review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This movie sucked. It really was a waste of my life. The acting was atrocious, the plot completely implausible. Long, long story short, these people get "terrorized" by this pathetic "crazed killer", but completely fail to fight back in any manner. And this is after they take a raft on a camping trip, with no gear, and show up at a campsite that is already assembled and completely stocked with food and clothes and the daughters headphones. Additionally, after their boat goes missing, they panic that they're stuck in the woods, but then the daughters boyfriend just shows up and they apparently never consider that they could just hike out of the woods like he did to get to them. Like I said, this movie sucks. A complete joke. Don't let your girlfriend talk you into watching it. | negative |
I caught this movie on FX last night, and as I was sitting there watching it, it occurred to me that it could quite possibly be the worst movie ever. Bad acting, bad cinematography, bad sound, totally unbelievable fight sequences, stupid characters. All these made it up to be the most laughably bad movie I've ever seen. It was so bad, I was enthralled by it's sheer lack of anything semi-competent that I had to keep watching... and they made a sequel! | negative |
The director was probably still in his early learning stages when he tried his hand at westerns. Have a look at the outfits. Everybody looks well-scrubbed, well-brushed, well-dressed and well-ironed as though ready for church. Even the horses look well-groomed and shiny. This is a WESTERN, for crying out loud! It's supposed to look dusty, nasty and sweaty. And then there's the amateurish acting of the females in this bird. The whole lot, a dozen or so, all pretty and well-endowed, were just freshly raped and widowed, but hardly a tear flows. Instead they all look with great interest (if not downright lust) at the newly arrived magnificent seven who they subsequently feed, bandage and comfort with love during their battles with the bandits. The same directing criticism goes for Lee van Cleef, who does a reasonable good acting job. Our Lee, playing the law, just lost his dear wife. But Lee, hard as organic rock, shows no emotion whatsoever and finds himself within days of his spouse's demise in the arms of a juicy widow with whom he, together with her brood, walks off into the future. The cad. And then there's another thing that always kind of bothers me with this type of films: it doesn't matter how many dynamite-induced explosions take place in the middle of a pack of some 50 horses, never mind how many shots are being fired at the rabble on top of them, only the crooks get killed and the nags always go their way rejoicing in one piece. (I know...silly moi...it's just a movie...). It's not the worst western ever made, but prepare for some serious yawning. | negative |
I first saw this mini-series a number of years ago on British television and was immediately captivated by the story. This rather surprised me as I am not a great fan of either 'Jane Eyre' or 'Wuthering Heights'; I consider the heroine of the former to be a self-righteous bore, and the latter piece of work as overblown claptrap.<br /><br />'The Tenant of Wildfell Hall', like the aforementioned works, is also somewhat depressing in parts. However, the darker parts of the film were offset by the excitement of Helen's escape, the breathtakingly wild and beautiful landscape of Yorkshire, and the sexual magnetism of Toby Stephens.<br /><br />This film successfully portrays the frustratingly restrictive lifestyle of all women of the time. At best they suffered from a form of minor domestic tyranny as portrayed by the treatment of the womenfolk in the Markham household. At the other end of the scale, there is the unfortunate Helen who is married to a wealthy man of high estate, but is exposed to brutality and humiliation alternating with long periods of neglect. She runs away and experiences a brief moment of freedom but, as a women of mystery living alone in a rural community, she inevitably becomes the subject of spiteful gossip and speculation.<br /><br />Tara Fitzgerald is excellent as the long-suffering Helen Markham. Not only incredibly beautiful (in spite of that terribly unflattering hairstyle) with the most amazing cheekbones, she is also more than capable of playing the central role in the film. Tara is dignified and aloof while, at the same time, allowing us to see that Helen is still dangerously vulnerable. Rupert Graves IS the depraved, yet curiously attractive Arthur Huntingdon - after seeing him, I could never imagine another actor playing that part. Pam Ferris deserves special mention for her role as Gilbert's indulgent mother, as does the actress who played his sister Rose, and Simon Carter who is the uncharitable vicar with a taste for the Good Things in Life. Finally, I could watch this film for Toby Stephens alone; he is so good-looking,rugged, sexy, sensitive (but not in a nauseatingly sentimental way). I am not even sure if he is a good actor as my hormones prevent me from judging him objectively!<br /><br />If there is a fault with the film it is the use of flashbacks which I felt both interfered with the flow of the story and made it slightly confusing. Other people, who have watched this film with me, also had problems with this, and I found I had to explain to them that certain scenes were in fact retrospective.<br /><br />I am extremely grateful for the people responsible for making this film. Not only did I puchase the video (a rare occurrence), but it led me to buy Anne Bronte's superb novel. Naturally, this was better than the film, but only by a narrow margin. I recommend that anyone interested should watch the film and then read the book in that order.<br /><br /> | positive |
Had the original casting idea been kept (hunting Rutger, not Ice-T), this movie might have worked. Sadly, racism had to come into the picture (literally) and mess it up. The predominantly black production staff couldn't allow the antagonist be black, so they swapped Rutger's and Ice-T's roles. This was only the start of the downward spiral of this film. Ernest Dickerson's news-room approach to 'directing' only verified that this was another affirmative-action job assignment. Master shot, close up, close up. Gads, 'Who's Line Is It Anyway' even uses more creative camera work. Eric's rewrite of 'The Most Dangerous Game' is at least an attempt at modernizing the classic tale, but fails to give us any motivations for why the characters are doing this. We are never given the reasons, other than "no one will miss these people", why the leader (re-written as Rutger) does these things. Aside from a heart-felt performance by John McGinley, and a fair job by Charles Dutton, do not bother with this one. One small bit of trivia, there was a real drunk-driving accident during filming that injured F.Murray Abraham, and resulted in the death of the intoxicated young driver that caused the accident. | negative |
Chupacabra: Dark Waters has to rank as one of the most insipidly moronic movies ever made. I had expected at least some passable entertainment because John Rhys Davies was involved, and after seeing this movie, I can honestly say I lowered my opinion of Mr. Davies substantially.<br /><br />Why? The acting is incredibly poor. An excellent actor like Davies should have demanded more from the cast and the director. It was painfully obvious that Mr. Davies was just clock-watching and hoping the check would not bounce. To say that he just showed up would be an understatement. But at least he did show up. The rest of the cast looks like they mailed it in from their respective jobs at the various Los Angeles restaurants where they work as waiters. Talk about a cast of unknowns! This is the kind of cast that never appears in movies again. They act as if they were auditioned while waiting at the unemployment office.<br /><br />What about the special effects? Store bought firecrackers, Styrofoam, a cheap rubber suit and CGI effects that look like they came from my 1980 Atari Game. I have seen some horrible special effects used on Sci-Fi Channel movies, but this stuff looked like cut-and-paste done at the kindergarten by someones' child. I expected Mr. Crabs and Sponge-Bob would show up at the end to battle the Chupacabra. Not to mention that all the accounts of the creature describe it as a small gremlin-like critter. It would have been a good film for a Leprechaun-like character. Instead, we get a gigantic hulking creature that is shown walking with stop-action speeded-up effects that are laughable. The chupacabra is in one place and then it shuffles at super-speed down the hall and it is worth a few laughs just to see this. | negative |
I have some of the older videos and dvds of Dr. Who. I've played them over and over. I adore each of the "Doctors" for different reasons. But due to a man in the BBC hierarchy, Dr. Who was canceled, even though it was still one of the mainstays of the BBC line-up. With the departure of Sylvester McCoy, the Doctor stayed alive through the fans. BBC graciously allowed fans to write books, and cartoons. The momentum of Dr. Who has been steady even after 1989. Then they took a chance with Paul McGann. The movie was flawed, but it gave the BBC an idea of what we wanted. In 1999, the "man" was gone and the newbies at the BBC felt it was time to bring the Doctor back. It was a complete success. Here in America, the Sci-fi Channel took a chance and it has become a complete success as well, although the writers were having to start over and explain the Dr. Who mythology for new viewers. It is incredible to me that they have done it. In Season 1, staring Christopher Eccleston with Russell T. Davis as lead writer, and Phil Collinson as producer, the Doctor has come back to us and in each episode we learn more about who the Doctor is. The Doctor Who universe has always been about "Choice", "Love" and "Sacrifice". This is what they provided. It makes me want more and it saddens me that Mr. Eccleston has chosen to leave the show. My first Doctor was Doctor no. 3, Jon Pertwee's Doctor. Mr. Eccleston needn't worry about his position in the Dr. Who universe. It is as solid as the rest. He is the 9th Doctor. I didn't know of Mr. Eccleston prior to his performance in Dr. Who, but I do now. I wish there was some way, he could know, there is push out in the Dr. Who fan community to find his other work and enjoy it. We have already seen that he is a great actor. | positive |
Richard Willaims is an animation god. He was hampered in directing this film by the producer. The final product is a very uneven film with a very convoluted story, but some amazing moments of animation (like Emery Hawkins' "Greedy"). Joe Raposo's repetitive music doesn't help either. It was made in wide screen so the VHS doesn't show it in all it's glory, let's hope for a letterboxed DVD someday. Still it's worth watching for some eye popping animation. | positive |
Riveting drama, scripted by William Mastrosimone based on his stage play, in which Farrah Fawcett plays Marjorie, attacked in her car by rapist Joe (James Russo). She manages to get away but the cops inform her that there is nothing they can do. She realizes, however, that Joe did get her wallet and knows where she lives. When her housemates Pat (Alfre Woodard) and Terry (Diana Scarwid) are off at work, Joe pays her a visit to finish what he started. After Joe humiliates and degrades her in a variety of ways, she gets a chance to strike back at him and imprisons him. Knowing full well she's in another "his word against yours" situation and that no rape technically took place, she has no intention of taking it easy on him until he confesses to Pat and Terry what his intentions were.<br /><br />The movie ultimately amounts to a showdown between its two opponents. As it goes on, Marjorie displays such ruthlessness that one has to wonder if she hasn't become as unhinged as her nemesis. Fawcett does a creditable enough job, while Russo is truly excellent as the depraved creep who does his best to manipulate the situation. With only two characters on screen for much of the running time, the film has an intimate nature that does suggest that it would work even better on stage. Director Robert M. Young doesn't shy away from the uglier and more exploitative elements of the situation; the film does become uncomfortable to watch at times. And by the time Marjorie has the upper hand, things change enough so that it no longer becomes quite so easy to encourage her to go for blood, and one hopes that Pat can make her see reason.<br /><br />"Extremities", I felt, was a pretty good movie that at least maintained interest and a fairly high level of intensity. Woodard and Scarwid are both fine in support (Scarwid has a great moment where Terry reveals herself to be a rape victim), and the pace is consistent. Granted, the dialog isn't always very sharp, but the material is compelling every step of the way.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
My husband dragged me to this film as I had no interest in seeing some Anime cartoon. I was absolutely delighted by the simple story and amazing animation. In a digital world where effects are computer generated it was refreshing to see gorgeous, imaginative hand drawn animation. The world of Sosuke and Ponyo is a vivid fantasyland intermixed with minimal reality. I haven't seen animation like this since I was a child and it is wonderful to see it endure and succeed.<br /><br />The actors supplying the voices in the English version were fabulous. The length of the movie was PERFECT, especially for children who tend to get squirrelly in films. Overall a delightful experience worth the very expensive ticket prices we have nowadays. | positive |
((NB: Spoiler warning, such as it is!))<br /><br />First off, this is a teen slasher flick -- the Spam-In-A-Cabin genre, as Joe Bob Briggs piquantly put it. If you're looking for Roshambo, this isn't it and wasn't going to BE it. I'm desperately unimpressed by stabs at its cinematography, directing or acting performances.<br /><br />Secondly, this wasn't Zuniga's first horror flick, it was her first screen appearance period, cinema, TV, whatever. For what it is worth; neither is Daphne Zuniga Susan Sarandon or Katherine Hepburn.<br /><br />Thirdly, you have to give even a lame slasher flick props. Sure, it follows the deeply insulting formulaic message of its genre: any young woman having or showing interest in sex is beef on the hoof, and the harvest time is now.<br /><br />Except this one gives the chop to the sweet, virginal protagonist as well! Now THERE is a mediocre teen death film that has the courage of its convictions! Interesting that this was said ingenue's only film role. Another One Hit Wonder, except that term gives the lass too much credit.<br /><br />(Then again, this film probably has one of the highest percentage of one-movie actors in history. Of the nineteen credited actors, a whopping thirteen never appeared in any other film. Three appeared in one other movie by the same producers. Only one other besides Zuniga has as many as six screen credits. What was this, the Has Been And Never Were Mutual Aid Society?)<br /><br />Granted, I saw this a long time ago on late night cable when I was bored and never anticipate being that bored in my life again, but I see no reason to hunt down everyone involved and toss them in the incinerator with Joanne.<br /><br />2/10. | negative |
Oliver Stone, always ready to make politically-themed movies, makes another one here. "Talk Radio" is loosely based on the career of Alan Berg, a radio talk show host in Denver who was murdered by white supremacists. In this case, the character is Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian), an outspoken talk show host in Dallas who loves nothing more than to irk the people who call in. As it is, most of the people who call in are a bunch of pigheaded racists. And things may be heating up more than anyone realizes.<br /><br />Bogosian's performance brings a light comical tone to an otherwise serious movie. I really liked the scene where he jabs at a redneck who calls in. Granted, I wouldn't call this Oliver Stone's greatest movie ever, but it's a good reference in an era when media gets more and more concentrated. Good performances by Ellen Greene and Alec Baldwin also help. | positive |
This film just won the best film award at the Cleveland International Film Festival. It's American title apparently is Autumn Spring. The acting is superb. The story takes you into the life of an elderly man who takes what life deals him and spikes it up a little bit. Abetted by his best friend (and partner in not-so-serious crime) he puts people on at every opportunity but still often reveals his heart of gold. His longsuffering wife has come to her wits end and makes a life-changing decision which is heartbreaking to watch. The resolution of the story is beautiful. | positive |
In 1925, childhood friends Marie Dressler (as Maggie Warren) and Polly Moran (as Lizzie Praskins) oversee the wedding of their children, Anita Page (as Helen) and Norman Foster (as John). Before the celebration, Ms. Dressler turns the reigns of her small town bank over to her son, Mr. Foster. Six years later, the Great Depression brings many bank closures, and financial insecurity. Banker Foster is able to survive, due to mother Dressler's wise planning. But, Ms. Moran is worried about her fortune, and loudly demands a complete withdrawal. Other "Warren Bank" customers hear Moran's rant, and start questioning their own solvency. Soon, the family is in financial crisis.<br /><br />Dressler's huge critical and financial film hit "Emma" had been released early in the year, and MGM had to have wanted to get a new Dressler film out as soon as possible. Dressler's 1931 hits, "Reducing" and "Politics" were still making a lot of money; and, Dressler had become 1932's US #1 Box Office Star, according to the industry standard list compiled by Quigley Publications. "Prosperity" certainly celebrated Dressler's status, but the production appears uncharacteristically sloppy, and rushed. The cast does well, considering. Some more care in direction and editing, and some retakes, would have helped
