is facing several hurdles (from politicians, as usual) but we can't really root for the hero because we don't know what the hero's ultimate goal is. At the end, when everyone wants him to be the leader, the hero gives another one of his sermons and walks away to become a hermit. The director offers no solution to the problem in the climax scene.<br /><br />A. R. Rehman's score is really interesting. Either he shows patches of brilliance or he didn't bother to invest himself fully into this movie--who can blame him. There is one scene where Rajinikanth steps into the van of one of the crooks and then throws the knife and starts his baba count. The music is very apt for the moment and acts as a catalyst adding further tension. The songs are all mediocre, no one would bother with the songs from this movie after a few years.<br /><br />Unfortunately, 1 is the lowest rank you can assign in IMDb. This movie has all the elements that justify its rightful place at the nether of IMDb's ranking. | negative |
I love this show! It's like watching a mini movie each week!!! The first episode was so gripping and terrifying...so was part 2 of the pilot... I'm definitely gonna keep tuning into this show! This is the real Survivor! I've looked at a few of the other comments and I can see that already after just one or two episodes the morons here are already crying wolf... Sorry if it's not another reality show, kiddies! There was once a time where there were...now brace yourself! Actual TV shows! And this one is actually good unlike most of the crappy sitcoms today or the ump-teenth carbon copy of a Law & Order or NYPD Blue or CSI series they're dishing out... Watch this yourself to form your own opinion, don't take one from the boneheads here! | positive |
Haines is excellent as the brash cadet who thinks West Point will really amount to something now that he has arrived. Haines displays his easy, goofy comic persona as he takes on West Point and Joan Crawford, the local beauty. Great fun for the first half. And amazingly touching after Haines's character goes too far and nearly gets shunned by fellow cadets. The new, humility-filled Haines get s alast-minute reprieve to play in the bill football game against Navy and, despite a broken arm, wins the game. Great, rousing entertainment by MGM in this Haines formula film, shows Billy at his best. William Bakewell also scores as the skinny follower. The handsome-but-goony character would be played by Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper and others in later decades, another take on the beautiful-but-daffy dames played by Carole Lombard and Marion Davies. West Point is a winner! | positive |
If you have not heard of this film from Walt Disney Pictures, do not worry about it. It would be classed along the other films by Disney that are meant for educational purposes like "Family Planning".<br /><br />It was co-produced with Kotex to teach pre-teen girls about Menstruation, supposably. It only educates at a superficial level, so it does not go into heavy detail for the animated "Ram's Head"/ Reproductive System sequence.<br /><br />The film does show "The Wonderful World of Disney" elements like the turning of the page and the use of animation to tell the story.<br /><br />This film is impossible to find, so if you can find the film, best luck to you and enjoy. | positive |
Was it a thriller, as I thought when I saw the cover at the video library? No. Was it a 'food fr thought' as the author was maybe trying to make it? Not really. So what was it? It was a very average movie, that had great potential, and was nicely directed but let down by a confusing story without strong points, beginning middle and end, with poor acting expect from the serial killer guy, who although he seemed overzealous at some points delivered the best performance of the cast overall. It was nice cinematography, with good colours, cool hi-tec stuff, beautiful scenics but leaves you lost about where it's going and where it has just been. And with a feeling of let's just quickly wrap it up in the end. OK to watch if there's nothing else on TV. | negative |
The Reader is a perfect example of what a short film should be. A poignant story, told simply through well written dialog, beautifully painted images, a score that seamlessly weaves it's way through the narrative, and characters portrayed with thoughtfulness and grace.<br /><br />I saw this film at a festival where other interesting films and ideas were screened. But none of the other shorts had all the elements of great film-making coming together in one film as The Reader did. The Reader commanded the attention of every festival-goer in the room and for 10 minutes took us into the emotional lives of the characters.<br /><br />Duncan Rogers has created a beautiful film and I hope to see more from this director be it more shorts or perhaps a feature length film. | positive |
The ghost of the Vietnam war has haunted the American psyche for thirty years now. If not because of the fact that tens of thousands of American soldiers went MIA in Vietnam, or the manner in which those who returned were treated, then because it was the first war that America could be said to have lost. Many men came home from the war a shadow of their former selves, and the original First Blood managed to provide a small insight into their problems as they attempted to rotate back into the world, as the saying goes. First Blood Part II, on the other hand, is little more than a fist-pumping mess that goes to illustrate how sore America can be, both in victory and defeat. Stallone puts in another sluggish performance as the titular Special Forces commando, while Richard Crenna attempts to hold up the serious actor quotient. Where it all comes undone is in the script, which didn't do any better when it was called Missing In Action and starred Chuck Norris. What little semblance of logic there was in the original is now gone, as the filmmakers decide to paint a big S on Rambo's massive chest.<br /><br />The film picks up a little while after the end of First Blood. The film, that is - the novel didn't allow for the possibility of sequels. In this mediocre follow-up, Rambo has been put to work at what appears to be some sort of open-air mine. As he is breaking rocks and working up a sweat, a prison guard pulls him away to go and have a chat with Colonel Trautman, who advises him that his government is willing to offer him an early release if he goes on a covert mission. Rambo, never one to back down from a hard day's violent work, accepts, and is promptly shipped off to a covert base in what appears to be Cambodia or Thailand (I forget which). From there, he is commissioned to seek out a camp where American MIAs are supposedly being held, and photograph them. His mission quite clearly specifies that he is not to make any attempt to secure their release. Rambo being Rambo, however, has other ideas in spite of their possible political implications.<br /><br />Of course, things go somewhat awry when it turns out that the people commissioning Rambo's work have more interest in making sure no American MIAs are found. It is the age-old conspiracy theory, and makes no apologies for exploiting the plight of many an American family that was left without a son during the ten years that the official Vietnam war had been raging for. Of course, with the Jingoism that was inherent in American society during the 1980s, they could not help but work in a plot tangent about the Vietnamese army being in bed with what appears to be a single battalion of Russians. Together, the two antagonists attempt to extract what information they can from Rambo, but it backfires upon them in an orgy of bullets, arrows, rockets, and destruction. About the only thing missing is the moment when Rambo drinks from a grail-like chalice and declares himself invincible.<br /><br />To be honest, First Blood Part II is a well-photographed, and well-choreographed, action spectacle. The hand-to-hand combat with the larger Russian commander is one of the few battles in the film that has any dramatic tension whatsoever. The rest is simply a case of the lead actor and the director building a fantasy for Americans to pump their fist to. Fortunately, this fad of America über alles action films soon died down when more introspective and intelligent war films such as Platoon began doing the rounds. Some of the kills shown here are quite creative, despite all the problems. The Vietnamese commander meets an end that many an action film villain would envy. The Russian commander bites it in a manner that is as spectacular as it is ridiculous. Only in a 1980s action film would one see a LAW being used from inside a helicopter. Sure, there have been action film clichés rooted in contradictions of fact, but never this ridiculous before.<br /><br />I gave Rambo: First Blood Part II a one out of ten. It is so bad it is ridiculous, and so ridiculous that it is often funny. One doesn't even need to have served in the military to know how stupid some of the action sequences are. The only risk it takes is in trying to make a stupid political statement with what is a heartbreaking subject for those directly involved. Keep the tongue firmly in the cheek, and it might be watchable. | negative |
