review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
There are so many puns to play on the title of the spectacularly bad Valentine that I don't know where to begin. I will say this though; here is a movie that makes me long for the complexity of the Valentine cards we used to give out in elementary school. You know, the ones with Batman exclaiming "You're a super crime-fighting valentine!"<br /><br />Valentine is a slasher movie without the slightest hint of irony, one of the few horror movies in recent years that ignores the influence of Scream. The villain is omniscient and nigh-invulnerable. The heroes are easily scared when people run around corners and grab them by the shoulders screaming "HeyIjustleftmycoatbehind!" The score is more overbearing than Norman Bates' mother.<br /><br />The flimsy plot follows several childhood friends, now grown up and extremely curvaceous. Since the film gives them nothing else to do, they stand around and wait until a masked stalker kills them one by one. This stalker appears to be former nerd Jeremy Melton, who was constantly rejected by women and beaten by men in high school. With Valentine's Day approaching, the women begin receiving scary cards foretelling their doom. Melton seems like the obvious suspect. Only problem is, as numerous characters warns, in thirteen years Melton could have changed his appearance to look buff and handsome. So (insert terrified gasp here) everyone is a suspect!<br /><br />Here's problem one. In order to have any sense of suspense while watching Valentine, you have to accept a reality in which a high school nerd is capable of becoming David Boreanaz. Nerds don't turn into Angel when they grown up, they turn into older, balder nerds. He's not a terrible actor, but the script, by no less than four writers, gives him and the rest of the cast nothing to do but scream and make out. Denise Richards (the bustiest actress in Hollywood never to star in Baywatch) is especially exploited; most shamefully in the blatant excuse to get her in a bathing suit just before a crucial suspense scene. Note to self: always bring a bathing suit to a Valentine's Day party. Just because it's February doesn't mean you might not feel like taking a little dip.<br /><br />The slasher in Valentine dresses in head-to-toe black with a Cherub's mask. Here's problem number two. The filmmakers clearly thought this would be a disturbing image to have on the head of someone who's whacking people in the face with hot irons. Plain and simple, it's not. Instead, it just made me wonder how a guy with a mask that covers his entire face, including his eyes and ears, can move so stealthily without bumping his shins on chairs or tables. Then again, given the things the Cupid Killer does, maybe he can teleport and his eyes are on his hands. <br /><br />Not only is the movie bad, it isn't even sure who the killer is; the final "twist" is more "Huh?" than "Hah!" When you're not scratching your head you're yawning, then groaning, then searching for the nearest exit. Do not watch this movie. Even if you're alone on Valentine's Day, find something, ANYTHING, else to do. You'll be glad you did. | negative |
Child´s Play made a new genre of horror,THE KILLER DOLLS,Some of this films has not got too much money for make it but I think that the only film that make shadow to Chucky is this.Ok it´s a tipical product direct to video or direct to tv but Pinocchio is not real and the killer is the little girl.The imagination of children are too big and this film play with it.The roles are good and Candance Mckenzie is great.<br /><br /> | negative |
Madhur has given us a powerful movie Chandni Bar in the past. His next film Page 3 was one of the worst movies of all time. It apparently tells the story of some high class people in India. After seeing a scene where the man forces another man for sexual reasons to Star in a Movie. I felt like spitting and breaking the DVD. Coincidently i did. The reason why was the movie contains scenes of child pornography and molestation. I literally vomited and was shocked to see a movie showing naked children. Very disturbing stuff, there was no need to show the children fully naked. One of the rich guys likes to kidnap poor children and sell them to foreign people, British men in this movie. I am shocked to know this film was a Hit in parts of India, otherwise Super Flop in UK, USA and Australia. I'm from UK, and this kind of stuff makes me sick, shouldn't of been released in UK. | negative |
First off, the first thing that came to my mind after I finished this film last night was "Why the title of 8MM 2?", because I saw the first one obviously, and what did this have to do with the first movie's plot? The only thing that was similar was the fact that the couple had to go into the porno industry and that wasn't even needed in the plot, because after you see the ending that I will not spoil, it just didn't make any sense.<br /><br />A diplomat and his fiancée are in Hungary and notice a woman who is swimming naked in the pool area, she's very attractive, so when they see her at a club, they decide to have a little fun and have a steamy threesome. But things get extremely intense when the diplomat is mailed pictures of them all having the affair, fearing that it might go public and jeopardize his career, they pay off the guy who sent the pictures, the diplomat freaks out and "kills" the guy, leading into a murder case. He and his fiacee decide to find the girl they had the affair with, but things just get deeper and darker as they go further into what they got themselves into.<br /><br />What could have been an alright thriller, turned into an unexplained and not well thought out movie, which was sad. Like I said, the title really has nothing to do with the first one, so don't fall for it. It's just a sexual thriller that makes no sense, but it's good for those nights alone, because quite frankly this is one of those films where it's so close to porn that it might as well be labeled as soft core.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
"A Thief in the Night" is a film that was generally ignored by movie fans at large due to its low-budget (which was obvious) and its subject matter--the Rapture of true Christian church and the fate of those left behind. Nevertheless, it was a gripping story that held the viewer and definitely made him or her review their relationship with Jesus Christ. It touched everyone--showing even a pastor who preached the Word, but did not believe it, knowing exactly why he was left behind. This movie, and its sequel "Distant Thunder," are must see movies. Even with the new "Left Behind" series coming out, telling the same story with a much higher budget, the impact is still the same--"A Thief in the Night" broke the ground of this genre and will always be remembered. | positive |
This movie was the worst i've ever seen.<br /><br />It doesn't seem to have a plot but the time you realize this is far beyond the beginning of the movie so you have to watch the shut for a long time to recognize the total incompetence of the director, aka the sloth that plays the tampon chick in the movie, and we do not believe the Willem Dafoe in this movie, he's a clone, because the real Dafoe, like we know from "apocalypse now" and "the boon dock saints", would never agreed to such a script.<br /><br />Duh, (Da)foe wrote this bill shut together with his twenty years minus baby. This movie starts with the credits of the two main characters, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the two script writers, Dafoe and Colagrande, and then the director, Colagrande.<br /><br />Bottomline (the story); Widow meets guy, guy bangs widow, widow smashes windscreen with guy who banged her.<br /><br />Title in Netherlands; The black widow (different title, same bullshit).<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! It's a total waist of time!!! | negative |
Who the heck had the "bright"(?) idea of casting Lucille Ball in this film??? It should have been Angela Lansbury's baby all the way. At the very least Lucy should have had her singing dubbed. <br /><br />There is some compensation in the fact that Jerry Herman's score is pretty well kept intact except for "That's How Young I Feel", and we do get performances by the original Broadway cast members Jane Connell and Bea Arthur. <br /><br />I suppose Robert Preston had to be given a song, hence the inferior "Loving You". <br /><br />Overall, I think in this one the wrong redhead was cast. | negative |
The story by Norman Maclean is a masterwork; Redford's film is a mediocrity. He adds banal scenes of the Maclean brothers going over a falls and of them double-dating in a seedy bar that were not even hinted at in the story. The cipher, Brad Pitt, trying to play the charismatic Paul Maclean, a genius outdoors, proves either risible or depressing, depending on what the original story meant to you. Some of the fly casting scenes are beautiful. Also, Tom Skerritt as the father and Craig Sheffer as Norman are strong and masculine, as men were once expected to be. None of the women make an impression in the film, which is regrettable, because Maclean loved the women in his story and made this clear, even poetic. | negative |
This is a thoroughly enjoyable, well-acted film. It is funny and sometimes hilarious. The finale is a bit disappointing, since it tries to wrap everything up into too neat a package. The film is better remembered for its priceless vignettes: the Jane Austen staging, the camping trip as examples. B & H does not attempt to mirror the predominant attitudes toward homosexuality and bisexuality. Most of the characters are quite accepting of sexual diversity. In that sense it is a joyous vacation from homophobic society. And it is a celebration of a flexibility, a loosening of rigid sexual categories--perhaps a happy harbinger of things to come. | positive |
*Wonderland SPOILERS* <br /><br />July 1st, 1981: five people, Ron Launius (Josh Lucas), Susan Launius (Christina Applegate), Billy Deverell (Tim Blake Nelson), Barbara Richardson (Natasha Gregson Wagner) and Joy Miller (Janeane Garofalo) are attacked while they're asleep and brutally hit on the head with steel pipes in their home at 8763 Wonderland Avenue, Laurel Canyon, LA. Only Susan survives.<br /><br />Main Suspect: John Holmes (Val Kilmer), former king of porn, owner of a 30 cm long dick, and now a hopeless addict.<br /><br />Two investigators, Luis (Frankie G.) and Sam Nico (Ted Levine), are investigating on the case and try to crack it with the help of a witness that claims to know that John at the very least took part in the murders, David Lind (Dylan McDermott), Barbara's boyfriend, and trying to get a witness report out of Dawn Schiller (Kate Bosworth), Holmes' 19-year-old girlfriend and from Susan, who sadly doesn't remember anything more than shadows about the night her husband's head was bashed in and hers almost suffered the same fate, and the name of Eddie Nash (Eric Bogosian), a major drug kingpin (who is always around ladies such as Barbie (Paris Hilton)), comes into light as a suspect planner of the Wonderland massacre.<br /><br />But what did happen that night? And could Sharon (Lisa Kudrow), John's wife, know something about it? 'Wonderland' is a taught, intense thriller, a desperate love story and a story of a man's sad decline all in one; there is a clever use of the 'Rashomon' technique (we see the events of that fateful day and night from the eyes of David, John, Dawn, Susan (albeit very briefly) and Sharon), a nice direction and a great script, but is mostly compelling for the performances, especially Kilmer's, who takes central stage with his hopeless, tormented, sometimes childish Holmes, Lucas', whose Launius is strangely alluring, Kudrow's strong Sharon and Bosworth's innocent Dawn.<br /><br />Wonderland: 9/10. | positive |
As a horse lover one can only appreciate this movie. There are few movies that show horsemanship as this one does. I would love to know if Brian does his own riding in the film. Would also like to know if he enjoys horses. Brian has been in a lot of movies where he has ridden. Where did he learn to ride? The only part that is hard for me to take is that the riding scenes are always full tilt, like a horse can run forever at full steam. The camera-work is first rate and captures the horses in a way that shows how dangerous things can be on top of a horse. It would be very interesting to know how they went about casting this movie to find all of the very good horseback riders. | positive |
This is a great comedy, highlighting what it was like to live next door to racist bigot. But also shows that both main characters are actually as bad as each other. Based on the hit ITV comedy, this is very politically incorrect. And its all the better for it, comedy after all is to entertain. The movies only real drawback is there isnt much of a plot. However the cast are as great as usual. Jack Smethurst and Rudolph Walker make one hell of a team, playing off each other in a oneupmanship kind of way.It's been many years since i saw this movie and last week was finally able to buy it on dvd. The fact that the movie still contains genuine laugh out loud moments, means that i can recommend this movie, just like i would of back in the 1970's. | positive |
The cast is admirably chosen and well-balanced. This cinematography is excellent. The music is delightful as all of Burt Bacharach's music is, and is appropriate to the plot line. Making a musical version of Hilton's tale is a welcome change from a plodding re-make. We see seasoned actors who add real depth to the emotional content and significance of each scene. I cannot agree with the critics who overlooked this scintillating gem of a film. It is a treasure of the silver screen! Find it if you can - and let its magic carry you beyond the drudgery of daily worries, inspiring you to find your own "Lost Horizon". | positive |
The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly | negative |
this is seriously one of the worst movies i have ever seen. i love Japanese movies, and i think another film by the same director, electric dragon 80,000 v, is a masterpiece. i really wanted to like this movie - asano is a terrific actor and the storyline was immensely appealing. but i couldn't find anything entertaining about it.<br /><br />the movie takes forever for nothing to happen. and the effects the director used - like the constant percussion and the exorbitant use of slow motion - merely added to my growing annoyance at the fact that the plot was so mind-bogglingly slow and the actors were heinously overacting. a lot of the boredom was a result of extraneous additions that were completely unnecessary - like an hour spent on asano going around slicing buddha statues and proclaiming how he doesn't worship anything. this added nothing to the plot. a fellow Japanese film buff and i were both checking the time constantly. we couldn't believe this film was as terrible as it was. and the finale was awful. i thought the director would at least attempt to reward the viewer for managing to sit through this, but sadly i was mistaken. | negative |
If you want to see real evidence of what a misguided and unchecked government can do to "un-popular" people, this movie provides it. Read what some people are saying about the "Patriot Act" passed after 9/11 and then watch this movie. Is it worth it? Do we really want to give away our freedoms to these people? Regardless of what you saw on TV, you are not fully informed until you watch this movie. I apologize for quoting another reviewer, but it needs repeating: Roger Ebert of Siskel & Ebert said, "What's interesting is if you're looking for people who are unbalanced zealots... you don't find them among the Branch Davidians, you find them among the FBI and the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; those are the people in this movie who deserve to be feared, I think." I think every person responsible for 9/11 needs to be brought to justice, but I think the government has not shown a history of honoring it's duty to protect people's rights, and this movie proves it in dramatic fashion. | positive |
Greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared, 'Frenzy' has recently done the rounds of UK TV. I remember seeing it on its original release, and thinking then that if Hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism, he couldn't have found a nastier little vehicle to do so.<br /><br />But Time alters perspective, and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might, all these years later, be worthy of upward re-evaluation.<br /><br />Might. . . but not. 'Frenzy' is dross. The dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations -- notably, the need to bring integrity to one's work.<br /><br />There's none here. And not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance, either -- the switch from spine-tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor, for a supreme stylist, stylish: it's just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that: prolonged, without pace, without reason, without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as, say, that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze, Michael Winner).<br /><br />And it goes from bad to worse, with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the Home Life of Our Dear Wooden Inspector, and his wife's cooking).<br /><br />Perhaps the scene that best sums up 'Frenzy' (and endures as the most explicit indictment of Hitchcock's persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar, where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped.<br /><br />I remember my revulsion at that scene back in '72, and it's still undimmed, because this wasn't Hitchcock being clever, or sardonic, or trying to make some universal point (big themes, big truths, were not Hitchcock's forte, nor personal preference.) It was just Hitchcock, allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie.<br /><br />Calling 'Frenzy' Hitchcock's last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what Hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery, cinematic thrills, and dazzling cinematic mastery.<br /><br />'Frenzy' is therefore now what it always was: a cheap, nasty, and ham-fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved, or to the memory of a film-maker who really was, in his Hollywood days, one of the greatest there has ever been. | negative |