apparently, they needed it in theaters for the holidays.<br /><br />**** Prosperity (11/12/32) Sam Wood ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Anita Page, Norman Foster | negative |
After the atomic bomb hits Hiroshima, charred bodies lie all around, deformed victims attempt to communicate with relatives who can't even recognize them, and one person after another dies of radiation sickness. This black and white film, however sad and scary, is not without humor. The story revolves around a young woman Yasuko, who was hit by black rain after the explosion. She is trying to get married, but everyone keeps dying, and people are worried the same will happen to her. After finding a suitable mate (who is losing his mind after being in the war for too long), she ends up showing signs of radiation sickness. This film is a great portrayal of the atomic attacks on Japan, it will frighten you, and will perhaps make you cry. The acting is good, not overly dramatic like many other ww2 films that have been made. | positive |
This film is unusual and bizarre, and it is nearly unusual and bizarre in a very good way. I give this short a 7 just because it is so unique and off-the-wall, but much of the time it seems as though it is being bizarre just for the sake of being bizarre. If the film had managed to integrate its more bizarre moments into some semblance of a plot then it would have been really fantastic.<br /><br />The main problem here is that it looks as though the creators just jumbled together a bunch of crap about spatulas, then threw in a whole bunch more crap that sounded as though it would sound funny coming from the mouth of a spatula.<br /><br />This is definitely worth checking out, but it is not top rate by any stretch of the creators wild imaginations. | positive |
** May contain spoilers ** Horrible. Just horrible. I loved Stephen King's novel, and this is just a horrible adaptation of it. They change the ending. They change the plot. They changed Alan Pangborne's character from a grieving husband to a happy fiancé. If you are a fan of Stephen King's novel, stay away. Even if You are not, stay away.<br /><br />The book was awesomely dark, even for Steve King. An 11 year old kills himself in the novel. A middle school principal is found with child pornography in the novel. THis is nowhere near as good as the novel.<br /><br />This movie is my least favorite film of all time. I hate this film with a vengeance. | negative |
Well, I guess I'm emotionally attached to this movie since it's the first one I went to see more than 10 times in the cinema ... helping me through my master's thesis, or rather keeping me from working on it!<br /><br />But on watching it again several years (and many many movies) later - what a well-crafted little gem this is! I've never seen Gwyneth Paltrow in a more convincing performance, and Jeremy Northam is the perfect Mr Knightley - where does one meet such a man??? <<<sigh>>> Sophie Thompson's turn as Ms Bates is virtuoso acting of the finest (oh, napkins, sorry!) and the rest of the cast is no disappointment either - Toni Colette brings a lot of Muriel to her Harriet, and Ewan McGregor is convincingly charming - and Alan Cumming and Juliet Stevenson are the perfect "impossible" couple!<br /><br />Of course the sets and costumes, and the beautiful soundtrack contribute a lot to the feelgood, almost Hobbiton-like atmosphere of the movie - although as far as cinematography and art decoration go, it's almost a case of visual overload. Very very pretty, but a little more austerity might have conveyed a better sense of period. But the good thing is, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, and there is plenty of fun - and some pretty cool editing - that keep it from sinking into saccharine Merry Old England mode.<br /><br />My particular favorite is the ball scene - some beautiful acting and directing here, and the concluding dance summarizes the relationship between Emma and Mr Knightley just beautifully. Pity that the final proposal scene goes on for just a little too long - cut two shots (I can think of exactly which ones!) and it would have been much more in keeping with the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Gosh, I just realize (by reading the imdb listings) that I've seen Jeremy Northam in at least three movies without even being aware that it was him - seems he's got a lot more going for him, as an actor, than just being a gentlemanlike English heartthrob! Hmm, guess I need to pay my video store a visit...<br /><br />Lovely movie. My favorite Jane Austen adaptation so far - though perhaps Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility is, strictly speaking, the better movie, this one is closest to my heart - and I've certainly seen it many more times! Watch it if you can - and don't be too hard on its little imperfections.<br /><br /> | positive |
When this film plays on television you might want to save about 90 minutes of your time and change the channel. There's nothing special here that you need to see. Story is about two married couples from Arkansas who go on a trip together to Reno. Couple number one is Lonnie Earl Dodd (Billy Bob Thornton) who is a car dealer and having problems with his marriage. His wife is Darlene (Natasha Richardson) and she has a low self opinion of herself and they haven't been intimate in a long time. Lonnie has been sleeping with Candy (Charlize Theron) who is the wife of his best friend Roy Kirkendall (Patrick Swayze). They all drive to Reno and the four of them stay in one luxurious suite. Roy and Candy have been trying to have a baby and finally Candy discovers that she is pregnant. But Roy phones his doctor in Arkansas and finds out that he's sterile. Candy and Lonnie admit their affair and now the whole trip is in chaos. This film is directed by Jordan Brady and he's made a few other low budget films but this is his first with a cast this impressive. Unfortunately Brady doesn't show much comedic flair but you can't lay all the blame on him. This script is just not funny and one of the glaring problems is that the characters are all written down to a sitcom level. Just because they're all from the south doesn't mean that they have to be naive and idiotic. Thornton's character doesn't have the sophistication to tip the bellboy more than a dollar. And Swayze's character is called stupid and dumb by everyone throughout the film and one of the rare good moments comes when he asks everyone to lay off of him for at least one day. Penelope Cruz pops up as a prostitute and it's a totally worthless and pointless cameo. She barely speaks more than 3 or 4 lines! I think she was fulfilling an obligation to Harvey and Bob Weinstein who are executive producers for this film. The only person who actually isn't to bad is Richardson. We watch her become more confident in herself but this plotline in the film is very obvious and cliche. All of these actors should know better and it's hard to figure that they all read the script and liked it. It's a complete waste of time for these actors but at least they got paid. As for the viewers, your not getting paid so skip this one! | negative |
My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by
.what else
.extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.<br /><br />When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.<br /><br />It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one
Don't say I didn't warn you! | negative |
Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian "sandals and toga" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why "Gladiator" went over well, but "Gladiator" did not have all the romance novel sex.<br /><br />Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others. | negative |
This movie is chilling reminder of Bollywood being just a parasite of Hollywood. Bollywood also tends to feed on past blockbusters for furthering its industry.<br /><br />Vidhu Vinod Chopra made this movie with the reasoning that a cocktail mix of "Deewar" and "On the Waterfront" will bring home an Oscar. It turned out to be rookie mistake.<br /><br />Even the idea of the title is inspired from the Elia Kazan classic. In the original, Brando is shown as raising doves as symbolism of peace.<br /><br />Bollywood must move out of Hollywood's shadow if it needs to be taken seriously. | negative |
Great book, poorly done movie. Cheesy performances and contrived situations make this movie a sentimental bore-fest. Flat and uninspired work from most of the actors leaves this film in the After School Special category. No doubt there is a lot of talent to be tapped in this cast and crew but something went horribly wrong The very talented Gretchen Mol attempts to pull this film out of the mire but even she can't seem to rise above the silly dialogue. Feels like everyone just phoned it in. Even the makeup (Mulrooney ages 20 years over the course of the film) looks amateurish and crude. Don't waste your time on this clunker.... go read the book. | negative |
Once again I must play something of the contrarian. Most of the reviews for Ab Tak Chappan have been extremely positive. Mine is positive, but only slightly. A 7 out of 10 is equivalent to a "C" letter grade from me.<br /><br />It seems that a lot of the praise is rooted in two factors: One, that Ab Tak Chappan is more realistic than the typical Bollywood film, and two, that it is trying to do things differently.<br /><br />The first point I couldn't care less about. I'm not looking for realism in films, and so I do not score higher for a film that shows a story and characters closer to how I believe the real world to be--I'm a big fan of surrealism, fantasy, absurdism, and so on, although I do not dislike realist films merely for the fact that they're realist.<br /><br />For the second point, I agree that it is commendable to try to do things differently. However, I don't think "originality" versus formulaicism makes for a better or worse film in itself. A film can be "original" and poor, just like a film can be formulaic and excellent. What matters are how well the film does whatever it sets out to do and how enjoyable or aesthetically rewarding that is to the viewer.<br /><br />Ab Tak Chappan is based on the true story of a Mumbai cop named Daya Naik. Naik was an "encounter specialist". Encounter specialists, who could be said to be early instantiations of real world "Judge Dredds", are trained to operate like the criminals and gang members they pursue, and they're basically given a license to kill--effectively acting as policeman, judge, jury and executioner in a matter of moments. Ab Tak Chappan follows the story of Sadhu Agashe (Nana Patekar), the encounter specialist based on Naik. We see him at work, interacting with his fellow encounter specialists and engaging in violence. We see him at home, trying to live a normal life in his less-than-luxurious surroundings. We see him trying to adjust to a new "commissioner" halfway through the film. And we see his odd relationship with a notorious Indian gangster, Don Zameer Zafar (Prasad Purandhare).<br /><br />All of this has the potential to make a fabulous, gritty film. I agree that it's nice to forgo the typical Bollywood musical numbers and romances--not every film needs that stuff; Ab Tak Chappan producer Ram Gopal Varma is famous for leaving music and romances in the background or by the wayside in many films that he's directed or produced. Additionally, Ab Tak Chappan has some good performances--Patekar almost gives off a Death Wish (1974)-era Charles Bronson vibe. It also has admirable cinematography--the hand-held stuff near the beginning of the film was particularly effective, for example. It has a great score that mixes more of a moody Hollywood-sounding action/crime score with traditional Indian instruments and modalities. The violence is well done and gritty.<br /><br />There is also decent exploration of subtexts, including the morality of (having) encounter specialists, the idea of following orders, and so on. The encounter specialists are shown having to largely divorce themselves from ideas of right and wrong. More poignantly, the film questions the merit of blindly following orders. Parallels are drawn between the encounter specialists following orders and, say, members of a country's military, and we're shown what a corrupt situation this can lead to.<br /><br />But (you just knew there was a "But" coming, didn't you?) director Shimit Amin and his scriptwriters have created a story with far too many characters, far too much sprawl, and that moves a bit too slow. All of these problems may be due to Amin and crew looking at the Godfather films, which Ab Tak Chappan has some (at least superficial) resemblances to, although from a policeman's perspective.<br /><br />Most of the encounter specialists we do not get to know very well--these are shallowly drawn characters to say the least, except for Agashe and Jatin Shukla (Nakul Vaid). For one, Narayan, I didn't know who he was until at least halfway through the film. His name is mentioned a number of times, but I'd only get glimpses of him until the scene would change. Then everyone would change clothes by the time they appear again and I'd have to start all over figuring out who Narayan was.<br /><br />The same thing happened with Agashe's first commissioner. The film was already far into the new commissioner before I could figure out the relationships. It seems like there are new characters in every scene. We never learn the stories of most of them. While that might have some artistic merit in that the encounter specialists are mostly killing people they do not know anything about (because they're mostly doing so on orders), since we do not learn much about most of the encounter specialists, either, it's difficult to find characters to care about, and that doesn't exactly make for a gripping film.<br /><br />The primary villain is Zameer. But until about halfway through the film, there's no indication of this. He doesn't get much more screen time than the other villains parading through the film, and he's literally "phoning his performance in"--he's in another location (Dubai), communicating only by telephone for the majority of the film. We don't actually see Zameer doing much. To an extent, the film depends on a couple "twists" that necessitate not showing Zameer doing a number of things, but we could see him do other things, and a lot of the other villains could have been left out.<br /><br />That would have tightened up the film a bit, making it more focused and about a half-hour shorter, both of which would have benefited its impact. This is not an action-packed film by any means. For at least the first 45 minutes or so, I found myself admiring Ab Tak Chappan's considerable style, but saying, "Okay, get on with the story already". | positive |
This flick is worse than awful! It took a good story plot and turned it into schizophrenic cinema. The photography is EXTREMELY amateurish . . . looks like a 5th graders home movie project filmed with malfunctioning 8mm kiddie cameras . . . the editing appears to have been done by somebody having psychotic flashbacks (while on drugs and booze), with scenes cut short, followed by other, unrelated scenes, then chopped segments of scenes pasted in . . . totally unnecessary and gratuitous nudity . . . missing scenes . . . daytime scenes inexplicably turning into night-time scenes, then suddenly back to daytime . . . obviously no continuity. Tom Skerritt, Wendy Hughes and James Mason's good acting skills are wasted, as are the talents of the "key" supporting cast - (forget the villain and the Anderson women - very amateurish acting). This movie is a good candidate for a remake, even with Skerritt and Hughes . . . just have it professionally done this time. | negative |