This has got to be the best movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Combine breathtaking cinematography with stunning acting and a gripping plot, and you have a masterpiece.<br /><br />Dog Bite Dog had me gripping the edge of my seat during some scenes, recoiling in horror during others, and left me drowning in my own tears after the tragic ending.<br /><br />The film left a deep impression on me. It's shockingly violent scenes contrasted sharply with the poignant and tender 'love' scenes. The film is undeserving of it's Cat III (nudity) rating; there are no nude scenes whatsoever, and the 'love' scenes do not even involve kissing or 'making out'.<br /><br />The message which this film presented to me? All human beings, no matter how violent or cruel they may seem, have a tender side. Edison Chen does a superb job playing the part of the murderous Pang.<br /><br />I rate this film 10/10. It's a must-watch. | positive |
The performance by Om Puri, Smita Patil, and Sadashiv Amrapurkar and the whole chemistry comes off nicely, along with the minimalist approach to story telling and direction by Govind Nihlani. The dialogues by Vijay Tendulkar is also great. <br /><br />I have not seen another movie like this. It is one whole, each piece so nicely fit in the plot. You cannot not be impressed by this movie. <br /><br />Amrish Puri comes off as the bossy husband and 'baap' of Om Puri. Om Puri is the young man caught between his sense of duty and his inability to fight the system. Sadhashiv as Rama Shetty gives just about the right touch to the movie with his smiling and soft speaking villain. The first meeting of Anand Velankar with Rama Shetty's at Sadhashiv's place is absoulely stunning. Smita Patil does not play a main role, but her part is also not distracting from the main plot. <br /><br />And to add to this all Kafi Inamdar plays the role of a cop who has come to terms with the system and its workings. Saying right things in the right places and knowing how to keep himself away from trouble. He is also the 'guru' of Om Puri and helps him whenever he gets into trouble.<br /><br />The movie not only brings to focus the difficulties faced by a police officer trying to do his duty but also the other side of brutalities in police custody. Om Puri captures hopelessness and the burning desire to break free in this exceptional performance in Ardh Satya. <br /><br />A treat to all avid fans of Indian cinema. | positive |
Lucio Fulci, later known for his graphic horror films like The Beyond and Zombie, was years earlier a master of the Italian giallo (in the company of Argento and Bava) with films like A Lizard In A Woman's Skin and his masterpiece, Don't Torture A Duckling. This film has all the elements of the Italian mystery/thriller genre known as the giallo, but really pulls the viewers in by having each key character with a skeleton in his/her own closet. This keeps you doing as much detective work as the detectives in the film itself. Who is killing the young boys in town? The young rich woman who is so bored that she sexually taunts the eventual victims, the reporter who likes to tamper with a crime scene to get a better photo shot, the townswoman with a mentally retarded daughter, the local witch, the town idiot....the list goes on, and you have to keep mental notes like a true game to play and solve. The themes in this film are very daring and done with that perfect Italian style in the early 1970s. It is certain that no American studio would have even considered making a film of such strong content, and that is precisely why this is such a satisfying film (despite some unusual accent choices for the dubbing) and will definitely have people discussing its meanings long after viewing it. As the saying goes, they don't make them like this anymore, so get a copy and cherish an important film like this one! | positive |
*SPOILERS*<br /><br />I don't care what anyone says, this movie is friggin' hilarious. This is the sequel to Jack Frost, a movie about a killer snowman. The snowman is created when a convicted serial killer about to be executed is taken to the execution chamber, but the truck crashes with a truck carrying DNA manipulation chemicals that make human DNA bond with dirt, or in this case, snow. The first movie was just boring, and eventually the snowman is destroyed by pouring antifreeze on him.<br /><br />Or so they thought.<br /><br />This movie takes place about a year after the second. Some scientists resurrect Jack Frost by mixing the antifreeze with chemicals. No explanation is ever given for why they do this, they just do. Meanwhile, the sherrif who arrested Frost in the first is going to the Bahamas. Unfortunately, the snowman comes with him.<br /><br />This movie has it all. It has talking carrots that can stand up, ice cubes that explode when you stick them in your mouth, and killer snowballs. Yes, killer snowballs. They even say "Dada!" like babies. I'll have to give the makers of this credit. The snowballs are some of the cutest little things ever dreamed up. I wish that I could get one as a pet. Frost finally freezes the island, as if a killer snowman has the ability to influence major weather patterns.<br /><br />Then there's the actors. There's Manners, the FBI agent from the first movie, except here he's wearing an eyepatch. YARR MATEYS, SHIVER ME TIMBERS, I BE AN FBI AGENT! YARRR! And then there's the stereotypical British adventurer and the stereotypical black Jamaican with dreadlocks. And finally, Captain Fun. The fruitiest man on the face of the planet, bar none.<br /><br />This movie isn't scary, but is is hilarious. I laughed my butt off the whole way through, and I recommend this for anyone who likes a good "bad" movie.<br /><br />*** out **** | positive |
The beginning of the 90s brought many "quirky" and "off-beat" independent films, a particular sub-genre of which is the semi-spiritual desert crime movie. Others of note are "Wild at Heart", "From Dusk Til Dawn", and to a certain extent "Natural Born Killers". Good films like those spawned junk like "Highway 666", "Destiny Turns on the Radio" and this ineptly surreal anti-masterpiece "Under The Hula Moon". It's a comedy that aims for a certain emotional tone, attains it, but keeps going to the point of irritation. While the pursuit across the spirit-world of the desert and the casting of Chris Penn are good ideas, the film is not dirty enough or hard enough to be a good crime movie, and isn't focused enough on laughs to really be a comedy. I won't blow the ending, but let's just say it's bad. The film is basically a bad side effect of genre-cancer. This is the dregs of indie-mania. | negative |
So, where are the cannibals? Those intrigued by the title and the 'real cannibal' appeal of this film will be let down. Instead, we are shown a strange man and his re-visiting of a Papua New Guinea village full of natives, one of whom was his lover several decades prior. The man, Tobias Schneebaum is New York Jewish as they come and somehow, this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes.<br /><br />There are no real cannibals here: only stories relayed by some of the natives and by Tobias himself. Not all together a bad film. Very interesting and great cinematography. Schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from Western Civilization as one can get.<br /><br />It's just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary.<br /><br />4 out of 10, kids. | negative |
This is a unique and bold film. It's energetic, with highly developed characters. Very good performances. <br /><br />I love directors who are not afraid to ask the audience to think... <br /><br />Bret Carr dares to look inward, ask questions, and dig underneath the surface. By the nature of the film, it practically demands that the viewer look inward as well. It can take some courage to do this. I can see how some close-minded people might find this quite disturbing. However, I found it thought-provoking, much more than just entertainment.<br /><br />Bret Carr is truly an original filmmaker, with vision. I am curious to see what he will do next.<br /><br />Watch him. | positive |
My question is what was the worst element of this movie? Was it the acting? directing? script?. Maybe it was the waste of Alan Ladd and Jack LaRue. LaRue and, especially, Ladd are capable of bringing extreme sinisterness to a role. In this movie, it was hard to tell who the bad guy was. Granted, Ladd was playing an undercover good guy, but even in his good guy roles, he could be very chilling. So, the net result was a potentially good movie bereft of any feeling of conflict. | negative |
