review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I will never, ever forget watching this show around the age of 13. Even at the young age I remember thinking, "This is a Baywatch rip off show without the one thing that makes Baywatch tolerable. The girls in bathing suits." Nonetheless I was too small in those days to be the holder of the remote in my house. The high point of Pacific Blue was an episode in which a couple of thugged out gangsters are coming to whack someone with submachine guns ... on bikes!!! As a thirteen year old I never laughed so hard at something that was supposed to be taken seriously. Even I knew that the task of going out and acquiring Uzis (for murder) is a task that should never come before borrowing someones car for the day. That had been the defining moment of this show. Simple Crimes and situations tailor made by hack writing so they could be taken care of by the unsung hero of the crime fighting world The Bike Cop. Does not get much Dumber. | negative |
Well, I was excited at first to download an animated open source movie, only to be ruined by a demo reel. The animation is excellent, the lip syncing is awful, and you keep watching the movie hoping to understand what's going on, only to realize nothing is going on. You feel no emotion for the characters, only pity for the creators for wasting their time. I have seen short films with twice the emotion in half the time! This could of been an excellent short film, if they had just taken the time to hire a real director. I'm sure everyone over at Blender is excited to showcase their software and its rendering capabilities, but sorry guys-story telling is what makes a movie. | negative |
Along with In the Army!, this ranks as one of Pauly Shore's best movies, if there is such a thing. While the whole West Coast-meets- Midwest-culture-clash isn't anything new, this film proves to make the story a little more entertaining with the wild and unpredictable antics of a then fresh Shore. While the change in values probably would have gone in the other direction, the whole concept was rather entertaining. Not only was Shore's interaction with the family hilarious, it also had Carla Gugino and Tiffani- Amber Theissen (she'll always have the Amber in my book) in two ravishing and early roles. One of those films I have no problem watching when it is on TV. | positive |
Warning, spoilers ahead (even if I doubt that anybody hasn't seen this yet)<br /><br />The movie starts off rather well, but about halfway through it falls apart and becomes a corny, sugary sweet, predictable and unrealistic 'harmony romance' mess. I mean, it's very obvious that there are serious problems in the main characters' marriage, but these problems are never solved but just forgotten.<br /><br />Basically, as soon as she decides to have a baby behind his back (without even asking) all of their problems magically disappear without a trace or an explanation. Given what had happened up until that moment it would have been far more logical if the marriage fell apart rather than becoming the trite and cliche' 'having a baby will change everything' ending.<br /><br />The two main characters' families and neighbours are also extremely one-dimensional, and don't seem to serve really any purpose if not to irritate the viewer, and they also mysteriously disappear from the movie as soon as the 'harmony moments' start.<br /><br />I am sorry to be ripping this movie, but given the start I would have expected something more. 4/10 for me. | negative |
I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. "Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus." I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused "tension" with "boredom".<br /><br />I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.<br /><br />So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's "bloodthirsty" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.<br /><br />Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.<br /><br />The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says "I'm in pain, shoot me". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.<br /><br />(Rhetorical pause.)<br /><br />In the stomach. "Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP." | negative |
Somebody owes Ang Lee an apology. Actually, a lot of people do. And I'll start. I was never interested in the Ang Lee film Hulk, because of the near unanimous bad reviews. Even the premium cable channels seemed to rarely show it. I finally decided to watch it yesterday on USA network and, wow....<br /><br />SPOILERS FOR ANG LEE'S HULK AND THE INCREDIBLE HULK <br /><br />Was it boring! I almost didn't make it through Ang Lee's Hulk. Eric Bana was expressionless, Nick Nolte was horrible, Sam Elliott was unlikeable (and that's no fun, he's usually a cool character). In fact, I honestly think they chose Eric Bana because his non-descript face was the easiest to mimic with computer graphics - and it was clear that the Ang Lee Hulk was meant to facially resemble Bruce Banner in his non-angry state. When Hulk fought a mutant poodle I was ready to concede Hulk as the worst superhero movie ever.<br /><br />But then something happened. About 3/4 of the way through this tedious movie, there was a genuinely exciting and - dare I say it - reasonably convincing - extended action scene that starts with Hulk breaking out of a containment chamber in a military base, fighting M1 tanks and Comanche helicopters in the desert, then riding an F22 Raptor into the stratosphere, only to be captured on the streets of San Francisco. This was one of the best action sequences ever made for a superhero movie. And I have to say, the CGI was quite good. That's not to say that the Hulk was totally convincing. But it didn't require much more suspension of disbelief than is required in a lot of non-superhero action movies. And that's quite a feat.<br /><br />Of course, the ending got really stupid with Bruce Banner's father turning into some sort of shape-shifting villain but the earlier long action sequence put any of Iron Man's brief heroics to shame. And overall, apart from the animated mutant dogs, it really did seem like the CGI in Hulk tried hard to convince you that he was real and really interacting with his environment. It was certainly better than I expected.<br /><br />OK, but what about The Incredible Hulk? Guess what... It's boring too! It has just a few appearances by the Hulk and here's the thing - the CGI in this movie is horrible. Maybe the Hulk in Ang Lee's version looked fake at times and cartoonish at others - but it had its convincing moments also. The Incredible Hulk looked positively ridiculous. It had skin tone and muscle tone that didn't even look like a living creature, just some sort of computer-generated texture. It was really preposterous. The lighting, environment and facial effects didn't look 5 years newer than Ang Lee's, they looked 10 years older. And there really is no excuse for that. We truly are living in an era where computer programmers can ruin a movie just as thoroughly as any director, actor or cinematographer ever could.<br /><br />Worse, the writer and director of this movie seemed to learn almost nothing from Ang Lee's "failure". All the same mistakes are made. Bruce Banner is practically emotionless. The general is so relentlessly, implausibly one-dimensional that he seems faker than the Hulk. The love interest is unconvincing (I have to give Liv Tyler credit for being more emotional than Jennifer Connelly, though both are quite easy on the eyes). Tim Blake Nelson overacts almost as much as Nick Nolte, even though he's only in the movie for a few minutes. The Hulk really doesn't do much in this movie, certainly not any more than in Ang Lee's version. The Incredible Hulk was slightly more fast-paced, but since nothing really happened anyway that's not worth much. Oh yeah, the villain is every bit as phony looking as the Hulk. He's actually much more interesting as a human than as a monster. <br /><br />This is how I can definitively say Ang Lee's version was better: if I ever have the chance to see Ang Lee's version again, I might be able to sit through it to see the good action sequences, or else to try to appreciate the dialogue a little more (more likely I'd just fast forward to the good parts). But there is absolutely not a single scene in The Incredible Hulk that is worth seeing once, let alone twice. It is truly at the bottom of the heap of superhero movies. The cartoonish CGI is an insult to the audience - at least in Ang Lee's version it seems like they were trying to make it realistic (except for the giant poodle, of course).<br /><br />It is absolutely mind-boggling how the filmmakers intended to erase the bad feelings associated with Ang Lee's Hulk by making almost exactly the same movie. <br /><br />It is to Edward Norton's credit that he seems to be distancing himself from this film. | negative |
I just watched this movie for the second time, and enjoyed it as much as the first time. It is a very emotional and beautiful movie, with good acting and great family values. Inspiring and touching! | positive |
i'm watching this horrid film as we speak. it is possibly one of the worst movies ever aired in my house. i'm sitting here with 3 friends and they agree. its not scary. its not funny. its not dramatic. it contains nothing appealing whatsoever. we are 49 minutes in the movie. we've only seen 2 critters. only one person has died. this movie is one big letdown. nothing about this horrible, horrible movie has made me want to watch the rest. i'm getting a movie hang over. i hope that everyone who had anything to do with making this movie dies. i don't just mean the actors. i mean the director, producers, the presidents from the studio that financed this movie. it is in full, the worst movie ever. it should make the IMDb worst 100 movies of all time. at number 1. | negative |
I am very thankful that the small college town of Abingdon, Va.- near Bristol, TN. and home of the famous Barter Theatre where Gregory Peck once acted- managed to get an art film festival togather and show this film there. Abingdon is two and a hour hours from where I live, but the trip was worth it in every sense of the word. UZAK/DISTANT is an amazing, brilliant, jarring, emotional, captivating film. As a Turkish-American, this film was not only a testimony as to what life in Turkey is like; but on a larger scale it tells the world of what it is like to be Turkish whether one lives in Istanbul, Berlin, Montreal, New York, or Omaha. It may be two hours in length as opposed to five minutes, but this is effectively our Bob Marley song. There are so many wonderful scenes in this film. It is very difficult to choose just a random few. But, for me, one telling scene takes place in a Beyoglu (downtown Istanbul) cinema. The title character, played by Mehmet Emin Toprak who sadly died in a car accident shortly after this film's completion, follows a very attractive young woman down a staircase to the cinema's main auditorium. She goes into see "Vanilla Sky." As the image of Tom Cruise is reflected from a glass, we sense that Turkish men are competing with Tom Cruise for their own women's affections even though Tom Cruise is nowhere to found in Beyoglu. The scenes shot across the Bosphorous shores are also quite revealing as they symbolize the beauty, yet desperate empty gulfs, which are a painful fact of life in Turkey. In this film, the gulf separates lovers and families. A simple, empty packet of Samsun (Turkish brand) cigarettes and a dying mouse jump off the screen the way seagulls did in the 1982 Serif Goren-Yilmaz Guney film "Yol." Many of Guney's films, including "Yol," "Suru- the Herd" (1978- completed by Zeki Okten) and "Baba-The Father" (1971) have been considered by many to be the best Turkish films ever made. Without Guney's sometimes overblown social-political anger (especially in his last film, the 1983 prison drama "Duvar-The Wall"), "Distance" captures the essence of Turkish life quite remarkably. This is a crowning achievement for a director who in my view can already be proclaimed as the Turkish equivalent to directors like Tarkovsky, Bresson, and Ozu. I can't wait to see his other films! | positive |
This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.<br /><br />The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.<br /><br />It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.<br /><br />It's probably only considered a classic because "A Christmas Carol" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is. | negative |
There really are no redeeming factors about this show. To put it simply, its just terrible. Absolutely dreadful. It's just a dreadful "reality" show. Not only that, it's dreadful fiction.<br /><br />Imagine this: A bunch of overly-imaginative teenagers get together one night and go "Hey! Let's make a paranormal show just like "Ghost Hunters" and whatnot!" So they grab a camera, harass local residents and film random landscapes behind a painfully "trying-to-be-dramatic-yet-failing-misreably" monologue. This show is basically a bunch of teenagers running around with a home movie camera trying to make a really bad horror documentary. The only difference is this show actually has a budget and writers. A wasted budget and terrible writers.<br /><br />Oh, the problems, how do I count thee? Well, first off, let's talk about this from a personal level. I am not a total skeptic when it comes to the paranormal. I am willing to believe in whats paranormal and whats not, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel the same. So, if you're going to do a show about the paranormal, you have to do a good job convincing the viewer that what they're seeing is either paranormal or not, because the viewer can easily believe otherwise. I hate to compare, but I don't see why not at this point. Take "Ghost Hunters" for example. In "Ghost Hunters" you can tell that the cast is leveled with the audience. They're not totally skeptical, yet they're still willing to keep the possibility of any paranormal anomalies in mind. They have to look at something and be willing to say "this is possible that its simply nothing". And, with that in mind, they set out to try and prove themselves wrong. They use technology and several other gadgets along with constant moderation to determine what is paranormal along with bearing the fact that what they may be monitoring could be nothing in mind. Not only are they trying to convince themselves what is real and what is not, in the process they are trying to convince you. That element of doubt is not present in "Paranormal State". Strike one.<br /><br />In "Paranormal State", the cast simply says "there's this spooky place, and its HAUNTED, so we're going to find some SPIRITS!" And immediately you know and saying to yourself "Okay, convince me otherwise". The cast is not professional in their interviews. In fact, sometimes it seems like they're just harassing local residents of these so-called "haunted" areas. They have no real evidence to back up their claims besides assumptions and theories, and the best they can must up is somebody who "claims" they can contact the dead, with no one ever backing up who this person is and how valid they really are. They could have easily just picked some random person off the street and said "pretend you can contact spirits for our show" and went at it. In the "Mothman" episode, this just happens. Without any convincing evidence towards the end of the show, they bring this sort of individual out where he does a random, painfully scripted "reading" of a supposed area of how something is "haunted" in order to convince its audience. Very, very poor effort. I feel that one of the main problems with the show is that it feels scripted. During one of the episodes, the cast gets attacked by one of these "paranormal anomalies" at times in an attempt to be dramatic. These sort of dramatic sequences would make any skeptic laugh and even those who are on the fence realize what they're watching is just a bunch of tabloid-esquire trash. If the show's aim was to try and convince their audience that these "paranormal" events are real, they're doing a horrifically poor job at doing so. Strike two.<br /><br />However, there is always the counter. Just one last viewpoint to see if the show is actually worth something. What if the show isn't trying to convince you that these paranormal events are real and are simply trying to entertain you with good fiction? It even fails on that level as well. If the show's creators were trying to craft fiction to entertain its audience, the writing is too poor and even on a fictional level, it fails to convince the audience that its cast members are really experiencing the unknown in all its full, horrifying glory. The writing is simply not compelling and even, dare I say, boring. Strike three.<br /><br />So what remains of this show is simply a bunch of teenagers who are too willing or too gullible to believe in the paranormal simply because its simply much more amazing than reality who set out with a camera, a bad script and bad actors to generally just make a really bad horror documentary. Thats all the show is at this point. There is no reason to see it, not even for the entertainment factor, and there's no reason to care about it. To be blunt, its lame. There are absolutely no redeeming factors about this show. | negative |
Some of the posters seem less than gruntled because this is neither Mark Twain nor Rodgers and Hart but clearly it doesn't pretend to be either. You'll look a long time to find a greater Rodgers and Hart fan than me but Burke and Van Heusen weren't exactly chopped liver in addition to which they knew Der Bingle inside out and tailored some great songs - But Beautiful, Moonlight Becomes You, It's Always You, The Day After Forever, etc - to fit his highly personal style and here they come up with yet another fine - and unfairly neglected - ballad, Once And For Always, plus a couple of upbeat philosophy-lite entries in If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon and Busy Doing Nothing. The flimsy plot isn't meant to be taken seriously - why else make Merlin a heavy when in most, if not all, of the other versions he is more a friend/mentor to Arthur - so if you start wondering aloud why Sir Lancelot who has been sold to historians as the epitome of chivalry and uprightness metamorphoses into a schoolyard bully you're not going to get much fun out of what is essentially a fun movie. On balance it does what it sets out to do, entertain, so good luck to it. | positive |