Yet another version of mother of all gangster flicks-the Classic "Godfather" and yet another case of over-hype due to media circus. Sarkar, the 13th Hindi film of Ram Gopal Varma as director is also the weakest in his Underworld trilogy including the other two being the excellent-Satya and Company. The Charisma, the magnetic persona of the two Bachchans playing father-son duo on screen for the first time is definitely a treat to watch out for. Not just strong performances but their perfect chemistry is the biggest scoring point here for which Varma should be applauded. However, the same equation of the duo is missing with the other characters in the film. Reason-the other characters look more like cardboard caricatures esp. the villains represent the typical Bollywood baddies. A character who attracts attention is elder son played by Kaykay but again not able to hold due to half-baked characterization. . The Drama and conflict is brought alive by the excessive use of Close-shots, which brought a claustrophobic effect rightly needed to construct an ambiance. The haunting Score (Amar Mohile) and the sound design (Kunal Mehta, Parikshit Lalwani & Anup Dev), together with dark, murky background overlapped by shinning powerful images (camerawork by Amit Roy) contributes to Visuals so typical of Ramu's style. But there is an overuse of Music though fortunately no songs are there in the film. But can interest of today's "intelligently growing" audience be sustained just on shoulders of two performers and strong Visuals ? I don't think so. Surely, audience "maangey more" and here film fails to deliver. In any adaptation, in order to add a new dimension, the biggest pre-requisite is the Screenplay, which is sluggish here not being crisp at places, and therefore the pace slackens quite often. What finally audience is subjected to is a highly predictable, very commonplace drama with very little surprise elements. Top Stunt director Allan Amin Ghani is also not in his best form. Some scenes which require a different treatment includes- a Minister is talking foul about Sarkar and the son is overhearing; a very amateurish shoot out in the jail on Sarkar, Sarkar Jr. escapes from the clutches of his enemies, a Son easily motivated to kill his own father, a son is secretly entering his father's room to kill him, a police commissioner slapping Sarkar Jr-all this requires a more realistic, hard-hitting approach which is the back-bone to create the required conflict. The dialogues are weak for eg. look at an amateurish line where a CM says to Sarkar Jr. "Wo jo Police Commissioner tha na usay maine hata diya".. The women folk take on Sarkar's working is completely ignored. The uninterrupted negotiations about criminal activities while Sarkar is with his family also look slightly out of place In fact, the film follows a graph quite similar to Ramu's own production-Ab Tak Chhappan. In depicting the battle between good and evil, the other side of life-the law, police, administration, politics is completely ignored. Certainly, more is expected in content. Here the film definitely falls short and could not rise above an average fare. Dear Ramu, agreed that now you are laughing your way to the bank, you definitely need to take some drastic overhauling measures in your film production factory, before it is too late. | negative |
This film is terrible, and don't blame Jesus Franco, because its not his fault.<br /><br />This film was shot silent over many years by Welles as he got the money to bring a crew and the actors together to do some shooting. How much film Welles actually shot is not clear, although not all of the film or all of the sequences are here since several "key" sequences, such as Quixote in a movie theater, are in the hands of collectors or backers who wouldn't give them up. The film here is just under two hours and I would be hard pressed to imagine it ever really working at any length. I'm of the opinion, based on several comments that Welles made before his death, that he never really intended to release the film, but was putting it together as a personal toy.<br /><br />What exists here is for the most part is beautifully shot, but dramatically dead. Very little happens for the first hour other than Quixote and Sancho wandering around the country side. Dull would be a kind description of the material. In the second hour Quixote ends up in modern Spain and in a series of not very good sequences deals with everyday life. This isn't to say that there isn't a few nice moments, the windmill and the chicken sequences are quite good, but mostly this is a vast waste of film and time.<br /><br />"Completed" by Jesus Franco, who was Welles' assistant director on the vastly superior Chimes at Midnight, we have a bunch of film fragments that have been put together as best as possible. Many people have crucified Franco as having been the reason the film stinks, but frankly one can not make a good movie from crap material. One critic has gone on record as having seen a different cut of the film in the 1970's, which meant that Franco made this version up on his own and ruined it. While that maybe true, I've run across stories of Welles cutting and re-cutting the film many many times over the years since he could never get it right.<br /><br />This film is terrible no matter how you slice it.<br /><br />Ultimately I'm left wondering just how good a film maker Welles was. Aside from Citizen Kane almost all of his films have been plagued by lack of budget or interfered with so we are left with the excuse that many of his films "would have been better if only...". How do we know? How can we know? Perhaps Welles was a man of less talent than we thought and many of his borderline films just aren't that good, and never would have been. While this is no place to argue the place of Welles in film history, the surviving material of Don Quixote, assuming it approximates what Welles intended (I think it does), is a good case for rethinking how we view the man and his work.<br /><br />4 out of 10 for the good sequences (though 2 out of 10 is probably closer to reality) | negative |
Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask. The Mask helped bring Jim Carrey to the forefront of comedy and reached a very popular status for its originality and just pure fun. Everyone knew how to spell party. P-A-R-T-Y. Why? Cuz I gotta! Now, eleven years later, it seems to me that the same philosophy has been applied to the new movie "Son of the Mask." Someone asked director Lawrence Guterman why are you making this? And he responds "Cuz I gotta!" Unfortunately, that answer doesn't cover it because after seeing Son of the Mask I still left the theatre thinking, "Good Lord, Why?" Guterman and the rest of the people involved in the blasphemous film need to realize that the response given to why are you making this film should not be as simple as the answer to the debate on whether or not to party.<br /><br />The Son of the Mask begins with Otis the dog finding the infamous mask and bringing it back to his owner Tim Avery, a clear homage to legendary Loony Toons creator Tex Avery. Tim, played by Jamie Kennedy, is a struggling animator who is stuck working as a turtle tour guide for the animation company he aspires to one-day draw for. On the night of the company Halloween party, Tim puts on the mask and transforms into the mischievous, insane character that we all expect. After the party Tim goes home, mask still on and conceives a child with his wife. Nine months later mayhem ensues as the baby born of the mask has remarkable cartoonish powers. Otis the dog, jealous of the baby's attention, puts on the mask and partakes in Tom and Jerry type mayhem to out the baby. Meanwhile, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is in search for his mask at the orders of his father, Odin.<br /><br />First off, ill admit that I do respect the fact that this film pays so much homage to the classic cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons, with its Wile E. Coyote type contraptions and the infamous dancing frog type plot. However, this reverence cannot save the film and makes it less respectful and more of a waste of time.<br /><br />The premise of the movie becomes increasingly silly. Silly is not always a bad thing, but in this movie, the silliness gets to the point of just plain annoying. The characters are not fun to watch, and what's worse, they're not funny. The dullness of the characters can also be attributed to the fact that so much CGI was used. One of the greatest things about the original is that while, obviously computer animation was used, so much relied on Jim Carrey and his exuberant style of just being. Jim Carrey, we were convinced, was an actual cartoon. Jamie Kennedy just doesn't have that kind of ability, a fact that is clear when you watch him wear the mask and his facial features rarely shift. The baby and dog were mostly completely animated which became increasingly distracting throughout the movie. The side story of Loki searching for the mask just became more and more stupefying.<br /><br />The son of the Mask is a sad sad state of affairs. What I suggest is you go rent or buy the original the Mask and thank the Norse gods, or whoever, for bringing it to us. And will consider seeing the sequel my sacrifice as I continue to ask the infamous question "WHY?" The son of the Mask gets one star, although that star should be divvied up between the classic creators of Loony Toons and Jim Carrey, who will always be, in my book, the mask. | negative |
I nominate this and BABYLON 5 as the best television sci-fi series made. Both stand out in my mind because unlike early STAR TREK series, there is a consistent evolution of plots and characters. If you look at the original STAR TREK and STAR TREK:TNG, they were fine shows, but there was no overall theme or plot that connected all the episodes. In many ways, you could usually watch the shows totally out of sequence with no difficulty understanding what is occurring. This was less the case with DEEP SPACE 9 (with its giant battles that took up all of the final season) and the other TREK shows, as there was more of a larger story that unified them. This coherence seems to have developed as a concept with BABYLON 5 and saw this to an even greater extent with SG-1. The bottom line is that in many ways this series was like watching a family or a long novel slowly take form. Sure, there were a few "throwaway" episodes that were not connected to the rest, but these were very few and far between and were also usually pretty funny.<br /><br />And speaking of funny, I loved that SG-1 kept the mood light from time to time and wasn't so dreadfully serious. In this way, I actually enjoyed it more than BABYLON 5. Jack O'Neill was a great character with his sarcasm and love of Homer Simpson--it's really too bad he slowly faded from the series in later seasons.<br /><br />To truly appreciate SG-1, you should watch it from the beginning and see how intricately the plots work. This coherence gives the show exceptional staying power. And, if you don't like SG-1 after giving it a fair chance, then sci-fi is probably NOT the genre for you. | positive |
Another exquisite taste of what a superhero movie should be after Batman:Dead End that just helps stimulate our taste buds and leave us wanting more! This is what a real superhero movie should look like and feel like! Even tough this is a fanfilm of sorts. The attention to detail, character and action is undeniably real. Although this is a limited resources production, it puts to shame big budgeted, star-casted, hyped productions "other" superhero related movies. Here the main and supporting characters act and look like they are real life people. Finally, a Superman that actually looks "super" and looks like the real thing! Batman the way it should be, without the flashy rubber-casted , ripped body armor to hide scrawny physiques for over paid actors that don't deliver. I just wish that some sensible Warner Bros. exec gives the OK to produce a full length adaptation of this jewel. I don't care if it goes to theaters or straight to DVD, I would never get tired of watching it. Just the plot itself is worth my hard earned dough for this. Hope the "bigwigs" at Marvel & DC productions take a look and see what a real well produced superhero movie should look. No more "Batman & Robin" fiasco, or Hulk, Daredevil, etc. Learn from these small time directors and learn that there shouldn't be any reason to "reinvent" the hero for the movie, just to have it "bomb" in theaters. Mr. Collora...We need more directors like you!! | positive |
The worst Wrestlemania ever.<br /><br />This had no must see bouts and many crap ones at that. This took place in Las Vegas and WWE made it's employees dress up like Egyptian gods! They even changed Howard Finkels name to Finkus Maximus, which probably doesn't mean anything. The sight of seeing Jim Ross in that terrible gown still gives me nightmares to this day and I'm 21 years old, so you could imagine it when I was 7 years old! Bobby Heenan was funny though.<br /><br />Matches included The Undertaker vs Giant Gonzales in a p*ss poor match, The Headshrinkers vs The Steiner Brothers in a useless match, Doink vs Crush in a comedy match and a boring match featuring Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund. Hulk Hogan teamed up with Brutus Beefcake to battle Money Inc. You could clearly see Hogan had a black eye. In storyline purposes Ted DiBiase and IRS beat up Hogan while he was playing poker or something like that in the casinos, which is a poor storyline, but in reality, Macho Man Randy Savage hit Hogan because Savage thinks he's like The Hulk (no pun intended) no not the wrestler but the film character.<br /><br />The main event consisted of Bret 'Hitman' Hart facing off against Yokozuna in a very boring main event match. Mr Fuji threw salt in the face of Hart and Yoko won, but not until Hogan came down and squashed Yoko in 21 seconds.<br /><br />Overall Grade - E | negative |
The famous French detective Henri Cassin takes his first vacation in 11 years in St. Margot where he meets Nanette, the daughter of the vacation spot proprietors. Despite Nanette being promised to childhood sweetheart Leon, Henri and Nanette fall in love and decide to marry, despite Nanette's father objecting due to Henri's age. On the day of their wedding, Leon returns and Nanette runs after him. Nothing is heard of the two until both are found dead, and Henri swears he won't rest until he can find the killer. The only clue Henri has to work with is a footprint found by Leon, but he is also getting written warnings that others will die soon. Soon Nanette's mother is found dead and Henri has no idea as to the identity of the killer. Thinking himself a failure he returns to Paris, then he realizes (and fears) that the killer can be only one person, even though none of his colleagues can believe his explanation. Out of the ordinary murder mystery that doesn't really follow the formula in other of the genre by Columbia or other B studios. Credit to that certainly goes to director Lewis who does manage to turn this into a noirish film despite the setting of the film, also aided by the use of good camera-work and lighting. Geray turns in a very good performance in probably his only lead and the rest of the cast is able to carry their performance. Rating, 8. | positive |
Just lovely. It is long. No climax. Don't wait for anything to happen. Great for a rainy day. About a man in a mid life crisis who takes his family to a secluded area of the Greek isles. I saw this in my teens and still love it 20+ years later. I have been unable to find it in video stores however. Molly Ringwald is a cute average teenager who basically wants to go home and then kind of settles into the place. There are no phones, no TV, boredom, which when hit with quietness like that, the human condition is to be bored and then to reflect. And each character does so. Susan Sarandon plays a beautiful woman who wants to be sexually involved with John Cassavetes' character, but he is unable to, well, you know. Gina Rowlands, is the wife that loves him but is just about to give up on their marriage. He is demanding and frustrating to everyone. There is another character in the movie, a Greek who talks to Molly Ringwald inappropriately about sex, but things that she is curious about. But he is irritating and horny and i didn't like this character. The locale of the film is what makes this film so so good. It wouldn't work if filmed anywhere else. I recommend this film and give it a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. | positive |
Well, it's safe to say that Subconscious Cruelty is one weird film! Supposedly an insight into the human mind, Subconscious Cruelty is comprises four macabre and bizarre tales of the extreme. The first segment, entitled 'Ovarian Eyeball' is really just a warm up, but it's good in that it gives the viewer an idea of what to expect from the next three segments. It simply sees a naked woman laid out on a table, while another woman cuts into her abdomen and pulls out a human eyeball! I've got no idea what the point is, but it certainly makes for visceral viewing. The following story is the best of the bunch, and takes in the "old favourite" sick movie theme of incest. The segment follows a man who lives alone with his pregnant sister. He's repulsed by her pregnancy - yet he wants to have sex with her anyway, and naturally he gets his way. This story stands out because of the monotonous and 'matter of fact' narration, as well as the ending - which doesn't fail to deliver the shocks. This segment is well acted, well filmed and easily the highlight of Subconscious Cruelty.<br /><br />Naturally, the next two sections aren't as good as the second one; so the only way from there is down, but director Karim Hussain still manages to pull something out of the bag before the film ends. He doesn't do it right away, however, as the third segment is the weakest of the film, and simply sees a lot of people have sex with the ground. It's very surreal, and therefore memorable for that same reason; but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it, and I was in the mood for something a bit more morbid after the second section. The film ends on a high, however, as while I'm not entirely sure what the point was - the final segment features the film's best imagery. This segment focuses on religion, and certainly isn't for anyone that values it! Director Karim Hussain has achieved something here - as while this collection of four 'extreme' stories doesn't come together as a complete whole, the film almost feels tasteful as it's shot in such an eloquent and eye catching manner. The director would seem to have been imitating the highly respected surreal director Luis Buñuel, albeit with gore, rape and incest; and if you ask me, he hasn't done a bad job at all. Not for everyone, but certainly worth a look for extreme fanatics! | positive |