Meek and mild Edward G. Robinson (as Wilbert Winkle) decides to quit his bank job and do what he wants, open a "fix-it" repair shop behind his house. Mr. Robinson is married, but childless; he has befriended local orphanage resident Ted Donaldson (as Barry). Young Donaldson is an eager workshop assistant, and sees Robinson as a father figure. Robinson's nagging wife Ruth Warwick (as Amy) is unhappy with Robinson's job choice, and conspires to return matters to her idea of normalcy. Their lives are further disrupted when Robinson is drafted.<br /><br />The war also disrupts what might have been an interesting story, as Robinson's character struggles against a domineering, unsympathetic wife. Possibly, filmmakers are showing how war can save marriages and positively redirect lives. Robinson and Donaldson are a likable team. Robert Mitchum has an inauspicious bit part. The ending "trick" played by Ms. Warwick and Donaldson is predictably staged. | negative |
The film is somewhat entertaining, but the greatest feature is Shalom Harlow's laughable performance. It has been 4 years since this movie was released and hopefully Harlow has gone through more training. Perhaps she should stick to the more worldly, somewhat corruptive characters that she has generated in other performances. | negative |
It's always interesting to view a horror movie after hearing so much praise from other fans. Experience has taught me that you should never generalize fan taste within a genre. My expectations of this movie were a great deal higher than my viewed opinion.<br /><br />Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things is a movie with a good intended plot that trips up too many times to carry it out. The whole idea of a band of actors staging a reanimation of dead corpses had me intrigued. However, everything degenerated into cinematic chaos. The actors,who for the most part were competent and amazingly expressive, were offered roles that fail to maintain consistent characterization. Some of these characters go from ambivalence about the whole act of defiling a cemetery, to outspoken criticism, back to ambivalence. It's one thing for characters to have a change heart in the course of the film; it's another to produce an overly dynamic, circular attitude that loops every ten minutes.<br /><br />Another inconsistent element of this film is the premise. Does the main protagonist intend for the ceremony to be theatrical prank or does he actually conspire with dark spiritual forces to raise the dead? Even with the aforementioned flaws, I would recommend this movie to other horror fans, since I believe that only true horror fans will appreciate the dark atmospheric components and be able to ignore the plot's inconsistency. The scene where the dead rise out of the grave is made extremely haunting (even to a veteran zombie enthusiast) by the excellent combined use of scenery and sound, and the great choice of skilled actors chosen to play the reanimated dead. Current filmmakers should learn from CSPWDT about using the proper video and audio techniques in mood development.<br /><br />All in all, if you are zombie movie completionist like me, you should take time to locate and view this movie. It's a fun watch. | negative |
Boring as hell and kind of a chick flick.<br /><br />It's the story of a neurotic woman who struggles with the concept of marriage as a business arrangement, the romantic nature of a one night stand, and the uncertainty and pitfalls of true love.<br /><br />Many of the story's motifs are reminiscent of other recent KST movies (e.g. the English Patient), but have far less appeal.<br /><br />After the first half-hour I started checking my watch, wondering if I'd make it home in time to catch Leno on tv.<br /><br />I passed up "Gladiator" to see this!?! | negative |
OK, so Soldier isn't deep and meaningful like Blade Runner or as big budget as Terminator 2 but on the whole I found it quite enjoyable.<br /><br />The fact that Kurt Russell stayed in character not speaking and being virtually emotionless made the moments when his humanity broke through all the more poignant. I found his portrayal of restricted emotional development more touching than Arnie's in the T films (and before I get comments yes I know that Arnie was a cyborg and Kurt was human but the premise put forward by both films was the same).<br /><br />So to the film itself, a reasonable US/Brit cast are able to flesh out this little story. Not really sure if Gary Busey and his two deputies were baddies or goodies, so was unable to decide whether I liked them or not. The colony was a little more realistic neither a misguided bunch of peace loving/gullible/cowardly hicks who get wiped out from the get go nor a group of subversive aggressive terrorists paranoid about offworlders and each other.<br /><br />Kurt Russell is good and unlike other comments I do not feel this will have a negative impact on his career (unlike maybe Escape from LA - sequels are such fickle creatures!). Sean Pertwee has really done his late father proud by continuing the families noble Sci-Fi lineage. And the rest of the cast helped flesh out this pathetic band of people making the most of a bad situation and not doing too badly.<br /><br />If you see this on your TV schedule I would recommend giving it a chance. I don't think you will be disappointed. | positive |
The question, when one sees a movie this bad, is not necessarily, "How did a movie this bad get made?" or even, "Why did I see this awful in the first place?" but, "What have I learned from this experience?" Here's what I learned:<br /><br />- Just because the "rules" of horror movies have been catalogued and satirized countless times in the last ten years doesn't mean someone won't go ahead and make a movie that uses ALL of them, without a shred of humor or irony.<br /><br />- If your movie has to be described as **loosely** based on the video game, you have script problems.<br /><br />- The black character may not always die first, but the Asian character does always know kung-fu.<br /><br />- While you may be proud that you figured out how to do the "the Matrix effect" on a budget, that doesn't necessarily mean you should use it over and over again ad nausea.<br /><br />- Being Ron Howard's brother does not guarantee choice roles.<br /><br />- Whenever a scene doesn't edit together, just use some footage from the video game, no one will notice.<br /><br />- If your cousin's rap-metal band offers to write your movie's theme for free, politely decline.<br /><br />- Zombie movies are not about people killing zombies. They're about zombies killing people, preferably in the most gruesome way possible. That's what makes them SCARY.<br /><br />- White people who can pay $1600 to get to a rave deserve to die.<br /><br />- If you find an old book, it will tell you everything you need to know. Anything else you will figure out on your own two lines after someone asks, "What was that?" or, "Where are we?"<br /><br />- Bare breasts are not horror movie panacea.<br /><br />- A helicopter boom shot and a licensing deal with Sega magically transforms your movie from "student film" to "major studio release". Try it!<br /><br />- Just because you can name-drop all three "Living Dead" movies, that does not make you George Romero. Or even Paul W. S. Anderson.<br /><br />I've seen worse movies, but only because I've seen "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation." | negative |
Roy Scheider is not Steve McQueen or Clint Eastwood but then who is? The Seven-Ups is one of the better cop movies, even today, and is second only to McQueen's Bullitt and the Dirty Harry series, which isn't bad company. There are three things that seem to make a good cop movie: Believable script with great acting, great car chase scenes, and some heavy action. This movie has all three and the car chase scene is better than that in Dirty Harry. Scheider plays the head of a group of cops out to get NY's bad guys sentenced to seven years or more; hence the name Seven-Ups. Overall, not quite up to Dirty Harry or Bullitt but far better than all of the cop movies made since the Dirty Harry series. 9/10. | positive |
This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched "Surface to Air" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously. | negative |
This is by far the WORST movie I have ever seen. I was going in expecting a cheesy movie but at least with some cool car scenes/races. What I got was nothing. The racing scene are so low budget they sped them up to make it look like the cars are "going fast" In one scene a Mercedes SLR goes from over 200 to 0 in like 4 seconds by just spinning around in circles. Its just ridiculous.<br /><br />If you wanna see a real movie about cars, see the fast and the furious series. They may be a little cheesy, but 100x better than this movie could ever hope to be. Better yet just watch Mischief 3000, the best car movie ever made I think. | negative |
