text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Fearful Symmetry is a pleasant episode with a few faults. The first thing about the episode is that it takes place near Mountain Home Air Force Base in southwest Idaho. Season one's 'Deep Throat' takes place near Ellens Air Base, also in southwest Idaho. I'm wondering if the air force bases are one and the same but they decided to use the real name in Fearful Symmetry. Mulder and Scully have some good dialog, always a plus. Ed Meecham, the zoo keeper, reminds me of cranky, old school teachers. They must have liked children at one time, you just can't imagine how. Just like he must have cared more for animals at one point. I liked the concept of the episode, but I felt it had some inconsistencies. If aliens are so adept at abducting humans and returning them safely, why can't they put the animal back in the right place? And the aliens are just now having problems returning the animals? I don't buy Mulder's theory of a problem with the space-time continuum. As if he's an expert on that. I also thought Jayne Atkinson's performance as Willa Ambrose was not well done. Besides those nitpicks, I still enjoyed this episode because of the intriguing concept of aliens harvesting animal DNA as well as human DNA. | 1 |
OK I had higher hopes for this Carnosaur movie simply because it seemed like the sequels were getting better as they came out. I did like Carnosaur 2 better than 1. I figured well this one is newer so it must be better right? Well... I quickly learned I was wrong. I was extremely confused with the casting. They brought back Rick Dean for another spotlight character and Michael MacDonald as a police officer. Now for Rick dean lol, in Carnosaur 2 I thought he fit the role pretty well and wasn't really annoyed by him, now in Carnosaur 3 wow they placed him as an elite soldier. Now we are getting goofy here. The movie actually started out pretty good with a decent gun fight and dinos escaping out of there little freezer trucks, but as soon as Scott Valentines team showed up we had a mix of a romantic comedy with very funny performances from retarded and floppy dinosaurs.<br /><br />I'll start with the raptors first, they had there tails drag the ground, which in the second one they were up in the air which looked more common for a dinosaur that can run up to 50-60 mph. Now when they ran they wiggled back and forth and the heads didn't move at all. there hands were floppy all over the place and since they were extremely poorly shot by the director they looked stupid and out of place.<br /><br />The t-rex was extremely pathetic, they would of been better off using the one from the previous 2 movies. At least that one looked somewhat frightening. The one in this film looked like it was smiling all the time. The legs when it walked was hilarious, like it was john wayne in the old west all stiff legged and stuff. LOL another thing I noticed is that the hands did not move, they were stuck next to its body so it looked and sounded (god the sound effects were awful) retarded!!! Now if I was the director and realized that I had this to work with maybe I would of maybe tried a little bit harder to hide the fakeness fact. As for the rest of the movie, well this was the sloppiest and loudest military team I have ever seen. The weapons they used wouldn't make sense for the scenario. They even had an arm wrestling scene inside the warehouse where the carnosaurs were roaming, now I was tickled at this scene because I thought that while this stupidity was going on that the Dinos would get in there and cause some damage. Instead the director wasted about 7 minutes of our time. I would like to look at this movie as the 3 stooges of dinosaur movies. You have retarded military, retarded dinosaurs, retarded scenario and you have a wonderful 83 minutes to spend of your day watching this.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying I wouldn't watch this, bc actually i do recommend everyone see this movie that wants 83 minutes of pure entertainment. It may seem like I'm ranting but really I'm hyping this movie up to what it is. Its really a lot of fun to watch because while watching this you think to yourself, "did the director really make this seriously?" | 0 |
There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks. | 0 |
It's not my fault. My girlfriend made me watch it.<br /><br />There is nothing positive to say about this film. There has been for many years an idea that Madonna could act but she can't. There has been an idea for years that Guy Ritchie is a great director but he is only middling. An embarrassment all round. <br /><br /> | 0 |
Enjoyable and watchable. Tim Meadows at his best. A big boost from Billy Dee Williams. He and a very funny John Witherspoon provide a solid foundation for Mr. Meadows' riffing. Have fun with this one. | 1 |