Danny De Vito shows us here he is definitely, indeed infinitely, a better on screen performer than off. He plays the part of Owen, a miserable would-be writer with a cranky old mother (delightfully played by Anne Ramsey) he would like to see dead. Billy Crystal is Larry, a very frustrated writing teacher who has an estranged wife he feels the same way about. So Owen, after viewing Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train", suggests they swap murders.<br /><br />As director though, De Vito's control is inconsistent as he wastes this clever idea, while his film lurches from the very humorous to the very bland. He and Crystal are okay in the lead roles, but the show belongs to Anne Ramsey as the cantankerous Mrs. Lift.<br /><br />Saturday, June 20, 1992 - Video | negative |
I first saw this docudrama in the UK in the 1980's, and found myself intrigued and then astonished at how such good intentions could go so wrong. Previous commentators (who are Australian) have explained the unfolding plot's detail better than I ever could, but I would like to make an observation about what may lie behind the Governor-Generals 'UK Sovereign power'. All modern laws, as I understand them, need an ethical or philosophical root to exist in the first place and to become A law at all. That being the case, and if say the Conner's/Khemlani mess had been possibly set up,(just how many businessmen/millionares had been served by Khemlani, presumably without complaint), then the Labour government could have been victims of 'entrapment', which would surely have had to have been investigated' by the Governor-General as or until he could see that the budget standoff was A genuine result of Whitlam's fecklessness, and NOT elaborate entrapment, sponsored by 'person or person's unknown'! If its the case that Kerr in effect didn't have to refer to the law because fiscal circumstances overrides everything, then 'royal power' borders onto unreason; the implications in any Commonwealth country is that 'fiscal' rules literally, and that any person or organisation has Carte Blanche to break any other rule, physical or mental, so long as they have the control over the purse strings ultimately! | positive |
Pointless movie about making a movie. No where near the flesh shown in the original, which was quite enjoyable and even had fun music. Not here.<br /><br />It's always fun seeing the Pathmark guy though. | negative |
Mr. Destiny - 3.5/5 Stars<br /><br />"Mr. Destiny's" theme is recycled from many films spanning many different years. Its theme ranges from recent spoofs on such plots (see "Scrooged"), to the same, more serious and dramatic notion that worked in "It's a Wonderful Life," and a century earlier in the story of Scrooge as told by Charles Dickens in "A Christmas Carol." "It involves an ungrateful man being taken on a guided tour of his life, and witnessing how his life could have been (or would have been) first-hand. <br /><br />In most of these types of movies the guardian angel rescues a man from ungratefulness and shows him his life in retrospect, or how it could have been. Should have been. Would have been. In this case we are shown a businessman named Larry (James Belushi). He hates his life. He lives with an unexciting wife (Linda Hamilton) and yearns for a bigger life with bigger meaning. If only he had hit the ball at the state championship in high school years ago. He is convinced his life would have been better. I guess he remembers this seemingly small moment of his life because it made a big impact on his subconscious side, but I doubt a grown man would yearn for one single act from high school. Still, it works in the movie.<br /><br />Anyway, Larry is driving home from work one night, where he is a penpusher along with Jon Lovitz, when his car breaks down. He wanders into a bar looking for a pay phone, and reluctantly decides to tell the bartender (Michael Caine) about the way his life is turning out. This is where we first see him remembering his childhood baseball strike-out.<br /><br />The bartender listens and nods, apparently not worrying about any other customers. This is probably due to the fact that the bar, though old and tattered, seems to have never been occupied by any living humans save these two men. In fact, Larry even makes a comment about never seeing the bar before. This is most likely for a certain reason that the audience is expecting before Larry. <br /><br />So the bartender, who may as well be an angel of God incarnate, just like Clarence, fixes Larry a special drink of his, which ends up putting Larry's life on reverse, showing him what his life would have been like if he had hit the home run all those years before. But Larry has no idea of any change at first, just like Jimmy Stewart didn't realize that Clarence had erased his life until he went into the bar and got kicked out Larry continues to be oblivious to any change until he goes to his home to find the lawn different outside, and a large, wrestler-type man occupying his home.<br /><br />Larry soon finds out his life would indeed have been very different had he hit the home run. Instead of marrying Linda Hamilton he married Rene Russo and moved into a large mansion with children. He finds out that Jon Lovitz is no longer his friend but an employee of his. And the most surprising fact of all is that with his new life, that Larry has always wanted...he finds himself lusting after his old wife, Linda Hamilton; proof that sometimes money and a great-looking yet shallow wife don't make up everything in a man's life, like an intelligent wife and love and true happiness. Just like "It's a Wonderful Life" showed the audience a man's life is what he makes it, and that every person has an impact on people, "Mr. Destiny" shows us that material wealth is not the same as spiritual wealth, a lesson taught us over and over again, but never quite so fluffy, forgettable and truly sweet as it is shown us in "Mr. Destiny."<br /><br />"Mr. Destiny" is never exceedingly hilarious, but it is a sweet, good-natured comedy that never takes itself too seriously. The problem with all the "It's a Wonderful Life" retreads out there, like "The Family Man," is that they try to be as influential and memorable as "It's a Wonderful Life" was. But there are only so many times you can single-handedly rip off a famous film, and "Mr. Destiny" knows this, and plays right to the fact. It doesn't try to be anything it isn't; rather, it is something it didn't try to be, and this is obvious to the audience. <br /><br /> | positive |
The French Babbette appears at the modest house of two Danish sisters wet, cold, and alone. Fleeing revolution in Paris, she seeks refuge in an obscure religious community on the windswept Jutland coast.<br /><br />Unbeknownst to those who so generously take her in, she is a great chef, an artist of food. Babette gives herself to her adopted community through thrift, productivity, and shared faith. She leaves only when she wins the French lottery--10,000 francs. She returns laden with exotic cargo, the makings of a single meal commemorating the birthday of the sister's father, the community's founder.<br /><br />This meal looms darkly in the minds of the pleasure-denying faithful but its subtleties are translated by an aging military officer who, as a young man in Paris, learned to appreciate the sensory experience unfolding here. The meal is the film's climax, a communion of love in the transitory artistry of food--unaffectedly uplifting about art, love, and the meaning of life. | positive |
This is quite the gripping, fascinating, tragic story. Quite good, and for the most part pretty accurate, considering it IS a TV movie rather than a documentary. They did create some fictional characters, and combine several actual people into one character, but otherwise this is a good telling of a very tragic and dark story.<br /><br />The final moments of the movie, depicting the mass suicide/murder, are almost directly taken from an audio recording made by Jim Jones. This recording was made during the final 44 minutes of the Peoples Temple's existence. It is available in several places on the internet. This portion of the film is almost spot on in that regard.<br /><br />To sum up, a documentary this is not. However, it does cover most of the base elements to the People's Temple story. | positive |
I had borrowed the three Sarah movies from a friend, and had watched them while sick in bed during one weekend. I thoroughly enjoyed every one of them. I enjoyed how the last movie gave a glimpse of what Caleb and his sister were like when they grew up. In addition, I liked the carry-through of the "Billy-boy" song that first was heard during the credits of the first movie, the title "Sarah, Plain and Tall." However, the one thing in Winter's End that I didn't like was the youngest daughter. She was a very cute little girl, but she just had too much spirit and looked like a brat compared to the other kids, even compared to talkative but still good-natured Caleb when he was younger. | positive |
Dressed to Kill understandably made a bit of a ruckus when first released in 1980: you had "Police Girl" in a role that was mega-erotic, as Angie Dicknson played a sexually frustrated housewife looking for good times in all the wrong museums (and there into apartment elevators), plus Nancy Allen as a call-girl, Michael Caine as Norman Bates's sophisticated New York cousin, and enough lurid imagery to last two movies of the period. Today it's slightly less incriminating by standards and such, though the unrated version has some of the most "hot" content of any of De Palma's films, at least in his quasi-auteur period of the 70s and early 80s, where he seemed to repeat themes over and over, ideas taken right off the film-reels of Hitchcock classics and given a tawdry uplift. It's a simple tale that one partly already saw in Sisters, and then again to an extent in Body Double, and also in Blow Out. Cutie Allen plays call-girl Liz Blake, who has to clear her name of suspicion of killing Kate (Dickinson, in full blown 'MILF' mode), after being found with a razor, the murder weapon from Dr. Elliott's office (Michael Caine, stone-cold performance most of the way).<br /><br />From the start, which De Palma seems to do as a way of setting up a dangerous sexual fantasy scene as a way of topping the opening scene of Carrie (which, perhaps, he does just in editing terms), we get a series of technical knock-out turns through the point of view of style itself: the tracking shots in the museum, meant to stir up more of a fascination with the process itself, of following and wanting to be followed, than any kind of tension; the chase through the subway (a precursor to Carlito's Way) is done with a precise level of suspense, meanwhile, with a slightly exploitation bit thrown in with the black gang; the character of Peter, Kate's son (Keith Gordon), who plays what is essentially a younger version of the real life De Palma as a kid (science geek, obsessed with Hitchcock and voyeurism). And it's all entertaining and entrancing as hell as something that comes close to a real synthesis of what makes De Palma's thrillers so unique while being so self-consciously untainted by a fearless attitude of film-making.<br /><br />On the other hand, that same self-consciousness ended up coming back to bite the director in the butt a few times in recent years, and somehow in Dressed to Kill it starts to become very erratic and disappointing as the story has to wrap itself up. As the Psycho themes come together even more apparently (man who wants a sex-change, doesn't even think he's killing as it is *she* who is doing it), there is an expository scene in the police station that makes the aforementioned Hitch film look like an astonishing psychological revelation. And the final scenes at Peter's house, also calling painfully into recollection a much more accomplished sequence in Carrie, are meant for a manipulation that even for De Palma is asking for it; the final shot especially, albeit a master's class in how to copy yourself. Yet there is a very deranged and, within itself, perfect scene at the mental hospital amid this confused denouement, where the doctor does some work on a nurse, to which all the other inmates act like animals in a zoo, and an over-head shot going up and up over the scene is one of the best shots of sexual/general perversion ever captured on film.<br /><br />A shame then that the film ends on such a strange and unsettling manner, where up until then it is a remarkable piece of pulp cinema, where class is all around in the technical aspects (soft lighting, intricate camera movements seemingly so simple) amid subject matter that should be found in the mix of paperbacks for 25 cents. It's no masterpiece, but I'd certainly take it over most of the director's recent thrillers any day. | positive |
To the small minority seen here praising this film GET SERIOUS. I know it's down to peoples personal opinion at the end of the day, but anyone with more than a couple of brain cells can surely see that this is total rubbish. So bad it does not deserve to be part of this franchise. I can only assume those saying how great this is are friends with somebody involved in the film and are trying to give their career a push. Poor in every way, don't con people by saying otherwise. Storyline is a weak rehash of the previous entries, script is likewise. Attempts to hide the lack of originality by using a girl instead (WOW!) don't disguise the film-makers lack of ideas,and there is sadly a complete lack of any scares. Absolutely no redeeming qualities, utter utter turd. I've awarded this pair of chancers one mark simply for having had the nous to get someone to fund this piece of crap. They must have put more effort into that than they did into actually making the film. Shame. | negative |
Show favorites Green Arrow (introduced this season), Aquaman (introduced in Season 5), "Impulse" (Season 4), and Cyborg (Season 5) all come together, along with Clark, to stop one of Lex's evil plans in this thrilling mid-season episode.<br /><br />Through his sophisticated technology, Green Arrow learns that Lex Luthor is constructing laboratories across the world that hold people induced by the meteor substance kryptonite and people with abilities to run tests on. Green Arrow over the past months has allied Arthur Curry (Aqua), Bart Allen (Impulse) and Victor Stone (Cyborg) to stop Lex and destroy these facilities. After recruiting Clark to help, the team puts on quite a show in interrogating and destroying a local laboratory.<br /><br />This episode is incredible. Full of action, humor, and fabulous dialog, it feels more like a movie. It is full of entertainment and provides as a springboard for the most interesting storyline of the sixth season. | positive |
A realistic depiction of young love for the college set but also appealing to an older viewer like me. It has ups and downs and twists and turns and made me shed a tear or two. We rarely see movies with black urban characters that could appeal to older, non black audiences and show a more real life depiction of young black adults.<br /><br />This movie takes place on a college campus and town where two people meet and fall in love. In the background are various friends acquaintances and situations that impact them for better or worse. Typical plot some may say, but this really was unexpected. <br /><br />I found myself rooting for the survival of the couple's relationship, seeing my own past in their story. Moments of deep thought and revelation came pouring out of the actors performances. <br /><br />It's a bright film that I would endorse for those young at heart and in love or have ever been in love. Great movie. I'll be looking for a copy to add to my movie collection. | positive |
I loved this movie but then again I am a big Cronenberg fan. If you have not seen a David Cronenberg film then this is not a good place to start. Scanners, The Fly, Rabid would be a place to start and then work up to Videodrome before checking this one out. This is certainly one of his best and takes the interactive game phenomena one step beyond.<br /><br />In this game the players plug a bio-engineered game pad through a jack inserted into their spinal cord and get into the game directly through their nervous system. It is very hard to tell you more without giving away the story and the plot but it is enough to say that this is a game you will not forget. It is full of Cronenberg's slimy body works, dark foreboding scenery all populated by a great cast including Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law and Willem Dafoe who take the situation they find themselves in very seriously. These people will do what they can to figure out the game and then to win at it. Like other movies of his there is no shortage of imagination or parts where you sink to the seat but like an auto-accident you don't look away. If you liked any of the movies mentioned above then by all means go out and get this one. | positive |
Clint Eastwood reprises his role as Dirty Harry who this time is on the case of a vigilante (Sondra Locke)who is killing the people that raped her and her sister at a carnival many years ago. Eastwood makes the role his and the movie is mainly more action then talk, not that I'm complaining. Sudden Impact is indeed enjoyable entertainment. | positive |
Unless the title is supposed to be some kind of spoiler for the wife's transformation (the fiends! ruining it for us). Anycase, if this movie wasn't Made-For-TV, it should have been, it's so remarkably low-budget, underscripted, underacted, and hits every 70's cliche except disco. Nobody is likeable, and you could careless what happens to anyone in this one. Eminently forgetable except for the bad, bad performances. | negative |