The story is about Ankush (Abhay Deol) - who is professional marriage witness, in short he acts as a witness for couples in marriage registration office - and Megha (Soha Ali Khan) who ran away from her home at Nainital to get married to her love interest Dhiraj (Shayan Munshi). The story starts with Megha waiting at the marriage registration office for Dhiraj to show up but for some reason he does not show up. So Ankush comes in the picture here, who had approached Megha with the intention of earning Rs. 200 for his Witness job and he ends up helping her by providing shelter to her. Ankush grows on his side by working in a bank as an Agent… Ankush falls in love with Megha and she too falls in love with him (or kind of love), both agree for the marriage and Dhiraj comes back in the picture. Unexpected circumstances happen, actually I should say, expected circumstances with unexpected reactions and then….<br /><br />Actually the movie story is bit different than the movies we see and I do not think so it will be accepted by the masses but if you are a movie freak like me and love to watch something different, then you will definitely like the movie. The movie is just an innocent love story drafted very well by the characters of Abhay Deol and Soha Ali Khan. The characters are so natural that you feel as if things are happening to the guy next door. The background music of the film also plays a very good role, it is just too good. The way Delhi is shown is very good and gives a fresh feeling.<br /><br />so let's cut it out and sum it up.<br /><br />Story: A very common story carried very well and transformed to a wonderful experience.<br /><br />Music: Well, as it was Himesh Reshammiya creation, so I did not expect much but still I liked couple of songs of the movie including the Qawwali.<br /><br />Acting: Abhay Deol was the most impressive, very natural and innocent acting but he should stay away from singing in the songs. Soha Ali Khan, she is a doll, a very cute doll I must say. Again very innocent and natural acting and these both actors perfectly fit into their characters. Apart from these two, Shayan Munshi needs some acting lessons and may be few layers of fat to cover the bones. Other actors did their job well.<br /><br />Stars: I would also give it 3.5 stars out of 5. You will enjoy the movie if watched in the theatre, I would recommend watching it in theatre if you are a movie freak and accept uncommon stories. Otherwise wait for the DVD to arrive. The movie will definitely won't be liked by the masses and the business it can do is from word of mouth publicity. | positive |
Irwin Allen put all his talents behind this one: he's co-screenwriter, producer and director of this cartoonish "epic" about an atomic submarine and its efforts to reduce a ring of radiation circling the Earth. Potentially exciting story fails to take off, despite an eclectic cast. Varied players from Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine to Frankie Avalon and Barbara Eden are interestingly intermingled and provide a dash of color, but this soggy sci-fi is pretty cheesy. Good for a few stray laughs, but Allen didn't seem to know the difference between strong, solid adventure and campy nonsense. Later a popular TV series. ** from **** | negative |
I think that, deep down in the darkest, slimiest part of their heart, everyone likes Jerry Springer just a little bit. While his show is undeniably offensive and stupid, it also gives us a chance to see that, relatively speaking, most of us have it real good. When you look at the trailer park livin', dollar whiskey drinkin', incest lovin' people on the Springer show, it makes even your worst day seem like a walk in the park. Jerry is performing a public service, and we should be grateful. He ditched a political career to host the show, just for us.<br /><br />What we should not be grateful for in any way is the piece of garbage movie "Ringmaster". "Ringmaster" shows what life is like for people who wind up being guests on the show, or so they would like us to think. The movie follows the pre-requisite Springer story line: Love triangles. One triangle involves Connie, her daughter Angel, and her husband Rusty. The other involves Starletta, Vonda, and Demond. When the two hapless groups meet up in LA, their lives intertwine and collide head-on, all culminating in an explosive episode of the Springer show. It's like what "Short Cuts" would be if Robert Altman had had a severe crack habit.<br /><br />"Ringmaster" is true to the show, as it is stupid and offensive from start to finish. It also makes me very glad that I don't live in the squalor it's characters do. But the movie has a problem. It's billed as a comedy, but it just isn't very funny. What laughs there are to be had are few and far between. Maybe some people watch this and laugh non-stop. If you think blow jobs and rape are funny, well then I guess you're one of those folks. Personally, I laughed two or three times and spent the rest of the movie in utter awe of the agonizing horrors of white-trash life.<br /><br />The Jerry Springer Show just isn't meant to make the leap from TV to the silver screen. What's funny in an hour long show (less, when you count commercials) isn't necessarily going to be funny in a ninety minute movie. Movies have to tell a story, and that's something else "Ringmaster" has trouble with. The story is threadbare. There are so many plot holes and continuity errors that any attempt at telling a cohesive narrative is quickly put asunder. And even if there weren't such problems, how much fun can you pull out of a story of stereotypical people in a stereotypical story? Even the Hollywood formula couldn't make this better. "Ringmaster: is so bad, it even screws up the best part of the Springer show: the Final Thought. Somehow, even the smartest and simplest aspect of the show wound up blowing harder than the slutty women the film is built around.<br /><br />The worst offender in all of this is Springer himself. He's such a bad actor that he can't even play himself convincingly. Watching Springer play Springer is sad. It's like he was going for a 'What if Woody Allen played Jerry Springer' vibe, and he failed. Miserably. He went to the trouble of producing this disaster, the least he could do is try to make it just that much better.<br /><br />Not that I'm saying everyone else in this movie put in an award worthy performance. Just the opposite. They all suck. Not so surprisingly, no one in this movie went on to greatness. The best any of them was did was Molly Hagan landing a job on a Nickelodeon sitcom. Apparently, Nickelodeon has no problem with hiring a woman who starred in the most vile film of the '90's to star in a children's program. It makes you wonder what kind of things the other adults on that channel have done in their pasts.<br /><br />Here are my Final Thoughts: What we have here is a group of people with no self respect and a man with money to burn, who have met and put their resources together to produce a film that shows how much they hate themselves and how little they think of the intelligence of their viewing audience. Should we accept people who make movies that treat us like severely brain-damaged lumps of goo? I say no. Somewhere out there, in this crazy, mixed up world, there is a perfect movie for each of us. We just have to keep looking for it. Until next time, take care of yourselves and your loved ones. And don't ever watch "Ringmaster". | negative |
This is probably my least favorite episode. I lived in Cape Girardeau for quite some time. I can tell you there is no ocean or shrimp boats, fresh crab or scallops anywhere near Missouri. Cape Girardeau is the only inland Cape, it's on the Mississippi River. It looked like the license plates were from Mississippi, which may explain why there was so much racial tension. Missouri and Mississippi are 2 completely different states that don't touch one another. There are many roads in and out of town and none of them are Route 6 or Route 666. This whole inaccuracy was very distracting. Also, Cassie did not seem like someone who would want to hang around Dean if she was well educated. I did not buy them as a couple and didn't enjoy the lengthy love scene. Jo was more Dean's style. | negative |
If you'd like a great April Fool's joke, then please by all means show this film to someone. However, it is important that you in no way criticize the film but instead talk about what an artistic triumph it is and how "they just don't make great films like this any more". As your victim watches many disconnected and nonsensical scenes (such as a cute dog getting punted for no apparent reason, a cow standing on the bed, a woman licking a statue's feet or Jesus apparently raping a woman), make lots of comments using words like "brilliance", "juxtaposed" or "transcendent"--all the while acting as if the film actually makes perfect sense and isn't a complete waste of an hour of your life. Also be sure to keep a straight face and feign shock when (and if) they say that they either didn't understand it or thought it had all the artistry of a cow patty. Then, to further mess with them, show them all the comments on IMDb, as nearly all (except for a few trouble-makers like almagz and rooprect) talk glowingly about what genius and artistry this film is! By the time you are done with this little charade, they'll most likely think they are idiots and will make an appointment with a psychologist. <br /><br />This, to me, is the ONLY possible reason to watch this horrid mess of a film!!! That, or you could show it to the prisoners at Guantanamo in order to get them to talk!<br /><br />If you ask me, the famous painting of dogs playing poker or a velvet Elvis painting are superior artistically. | negative |
This "documentary" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.<br /><br />There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge. <br /><br />The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that "empty" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the "coup", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said "'cause they weren't there to act against the president", isn't that a confession?<br /><br />There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because "that's politics" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.<br /><br />It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this "documentary", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.<br /><br />I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.<br /><br />Nazi propaganda has returned! | negative |
I wanted to watch this movie because of Eliza Dushku, but she only has a smaller part in it, and her character isn't very likable. However, the main character, played by Melissa Sagemiller, is extremely beautiful and a perfect delight to look at throughout the movie. This is really nothing but a showcase for her looks and talent. She does a very good job.<br /><br />The story itself is, on the face of it, pretty nonsensical. After a car crash, some friends are possibly dead, but keeps on living their previous lives, while all sorts of mysterious things happen. Some bad guys are after them, but we never really find out who they are (possibly they were the ones in the other car, but we certainly don't hear anything about why they are after them). The final scenes especially seem filmically ambitious, but I can't get anything coherent out of it. The opening scene, where the bad guys (who wear some strange masks) cut a blond girl's wrist and gather up some of her blood is never explained or followed up on. Unless the bad guys are supposed to be a representation of the surgeons who're trying to pull Cassie (Sagemiller) back from the dead... but no, that doesn't seem to work. The bad guys are just bad guys; they really just mess up a story that might otherwise have been interesting. In a supernatural story about death and love and sacrifice, who the hell needs bad guys?<br /><br />3 out of 10. | negative |
Christopher Guest need not worry, his supreme hold on the Mockumentary sub-genre is not in trouble of being upstaged in the least especially not by this extremely unfunny jab at RPG-gamers. The jokes are beyond lame. Not enough substance to last the typical length of a (particularly rancid) SNL skit, much less the 87 atrocious minutes I waisted watching this drivel. The great William Katt (Greatest American Hero, House) deserves much MUCH better. One thing and one thing alone makes the fact that I saw this worth it in my mind and that's posting about it on here so hopefully just hopefully I'll save someone such a bad experience.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: 2 Audio commentaries; 7 interviews with various cast members; 4 deleted scenes; & theatrical trailer <br /><br />DVD-Rom extras: 2 Wallpapers <br /><br />Easter egg: Highlight the eye in the picture on the main menu for a short scene | negative |
I didn't think it would be possible for Joe Don Baker to make a movie as bad as his stinkbomb 'Mitchell', but this one succeeds.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this if you're a fan of Joe Don Baker's MUCH better work. But,if you like to watch fat guys sweat and really, really drawn out gun fights, you'll love this movie. | negative |
So the Koreans are now knocking off American horror flicks. But they are doing so with style. DOLL MASTER is a close copy of PUPPETMASTER and DOLLS, and even has a little CHILD'S PLAY going for it. Several young adults are invited to attend a special event at a gallery filled with dolls, only to find they are targets of a vengeful spirit. The dolls come to life and do some pretty nasty things to the kids. The gore level is reasonably high, the photography and set design and production values are first rate, the acting isn't all that bad, and the scares are definitely there. DOLL MASTER may not be in the same league with A TALE OF TWO SISTERS or even DEAD FRIEND, but it's close. Give it a watch. You won't be disappointed. | positive |
Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the "freaks" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a "freak", the discussion of superficialities between the "freak" and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams "martial-arts coordinator") I just don't know. The character named "Steve" irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did "Splatter", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1. | negative |
Starfucker (which reads Starstruck on my box) was the most amazing movie I have ever seen. I thought that it was one of the best movies I have ever seen. So why not a 10? Nothing is perfect. Jamie Kennedy proves why he is one of my favorite actors in this very interesting look at a darker side of Hollywood. I have forced a few others to watch the movie and they all agreed that it was an outstanding flick. | positive |
This movie was just plain bad. Just about every cop movie cliché is present and accounted for. Bad guy gets away? check. Partner? check. Wacky personality clash with partner? check. Rookie with something to prove? check. Rookie shows up grizzled veteran. check. About the only ones it didn't touch on were idiot shoot themselves in the foot and retirony but I guess they're saving those old chestnuts for Dooley's next outing. Add in the battle of the sexes with Girl Power along with tired old sight gags and banal overdone material like Dooley's prize car getting trashed all the time and you have the recipe for one really bad movie. Avoid this one at all costs. | negative |
This is total swill. If you take The Devil's Rejects and suck all the good out of it, and add a lot of twisted, kinky bondage parts, a few rape scenes, and like one or two sincerely horrifying scenes, and you'd get this movie. People are calling this a ripoff of '86's The Hitcher, but I don't see that at all. Even the worst Hitcher ripoffs are still better than this. The main problem on display here is that there's really nothing here besides a few of the director's fetishes being showcased like circus exhibits. Is all you need out of a movie shots of girls being abused and tied up, cowering in fear? Well, then rent this movie!<br /><br />However, I'd rather just watch a good movie, which this is clearly not. The sad thing is, there are some really good thrills waiting to be uncovered here, but only a few. For instance, the suspense at the beginning before the bondage nonsense started...pretty damn good if you ask me. And the scene where the hitchhiker kills the nympho girl (can't remember names) is chilling, very brutal in a way, challenging even The Devil's Rejects for unbridled fury. How come the rest of the movie can't be that good? Huh? I really need to stop renting stupid crap like this. Closing message: Just let this gutter trash die and forget it forever. Not recommended. | negative |
