review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This movie was an embarrassment. Ulma Thurman looked like she had some kind of disease and John Travolta looked like he was walking in his sleep. I was expecting this to be a so-so sequel to Get Shorty not a half-baked remake of the exact same movie (except that some of the character's have different names and clothes)<br /><br />I would not recommend this to movie to my worst enemy. I feel like I was ripped off and Hollywood has once again tricked me into seeing another horrible sequel ( I also suffered through Alien Vs. Predator).<br /><br />The best thing that I can say about this movie is that it has my vote for the worst movie of 2005! | negative |
This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I saw it at the premiere at SXSW and was extremely disappointed. The director knew little about John Lennon and even said as much at the premiere. This is a drama, but people were laughing throughout at how cheesy the film was. That's never a good sign. The only saving graces were Dominic Monaghan and Jason Leonard as Livien's roommates/bandmates. They were funny while the rest of the movie took itself waaay too seriously. The cheesy dropping of Beatles lyrics was just absurd. The soundtrack was excellent, however, and was probably the best part of the movie. Unless you're one of those crazy, rabid Dominic Monaghan fans, don't bother with this one. | negative |
There is no doubt that Alfred Hitchcock was a seriously talented director. Many of his films are undeniable classics that have stood the test of time and are highly watchable to this day. This list could include The 39 Steps, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Vertigo, The Birds, Shadow of a Doubt, and a few other films.<br /><br />However, "Suspicion" is not aging well at all and is really so unwatchable that it seems to me that it was probably a bad film even by 1941 standards. The list of scenes that work well could be listed on a matchbook with a crayon. The script is loose and ridiculous most of the time, but the acting seems so forced and wooden and borderline amateurish throughout, that it is almost unbelievable. Joan Fontaine tries to shore things up but she is on a slippery slope and Cary Grant doesn't provide much assistance. His acting is so bad at times that I have seen better performances in high school plays or college Theatre Experience classes where a Chemical Engineer is acting for the first time with no formal training.<br /><br />After about 30 minutes of watching this film you may find yourself reaching for the DVD sleeve in the dark to see if you accidentally picked up some kind of special edition version that was cobbled together without any editing.<br /><br />The subject matter is serious, yet the film has a silly and trite feel to it that just seems so out of place you become numb with perplexity.<br /><br />"Suspicion" is basically unwatchable and another very very very overrated BAD movie. | negative |
This is one of the best thrillers I've seen. It's intelligently made and brilliantly filmed, and is one of the few thrillers that creates complex, interesting characters and makes the movie about them, not the action. I would recommend it to just about anyone, especially people who like movies with both style and substance. | positive |
My daughter, her friends and I have watched this movie literally dozens of times. I bought it twice and some little girlfriends absconded with it. Subsequently, I rented it so very many times. It just never gets old!!! Blockbuster doesn't even have it in their listings anymore and I have tried to buy, find, rent it for over 5 years. Without a doubt, this was and is my most favourite movie of my daughter's childhood...it has it all! We laughed, we cried, we discussed real life and how hard some children have it in the world. There was nothing pretend about this movie. We related to every second and every line Bill! Thanks a million for restoring our faith in human nature. Sincerely, Shelleen and Kailin Vandermey. Craven, Saskatchewan. CANADA,eh!!! :-)<br /><br />August '07 update:<br /><br />Who are we to judge if a rich woman falls in love with a poor man; or a man who has love chooses to raise a child who is not his own. It may not be my or your life. It is not only believable, it happens every day. Thank God! Keeps my faith in human nature alive!!! celebrate!!!! | positive |
Pretty.<br /><br />Pretty actresses and actors. Pretty bad script. Pretty frequent "let's strip to our undies" scenes. Pretty fair F/X. Pretty jarring location decisions (the college dorm room looks like a high-end hotel room - probably because it was shot at a hotel). Pretty bland storyline. Pretty awful dialog. Pretty locations. Pretty annoying editing, unless you like the music video flash-cut style.<br /><br />This one isn't a guilty pleasure - this is more an embarrassing one. If you must watch this, pick a good dance/techno album and turn the sound off on the movie - you'll see the pretty people in their pretty black undies, and probably follow the story just fine.<br /><br />The cast may be able to act - I doubt that anyone could look skilled given the lines/plot that they had to deal with. | negative |
After gorging myself on a variety of seemingly immature movies purchased on ex-rental DVDs, I figured that the time was right for a little serious drama and who better to provide it than Sam Mendes? For a number of reasons, "American Beauty" doesn't appeal to me as much as this film which is easily the darkest thing that Tom Hanks has ever done and probably one of the most underrated films of the last decade. For this is not a simple gangster tale lifted from its graphic novel origins, and is simply wonderful to watch because of it. And despite my usual allergy to any film with Tom Hanks' name on it (still can't watch "Big" without wanting a cat to kick), I'm glad I gave this a try because this is one of those movies that you'll kick yourself for if you miss it.<br /><br />Normally squeaky-clean Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, a devoted family man and father of two sons growing up during Prohibition in the early 1930's. He is also a professional hit-man to mob boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) but has managed to keep his job a secret from his sons. But after his eldest (Tyler Hoechlin) witnesses his dad involved in a mob killing, the pair are forced to go on the run as John seeks to tidy the matter up. Soon, father and son are pursued to Chicago where a fellow hit-man (a menacing Jude Law) is waiting for them.<br /><br />On the face of it, it reads like a pretty standard gangster film but as I've said, this isn't really about gangsters at all. It's about the relationship between a father and son thrown together in the most tragic of circumstances. Hanks is (*grits teeth*) superb as the tortured man who finds out that everything has its price and little Hoechlin is also good as Sullivan's son. In all honesty, there is not a single performance that I could single out as weaker than the others - the cast is pretty much faultless. As is the cinematography and costumes (and it's not often I praise costumes!) which recreates the 30's with stunning effect. There has been so much effort to get everything right and it pays off in spades. This could easily have looked rubbish - they admit that the early 30's look was difficult to put down - but it doesn't and that deserves every bit of credit. Chicago especially looks fantastic, lined with hundreds of rickety cars from the era and filled with people in monochrome suits and hats. True time-travel, even if a little CGI is needed.<br /><br />The story is also a winner, offering a human face to what is often seen as a stereotypical genre of movie villain. Law is surprisingly menacing as the almost mechanical killer Maguire and proves that you don't have to be Cagney or De Niro or Brando to play a gangster. The film is decidedly noir-ish, driving rain and ill-lit warehouses predominate but at least violence and killing are (finally) seen to have an emotional and psychological impact on those who perpetrate and those who merely witness such acts. The whole thing is evocative of a previous age and previous movies but it sweeps away the old and refreshes with a modern tale of redemption amid the Tommy-Gun shootouts and extortion rackets. It can feel a little slow in places, especially if you're used to masses of gun-play in movies like most modern audiences (like yours truly) but sometimes, words can speak louder than actions. Mendes has delivered a fine follow-up to his Oscar-winning debut, a film which is as intelligent as it is beautiful to watch. "Road To Perdition" may not be to everyone's tastes but this is one DVD I shall not be exchanging anytime soon. | positive |
There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?<br /><br />The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, "You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell."<br /><br />While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: "hook em while they're young".<br /><br />The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)<br /><br />The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.<br /><br />As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).<br /><br />As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two "bad guys" who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this "sinful world", and returning him with a new viewpoint? <br /><br />Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says "It's God or nothing". Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two "bad guys" corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the "bad guys" (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture. <br /><br />Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.<br /><br />And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.<br /><br />I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie. | negative |
... ever! (I always wanted to write that:) Many years ago (in 1993 as I recall it) one of my former classmates persuaded me to watch what he called "a epic masterpiece". To this day it stands out to me as the worst movie I have ever seen. The acting, the story, the effects - everything is bad. Unless you are one of these people who just loves to appreciate trash, you should pass on this. However chances are that since you are reading this, you've already seen it.<br /><br />Out of almost 500 movies this is the only non-short I've given a 1/10.<br /><br />I haven't seen any other low-budget Asian warrior flicks, so I guess there's even worse things out there! Scary... <br /><br />:P | negative |
"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings. <br /><br />**** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush | negative |
Faithful adaptation of witty and interesting French novel about a cynical and depressed middle-aged software engineer (or something), relying heavily on first-person narration but none the worse for that. Downbeat (in a petit-bourgeois sort of way), philosophical and blackly humorous, the best way I could describe both the film and the novel is that it is something like a more intellectual Charles Bukowski (no disrespect to CB intended). Mordantly funny, but also a bleak analysis of social and sexual relations, the film's great achievement is that it reflects real life in such a recognisable way as to make you ask: why aren't other films like this? One of the rare examples of a good book making an equally good film. | positive |
I have seen Maslin Beach a couple of times - both on free to air TV in Brisbane. I won't go into whether it is good, bad or otherwise as others have well and truly covered this.<br /><br />I will say that it is so Australian. Only in Australia can we have a film about relationships among people spending the day as naked as the day they were born, and to view it on free commercial television.<br /><br />I have a friend from the US who is constantly amazed at what we put on our free TV compared to her home country. Sex and the CIty and Huff are just too examples.<br /><br />Despite our Government trying to turn us into the 51st US State, it is good to know at least some things remain truly Aussie | positive |
i like Jane Austin novels. I love Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility books and movies, and I'm half way through Mansfield Park. But i couldn't stand Emma. I gave up on the book after 2 chapters, and by the end of the movie i couldn't care less about Emma. She didn't seem to change at all. Maybe it was Paltrows acting (which as excellent in Se7en) or my lack of interest for the movie. Dunno. <br /><br />The costumes are nice, but the dancing was clumsy compared to Pride and Prejudice dancing by Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.<br /><br />I gave it a 2 basically for the fact Knightly is bloody gorgeous, and although it as a rather patchy performance for Ewan McGregor, i liked his singing. | negative |