Jack Webb's movie 'The D.I' came about from the real life investigation into the deaths of several trainees in a swamp in Paris Isle in the 50's. As always, Webb, being the patriot that he is, came to the defense much like all the rest of his shows. I actually found this movie tame by 1957 standards. I served in the Army and can understand the intensity of the training at Parris Island (Camp Death by some)so this movie can never come close as does 'Full Metal Jacket'. I think this is a good movie which is more patriot than it is actual. But again, think of the time period it was made (1957) and what could be allowed and said on film at that time. I have always found Jack Webb to be clean cut and very loyal. I know many have criticized the film as one-sided and government propaganda. If you feel this way, watch 'Full Metal Jacket' with R Lee Ermey. I am a Webb fan and enjoy the movie for it's merit, not accuracy. As I have said, Webb believed in this country and held institutions to high moral standards (LAPD-Dragnet,Adam 12, Emergency etc). Just sit back and enjoy this one from a very strict moral time period in this country. Don't be too judgemental of Mr. Webb. Mark Lockwood Lubbock Texas.. | positive |
FBI Agents Mulder and Scully get assigned to probe the mystery of what happened to an Arctic drilling team, in this early 'X-Files' episode that David Duchovny himself considers one of their first "rockin'" episodes. It pays loving homage to the much lauded John Carpenter 1982 theatrical feature "The Thing", and one can see the similarities. Visually, color and lighting schemes combine to give the story a hellish quality. Production design / art direction are especially impressive; the shots of the exterior of the Arctic camp are so reminiscent of the earlier film as to automatically create feelings of deja vu for some viewers. Naturally, our heroes are threatened by the weather, so the sound design, involving wind, evokes memories of "The Thing".<br /><br />The culprit is an ancient worm that had been exposed to the team; once inside a host, it stimulates aggressive behavior. This allows the paranoia aspect to take full hold, and the way the script is set up we can't be too sure of who's infected and who's not. This gives rise to the inevitable scene of testing. This episode certainly works at portraying the way that tensions can cause breakdowns in groups. It even allows Mulder and Scully to have moments where they're not sure if they can trust each other.<br /><br />Guest starring are a good small group of actors: Xander Berkeley, Felicity Huffman, and Steve Hytner as the scientists obliged to accompany Mulder and Scully on the mission, and Jeff Kober as the pilot who takes them to the camp. You can also see one time Jason Voorhees portrayer Ken Kirzinger as one of the ill-fated original team members.<br /><br />Incidentally, there's one direct link between 'Ice' and "The Thing": art director Graeme Murray, who worked on both projects.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
The movie was actually not THAT bad, especially plot-wise, but the doughy (and hairy!) actor they chose for the leading role was a little chintzy in the acting department. I would have chosen someone else. The idea of "going to America" was very ingenious, and the main character questioning everything that he'd ever known made him somewhat likable, but not very much so when there's a pasty blob for a leading actor.<br /><br />The storyline was interesting. It brings about the question of how the subject of cloning will be handled in the future. Certainly cloning wouldn't be allowed for the purposes in the movie, but it's still a valid argument even for today. Clones ARE still people... right?<br /><br />The movie wasn't particularly special, but it still is a lot better than some of the cheese released during the 70s. Let us not forget the "Giant Spider Invasion." I give it a 4, since it didn't TOTALLY stink, but the MST3K version makes this movie a 10. (I still like Dr. Super Mario!) You'll like this movie, but it won't be your favorite. | negative |
the usual disclaimer - I do not give 1 star ratings to movies which are harmless, bad, low budget and silly, although they may deserve it. These films are often funny, and get rated 2-4 based sheerly on entertainment value - not as a representation of their exemplary film artistry. This film fits this model perfectly. It is a Mexican monster movie, riddled with voice-over narrative and extremely weak not-so-special effects. The makeup is not that bad, and the acting is sometimes quite entertaining, but this film is almost as silly as Aliens vs Predator and the script isn't half as slick (Aliens vs Predator might get a 1 from me, but I want to see it again before I commit).<br /><br />The plot is ridiculous, but deliciously convoluted. If you've read this far, you must really want to know... A group of remarkably unscientific scientists comprise the main characters. Most of them are heroes - sort of - but one is (of course) mad, and quite perverse. This mad scientist invents a laughable nuclear powered robot (who looks a bit like the tin man from Wizard of Oz, but has a human face inexplicably located inside its head). An Aztec mummy, discovered by the same 'scientist' whose wife just so happens to have been an Aztec princess in a past life (don't ask), is pitted against the robot for the big "climax" the fight scene alone is enough to put the most stoic movie watcher on the floor in belly laughs.<br /><br />For what its worth, given the budget and the utter silliness of the script, this is a very entertaining low budget goof ball monster movie. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it. | negative |
With Iphigenia, Mikhali Cacoyannis is perhaps the first film director to have successfully brought the feel of ancient Greek theatre to the screen. His own screenplay, an adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, was far from easy, compared to that of the other two films of the trilogy he directed. The story has been very carefully deconstructed from Euripides' version and placed in a logical, strictly chronological framework, better conforming to the modern methods of cinematic story-telling. Cacoyannis also added some characters to his film that do not appear in Euripides' tragedy: Odysseus, Calchas, and the army. This was done in order to make some of Euripides' points regarding war, the Church, and Government clearer. Finally, Cacoyannis' Iphigenia ending is somewhat ambiguous when compared to Euripides'.<br /><br />The film was shot on location at Aulis. The director of photography, Giorgos Arvanitis, shows us a rugged but beautiful Greece, where since the Homeric days time seems to have stood still. He takes advantage of the bodies, the arid land, the ruins, the intense light and the darkness. The harshness of the landscape is particularly fitting to the souls of the characters. The camera uses the whole gamut of available shots, from the very long, reinforcing the vastness and desolation of the landscape, as well as the human scale involved, to the extreme close-ups, dissecting and probing deep into the soul of the tormented characters. In particular, the film's opening, with a bold, accelerating tracking shot along a line of beached boats, followed by an aerial view of the many thousands of soldiers lying listlessly on the beach, is a very effective means of communicating Agamemnon's awesome political and military responsibility.<br /><br />No word but "sublime" can describe the stunning performances of Costa Kazakos (Agamemnon), Irene Papas (Clytemnestra), and Tatiana Papamoschou (Iphigenia). Kazakos and Papas embody the sublimity of the classical Greece tragedy. Kazakos' character is extremely down-to-earth, and his powerful look into the camera, more than his words, reveals the unbelievable torment tearing his soul. Irene Papas is the modern quintessence of classic Greek plays. In Iphigenia, she is terrible in her anguish, and even more so for what we know will be her vengeance. Tatiana Papamoskou, in her first role on the screen, is outstanding in her portray of the innocent Iphigenia, which contrasts with Kazakos' austere depiction of her father, Agamemnon.<br /><br />Cacoyannis is faithful to Euripides in his representation of the other characters: Odysseus is a sly, scheming politician, Achilles, a vain, narcissistic warrior, Menalaus is self centered, obsessed with his honor, eager to be avenged, and to have his wife and property restored.<br /><br />The costumes and sets are realistic: no Hollywood there. Agamemnon's quarters resembles a barn, he dresses, as do the others, in utilitarian, hand-woven, simple garb. Clytemnestra's royal caravan is made up of rough-hewn wooden carts.<br /><br />The music is by the prolific contemporary music composer Mikis Theodorakis. Theodorakis' score intensifies the dramatic and cinematographic unfolding, reflects on the psychological aspect of the tragedy, and accentuates its dimensions and actuality.<br /><br />This film and the story it narrates offer considerable insight into the lost world of ancient Greek thought that was the crucible for so much of our modern civilization. It teaches us much about ourselves as individuals and as social and political creatures. Euripides questions the value of war and patriotism when measured against the simple virtues of family and love, and reflects on woman's vulnerable position in a world of manly violence. In his adaptation of Euripides' tragedy, Cacoyannis revisits all of these themes in a modern, clear, and dramatic fashion.<br /><br />The relationships governing the political machinations are clearly demonstrated: war corrupts and destroys the human soul to such an extent that neither the individual nor the group can function normally any longer. With the possible exception of Menelaus, whose honor has been tarnished by his own wife's elopement with her lover, everyone else has his own private motivation for going to war with Troy, which has nothing to do with Helen: the thirst for power (Agamemnon), greed (the army, Odysseus), or glory (Achilles). And so in a real sense, Helen became the WMD of the Trojan War. The war, stripped of all Homeric glamor and religious sanctioning, was just an imperialist venture, spurred primarily by the desire for material gain, all else being a convenient pretext.<br /><br />Another conflict raised in the film is that between the Church and the State. Calchas, who represents the Church, feeling the challenge to his priestly authority and wishing to destroy Agamemnon for the insult to the Goddess he serves, tells him to sacrifice his daughter. In consenting to the sacrifice, the King comes closer to his moral undoing, but in refusing, loses his power over the masses (his army), who are brainwashed by religion. Of course, for Agamemnon, it's a game. The King must go along with the charade whether he honestly believes in the Gods or not, until he realizes, too late, that he has ensnared himself into committing a despicable filicide.<br /><br />Is it a sacrifice or a murder, and how can we tell the difference between the two? By focusing on the violent and primitive horror of a human sacrifice--and, worst of all, the sacrifice of one's own child--Euripides/Cacoyannis creates a drama that is at once deeply political and agonizingly personal. It touches on a most complex and delicate ethical problem facing any society: the dire conflict between the needs of the individual versus those of the society. In the case of Iphigenia, however, as in the Biblical tale of Abraham and Isaac, the father is asked to kill his own child, by his own hand. What sort of God would insist on such payment? Can it be just or moral, even if divinely inspired? Finally, does the daughter's sacrificial death differ from the deaths of all the sons and daughters who are being sent to war? These are many deep questions raised by a two-hour film. | positive |
I saw this at my local supermarket and I knew that Debra was in it so I decided to buy it (out of support for that sexy woman!) The plot and acting in this movie was terrible (with the exception of Debra Wilson; and I'm not just saying that because I love her, she seriously was the only actor or actress who had any emotion in their acting and voice!) What I didn't get at the beginning is why the wife didn't just get back in her car instead of running at random like that. It was so stupid. And it's LA (NOBODY saw her being abducted on a public, residential street--NOBODY...yeah, that's realistic!) Also in the park, when Charlie stole the woman's cell phone (for some stupid reason) they were hell bent on finding him (and at one point) when they did they had him at gunpoint--over a CELL PHONE! In reality I doubt the LAPD would go out of their way like that for a stupid cell phone! The lady could've walked up to one of many of those cell phone booths and have it replaced! The kids acting skills sucked too (I think they were reading from a cue card or had somebody off camera whisper their lines) because they'd be asked questions and would look around and then answer in a questionable voice (i.e.-"yes I do miss daddy?") Also how could there be all of those snipers be in the trees and on building rooftops in LA WITHOUT being seen?! I see this being played at 3 AM on USA.<br /><br />Debra Wilson fanatics will enjoy her parts. She's the only actor with any real acting skills (Debra, sweetheart--stop doing these cheap D-grade, direct to video films...maybe that'll change with the upcoming film Whitepaddy.) She puts some jokes in there (like when one of her superiors comes up and asks her who's she talking to, she screams at her computer and goes "Damnit, Charlie!") I gave it a 4/10...a 4 only because of Debra's good acting skills. | negative |
this fourth installment of the series is the last to get a theatrical release,though it feels like a direct to video movie.it's OK,i guess,but nothing special.the acting is the worst of seen in the series up to this point.and like the third movie,there isn't much in the way of imagination.also,the sentence "directed by Alan Smithee" is never a good thing.Smithee is the pseudonym directors use when they want nothing to do with the movie.anyway,its an acceptable movie in the Hellraiser series,but not much more than that.it's a slight drop in quality from number three,and a huge drop from the first two.for me,Hellraiser IV:Bloodline is a 4.5/10 | negative |
The acting wasn't great, the story was full of simplistic turns and transparent characters. It's about the repercussions of the struggle between right-wing Flemish block voters on the one side and the Moroccon people living in the Belgian city Antwerp on the other side. Is it a political analysis ? Is it some kind of Belgian West Side Story or modern Romeo and Juliet ? The film just isn't strong enough to answer both questions (supposing those were the director's questions, too). Still, some of the scenes could function as a kind of Ken Loach film, set in Antwerp. After all, this city has been the starting point of the extremist right-wing Flemish Block party and is struggling with a lot of problems and tensions between different populations and cultures. It's very difficult to make a film about this situation, and this one isn't successful, unfortunately. Still, it's telling a story about a very real and complicated situation in present-day Belgium. The few foreign viewers watching should try and enjoy it and realise it's not the actual film that is important but the social dividing lines behind it that haunt Belgium, a 10 million people country, in the 2000s<br /><br />Dries Van Dongen | negative |
Playing a character from a literary classic can be a bit of a poisoned chalice for an actor, paying for the pleasure of a meaty character by competing with the fantasies of generations of readers not to mention the numerous other actors who've besieged the castle before. Fortunately for the fantasists, this version with the nicely cast Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton stands head and shoulders above versions that have come after it. It's the right length to do the story full justice, and makes considerable use of Bronte's cracking dialogue; none of that modern meddling away, cutting text and adding new and inferior scenes.<br /><br />The magic of the original story lies in the tensions created between the central characters, and the lives circumstances create for them to lead. Jane "poor, plain and little" grows up on the stinting charity of a cold aunt, her nature and independence shaped by a long spell in a very harsh school. She arrives as a governess in the household of Mr Rochester, utterly friendless and alone. She represses herself habitually out of duty and hard experience, but her passionate nature soon finds its touch-paper in her stern, keenly intelligent, enigmatic master, to whom she is drawn, as he is to her, by forces beyond their control. Rochester is the caged tiger, busy "paving hell with energy"; potentially dangerous to all who come into contact with him but "pervious, through a chink or two". His character is extraordinary: he takes extraordinary liberties with a paid subordinate; but then Jane is no ordinary employee, as he sees. But a dark secret, and severe trials, lie before them both.<br /><br />It's a pleasure to hear Bronte's remarkable dialogue spoken by such accomplished actors Dalton in particular seems formed for passion on a Brontean scale. If you've only ever seen him as a not-so-memorable Bond, you've missed the thing he's best at. Those who've commented that his Rochester is too handsome, miss the point of these dramatisations: his character has simply too much screen time for a really ugly man to retain the viewer's attention. Timothy Dalton is just right, not always or consistently handsome, but often glancingly, strikingly so, just as it should be. And Zelah Clarke's Jane is no wallflower; she conveys the emotions of a woman who habitually represses her sense of humour and her passionate nature very successfully, allowing her rare outbursts to show to more dramatic effect.<br /><br />Not so long ago the BBC aired an excellent dramatisation of Jean Rhys' enlightened and most unsettling riposte to Bronte, "Wide Sargasso Sea", imagining the back-story of the first Mrs Rochester. Do check it out you'll never see the 'hero' of "Jane Eyre" in quite the same way again. | positive |