This is a very long movie, indeed. But it is quite beautiful, and a good example to show why cinema can be considered art. A story easily told cannot be expected in Les Amants Réguliers, but every scene, every silence here tells much more than a hundred dialogs. Touching, different, perfect in its pictures and soundtrack, showing why the close brought by the cinema as one of its main features became the greatest innovation in any dramatic representation. Someone who is used to that kind of movies where everything is told, and action takes place all the time, will find this tiring. But it is worth watching, to find out other possibilities of feeling a story. | positive |
Like many of you I am a great fan of the real thing - the 1940s noir films - but Red Rock West was a real treat for all of us longing for the past. The term 'neo-noir' has been so often used inappropriately in the last ten years that it has lost its meaning and its impact. John Dahl's film on the other hand, truly deserved to be described as such. The casting is perfect all around and would have felt right at home with Tay Garnett or Jacques Tourneur. The plot is so tight that you are hooked within the first fifteen minutes. James M. Cain would have appreciated it. Many contemporary films leave me wondering why they don't make them like they used to, and I'm not even that old. Movies such as Red Rock West give us hope for the future while paying tribute to the past. | positive |
8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter had an auspicious start. The supremely-talented Tom Shadyac was involved in the project. This meant that the comedy would be nothing less of spectacular, and that's exactly what happened: the show remains one of the freshest, funniest, wittiest shows made in a very long time. Every line, facial expression, casting choice, scene, all wreaked of perfection. There was not one episode after which I thought, "Man that wasn't as good as the rest". Each one was a standout. Again, this is the kind of perfectionism that we've come to expect from Tom. For those who don't know, Tom Shadyac is the director of Ace Ventura (first movie), The Nutty Professor (first one) and Liar Liar. Quite a résumé. He's a producer here not a director, but his magic touch is felt in every episode.The family consists of:<br /><br />The Father: Paul Hennessy (John Ritter): nice, slightly neurotic, can be a pushover from time to time, works as a sports writer. John unfortunately passed away in 2003 leaving a fond memory and near-sure cancellation contemplations by the suits.<br /><br />The Mother: Cate (Katey Sagal): come on, who didn't fall in love with Katey when she played Peg on Married With Children? Al Bundy was our hero. We viewers gave him the respect and love he never had. But without Peg's nonchalant, parasitic, lazy lifestyle, Al would've probably been just another Chicago dad instead of the mess that Peg (life, actually) caused him to be. Katey was a MILF back then and still is: a brune now (instead of a redhead) and just as buxom as ever. Cate is the conservative mom and loving wife. I know it sounds boring, but comedically, she fits perfectly. <br /><br />The Ditzy Blonde Daughter: Bridget (played to perfection by Kaley Cuoco): almost never has an idiot been played so well. Aside of Gob on Arrested Development, Bridget may well be a shoe-in for any awards given to this archetype. Bridget is shallow, self-centered, not very bright and a tad slutty in his look. She plays the dumb blonde role better than absolutely anyone IMO. Perfection. One of the high-points of the show.<br /><br />The Overlooked Geeky Daughter: Kerry (Amy Davidson): a brune and a geek, she gets no love from life or circumstances. Feels overlooked, under-appreciated and neglected most of the time. She's Bridget's younger sister (in reality she's older than her) and the two's extremely opposite personalities and brains cause endless clashes, to much of our amusement.<br /><br />The Son: Rory (Martin Spanjers): was the second funniest character IMO before the passing of Ritter, then John passes, new characters come and Rory is not the wise-cracking verbal-trouble-maker that he used to: that went mostly to David Spade's character. <br /><br />Those characters were the main ones at the time of John Ritter. Unfortunately enough, the insanely hilarious Larry Miller (one of my favorites) did not get lots of screen time. He played Paul's co-worker/competitor. After an aortic dissection cost Ritter his life in 2003 (September 11th), the show was on hiatus for a while. No one thought it could come back, but it did later on, with a couple of new additions. This began the second phase of the show, and the new characters were:<br /><br />The strict, confident school principal: Ed (Adam Arkin): I saw Adam here and there on talk shows. This was the first time that I saw him do anything. Impressed, is the word I use. His performance was very impressive. Sad he wasn't brought in earlier. He also plays Cate's potential love interest after Paul passes. The gradual progress towards this point (which would've sounded crazy at the beginning) earns the creators lots of praise. It was done slowly, carefully and excellently, with constant respect paid to the Paul (Ritter).<br /><br />The Attitude Grandpa: Jim Egan (James Garner): a surprisingly welcome addition to the series, he was cannon fodder for endless 'old' jokes, mainly by...<br /><br />The 35-year-old unemployed wise-cracking half-brother of the mom: CJ (played to insanely funny heights by David Spade): I knew Spade was funny, I just didn't know he was THIS funny. Somehow, Spade's very familiar presence is sensed inside his character (as opposed to a separable character), which is understandable, since he's a comic and he's on a comedy show. This eerie feeling is kinda like seeing someone borrow lots of material from David Spade's appearances in movies, talk shows and functions (award shows, etc.) and delivering a superb impersonation of Spade's voice and comedy style, except, that it IS Spade. By that I mean you realize he's not trying to play someone else, or a whole new character: he's being the goofy, funny Spade we've come to know, and he takes this pleasantly humorous formula to the absolute top. Every line he uttered, every sarcasm he begot, all classics, literally. Spade was CRAZY-funny; so, SO funny.<br /><br />The show's humor and drama were both upped after the show was back, but audiences thought, "John passed, it ain't gonna be the same anymore". This is understandable, considering we are talking about a group of people (American viewers) who gave 'Yes Dear' a free ride but caused Andy Richter Controls the Universe to be cancelled in no time. As the show's quality increased, its ratings declined. Soon it was no more, sadly. <br /><br />And I saved the best for last: fans of Married With Children are in for a treat. And boy, what a treat it was. I still shiver just remembering it. It's a surprise so good that it would be crazy for me to spoil it, even if I legitimately do it under the "spoiler..." pretext. Suffice it to say that it's something you'll NEVER forget. I know I won't :-) | positive |
I really seldom give either one or ten stars to any movie, but this was so awful, I had to make an exception.<br /><br />I am a SciFi fan and have seen a few comedic takes on SciFi that I genuinely like. There just wasn't anything here to like.<br /><br />I realize this was started with an extremely small budget by a film student. But even considering that, the sets and effect are bad. The cinematography is mediocre, but may be the best part of the movie.<br /><br />The acting is bad. A sad state when the female voice-over for the computer is the best actor. The dialogue is bad. The script is very weak and the plot is incoherent and almost nonexistent.<br /><br />The humor is not just subtle and sublime; it's nowhere to be found. As an example, a whole 20 minutes, of the 80 minute film, is spent on a lame 2 punch combo joke with the alien mascot and the elevator.<br /><br />This was supposed to be a parody of everything from bad 50's SciFi to 2001. What we end up with though, is just a slightly updated version of an old 50's SciFi C-movie. At least those movies were funny because they took themselves seriously. | negative |
Dracula 3000 or Van Helsing "Dracula's Revenge" (Cheap cash in on another lame Vampire flick) as I saw it is a master class in how not to make a movie. A rag tag collection of misfit salvager's board a previously lost cargo ship "The Demeter" in the (cough) Carpathian System (which later is upgraded to the Carpathian Galaxy) and awake a relentless evil (in this case the script). The film is a bizarre bastardization of Event Horizon and whatever the lamest Vampire film of all time is.<br /><br />****Spoliers Follow**** After a plethora of production company logos and a credit sequence that most of the budget must have been blown on, we open with a cheesy exposition type speech from Casper (silly name) who plays Captain Abraham Van Helsing (sillier name) and in lieu of actual character development, goes on to describe the twisted, unintelligible oddities that make up his crew. Van Helsing himself sports a spray on stubble and wears a body warmer throughout in a sort of retro 80's tribute to Han Solo (I guess). Now and again the Captain of the Demeter pops up in some sort of mad video diary to tell us nothing of consequence in a pronounced German accent (subtitles sadly not included). Crewmember Mina boards the derelict ship (alone???) armed only with a gun shaped torch and thick east-European accent while conversing with Van Helsing on his ships bridge (which is basically a single glittery wall). Mina wearing a gas mask with rubber hoses glued to the front, encounters what can only be described as a skateboarder in a black cloak who continually glides by the camera. Why this happens as the Vampire is not yet made flesh is never explained. This leads on to a shaky camera chasing Mina down the hallways until she runs into Humvee. It's possible Will Smith could have been drafted in to write Humvee's lines as most of them consist of Humvee reminding us he is black every ten seconds and saying the word "ass" enough for a Guinness book of records entry while delivering all this in a "from DA hood" accent (this is the year 3000, does "DA hood" even exist?) One of the main problems with this film is that it insanely tries to pretend its set in the year 3000. Unfortunately anyone with healthy eyes won't buy this, as the Demeter looks suspiciously like a soviet style ocean going tanker. Possibly the film crew thought it would be okay to leave hammer and sickle symbols everywhere and a sexy poster of Lenin next to a bunch of lockers and explain it away as some sort of futuristic communist comeback special. The crew's clothes look as if they were raided from a Oxfam collection box (sealed since 1993) and they are armed to the teeth with latest in 20th century automatic weapons (with added year 3000 zing when fired) which of course are absolutely no use against vampires. Healthcare is a thing of the past (in the future) as the simpering Professor not only has glasses but is in a wheelchair??? My god what happened to all that genetic engineering stuff.<br /><br />The professor is an interesting character as he is a direct rip off from Alien Resurrection who had their own rag tag misfit crew with a guy in a wheelchair (who oddly wasn't killed). Fans didn't take to Prof as he appears scared in a lot of scenes If I were entombed in a non-wheelchair access soviet ship pursued by bad acting vampires, and everyone left me because I was such a whining wimp, I'd be scared too.<br /><br />During the UN-dramatic Mina chase scene the prof informs us (with feeling) "this is disconcerting". The rest of his lines are also disconcerting "bugger", and "We're all going to die" X 100, follows.<br /><br />Erika Eleniak appears as the Vice Captain (what happened to 1st officers?) in what I thought would be the tired, standard issue, hard nosed, no nonsense, "don't eye me up unless I tell you too", beat up 10 stuntman at one time super-babe, but this is a Z-flick so she basically wears a tight low cut top and even tighter leather trousers. Coolio's performance boosts the ham factor by 90% and is camper than a row of tents but luckily for us he dies soon enough. Although he seems to keep his heart on the right hand side of his body.<br /><br />After a lot of running up and down the same corridor, using clunky soviet style controls, and sitting in soviet style locker rooms the crew find themselves stranded as their own ship buggers off to find a more interesting crew (probably). Why Dracula is even mentioned is unknown as the main bad guy is called Orlock which is Space Transylvanian for "crimes against fashion" as he dandies about in a big puffy, frilly shirt and even bigger starched collar making Hammer Horror Vampires look slick by comparison. Orlock stops to explain his entire back story (off camera) to Erica Eleniak, but fails to kill her in another rip-off twist from Alien Resurrection. His back story is such a load of mince it's not worth repeating. As the budget can't afford fight coordinators, special effects, original music, script (not written by a chimpanzee) and even proper end titles (the first cast list I saw, were same characters but completely different and Italian names) the film begins to destroy whatever sanity you began with. The crew luckily are able to fight back with the help of a ships computer that contains obscure, millennium old references on how to kill fictional creatures and some handy 20th century pool cues they find in the ship recreation room (up yours "holodeck"). The ending is awful and a little suspect, either they ran out of money or the ex-soviets demanded their ship back. I walked into this film knowing it was bad but oblivious as to how bad it really was. | negative |
Lowe returns to the nest after, yet another, failed relationship, to find he's been assigned to jury duty. It's in the plans to, somehow, get out of it, when he realizes the defendant is the girl he's had a serious crush on since the first grade.<br /><br />Through living in the past by telling other people about his feelings towards this girl (played by Camp), Lowe remembers those feelings and does everything in his power to clear Camp of attempted murder, while staying away from the real bad guys at the same time, and succeeding in creating a successful film at the same time.<br /><br />I've heard that St Augustine is the oldest city in the US, and I also know it has some ties to Ponce de Leon, so the backdrop is a good place to start. Unfortunately, it's the only thing good about this movie. The local police are inept, the judge is an idiot, and the defense counsel does everything in her power to make herself look like Joanie Cunningham! I don't know whether to blame the director for poor direction, or for just letting the cast put in such a hapless effort.<br /><br />In short, this movie was so boring, I could not even sleep through it! 1 out of 10 stars! | negative |
Finally! Other people who have actually seen this show! It is the funniest anime I have ever seen, but most people have even heard about it. It is just hilarious. 'And so kintaro will continue to ride his trusty bike and maybe one day, he will save the world....or maybe not'. tare just some classic bits in it 'and so he will ride onto the next city...because he has no choice since his brakes are broken (study study study)' And some of the lessons that he writes down in his little notebook, 'today i had a very educational experience. I tried to look backwards, but unfortunately I was already looking that way. It hurt. Todays lesson, the human head cannot turn 360 degrees.' | positive |
Just came back from the first showing of Basic Instinct 2. I was going into it thinking it would be crappy based on preview critics and I was pleasantly surprised! If you liked the original Basic Instinct I think you will enjoy #2 just as much if not more. Great story that always keeps you wondering and thinking. The music is superb, reprising the original's theme. Don't go expecting Academy Award material, go to see it for enjoyment and fun. That's what movies are designed for -- escapism. I can't think of a better way to escape than to escape with Sharon Stone who is as sexy as she ever was. Am thinking about going to see it again this weekend. Go see it! | positive |
