review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Although the concept of a 32 year old woman portraying a 12 year old girl might be a stretch for today's <br /><br />sophisticated audiences,in the 1920's this was what the fans of Mary Pickford desired and expected from their favorite star. The opening scene displays Annie's tomboyish character as the apparent leader of a multi-ethnic street gang in comic "battle" with a rival group. The sight of a young girl being socked in the jaw and kicked may be a bit crude, but the scene is played in such an "Our Gang" fashion that it would be hard to take any of this seriously. Anyway, Annie can dish it out as well as take it. Once Annie returns to her tenement home and replaces her street duds with more girlish attire, it becomes more difficult (especially in close-ups) to imagine this beautiful young woman as a street urchin. However, for those who can muster the required suspension of disbelief, the rest of the movie has it's rewards. Vacillating between comedy (Annie's gang puts on a show) to sentiment (Annie plans a birthday surprise for her Irish policeman father) to tragedy (her father is killed on his birthday), the film gives Mary ample opportunity to display a range of emotions that would please her fans of any era. <br /><br />Of course the requisite "happy ending" is eventually achieved; the evildoers are apprehended with the help of Annie's friends and rivals and she is last seen in the company of her pals riding down a busy thoroughfare on a sunny day. Which is a good a way as any for a Mary Pickford movie to end. <br /><br /> | positive |
This movie looked like it was going to be really funny. I was very excited to see it but was very disappointed. It was very unrealistic. The plot was also pretty weak. I was expecting it to be really funny but the jokes weren't even that good. I was also really disappointed with the ending. I would not recommend this movie to anyone. | negative |
Evil Breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good.The beginning of the film seems promising but overall it's a disaster.The dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting.The acting is brutal and unbearable.Most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn't work because the characters become annoying.Some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them.After about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes.The movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters,unrealistic karate like fights,and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his a*sscrack.None of it is funny it's just plain ridiculous.The film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless.Most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days.Evil Breed isn't even laughably bad therefore it fails in it's main task.Watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Just Before Dawn,or See No Evil for a real slasher. | negative |
A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable. | negative |
First time I saw this movie was in the eighties, but reviewed now this thriller is still actual. Some newer movies focus on similar topics, but they do not match this french milestone.<br /><br />A president - obviously JF Kennedy - gets shot in an open car during a public appearance. The resulting huge investigation finds the "Lee Harvey Oswald" figure of this movie guilty, but one member of the jury insists in further inquiry. He reveals some surprising evidence ...<br /><br />Unlike Oliver Stone's JFK - a movie with the same plot - this one does not play with emotions, but concentrates in a exciting description of a conspiracy and how everything fits together, drawing a new picture of the assassination. Even a real psychological experiment is used for this explanation of the crime scene. Compared to JFK this movie is more reasonable, intelligent and thrilling. Parts of the plot can be found in a lot of newer movies, I had a kind of deja vu sometimes sitting in the cinema.<br /><br />"I... comme Icare" is a "must see". Its unique and brilliant, and the music by Ennio Morricone is wonderful. This movie deserves a very good ranking, if it was a Hollywood production it would be famous for sure.<br /><br /> | positive |
i couldn't help but think of behind the mask: the rise of leslie vernon (a massively more amazing film) when watching this because of the realistic feel to it as well as the great innovative idea. this could have been a GREAT film. the acting is...from some of the actors alright. from others...it's downright horrible.<br /><br />that aside the idea is great and the format is great. the story is pretty good as well, though suffering often from big blows to the logical mind.<br /><br />nevermind that though right? it IS a horror movie after all.<br /><br />i really want to see this remade...i really want it to be the fantastic film that it wants to be.<br /><br />however (and you can't really fault the minds behind the movie for this) this is obviously built upon a shoe string budget. and the fx really hurt the film overall.<br /><br />great movie. ...if you were to swap out for some better acting and slightly better fx.<br /><br />whoever wrote it should keep going though, great idea here. | negative |
The first episode set the bar quite high i thought. It starred William Hurt as a hit-man who is contracted to kill a toymaker. We are given very little information on his character or who is paying him to kill, indeed the episode is notable for having no dialogue at all. Returning to his modernist penthouse he is delivered a package containing toy soldiers, this gives him a smile but he dismisses it and goes about his business. But he is in for a night of hell, the soldiers are alive and are about to wage war, driving jeeps, shooting machine guns and bazookas and even flying helicopters!. The special effects are good for a TV show and it becomes quite tense as he dodges around the apartment using his wits to survive, sometimes getting the upper hand and other times not. I wont spoil the ending but suffice to say it was a clever little twist. This gave me hope for the rest of the series but i was in for a disappointment, the other episodes were all rubbish and i lost interest by the fourth one. Stephen King adaptations are always a mixed bag and these are no exception | negative |
This movie was bad but it was so bad that it may reach cult status in the distant future. A sort of film-noir meets Plan 9 From Outer Space. The story was, well, there wasn't actually a story. There is a place reserved for the Ed Woods and Russ Meyers of the world and this film proves it. "So bad it might be good" is the best way to describe it. I seriously doubt if this movie will be picked up by any legitimate distribution company therefore it is unlikely to see wide release.<br /><br />I will add that I expect to see more of actor Ron Carey. He made the best of what he had. The rest of the acting, if I can call it that, was quite forgettable. I have seen worse from big studios with vast budgets. | negative |
And I would have rated it higher than a 7 out of 10 if it wasn't for the seriously uneven Irish accent of Barbara Hershey in the leading role of Mother Madalyn. The accent came and went unfortunately which I found more than a little distracting. <br /><br />However, the performance of William L Petersen in the role of Joad was outstanding, he brought a warmth and depth to the character in spite of some periodic hokey dialogue. Captivating and genuine, I found him quite astonishing in the way he captured the character. <br /><br />The premise of the film is fairly simple, the building of a forgotten staircase in a church. It is based, rather loosely I believe, on a true story and I had heard of this staircase prior to seeing the movie. <br /><br />It was a phenomenal engineering feat for its time - a floating double helix made without nails or screws. It exists to this day although it is now in private ownership.<br /><br />**Minor Spoiler**Good supporting cast and Barbara does dying so well in all her movies and here she doesn't disappoint. Lots of special moments.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
Damon Runyon's world of Times Square, in New York, prior to its Disneyfication, is the basis for this musical. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, a man who knew about movies, directed this nostalgic tribute to the "crossroads of the world" that show us that underside of New York of the past. Frank Loesser's music sounds great. We watch a magnificent cast of characters that were typical of the area. People at the edges of society tended to gravitate toward that area because of the lights, the action, the possibilities in that part of town. This underbelly of the city made a living out of the street life that was so intense.<br /><br />Some of the songs from the original production were not included in the film. We don't know whether this makes sense, but this is not unusual for a Hollywood musical to change and alter what worked on the stage. That original cast included the wonderful Vivian Blaine and Stubby Kaye, and we wonder about the decision of not letting Robert Alda, Sam Levene, Isabel Bigley repeat their original roles. These were distinguished actors that could have made an amazing contribution.<br /><br />The film, visually, is amazing. The look follows closely the fashions of the times. As far as the casting of Marlon Brando, otherwise not known for his singing abilities, Frank Sinatra and Jean Simmons, seem to work in the film. Sky Masterson is, after all, a man's man, who would look otherwise sissy if he presented a different 'look'. Frank Sinatra is good as Nathan Detroit. Jean Simmons, as Sarah Brown, does a nice job portraying the woman from the Salvation Army who suddenly finds fulfillment with the same kind of man she is trying to save.<br /><br />Vivian Blaine is a delight. She never ceases to amaze as Miss Adelaide, a woman with a heart of gold who's Nathan Detroit's love interest. Ms. Blaine makes a fantastic impression as the show girl who is wiser than she lets out to be. Stubby Kaye makes a wonderful job out of reprising his Nicely Nicely Johnson.<br /><br />The wonderful production owes a lot to the talented Abe Burrows, who made the adaptation to the screen. The costumes by Irene Sharaff set the right tone. | positive |
I saw Grande Ecole at its world premiere on the Rotterdam Film Festival. I had no idea what I was entering and if I'd had any idea I wouldn't have entered. This is the most pretentious film I've seen for a long time. It tries to be provocative, yet deep, with its full frontal homosexual sex scenes - it doesn't succeed! It's nothing but another bad excuse of showing naked persons on the big screen. 4/10 | negative |
What a crime...<br /><br />You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.<br /><br />But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..<br /><br />Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.<br /><br />Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would. | negative |
OK, yes its bad, yes its complete fluff, yes it makes dobbin the mule look like an Oscar winner but look at it like i did i was 13, special effects were pretty much non exsistant in 90% of films, back in the good Ole days when films needed a story line.. OK so even the storyline is a bit dodgy.. but wow did i get into this film as a kid in the 80s. cheesy rock, bad special effects, but airplanes an aerial fights and it had queens one vision on the soundtrack.. see even the worst things have a silver lining.. all in all if you want a bad film to show a 12 year old who hates computer effects (if there is such a film) this is the ideal choice | positive |
The first of two Jim Thompson adaptations released in 1990 (the other being the more well-known GRIFTERS), AFTER DARK has all of Thompson's hallmarks: dangerous women, the confidence game, and characters that are either not as dim as others suspect them of being, or not as harmless.<br /><br />Jason Patric is superb as a former boxer disqualified from the sport for life due to an incident in the ring (director James Foley uses RAGING BULL-esquire sequences to flesh out the back story) and the too-little-seen Rachel Ward also delivers a great performance. But Bruce Dern is the film's secret weapon: his sweet-talking grifter Uncle Bud subtly commands each of his scenes.<br /><br />there's almost no comic relief in this film, so watch it prepared to be sucked into the void. | positive |
Love sublime says the title. Another blurb during the promotions of the film talked about inner vs external beauty. Well in this case the beauty - you decide inner or external - is provided by scantily clad (or is that scantily dressed/ undressed) Zeenat Aman who the director Raj Kapoor called "a volcano of talent" while the film was being made. One can't accuse him of sarcasm of course - after all he was promoting his own film.<br /><br />The paper thin plot is about a woman with a disfigured face who has a - er - well proportioned body , a great voice (thanks to Lata Mangeshkar) with whom the hero Shashi Kapoor falls in love. He doesn't want her face only her voice. The acting is desperate and even the 4 is because of the music with Lata Mangeshkar giving some good numbers. The rest is of course bunkum. Avoid - save your money. Inner beauty vs Outer beauty. !!! You need not be an Einstein to figure out which one the director was concentrating on | negative |
This is one of the funniest movies I've ever saw. A 14-year old boy Jason Shepherd wrote an English paper called "Big Fat Liar". When his skateboard was taken, he had to use his sister's bike to get to the college on time and he hit a limo. When he went into the limo, he met a famous producer from Hollywood, Marty Wolf. When he left the limo, he forgot one thing: his paper! So Marty Wolf took it and he turned Jason's English paper into a movie! When Jason admitted that he left his paper in the limo and Marty took it, his parents and his English teacher didn't believe him! So Jason and his friend Kaylee had to fly to Los Angeles to go to Hollywood to make Marty admit he stole his story to Jason's parents. When Jason told Marty to call his dad that Marty stole that paper, Marty tricked him and burned his paper! Jason got so angry that Marty burned that paper so Marty called security to get Jason out of his site! Jason and Kaylee realized Marty isn't going to admit the truth. In order to take Marty down in Phase 2: The Takedown, Jason and Kaylee put permanent blue dye into the pool and when Marty jumps in, his body turns all blue and it wouldn't come off! Then they put permanent orange dye in Marty's shampoo and when he uses it, his hair turns all orange and it wouldn't come off too! Finally, they put lots of glue on Marty's earpiece to make him call Jason's father and when Marty uses it, it sticks to his ear! It was funny when Marty's hair and body turns all blue and orange and his headset is glued to his ear! After that, they tricked Marty by telling Monty, who is Marty's assistant, that Duncan moved to a house where there's a party going on. When Marty went in to see Duncan, he was at the wrong house and all the kids at the party beat him up! When Marty was in the house, Jason and Kaylee switched the controls of his car. When Marty drove his car, he knew all the controls were switched and he didn't know which button to push. He's stupid enough to fall for it. When Marty hit the rear end of the masher, the masher wrecked his car! It was so funny. So Marty starts to call Jason's dad and tricked him again! He was on the phone, but it wasn't his father, he called security! After the security got Jason and Kaylee out of Marty's site, they suggested them to go home. Monty was going to be on Jason and Kaylee's side cause she knew that Marty was a liar and a jerk so she told Rocco, who is one of the security guards that she will take care of the kids. Jason told his father the truth of what he's been up to for the past 2 days and had his parents come to L.A. When Monty came to the kids, she's going to help the kids move into Phase 4: The Payback. Jason splits the crew into 3 teams for Phase 4. One team will distract and trick Marty until Jason's parents get to the set. Marty first rode with Frank Jackson, but his car broke down so he rode with Jaleel, but he took him into the desert and leave him there. When Marty was in the desert, a helicopter came to rescue him. After that, one of the blades are jammed so Marty and the pilot got off the helicopter. After that, he was on the way to the set and when Jason saw him, Marty stopped and saw what Jason has: his monkey! So Marty went after Jason and Kaylee and when they saw Lester, he released the water and when the water came, it pushed Marty away. Marty was still after the kids and when Kaylee went the other way, Jason led Marty to the top of the apartment building. At the top, Jason was challenging Marty by making him admit the truth and Marty will never ever tell the truth. When the crew caught Marty in surprise, all the people including Jason's parents who were at the set knew what Marty did. Marty was going to kill Jason but the only way for Jason to escape is jump down from the top! After that, his parents believed him that Marty took his story. When the people who were on the set left, this is the end of Marty. At the end, Jason's story, Big Fat Liar was a movie. I cant get enough of it. | positive |
