review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
It's incredible how a movie can take so much time and effort and still end up being abominable. For those of you who appreciate painstaking special effects and inconceivable detail in every shot you will watch this film in awe. Simply because Predator Island contains none of this. It is a redundant remake of every horror monster movie in the last two decades. Now I appreciate bad horror films, they have a certain flare for humor in the most dramatic of circumstances. However, if your goal is to create a memorable work that will thus be engulfed in the Cult Hall of Fame then my first suggestion is to find some imagination/creativity plus get some talent. Oh, and a few extra bucks to put into your picture.<br /><br />One horror film tradition has been to shock the audience with violent deaths and gore. However, shock doesn't deliver for more than a few seconds. To really evoke a satisfying reaction from paying crowd there should b development of characters, some identifiable traits. I know, you're probably saying this guy is not providing anything intelligent to the filmmakers, he's just stating an amateur remark. Well, that goes to show you how amateur these filmmakers are.<br /><br />Despite having to go through the horror of watching this movie, there was a silver lining. The performance by Dan Gordon as Chris is splendid. He is given nothing to work with in a script and yet he is able to come out of that film looking like a star. Out of all of the actors he is the only who believes in what he is reciting. He not only provides the audience with someone we can identify with but we also have someone we look forward to watching so we can get through the rest of the film. Gordon shows genuine talent and the ability to pull off quality work and overcoming a huge obstacle, that being the rest of the cast. Dan Gordon is going to be a star, hopefully sooner than later. That is to say if he can get away films like this that will hold him back. | negative |
Frankie Muniz plays Jason who is a high school student. His biggest problem is his life is built on small or big lies that puts him into trouble most times. However, he cannot escape from his teacher and he finishes his creative writing homework just before its deadline. While he is biking fast to hand his homework to the teacher, he crushes into a car. As he explains the situation to grumpy man(Giamatti) in the car, he gives him a lift to his school. But the problem is Jason leaves his homework in the car, the other way of saying this is Marty Wolf(Giamatti) steals it.<br /><br />After a few months Jason goes to a movie and sees a trailer that takes him aback. Because the story of the movie is based on his homework. He tells that to his parents but of course they don't believe him. Especially his father uses words which insults him. Jason decides to go to LA and find Wolf to tell his father that Jason is not a liar. When Wolf refuses it, Jason takes action and ruins his life.<br /><br />This is the short story of the Big Fat Liar. Well, as a kids movie it might be a light hearted one but there are some errors that even could would ask if that is possible. Such as, having such a small amount of money and going to LA with a friend to sort the problem out, having access to this cinema producer's highly protected house and office, setting up a telecommunications system overnight.Does it seem believable? It does not. Well this is a kids movie but kids are not that gullible.<br /><br />Big Fat Liar offers some little pleasure to its target audience. Unfortunately, I am not a big fat liar to say that this is a good movie. ** out of ***** | negative |
This is probably the fastest-paced and most action-packed of the German Edgar Wallace "krimi" series, a cross between the Dr. Mabuse films of yore and 60's pop thrillers like Batman and the Man from UNCLE. It reintroduces the outrageous villain from an earlier film who dons a stylish monk's habit and breaks the necks of victims with the curl of a deadly whip. Set at a posh girls' school filled with lecherous middle-aged professors, and with the cops fondling their hot-to-trot secretaries at every opportunity, it certainly is a throwback to those wonderfully politically-incorrect times. There's a definite link to a later Wallace-based film, the excellent giallo "Whatever Happened to Solange?", which also concerns female students being corrupted by (and corrupting?) their elders. Quite appropriate to the monk theme, the master-mind villain uses booby-trapped bibles here to deal some of the death blows, and also maintains a reptile-replete dungeon to amuse his captive audiences. <br /><br />Alfred Vohrer was always the most playful and visually flamboyant of the series directors, and here the lurid colour cinematography is the real star of the show. The Monk appears in a raving scarlet cowl and robe, tastefully setting off the lustrous white whip, while appearing against purplish-night backgrounds. There's also a voyeur-friendly turquoise swimming pool which looks great both as a glowing milieu for the nubile students and as a shadowy backdrop for one of the murder scenes. The trademark "kicker" of hiding the "Ende" card somewhere in the set of the last scene is also quite memorable here. And there's a fine brassy and twangy score for retro-music fans.<br /><br />Fans of the series will definitely miss the flippant Eddie Arent character in these later films. Instead, the chief inspector Sir John takes on the role of buffoon, convinced that he has mastered criminal psychology after taking a few night courses. Unfortunately, Klaus Kinski had also gone on to bigger and better things. The krimis had lost some of their offbeat subversive charm by this point, and now worked on a much more blatant pop-culture level, which will make this one quite accessible to uninitiated viewers. | positive |
Chop Shop is a hidden treasure out in theaters! I cannot begin to describe how wonderful the performances are in this movie. This film is for anyone who wants to watch a powerful story and see an example of what contemporary movies should look and be like.<br /><br />This film is about a young boy, Alejandro "Ale" who works and lives with his teenage sister, Isamar "Izzie" in a one-room tiny loft in an auto shop. The story takes place in a part of New York City (that I did not even know existed--Willits Points) where there are endless junkyards and body shops. Here, Bahrani tells the story of two forgotten children hoping to support themselves by buying and fixing up a food van.<br /><br />Ale makes money helping at the auto shop, and Izzie helps at a food van; both, however, earn extra money on the side. Ale sells bootleg movies and stolen car parts; Izzie results to selling herself. Their lives are surrounded by grit and grim, but even though both witness, live and barely survive within their harsh world, their love for each other is never tainted by the filth that surround them. And occasionally they are able to laugh and enjoy moments of their childhood that is being stolen by the reality of struggling to survive and stay together.<br /><br />The best comparison I have for Chop Shop is that Bahrani's juxtaposition of an innocent love between family members against such a bleak atmosphere is as powerful as Pasolini's Mama Roma combined with the struggles of growing up too fast in an adverse environment just as in Bresson's Mouchette.<br /><br />Having co-written, directed and edited both this film and his first, Man Push Cart (which won awards all over the world), Bahrani is a total package filmmaker.<br /><br />I can only hope that his films will not be hidden treasures for long! | positive |
I was at this film's premiere at the Toronto Film Festival in 1997. After the screening, when the writer/director and some cast members offered to answer questions, no one could even be bothered to ask any. Rarely has a film been so poorly directed (why on earth were random frames snipped out of some scenes?), wretchedly acted (David Arquette, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, does not run the emotional gamut from A to B. He parks at A and brings a lunch) and utterly pointless. Characters behave completely out of character for no reason except to force the plot to move in certain directions. At long last, the film comes to a completely random and pointless end that's supposed to "really make you think." Unfortunately, what it makes you think is, "Well, there's 90 minutes of my life I'm never getting back." | negative |
I watched this film with high expectations but was somewhat disappointed. Although I like this film and was engrossed by the story, I did not find it moving and think the ending falls flat.<br /><br />The story consists of the friendship between a man running a photo shop and his best customer who is a traffic Policewoman. The location is a quaint Korean village. <br /><br />This film is in some ways realistic as there is an element of tragedy and yet it is not melodramatic. However I was not ultimately moved by a film depicting a man who is loved so much by a woman, yet does not even give her the choice to enter his life. In my mind he is a sweet, noble loser.<br /><br />Good points - Excellent acting by the two main leads, enjoyable snapshot of village life<br /><br />Cons - Flat ending<br /><br />Overall - Good but I prefer the Before Sunrise and After Sunset films (or is it Before Sunset and After Sunrise) | positive |
Took a very good book and completely butchered it. Nothing was as it should have been. Some of the best parts of the book were missing, including the major point of the whole book. Simply the worst adaptation of a Stephen King novel ever. This movie made the mini-series for IT look good. | negative |
Being from Canada, I cannot say whether this film is original in the context of Danish cinema - unfortunately, we, here, do not get to see many Danish films in a year! I also cannot comment on Clausen's acting in the context of his other roles - I personally found him quite believable - a touching monstrosity of a man, this Jorgen! As for the actor who played Kenneth - why would his participation in a TV show rule him out as an actor - aren't we over such elitist attitudes? International viewers unaware of his Big Brother participation will find him a fair actor.<br /><br />In spite of the movie's faults (the writing could have been subtler in some instances), I do subscribe to what one could call the 'message' of the film - namely art's essential role in everyday life, art as healing force. Art, as Nietzsche said, sanctifies the lie ('Kunst heiligt die Luege') - it is a holy lie: the wedding scene is fabulous in this sense - a theatrical, not religious, wedding, celebrating love and life as play... | positive |
With all the hype surrounding the stars of the movie, this movie left me wanting. I expected a much better movie considering the inclusion of the talents of Murphy, De Niro and Russo but found that the movie fell flat on it's face. Comedy sequences were overdone and the superior performances of the stars especially De Niro and Russo couldn't save this one!<br /><br />** out of ***** | negative |
just watched it on sky TV missed the first half an hour. i did wonder if it was a true story so watched it to the end. there was no brief at the end to say what happened to everyone. it did remind me of speed but at the end of the day i don't suppose it was released at the cinema as we did see the following error. the goof that we saw was that they remove the bonnet (hood) and then later on there are two shots of the car with the police car in front trying to slow it down when the bonnet is back on. it did have me on the edge of my seat especially when i thought the baby was going to hit the bridge and of course when the bridge wasn't going to be lowered and then it was. I'm afraid i did burst into tears so it wasn't that bad!!!! | positive |
As an employee of the Swedish Air Force I enjoyed the nice Gripen and Hkp 9 (MBB Bo 105) flight scenes in this movie. One of the few disappointments was the EWS 39 jammer pod, in this case an inert Rb 75 (Maverick) missile painted black with the letters "EWS 39" in white along the side. Real jammer pods definitely do not look like that, at least not the ones I've seen.<br /><br />But apart from that, it's an entertaining movie with a very amusing ending (the last minute). Anyone interested in seeing various Swedish military units, including the now-legendary SSG, on film should see this one.<br /><br /> | positive |
A sincere tribute to Suzy Parker, who's just passed away. Not only is TBoE one of the cheesiest movies ever made, but Miss Parker's performance is, in this cheesy-movie-lover's opinion, among the worst performances of all time. Her last scene is especially overplayed. I loved it! | positive |
I admire 'Kissing on the Mouth' for its frankness pubic hair cutting and masturbation, especially from the lead/director Joe Swanberg. They weren't afraid to show trueness to everyday "private" occurrences. Unfortunately, the film falls under the 'The Brown Bunny' realm, though with a slightly more developed plot of jealousy. Yes, it mirrors 'Bunny' with a whole lot of nothing going on, or too many cinematography shots focused (or sincerely unfocused) on absolutely nothing feet, hands or genitals. Again, unfortunately, I can see why this film was released, and why people are renting: true life sex scenes and full frontal (equally, both male and female) nudity. Other than that, it was a complete waste of time. We quickly learn of a post-college male/female roommate pair in which the male has obvious feelings for the female that sees him as just a friend while continuously having sex with her ex-boyfriend. Other than that, we are subjected to the every-day events of their boring lives: she works for her parents; he works on an extremely uninteresting sexual awareness project on his computer. For this all to work, the dialogue has to be interesting and the acting real. Neither work and it's as boring as watching someone drive for an hour, i.e. 'The Brown Bunny.' The only actor that stands out is Kate Winterich, and even she does some questionable acting. (The DVD extra with her in front of a mike is actually worth watching/listening to.) Again, I admire the filmmakers, especially Swanberg, for baring it all and not being afraid to expose themselves or shower-habits, but overall the film falls flat. It has narrations that doesn't fit the scenes, too many boring everyday events and unconvincing acting that you wonder, other than the soft-porn factor, why you rented this. | negative |
Although I brought this film by accident (I thought it was the original Halloween(stupid eh!)) I was surprised by how good it was, many sequels just continue the events of the previous films, this however tried and succeeded in explaining the events of the prequels, why does Michael Myers kill people and how come he seems to have supernatural abilities. I thought this was a top horror film full of action, suspense and surprises, I'm very glad I brought it. I've given it 9 out of 10. | positive |
When I first watched this, we borrowed it from our local library about a year ago and watched it about 3 times. We've just watched it again and I liked it MORE than I did the last time I'd watched it!! :) :()<br /><br />The film is mainly about two dogs called Charlie and Itchy (voiced by Dom DeLuise and I love Dom DeLuise!) . Charlie is half a gangster and half a goodie, which I like. Itchy is his sidekick. Charlie is killed by his friend (NOT) and sent to heaven. When Charlie comes back to life, it is the start of an amazing adventure.<br /><br />The five main reasons why I'm absolutely CRAZY about this film: One: I love the characters (except Carface). My favourite three are Charlie, Itchy and a little girl called Anne-Marie who comes slightly later. Two: I love the period of history in which this film is set. It is set during the prohibition in the United States. Three: The Don Bluth animation (as usual) is superb. The backgrounds are good too. Four: There is a strange excitement in this film that keeps me on the edge of my seat. Five: The songs in this are lovely. My favourite song starts with "I need Brazil, the throb, the thrill"...<br /><br />So, watch this lovely film when you can, you won't be disappointed! :) ;) :() | positive |