I'm fan of ART, I like anything about Art, I like paintings, sculptures, etc. This movie shows it, so I like it a lot, it shows how a woman wants to paint anything about Art, especially naked bodies, but she can't do it because of her strict family (father), at the beginning of the movie she painted herself naked, but she wanted a man for her paintings, but her family didn't let her paint naked men because it's against the moral. Even so Artemisia could paint her boyfriend and her art teacher completely naked. She falls in love with her art teacher, and it seems the art teacher is absolutely in love with her too, so at the ending he sacrifices his freedom for hers by lying. He said that he raped her, but it wasn't true. Artemisia fell in love with him, but if she says that she will suffer a lot, because in the trial in which Artemisia, her father and the Art teacher were, somebody was hurting her artistic hands to say the truth. I think this a great movie about ART, and an artistic love, It's worth watching. Valentina Cervi is great as Artemisia, she acts very well, I also like her performance in "The portrait of a lady" as Pansy Osmond. 8.5/10 | positive |
Years ago I was lucky enough to have seen this gem at a >Gypsy film festival in Santa Monica. You know the ending >is not going to be rosie and tragedy will strike but it's >really about the journey and characters and their dynamics and how they all fit into what was "Yugoslavia". >While I am not Yugonostalgic and tend to shy away from >the current crop of "Yugoslavian" films (give me Ademir >Kenovic over late 90s Kustarica) I'd be happy to have the >chance to stumble on this film again, as it shines in my >celluloid memories. Ever since seeing Who's Singing Over >There" 15 years ago I still hear the theme tune, sung by >the Gypsies, ruminating through my head
"I am miserable, >I was born that way
" with the accompanying jew's harp and accordian making the tune both funny and sad. The late, great actor Pavle Vujisic (Muzamer from When Father >was Away on Business) was memorable as the bus driver of >the ill-fated trip in his typical gruff yet loveable manner. Hi | positive |
The only reason I elected to give this flick a shot was due to the presence of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine. All I can say is, it was the greatest waste of a good actor ever put to film. As far as I could tell, Borgnine was the ONLY actor in it. The other performances were so uniformly terrible, I am amazed a studio would actually pay the "performers" to appear. Couple this level of talent in the acting department with a story so plodding and insipid that I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding by the time the credits rolled, and you have a perfect cinematic disaster. Obviously the movie was made to appeal to an audience of children, and to its credit, it was better than most of the original programing on the Disney Channel and similar kid-focused networks. But honestly, that is not saying much. | negative |
Ordinarily, I wouldn't waste the time on reviewing a film like "Human Pork Chop" (the 2001 version, not to be confused with the earlier film of the same title, which is probably better known in the West as "The Untold Story"), but since the reviews already here are quite vague as to what it actually consists of, I figured I'd best post something more detailed, so as no one actually gets tempted (as I was) into buying it because of the film's mystique. I honestly would just say STAY AWAY.<br /><br />**** MAJOR SPOILERS are contained below ****<br /><br />"Human Pork Chop", I was expecting to be like a Chinese interpretation of the popular Japanese "Guinea Pig" films. Anyone who's watched enough of that series can see where its makers are coming from. There's a strong sense of humour running throughout it - you can't watch the ludicrous "He Never Dies" without laughing and "The Making of Guinea Pig" is a fabulous turning of the whole thing on its head, proving it was just made, with some glee, by fairly good natured gorehounds. All the GP films have a punk rock, DIY, shot-on-video aesthetic, occasional flashes of genuine artistry ("Mermaid in a Manhole"), an angry political agenda and a warped, deranged zeal that sets them in a league of their own.<br /><br />"Human Pork Chop" has none of the above.<br /><br />It's shot on 35mm film (with disarmingly good production values), it's 90 gruelling minutes long and it's utterly devoid of anything redeeming. The plot tells, in flashback at a police interviewing of the suspects, of the systematic torture, death and eventual dismemberment of Grace, a heroin-addicted streetwalker who is kidnapped and brutalised by her pimp and his henchmen when she steals money from him.<br /><br />Despite its fleeting attempts at being a morality play, the film possesses a detached, inhumane feel to it and one can't help but dwell on the mindsets of those behind it. Although it half-heartedly paints Grace as an innocent victim, the mean-spirited nature of its screenplay and the protagonist's constant, vicious dialogue veers towards a shocking, utterly unwelcome "she deserves it!" point of view which makes the whole thing almost impossible to watch. Far more time is spent detailing Grace's degradation and when her captors are eventually deemed guilty and jailed, it seems like a hurried afterthought on behalf of the writers who've long since stopped caring less.<br /><br />What makes it boggling as to why anyone would want to watch such a film is that even the kind of people who do REALLY get off on mindless sex and violence in the movies would be severely missing out. The torture is just a continuous stream of kickings, slappings, verbal abuse, psychological abuse and then increasingly bizarre displays of power on behalf of the captors use Grace's heroin addiction to make her do their bidding. And when I say that, don't get me wrong, incidentally. Unlike "Guinea Pig" with it's frequent barrage of nudity that gives an almost teenage feel of mock-titillation to the proceedings in spite of the ultraviolence, "Human Pork Chop" has no such sexual overtones. There isn't any actual nudity in the film and the violence is performed purely out of malice by the odious protagonists (who early in the film are seen stuffing a dog into a bag and banging it against a brick wall - don't worry, not real, just a cheap special effect!).<br /><br />The only actual bloodshed in the film is towards the end when they dismember Grace's body and boil the bones, all very poor special FX (nowhere near "Guinea Pig" level) and, by that stage, you'll probably be already feeling too miserable and sick to even care what's going on.<br /><br />The film is depressingly bleak and uncompromising along a similar line to Buddy Giovinazzo's "Combat Shock" and I guess could even be compared, at a push. Both movies deal with the gradual physical decline of an individual who exists in a nightmarish environment devoid of any social or morally redeemable characters and both movies 'climax' in a particularly visceral manner with the individual's inevitable, inescapable doom.<br /><br />In fairness, neither 'glamourises' it's violence (whereas "Guinea Pig" could easily be accused of this) but one can't help but wonder where the place is for a film like this. It fails to many any real points in its frank presentation of such brutality and with a leaden-pace, a virtually non-existent plot line and the aforementioned lack of any entertainment value, I just can't understand what would encourage anyone to watch something like this. I only made it to the end, purely for the purpose of being able to review it fairly... which I hope I've now done.<br /><br />Overall Score: 0 of of 10. Welcome to the bottom of the barrel. | negative |
Cinderella is a beautiful film, with beautiful songs of course. In fact, it's one of the best films of the 1950's.<br /><br />I think all the characters are portrayed amazingly. You can see the cruelness of Cinderella's stepsisters and her stepmother, the sweetness of Cinderella. The mice are funny and sweet too.<br /><br />I think they changed the tale a bit, but I think it's for the best. It's such a nice film, and I don't think anyone could resist it deep down.<br /><br />I give it a 8/10. I don't think it's the best Disney film. But it sure is a true classic. | positive |
This has to be one of the all time greatest horror movies. Charles Band made the best movie of 96' in this little seen gem. Highly realistic and , incredibly stylised- with a visual flair David Fincher would envy, its not hard to see why Band went on to make such classics as 'Killjoy 2: Deliverance From Evil', 'The Regina Pierce Affair', 'Virgins of Sherwood Forest', and 'Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps'.<br /><br />With a highly sophisticated story- a tiny body with a large head controls a family of weirdos who perform experiments on naked women, this movie may be a bit too much for younger viewers and is only for the most educated type of viewer, but for those who see it, Band is able to convey subtle messages about the human condition through his masterpiece. The head is symbolic of the lost love and longing for one's inner self that we all must face at one point or another, and for this reason i was able to engage with this film on a deeply personal level. Although many earlier critics have compared Band's film to Re-animator and other lesser works, this stands head and heels above the rest. It is gorier, but not pointlessly. The gore in this film is well crafted and used to enhance the storyline, rather than to just get a cheap shriek out of the audience. Also, the special effects in this film are absolutely top notch, easily the best work done in a horror film since... well... ever! The work in this film makes Savini's effects look like the work of a blind, limbless hobo.<br /><br />The only problem i have with this film is the copious amounts of full frontal nudity, which were ultimately unnecessary in achieving the composer's goal- to create a timeless epic that would forever go down in history as possibly the greatest film of all time. If it were not for this slight problem i would have given this film a perfect 10. | negative |
I haven't laughed this much in a long time - or seen a film so ineptly made! Talk about so bad it made me laugh!<br /><br />Firstly, I estimate that for about 40 percent of the film's length, I couldn't tell what was happening, or indeed even what I was seeing. I can only describe the camera work as frenetic meets LSD. There are whole segments, minutes long, where all you can see are blurred flashes and fragments of cave wall, people and various other unidentifiable stuff. I spent half the film asking my teenage daughters what was happening, but they couldn't follow it any better than me.<br /><br />Then there are the "black" moments, when in an effort to scare us (woooooooo) everyone's lights go out and the screen turns pitch black - and I don't just mean for a few seconds. I think the longest lasted almost two minutes. I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...<br /><br />I suspect the "director" had recently read a book on all the "must-do's" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.<br /><br />There are three good things about this film: 1/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them). 3/ There was one genuinely good scene - when the group are looking up the shaft they came down, after discovering their rope fallen to the bottom (saw THAT coming), a large boulder is pushed across the opening, sealing them in. I WASN'T expecting that, and it was genuinely chilling.<br /><br />And what's with the early campfire scenes with the shot, after shot, after shot panning from behind the camp lights. I swear the director used almost the same shot about 20 times in 5 minutes.<br /><br />And I'm positive that after the first kill, the EXACT same footage of blood on the cave floor is used twice in about 90 seconds.<br /><br />All in all, a CRAP piece of film making. I'll watch almost anything, but this is close to where I'd draw the line. | negative |
Alicia Silverstone (pre-"Clueless") plays a modern-day crime-obsessed teenager attempting to solve the brutal slaying of a local girl. Pat Verducci wrote and directed this B-flick, which isn't especially well-made but is however surprisingly serious-minded in regards to its leading character. Silverstone is appealing and successful in carving out an interesting young woman here, despite the picture's kitschy undermining. The supporting cast (including Kevin Dillon and Michael Bowen) isn't bad, though the violence in the last act goes overboard. Not a cheesy camp-fest, but nothing exceptionally memorable either. *1/2 from **** | negative |
Watch on the Rhine is one of the best anti-nazi propaganda films made during World War Two. Paul Lukas was certainly deserving of his Oscar. Bette Davis shines brilliantly as the great actress and beauty she was. I would recommend this film to those interested in that era, and, of course, the fabulous films of the late, great, Ms. Bette Davis. | positive |
I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.<br /><br />Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.<br /><br />Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.<br /><br />My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)<br /><br />Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much... | negative |
The plot for Black Mama White Mama, revolves around two female inmates, at a women's prison in the Phillipines. One Black, and one White. These two women, are thrown together in the prison. Pam Grier is Lee Daniels Lee is incarcerated in the hellish women's prison, for dancing as a harem girl. <br /><br />Lee's boyfriend owes her part of his profits, from his drug-dealing activities. Lee is mainly interested in breaking out of the prison to get hold of her beau's drug money, so that she can leave the Phillipines and assume a better life. Margaret Markov plays Karen Brent, a white women from a privileged background, who is also a revolutionary. Karen has joined a group of revolutionaries, determined to change the corrupt Phillipino political system. She's captured by Phillipino authorities, and held as a political prisoner.<br /><br />The story-line takes-off, when Karen and Lee break out of the prison they were in together. The two of them also happened to be chained together at the wrist. As they flee, they also fight with each other, because they have different goals to pursue. Naturally, they hate being chained together. But they also realize that they must put aside their differences, to help each other survive while they evade capture.<br /><br />If this film seems very similar to The Big Bird Cage, it's because much of the cast in the two films is the same, as well as their location in the Phillipines. Roger Corman, has always had a consistent stable of actors, that he used in all of his 70s B movies. Besides Pam Grier, Sid Haig, Roberta Collins, Claudia Jennings, Betty Anne Rees, and William Smith, were also among the many actors that were frequently cast, in Corman's AIP films.<br /><br />Like The Big Bird Cage, Black Mama White Mama, relies on too much gory violence to be palatable. Pam Grier conveys her usual tough chick persona in this film, and shows her competence as a female action heroine. Margaret Markov is less effect, in her portrayal of the revolutionary Karen. She just seems to fragile and well-coiffed, to be a dedicated political guerrilla. Except for Sid Haig, as the colorful Ruben, the rest of the cast is forgettable.<br /><br />This film has little entertainment value, unless excessive, heinous acts of violence are your thing. Only the performances by Pam Grier and Sig Haig, make this film worth watching. | negative |
I agree with many of the negative reviews posted here, for reasons I will go into later on. But this miniseries is powerful and convincing because the talented cast really captures the dark truth of Hitler's world.<br /><br />Peter Stormare is perfect as Ernst Rohm, the brutal Brownshirt leader. Each scene he has with Hitler is explosive! Hitler is so evil he dominates everyone but the thuggish, primitive Rohm -- and he clearly digs Rohm for just that reason. The interplay between Stormare and Carlisle illuminates the way Hitler relished Rohm's brutality, but later sacrificed him for political reasons.<br /><br />Jena Malone turns in a heartrending performance as Geli Raubal, Hitler's doomed niece and the victim of his unspeakable perversions. Without revealing any of the sexual filth directly, Jena Malone plays out all the horror of the slow extinction of a young girl's spirit. She uses her eyes and voice to suggest all the horror that will be visited on millions in the years to come. And she's brilliant! Zoe Telford very nearly matches Jena Malone with her portrayal of Eva Braun. Eva is clearly sick, cruel and heartless -- but at the same time almost pitiably dependent on her Adolph's twisted tenderness. The aborted lovemaking scene between them (hinting at the spine tingling truth of Hitler's enormous self-loathing) is both chilling and erotic.<br /><br />Liev Schrieber gives a deliciously weasel-like performance as Putzi Hanfstaengel, the spineless man-about-town who is seduced by Hitler's promises of wealth and power. While a brute like Rohm simply loves the idea of crushing skulls under his boots, Schrieber's character is one of many Germans who abhors Nazi violence but can't resist the quick and easy route to money and power. His weak-willed fawning over Hitler soon loses him the respect of his wife, played with style and sensuality by the stunning and regal Julianna Margulies. They provide a true portrait of marriage and betrayal.<br /><br />These performances carry the mini series along, easily overcoming occasional weaknesses in the script. There is one exception. Regrettably, Matthew Modine's acting chops just aren't up to snuff. His noble lunk-haid journalist ruins every scene he has -- the viewer can hardly wait for Rohm's brown-shirts to stomp that smug, righteous look off his ignorant, corn-pone low-rent Hollywood golden boy face. But the story still works.<br /><br />Now in regard to the factual inaccuracies of the script -- Hitler's perversions and cruelty are rendered in a vibrant, compelling drama. But the battlefield record of Corporal Hitler is badly distorted. As if afraid the audience can't handle the idea of evil and courage in the same person, the writers make Hitler look like a whining coward who "begged" for an Iron Cross. As if anyone in the Kaiser's Army could get a medal just by whining about it! The movie makes it look as if Hitler were a coward in the trenches, when he was a fearless soldier. They also suggest his comrades despised him, when in reality he was widely admired by officers and enlisted men alike. The depressing thing is that the mini-series succeeds so well in representing Hitler as a monster in honest ways -- but they just couldn't resist the cheap shot.<br /><br />All in all, however, Hitler: RISE OF EVIL is a soaring success highlighted by powerful performances. | positive |