When this film was made, the hippie thing had gone mainstream. The ideas of the counter culture was well established, that is why such a big film could be made. Yet it has something to say, and it is said really beautifully. Apart from those who're only waiting for the wanking material, this film is given credit for its beautiful scenes(which in itself is more than enough reason to see the film) by the most. The soundtrack to this film, which actually became more popular than the film itself, is another plus. Pink Floyd's "Careful with that axe Eugene" suits really well with the explosions, the absence of music in other scenes gives the film a nice quiet mood. But. It seems as though the messages in this film have been overlooked by the most. If you didn't understand it, which seems to be the case for the most, I'll give you some hints: The man(tough guy, what ever his name is-Mark?) is a part of a "reality group". He leaves this group saying something like "I'm willing to die. But not of boredom" He later go for a joyride with a stolen plane, probably to seek some action. As he is in the air, Grateful Dead's Dark Star(from the Live/Dead album) is played(i think). This song contains the phrase "Shall we go you and I while we can", this is though not heard in the film.(Perhaps stretching it a bit too far meaning that quote is essential?) In the plane, he checks up a girl(Daria), who is driving in her car to a conference(about giving typical suburban families the opportunity to live in a super-relaxing place in the desert, where everything is so simple and nice. For the whole family!), by diving down, almost hitting the car. He lands the plane, and joins the girl on her way to Detroit. They stop at Zabriskie point, where they enjoy each other as living creatures and the nature. Later a family with a big car(of the type which you sleep in) and a speed boat is showed visiting Zabriskie Point, the father saying something like "what a waste driving all the way up here", and the kid sitting inside the car, grinning. I sensed a "this wasn't much better than on the telly"-attitude. Daria takes Mark back to the plane which now is painted in a psychedelic style, with the identity number changed to "no war" on one side and "no words" on the other. "Bucks Sucks" is also written on the plane. Mark takes the plane back to where he stole it from, saying to Daria before he leaves "I don't risk anything" or something, one of several hints about he not caring too much about his destiny. (This because he has the feeling that the environment that surrounds don't give him anything- "I wonder what happens in the real world") On the airport he is met by police officers who shoots him even though he just has returned the plane. Daria hears this on the radio, but decides to go to the conference in the fancy mansion. Here she feels alien after the adventures with her just killed friend. She enjoys fresh water running down a rock, more than the swimming pool. Inside the house the viewer is once again given a hint about anti-materialism -She looks out through a glass wall, holding her hands on the glass like she was trapped. The business men is seen arguing, the one side eager to make a big deal, the other afraid of losing money. Daria leaves the house and looks back at it, visualizing it blowing up. After the house, several other things blow up, for example a television. She smiles, happy she has inside herself destroyed what she after the meeting with Mark look upon as something negative.<br /><br />To summarize: Mark obviously experience the "reality group" as not very useful as they just sit and talk, taking no action. He clearly has bad feelings about things being as they are, and it seems like he feels that it's no use fighting against it. He wants to leave. He helps Daria, who is "in mind but not in action" seeing his point of view. Where his feeling of being misfitted turns out leading to his death, one can hope Daria uses the ideas in a way that will turn out more constructive. In the film you see how a town (LA) is being polluted by commercial (too bad you have to show the commercial to make the point), you see business men deciding what is the future, et cetera, and you see people being unhappy with these and other situations which is parts of the modern world.<br /><br />I have only seen the film once, so I have not caught all points, but I certainly got a feeling of what this film has to say, and I find it strange that this film can be called meaningless. If you say the points are being too obvious, I can see why, this film probably intended to appeal to the post-hippie radicals "digging" the thoughts of anti-establishment. Even though, it has a lot to say, and its message is still needed today, things pretty much evolving in the same direction as it did before the sixties. Zabriskie Point is a really great film, telling a story about quite normal young people (not far out hippies tripping around tip toe on acid, digging everything) seeking what they percept as real, dissatisfied with the conventional. And it is done in a truly beautiful way. | positive |
Cinderella In my opinion greatest love story ever told i loved it as a kid and i love it now a wonderful Disney masterpiece this is 1 of my favorite movies i love Disney. i could rave on and on about Cinderella and Disney all day but i wont i ll give you a brief outline of the story. When a young girl's father dies she has to live with her evil step mother and her equally ugly and nasty step sisters Drusilla and Anastasia. Made to do remedial house chores all day poor Cinderella has only the little mice who scurry around the house and her dog Bruno as friends. When one day a letter is sent to her house telling all available women to attend a royal ball. Cinderellas evil step mother and step sisters try to prevent her attendance Cinderella finally gets her dream and wish and is able to attend her captive beauty , Genorisity and beautiful nature help her win her prince. | positive |
Or at least you feel pretty high after this movie. It's the kind of film that the word "rollicking" really can be applied to, though it's rollicking in that entirely casual, intelligent, and open-minded way that belongs to the French.<br /><br />No, Catherine Deneuve does not spend the entire movie high (sorry to disappoint any puritans with an agenda).. but the one scene to which I refer involves all the members of a wedding party - AND it's a musical number! Anyway, everything fits pretty seamlessly together, and the unusual, bright, colorful family ( Deneuve's mother is a lesbian, Deneuve her bon vivant daughter) alternately entertain and annoy us as real families do..but since it's a movie they mostly entertain.<br /><br />Don't want to say too much about the ending, but Deneuve ends up marrying a man about twenty years younger. This is entirely believable as we see the relationship develop over time, and as the two are naturally drawn closer and closer together. The ending is a happy one; and like the rest of the movie, satisfyingly quirky as well as pitch-perfect. | positive |
I pity people calling kamal hassan 'ulaganaayakan' maybe for them ulagam is tollywood ! comeon guys..this movie is a thriller without thrill..<br /><br />come out of your ulagam and just watch some high class thrillers like The Usual Suspects or even The Silence of the Lambs.<br /><br />technically good but style over substance kamal doesn't look like a police officer, there is no thrill whatsoever dragging and boring till end you might be saving 3 valuable hrs of your life if u skip watching this movie.<br /><br />kamal at his best is the best in tollywood | negative |
The year 1995, when so many people talked about the great premiere of BRAVEHEART by Mel Gibson, also saw another very fine, yet underrated movie on Scottish history, ROB ROY. Although it is a very different film, especially due to the historical period the story is set in, ROB ROY has much in common not only with marvelous BRAVEHEART but also with the very spirit of epic movies.<br /><br />It is a film that discusses similar themes, like fight for dignity, courage, honor, revenge, family being a key to happiness. It also leads us to the very bliss of Scottish highlands where the human soul finds its rest being surrounded by all grandeur of nature. Robert Roy MacGregor (Liam Neeson), the main character is a true hero (so universal in epics), sort of "Scottish Robin Hood" who struggles to lead his people out of oppression imposed by cold hearted lords. Although he worsens his situation through the acts, has to suffer a lot, two things stay in his mind undeniably: HONOR that he is given by himself and LOVE to his woman, Mary MacGregor (Jessica Lange). That leads him to unexpected events...<br /><br />Except for the interesting content and quite vivid action, the movie is filled with truly stunning visuals. This factor has to do both with the sets and locations of the film as well as the wardrobe. Many memorable moments stay in the mind of any viewer who can allow themselves an insight into artistic images. For me, the most splendid scene was in the Highlands when Rob Roy tells his boys what honor really means. Then, he sends them away and beautifully makes love to his woman. The scene he escapes Marguis of Montrose (John Hurt) to the waterfall is also worth a look as a stunning visual. <br /><br />Of course, there is some graphic violence, like in the duel for instance, but I don't think that this violence would be as harmful as in many other modern films. Its justification is like any other epic's: bloodshed and cruelty of those times were really serious and there would be no point in hiding it. The most disturbing scene, for me, was the rape done on Rob Roy's wife by the villain of the story: Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth). It's truly disgusting and kids should definitely stay away. However, all the rest is O.K. Yet, there is one aspect that made me really love this movie, the performances.<br /><br />All the cast do perfect jobs, from the leading Lian Neeson who fits very well to the role of tall, brave, strong Scottish man to the supporting cast of Brian Cox who portrays wicked Killearn, a silent witness of terrible acts who feels comfortable with the evil of war. Jessica Lange is very fine as Mary MacGregor and has some of the most beautiful moments in the film. There is chemistry between Ms Lange and Mr Neeson in many of their scenes. John Hurt, one of the best British actors, does a terrific job as Marguis of Montrose, a corrupted man for whom money is the aim in itself achieved by any means. I like that calmness of his portrayal. But the real villain is played by Tim Roth who truly depicts wretched side of his character, Archibald - a man who mocks love, who loves war and who finds true lust in rape and slaughter. But, like in any good epic, this exceptional evil must find its end...<br /><br />And one more aspect: the musical score: such memorable and sentimental tunes that are bound to sound in the ears for long. The final moment touched me to tears not only because of the beauty it conveys but because I deeply combined these blissful tunes with the grandeur of locations. Scotland remains in the heart of its visitor and this movie reminded me of that permanent effect. It was, as if, my second journey to Scotland.<br /><br />ROB ROY is a very nice movie, very well directed, photographed and acted. It perhaps does not equal BRAVEHEART with its spectacular sets and crowds of extras in battle scenes, but it is a fairly long film with much attention placed on one very significant feature a cinema should have: stunning entertainment combined with heartfelt education. I really enjoyed that film, do not hesitate to call it metaphorically "highlands of entertainment" and rate it 9/10 | positive |
For any fan of Nickelodeon who used to watch the network in the 80s and 90s, there was always something good on. You had entertaining acts like You Can't Do That on Television. You had weird but good shows like Pete & Pete. You even had cartoons that taught morals like Doug. But just like Disney, Nickelodeon has fallen down the tubes, limiting their demographic to shallow preteens and giving us poor excuses to come up with new, innovative shows. As I tried watching Zoey 101, I just shook my head in disgust.<br /><br />The setting couldn't of been more fake than this one. Each character attends a boarding school called Pacific Coast Academy, boasting everything that a spoiled child wants. A sushi bar, laptops everywhere, flat screen TVs in every room, cool dorms to hang out, etc. The kids in this show are rarely seen in class and there doesn't seem to be any real teachers. It looks more like a place that you would spend on a nice summer vacation rather than to work and study while preparing for college.<br /><br />The characters were also a factor that turned me off. Every episode consists of boy problems, situations that they caused themselves, and troubles that should be solved. Each character is a stereotype. Zoey (Jamie Lynn) seems perfect in anything she does, and each of her friends ask her for help when they feel they are in grave danger. Only leading her to have no other side. I've been through school and I can tell you, nobody is like that. Chase is dumb. Logan plays the arrogant tough guy. Quinn plays a nerd who is highly unrealistic in what she does. Michael is an idiot. Lola is a clone of Nicole. Dana is just well, a tough person. Why not use some originality? Something that is unique for these characters, and different from other personalities? Is being stereotypical the best the creators of this show can come up with? Instead, these actors are dull personalities with the sense in that there is a lack of creativity involving their roles. There is nothing here to be amazed or surprised at.<br /><br />Not only that, but the show is clearly for the intent of aiming for kids of adolescence, facing a stage in that they must evolve from being a child to being an adult. Through that period they must learn to study on their own, make their own decisions, and do what's right for them. Zoey 101 contains nothing of those values. In this case, we are supposed to believe that looking good and having a stereotypical personality is all you need to succeed. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. People can't expect things to be handed to them like the actors in this show are and just let those things sit there. If I expect things in Zoey 101 to happen in real life, then I would be living in a fantasy world locked away in a dream house. Nothing in this show relates to those who face health and money issues. Neither does it relate to kids wanting to learn something meaningful.<br /><br />So in conclusion, Zoey 101 is a show made by Nickelodeon that only falls flat on it's face. It displays a horrible message for kids and I highly think the show itself is simply inappropriate for them. Sure, it doesn't have morbid violence, but it teaches everything to make a kid act and look stupid. A horrible show, and should be forgotten with the rest of the garbage Nickelodeon has been making in recent years.<br /><br />1 out of 10. | negative |
I've got to say it. Gary Busey saved this film. If it were not for his fine acting talents this film would have been sub par. I recommend the film but just barely.<br /><br />The biggest difficulty with the film is its broad disregard for historical, geographical and physical accuracy. For example, why is Lubbock green and hilly? How come Buddy's producer Petty ignored? Where are the daily trips to the Clovis, New Mexico studio? Why is Nashville treated as a racist hate camp out to destroy the Holly sound? Why was Buddy's two week courtship to Maria treated as a complex, taboo, race mixing stereotype? Why are Buddy's tile boxes as light as feathers? Finally, why are the Crickets portrayed as trouble making roadblocks to Holly's talent?<br /><br />Taken on their face these inaccuracies should spell doom for any film proclaiming itself, "The Buddy Holly Story." However, Busey does deliver a stirring portrayal as the man whose death eventually led to the day the music died. | positive |
I liked this a lot. In fact, if I see it again(and I plan to) I just may love it. I'll echo other reviewers in saying that this movie really does grow on you as you watch. It starts kind of slowly but the way in enfolds is very natural and has a mood to it. You just get into it.<br /><br />I really liked the summery atmosphere to the movie and thought the movie was very touching as a whole. The characters have a strong element of realism and the movie very slowly and gently weaves a spell as you get involved in the various interactions between them all and want to know how it will ultimately turn out and what paths the characters will choose to take. <br /><br />I am very surprised that there are less then a dozen comments on this-there are obscure TV movies that have more comments then Rich In Love.<br /><br />One thing that I will say is I missed the ending which is driving me crazy and I HAVE to watch it again to see that. This is a movie that may not be for everybody but that I feel is strongly underrated(even some of my most film buff purist friends who have seen almost every movie there is haven't seen this) and it doesn't even seem to have much of a message board but I liked it a lot and to all those who like family dramas that are warm on scenery, atmosphere and an unhurried languid pace should probably take a look at this. Especially note worthy is that it takes place in South Carolina so for those (like me) who love the south, and movies that take place there, this is a gem. I'll add my vote to the woefully few comments and recommend this little known flick. | positive |