It's a little disconcerting to have a character named Gig Young in a movie...played by Gig Young. But this film is where Gig got his name and also a nice career boost after playing small parts under another name.<br /><br />I'm going to go against the majority of the other comments and state that I really enjoyed this film, mainly because of the vibrant performance of Barbara Stanwyck as Fiona. She was funny, angry, vulnerable, caring, and feisty as the oldest of three daughters whose mother died on the Lusitania, and whose father was later killed during Woar War I. <br /><br />As the "man" of the house, Fiona has stood steadfast for years against settling her father's will which would therefore allow a Donald Trump type named Charles Barclay to get the family home. But Fiona's keeping a secret as to why she hates Barclay so much. Geraldine Fitzgerald is the middle, flirty sister, who is married to an Englishman but craves her youngest sister's boyfriend (Gig Young).<br /><br />If you're a Stanwyck fan, this is a no miss. | 1 |
One Stinko of a movie featuring a shopworn plot and, to be kind, acting of less than Oscar caliber. But to me the single worst flaw was the total misrepresentation of a jet aircraft, and especially a 747. Some of the major blunders:<br /><br />1. No Flight Engineer (or even a flight engineer station. 2. Mis-identifying the F-16 interceptors as F-15's (no resmblance whatsoever). 3. Loading passengers into an "aft baggage compartment" supposedly accesible from the cabin - Even if such a compartment existed, placing that much weight that far aft would make the aircraft unflyable. 4. Hollow point bullets that "won't damage the aircraft". 5. The entire landing procedure was so bad I wanted to puke. 6. An SR-71 (of all planes) with a pressure seal hatch 7. Opening a cabin door outward - into the wind - in flight!!<br /><br />Ah nuts, it was just a truly lousy movie. Gotta make the list of bottom 10 of the year. | 0 |
This one stood out for it's originality. I'm seriously tired of seeing Hindi movies that are a hotch-potch of a whole bunch of Hollywood and Brit movies. Some flaws were inevitable, nonetheless, this movie is a must-see. Surya's portrayal of the clean-cut, conscientious cop (as opposed to the pot-bellied, money-hungry ones that we normally see) was awesome. He's come a long way from his work in Nerukku Ner. I liked the movie so much that I had to own it. I'm not usually into the mindless violence type of movies, somehow I actually felt for each character and therefore can't really bring myself to call it 'mindless' violence. I do not appreciate the excessive melodrama and sentimental scenes that go hand in hand with most Hindi and Tamil movies. I absolutely loved this movie for it's lack of the same. ACP Anbuselvan's reaction to loosing his wife, is not overdone, is heart-wrenching and makes me want to bawl my eyes out. There are certain times when I'm watching a movie when I want to hit the FF button. Plenty of times I've wanted to do that at a cinema hall. Never wanted to do so when watching this movie. I'm really hoping that Ghajini releases soon. | 1 |
It was life-changing, IT REALLY WAS!!!The Man In The Moon is a breathtaking experience to watch.The acting was fabulous, the story line was great, and this was a perfect start for Reese Witherspoon's career.I don't see how anyone couldn't love this film.Sure, it's not the best movie ever, even though it was close to it, but it was highly amusing to watch, and I even had a big laugh at one of the jokes, and a lot of other little laughs.Of course, there was some cry your heart out moments too, but this movie was enlightening, and it brightens up your day, although you have to get a little depressed from the story every now and then.I can't believe this movie didn't win at least one award, and I also can't believe that it's been seen by so little people on this site.See this movie if you haven't for it is definitely touching. | 1 |
.......Playing Kaddiddlehopper, Col San Fernando, etc. the man was pretty wide ranging and a scream. I love watching him interact w/ Amanda Blake, or Don Knotts or whomever--he clearly was having a ball and I think he made it easier on his guests as well--so long as they Knew ahead of time it wasn't a disciplined, 19 take kind of production. Relax and be loose was clearly the name of the game there.<br /><br />He reminds me of guys like Milton Berle, Benny Hill, maybe Jerry Lewis some too. Great timing, ancient gags that kept audiences in stitches for decades, sheer enjoyment about what he was doing. His sad little clown he played was good too--but in a touching manner.<br /><br />Personally I think he's great, having just bought a two DVD set of his shows from '61 or so, it brings his stuff back in a fond way for me. I can remember seeing him on TV at the end of his run when he was winding up the series in 1971 or so.<br /><br />Check this out if you are a fan or curious. He was a riot. | 1 |