This is the most human and humane of movies that I have seen in a long time. The ironies abound, Susan Sarandon as a nun, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon in a movie that doesn't preach but neither does it condemn. It is cinema verite at it's best, and yet the story is fictionalized from several real events.<br /><br />Which of the two is more amazing, Sarandon or Penn? It is easy to say who is more likeable, but it is hard to say who is more convincing. they are simply magnificent.<br /><br />You may think that all killers should be killed or you may argue that life without parole is no life and that death is more merciful. whatever your personal feeling, this movie gives you a chance to pause and reconsider.<br /><br />At the end one simply wants to sit in silence and reflect. That is what great drama does, it gives catharsis, it creates a moment in time, a shared memory that touches our humanity. | positive |
The Swedish filmmaker Roy Andersson's latest film You, the Living is not easy to review. One of the reasons is that in his own words he has broken with the Anglo-Saxon tradition of story-telling, in all essence the template of most Western film productions. Another reason might be that although Roy Andersson is somewhat heavy on symbolisms, his, unlike those of, say, Andrei Tarkovsky, are of a more elusive nature. It took him 3 years to complete this 86 minute long film and it wasn't because he was forced to have long breaks between shootings due to financial troubles or problems with the actors. The film consists of 57 vignettes shot mostly by a still camera, and it was the careful design of each of these scenes which required much time. The imagery of this film which is closely related to the director's previous film Songs from the Second Floor is of utmost importance to the story, thus this story is told to a great degree by the surroundings and the environment in which the characters of Andersson's universe dwell and interact. Before each scene was finally shot, there would have been no less than 10 different test shootings with different actors, colors, dialog etc. The result is a dreamlike version of the surrounding world which most of us would recognize and if the setting is like a dream, why not dream a little? Just like in Bunuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, when somebody says "Last night I had a dream", you get to watch it. But then again, what is perceived as reality here is not very much different from the dreams.<br /><br />Despite the fact that the film lacks a plot in the traditional sense of the word and there are no main characters as such, the different characters who appear and reappear in different scenes still meet each other and their stories are inevitably intertwined. What most of these characters have in common is their apparent loneliness despite being surrounded by other people. The trailer trash chain smoking and binge drinking woman who dreams of having a motorbike so that she can get away from "all this crap", her corpulent and mostly silent boyfriend and his frail and seemingly gentle but rather absent-minded mother, members of a brass band whose skill improving efforts at home aren't getting a favorable reception neither from their families nor their neighbors, the depressed Middle Eastern hairdresser and his arrogant customer on his way to "a very important business meeting", an elderly man having a nightmare about bombers in the skies, a young girl dreaming about marrying the young rock star that she is so madly in love with. It's all about dreams and nightmares versus reality but it works as much as a statement in support of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein's claims that "all human communication is miscommunication". People speak to each other but it is as if they speak past each other. They try to reach out to the others but shut the others out when those try to reach them.<br /><br />You, the Living is a poetic film set physically in Stockholm but yet universally applicable. The society it portrays is Sweden, its artistic language and the people displayed are generally unmistakably Nordic. Yet, the subject it deals with, namely, the misery of the humankind in a selfish world, reaches far beyond this hemisphere. Despite the seriousness of its theme, the film itself seems a lot more cheerful and laden with humor than one might have expected. But in the words of the director himself "living is so complicated to each one of us that the only thing that saves us is our sense of humor". Hence, this film is a tragic comedy or a comic tragedy, depending on your sensitivities, and not a depressing black reality tour of the human nature. It is unusual in its language and structure, but if you can think outside the box and enjoy it, you will certainly find this film both entertaining and meaningful at the same time. It was shown at this year's Cannes festival as part of the Un Certain Regard program which offers "original and different works" outside the competition. After the film was shown in the Salle Debussy, the 1,000 strong audience gave it a standing ovation for several minutes. Do I need to say more? | positive |
This film stars, among others, "SlapChop" Vince Offer (who also wrote, edited and directed) and Joey Buttafuoco--not exactly names that scream out "quality". And with such uplifting skits as "Supermodels taking a dump" (it's exactly what it sounds like), a guy who robs a sperm bank (the "Rhymer"), necrophilia with a rotting corpse, black market fetuses (featuring a guy scooping what are supposed to be them out of a jar), lots and lots of gay jokes, a skit about a giant phallus who is a superhero and forced abortions. The skits are painfully unfunny (such as "Batman and Rhymer"), the acting not good enough to be considered amateurish and the film is crude just for the sake of being crude...and stupid. I truly believe a group of 8 year-olds could have EASILY made a funnier film with the same budget.<br /><br />Apparently this film resulted in a lawsuit by "Slap Shot" Vince against the Scientologists. Frankly, I wouldn't know who to root for in this case!!! Apparently, he alleged that somehow Scientologists destroyed his reputation and sank this film. No matter that the film is repellent junk from start to finish and 99% unfunny (by comparison, Ebola is funnier)...and these are the nicest things I can say about the movie.<br /><br />By the way, that IS Bobby Lee (from "Mad TV") wearing a diaper and participating in the dumb fake porno film. It's amazing his career could overcome this. | negative |
"Tintin and I" first of all struck me as a masterpiece documentary. The photography and the editing are truly breath-taking (almost anti-Dogma).<br /><br />We follow the life of Tintin drawer Hergé through an open-hearted interview from 1971. The Tintin series was drawn on the background of the great ideological fights of the twentieth century. In the midst of these Hergé has his own demons to fight with, and much of his drawing activity seems like an attempt to tame these and to escape into a world of perfection.<br /><br />Even though there are spectacular photographic panoramas of drawings from Tintin albums and also some reconstructions and reading of passages from the albums, the story of Hergé is told entirely through interviews and archive material, and never through reconstructions.<br /><br />Hergé lived the turbulent life of a true, suffering artist. But the fantastic world that came of his imagination will continue to amaze readers again and again. | positive |
A famous conductor decides after a heart attack to go back to the village where he was born to live a quiet life. There, he comes in Dutch with the local church choir, that will change his life.<br /><br />I had no expectations when I saw this movie for the first time yesterday; I like watching foreign movies that are not English, and I've already seen a couple of Swedish movies in my life, but this one was the best so far.<br /><br />Where to start? In my opinion, this film is a jewel, thanks to many things, of which one is the outstanding acting. Michael Nyqvist is perfect as the thoughtful, almost shy and devoted conductor Daniel Daréus. Beautiful Frida Hallgren is enchanting with her pretty smile and her subtle acting. The choir members are all well-developed, interesting characters with their own story each.<br /><br />This movie tells a story, a beautiful story, about music, love, pain, memories, death, about a man who devoted his life to music, and who tries to create a calm existence in the village where he was born, while trying to make peace with the past and with the way his life has been till then. Kay Pollack shows us that the Swedish are outstanding movie creators. Go see Så som i himmelen, it's a movie that makes you think about life and love, and that's also comforting, in some way. | positive |
I am an avid fan of violent exploitation cinema, who would never attack a film for being violent or disturbing. I consider "Cannibal Holocaust" a masterpiece and will always defend controversial films like "Day Of The Woman" or "Last House on the Left" as genuine classics. Anyone who browses through my other user comments will notice that I am actually very pro-violence/gore when it comes to films. However, I do think that there should be at least some point to the violence. This piece of crap doesn't have any point whatsoever. The first film in the notorious "Guinea Pig" series, "The Devil's Experiment" (1985) is widely controversial, but, as opposed to many other controversial films, this stinker has nothing at all to be recommended for. I must say that, before seeing any of the Guniea-Pig films, I already had a feeling that I would hate this one, knowing what it was about. Due to its status as one of the most controversial films around, however, I decided I had to see it. I am very glad I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap, and I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time with it either.<br /><br />This thing's story (I don't even want to call it a 'film'): It doesn't have one. Three scumbags torture a woman to death for some excruciating 40 minutes. That's it. There is no artistic value, no 'shocking' story, no suspense; nothing. Simply the disbelief that a film that shows NOTHING except for a woman being tortured for no reason enjoys an enormous cult-following. It IS disturbing, I give it that. Of course it is disturbing to watch a torture video for 40 minutes. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that many people actually seem to regard this pile of garbage as some kind of masterpiece. I really cannot figure why. The fact that the gore effects look realistic cannot be the reason, I hope. The girl who plays the victim isn't a very good actor, and reacts very calm to all the torture. That makes the film look less realistic, which is, in this single case, a good thing. This is a film that is sickening; not for its gore, but for its redundancy, its existence for the sole purpose of showing 40 minutes of torture.<br /><br />I strongly oppose any form of censorship. Since this is 100% fake and nobody got hurt during its production, it IS legitimate to make such a film. However, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would like this, other than the morbid desire to watch suffering and the enjoyment of torture. This film's sequel "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" gained notoriety when actor Charlie Sheen mistook it for an actual snuff film and informed the FBI. Fortuneately, the film turned out to be fake. Overall, "The Devil's Experiment" is a fake torture/snuff film that seems to have the sole purpose of looking as close to a real snuff film as possible.<br /><br />"The Devil's Experiment" is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Don't torture yourself by giving this piece of crap a try for its controversial status. Do yourself a favor and avoid it. Zero stars out of 10, I wish there was a negative scale in order to appropriately rate this pile of crap. | negative |
This movie is so irredeemably bad, NOTHING about it makes it worth seeing. NO effects, no suspense and poor dialogue poorly delivered. Oh, and neither a CAMP or any FEAR does it contain. Do yourself a favor and go see the original Friday the 13th or (preferably) Sleepaway Camp, but what ever you do, DO NOT see this movie. <br /><br />Even Michele Bauer's appearance at the very beginning can't save it. Usually, in these kinds of films you expect violence, suspense, and a little gore and some T&A. The violence was poorly executed, the "suspense" was laughable, there was NO gore, and the T&A is plentiful IN THE FIRST 5 MINUTES, then, NOTHING. At least one of these things, properly done would have at least made it watchable. <br /><br />To say at least one nice thing about it, Buck Flower is great, he seems to be the only one who understands they are making schlock and rightly hams it up. If everyone else had fit that tone it would have been campy fun, no pun intended. | negative |
I can't believe how many people hate Hal Sparks! He was my favorite host of the show, hands down. I hate celebrity gossip and generally dislike talk shows, but when Hal Sparks hosted Talk Soup, it was must see TV for me. I rarely missed an episode during his run, and was saddened when the guest hosts started pouring in (although most of the guests still did a fine job). <br /><br />Anyway, for all the people who dislike Hal Sparks, I imagine they must have never seen the weekend specials. They were hour long episodes of Talk Soup that comprised the best clips from the entire week, and were padded out by sketch comedy bits. The original bits that Hal Sparks did were hilarious. In one he got possessed by a bad comedy demon, and in an exorcist like scene his head spun as he told dated jokes about airline food. One episode was dedicated to making fun of Multiplicity, as a bunch of cloned Hal Sparks kept multiplying through out the episode, over-running the studio.<br /><br />OK, maybe these don't sound as funny when I describe them, but all I know is that besides Talk Soup, the only other two shows I watched consistently during those years was The Simpsons and Late Night with Conan O'Brian. So if you like the comedy stylings of those shows, then you'd probably like Talk Soup during the Sparks years.<br /><br />That said, Henson and Tyler were both great hosts as well. All three hosts brought something different to the table but they were all fine comedians in my opinion. Of course, throughout the Tyler and guest star years, my interest in this show began to wane, but every now and then I catch The Soup, the show's spiritual successor, and sure enough, the new host can bring some pretty unexpected laughs from time to time.<br /><br />OK, I've wasted enough time talking about a TV show that isn't on the air anymore and on a channel that I generally despise. Go watch something else! | positive |
I'm an opera buff, and operas are full of sex, blood and death. It may help to know the librettos of the operas the arias are from to really appreciate this film -- my mileage is very different than Tug-3. I am a classical music lover, and I liked this film.<br /><br />I loved Ken Russell's "Nessun Dorma" segment, and would actually like to see him produce Turandot, because opera is supposed to be overwhelming, truly multi-media experience , but then I loved Lisztomania. I love *Turandot* and knowing the libretto so well may be why I don't find this segment the travesty that Tug-3 did.<br /><br />The Buck Henry/ Rigoletto segment is probably the most approachable for the average viewer -- they are likely to recognize the tunes, and its a classic bedroom farce. I like bedroom farces, so the silliness didn't upset me.<br /><br />The "Liebestod" segment is so outstanding that I recommend people watch this for that piece alone. "Depuis la Jour" was, for me, beautifully spiritual. And the Caruso recording of "Vesti la Giubba" (aka I Pagliacci) with John Hurt as the clown was wonderful. But people just wanting naked women may feel there is too much music and not enough bare flesh and sex. | positive |
I have never seen a worse movie.<br /><br />It is possible to take a shootem up video game and make it into a decent movie.<br /><br />Mistake 1: absolutely no connection to any of the characters. In this movie you don't bond with any of the characters because... you don't get a chance.<br /><br />The only character that is sympathetic or even interesting is the Deck Hand: Salish as played by Clint Howard. Except for this unique character, the outcome of the movie is meaningless as all the characters were lifeless from the begining.<br /><br />Mistake 2: the worst gunfight scene ever. I love gunfights. I love when the heros open up on the badguys and clean house. heck I even like to watch a badguy clean house sometimes. But this gunfight was weird I guess that the best way to describe it is "Apathetic" I've seen people shoot with more feeling and emotion while PLAYING THE VIDEOGAME. In this movie it looked and felt like the "Actors" were simply walking through shooting everything that moved without emotion.<br /><br />Why? Where's the trash talking? where's the snarls of rage amongst the gunfire? These are supposed to be kids that got caught at a rave gone bad... but even real soldiers acting professionally and ruthlessly show their humanity.<br /><br />If you want a GOOD horror movie about a secluded house full of monsters, I recomend Sam Rami's Evil Dead series. DO NOT see the disaster that is house of the dead. I hope that they burn the master and all copies of this movie. | negative |
This story was never among my favourites in Christie's works so I was pleasantly surprised to quite enjoy this adaptation. The mouse motif was effective if a little overdone, the bones of the story are there although more emphasis is placed on the 'crime in the past' subplot. The students were all pretty much as I imagined them although its a pity they weren't a more cosmopolitan bunch - perhaps the revised thirties setting didn't allow for that! I thought some very daring risks were taken with the filming; perhaps its because I've not long re-read the book but it seemed pretty obvious to me who the murderer was from their appearance in some reveal shots quite early on.<br /><br />Humour was much more prevalent in these early Poirots. Sometimes it works but I found a lot of it rather heavy handed in this episode (though I did smile at the 'Lemon sole' throwaway line). Altogether though, a solid entry in the series though not one of the best. | positive |