"Who do you dream of? Hoot Gibson ... Howdy Doody? I'm talking about the *theater*!" [Harry Crystal]<br /><br />Nothing beats a great stage show ... nothing! And Harry Crystal lives that belief. A stage actor still waiting for his big break, Harry brings the magic of live theater to a small town and to Artie Shoemaker (TOM HULCE) ... a young man who has big dreams (but just didn't know it until he met Harry).<br /><br />With scenes and songs from many of America's classic musicals ... Those Lips, Those Eyes conveys both the ups and downs of the people that, for 2 hours, take us to a fantasy land, but who manage to keep that magic alive in their hearts all day long!<br /><br />Like Artie ... once you've seen Those Lips, Those Eyes ... "You're hooked, kid!" [Harry Crystal] | positive |
This movie is powerful. I watched this movie at 3:00 am and I was suppose to be at work at 6:00 am, needless to say I was late to work. I could not bring myself to get up off my bed to go to work. This is the most powerful movie that I have seen in a long time. And that made me cry and feel the pain of the family. I think Emilo did a wonderful job of directing this film. I agree with the previous comments from other views that this is the only movie that I have seen that has brought the war home and showed what a family had to go through, what a veteran went through. It is almost heart breaking to think that back then people just thought you could come home from a life changing experience and be the same person you were before you left. Kathy Bates reminded me of my mother in a way. I believe she really showed how women felt and acted back then. I am surprised that this film wasn't up for more awards. | positive |
For the 1980s, this is a very dark movie. At this point, filmmakers were beginning to operate under the assumption that all films require smarmy comic relief (which, of course, is taken to the extreme today), flashy action scenes (even more overdone today), or steamy sex scenes.<br /><br />Hutton and Penn are stupendous in their roles as childhood friends turned Soviet spies. Penn in particular is brilliant as hapless drug dealer Daulton Lee.<br /><br />What you have here is a true thriller/drama. There is no eye candy to speak of, but the story is so compelling and the acting so superb that (hopefully) most people wouldn't miss it. There are a couple amusing scenes, in particular the one where Penn tries to get his Soviet benefactors involved in a major drugrunning deal.<br /><br />Well worth watching. | positive |
When the Bourne Identity arrived five years ago I have to confess that I didn't think much of it. At the time I was eleven years old, so perhaps I was too young to really get into the storyline and understand the whole scenario. Two years ago when the Bourne Supremacy arrived I thought it was a better movie than Identity but still didn't think it was as good as I expected it to be judging by the trailers. Over the past two years I had been told numerous times that the Bourne movies were amazing, many a time I had to bite my tongue and not say what I really thought about the movies. Until two months ago I couldn't have given a damn about the Bourne Ultimatum, I really had no intentions of watching it. But then I decided to go back and re-watch the first two before I came to any abrupt decisions. So I went out and bought both the original movies. And what a surprise it was to me when I was gripped by them. Identity I found the superior of the two, but Supremacy isn't far behind. They're both slick, action packed and thrilling pieces of cinema that I have watched numerous times since I bought them. Because of this I was first in line today to see the Bourne Ultimatum. And boy did Bourne Ultimatum not disappoint! <br /><br />Matt Damon was never one of my favourite actors until he appeared in the Bourne movies, I'd seen him in the Talented Mr Ripley, but I never thought much of him in general. However, it appears he was born to play Bourne (pardon the pun). Throughout this series we have seen the character change before our very eyes, in this movie we see Matt Damon at his very best, even better than he was in The Departed and I thought he was one of the best things in The Departed. You really do find yourself caring for the character and hoping that he finds out everything. Matt Damon plays the role with a quiet intensity and you always find his character extremely believable. The supporting cast of the movie were also absolutely outstanding. Joan Allen was one of my favourite things in Bourne Supremacy, here she excels herself. Her character is also very believable and she has some superbly acted moments towards the end of the movie. Julia Stiles turns up again as Nicky and finally we learn a bit about her character. Julia Stiles is a very underrated actress and I think she deserves a lot more roles, well decent roles, than she gets. David Strathairn is a newcomer to this series as Noah Vosen, he's definitely the bad guy of the movie and he really excels. He's definitely the nastiest character we've met, and some of the decisions he makes are truly nasty. Strathairn relishes the role and he too gets some superb scenes in the movie. Special mention must also go to Albert Finney who makes the most of his all too brief screen time, I will not say anything about the character, that's best left as a surprise, but trust me his scenes are some of the highlights of the movie.<br /><br />The Bourne movies have always had a strict focus on the storyline more than the action sequences, this isn't to say the trilogy lacks action sequences, good god no there's loads of them dotted all throughout the movies. But running throughout the movie is a very well written and well acted storyline. This storyline concludes in the best way imaginable in this movie. As I watched Supremacy the night before I saw Ultimatum it was nice because I could notice certain little parts. That very final scene in Supremacy, in New York, a lot more important that I ever imagined at the time. Won't spoil it for people but I recommend checking up on Supremacy before you see Ultimatum. Unfortunately though for a lot of people they will go to see Ultimatum purely because of the action sequences. This is the part where I should condemn such people and say they should see it for the storyline, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that my favourite parts of the Bourne series as a whole are the car chases. The mini car chase in Identity is one of my favourite car chases of all time. Well the action in Ultimatum has to be the best of the Bourne series. In fact the movie kicks off with an action sequence in Moscow. So in the duration of the movie we get numerous punch ups, all very violent and shockingly brutal. A bike chase that is absolutely amazing, many foot chases which are even more amazing, a thrilling car chase that is unforgettable, and oh so much more! But the highlight for me has to be the scene in Waterloo station, won't ruin it but for some reason had me gripped.<br /><br />So any flaws for the movie? In my eyes no, but if you are not a fan of the Bourne series or have not seen the previous two then I wouldn't recommend Ultimatum for you. The movie doesn't try to win over any new fans as it sticks to what the franchise does best and just adds a nice bit more storyline and action sequences on top. The Bourne Ultimatum is undoubtedly the best of the series and the best blockbuster of 2007. As a James Bond fanatic it is a great honour for me to say that Ultimatum is a lot better than a majority of the Bond movies, and trust me it takes a lot for me to say that. While Bourne as a whole might not be a better franchise than the Bond series, it is definitely nearly its equal. | positive |
It is ironic that during the '50s, when Douglas Sirk was at his most successful in terms of audience appeal, he was virtually ignored by the critics
He is now seen, however, as a director of formidable intellect who achieved his best work in melodrama
<br /><br />"Written on the Wind" is about the downfall of a Texan oil dynasty surrounded by worthless reputation, alcoholism, and nymphomania
It is about the twisted, fatal connections between sex, power, and money...<br /><br />Stack draws a compelling portrait of a tormented drunken destroyed by frustration, arrogance, jealousy, insanity, and some deep insecurities
<br /><br />Dorothy Malone succeeds as an attractive woman with an excessive sexual appetites, degrading herself for Hudson and to other fellows in town
Her best line: "I'm filthy." In one frantic scene, we see her shaking, quivering and sweating to a provocative mambo
In another weeping alone over a model oil-derrick at her father's desksymbol of excessive wealth and masculine tyranny
<br /><br />The frenetic atmosphere is both made palatable and intensified by Sirk's magnificent use of colors, lights, and careful use of mirrors
| positive |
I have seen this movie many many times and I will never get tired of it. It is a classic in every sense of the word. The movie is hysterically funny and yet quite touching all at the same time. For those of you who are not a fan of "subtitles" or of foreign film in general, open your mind. This is a great movie for "the beginner" because the story is so entertaining. Don't get me wrong, it is 100% Japanese (and that is what makes it work), but everyone will get something out of it (even if it is just a great laugh at one of the main characters called Mr. Aoki - one of the funniest characters I have ever seen!)<br /><br />I can't even think of this movie without smiling!! I love it ... and I think most people will too. | positive |
The premise was intriguing, but sadly this film just doesn't do any justice to it. The casting was quite good, and it was shot beautifully - but stylistically much of the direction was inconsistent (overstylized fast editing been there done that to no effect.... I was waiting for Steven Bochco to run in the credits followed by a commercial), characters were identified exclusively by on-screen coke usage (and pretty much everything else left to Boogie Nights for character development), and no personable characters to draw the viewer into the story. A very forgettable film. | negative |
Sure Star Wars (a movie I have seen at least fifty times) beats all the others in special effects, but this film has every thing else!<br /><br />It has horror(non-graphical), romance, robots, witty repartee, intelligence, (surprisingly good) special effects, and drama.<br /><br />I saw this film a couple of years ago in a revival with a newly struck print, and I was amazed at how well it held up today. I thought the old 40's style electronics would look hokey, but they somehow looked futuristic and moderne.<br /><br />Ann Francis in here (mostly) short skirts and bare feet with a girlish innocence that is hard to beat still gets a rise out of me.<br /><br />The Krell monster appearing in the ray beams still scares the bejebees out of me.<br /><br />Of course we all know that the "Great Bird of the Galaxy" probably modeled much of "Star Trek" from this movie.<br /><br />No one has yet to beat Robby, the Robot, in terms of personality<br /><br />(sorry, R2D2 and C3PO).<br /><br />This movie, overall, is the standard that all other Science Fiction films will have to measure up to!<br /><br />Honorable mention for the haunting electronic score which kept us all on pins and needles. | positive |
Betty and Boris eye each other at a junior dance when they're still kids, but unfortunately Hugh gets to her first and thirty years later when we tune back in--Betty is married to Hugh and putting up with his fussy mother, who also lives with them.<br /><br />Neither Boris, nor Betty, however, have forgotten each other and when their paths cross again, they soon declare their feelings.<br /><br />But Betty feels she can't divorce Hugh, a Councilman, it would hurt him too much. What Betty doesn't know is, Hugh isn't hurting at all. He's rolling in the sheets with his beautiful secretary Meredith.<br /><br />Boris, an undertaker, thinks he has the answer. They'll fake her death.<br /><br />Christopher Walken plays Frank Featherbed, an outrageous, competing undertaker in their medium-sized town--that causes additional problems for Boris and Betty.<br /><br />All kinds of complications arise as Boris and Betty try to pull off this major coup.<br /><br />There are laugh out-loud scenes, some delightful dancing, and nary a curse word to be heard. In short, the film was a pleasure to watch.<br /><br />10 stars. | positive |
I'm a fan of low budget B-movies and campy horror flicks, but this was too much, even for me.<br /><br />If you can get past the weak plot, the cheesy effects and the uninspired acting, then the horrible writing will kill you, or you'll wish it would. The dialog was most likely written by high school stoners, who thought that saying "sir, yes sir" over and over again, made these guys sound more military.<br /><br />The characters were all the typical cardboard stereotypes: Gung-ho sarge, sorta gung-ho other guy with sensitive side, evil scientist with secret agenda (bald or course), bitchy brainy chick who would be hot if she tried too, dumb sexy chick with vital piece of information, idiot "genius" nerd, random other sorta military dudes who die soon enough, and spoiler character alert, crazy scientist who was in charge "until something went horribly wrong" Oh yeah, I almost forgot, there is a secret military (navy?) submarine, sitting on the ocean floor, 5 minutes from HQ (or so it seems), full of radioactive scorpions (ok?) and dead bodies. Your mission is vague and poorly defined.....<br /><br />If you watch this, don't say you weren't warned. | negative |
Steve Martin has always had my respect for being a very funny comedian and a pretty good actor, and I loved "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and "Bowfinger" --- but "Bringing Down the House" definately isn't one of Martin's funniest works, and it doesn't even seem as if it's trying to be, which is just plain sad...<br /><br />I don't know; maybe I didn't like this movie because of the fact that I rented it along with "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" and "Phone Booth", both of which are excellent films, or maybe it's because I'm used to so much better from Martin, or maybe it's just because I'm in a frickin' bad mood today...Regardless, this film just wasn't very funny or entertaining, and I never managed more than a smile or a weak chuckle at the film's gags, which is really a shame, since the previews of this comedy were SO promising! I was expecting "Bringing Down the House" to be an all-out comedy bash, and I certainly expected more slapstick comedy and inter-racial laughs from Martin. Instead, we're 'treated' to seeing Queen Latifah jiggle all over the screen, trying to do her best with her totally uninspired character. The funniest thing in this clunker is Eugene Levy, but even he doesn't get the screen-time he deserves.<br /><br />I would've really liked to enjoy "Bringing Down the House", but I didn't and I'd find it very difficult to recommend it to anyone but the most die-hard Steve Martin fans. Skip this one and rent "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" instead...<br /><br />You'll have a much better time. | negative |
This is a cute little movie that provides pretty much what it promises - some good entertainment. After all, when a movie proclaims it features top SASS shooters, you have to figure that it is not a likely candidate for the "Best Picture" Oscar. Those guys are shooters, not actors. Your next clue is that the movie doesn't star Nicholas Cage or Jennifer Aniston, i.e. you shouldn't expect to see the current hottest names. It was meant to be just plain old entertainment and in that regard it is every bit as good as a lot of the old "oaters" I have seen through the years.<br /><br />SO what do you get with "Hell To Pay"? You get 100 minutes of good old entertainment. You get a chance to see some stars from past years, who act pretty much like what they did in their prime but a little older. You get to see some good SASS shooters in major roles and a few SASS hams in the background. It was a lot of fun for me seeing people that I have shot with, visited in their homes and who are my good friends get to do something that a lot of people only ever dream about - they're in a real, live honest to gosh movie. They're doing something a lot of wannabe actors and wannabe shooters will never get the chance to do and I think that alone makes it worth the watch.<br /><br />Admittedly, not everyone is a SASS member and so I saw lots of fun and humor that others may miss, but it is still good, old-fashioned entertainment, and frankly, there are a LOT of movies in the theatre right now that I wouldn't give a nickel to see, so save the money to go see "Brokeback Mountain" get "Hell to Pay" and watch some real cowboys have some fun. | positive |