The only thing I knew about this film prior to seeing it was Robby The Robot. My preconception was that it was another in a long line of cheesy sci-fi flicks that the 1950's was noted for. How wrong I was. Big studio, big budget and big production values make this a strong contender, at least visually, for the best sci-fi film coming out of the era. I qualify with the word visually, because "War Of The Worlds" is a lot darker and scarier than "Forbidden Planet", and probably fits the mold better as a foray into alien territory.<br /><br />What impressed me immediately was the color rendition of the cinematography, followed by the intricacy and scope of detail involved in Dr. Morbius' (Walter Pidgeon) home and laboratory. But that was only the prelude to the icing on the cake, the labyrinthine underground that served as the Krell stronghold. It appeared that Krell technology was even more advanced than say, that of "Star Wars". Which made me consider, audiences for this movie back when it was released probably sat in the same kind of awe that theater goers experienced in 1977 with SW, or in 1986 with "Aliens". Watching it on a large screen TV in my living room offered me the same effect, and I'm fairly resistant to hyperbole.<br /><br />It's not too much of a stretch to imagine "Forbidden Planet" as a direct antecedent of the 'Star Trek' TV series; Gene Roddenberry himself stated that the movie had a great impact on his vision for the show. Followers of that short lived series will readily recognize plot elements used here that turned up in 'Star Trek'. I had to do a double take when the men of United Planets Cruiser C57-V headed for a transporter room, while the conundrum presented to Robby that created an impossibility to respond was an element used at least two or three times in the ST series.<br /><br />Where the movie definitely took a cerebral turn had to do with the whole idea of 'monsters from the Id'. That Morbius himself was using his subconscious mind to defend Altaire IV was certainly a unique concept for 1956, when every other sci-fi flick of the time was dealing with Martians or other grotesque space creatures. The film worked it's subtle magic on this viewer by helping me understand that Morbius was the protector of Altaire IV some time before Commander Adams (Leslie Nielsen) explained it.<br /><br />You know, looking at the calendar, the year 2200 isn't that far off. This movie may be the one that actually gets it right relative to exploring and living on other planets. I think though, that they'll have to come up with a sleeker looking version of Robby. | 1 |
This movie doesn't even deserve a one. This was an utter waste of time. It was a waste of film and money. It was not offensive but everything was provocative and disgusting. My spoiler is one that I think should be read by everyone. There is full frontal nudity and disgusting language. But not only that, there is NO plot line, the actors are terrible, the accents are horrible, the actors are small time and I was even EXCITED to watch this movie! <br /><br />The only reason I rented it was for Brian van Holt (who got only a fifteen second part, by the way). I think this might have been a mistake on the directors and editors parts but they repeated the same segments two or three times, adding only a new sentence.<br /><br />A film similar to this is Eraser Head, possibly the most disturbing movie in existence. There is no plot line, and is not funny. Although it isn't trying to be funny. DO NOT WATCH EITHER MOVIE. | 0 |
*May contain spoilers*<br /><br />I bent over backwards to be fair to this film. I knew it starred Madonna. I knew it lasted a whole week in theaters. I knew it got a lot of bad reviews. I wasn't expecting a deep and thoughtful examination of class, culture and sexuality like we got in the Italian original. The benefit of the doubt lasted a whole ten minutes.<br /><br />Madonna plays a rich, pretentious, nit-witted Gorgon who goes on vacation with her henpecked husband and flippant friends (the brunette woman is as bad as Madonna, exhibiting some really dumb facial expressions). Adriano Giannini plays the ship's first-mate who the Madonna character delights in humiliating and treating like dirt in every scene they have together. Why is she such a bitch to him? Simply because the plot requires it so that later when the two of them get marooned on a deserted Mediterranean island the tables will be turned and he will teach her a lesson. Just as inexplicable is how they fall in love despite having nothing in common and having abused each other for two-thirds of the movie.