The filming is cheesy. Some of the actors overact. Some of the actions are unexplained and unexplainable. But...<br /><br />This movie is in the mode of the psychological dramas of the 50s.<br /><br />It is a morality play. Similar to the movie in which a "method" actor becomes the evil character he portrays on stage, Ed is forced to watch slasher movies because he is the film editor. It gives him a nervous breakdown which leads to a complete psychotic break.<br /><br /> | positive |
<br /><br />my favorite science fiction, incredible ride through mistrust and the warping of reality. Probably the best performance I have ever seen Jude Law play. Incredibly original with interesting character developments and a story line that twists and turns so rapidly that it takes a couple of minutes after the film to fully grasps its genius. Even more fun watching it again for the end changes the beginning. | positive |
AKA <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 3 x 1.78:1 within 2.39:1 frame (Triptych) <br /><br />Sound format: Dolby Digital<br /><br />1978: A working class teenager (Matthew Leitch) assumes a false identity and gatecrashes high society, where he learns harsh lessons about the divisions between Rich and Poor.<br /><br />Autobiographical feature by director Duncan Roy (JACKSON: MY LIFE... YOUR FAULT), an exposé of the pre-Thatcherite aristocracy, as seen through the eyes of a low-rent 'commoner' whose world view is transformed by his adventures amongst the Upper Classes. Unfortunately, Roy's screenplay says very little we didn't already know about the excesses of the idle rich, and the narrative is only briefly ignited by Leitch's relationship with a handsome but self-destructive rent boy (Peter Youngblood Hills) who turns out to be no less hypocritical than the very people he seeks to emulate. Also starring Diana Quick (as an outrageous snob who believes working class people are "embarrassed to be alive"!), Bill Nighy as the black sheep of a wealthy family, Lindsay Coulson ("EastEnders"), Blake Ritson (DIFFERENT FOR GIRLS) and Georgina Hale in a typically flamboyant cameo, flashing her boobs at all and sundry, without a care in the world! <br /><br />Unfortunately, much of the film's impact is diluted by Roy's insistence on using a Triptych effect (three separate 1.78:1 images are letterboxed within the 2.39:1 frame, each one providing a different viewpoint of individual scenes), which shrinks the image and distances viewers from events on-screen. A long, pointless film, too personal for wide appeal, and hampered throughout by a cinematic process which fails to reconcile the story at hand. A single-image version is also available (framed theatrically at 1.85:1), with the on-screen title AKA: LIES ARE LIKE WISHES. | negative |
Hargh... this film is so bad it's almost good. Trash at its best. Jesus' bro vs. pimps...come on. I'd say that you'd actually have to see this, it's so bad... my sides hurt when I laughed. I can't understand why this isn't in the worst 100. | negative |
Moonwalker is absolutely incredible !!!!!!! What else can I say !? Michael Jackson is the true King of pop, rock and soul !!! Moonwalker has everything ! Great story line, fantastic music, great visual effects, and of course it has Michael Jackson !!!!!! | positive |
I'll start with what I liked.<br /><br />I really liked the songs, everything about them was great, the costumes, music, lyrics (as long as the translation was good :) ), choreography, everything.<br /><br />I loved the crab scene and the cooking scene.<br /><br />But that's about it.<br /><br />I get it, arty cinema, blablabla, but too much is too much. Too much silence (it was interesting for an hour, but two hours of hearing steps and moaning from time to time, really...), too much boredom (no movie should ever be boring, no matter how deep it was to be!), too much porn-like scenes (I do get it really, I get that they were filming a porn movie there, but really, REALLY, really that is too much) I truly think, that cinema should be for watching and this one is definitely not watchable in no way.<br /><br />3 stars for the songs. | negative |
Not only was this movie better than all the final season of H:LOTS. But it was better than any movie made for TV I have ever seen!<br /><br />Looking at the "Top 250" I see that only one small screen movie has made it: How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I think it is time to increase that group to 2.<br /><br />I will admit that the original series had several shows that were better than this, but I didn't mind. I just LOVED being able to enter the world of the Baltimore Homicide Squad again! | positive |
What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. The original Jane Eyre was a hero. The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Her struggle to find food and shelter, her shame at having to beg for bread, the threat of freezing to death in the cold, all to get away from a man she loved were, in my opinion, poignant parts of the story that were simply left out of this movie. The title character seemed dry and uninspired. The story was unappealing and for those who did not read the book, I cannot imagine that this story would be the least bit interesting. The screenplay and Direction did little if any credit to the classic story. | negative |
Creep - "Your journey terminates here." Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.<br /><br />No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.<br /><br />This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.<br /><br />Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.<br /><br />It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid "hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond" thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.<br /><br />"Your journey terminates here" is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, avoid. | negative |
This anime series starts out great: Interesting story, exciting events, interesting characters, beautifully rendered and executed. Not everything is explained right away, dangling a proverbial carrot before the viewer, enticing the viewer to watch each succeeding episode. But imagine the disappointment to find that the sci-fi thriller/giant robot adventure is only a backdrop for psycho-babble and quasi-religious preachy exploitation. If you want to hear "You're OK. It's good to be you." after being embattled with negative slogans and the characters' negative emotions, then this is for you. If you want a good sci-fi flick that is simply fun to watch, forget this one. Both the original, and the alternate endings were grossly disappointing to me. All that, AND this movie was too preachy. | negative |
So many times, Bollywood has tried to remake Hollywood hits, only to produce total duds. Mercifully, Yash Chopra's interpretation of "Sleeping with the Enemy" is an extremely stylish and well-made films.<br /><br />Shah Rukh Khan is obsessed with Juhi Chawla (who's looking her very best in here!). When he realizes that Juhi has a fiance in Sunny Deol, he stops at nothing to make sure she becomes his.<br /><br />Every frame of this film is a delight to watch. Whether it's Shah Rukh chanting his trademark "I love you, K...k...k...kiran!" or the feel-good mushy scenes between Sunny and Juhi (who make a perfect match), you won't feel like leaving your eat in boredom.<br /><br />Each and every song on the soundtrack is ear pleasing, especially Jaadu Teri Nazar and Tu Mere Samne. Like I said, Juhi looks like a Goddess in this film. Darr may not be SRK's best film (that honor goes to Baazigar), but it definitely figures as one of his most flawless performances! Sunny is OK. He's done similar roles before, but he's good.<br /><br />Overall, Darr is g...g...g...great! ;) | positive |
It is unfortunate that between this film, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and Home of the Brave seem to all be based upon common stereotypes about veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The boozing, the fighting, the short-fuses, the broken marriages, guys freaking out and digging a foxhole in their front yard when they're drunk, etc etc etc.<br /><br />Does it happen - yes, but not as often as one would think after having watched any of these movies. I think that it is unfortunate that these directors/producers/writers choose to grind their axe against the political establishment by portraying soldiers in such an atypical way. In this particular film, Kimberly Peirce didn't even throw us a bone, like showing the new children that were born while a family member was deployed, or the kid who grew up in some ghetto who can now afford college thanks to the GI Bill, or the couple who can afford a house, or start a new business, earn their citizenship, etc etc etc. Instead, we are treated to the stereotypes because the people who made this film only want to show you the bad side.<br /><br />A couple of issues with the film itself: 1) somebody screwed up by putting Phillippe in for a Bronze Star with V after he led his squad down a tight alleyway after having been baited by a gunman in a taxi. Pretty stupid, but yes, it happens. 2) the humvees didn't have any turret armor, so we are supposed to believe it is a near the beginning of the war, yet every soldier and their brother has an ACOG and every possible attachment for their M4? sorry, don't think so 3) Timothy Olyphant as a Lieutenant Colonel? It's hard to believe, but I just checked an he turned 40 in May, so the timing isn't too off. 4) He strikes two soldiers to escape being sent to jail after saying that he wouldn't return to Iraq (upon having learned that he had been stop-lossed). So he's a fugitive. Then, when he finally turns himself in at the end, and they take him back, he keeps his rank and deploys with the same unit? Sorry don't think so.<br /><br />I can only describe it as one giant stereotype of the Army and the Infantry. Do some of the events portrayed in this movie happen to some soldiers, yes. However, in this film you get practically every stereotype in the space of about 100 minutes, and really things just aren't like that for most soldiers returning. I wish the director had made a point of doing a little better research instead of starting off with her agenda and then making a film.<br /><br />Of the movies I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the best one is probably Lions for Lambs, which is more a commentary on the sad state of Generation Y+ than it is about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Bush Administration. If you really want to see this film wait for cable or Netflix it, don't pay cash directly to rent it. | negative |
Small college town coed OD's? (Why do we care?) Acting sheriff investigates the incident. (Why do we care?) The interviews show us the comatose subject (Kirshner) as different as the opinions of the subjects being interviewed. (Why do we care?) Result? A mess of flashbacks in this mess of a movie featuring a handful of one-hit wonders and B-flick divas which begs the question...Why do we care? | negative |
Gorgeous Annie Belle in her prime stars in this adventure/sex movie. She wears her hair in a buzz cut that is bleached platinum. She and her boyfriend are visiting some tropical Asian paradise. They have decided to keep an "open" sexual relationship, which is played out on their journey to find a secret society/tribe where the people live one year and then are reborn in some kind of ceremony. The scenery is gorgeous, deep vast green gorges and jungles are explored. The imagery is very similar to that of the movie "Black Emanuelle". It is rich and colorful. Recommended! | positive |
In the opening scenes of this movie a man shot arrows through his hotel room into another man's bathroom and blew out all the lights. This must have been very hep for 1936, but rather way way out and had nothing to do with the film, Robin Hood did not make an appearance as far as I could see. However, Bette Davis(Daisey Appleby),"The Whales of August",'87 was very young and attractive and performed one of her best roles in a long career in Hollywood. Daisey never stopped teasing or being very sexy with her nightgowns and so called swim suit on her yacht with George Brent(Johnny Jones),"The Spiral Staircase",'46. Daisey even proposed marriage to Johnny in a Ferris Wheel upside down and even got a black eye. Davis and Brent made a great couple, one suppose to be very rich and the other a very poor reporter. Off stage, Davis and Brent were having a real torrid love affair, which is good reason why there was sparks when these two appeared in this film. If you liked Bette Davis and George Brent, this is the film for you! | positive |
I just saw this on cable. I liked it. It held my interest and the dramatic choices were good. The old couple were very good and good at being subtly creepy. The cinematography is not so great, but the shabby video also adds to the sense of realism, so its a trade-off, you know? At times the girl would hit the New England accent to hard. The accent would sort of come and go. Anyway, I thought the film was well done overall, though. The storyline was strong and dramatic tension was held because you felt their was some subtle mystery going on, even though things seemed mundane. Good job on a low budget. Another good SUNY Purchase filmmaker. Way to go. | positive |
039: Anna Christie (1930) - released 2/21/1930; viewed 3/10/06 <br /><br />On October 24, 1929: Black Thursday, the stock market crashes. Now the country and indeed the world will look to Hollywood for escape from the worldwide Great Depression.<br /><br />BIRTHS: Anne Frank, June Carter, Yasser Arafat, Bob Newhart, Barbara Walters, Doris Roberts, Ed Asner, Dick Clark, Roy E. Disney, Gene Hackman.<br /><br />DOUG: At long last, our Odyssey resumes in earnest with Greta Garbo's first sound film, a simple character study called Anna Christie. An excellent performance from Ms. Garbo, who showed right off the bat that her talents could carry over from the silent era (I wanted to see some of her silent work, but Netflix doesn't seem to be stocking them. How odd). One thing I noticed over and over was the way the Swedish accent sounds, like replacing the letter J with a Y sound. Anna ends up being the only character I liked; I didn't really care for her estranged father or her would-be suitor. It looks like the sound-recording systems are getting better (nobody leaning in to talk into the mystery-can), but the camera still isn't moving. We'll be sure to watch for that to change as our odyssey continues.<br /><br />KEVIN: Our first film of the 1930's is the first sound film of silent starlet Greta Garbo, Anna Christie. This is a very simple movie, with only about five different locations where we spend long stretches of the film's 89 minute running time, often with a static camera. It was great to see Marie Dressler in sound as well, and quite hilarious as what we hear is an endless chain of heartfelt yet inebriated slurs. I very much enjoyed Garbo's performance, as she sustains the film through even the most meandering moments. I didn't really like George Marion or Charles Bickford, maybe because I wasn't sympathetic to either of them, so I was relieved and excited when Anna finally stands up for herself and shows them that she doesn't "belong" to either her estranged father or her muscle-bound Irish boyfriend. It's also great to see that renowned silent screenwriter Frances Marion hasn't missed a step going from silent to sound.<br /><br />Last film viewed: Speedy (1928). Last film chronologically: The Love Parade (1929). Next film: The Blue Angel (1930). | positive |
If one wants to have a character in a movie have a disturbing sexual encounter that would shame that character in later life the only thing left that an audience would see as shameful was bestiality and now it has been done. Judging by some of the other comments even that did not succeed that well. I cannot remember one funny scene though I have to admit, I had to turn it off before it was finished. I did watch a part of the director's commentary and it appears he was as surprised as anyone that the movie was doing well. If you want to get the same feeling you get from this movie but only cheaper, stick your head in a pile of manure and breath deeply. | negative |