Forest Whitaker's performance is all the more impressive for making it almost worthwhile to sit through this dreck. "Historical fiction" does not justify changing history. The absurdity begins from the ground up with the imaginary lead character played by James McAvoy. To create a fictional observer for the purpose of giving the reader a point of connection in the book is regrettable, regrettable that white people can't just read a book without a white protagonist to connect to, but at least he was placed in a somewhat passive role. Making up a fake historical actor and crediting this fiction with exposing Amin to the world is irresponsible, lazy and stupid. Not making the actions of this creation believable or even sane is just criminal, and has opened the door for movies like the one they're planning to make with Leonardo DiCaprio as a heroic Enron whistleblower who NEVER EXISTED. The logic of the world does not apply in this film where some Scottish kid thinks its okay to sleep with the wife of a murderous dictator. It doesn't apply where the wife of the dictator desires to sleep with some stupid scrawny irresponsible white boy. For that matter EVERYBODY is lined up to sleep with this scrawny, irresponsible, arrogant white boy, he even has Gillian Anderson licking her comely chops.<br /><br />Let me declare, I do not like James McAvoy. I'm not sure what it is about him, but I thought his Mr. Tumnus in Narnia was creepy and pervy. I think that Kerry Washington would never look twice at him so I can't believe that the wife of a powerful dangerous man like Amin would risk and lose her life for him. I don't believe him as a Doctor, and I just don't see the appeal. His character seems to have far more arrogance than would make sense, and trying to make him look like a badass in shooting the cow was just...there's that word again...absurd. Think about it, you are watching all of these characters bend themselves into knots in order to accommodate this unbelievable main character and there never was such a guy.<br /><br />Gillian Anderson looks incredible and sounds more British than most Brits. Whitaker gives a great expansive magnetic performance, and highlighted, with his incomprehensible pre-Oscar speeches, just how much he was acting. It's a shame the film around him had no reason to exist. | negative |
"Rich in Love" is a slice-of-life film which takes the viewer into the goings on of a somewhat quirky Charleston, SC family. Highly romanticized, beautifully shot, well written and acted, "RIL" washes over you like a summer breeze as its plotless meandering breathes life into the characters such that at film's end you'll feel like an old friend of the family.<br /><br />A wonderfully crafted character-driven film from the director of "Driving Miss Daisy", "RIL" is a somewhat obscure little "sleeper" which will appeal most to mature audiences. | positive |
Reviewing KAZAAM and saying it's a bad movie isn't hard at all--after all, critics at the time it came out fell all over themselves excoriating this film--saying it was among the worst films of the decade! So the fact that I say it's bad or anyone else says it's bad is certainly no surprise. It's like someone talking about WWII--practically no one says that was a GOOD thing, right?! The question I have and no place on IMDb can answer it is "why did they make this in the first place?!". After all, it's obvious to anyone who isn't severely brain injured that the film would be horrible. But, movies like ED (a baseball playing chimp), COOL AS ICE (starring the ever-popular Vanilla Ice), TROLL 2 (which doesn't even have any trolls in it), BABY GENIUSES (Einstain-like superhero babies) and PINOCCHIO IN OUTER SPACE (huh!?!) prove that any idea, no matter how dumb, can make it to the big screen! So, the idea of the best basketball player of the time starring as a genie to an obnoxious little brat seems downright 'normal'! <br /><br />The film starts with a kid who is pretty jerky keying the lockers in the hallway of the school. Like the punk from FREE WILLY, this kid is somehow 'misunderstood' (in other words, a total brat) and you know that no matter how selfish and horrible he is, by the end of the film he'll have learned something and grown. Just once, I want to see a punk kid like this end up in prison or or dead by the end of the film! Eventually, while the neighborhood bullies are in the middle of pummeling him, the genie Kazaam (Shaquille O'Neal)is accidentally released and insists on giving the brat three wishes. But, the kid doesn't believe him AND the genie's magic seems a tad rusty.<br /><br />Eventually the brat does realize that Kazaam is for real. However, unlike most kids, he withholds making his wishes so, in the meantime, Kazaam is forced to follow him around everywhere--like his own personal servant. And, according to the cliché, you know that by the end of the film, Max and Kazaam will have become lifelong buddies and a bunch of tears will be shed. Oh, and Max will have come to terms with his absent father and mom's fiancé (I'm gonna gag). Apparently this genie is a bit of a social worker in addition to being a granter of wishes.<br /><br />As for Kazaam, Shaquille speaks in rhyme through much of the movie and even takes a break to rap...very poorly. I'm a middle-aged white guy and I think I could probably rap at least as well! He's an amazing basketball player and I've heard he's a nice guy--but a rapper...no way! As far as his acting goes, he wasn't great but had such a nice personality in the film that it's hard to hate him--even if they made him do a lot of very stupid things.<br /><br />So is the movie as excruciatingly awful as you've probably heard? through the first two-thirds of the movie, I would have said no. Shaquille seemed to try his best with an unlikable kid and a bad script. However, later in the film, the bad becomes horrid--as Kazaam seems too concerned with himself to help the kid when he's really needed. And, out of nowhere, the plot gets really, really weird--as the guy who wants to make Kazaam a rap star(?!?!) turns out to be an evil mobster! And, oddly, this guy seems to accept that Kazaam is a genie with no hesitation! <br /><br />In addition, the last portion of the film consists of people trying to kill Max and his dad. I know that the kid was annoying, but this is supposed to be a kids' film!! What part of 'trying to kill the kid' didn't the writers not understand?!? Then, in an ending that makes this perhaps the worst kids film ending in history, Kazaam becomes god or something and it all was like a drug-induced hallucination! This ending was even dumber and weirder than the one in THE BLACK HOLE...and boy, did it make my brain hurt!! Uggghh--the horrible dialog was just too much to bear!!!<br /><br />Overall, it's a terrible film that is due mostly to writers who were certifiably insane. Yes, folks, with a messed up message, bizarre non-kid friendly material and horrible characters, this is one wretched film. Sadly, given the idea and actors, it's hard to imagine the final product turning out much worse!!<br /><br />By the way, if you want to see a Genie in a modern world film that is GOOD, try the British made for TV film "Bernard and the Genie"--a charming and exceptionally well-written film from start to finish. | negative |
This was a great movie, and safe for the entire family (which one doesn't see much of anymore. My wife and I and 15 year-old son loved it. Even though you had an inkling of how it would end, it continued to be a fun journey, and the final ending surprised us. There should be more movies like this!!! | positive |
several years ago i saw this film, without subtitles, on television, and despite me not understanding a word of what the characters were saying i still got the general idea, and the mood of the film fascinated me no ends.<br /><br />at long last i saw it again a few weeks ago. my heart skipped when i saw the picture in the television guide, and for 8 days until the film was really shown i told everybody i knew to go and see it. the story reminded me a bit of alfred hitchcock's vertigo. a slow, brooding film about a guy who one day believes he sees the girlfriend that disappeared years before. what follows is a wild rollercoaster ride of flashbacks, changing perspectives and really inventive twists in the plot, and at the end of the film i was left breathless. i had definitely not got what i had expected (and i had actually already seen the film!). be prepared to be confused.<br /><br />9 out of 10 | positive |
This movie is available as a special "bonus" feature on the double-disc of Horror 101 & Horror 102: Endgame. It has nothing to do with those movies, except it does show that producers/directors Dudelson and Clavell are in a rut. Like those other movies, this one features young people who go to a building where they get trapped inside, and run down the hallways a lot, while they get picked off one by one. In the end one or more characters are revealed to have another identity. This is by far the worst of the three.<br /><br />Here, people are invited to a Halloween-night only opening of the Museum of the Dead. The museum doesn't have very many exhibits, and they're all sort of ancient central-American related. There are also flesh-eating, infection-spreading zombies in the museum as well as an ancient cannibal warrior and two female warriors.<br /><br />The movie is very repetitious. It kills people off fairly quickly, to the point you wonder who they're going to have left to kill off - at which point some more people show up without explanation, so that they can be killed.<br /><br />Amazingly, one of the characters does have a cellphone, and is actually able to call the police, who actually take it seriously and show up at the museum. When one tries to pick the lock to get in, the other tells him that would be "forced entry." If you've got people trapped in a building who are injured, I think that's irrelevant. The cops are also stupid in that when they shoot a zombie in the head, it goes down, but then they shoot other zombies in the chest and they don't go down. They happen to shoot another zombie in the head, and it goes down. They continue to shoot the rest of the zombies in the chest. Stupid.<br /><br />The opening credits and a nightmare sequence are done in a sort of animation-effect over video, a poor-man's Waking Life sort of thing, but not so cartoonish. It is sort of interesting, however, parts of some of the attacks are done the same way, so there's no logic to it.<br /><br />Dreadful. | negative |
I at first thought this little fantasy excursion would be a little entertaining. I was wrong. <br /><br />A good cast (Roy Scheider as the president) didn't help it any. The story had every conceivable possible worst-case scenario that could take place in a terrorist nuclear disaster. And none of it could POSSIBLY happen! <br /><br />True -- the kidnapping of the President could only be accomplished with the inside help of a traitor in the Secret Service (ala Air Force One), but everything they depicted regarding the FOOTBALL and the helplessness of our country if were to fall into enemy hands is ludicrous to the Nth degree. Seriously, not even the President can fully over-ride our missile control. The case is only used to relay orders. In this situation, our system would have completely deleted the codes and the whole thing would go nowhere. The destruction of Beijing couldn't happen -- there would not have been a missile launch because the silo-crews would have been instructed not to (communications include a hardwired system). There are just too many safe-guards to prevent such a thing from happening. <br /><br />True, film's like FAIL-SAFE and STRANGELOVE gave some credibility to the concept of us losing control of THE SYSTEM. But this film goes too far and fails to suspend my concept of the unbelievable. And that makes the experience a waste of the viewer's time. This film is a failure. | negative |
Misguided, miscast, murky, interminable lunacy given the high-gloss MGM A-budget treatment. Kate Hepburn plays a bride who comes to suspect her rich, handsome husband (Robert Taylor)is not the dreamboat she married but a psychotic killer. MGM's attempt at a Hitchcockian thriller is doomed from the start by a turgid, muddled, ludicrous script, and the idiotic casting of Hepburn as a jeopardized woman fearing for her life (who could ever imagine Hepburn afraid of anything?) Louis B. Mayer forgot to tell Vincent Minnelli he was directing a thriller, not a musical. Taylor is embarrassing. Only Robert Mitchum, also cast-against-type as a good guy, retains his dignity in a quiet, low-keyed performance. Karl Freund's ravishing cinematography creates images of eerie beauty--and was wasted on the wrong film. End result: Metro's "Parnell" of the 1940s. | negative |
I hadn't planned on watching O12 because I didn't like O11 that much. I thought O11 was a nice but slightly boring little bank robbers movie with a sensational arsenal of stars. Anyway I was talked into watching O12 one night and I regretted it a lot. The plot is not only boring but also senseless. I honestly don't even know what it was all about. I left the movie after 3 quarters and got some coffee with another girl who didn't like it. Much more pleasure I can tell you that. But even the guys who stayed till the end later reported to me that the plot continued being awful and useless. My advice: Don't watch. Go watch Team America (hilarious btw;-)) and forget about Ocean's Twelve.<br /><br />In my opinion the most boring and senseless peace of crap to be on the screen in years. | negative |
I've known about Bettie Page for many a year now. The soft-core porn images of her from the 1950's have since become iconographic and still have a strong draw even today. The "Bettie Page" look is also still hugely popular within the hetero fetish world and remains as distinctive today as it did then. So I watched this film with quite a bit of familiarity to begin with. The result did not disappoint.<br /><br />Among other things, it was hugely entertaining to see the movie's recreation of actual figures like Irving Klaw, John Willie, and Bunny Yeager all consider trailblazers today. Mary Harron did an excellent job creating the desired ambiance of sexual repression and hypocrisy in 1950's America along with a sexuality that, by today's standards, was innocent in the extreme. I particularly liked the use of monochrome versus color as a visual shorthand for the emotional and spiritual climate Bettie found herself in.<br /><br />I think that Gretchen Mol did an excellent job of presenting the character of Bettie in all her innocent sexuality and all her utter naiveté. Bettie loved to look pretty, loved the attention, saw nothing wrong with nudity, and enjoyed dressing up in "silly outfits" for the camera. The underlying sexuality and deeply fetishistic desires all that evoked were completely lost on her. To this day she still doesn't understand "what all the fuss was about" when it comes to her pictures or the S&M content of them.<br /><br />This isn't to say she's uneducated or too simple to understand it's just that she simply doesn't "get it" about fetishism and never will. No harm there. Bettie Page is simply being who she is. The film captured this quite nicely.<br /><br />The social atmosphere of the 1950's depicted by Ms. Harron and written by her along with Guinevere Turner makes me truly glad I live in the day and age that I do. The hypocrisy and repression combined with the massive ignorance about our sexuality all combined to a frighteningly stifling world. The film well captures this and brings to cheering as Bettie endures it all with her unshakeable faith and her unchangeable naiveté.<br /><br />This film was a bit slow at times but hit all the points Ms. Harron attempted and hit them well. I'd recommend this film even for those folks with little to no knowledge of who Bettie Page was and what effect she had on American culture. For those with such interests, then this film is a must see. | positive |