I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.<br /><br />The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.<br /><br />That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film. | negative |
I remember this movie in particular when I was a teenager, my best friend was telling me all about this movie and how it freaked her out as a kid. Of course being the blood thirsty gal that I am, I had to go out and find this movie. Now I don't know how to put this without loosing credibility, so I'm just going to say it, I actually had fun watching this movie! I know that it's stupid, not the best story and beyond bloody and gruesome, but that's what I was looking for and The Dentist delivers in the scares, blood, sex, and crazy psychopaths. Sometimes I just need a fun movie like this to just let loose and get grossed out by.<br /><br />Dr. Alan Feinstone is obsessed with order and cleanliness. On the day of his wedding anniversary, he spies his wife Brooke having sex with their filthy pool man, Matt. At his dental practice, Feinstone's first patient of the day is young Jody Saunders, there for his very first dental appointment. Feinstone begins to clean Jody's teeth. Everything goes smoothly at first, until he imagines that Jody's teeth are brown and rotten. His dental pick slips, stabbing Jody in the gums. Jody's mother picks up her crying, bleeding child and leaves angrily. Feinstone sees his second patient, beauty queen April Reign. Alone with April, Feinstone sedates her with nitrous oxide so that he can fill a cavity in one of her molars. As she drifts off into unconsciousness, Feinstone imagines that she has transformed into his wife. He begins kissing and fondling her on the dental chair, then begins to choke her. April starts to cough and half-wakes up from the gas. Feinstone snaps out of his trance and quickly re-buttons April's blouse. Feinstone decides to end the day early and sends his staff and patients home. Later that night, Brooke meets Feinstone at his practice. He reveals his new Italian opera-themed patient room. He encourages Brooke to try out the room's dental chair. When she does, Feinstone binds her to the chair and sedates her with nitrous oxide. With operatic music blaring in the background, he begins to pull out Brooke's teeth. Feinstone has gone off the deep end and is definitely not going to let anybody stand in his way of cleanliness.<br /><br />Honestly, as silly as this movie sounds, I did have a lot of fun watching The Dentist. The best scene without a doubt is when he teaches that nasty IRS agent a lesson in hygiene that I'm sure he'll never forget. Man, I don't think I've brushed my teeth so much after I watched The Dentist. Yeah, I am going to warn you, this movie is in no way for the faint of heart, it's very bloody. There's stabbing, gun shots and just these brutal dental torture scenes that will make your stomach turn. Yet somehow I just enjoyed this movie, if I ever want just a good gore movie that was made for true horror fans, I slip it in my DVD player, and that's the "tooth" LOL! I am so funny! Um, yeah, I try, give me a little credit.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
I would suggest that Only the Valiant is one of the most original and intriguing and in some ways weird movies that Peck ever did; daring , surprising and one of his few best westerns (--no, no, of course, not a western really, but a military chronicle, which sometimes is better--). It's quite lowbudget, but, oh, very original and striking. It's one of those treats a true buff sometimes gets; movies that no one yet told you they exist. You say'that sounds intriguing, or interesting'and it surpasses your expectations.<br /><br />All in all, the script shows a level of maturity unusual for the westernsand it somehow reminded me, obliquely, of ULZANA; it's also straight nononsense suspense.<br /><br />Peck looked dashing as a young and tough, somewhat gloomy and stoic officer; and there are many unexpected toucheslike the blonde babe kissing and flirting with the one she's decided not to marry, perhaps a feeling of hers for justice and retribution
.<br /><br />Even genrewise, ONLY
is so much more than a military taleit is as well an action drama, a suspense movie, a commando/ action thrillerthe weirdest combo imaginable; a bunch of soldiers in a special mission to counteract and stop a possible Native's attack
--the insane decision not to take all the available troops to the place where those Natives could be stoppedbut only a handful of people
--and this plot never takes a crap routeas most would and did
. The interest for humans, for people and their reasons and actions never falters.<br /><br />A due word about Peck himself; he performs with brio, and though I usually find his famous movies to be rather insipid and boring, in such small outings I find intact all Peck's somber and even chilling glamor. He was an unusual star.<br /><br />I gladly recommend this extraordinary movie. | positive |
This is so blatantly a made-for-TV ripoff of Black Widow (1987) - even the insect titles are so similar.<br /><br />If you want a better "marrying for money" movie, check out Black Widow, starring Debra Winger & Theresa Russell.<br /><br />These movie is cheesiness at its best..! I just had to watch it entirely to see how it ended. | negative |
This would have to be by far the greatest series I have ever seen. I vividly watched every sunday night and purchased the box set as soon as it was available. this is a timeless play written by a fantastic Australian that people of all ages could relate to, whether they are Australian or not, however for those of us that are Australian it truly brings across the typical Australian icon. A must see 10/10 | positive |
"North & South" the television mini-series is to the 80's what "Rich Man, Poor Man" (the first-ever TV mini-series) was to the 70's.<br /><br />It's a fabulous adaptation of the first classic novel in the trilogy from author John Jakes. The story itself covers the two decades leading up to the years of the election of President Abraham Lincoln and the imminent proclamation of the Civil War - North versus South. The intertwining stories evolve around the families of the Hazards (the 'North' in the title) and the Mains and their two central figures of George and Orry who form a friendship whilst embarking on their West Point training in 1842.<br /><br />"North & South" is a wonderful historic timeline and as I have grown older (and wiser!) it very much interests me to learn about the contrasting attitudes to such controversial aspects as 'Slavery' and 'Abolitionists', and how these attitudes originated.<br /><br />The series also portrays some great characterisation development as we get to know about the friends and enemies in George and Orry's lives, and also the women that stole their hearts as young men. This aspect of the story also uncovers a romantic tale that is set to the turbulent backdrop of the American Civil War.<br /><br />"North & South", along with "Rich Man, Poor Man" is overshadowed by 1977's "Roots" as the greatest mini-series of all-time. However, it does come a close second/third and also shares the same kind of timeline and themes as "Roots". But, don't let this one get away, even if it's just to see the great scenery, costumes, and brilliant all-star cast including Gene Kelly, Johnny Cash, Elizabeth Taylor, James Stewart, Olivia De Havilland, Lesley-Anne Down et al. <br /><br />The series is beautifully crafted and is firmly tied to actual historic events and it's a pity the Emmys and Golden Globes didn't honour a lot more of the actors and actresses for their portrayals. Patrick Swayze and James Read, the two virtual unknown lead actors at the time, turn in compelling performances as Orry Main and George Hazard respectively. However, it's Kirstie Alley's riveting performance as George's 'Abolitionist' sister Virgilia that steals the show many times. Plus, Terri Garber, David Carradine and Philip Casnoff as Elkanah Bent are the delicious villains of the piece you just love to hate.<br /><br />"North & South" Books 1 & 2 are now available on two DVD sets. | positive |
As you may know, the subject here was to ask eleven directors from all over the world to make each a short movie of 11 minutes, 9 seconds and one frame. We have here : - Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) : what afghan refugee kids can understand to the towers collapsing ? Well, nothing. A great lesson. - Claude Lelouch (France) : a weak plot with a great cinematography... Just imagine a deaf woman living by the WTC who sees without understanding it that her dog barks... Well just see it. - Youssef Chahine (Egypt) : the greatest oriental movie maker has compassion... For everyone : for an us soldier who died ten years ago, for the people in the Wtc but also for a palestinian suicide-terrorist. Maybe the less tender movie towards the us. - Danis Tanovic (bosnia hrzgovia) : good images, makes us travel, for sure... Not a very good plot. Idrissa Oudraogo (Burkina Faso) : from one of the poorest country in the world, a tender and funny story about five boys who want to capture Osama Bin Laden... And they could have done it but nobody believes them when they tell they know where he is. Ken Loach (uk) : September 11, 1973, The Chile entered in a twenty-years long bloody dictature. Thousands of death, tortures : all that was offered to Chile by Henry Kissinger and the CIA, and knowing this changes very much your point of view ! I guess that is because of that particular short that no american movie distribution company accepted to release the movie in us theaters ! Loach forgot to point that 1973 is also the year when the WTC was built ! - Alejandro Gonzalez inarritu (Mexico) : impressing images that we all know too well, and a lot of black screens. I didn't get this one very much, it is more an artist video (to show in an exhibition) than a movie. - Amos Gitaï (Israël) : an absurd ballet of policemen, journalists, etc., around a burning car in Jerusalem. Very well done. - Mira Nair (India) : about the anti-islamic feeling that followed september the 11th. Very good actualy. - Sean Penn (us) : a funny little story that reminds us a fact usualy forgotten, the WTC did have a huge shadow, and some places now have a daylight they never had. - Shohei Imamura (Japan) : a different one. Here there is not even one word about the WTC, and the action takes place at the end of WWII. It has only one message : no war is holy. This short movie gives very deep feelings, but the director aparently would have done better with more than 11 minutes. --- so --- A great movie, a great attempt to take the world's temperature. I love it. | positive |
I saw the description of the movie on TCM and only let it run because I like both Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith, so I was delightfully surprised to find that I really liked the movie and found it quite exceptional. Of course, it is seriously dated, but as a period piece it is well worth watching just for the subtle humour in insight into life and lifestyle almost forty years ago. Now the only problem is trying to find it on DVD so I can watch it more often. I also was quite taken with the performances of Smith and Ustinov as the leads, and of Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, and the cameo appearances by Robert Morley and Cesar Romero. | positive |
Should I have expected anything other than putrid from Carrot Top? This was on of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is by far the worst comedy I have ever seen. "Chairman of the Board" did not add humor to my attitude, rather it enraged me. That's right, Carrot Top is such a bad comedian that I became enraged that this man is making movies. | negative |
I had a recent spectator experience with The Perfect Witness (2007) because the NetFlix computer recommendation engine suggested I watch this film. Apparently, at some point, I told it how much I liked Michael Haneke's, Benny's Video. I don't know about you, but this parallel being drawn provoked in me a maelstrom of emotion and excitement over Thomas C. Dunn's film and made the allocation of my time toward it virtually impossible to refuse. Just this kind of recommendation from the NetFlix computer intelligence, for me, had the aesthetic/moral movie bar set to level so high that, upon reflection, it represented something pretty much unaccomplished in every film produced in the year 2007.<br /><br />Having prefaced my response to the film that way, I'm going to proceed in knocking this picture down as poorly executed and banal; and I really hate to do that because I think our boy, Wes Bentley, happens to be not only one of the most interesting young faces in contemporary cinema, but also one its most overlooked and underrated screenacting talents in the US. I'm more than moderately concerned that the poor guy's going to miss the fame ship if he keeps fiddling around with first time movie directors like this.<br /><br />The Perfect Witness is about Micky (Wes Bentley), who, about thirty, still lives with Mom ("You're not drinkin' again area ya's?"), but he's a "filmmaker" or at the very least some kind of street-level voyeur with a pension for shooting would-be Johns in the seedy back alleys of Philadelphia with his DVX 100B. Out there, doing his private investigator-like drills, Micky "inadvertently" video-tapes a brutal murder on a hapless early-twenty-ish coed with his hand held camcorder. Baring the notion in mind that snuff and movies as cultural currency can be his equated with his ticket out of the white urban ghetto (and not to the debts of his unwitting friends and relatives who put up the money for his atrocious films), Micky approaches the assailant, James LeMac (Mark Borkowski: also takes a writing credit) or "Mac the Knife" whichever- and blackmails the killer into making a documentary about his murder impulses, holding this found footage over the attacker with threats of the police.<br /><br />The problem with this movie is not that no interesting ideas exist because they do. While both the writing and direction are amateurish, that alone doesn't make a film bad. It's that these guys commit a rather poor assumption that what they are presenting is shocking in the context of a culture in which just about any person in the free world with access to a private computer can log-on to the web and catch the veracity of the action of a beheading on their little Mac or PC. No film relies on shock value alone any more (unless of course, ironically, it's a film about torture on animals) and therefore cinematic images of violence (real or fake) have less and less cultural capital with each year that passes. Also, we've got this astounding actor-talent in the lead all styled-up, real hip guy: his two inch beard and skull cap with the little bill on it, backwards, just like the dork from high school who craved after the potential services of my primary love interest same guy who just now calls himself a "poet."<br /><br />Spare me. "I'm an artist," "I'm a filmmaker." Okay. Please do, carry on with that shtick, Cronnie. Seems to have bought you a lot of expensive 35mm stock. And go ahead, you can wear all the accrutements of a "creative" but don't expect us top respond to you, to follow your below average character through your two hour movie while you take down Wes Bentley's career. Why don't we just let history speak to the merits of what you do, filmmaker guy. My guess is history will eventually have say something about that like, probably that's in not is good as you think it is. And yeah, odds are you'll be laying the blame on your dear ole ma, end up like our man Micky here in The Perfect Witness; hooked on smack and covered in your buddy's blood with a video camera in your hand. Great. | negative |
I find Herzog's documentary work to be very uneven. Fata Morgana, a companion piece of sorts to Lessons of Darkness, lacks not only the harrowing spectacle but mostly the discerning eye of an author. It is by comparison amateur looking, aimless pans left and right across the desert the kind of which you would expect from any German tourist equipped with a handycam, the camera left running from the window of a car picking up all kinds of meaningless images, wire fences, derelict buildings and patches of dirt going through the lens in haphazard order, intercut with shots of sand dunes. At one point Herzog encounters a group of starved cattle rotting away in the sand, yet the image is presented much like you and me would, perhaps worse, the camera peering hand-held from one cattle to the next. For a documentary that attempts to be a visual feast, a hypnotic, surreal excursion in uncharted landscapes, it lacks the visual orchestration and conviction of a disciplined author. It's all over the place, half-hearted and tedious, Mayan creation myths recited in voice-over, then some other text Herzog fancied for literature. It's not until near the end that Fata Morgana jumps alive through a series of bizarre encounters. First with a man and a woman playing music in a room, the man singing in a distorted voice through a mic, both of them apathetic in their task. A man holding up a turtle. A group of old people trying to get out of some holes in the ground. Other than that, this one seems to have very little of substance to offer or visual splendor to offer. | negative |