The story takes place in rural Germany on the eve of the second world war, a unique setting, with a couple of British agents being held by the Germans in a farm house. Since they aren't technically at war yet, it seems as if both sides must have realized what was coming. Both agents (Bruce Lester and Ray Milland) escape into the countryside and split up. Milland happens upon gypsy woman Marlene Dietrich one evening as she's alone at her camp preparing dinner. Their encounter is an amazing and captivating scene, not so much for Milland but for Dietrich, who takes sexy sultriness to a whole new plane. Milland disguises himself as a gypsy in order to hide from the Germans, but he remains committed to his mission, to do with locating the scientist who knows the formula for a new poison gas but who also isn't a committed Nazi. The Hollywood take on gypsy life and customs is predictably portrayed, but the underlying knowledge that they would be one of the targets for extermination by the Nazis adds a certain tension. The film straddles the line between being a serious story about the poison gas and the urgent search to get the formula, and a colorful though not too convincing love story between Milland and Dietrich. However, they're both very good; it's the fault of the film that didn't give them or their relationship enough dramatic realism, relying on and exploiting obvious cultural differences for questionable comedic purposes. Nonetheless, there are some tense and interesting points here and there, the surprise meetings with German soldiers and Gestapo agents, where Dietrich does a great palm reading and Milland nearly as good faking one, and a dinner party of Germans of various stripes at which the announcement comes over the radio that Germany had been attacked by Poland and everyone stands and does a stiff arm salute. Mitchell Leison may have missed some opportunities here and there, but he fully took advantage of others. | positive |
A drama at its very core, "Anna" displays that genuine truth that all actors age, and sometimes, fade away. Anna is a character that believes America is her safety net, her home, and it can do her no wrong but she refuses to belittle herself to do work she doesn't believe in. She is hard-nosed, optimistic, stubborn, and arrogant when it comes to her life, yet not afraid to let others in, yet drop them at a moments notice. Anna flip-flops between personalities, which makes this film ideal of an aging star, but not idea of the viewing audience. "Anna" has been praised for its star Sally Kirkland, and her ability to get "grungy" for the role, but a month into 2008, "Anna" does not remain a staple of film culture. It is dated, dull, and formulaically chaotic.<br /><br />Director Yurek Bogayevicz has a message hidden within "Anna" about the falsehoods of Czechoslovakia, both politically and socially, but Kirkland refuses to let them upstage her. Bogayevicz is not afraid to play with the camera, to use wooden frames to allow Kirkland to stand out, and he is not afraid to lessen the surrounding characters so that when you walk away from the film, it is Kirkland you remember. If it isn't obvious, this film didn't sit well with me. From the opening of the first act and deep within the second, "Anna" felt like a high school theater production. The characters were non-existent, there was no enlightening pre-story, and there was no definition of time or place. There was Sally Kirkland, stubbornly saying that she is better than the other actresses vying for the same lifestyle that she wants. Randomly she encounters a friend, a young girl that has also traveled a long distance to get to America for the glitz and glamour, and two of them (within the span of 20 minutes) build a friendship that could break all walls. It is emotionally boring and unbelievable. Again, randomly, we meet Anna's boyfriend Daniel (played by the weak Robert Fields), who brings nothing to the table in terms of definition or character only to boost the attention onto Kirkland's Anna. Through the course of nearly two hours, we watch as more random acts coupled with unnamed characters intertwine together to feebly create a story that is held together by loose threads and SALLY KIRKLAND. Arg, it pains me to continue to say this but "Anna" could have been a fantastic film had Bogayevicz presented equal time between Anna, Daniel, and Krystina, but instead we are forced into a one-sided game where emotional scenes speak louder than plot.<br /><br />Is this where Charlize Theron found inspiration for her beauty-less role in "Monster", or Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball"? Was Sally Kirkland one of the early actresses discover that by letting themselves go for a character Oscar will shine in their direction? Throughout this film I was disgusted by Kirkland's portrayal of Anna, and Bogayevicz's lack of excitement for anything else fluent. Bogayevicz gives us an Anna that doesn't work hard for her parts, doesn't care for others, and is generally mean spirited yet we are to feel sympathy for her? Near the beginning of the film, she forces what she wants to do onto others, and gets upset when she doesn't get her way. Sure, aging actresses my have that appeal to them, but Kirkland creates a more childish character instead of a mature one. That is where "Anna" could have improved. If this was a mature Kirkland, I would have gobbled it up, but this stammering childish Anna was impossible to believe. While my favorite scene was near the end where Anna goes to watch one of her older films playing (included is absurd make-out characters) and the film burns, this scene is also one of my least favorite. Anna has made a phenomenal life for herself, creating films and building the dream, yet when anyone else wants to enter that spotlight, she gets jealous and outraged. This didn't make for a character I wanted to stand behind nor win Oscars. Coupled with the classic 80s background synthesizer, the outrageous over-the top wardrobe, and the displaced ending (where did that come from and what happened??) "Anna" slipped far in the scope of amazing cinema. It was a show-piece, an opportunity for an aging star to yell at the world one more time. In this one it worked, but I don't think I will be fooled again.<br /><br />Overall, I cannot say that I was impressed with this film. "Anna" is not a film about an aging film star; it is about Sally Kirkland, and ONLY Sally Kirkland. Bogayevicz tries to do more with the story, but fails either because Kirkland will not allow him or he just realizes that there isn't enough to support a full story. There are one or two decent scenes in this film, but nothing that promotes this film as innovative or influential. Bogayevicz did not create a character that audiences would believe, tear up for, or dedicate a Sunday afternoon with he created an annoyance. Kirkland wasn't Anna, she was an actress playing her a bit overdone and crusty on the sides. Perhaps I missed the scope of this film, but what makes films like this work is the cooperation of everyone involved. That wasn't the case here. In "Anna", Kirkland orders Daniel to act like a dog (apparently as a symbolic act) and yet during the entire emotional scene, I couldn't help but think that was what Kirkland was like to those on the set. She didn't make this into a film, she transformed it into her own production, and because of it "Anna" failed. I cannot suggest this to anyone from one Czech to another skip it! <br /><br />Grade: * ½ out of ***** (for that pesky theater scene that creeped me out) | negative |
I have to admit, this movie moved me to the extent that I burst in tears. However, I always think about things twice, and instead of writing a eulogy that would define the film as flawless and impeccable, I prefer taking the risk of a closer look.<br /><br />First what's first: The movie has an undeniable impact on the viewer simply because it starts out and continues as a slow-paced movie that doesn't try to blow you away with the actual scenes from 9/11. Thumbs up for this stroke of genius, because, unlike Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER this film fortunately doesn't focus on the attack itself but on the fallout which, similar to the fallout of a nuclear explosion, is hardly visible but nonetheless dangerous and devastating. The psychological impact, the sheer devastation that 9/11 caused and the havoc it wreaked on the American people is almost palpable in this movie. I think Binder managed an astute observation of the American post 9/11 society and Sandler in my opinion sky rocketed from an average comedy actor to a real talent who delivers a performance worthy of an Oscar.<br /><br />However: In the film BLOOD DIAMOND, the Di Caprio character says and I quote: "Ah, these Americans. Always want to take about their feelings". Now, I don't want to belittle their sufferíngs, but I sure would like to make a comparison. Ever since 9/11 the entire world is confronted with mementos, memorials and commemorations of 9/11. The Hollywood industry and writers such as Safran Foer more than allude to 9/11 in their works. Now, this huge amount of cultural products, dealing with 9/11, turn the death of 3000 people into the biggest tragedy of this young century. The number of books written on the subject and the number of films directed on this subject, and I say this with all due respect, blow the importance of this atrocious crime somewhat out of proportion.<br /><br />Fact is: People die every day due to unjust actions and horrible crimes committed by bad or simply lost people. We have a war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Birma and lots of other countries. On a daily basis, we forget about the poverty the African people suffer from and we tend do empathize with them to a lesser degree than with the American victims of 9/11 simply because they are black and because their lives don't have much in common with our Western lives. Africa neither has the money nor the potential to commemorate their national tragedies in a way America can. So, what I am saying is this: The reason why we feel more for the 3000 victims of 9/11 and their families is because we are constantly reminded of 9/11. Not a day goes by without a newspaper article, a film or a book that discusses 9/11.<br /><br />In conclusion: I commiserated with Charlie Fineman, but I wasn't sure whether I had the right to feel for him more than for a Hutu who lost his entire family in the Rwandan civil war.<br /><br />You catch my thrift? | positive |
Spectacular Horror movie that will give you the chills once you get settled with it. The atmosphere is very creepy and stylish, the score is chilling, but the best about the movie is it's performances. It's rare to get scared by performances and this movie's solid acting plays an important part in the scare factor.<br /><br />The story is very interesting and gets your attention since the first minutes. Though the woman in black does not have much screen time, she makes the necessary appearances to chill the audience in some brilliant scenes. The dialogs are very descriptive and make your imagination work and that's when it becomes really scary. <br /><br />If you have the chance, watch this on theater it's a totally different experience but as scary as this movie.<br /><br />This is one of the best Ghost movies ever and it's directed for people that want to get scared. | positive |
Brian (Wesley Eure) works for a security firm owned by Mr. Norton (Conrad Bain). The Norton firm is in financial trouble for, unknown to the owner, he has an employee who is selling secrets to a rival firm's owner (Jim Bacchus). It's not Brian, as he is a loyal and faithful employee and a good inventor. But, Mr. Norton has no patience with Brian, in part because Norton's beautiful daughter, Casey (Valerie Bertinelli) has a thing for Brian and Norton questions Brian's motives for wooing her. However, Brian does come up with a great security device. It's called CHOMPS, which stands for canine home security system. The device, which looks like a dog, is actually a computer controlled animal with the ability to knock down walls and emit siren sounds to capture burglars. The rival owner sends two bungling spies (one is Red Buttons) to learn the details of the new invention. Will CHOMPS save Norton security? This is a fun family flick from the old school of good, clean entertainment. CHOMPS is, of course, a real dog, played by the adorable and talented Benji. In fact, Benji has a duel role, as Brian has a "real" dog named Rascal, too. Just watching this little dog in action is pure joy, as he is able to scale walls, "pull" trucks, and operate machine buttons to capture the bad guys. The human cast is also quite nice, with everyone giving upbeat performances that are infectious. Costumes, scenery, and production values are good, too. Although you may have trouble locating the film, it would be well worth the effort to secure a view for your closest loved ones. CHOMPS is a wonderful, wholesome diversion from the world's woes. | positive |
You have GOT to see this movie... I saw it, as a 13 year old, at the theater, on my very first date... Fast forward over 20 years and I'm now gay (Thanks a lot One Dark Night!! LOL!). This movie creeped the hell out of me as a kid (mausoleums still do!), but as an adult, the thrill of this movie isn't in the storyline, but rather the hysterical laughs it holds... Highlights are listening to the names the teenagers call each other, from "nerdlebrain" (my personal favorite) to "turkey". Also, keep your eyes peeled for the scene where Carol (the blond, head sister) attempts to hang her phone up on a soda can (can't believe they didn't reshoot that!)... Other highlights include Adam West's overly dramatic outbursts and the gooey corpses. If you're a fan of true horror, I'd suggest this film just because, to me, it's almost a parody on horror. There is def. a creepy factor and the plot is a good one, but don't watch it if you want to be scared out of your wits (unless you're like 10 years old or something). | positive |
I had to lower my rating of this movie to a 4 due to the terrible sound track. I'm pretty sure it was not a problem with me or the tape, because some actors and the sound track sounded great. But most of the actors voices were distorted or garbled beyond recognition, especially for non-brits.<br /><br />There are plenty of cute little twists that would make this an enjoyable movie - ending up in Bosnia by mistake is great - but much of the humor was lost in the sound. | negative |
One of Cary Grant's most enduring comedies is Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House. Although judging by the size of it the dwelling would be a dream mansion today. Still Cary was making a good living in the advertising field even though he was having a devil of a time trying to come up with a slogan for ham with the brand name of Wham.<br /><br />What made this film so popular was the housing shortage of the post World War II years. Returning veterans from the war were claiming their entitlements under the GI Bill of Rights which included home loans. The problem was there literally were not enough houses to satisfy the demand. Around the time the book by Eric Hodgins and the film were so popular Congress passed and President Truman signed the Taft-Ellender- Wagner Housing law which put the government for the first time in the home building business.<br /><br />I had an uncle and aunt who were around the same time building their own home which they moved into in the early Fifties. Like Cary Grant and Myrna Loy they had two daughters and were looking to get out of inner city Rochester. Their place wasn't quite as grand as a house in Connecticut with eighteen rooms, still they lived there the rest of their lives the way Cary and Myrna most likely did.<br /><br />Of course it was expensive and the costs just keep adding up and up, threatening to send Cary to the cleaners. Cary and Myrna also have Melvyn Douglas around to offer counsel, usually too late. Truth be told he's kind of sweet on Myrna and Cary knows it.<br /><br />Myrna Loy's role is simply an extension of Nora Charles. If you can imagine the Charles's moving to the country and William Powell having the headaches Cary Grant does, the film would still work just fine.<br /><br />Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House still works well as comedy because the situations are universal. And this review is dedicated to my Uncle Walter and Aunt Kate who lived in their dream house together for over 40 years. | positive |
I'll be honest,I finally checked this movie not because of the stars--though they were reasonably watchable and compelling,particularly the three leads--or even the compelling story of a breach in the Presidential Secret Service(something,I've been informed through the DVD extras of this show,has yet to ever happen.Assuming that's true,that's remarkable!). I got it because it was directed and has a choice cameo by none other than Detective Meldrick Lewis!! Well,okay,Clark Johnson,one of my faves from "Homicide:Life on the Street" and a veteran (mostly) TV director. I'd say that he does about as good as he can with a project that is watchable but pretty average,despite the possibilities.<br /><br />Veteran and ace Secret agent Pete Garrison(Michael Douglass)has to find out both who is blackmailing him AND who killed his friend,targeted and blew up an Air Force One chopper and is gunning for the Prez.(David Rasche. Anyone remember "Sledgehammer"?). His affair with the first lady(Kim Basinger,clearly one of the HOTTER first ladies we've ever had,fictional or real)is certainly not helping his standing. He's got to both ferret out the real mole in the service and avoid the hound dog like hunting of his former best friend and fellow agent and chief(Kiefer Sutherland,almost still completely in "24" mode). Throw in some other pivotal Service agents(Martin Donovan and the foxy,somewhat hard to buy as the gig Eva Longorria) and shady foreign characters and you have a fairly standard political thriller that doesn't aim as high as it purports and reaches the desired,if underwhelming,results.<br /><br />The summary line is about the best way to describe how this show plays out without giving spoilers. The DVD extras to me seemed more insightful and interesting than the movie,though the film itself was entertaining enough to keep most (myself included) interested. | positive |