It is a great tragedy that both Richard Harris and John Derek are no longer with us. But that shouldn't blind anybody to the fact that in 1981, a pretty ugly blotch appears on both men's CVs. No doubt John Derek conceived this movie doing for his wife what 'Some Like it Hot' and 'One Million Years BC' did for Maryln Monroe and Raquel Welsh respectively, creating an iconic sex symbol for the new decade. Having run to embrace Dudley Moore on the beach in '10' Bo's reputation, an all-star cast and location filming in Sri Lanka meant that nothing could go wrong. Alas, as they say, Mortals plan and God laughs. It is said that when this film premiered in 1981, the Edgar Rice Burrows estate tried to take legal action against it. Bo Derek plays Jane Parker who sets off into turn-of-the century Africa to be reunited with her boozy, abusive Dad, Richard Harris. Daddy Parker is an explorer who has set out to find 'the Great Inland Sea' the stuff of local legend, whose existence has been poo-pooed by conventional wisdom. Harris is worth watching for a wonderfully hammy, tanked -up performance which includes singing an Irish ditty at an Indian elephant that somehow found its way into Africa (did it arrive at the same time as the Orang-Utan from Sumatra???) Furthermore, although Jane professes to despise Parker, Bo and Rich's relationship is creepily incestuous, testimony perhaps to the effects of the tropical heat. Before long, however, local legends start to circulate about a 'Great White Ape' and Jane hears the famous yodel. This is the movie's cue for Miles O'Keefe, a future B-Movie star, making a rather odd debut as the loin-clothed Lord of the Jungle. Unlike Johnny Weismuller with his pidgin English or Ron Ely who speaks the language fluently, the O'Keefe Tarzan is mute. Given some of Bo and Richie's dialog, though, this is probably not a bad thing. Harris and his caravan eventually reaches the Great Inland Sea, located atop a gigantic plateau that seems to run halfway across Africa....hang on, aren't seas, lakes and other watery places generally located in low-lying areas?? Nevermind, it is just one of many anomalies in the John Derek universe. The crew attempt to mount the cliffs and when the ropes snap, Harris roars echoing abuse at the hapless men who have plummeted to their deaths. On another occasion, Jane decides to take a nude swim by the Inland Sea, giving another occasion to see some gratuitous nudity. Out of nowhere a single male lion appears. Now lions usually travel in prides and never go near beaches but later on, Tarzan will be wrestling with a (venomous) boa constrictor. Zoology doesn't seem to have been one of John Derek's strong points..... This being a Tarzan movie, Jane becomes enchanted with the Lord of the Jungle and resolves to take his virginity. But having seen his closeness to some of those chimps, you do have to wonder...Speaking of which, it's not only the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate could have sued. It is highly probable that certain primates were on the phone to their lawyers: the chimps here make you miss Cheeta badly. Especially when they do ridiculous things like ride on the backs of elephants and clap their hands when Tarzan and Jane finally get it on! The climax of this film has Bo and Harris captured by some rather stereotypical cannibals who paint our heroine and prepare to sacrifice/eat/execute her. Suffice is to say that The Great Wooden Ape gets his girl and *SPOILER* Harris gets himself impaled on a huge elephant tusk! This doesn't stop the dying Parker from delivering a rambling monologue to Jane. As far as I am aware, the law suit from the Rice Burrows estate never materialized but 'Tarzan the Ape Man' was crucified at the box office (no kidding?) A pity. John Derek could have directed 'Tarzan the Ape Man 2' with Bo Derek and Miles O'Keefe living in domestic bliss and Dudley Moore as 'Boy.' | negative |
A good film, and one I'll watch a number of times. Rich (the previous commenter)is right: there is much more going on here than is clear from the title boards, and I have to wonder how much has suffered in translation. Were there more in the original? Or was a native-language audience expected to lip-read more? Or -- since the screenplay was written by the author of the novel on which this was based -- was this a currently popular story with which the audience was already very familiar? In short, very worth a look, but it probably requires more work from contemporary viewers than the original 1913 audience had to put into it.<br /><br />The Alpha Video release touts the new organ score, but the music is not matched to the story progression in any way. Sure, it starts promisingly, but degenerates into a repetitive, Phillip-Glass-like monotony that reflects nothing of the action on the screen. After listening for a while, I turned off the sound and simply watched: much better! | positive |
Okay, just by reading the title you would think that it would be a good movie. Well, at least I did. It started out good but became so boring after the first half hour. *spoiler*<br /><br />It tells a story about a mother that is so desperate for her daughter to become a cheerleader that she will go to any lengths to get what she wants. The only problem is that her daughter's friend is the girl in the way. She always wins the competitions, therefore pushing the mother further towards "eliminating" her. After talking to a "hitman", the mother decides that the girl needs to be roughed up a bit. So actions are taken but she eventually gets caught.<br /><br />The cast is awful and the movie drags on too long with nothing happening. Don't waste your time watching this.<br /><br /> | negative |
Just went on YouTube and finally watched this Oscar-nominated animated short directed by Richard Condie. I had previously watched his funny Getting Started there. In this one, a couple are playing Scrabble. The wife keeps shaking her eyes while her husband has nothing but E's on his side. The wife leaves for a while to vacuum her bed and bathtub(!) before catching her husband looking at her side. Briefly before this, the husband catches a TV show called "Sawing for Teens" with the stars sawing something and the husband getting his own saw. That program gets interrupted by a special report of a nuclear war happening (the newsman is a skeleton here) as everyone panics outside though the husband fell asleep during this time and thinks a parade is going on as he and his wife continue arguing about the game...There's plenty of other bizarre things going on before the touching ending comes on. Quite hilarious and well worth seeing for any animation buff out there. Can't wait to see any more animated shorts from Mr. Condie... | positive |
Found this film in a DVD discount rack for $10. It wasn't worth it. Some of the camera work and dialog look and sound as if it were done by a film student. Sandra's performance was somewhat credible, but the film was predictable and the action was spotty and dragged.<br /><br />One thing that I will give them, however. Unlike most action films, people in this film actually ran out of ammo and scavanged dead bodies for new weapons and ammunition. | negative |
I was one of the few non-liberals who showed up to see Steve's video. It was quite an experience... in propaganda film-making and boredom.<br /><br />I was hoping the film might be an actual documentary of Michael Moore's visit to my local school, UVSC, but it turned out to be another liberal, slash-and-burn effort to slam conservatives and the local religious community. It sure seems self-serving for a filmmaker to make a documentary that only reflects his preconceptions on issues.<br /><br />What's more surprising is to see all the '10' votes his homeys have posted here. Did they even see the video? Golly gee Batman, this must rank with All The President's Men! Their ratings are as obvious as the bias in this film. <br /><br />Yeah, like stacking the votes at IMDb will help a lame movie. Maybe my vote will help balance this out. | negative |
Life is too short to waste on two hours of Hollywood nonsense like this, unless you're a clueless naiive 16 year old girl with no sense of reality and nothing better to do. Dull characters, poor acting (artificial emotion), weak story, slow pace, and most important to this films flawed existence-no one cares about the overly dramatic relationship. | negative |
I have always been fascinated by silent films. There is something about seeing actors and actresses from 100 years ago performing. Jaded by today's high-tech special effects, I always try and imagine what it was like to watch a particular film at the time of it's original release. It helps to appreciate the crudeness of early cinema.<br /><br />"The Life and Passion of Jesus Christ" is a very charming production from Pathe, originally filmed in 1902, but expanded and finally released in 1905. Imagine a series of famous religious paintings coming to life, separated by title cards, and you will have a pretty good idea of what this film is like. For example, the scene in which Mary and Joseph rest as they are escaping to Egypt, is almost identical to Luc Olivier Merson's 1879 painting "Rest on the Flight to Egypt", right down to Mary sitting on the famous Sphinx. While some might find these "living paintings" an unimaginative cop-out, I found them to be very charming, and very nostalgic.<br /><br />The sets and costumes appear to be right out of a stage production of the life of Christ. Possibly from and elaborate passion play of the day. The make-up on the cast is very theatrical, so much so that a close-up of Jesus is almost comical. Again, where others might be bothered by the cudeness of them, I was quite charmed.<br /><br />Having been filmed over a period of 3 years, the continuity isn't too bad. The biggest flaws are in the casting changes made over that time. The characters of John the Apostle and the 12 year old Jesus change in mid scene, much to the audiences surprise!<br /><br />The best unintentional humor, of the film, is in the Birth of Jesus scene. The baby LITERALLY appears, as if by magic, in the manger between Mary and Joseph. Maybe it was simply my frame of mind at the time I viewed it, but I laughed out loud! If only child birth were that easy!!!! To top it off, the actress who plays Mary looks bored through the whole scene (actually, through the whole movie), as if this sort of thing happens every day! My, how times have changed!<br /><br />As simplistic as this film is, compared to today, it's really a wonderful window into the past. I recommend it!<br /><br /> | positive |
This film is bundled along with "Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though "Il Prezzo del Potere" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.<br /><br />As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.<br /><br />In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.<br /><br />Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess. | negative |
The plot of this movie is as dumb as a bag of hair. Jimmy Smit plays a character that could have been upset by the ridiculousness of the story. He is evil and a wife beater. It's a character as far from his NYPD and LA Law roles as you could possibly get.<br /><br />If you've thought he had the looks and the acting chops to play the really bad boy role, her's your present.<br /><br />But!!!!!!!! Mary Louis Parker wears black miniskirts and little black minidresses throughout the movie.<br /><br />She has always had some of the greatest legs in the history of the movies. This makes the movie well worth it for this leg admirer.<br /><br />I'd buy the DVD for this reason only if it was available. | positive |
By mistake, I ordered a series from the BBC, their new version of Robin Hood. Very disappointing in comparison with RoS. Terrible costuming and backgrounds. While I enjoyed the Sheriff, who took cues from the Nick Grace character, the rest of the cast left much to be desired. As a "for instance", Marion's costuming looked suspiciously like it came from Walmart. And Sir Guy, well, he looked a bit like a character from an outer space movie! RoS has stolen the spotlight, probably forever, in the telling of this tale. Cast, costuming, story lines, scenery, filming and soundtrack by Clannad are all superb, as is evidenced by all the continual feedback some 26 years on. RoS is a timeless classic. My thanks to all who made the series. | positive |
I watched this episode with high hopes after seeing it on so many people's "Favourite episodes" list. I'm not boasting in any way, but from the start, I realised they were in some sort of toybox/can, with the huge eye looking down on them, to the type of characters in there. Even though throughout the episode, the questions of "Who are we?", "Where are we?", "What's outside?" carry the suspense of the episode (which I unfortunately already figured out), I must say that different types of characters and the interaction between them did make the episode interesting enough. Although the twist of the story may have been harder to guess if ALL of them were (toy) soldiers. | negative |
First of all, I'd like to tell you that I'm into comics, anime, animation and such stuff. It is true that everyone has his own preferences, but you can trust me on this movie. I'll be objective. To begin with the story - it's OK. Follows the story line of the comic books as far as I'm familiar with them. But the animation... Well, it's not actually terrible, but it's definitely cheap and mediocre. It would be a lot better if they didn't try to imitate the anime style and sticked to the original comic book style drawings. If we pretend not to see the rare sloppy effects like fire and lightnings you could tell that the movie is made about 10 years ago and even more. Looks a little bit like the original Vampire Hunter D from 1985. Take a look at Heavy Metal FAKK 2000 for instance - 4 years ago they made a movie that looks a hell lot better! In addition to this the voice talents do nothing remarkable, the music is nothing special. So all in all - it lacks atmosphere. I watched it, but I cannot tell I really enjoyed it. It just does not capture you. There's plenty of blood and violence, but that does not impress me at all. May be it will be shocking for someone who was never watched more mature oriented animations and sees animated blood for the first time (is there anyone around?), but I don't think this is the audience for this movie. So they could add a little nudity and spice to it. The chicks around Lucifer were quite tasty, and hell, we have Lady Death herself! There are few sexy looks, but that's not enough. Instead of Bill Brown's music I think it would look better on a hard rock / heavy metal soundtrack. All in all - the movie isn't that bad, but if you want something better take the original Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal FAKK 2000, Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice or Wizards maybe. And of course - Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust | negative |
Look, I loved the PROPER Anchorman film, but this was reaaaaallly bad. The kind of bad that makes you wish you could get that time back in your life, the kind of bad that makes you think "what on Earth were they thinking to film this in the first place", the kind of bad that makes you wish you'd taken 50 more minutes when stepping into the kitchen to grab a snack during the film, the kind of bad that makes leprosy look fun, the kind of bad that makes you think you wish you rented a Pauly Shore film instead....seriously, I cannot explain how very bad this was.<br /><br />Having said that....there were some semi-amusing laughs, but they are all so much LESS funny than Anchorman. Sure, they tried to make it entertaining and fun, but the entire subplot that was left out of Anchorman that made it here was genuinely left out for a good reason...it wasn't even a little bit good.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour (or in the USA, a favor), and don't watch this DVD...it will tarnish the good movie that Anchorman is and you don't want to do that.<br /><br />Okay...I'm alright now. | negative |