I bought "Rocketship X-M" on DVD in a two-pack with "Destination Moon." Now I see why the distributors did that: no one who had ever seen this movie would buy it on its own.<br /><br />I cannot fathom what school system turned out the reviewer who claimed that RXM is "great in its predictions of how space travel would take place..." Launch straight up, and then do a 90-degree right turn and circle faster and faster until you reach escape velocity... I don't think I recall that from the Apollo program. Never mind that the astronauts should be weightless once they shut off the engines, gravity changes directions every time they pass through the hatch to the engine room. Going to the moon, but "missed" it? No problem, it's just a hop-skip-and-a-jump (with a helping hand from divine providence) and you'll be at Mars! And OK, if you want to put life on Mars, given the state of planetary knowledge in 1950, it was a forgivable convention for the sake of the storytelling, but can you make them look at least a LITTLE alien? These Martians looked like extras from the cast of "10,000 B.C." I can accept some scientific mistakes, but this wouldn't pass muster with an above-average second-grader.<br /><br />And that's aside from the screaming plot holes: 12 minutes before launch (as you're reminded of constantly by the nagging P.A. voice saying "X minus so many minutes") the astronauts are giving a press conference! I guess the time crunch is why Dr. Eckstrom didn't change out of his coat and tie before launching into space. And how handy that, even though they were planning to go to the moon and had pressure suits for that, they brought hiking gear (and rifles!) just in case they ended up at Mars. They're lucky they landed anywhere, since apparently the method they had developed for landing was to have Dr.E look out the window and tell the "pilot" (Lloyd Bridges) to tweak down the throttles every now and then. Note to the designers of the XM-2: how about giving the pilot a window seat? <br /><br />Ditto the previous comments on the casual sexism that had eye-candy Dr. Lisa (Osa Massen) doom them all by repeatedly screwing up her fuel calculations, but hey that was the early '50s. She was there to fill her sweater, not a useful function.<br /><br />"Rocketship X-M" is notable for being one of the first of the first films to say "ohmigod we're all going to blow ourselves up with these here A-bombs", but one can note that about it without wasting 77 minutes watching such dreck. By the way, that message might have had a bit more impact had there been some money in the budget for actual sets of the Martian city ruins, rather than just matte paintings.<br /><br />I can appreciate "good" bad sci-fi, for the unique way the "future" used to look, and for the inherent (if condescending) humor you can find when when we look back on the naivety of audiences 60 years ago, but this film must have been insulting even then. "Rocketship X-M" isn't even suitable for an MST3K-style lampooning. Sometimes, bad is just... bad.<br /><br />Anybody want to buy a DVD? Used only once, I swear. | negative |
Fantastic Chaplin movie with many memorable moments as Charlie joins the army to fight in WW 1.<br /><br />At first he goes to boot camp, where he has to learn how to handle his rifle and how to walk in line. That's a really funny scene as the tramp is not used to keeping his feet straight!<br /><br />Next thing you know he's in France in a trench. Hilarious scenes here include a starving Charlie eating the cheese of a mousetrap and reading a letter from home over someone's shoulder.<br /><br />When Charlie goes to sleep he finds his bunker all flooded and his roommate snoring. This is such a funny part! I can't really describe it, just watch the movie. When Charlie wakes up his legs feel numb so he tries to 'wake them up'. It had me rolling on the floor when it turns out his second leg still feels numb... while Charlie actually rubs his roommate's foot!<br /><br />The movie then turns a bit grim, as Charlie shoots a couple of Germans from his trench (although it's done in a very funny way) and him personating as a tree to get close to the enemy, saving a friend of his from a death squad.<br /><br />Last part is him getting a french girl in trouble by hiding in her house. He then has to save her and while doing so he captures the german kaiser as well. To do so he impersonates a german kolonel or something. I love it when Charlie is asked something in german and he's like nein nein nein. The soldier looks at him in a funny way so Charlie changes his mind: ja ja ja! The kaiser gets captured and Charlie is the hero... but then he wakes up again in bootcamp, it was just a sweet dream!<br /><br />Charlie did one of those 'dream-sequences' before (The Bank comes to mind) but who cares, this movie was so funny it had me laughing all the way. Chaplin also has something to say with this movie (as his later work became more of a social comment to several mishaps in the world) and is explained best in the last sentence of the movie: 'Peace on earth, good will to all mankind.'<br /><br />In short: a Charlie classic, very funny, timeless. 9/10. | positive |
The odd thing about Galaxina is not that it is supremely bad, although it is. The odd thing is that in spite of being supremely bad, it is not funny. Supremely bad movies have their own particular brand of unintended humor--the secret of their success, you might say. But Galaxina is quite uniquely different--it is MST3K's worst nightmare, a bad movie in which the intentional *and* the unintentional humor alike fall flat.<br /><br />It is easy enough to figure out why the intentional jokes fail--and the reasons are quite varied. Sometimes it's a timing question; sometimes it's a good idea badly worked out (the human restaurant *could* have been hilarious, but it wasn't); sometimes it feels like there was some mixup in the cutting room, with the punchline ending up on the floor; and sometimes the jokes are just bad jokes. Bad movies get their laughs from such unintentional snafus. It's harder to figure out why Galaxina doesn't get any laughs on that count. Something is subtly wrong with the unintentional humor in this movie, just as something is wrong (not at all subtly) with the intentional humor. It is a supremely bad movie whose very badness is not the redeeming quality it usually is. It's absolutely unique in my experience. | negative |
I've been strangely attracted to this film since I saw it on Showtime sometime in the early 80's. I say strangely because it is rather a ludicrous bit of soft-core fluff, a genre I'm not particularly interested in. The dialogue is pompously and nonsensically philosophical (making sense, no doubt, only to it's Franco-Italian producers)and the plot completely extraneous. What it does achieve is a wonderfully hypnotic and thoroughly pleasant mood. The scenery (the beautiful Philippines), soft-focus nudity and wonderful score all contribute to a strange and extremely watchable exercise in a sort of film making seldom seen today. It is truly one of my great "guilty pleasures". I was fortunate enough to find it on an old laserdisc and have watched it more times than I think is healthy. A worthwhile moodpiece. | positive |
A typical Goth chick (Rainbow Harvest looking like a cross between Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice and Boy George) gets even with people she feels have wronged her with the help of an old haunted mirror that she finds in the new house she and her mom (horror mainstay, Karen Black, the only remotely good thing about this travesty) buy. The acting's pretty laughably bad (especially when Rainbow interacts with the aforementioned mirror) and there are no scares or suspense to be had. This film inexplicably spawned thus for 3 sequels each slightly more atrocious than the last. People looking for a similarly themed, but far superior cinematic endeavor would be well advised to just search out the episode of "Friday the 13th: the Series" where a geeky girl finds an old cursed compact mirror. That packs more chills in it's scant 40 minutes than this whole franchise has provided across it's 4 films.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy: Charlie Spradling provides the obligatory T&A | negative |
This is an almost action-less film following Jack, an insomniac, as he goes through hallucinations, is visited by dead friends, throws himself off a building, and, for a lot of the time, can't tell reality from hallucination.<br /><br />Dominic Monaghan, as Jack, is truly believable. Confused, and scared but lethargic and, at times blankly accepting of what he sees, we follow him trying to sort out what he's seeing and find a way to sleep.<br /><br />Introduce a talking dog (another hallucination) and children that suddenly appear in Jack's bathroom and bedroom without any explanation as to how they got there (more hallucination) and you have an interesting, mind boggling, 43 minutes And the shower scene is enough to get any Dom fan coming back for more. | positive |
This is another great movie I had the good fortune to see for the first time on the big screen (thanks to Rick Baker et al). Back in the late 80's I was a relative newcomer to the genre and only really new about the big three JC, SH & YB. I wasn't sure what to expect when I payed my hard earned money to see this in a "Triple bill of Classics" at the old Scala. I need not have worried, I was left breathless by this movie. If you're a fan of Hong Kong Action / Kung Fu movies and haven't seen this movie, do so NOW! | positive |
... so I thought I'd throw in a few words about William McNamara. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty-whities -- it's obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them -- or less. There's an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. There's a nice bit where he has to chase after Miss Eleniak in the buff, with only his hands cupped over his groin. William McNamara is naturally a little on the skinny side, but he has a nice, generous handful of a booty. Also, there's a moment when he's getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. If you're inclined to do so, and come on, half of the people who choose to watch a movie about Navy men on a "road trip" are. I'd just like thank Dennis Hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. Can William McNamara act? Heck if I know. | negative |
Am I the only person who saw and remembers Amadeus. Every scene in "Copying" has its counterpart in the Milos Forman, Amadeus - from the galloping carriages accompanied by frenzied strings, to the entrance of Anna through the dark hallway preceded by the man with the key, to the very dialog of the conclusion with Anna at Beethoven's feet a la Salieri before the dying Mozart. Does no one else recall the dialog in that script: <br /><br />Salieri "Time?" , Mozart "Common time". ....."We begin with the strings..." and so it "copies".<br /><br />Remember Cynthia Nixon leaning against a door jamb, tears falling down her freckled face - same scene, just replace her with Beethoven's nephew. Even the scatological humor (fart jokes) are the same. We even have a cardinal followed around by a plate of sweet cookies which recalls Salieri in the banquet hall. Does no one else remember? !!!!<br /><br />And the scene where Anna cries to God "Why did you give me this gift?"... Salieri said the same thing!<br /><br />And beyond all that we have a juvenile script with an opening exposition that reads like the character identifications you'd find in a children's story. "I am Mr. Beethoven. I am the composer...."<br /><br />And what, after all, is the purpose of the bridge builder? Other than to juxtapose the technical against the artistic... a comparison that is not at all developed - probably because it has no meaning, especially when it comes to Beethove who was a master of the technical.<br /><br />There's only one great scene - the playing of the ninth. First, the music, which of itself takes you to tears. But then, there is the highly erotic interaction of Anna the copyist keeping time and Beethoven conducting which surpasses the most explicit sexual intimacy. So intense, it's almost embarrassing.<br /><br />But, please - the rest of the film - Where is the world's collective memory? You have seen this all before .... and better! | negative |
Slow but beautifully-mounted story of the American revolution. Griffith's story-telling seems a lot less heavy-handed than in his earlier historical epics and his tableaux work is fully integrated into the action. Lionel Barrymore is an utter swine, Neil Hamilton is poor but dashing and Carol Dempster is.... well, Carol Dempster is most of what is wrong with Griffith in this period, but she doesn't show up often enough to slow the pace and drama.<br /><br />Note that the trivia for this movie says it came in originally at slightly more than 2 hours when first released, but that no cut exists that runs longer than 90 minutes. However, the dvd release has been presented at a slower fps rate that increases the tension and brings it back to a bit over two hours.<br /><br />Far better in terms of story-telling than sound versions, such as THE PATRIOT. While not quite in the league of Griffith's best, such as WAY DOWN EAST and BROKEN BLOSSOMS, an excellent way to spend a couple of hours. | positive |
This film has a very simple but somehow very bad plot. The entire movie is about a girl getting sucked through a gate to another dimension then years later it gets opened again by a witch while a group of friends (including the lead actor who is having trouble getting over his ex girlfriend who is one of the other campers along with her new partner... another girl... that's right they're lesbians and there is some nudity of course for no particular reason). Unfortunately demon follows the now adult girl back through. Also unfortunately, none of this is ever explained. Where exactly were they? Where did the demon come from? How did she survive as a child in a place full of evil demons? Who the hell trained her and made her a gladiator type outfit? The acting is terrible I think but it's hard to tell because the writing is so bad maybe there was just nothing they could do with it. I give it a three because the wrestler was pretty good and the effects were pretty fun even though they were very cheap. I would not recommend it, it wasn't quite bad enough to be funny. | negative |