I'm glad I never watched this show when it came out.<br /><br />I just wondered why it lasted 4 years. It reminds me of the terrible 80's with fake people, fake clothes, and fake music. How did I ever survive growing up in this era? <br /><br />The acting in the majority of episodes I have watched are forced. This makes for very boring shows. The plot lines are not very interesting as the old Twilight Zone shows. The old show inspired the imagination and made one look forward to the next show. <br /><br />Stick with the old Twilight Zone shows and spare yourself the pain of watching garbage. | negative |
I really thought that this movie was superb. Not only is the history correct, but the style is sumptuous and yet intimate. I was a fan of Emily Blunt's portrayal of Victoria and how she kept her spirit even though she was forced into a virtual exile while in her youth. Blunt depicts the charismatic and sometimes dogmatic manner that Vicotria became famous (perhaps infamous) for. The romantic elements of the movie are so genuine and tender that by the end of the movie you genuinely understand why Vicotria chose to live the rest of her days in mourning of Albert.<br /><br />The technical aspects of the film are worthy of note as well. I appreciated the beautiful score, which moves quite wonderfully along with the dramatic movement of the story. I also considered the cinematography to be outstanding, some scenes leaving me quite breathless because of the lushness and splendor they depict.<br /><br />There have been so few movies this year as beautiful and tender as this film and it rates as one of 2009's best! | positive |
I don't recommend watching this movie. It's a movie in which a movie is being filmed, with no attraction between actress and actor being played. The sex scene at the end of the movie which is to explain the reluctance of the actress (being played in the movie) to cooperate with the actor (being played in the movie)in it is a blunt repetition of the same scene in the Breillat movie Fat Girl. Everything there was played with more delicacy, if you can attach delicacy to a sex act like that. A typical French expression for the the thing happening in Sex is comedy is Oh la la! In Breillat's film Brief Crossing there also is sensitivity. In Sex is comedy I don't see real sensitivity and also a clear plot for the movie is not being developed so that there is a rather loose story with the disillusion of the end. | negative |
This movie states through its protagonist that the world is essentially sadness and pain and those that ignore this have blinders on. One can argue whether this is true or not. But even if you accept this as true, the movie's ending either A) disputes this by saying there can be some good in tragic situations or B) forgets this and uses a cliched montage in order to leave the audience feeling uplifted.<br /><br />That the movie metaphorically acquits its protagonist by presenting him as a sympathetic character despite any evidence for that sympathy shows contempt for the supporting characters who were the most compelling in the film.<br /><br />So what you have in this film is a script that is not consistent in its theme and direction that does not bring the ending into sync with the rest of the film. There are excellent performances given by every member of the cast especially Spacey, Olin, Martin Donovan, and Ann Magnuson. It's a shame that they weren't supported by a better writer/director. | negative |
On one level, this film can bring out the child in us that just wants to build sandcastles and throw stuff in the air just for the sake of seeing it fall down again. On a deeper level though, it explores a profound desire to reconnect with the land. I thoroughly empathized with the artist when he said, "when I'm not out here (alone) for any length of time, I feel unrooted."<br /><br />I considered Andy Goldsworthy one of the great contemporary artists. I'm familiar with his works mainly through his coffee-table books and a couple art gallery installations. But to see his work in motion, captured perfectly through Riedelsheimer's lens, was a revelation. Unfrozen in time, Goldsworthy's creations come alive, swirling, flying, dissolving, crumbling, crashing.<br /><br />And that's precisely what he's all about: Time. The process of creation and destruction. Of emergence and disappearing. Of coming out of the Void and becoming the Universe, and back again. There's a shamanic quality about him, verging on madness. You get the feeling, watching him at work, that his art is a lifeforce for him, that if he didn't do it, he would whither and perish.<br /><br />Luckily for us, Goldsworthy is able to share his vision through the communication medium of photography. Otherwise, with the exception of a few cairns and walls, they would only exist for one person. | positive |
this film is an undisguised attempt to appeal to a younger demographic of fourteen to 24 yr olds', and an insult to all of them. i refuse to believe that that age group is that vapid as to be entertained by this unnecessary "remake". early in the film one of the characters proclaims, "i am surrounded by idiots". this is the defining moment in the film, which goes steadily down from there. full of clichés, red-herring "scares" and unexplained events, the film is also full of characters who are not exactly brainiacs, a formula all too familiar in dumb horror movies. and that crappy "it's so dark i cant see" scenes stolen from Chainsaw Massacre but merely annoying, not building any tension, nor horror. it's difficult to film in the dark, and sometimes darkness is a great vehicle in a film that's suppose to have tension. but my own feeling was that the less you see in this case, the better. maybe he didn't want to wait until morning because he didn't care, other than it might cost him more money to do night scenes well, or he doesn't know how. who knows? unless you have never seen a horror film in your life, or you are two or three years old, every aspect of this film is predictable and done before. warning: Paris Hilton is in this movie. enough said. all in all a blasé slasher film which begs the question, where the h*ll is the wax?it was treated like a lost leader. if you're bored as possible and all other rentals are out or you're just in the mood for a bad horror film, which isn't really scary,or you'd like to see Paris have a pole smash through her head, go ahead and take a chance. it's not the worst movie i've ever seen, but if this is what the producers of this film thinks a younger audience wants, i pray that they are deluded. a profit-driven film with no attempt to achieve any kind of art nor respect for the genre. you know, smart characters make for a scarier movie. i believe this is Collet-Serra's debut as a director, besides commercials and music videos. he has another one coming out in 2006 called Goal 2. hopefully his goal is to make a better film. | negative |
Really, I think this movie is more an example of an easy target than a truly bad film. In fact, the movie is done very well in many respects and is very entertaining.<br /><br />Yes, the script is a little convoluted, but that's the genre. The film has a noirish atmosphere centered around a femme fatale. Just like all the old noir classics, this, too, has a screenplay that twists you around so that you don't always know how to make sense of it at first, and it can be a stretch if you think too deeply and try to put all of the pieces together. That's the genre. In general, the script has enough surprises and turns to keep the viewer guessing and, in turn, surprised, without abandoning the viewer.<br /><br />Sharon Stone is also an easy target. The truth is she looks great and she speaks her double-entendre laden dialog in such a way as to zhuzh it up into something mysterious, sexy and fun.<br /><br />The direction is more than passable, because let's face it--you have to keep an audience interested in the "did she or didn't she?" question for two hours. In addition to a twisty script and a fun performance by Stone, this is done effectively through the direction by the creation of a noirish atmosphere that is both dark and very stark and modern at the same time, with straight industrial lines to go along with Stone's sexy curves. The frame is always beautiful--press pause anywhere and there is something interesting to the eye.<br /><br />The film also effectively builds on things that were gimmicks in the first film and turns them into something a little more real, particularly the sex. "Katherine Tramell is bisexual...how shocking!" becomes treated more matter-of-factly here, and typically, the sexuality of the film is used to better effect. It is still titillating, but not done so readily for shock value and buzz as done in the first. I won't say that it isn't still somewhat of a gimmick because, let's face it, this film is supposed to be fun.<br /><br />And a fun film it is. It may be an easy target, but if you watch it for what it is: a noirish, femme-fatale driven, twisty, sexy, did-she-or-didn't-she who-dunnit, you're bound to enjoy it (no pun intended). | positive |