My partner and I had never heard of this movie and decided to give it a shot picking the title from a list of movies on cable without knowing a single thing about it. As it opened and revealed the cast, we thought, well how bad can it be? -- Kathy Bates, Jonathan Pryce, Rupert Everett, Lynn Redgrave, Dan Akroyd and more. As the story unfolded we became more and more tickled with our selection, and the film soon had us laughing out loud throughout. This is not a "great" film, but it is one of those rare films that has such a great combination of memorable characters taken through "truth is stranger than fiction" type surreal events that I couldn't help but love it. I had no problem "suspending my disbelief" at some of the wackier story elements because the intentions of the filmmakers are so warm-hearted while they still manage to poke fun at everyone involved. As others on IMDb said, this is a comfort movie and I too wouldn't be surprised if it became a cult classic. | positive |
A strong pilot, this two-hour episode does an excellent job of setting up the characters and background for "Enterprise," the "prequel" to the original "Star Trek" series. It stumbles a few times into "Trek" convention and cliché--candy-colored space strippers never seem to go out of style, and I can already foresee snickering references to T'pol as "Seven of Vulcan"--but the ensemble looks strong, the characters are well-drawn, and one can already see hints that this particular crew will have to be more resourceful, in different ways, than those of earlier (later?) series. Scott Bakula hits the right note as a captain with Kirk's brashness and daring but without his smugness and swagger, and I look forward to the ways in which the series will feature the engineer, weapons master and communications officer (not just a glorified phone operator anymore!) as supporting players. The writers seem to have picked up on the one big mistake made in "Star Trek: The Next Generation," "Deep Space 9" and "Voyager": Instead of starting with a big ensemble cast and giving characters short shrift, it's starting with a smaller core of characters to which a little more variety can be added later--which I hope happens, because after about a half-dozen episodes, more variety will be needed. | positive |
Making a book into a movie by following the story page-by-page is NEVER a good idea. When people read the book, they automatically start making their own "mental movie" of who the characters look like, the places they exist in, how the situations progress. And everybody's mind's-eye opus is different, which is why when the 'REAL' movie finally comes out, you're always going to have a ticked-off segment of the movie-going audience who are disappointed that it just doesn't measure up.<br /><br />All a screenwriter and a director can hope to accomplish is whatever their own vision of the movie is, and hope that it comes as close as possible to what their audience is expecting to see.<br /><br />There is no better case for this situation than the movies based on the novels of Stephen King. When filmmakers capture at least the essence of his stories, the results can be breathtaking and truly terrifying (CARRIE, 'SALEM'S LOT, THE DEAD ZONE), or they can be what fans consider to be a gawd-awful mess (Kubrick's version of THE SHINING; the miniseries for IT and THE TOMMYKNOCKERS). <br /><br />Although it's not even close to being the perfect King adaptation, PET SEMATARY has so many moments of just skin-and-bone-deep unease that seemed to have bled onto the screen directly from the book, that you can pretty much forgive its shortcomings. For that, we have music video-turned-film director Mary Lambert to thank, (she also directed SIESTA, not exactly a horror movie, but another freaky-as-hell must-see you should put on your list), working from a screenplay by the 'Man-ster' Himself, and probably one of his better ones.<br /><br />Since the majority of you know the story, I won't put you to sleep with too many of the details. Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) has moved his family out to the perfect house in the country. Well, almost perfect, except for two nasty little details: the dangerously busy stretch of interstate highway out in front, and the large pet cemetery in the woods out back. Since Louis is a veterinarian and has a young toddler for a son...well, even if you haven't read the book, do the frickin' math. It IS a King story, after all, so no mystery where this is headed. <br /><br />It's not so much the destination that counts here, but the spooky stops along the way. Certain scenes that are so familiar from the book are brought to shivery, scream-inducing life here: Rachel Creed's (STAR TREK'S Denise Crosby) horrific memory of her terminally ill, crippled sister; Louis's encounters with the mortally injured jogger Victor Pascow (Brad Greenquist), both before and after his death; the trip into the "other" cemetery beyond the pet cemetery. And that third act...if it doesn't give you a few nightmares, maybe you should check your pulse.<br /><br />Good performances by all here, especially the late Fred Gwynne as the well-intentioned neighbor, Jud Crandall, who gets the best line in the story that sums it all up: "Sometimes, dead is better."<br /><br />About the only problem with the movie version is the casting of Louis's son, Gage (Miko Hughes). Knowing that it would be damn near impossible to get the kind of performance needed from a kid that age to seal the deal on this, Lambert and crew still did the best they could, and unfortunately, Hughes at the time was just too damn CUTE to "sell" his intended role as an evil, demon-possessed zombie. This takes you out of the movie whenever he shows up, though the scenes where he's featured are still masterfully staged, (especially Gwynne's death scene.)<br /><br />Other than that, everything else is still about as good as it gets. CARRIE still holds the title for best King adaptation as far as I'm concerned; but SEMATARY is right up there in the Top Five.<br /><br />Still, will anything adapted for the screen based on a King book be as terrifying as reading the story? Not BLOODY likely...for now. | positive |
"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie. But if "Lifeboat" (wich unfortunately also belongs to this category) is an underrated masterpiece, not all the movies signed by the master of suspense in that time (the early 40's) are really worth seeing. And to tell the truth, not discovering this film isn't really a lost.<br /><br />"Mr. and Mrs. Smith" is an average and conventional screwball comedy, where it's rather hard to find the Hitchcock's touch. Maybe you can catch a glimpse of his shadow (wich isn't much) in the cruelty that Carole Lombard is sometime capable of (but it's well hidden in an impersonal package), in a vertigo scene where two of the characters are trapped on top of a trade fair attraction, and maybe in the character of the mother. And that's about it ! Even for the Hitchcock fan, there is little to connect with.<br /><br />And for the screwball comedies amateur, there isn't very much more: none of the situation are exaggerated enough for being really funny, and we're far from the masterpieces of Hawks for instance. And if one or two scene are quite amusing, there're not even the funniest in Hitchcock's filmography, who created comical situations in almost all his movies (even "Psycho" could be considered full of very dark humor). So, there is really little to save in this movie, that can without annoying anyone (or maybe only both hardcore fans of Hitchcock and screwball comedy, who are in love with Carole Lombard), stays one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie. | negative |
This Royal Rumble basically had the message of wrestling these days. Gimmick and image are more popular then wrestling ability.<br /><br />HBK vs Edge. Pretty good match. A lot of heat for Edge who was just starting out as a heel again and what better way to go into a match with HBK. It kind of got a little slower at the end then usual. Overall this match gets a 6/10. Undertaker vs Hedinreich. Not a good match. Undertaker had to carry Hedinreich through this match who seemed to be really lost and screwed up his moves. It did get interesting to see Raws Gene Snitsky and a bit later Kane come into this match. Overall the fans seemed more interested when this match ended. 2/10 Kurt Angle vs JBL vs Big Show. This match was slow at first but got pretty good at the end when Angle managed to speed up the match.Kurt Angle did some really good wrestling moves and proves he is the best wrestler out of the match. JBL and Big Show put on a slow match. The ending to this match was bad. Over all this match was a 5/10 mainlly because of Kurt Angle. Randy Orton vs HHH. Good match,surprising heat for Randy Orton who was the face in this match. Randy proved he can go the limit with any top star. This match also marked the first match HHH has wrestled where someone dosn't run down and save him from a loss. Over all this match was about a 6/10.<br /><br />Royal Rumble match was OK. Some surprises. Some not so good surprises. I was kind of upset that Kurt Angle wasn't given enough time in this match. But over all this match had a guy who I never thought would be pushed so soon. I won't tell ya who wins. I give this match a 8/10 | positive |
How this character ever got hired by the post office is far beyond me. The test that postal workers take is so difficult. There is no way that a guy this stupid can work at the post office. Everyone in this movie is just stupid and that is probably the point of the movie. How they could go their entire lives and not see an elevator is also puzzling. I didn't take this movie too seriously but it was so stupid. Then he tries to start the car without his keys? Lots of horrible scenes and horrible acting and this movie is not funny at all. It's just a sad stupid mess. I liked the moms dress though.<br /><br />Send it back to sender as soon as possible. | negative |
Cameron Grant is one of the best directors doing adult films. His only rival is Andrew Blake. Celeste is dynamite all thru the movie but the DR's office sequence with her & two other ladies is just incredible. Nearly as good is Asia Carrera's performance with the construction worker. I highly recommend this movie & gave it a 9. It's almost as good as Cameron Grant's ELEMENTS OF DESIRE which I gave a 10. | positive |
It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.<br /><br />Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.<br /><br />The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?<br /><br />It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark. | positive |
From actor and independent writer/director John Cassavetes, A Woman Under the Influence gives the viewer a look at a working class family with a problem of mental instability. The husband, Nick (played by Peter Falk) is a blue collar worker who has trouble showing his wife, Mabel (played by Gena Rowlands) the amount of attention that she deserves. From the onset of the film, it is obvious that Mabel is very quirky and strange, but only a few minutes later it is clear that she is much more than that. Crazy. Bonkers. Out of her damn mind. Nick tries his hardest to hide this from his co-workers, and after she has a particularly strange incident at dinner, he asks her if she'll be okay, as if he's trying to deny Mabel's illness. Her problem only spirals from there.<br /><br />I did find some particular problems with this film. I guess these problems were mostly present in the story, and the way some of the character acted toward the end. Mabel has been committed, because, frankly, she's nuts. Then, six months later, she's ready to come out of the hospital, and her husband throws a party to welcome her back. He never acts stupid in the beginning of the movie. Why would he invite all these people, some of them strangers to Mabel, over to his house when his wife is in such a fragile state? It's simply idiotic. Later, after Mabel comes in the house, Mabel's father has a huge outburst at Nick, screaming at the top of his lungs about not wanting to eat spaghetti. His daughter has just gotten back from six months of rehabilitation, and the thing you want to do is keep her calm, and he goes nuts over spaghetti? A few minutes later in the film, Nick brings Mabel into the stairwell and forces her to do the things she did when she was mentally unstable; make her weird noises and gestures. Didn't he send her there to make her better and not do those things? There were various other parts that occurred after this, but it would just be redundant to look at them in more detail. I guess I just had a serious problem with the decision by Cassavetes to have his characters act in this way. It simply didn't make sense.<br /><br />However, although I had problems with the ending of the film, there was one aspect that really redeemed it; the acting. Gena Rowlands played an amazing crazy woman. There were times when I forgot she was acting, where I got so caught up in her wild gesticulations and crazy talk that I was actually scared of her. She was amazingly convincing and intense. However, I was also impressed by the rest of Mabel's family. Peter Falk played a very strange character, and I almost thought he was crazy himself, because of the awkward way he handled his children, his job, and especially the situation with his wife. I also usually don't appreciate child actors. But the young people who played Nick and Mabel's children in this film were phenomenal. It really felt like they were Mabel's children, because they seemed so attached to her and were so interesting in helping her with her problem. I think their performances are one of the things that kept this film together, and without them it would have made the film less realistic and less intense.<br /><br />In general I wasn't impressed by this film. The story was jumbled and unclear, and the characters acted in ways that made me wonder who wasn't insane in the movie. The only saving grace were brilliant lead acting roles of the Longhetti family. Their realistic dialogue and powerful acting kept the film together, and are probably the only reason the film has ever amounted to anything. | negative |
Deformed, aged female scientist kills fellow scientist in order to steal formulae for rejuvenating cells and reversing the aging process. She takes it and turns into the beautiful, evil Satanik (Magda Konopka) who goes around, seducing and murdering wealthy businessmen.<br /><br />She dresses very stylishly in late-60s mod clothes and manipulates those around her, looking a lot like the late Marisa Mell from the DIABOLIK film. Coincidence??<br /><br />However, in spite of all this, it's amateurish and sloppy without the James Bond pop-art gadgetry that DIABOLIK had had. Even the Madrid and Lake Geneva filming locations don't make up for this.<br /><br />The soundtrack is by Manuel Parada & Roberto Pregadio and it isn't bad at all, consisting of lush orchestration with a little fuzz guitar used as an embellishment. Perfect for one of those European Loungecore CDs that came out in the 90s.<br /><br />The Retromedia DVD also uses a substandard grainy color print that's in poor shape, with an explanation at the beginning saying that this was due to the age of the film. Bull ! They either didn't bother looking for a better source or they couldn't find one at all. There are only a few stills of Magda and that's it.<br /><br />Sloppy & poor all around, this one gets a 3 out of 10. | negative |