I am a great fan of the Batman comics and I became disappointed when I could no longer find Batman: The Animated Series on TV anymore. I was excited to learn that there was going to be a new Batman cartoon on TV. I watched the first episode the day it premiered and I was very disappointed.<br /><br />First of all, the animation is very poor. It looks like a cheap, crappy Japanese anime. Then again, just about every modern-day cartoon is like that.<br /><br />The character designs are even worse. Batman looks more like Birdman, Catwoman looks more like Chihuahuawoman, Bane looks more like a red version of the Hulk, the Penguin is a Kung-Fu master, Mr. Freeze is some undead thing with an iceberg on his head, and the Riddler is a Gothic Marilyn Manson look-alike (which is funny because I don't expect people who are obsessed with riddles and puzzles to be Gothic).<br /><br />The worst character design is that of the Joker. They turned him into a monkey/demented Bob Marley/Kung-Fu fighter! The Joker is supposed to be Batman's deadliest enemy, but in this show he hardly poses a threat because his crimes are so stupid and pointless. In one episode his plan was to put his Joker venom in dog food! Oh, how evil! Batman is a fascinating and complex character because he is haunted by the deaths of his parents, which is why he fights crime. This version of Batman doesn't seem haunted by his parents' deaths and is not interesting at all. He's also not a detective, just a fighter. If there's an enemy he can't defeat, he won't study the enemy to find out their weak points like a detective would, he'll just build a giant fighting robot to defeat them. A lot of times this show doesn't even feel like a Batman show, just another brainless anime that's nothing but pointless fighting.<br /><br />What I hate the most about this show is what they did to the villains. They've taken away everything that makes them likable and relatable and turned them into stereotypical evil bad guys. Man-Bat is the biggest example. In the comics, he's a tragic scientist who studies bats to find a cure for his deafness. When experimenting on himself, he accidentally transforms himself into a giant bat creature. In this show, he's a mad scientist who wants to purposely transform himself into a giant bat creature for no apparent reason. Just about all the villains are like that; none of them, with the exception of about one or two, have an actual motive for their crimes.<br /><br />The worst characterization is that of Mr. Freeze. In the comics, Freeze was a just a mad scientist until the genius writer Paul Dini wrote the BTAS episode "Heart of Ice", which gave Freeze a new origin that made him a more tragic, three-dimensional, and likable villain. The episode was so popular that fans accepted it as his actual origin and it was even used in the comics as his origin. Even that crappy movie Batman & Robin used it as his origin. In this show, he's a petty jewel thief before becoming Mr. Freeze. After becoming Mr. Freeze, guess what? He's STILL a petty jewel thief! Great origin. No wonder they used it over the one Dini created.<br /><br />As a Batman fan, I don't dislike this show just because it isn't like the comics because I also liked BTAS, the Batman cartoons that came after it, Tim Burton's Batman films, and obviously, the superb Christopher Nolan Batman films. None of them were 100% loyal to the comics, but they were still very good. The problem with this show is not that it's not exactly like the comics or BTAS, it's that it lacks any sort of depth that makes other Batman media so popular.<br /><br />I've given this show so many chances, but the more I watch, the more I find that disappoints me. I miss the good old days back when Batman cartoons were something everyone could enjoy. | negative |
I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.<br /><br />In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.<br /><br />As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. "We aren't revolutionaries." I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832. <br /><br />At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.<br /><br />The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.<br /><br />Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.<br /><br />Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before. | negative |
This film seems to get bad critiscism for some reason. Probably just by the mass populace. Anyhow, this is actually a very interesting movie. The film is an under-budget sci-fi movie which actually works, due to an interesting storyline and well done scenes. <br /><br />This movie may not be for everyone though. If there are any Sci-Fi fans reading this, I truly recommend this movie if you like good ole science fiction. The film has crazy ideas. The setting includes nations going to war with GIGANTIC machines which the entire countries invest all it's money in! The world has been divied up into territories. Anyone can challenge anyone else to a war, or rather, a 'robot-duel'. The method of warfare is cleaner than nuclear war, since now everyone is wearing those breath masks. Definetly a movie that makes you think. Intelligent, well written, and good effects for the measly budget.<br /><br />I tend to like movies which have small budgets and actually work. | positive |
Crush provides a combination of drama, humor and such irony that I find the English establish very well when it concerns matters of the heart. Mostly known for directing John McKay wrote this wonderful screenplay about three forty-something friends in a small town in England. All three professional women down-out of luck with men formed a ritual ladies night gathering with gin, fags and sweets intake included with endless chatter of their dates erroneous behavior or the needs of their libidos. Andie MacDowell once again thrown by the surrounds of the British (which is where I find she exudes the most) is absolutely charming as the head mistress of a prestigious school who becomes involved with a younger man. Small town gossip and the disapproving jealous friends (great supporting cast) conflicts with her relationship. Unfolding a series of brutal unfortunate events and showing us the many difficulties when one is in pursuit of true happiness. Keep in mind the main premise of this film is friendships and the ending shows us exactly that. This is the type of film you either love or hate, which is why I believe a lot of mix reviews and not that greatest success resulted when this film was released. As I'm sure most are just unearthing the film now. I very much enjoyed this film and highly recommend for those in the likes of such films as "Love Actually", and "Three Weddings and a funeral". Not to mention the soundtrack is extraordinary perfectly capturing those crucial moments. | positive |
For those that are great fans and collectors of dinosaurs like I am, it is not only a very informative series but also puts our imagination to fly. Colors, composition, great models and camera angles. Fantastic photography and filming presentation. Superb. Thanks. | positive |
It was considered to be the "Swiss answer to the Lord of the Rings", but it is much more than that. It isn't an answer to anything, it's in itself something new, something funny and sometimes it's downright stupid and silly - but was Monty Python any different than silly?<br /><br />The beginning immediately makes the statement that this film is low budget and not meant to be taken entirely seriously. Cardboard clouds on strings knock into the airplane in which the main character is seated. But, to compensate the missing special effects, the landscape does the trick. It is absolutely beautiful and stunning - who needs New Zealand, Switzerland has it all. <br /><br />What I liked about the film was the simple approach and the obvious passion and energy that went into it. It isn't brilliant; yet it's got some good humorous parts. Edward Piccin as Friedo is absolutely convincing, it would be enough to go and see the film because of him!There are some good jokes, some of them are very lame, some of them won't be understood by people outside of Switzerland. I liked the idea of having "Urucows" instead of Uruk Hai; I loved the scene where Friedo decides to take "Pupsi", a telehobbie, with him on the journey. Also very funny is the scene when Rackaroll, the sword-fighting knight, decides to show off with his sword - and subsequently smashes it into a wall, breaking it. And there is this one scene where the "nazgul-ish" characters do a wonderfully comic scene that includes a toilet brush... I didn't approve of the idea of the Ring being used by Schleimli, the "Gollum" character, in order to "seduce" the ladies. That was a bit far fetched. The idea of Lord Sauraus wanting to cover the lands with fondue wasn't that brilliant either. Original, certainly, but not brilliant. But most of all did I dislike the idea of a gay dragon, that really wasn't necessary. All in all I recommend to see the film simply because it is so crazy and totally trashy. Don't expect a LotR parody like "Spaceballs" was for Star Wars. But if you go to the flicks thinking that this is going to be an amusing evening out, with absolutely no ambitions, then you'll enjoy. I am not sure if it works in other languages, because it does live from the Swiss dialects as well as from the jokes and actors.<br /><br />All in all: hat off to the courage of the Swiss crew who did that! | positive |
My evaluation: 8/10<br /><br />I like a lot this movie. Compare to today brainless movie (just action and special effet and nothing new about ideas), "Soylent Green" ask to something that today doesn't exist anymore: To Think.<br /><br />Well it would not a big surprise a day human eat "cookies" which are create with body of human. With all what happen on this planet, and to see how people are so indifferent to all, this kind of future is possible.<br /><br />Sure this movie take some age but the idea behind the movie is actual again. Rich at Paradise, other in the hell. Well a luck today they are TV and idiocy like "Reality Show".<br /><br />TV is a good wash brain. It's pity to see that intelligence of human have not progress like technologies. Since writing all stop.<br /><br />If you like reality show this movie is not for you. If you believe all politician same too. If you don't like ask yourself question about now and future well never look this movie. | positive |
I was told it was one of those "either you love it or you hate it" movies. Well, I loved it. Obvious hippie-era, dated and easy symbolism and all. So, I probably have no taste at all when it comes to Antonioni, but this and La Notte (made exactly a decade earlier) are my favourites among his movies so far. Made two years before I was born, Zabriskie Point was supposed to have been Michelangelo's great American epic. But apparently, it turned out to be a flop. I really can't see why. Before watching it I'd read that it was rather boring, so I braced myself for a very slow movie - though I love me a slow movie. For my taste, Zabriskie didn't have a tedious minute in it. While watching it, I made a mental note of how European it was on the director's part to make such frequent use of advertisement billboards in almost every urban scene, enormous billboards dwarfing any human form in sight. This recurrent visual element is obviously there to underline the way that consumerism crushes the individual in American society. But then I watched L'Eclisse straight afterwards, which is set in Rome in the early 60s, and noticed that Antonioni often included billboards in it as well. After all, the masterful use of landscapes, architecture and inanimate objects in each frame with or without human beings is an Antonioni trademark this is precisely the way that he evokes his characters' psychological states, with more or less understated power and great visual impact. He is virtually unsurpassed in this skill.<br /><br />Zabriskie Point starred two very appealing leads that should have become big stars of the 70s, but never did. Mark Frechette, whom I'd already seen in Francesco Rosi's fine WWI-set movie Uomini Contro, had a very tragic life and died aged just 27. According to his biography page, he donated his $60,000 earnings from Zabriskie to a commune. Mark's co-star Daria Halprin, apparently also Dennis Hopper's wife later on, has the stunning, natural beauty and appeal of a young Ornella Muti one of those luminous beauties that don't need a shred of make-up to turn heads. Like Frechette, she has only graced a couple of obscure movies and has never become a star, but at least she didn't die tragically. Most notably, Zabriskie Point contains one of the most original sex scenes ever filmed - one that brings home a sense of youthful playfulness like few I've seen - as well as a powerfully cathartic ending. It may be the most banal sequence ever filmed as far as its symbolism goes, but I can't see how anyone can deny its beauty and wonderful sense of emotional release. Never has an explosion looked so good, and so poetic. It seems to be an explosion that restores order rather than bringing chaos. | positive |
"Disappointing" is the best word I could think for this film, especially considering the glowing reviews it receives from some other users.<br /><br />One thing that really spoils the film is that it is unabashedly partial(in both senses of the word). Not only does it present a very selective description of the games (focussing as it does on the US athletics team) but it also contains several inaccuracies, most of which serve to exaggerate the difficulties the US team faced.<br /><br />What is even more disturbing is that all the omissions and mistakes (?), appear to glorify US sportsmanship to the exclusion of other athletes (with a few celebrated exceptions). For example, the viewer is led to believe that the US won the majority of medals in the Games, when in fact they won only one out of four gold medals and one out of 6 total. Similarly, many athletes are portrayed as caricatures of their respective countrymen (thus we have an arrogant Brit, and a wine-swilling French). This attitude does very little service to the Olympic ideals that the film is supposed to celebrate.<br /><br />In conclusion, I believe that this film would appeal to that part of the US audience that is looking for a quick boost of national self-esteem. Those looking for a detailed and historically correct description of the games are advised to look elsewhere. | negative |
Rented the movie as a joke. My friends and I had so much fun laughing at it that I went and found a used copy and bought it for myself. Now when all my friends are looking for a funny movie I give them Sasquatch Hunters. It needs to be said though there is a rule that was made that made the movie that much better. No talking is allowed while the movie is on unless the words are Sasquatch repeated in a chant. I loved the credit at the end of the movie as well. "Thanks for the Jeep, Tom!" Whoever Tom is I say thank you because without your Jeep the movie may not have been made. In short a great movie if you are looking for something to laugh at. If you want a good movie maybe look for something else but if you don't mind a laugh at the expense of a man in a monkey suit grab yourself a copy. | positive |
Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better. | negative |
MARY, MARY, BLOODY MARY is an OK time killer. It has a uniformly attractive cast, the action is rarely dull. There are a lot of killings. And the production values are not bad. But in the end, it plays like a standard TV episode from the 1970s with some nudity thrown in. The film is the end product of an "author" trying to make a purely commercial film. There's very little depth here and the film spends too much time with chases and action scenes. Except for the scene on the beach with the old man, MMBM is almost devoid of any scares or suspense or dread. The director has very little understanding of the horror genre.<br /><br />It's watchable even though it doesn't leave a lasting impression. | negative |