It´s all my fault. They all told me I should avoid seeing this movie because I´m a huge fan of the old TV-series. They were right. While production values are good and the actors themselves (including "don´t look now") Julie Christie aren´t that bad, the whole film displays a cheekiness and self-conciousness that clearly is without any justification. A comparison between the Karloff "Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns 2000" comes to my mind. In fact Belphegore 2000 owes much more to the new Mummy films than to the old series. But then, scripting is terrible, speed there is none and sometimes the film is full of unintentional jokes (The first scene in the tomb looks plain stupid), with cats clearly being thrown when they´re supposed to jump (landing with their backfeet first). Belphegore moves around like a statue on wheels neither impressive nor scary and the psychological drama that unfolded in the old tv series when the heroine had to learn that she´s a villain is completely neglected. This movie is so WASTED (wasted money, wasted actors, wasted blueprint) that it hurts. It´s a below-par Mummy-rip off that´s only good for some laughs but has nothing at all to do with the Greco classic (She has a small role in this movie too - on the graveyard). | negative |
First, I must point out that the role Wendell Corey played was exceptional. Usually, Corey was relegated to supporting roles but here he is what helps carry this very limp film. Without him and the character he played, the film would have been a lot worse--hardly meriting a 2 or 3.<br /><br />So why did I hate the rest of the film so much? Well, one of my pet peeves is when characters act "too stupid to live". You can't base major plot points on the assumption that your major characters are completely stupid (unless having a brain injury is part of the plot, of course). But this is exactly what happens in this film. Wendell Corey is a crazed man who has murdered three innocent people and they know his next target is Joseph Cotten's wife. So what do they do? Yep, they provide really inadequate police protection and a plan that makes no sense at all (no marksman and guys with shotguns that are so far away they probably WON'T stop this madman). And if this isn't bad enough, the marked woman inexplicably runs away from her hiding place and walks right into the WORST possible place she could be! Is anyone THAT stupid?!?! Arrrggghhhh---I hate when movies have such dumb characters. In fact, I found myself rooting for Corey since I felt the idiots deserved to die for their behaviors! In addition to these clichéd characters, there was also a bit player who fainted. Sure, seeing your husband shot MIGHT cause someone to faint, however in real life this is a rare occurrence--people rarely faint unless there is a medical reason. So, combining this with the above character problems is a real nightmare for people who are looking for realism--something Film Noir movies MUST have.<br /><br />All these serious problems are even more infuriating since Wendell Corey's character is amazingly well-written and conceived. It was his chance to shine as an actor--too bad the rest of the movie was so limp that Corey and the basic plot idea are sunk. This is one film that could really use a remake--but this time without brainless characters. | negative |
'The Luzhin Defence' is a good film with fine central performances, but too much of the novel and not enough of the filmmaker's craft shines through. It felt through most of the film that the characters just helped to push the narrative along. Marlene Gorris could perhaps have examined the psyche of Luzhin, rather than depicting him as a tortured innocent victim torn apart by the cruel motives of others.<br /><br />Adapting literature for the screen is clearly a difficult task, especially a novel written in the early 20th century. This film does not go deeply enough into the relationship between Luzhin and Natalia. Natalia's rift with her mother comes across a churlish disagreement by the mother rather than a dramatic flashpoint in the film. I felt that I was put through Luzhin's torment and eventual tragic end, without being given the pleasure of having his unusual and complex personality unravelled. However, this was a moving and enjoyable film but certainly not a great one. | positive |
This movie was excellent. A sad truth to how culture tends to clash with the sexes. This is just one big warm fuzzy type of movie. You have the master who is steeped in tradition and kind hearted in his own way, Doggie despite being a girl thing to win his affections and you top it off with one cute monkey with a thousand facial expressions. This equals on big happy movie in the end. This movie does a good job at showing how steeped in tradition one can be, so steeped that they are willing to die without sharing their secrets. You see sides to a culture never seen before which helps enhance the drama that unfolds near the end of the picture. The cinema-photography is excellent, in particular the opening parade sequence with all the sparkers. Bound to be in Oscar contention for best foreign film. | positive |
Like other movies from the worst director ever, Ed Wood, this movie is very bad but because of that it is also very funny. May be not for everyone, but I laughed a lot. It is a strange thing when you enjoy a bad movie. How do you rate it? As a movie very low, as entertainment at least a little higher.<br /><br />The movie tries to explain what a transvestite is and it does this through a scientist (Bela Lugosi) and an inspector (Lyle Talbot) who talks to a doctor (Timothy Farrell) who knows about these things. The doctor tells the detective two stories and that is what we, and apparently the scientist, see. The doctor tels these stories because a dead transvestite is found, suicide, and because of a headline in the news paper about a sex-change. The first and longest story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) who is in love and about to marry Barbara (Dolores Fuller) but he has never told her he like to dress as a woman, when he is named Glenda. The movie tells the same thing over and over again, especially the fact that a transvestite is not necessarily a homosexual. The movie almost says that being a transvestite is not a bad thing, but being homosexual is, since it keeps telling us the fact that a transvestite is not a homosexual. The second story is about a transvestite who really wants a sex-change and not just wants to dress up as a woman, but it is much shorter and less interesting.<br /><br />A couple of things make this movie very bad, and therefore laughable. How the story is presented is the first thing, the way the same things are told over and over again and the conclusion of it all are others. This is not where it ends. The acting is very bad, especially Dolores Fuller seems to be reading her lines directly from a little screen somewhere. Every thing she says is funny. The whole dialogue actually gave me quite some laughs.<br /><br />There is also a sequence where someone walks into a room. The door stays half open and we see something hanging on the wall, not completely straight. Then the door, in what seems to be the same shot although we know it is not, is a little less open and suddenly the thing on the wall hangs straight. Ed Wood didn't mind to leave this kind of continuity errors in his movie. May be a good thing, because basically it is just another laugh for the modern audience. I think you understand that it is a bad movie and I think there is a good chance you will laugh at the ridiculous mistakes as well. | negative |
Ex-reporter Jacob Asch (Eric Roberts) is hired by an acquaintance (Raymond J. Barry) to find his ex-wife and son. Asch heads to Palm Springs and quickly locates the ex Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) with someone he believes to be the son (a young Johnny Depp). But things turn out to be a bit more complicated as Asch discovers former white trash Laine has definitely married up in the form of millionaire Simon Fleischer (Dan Hedaya) and her first son is nowhere to be seen.<br /><br />Director/writer Matthew Chapman is channeling BODY HEAT here and this mid-80s neo-noir is watchable enough thanks to an all-star cast and nice locations. D'Angelo was still looking good around this time, so she makes for a good femme fatale and isn't afraid to show some skin. However, the mystery isn't very compelling in the end. Co-starring Dennis Lipscomb, Emily Longstreth and Henry Gibson. Chapman made several thrillers in the 80s, but his "biggest" career achievement was co-authoring the screenplay for the infamous COLOR OF NIGHT. | positive |
This is the movie that epitomizes the D&D fear of the 80s (and even today). The fear being that people who play D&D (or any other role-playing game for that matter) will be "sucked in" and lose their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy (and go on killing sprees, child sacrifices, suicide, etc). Great movie for anyone who likes to blame the problems of society on inanimate objects, but anyone who has played a role-playing game, a video game, or even acted in a play will see this as an insult to their intelligence. It is to D&D what Wargames was to computers. Plus as a movie, it just kinda sucks. | negative |
Much worse than the original. It was actually *painful* to sit through, and it barely held my six year old's interest.<br /><br />Introduction of some new Pokemon is marginally interesting, but storyline is extra-thin, dialogue is still bad, and music is mediocre. Watch the television show instead - it's much better. | negative |
"Still Crazy" is without a doubt the greatest rock comedy of all-time. It has been erroneously compared to "This Is Spinal Tap", which it has no relation to. "Spinal Tap" is a satire (and, quite frankly, not a very good one, in spite of it's "outing" of many rock clichés). Unlike "Tap", "Still Crazy" is populated by great actors, great songs and great human situations. You CARE about the people in "Still Crazy". That's all that matters. Oh, yeah, the music's pretty damn good, too, written by Mick Jones of Foreigner and Chris Difford of Squeeze. American audiences were already familiar with Stephen Rea (The Crying Game), but would only later become familiar with Bill Nighy (Underworld, Love Actually, Pirates Of The Caribbean II) and Timothy Spall (the Harry Potter movies). | positive |
A movie like this makes me appreciate the work that professional actors do. I think movie-goers, in general, are a little too hard on professional actors and are ready to bash them for the most minuscule reasons. Just watch a couple minutes of "Cheerlader Massacre," and trust me, you'll change your views. A razzie would be almost a compliment for these no-talent actors. But then again, it's a Jim Wynorski film. Wynorski is a popular director of these ultra low-budget B-movies (having worked with Roger Corman on many an occasion). The problem with this movie is it actually tries to develop a plot. And when you have actors delivering lines like they're reading letters off an eye chart, how am I supposed to care? In Wynorski's "Bare Wench 2," he didn't try to develop a plot. He simply tried to make a softcore porn/goofy takeoff on the "Blair Witch Project." It was fun and it was titillating. "Cheerleader Masscare" is no fun. There are a couple obligatory female nude scenes, but they are few and far between. So it's not even worth enjoying on an erotic level. I must say, the worst scene is the one where Nikki Fritz walks across a bridge that's about to collapse. First of all, her character didn't have to walk across that bridge. Second of all, as the bridge starts creaking, rather than try her best to run across, she just stands there and acts helpless. And top it off, we don't actually see the bridge collapse because the filmmakers made this for a budget of 2 dollars!!! Unlike a lot of B-horror films, this one's actually boring. And that's what makes it the worst of all bad movies. One of the few bright spots was Lunk Johnson, who's probably the most natural actor in the film (though certainly no more than halfway decent). He was funny in "Bare Wench 2," and had some funny scenes in this movie too. | negative |
I couldn't believe that the Adult Swim guys came up with this character. I laughed for days just thinking about this show. Having finally seen the pilot I guess I will stick around for a few more episodes. Assy is pretty funny and the whole crew of police show characters are around, but Assy is hard to understand and that was a little frustrating. Most of the humor revolves around the fact that the title character is literally a walking ass with nothing else but legs that sport socks with garters and feet with traditional wing tips. Assy drinks too much and "plays by his own rules" as you might have guessed. The only other funny moments are Assy shooting many,many people and spending time at home - in the bathroom. It is not Squidbillies funny, but it is worth a look. | positive |
Okay, I agree with all the Barney haters on this site. I think Barney and his friends are all ugly looking and obnoxious and the show is very lop sided and unrealistic.<br /><br />But the thing that ticked me off the most is how Barney presented Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on his show when talking about same sex parents and relatives. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the creators of this show didn't use so many derogatory stereotypes of homosexuals. I mean, not all gay men wear mascara and love the colors purple and pink, and not all lesbians are ugly and manly looking with a bosom that sags to their abdomen. As a bisexual female, I just think this is terrible for a children's show. If this were South Park, I wouldn't mind it, because South Park is for people who can distinguish fantasy from reality. A lot of people who watch Barney are little kids or handicapped people who can't usually distinguish fantasy from reality.<br /><br />And now that I think about it, Barney sort of comes off as an ugly gay stereotype himself. Let's see, he doesn't have a girlfriend, he's pinkish colored and wears clothes with sequins (yes, it's true) on it. If you claim to be for the rights of gay and bisexual individuals, then stop making a mockery out of them in front of people who don't know any better. If Barney went black-face and ate fried chicken and watermelon at the same time, the show would be pulled off the air before you know it.<br /><br />I give this show a negative one out of five. Don't show your kids such hateful crap. There are children's shows out there that are so less insulting. | negative |
From the very beginning I was so excited to see this movie. The poster is possibly the funniest I've ever seen for a movie. I immediately bought one for my dorm this September.<br /><br />Every element came together in this movie so beautifully. It's not often you see a movie with so many penis, gay, and racial jokes so praised by critics. Carell and the rest of the cast deliver each raunchy joke sensationally. Carell remains sweet throughout the entire movie where by the end of the movie you're rooting for him to succeed in his relationship more than you are for him to get laid. The supporting cast is brutal, each of them having some problems with the ladies themselves.<br /><br />One of the things about this movie is the abundance of memorable scenes we're given. This is what makes a movie easy to remember fondly. This movie will often be brought up when the words "chest waxing" and "condoms" are mentioned in conversation.<br /><br />Watching it in the theater I was surprised how many older people were there to watch it. I saw a group of four mid-60s women come in. Despite an older audience, this movie still filled the entire theater with laughter.<br /><br />I think the type of people who will like this are the fans of the Office and Steve Carell. A lot of the jokes remind me of the type of jokes you'd see on Family Guy, too. The movie is shallow enough for adolescent boys and still sweet and clever enough for middle aged women.<br /><br />I don't recommend going to this movie if you aren't a fan of profanity or if you are easily offended. However, when you are at the movie, just remember this movie is all in good humor. The jokes aren't "gay jokes," they're just jokes. And they're funny. | positive |
I'm not sure what the director and editor were thinking when they were editing this poor excuse for a film, but whatever they thought of didn't help this movie, it only hurt it, and it hurt this film badly. The acting, for once, isn't the problem, it's the horrible editing, scenes will end for no apparent reason, while in the middle of an action sequence or people will be cut off in mid sentence. I'm not sure what the story was, but it didn't really matter, since what I did see was fairly uninteresting. Just bad all around, a huge "Jaws" rip-off and not a good one at that. The MST version was funny though. 7 for that, none for the film itself. | negative |