<br /><br />"Swept Away" is a silly, simplistic, superficial movie from beginning to end. Madonna gives a typically wooden performance. There are many dumb scenes: Madonna singing and dancing atrociously at the demand of Giannini, a fantasy scene with Madonna and a lot of scenes where he slaps her and kicks her in the butt. Guy Ritchie does his "stylish" editing which is laughable here. The film contains some of the worst dialog I've heard in a major movie in several years. The ending is sappy and implausible. It's basically "The Blue Lagoon" meets "Overboard" minus the nudity of the former and the sense of humor of the latter.<br /><br />Maybe Madonna's ego is so big that she insists on continuing to prove herself as a competent actress. Please give it up, Madge, for our sake as well as yours. This isn't her worst movie though. That distinction still belongs to "Shanghai Surprise". She hasn't made anything worse than that...yet. | 0 |
I'm not a follower of a certain movie genre. I classify movies only as industrial or non-industrial. Valentine is the second industrial movie of the director Jamie Blanks, after his Urban Legends. Unlike Urban Legends the screenplay and the story line is very weak. Yet again unlike Urban Legends the basic elements of the movie is so dashing and iconic, and that is what makes Valentine the best. <br /><br />As the first basic and iconic element, the growing hatred of the serial killer is so down-to-earth. Since his secondary school years, he has grown up with his wounds he had accumulated in his soul against his classmate girlfriends, who have made fun of him. When you concentrate enough on this first element while watching the movie, you will come to see this point of view of Humanism: "Noone is entirely good or evil. In fact, somebody known as evil can be secretly kind hearted." Just because the story line and the direction is very weak, we are not as satisfied as we deserved. <br /><br />The second iconic element is, of course, the magnificent togetherness of the late 90s' super starlets: My favourite is Jessica Cauffiel who is killed within the coolest way to be killed. An arrow shot from a bow broaches her tummy and stays stuck in, while she was playing hide-and-seek with her blind date, never able to met with. Katherine Heigl is the first starlet getting killed in a biology laboratory while trying to hide under human body models lying on the surgical operation tables. Denise Richards is killed third, while she just found a Valentines' Day gift for her at a whirlpool bath. Jessica Capshaw is killed last in a confidential and unseen way, then she is calumniated to be as the serial killer. Marley Shelton is the unluckiest one with a vicissitude of fortune that she is going to be killed within the most confidential way that we will never know, 'cause the movie is coming to an end before she is getting killed. Finally, Benita Ha is the luckiest one since she was not a classmate of the serial killer, David Boreanaz.<br /><br />The third and the last iconic element is the soundtrack from the blind date labyrinth scene, the Valentines' Day celebration at Dorothy's house scenes and ultimately the killing themes. Everybody has loved the soundtrack as far as I know. Hard Rock never suits better within a serial killer-mystery movie. | 1 |
Live Feed is set in some unnamed Chinese/Japanese Asian district somewhere as five American friends, Sarah (Ashley Schappert), Emily (Taayla Markell), Linda (Caroline Chojnacki), Mike (Lee Tichon) & Darren (Rob Scattergood) are enjoying a night on the town & taking in the sights. After a scuffle in a bar with a Japanese Triad boss (Stephen Chang) they decide to check out a porno theatre, as you would. Inside they are separated & quickly find out that the place belongs to the Triad boss who uses it to torture & kill people for reasons which aren't made clear. Can local boy Miles (Kevan Ohtsji) save them?<br /><br />This Canadian production was co-written, produced & directed by Ryan Nicholson who also gets a prosthetic effects designer credit as well, one has to say that Live Feed is another pretty poor low budget shot on a camcorder type horror film that seems to exist only to cash in on the notoriety & success of Hostel (2005) & the mini craze for 'torture porn' as it's become known. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section for Live Feed writer & director Nicholson wrote it after hearing about certain activities taking place in live sex theatres, for my money I reckon he wrote it after watching Hostel! The script is pretty poor, there is no basic reason given as to why this porno theatre has a big fat ugly freak dressed in bondage gear lurking around torturing & killing people, none. Was it for the Triads? Was it for his pleasure? Was it to make snuff films to sell? Some sort of explanation would have been nice. Also why did he turn on the Triad boss at the end? If your looking for a film with a coherent story then forget about Live Feed. It seemed to me to be some sort of uneasy misjudged mix of sex, S&M, horror, torture, gore & action films which doesn't come off. I mean just setting a horror film in a porn theatre isn't automatically going to make your film any good, there still needs to be a decent script & story, right? The character's were fairly poor clichés & some of their actions & motivations were more than a little bit questionable. It moves along at a reasonable pace, it's fairly sleazy mixing gore, sex & nudity but it does look cheap which lessens the effect.