When "Good Times" premiered in 1974, it was one the first black family sitcoms. It centered on the poor Chicago-based Evans family and their struggles to make ends. Most of the early episodes focused on the parents, James and Florida Evans, and their struggle to provide for the family. John Amos and Esther Rolle were the best part of the show. They were terrific actors and had great chemistry as James and Florida Evans. They had three kids: J.J., Thelma, and Michael. J.J. was the skirt-chasing but well-meaning teenage son who made up for his lack of subtletly with artistic talent. Thelma was an attractive, bright girl who was constantly trading insults with J.J. Michael was a near child prodigy who was well-educated on social issues and was destined to become a lawyer.<br /><br />In 1976, the producers made a huge mistake by firing John Amos, literally killing off his character. This really changed the focus, and not for the good I might add. The shows began to focus more on J.J. and his buffoon-like behavior which angered black viewers as well as series star Esther Rolle, who left after the next season. Instead of a show that focused on key African-American issues that existed in society at the time, viewers got shows that were overloaded with skirt chasing and fat jokes.<br /><br />Once Esther Rolle left, the quality of the show suffered even more. Although it was still watchable, it was no longer the great ground-breaking show that it once was.<br /><br />Although Esther Rolle came back for the 1978 season, it became obvious that the show was on its last legs. All loose ends were tied up during that season and the show quietly faded off the air.<br /><br />First three season: A. Last three seasons: C+. | positive |
The original Road House is by no means an award winning film. But it is one of the great guilty pleasures of all time. It shouldn't have been that hard to make a sequel. There's no need for a big budget, big name stars, and spectacular visual effects. Even the story didn't have to be original. All it needed was a good time vibe, and some great fist fights. I don't mean Matrix-style "wire-fu", just some well choreographed barroom brawls. Lots of them. There are a couple of decent fights in the movie, but none of them are memorable, and the focus is more on gun play. Plus, the way it ties in to the original film is laughable, bordering on insulting. Johnathon Schaech plays Shane Tanner, an undercover DEA agent who is good with his hands and feet. But here's the kicker...he's the son of Patrick Swayze's character Dalton!!!! Say what????? Let's see, the original Road House was made in 1989. So for Dalton to have a son in his late 20's (maybe even 30) in 2006...well you get the idea. They give it a cheesy explanation that he lived with his uncle Nate (Will Patton) while his father "travelled around a lot". Oh please. That itself almost warranted shutting this movie off. But I digress. Schaech is completely out of his element. Sure he can throw a couple of kicks, but he's got nothing going on as an actor. Plus, he's referred to in the movie by the bad guys as "pretty boy". I've never scrutinized men that closely, but I don't think this guy is too good looking. He looks sick. His face is way too thin, and his sunken eyes make it look like he's going to pass out at any moment. I'd never heard of him before, but I think he should give up acting and go back to his day job. Jake Busey plays the local drug runner Wild Bill. Busey is not a terrible actor. He was good in Starship Troopers, and even made a menacing villain in Hitcher 2. But here, he just chews the scenery in standard bad guy mode. Even his "threating" dialog is yawn worthy. We're supposed to buy him as the man that has the whole town in his pocket. But why? What does he do? Because he wants to buy a bar from Patton "by any means necessary"? Ellen Hollman has the token girlfriend role. A woman with a secret. Too bad that secret is about as difficult to figure out as 2+2. She's the local elementary school teacher who happens to be a former Army soldier. Guess what that means? It means that while she may quiver with fear for the majority of the movie, she'll be ready to smash heads when the fur starts to fly. Oh well, at least she's hot. Actually the fight between her and Wild Bill's girl is the best one in the movie. It's fast, brutal, and entertaining. Which leads me to my next problem with the movie...the fights. As I said Schaech knows how to throw a punch. The same can't be said for anyone he faces in the movie. Obviously the movie will all come down to Schaech versus Busey. Busey is an actor, not a fighter. He doesn't possess the skills to pull of a movie fight. Swayze may have been a trained dancer, but his athletic ability gave him the means to pull off well choreographed fights. He also faced a couple of worthy opponents, and had one killer (literally) move. None of that here. With a couple of exceptions, the fights are forced, poorly staged, and routine. The punches sound like someone smacking a 2X4 on the concrete, and there's even a couple of parts where the sound doesn't even match up to the punch. It's embarrassing. There isn't even the good southern/redneck music of the original. Road House had the Jeff Healy Band, who were a somewhat popular band at the time. This movie features a singer called John Otto, whose music is tepid, and his acting even worse. He's given one line in the movie, which was probably inserted to appease whatever fans he may have out there. Either that, or someone owed him a favor. My final complaint about the movie is one that comes out of just being picky...the continuity. Movies are shot out of sequence, and then it's the editor's job to piece it all together. Well someone should give the editor of this movie a little shove. The problems range from little things like people not looking the same direction when a shot changes, to RE-USED footage at the end of the movie. In the beginning, we are introduced to the bar, The Black Pellican. As the camera moves through the bar, you see the band, the bouncers, and the people dancing. At the end of the movie, when the bad guys have been defeated, we get another shot of the same bar, with insert shots of our hero sitting at the bar with his girl. The problem is, the footage of the people in the bar is the SAME footage from the beginning of the movie!!! I kid you not. It's the same people, standing (or dancing) in the same places, wearing the same clothes. Want to know the funniest part? You see bouncers in the shot that were KILLED earlier in the movie. Do yourself a favor, don't watch this movie unless YOU feel the need to go out and punch someone. This movie will make you angry enough to do it. | negative |
I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his "afterlife adventures" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all. | negative |
I attended the premier last night. The movie started out with a bang (perhaps due to pre-premier excitement). The audience laughed for about 15 minutes, then most of us spent the rest of the time fighting off sleep. This movie can not be compared to _Spinal Tap_ or any of Guest's work, unless you want to say _Sons of Provo_ is a wanna-be gone awfully wrong. It just fell flat, it died, it was painful. The story went nowhere, the jokes were bland, even if you were a Mormon and could get all of the inside jokes, it felt like a waste of time. There were two redeeming qualities: Kirby's acting was spot on! And the songs were very clever (for an LDS audience only). So, my recommendations... Avoid the movie. And if you are Mormon, buy the music CD. | negative |
One Night at McCool's is a very funny movie that is more intelligent than what it should be. Its form is more sophisticated than what I expected, and its randomness was superb. The thoughts behind the movie (mysogeny, sadism, stupid men) are are infantile. That's what I have to say about this movie is that not only does it hate women, but it loathes men. It doesn't have any sympathy for any of the men, really. It seems that way because of the form, but the ending says it all. Nobody cares.<br /><br />The form has the first 2/3 of the movie told in flashback by three characters: Dillon, the stupid bartender; Reiser, the mysogenistic stupid lawyer; and Goodman, the stupid, holier-than-thou cop. The story is therefore always perverted by their own self images and altered realities. Reiser's BBQ fantasy is a great touch. In the end, we never really know the truth, and nothing is what it seems. Dillon was never that innocent, etc. <br /><br />Actually, the rest of the movie is funny too. From the randomness of the last 5 seconds of the movie to the overly-obviousness of Tyler's manipulations, the movie seems to have an energy all its own. Everything is just out of the blue, and nothing seems to make sense. Do we really care if it does? No. <br /><br />It is also a very dark comedy, but has a shallow presentation. Think Nurse Betty, or Jawbreaker. Very candy coated outside, dark chewy inside. If you like your movies random, dark, or just purely mean, see this movie. This one will satisfy your urges for the strangeness that is One Night at McCool's.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this "movie" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.<br /><br />This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux "24" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.<br /><br />Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability. | negative |
Well, was Morgan Freeman any more unusual as God than George Burns? This film sure was better than that bore, "Oh, God". I was totally engrossed and LMAO all the way through. Carrey was perfect as the out of sorts anchorman wannabe, and Aniston carried off her part as the frustrated girlfriend in her usual well played performance. I, for one, don't consider her to be either ugly or untalented. I think my favorite scene was when Carrey opened up the file cabinet thinking it could never hold his life history. See if you can spot the file in the cabinet that holds the events of his bathroom humor: I was rolling over this one. Well written and even better played out, this comedy will go down as one of this funnyman's best. | positive |
This was unusual: a modern-day film which was ultra-nice. In fact, it was so nice it bordered on being too hard to believe in parts. As I watching this based-on-a-real-life story, I was thinking, "nobody is this nice, this tolerant." Mainly, I was referring to Ed Harris' role as "Coach Jones." I think they went a little overboard on his character, but that's better than the reverse: showing him worse than what he was in real life. Odd to see Harris playing the role, too, since he has a long resume of playing nasty, profane characters.<br /><br />Anyway, I never complain about a nice, feel-good film, and it is nice to see a bunch of well- meaning, kind people. Those folks direct their friendship, love and compassion to "James Kennedy," better known as "Radio," a mentally slow high school kid played by Cuba Gooding Jr. The story takes place in the mid 1970s in South Carolina. Gooding does a nice job with the role, too. However, like Sean Penn's role of a mentally-challenged man in "I Am Sam," an hour-and-a-half of a character like this is plenty. After that, the loudness of those guys gets tiresome to hear.<br /><br />Note: It was interesting in one of the documentaries on this DVD to find out that, in real life, in took years for "Radio" to make his transformation, not months as shown in the film. | positive |
Curly Sue is a 6 year old with an abundance of hair and a life as a drifter. She and her father, Bill (Jim Belushi), try to survive on the streets by being small time con artists. In Chicago, Bill decides to jump in front of a car in a pricey parking garage while Curly will scream about lawsuits and traction to the intended victim. It happens to be a very upscale lawyer named Grey (Kelly Lynch) who is appropriately appalled at what she has done. Not only do the scammers make some cash, they get to spend the night at Grey's plush apartment. Even then, Grey feels she owes them more so the three of them hang together for a spell. Grey only knows the lucrative law business and nothing about life. Who better to teach her than Bill and Curly, those savvy experts on life's realities? But, all good things must come to an end and there is no life for a legal expert and a couple of con men. Or is there? This is a sweet and funny movie about the unexpected. Curly is certainly as entertaining as Shirley Temple but much edgier, of course. Belushi gives a rare touching performance as the down on his luck con and Lynch is luminous as the snooty but soft touch lawyer. John Hughes, as writer and director, shows us his magic touch once again, as the script is lively and unpredictable. Just watch Curly and Bill take Grey out for a night, with no money, and see the humorous results. Do you long for happy endings, long promised and finally delivered, with a few uncertain moments in between? This is your made-to-order movie. | positive |
Lord David Cecil wrote an interesting book in the 1930s EARLY VICTORIAN NOVELISTS, where he looked at the works of Dickens, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Mrs. Gaskell, Charlotte Bronte, and Emily Bronte. He selected these writers as the popular favorites of the first half of the Victorian period, and he explained their strengths and weaknesses (as he saw them) to the reading public. Some of his comments are quite relevant to this day, but like all criticism it gives an idea of the spirit of the times of the critic's life as well.<br /><br />Cecil thought highly of George Eliot (Mary Ann Cross), who wrote about seven or eight books (including sketches and poetry). But for most modern readers, they are usually acquainted with her shortest book, SILAS MARNER, which is still read in some high school curriculum. The other books, FELIX HOLT THE RADICAL, DANIEL DERONDA, MIDDLEMARCH, THE MILL ON THE FLOSS, ADAM BEDE, ROMOLA, SCENES OF CLERICAL LIFE, are still in print (Penguin, for example, has most of them in print), but are mostly unread. The one of most interest today is her last novel, DERONDA, where she discusses the Jews in English society, and an incipient, pre-Hertzl type of Zionism. ROMOLA is her sole attempt at a historic novel (about Savanarola's experiment of a religiously pure republic in Florence in the 1490s). Her meatiest novel is MIDDLEMARCH, which is concerned with English society in the provinces in 1832, the year of the great Reform Bill of Lord Grey. I had to read MIDDLEMARCH in college for a literature course. It certainly is a thoughtful book (Virginia Woolf called it the most grown-up book in the English language). But it suffers (like all of Eliot's novels) from one defect - she cannot write livable, exciting prose. While Dickens is overly exuberant at times, and Thackeray can become pompous and prolix, and Trollope can become (as Lord Cecil says) very ordinary in his discussion, and Charlotte Bronte can fail to explain certain relationships well, and Mrs. Gaskell seems best dealing with female characters, all of them (and Emily Bronte in her single novel) hold the reader's interest. Reading most of Eliot's novels is like trying to chisel sentences out of blocks of marble with a toothpick!<br /><br />To date I have read about fifty pages of MILL OF THE FLOSS. I notice that one of the other reviewers never finished the novel too. But I have read a synopsis of what it is about. The Tullivers (Maggie and her brother Tom) are the central figures - they own the mill in the title. Although close at the start of the story, Maggie falls in love with the son of a neighbor whose father is involved in legal difficulties with Mr. Tulliver Sr. Tom takes a dim view of this relationship, and the tragedy of the story is regarding the split between the siblings, culminating in their demise at the conclusion (Maggie runs back to the mill to rescue Tom during a heavy flood, and they die together). It must have been a success with Victorian readers, but it is very gloomy and depressing to modern audiences.<br /><br />The movie changed the ending a little - Maggie (Geraldine Fitzgerald) does die at the end with her lover, and Tom (James Mason) notes their deaths at the conclusion in his record book. The story is totally rewritten, except for a double death in the flood at the conclusion. It doesn't really help matters. Although Fitzgerald and Mason do pretty well with their parts, they can't really pull the film up by their work alone. The end result is a fairly minor film, that fortunately did not hurt the lead's careers. The only other thing to note is that the boyfriend was played by Frank Lawton, who two years earlier played David Copperfield as a grown up opposite W.C.Fields, Lionel Barrymore, and Maureen O'Sullivan. But then, Lawton never really had a major film career - he just happened to always be around in pictures, some good, some mediocre. | negative |