ONE NIGHT AT McCOOL'S / (2001) *** (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br /> According to Harald Zwart, the director of "One Night at McCool's," this film is "a dark comedy about the power of women over men, and how a group of people can all perceive different realities. It's the same story told from three different points of view, and each time we tell the story, we try to reveal a little bit more about what actually happened, which nobody really knows." <br /><br /> "One Night at McCool's" marks the feature film directorial debut of Zwart, an award winning commercial and music video director who began making short films when he was eight years old. I always get nervous when a director of commercials and music videos turns to filmmaking. We have seen so many examples of how these guys think they are making another advertisement or music video for TV with their productions. Zwart resists that tendency. He captures a specific humorous truth in "One Night at McCool's," from an inventive, complex screenplay by the late Stan Seidel, even if it is often somewhat perplexing. <br /><br /> "One Night At McCool's" features three men who share their separate experiences about a particularly beautiful young woman. In some ways, this movie is the comedy version of "American Beauty," but in others, it is a world apart. <br /><br /> "It all started one night at McCool's" explains each of the three men to their various listeners. There is Randy (Matt Dillon), a tender at the local bar, and his cousin, a lawyer named Carl (Paul Reiser), who stays until the place closes. Detective Dehling (John Goodman), arrives when the saloon becomes the crime scene of the dead boyfriend of a female fatal appropriately named Jewel (Liv Tyler). Randy is the first to see her, as an individual treats her unkindly. He stands up for her, and before you can say SEXY, they are having vigorous sex and she moves in with him. At first, Randy is reluctant: "The sex and the violence, all in one night it's a little much." But who could turn a jewel like Jewel away.<br /><br /> Jewel changes the lives of each of the three men. For Detective Dehling, she pulls him out of a hole of grief since his wife died. For Carl, she makes him forget his loving family and nice little suburban household. For Randy, she lights a few fires, both positive and negative, the later persuading him to contact a bingo playing hit man named Burmeister (Michael Douglas) to put an end to her deceptive ways. <br /><br /> It is interesting how the movie perceives the three different chronicles-even the costuming of Jewel is relative to the man telling the story. Dehling sees Jewel as a beautiful, mesmerizing gift from God. Carl sees Jewel as two sexy legs and lots of cleavage. Randy is unsure what to make of her, an awakening to his otherwise boring, road to nowhere life. The most intriguing element of this movie is Jewel herself, however, deliciously played by the always delightful Liv Tyler ("Armageddon"). She is not really interested in the men, but what they can offer her. Her motives are all too simple, not truthfully diabolical or evil; she is simply a young lady who has learned at an early age that she can get what she wants out of life through her beauty. <br /><br /> The film has a lot of fun with its material. From the enthusiastically entertaining cast, to its violently hilarious showdown, "One Night at McCool's" takes advantage of most of its humorous ideas. What makes the movie even funnier is how the three men's points of view differ. The actors have a lot of fun with their characters, too. Goodman is curiously whimsical; Reiser fits his kinky, squirmy part quite well; Douglas is sly and mysterious in one of the movie's funniest performances; Dillon gives his character arrogant personality, even though Randy is a lackluster nobody; Liv Tyler is dazzling. She injects Jewel with the perfect amount of boastful charisma and tantalizing wit. She reminds us of Mena Suvari's intimate performance in "American Beauty."<br /><br /> "One Night at McCool's" is the first film to come from Michael Douglas' new production company, Furthur Films. It is a creative, genuine, and sexy production. Along the way we often become caught up in the twisty structure, but that is a natural response to a movie that intentionally interweaves several angles to a single story. The movie ends on a note that is both black and comedic. This is another one of those comedies in which serious events take place in a humorous way; i.e., the black comedy. Many films of this genre come across as either too black or too lackadaisical. "One Night at McCool's" is one of the few that actually work. <br /><br /> | positive |
Jamie Foxx was the epitome of Ray Charles. After a few moments you stop seeing a film and see a biography played by the great man himself. Ray Charles was truly a genius of music and the movie excellently depicted that. No one has ever or will ever write, play, or record music like this musical giant. When he passed the flesh, the world lost one of it's greatest American heroes. As far as the movie, the fact that Jamie Foxx received a classical music scholarship to college and could play like Ray was an asset to the director. What could be better than that? You don't have to have a "double" play piano and then try to split the screen from someone else's hands to Jamie's face. It worked beautifully. I loved the fact that it also picked up how difficult Ray was. He wasn't always a nice man. You didn't also root for him. He was a drug addict, a womanizer, and sometimes just plain hard-headed. But I guess that's what made him genius so I can't fault him for that. I pick Jamie for Best Actor! | positive |
We toss around the term "superstar" way too lightly these days, but here's one guy that truly deserves it.<br /><br />I was glued to the set this entire show. The song selection was perfect -- it only contained the songs I actually wanted to hear and cut in with documentary footage during the weaker new songs. I loved that the band was just a five guys on stage in a very minimalist environment. (With songs of this strength, you don't need a circus to be entertained).<br /><br />The shots of the crowd were amazing, too. How many performers can affect the original Beatles fans (now in their 50's and beyond), get young kids to jump up at the opening lines of "Can't Buy Me Love" and impact everyone in between? <br /><br />While watching, I also realized that in the wake of John Lennon's tragic death, Paul McCartney instantly became an afterthought. Paul not only lost John and George (no matter what their final relations were, it must be hard to lose someone with whom you changed the world), but he also lost his wife Linda and never really seemed to garner the acknowledgment Lennon's murder received. I agree that Lennon's murder was horrible, but only now did I realize that Paul was sort of forgotten in the aftermath. I was very happy that he's found love again in Heather.<br /><br />As for those complaining about the audio/video quality, I had no complaints whatsoever; both were crystal clear on my set. I think these same people will complain about the quality of DVD when the next format comes out; they'll never be satisfied.<br /><br />My only regret was not buying a ticket to this show when I had the chance. Thanks to this video I was able to enjoy it.<br /><br />When people remember John Lennon, they will first remember his murder and then his music. I now have a new appreciation for Paul McCartney, because, if nothing else, he will be remembered for his music first. And let's hope another lunatic won't change this, because the McCartney catalog is pretty good. | positive |
All right - it was in black and white and probably on 2" tape - which means the BBC wiped it, right? But it stays in my mind from all those years ago (1960??) as a perfect slice of history enlivened by the most innovative editing and wonderful actors full of youth and bravado.<br /><br />I WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN! Are you reading this, BBC? Find your original 2" tapes or the 35mm film, deal with the actors and directors for the rights, and re-issue! I know, I know, some of them are dead, some of them are missing in action.<br /><br />Where else will I be able to see Mary Morris as the 'serpent's heart wrapped in a tiger's hide'? Where else will I be able to see Paul Daneman do 'Now is the winter of discontent....'? Or Robert Hardy deliver his speech about 'that idol ceremony'? | positive |
Do all spoof films require pure stupidity and a lack of ANY sort of intelligence whatsoever to the humour? Is there even just a single genuinely FUNNY parody film anymore? All I see are zero-quality films that look like a couple stoned high school students got bored one day with a video camera. These movies are not funny, they're not clever, they're not entertaining, they're just useless in every conceivable way.<br /><br />The Comebacks was a movie that tried to hide its hideous level of trash by not calling itself "Sports Movie". It's the same thing, though. There are a few different writers for these films, the Wayans did some, Freidberg and Seltzer did some others, and I'm sure there's another pair. I can't even tell the difference in direction or humour to be honest, it all seems like the same people wrote and directed them. I can't tell if the Comebacks was done by the people who did Scary Movie or the guys who did Epic Movie, or someone else, it's just the same jokes from all the others.<br /><br />If you have ANY shred of taste or value for humour, don't see this movie. If you have self-worth, don't bother seeing it. If you have ANY respect for film making, don't even consider watching it. Don't see it in any broke down, derelict theatre that may still carry it, don't rent it, don't order it on Netflix or Pay-Per-View, don't Redbox it, and don't even watch it for free on OD. Avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />The only conceivable reasons I can see to watch this film are as follows.<br /><br />A. Masochism. If you like torturing yourself, there's very few better ways. B. Seeing a prime example of why to avoid ANYTHING that says "Fox Atomic". C. You're being paid considerably high amounts of cash.<br /><br />I really would not watch the entire thing if someone offered me $100 to do it. It's just mindless, mental collapsing torment.<br /><br />You might as well watch Zohan. | negative |
Nut case is murdering college students, can new teacher stop the madness?!<br /><br />Believe me, you won't care.<br /><br />With a title like Splatter University, one would immediately gather that this movie just isn't high art. But worse than that Splatter University doesn't even qualify for amusing garbage. Splatter U is so poorly made - the story is mindless, the characters are throw-aways, and the whole movie lacks any essence of imagination. Needless to say there is no suspense or atmosphere or scares. This drivel isn't even brave enough to throw in any nudity (for the cheapest thrill of all). So all around this endlessly flawed slasher offers nothing in the way of entertainment (not even cheap laughs) and just becomes a complete bore. Bottom of the barrel folks - even die hard slasher fans will want to think twice before viewing, let alone paying money for this flick.<br /><br />BOMB out of **** | negative |
Okay, it's a movie for children, and it's not one of those movies that adults will enjoy as well. However, there are some unintentionally funny moments, most of them involving holes in the story. For example, the kid needs a computer part to bring his dad back to normal, and he doesn't have the money. So, does he ask his father for the dough? Nope, he STEALS IT and gets caught. Kids, if I'm ever turned invisible, I'll advance your allowance, ok? Also, while this kid is at the police station (no doubt about to be charged with criminally lame acting), his beautiful blond teacher comes in, announces who she is and where she works, then BUSTS THE CHILD OUT OF THE SLAM IN FRONT OF THE COPS! To make matters worse, instead of making a quick getaway, they then SIT IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE POLICE STATION AND LAUGH ABOUT THEIR ACHIEVEMENT. You know, I hate to pick, but the kid DID steal something and ought to face the consequences, but maybe being in this movie is punishment enough. Y'all avoid it! | negative |
I'll keep it short and brief, the people who wrote the story lines for this show are genius, the actors are just perfect for the roles they play (CJ's character is legendary) and they have so much chemistry on screen which makes it what it is, a very successful comedy.<br /><br />When i saw first saw the new episodes which is probably going back just over 6/7 months, i wondered what had happened to Paul. I was gutted to find out that he had died when i browsed Google. He was so funny and played his character to perfection, an over-protective dad, who likes to keep his daughters out of the limelight and away from boys.<br /><br />The comedy, i think, has gone from strength to strength, even without Paul in it.<br /><br />Plus, i think most people would enjoy this watching it. | positive |
What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse. | negative |
With a title like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!", anyone going into this thing would be expecting either a) a bad science fiction movie or b) a comedy making fun of bad science fiction movies. It's supposed to be a mix of both, with a dose of parody splashed in. Unfortunately, it falls flat very soon.<br /><br />You're never supposed to take this movie seriously, I realize that, but you're supposed to think it's funny, right? I found only a few of the jokes or situations were funny (i.e, the side-by-side phone conversations, the Russian Olympic spy eating steroid cereal, Superman walking by Lois, etc.). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" strives to be a cult classic, but it doesn't make it. A cult classic is a movie that is so different that only a select group of people understand it (or a similar description). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" could be enjoyed by any 8-year-old with a bad sense of humor, so therefore, it does not qualify as a cult film.<br /><br />There is one good actress in the entire thing: Sharon Taylor as Lois Fairchild. She is a thin, gawky reporter, but has an endearing personality, loves to overact, and is a natural comedienne. Unfortunately, she is put to bad use here.<br /><br />"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not as funny as, say, "Amazon Women on the Moon" or "Kentucky Fried Movie", but it does have a few hilarious moments, so I would still recommend seeing it once. Avoid the director's cut, it has interruptions by the producer of the movie and some supposedly "lost" footage dubbed in a pretend African dialect (it can be found in English on the out of print tape). | negative |
This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but "white" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police. <br /><br />Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.<br /><br />Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity | negative |
This movie was awful. It centered too much around Eddie, Clark Griswald's brother-in-law. Eddie works much better when changing good quips such as in "Christmas Vacation" and "Vacation".<br /><br />I really don't understand how a movie like this would be given the thumbs up. Now, don't get me wrong, I like Randy Quaid, but just felt this movie was totally wrong for him and for the character in general. This movie leaves much to be desired and really needed some bigger name actors. | negative |
I think Purvis starts out to do a gay "Gone With The Wind" If so, sorry, Tag, it didn't happen. It also didn't happen as a gay "sexploitation" flick. I guess I'm confused; what are we trying to do here? Much as I'd like to, I simply can't get to where I care even a little about these characters. This movie is effective in capturing a taste of the decadence that lives in the South; it does nothing to explain, enlighten or advance my understanding of a gay relationship, or the conflict the protagonist seems to be grappling with. | negative |
Jim Belushi is terrific as the "Average Joe" who gets his 15 minutes in "The Twilight Zone". Michael Cane is the mysterious bar tender who not only listens to Belushi's "story", but has a "cure" for all of Belushi's middle class problems: A magic potion to bring about an avalanche of changes in Belushi's life.<br /><br />Flashbacks show a 15 year old horribly ashamed of causing his High School Baseball Team's Championship defeat. Belushi goes on with his "pitiful life", seemingly happy, but always wondering "what if..." For what seems to be several days, Belushi experiences a "different" life, one of enormous success, admired and hated by others in equal measure.<br /><br />This is not quite "It's A Wonderful Life", but some elements are similar, and very endearing. The "ending" is predictable, but still satisfying. Watch for a very young Cortney Cox in a bit part as "fatal attraction" -like other woman. A very pleasant film! | positive |
I think that Vanessa Marcil is the best actor in the cast. She makes Sam one of the best character on the show. James Cann is also pretty good. I love it when he worried about Delinda. One of my favorite scenes in when Ed and Delinda are beating the crap out of some guy. That was funny. Nikki Cox is also good and she has great chemistry with Josh Duhamel. Lara Flynn Boyle was awesome in her guest role. I wish they hadn't killed her off. The show has a great cast with no bad actors which isn't something you often see on TV. I still think Vanessa Marcil is the best though. She should have got an Emmy in my opinion. It's a shame the show was cancelled | positive |
In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. ** | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.