<br /><br />Director Nicholson doesn't do anything special here, the editing is choppy & annoying, he seems to think lighting almost every scene with neon lights is a good idea & the film has a cheap look about it. Available in both 'R' & 'Unrated' versions I saw the shorter cut 'R' version which really isn't that gory but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the 'Unrated' version & say that it might be much, much gorier but I can't say for sure. There's a fair amount of nudity too if that's your thing. I wouldn't say there's much of an atmosphere or many scares here because there isn't & aren't respectively although it does have a sleazy tone in general which is something it has going for it I suppose.<br /><br />Technically Live Feed isn't terribly impressive, the blood looks a little too watery for my liking & entire scenes bathed in annoying neon lights sometimes makes it hard to tell whats happening, it to often looks like it was shot on a hand-held camcorder & the choppy editing at least on the 'R' rated version is at times an annoying mess. Shot on location in an actual porn theatre somewhere in Vancouver in Canada. The acting is poor, sometimes I couldn't tell if the actresses in this were supposed to be crying or laughing...<br /><br />Live Feed is not a film I would recommend anyone to rush out & buy or rent, I didn't think much of it with it's very weak predictable storyline lacking exposition & which goes nowhere, poor acting & less than impressive gore (at least in the 'R' rated cut anyway). Watch either Hostel films again or instead as they are superior. | 0 |
Jackie Chan's Police Story is a landmark film for both the Honk Kong action genre and the career of Jackie Chan.<br /><br />Directed/written by Chan, Police Story has a basic plot as did all the films of that era and genre, and like most of the the films of Police Storys' kind, the script is nothing to be raved about. But the plot of the film is Jackie Chan, who plays a nice guy cop, struggling to convict the local gang lord.<br /><br />The direction of the film is nothing special and by no means the best directing effort that Jackie Chan has given us, that responsibility falls to the underrated masterpiece "Miracles". However the job that Jackie does directing is sufficient and respectable. The standout out directing of the film comes with the fight scenes.<br /><br />The performances in this film also vary with Jackie giving a very solid typical Chan nice guy up against it role, but this is by no means his best acting role, that can been seen in the Sammo Hung directed film "Heart of the Dragon". The other actors in the film also give as good a solid performance as Jackie with Bridgete Lin playing her part of the unwilling witness reasonably well, but neither does she display full acting potential. The standout acting comes from Maggie Cheung as Jackies' suffering girlfriend and Bill Tung as the sympathetic and funny police chief. None of the performances in this film is of a low enough standard to affect the quality of the film. <br /><br />The action in the film is what really separates this film from others with stunning contemporary choreography to suit the urbanised, modern setting, the action is some some of the greatest fight scenes ever put on camera. To begin with there is a shootout in the slum where Koo (ganglord) is making a drug deal, whilst being no John Woo style sequence, this serves as a nice starter for the film. This is then followed by the famous car run down the side of the hill and through the heart of the slum wrecking everything in sight. This is a breathtaking sequence that has since been shamelessly copied by Bad Boys 2. In the middle of the film is yet another standout sequence as Jackie tries to transport Bridgete Lin from her house to his. This is really the first scene where we get to see the awesome fast paced hand to hand combat that has since become the norm for all modern set martial art films. This sequence is fantastically choreographed, timed and seamlessly edited together to maximise the brutality of the scene. However, as tradition dictates, the standout fight sequence is at the end of the film. This sequence displays some of Chans' best choreography, stunts and camera/editing work. This sequence is now famous for two things, the amount of people sent through high density glass, which has to be said a phenomenal amount of people, and the stunt at the end where Jackie leaps from a 5th storey balcony, grabs hold of a pole and slides down through a glass roof (this has to be seen to be believed). Whilst the two for-mentioned factors are both uniquely brilliant, i think that the most impressive part of this fight sequence is Chans' ability to incorporate anything into the fight sequence and the sheer originality of the choreography, that for me has never been bettered. I also believe that the action in Police Story is some of the best filmed and edited action of Chans career helping to set the action apart from others.