It would require the beauty and eloquence of Shakespeare to do justice to this outstanding cinematic feat. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go.<br /><br />As far as adaptations of Hamlet go this one is already at a better starting point than all other versions since it encompasses the entire play. Still this is no guarantee for a first-rate movie, or even a good one. Usually I'm not much for movies that are overlong and the trend that seems to be prevalent in Hollywood today, namely that movies should be at least two hours long, preferably three, is one that hopefully won't last long. Few stories are strong enough to withstand such extensive exploration and could do with some cutting. Making a four-hour-long movie and keeping it interesting is no small undertaking, but Kenneth Branagh pulls it off with flying colours. He has managed to make a very long movie seem no more than any average movie. I was completely engrossed from start to finish.<br /><br />The cast is excellent with Kenneth Branagh himself as the tormented prince giving a strong and memorable performance. He manages to convey his feelings admirably through his voice and one does not have to be an expert on Shakespearean verse to catch the myriad of emotions that are waging inside him. Kate Winslet was a positive surprise, I must say. I didn't know what to expect really. I've always liked her well enough as an actor, but wasn't sure she could pull off playing Shakespeare. Well, she certainly eradicated all doubts with her performance. She is the best Ophelia I have seen and lent such depth to the character and was simply wonderful. Other brilliant performances are Derek Jacobi as Claudius, Richard Briers as Polonius and Nicholas Farrell as Horatio to name but a few. I liked the fact that Branagh used some internationally more famous stars to play in some of the minor roles; I especially enjoyed the sparring between Hamlet and the gravedigger played by Billy Crystal.<br /><br />The setting of the play in the 19th century gives a welcome change to the usually gloomier Gothic settings. It is overall much lighter than other versions I've seen, more colourful and lavish, but this does not distract from the tragedy of the play. It is exceptional, stylish and aesthetically pleasing, a definite delight to the eye and other senses as well. The music by Patrick Doyle is as always magical and thoroughly in tune with the movie. One can only feel a deep sense of satisfaction after having seen this. I am shocked and appalled that this exquisite work of art did not win an Academy award for best picture, even more so that it wasn't even nominated. There is no way there was a better movie made that year, or any other year for that matter. This is as close to perfection as you can hope to get.<br /><br />To sum up, a stunning work of pure genius and I cannot see how anyone could top this. My hat's off to you Mr. Branagh. | positive |
Okay, make no mistake - this is a pretty awful film, but I actually thought it had a couple of creepy scenes and overcame its pathetic budget every now and then. At the very least it's unintentionally funny in spots and has a definite air of creepiness and discomfort (a face burning scene, the part with the disfigured bride). <br /><br />This baby falls into the "so bad it's entertaining" category to me, and for that alone I would give it a star. The effects are terrible, the acting is abysmal, and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a day. You gotta love that toy ship at the beginning, too! It brought back childhood memories of seeing this on late night TV many years ago. While the Alpha DVD print looks weak and as though it was recorded directly off an old television broadcast or something, I actually liked that in this case! | negative |
To be fair, I didn't see a lot of this show. Probably because it wasn't as good as the original M*A*S*H, but I seem to recall them moving it around on the weekly schedule. Some shows just aren't worth the trouble of following around every week. But I really did try at first, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe I just kept expecting it to improve, but I can't give this show a 1. In all honesty, I can't give it any more than a 2 either.<br /><br />It wasn't MASH (I'm not going to type those stupid *'s every time). And it was trying to be MASH without putting forth any effort, like it would just magically happen. Well guess what? No magic. The best I can do here is to compare it to other shows.<br /><br />Trapper John, M.D. was a much better show by far. However, they should have called it B.J. Hunnicut, M.D. because Pernell Roberts looked exactly like an older BJ, but nothing at all like Trapper John. Keep everything else the same, just change his name and the name of the show. Presto! After MASH wasn't the only sequel to completely bomb and dishonor the original. Archie Bunker's Place was a lame follow-up to All In The Family. It had no heart, no conflict, no depth all of the things that made All In the Family so memorable. Likewise, MASH was funny because the doctors were reacting to the impossible absurdity of war. Remove the war and you remove the drive for 99% of the humor. Potter can't yell at Klinger for wearing a dress, because Klinger isn't wearing a dress, because he's not trying to get kicked out of the Army, because he's already out of the Army, because the war is over. (breathe) All of the jokes became forced because there was no motivation for anything. The least motivated was the viewer, to stay around and watch the show.<br /><br />And from what I remember, the whole show seemed to be Potter, Klinger, and Mulcahy just standing there unnaturally, facing the audience like a trio of Vaudeville performers. It was reminiscent of Good Times, where they spent 90% of the show standing behind that couch and talking to the audience, trying to make it look like they were having natural conversation. They weren't. And it felt even less natural on After MASH.<br /><br />Another random tidbit I recall is that the people who made MASH never got any royalties from the spin-off. The studio used the absurd excuse that After MASH was really a spin-off of the movie MASH (which they owned) and not the TV series. Nice try, but Mulcahy was the only one of the three in the movie, and he was never deaf. I guess studio execs will do anything for a buck. Anything other than make a worthwhile sequel, that is. | negative |
I've always liked Johnny Concho and I wish this film were out on VHS and DVD. Frank Sinatra gives one of the most unusual performances in his career in this one.<br /><br />When we first meet Frank in the film's title role, he's the brother of a notorious gunfighter who's out of town at the moment. The brother strikes terror in the heart's of the town and Frank takes full advantage of that to bully the townspeople safe and secure in his shadow. Only Phyllis Kirk has any feeling for him. She's the daughter of storekeeper Wallace Ford and Dorothy Adams.<br /><br />Two other gunmen arrive William Conrad and Christopher Dark and it turns out Conrad has killed Sinatra's brother and he's coming to his town to take over. They humiliate Sinatra and run him out of town. Kirk follows him.<br /><br />Overnight Sinatra turns from punk into coward and becomes a man searching for some kind of backbone. It's a well acted performance, almost as good as his Oscar nominated role in The Man With a Golden Arm. Pity for some reason this has not been seen for years.<br /><br />Two other performances of note are Keenan Wynn as former gunfighter turned preacher who helps Sinatra find what he needs to stand up to Conrad and Dark. And then there is Conrad in what I believe was his career role on screen. He's a villain of incredible malevolence, pure evil incarnate walking and talking on the silver screen.<br /><br />However what I like about Johnny Concho is the climax an unforgettable one where Conrad and Dark are dealt with. Let's just say I believe Johnny Concho was MGM's answer to High Noon and a primer for what you do when evil causes a break down in all law and order. | positive |
First things first, this movie is achingly beautiful. A someone who works on 3D CG films as a lighter/compositor, the visuals blew me away. Every second I was stunned by what was on screen As for the story, well, it's okay. It's not going to set the world on fire, but if you like your futuristic Blade Runner-esquire tales (and who doesn't?) then you will be fine.<br /><br />I do have to say that I felt the voice acting was particularly bland and detracted from the movie as a whole. I saw it at the cinema in English, but I am hoping that there is a French version floating around somewhere.<br /><br />Definitely worth seeing. | positive |
Only once in a while do we get an R-rated comedy that gets everyone's time and attention. It's an even rarer case when the critics will like it. I just came back from The 40 Year-Old Virgin and I can honestly say, it was one of the biggest laughs of my life. I went to a 10:35 showing and every row was filled. Not only that, everyone laughed their ass off the whole time through. It's two hours of non-stop laughing. I dare you to see this film and to not laugh.<br /><br />The plot is simple. A man is forty years old and he is a virgin. Yet, behind this simple, five second joke, we are given a deep, complex story that is not only one of the funniest you'll ever witness, but has genuine lessons behind it. Steve Carell stars as Andy Stitzer, The 40 Year-Old Virgin. We have known Steve Carell, as, in my opinion, one of the best scene thieves of all time. Stealing hilarious scenes from Bruce Almighty and especially Anchorman, Steve Carell has come a long way, as finally, and proudly, is given his moment to shine as the star. No one will forget his name once they witness this pervasively funny, gut-busting, roll-in-the-aisle hilarious comedy.<br /><br />The beauty about the film is it isn't 100% stupid. The brilliant writing of Judd Apatow and Steve Carell genuinely has purpose and it's not just one hell of a story to tell. Behind the crudeness and vulgar non-stop ride of the film comes an important lesson to be learned. Although not presented in the best way possible, the film gives us more than a purely enjoyable time. Its gut-busting attitude will have you laughing the whole time through, while we simultaneously see the real life struggles of people like Andy and his fellow co-workers. The end couldn't have been better. Not only does it deliver what we are promised but it gives one of the most memorable finishing numbers a comedy has ever seen. It would have been perfect if there was Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson in there cameoing somehow, but you can't win 'em all, now can you.<br /><br />Finally, I think as Roger Ebert put it, Catherine Keener gives an unexplainable perfect performance as Trish, the one woman Andy has his heart truly for. Not only does she also give us laughs but it is crazy to see how brightly she fuels the story. She was cast perfected in the role and her and Carell have terrific, not to mention, hilarious chemistry on screen.<br /><br />Canadian ratings-wise, once again, Ontario slips away with a 14A, while British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba all slapped The 40 Year-Old Virgin with an 18A. The same thing happened with Four Brothers, in my opinion, the second best film of the year, and I can honestly say that I love Ontario more and more so for that. To all you fellow teenagers out there in the States: Good luck sneaking in! <br /><br />Overall, Steve Carell gives one of the funniest performances I've ever seen and just about everyone in the cast distributes to the non-stop laughter. Everyone will love the 40 Year-Old Virgin this summer and I encourage everyone to see it as fast as humanly possible. It is the best comedy of the year, hands down. It beats all over The Longest Yard, The Wedding Crashers, and of course Apatow and Carell's last memorable comedy, Anchorman.<br /><br />It is a comic masterpiece and deserves the remarkable amount of praise from the critics who have been loving it. Every single one of my favourite critics loved it and it deserves a spot on the IMDb Top 250 right away. Steve Carell is a huge star. Watch one of the brightest ones of the summer right now.<br /><br />My Rating: 9/10 <br /><br />Objectively 9/10 <br /><br />Subjectively 10/10 <br /><br />Eliason A. | positive |
Somewhere in his non-fiction book DANSE MACABRE, Stephen King suggests that one secret of writing scary stories is to avoid showing your readers exactly what horrible thing is waiting behind the door to get them. If at last the door bursts open and a bug ten feet tall lurches through, the reader may be a little scared, but he'll also think, "Well, I can deal with that. At least it wasn't a HUNDRED feet tall." There's nothing more frightening than what lurks, unseen and unknown, just on the other side of that tightly closed door, waiting to get you.<br /><br />THE HAUNTING is so completely misconceived that director Jan De Bont more or less starts off his movie by metaphorically throwing open that door himself and yelling: "Look, everybody, look! It's a ten-foot-tall bug! Isn't that SCARY?!" The law of diminishing returns immediately kicks in. By the end of the movie, the director is, so to speak, jumping up and down, banging his CGI pots and pans madly, and hoarsely screaming: "Look, everyone, look! Here come ten HUNDRED-foot-tall bugs! ... And now, here come a hundred THOUSAND-foot-tall bugs!" <br /><br />The filmmakers apparently believed that special effects alone could compensate for all the other shortcomings in this endeavor (and there are many). They can't and don't. In fact, impressive as they are, the special effects are so insistent and obtrusive that the distracted viewer winds up staring at them -- whether in admiration or annoyance -- instead of being immersed in a story.<br /><br />For me, the nadir of this film's sheer stupidity comes when a statue, with "blood" gushing from its mouth, tries to drown Liam Neeson (as Dr. Marrow) in a fountain. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what to do with this alleged idea once they had it, so they just have Neeson thrash around in the water a bit, flailing his arms and going glug-glug. By the next scene, the good doctor has apparently dried himself off and, ho hum, forgotten all about the annoying incident.<br /><br />Shirley Jackson's novel seems to have been dumbed-down into this ridiculous screenplay by a committee of low-IQ teenage stoners who thought the way to frighten people was to make every effect bigger and louder: "Okay, next, let's, uh, make the ceiling, you know, look like a creepy face, and, uh, come down on her ... and all these spiky things, like, trap her in the bed."<br /><br />The sole saving grace of THE HAUNTING is that it at last becomes so awful that it's actually funny. By the time Owen Wilson (as Luke Sanderson) fell on the floor and then went on his Magic-Carpet Ride O' Death, I just about fell on the floor myself, laughing.<br /><br />Badly constructed, witless, grotesquely heavy-handed, utterly unbelievable, and filled with clunky dialogue and pointless scenes, this vacuous HAUNTING is a textbook example of how NOT to make a horror movie. | negative |
This movie has a very hard-to-swallow premise, even by this genre's standards. We are asked to accept not only that a record played backwards can bring a dead man back to life, but that the record also contains hidden messages aimed SPECIFICALLY at one kid, when the singer had no connection to the boy when he was alive, and of course no way of knowing at whose hands the record would end up. Anyway, the film is fun for a while, but eventually the silliness and the pointlessness reign supreme. If they were really trying to create a new Freddy-like horror icon, they were way off: the villain here has no personality, no motivation, and no variety. (*1/2) | negative |
The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).<br /><br />This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.<br /><br />But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of "Use the Force Luke" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go "TinTin, I am your Uncle" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.<br /><br />The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH???? <br /><br />And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards. | negative |
Now for sure, this is one of the lightest-hearted stories that Bruce Willis has been in to date and yet,-- it is still touching. I really like Bruce's style and persona, I haven't loved everything he has ever been in, but he brings it to the 'Big-time' for me in most all his film endeavors.<br /><br />The story begins..... He is power, confidence and style with a capitol 'S' . He drives a Porshe he lives well, in a palatial estate with a grand view of the fair city. That's Russell Duritz. He is an image consultant to those who are on the top or rising to it. His acclaim, he is Russell Duritz, he knows what it takes to make it. It just seems that as life is going along swiftly and foundation-ally set, there is a problem, an intruder at his home, the alarm has been activated! <br /><br />Russell can't seem to figure out (for the moment) what is happening to him. It's different and yet it is somehow familiar. A small boy, who looks exactly like....-- him. As their lives run smack dab into each other, there seems to be a reason that is screaming out to him, "You have unfinished business to take care of, now!"<br /><br />Amy the supporting young lady of the story is probably the best balance that he has seen and has in his life. She works with him, puts up with his 'ego' and yet, she is smitten with Russell. Very much so. With Rusty his past 'self' now in the picture and talking a mile a minute, singing too late at night, everything that was foundational is becoming like jelly! <br /><br />Willis is fun, egocentric and at times out of his head in this lovable Disney modern times classic 'The Kid' and to add his little heavy-duty side kick Spencer Breslin is a perfect addition to this sparkling story of childhood to adult and back to childhood adventure. Chi McBride is an inspirational supporting character, as he is the heavy-weight champ, teaching 'little' Rusty how to box to defend himself against the bullies on the playground. <br /><br />All in all this is a real winner of a movie with even Lillie Tomlin as the secretary and aide to Russell. I originally saw this back in 2000' and then again years later, with equal enjoyment. This is a shiny family comedy that has a super ending that will warm the hearts of any Disney fan Recommended highly (*****) | positive |