Ching Siu Tung's and Tsui Hark's A Chinese Ghost Story, aside from being one of the greatest wuxia pian films ever made, is a beautiful and romantic love story as well as an impressively choreographed martial arts film that should belong in every film lover's collection. The sorely missed Hong Kong superstar Leslie Cheung plays a traveling tax collector who spends the night at a haunted temple. While staying at the temple, he meets a colorful cast of characters that include the swordsmen Yin (Wu Ma) and Hsiao Hou, the Tree Devil, and the beautiful ghost Lit Sin Seen, played by the lovely Joey Wong.<br /><br />To free her from the clutches of the evil Tree Devil, he must reincarnate her body and travel to the underworld to defeat an even more powerful demon.<br /><br />Enough good things can't be said about this film. The pacing is perfect, with a great combination of romance, action, fantasy and humor, and the feverishly paced finale should leave you with little chance to breathe. The chemistry between the wonderfully tragic Joey Wong and Leslie Cheung (whose legendary career ended much too soon) really allows the viewer to feel for both of them. Indeed the acting on the whole is so vivacious and full of life, I would say this is one of the most fun viewing experiences I've ever had. Much of the credit goes to Wu Ma in his portrayal of the mysterious Swordsman Yin. His over-the-top persona of a disillusioned swordsman hell bent on vanquishing evil leads to some great moments of humor and traditional HK drama. A wonderful score, lush cinematography with eye popping colors, and frenetic action pieces courtesy of Ching Siu Tung round out this wonderful film. Find a copy anywhere you can. 10/10 | positive |
You could have put the characters on the island for any reason at all and had the same movie. The first one had an original story, the second stole one from King Kong, and in the end (I hope) of this trilogy the story seemed to have been bypassed altogether. Drop some people on an island full of dinosaurs and watch them run for their lives. That was about all there was to it. The special effects were decent but not worth 8 dollars. If you have a discount theatre in your local area, wait and see it for a buck. I wouldn't even bother renting it. That would be too much money for this unthrilling thriller. | negative |
Some less than inspired opening string music notwithstanding, we somehow know that from the word go this is heading straight for the "big fun" drawer. By the time we observe Monica Dolan (in a truly genius bit of casting) delightfully goofing it up as Cora early on we're already hooked, but it is only later on when she reveals herself in her marvellous screen creation, that deranged, scheming, maleficent queen of murder and deceit posing in the guise of the uptight Miss Gilchrist, that she not only effortlessly steals the entire telemovie for herself but quite simply blows off screen anyone who comes near her, including the ever well measured David Suchet who himself seems to be somewhat bedazzled by her acting talents and, very gentlemanly, allows her to take centre stage. Dolan is the true engine of the film and her Miss Gilchrist a genuinely well rounded character in this Christie rendition, helped by a zesty script and the sprightly paced direction - and also by the rest of the cast led by Geraldine James and Dominic Jephcott, who all display signs of sympathy for the given material and play with relish accordingly.<br /><br />The production values are spot on as usual, and if there are any weaker links they might be located in the comparatively substandard music score to the majority of later Poirots, and also perhaps in the lacking of a genuine Italian-born actor for the role of Cora's husband. Other than that, this is an hour and a half of pure televisual delight which is as self indulgent and entertaining as it is lovingly put together. | positive |
There are many people in our lives that we meet only once in our lifetime, but for some reason or another we remember those persons for the rest of our lives. These once in a lifetime friendships occur between people with long distances between and there are always some natural reasons for why we don't meet these people anymore. We don't always even know their names, as we are never presented to each other, and sometimes we even forget to ask what their names are. It's funny how common humanity makes occasional friends and we like to keep it as such, because reuniting might spoil fond memories, or we don't know do they. We are too afraid to check that out.<br /><br />The movie 'Before Sunrise' just caught me watching it. I never had intention to watch it through, but because the discussion between the couple seemed interesting, I gave a look for the rest of the film. I didn't know what to expect from it, but nor did the young couple. They had time to discuss with each other until the sunrise and anything could happen before they had to separate. I believe this film has had good reviews because the situation is something that everybody on this planet has at least once or twice lived through. It makes us all think about all those people we have met only once in our lives. | positive |
11 Oscar nominations and zero win!!! Am yet to understand why - its not like the actors in the movie did any better thereafter that you can make it by giving them awards for trivial roles like it was done with Halle Berry and Denzel Washington - Whoopi, Oprah, Margaret Avery, Danny Glover etc- were all amazing - i am curious to get scripts of the discussions at the Oscars that year...... it should go into the Shoulda-woulda-coulda category for the judges.... <br /><br />Its an amazing book - but true to Alice Walker's style of writing she has a way of seeming like she is exaggerating her characters - so I am so glad that they screen adaptation took a few things out. <br /><br />The cinematography was amazing - the African scenes live much to be desired - the African part in the book is supposed to be set in Liberia - somewhere in West Africa - BUT oh no! Steven Spielberg thinks the world is so dumb that they cant think of Africa outside of the Safaris - so yes there had to be a complimentary Zebra and wildlife scene when we all know there are none West Africa ---- and most of all why get the people to speak Swahili --- who in West Africa speaks Swahili?? I just had to get that out of the way.......<br /><br />But as a story - amazing, film-making - out of this world - CLASSIC yes!!<br /><br />I own it and I watch it when my soul needs some rejuvenation. | positive |
This very funny British comedy shows what might happen if a section of London, in this case Pimlico, were to declare itself independent from the rest of the UK and its laws, taxes & post-war restrictions. Merry mayhem is what would happen.<br /><br />The explosion of a wartime bomb leads to the discovery of ancient documents which show that Pimlico was ceded to the Duchy of Burgundy centuries ago, a small historical footnote long since forgotten. To the new Burgundians, however, this is an unexpected opportunity to live as they please, free from any interference from Whitehall.<br /><br />Stanley Holloway is excellent as the minor city politician who suddenly finds himself leading one of the world's tiniest nations. Dame Margaret Rutherford is a delight as the history professor who sides with Pimlico. Others in the stand-out cast include Hermione Baddeley, Paul Duplis, Naughton Wayne, Basil Radford & Sir Michael Hordern.<br /><br />Welcome to Burgundy! | positive |
i did not expect to enjoy this. in truth i watched it because a friend knew a friend knew a friend who wrote the script but wasn't credited. knowing Dylan thomas, and really being appreciative of his poetry but aware and rather disconcerted by the man, i didn't feel i needed to see a twee adaption of his lame bohemian life laid bare. and this was not it. critical and yet appreciative it was. it made me cry. kiera knightley was superb, even with that slightly strained welsh accent,and it is a sad tale that they tell. Dylan thomas is not the hero as sadly he was not throughout his life and neither really are the so called 'feisty woman' of the pr spiel. it is cillian the william of the movie. a man that leaves the woman he loves to fight a war that they ignore. his challenge to reoonnect with that indifference is what is of real interest to this film and what a beautiful performance from that actor. i thiink this film is underrated because it was marketed so badly. Dylan thomas fans will expect something more from their so very flawed hero and get less, and well that is how it was marketed. it is not a film about Dylan thomas and it is much more interesting for it. | positive |
I've seen The Blob several times and is one of the better low budget alien invasion movies from the 1950's.<br /><br />A strange meteor lands just outside a small town and an elderly man goes to investigate this. A strange jelly like substance then attaches itself to one of his arms and a young couple who saw the meteor land arrive in time and take him to the local doctor's, where the old man then gets completely absorbed by the mass. The doctor and his nurse are the next victims and the mass is getting bigger. When these incidents are reported to the police, they don't believe the young couple and accuse them of making all this up. They finally believe them when the mass, now huge turns up in the town's cinema and everybody runs into the streets screaming. It then attaches itself on a diner with the young couple and some others inside. The Blob is stopped by spraying a load of fire extinguishers at it and it freezes, which is its weakness. It is then transported by plane to the frozen wastes of the Arctic and disposed of there. But it is only frozen, not dead...<br /><br />This movie has a typical setting for its period: teenagers and a small town. The Blob has a good rock and roll style theme song at the beginning and the movie is atmospheric throughout.<br /><br />The sequel, Beware! The Blob followed in 1972 and a remake came in 1988 but this is the best of The Blob movies.<br /><br />The cast is lead by Steve McQueen (The Great Escape)and is the movie that made him a star and Aneta Corsaut plays his girlfriend. I'm not familiar with any of the other stars.<br /><br />The Blob is a must see for all sci-fi fans. Fantastic.<br /><br />Rating: 4 stars out of 5. | positive |
I saw Anatomy years ago -- dubbed at a friends house I don't remember it much, and then I saw at the video store there is a second one -- not really related to the first one Franka Ponte makes a little cameo. And that one was okay not as good as the first one. I'm seeing the first one again tonight -- not dubbed collectors edition. I really like German movies like this one it's very interesting and people and cults like the one in the movie could exist i think, i dunno. But it's very grossly entertaining and scary. Anatomy 2 is a little different and the characters are not as good as the first. But if you really thought Anatomy was interesting and good you should see the second one. | positive |
Perhaps the most polished and accomplished of all Indian films - Pakeezah does not fall into any of the traps commonly associated with Bollywood film (ie tackiness, farce, wholesale and unsuccessful imitation of western film themes/genres). Pakeezah is indigenous to the Sub-Continent and authentic, almost Madam Butterfly-like in plot. Characters are well-developed, direction, although sometimes unrefined by today's standards, perceptive and convincing. The Urdu-speaking milieux at the time of Pakeezah were masters of understatement and how the dialogue conveys the subtleties of the age! The acting (particularly the 'looks' and the dynamic between characters) are a delight to behold although the nuances may be lost on contemporary viewers or those not acquainted with the mores and customs of Muslim India.<br /><br />Coupled, with a captivating screenplay is a beautiful musical score, enhanced by the protagonist displaying eminent command of classical Indian dance (kathak). As is the case with most romantic tragedies, the heroine must die, but she does not take her leave of the audience without the viewer feeling he/she has been party to a truly memorable cinema experience. Pakeezah is surely the pinnacle of what Indian cinema has produced and is unlikely to be paralleled. | positive |
Not for those adrenaline maniacs etc It's a good movie, looking at after war, psychical problem, from the other point of view. <br /><br />Emilio Estevez is great as a young man, haunted by the demons of Vietnam war, causing problem in family. <br /><br />Marin Sheen is also good as a conservative father.<br /><br />It all comes down to the problem how to deal with the past, with whom<br /><br />Emilion Estevez's character can't seem to deal, and Martin Sheen's character don't want do deal with.<br /><br />Protective mother looks at this problem with warm , and open heart but with her mind closed for the obvious reasons. | positive |
While it comes no closer to the Tarzan of Edgar Rice Burroughs than, say, the Johnny Wiesmuller flicks did it does have it's own peculiar, and entertaining, slant on the story. Its a well done Tarzan movie. Nice scenery, good photography, workable continuity, and a Tarzan yell that echos the one described by Burroughs. The players all perform well. The only bad points I found were, I think, related. It moves slow in places. That slow movement? Makes this picture to long. It could easily have been 15 to 20 minutes shorter, which I think would have helped with the natural flow of the plot line and the character development. But the rest of the film works well enough to carry it over these two rough spots and still leave the viewer satisfied with the flick. Short version of all the above ... Its a very GOOD Tarzan movie. | positive |
The initiation to the local sport team involves taking the newbies out to the corn fields and guess what? There is a scarecrow murdering people there. Only one of the newbies survive but falls into a coma due to diabetes. Meanwhile the scarecrow starts to kill all of the involved people, one by one. Whats the scarecrows secret? Will they find it out before the scarecrow gets them all? This is a low budget movie and it shows. Sound is OK but picture is really corny. The plot/script really sucks and is quite pathetic and non logical. The acting is really bad and sometimes just laughable. Cant really say much about the special effects cause there aren't that many but the few there is ranges from bad to OK(for a low budget that is). There is some nudity and thats probably the only thing worth to watch in the movie(that is if your a horny teenager, if not, skip the movie all together). Another complete waste of time and money so don't see it. Goes for hack'n'slash fans too. | negative |
Nicole Finn (Madonna) is just being released from prison. Although she is ordered to go by bus to Philadelphia, she wants to stick around the place she was arrested. This is because she claims she has information that would clear her record. Louden (Griffin Dunne) is assigned to escort her to the bus by his future father in law. Louden will be driving around the city anyway (in his future mother in law's Rolls Royce), picking up the wedding ring and a rare big, big cat for an eccentric collector. Nicki, however, starts the ensuing mayhem as soon as she jumps in the Rolls to take over the driving. Between big cats, taxi drivers, hit men, bridesmaids, and a wedding cake with guns, lawyer Louden knows he's not in Kansas anymore. Is there a way out of the madness? This film is a wild trip down comedy avenue. Madonna and Dunneare perfect foils to each other, making their connection uproarious, as they play out their roles as an ex-con and an uptight, button-down lawyer, respectively. The script is laudable in it's ability to send the viewer into fits of hysteria as one implausible scene gives way to the next one, and the next. Everything secondary, from the supporting actors to the scenery to the costumes, are also quite nice. If you know someone who is in need of a jolt of joy, rent this movie for them. You will both be cheerio pronto. | positive |
Usually I'm the one criticizing the twenty-something Neanderthals for not being able to appreciate a film unless it has plastic t*ts, gunfights and car chases. However, in this case the film might actually have been improved with a few of those additions. At least I wouldn't have gotten bored after an hour and changed channels.<br /><br />I don't mind surreal, and I certainly don't mind having to pay attention to find subtlety or hidden meaning, but there should be some point to the whole thing. I didn't get the feeling that even the writer or director really had a broad vision of anything but were, instead, just so self-absorbed in their own pretentious visions that they became deliberately scattered. Or perhaps they just got confused themselves. Either way, I don't care. It bored the crap out of me for just over an hour with no saving grace.<br /><br />Although a whole pack of other viewers have filled up this site with excited ravings about the alleged symbolism and masterful cinematography, I must respectfully disagree. Perhaps I didn't mince through enough film classes to appreciate some inspired techniques not visible to mere mortals ...<br /><br />Or perhaps this movie was just crap. <br /><br />I give it a "1" and file it next to "Ishtar." | negative |