First of all, I'm upset there's no choice of a "0" out of 10. <br /><br />I was bored tonight, and while flipping through the channels, I see Dr. Chopper. With there being nothing else on, I decide to watch it, expecting it to be just another crappy horror movie, with a similar plot to Cabin Fever. <br /><br />Man was I wrong...Dr. Chopper made Cabin Fever look like it should have won numerous Academy Awards. May I remind you, Cabin Fever contains a scene of a little hick boy doing roundhouse kicks off of a porch screaming, "pancakes!!", characters who leave their dying friend in a tiny shack to bleed to death, and Shawn from Boy Meets World mistakenly fingering a hole in a girl's thigh.<br /><br />So needless to say, Dr. Chopper was a big, smelly pile-o-crap. It wasn't even funny crap. It reminded me of a horror movie I had to make in 8th grade, called "The Campout". Except for the fact that "The Campout" had a better script (we wrote it about an hour before filming), better actors, plots, bloody scenes, and camera work. I was hoping to get some laughs out of a poorly-made horror film, but instead I could only watch in astonishment as I thought to myself, "Was this made by 8th graders?". <br /><br />The acting was horrible, the events and different little subplots were thrown together and didn't make sense, and the gore and violence was very minimal. I liked how that from a small stab wound, people died instantly, and the only weapons the killers had were small pocket knives...if you're going to make a horror movie, at least give the killer(s) an insane killing device.<br /><br />Also, what the hell was the point of the sorority girls hazing their pledges? Good way to bring in some scenes of girls running around in their bras, even if they have no relevance to the story whatsoever. And I must say, my favorite line was when the blonde says to Dr. Chopper, "I'd like to introduce you to someone....my inner bitch." Her "inner bitch" then proceeds to grab a garbage can, throw it at Dr. Chopper, miss, and back up in terror of the killer.<br /><br />Wheww....well that was a long one, but I felt that I needed to express my feelings on how absolutely horrible this "movie" was. I know that everyone has their own opinions, but if anyone rates this movie higher than a 2, they should be shot to Hell...<br /><br />...seriously. | negative |
Unspeakable starts in Los Angeles with Jim (Roger Cline) & his wife Alice Fhelleps (Tamera Noll) arguing as they drive along in the pouring rain, unfortunately Jim crashes the car & his daughter Heather (Leigh Silver) ends up dead while Alice is turned into a wheelchair bound vegetable. Devastated by the death of his daughter Jim starts visiting prostitutes, he then kills them because of voices in his head. Erm, that's it really.<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Chad Ferrin I hate Unspeakable as a film. There are some films you occasionally see that move the 'goal posts' as it were in regard to everything you watch thereafter, some films are so brilliant that all other's will be judged by it while other's like Unspeakable for example are so bad that it sets a new cinematic low. This is truly one of the worst films I've ever seen & I am seriously surprised by the largely positive comments on the IMDb although I'm not surprised the the low overall rating on the main page, I not sure if I missed something but for a start Unspeakable has no plot, it has no story & a lot of it seems almost random. There was nothing in Unspeakable to maintain my interest or entertain & as a result became a test of endurance to get through to the end. The film tries to be shocking with some limp scenes of sexual abuse of a rent boy by a priest, there is a scene in which a disabled person craps herself, it splats on the floor & her dodgy male nurse starts feeling her soiled genitals, legs & underwear. If anyone can find such crap entertaining then I'll just cut my wrists now, the character's are some of the worst I've had the misfortune to know, the dialogue is hilariously bad with some it sounding like it came straight from some dirty faggot porno of the worst kind. It doesn't work as a horror as it's not scary in the slightest, it's absolutely hilarious & frankly insulting to claim that it is trying to be a serious drama about someone suffering a great loss & attempting to cope with it & overall I just think it's a pointless, rubbishy, badly made piece of crap from Troma.<br /><br />Director Ferrin films like some badly made documentary, the special effects are terrible & are of the 'let's pour tomato ketchup on our actor's face & the audience will be convinced that they died a gory death' variety, there is no graphic violence at all apart from a suicide where someone sticks a knife in their own mouth. Considering the amount of prostitutes in Unspeakable the nudity levels are kept to an absolute minimum...<br /><br />Apparently Unspeakable had a budget of about $20,000 & all I can say is where did all the money go? Oh, a quick note to the filmmakers, if your going to record sound live make sure you don't have your actor's deliver their lines next to a main road that half of Los Angeles seem to be driving up... The acting sucks, period.<br /><br />Unspeakable is, in my opinion, total crap. It's probably not the worst I've ever seen but it's right down there & I can't remember seeing such a awful film recently. One to avoid unless your a masochist or insomniac. | negative |
I first seen this movie in the early 80s and we used to have it on betamax. As we all know, betamax went the way of the 8-trak tape, sigh, it really had nice picture quality too. Anyways, I'm glad I found this movie again, I've been searching for it for more than 10 years! This movie falls into the category of movies like Airplane: continuous jokes, oneliners, funny actions (bodylanguage). Mark Blankfield is absolutely hilarious. His transformation from the shy Dr. Daniel Jekyll into the sex-crazed partyanimal Mr. Hyde is unforgettable, complete with goldtooth, chesthair and goldchains. The part I loved best was when he hijacked the car from this poor guy and then drove to Madam Woo Woo's. Totally psychedelic experience without the drugs! If you need laugh therapy this is the movie to do it. When I first seen it, I had tears in my eyes and my belly was hurting from constantly laughing. This is a movie I could watch over and over again. I highly recommend it. | positive |
I think this is the best Norwegian movie I've ever seen. It's about 40-year old Andreas who gets hit by a subway-train, and suddenly finds himself in a strange city, however, everything here has been made ready for him. He has got a job, a house and clothes. At first, this city seems perfect, no death, no pain and no problems. Everywhere there are men in gray suits who cleans up and fixes everything that doesn't fit into their definition of perfect. However Andreas can't really seem to fit in and starts to long back to his old world, and tries with all means to get back. <br /><br />The thing that impresses my the most in this movie is how they way of making the city seem so surrealistic, even though I have seen a lot of these places in real life they seem so distant. Another thing that contributes greatly to the is the performance from the actors. Trond Fausa Aurvaag is just the perfect guy to play the confused and bothersome Andreas. And all the other characters are also doing a great job by playing apathetic (sounds like a hard job, doesn't it?). The strong difference between Andreas and the others leads to very amusing situations as well. <br /><br />All in all, this is a fabulous movie. The plot may be a little confusing, but the movie has such a great atmosphere I would recommend that everyone should go see it. <br /><br />And I wouldn't recommend listening to "ccscd212", as it seems he has seen too many commercial American movies and seems to have became too used to just getting served the moral on a silver plate. The way I see it there is not much in this film that tries to tell us about suicide being right or wrong. I consider it more of a warning of a direction our society seems to be taking. But sure, everyone can see a film in their own way. | positive |
I came across this movie back in the mid eighties as a teenager and it immediately became one of my favorite holiday and non-holiday films. As you can tell from the other reviews this movie has a very good story line and great actors signed on for it. <br /><br />Stanwyck is great as bride to be that is having second thoughts. Dennis Morgan's acting is strong also. He goes unnoticed in most films but was a very capable actor, check out KITTY FOYLE. In this film he plays the visiting sailor that woos Stanwyck away from her husband to be. <br /><br />This is a Christmas classic. The settings and the story make for a great Christmas romance | positive |
Possibly the worst film within the genre in existence. It was announced as a comedy, but is simply tragically pathetic. I don't think anyone could have achieved anything more terrible and irritating if they were specifically requested to. It is toilet humour at its very poorest, I would avoid even watching the trailer. I only went to see it because it was announced that if you like Monty Python, you are bound to love this. Whoever wrote that was either biased or seriously deranged. I am still bewildered how one can honestly believe such a statement. Rarely do I leave the cinema, really it takes a lot of effort for a film to have that effect on me: this one did it in just 30 minutes. | negative |
In the hands of a more skilled director, this film would have been considered a horror masterpiece. Despite Michael "Death Wish" Winner's merely passable direction, the movie is interesting, original and more than a little scary.<br /><br />The script bucks more than one horror cliché off its back (several it can't shake) including Chris Sarandon as the heroine's boyfriend who actually listens to her as she insists that eerie things are going down. Burgess Meredith is delightful as the lovably insane neighbor. Eva Gardner is haunting with a young Beverly D'Angelo as her mute and disturbed lesbian lover. John Carradine does a heck-of-a job sitting in a chair. And watch out for a brief cameo from an unknown-at-the-time Chris Walken! This movie is creepy and creative. The plot twists are lovely, if a tad predictable. The climax, of which I will give no detail, is disturbing and quite impressive. Again a better director could have done more with it, nonetheless it is quite satisfying - at least to those with the sensibilities of seventies horror.<br /><br />If you like modern overproduced body-counting torture-fantasy, you won't like this. There is almost no gore. The direction is quite spartan. The effects are few, although there's some delightful makeup near the end - most of which actually isn't makeup...but perhaps I've said too much already.<br /><br />I've rated this a little higher than its quality may justify, but I enjoyed it as much as any "8" film that I've seen. | positive |
I have seen this movie, just once, and I'm looking forward to see it again and again. Dear David (from Beligium), why did you bother to write a comment on this movie? I only think we can think about you (after reading you comment), is that you're provably a non-sexual person (like Erika in the movie), and you are not ready for the new cinema that is coming up. I guess you are a bit old, and sexual expression is not part of your "visage". The Cannes Film Festival is by far the best movie festival, and I'm is my pleasure to say, that this film was awarded with: Best Actress, Best Actor and Grand Prix. Isabelle Huppert is magnificent, as always, who would do this movie like her? One of her best performances ever. The music is fantastic, and once more Michael Haneke puts reality in the big screen. It's like a Dogma95 kind of movie, because of the topic. Try to see it.<br /><br /> | positive |
We loved this movie because it was so entertaining and off beat-- Not your usual Hollywood drivel.<br /><br />My husband had a Blockbuster coupon and passed on a string of new releases of violent Hollywood stuff. He was about to walk out when he saw this and decided to take a chance. There was only one copy -- and with some glitches in the DVD that we finally had to flip to wide screen version and then back to the full screen version to make it stop stalling. But it was worth it. Cathy Bates is so good and she was so perfect for the role. And she can sing too! <br /><br />If only Hollywood would learn from Independent film makers! Maybe we would go back to the real movies. But for now, we're sticking with off beat and really entertaining films like this one! Other examples we've enjoyed include: A Box Full of Moonlight, Pieces of April, Delivering Milo, The Celestine Prophesy. Most of the ones by Christopher Guest such as: Best in Show, For your Consideration, A Mighty Wind, and Waiting for Guffman | positive |
This show had pretty good stories, but bad dialog. The main character was especially annoying. It's quite obvious why this show was canceled, although, like most UPN shows, I never knew it even existed until it was in syndicated re-runs.<br /><br />Most of it's plots seemed to be copied from other shows and movies, leading me to think the producers didn't have an original idea in their heads. <br /><br />I haven't commented enough. You've got to have at least ten lines of text. The special effect were not bad for a 2001 show.<br /><br />The gnome was a nice character. | negative |
I thought this movie was too absurd for me to finish watching it. The premise was too silly and predictable. I didn't make it far into the movie.<br /><br />Let me see. She is obviously older than the cabbie (unless she is a lot younger than she looks). He is black and she is white. She makes more money than him (he is only a cabbie). That's 3 of society's most statistically failed unions all rolled up in one and we are supposed to pretend they have a chance in hell. She would be better off marrying the guy she doesn't love.<br /><br />I only watched it partially because I love MJW as an actor. His acting was superb. Hers, meh! It was OK but the premise is too silly. Didn't see the end. Couldn't make it there so I don't know if it ended differently from the way I predicted the ending would be. I can't imagine any black woman liking this movie. There is something sickening about watching a black man catering to a white woman like that. And an old one at that. PLEASE! Not in the real world! | negative |