Anita and Me seems to be little more than an excuse for Meera Syal, the author of the novel and screenplay, to air her prejudices, grievances and general antipathy towards the English. The general sentiment of Indian superiority over the English in this film is foul.<br /><br />The English people in this film are portrayed as overweight, violent, foul-mouthed, promiscuous, engaging in child neglect, stupid, uneducated, racist, ugly, eating poor food, and dim-witted -- tellingly, only by turning to Indian culture can the local priest be "redeemed" at the end of the film.<br /><br />By contrast, the Indian family are beautiful, clever, educated, can speak many languages, are caring and loving parents, and grammar-school fodder. The film is so insidiously prejudicial that I am astonished the BBC funded it at all. Had it been the other way round, an English family in an Indian community depicted this way, the film would have been seen as racist.<br /><br />There were a few moments where my eyebrow shot so far up my forehead, I thought it would lodge in my hairline. First, the gossip scene between the women at the Divali celebration -- undertext: the English are dirty and promiscuous -- and the men -- undertext: English women are prostitutes. Second, the meal with Anita where Neema's family lie to her about cutlery -- undertext: the English are so stupid, you can make them do anything.<br /><br />But the underlying contempt towards anything English -- even English weddings are an object of scorn -- is evident all the way through the film. The character of Anita was drawn so appallingly -- almost the fallen woman trope -- that I finished the film feeling angry.<br /><br />This is not a "Bend it like Beckham" where the humour is focused on loving exaggerations of a community's behaviour and customs from somebody within that community, and is a film about two girls from different backgrounds coming together. Instead, Anita and Me seems to convey that a form of cultural apartheid is inevitable, as the English are almost an version of the Indian Untouchable caste, and this is underscored by a thinly-veiled series of attacks upon the film's "other" community: the English.<br /><br />I felt Anita and Me is a hate-filled, grievance-based piece of work. On that basis, the BBC should not have funded its production. | negative |
I suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.<br /><br />Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.<br /><br />Terrible film. | negative |
This movie and its subsequent TV series followup has become the iconic stand-in for what is great about America. <br /><br />Fame is famous for its music and performances. There are several standouts including Irene Cara, Paul McCrae, Anne Meara*, and the superb Gene Anthony Ray. The latter who plays a walk-on dancer with no academic or other than "street" credentials is an amazing personality and is worth watching for what is essentially a portrayal of himself. A wonderment to behold, as one king was apt to say.<br /><br />The plot follows an interesting format - chronological at times, genre at other times, personalities in some cases ... but, it all really ends in a kind of mush.<br /><br />Where Parker succeeds is in pushing this movie into periodic overdrive - with the extremely poignant and sometimes beautiful and outright campy music score that matches the performers step for step.<br /><br />The climax of the film is a climax for all times. And this climatic complete cast of many many talented musicians and dancers and music is thankfully repeated throughout the credits. These are one set of credits that are well worth sitting through ... an achievement for the ages. The music by Christopher Gore is a gift to behold. | positive |
This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty "look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD. | negative |
I've never expected too much from a film by trashy B-movie director Jim Wynorski: a silly premise, some cheapo effects and a bit of nudity from some busty babes, and I'm usually fairly happy.<br /><br />Well, Cheerleader Massacre delivers on the former and definitely the latter, but unfortunately is a tad light when it comes to the splatter. And when a film has the word 'massacre' in the title, and scrimps on the gore, then Houston, we have a problem.<br /><br />Wynorski's movie centres on a group of cheerleaders who, along with their teacher, mini-bus driver and a couple of guys, become stranded in the mountains during a snowstorm. They make their way on foot to a deserted mountain retreat, where they find food and shelter. And a crazy killer who wants them all dead! From the outset, good old Jim ensures that his film features plenty of scenes loaded with T&A, and includes the obligatory shower scene, along with numerous other moments in which tasty women get nekkid (including a spot of raunchy softcore sex and a very gratuitous three-babes-in-a-hot-tub scene). None of the women look young enough to be cheerleaders (and are never even seen in their outfits), but who cares about such details when they're all too willing to strip off in the name of art?<br /><br />I do care, however, about the movie's numerous lacklustre deaths. With such an extremely lurid title, I had been hoping for some inventive bloodletting to go with all of the bums, bush, and boobs; instead, practically all of the killings occur off-screen or feature next to no gore. Only a silly post-decapitation scene (achieved with cheap-as-chips CGI) comes anywhere near to delivering the goods.<br /><br />Still, if you're feeling in the mood for some titillation, or a bit of slasher silliness minus the grue, then, at 82 minutes, at least Cheerleader Massacre won't be too much of a waste of your time. | negative |
who reads these comments may think we may have in hand a great movie. I am Portuguese and I'm ashamed that this film became a blockbuster in Portugal. It can't really call this cinema. The direction and "mise-en-scene" is basic (even Ron Howard does better!); the script is bad and pretentious (a really bad Tarantino); the cast is covered in TV stars, models and reality show stars that don't no nothing about acting. When you put in a movie this ingredients of course that the fans of this kind of TV shows will all go see. i am also surprised that people who make comments here in IMDb say that this movie is a masterpiece. I thought that this site was only for people who truly like cinema and understand a little bit of it. All the movies made to be blockbusters in Portgal always use the same ingredients and are always awful. if you think this movie is reasonable, please don't say your love movies and cinema. | negative |
Something somewhere must have terribly gone wrong right at the time when the director was perceiving this plot. The movie, that was supposed to be the remake of one of the most loved movies in cinema, fails to deliver in every aspect of movie making. The best of the artists could also not pick up the tuning, that simply goes on to show that the movie in itself was a grave mistake.<br /><br />The editing is poor. Direction is crap. Acting is out of this world(omg)! The characters who are supposed to look scary force people to laugh on the stupidity of their dialogues and costumes.<br /><br />I wouldn't watch the movie even if someone paid me the cost of the tickets or even gave me a free burger with it. | negative |
This is a classic animated film from the cartoon series! Most of the major characters get alot of screen time plus do extra characters aswell! The film`s focus is on the superstar characters vacation and each one has his/her very unique summer fun! Its very funny from beginning to end! It has excellent color, great music and believe it or not I have seen this more than any movie. Its that great and in MY opinion its perfect! | positive |
We have a character named Evie. Evie just wants to be a good person. She's nice, friendly, smiles often, but is strangely brutally honest. Evie also has a secret. Her idiot-savant sister has been reciting original poetry, which is getting the community excited about the sister writing. Unfortunately, it's Evie's poetry. While their mother starts being happy again and the boy next door shows his interest in Evie, Evie just tries to figure out what she really wants to do.<br /><br />What to keep in mind while watching this movie is who Evie really is. For such a brutally honest person who doesn't mind telling Ivy-league types that she doesn't respect them, it would seem odd that she would be able to pull off a lie. For someone so happy and cheerful, she's quite emotionless when it comes to certain issues. Those aren't character flaws, they're plot development, and they mean a lot more than they at first seem.<br /><br />Mostly this is something of a melodrama: a character lies, the other characters' personalities propel them through drama as relationships are held at risk. But in terms of the writing it's very fresh and bold. The acting helps the writing along very well (maybe the idiot-savant sister could have been played better), and it is a real joy to watch.<br /><br />The directing and the cinematography aren't quite as good. They're acceptable, and Evie's world is wreathed in color and light, which makes for some very beautiful images, but it's not very consistent. It's not really so much of a flaw as a result of a low production value, but within that same value is some genuine storytelling and a real care for the characters. So while it isn't a perfect movie, it's certainly an enjoyable one.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | positive |
This was the next to last film appearance by Jill Ireland, who died of cancer in 1990 after four decades as a well-known actress and producer. Ireland made quite a few waves in the press when she dropped her then-husband David McCallum in 1967, beginning her long relationship with Charles Bronson. It is a great irony that Bronson, probably the all-time leader in number of deaths rendered on-screen, had one of the most enduring marriages in film history.<br /><br />'Assassination' seems to be a movie that was tucked into Cannon's production schedule for the sake of Bronson and Ireland. Ireland was already suffering from cancer-related illnesses in 1987 and you can almost picture the two actors wanting to do 'just one more, for old times' sake.' 'Assassination' is carelessly done as a whole, showing the lack of polish and dwindling funds that would tank Cannon by 1990. But there's a kind of nostalgia value in seeing the couple together one last time and the film makes you wonder what exactly helps a relationship to survive in the chaos that is Hollywood.<br /><br />Bronson plays Jay Killian, a high-ranking Secret Service agent who is assigned to protect the First Lady, Lara Craig (Ireland). The President's wife has a reputation for being difficult, bossing Service agents around and wanting to do things her own way. That all changes, however, when attempts are made on her life and she must journey with Killian by car, train, motorbike, and believe it or not, dune buggy to escape would-be assassins. There is little surprise here, as Killian believes the murderers are part of an inside job, perhaps arranged by the President himself. On the way, Killian and Mrs. Craig develop an unspoken affection for one another in scenes between Bronson and Ireland that are actually very funny.<br /><br />What really gets me is how this film was promoted upon its release and how it's still made to look as a DVD. The original trailer gives you the feeling that 'Assassination' is another cold-hearted Bronson shoot-'em-up. But a lot of this movie - which was rated PG-13, by the way - is in a comic vein, putting it along the lines of a romantic thriller like Bronson and Ireland's western 'From Noon Till Three.' Even the DVD case shows Bronson with a rocket launcher, ready to blow things up. Which he does, but to a lesser degree than his other '80s potboilers.<br /><br />On the whole, 'Assassination' is late Cannon slop work and doesn't really know what kind of film it wants to be. Besides drifting from actioner to romantic thriller and back again, there are serious mistakes in continuity, property values are bottom-of-the-barrel cheap, and the effects are dreadful; many of the explosions seem like matte work rather than being done on location. Robert Ragland, who had shown good composing skills in earlier films, teamed up with Valentine McCallum on a score that is mostly synthesized and better fit for television.<br /><br />Richard Sale's script has real lulus of dialogue, with the conversations between Bronson and Ireland the only bright spot. There is no explanation as to why the First Lady is called 'One Momma' all of a sudden, nor as to why Ireland is left with her British accent when the character is a Wyoming native. Jan Gan Boyd, playing Killian's main assistant, has a kitten-like personality and is badly miscast as a federal agent. Stephen Elliott (a former Tony Award nominee who died in May 2005), Randy Brooks, Erik Stern (as assassin Bracken), and Michael Ansara (Senator Bunsen) are acceptable in their supporting roles.<br /><br />Incidentally, this was the last film directing gig for Peter Hunt, who broke onto the scene with 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' in 1969 and collaborated with Bronson and Lee Marvin on 'Death Hunt' in 1981. 'Assassination' is available on DVD through MGM Home Entertainment; it is presented in dual widescreen and standard format with three-language subtitles and theatrical trailer.<br /><br />** out of 4 | negative |
1st watched 10/28/2007, 8 out of 10(Dir-Jesus Ponce): Simple, sweet story of a homeless couple and their daily adventures surviving in the everyday world without a roof over their heads. The movie starts with the woman in the story(played by Isabel Ampudia)being released from prison but we don't know what she was in for or how long she was there. She runs across the anti-hero of the story and her boyfriend, played by Sebastian Haro, as he's parking cars for change. They shack-up together underneath an old dilapidated building with nothing but each other's warmth and a small mattress to their possession. He is a drug addict who just tries to make it from one fix to another, but she has a strange, obsessive attraction to him as a person, which we eventually accept. He also has some sort of sexually-transmitted disease, so sex for them is out of the question but this doesn't appear to be a problem for either of them. She loves this man as he is, without question, and without him having to change, which is a rare find anywhere. She earns her keep by carrying a bucket around and washing shop windows. They eat a bakery roll every day and consider it a feast. Isabel's character dreams of a normal life but doesn't expect it to happen and doesn't expect to fit into that role so doesn't think much of it. Both characters come from extremely broken homes and therefore the audience has sympathy for them despite their imperfections. Without giving up much of the story, Isabel's character continues to persevere while the man gets worse and worse in his drug obsession. There is a nice melodramatic conclusion to the story that lifts it up for the masses to enjoy, but overall this is a wonderful independent film about a relationship between un-worldly misfits that keeps you interested until the end. | positive |
Excellent film. Suzy Kendall will hold your interest throughout. Has not been shown on American TV for a decade. One scene that has always stayed with me is the German cavalry gas attack. You will find others. Hope they soon put it on tape. | positive |
Talking about competition features at the Split Film festival, we have titles from all over the world. China, Korea, Canada, USA and Australia and many of these stories are indicating that the world is really valley of tears. Modern love...thats for sure. <br /><br />In that movie by Alex Frayne, two younger married people and their boy are traveling from town to the coast to visit the grave and house of the man's uncle who raised him a long time ago and who died in mysterious circumstances. The coastal village seems like something in an American horror film where the village is bizarre and people are uncommon mutants. But episodes in Alex Frayne's pastorella can't be described as horror in the normal way. In fact this is an extreme interesting drama where we are seeing relationships and horror through flashbacks and much more. In this story and through obviously psychological facets of the actors we are shown a peep show of film some charmingly eccentric Australian film-making. Thus is the the case of Frayne. Always something new and fresh. Visual intelligence and unique sensibility of some Australian directors is astonishing good. Frayne's movie is super. There is something in the Australian landscape that shows their movies so special as we have see in FRAYNE's Modern Love and in RAY Lawrence movies Lantana and Jindabyne.<br /><br />It seems it will be the same in future titles of Alex Frayne. | positive |