In today's world of digital fabrication, there is no computer than can replace the actor and writer. Alas, this type of "character driven" film is far too rare these days. Duvall's performance as well as James Earl Jones are faithful to their audience's high expectations. I wonder if this movie was made for TV? It has a "close-up" personal quality to the narrative. It is an understatement to say that the performances are all Outstanding. The only thing that keeps it from being a cinema Masterpiece is the lack of a great Cinematographer, but pretty pictures are not everything. How can talent the likes of Jones and Duvall continue to produce such fine work in an age where actors pose for the digitizing? | positive |
the movie opens with a beautiful lady in a tattered white gown running through a stereotypical eastern european town. we know she's being followed by something, because she keeps looking behind her. and soon we see she's being chased by a mysterious man in a black trenchcoat. then we realize that the man is actually the vampire hunter and he is after her. but look is that her reflection in the store window??? no its just her identical twin vampire! but unfortunately they both get it.<br /><br />after this brilliant and amazingly fun throwback to the old hammer films of the 60's and 70's (in the credits the twins are listed as the twins of evil, which of course is the name of the final instalment in hammer's karnstein trilogy), the plot pretty much dies.<br /><br />What little plot there is involves dracula (who conveniently changes his appearance each time he is reborn, so the producer doesn't have to rehire the same dracula) coming to a morgue, the med students realizing he's undead and thinking....wow what an opportunity, maybe i'll just disregard all those movies that say that drinking vampire blood turns you into a vampire and use the vampire's blood to find a cure for our jerk friend's ailment. obviously this is a mistake and everyone becomes a vampire.<br /><br />A new concept but pulled off excruciatingly badly. The movie keeps setting up wonderful situations and refuses to do anything with them.<br /><br />For example the med students attempt to bring drac back to life by placing him in a bathtub filled with blood in a secluded run down country mansion. The house itself is scary enough to be the center of the film, but do we stay there? no because they decide to take the vampire to an abandoned swimming pool. sigh. This movie has a real problem with "homages" as i mentioned before the opening scene is straight out of hammer, and this house scene would have been perfect for a hammer-like movie, but the movie rapidly switches gears and changes to a medical horror.<br /><br />The other problem is that they introduce so many characters it is almost impossible to feel sorry for any of them. There are the med students and their wheelchair bound professor-type "friend" the med students are all: arrogant, boring, money hungry, and stupid. how they made it to med school at all amazes me, unless the med school had to meet its muscle bound hunk/big breast quota. and then there is the vampire hunter who remains mysterious through the movie. hey i can respect that but it would be nice if they didn't set it up like the movie would be about him. then you have random priests, cops, and science types. so many people are introduced and then quickly forgotten about until they need that person to either save the day or jump out for a cheap scare that it becomes quickly tedious.<br /><br />Basically this is a lazy movie. no real scares, just a few predictable jump scares. The set up for these is so elaborate it is hilarious. for examp le the bathtub full of blood. it is so obvious that drac is going to pop out of the murky blood. and yet we have to wait far too long to get to the inevitable jump scare. after this he kills one of the dumber and larger breasted med students. we all know she's going to become one of the undead. but what do the others do? bury her in a shallow grave near the house. sigh, so you know who will jump out at you when the cops show up at the house..........<br /><br />Oh well.<br /><br />Maybe someone will get the hint that it is impossible to make a scary vampire movie and just go for atmospheric, and then we will end up with an entire movie that is as good as the opening scene.<br /><br /> | negative |
I have nothing against a fast-paced fright-flick, but this Stephen King-derived nonsense is too freshly-scrubbed, too bright and modern. The plot, about a new teenage boy in a small town who is a "Sleepwalker"--sort of a cross between a vampire and a werewolf--and who feeds on the blood of female virgins, begs for a more mysterious, ambiguous treatment. This thriller is given an inappropriately colorful look and feel, with hardly any atmosphere. The kids are predictably pretty and energetic, but the big plus is Alice Kridge as the boy's mother; Kridge, from "Ghost Story", never broke out of the filler-female mold, and it's a huge loss that she hasn't been used more. Her performance is creepy and intense, and gives hint that "Sleepwalkers" might've been a much better film with a different focus and tighter direction. It's too over-the-top and commercially-driven, with an uneven tone that swings wildly from thriller to comedy to drama. Stephen King pops up in a cameo, as do real-life directors John Landis and Tobe Hooper. *1/2 from **** | negative |
Think 'Charmed' with testosterone instead of estrogen and you get the general idea for this picture. A very lame story with mediocre effects and an anti-climax ending to let the door open for a part 2. Let's hope someone has the sense to spend their money wiser. I'd suggest a 'Charmed - the movie' because compared to this 'Charmed' kicked ass and I only watched that show to please my girlfriend!!!! Wait and watch it on DVD on a rainy Sunday when you've got nothing better to do. Or better yet download it so you don't waste your money. The first 15 minutes were alright. But the funniest line from the movie and also the only highlight of this movie is when Reid says : "Kiss my ass Harry Potter", while driving of a cliff. Although they are not worthy to kiss Potter's ass, because Potter is way cooler and at least his movies have a story. The Goblet of fire was even scarier than this!!! | negative |
Zodiac Killer. 1 out of 10. Worst acting ever. No really worst acting ever. David Hess (Last House on the Left
. No the one from the seventies
. Rent it it's really good) is the worst of the bunch (Pretty stiff competition but he is amazingly god-awful.) One would be hard pressed to find a home movie participant with such an awkward camera presence. The film actually screeches to a stunning painful halt when he is on the screen.<br /><br />Not that the film actually has any redeeming qualities for Mr. Hess to ruin. It is filmed with a home movie camera and by the looks of things a pretty old one complete with attached boom mike. No post production either. Come on there has to be some shovelware a five year old computer could use that could clean up this picture. Throw in bizarre stock footage pictures of autopsy's and aircraft carrier takeoffs and this is one visually screwed up picture. The autopsy pictures are interjected the way Italian cannibal films interject those god-awful real life animal killings. And the Navy footage is supposed to be some anti war statement (Cause we know all the bloodthirsty maniacs join the Navy) What in the world is Lion's Gate is doing releasing this garbage? It would embarrass Troma. The plot is about the Zodiac Killer (Last seen in Dirty Harry
. No the one from the seventies
. Rent it it's really good) Somebody gets shot in the stomach in LA and the cops assume the Zodiac Killer is back? Uh-huh. What can you expect from a movie that doesn't know that DSM IV is a book not a psychiatric disorder and where the young killer older man relationship resembles that of a congressional page and closeted congressman? Yeah eighties haircuts and production values meet a Nambla subplot. Sign me up. | negative |
I was very excited to see a documentary on one of my favorite Italian directors. D'Amato has dabbled in everything from Horror, post-apocalyptic to hardcore Porn. He has touched upon genius a couple of times with films like Buio Omega and Emmanuelle & The Last Cannibals. This documentary is a lenghty and informative guide to the films of D'Amato. He is interviewed throughout with English subtitles rolling across the bottom of the screen. The excerpts from his films are narrated by a narrator (with english subtitles). The documentary proved extra interesting when it analyzed the often censored "Emmanuelle In America". Here D'amato explaines the faked "snuff" scenes in detail and recalls some funny stories. In fact, good ol' Joe is very warm and funny throughout, always wearing a smile and smoking a cigarette. The one disapointing aspect of this documentary is that it spends little time on D'amato's Horror films like Anthropophagus and the brilliant Buio Omega. It spends too much time on the erotic cinema and hardly touches the post-apocaplyptic films. But, I can't complain. It is wonderful to see D'amato get the respect he deserves. Highly recommended for fans of D'amato. May he rest in peace. | positive |
Hi:<br /><br />I heard about lost from a co-worker that had obvious differences of opinion on entertainment, he loved it. Well I watched an episode or 2 in the early seasons and was bored, so I tuned it out. After a few years I stumbled upon lost; bored with the current sci-fi fare. Wow was I surprised. Can you say gravity well, damn I got sucked in. The pace and scripting are very good, some of the flash forward/backs are so so with the lamer characters, but over all good. My favorite characters are Ben, Locke, Jacob, Richard Alpert, Sayid Jarrah, Sawyer, Hurley, Daniel Faraday, Jin & Wife, Walt, Charlie, Desmond, and Jack's dad. Jack and Michael definitely are immature asshats, very spoiled and immature. Kate 1 step above them, Juliet was way more classy than Kate. Mr. Eko way under-rated and on the level of Charlie if not more, too bad they both died. The guy dressed in black talking to Jacob (way back) is a genuine curiosity. As a whole great, very layered series: looking for more.<br /><br />regards | positive |
The best part in this movie is the first one, located in Sicily, I suppose. Crialese shows a good talent for photography and the movie start is delightfully surprising. The rest of the story is quite boring. Crialese uselessly insists on stereotypical situations and characters, trying to melt neorealistic suggestions and video-music technique, Fellinian surrealistic remembrances and a very annoying and completely off-topic soundtrack, leading the whole thing towards an end which gives you the sensation of an exaggeratedly long story cut abruptly short. Frankly, this is a real overrated movie and Crialese is a real overrated director. | negative |
"You were on your way up and you tripped on a skirt !" Gilligan says to Jim Leonard. That sums up the plot of this story of up and coming Leonard (a YOUNG Humphrey Bogart) when his dream gets sidetracked by the bombshell heiress Carol, played by Dorothy Mackaill. Leonard has been working on a new and improved motor, but now his love life and motor company both have their ups and downs in this 68 minute shortie. Bogart hadn't developed the quiet, brooding style yet. Good performances by most of the supporting characters - her butler, his co-workers, a sister, interlopers along the way. Some adult themes, since it was done just before they really enforced the film code, but it's still tame compared to what is on TV today. Directed by Thornton Freeland, a year before Freeland directed the incredible "Flying Down to Rio". | positive |
I loved this film! I'm a true Tom Hanks fan, and I have always been impressed with all of his work. From his most dramatic roles like Cast Away, The Green Mile, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13 & Philadelphia. To his hilarious roles like A League of Their Own, Turner and Hooch, Catch Me If You Can, The Lady Killers, Big & of course Toy Story. But in this film Hanks isn't the only great actor who lights up the screen. Tyler Hoechlin, an up and coming star who shows great promise in Hollywood co stars as Hanks son and delivers nothing short of a great performance. He is certainly someone to watch out for over his career, I believe he will do great things. Paul Newman as always delivers a brilliant performance on screen. He is truly a legend. We can't forget the people who didn't have such big roles in the film, but still helped make it great. The beautiful & very talented Jennifer Jason Leigh, who's performance in Bastard Out of Carolina & Single White Female I will never forget, brings her grace to the screen as Hank's wife in the film and does a superb job. Liam Aiken is another found treasure in film. He does such a great job with such a small role, and like his roles in Lemony Snickets, and Sweet November, and I Dreamed Of Africa he gives a great performance. | positive |
This movie is like real life, by which I mean - not a lot happens in the available 2 hours or so, and not much game plan or plot is evidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility being due to the "experimental" lighting as mentioned by many reviewers). <br /><br />A big bore. No big surprise that Altman helms this - he is a very variable performer (yes we all loved "Gosford Park", but "Pret A Porter" anyone? Kansas City? Dr T. and the Women? Aaargh), but the fact that the raw material is a John Grisham tale, and the excellent cast that you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistent slumber - makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. And no, it is not "so bad it's good".<br /><br />It's just bad. | negative |
Best Stephen King film alongside IT, though this one is more fun than scary. <br /><br />This one's got it all: <br /><br />-a great cast with a Alice Krige and Brian Krause and a fun cameo from King himself;<br /><br />-well dosed horror in an amusing storyline;<br /><br />-great use of music, Santo & Johnny's "Sleepwalk" in particular;<br /><br />-likeable characters in a typical King setting: middle of nowhere village;<br /><br />-lots of humor. You can't really get good scares here because it's too much fun and over the top;<br /><br />-old but really nice makeup effects like they don't make anymore!<br /><br />A 4,5 rating: I don't get it really. When was the last time a horror film was as much fun as this one? | positive |
Following their daughter's brutal murder,Julie and Allen escape the city to find solace and grieve in a solitary cabin on a remote mountain.Allen's intentions are good,he wants his wife to get out of her depression by resuming her photography.Julie stumbles across an ancient prison and sees the perfect creepy,decaying setting for her photography.But when the photos are developed they are full of dead people-and Allen quickly discovers the tragic history of suicide in their new mountain."Dark Remains" is a pretty decent indie horror flick.It offers some genuine scares and plenty of tension.The acting is fairly good and the cinematography is great.7 out of 10. | positive |
This movie starts out with kids telling each other urban legends such as the poodle in the microwave and getting something extra at a chicken place. Unfortunately, it then turns to your basic anthology movie. The first being about a janitor with a bit of a secret. This one is okay at best. Then it gets worse as the next story about this kid obsessed with dead flies is on and it goes on and on and on. It is way to long and not all that interesting to begin with. After that you get the typical shock scene and it ends. You need more than this in an anthology movie. You need at least three stories and one shouldn't be so long it becomes dreadfully uninteresting especially considering you can see how it is going to end a mile away. | negative |