I saw this movie today at the Haifa Film Festival in Israel after hearing rave reviews, but I guess the critics were just sucking up to Willem Defoe and his wife (the director) who were present at the festival. It is definitely the slowest movie I have ever seen with numerous pointless, ridiculously long scenes of nothing. Besides Defoe who was decent, the acting of the two and a half other people in the movie, Defoe's wife Giada included, was ridiculously awful (how they cast the part of the salesgirl at the bakery is beyond me). This movie is pretty much plot less with a lame attempt to be abstract and off the wall. The only scene that stirred any kind of reaction in the crowd was vulgar and came from nowhere as if just to add some kind of shock value to the dullness that is this movie. Sorry for being so harsh, but really this movie is a precious waste of time and money. I appreciate good indie cinema, but this movie is not worthy of moviegoers' time. | negative |
Had this movie been made a few years later, I would have given it a lower score. However, for 1909, this was a dandy little movie and still stands up pretty well today. Just don't try to compare this silent film to later silents--the industry changed so radically that the shorts of the first decade of the 20th century don't look at all like movies made in the 1910s and beyond.<br /><br />This movie is 11 minutes long (about average for most films back then) and is a variation of the Edgar Allen Poe story, THE CASK OF AMONTILLADO. While many are familiar with the story, I won't elaborate further as I don't want to ruin the film. Just suffice to say that it's very creepy!! | positive |
What is contained on this disk is a first rate show by a first rate band. This disc is NOT for the faint of heart...the music is incredibly intense, and VERY cool. What you will learn when you watch this movie is just why the Who was so huge for so long. It is true that their records were great, but their shows were the top of the heap. In 1969 when this concert was shot, the screaming teenie boppers that threw jelly beans at the Beatles were gone and bands (and audiences) had settled down to long and often amazing displays of musical virtuosity--something that few audiences have the intellectual curiosity to pursue in the age of canned music by Britney and Christina. What you especially learn here are the amazing things that can happen when gifted musicians are encouraged to improvise. Try the concert out, it really is amazing. | positive |
Abhay Deol's second film, written by Imtiaz Ali, maiden directorial effort by Shivam Nair. Soha probably has her first (?) meaty role as Megha, a girl who has run away from home and is waiting at the Delhi marriage registrar's office for her boyfriend Dheeraj (Shayan Munshi) to meet her. She waits and waits and finally is spotted as a damsel in distress by Ankush (Abhay Deol). They spend many days together as he extricates her from one distressing situation after another and finally falls in love with her. Then the boyfriend returns! Aage pardey par dekhiye! Sound familiar? This is yet another adaptation of Dostoyevsky's White Nights with a tiny bit of borrowing from Le Notti Bianchi (very tiny though - Ankush keeps the lovers apart by telling the boyfriend she is dead!). But this is an earthier and more realistic (duh) adaptation than the much hyped and overblown Saawariya. I wonder why no one brought this little gem up when we were all discussing Saawariya like crazy a few months ago.<br /><br />The Delhi settings are wonderful - there is the obligatory run through old Delhi, shots of Jama Masjid from a roof top, Connaught Circus, streets with rickshaws (What? How?). The colorful light fixtures in the hotel are enough to tell you this is a seedy joint with rooms for hire by the hour! <br /><br />The more I see of Abhay the more I like this young man. In this second film he is quite good as the for hire witness who is given a purpose in life by a beautiful woman. Soha looks beautiful, and when she smiles she fits the role, but I found her unconvincing in the more serious moments. I am not quite sure that she has it in her to be a great actress, or maybe she will blossom late like the brother. The music by Himesh Reshammiya is not that great and in fact the movie falters at the songs, they kind of interrupt the narrative and do not sit well with the characters trying to sing them. The supporting cast is excellent and I give this White Nights adaptation a thumbs up. BTW - the fact that I love Abhay Deol's cute dimples has NOTHING to do with my rating. | positive |
This utterly dull, senseless, pointless, spiritless, and dumb movie isn't the final proof that the world can forget about Danny Boyle and his post-"Trainspotting" movies: "The Beach" already took care of that. What this low-budget oddity does is merely to secure his place among those who started very well but got completely lost in drugs, booze, ego, self-delusion, bad management or whatever it was that lead to this once-promising director's quick demise.<br /><br />The premise is absurd: two losers (Ecclestone and some bimbo Jenna G - a rapper, likely) meet by chance and spontaneously start singing with fervour more akin to lunatic asylum inhabitants than a potential hit-making duo - which they become. A friend of theirs - an even bigger illiterate loser - becomes their manager by smashing a store window and stealing a video-camera by which he films them in "action", and then shows the tape to some music people who actually show interest in this garbage. Now, I know that the UK in recent years has put out incredible junk, but this is ridiculous; the music makes Oasis seem like The Beatles. During the studio recordings, the duo - Strumpet - change lyrics in every take and Ecclestone quite arrogantly tells the music biz guys to take it or leave it, and quite absurdly they do take it. Not only is the music total and utter trash, but its "performers" are anti-social; these NEWCOMERS are supposed to be calling the shots. It's just too dumb. It's plain awful.<br /><br />The dialog is unfunny and goes nowhere, and this rags-to-bitches story has no point and makes no sense. It often feels improvised - under the influence of drugs. Danny Boyle is a complete idiot. This little piece of trash is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Ecclestone's I.Q. also has to be questioned for agreeing to be part of this nonsense. Whoever financed this £1000 joke should leave the movie business before they end up selling their own underwear on street corners. | negative |
This is a fine, under-rated film and Rip Torn, well-known as he is, is a seriously under-rated actor. I read Howard Frank Mosher's novel many years ago. How well Craven captures the book and the beauty of Vermont's Northeast Kingdom! I had the good fortune to grow up in VT in the 40s and 50s and was still living there when the "Irasburg Incident" took place. I've not seen _Stranger in the Kingdom_, the Craven/Mosher collaboration based on the incident(and another Mosher novel), but this film has inspired me to track it down. | positive |
This film has special effects which for it's time are very impressive. Some if it is easily explainable with the scenes played backwards but the overlay of moving images on an object on film is surprisingly well done given that this film was made more than 94 years ago. | positive |
This 1925 film narrates the story of the mutiny on board battleship Potemkin at the port of Odessa. The movie celebrated the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905, which was seen as a direct precursor to the October Revolution of 1917. Following his montage theory, Eisenstein plays with scenes, their duration and the way they combine to emphasize his message, besides he uses different camera shot angles and revolutionary illumination techniques. The "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin is one of the most famous in the history of cinema. The baby carriage coming loose down the steps after its mother has been shot was later recreated in Brian d' Palma's The Untouchables. It is clear that the film is one of the best ever made considering its time and how innovative it was though you need a little bit of patience and to be a real movie enthusiast to go through its 70 minutes. | positive |
I enjoyed this movie a lot. I thought that the plot of the movie was realistic and relevant to anytime period in American history. There is always that woman that does what she needs to do to climb the class system. I feel that the character of Lilly was portrayed correctly and could of not been done better. What I enjoyed most was when she realized what love really was. Throughout the movie all of the men that fell for her were in love with her, had given her everything, even lost their careers for her. Until she had met Cortland, she did not understand why these men gave up everything for happiness. The way her life had ended up was far from what she expected to be possible. I'd recommend this movie to anyone of a mature audience so you are able to understand the content and the under-laying meaning of the movie and plot. | positive |
Aside from the gunfight scene, I felt the movie was a waste of celluloid. Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening could have played those roles in their sleep. The dialog was marginally tolerable (and there was plenty of it--no one sat together quietly in this movie), the plot was all over the map as if they could not decide how many themes to cram into the story, there was no subtlety at all--foreshadowing hit you between the eyes and they led you by the nose through most of the story (I think they added all the dialog to make sure you didn't miss anything), and the editing really needed tightening up (each actor's screen time was more quantity than quality--again, too much dialog).<br /><br />The entire story took place over the course of a few days, but everything that happened took on epic proportions, much like how day-to-day happenings seemed HUGE to you in high school, but in the grand scheme really weren't THAT important. Yes, the bad guys beat up and killed Mose, they beat up Button, they killed the dog--all things which would get Boss and Charley's blood up. But the importance was diluted by all of the "deep, meaningful" conversations which dominated most of the movie. These guys worked together for 10 years and they're just now talking about this stuff? The only time there wasn't much dialog was in the gunfight scene--which is probably why I liked it.<br /><br />Finally, someone give Annette Bening a hairbrush! The wispy strands of hair around her face that were (I suppose) to make her look a bit more romantic actually made her look a little deranged. If she worked outside the home, it would have made more sense. Plus, why WASN'T she married already? There seemed to be several "kind and gentle" (her words) single men in town aside from the marshal and his cronies. In fact, none of the bad guys seemed to want her either (a usual plot device in other movies). She stayed cooped up in the house most of the time and really didn't seem to have much connection to the people in town. Makes you wonder......<br /><br />In all, the movie was entirely too long, too chatty, and too contrived for me. It felt like a star vehicle with lots of screen time for the big stars, but not enough character depth to interest me, despite all of the dialog. | negative |
Mainly a biography of a lustful doctor, "Robert Merivel ," (Robert Downey) who has his way in the king's palace for the first half of the film and then helps out the downtrodden in the second half, mainly "Katharine" (Meg Ryan).<br /><br />The GOOD - Fantastic set decoration (i.e. the lush king's palace) and costuming make this a visual treat. The language is also very tame. Ian McKellen and Hugh Grant provide interesting support.<br /><br />The BAD - After 50-60 minutes, this movie simply gets too boring. It desperately needed to be given some spark after an hour but it does the opposite: it drags on and on. The script certainly needed some badly-needed "restoration," shall we say? The film may look nice but it's a long two hours to sit through.....too long. | negative |
If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!<br /><br />For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.<br /><br />Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre. | positive |
Seeing this movie in previews I thought it would be witty and in good spirits. Unfortunately it was a standard case of "the funny bits were in the preview", not to say it was all bad. But "the good bits were in the preview".<br /><br />If you are looking for an adolescent movie that will put you to sleep then Watch this movie. | negative |
Action, horror, sci-fi, exploitation director Fred Olen Ray shows he has some talent as a director. Character actor William Smith is one of the best tough/bad guys in the industry. He treats the viewer with the best acting performance of his career. As for Randy Travis he gives his best Lee Van Cleef impression. He's not bad in the film. Smith and Travis make the movie. As for the rest of the cast none of them really stand out. Ray did a great job directing this flick, Smith and Travis were good, I'd give this B western on a scale of one to ten(ten being the best) a seven. | positive |