Especially for a time when not much science fiction was being filmed (1973), this is a terrific vision of a future where everything has gone wrong. Too many people, and nothing works. The only people who can live in comfort are the rich. It's set in New York in 2022 (I think), and it reminds you of your worst vision of Calcutta.<br /><br />I got to appreciate Charlton Heston's acting after seeing him in Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. He was (maybe is) capable of portraying a range of heroic or semi-heroic people. Here, he is torn between being a cop who is just a little bit corrupt (taking rare food treats from the rich), and being totally corrupt (actively condoning evil). <br /><br />The movie all seems to take place at night, and sweat is dripping off everyone, except in one of the rare air-conditioned apartments. Even though I hadn't seen it before, I knew the famous ending (which will not here be revealed), but the ending is certainly foreshadowed.<br /><br />Great scenes with Edward G. Robinson: going to the council (made up of elderly Jews with heavy accents, so it seems), where the truth is revealed. And then going off to the Thanatopsis to check out.<br /><br />Gritty, pre-Star Wars dystopian science fiction. | positive |
A fairly typical Australian movie where the underdog saves the day inspite of himself. I guess there is no real reason to see this pic if you have seen "The Castle" or "The Dish". It still leaves you with a positive feeling at the end and it as good or better than most Hollywood stuff. | positive |
Sidney Young (Pegg) moves from England to New York to work for the popular magazine Sharpe's in a hope to live his dream lifestyle but struggles to make a lasting impression.<br /><br />Based on Toby Young's book about survival in American business, this comedy drama received mixed views from critiques. Labelled as inconsistently funny but with charm by the actors, how to lose friends seemed as a run of the mill fish out of the pond make fun at another culture comedy, but it isn't.<br /><br />This 2008 picture works on account of its actors and the simple yet sharp story. We start off in the past, then in the present and are working our way forwards to see how Young made his mark at one of America's top magazines.<br /><br />Pegg (Hot Fuzz) is too likable for words. Whether it's hitting zombies with a cricket bat or showing his sidekick the nature of the law the English actor brings a charm and light heartedness to every scene. Here, when the scripting is good but far from his own standards, he brings a great deal of energy to the picture and he alone is worth watching for. His antics with "Babe 3" are unforgivable, simply breathtaking stuff as is his over exuberant dancing, but he pulls it off splendidly.<br /><br />Bridges and Anderson do well at portraying the stereotypical magazine bosses where Dunst fits in nicely to the confused love interest. Megan Fox, who stole Transformers, reminds everyone she can act here with a funny hyperbole of a stereotype film star. The fact that her character Sophie Myles is starring in a picture about Mother Teresa is as laughable as her character's antics in the pool. To emphasize the point there is a dog, and Pegg rounds that off in true Brit style comedy, with a great little twist.<br /><br />Though a British film there is an adaptation of American lifestyle for Young as he tries to fit in and we can see the different approaches to story telling. Young wants the down right dirty contrasted with the American professionalism. The inclusion of modern day tabloid stars will soon make this film dated but the concept of exploitation of film star's gives this edge.<br /><br />Weide's first picture is not perfect. There are lapses in concentration as the plot becomes too soapy with an awkward obvious twist and there are too many characters to be necessary. The physical comedy can also be overdone. As a side note, the bloopers on the DVD are some of the finest you will ever see, which are almost half an hour long.<br /><br />This comedy drama has Simon Pegg on shining form again and with the collective approach to story telling and sharp comedy, it is worth watching. | positive |
First-time director Tom Kiesche turns in a winning film in the spirit of cutting, dark comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, yet had the flavor of the early Coen brother's film Blood Simple ... and throw in some Monty Python flavorings to boot! Needs to seen more than once to appreciate all the elements that carry one scene to the next. Expect more good things to come from this writer-director-actor. | positive |
This is a case where the script plays with the audience in a manner that serves only in extending this story to 90 minutes. Story starts out in 1969 where a young girl named Faith (Cameron Diaz) travels to Europe with her boyfriend Wolf (Christopher Eccleston) but she dies under mysterious circumstances. Then in 1976 Faith's sister Phoebe (Jordana Brewster) decides to travel to Europe as well and try and find out what happened to her sister. In France she looks up Wolf who has stayed there and she wants him to help her retrace the steps her sister took and answer some questions. He is reluctant but decides to travel with her. Along the way he fills in the gaps of the occurrences and tells Phoebe that Faith had joined up with the Red Army who are an extremist group that is involved in terrorism. Phoebe and Wolf engage in a romance and this complicates the trip to Portugal where Faith died. Their is several things wrong with this film and it all has to do with the script. First, the romance between Wolf and Phoebe is all wrong and does nothing for the story. It rings completely false and comes across as forced. It seems weird that Wolf would engage in a romance with his dead girlfriends sister. Secondly, Wolf knows completely what happened to Faith but only lets out little chunks of information every 15 minutes or so. Wolf will look at Phoebe every 15 minutes and say, "There is something I didn't tell you"! Gee, thanks a lot Wolf! If Wolf had come clean the first time he talked to Phoebe then the film would have been over in about 30 minutes. Another thing that bothered me was that I don't think this film recreated the 1960's at all. Diaz wears hippie clothes but the time period just didn't ring true. I did enjoy a few things like the authentic locations where the film was shot. It is a very good looking film and the scenery is beautiful. The performances are all good especially by Brewster and Diaz. Besides "The Fast and the Furious" I had never really seen Brewster in anything. But after watching her performance in this film I came away very impressed. She's very good here and I hope better roles come her way. The script is told in a very contrived way and the film never comes across as believable. | positive |
In this follow up to The Naked Civil Servant we see the final years of Quentin Crisp's life in New York. John Hurt is again Crisp (come on who else could play the part?) and its a role he inhabits to the point of disappearing. For me Hurt is Crisp and I've always found it very hard to take the man himself because Hurt was more him than he was himself. Its masterful performance. His equal is Denis O'Hare as Phillip Steele, Crisp's long time friend and confidant.<br /><br />Unfortunately outside of the performances the film has little to recommend it. To be certain the film gets the details right. Filmed in and around New York the film the film looks and feels like New York and its environs, but dramatically its kind of inert. Its Crisp talking to people being witty,trying to come to terms with the world as it is (he ended up regretting some poorly chosen words concerning AIDS) and dealing with the infirmities that old aged thrust upon him. Quentin the man is always interesting, but his life as portrayed is really not.<br /><br />I am disappointed by the film. I've always admired the man and his unique point of view. I just wish he was better served by this film about his life. | negative |
For Native Mongolian speakers the film lacked emotion and emphasis. Used too many non Native speakers especially Jamukha. Too many diversions from the actual history. Terrible terrible subtitle!!! I wonder where and who did that subtitle. It was both in English and Thai. I wonder how bad the subtitle was in Thai if the English subtitle was soooo bad! Described the one of the greatest leader's life very uninteresting. There are better films made by Mongolian directors with very low budget from 1980's. Honestly, I'm wondering if the film critics of Academy award is that lenient or what? Only good thing was some good CGI in some fighting scenes only moderately... not over the top CGI | negative |
I must admit, when I read the description of the genre on Netflix as "Steamy Romance" I was a little bit skeptical. "Steamy"? In a movie from 1968?? I was prepared for disappointment. And when I realized it was shot entirely in black & white, I knew my erotic hopes were dashed.<br /><br />Boy, was I wrong! Not only does this film have all of the elements of a steamy romance -- the discovery of first love, fear of the secret being found out, a sudden unexpected end -- but at times this movie was downright erotic. You will soon forget that it is shot in black & white. The cinematography deserves every accolade it has received over the years. And the performances from the two stars (Essy Persson and Anna Gael) are intense and memorable. OK, so they're both in their mid twenties trying to play school girls. It's 1968. Do you really expect teenagers from the '60s to be able to effectively explore a lesbian love story like this? Many adult women were still trying to come to grips with their sexuality back then. Anyone looking for real teens here is expecting too much.<br /><br />I think this movie was way ahead of its time. The level of eroticism was an unexpected pleasure; yet it still managed to leave a lot to the imagination, opting instead to give us poetic descriptions to add to what we were shown.<br /><br />I have no doubt lesbians will identify with the characters here. As for you straight guys who love watching lesbians in action: Although it won't be all you expect, I don't think you'll be too, too disappointed. | positive |
I think it is saying something that the Bollywood "Bride and PRejudice" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi? Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them), you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however, who had seen neither, was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though, or even a film-goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies, it will be painful to sit through this.<br /><br />Ugh, the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldn't have fared half so badly if they'd had a decent script, perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austen's work.<br /><br />What travesties were committed? Well, you'll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as "Don't you dare judge me, Lizzy!" and "Leave me alone for once in your lives!". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austen's eloquent pen, but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era? The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that, in the book, were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all, when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book's writing, the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austen's phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austen's words; she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a "revisionist" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However, for me, it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austen's most beloved work.<br /><br />The casting did have potential, though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira, giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden, though I find him tolerably handsome enough, misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn, Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.<br /><br />Oh, but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas? Though he was in the movie for under two minutes, I daresay, and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.<br /><br />On a wardrobe note, I would kill for Miss Bingley's dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown? Please! More Versace than Austen, that is sure) And poor Keira, all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh, and I'm sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately, they didn't catch him soon enough to comb the actresses' tresses before filming rolled.<br /><br />In short, with this new Hollywood version, bid adieu to Austen's eloquence, subtlety and wit because you'll be getting the complete opposite. | negative |
I used to watch Pufnstuf every weekend when I was about 10. It was on right after Bay City Rollers. I saw it come on to Family Channel one day, and taped it for my then three-year old daughter. I'd forgotten all the things I'd loved as a child, the magic flute, the zoom broom, Witcheepoo's makeup.<br /><br />This show is decidedly low tech. The mayor is surely a precedent to Mayor McCheese, and everyone is a stuffed creature with annoying googly eyes. But kids love this stuff. They would way, way rather watch a guy work a sock puppet than sit in front of high-tech computer animation. There is (mild) slapstick, but no adult themes such as sex or people dying, and kids accept Jimmy's schemes. Kids think it would be neat to carry a bag of smoke around and convince someone their house was on fire, and I loved how every time my daughter saw a jet stream in the sky she thought Witchypoo was flying overhead. The music is old, but you really get used to it, and my daughter really loved it. She used to sing "different is hard, different is lonely" in the car. My daughter watched this show at least once a day for about 5 months, and it's still one of her favourites.<br /><br />I see that a new Pufnstuf 2000 is in the works. I really hope they try to keep the old flavour and don't do anything like computer-animating characters etc. I think a whole new generation would love Pufnstuf. | positive |
This movie was an amazing tribute to whoever has gone through this type of pain and suffering. The acting wasn't the greatest, I'll admit that, but it was passionate about it's message, sending people into prisons without so much as an attorney or some type of trial is cruel and unusual. They even had a damn trial for Saddam, so why doesn't every suspected terrorist have some type of fair and justified trial or hearing as to why they were tagged in the first place? I'm getting off the movie, but I think it's worthy to note about this sick, twisted idea the government has. The movie's way of telling the story and the backstory was a great mystery. The whole movie, I was trying to connect the daughter with the plot and it's made very obvious in the end. There's no doubt that the directing was incredible, but the one thing I didn't care for was that there wasn't as much emphasis on Reese Witherspoon's character's interest and fight in the ideal she held, a lot of skipping. Otherwise it was actually quite entertaining, and most of all it kept my attention and interest for the two hours it played. | positive |
This self-important, confusing b+w "film" watches like an infant on a very bad acid trip. You're dealing with something that reminds you of a piece of rotting lettuce that accidentally fell out of the back of a garbage truck: no one cares to touch it because it will probably be washed away on its own down the storm drain. There's no room for plot when you've got "visceral imagery" and "subtle" allegory. To me, it seems like the director tries to make the next great art movie while begging for intellectual accolades. I didn't bring my beret either. Watching this, I felt almost insulted since the "film" does such an effective job of distancing itself from you. | negative |
Tough guys, sexy women, lots of swearing, and a most unconvincing monster that rises from the depths of a polluted lake. You'd think "Monster" would be fun...but it isn't, really. It does star Tony Eisley and John Carradine, however, and in my book that makes it worth viewing at least once. In an interview with "Fangoria" in 1987, Eisley recalled that Herbert Strock had directed the bulk of the film, but somehow Kenneth Hartford--who only directed the footage featuring his children Andrea and Glenn (portraying characters named Andrea and Glenn, in a particularly inventive turn)--received full credit. Considering how awful the end result was, Strock was probably glad that he hadn't been credited! "Monster" has the look and feel of a mid-to-late-seventies TV movie, which is why I like to leave it on in the background every so often. As entertainment it falls flat on its face, but as a reminder of another age and a vanished type of film-making, it's very effective. The only thing that's missing is a car chase. | negative |