It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say "Never again!" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.<br /><br />Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other "canonical" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu. | negative |
I do agree with everything Calamine has said! And I don't always agree with people, but what Calamine has said is very true, it is time for the girls to move on to better roles. I would like to see them succeed very much as they were a very inspirational pair growing up and I would like to see them grow as people, actresses and in their career as well as their personal life. So producers, please give the girls a chance to develop something that goes off the tangent a bit, move them into a new direction that recognises them individually and their talents in many facets. This movie that is being commented is not too bad, but as I have seen further on in their movies, their movies stay the same of typical plot and typography. When In Rome is good for audiences of younger generation but the adults who were kids when the twins were babies want to follow the twins in their successes and so hence I think we adults would like to see them make movies of different kinds, maybe some that are like the sixth sense, the hour, chocolat, that sort of movie - not saying to have just serious movies for them, humour ones too yes, but rather see them in different roles to what they have been playing in their more recent movies like this one and New York Minute. (Note: I am from Australia so excuse my weird spelling like reognise with the s instead of z) | negative |
THE OTHER is a supposed "horror" movie made during the 1970s. It is not to be confused with the similarly titled THE OTHERS, which starred Nicole Kidman.<br /><br />The plot is as follows - a woman with strange supernatural powers teaches her twin grandsons something referred to simply as "the game". One of these twin boys - Niles - is supposed to be "good". The other one - Holland - is supposed to be evil.<br /><br />The idea sounds interesting enough as an abstract concept and the movie was adapted from a novel. I can only hope the novel was interesting as the movie was incredibly boring from beginning to end.<br /><br />The execution of this movie is very much like a TV movie of the kind UK residents might see on Channel 5. In fact, this movie looks like it was made to be the daytime afternoon movie for this TV channel. A slight trimming to one or two scenes and this would be a U-rated movie of the kind Disney produce. But even the youngest of children are more likely to be bored than scared by THE OTHER.<br /><br />You don't need to check out the director's CV to realise horror is not his forte.<br /><br />Mr. Mulligan relies heavily upon the characters to drive the story. This is obvious from the get-go. I haven't seen any of his other movies but TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a highly regarded crime movie on this site. Unfortunately in THE OTHER, the characters are given too little to do and the plodding script ensures the movie never really takes off in the way one might expect.<br /><br />The direction is as bland as you could possibly find. Almost every single scene takes place in the daytime! Think about this - a scene shot in the open landscape in rural America during daytime with the camera focusing on vast area. Does it sound scary or atmospheric? Believe me, it isn't. It comes across as something more akin to an episode of LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE than a horror movie. And yes, both the aforementioned TV series and THE OTHER were shot in California.<br /><br />There is a noticeable absence of danger or malice that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless.<br /><br />The ending was clearly meant to be highly disturbing and perhaps influenced that of another movie from this time period. I won't reveal which movie but I'll give 2 clues - a young boy was a main character and the movie is well-known. And I'll add that the concept was used to much greater effect in the latter movie.<br /><br />The acting is actually quite good and is the only reason why I have awarded 2 stars. The actors playing the twin boys, along with the actress playing the grandmother, all try hard with the poor material they are given.<br /><br />Diana Muldaur is completely wasted in a thankless role as the mother of the twin boys. Do not be fooled by her high billing on the cast list. She gets very little screen time and her presence just comes across as a ploy to cash-in on her long established TV career in order to help attract TV viewers.<br /><br />I paid careful attention to the blurb on the back of the DVD cover (of the Region 2 version in the UK). Comparisons were made to THE EXORCIST, which I thought was a complete insult to that movie. There is no comparison. THE EXORCIST had everything this movie should contain but does not - suspense, tension, tongue-in-cheek humour, highly disturbing content, great acting, superb characterisation and viewer involvement. Ironically, THE EXORCIST was made only a year later but in terms of style and execution seems like decades ahead of the bland drama known as THE OTHER. THE OTHER comes across as a work that would have seemed tame in the 1950s let alone the 1970s!<br /><br />The 1970s was a great era for horror movies with classics such as THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, SALEM'S LOT to name just a few being produced. For this reason, THE OTHER proves an even greater disappointment.<br /><br />If anyone finds the synopsis of THE OTHER interesting, they might want to read the book or do a little more research on what the book was about. I would advice everyone to skip the movie. | negative |
Okay they tell you it's real. They don't list any screenwriters or directors, but one viewing of this movie will prove to anyone - It's not real in the way you were hoping for. The speaking rarely sounds like real natural talk...but also down not sound to be scripted. (possibly loosely scripted). To me it sounded much more like they were always trying to ad-lib. (which they almost always did poorly). Therefore, they knew they were making a 'movie', not just collecting real natural footage. So I'm sure these people knew what was going on, knew they had certain spots to look for things that were set up...and they were just told to ad-lib around it all.<br /><br />*************'Major Spoilers'**************** *****************************************<br /><br />Okay, it's so lame. Every item, spot or thing that could be strange or use d as a scare, is magically stumbled upon by these people. Let me list off the ridiculously obviously faked things that happened that I remember:<br /><br />1) Less than 2 minutes of entering the house, they turn a light switch on - the light sparks and a chandelier almost falls on a guy.<br /><br />2) They happen to find an old medical bag with a bloody butcher knife* in it, while exploring the cellar.<br /><br />3) They hear a noise in an armoire, so they open the door slowly - BAM - a cat happens to be in there and jumps straight at the camera while shrieking.<br /><br />4) Then they happen to notice there is a hole in the wall, so let's stick our hand in...wow, they pulled out a doll of a baby wrapped in mummy tape.<br /><br />5) Let's go to the attic, uh-oh it feels 'heavy' up here....BOOM - a chair flies across the room.<br /><br />6) Time to eat. Oh no ! The girl that was scared of bugs had a ROACH in her sandwich ! LOL !....ridiculous.<br /><br />7) Let's get out the Ouija board...oops one of the legs on the planchette fell off the side of the board. That couldn't be because the people were pushing it could it ? (they find out a ghost there is named Charles)<br /><br />8) Wait ! What was that noise in the chimney...CLINK - oh my shackles fell out "I think she* kept people up here".<br /><br />9) Now wimpy girl is going to brave looking up the chimney shaft...oh, what's this she sees something...and is asking people who aren't looking up the chimney what it is. SWISH - It falls off straight at her. (perfect camera shot) She moves just in time. It was more chain.<br /><br />10) Now we have to separate and each 'cleanse' our designated rooms - wouldn't it be something if things started happening one by one to these people now...okay:<br /><br />CHICK #1: Wow, suddenly her room is shaking...but no one elses does.<br /><br />DUDE #1: Actually says to himself "Charles, is that you Charles...it can't be you because you're just a figment of my imagination aren't you Charles". Well guess what, he gets knocked over and dragged across the floor. Another lucky camera shot.<br /><br />CHICK #2: Hears things..try to communicate ...and is standing there getting abrasions or something.<br /><br />DUDE #2: He was in the attic, reached his arm through a hole in the floor and got a splinter....I don't remember what else.<br /><br />11) Dude #2 runs, gets Chick #2...they hear chick and dude #1 screaming...they find them chained to a wall and strapped to a table.(*) They leave. Cut to black. Final text tell us they escaped safely, were treated for minor cuts. They have since had nightmares and insomnia, we also find out the next day a 911 call was made by they name a someone named "Charles".<br /><br />*************'Major Spoilers'**************** ******************over********************<br /><br />Okay, when I first heard this movie was being made, I couldn't wait. I thought it was going to be real. REAL, real. - and more professional, with more professional type people. I love the idea of this type of thing, I'd love to see real haunting footage. Before this movie was released I saw couple reviews of it by people online. They both claimed how fake it was and how stupid the people were.. time passed I forgot about the film....then I realized It was never released at theaters. So I found out it went straight to video, rented it....found that every brutal review was completely true. It's too bad, I really wanted this to be good.<br /><br />Random thought: The house didn't seem to have TVs, radios..kitchen appliances that I recall...which would make me think no one has lived there for a long time. Especially the house is truly known for being haunted...im pretty sure no one lives there. But it looks so clean and tidy...and what was a cat doing there ? The property does not have near by neighbors....<br /><br />All-in-all, you'll only want to rent this if you and your friends wanna sit there and make fun of it...or if you heard about it a long time ago and it intrigued you. (you will will be disappointed if you are expecting a good film...or real film)<br /><br />Random thought: I believe the producer says "The 'footage' you see is real". Well technically it is real footage isn't it ? Real footage of fake hauntings ? Maybe that was his loop hole.<br /><br />I give this this movie one star - strictly on the fact that they told the story of Madame LaLaurie. A real New Orleans story.<br /><br />The best performance was by the guy who teaches the participants about the ghost hunting equipment in the beginning. He was obviously actually real...or a good actor.<br /><br /> | negative |
It kept my attention to the end, however, without spoiling the film for anyone....... when she fixed the fridge by getting a book from the library, you knew how the film would end when she went back to library for a book on self defence against and assassin. The film, for me, said nothing of worth.... is becoming an assassin really a remedy for mental illness or just another symptom. | negative |
This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.<br /><br />At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.<br /><br />***Careful, spoilers ahead***<br /><br />It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliché sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say `heavy handed?' I knew you could!<br /><br />I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.<br /><br />This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were `Rabbi Ray explains it all' or `Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.<br /><br />I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.<br /><br />I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time. | negative |
I actually joined this site simply to write in about this movie. I was sitting in my living room and this movie came on one of the local channels. I made it about an hour through before I simply had enough. Curious to see what the general movie-opinionated public thought of this movie, I looked it up on this site. I was absolutely shocked to see that there were an overwhelming amount of people that thought it was great. I needed to have my say, and here it is: This movie is absolute garbage. It was a chore to sit through. The "jokes" were uninspired rehashes from other, better shows and movies, and Leguizamo's manic portrayal of this obnoxious character should only appeal to age ten and below. That actually may be a stretch even for that age. I'm all for slapstick ridiculousness, but there isn't even the faintest hint of wit or cleverness. I have an idea, lets take bad uninspired obvious jokes and play them at twice the speed. Now that's funny. Ha. Ha.<br /><br />Movies that you should see that take silly humor and add comic timing and originality: The Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,...and the list goes on. Don't lose an hour and a half of your life on unmemorable crap.<br /><br />By the way, I can only assume that the reason that David Bar Katz (the other writer) did VERY little in film after this movie is because he was instantly blacklisted. I'm actually impressed that Leguizamo was able to recover after this mess. | negative |
This is yet another depressing and boring film about AIDS and tragedy. It begins very uneventful and predictable and continues throughout the movie. I kept waiting for it to pick-up, but unfortunately it never did. The acting is fair, but the script needs A LOT of work. And if you're looking for the nudity, don't waste your time with these not so hot actors. Due to the poor sound quality and lack of captions, I missed 1/8 of the movie. If you have never seen over five gay films, or have recently come to terms with being gay, you may find this film interesting, otherwise it's your run-of-the-mill low budget movie. It ranks as one of the worst gay films I have ever seen. | negative |
Channel 4 is a channel that allows more naughty stuff than any of the other channels, this show was certainly a naughty one. The presenter of this sometimes gross adult chat show, Four-time BAFTA winning and British Comedy Award winning (also twice nominated) Graham Norton was just the perfect gay host for a good show like this. It had one or more famous celebrities in the middle of it. They basically had an adult idea which would either gross, humiliate or humour the guest, but some are not for the faint-hearted. They had women playing the recorder with their parts, men using their dicks to play a xylophone, women weeing upwards in the bath, men with or without pants under their kilts, and many more gross but hilarious ideas. This is just for adults, but enjoy it! It won the BAFTA twice for Best Entertainment (Programme or Series), it won the British Comedy Awards for Best Comedy Entertainment Programme (also nominated), Best Comedy Talk Show, it won an Emmy for episode #18 (?), and it won the National Television Awards twice for Most Popular Talk Show. It was number 52 on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good! | positive |
I have watched this episode more often than any other TFTC episode, it is that enjoyable. And it is quite scary, but all in good, ghoulish fun. A woman kills her 2nd husband but runs into a problem when an escaped maniac in a ragged Santa Claus outfit decides to pay her and her little girl a visit at that very moment. Mary Traynor, who I seem to remember from SNL or some other TV comedy skit show, is the evil wife, and Larry Drake plays the lunatic in the dingy Santa outfit. I had forgotten Santa was played by Drake over the years. His Santa is an unstoppable force and quite frightening at times. You can probably guess how Santa finally gets into the house. The episode is played for laughs, but it also can be pretty intense at times. | positive |