I give this movie a 4 cause I'm a die hard fan of the video game series. the graphics and animation are excellent and its nice to see the whole gang in CG form Sephiroth's still cool<br /><br />now the reasons it only got a 4 well the characters feel like planks of wood with some of the worst voice acting I've ever seen(I've watched epic movie)<br /><br />the movie just seems cloud orientated so much so that it make even the fans embarrassed with cloud this and cloud that. clouds mentioned so much that it make you not want to see him in this movie <br /><br />the villains have the award for the worst villains ever (i was more scared by the wicked witch of the west) <br /><br />all the other characters in this movie are simply put in the movie for a nod to the fans and doesn't take it further then that<br /><br />wtf's with the chilly chally???<br /><br />summary: waited 9 years for this movie and this is what i get a large pointless and boring cut scene i beg the head of square cenix to shoot the man responsible for this burn every copy of the movie and any one involved in it and create a new movie from the ashes's (it would be nice to make the movie in live action and based on the original game) | negative |
Are we serious??? I mean wow ... just, wow. I think I saw this flick in an old issue of War Journal. This is pathetic, originality is completely dead, instead of trying to formulate a new idea what we receive is a bland re-do of an old plot line and to "switch it up" we just change the gender or race of the original character it's moronic and everyone should be sick and tired of seeing it ... but I guess this is just a rant and will most likely fall on deaf ears to engrossed with the sound of another turd hitting the toilet water like the best western since 3:10 to Yuma ... (wait for it)... 3:10 to Yuma! Thank You Hollywood for killing film as an art form and turning it into a commercial barrage of neo-pop junk and blatant retardation ... wonderful!!! | negative |
I have no respect for IMDb ratings anymore. I think a bunch of Mormons flooded the website and voted for this. This is not an artistic movie, it is Mormon propaganda. Nothing wrong with that, but the plot outline and the way it is described is totally misleading. If you are a bible thumping Christian or a Mormon, watch this movie, you'll love it and think it is truly amazing. For anyone else, don't bother, the story is so contrived, random stuff happens that really doesn't follow in a coherent way. This guy tries to commit suicide cause he sleeps with his neighbor. Are you kidding? What a pussy! Anyways, this is an awful movie. | negative |
As a huge fan of horror, I had given up on the vampire sub-genre due to the fact that in most vampire flicks the vampire has become feminine and non-threatening, benign and basically weak. This was the attitude I brought to a viewing of Soul's Midnight and I am happy to say that the vampires in this film at least have the hunger to kill old ladies and sacrifice babies! Armand Assante, one of my favorite actors of all time, was born to play the charming vampire with savage intensity. <br /><br />Another thing that interested me is that the central location is the Borgo Hotel. That is cool because (and I went back to my high school copy to look this up) in Dracula, the Borgo Pass is where Jonathan Harker must pass to get to Dracula's castle.<br /><br />Finally, my hats off to whoever made the decision to make the creature a real effect and not a darn CGI! That's the one thing great about many low-budget movies, they cannot afford the garbage computer effects that plague many Hollywood monstrosities.<br /><br />Bottom line...this is better than Underworld for sure, especially if you are a vampire purest. Cheers, JA | positive |
"Dragonlord" sees Chan returning to his role of "Dragon" from "The Young Master". Not much has carried over from the first film though. "Tiger", his older brother, is nowhere to be seen; neither is the Marshall, his daughter or his son played superbly by Yuen Biao in the original film. Dragon does have the same master though - presumably all the other students have moved on to other things. (Dragon's laziness at training is portrayed heavily in this film, so maybe he's still studying!) <br /><br />Originally titled "Young Master In Love", this film sees Dragon (for the first sixty minutes at least) pursuing a villager girl in various idiotic and slapstick ways. His rival for her affection is his friend (inappropriately named "Cowboy") played comically by the longtime Chan Stunt-team member Mars. We see various scenes where their silly schemes backfire. It is one of these scenes that we (thankfully) find "Dragon" in over his head.<br /><br />This film is notorious in that it failed expectations at the box office. That said, I'm sure the expectations were pretty high, and I feel that this film has never had a fair judgment based on it's own merits. But even when I try to do this, I still feel that there is a problem with the film. It seems quite unfocused, sometimes rushed, and I think the action is too sporadic and not as brilliant as Chan's other work from this period.<br /><br />The thing that really saves the film is the ending sequence. As in "The Young Master", there is a fantastic final reel that it full of incredibly exhausting action - you really feel every blow. And again, Chan goes up against the same rival from "The Young Master" (is it the same character?), and the timing and energy here is brilliant. Chan's style of using every last bit of his environment to help defeat his opponent - not just relying on pure physical ability - is as apparent here as anywhere else. The barn they fight in is full of clever little prop gags and improvisations. This is an absolute highlight of the film and one of Chan's incredible career.<br /><br />It's not necessary to see the prequel before seeing "Dragonlord", in fact, it might even raise more questions than what it hopes to answer. But it must be said that the original film is the superior film, and "Dragonlord", with it's focus on girl-chasing and team-sports does seem baffling. Luckily, the few fight scenes it offers (plus a fantastic shuttle-cock scene) push it over the line as a must-see film in this genre. | positive |
Watching Floored by Love one thought comes almost immediately to mind, "My god this looks like a really bad sitcom." Sure enough, it turns out that FBL is a pilot for a series that may start this fall in Canada, poor poor Canada.<br /><br />Cara (Shirley Ng) and Janet (Natalie Sky) are a lesbian couple living in Vancouver. Janet has come out to her mother already but Cara's parents are still in the dark about their daughter's homosexuality. The pressure is on to out herself though when the parents come from Malaysia for her younger brother's wedding. That same week British Columbia legalizes gay marriage. With Janet wanting to wed, Cara has to decide whether or not to tell her conservative Chinese parents that's she's gay. Will she? Would she? Could she? Cara's situation is contrasted with that of Jesse (Trent Millar). Jesse has just declared his homosexuality to the world at the age of fourteen. His biological father Daniel (Andrew McIlroy) is coming for a visit soon. His stepfather Norman (Michael Robinson) fears that his chances of finally being fully accepted by Jesse are harmed by the fact that Daniel is gay and he is not. Will dialing 1-800-Makeover help?<br /><br />The dialogue and delivery come straight out of a lesser 1950's program along with the overdone physical emoting. The Full House-style melodrama is enough to make you wince from time to time and the attempts at comedy largely fail. McIlroy, Millar & Sky are the only performers that approach competency in this miscalculation but given the material they have to work with, it's no surprise that none impress. It's possible that the campiness was purposeful. It often seems like there is no way the performers are really that bad, that they must be trying to mimic the inferior sitcoms of days yore. If this is indeed the case than this review should probably be rewritten. The rewrite would focus on Floored by Love being a poor and ineffective send-up of old sitcoms.<br /><br />Writer/director Desiree Lim has put together a by-the-numbers bland-fest that's entirely forgettable. There was a time when merely having an openly homosexual protagonist was enough to make a mark on the screen. That time is gone. In this day we need quality as well. | negative |
Masters of Horror: Right to Die starts late one night as married couple Abby (Julia Anderson) & Ciff Addison (Martin Donovan) are driving home, however while talking Cliff is distracted & crashes into a tree that has fallen across the road. Cliff's airbag works OK & he walks away with minor injuries, unfortunately for Abby hers didn't & she ended up as toast when she was thrown from the car & doused in petrol which set alight burning her entire body. Abby's life is saved, just. She is taken to hospital where she is on life support seriously injured & horribly disfigured from the burns. Cliff decides that she should die, his selfish lawyer Ira (Corbin Bersen) thinks they should let Abby die, sue the car manufacturer & get rich while Abby's mum Pam (Linda Sorenson) wants to blame Cliff, get rich & save Abby. However Abby has other plans of her own...<br /><br />This American Canadian co-production was directed by Rob Schmidt (whose only horror film previously was Wrong Turn (2003) which on it's own hardly qualifies him to direct a Masters of Horror episode) & was episode 9 from season 2 of the Masters of Horror TV series, while I didn't think Right to Die was the best Masters of Horror episode I've seen I thought it was a decent enough effort all the same & still doesn't come close to being as bad as The Screwfly Solution (2006). The script by John Esposito has a neat central idea that isn't anything new but it uses it effectively enough although I'd say it's a bit uneven, the first 15 minutes of this focuses on the horror element of the story but then it goes into a lull for 20 odd minutes as it becomes a drama as the legal wrangling over Abby's life & the affair Cliff is having take center stage before it gets back on track it a deliciously gory & twisted climax that may not be for the faint of heart. The character's are a bit clichéd, the weak man, the bent lawyer, the protective mum & the young tart who has sex to get what she wants but they all serve their purpose well enough, the dialogue is OK, the story moves along at a nice pace & overall I liked Right to Die apart from a few minutes here & there where it loses it's focus a bit & I wasn't that keen on the ambiguous ending.<br /><br />Director Schmidt does a good job & there are some effective scenes, this tries to alternate between low key spooky atmosphere & out-and-out blood & gore. There are some fantastic special make-up effects as usual, there's shots of Abby where she has had all of the skin burned off her body & the image of her bandaged head with her teeth showing because she has no lips left is pretty gross (images & make-up effects that reminded me of similar scenes in Hellraiser (1987) & it's sequels), then there's the main course at the end where Cliff literally skins someone complete with close-ups of scalpels slicing skin open & him peeling it off the muscle & putting it into a cooler box! Very messy. There are also various assorted body parts. There's some nudity here as well with at least a couple of pretty ladies getting naked...<br /><br />Technically Right to Die is excellent, the special effects are brilliant & as most Masters of Horror episodes it doesn't look like a cheap made-for-TV show which basically if the truth be told it is. The acting was fine but there's no big 'names' in this one.<br /><br />Right to Die is another enjoyable & somewhat twisted Masters of Horror episode that most horror fans should definitely check out if not just for the terrific skinning scene! Well worth a watch... for those with the stomach. | positive |
As the summary says you just made the most ignorant comment i have ever heard on an RPG. You seriously thought they were gay? Are you retarded? If you went to go save your best friend and someone decides out of the goodness of his heart to help you then you are in a serious debt to that man. Lavitz was a good person and each time they helped each other it made them closer as friends. They weren't gay lovers like your bitching about. And to let you know the game is set in a medieval time period. Back then, women did just prepare meals while the men fought. Do you even know your history? Do you know how long it took for women to be accepted in the army in present day? This game contains a lot of realism even though your too damn slow obviously to catch it, and you really need to spit out some solid proof instead of ignorant assumptions based off your misguided act to interpret the story. | negative |
Why? Why did they make this movie? If Timothy Olyphant wasn't shirtless in it several times, there would be ABSOLUTELY no reason to watch this movie, ever. Um...Plot? Nope. Well-defined characters? nope. The only time I laughed was when my boyfriend made fun of the whole she-bang. P.S. Andy Dick? Nope. | negative |
As a semi-film buff, I had heard of this infamous movie a long time ago. I had heard that it was basically a 15 million dollar film about the tyrannical rule of the Roman emperor Caligula, complete with hard-core pornography. What struck me was that it was a porno movie yet it had great thespians like Peter O'Toole, John Geilgud, Malcolm McDowell and Hellen Mirren in it!!?? A week ago I saw a documentary about Caligula on the History channel and this film came back into my head and finally my curiousity got the best of me, I foolishly rented the DVD and even more foolishly watched it.<br /><br />Within the first 30 minutes I was seeing acts of sex and especially violence that would earn an NC-17 even by todays standards. Was it really necessary to have a scene of a man having his urinary track closed and then have gallons of wine poured into him and then have his stomach cut with a sword (all in very graphic detail). And a scene where a guy gets his d*** cut off and fed to dogs (again in very graphic detail)....and this just scratches the surface. The argument for this movie from those who like it seems that it is the only film that honestly portrays pagan Rome and it's excesses. When in fact what this movie really is, is sheer exploitation. From beginning to end you see nothing but endless torture, and decapitations and every kind of violence and crude behavior imaginable (sadomasochism, rape, necrophelia, it just never stopped). There is no insight into Caligula himself, what might have propelled him to go mad, the horrible childhood he had that molded him into a sadist as an adult. This is not a historic film, it is sleaze. Even the porn in this movie stinks, and through much of this when I wasn't gagging I was just incredibly bored. By the time it was over I was depressed, didn't feel much like eating and this movie does the impossible, it actually can turn you off of sex.<br /><br />What were these great actors thinking when they got into this. I did read that the porn segments were filmed after the principal shooting was completed (which explains why none of the main actors are in any of these scenes and why the quality of these scenes is so poor). But still and all these actors must have known what they were getting into. Right at the opening credits it says "Penthouse Magazine and Bob Gucionne Presents". And the scenes that the famous actors actually take part in are completely repulsive in and of themselves. Apparently director Tinto Brass wanted his name removed from the completed film entirely, as did the screenwriter (Gore Vidal of all people). Even John Geilgud and Peter O'toole were begging people not to see this when it opened at the Cannes film festival.<br /><br />For the amount of money the producers spent on this, the movie's quality is terrible. Everything is underlit and murky as if the film was dropped in a swamp prior to being developed, and that's when you're lucky enough to view a scene that's actually in-focus. The sound is poorly dubbed, much of the music is awkward and the editing is god awful.<br /><br />Anyway, I brought this movie on myself. My advice...don't watch this, don't watch this, don't watch this......as for myself tomorrow night I am going to watch something lighter....like DAWN OF THE DEAD! | negative |
So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.<br /><br />The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.<br /><br />One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer. | negative |
There is no way to describe how really, really, really bad this movie is. It's a shame that I actually sat through this movie, this very tiresome and predictable movie. What's wrong with it? Acting: There is not one performance that is even remotely close to even being sub-par (atleast they are all very pretty). Soundtrack (songs): "If we get Orgy on the soundtrack then everyone will know that they are watching a horror film!"; Soundtrack (score): Okay, but anyone with a keyboard can make an okay soundtrack these days. Don't even get me started on the "What the hell?" moments, here are a few: Killer can move at the speed of light--door opens actress turns, no one is there, turns back, there is something sitting in front of her.; Out of now where The killer shows up with a power drill, a really big one! The filmmakers get points for at least plugging it in, but can I really believe that the killer took the time to find the power outlet to plug it in. I feel like one of the guards at the beginning of Holy Grail and want to say "Where'd you get the power drill?". I could go on and on about how bad this film is but I only have 1000 words. I will give this 2 out of ten stars. One star for making me laugh and another star for all the cleavage. Seriously, do not waste your time with this one. | negative |