This is really a new low in entertainment. Even though there are a lot worse movies out.<br /><br />In the Gangster / Drug scene genre it is hard to have a convincing storyline (this movies does not, i mean Sebastians motives for example couldn't be more far fetched and worn out cliché.) Then you would also need a setting of character relationships that is believable (this movie does not.) <br /><br />Sure Tristan is drawn away from his family but why was that again? what's the deal with his father again that he has to ask permission to go out at his age? interesting picture though to ask about the lack and need of rebellious behavior of kids in upper class family. But this movie does not go in this direction. Even though there would be the potential judging by the random Backflashes. Wasn't he already down and out, why does he do it again? <br /><br />So there are some interesting questions brought up here for a solid socially critic drama (but then again, this movie is just not, because of focusing on "cool" production techniques and special effects an not giving the characters a moment to reflect and most of all forcing the story along the path where they want it to be and not paying attention to let the story breath and naturally evolve.) <br /><br />It wants to be a drama to not glorify abuse of substances and violence (would be political incorrect these days, wouldn't it?) but on the other hand it is nothing more then a cheap action movie (like there are so so many out there) with an average set of actors and a Vinnie Jones who is managing to not totally ruin what's left of his reputation by doing what he always does.<br /><br />So all in all i .. just ... can't recommend it.<br /><br />1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing. | negative |
i did not read the book. nor do i care to. the movie was a beautiful romance, and i think women will enjoy it. no, it was not a "10" film, but it was enjoyable. women, if your man is bored as mine was, then watch it yourself. hurt is wonderful as the philosophic doctor who delivers a thoughtful monologue on "in love" and "loving."<br /><br />also, if you like nick cage, he was terrific and funny. i enjoyed watching the developing romance. <br /><br />also, if you like Christian bale -- do see him in equilibrium. this is a "10" sci fi movie.<br /><br />do see this film. ignore the previous user's comments. <br /><br />one -- especially the ladies!! also do visit my website at my name as one word and a "dot" com. | positive |
Let me get this straight... "The Church" has a safety "lock-down" mechanism to keep the spirits from leaving but the ultimate solution is bringing it to the ground?! LOFL! Maybe I'm missing the plot. Maybe this guy is from the Ed Wood school of film-making or something. This movie is about as useless as the church itself. Hey... maybe that's the point. That whole Rosemary's Baby-esq segment was hilarity. I can go to my corner Halloween costume shop and get better drag than that. The entire film needs to be remade. Properly. There were so many things that were played down... so many things that could have made me jump out of my seat and through the ceiling. I'm not sure if the fault lies with the writing or editing but what I saw should not have this high of a rating. | negative |
Basically, take the concept of every Asian horror ghost movie and smash it into one and you get this movie. The story goes like this: a bunch of college kids get voice mails from their own phones that are foretelling their deaths. There's some s*** going on with ghosts, which if you've seen any Asian ghost movie, isn't scary by now. This movie was quite upsetting because it's very clichéd. It's the same bullcrap, different movie.<br /><br />The acting was pretty good. Unfortunately the actors are put into a very Ring-esquire situation, so it's nothing we haven't seen in the past. The two lead acts did a solid job though.<br /><br />As far as gore, there's not much going on. We get a cool sequence that includes an arm twisting a head off (I don't know how else to explain that), but it was cut away so you don't see anything except the final result. You see some blood at times, including decapitated arms and a zombie (that looked really cool I might add), but this movie isn't too bloody.<br /><br />The scares in the movie are few and spread out, and it's really not that scary. You'll get some creepy images at times, but it's not enough for me to consider scary. It's nothing different from Ringu, Ju-On, or Dark Water, and none of those scared me either. That's really the downfall of this (and most Asian horror movies) is that if it doesn't deliver the scares then it's just not that good.<br /><br />As far as directing, Takashi Miike still did a pretty good job. He seemed a little tamed in this movie compared to his past movies, but he still portrays a lot of his messed up style he's become famous for. A lot of images were a lot like Miike (including a scene with a bunch of jars of dead fetuses), and the last 15 - 20 minutes seemed far more Miike then the rest of the movie. Still, the movie is flawed by its unoriginality.<br /><br />I would recommend this only to people who are huge on Asian horror movies (even if you are, I can recommend much better) or big Miike fans. Warning to those who want to get into Miike, this is NOT his best work.<br /><br />I'm giving it a 4 because it's just mediocre. Perhaps if this was released 4 or 5 years ago it might be worth a higher rating.<br /><br />Also, I'd like to b**** about Asian horror movies real quick. How come if it's an Asian horror movie it's automatically suppose to be good over here (US)? A LOT of these movies are the equivalent in Japan to what Scream, Urban Legends, and I Know What You Did Last Summer were over here in the 90's. If you've seen one you've seen them all. And a lot of these movies rely way too much on scares and imagery that if it doesn't deliver the scares they set out to do then they're just not that good, and nothing would change that. More Asian horror films need to be more like Audition and A Tale of Two Sisters, two movies that if they don't frighten or scare you, at least they have great stories, acting, direction, cinematography, and much more to back them up. Two movies that aren't just great horror movies, but great movies in general. More Asian horror movies need to be like these instead of the cliché, "A ghost just wanted to be found so it went around killing people through their phone/video tape/house/electric appliance/water pipes/google search engine/vibrator/groceries/etc." | negative |
Yet again, early morning television proves an invaluable resource for films that I otherwise would never have been able to track down. At four o'clock in the morning, I stumbled out of bed to begin recording 'The Informer (1935),' my fourth film from prolific American director John Ford, and an excellent one at that. Set during the Irish Civil War in 1922, the screenplay was adapted by Dudley Nichols from the novel of the same name by Liam O'Flaherty. Though he was born in the United States, and is most renowned for his "Americana" pictures, both of Ford's parents were Irish, which explains the director's decision to direct the film. Victor McLaglen plays Gypo Nolan, a brutish but well-meaning ruffian who informs on an old friend, Frankie McPhillip (Wallace Ford), in order to claim the £20 reward for his girlfriend, Katie (Margot Grahame). When Frankie is killed during his attempted arrest, the Irish Republican Army, of which both Frankie and Gypo were members, begins to investigate the traitor behind the incident, every clue bringing them closer and closer to the real culprit.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Gypo is plagued with guilt for his friend's untimely death, and descends into a bout of heavy-drinking that rivals Don Birnam in 'The Lost Weekend (1945)' in its excessiveness. As Gypo drowns his sorrows in copious volumes of alcohol, trapped in a vicious little circle of depression, his extravagant spending captures the attention of the investigating IRA members. For the one time in his life, Gypo finds himself surrounded by admirers (including an amusing J.M. Kerrigan), who enthusiastically clap him on the back and christen him "King Gypo" for his physical might. However, it's obvious that these people feel no affection for the man, and are simple showing him attention to exploit him for money. The additional £20 brought by Frankie's death could never buy Gypo an assembly of friends indeed, in a bitter twist of irony, the money was only made possible by the betrayal and loss of one of his only good companions. A relatively simple fellow, Gypo could not possibly have fully considered the consequences of his actions, and is eventually offered forgiveness on account of his "not knowing what he was doing," but his foolishness must not go unpunished.<br /><br />Criticism is occasionally levelled at Ford's film for its allegedly propagandistic support of a "terrorist" organisation. Though this stance obviously depends on one's personal views {I certainly don't know enough Irish history to pass judgement}, there's no doubt that the film portrays the Irish Republican Army as selfless, dedicated and impartial, a proud piece of Irish patriotism if I ever saw it. However, the main theme of the story is that of betrayal; driven by intense poverty, one ordinary man betrays the confidence of his good friend, and comes to deeply regret his actions. The tormented Gypo is played mainly for pity, and Victor McLaglen gives a powerful performance that betrays a lifetime of unsatisfying existence, culminating in one terrible decision that condemns him to an uneasy death. 'The Informer' was John Ford's first major Oscar success, winning a total of four awards (from six nominations), including Best Actor for McLaglen {who snatched the statue from the three-way favourites of 'Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)'}, Best Director and Best Screenplay for Dudley Nichols {who declined the award due to Union disagreements}. | positive |
I've been scolded and scorned by fellow Christians for stating my disappointment with this movie. I get hounded by statements like these: "I can't believe you didn't like it! It was made totally by Christians!" "Everyone donated their time and no one was paid for the movie! It was made by a church and not Hollywood. We should spend our money on movies like this! They only used $100,000 to make the film." "This is by a real church and Christian school in Georgia! A preacher wrote and directed it." So, apparently, the reason I should love this movie is simply because of the way it was made and the minimum amount of money used to make it and that is was made by Christians. That is all that is needed for me to love the movie.<br /><br />Look, I got the movie without knowing ANYTHING about the background of the film. I had never heard of it and had no idea - other than football - what it was about. I watched it like I watch any other movie and was disappointed. I was disappointed in the lousy editing and lame script. I was VERY disappointed on the resolution after the climax. Don't worry. There have been other cheap movies and other EXPENSIVELY made movies that have earned less respect from me. It isn't about the making of the movie. It is the end product.<br /><br />The writer acknowledges that God doesn't say "yes" to everything we pray for in the way we want, but he wanted to show by having faith, God changes our lives. That is true. However, God can change our lives and we're still infertile. God can change our lives and we don't get a raise from our job. God can change our lives and our car is still an old jalopy. God can change our lives and our house is still stinky. Why didn't he portray that in the movie? Others voiced their concern to the writer/director over the matter, but apparently, he was defensive.<br /><br />I did not think the acting was horrible nor many of the landscape shots. I like the idea of going to God and recognizing His awesome power and our weakness.<br /><br />The writing and directing were very weak. It is easy to distinguish this because many of the characters have no development. All we really get from the coach's wife is she is not pregnant (well, until the end of the movie). It seems as if there was only ball player that had the potential to have an interesting character and that was chopped to bits into "I have a cripple father and I can't play football well, but I'll kick the winning field goal even though I've never kicked a real field goal before." Another problem was the Christian school itself. Umm, I have worked for two Christian schools, went to one myself, and have had many nieces and nephews in other Christian schools. All in all, I've had some pretty close connections with about ten different ones. NONE of the problems that I have seen in ALL of these schools were addressed. I saw this as totally surreal in the movie about their school and wished they had shown the human factor. It would have been nice to see a dose of reality and how God can work.<br /><br />I will close by stating that every work - either written or drawn or played on an instrument - shares the artist's world view. The world view that was shown to me in this movie consists of "People who pray the right way win ball games, get new cars, conceive when they couldn't, get a raise, and get their house fixed - all within a short time span." I know. I should LOVE the movie simply due to the sincerity of the people who made it. I think I should love the movie because it was well done and for no other reason. | negative |
This movie is up there with the all-time classics. The music, camera shots, and acting are excellent. Showing the movie in black and white gave it a much better appearance and complemented the music perfectly, like Psycho. Its surprising how so few people have commented on this movie. My guess is that its a hard movie to find. I gave the film a 9. See the movie and you'll know what I'm talking about. | positive |
Ever since I can remember and I'm only 18 my mother and I have been and continue to watch older movies because well I find them much more rewarding in the long run (but hey don't get me wrong I do love the movies we have today just not as much as I love movies of the 40s and 50s) Anyways, now I have to say the moment I started watching the movie my eyes were glued to the TV. Of course my favorite character was the Grandmother played by Lucile Watson. But I loved the way Betty Davis and her family was portrayed. The children...did not act like children in the slightest. But there is good reason for that, having had to hid and run most of your life, seeing the awful things children saw those days destroyed their innocence. So people saying "oooo i hated how the kids acted...blah blah blah" read between the lines and know they saw things children should not see.<br /><br />Paul Lukas...dear Paul did an amazing job!!! Now I know many people are mad that he go the Oscar and Bogie didn't but hey they both did amazing jobs so I think it could have gone either way. But Lukas' performance was so amazing that by the end of the movie I was reduced to tears. I loved this movie so much and recommend it to anyone!! :-D | positive |
what kind of sh*t is this? Power rangers vs Freddy? It was watchable and as good as the first film in the beginning but from the part where the protagonists get super powers in theirs dreams, it started to become childish. This sh*t should have been rated PG or PG-13 rather than R. I expected to see some very mature stuff but it was only for the 1/3 of the film. The rest are for little kids. Plus it's focused too much on Christianity. I know Freddy's a demon but there are many religions that have different ways to fight demons. Why does it always have to be Christianity? This is total Orientalism and filled with white men/westerner's superiority. Don't' watch this, show it to little kids who loves power rangers. | negative |
Guy de Maupassant was a novelist who wrote a novel about a man, a poor man, without any moral qualities. He only wanted to success in a society where all the people, the politic men, the businessmen, the journalists, the women are corrupt. The only king is MONEY. The Maupassant hero, Charles Forestier is going higher and higher in the society scale thanks to his seduction poser. He is in love with all the women who could help him in his action to climb the society stapes. At the end of the novel, he married himself with the biggest daily paper owner's daughter, in the greatest church of Paris : "La Madeleine". "Le Tout Paris" is there. He has a fortune and more, he will become a member of Parliament and later a Minister. The "useless" women are out of his view, but he is always keeping in touch with the pretty and the usefull women. The picture "THE PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF BEL AMI" is a story of MORALITY. It is everything, but not a story in the Maupassant idea. Why had they put "BEL AMI" in its title ? | negative |
I am shocked to see that this movie has been given more than two stars by some people. They must either be kidding or be totally blind for the art of acting, directing and other flaws of the movie.<br /><br />I must admit that I just could not force myself to sit through the whole movie, it was just too bad.<br /><br />The three first characters, not including the "digger" were just awful actors, and I mean AWFUL! Maybe the director didn't care, or may be he is a worse director. It was like watching a bad school play. The movie was of course filmed with a video camera (lowbudget - not real film), and the light settings were not very good either. In addition, the sound man (if they had one) must either have been a newbie or a drunk as the sound were amateurish. Even in one of the first scenes from the kitchen (AWFUL acting btw) the sound from the dialog was pretty bad. For example, when the woman moved her head while speaking, you could hear her voice disappear and come back. It sounded like they had tried to correct that in post-production by turning up the volume a bit when she turns her head. In addition, you had the ongoing irritating buzzing sound from either camera equipment or other sources in the kitchen. <br /><br />All these squeakers in the first 5 minutes or so. Need I say more?<br /><br />A good school project or fun project for friends to watch, but should never have been released for a real audience, especially not for a PAYING audience. THIS WAS A RIP OFF unless you have a very low standard regarding movies, or just bad taste. You are WARNED! SB. | negative |