"The Spirit of St. Louis" is Billy Wilder's film tribute to one of the best figures in aeronautical history, remembered for the first nonstop solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean in May 1927 with James Stewart (a little too old for the part) playing Charles Lindbergh...<br /><br />As a tribute it is eloquent enough and, although a few nice liberties may have been taken with historical fact, the motion picture describing the detailed odyssey before and after the Paris flight on May 20-21 in the monoplane "Spirit of St. Louis."<br /><br />Although the lengthy internal monologue employed during the journey may be disappointing to an audience, the truth is that it helps keep the picture focused tightly on its essential point... Stewart dignified the portrait of one of the greatest adventurers in the air the world has ever know, departing, in a highly modified single engine monoplane, from Long Island, New York to Paris, France...<br /><br />No action is depicted in the trip, only some flashbacks to break up the monotony of the long flight... But there is superb determination of the ordeal of a brave and talented pilot decided to fly alone... His equation is simple: less weight (one engine, one pilot) would increase fuel efficiency and allow for a longer flying range, but with so much risk... Lindbergh's claim to fame was doing something that many had tried and failed...<br /><br />Even though Wilder has bravely put it upon the screen in a calm, unhurried fashion, it comes out as biography of intense restraint and power... But it is James Stewart's performance (controlled to the last detail) that gives life and strong, heroic stature to the principal figure in the film...<br /><br />From it there, emerges an awareness of a clever, firm but truly humble man who tackles a task with resolution, plans as much about it as he can, makes his decisions with courageous finality and then awaits with only one thought in mind, to get to Paris... In his efforts to cut off the plane's weight, any item considered too heavy or unnecessary was left behind...<br /><br />The record-setting flight proved not only to be a fight with the elements and a test of navigation, but also a long battle against fatigue... A busy schedule and an active mind kept Lindbergh up all of the previous night... Still, he managed to stay conscious enough to keep the monoplane from crashing and landed at Le Bourget Aerodrome, near Paris, 33 hours and 30 minutes after leaving New York...<br /><br />Stewart gives an able portrait of a brave pilot who attains legendary status, emphasizing the intention and dominant resolution to fly nonstop 5,810 kilometers (3,610 miles) across the Atlantic...<br /><br />Photographed in CinemaScope and WarnerColor and backed by Franz Waxman's beautiful music, the film effectively captures the pioneering spirit of the era and the hero's ultimate achievement since he takes off, that day, from Roosevelt wet field, and clears telephone wires at the end of the runway... | positive |
As Americans, we have come to expect crapiness as "par for the course" when it comes to HORROR and unknown directors directing unknown actors acting for unknown writers. We truly expect this to suck & when they don't suck,it becomes an over night success.<br /><br />This is NOT an over night success, nor is it an over the weekend or over the month success. This blows from start to finish and my only recommendation is this: GO INTO THIS KNOWING IT SUCKS, enjoy it for what it is, for what it isn't & if you have something better to do, keep this on the back WAY BACK burner. It's entertaining in the way watching the elderly cross a busy street during rush hour, but don't expect much-they almost never get hit by an actual car, its just a lot of hoopla. | negative |
It is apparent that director, writers and everyone else knows nothing about their own religion or the people who practice it. This movie is endlessly flawed and overall a complete crock.<br /><br />For instance, there is a scene where the rabbi enters the woman's ritual bath while a naked woman is bathing, puts his hand on the head of a woman there and blesses her. This is complete mockery of the laws, in this scene alone some of the laws broken include: Modesty, a rabbi would never enter a ritual bath house while there are woman in it.<br /><br />Improper contact, a rabbi would never put his hand on a woman's head, not to mention that it is not the way a blessing is given.<br /><br />The woman from the ritual bath is dunking a naked woman by pushing her head under the water, the laws regarding ritual bathing require the entire body to make direct contact with the bath water; this means nobody should be in contact with the person bathing, certainly not pushing them under!<br /><br />There was more just in that scene alone, like dunking 13 times (where does that concept even come from?) not to mention the rest of the movie was a total fallacy. It is scary what ignorance can concoct! | negative |
This is one of the most insipid, lackluster, unoriginal, and pointless movies ever made! It almost feels like everyone involved in this project didn't even try to make an appealing movie. This is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of Smokey and the Bandit, which I think is the best film of them all. As for this waste of film stock, Burt Reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie, Jim Nabors is wasted, the other actors aren't given very much to do, the car races are obviously stock footage, the humor is uninspired, and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. "Stroker Ace" is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it. | negative |
This has to be one of the worst movies ever to come out of the Sci-Fi Channel. Here is how the movie starts, Women are the only humans on this planet due to the fact that in the not to distant future chemical warfare is A OK as long as it only targets soldiers (In case your wondering, Men) However the virus back fires (Big shock)and all the men on earth slowly die. Then all of male kind is condemned to die when the madam president is shot and killed by a man. now we are taken around 60 to 70 years from now, two female scientists are working on cloning a female baby and one of them says "Hey, why don't we bring men back?" The other one says no the world is not ready for that, but promptly ignores her and thus a man walks the Eath again.<br /><br />First off, this movie assumes that all men who are not genetically altered are blood thirsty monsters. Secondly, the writer forgot to mention that present day soldiers are a good mix of Male and Female officers so there is no real reason to have a virus like that. This is the biggest waist of time you can find. This movie managed to insult my intellect not only by the bad story, but with the Lifetime style acting. Avoid this movie at all costs.<br /><br />I give this a 1 out of 10 but only because I could go no lower. | negative |
i am 13 and i hated this film its the worst film on earth i totally wasted my time watching it and was disappointed with it cause on the cover and on the back the film it looks pretty good, but i was wrong its bad. but when i saw delta she was totally different and a bad actress and i really didn't know how old the 2 girls was trying to be i was so confused. the film was in some parts confusing and i didn't enjoy it at all but i watched all the film just to see if it was going to get better but it didn't, it was boring,dull and did i say BORING.and i don't think many other people liked it as well as me.boring boring boring | negative |
One True Thing proves that it's the characters which make a movie. Streep will surely receive an Oscar nomination for her role. A beautiful drama, One True Thing is a prime example of movie-making in the late 1990's - there are still people out there who care about making and watching movies other than the big blockbusters with million dollar special effects. It's no Best Picture or anything... don't be silly. But the amount of emotion that was delivered by both the actors and the writer hit me like a shock-wave. I cried twice in this movie, which says a lot for a 24 year old man. | positive |
A beautiful, magical, thought-provoking and heart-warming story. Excellent direction, perfect cast, marvellous script, excellent score, beautifully lit...... need I say more?<br /><br />If you love films that not only make you think but also warm your heart (some that spring to mind are 'Contact', 'Field of Dreams' and 'Groundhog Day') then you're sure to love K-PAX.<br /><br />Most highly recommended. | positive |
I saw this for Gary Busey and Fred Williamson thinking they were buddy cops. They are but Busey is in the opening scene then doesn't show up again until like 40 minutes into the movie. Though every scene he's in is awesome. Especially when he disguises himself as a blind hobo.<br /><br />What's incredible about this movie is the plot. In the movie Fred Williamson is trying to find out who stalking and killing phone sex operators. At one point I think thats its Busey. But it turns out I'm only partly right. Busey is not the killer, but he is calling up and harassing the women over the phone. Why? I don't know. In no way is he connected to the killer, he just does it for kicks I guess. | negative |
There were many 'spooky' westerns made in the 30s and early 40s, and although this has a strong beginning, it isn't one. Randy Bowers (John Wayne) stopping at a 'Halfway House' saloon, finds it to be full of dead bodies, the bartender's corpse draped over the bar holding a gun, eyes watching Randy from behind holes cut through eyes in a picture, and a player piano playing "The Loveliest Night of the Year." <br /><br />It was the result of a robbery by the Marvin Black gang, to get Ed Rogers' $30,000. Randy is an investigator who "works alone," who wastes little time in getting arrested, escaping (with Ed's daughter Sally's help) and literally landing in the midst of the Black gang's hideout behind a waterfall. It all moves along fairly quickly. Only one too many chases after Randy slow it down.<br /><br />We even get George Hayes, clean shaven and playing two parts-- Marvin Black, the vilest villain, as well as the Good Citizen, Matt the Mute, who communicates via handwritten messages. Having him play two opposite roles was a good idea, but the writing down of messages thing gets old real fast, even for him, as he finally gives up doing it near the end saying to Sally, "Ah, I'm fed up with this!" You can find George playing a vile, vile, double crossing villain in the serial "The Lost City" (1934).<br /><br />I think this is the only 'Lone Star' film in which the title relates to, or is mentioned in the film! Sally offers her hand to Randy and says, "He's not alone anymore!" Then cut to their arms around each other as they look out facing a lake. Sally's running off with Randy seems too abrupt and not sufficiently prepared for. Too much time spent on horseback escaping the sheriff.<br /><br />Not that bad considering everything, but not that great either. I'd really give it a 4 and a half. | negative |
I first saw this when they showed this around easter time 1993/4 and didn't think much of it then, I bought this on DVD last summer when I started getting into Michael Jackson (I liked his music before) and enjoyed it more now I am older. It is a good film but it won't be this classic film like The Sound Of Music, West Side Story, The Wizard Of Oz etc. Michael Jackson as an actor was good and so were the other cast members. There were a disturbing scenes like the little girl Katie getting slapped by the gangster Frankie Lideo who was played by Joe Pesci. The scene that frightened me when I was younger was when Michael turns into a robot. My favourite song on the film was Smooth Criminal I think it was better than Thriller in my opinion. | positive |
Supposedly, director William Shatner had in mind a much 'darker' film when it came to 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier' but the suits at Paramount, looking at the huge box-office receipts taken in by its humor-filled predecessor, insisted the new film have plenty of laughs too. So what we get is arguably the weakest and goofiest of the six Star Trek movies with the original cast. There are bad ideas aplenty, along with a few good ones, and if you're in a charitable mood, you could look at 'The Final Frontier' the same way you would a so-so episode of the TV series. On the plus side, Laurence Luckenbill is a fine actor and gives one of the best 'guest star' performances in any Star Trek, big or small screen, ranking right up there with William Windom's Commodore Decker. His portrayal of Sybok, Spock's half-brother, consistently lifts the film when it threatens to sink, which happens all too frequently. Charles Cooper is good too as the fat old Klingon General Korrd; too bad his role isn't as large as he is. If the story about Shatner's intentions is true, then I owe him an apology, because I was prepared to lay the blame for the incessant silliness and not-very-convincing action scenes squarely at his directorial feet. The reason is I've always felt that, of all the Trek regulars, Shatner was the least 'tuned-in' to everything that makes Star Trek work and what makes it special to its fans. Having read his Trek memoirs, it's very apparent to me that he considered the show another action-adventure series that just happened to have a science-fiction setting. He preferred the vision of Gene Coon over that of Gene Roddenberry; Coon was known for his work on the popular western series, 'The Wild Wild West.' Shatner also mentioned that a favorite Star Trek episode of his was 'A Piece of the Action,' a silly second-season episode co-written by Coon. So, finally given an opportunity to direct a Star Trek feature film, would not Shatner follow his instincts and produce an action-filled flick with lots of tongue-in-cheek humor? Well somebody did, because that's what 'The Final Frontier' ended up being. Shatner himself definitely returns to form as The Great Ham and, as Leonard Maltin points out, the film suffers from a bad case of 'the cutes.' In the opening scene at Yosemite National Park, it's hard to say which is worse, the super-cheesy special effects or the godawful dialogue. Running gags about equipment malfunctioning on the Enterprise have run all the way from 'Wrath of Khan' and by this, the fifth Trek movie, have run themselves into the ground. So has the idea of a 'skeleton crew'. One new development is an apparent romantic relationship between Scotty and Uhura and suffice it to say one does not exactly sense flames of passion burning between the two. It's a pointless subplot and adds nothing. The climactic scene where 'God' is encountered doesn't add much either; whether or not this was a good idea in the first place is debatable, but the scene itself doesn't make much sense. (The 'God' creature's abilities seem to vary according to what is needed at the moment.) Roughly half of this is a tired retread of the climax from 'The Search for Spock.' Leonard Nimoy manages to salvage Spock's integrity, even while spouting such un-Spock-like lines as "Get a grip on yourself, Doctor." And DeForest Kelley, as usual, outperforms both Shatner and Nimoy; he really came on as an actor in the final Trek films. So this Trek outing isn't terrible, it just isn't very good. There was to be one more original cast Trek movie before the baton was passed to the 'next generation,' and it was far better suited to the task than 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.' | negative |
Enormous fun for both adults and children, this film works on numerous levels: there is everything from car crashes and cake in the face to some very good (yet subtle) jokes for adults.<br /><br />Glenn Close is at her sublimely evil best as Cruella (`call me Ella') De Ville.<br /><br />After three years in Dr. Pavlov's Behaviour Modification Clinic she is cured of her desire for fur even the puppy-skin fur she had so intensely desired. She even has all of her fur coats placed in the dungeon of the extraordinary castle she inhabits.<br /><br />But it wouldn't be a Dalmatian' movie without the subterfuge and machinations of Cruella and you know that something will change her behaviour modification. And now she needs one extra puppy (hence 102 Dalmatians) to complete her nefarious scheme this time round.<br /><br />Ioan Gruffudd is instantly appealing as the hero of the film that runs the `Second Chance' dog shelter. Though he was in `Titanic' and in last year's television version (as Pip) of `Great Expectations' I didn't recognize him; well, he was Fifth Officer Lowe' in `Titanic' and I didn't see `Great Expectations' so I am not terribly surprised.<br /><br />Gerard Depardieu does a delightful turn as the furrier-pawn of Cruella. He prances and postures in the most outlandish and outrageous of fur clothing you have ever seen and does it well. His 'Wicked Witch of the West' homage is hilarious.<br /><br />Tim McInnerny is superb is Cruella's not-so-evil henchman he was also Alonzo,' Cruella's butler, in `101 Dalmatians' and you may also recognize him from all of the `Black Adder' Brit-Coms. He plays his usual bumbling, good-hearted, somewhat dim-witted character to great effect.<br /><br />Oscars for costuming are generally given for the entirety of the costuming in a film. This is unfortunate as the clothing worn by Glenn Close is amazing it is incredibly detailed (note her handcuffs when she is being released from the Behaviour Modification Clinic) and worthy of such an over-the-top character. Her clothing alone deserves at least an Oscar nomination.<br /><br />Animation holds a special place in my heart but comparing this film to the original animated film is like comparing apples to orangutans: it can't be done. Suffice it to say that `102 Dalmatians' is even better than the film version of `101 Dalmatians' that came out in 1996. There is a lot to like here: from the sight gags, the dialogue, and the costumes to the casting - it is a good film for the whole family. | positive |