I saw this film at the Rotterdam International Film Festival 2002. This seemed to be one of the less popular films on the festival, however, as it turned out, all the more interesting.<br /><br />The story, of an actor trying to come to grips with himself and his environment after withdrawing from a drug addiction, is based on actual facts. Moreover, the characters playing in the film are the real people living this experience over again, this time for the film, which is partly set up as a stage play. Not only do they all happen to be good actors, Jia Hongsheng's parents are actors in real life as well, the methods used in highlighting their relationship towards Jia are very effective.<br /><br />Jia Hongsheng is the actor of some Chinese action films late eighties start nineties. Later you can see him in great films such as Frozen and Suzhou River. In between these two career paths Jia becomes a drug addict and looses all drive to act or even do anything productive, except for making somewhat futile attempts at becoming a guitar virtuoso.<br /><br />I like the way the writer of the scenario choose to emphasize on his behavior after withdrawal more than on the horror of drugs. We really feel the pain and struggle Jia is in. At the same time we hate him for the way he treats those around him.<br /><br />The film draws the viewer into a tiring pattern Jia seems to be caught in, dragging with him his parents and sister who try to take care of him. Because there are personal 'interviews' with the characters we feel like we are getting to know Jia not only through himself but through others as well.<br /><br />The film has a heavy feel, but scenes of Jia cycling through Bejing and partying with his friends lighten the tone. So does the bitter humor in a lot of events throughout the film. The music is beautiful and stayed with me for a while after. This is a film that might not easily appeal to many people but for those interested in the more serious and modern Chinese film this is a strong recommendation. | positive |
John Waters owes me 2 hours of my life back. I saw a sneak-preview screening of this way back in 1990, and I'm still in pain. Not before or since have I seen such a terrible piece of filmic waste spewed upon the screen. There is nothing positive I can say about this film. Acting--awful; plot--ridiculous; music--atrocious. Following the movie, my friends and I demanded our money back from the manager of the theater. He explained that, since it was a free screening, he couldn't give us anything in return, no matter how much agony we were suffering through. How Johnny Depp's career survived this trainwreck of a movie is anyone's guess. | negative |
I remember this bomb coming out in the early 80's. At first it sounded like a great idea. A retelling of an American classic with the help of modern movie techniques of the day. There was a bit a of a back lash over the treatment of the original "Lone ranger", Clayton Moore. The movie studio had threatened legal action if Moore continued portraying him self as the real lone ranger. (Moore was performing at children's hospitals as the Lone ranger for sick kids.) To many Americans Clayton Moore was just that the; the one and only lone ranger. I had always felt that the studio could have done justice to both the fans and legacy of the lone ranger if Moore had been treated better. Maybe even a cameo in the new movie. How ever this was not the case, and many of the viewing public stayed away in droves. Also the story and acting were weak. All this added up to a big box office bomb, and rightly so. I personally I'm glad the studio lost big money after the way the real Lone ranger was treated. You don't treat an American icon that way. | negative |
Sex is a most noteworthy aspect of existence. It is perhaps the most interesting activity there is between birth and death. LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN studies human sexuality in a dry and boring manner. Actually, worse than being simply boring, seeing nude 40-year-olds is, well, unpleasant.<br /><br />I guess there is some shock value in having adults as old as our parents talk about sex, but after twenty minutes, this stops being interesting. Perhaps if the characters were all 20 years younger, the film would be more visually captivating.<br /><br />LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN is not worth the time. | negative |
Okay, when it comes to plots, this film is far from believable and also a bit silly. Yet despite its many deficiencies, the film manages to work--provided you turn off your brain and just let yourself enjoy the zaniness of it all. If you can't, then you probably won't like this film very much at all.<br /><br />In one of the oddest plots of the 1930s, Robert Montgomery plays a guy living near the Arctic Circle at a wireless station. How exactly he came to such a remote outpost is uncertain but into this very, very lonely and isolated existence come a steady string of guests--even though it had been years since he'd seen anyone but Eskimos.<br /><br />First, Reginald Owen and Myrna Loy arrive when their plane crashes. They are supposedly on their way to Montreal--how they got THAT far off course is beyond belief! Reginald is a stuffy and dull fellow who is really worried about Montgomery, since Robert hasn't seen a woman in a very long time and Owen seems in constant dread that Montgomery is out to steal Loy for himself. As for Montgomery, that's EXACTLY what his plans are! For the longest time, you never really understand why Loy is engaged to Owen--since he is about as appealing as soggy bread.<br /><br />Soon, Loy and Montgomery fall in love but this is all for naught when, out of the blue AGAIN, Montgomery's old fiancée arrives to announce she's there to marry him!! Considering that for over two years she never wrote and refused to follow him, Montgomery naturally assumed the relationship was over--but the chipper and annoying fiancée's sudden arrival is enough to destroy the plans Loy and Montgomery were making.<br /><br />How all this is resolved is something you can just see for yourself. As for the film, that the plot is very silly and contrived--I can't defend this. BUT, it also is pretty funny and charming and I see this film as a kooky comedy that is just a step or two below contemporary films like BRINGING UP BABY. Silly, slight but also very charming. It's worth seeing despite not being especially believable. | positive |
I love basketball and this seemed like an intriguing movie. However, in the first ten minutes of the movie I knew that it was going to be lousy. It was poorly acted and much too slow. On top of that it was very, very racist, sexist, antisemitic and homophobic. Sometimes putting in racial, ethnic and other types of slurs has a point, illustrating the bigotry that exists. In this movie there was no point to the horrible bigotry and no one learned from what was being said. Part of the problem is that it was an adaption of a play and a remake of a 1982 movie that dealt with a basketball team from the 1950's. Having this movie take place earlier in time would have made a little bit more sense. It didn't translate well to modern times and the writing was horrible. I don't know how the play was originally written but I can't believe that any movie as bad and as hateful as this one has made it to television and video in 1999. It was disgusting. Don't waste your precious time on this one. | negative |
Contrary to most other commentators, I deeply hate this series.<br /><br />It starts out looking interesting, with mysterious aliens and giant robots, and I kept my hopes up until the very last episode. At the end of it, I still didn't understand what the alien attacks were all about (maybe I missed something, who knows?), and realized that I had sat through 26 episodes consisting mainly of the characters' own self-hating, selfishness and self-pitying. It actually flips between alien/robot fights and these dark, depressing blinking-on-and-off scenes where one or more characters can just say or shout "I hate me/you/it" 10-12 times in a row.<br /><br />I can't really see either Shinji or Asuka (two of the main characters) showing growth or change. (Nor can I see any of the other characters learning or growing either, for that matter.) I wanted to kick them and tell them to get a bloody life during the first episodes, and the feeling didn't change during the last ones. Shinji truly possesses the kind of helpless hopelessness that makes people angry rather than charitable, and Asuka is such an infuriating know-it-all that I wanted to smash the TV screen every time she came into view. Oh, and more than anyone else, these two hate everything, and say it veeeeeeeery often.<br /><br />I'm otherwise a big fan of animé and manga, and never before have I disliked one so much. I read that the series creator/writer wrote this while suffering from a depression, and I can believe that; it made me depressed to watch it. Is that the aim of this series? I'm honestly asking. Is it designed to make the viewer confused and annoyed? And if suffering from a depression, why just not write a book or biography about it, instead of mixing it up with aliens and mecha's? This alien war plot, as far as I could tell, lead to absolutely nowhere.<br /><br />Finally, since I'm truly fascinated by how many people claim to love this patchwork of dead-end plots, I can't help but wonder how many of them actually find it good, and how many say they do because they've been told it is. | negative |
Even though some unrealistic things happen at the end (i.e. a cop shooting a gun into a crowded merry-go-round where any number of innocent could be killed), this still was an intense, enjoyable thriller, one of Alfred Hitchcock's better films. Robert Walker is excellent as the chilling nutcase, really convincing giving a fascinating performance that is almost too creepy at times. His co-star in here, Farley Granger, is okay but is no match for Walker, either in acting or in the characters they play. It's the typical Hitchcock film with some strange camera angles, immoral themes, innocent man gets in trouble, etc. Unlike a lot of his other films, I thought this one was a fast-moving story with a very few dull spots. Being an ex-tennis player, I enjoyed his footage of some excellent old net matches that featured some good rallies. Hitchcock's real-life daughter Patricia has an interesting and unique minor character role in here. She didn't just get the job because of her dad; she can act. Also of note: the DVD has both the British and American versions and there were some differences in the story. This is a classic film that is still referred to in modern-day films, even comedies such as "Throw Momma Off The Train." | positive |
THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT, like I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, takes a dim view of both labor and capital. Alec Guinness is a scientific genius - but an eccentric one (he has never gotten his university degree due to an...err...accident in a college laboratory). He manages to push himself into various industrial labs in the textile industry. When the film begins he is in Michael Gough's company, and Gough (in a memorable moment) is trying to impress his would-be father-in-law (Cecil Parker) by showing him the ship-shape firm he runs. While having lunch with Parker and Parker's daughter (Joan Greenwood), Gough gets a message regarding some problems about the lab's unexpectedly large budget problems. He reads the huge expenditures (due to Guinness's experiments), and chokes on his coffee.<br /><br />Guinness goes on to work at Parker's firm, and repeats the same tricks he did with Gough - but Parker discovers it too. Greenwood has discovered what Guinness is working on, and convinces Parker to continue the experiments (but now legally). The result: Guinness and his assistant has apparently figured out how to make an artificial fiber that can constantly change the electronic bonds within it's molecular structure so that (for all intents and purposes) the fiber will remain in tact for good. Any textile made from it will never fade, get dirty, or wear out - it will last forever.<br /><br />Guinness has support from a female shop steward, but not her chief. He sees Guinness as selling out to the rich. But when he explains to them what he's done, they turn against him. If everyone has clothes that will last forever then they will not need new clothes! Soon Parkers' fellow textile tycoons (led by Gough, Ernest Theisinger - in a wonderful performance, and Howard Marion-Crawford) are equally panic stricken by what may end their businesses. They seek to suppress the invention. With only Greenwood in his corner (although Parker sort of sympathizes with him), Guinness tries to get the news of his discovery to the public.<br /><br />In the end, Guinness is defeated by science as well as greed. But he ends the film seeing the error in his calculations, and we guess that one day he may still pull off his discovery after all.<br /><br />It's a brilliant comedy. But is the argument for suppression valid? At one point the difficulties of making the textile are shown (you have to heat the threads to a high temperature to actually enable the ends of the material to be united. There is nothing that shows the cloth will stretch if the owner gets fat (or contract if the owner gets thin). Are we to believe that people only would want one set of clothing for ever? What happened to fashion changes and new styles? And the cloth is only made in the color white (making Guinness look like a white knight). We are told that color dye would have to be added earlier in the process. Wouldn't that have an effect on the chemical reactions that maintain the structure of the textile? <br /><br />Alas this is not a science paper, but a film about the hypocrisies of labor and capital in modern industry. As such it is brilliant. But those questions I mention keep bothering me about the validity of suppressing Guinness' invention | positive |
"Stargate SG-1" follows the intergalactic explorations of a team named SG-1 through a device called the Stargate and all the surprises awaiting on the other side of the wormhole.<br /><br />Having seen this series sporadically for it's first few seasons when it first came out, I didn't know how good this series would really be, 10 years after I had last seen an episode. My old impression was that the series was great, but my impression was far from the truth. "Stargate SG-1" is more than just a simple sci-fi series, it is one of the most well made, interesting, long running, exciting sci-fi ever produced. And why? Because it runs on an amazing premise.<br /><br />This series value far surpasses that of the movie it was based on and I think it is a very good example that television, as a medium, with a suitable premise, is able to provide something that doesn't work on the time restriction of film. The sense of familiarity created by a long running series, watching the characters and their circumstances progressing with time is stunning and just adds to the ability to suspend disbelief, and it's all a result of terrific writing and a lot of dedication by the all crew to the show.<br /><br />"Stargate SG-1" kept offering great adventures throughout the 10 years, but was never afraid of the challenge of moving the plot and it gave way for some very different time periods of the show: <br /><br />- The first few seasons, perhaps up to the 4th/5th, focused a lot more on the exploration of planets and different situations, keeping the episodes fairly unrelated to each other if it were not for the always impending Goaul'd threat. <br /><br />- From the 5th to the 7th there was increasingly more episodes focusing on fighting the Goaul'd and preventing attacks on Earth. After this seasons exploration of the planets was almost only an excuse for putting sg-1 in a place of Goaul'd/replicator/ori conflicts<br /><br />- The 8th season is probably the most mixed one. It has a stream of episodes that includes minor earth matters in which the stargate is hardly even mentioned, but the last episodes feature some great replicator moments. <br /><br />- The 9th and 10th travel together because they have the same new enemy and no Jack O'Neil. They are both good continuations, although the first few episodes of the 10th season are a little weak, because they seem to be about little more than SG-1 and human/Jaffa losing battle after battle to the Ori.<br /><br />Basically, after season 7, exploration was pushed to the background, which in many ways was a shame, because of the potential and mystery each planet(episode) presented; on the other hand, it made for so many great episodes of the ongoing conflicts that the change of nature of the show still worked and shows how great and bold the writers were.<br /><br />Even tough I believe the series have a high quality ending that nicely puts it to rest, the feeling I have is that it could go on; the people involved were all great professionals and the series narrative had plenty to offer. A last season returning to the beginning nature of the series was very doable and would have been most welcome, but ultimately things are as they are.<br /><br />In the end, because of the fact that I enjoyed everything, it's a little hard to find that it ends. The big picture, however, the one drawn by the work of hundreds of people over the course of 10 years, is a sight of beauty and a true testament to the dedication of the crew, those outstanding actors and the characters the we will always remember as a collective by the name of SG-1. | positive |
Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese. | negative |
Good Lord... How this ended up in our DVD player I'll never know...my wife thought it was a new release she'd missed somehow...Nevermind it's a couple of years old and in Danish ( I think)... She kept looking for the English soundtrack...<br /><br />All in all...the film wasn't bad... Good production values,better performances, and a clever story that doesn't get too far away from itself make for tidy, dark-humored fare from across the sea! The ending will make you chuckle...in fact, the whole film will. Incredibly strange characters that we grow genuinely interested in make a film that might be worth your while...Without spoiling the plot, the film's title and DVD jacket give you a good idea where this thing is going! | positive |
Documentaries about fans are always mishmashes, and never worth seeing through, but I found this one, made by some of the fans themselves, more than usually unenlightening. As a veteran of the original Tolkien craze, forty years ago, I'd hoped for more than the obvious--which doesn't always equate to the true. If there's anyone living who doesn't already know the nature of a fandom, any fandom, from having been or known a fan, he won't discover it here. Between irrelevancies, platitudes (to which the actors from the films are particularly prone), and acting out (by fans making the most--if not the best--of their one shot at fame), I could glean little of the special appeal of LOTR, the special emotional responses it evokes, and the range of the special creative forms those responses can take. In addition, the film is rather lazy: it slights some facts that could have been got across with little effort, e.g. what the exact legal loophole was (the wording of a copyright notice) that permitted the books' unauthorized publication in the U.S. (Speaking of which: I take strong exception to the film's dismissal of the covers on that edition as "irrelevant" and "psychedelic," which they were not. They were the work of Jack Gaughan, a very able sf illustrator of the period, and some fans, including me, found them more apt, and more attractive, than the covers on the rival set.) | negative |