I'm a big fan of H. P. Lovecraft's books, and the Mythos background spawned some rather good other stories and stuff like that. And in the last years there came along some boys who did movies about H. P.'s work, for the bigger part low-budged flicks and showed them to the public at places like the H. P. Lovecraft Film Festival. Now, like I said, most of them don't have a big budged, but they at least know the heart and "soul" of Lovecrafts work and films like "Cool Air" or "The Call of Cthulhu" - are what I would think - gifts for the fan base and other loonies that like H.P.'s creation. <br /><br />And then there are people like Ivan Zuccon, who just rip off the name and create a movie which would have been fun to watch if I had directed it myself and filmed with some friends down at the beach. That is what Mr. Zuccon did as it seems...but, while blokes like Aaron Vanek's or Bryan Moore's earlier movies might not have had more budged, they somehow still had more to offer , like a story, real characters and some connection to Lovecraft! Just blabbering out names like "Nyarlathotep" or "Necronomicon" makes a movie not a Lovecraft-adaption. <br /><br />Anyway, this flick will not only make fans of the Mythos shudder and hide, it will also not appeal to people who 1. like good movies, 2. laugh about bad movies, 3. like good C-grade splatter movies or 4. watch everything that has Horror written on the DVD-cover. I will not go into the "plott" of this waste of time, as it has already been discussed by others here on this page, but like I said, Unknown Beyond is like a movie I would have made up with some geeky friends.. Aside from that it lacks ideas for any storytelling and goes into ridiculous "moronic-nonsense-but-he-it's-art-stuff". Self-made flicks of this "quality" are fun to watch if you know all the blokes in it and ha-ha, see how XY is coughing out the fake blood we made from old tomato sauce and stuff but hey, you don't put this in a DVD-casing, declare it an actual movie and want money for it
<br /><br />I give it 2/10 because of the I dunno effort or something like that | negative |
Maybe it's just a personal affection for this screen version of the Mika Waltari novel, or a fondness for things Egyptian (I grew up loving to visit the mummies in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts) but I think Maltin is a tad tough on this rather good film. The production values are great regarding color and cinematography, and it appears some effort went into historical authenticity (much of it from the novel, I'm sure). Purdom is admittedly a bit stiff in the lead role, but one can accept this as part of Sinuhe's character. Victor Mature is, well, Victor Mature. Peter Ustinov is a delight to watch in this type of role, which he always did so well and so wittily. Bella Darvi's performance as Nefer is classically camp, and I find even Michael Wilding's rather dry portrayal of Akenaten to have its own appeal.<br /><br />The historical oddity of Akenaten's monotheism, a brief detour in ancient Egypt's theological history, is interesting, as is Akenaten himself, and well worth reading about; the religious wars portrayed here have a basis in fact.<br /><br />An interesting footnote regarding Darvi, whose birth name was Bayla Wegier: she was a Polish emigre who producer Darryl Zanuck and his wife Violet took under their wing (I believe they may even have adopted her). Her screen name Darvi is formed from Zannuck's and his wife's first names. She continued her acting career in France, but never achieved great success and, after a rather unhappy life, died at her own hand in 1971.<br /><br />Altogether this is an interesting film and enjoyable to watch for the visual values alone. American Movie Classics shows this occasionally in letterbox, which is essential to capturing the scope and sweep of the story. | positive |
This can hardly be called a good movie, actually it's not even close. But I have to say, that there was a few things that made me... not laugh, not giggle, but something like that. The Resovoir Dogs parody was one of them. The rest are not important enough to be remembered.<br /><br />To be honest, I was a little disappointed by this movie. The plot sounded like an idea, but it quickly fell to the ground. The whole thing was just to messy and the actors where not good for the characters; most of them simply overacted. There was also a whole lot of unessecary sequences, that was a total waste of film. I do realize that it would make the movie about 20 min shorter, but it would only make it better.<br /><br />Now, with the good and the bad things lined up, let's go to the conclusion: two out of six toilet seats up for this one. | negative |
Wow, well, you know those shock things they use in hospitals to get your heart pumping again? I needed one for my brain after watching this movie. It literally took me almost 4 hrs in total to watch because I had to take a break and restart my brain to semi-normal functionality every so often. I mean this movie goes soooooo slooooow its ridiculous, to say that the script had about 10 pages of dialogue would be generous. They just don't talk!! And while talking isnt everything, and i admit there were some scenes where only the music was necessary, and the music is great, that was probably the best part, but then go listen to a symphony or something and forget about the movie. So many people give this awesome reviews, and for its time, i'd say the special effects and filmography is quite good, but as for the acting, or lack thereof, it just needed a little something more, no shootem ups or sex etc., profanity isnt even required, but a little more emotion, these guys were like stones, just sitting there with long faces. All in all, if you need something to calm yourself down, just play the movie, dont even start at the beginning if you've seen it before, just start anywhere, lay down, and relax, it'll put you right to sleep. | negative |
Louise Brooks gives a wonderful performance in this well-made French melodrama. She plays a typist named Lucienne who, despite being in love with a man named Andre, dreams of rising above her position in life. She sees opportunity in a beauty contest for Miss Europe, but Andre is furious when he discovers that she's entered, then demands that she withdraw. She tries to take back her entry only to discover that she's already been chosen as Miss France and will now go on to the main pageant.<br /><br />This is a story of love, loss and decision played out to its passionate end. The movie is very energetically filmed by director Augusto Genina and cinema tographers Rudolf Mate and Louis Nee. The filming style is more like modern movies than the Hollywood flicks of the '30s, and shows the different style employed by Europeans. There are many fast cuts and traveling shots, mostly done with great skill and verve. The high energy of the movie's first third dwindles a bit in the middle but picks up again in the last 15 minutes.<br /><br />The performances were very good by all the principals, but that of Louise Brooks is especially memorable. Louise leans heavily on her silent screen skills even though this is a talkie, but because her silent style had a surprisingly contemporary, understated feel, she makes the transition to talkies very well. The long early scene at the fair was especially poignant as Louise used her remarkably expressive eyes to convey her growing sense of misery and alienation, of being trapped in a life she no longer wants. I doubt it's ever been done better.<br /><br />The film builds to a superb finale, artfully shot, powerful and stylish. This is really some of the best stuff of the early days of film. And the tragic storyline only underscores the greater tragedy that this is the final starring role for Louise Brooks. She wasn't just a great beauty who looked fantastic in a swimsuit, she really was a major acting talent who basically threw it all away. We are all the poorer for that.<br /><br />This movie is less well known than her German films with G.W. Pabst, but I think it's a better one. I think this crew is just better at storytelling than Pabst, and while Prix de Beaute may lack the deep moral complexity of the Pabst films, it's much easier to follow and is overall a more streamlined, focused piece of work. And it doesn't hurt that Louise's singing parts are done by Edith Piaf, either.<br /><br />Bottom line, this is a classic Louise Brooks film well worth looking for. | positive |
Terrible psychological thriller that is almost painful to sit through, every aspect being awful.<br /><br />The combined talents of top actors Kevin Bacon and Gary Oldman are totally wasted, and though they give good performances, one wonders why they bothered. The script from Mark Kasdan is a complete mess, and Martin Campbell has the narrative jumping all over the place, but if you're unable to follow it, take it as a blessing. There are far too many pointless, crazy scenes that just don't make sense. Jerry Goldsmith's music is not much help either.<br /><br />Even if there was potential in the plot, director Campbell's approach has utterly ruined it. Avoid at all costs!<br /><br />Monday, February 26, 1996 - Video | negative |
Isn't it strange how crap-movies always tend to be a little better when you start watching them with an attitude like: "boy, this is going to suck harder than few things have ever sucked before"? It's pretty much impossible for anyone to rent this movie with high or even remotely positive - expectations, as "House of the Dead 2" is a sequel to something that is generally considered to be one of the absolute worst genre disasters ever to be released. The abysmal reputation of the original actually turned out to be a great advantage for director Michael Hurst, as it was really easy to surpass the quality level of its predecessor. And exactly how embarrassing must this be for Uwe Boll, huh? Having to acknowledge that a straight-to-video sequel without star power or promotional campaigns is MUCH better than his own pretentious video game interpretation? In case anyone still doubts: NO, "House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim" isn't a good horror movie at all but, YES: it's definitely better than the first and even worth renting in case you're looking for an undemanding splatter film with loads of gory butchering, sleaze and stupid humor. There's no real connection with the events in the first film (another advantage) and this part two opens like a typically rancid sex comedy set in a college campus. The male fraternity club plans to attack a sorority house, inhabited exclusively by blond coeds with enormous breasts, but the party gets interrupted when an insane professor (Sid Haig!) who runs his car over a girl and takes her back to his lab to turn her into a zombie. This is the beginning of a quickly spreading and deadly epidemic but, no worries, as the government is prepared and sends their best scientists & soldiers to the campus to search for survivors and to bring back blood samples for an antidote. Hunting down zombies seems like the most common thing in the world for this squadron, they even named them Hyper Sapiens, but their constantly increasing amount eventually endangers the lives of the most hardened soldiers. Director Hurst thankfully found his inspiration in the more eminent classics of the genre, like James Cameron's "Aliens" and of course - George A. Romero's dead-trilogy, particularly "Day of the Dead". He luckily also didn't made the same mistakes as Uwe Boll, who inserted footage of the actual video game in his movie (why?!?) and *slightly* exaggerated with the use of CGI-techniques. HotD 2 contains heavy images of violence, like chopped up female corpses and detailed amputations, but it never really becomes nauseating or shocking. Naturally, there's isn't the slightest bit of suspense to enjoy and every dreadful horror cliché features here as well. The film is very enjoyable as long as story writer Mark Altman doesn't try to explain the origins of the zombie epidemics. They're walking corpses with their brains hanging out of their skulls, so we really don't need to know what caused their deaths. Especially not when the explanations are given by a blond sorority slut who clearly hasn't got a clue what all the medical terms mean. Just avoid getting bitten, sweetheart. | negative |
First and foremost I am a gay man, although do not live my life within the so called "Community", and it's because of films like this that Gay themed movies are not my favorite genre because 90% of them are crap. Like this one. f I could give this a zero I would. (I do not understand all the positive comments, unless they were all made by people who made this film) I actually stopped this at the 24 minute mark when the so called straight "Anthony" kissed Adam outside the restaurant for NO reason at all. And how is the son stealing from the diner if he doesn't even live in the town? Wire transfers? The acting was HORRENDOUS! The sound editing? (Listen to "Anthony" and Adam when they are sitting on the fence eating their lunch. Every time the camera switched between the two so called actors the sound changes, like there was not a filter on the microphone)Seriously do not rent, or god forbid, buy this movie.Horrible Horrible Horrible acting and just a stupid storyline. | negative |
Historically accurate? Hmm... Perhaps... if you squint, and light falls upon the subject just-so. But core accuracy is no compensation for a dismal, patchy and inconsistent plot, reams of cardboard dialogue and an unsatisfying conclusion. The principal characters are merely characterizations; embarrassing stereotypes that range from the 'enigmatic and noble' American Indians through to the 'stuffy but sadistic' British officers. A wretched and unworthy rendition of a fascinating period in American history. I want my money back. | negative |
Made with film stock left over from the production of Nana, 1927's Sur un Air de Charleston is described as a holiday film for all concerned, and that's the best way to view it. Jean Renoir seems never to have thought enough of it to even edit the footage together. The plot is a simple reversion of racial stereotypes in 2028 a black explorer travels to a post-holocaust Paris where a white native girl teaches him the Charleston (naturally he assumes she's a savage whose dancing is a prelude to her eating him before giving in to the seductive beat of 'White Aborigine' music). There are plenty of surreal touches, be it the pet gorilla eating the flowers in Catherine Hessling's hair, the angels the girl telephones (Renoir and producer Pierre Braunberger among them) or the fact that black performer Johnny Huggins plays his part in minstrel blackface while Hessling's dancing ability is almost completely nonexistent, and there are some interesting occasional experiments with slow motion, but there's not really enough to sustain it for two reels. An additional air of surrealism is provided by the fact that this silent musical has absolutely no score at all on Lions Gate's new DVD
| negative |
I have to say the worst part of the movie was the first half hour. I was really confused about who was who. For example, Bill Paxson's character had long hair and was wearing a jacket. Then, when all the males arrived at camp, it turned out there was a character who looked like Bill Paxson, but wasn't. I said where's Bill Paxson? Then, there was a guy with his girlfriend. He said she was 21. This was supposed to be a 20-year reunion of the camp director's (Alan Arkin) most memorable. Later on, this same girl was interacting and talking about her camp experiences. That made no sense. She would have been one years old. That said, the movie turned out to be pretty good. Kevin Pollak was the nice guy who was always being teased. One guy was a complete narcissist, and ended up losing his beautiful girlfriend. Alan Arkin was interesting as an old-style camp director, who admits that he has grown out of touch with modern youth. The best part was that none of the grown-up campers were successes in life. None of them had very great careers. This seemed very real life. The movie was compared to The Big Chill. In some ways it wasn't as exciting as the Big Chill, but it was a lot more realistic. So, even though the beginning is not promising, the movie ended up turning into a pretty good one. | positive |
Scanners II: The New Order is just as good as David Cronenberg's classic Scanners, Scanners was made in 1980 and Scanners II in 1991 so their's an eleven year gap between the two movies. The film captures the style of Scanners which is a good thing, it wouldn't be Scanners without a head explosion so Scanners II has a head explosion scene that's just has gruesome as the first. Scanners II: The New Order has some other imaginative gory scenes that are done well. The plot to Scanners II: The New Order is a new take on the series since it has the Scanners being used as a vigilante force for a police chief and a group of scientists until a young Scanner named David Kellum discovers he's being used and decides to get revenge.<br /><br />Scanners II: The New Order is a great sequel to David Cronenberg's sci-fi classic Scanners and should be seen. Check this out. 10/10 | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.