Dear friends, I've never seen such a trash movie as NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (1988). It seems that the director Kevin Tenney had the intention to copy classics like THE EVIL DEAD by Sam Raimi (1978) or George A. Romero's RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD from the same year. The cinematography was lousy, the movie was very dark, so I had to turn the brightness control to the maximum. Indeed, horror pictures have to be dark, but not the way like NIGHT OF THE DEMONS. The entire movie was ridiculous, no suspense, worse actors except Alvin Alexis in the role of Rodger, and horrible make-up effects. An average vote of 5 stars for that movie? I can't believe this. Perhaps the users were pleased about the tits, asses and pussies of the actresses, they were indeed worth 5 stars. Regards, Hans-Dieter | negative |
City girl Meg Tilly receives a horrifying phone call from her mother and, understandably shaken, returns home to her family's rural digs, only to be faced with a mystery: why are all the homespun residents acting out in bizarre and unsettling ways? Radiation thriller, with barely a nod to ecology, has small town residents going berserk, which (laughably) includes two women gazing at each other with desire in a public place and Tim Matheson receiving oral attention from a girl on an office bench. The picture is too silly for words, wasting Tilly's wistfulness and quiet intensity on trash while forcing itself into a corner it can't possibly hope to get out of. Some of the cinematography by Thomas Del Ruth is good (particularly a fire sequence set inside a garage), though he is let down by the scrappy editing--and a fairly bathetic finale. Simplistic screenplay has nary a surprise nor a shred of originality up its sleeve. *1/2 from **** | negative |
*May Contain Spoilers* A few weeks after I had originally wrote my review for Hood of the Living Dead I realized that I may have been a bit too harsh on this movie. Which is why I decided I would do something I had never done before. Review the same movie again. Don't get me wrong, I still don't like the movie, I still think it's dreck, and I still think the zombies don't look all that zombie-ish. The story in the movie is still in my opinion, weak and rather lame. The story is about a guy named Rick, who works as a scientist (that just happens to be working on a serum thing that heals sick cells, in animals) and his brother Germaine, the two aren't exactly on the best of terms (my my, an original plot point) and argue a lot. One day Germaine is shot in a drive-by shooting, and Rick calls up his scientist buddy to bring the serum to try to resuscitate Germaine(whereas most people would've called 911, but whatever), naturally the serum fails and Germaine "dies" (if that didn't happen there'd have been no movie), after the police and the coroner (until the end of time I will still think that maybe the paramedics should've shown up) leave the scene shows the coroner van (which I still believe was just someone's van with a "coroner" decal thrown on the side), and Germaine returning to life to attack and kill the paramedics. I would talk more about the plot, but I feel that if I reveal more about the story you wouldn't want to watch it (and we wouldn't want that now would we?), but suffice to say that the story (in my opinion at least) meanders and is rather slow moving (pun not intended). As I've previously said in my review the zombies don't look all that much like zombies, I still think they look like they've been in a bar fight. That's not to say that they should all be decaying and whatnot, but still there should at least be bite marks on the victims. Also I still don't like the fact that the director(s) continually switch up the pace at which the zombies move. They couldn't really seem to decide on whether or not to have the zombies run or shamble (as most zombie movies do), don't get me wrong, I'm all for running zombies but make up your minds people. In one scene the zombie runs toward the living, and in the other he just shambles to them. And sometimes they just don't seem believable (yes I know their fictitious creatures but still), I am of course referring to the zombie that runs his hand on the wall as though he were walking through a dark living room, and I still don't like the zombie who is lying on the ground, gets shot, then jerks like he was just shot. The sound in the movie also bothered me, mainly the music, which while it may have just been my copy of the film seemed pretty much non-existent. Music in a movie is important folks. Especially when the sound editing does sound like the director just took a friends camcorder and shot a little zombie flick. The acting is still atrocious (in my opinion) and is on par with the American "actors" from the Japanese zombie movie Junk. The movie is still bad, almost House of the Dead bad, it's better, no doubt about that, but then again that's not saying much. It's not the worst movie out there, and it is better than a lot of direct to video movies that are out there but at the end of the day wasn't good. I also think the movie moves really really slow, despite the fact that it is only an hour and twenty or so minutes (and yes, I still don't like the opening song). This is the type of movie I think is well-suited to be premiered on the Sci-Fi network. Which is why I am obligated to give this debacle of a film a one out of ten. But think of it this way, at least it's not a negative one. | negative |
One is tempted to define the genre of Gert de Graaff's movie as `event of the thought' following the example of Merab Mamardashvili. The nominal storyline is a certain Bart Klever's torturous quest for that ephemeral substance which constitutes the essence of personality. The script for his new movie is taking shape simultaneously on his computer and in his own imagination. This film-monologue originated as a response to Fellini's `8 ½' and cost Gert de Graaff 13 years of work. Excitedly playing with real and fictional characters as well as with the audience, it reveals the whimsical interconnection of the real and imaginary, the paradoxical co-existence in two different galaxies: that of Guttenberg and that of MacLhuen. For some time we are apt to side with the script writer, who believes that the cause of all misfortune is the damned stereotypes of mass mentality (`man', `catholic', `window washer'). And together with him we fall into a trap when the author-creator is finally faced with the insoluble dilemma: how can one eliminate from the future movie. Bart Klever? Just five minutes before the finale thanks to the common petty reproaches of the wife of the creator, who is deeply immersed in work, we realize that together with the main character we have again been `framed'. Really, what is the price of the art for the sake of which it is acceptable to renounce one's own name and the day-to-day care for the young daughter?<br /><br />So who is he, this Bart Klever? Is he a brilliant prophet or someone possessed like Frenhoffer from Balzac's masterpiece (just like the latter the script writer in the end erases from the computer memory everything has written)? Gert de Graaff suggests that we answer this question ourselves.<br /><br /> | positive |
A movie about dealing with the problems with growing up and being true to yourself, Blue Juice is mind candy for those who like surfing and Cornwall. Sean Pertwee is the real star of this film, while the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones plays his girlfriend and Ewan Mcgregor plays his drug addicted pal.<br /><br />For those who don't like surfing or Cornwall in the slightest, you'll find that it takes a long time before the movie even hints at being interesting. The beginning is slow and spends too much time on long shots of only slightly interesting landscapes. Plus too many main characters leads to most of them being one dimensional. The plot is an interesting idea but because of the shallow characters you have no idea why they act in the situations they're put in.<br /><br />Only Ewan, Sean and Catherine's characters make this a film worth being on videotape, which is why it was only released on videotape in the US after Ewan and Catherine reached mainstream fame. | negative |