I just watched this movie and I've gotta say that with such a great premise and great talent this turkey just lays there!!! A friend lent me this movie and I watched with an open mind mainly because he had such high praise for the story. <br /><br />Well, the movie started off with Kevin Costner as a fighter pilot retiring... why? Why did they make him a fighter pilot? He was supposedly going to be hired by Anthony Quinn's character to be his new pilot... well, we never see Costner go near a plane for the rest of the movie! <br /><br />Costner runs into a Texan (James Gammon) selling a horse to a big Mexican businessman and Costner tags along for a ride. Without knowing what happened, Gammon is beat to near death and Costner drives him to the meeting, which happens to be with an associate of Quinn! But, nothing comes of it... nada, zilcho! Why did they have Gammon's character? Why did they have the horse sale with the Quinn associate if nothing was to come of it? <br /><br />Also, after they leave Costner for dead, they make Madeline Stowe's character become a whore, then she attacks one of Quinn's men that was paying for a turn... she stabs him with his own knife, and the next thing she's been moved to a convent! No explanation as to why she was moved, or when it was done!<br /><br />Too much talent wasted on such a weak script and poor editing!! I only watched this because a friend owned it and let me watch it... I'm going to throw it at him for the 2 hours I wasted of my life watching the blasted thing! | negative |
This film is my favorite comedy of all time and I have seen a lot of comedies.First of all,I should not this film had no script.Just a storyboard.The dialogue is almost completely written by the actors.Which makes this film absolutely hsyterical.The cast is one of the best comedic ensemble's you will ever see.The story is about the Mayflower Dog Show in Philadelphia and some of the contestants in them.Parker Posey shines and is absolutely great!This is one of those films that most of the laughing comes from the absolute pathetic-ness of the characters.*****/***** | positive |
This show was laughably bad. The writing sucked, the dialog sucked. The guy who played Craig couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. Being it was on Thursday night, this was definitely great to watch with some beers. Cool music, bad acting, poor writing, all came together for my entertainment.<br /><br />It was a drama/unintentional comedy. I don't care what happened to any of the characters, they were all boring and stupid. The first five episodes were the worst, since they couldn't reveal who the victim was, they had to write the dialog around it, which was terrible. I mean, the eulogy at the funeral was ridiculous. Actually, all the scenes that occurred in the present were utterly horrible.<br /><br />So, let's review. Everything happening in present time sucked. The flashback scenes, only the writing, dialog and Craig's acting sucked. The music ruled though. | negative |
The success of the original French "Emmanuelle" series (I've only watched the first, which wasn't too bad considering) led to a spate of imitations; the Italian counterpart, which even changed the race of its heroine, was clearly less polished and more exploitative - descending more and more into vulgarity as the series went along. Incredibly, there were 16 "Black Emanuelle" films in total, with the heroine even having the spelling of her name changed to avoid copyright issues!! Still, Laura Gemser - the titular object of desire - became almost as much of an icon as the original Emmanuelle, Sylvia Kristel (although, personally, she's too skinny for my tastes)! Here she's even billed as "Emanuelle" rather than with her real name - with the director, likewise, becoming "Albert Thomas"! <br /><br />In itself, the film offers little of interest: as a matter of fact, one would do best to approach it as a travelogue with some decent footage of the African wildlife. With respect to the sex scenes, I don't know how complete the version I watched was but, while there was a lot of nudity, none of it was very explicit - or even titillating (the scene that came closest, perhaps, was when Gemser - who works as a photographer - and her companion Karin Schubert turn the camera on each other, naturally sans clothes, in the middle of the jungle)! The film also features an artist made up to look like Salvador Dali but, mercifully perhaps, his scenes do not take much of the running time. The score by Nico Fidenco is typically bland 70s pop and, really, nothing to write home about. | negative |
"Five Fingers of Death" is a classic of 70's kung fu cinema. As the film that "broke out" HK cinema to the west, this is a must see for any serious fan of the genre. It's also a damn entertaining film, with hard-hitting, non-stop action, solid and mostly believable fight choreography and great over-the-top 70's era dubbing ("Oh I see ... so you want it THE HARD WAY!! HWAA!!").<br /><br />"Five Fingers" is an eye-for-an-eye revenge tale ... and I mean literally, eye for an eye! It's great to see Lo Lieh portraying a hero. He played so many great villains later in his career - including Pai Mei in the classic FIST OF THE WHITE LOTUS, which was one of the characters Tarantino used in creating the Pai Mei of KILL BILL.<br /><br />My only complaint is that I wish there was a better quality DVD - mine looks like it was a VHS transfer. Overall this is a great film - don't miss it!<br /><br />Bart Blackstone Film Club - Hollywood, CA | positive |
Burlinson and Thornton give an outstanding performance in this movie, along with Dennehy. Although it is at first thought to be only about love, it really goes down deeper than that. The beauty of nature captures this movie, placing among one of the best I have ever seen. The horse scenes are absolutely fantastic!! Any horse-lovers out there will love this movie!<br /><br /> | positive |
Man oh man... I've been foolishly procrastinating (not the right term, there's a long list!) to watch this film and finally had the chance to do so. And "news" are: Marvellous labyrinthine spectacle!<br /><br />For any Von Trier's "follower": both Rigets, Element of Crime, Dogville, Dancer in The Dark, The Five Obstructions, etc... Europa is probably the differential for its greatness in visual terms. Everything is beautifully somber and claustrophobic! You really get the feeling of being inside this "imaginary" nightmarish time warp. Taking from the masters of surreal cinema like Bunuel, Bergman, till noir films of the 40's with acidic drops of avant-guard Von Trier leads the art-film scene as the "well intended totalitarian" movie maker of nowadays. His authoritarian way of dealing with very intricate issues, without being irrational, hits the nerve of the viewer with the intent to cure some of the deepest wounds we feed in our hypocritical world.<br /><br />As Utopian as it seems, I do believe people like Von Trier could help society in many ways in a broader aspect. The day films and filmmakers that carry this sort of power are no longer necessary, as a tool for reflection, perhaps it could be the start of a new era: "The age of emotional control over our fears". This is what he offers to us constantly through his work over and over.<br /><br />Bravo! | positive |
It was like someone was trying to make a scary video game and a documentary at the same time. The historical aspect was great. Everything else was horrible, the plugs for the directors other movie that seemed to happen every other minute, the video of the actual ghost hunting was edited like a scary movie rather than an investigation, they had haunted house music and sound effects that would distract you from what was happening. THanks for wasted 2 hours of my time! When there was evidence, it would fly by! Most of it was just people talking about the place.The episode of the Ghosthunters show that went there absolutely destroys how this show was. I am so upset with sci fi channel for playing this, I haven't watched it since it aired. | negative |
Huge, exhaustive and passionate summary of American cinema as seen through the eyes of Martin Scorcese. Needless to say, there is never a dull moment in all of its 4 hour running time. Many genres, periods and directors are all examined, discussed more from the perspective of cinephile rather than contemporary director. For anyone even remotely interested in American films, or cinema in general. A masterpiece, and the best of the BFI's Century of Cinema series.<br /><br /> | positive |
Full House was and still is a great show. It's a good show for people of all ages and is also a good family show. There really aren't any shows like it anymore. The kids are very cute and even though it's a bit cheesy, it's still good, especially for anyone who watched it when they were a kid. I would love to see the cast interviewed now. Anyone that would like to see interviews of the cast, kind of like a where are they now type thing for the special features of the DVD, should go to the Petition spot website and sign a petition titled Full House Reunion on DVD as there is a petition for this in hopes that the cast may want to do it. Yay for Full House! | positive |
I Won't say anything about music, because this topic can be so deep that it can become one huge separate review, so let's concentrate on movie that is brilliant... No doubt, one of the best works of Forman.<br /><br />The simple story about love, friendship, freedom and ideals... oh yes, the ideals for which even pacifists are ready to go in war...<br /><br />There is not a single fake word, single fake character, single fake feeling in the story, because the love, freedom and friendship isn't something complicated for the characters of movie. These things aren't something that "everyone can view from different angle" These aren't things that need much thinking to understand... their love is simple, their friendship is simple, their ideals are as simple as the word "simple" itself and that's why these characters are so deep.<br /><br />Berger, the leader of a hippie played by Treat Williams is a guy who lives to live and that's the biggest happiness for him... he has his ass - (as he sings in one of the scenes in the movie) and that's enough to make him happy with his property...<br /><br />Berger never accepts that something can't be done... and his right... If he wants to go to some rich guys' banquet in his dirty old clothes and huge long hair, he will do it... if he want's to go to another state to just see his friend, he'll do it... he never thinks twice... he just do it.<br /><br />How? why is he so powerful? the answer is simple: because he is FREE.<br /><br />Just watch how the wind makes the hair wave in this movie and you will understand it all, maybe you will even free yourself too. | positive |
i was one "chosen" to see this movie in a sneak preview.<br /><br />first you should know that this film is based on the video game "far cry", a for its time really good game (2004). second you should know that the regisseur of this flick is the great uwe boll. this is a man, who takes video games (dungeon siege, bloodrayne, postal, etc.) and makes movies out of them (VERY horrible ones....).<br /><br />i still remember when i saw boll's "the king's swords: a dungeon siege tail". there were so horrible mistakes in this film (like 3 scenes playing at the same time, 2 at day-time, and one somehow at night.....)<br /><br />so lets come to "far cry". if you expect cool action, forget it. really cheap tricks and a plastic helicopter are far away from real action. if you expect a cool story, forget it. orientating by the not-so-bad story of the game, this movie is a laugh. the actors' playing makes the movie in a lot of moments funny, but in a no-good way.<br /><br />i had the chance to see this movie for free. so do not do the mistake and pay for this trash. its one of my favorised flicks for the bottom 100.!!!! | negative |
Much can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going. BATTLE OF THE BRAVE tackles the 18th Century struggle for the control of Quebec (an all of Canada) between the British and the French with sidebars form the new America. It has the makings of a sweeping epic of fascination, but sadly in the hands of writer Pierre Billon (whose script deserves a Razzie award for worst of the season) and the scattered, unfocused, and confusing direction by Jean Beaudin this film is a dud - a two and a quarter hour tedious mess of a film.<br /><br />Even a cast a fine actors - pairing Noémie Godin-Vigneau as Marie-Loup Carignan with David La Haye as François le Gardeur, adding the lovely Bianca Gervais as Acoona , the venerable Gérard Depardieu as Le curé Thomas Blondeau, and the likes of Irène Jacob, Vincent Perez (ridiculous in period wigs), Tim Roth as William Pitt, Colm Meaney as Benjamin Franklin, and Jason Isaacs as Général James Wolfe - doesn't help. Veteran actors such as these must have cringed at the crude lines written for their characters! Cover the whole mess in a sappy musical score by Patrick Doyle and the result is a long film to be avoided. Sad to say such bad things about a costly project, but be warned....Grady Harp | negative |
(spoilers) Horrifyingly enough, I have actually SEEN the film that this horrid film was a sequel to. It was called Ator the Fighting Eagle, and I saw it when I was just 8 years old. It made such an awful impression on me that i never forgot it. I've been an MST3K fan for a long time, so when Cavedwellers came out on tape I bought it. I was horrified to realize that it was a sequel to the wretched Ator movie that i'd seen so long ago! Ator's costume has, somehow, gotten ever skimpier than the last time i saw him. How can he wear that tiny little bikini? Doesn't he care that it shows off the fact that he has no...errr...package? And poor Thong...he gets no lines and no girl, and has to follow that frizzy haired girly doofus Ator around all the time. Has anyone else noticed that Miles O'Keefe walks like a woman? No wonder he's not interested in the pretty if somewhat lackluster Meela. The evil but prancy bad guy Zor is more to his taste, I'm sure. I loved Zor's cardboard spray painted swan helmet, and the way he spent all his time trying to touch some part of Ator. The fight scenes are so badly choreographed that its a wonder that the swords ever manage to connect. The dull old guy spends all of his time standing around looking depressed. Ator drinks from a cup given to him by a guy who hates him, and then looks surprised that they drugged him. He must be pretty smart though-he invented a hang glider in the space pf five minutes ,then flew it into a rift in the space/time continuum so that he travelled briefly into 17th century Bulgaria. That was after he stabbed the giant snake puppet, of course, and saved the post coital Meela while she sat around doing absolutely nothing. The real hero of the movie was Thong, who saved Ator several times from his boundless stupiditiy, and killed the evil Zor in the bargain. Kudos to Thong, the only competent person in the whole film. | negative |
I'm amazed we see even one nay-sayer criticizing this old film. We don't ordinarily get good opera films, and here is a true grand opera rendition. Understandably, the visuals are not great. It's dated. But as opera it can't be faulted; and I'm an opera buff. I can't even detect one lip-sync; if we didn't know that was Tebaldi in the audio nothing would convince me it isn't Sophia Loren. She does EVERYTHING with flair! Her dark makeup is fine; and she brought the role to gorgeous life! The rest of the cast is wonderful, as is that stunning ballet troupe. Most of the actors are excellent; Loren truly marvelous. Her rival Amneris is also terrific. Whoever didn't care for this 1953 job is shamefully remiss. Verdi would have enjoyed it! Naturally, Renata Tebaldi as Aida is the engine behind the scenes. I love this old movie! | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.