VIVAH in my opinion is the best movie of 2006, coming from a director that has proved successful throughout his career. I am not too keen in romantic movies these days, because i see them as "old wine in a new bottle" and so predictable. However, i have watched this movie three times now...and believe me it's an awesome movie.<br /><br />VIVAH goes back to the traditional route, displaying simple characters into a sensible and realistic story of the journey between engagement and marriage. The movie entertains in all manners as it can be reflected to what we do (or would do) when it comes to marriage. In that sense Sooraj R. Barjatya has done his homework well and has depicted a very realistic story into a well-made highly entertaining movie.<br /><br />Several sequences in this movie catch your interest immediately: <br /><br />* When Shahid Kapoor comes to see the bride (Amrita Rao) - the way he tries to look at her without making it too obvious in front of his and her family. The song 'Do Anjaane Ajnabi' goes well with the mood of this scene.<br /><br />* The first conversation between Shahid and Amrita, when he comes to see her - i.e. a shy Shahid not knowing exactly what to talk about but pulling of a decent conversation. Also Amrita's naive nature, limited eye-contact, shy characteristics and answering softly to Shahid's questions.<br /><br />* The emotional breakdown of Amrita and her uncle (Alok Nath) when she feeds him at Shahid's party in the form of another's daughter-in-law rather than her uncle's beloved niece.<br /><br />Clearly the movie belongs to Amrita Rao all the way. The actress portrays the role of Poonam with such conviction that you cannot imagine anybody else replacing her. She looks beautiful throughout the whole movie, and portrays an innocent and shy traditional girl perfectly.<br /><br />Shahid Kapoor performs brilliantly too. He delivers a promising performance and shows that he is no less than Salman Khan when it comes to acting in a Sooraj R. Barjatya film. In fact Shahid and Amrita make a cute on-screen couple, without a shadow of doubt. Other characters - Alok Nath (Excellent), Anupam Kher (Brilliant), Mohan Joshi (Very good).<br /><br />On the whole, VIVAH delivers what it promised, a well made and realistic story of two families. The movie has top-notch performances, excellent story and great music to suit the film, as well as being directed by the fabulous Sooraj R. Barjatya. It's a must see! | positive |
I'm sorry, but I just can't help it, I love watching Iron Eagle. Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that this is a great movie. No, rather, I would put it that this is an endlessly entertaining movie. For people who cut this movie to pieces for not being realistic are kinda missing the point. Of course Iron Eagle's plot was ridiculous. But I believe its target audience was kids, and I sure remember finding this cool when I was little. Now I just find it amusing as a guilty pleasure, kinda like Road House. This movie is part of the great pantheon of 80's, kids-taking-on-the-stodgy-adult-power-structure movies. You must remember D.A.R.Y.L, Real Genius, E.T., etc. If you ask me, just watching Doug and Knotcher "Ride the Snake" in the beginning is worth the cost of the DVD. That whole sequence was so STUPID! But, at the same time, it was hilarious, funny, totally 80's, all that good stuff. So bottom line, Iron Eagle is a great 80's guilty pleasure. The hairstyles, the dancing, the music, the dialogue, its all funny as hell. I have Iron Eagle on DVD and to me it was totally worth $9.99 at Best Buy. If you love laughing at dated, unrealistic action movies, this one is a must-see. Oh yeah, and I think its plot was only marginally stupider than 1986's other fighter pilot action pic, Top Gun. | positive |
It utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios. | negative |
Ok, let me say that I didn't expect a film starring Jerry Springer to be cinematic gold, all I asked for was it to be cinematic...and it wasn't even that. It looked like someone's bad home movies. Poorly acted, scripted, and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people I've ever seen.<br /><br />The film's "plot" focuses on a low-class family who decide to go on the "Jerry Farrelly Show" to discuss multiple affairs between a mother, daughter, stepfather and the daughter's fiancee. From there, the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience: white-trash pornography. There's redneck sex, interacial sex, even sex between Jerry and his wife? (Yuk!) This film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. At least it was mercifully short. Disgusting and degrading. African-Americans and working class America should be offended. (Howard Stern should be pleased however, he didn't squander his attempt for film stardom. His was smart, funny and entertaining)<br /><br />MY GRADE: F+ (the daughter was hot) | negative |
I thought i could see something good but... I am tired after seeing this movie, i don't know what i hated the most: the script, the acting, the FX or the music. Try to picture the worst Power Rangers episode and would still be to kind. I've seen better FX in FPS Games( The touch with the bone sword or his breath that is making the people disappear in a green smoke is touch of genius) and the music seems to come from a spaghetti western. I did liked how the women in the car was screaming, when the "monster" was walking around the car (even if she's looking in the wrong way). So give your self a break and don't watch this thing, at least call somebody up to see a horror movie with you, trust me you will end up playing monopoly for some kicks. | negative |
I remember seeing this film when I was fairly young & being quite disturbed by it. I found the storyline very distressing and can still remember the various bullying techniques used. One in particular was when the other school children spat in his soup before he could even taste a spoonful. They also bound him and shaved his private parts. This was all because he was unpopular. Why was he unpopular? Because he was bad at games. I have a feeling though that even if he was good at games he would have been bullied because it's hard to decide what makes someone popular. To me, he is the type of person who would always be picked on because that's how children operate. Popular children are popular because they are in some way 'cool'. Popularity is a hard thing to define. So, even at the end when he is successful in his career it makes no difference & he is still left feeling tormented. I found the ending quite distressing as there was no resolution. | positive |
Excellent film. The whole picture was filmed in Budapest, so I feel proud. My little problem was that the trains in the film belonged to the Hungarian State Railways (MÁV), and it is plain to see that they were used in big train, not in the local railway - according to the story Chikatilo picked up his victims in local railway stations. Apart from this, the film is superb. | positive |
Hmm, Hip Hop music to a period western. Modern phrases like "cool" and too many others to keep track of. "The sistahs are in tha house"!?French manicured nails on hard riding girls. Microphone packs CLEARLY visible on Li'l Kim's back. I just can't go on with the litany of errors made by the director and editors.<br /><br />The acting isn't as bad as I've ever seen. The women did well enough with a poor script.<br /><br />It was weird hearing Louis Mandylor speaking in his native accent.<br /><br />The girls are beautiful. The costumes fabulous albeit completely incorrect. I just can't believe they would dumb down what could have been a great story. I would feel offended to believe that this movie was loaded with such trappings that it would play well in the inner city.<br /><br /> | negative |
The movie starts with a Spiderman spoof which is your introduction to Rick Riker (played by Drake Bell of "Drake & Josh" fame, personally I'd have given the movie to Josh who is much funnier) and the "Rick Punchers" joke is lifted right out of Airplane so the writers were obviously already scraping the barrel for ideas for this film. Rick's class is on a science trip to The Amalgamated Genetics lab and this is where we get to meet the 1st star name in the film, Brent Spiner (Data in Star Trek TNG) playing Dr Strom. Rick is bitten by a genetically modified dragonfly which is where his powers come from.<br /><br />We meet our next big star names at Rick's home, his Aunt Lucille (Marion Ross of Happy Days fame) & Uncle Albert (Leslie Nielson of Airplane, Police Squad & Naked Gun fame). And we're introduced to Carlson on the Amalgamated Board of Directors (Dan Castellaneta from The Simpsons) who is then very promptly killed. We're told Rick has slept for 5 days & get some cheap, crappy sexually orientated scenes designed to get the teen male audience paying attention. The Stephen Hawking lookalike's scene is painful to watch and is really a bad idea that doesn't work and isn't remotely funny.<br /><br />We get another Spiderman spoof (Rick catching the girl and all the planets) but the movie should end right there as Jill was hit in the head by a falling bowling ball which would have broken her skull and killed her stone dead. You get to see Rick's 1st powers emerge (gripping ability & speed) then his 1st rescue which goes very wrong. We also get an incest reference which is in very poor taste indeed. We get a flashback and a Batman spoof in which we discover Rick is solely responsible for the death of his parents. Spoofing Spiderman again Ricks Uncle is shot with Jeffrey Tambor (from Hellboy) playing the Hospital Doctor. We then get an X-men spoof (done very badly as Patrick Stewart is about as white as they come), Barry Bonds is played by yet another lookalike.<br /><br />We meet Invisible Girl (played by Pamela Anderson looking stunning in her costume!). Ricks 1st outing in his costume (once he fixes his ability to see & breath through it) is another Batman spoof. The Tom Cruise Youtube interview clip is played by yet another lookalike (and not a very good one at that). There are lots of modern references like Youtube, Facebook & Wikipedia all showing that the movie is set in modern day. There's a very weak gay joke (never a good idea to do those either) when Jill is helping Aunt Lucille make Thanksgiving dinner and the pissing scene isn't very funny, just infantile.<br /><br />The Aunt farting scene isn't particularly funny, just incredibly childish. Anyone finding it funny must have a mental age of about 12. She's killed and then we have a really bad necrophilia joke (is there no topic these people won't try to use to get a cheap laugh out of?) at her funeral, and the even worse cremation joke.<br /><br />We get the 2 worst lookalikes in the whole movie (Prince Charles & Nelson Mandela) at the awards ceremony and if you didn't already know how infantile or stupidly lowbrow this movie is Landers wins the "Douchebag Of The Year" award. Landers is revealed as The Hourglass (in a really bad scene where the same girl manages to run past Jill twice in the same direction).<br /><br />Obviously The Hourglass is foiled, Jill is rescued from certain death and the only funny scene in the whole movie is the final one. | negative |
Well, for starters, this actually was THE most elegant Clausen film to this date.<br /><br />The man's always got a sense for characters with a slice of humor to them, but I think that he in this movie adds a dimension unparrallel to anything he's made earlier. His work has - in very black n' white words - been accepted by the broad but not that critical audience, and we've always appreciated his sense of humor and his ability to mix it with human problems and a distinct way of letting the audience know what he needs to say.<br /><br />In "Villa Paranoia, however, for the first time, he surprises with an unseen wisdom and a respect for the minorities. Not only the ethnic but also the normal people you tend to forget. Set in Jutland - in 'the country' - it deals with the everlasting issue of lack of love, but in a close and at times brutal way that keeps you looking and keeps you focused. And on top of that, he himself manages to play a b******d! A true b*****d, who wants the right thing but has no clue how to get there, and people therefore suffer. Bitterly.<br /><br /> I'd have to say it's one of the best movies I've seen this year and I'm greatly anticipating his next. | positive |
I thought this was an excellent and very honest portrayal of paralysis and racism. This movie never panders to the audience and never gets predictable. The acting was top-notch and the movie reminded me of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". | positive |
For those curious, this episode is based in theme upon Pirandello's play, "Six Characters in Search of an Author" and Jean-Paul Sartre's play, "No Exit" (as indicated most obviously by its title), but, of course, with a Sterling twist. <br /><br />Five very different individuals find themselves in a round room with no idea who they are other than the indication of their attire. A bell intermittently rings (perhaps also a Hemmingway allusion?), increasing the agony of their incarceration. The newcomer to the group, a Major, is determined to escape, while the others are resigned to their fate. <br /><br />Unlike Pirandello, these characters don't even have a story. They have nothing other than the experience of the room in their consciousness, and no one to author their nonexistent story, so their position is even more hopeless than the characters in Pirandello's piece. Unlike both Pirandello and Sartre, there is no relationship involved between the characters and therefore no real conflict between them, though the theme of personal responsibility versus apathy is prominent in this story. <br /><br />Though this diverges significantly from the storyline of the authors alluded to in the title, themes of Sartre and Pirandello (and many other authors of the twentieth century) come through with absolute clarity. This is very obviously a piece which addresses post-modernist perspective in the context of the Cold War era. There is also an emphasis upon issues of personal insignificance. <br /><br />This is easily one of the best episodes I've seen, and still exceptionally relevant to current experience (as are Sartre and Pirandello). Exactly what makes a good piece of writing into a classic. | positive |
Ram Gopal Verma usually makes so-so cookie cutter formula fare, lifted from some Hollywood flick. His every film after Shiva is in the cookie-cutter genre. Occasionally, he makes a truly horrible movie like this one. <br /><br />For the first 55 minutes, we are introduced to the only 2 characters, a struggling gymnast masquerading as a skilled dancer (go figure!) and a wannabe actor trying to strike it rich in Bollywood. They fall in love, zero becomes hero, dancer/gymnast gets no break, gymnastics, angst, the usual heartbreak, more gymnastics, angst, song, dance, angst, some more gymnastics, more ridiculous gymnastics and before you know it, you're fast asleep. And this despite the HOT SEXY HOT HOT SEXY HOT bod of the leading lady-cum-gymnast-cum-dancer.<br /><br />But hey, you're not alone!! The editor, director, photographer, in fact the whole cast and crew are asleep thru-out the entire production. Only difference being they got paid to snooze while you paid money for this crap, so you lose. Ha, joke's on you. Don't feel sorry for yourself but for our poor broke gal as she tones up daily in her high-rise penthouse in the sexiest of leotards and exercise-wear. Puh-leese, when will the poor thang get a break, she's STARR-VINNNG?!<br /><br />Antara Mali cannot act. RGV's lost his marbles. Abhishek tried hard but failed. No plot. No story. Nothing. She must've paid RGV handsomely to make this all-nonsense stuff in addition to free gymnastics lessons on his casting couch. What a super deal. No need for an acting career.<br /><br />Such absolute rubbish can only be "Made in Bollywood" of course! | negative |