I liked it better than House Party 2 & 3. The cast was hilarious and cool at the same time. Chris Stokes, who directed the film, has a very humorous cameo in it as a car repairman; look for his mom who plays the lead character, John John's grandmother. And you can hear her rap the title song "Down to the Last Minute" at the end of the film as the credits roll. She's very funny and a really good actress, as well. The young actors who star in it (the main trio), and who in reality are part of the music group IMx, did a superb job. Before this film I had not paid much attention to this r & b group. Now I'm a fan. The music number in the House Party scene alone is worth checking out the movie. I was pleasantly surprised. I loved it. | positive |
Welcome to Our Town, welcome to your town? As we are introduced into the worlds of its townsfolk of 1901 America, this three act play is opened before us with the help of "The Stage Manager", a visual narrator if you like. After his initial introductions, we are lead into the homes of two particular families; The Webb's and the Gibb's.<br /><br />This is most definitely middle America at the turn of the century, and the progressive way of life of the American Dream and its saccharine overtones that can seem a little biased in this dream town. Here we see the everyday lives of some of its 2642 populace of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire, even if there are, too, the migrant Polish workers that add another 500 to is numbers, they, never get a look-in.<br /><br />Once the daily lives of these families have been introduced; wives cooking, children home-working, fathers working, kids falling in love and the clean picket-fences painted white, the second act is started three years later, after young George (a young and unrecognisable William Holden, then aged 22) and Emily have fallen in love and intend to marry. Blossoming lovebirds reaching for the stars and reaching, too, a turning point in their own lives, from the nest they lived and now, into the anxieties and woes of young adulthood they nervously step. The third act is slightly more sour and foreboding, it is in this act that the movies intentions become apparent, here we see not life, not celebration but death, and it is in this predicament that the dead, as they return to revisit and reconcile their own life past, are here to remind us, to tell us, that life, and every last minute, every precious breath is not to be wasted and squandered.<br /><br />It is in this last third that the movies own political stance also seems more apparent too, feeling more of a propaganda stunt on the moral lecturing on, and by, middle America and how it should direct its home and how it should also put it in order. This isn't just about "Our" town, this is moral diction aimed at "Our" souls and how America can better itself if its peoples', (excluding the Poles, the Irish, the Native American and the freed ethnic minorities', and minorities' in general, plus the supporting backbone of the Americana's who, still, have not had a fair part in this narrative), such as the middle classes, can live up to the expectations of the American Dream through honest, decent living. The purveyors of the American Dream with special invitation only.<br /><br />I was entertained, slightly, by this movie too, but I felt that its narrative held a stronger impact than anything else that took part in it albeit the bland acting, the musical score or how well, or not, it was made. This was the movies intention to exclude other groups, and to only include the likes of the Webb's and the Gibb's, in the future of the developing country of the USA, a good movie, but also a slightly biased in its stance, I thought.<br /><br />Taken from the play by US' born Thornton Wilder (1897 - 1975) this Pulitzer Prize winning play, and six Academy Award nominated movie, was the focal point on the perpetual motion of life and its three main attributes; Life, love and death, the plays translation onto celluloid comes across as a slightly to the right blurb of social consciousness. Our Town starts off with what seems a lesson in pointlessness, like other towns, nothing too exciting ever happens here, if anything at all, this town only has the "right sort of people", you can still leave your back-door unlocked here, we are seeing the developing lives of these two families, but it is their moral and social stance that is more important than them themselves. Our Town may just have been "Any Town", just as long as you came from the right part of town that is. | negative |
<br /><br />This movie sucks big time. It reminded me of the movie Resurrection (Christopher Lambert), which i also found extremely boring. And "Semana Santa" is in every way an even poorer movie.<br /><br />Only fine one in the cast doing something for this movie is Alida Valli. Alida is one of the grand old ladies in european movie history. I loved her maniacal looks in "Suspiria" and "inferno" (Dario Argento). I will not spend more time dealing with this movie. I will say another good thing about this movie...use it if you want to fall asleep very quickly... | negative |
I saw this important intense film tonight. Its Richard Gere and Claire's Dane's most important and best work. Gere deserves an Oscar for his fine portrayal of a man being forced into early retirement as a sex offender registrar administrator. Claire Danes is riveting as the woman Gere handpicks to replace him - a woman he tries to teach all he can while investigating one final case in which Gere's character is convinced one of those he is charged to monitor may be holding a young girl hostage. The subject matter is shocking, sex offenders and those who monitor them, but this film will not soon be forgotten. I know I will be haunted by Gere's portrayal for a very long time. Not since Anthony Hopkins portrayal of a serial killer has a screen portrayal terrified and so engaged me. The film opens with a shocking statistic so don't miss the opening credits. Intense and memorable. Richard Gere's finest role proving the man can act. Danes can as well and both do extraordinarily well in this often challenging film.<br /><br />This is a gutsy film and Gere gives a multi-layered deeply felt performance. Just give him the Oscar now...he deserves it! | positive |
I started watching this one very tensed because I heard so many different things about it. Somewhere I read it was a drama about child abuse and rated PG-13 for violence. Another critic said it was a fantastic and nostalgic adventure of kids (and I thought it was also for kids to watch). Well, now I've seen it so many times and still don't know in which category to put it. It is extremely funny at times but terribly sad and depressing the next moment. Because of the nice relationship and the adventures I would like to recommend this film to all the youngsters I know but I fear the somber atmosphere is not suitable for children. Because of the perfect performances and the magic of the film I must say this nevertheless: Watch it, especially the kids! The last thing I have to say is that I hate the scriptwriter for letting poor Bobby never see his family again after having fled from The King (who didn't even return to terrorize the remained Mary and Mikey). It is very good for this film not to have a perfect happy ending with everybody being happy - and I didn't expect it to - but this solution left me very, very sad! | positive |
Parts: The Clonus Horror is a horror all right. There are of course the bad fashions of the late 70's. There's the really bad acting from Dick Sargent to Peter Graves. And then there's the clones themselves. Their days mostly consist of running, jumping, cycling, and wrestling with each other. When they're not doing that, they learn about America. Not the band America, or the song by Neil Diamond, but an America where they go on to become part of a greater society. But they're given some strange drug then they have all their bodily fluids drained(General Ripper was right!) and they are placed in the freezer and await Thanksgiving or Christmas when they will be thawed out and roasted at about 450 degrees or so. Oops, that's not what happens, but it would've been a lot more interesting than what's shown. Mario, of Super Mario Brothers fame, makes a delightful cameo as a doctor who bickers with Dick Sargent. | negative |
Susan Seidelman seems to have had a decent career with a few top notch credits under her belt. I'm certainly glad she bounced back from this film which seems to have its admirers. I'm not one of them.<br /><br />I've seen better acting in high school plays than I did in Smithereens. The plot such as it is involved young Susan Berman who is ambitious to make it in the world of music and is willing to do just about anything to get there. She even rejects the sincere advances of a young artist who is living out of his van off the East River played by Brad Rijn.<br /><br />Young Mr. Rijn contributes the worst performance in the film, in fact one of the worst acting jobs I've seen in a long time. No wonder he's not gone anywhere.<br /><br />I will say that Seidelman's eye for the camera is a good one in capturing the familiar East Village locations where the film was mostly shot. But her work with her live performers didn't measure up. I'm not sure she had that much raw material to work with.<br /><br />Look fast and you'll see a very young Christopher Noth before Law and Order and Sex in the City as a street hustler.<br /><br />If you like punk rock, you might sit through this for the soundtrack. I'll stick to Bing Crosby. | negative |
Unfortunately, I went to this movie for entertainment purposes based on the limited information I had seen on Fandango. Since I am a sci-fi buff the notion of a movie about UFOs interested me.<br /><br />Instead, this movie quickly revealed itself as an evangelical Christian propaganda flick. Appropriate for an audience of like-minded individuals but very un-Christian like to exploit the movie mall scene and preach to an unsuspecting audience, especially considering the costs of tickets and concessions. Shame on you! At least the Da Vinci Code did not hold back its wild-eyed craziness.<br /><br />So, this B-grade movie (and I am being kind) production will be appreciated in those churches with similar beliefs, probably shown to Wednesday and Sunday evening youth groups. But if you are a mainline Christian or non-Christian you will not be comfortable. | negative |
Wow! A Danish movie with this kind of content? I mean, the actors, the story, the pictures, the efx - everything was where it should be. <br /><br />And a Danish EFX house producing those VFX - Wow! This is like the 2nd or 3rd time a Danish FX has produces visual effects in that quality.<br /><br />*SPOILER AHEAD* The twist with the ghostly children in the submarine was quite good, but generally I did not feel the big chill which I would expect from a ghost-movie. *END OF SPOILER*<br /><br />But anyway, this is a Danish movie which I as a Dane can be proud of.<br /><br />The only "bad" about this, is that it wasn't a Danish director, but a Swedish... | positive |
I hated this movie so much I remember it vividly. It is not even funny. Any movie that relies on unfunny sex jokes and racism humor does not deserve the money it costs to make it. In the first half hour, Rob Schneider drinks a carton of rancid milk. All I could think was "he deserves it, for making such a bad movie". Don't waste your time or money on this one. | negative |
DANIEL DAY-LEWIS does a remarkable job of playing Christy Brown, the artist who grew up with cerebral palsy but managed to have a productive life, dealing successfully with his handicap and becoming a respected artist and writer.<br /><br />The film, however, is a very difficult one to review--or even watch. Fortunately, I had the caption feature on to catch every spoken word which would have been impossible if I saw the film in a theater. While I respect it as a brave piece of work dealing with difficult subject matter, I can't say it's the sort of film I'd want to view more than once.<br /><br />Nevertheless, my attention was held by the story-telling device, a flashback framed by the present, in which we see Christy being honored for his achievements before we see the flashback to his youth and his struggles to communicate with those around him, who certainly gave him loving care.<br /><br />DANIEL DAY-LEWIS certainly is remarkable as the troubled man who falls in love with a therapist (FIONA SHAW), much to his mother's fear that when the love is not reciprocated his heart will be broken. There's a painfully long scene in a restaurant where he confesses his love to her before others and then goes into a frenzied rage after drinking too much.<br /><br />BRENDA FRICKER does a brilliant job as the mother taking care of him, his father and a brood of siblings while struggling to keep a roof over their heads until Day-Lewis begins to have success with his work. She complements Day-Lewis' performance as the warm-hearted mother and shares many poignant moments with him.<br /><br />Richly detailed story of a family that stayed together under the most unusual of circumstances with attention to period detail in every frame of the film. Both Fricker and Day-Lewis won Oscars, but HUGH O'CONOR and RAY McANALLY are also excellent. O'Conor is Christy as a boy and McAnally is the father who spends too much time at the local pub but loves the boy.<br /><br />Summing up: Elmer Bernstein's music is an added plus factor. Well worthwhile, but definitely not a film for everyone. | positive |
I completely disagree with the other comments posted on this movie. For instance, the movie is based on the book and if the writer had a gay character in it then how could "Hollywood" just throw in a token gay character in the movie. And besides there was two gay characters and I thought they reflected each other great. One was normal and the other was more feminine but it wasn't over the top. And Diane Keaton gave a wonderful performance and if the other reviewer had the decency to actual watch the entire film they would have seen that her character developed through out the film by interacting with the other characters. For instance when she and Adam went to look at the car that Sara crashed in the junkyard you could see the maternal side of her come out and later in the film you saw that she too was invincible. But I guess if you're too worried about gay characters and characters that are flawed then this movie is bad. But if you're more open-minded and I don't know actually have some inkling of what is good then you'll enjoy this film. | positive |
Actually this movie was not so bad. It contains action, comedy and excitement. There are good actors in this film, for instance Doug Hutchison (Percy from "The Green Mile"), who plays Bristol. Another well known actor is Jamie Kennedy, from "Scream" and "Three Kings". The main characters are played by Jamie Foxx as Alvin, who was pretty good and also funny, but the one who most surprised me, was David Morse as Edgar Clenteen. He plays a different character than he usually does, because in other films like "The Green Mile", "Indian Runner", "The Negotiator" or "The Langoliers" he plays a very sympathetic person, and in "Bait" the plays almost the opposite, a man without any emotions, which was nice to see. The only really negative thing about this film, are the several pictures of the World Trade Center, which makes this film perhaps look a little dated. Overall I thought this was a pretty good little film! | positive |
Well, Killshot is not awful, but it comes close. Production values are decent and the main actors do a pretty good job (except for Rosario Dawson in a wasted role), but the story is just pathetic. I don't know if the Elmore Leonard book had such dumb characters,since I haven't read it, but I'm guessing that the book was supposed to be at least slightly humorous. The movie has no detectable humor. After the first twenty minutes, you'll be yelling at the screen, "Oh, come on! Nobody's THAT stupid!!" In a nutshell, and without any spoilers, everybody acts in a manner convenient to the plot, which makes no sense anyway. A very frustrating and unrealistic movie, which may account for it sitting on the shelf for as long as it did. | negative |