Makes "Invasion USA" look like "Apocalypse Now". This one can only be recommended to US skinheads, John Birch supporters or militia members. The message is very simple : let's shoot them all - gooks, commies, latinos, everything that isn't American.<br /><br />Besides, this is badly acted, badly scripted, badly interpreted, incredibly stupid but no fun at all. This movie could be used as a toorture device by CIA torturers. oops, sorry, there can't be any US torturers because they are the GOOD | negative |
The omission of Jazzy Jeff, the creator of the chirp and transformer scratch, raised a few eyebrows, but it's good to see he made it to the extras of the DVD after all. With SCRATCH, Doug Pray, who previously chronicled the grunge phenomenon of the '90s in HYPE (1996), made an excellent documentary about the world of the hip-hop DJ and the evolution of turntablism. His latest documentary, INFAMY (2005), explores contemporary American graffiti culture. After a couple of viewings four years ago, my DVD had been gathering dust ever since, but recently I watched it again and besides the subject material, I was surprised how well-shot and edited this documentary actually is. An immensely enjoyable soundtrack as well and not just talking heads, but lots of music, old school footage, parties, break dancing, you name it. One of the best things about the film, is that it mainly examines where the art of turntablism is today (in 2001 that is), without disregarding the pioneers of course. Good stuff.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 8/10 | positive |
I have to admit I did not finish this movie because it was so amazingly stupid and not worth watching. I watched it with a room full of kids, who also were not laughing at the stupid and crude humor. The director, Bob Dolman, seems to be so obsessed with sphincters and genitalia that it overrides the real story that I grew up with. THIS IS NOT A GOOD FILM FOR KIDS! Besides the fact that the content is so crude, the movie is just stupid has bad flow and has no intelligence behind it. What a waste of a perfectly good story. If you read the book when you were younger and loved it, then don't waste your time watching a movie that so badly botches it that it makes you angry. Buy your kids the book instead. | negative |
Scarecrows is one of those films that, with a little more acting, a little more direction, and a lot more story logic, would have been quite compelling as a horror entry. As it stands, it is still a creepy film that has solid make-up and gore effects, and a premise that sustains the mood of terror in spite of itself. And hey, there are no teenagers getting killed one by one--just dumb adults, so that is a refreshing change of pace. And the plot line is amazingly similar to Dead Birds, with a precipitating robbery, an abandoned spooky house in the middle of nowhere, and demonic monsters. But just like Dead Birds, the adults are still witless, they run around cluelessly before getting slaughtered one by one, and they ignore the obvious danger.<br /><br />In Scarecrows, though, we never really find out the supernatural why, and that sustains the atmosphere of creepiness. And like clowns, scarecrows can be very creepy; unless they look like Ray Bolger, of course. Escaping in a hijacked plane with the pilot and his daughter, after a robbery netting millions, a para-military bunch is double-crossed by one of their own; a very nervous guy named Burt. He jumps out of the plane with the big, and heavy, box that holds the money with apparently no plans as to how to move it around once he is on the ground. Being the dumbest of the bunch, he is murdered first. But not before he happens upon the Fowler residence, nestled snuggly amid lots of really creepy-looking scarecrows, and surrounded with a wooden fence encircled with barbed-wire and lots of warnings to stay away. And the weird weathervane on the roof, with the pitchfork and pterodactyl, should have been a warning sign, too. The inside of the house is also quite foreboding (to us in the audience, anyway).<br /><br />Annoyingly, we must listen to Burt's thoughts in voice-over, as he walks around and mysteriously comes across the key to the decrepit truck in the yard. The way the key pops up would be enough to have my pants--with me in them--flying out the door. Perhaps it's just me, but I really enjoy watching people's lips move on screen, even when they are just thinking out loud. It helps to intensify the action, and gives the actor more to do than just look like what the voice-over is saying. Burt hoists the box onto the truck and makes his getaway. Sure why not? decrepit trucks always have lots of gas in them, especially with today's prices, and the battery? no problem. Now, I did mention that Burt was the dumbest of the bunch, and here is why (in addition to the above, of course). Wearing night-vision goggles to walk through the foliage and find the house, he takes them off to drive the truck away, and instead, turns on the headlights to see where he is going. Of course, the crooks still in the plane spot the headlights of his truck, and know where he is headed. Brilliant. He deserves to die. Definitely. I am not sure why he needed night vision goggles in the first place, as every scene is brightly lit, from the interior of the plane, to the night-time outside scenery, and the house. The cinematographer was either a. myopic, b. just out of school, or c. dealing with really cheap filmstock.<br /><br />Burt meets his demise when the truck dies in the middle of nowhere. Go figure. One very nice touch, and there are, I must admit, a few in the film, is the fact that when he opens the truck's lid, there is no engine. Creepy, to be sure (and insert pants comment again here). The story logic fails when dead, now-stuffed-like-a-flounder-with-money-and-straw-Burt returns to the house. The rest of the bunch are there, rough him up, then realize that he is indeed dead, and was gutted and stuffed like a flounder with money and straw. Dead Burt does manage to put up quite a fight, though, and grabs one fellow by the mouth, pushing him through a window, causing him to bite off more than he could chew in a gorylicious scene. At this point, you would think they'd would be racing out of the house and back to the plane--but noooo, they decide to stay and look for the rest of the money. In fact, the whole Burt is dead episode is treated rather matter-of-factly, although one bright bulb in the bunch does argue, "Burt was walking around dead, for chrissakes!"<br /><br />The stolen money suddenly appears on the grounds outside the house, and the crooks blithely go for the bait. Soon, another one of them, Jack, is dispatched, and again the scene is well done and horrific, involving a dull handsaw and no anethesia. Now there are three scarecrows going about wreaking mayhem, and one of them needs a hand, literally.<br /><br />When one of the crooks sees the scarecrows and Jack getting scarecrow-ized, he starts screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun in typical para-military fashion. So much for all that training under pressure crap. He meets up with the others and stops in his tracks to explain why he is screaming, running away like hell, and shooting off his gun, even though the scarecrows appear to be chasing him. Again, that script logic thing... Dead and gutted, Jack returns to the house, and goes after the screamer with the usual results. If you listen to Jack's demonic growl, by the way, you may notice, depending on your age, that it is the same monster-growling sound heard often in the Lost In Space TV episodes.<br /><br />The last two survivors race away from the house and back to the plane, barely escaping. But do they? You will have to see the film to find out. | negative |
"Father of the Pride " was another of those good shows that unfortunately don't have a very long life . And that is pretty sad ,specially if you consider that almost all the time the worst shows are still on air ( think in "The Simple life ") I admit that are many similarities with this show and "The Simpsons" ,but despite the similarities ,the show have it own merits . The animation is just adequate ,not incredible ,but is good .The best are the characters . All the animals are very likable and funny , and even Sigfried and Roy had their moments . The music was good ,I liked many of the songs .<br /><br />Even if the show isn't very original ,I think that this had lots of potential .Like "Mission Hill " a show that isn't very famous but I liked a lot , this didn't have the appreciation that it deserved . What a shame . | positive |
Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is based on somewhat pat formula by now of Japanese school drama anime. The formula somewhat goes like this:<br /><br />1. The main protagonist comes from world outside the normal society, and has super powers.<br /><br />2. There's a very beautiful and sexy girl in a supporting role.<br /><br />3. A normal character is in there who shares the main role in the story.<br /><br />4. Unusual things happens in an usual social settings.<br /><br />5. Sometimes the story is about the main protagonist, and the normal character that connects to the existence or destruction of the world.<br /><br />6. Absolutely no effort is spent by anyone to gain all the magical powers. They just have it.<br /><br />7. Usually, people outside of this tight nit group is not aware of their super powers, and goes on with their daily lives.<br /><br />So there you have it. Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi is made along these lines which became the success formula for comics and anime in Japan. Even though it follows a pat formula, the series is superbly crafted and the episodes are always set in an interesting back drop within the normal social settings which always morphs into unusual circumstances surrounding Haruhi Suzumiya. Each player in the story brings some unusual insight into the daily life that usually we are not aware of. The philosophical twist of their insights are what makes this series extra entertaining. The visuals are first rate, and done beautifully. <br /><br />The crazy ideas Haruhi always seem to come up with along with complicated settings of the story may give you headache from time to time. It's further complicated by the fact that the episodes are played out of sequence which further adds to the confusion. When I watched the episodes in the chronological sequence, some of the plots finally made sense. I recommend you do the same. It's much more entertaining to watch the series this way. Google<br /><br />List_of_The_Melancholy_of_Haruhi_Suzumiya_episodes<br /><br />for the correct sequence of all the episodes. And oh, you might notice the headache while you're watching this like I did. Let me know if you had it too. | positive |
"Quintet" is definitely not a film most people would find amusing or even interesting for that matter. There is no scene, dialog, acting or plot development that would light a spark. The icy world is one thing, but muddled plot is something you really can't bear. The characters are not only three-dimensional, they're not even one-dimensional, there is no emotion and there is no sense in anything that goes on. There is a world encased in ice, where nobody is doing any meaningful work, except playing Quintet, and the rules to the game are never even hinted. The homes are not heated, even there is electricity, but who and what produces it? There is wood, but there are no animals, except dogs, so where do clothes come from, or shoes for that matter, since, apparently there is no industry, and everybody is dressed as in 16th century Europe, which is in odd contrast to not so futuristic pavilion backdrop. The entire movie seams to be stuck inside Altman's imagination, and he never bothered to share his ideas or his vision with audience. Desolation or hopelessness have nothing to do with lack of appeal to this movie, the world of George Lucas's "THX1138" is no brighter place and characters are no more fun, but the story has it's path. In Quintet, there is no obvious or even hinted path, and in my opinion it doesn't even provoke thinking about the idea behind it all, as, for example, similar film, John Boorman's "Zardoz". It's not even done in Altman's unique style, so it doesn't appeal to his fans,either, and I'm one of them. All in all, Robert Altman had a dream, and he woke up without telling anybody what it meant, not even to him. | negative |
I also made the mistake of thinking that I was going to see the 2003 Swimming Upstream with Geoffry Rush. This was worse then a lot of student films that I have seen. The script was forced, the acting was subpar and the editing annoying. It was so slow that I just managed to force myself into staying. But I always give a movie a chance, so I suffered until the very end. Apparently there was a memo out about this movie, because my friend and I were the only ones in the theater. Why didn't somebody send me this memo?!?! That is why I'm posting, as a warning to others thinking of shelling out good money to see this. I just hope that you actually got to this page, and didn't get trapped like I did by looking at the wrong "Swimming Upstream." P.S. Sorry to the cast and crew if you are reading this. I know that you worked hard to make this. I know what goes into making a movie... keep trying! | negative |
"Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.<br /><br />Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru. <br /><br />Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.<br /><br />I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.<br /><br />The roles are well played but the story is thin. | negative |
I watched this movie really late last night and usually if it's late then I'm pretty forgiving of movies. Although I tried, I just could not stand this movie at all, it kept getting worse and worse as the movie went on. Although I know it's suppose to be a comedy but I didn't find it very funny. It was also an especially unrealistic, and jaded portrayal of rural life. In case this is what any of you think country life is like, it's definitely not. I do have to agree that some of the guy cast members were cute, but the french guy was really fake. I do have to agree that it tried to have a good lesson in the story, but overall my recommendation is that no one over 8 watch it, it's just too annoying. | negative |
Genre: Cartoon short with no dialogue, African girl and lion.<br /><br />Main characters: Inki, the lion and the minah bird. <br /><br />What happens: A lion wants to eat an African girl called Inki. There is also a rather confusing Minah bird. Is he on Inki's, or the lion's side..?<br /><br />Message: Erm
<br /><br />My thoughts: I agree with Lee Eisenberg, this is rather mean on poor African people!! :-( I like how the main character, Inki (who is an African girl) is quite a nice main character, but they still portray her rudely and make a younger audience not like her very much just because she's HUNTING!! GRRR CHARLES M. JONES!! I don't like the lion very much and I think the minah bird is ALL RIGHT (I suppose). Personally I prefer Charles M. Jones's Looney Tunes cartoons in the future.<br /><br />If you want to watch this anyway, then I recommend the website YouTube. Just type in "Inki" on the space in the main page and you're there. <br /><br />I wish Charles M. Jones had been nicer to Inki in this short. So there. <br /><br />Recommended to: People who are interested in old cartoons and/or people who are just messing around on You Tube. | negative |
This cosy middle class sitcom became the subject of much hatred by the new breed of talented comedians in the 1980s, such as Ben Elton. Did it deserve such malice? Well Terry and June was never clever, it was never a well-written tale with different threads which intersect at the conclusion. It was the show your mother and father and probably grandparents watched. They chuckled rather than laughed, but they were never likely to be offended by the show, so the fact that it never challenged them was immaterial.<br /><br />One Foot In The Grave suffered initially because it appeared at first sight to be just another Terry and June.<br /><br />A few days after the death of Terry Scott an episode was broadcast on terrestrial TV, and that has been its final outing. There have been few repeats of the show on any TV channel.<br /><br />Thankfully TV comedy has advanced since Terry and June. It's hard to find kind words for it - Terry Scott did make the best of weak scripts. | negative |
A scientist and his girl friend are out driving when his speeding causes a car crash. He escapes unharmed but she is decapitated. He saves her head, brings it to his house and keeps it alive (!!!!). He then proceeds to search out models and strippers for the perfect body for the head. His crippled assistant watches over the head which starts talking and has a telepathic (or telepathetic) link to a deformed monster kept in the closet....<br /><br />As you can see, this is pretty stupid stuff, but I had a certain fondness for it. When I grew up in the late 1970s, a local TV station showed this movie about 20 times each year (no exaggeration). They showed it always on Saturday afternoon TV--uncut. Seeing this on TV back then was great! Explicit blood and gore along with a gruesome monster and sleazy sexploitation--who cares if it was good? Seeing it now I realize how lousy this really is.<br /><br />The acting is perfectly wretched, the production values are nonexistent, the script is pretty dumb and (aside from the still pretty disgusting gore) this is dull stuff. There's also a mild cat fight between two women and the admittedly great monster at the end. Also add in an ending which leaves tons of loose ends. On one hand this is an interesting example of a 1960s exploitation film. On the other its utter trash. Either way, it's not a good movie but is a must-see (for one time only) for horror and gore fans.<br /><br />Also the head's laugh is pretty creepy. Note the end credits which gets the TITLE wrong (calling it "The HEAD That Wouldn't Die")! | negative |