Sweet and charming, funny and poignant, plot less but meaningful, "Before Sunrise" (1995), the third movie of Richard Linklater, is dedicated to everyone who ever been in love, is in love, or never been in love but still dreams of it and hopes to find it. It is one of the very rare movies that is/should/will be equally interesting to teenagers, their parents and even grandparents. It seems a very simple little movie with no spectacular visual effects, car chases, or long and steamy sex scenes. Two young people in their early 20s, two college students (American tourist Ethan Hawke who is returning home after the summer in Europe and the French student Julie Delpy who goes to Paris to attend the classes in Sorbonne) meet on a train. They are attracted to each other instantly even before they start talking, they hop off the train in Vienna where they walk around exploring the city all night. They talk and fall in love. That's it, that's the movie. It could've been boring and silly but instead, it is a lovely, believable, clever, and moving romance that only gets better with each viewing (at least, for this viewer). High praise and my sincere gratitude go to the director and writers for delivering two charming characters, superb writing, always interesting and witty dialogs, two awesome performances, and the atmosphere of magic that falling in love is. Julie Delpy, who looks like a Botticelli's angel, is great in portraying smart, independent, and incredibly attractive young woman. | positive |
Firstly I would like to point out that I only know of the show due to my younger sister always watching it. I find it the most annoying program on TV. There is nothing funny about any of the 'jokes' and the canned laughter is unbearable. The show would work much better if filmed in front of a live audience. That way the laughter would show just how 'unfunny' the show is. However I give credit to the acting talents of the young cast. It sickens me however to think that they'll look back on the show in the future and see how bad their first TV show was. The show links in well with the overall annoying voices and style of the CBBC presenters. Why the youth of today need to be shouted at so much is beyond me. That is all. | negative |
An obvious b-grade effort to cash in on the Hostel/Saw buzz, my expectations for this film were low (really low!) and yet it still managed to disappoint on every level. The acting is so bad it's not even funny, the plot-line is non-existent and the only scare was realizing that I had wasted 1hour 21 minutes watching it! I'm surprised to note that 34 people gave it a 10 star rating. I can only suspect that 33 of these are Cast and Crew. The 34th is possibly the directors mother? - although I'm sure even she would find it hard to go higher than a 2! DVD extras include an hour long "making of" feature. Which raises the question, "Why?" (although perhaps it serves to demonstrate what not to do!). Avoid at all costs. | negative |
File this one in the `How do movies like this get made?' column. A seventies-drag indie version of `Macbeth,' adapted fairly faithfully (but pointlessly) in a conventionally unconventional black-comic style. The cast gives it a shot, with Christopher Walken phoning in the eccentricity as McDuff, and with Maura Tierney rising above the dull script as Pat McBeth. The other actors are wasted, as is the audience's time. Knee-jerk fans of this brand of quirk may like it, though. 4 out of 10. | negative |
I can sum this movie up using 20 words or less. Way too predictable of a story line with potential to be funny but instead falls flat on its face. See, 19 words, however, I didn't completely pan this flick with just one star but instead decided to bump it up to two stars due to the fact that Julie Bowen is smoking hot and provided just enough eye candy to keep me from ripping the DVD right out from the machine and blowing it up with an M80. My advice, take the $4.00 rental fee you would have paid to see this movie and just send it right to me as an advance thank you for saving you the time and frustration of having to sit through this train wreck, or you may want to send me the $50.00 replacement fee you would have been charged from taking out your twelve gage to use this piece of garbage as skeet shooting practice. | negative |
It was in 1988, when I saw "The Ronnie and Nancy Show" for the first time (on Austrian television). At that time, I was already a very big fan of Spitting Image (since when it won the bronze rose of the Montreux Film Festival in 1986). Of course I recorded every show on tape and watched it again and again - especially "The Ronnie and Nancy Show". I remember that scene when Ronnie stood in front of a painting of Abraham Lincoln (thinking it was a mirror) and said to himself "I need a shave". Or most amusing of all, when he played ball with his dog - but vice-versa!<br /><br />It's such a shame, that Spitting Image seems to fall into oblivion; it was one of the most fantastic and most intelligent made TV-shows ever. Compared to other satirical broadcasts it was definitely the best of all. <br /><br />Well, almost 20 years have passed since then, and I wish I could see the show again. Is it possible to purchase it from someone... somewhere? | positive |
The opening night for the 'South Asian International Film Festival' (SAIFF) in New York was an event a lot of us were waiting for.<br /><br />I would finally get to watch 'Hari Om' I was tired of watching the "promo" on a loop and the lingering taste of the song Angel by Nitin Sawhney in the promo, left me begging to hear the rest of it. I was impressed by the visuals
and tremendously curious about how the rugged looking auto rickshaw driver would win the hearts of the stunning sophisticated looking French tourist! I remember being rather intrigued by the theme, when I'd read a line or two about it in the papers, ages ago! Especially so, since I'd personally been very fascinated a few years ago, by how flamboyant the rickshaws in Jodhpur were! The snow and the crowds outside the theater only set my anxiety rising.<br /><br />Once inside the theater, I found that the SAIFF organizers only presented disaster. I was uncomfortable and embarrassed by how poorly the event was organized and found myself in a difficult spot, trying to explain and offer excuses to my friends (of mixed nationalities) whom I'd invited on the VIP guest list. I was hoping to prove to them that Indian cinema was not always about Bollywood
Eventually and FINALLY, the movie began sending some fresh air our way. Or so I thought
Hari Om
started with chaos and noise. Autorickshaws honking, traffic and a whole lot of chaos. I found myself smiling as I felt a sense of "home" filling up inside me.<br /><br />Thus began the journey of Hari Om
an auto rickshaw driver in Jaipur The director couldn't have made a better casting call with this character. From Monsoon Wedding to Hari Om Vijay Raaz, despite his non-hero looks, carries this movie solely on his acting skills and his take on the character, replete with all the nuances of a rickshaw driver in Rajasthan. He's a winner all the way. But how and where he learnt to speak English even that fluently, is the question! However, his character portrays beautiful shades of humor and sensitivity. I love his innocent portrayal of a simple guy from a village who has big aspirations of being famous some day
and yet knows when to cut away to reality.<br /><br />Camille, on the other hand enters the movie wearing clothes that ANYONE wouldn't dare to wear in a place like that. It's funny however, that no one seems to really care too much about her dressed like that. She looks very very dazzling though! Especially in the latter half of the movie, when she changes to Indian attire. Her relationship with her boyfriend however seems very vague. It probably adds to the touch of reality of certain kinds of relationships.<br /><br />The movie takes us through the most beautiful parts of Rajasthan
The surprising part is that none of the places have been portrayed anything other than what they REALLY are. You see the dirt, you see the primitive houses
you see Rajasthan exactly the way it is!! Yet there's only one adjective that it leaves you with 'beautiful'.<br /><br />This is the first director who probably knows how to portray India exactly the way it is- with the dirt and the noise and all the negatives that India is attached to! Yet making it look like one of the most beautiful places to be in.<br /><br />Kudos! to him for that.<br /><br />The only downside of the movie that I could possibly see, is the pace
I found it rather slow at certain parts but rest assured that you will never be bored.<br /><br />Nitin Sawhney's background scores add a classy international, yet very Indian flavor to the movie. The song "Angel" which plays at a very crucial time in the movie, blends beautifully with the visuals.<br /><br />I've also heard that besides the main characters, all the other actors are actually just normal people who'd never ever faced a camera before!! That's commendable considering, most of our so called established actors still can't portray realistic characters on screen.<br /><br />All in all, watching this movie was a beautiful experience It is a pot pourri of emotions. It's got romance, humour
realism
beautiful visuals and locations... , great music, a great cast A PACKAGE DEAL! When I walked out of the theater - I felt proud to be Indian
A few days later, I asked one of my Bulgarian friends who had watched the movie with me, if he'd want to watch another Indian Movie and his response was " Is it better than Hari Om? If it is, then I'll go
if not, I think I'll pass. From now on, Hari Om will be the benchmark for every Indian Movie that I see." Mr. Bala, are you reading? | positive |
The contemporary chapter of the U.S. Navy's elite underwater demolition team is called to do.... whatever they want, apparently.<br /><br />Charlie Sheen was made an officer. Already the storyline is unbelievable. Michael Biehn is his immediate C.O., but he keeps Charlie on a rather long leash and one of the guys pays for it early on by getting killed thanks to Charlie's patented stupidity. The rest of the team spends their spare time committing courts-martial offenses. Mostly an exercise in random gunfire and paper-thin ethics, these particular Seals might be better suited to serving as crash-test dummies.<br /><br />Some good action scenes counter the goofy proceedings. | negative |
The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.<br /><br />I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.<br /><br />Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead. | negative |
This movie is Great! It touched my stone cold heart. I couldn't relate about the racial discrimination that Antwone has experienced because I'm living in my own country. I guess it is really hard to be discriminated.<br /><br />We watched this film in our sociology class in New Era University,and I didn't knew that It was a true story, I thought it was just created by an intellectual who want to bring a fresh air in the industry. It is very good.<br /><br />The part that shocked me was when Nadine abused Antwone (who was just six) sexually. If I were on his shoes, I could have jumped a ten-story high building. I salute him for he being so strong!<br /><br />The scene that touched me here is when Antwone finally saw his mother Eva face to face. He did not bitched her or whatever,instead he told her about the achievements that he got within the long years that they have been separated. (I think I'll do that when I get the chance of tracing my roots.) | positive |
I went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, "How much longer?" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing. | negative |
Absolutely, I agree with my previous commentator in describing this as a riveting,fascinating and certainly beautiful film. It's not necessary to see all the episodes,since the first ones are the best,while the last ones are a-bit tiresome,but for any person who likes German's and their good-natured ways,all episodes are worth seeing.In typical german fashion, values are constantly questioned,even it's murderous Nazi past is confronted in the last episodes, the rich dialogues are particularly interesting. These episodes are recommended for anyone who is about to live or travel in Germany,preferably in original language!!<br /><br /> | positive |
As one who loves films that appeal to intellectual sorties as well as those that simply tell stories, this film should have been appealing. But as written and directed by Catherine Breillat who seems to be playing out her own conundrums in film-making experiences, this tedious and talky film fails to arouse interest.<br /><br />The main character Jeanne (Anne Parillaud) is the screen form of Breillat, a director frustrated in her attempts to film a convincing sex scene with two difficult actors (Grégoire Colin is The Actor and Roxane Mesquida is The Actress). The one 'comic' bit is Jeanne's imposing the use of a dildo strapped onto the Actor in order for her to drive the sex scene to fruition, but even this sight gag wears thin quickly and we are left with a film within a film that feels more like a 'Deleted Scenes' featurette on a DVD than a solid French comedy with class. Grady Harp, August 05 | negative |