After witnessing his wife (Linda Hoffman) engaging in sexual acts with the pool boy, the already somewhat unstable dentist Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) completely snaps which means deep trouble for his patients.<br /><br />This delightful semi-original and entertaining horror flick from director Brian Yuzna was a welcome change of pace from the usual horror twaddle that was passed out in the late Nineties. Although The Dentist' is intended to be a cheesy, fun little film, Yuzna ensures that the movie delivers the shocks and thrills that many more serious movies attempt to dispense. Despite suffering somewhat from the lack of background on the central characters, and thus allowing events that should have been built up to take place over a couple of days, the movie is intriguing, generally well scripted and well paced which allows the viewer to maintain interest, even during the more ludicrous of moments. The Dentist' suffers, on occasion, from dragging but unlike the much inferior 1998 sequel, there are only sporadic uninteresting moments, and in general the movie follows itself nicely.<br /><br />Corbin Bernsen was very convincing in the role of the sadistic, deranged and perfectionist Dr. Alan Feinstone. The way Bernsen is able to credibly recite his lines, especially with regards to the foulness and immorality of sex (particularly fellatio), is something short of marvellous. While many actors may have trouble portraying a cleanliness obsessed psycho without it coming off as too cheesy or ridiculous, Bernsen seems to truly fit the personality of the character he attempts to portray and thus makes the film all that more enjoyable. Had The Dentist' not been intended to be a fun, almost comical, horror movie, Bernsen's performance would probably have been much more powerful. Sadly, the rest of the cast (including a pre-fame Mark Ruffalo) failed to put in very good performances and although the movie was not really damaged by this, stronger performances could have added more credibility to the flick.<br /><br />The Dentist' is not a horror film that is meant to be taken seriously but is certainly enjoyable, particularly (I would presume) for fans of cheesy horror. Those who became annoyed at the number of Scream' (1996) clones from the late Nineties may very well find this a refreshing change, as I did. A seldom dull and generally well paced script as well as some proficient direction helps to make The Dentist' one of the more pleasurable cheesy horrors from the 1990's. On top of this we are presented with some particularly grizly and (on the whole) realistic scenes of dental torture, which should keep most gorehounds happy. Far from perfect but far from bad as well, The Dentist' is a flick that is easily worth watching at least once. My rating for The Dentist' 6.5/10. | positive |
. . . And that's a bad thing, because at least if this had been a Troma film, it would have had wanton violence and a greater sense of anarchic abandon that might have brought my rating up a bit.<br /><br />So what we have instead is a very tame (rated PG), barely lukewarm, low budget (Roger Corman produced it with an unknown director who has subsequently remained unknown) Gremlins (1984)/Critters (1986)-wannabe with almost exclusively flat humor, little of the logic that made Gremlins work so well--fantasy logic or not, no suspense, no sense of adventure, and no violence or nudity to make up for it.<br /><br />Although I'm sure some of the problems with the film are inherent in the script--let's face it, no one could deliver these jokes so that they would be funny--it seems like the biggest blame has to fall into the lap of the director, Bettina Hirsch. In more capable hands, Munchies could have been entertaining.<br /><br />After all, it starts out like many great adventure films. Simon Waterman (Harvey Korman) and his son Paul (Charles Stratton) are in Peru on an archaeological dig. Simon is a bit of a wacky archaeologist who is always floating theories about the connections between ancient sites and alien civilizations. For example, he thinks he sees evidence of laser-cutting on ancient stonework. So they're at Machu Picchu looking for more evidence of Simon's theories when they happen upon a secret chamber. Inside they quickly find the animal they later dub "Arnold", one of the titular munchies.<br /><br />They take Arnold back home to their small California desert town. Simon, who thinks that Arnold is probably an alien creature, has to go off to a colleague's lecture, and he plans on telling the colleague that he finally has an alien specimen. Paul and his extremely cute girlfriend, Cindy (Nadine Van der Velde), are left in charge of Arnold, but as they haven't seen each other in a long time, they leave Arnold unsupervised while they hop in the sack.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Simon's brother Cecil (played also by Korman in a dual role), owner of a successful snack foods company, is eager to buy off Simon's home and land--they're adjacent to his own. Simon doesn't want to sell, so Cecil hits upon a scheme to steal Arnold. Things gradually spiral out of control, and the munchies, who have a mean streak to go along with their cravings for junk food, begin to overrun the town.<br /><br />That reads better in a summary than it plays on the screen. The best shots in the film are those with natural landscapes in the background, such as when characters are driving on the outskirts of the desert town. Interiors, with the exception of Cecil's home, tend to look like poorly decorated, cheap sets, and more importantly, they tend to show that Hirsch is not very skilled at blocking and setting up shots. Oddly, given the paucity of the production design overall, Cecil's home is quite a gem, imbued as it is in overblown 1980s style down to the smallest details, and Cecil's stepson, Dude (Jon Stafford), was an amusing counterpoint. Too bad, then, that he's out of the film so quickly.<br /><br />At any rate, Korman is a fun actor, but he comes across much better here as Simon than as Cecil. Unfortunately, Simon ends up being absent for most of the film. Cecil, who is differentiated physically by a ridiculous wig and facial hair, is not only the "evil capitalist" of the film, he's one of Korman's classic inconsiderate, boorish characters--that was one of his specialties, frequently capitalized on in "Carol Burnett Show" (1967) skits. Unlike "The Carol Burnett Show", which tended to succeed because directors Clark Jones and Dave Powers had a studied way of pushing the skits just to the brink of chaos, Hirsch reins Korman in way too far, and the Cecil character just doesn't work the way it should.<br /><br />There are a lot of other director-related problems, not the least of which is wonky pacing and editing, which completely sap any possible suspense or compelling dramatic impact from the film. Even scenes that should have been shoe-ins for amping up the drama--such as when the munchies are harassing an old lady on the road--are put together far too awkwardly to have much affect.<br /><br />There are also serious logical problems with the story as it stands. Where did the munchie in the chamber at Machu Picchu come from? The film's trailer seems to show an answer to this, but it was edited out of the final cut. A more serious problem is that, unlike gremlins, there is no clear reason for munchies to go from cute, cuddly furballs to menacing monsters. It just happens. Further, because Munchies was kept PG, and the violence remains toned down, when the creatures are in their monster phase, they're never very threatening. They're also easily dispatched, at least temporarily.<br /><br />Admittedly, the gist of the film isn't suspense, horror, compelling drama or any of that other stuff, but humor. It's intended more as a spoof of Gremlins and the countless rip-offs in its wake. The only problem with that is that the film just isn't funny, even though I chuckled a couple times. A surprisingly high percentage of the jokes are bland clichés. Too much of the remaining material consists of non-sequiturs. Given bad timing from Hirsch, it all just falls flat. There was potential to make a film that while a spoof, was both funny and frightening, hilarious and disturbing, cheesy and suspenseful, all at the same time, ala Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988). Too bad, then, that Munchies comes nowhere near that. | negative |
I can't knock this film too terribly, because it's obvious midway through the the watching of it that they were trying to make it bad, or 'campy' if you prefer. Anyway, many of the parts they tried to make funny actually are, but often simply for the cheese factor. Watch the 'space invaders' game, actually played as real-life! Scratch your head at the bumbling robots...oh, the wackyness! And watch the whole thing go way over the top near the end with the 'time warp'! And the sexual innuendoes just keep on flying...I'm actually surprised this got away with a PG. Oh well. A fun way to waste a couple hours, but Star Wars/Trek this ain't, folks. 3 out of 10. | negative |
I rented this TV movie version of 'Troilus and Cressida' out of my library last thursday, and simply could not believe my eyes. Where should I begin? no effort was made to make the play look remotely like it was about the Trojan war, all the actors were wearing Elizabethan dress. Moreover, most of the actors were too old and horribly miscast - Aeneas (with his white beard) looked older than Nestor, Troilus was at least 30, Hector looked like a Spanish pirate, Ajax was badly played anyway and Thersites was a transvestite.<br /><br />Likewise the action is poor, the duel between Ajax and Hector is short and amateurish, the camera angle focuses more on Nestor's face, so we can only see what is going on in the background which is frustrating in itself. Nor is the 'battle' at the end given it's due respect. We do not see Troilus and Diomedes fight, nor anyone else for that matter, Paris and Menelaus just seem to mud wrestle in front of Thersites. Even Patroclus death was omitted. All this was a major disappointment considering I waded through a very dull 2 and a half hours of BBC costume drama to get to that point.<br /><br />Nonetheless, it wasn't all bad. I thought the Incredible Orlando as Thersites and John Shrapnel as Hector were well played, even if they didn't look quite right. I'd say the same about Kenneth Haigh as Achilles, since he didn't have the striking countenance and was a bit dry at times. SPOILER: The climax at the end - the death of Hector - was perhaps the best part of the film, Achilles' dialogue here is excellent and sums up the attitude of a cold, seasoned murderer. However, the gruesomeness of the scene (when Achilles stamps on what was Hector's head)sets it apart anyway.<br /><br />Charles Gray as Pandarus was delightful as a sleazy old pervert and I thought the actress playing Cressida did an OK job. The war-mongering Troilus, however, was annoying and I think that the play would have been better perhaps if he had been murdered by Achilles instead of a peacenik like Hector.<br /><br />Conclusion? OK, but could have been better if it had had a younger cast and costumes that at least attempted to look Ancient Grecian, not to mention the lack of action. 5/10 | negative |
As I was flipping through the channel I came to a channel 124. It is an urban channel. I saw this movie on and decided to give it a try. I almost became a mass murderer due to this film. I have done home movies and they are oscar quality compared to this huge mass of Dookie. The lighting was terrible and the acting was absolutely unrelentlessly bad. I would rather watch Star Crystal....... Holy cow maybe that is not a good example. The main question I have about this film is... Was it to be a morality film? the reason why I ask is because ther was one line where this lady in a wheelchair says " I would have been another gang statistic" Oh my head is starting to hurt. After hearing that line I went into the kitchen and pulled out a knife ready to stab anyone who dared watch this movie. But some sense kicked in and I just changed the channel to watch the man with the afro paint. Well that is all I have to say about this movie. If you want to endure this pain go ahead but not recommended for those with short fuses or a bad case of tourettes | negative |
total crap.<br /><br />I was kind of excited to see this as it is the only film version I have seen of Mansfield Park. I suffered through the first four episodes but when it came to the proposal scene between Henry and Fanny I snapped and had to turn it off. Whoever employs this Sylvestra Le Touzel lady has got to be both blind and deaf cause the woman is the worst actress I've ever seen in my life. The whole thing is just bad, bad, bad. I don't know. I just don't know why people who write Jane Austen screenplays seem to be incapable of giving her work the respect it deserves. | negative |
I'm not the biggest fan of westerns. My two personal favorites though are Unforgiven, and Tombstone. This movie though, I loved! It was great! The plot was well done, and it was a fun movie. Everybody who had a part in this movie did excellent! I even think it beat out both movies in someway. Well, not really Unforgiven because that was a superb movie that these two can't compare with in the long run. I do think it beat out Tombstone though. Both had its strong points. For instance, they both had excellent well known casts, very good plots, and very good filming. But Posse beat out Tombstone in four ways in my opinion. First, the characters were more unique in Posse. The music was better in Posse. The idea was original in Posse, unlike Wyatt Earp. And the biggest difference, the action sequences! Oh my gosh! Posse was a western with really good action sequences. I mean really good! The action was fast paced. Like modern day based shoot'em up movies. The action had big budget explosions too! The fistfights were pretty good also. Mario Van Pebbles was great in this movie! I suggest buying this excellent movie! | positive |
The Thumb idea isn't such a winner the second time round. ThumbTanic wasn't as good as Thumb Wars for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think, Mr Oedekerk had far less to work with in the Titanic send-up. Unlike Star Wars, the movie Titanic hasn't (yet?) become a cultural myth and there are far fewer references to be made which will resonate with the audience.<br /><br />In ThumbTanic, the holes are filled by one-off jokes which don't really seem related to anything. For example, the hero's insinuation that the heroine isn't clean during the "jump off end of ship" scene - it's not funny. Rather, you just think to yourself, "Did I miss something in the original movie?". There were too many of these type of baseless jokes (cf. arachnid).<br /><br />By contrast, the send-up of the smarmy ship's designer had meaning and was funny. Also very funny was the send up of the bloke in the movie who wanted to go "faster" as a maniac running around demanding *everything* be "faster" including the sinking of the ship and himself being the first to die. These sort of jokes meant something in the Titanic context and lent meaningful humour to Thumbtanic.<br /><br />The thumb "media", the faces and the voices, are still amusing. The props and sets and the CG animation are worthy of appreciation. Overall, although ThumbTanic proves that quirkiness alone won't work, this filmette still keeps you amused and chuckling to the end. | negative |
I loved this show. I think the first time I tried rocky road ice cream was due to this show. Wasn't the shop located like right on the beach or something? I actually wrote back and forth with Marci for several years. I lost touch and wish I could reconnect now as adults. Anyone know where she is now? I wish they would put it out on DVD. I seriously doubt that since I think there maybe like five or six people who even remember the show airing in the first place. They just don't make shows like this anymore, do they? I wonder if it would still hold up in this day and age. Do you guys know anyone that could burn DVD's of the show they taped on VHS? I'd be willing to pay(within reason). | positive |
I've tried to watch this so-called comedy, but it's very hard to bear. This is a bad, narrow-minded, cliché-ridden movie. Definitively not funny, but very much boring and annoying, indeed. Bad script, bad acting. It's a complete waste of time - and there remains nothing more to say, I'm afraid.<br /><br />1 out of 10 points. | negative |
If extreme activities (and I don't mean the Hollywood ones like UFC & X-Games) and the people who pursue them interest you then seek this doc out.<br /><br />This is one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction tales of Donald Crowhurts's obsession to prove himself against great odds. Those odds were stacked by Mother Nature, the media and his own mind. It is also about a time lost to us --although it was only 40 years ago.<br /><br />The filmmakers have done a great job in gathering a wide range of material to tell his story and the story of the great race that consumed him. <br /><br />I couldn't help but to think about Timothy Treadwell and the Apollo astronauts in the 2 great docs GRIZZLY MAN and IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON while experiencing --you don't simply "watch"-- this story.<br /><br />If you live in a big city buy it or rent it. It is worth the effort to find. I had to travel 100 miles to L.A. to buy it and I am glad I did. | positive |
Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.<br /><br />The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.<br /><br />Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.<br /><br />Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.<br /><br />despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.