This has to be one of the top overrated anime shows ever made. And yes, I was even shown the "End of Evangelion" and that still made me hate it even more. Not to mention the countless rip-offs of this show!<br /><br />I don't mind psychological and philosophy untertones, but Evangelion drags it out into the mud like nothing else! Not many of the characters seemed to be very interesting. The only ones that seemed to be interesting were Asuka, Misato and Pen-Pen. Other than that, mostly everyone else were a bunch of whiny crybaby losers. They need to go to a psyciatric center, not piloting giant robots against aliens called "Angels".<br /><br />Even the mecha and alien fights did not help at all. Goes something like this:<br /><br />"Well, there are these robots, and they are really cool because they bleed(!) when they get hurt, but they are not really mecha, but captured angels, so sometimes they go insane and don't do what the underaged pilots want, and they have to be controlled better...blah blah blah!"<br /><br />I am so sorry, but I just cannot recommend Evangelion to anyone, anime otakus or not. To those who love this series greatly, fine you're entitled to that opinion, I respect you. But to thoses that have a "out of your mind" obsession to think that every one will like this series, you are more of an egotist.<br /><br />I prefer "Macross", "Mospeada", "Run-Dim" and "Robot Taekwon V" myself. | negative |
I am one of the biggest fans of silent comedians and have probably reviewed more Buster Keaton films for IMDb than any other person. Every film he made from the beginning of his career to the early 30s with only two exceptions have I reviewed, so you can tell I am a major fan. It's because of this that I found this episode so painful and hard to watch. I loved this man's films and kept thinking "Buster, how could you?!". Well, now that I think about it, I guess I can see why Buster Keaton starred in this god-awful episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE. He'd lost much of his fortune after a messy divorce in the early 1930s and his film career as a leading man was long passed as well. Now, in the 1960s, Keaton needed the money and loved his resurgence in popularity so he whored himself out to anyone willing to pay--appearing in Beach films and this mess of an episode of a great series.<br /><br />The biggest problem with the episode is that it is just terribly written and Buster deserved much better. The show is supposed to be funny but isn't and instead of a homage to silent films is just painful to watch--particularly with Keaton putting that stupid time travel helmet on as well as all the poorly executed slapstick. Do yourself a favor, SKIP THIS ONE--it's a pale imitation of the greatness that once was Keaton's career!!! | negative |
Aside from a few titles and the new Sherlock Holmes movie, I think I've watched every movie Guy Ritchie has directed. Twice. Needless to say, I'm a big fan and Revolver is one of the highlighted reasons why. This movie is a very different approach from Ritchie, when you look at it comparatively with Lock, Stock... and Snatch. Revolver sets us up for a psychological thriller of sorts as a gambling con finds himself at the mercy of a set of foes he didn't expect and a guided walk for redemption that he didn't know he needed. Along with seeing André Benjamin of OutKast fame strut his acting ability, other standout acts are Ray Liotta playing the maniacal Mr. D/Macha and Mark Strong playing Sorter, the hit-man.<br /><br />After being sent to prison by a tyrannous casino owner, Macha, Jake uses his time in solitary to finesse a plot to humiliate Macha and force his hand in compensating him for the seven years he spent. When he wins a card game and amasses a decent sum from Macha, Jake finds himself on the brink of death as he collapses and is diagnosed with an incurable disease that's left him with three days to live. A team of loan sharks, however, have an answer for him and a ticket to life- only if he gives them all the money he has and relents to working for them, all in a ploy to both take Macha down and show Jake how dangerous he has made himself to himself. Along with having the air of death loom, and a pair of loan sharks having a field day with his money, Jake also has to deal with having a hit put out on him, which introduces Sorter - a hit-man under Macha's employ. The depth with the story comes when Jake realizes that some co- convicts he spent time with in solitary may very-well be the loan shark team out to take him for all he has by crafting all of the unfortunate events that Jake seems to find his way into. When faced with this reality though, Zack (Vincent Pastore) and Avi show Jake just how twisted he has become from being in solitary, having only the company of his mind and his ego then makes it so that their actual existence is elusive even to Jake. The movie unravels to a humbling process for both Jake and Macha as they both come to grips with their inner demons.<br /><br />The style of the movie is top-notch as you get the gritty feel of the crime world represented and the characters it includes. Although a lot of nods at Ritchie's previous films are here it still has a presence of its own from the dialogue, the sets and the experimental take on the gangster genre. It's also a great trip on humility and recognizing when you can easily let your ego or a preset notion mask you ability to accomplish what you want or overcome what you should. The characters are well crafted in this movie with all sides being fleshed out and, true to Ritchie fashion, they're all tied in by some underhandedness that throws a wrench in everyone's affairs. I could and would like to go on about this film and its unique nuances but I don't want to take too much away from it if you haven't seen it yet.<br /><br />It may take a few sittings to get through all the intricate layers but it's a great movie and it should be seen. If you're lucky and you haven't seen the watered-down US release, see if you can get the original UK version as it will make for a great discussion piece among friends as you try to puzzle in your take. I saw it with my crew around early-2006 and we're still talking about it with little things we've picked up on today. It has garnered its cult status, and it's well- deserved as the film where Ritchie stepped out the box and broke his norm a bit.<br /><br />Standout Line: "Fear or revere me, but please, think I'm special. We share an addiction. We're approval junkies." | positive |
Richard Condie's utter maddness insanity cartoon 'The Big Snit', is a trip through qwerkyness, madness, hillarity, enjoyable backgrounds, melting characters, and a conclusion that nearly brings me to happy tears everytime I see it.<br /><br />This short I have seen over and over AND OVER and I NEVER TIRE of it (luckily having it on tape from a broadcast on TV)!! It never stops to make me burst out in laughter uncontrollably, and then reach down into the depths of my spirit, highlighting the greatness of the human condition. <br /><br />Cause when someone says, 'Come on, let's finish the game' everything is alright in the world and the troubles that we face everyday we suddenly realise are all petty fleeting things not to fight or worry about anymore. This film at first seems just like a simple exercise in cartoon slapstick humour, but it is far more than that. This film hits a greater sense of spiritual meaning with mankind in the wake when everything seems to be so bad and trivial. <br /><br />It is flawless... in every way. AND DAMN FUNNY TOO ;)<br /><br />Rating 10 out of 10. | positive |
This movie was excellent, a bit scary, but excellent at that. For those of you that have heard of columbine and know the story, it gives you a idea of what and why these kids did what they did. In the back of your mind you know that people think of this stuff, but you never realize just how bad it is, and this movie makes you realize. It's seriously that good. It also makes you think twice before you make fun of someone that's for sure. I read a book on the columbine massacre and it made me think, this movie makes me worry and scares me to death. On the downside it's like a how to kill someone guide for serial killers. I recently received a threat, and I blew it off thinking nothing of it, but after this movie I think you should take everything seriously. Some people are crazy and you never truly know which they are, so take it seriously and don't under estimate someone. | positive |
I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke "The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this? | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.