Despite what its critics ensue, I enjoyed immensely for precisely what it is. Eyecandy for both sides of the gender spectrum. Soderberg has done the artsy hard edge stuff before, won Oscars, is at the top of his game. Ocean's 12 is light, commercial, fluffy, Steve's day at the Midway if you will. I am generally not a fan of Zeta-Jones but even I must admit that Kate is STUNNING in this movie. It's ending screams of an upcoming trequel and I will be one of the millions who flock to see 120 minutes of George and Brad and Matt parlay through Clooney's digs in Lago di Como as they swindle some rich bad guy again and again. If we tolerated 3 installments of the Lord of the Rings, I ask if we can drool over Clooney's salt and pepper lid just one more time? | positive |
Rain or shine outside, you enter a movie house. It makes you happy. (If not, come right out.) Lights go off. You settle down with a bar of ice cream. Moving pictures begin to flicker on the screen. You feel content. In the dark, you are back in the beginning of time. Sitting around the campfire...looking at the modern version of the flickering flames 24 times per second and sharing the joy of discovering the unknown turns and twists of the scenario with rest of your clan/spectators.<br /><br />Those who are not happy with themselves, should not write comments. (Long live romantic comedies...) | positive |
Hello people,<br /><br />I cannot believe that "Shades" from That Thing You Do took this role. I don't think Cory Feldman would have taken this role. This movie was a fuming pile of dung. Save your money and time, and see every one of the top 250. I swear I wanted to slap the lady at Blockbuster silly for permitting me to rent this. Stay away!!!!!!<br /><br />Mr. Hipp | negative |
TRICK OR TREAT is a fine example of Hollywood jumping on the "backwards messages in metal music" bandwagon that Tipper Gore and her Washington Wives kick-started in the mid-'80s (other, less successful entries in this mini-genre include the awful BLACK ROSES and silly THE GATE). I was a sophomore in high school when TRICK OR TREAT came out and couldn't wait to see it. It seemed to disappear from video stores by the end of the '80s, but I finally picked up a budget-priced DVD copy a short while ago and it brought back many pleasant metal memories from back in the day. Any teenage metal nerd could relate to the trials of Eddie "Ragman" Weinbauer (Marc Price of "Family Ties")in this film as he is persecuted by the preppie "beautiful" people in his high school for his heavy metal fashions and musical taste. Eddie's favorite rock star is Sammi Curr (who looks a lot like Tommy Lee of Motley Crue), who is killed in a hotel fire early in the movie. Eddie is inconsolable till he receives a test pressing of Sammi's final, unreleased album from a radio DJ (Gene Simmons of Kiss in a brief cameo). Eddie soon discovers that this LP, when played backwards, allows him to communicate with the undead spirit of Sammi Curr himself! Soon Sammi is giving Eddie advice on how to get even with his preppie torturers but when the messages escalate in scariness ("Waste'em ALL... no false metal!") Eddie tries to destroy the album, which results in Sammi coming back to life via Eddie's stereo speakers. Sammi rampages to the big dance at Eddie's high school and takes the stage to rock the crowd and disintegrate a few unlucky "false metallers" before Eddie arrives to save the day and the girl of his dreams. (SIGH) No, it's not terribly scary in 2006, it wasn't even scary in 1986, but TRICK OR TREAT is a movie that will bring a smile to the face of any 1980s metaller and has a kick-ass soundtrack courtesy of the cult band Fastway. Well worth seeking out if you've ever banged your head or have a taste for B-grade horror movies (or both, like me). | positive |
iv been a fan of Rik Mayall and Ade Edmednson ever since i can remember weather its young ones or bottom. and i just have to say i have never laughed so much in all my life!!! guest house paradiso is bloody brilliant! i know its not going to be everyones cup of tea (with the vomiting,slapstick comedy, violence and foul language) but then just don't watch it if it ain't yours. its not like no one knows what sick and twisted things Rik and Ade come up with when they're working with one another!! i think its unfair that this film received such a slatting from critics because,and i don't think I'm the only one to think this, this film is 10 out of 10! : ) | positive |
There are exactly 2 good things to be said about "Fantasies" (both mentioned by a previous reviewer as well): <br /><br />a) Bo Derek's extraordinary, poetry-inspiring beauty. She has shots in this movie where she gives even Catherine Zeta-Jones a run for her money, and that's a high compliment indeed. Her nudity is brief and discreet, but just looking at her face is enough.<br /><br />b) The Greek island setting, with its sun and crystal-clear blue waters.<br /><br />Other than that, there is no story, the dialogue is abysmal and at times unintentionally funny ("He touched you where you're a woman!"), and Peter Hooten's character is a slimy jerk. Bo overplays the naivete of her character, but then again when you have to work with dialogue this bad it's unfair to blame the actors (the fact that she kept saying the name "Damir" in almost every sentence is a major irritation). Oh, and although the film is set on a Greek island, there is hardly a Greek word to be heard - apparently everyone there, from kids to old people, speaks English the whole time. (*) | negative |
This one started excellently. The photography and audio are the best I've experienced in years (okay, months). Especially the use of 'warm' and 'cold' colours in single sequences is astonishing. Also, making Jennifer Lopez whisper most of her lines is an idea in itself, but I'm not sure what Singh wants to accomplish with that.<br /><br />Now for the minuses. The screenplay was awful. Lopez's part turned out to be irrelevant or totally worthless to the plot. She seemed to star the movie only to sell herself and the pic. The three beds seemed just too obvious. The baptizing of the child Carl was a psychologically too underlined way to embark the motive which Carl 'worked' under. And so on..<br /><br />Anyway, the movie had great way of showing where Singh comes from. Why is it that the most talented directors seem to emerge from India nowadays? | positive |
Sri Lanka... not a country I've ever given much thought to, I have to admit. I didn't even know it was near India, let alone that there has been a bloody civil war going on there since 1983. It seems that the rebels of the Tamil minority have been in an ongoing conflict with the military regime that runs the country for many years, causing many deaths and widespread suffering on the island.<br /><br />Mani Ratman's latest film, A PECK ON THE CHEEK, tells the story of a young girl named Amudha, who is separated from her Sri Lankan parents by the war and raised by a young Indian couple. Amudha is a bright and mischievous girl, whose life is turned upside down when her parents tell her that she was adopted as a child. Although her adopted parents love her as much as could be, and have raised her without prejudice along with their biological children, Amudha cannot help but want to learn more about her biological family.<br /><br />Mani Ratman is probably best known for his 1998 film DIL SE, which hides a story about terrorism and politics inside a love story (or is it the other way around?). A PECK ON THE CHEEK inhabits similar territory, but is perhaps more ambitious in the ground it covers. The central theme that binds the movie is of love between all the various members of a family, and especially that between a child and her adopted parents. It's a pretty honest and open look at feelings, that can be extremely touching and heartwarming at some times and quite painful at others. It's an emotionally complex film, with characters that are somewhat idealised but still behave in a very human way.<br /><br />The film revolves around 9 year old Amudha, played with charm and vivaciousness by young actress P.S. Keerthana in her first and only acting role. She's a princess and a monster, always getting into trouble but so disarmingly charming nobody can stay mad at her for long. The young actress is perfectly cast for the role, and does a tremendous job in the various and often difficult emotional scenes required of her.<br /><br />A PECK ON THE CHEEK has such an innocent name I was quite unprepared for the intensity of the experience. Never has such a small act come with such an enormous emotional impact, I dare say. The film is a bold and artistic effort to explore issues that are not frequently covered on the silver screen.<br /><br />Mani Ratman's direction is superb, very confident and mature - the most sophisticated work I've seen from this director yet. The film is visually very stylish, with some excellent camerawork and imagery. A.R. Rahman provides the film's soundtrack, which is not as good as his classic DIL SE or BOMBAY music (based on first impressions at least) but still shows his great musical talent.<br /><br />I'm not aware of a DVD release for the film yet - I saw it in Tamil with English subtitles thanks to the San Francisco International Film Festival, of which the film was undoubtedly the highlight. The production is a truly world class effort, and I am sure it will be popular with western audiences as it begins to receive wider exposure.<br /><br />Recommended. | positive |
As with all the other reviewers, this movie has been a constant in my mind after 30 years. I recall going to the library researching all that I could on this story. I even wrote to the PBS station for more information. Despite all this, all I was able to find out was that it was a story printed in a newspaper in the early part of the 1900s.<br /><br />Fastward to 2002, after years of searching ebay for on a weekly basis and there it was, a VHS copy of the movie. There was one other bidder but I was determined to win this movie. The losing bidder wrote me asking for a copy which I gave her. Despite owning a copy, I still searched and searched finally finding a site that sold a DVD copy of the movie. You can find it at: http://www.johntopping.com/Harvey%20Perr/War%20Widow/war_widow.html | positive |
Keys to the VIP is just another one of the horrible T.V. shows that you can and will see on this station. The show is terrible with guys claiming to be real players competing against each other (there are two of them competing in each episode) in stupid games where they try to get girls at a bar to talk to them, get girls numbers, and so on. The judges are four other guys who also claim to be expert pick up artists but they also seem like just huge d-bags just like the contestants. The show is not funny at all and not even interesting, it is just boring watching these guys desperately try to convince us what awesome players they are (talking even more about the four judges than I am about the contestants). Nothing funny has even happened in the shows I have watched and the shows are obviously rigged. Do you really think they have invited all these people to the club, got them to sign releases, and get them on tape while these guys carry out the same stupid games with them? It's not reality at all it is just stupid, it probably even tapes in the day time. Somebody else on here wrote how they knew somebody on the show and it was all fake well yeah that is obvious, it's a fake show and even with actors it's still not funny. One of the worst shows I have ever seen. | negative |
I have to say, Seventeen & Missing is much better than I expected. The perception I took from the previews was that it would be just humdrum but I was pleasantly surprised with this impressive mystery.<br /><br />Dedee Pfeiffer is Emilie, a mom who insists her daughter, Lori (Tegan Moss), not attend a so-called graduation party one weeknight, but Lori ignores her mother's wishes and takes off for the party anyway. When Lori does not come home, Emilie knows something is wrong and she begins to have visions of her daughter and the events that led to her disappearance.<br /><br />Seventeen & Missing is better than so many other TV movies of this type, as it is not so predictable. Pfeiffer is the reason to see this movie, and most of it comes off as believable. This LMN Original Movie premiered last night. 10/10 | positive |
In Mississippi, the former blues man Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) is in crisis, missing his wife that has just left him. He finds the town slut and nymphomaniac Rae (Chritina Ricci) dumped on the road nearby his little farm, drugged, beaten and almost dead. Lazarus brings her home, giving medicine and nursing and nourishing her like a father, keeping her chained to control her heat. When her boyfriend Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) is discharged from the army due to his anxiety issue, he misunderstands the relationship of Lazarus and Rae, and tries to kill him.<br /><br />"Black Snake Moan" is a weird tale of faith, hope, love and blues. The gifted Christina Ricci has an impressive performance in the role of a young tramp abused since her childhood by her father and having had sex with the whole town where she lives. It is amazing the versatility of this actress, and probably this is the most mature work that I have seen Christina Ricci perform. Samuel L. Jackson has also a fantastic performance in the role of Lazarus. The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful I have ever heard in a movie, with wonderful blues. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Entre o Céu e o Inferno" ("Between the Heaven and the Hell") | positive |
I don't know why this has the fans it does and I don't know why I have even given it the score I have. This is preposterous. There are many a giallo where one has to suspend disbelief, let the picture roll and catch up with it somewhere before it becomes delirious and some poor police officer has to eventually explain what we have seen. But, this has very little going for it and has overlong sequences where nothing happens and have no relevance to anything while we have to listen to a most repetitive soundtrack, even by Italian standards. Not a giallo, this is a complete mish mash of horror ideas featuring Klaus Kinski in one his most blatant 'phoned in' performances. I reckon he turned up, did a day's work and cleared off leaving Mr D'Amato to get others to fill in. Ewa is of course pretty but no it is not enough, and in the end we have seen far too much of her popping up all over the place, long after we have completely lost interest in this mindless and pretentious twaddle. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood! | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.