****SPOILER ALERT**** My boyfriend, some friends, and I rented this movie as part of a marathon of really bad movies. We sort of knew what we were getting into. But the lack of plot, direction, and special effects actually left us hoping for a great (or passable) fight scene between the two main characters... the badly rendered swimming cobra and the super violent giant komodo (that ate people like scooping ice cream)... we sort of get this in the end, but had to be cut short due to possibly budget or time constraints? Its one redeeming quality is that its laughably bad, with many salient details pointed out by other readers. I recommend this movie if your into cutting onions to make yourself cry. | negative |
This is a 1972 Disney movie. For the time, I was eleven years old and I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Feeling nostalgic, I purchased the three series DVD's of the Dexter Riley movies and even now, at age 46, I still enjoyed them. It was all about fantasy, magic, and clean fun. And it still is! I wasn't sure which of the three movies came first then second and last. So now I have the official dates. On December 31, 1969 The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes--On July 12, 1972 Now You See Him Now You Don't--On February 6, 1975 The Strongest Man In The World. I still think the middle movie was the best. The special effects were amazing back in 1972 to us kids. I definitely recommend it to all ages. | positive |
Jack Frost 2, is probably the most cheesiest movie I have ever seen in my life. The complete title of the film, is Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman. Horror movie fans that have a taste for campy story lines, will be delighted to watch this. This film was straight to video, and for good reasons. Here's why: The acting, was so atrocious, and so terrible, that it could cause one to cry. The main character had no personality, and the actor's bad acting made it all worse. The screenplay was, was also atrocious. Each character always says a cheesy line, and add the cheesy lines to the bad choreography, then you have something bad. Second, the story line isn't really all that impressive, but since this movie was straight to video, it is forgiven. The director, and writer could have turned the idea of a killer snowman, into something cool, but they didn't. They story has lots of plot holes in it. In the beginning, a cup of coffee gets knocked into the fish tank, with the melted Jack Frost. Scientists try to restore his life, but they couldn't. Once the cup of coffee fell into the tank, Jack Frost was completely restored. Now he is immune to anti-freeze. In Jack Frost part 1, the main character's DNA got mixed up with the Anti-freeze that was used to kill Jack Frost. Since the main character is allergic to bananas, Jack Frost is too. Hence, here's my point. They say that Sam's DNA combined with Jack Frost's. But, one of the scientists had some saliva on the cup, so when it fell into the tank, the scientists DNA would have been combined with Jack Frosts. Another thing, the special effects weren't very good either. Here's the good points: Jack Frost 2 has lots of blood, that looks pretty realistic. Even though this movie is flawed to hell, it is still entertaining. Overall, Jack Frost 2 is an enjoyable horror movie. The first one was better though. 7 out of 10. | positive |
I am a VERY big fan of Jenna Jameson, but this movie is horrible. At the time Jenna Jameson was married to Brad Armstrong and he was the director of this film and Jenna was the hottest porn star ever. So, of course, Brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. Now I know why they don't make big budget porn movies anymore. In a fantasy world, porn stars could act, but this is the real world and they can't act. That's why there porn stars, if a women as beautiful as Jenna could act, then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. Just because your beautiful doesn't make you a movie star. A fine example of this is Traci Lords, when she was a teen thru her 20's she was one of the most beautiful, sexy women on earth. She made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn't act. Where is she now? I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because Jenna is so hot, but there are better movies she has made then "Dream Quest". Come on Jenna, we don't want to hear you talk, as much as we want to see you have sex. Also, you Jenna, would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film. | negative |
Casting unknown Michelle Rodriguez as Diana was a stroke of genius. She's perfect. Her acting inexperience actually works in her favor. We've never seen her before so it really feels like her story. She also brings across genuine toughness. This works against her though, because we never doubt her. You never have to cheer for her to win because she never goes up against any fighter we don't think she can beat. So as a boxing movie, it fails.<br /><br />Then again, this isn't really a boxing movie. How do you make a movie about a girl who wants to be a boxer that isn't a boxing movie? You don't. But Karyn Kusama has anyway. Like many indie films, "Girlfight" defies classification or genre and stands on its own as folklore that could darn near happen in real life.<br /><br />Diana is doing poorly in school. She beats up people she doesn't like (all the other girls in her school for example). She doesn't fit in. Her father is forcing her kid brother Tiny to learn to box so he can defend himself when things get tough. He gives Tiny money for his boxing sessions and gives Diana nothing, as if she has no need to defend herself, nor anything worthwhile to make of her life. Tiny wants to go to art school (cliche', yuck), so he gives up his boxing allowance to Diana, who actually wants to box. Things get complicated when Diana falls for another boxer, Adrian (Santiago Douglas), who's looking to turn pro. From there the story winds down toward the inevitable...the two meet in the amateur title fight.<br /><br />What left me cold was that I never found any of this all that interesting. It's all just a bit too believable. Kids with tough lives growing up in rough urban areas fall back on sports. A lot of professional boxers have risen from these circumstances. The mental and physical toughness this upbringing requires lends itself to a game like boxing, where anger is your friend. So this time it's a girl. Big deal.<br /><br />Or there's another position to take: finally, a boxing movie about a girl. Women's boxing has been around a long time. The brutality we usually see in boxing films is replaced here by discussions of people's their lives and their feelings. The whole fighting thing is used as a platform from which to paint a larger picture. Respect. Overcoming adversity. Self-discovery.<br /><br />I recommend "Girlfight" because it has a good spirit and is an example of some great work by a first time director. The dialogue never rises above soap opera quality, but the story itself actually changed my view on some things. Yes, the world now seems like a better place. A film did that.<br /><br />Grade: B- | positive |
Oh my gosh!! I love this movie sooooooooooooooooooooo much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is so incredible......I loved it as a wee babe and still love it as an adult. It is my favorite Disney movie of allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll time! You should watch it, watch it and love it. My friends and I watch it a ton.....It is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo good. I recommend it to anyone who is a child or a child at heart. My favorite part is the song and dance number with all of the strays and Thomas O'Malley. The writers/producers/director completely nailed this one.....yeah, nailed it to the wall.<br /><br />xoxo~Wolly~xoxo | positive |
This if the first movie I've given a 10 to in years. If there was ever a movie that needed word-of-mouth to promote, this is it. A $4 Mil box is a disgrace. People don't know what it's about. If you have any appreciation for the Blues, or just a good use of excellent music, that alone is reason to go see it. How many people knew Jackson could sing, and damn fine too. You hear books and movies taunting that they're about salvation. After seeing this, you'll never be able to forgive such trivial use of the word. Yes, it's gritty, sexy, down home truth, bizarre and in-your-face real. Isn't that the best reason to see a movie? Those that get my meaning won't stay away from seeing this another week. | positive |
This was incredible, meaning that it was hard to believe, that the "forgotten tribe" would make this astounding migration twice a year, and that the filmmakers, Cooper and Schoedsack, didn't stage some of the scenes and shots. But what shots they are! The cinematography, under mostly extreme conditions, is brilliant, and the score of Iranian music added to the video release give this memorable documentary an added richness.<br /><br />I had the pleasure of seeing this and "Kon Tiki" on the same weekend, which was a thrill and certainly made me see how tough and hardy and brave people can be, whether for primitive survival or the need for adventure or in the name of science. | positive |
Progeny is about a husband and wife who experience time loss while making love. Completely unaware of what this bizarre experience means they try to go on with their lives. The hubby begins questioning the bizarre event and gets help through a very annoying psychiatrist. He comes to believe that aliens are responsible for this lapse in time and that the unborn baby he once thought was his and his wife's actually belongs to the aliens.<br /><br />If ya ask me, this is a great scifi/horror story. Taking a highly questionable real-life scenario involving alien abduction and hybrid breeding is definite thumbs up from this guy. I love all things related to aliens and this story definitely delivered some good ideas. So if you also share an interest in things extraterrestrial, you should be pretty happy with Progeny. At least story-wise anyways.<br /><br />Unfortunately the movie overall is pretty average. With average acting by all actors. Yep, even by the consistently awesome Mr. Dourif, who still does deliver the best performance. Though the black head doctor, delivers his lines really well. There are a few points in the flick where some of the delivery is cringe or laugh worthy, which is fine in my book. I like them cheesy and this had a little bit of some nice stinky cheese, and I mean that in a good way.<br /><br />Anyways, with a less than stellar script you can't really blame all the actors. I especially didn't care for the Mother Hysteria the film went for. She wanted a baby so badly that she'd neglect and dismiss everything her loving husband (who's a doctor!!) said to her. It almost reached a point where you actually didn't care what happened to her.<br /><br />The Progeny is another flick by Brian Yuzna from the icky-sticky film, Society. Again he delivers some slimy effects, and again he delivers a pretty unique tale of horror. If you're into scifi/horror or are a fan of Dourif and or Yuzna films, there's no real reason not to check out this flick if you get the chance. A generous 7 outta 10. | positive |
I have seen a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though. | negative |
I grew up in New York City and every afternoon ABC would show the 4:30 movie- Saratoga Trunk was one of the first movies I remember watching as a kid. I loved this movie and it has stayed with me for years. I recently watched it again and still thought it was great - maybe I am just a romantic - but I thought it was well done. I do not want to say this movie was good only because of the main actors - I really did not know who they were when I first saw this movie - I guess I just knew quality acting as a child. Both Bergman and Cooper were excellent. I especially loved seeing old New Orleans during the time period of this movie . If you ever get a chance to visit New Orleans - you should watch movies that show the city during that time period - when you get to see some of the old homes in the French Quarter(not just Bourbon Street) or uptown, you can truly imagine life as it was 100 years ago. <br /><br />I love old movies - this one to me is a good flick!! | positive |
I really don't have anything new to add but I just felt like I had to comment on this sack. So here goes:<br /><br />Atrocious. I'm running through my MST3K DVD collection again and I just watched Hobgoblins for about the 10th time. It's really, really painful but it was next on the list... You can see that there is a tiny kernel of an actual movie buried under all the crap that is "Hobgoblins" but it just couldn't get out. Everything about this movie is 4th rate. The story, the acting, the effects, the women, the "action scenes", the... ahhhh forget it. I can watch a piece of crap like "The Bloodwaters of Dr. Z" (aka "Zaat") over and over and over with hardly any ill effects (I like it in fact- btw, it will be on TCM later this month- October, 2009) but "Hobgoblins" is a whole 'nother ballgame.<br /><br />The worst part of it all may be that it's now about 12 hours after the movie ended, I had a good night's sleep, some coffee and some dry toast, my medications, and yet the ersatz "New Wave" dance music that Amy, Red Shorts, and Laraine Newman were frolicking to in the living room is STILL RUNNING THROUGH MY HEAD. This torment will last for days. <br /><br />Good luck, won't you? | negative |
Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.<br /><br /> I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands.... | negative |
If you want a complete waste of time, because pulling lint out of your belly button or cleaning the wax out of your ears or grouting your tile is your idea of a carnival thrill ride, then you'll not want to miss this one.<br /><br />For one thing, forget the VHS cover. NO body in this movie looks that attractive (ie, the Indian girl). Someone else commented that whoever posed for the cover is not the same girl and I agree. The cover is THE most exciting thing about this movie.<br /><br />To put this in perspective, I bought this VHS for 99 cents at K-Mart and three minutes, no, 40 seconds into the movie, I knew I had been ripped off.<br /><br />I finished watching it because 1) I did pay 99 cents after all and, 2)there might possibly, conceivably been a hair of chance some scene in this turkey was worth more than a pinched loaf.<br /><br />There wasn't.<br /><br />Good grief, Fonda. I know you were hard up for roles when you did this, but this is beneath you. | negative |
This show started out okay, but then it turned into a nightmare. The worst part about it was the contestants. Most of them were weirdos. They did stupid things for a living and they also did strange hobbies. In the second season, one guy said he that he talked to his pants. That is sick and repulsive. Also, no one cared about winning money. All they ever wanted to do was make alliances like it was "Survivor" or something. The men were always afraid that the women were going to team up together. The women were the same also. I just couldn't take it anymore. I had to stop watching it. It was truly one of the worst shows ever. | negative |
In this "critically acclaimed psychological thriller based on true events, Gabriel (Robin Williams), a celebrated writer and late-night talk show host, becomes captivated by the harrowing story of a young listener and his adoptive mother (Toni Collette). When troubling questions arise about this boy's (story), however, Gabriel finds himself drawn into a widening mystery that hides a deadly secret
" according to film's official synopsis.<br /><br />You really should STOP reading these comments, and watch the film NOW...<br /><br />The "How did he lose his leg?" ending, with Ms. Collette planning her new life, should be chopped off, and sent to "deleted scenes" land. It's overkill. The true nature of her physical and mental ailments should be obvious, by the time Mr. Williams returns to New York. Possibly, her blindness could be in question - but a revelation could have be made certain in either the "highway" or "video tape" scenes. The film would benefit from a re-editing - how about a "director's cut"? <br /><br />Williams and Bobby Cannavale (as Jess) don't seem, initially, believable as a couple. A scene or two establishing their relationship might have helped set the stage. Otherwise, the cast is exemplary. Williams offers an exceptionally strong characterization, and not a "gay impersonation". Sandra Oh (as Anna), Joe Morton (as Ashe), and Rory Culkin (Pete Logand) are all perfect.<br /><br />Best of all, Collette's "Donna" belongs in the creepy hall of fame. Ms. Oh is correct in saying Collette might be, "you know, like that guy from 'Psycho'." There have been several years when organizations giving acting awards seemed to reach for women, due to a slighter dispersion of roles; certainly, they could have noticed Collette with some award consideration. She is that good. And, director Patrick Stettner definitely evokes Hitchcock - he even makes getting a sandwich from a vending machine suspenseful.<br /><br />Finally, writers Stettner, Armistead Maupin, and Terry Anderson deserve gratitude from flight attendants everywhere.<br /><br />******* The Night Listener (1/21/06) Patrick Stettner ~ Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Sandra Oh, Rory Culkin | positive |
Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane<br /><br />Seymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.<br /><br />According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seemingly<br /><br />foppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and clever<br /><br />when he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored as<br /><br />Percy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to be<br /><br />the most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due to<br /><br />bad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, and<br /><br />Elizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit and<br /><br />dash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replaced<br /><br />by brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut. <br /><br /> I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous version<br /><br />or read the book, it would probably look ok. | negative |
I had the distinct displeasure of seeing this movie at the 2006 Vancouver International Film Festival. I have been attending this festival for over 5 years, and I have certainly seen some poor movies on occasion. However, 'First Bite' has reached a brand new low in film. In spite of being shot in beautiful locations, with the occasional, exquisite close up of fabulous food, the movie contorts an excessive number of plot twists and stilted characters until I was practically begging for it to end.<br /><br />The lead actor, David La Haye, completely failed to show any character development throughout the movie, portraying a pompous chef from beginning to end. Additional sub-plots, such as eating disorders, were developed so poorly and completely did not fit within any context that the movie had shown up to that point.<br /><br />A theme of mysticism was used as a poor attempt to conceal a movie that achieves nothing, goes nowhere, and completely disappoints. | negative |
I work with children from 0 6 years old and they all love the Doodlebops. The Doodlebops are energetic, vibrant and appealing. Once they start singing, ''We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops We're the Doodlebops Oh yeah Come and join the fun because we're laughing and we're singing all day" it is almost impossible not to join them in song. The Doodlebops brings the viewer into a world of color and fun. Each show is an adventure, the Doodlebops do not try to change the world with preachy messages all they do is have fun while sorting out everyday life challenges that the young child may relate to. The Doodlebops is an refreshing, high action alternative to regular children's television programs. | positive |
On the surface, "Show Me The Money" should have at least finished a full season. You had the always entertaining William Shatner as your host, surrounded by a baker's dozen of beautiful leggy models collectively called "The Million Dollar Dancers." You had knowledgeable contestants who had interesting stories to tell of their lives and who presumably knew a lot of pop culture trivia. And you had big money! So, what went wrong? <br /><br />The format of this game was the failure. A good game show needs at least two of three things: very simple rules, exciting pacing and the ability for the viewer to play along at home. The best, most enduring ones have all three.<br /><br />Unfortunately, SMTM had none.<br /><br />The rules for this game were among the most complex of any prime time game show in history. Let me try to explain how the game worked, as briefly as possible.<br /><br />A contestant began with a single word or short phrase followed by the choice letters A, B, C (subtle plug for the network?). Each letter was connected to a separate question, all starting with that word or phrase. Once a contestant chose one of the letters, they could either answer that question or pass and select a second letter. If they passed, they got to view the next question, and had the same option. However, if they passed the second question, they were required to answer the third option.<br /><br />After they answered and before they found out if their answer was correct, they then had to select one of the 13 dancers on stage, each with a different amount of money in a scroll by their side. They revealed their dollar amount (ranging from $20,000 to $250,000) and depending on if the contestant answered right... or answered wrong... that amount would be added to or subtracted from their pot.<br /><br />Still with me so far? In addition, there was one dancer who held something known as "The Killer Card." If you selected the dancer with the Killer Card and you had gotten your question right, you were safe, and the game continued. If, however, you were incorrect, you had one final question to answer. If you got that final question wrong, you were out of the game. If you got it right, then, the game continued.<br /><br />There was no quitting, no walking away with the money earned until you either answered six questions correctly or got six questions wrong or you were so far in the hole you couldn't earn enough money to get back out. Got it? Okay! <br /><br />The biggest problem, as I saw it, was a complete lack of tension, because of the design of the game. A contestant could pass questions they knew they didn't know, and answer many questions they did know, making the pressure even less. Then, they could still find a low dollar amount, even after knowingly missing a question, which meant there still wasn't any "drama." And the fact that they could answer five questions wrong and still have a chance to win was a big mistake. And the pacing of the questions was deadly slow: often the questions were so obvious, it was ridiculous to try to create tension, as if there was any doubt about some of the most common answers.<br /><br />The pacing, the lack of any real tension at any point during the show and those very complicated rules prevented this program from working, despite Shatner's terpsichorean talents. | negative |
Bela Lugosi as God? Transvestites discussed in a movie in the straight-laced 1950s? By golly, this must be an Ed Wood film.<br /><br />Watching this movie, I felt a combination of guilt, pleasure, and nausea all at the same time. The story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) and his cross-dressing alter-ego Glenda. Somehow, if this movie were made now, I could see Kevin Kline playing Glen/Glenda. Notice how all the cross-dressers' alter egos are versions of their male name (Glen/Glenda, Robert/Roberta, etc.). It attempts to sympathetically portray it as the mental disorder that it is, rather than as a graphic perversion. <br /><br />Somehow, Wood manages to sneak in bondage and S&M sequences into his initial story of Glen/Glenda. Along with these racy scenes, Satan himself shows up, obviously having a bad hair day. The dialog and pace are nonexistent, but the film is enjoyable in its context -- the weird world of Ed Wood.<br /><br />Sterno says put on your favorite lace panties for this one. | negative |
1st watched 4/30/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-John Waters): Corny Waters-like comedy musical with some funny scenes and good parts but it didn't make a whole worthwhile experience. John Waters directed this music-filled spoof of the fifties scene with Johnny Depp playing the title role. This movie is very similar with what he did with the 60's spoof entitled "Hairspray" but this one is not as effective. Some of the tunes are catchy, some of the characters are interesting in their quirky Waters-like way, and the portrayals are fine although sometimes overdone. The storyline is similar to the movie "Grease", where there is a good group and a bad group. The guy from the bad group, Cry Baby, wow's a girl from the good group. The good girl then joins the bad group but once Cry Baby hurts her -- she falls back to the good group. This just sets up the ending where Cry Baby tries to win her back. Now, one difference that is expected in Water's movies is that the bad group doesn't appear all that bad all the time and the good group acts like they have a pole up their you-know-what. I definitely saw this in Hairspray, as well. The wacky and goofiness isn't really all that much fun in this movie, though and it just leaves us with a feeling like the movie could have been much better. The prime appeal of the Johnny Depp character is that he's able to make one tear roll down his cheek(thus his namesake) at various times and makes the women fall all over the place for him. This is overused and the basic bottom line is that the movie is OK, but not that great. | negative |
Classic, highly influential low budget thriller that gave birth to a horror icon and launched the careers of both director Carpenter and star Curtis.<br /><br />Seemingly unstoppable murderer escapes from mental institution and returns to his hometown where he begins to stalk a local babysitter on Halloween.<br /><br />Halloween is a film that never fails to live up to its reputation as a horror masterpiece! Carpenter's frightening story and clever direction give this film such chillingly good life that it must be seen to really be felt! The direction often consists of such simple elements, shadows, dark streets, creaking doors, that it makes even the everyday setting of a small town neighborhood truly creepy. Carpenter well-times his suspense and his jolting shocks to make them the most effectively startling, that in itself is a feat few horror filmmakers ever manage! Plus, he is wise enough to give us some truly likable young characters and a very scary villain to keep the tension all the more strong. Highest kudos also go to Carpenter's simple, yet frighteningly unnerving music score. In a sense, Halloween is a fine example of a perfect horror film!<br /><br />The cast is excellent. Young Jamie Lee Curtis does a very nice turn as lovable babysitter Laurie Strode, she's so good that she would go on to be in a number of other horror films before breaking into bigger films. The great Donald Pleasants does a perfect performance as a Myer's doctor, who's desperate to capture him again. Supporting cast Loomis, Soles, Castle, and others are good too.<br /><br />So like its own villain, Halloween is an unstoppable force that never fails to thrill and chill. It is a MUST for all genre fans!<br /><br />**** out of **** | positive |
I expected a lot more out of this film. The preview looked interesting so I decided to check it out. Bottom line is that "The Adventures of Sebastian Cole" only had one decent thing: Adrian Grenier.<br /><br />I really like Grenier and found his performance to be very pleasing. The character is designed well, but everything else sort of just drifts along through the duration of the movie. Clark Gregg is really good, but I don't think that his character was explained too well. I mean there's not too much to explain; he wants to become a woman. Still, something was missing. <br /><br />The obvious low budget of the film was nice to see. I enjoyed that the movie was filmed on just a script (a bad one at that) and just a few actors. It was a nice change.<br /><br />While the main idea of the film was actually okay, it became disappointing to see a lot of scenes that had nothing to do with it just thrown in here and there. Like I said, the script looked promising and I must say that I was interested where director Tod Williams was headed, but it was basically a very slow movie with not too good of dialogue.<br /><br />"Sebastian" started to look good towards the end, but again, it fell right back down into a hole. The acting was mostly good, the writing is in need of some work, yet the budget of the film helped it out in the long run.<br /><br />I would recommend this to someone if they wanted to watch a quiet movie with a strong lead character, but other than that I would stay away. Personally, I wouldn't watch it twice. | negative |
This was the first movie I ever saw Ashley Judd in and the first film of Victor Nunez' that I ever say, and boy am I glad I did. Its' quiet tone, its' relaxed pace, its' realistic depiction of a young woman just starting out in life, its' fine depiction of the struggles she has to go through to make her mark in life, the decisions she makes based on real things, the people she meets - there is nothing wrong with this movie. It is as close to movie magic as I have ever seen outside of the " Star Wars " movies, and, given what those films are like, that means this film deserves a high rating indeed. Ashley Judds' acting, Mr. Nunez'writing, and its' great simple worthwhile story make this a fine coming-of-age story and a wonderful movie. | positive |
I just recently saw this movie in hopes of seeing an accurate portrayal of the bloodiest battle of the 20th Century. I got what I had expected and so much more. Just to think I came across this movie by luck, before I had never even heard of it. It's a German film made in 1993 so I suppose I can't be surprised that it's almost completely unknown to the modern American audience. It's a shame cause this really is a remarkable film, I dare say that its as good if not better then Platoon, Full metal jacket, Apocalypse now, and All quiet on the western front; all of which are iconic war movies.<br /><br />1942: World War II is in full swing. Nazi Germany has over run Mainland Europe and parts of North Africa, then Adolf Hitler orders the full scale invasion of the Soviet Union. A fateful move that ultimately dooms Nazi Germany to defeat. In the early stages the invasion goes well and the German Armies conquer large sections of Soviet territory, but a critical battle ensues at Stalingrad, A city that hold great symbolic & strategic value. The battle soon turns into a blood bath of epic proportions, a nightmare for both the German & Russian soldiers fighting. On the verge of taking the city the Germans are suddenly counter attacked by the Russians who end up cutting off the entire German 6th Army inside Stalingrad. To make matters worse, the Russian winter arrives causing incredible suffering for the Germans. This entire battle is seen through the eyes of a few young German soldiers fighting for survival not only against the Russians and the harsh winter conditions but also against their own Sadistic officers who care only about medals & glory and the generals who have little regard for the average foot soldier.<br /><br />This film is going to haunt me for a while. The German Soldiers the film concentrates on are so young and naive, then their humanity & sanity are stripped from them and you really do feel sorry for them cause their not the demonic Nazi's often portrayed in film. Everything they were fighting for is no longer important, and everything they believed in was shattered, and after fighting a gruesome battle against the Russians inside Stalingrad we see them further deteriorate with the onset of Winter causing many to freeze to death. The Battle & Winter scenes were like a horrible nightmare but it also felt so real. It's amazing, in the beginning we see strapping young men in the prime of their life, and at the end they a shells of their former selves stripped of everything. After witnessing so much carnage these men just loose their will to live on, it was really sad. When there is finally a moment of hope they are betrayed by Hitler who ultimately abandons these men to a horrible death, which is just another one of Hitler's crimes abandoning the men who fought for him to be slaughtered by the Russians. <br /><br />A good Anti-War film depicts the horrors of war and that's what this movie does. The battle for the tractor factory sequence Is the closest thing that comes to hell on earth, but that's really what The Battle for Stalingrad was like. The German & Russian soldiers were depicted with humanity, it was only the bad apples (specifically on the German side) that doomed the men. Bottom line is this film is amazing cause we see how men breakdown physically & emotionally during war. We all have our limits and these men were pushed far beyond their limits in the most deadly battle of our time. What the average foot soldier endured at Stalingrad was beyond imagination. Even if they had survived everything they had seen & done would have scarred them for life.<br /><br />Stalingrad shows us why War is Hell, and what exactly hell looks like. | positive |
I remember watching this movie when I was young, but could not recall the title to it then going through horror movies I find it and think to myself "that is the title?" This movie is a kind of combination disaster film/insect attack film with fewer notable stars in it. It is also somewhat boring too, as it has that television vibe to it where you can see the movie fade out for commercials and such. The plot has this sort of resort being invaded by ants. I think they were a bit disturbed by construction or something going on nearby, but do not quote me on that. The most memorable ant attack for me in the whole flick was the first one involving the kid who falls into the swimming pool after being swarmed and of course Summers attack scene too. What else stands out in this one is the very goofy ending where the survivors use cardboard tubes to breath through. In the end though like most television movies this movie is very tame and not very scary in the least unless you panic at the sight of ants. | negative |
Annie's wig does not look good. she is not cute and pretty enough to play Annie. Annie sticks out in the movie, as her outfits look like Halloween costumes. terrible acting and terrible plots. This movie is such a change from the 1982 version. I think that a younger and smaller girl should have had the lead role. Ashley Johnson portrays a very boyish Annie. Not appealing at all. At least the casting director got it right with Daddy Warbucks. Ms. Hannigan was also miscast. Camilla Belle played Molly alright. "Warning" this movie might insult your IQ so you might just want to only show it to very young children. 8 and younger. Some of the plots are too fictional and could hardly take place in the real world. | negative |
Few movies can be viewed almost 60 years later, yet remain as engrossing as this one. Technological advances have not dated this classic love story. Special effects used are remarkable for a 1946 movie. The acting is superb. David Niven, Kim Hunter and especially Roger Livesey do an outstanding job. The use of Black and White / Color adds to the creative nature of the movie. It hasn't been seen on television for 20 years so few people are even aware of its existence. It is my favorite movie of all time. Waiting and hoping for the DVD release of this movie for so many years is, in itself, "A Matter of Life and Death". | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.