<br /><br />Overall, Police Story, despite its unspectacular storyline and script and over running in the middle due to plot padding, is one of the best action films of all time displaying Chans best choreography, best filmed action and arguably his most spectacular stunt making this essential viewing for everyone. Afterall, we watch a Chan movie for the action!! | 1 |
Dear Friends and Family,<br /><br />I guess if one teen wants to become biblical with another teen, then that's their eternal damnation - just remember kids, "birth control" doesn't mean "oral sex", I don't care what the honor student says. On the other hand, even if the senator's aid quotes himself as a "bit of a romantic guy", he's still only hitting on a high school girl. If she was my sister, I'd eat this guys kneecaps.<br /><br />Other than that I found out that Mongolians don't kiss the same way the French do and that baseball players named Zoo like delicate undergarments.<br /><br />I think I'd almost rather watch Richie Rich one more time than suffer the indignity of this slip, slap, slop. Thank you, and good night. | 0 |
It's easy to see how this below-average screenplay got by in the early sales-pitch meetings at Regency Films (and later with Fox): cross the superhero genre with a comedic take on "Fatal Attraction"...voilà! I don't know how on earth a talented director like Ivan Reitman got involved, unless the pay was just too tempting. A dateless employee at an architectural design firm in N.Y.C. meets a girl on the subway and asks her out; despite the fact she's distracted and unpleasant, he eventually gets her into bed--only to find out later she's the Big Apple's resident superhero, G-Girl. This distaff Superman, with powers bestowed upon her by a fallen meteorite, isn't a fantasy heroine, however...screenwriter Don Payne has conceived her as a needy, possessive, vindictive bitch (he telegraphs this to us from miles away, though Uma Thurman still plays the role for sassy laughs). This is the kind of worthless movie that can't let an insult slip by. Our introduction to leading man Luke Wilson, talking with Rainn Wilson on the train, is accompanied by a sour dig at gays (it prods at us to be assured these two buddies are strictly ladies' men). After being approached by G-Girl's nemesis, who wants to zap her powers, Wilson is told this will make her just an ordinary woman scorned...and isn't that better after all? Thurman's early performances in films like "Henry & June" and "Jennifer 8" showcased an intelligent woman with angular grace and hypnotic poise; her films with Quentin Tarantino helped expose her sinewy hardness and intensity, but that came at a price (the actress has seemingly lost her graceful touch). The picture is exceedingly well-produced and shot, with expensive-seeming special effects, yet nobody bothered to find the humor in this scenario. It's pushy, leering, ugly, and badly-cast. Bloated, frozen-faced Wilson can't tell any of his co-workers that he's dating G-Girl because she made him swear he'd rather have a chainsaw stuck up his rectum. I wonder if writer Payne actually thought that was hilarious...or, indeed, if anyone involved did? * from **** | 0 |
I just saw this film tonight and I have to say that it's a mess. I love Vince Vaughn but he ends up more annoying that funny here and the film is more than less a remake of the crappy 80's classic " Santa Claus the movie" but with out the camp or the bad Sheena Easton song at the end. .The story is your run of the mill black sheep in the family who comes back to face his family for the holidays kind of thing but with North Pole as its setting. Of course Fred (Vince Vaughn) is the family screw up who comes home after a series of set backs that include his girlfriend (Rachel Weisz in a cameo role) dumping him, so he comes home to face his parents and his more successful brother Santa Claus (Paul Giamatti) and wacky high jinks follow with a bit of sibling rivalry and a bit of anarky as well that threatens all of Christmas. Now if you think you know the ending of this film, I think you would be right because it's predicable to the hill. As for the acting, Vince Vaughn plays the same lovable loser he always plays but this time he ends up more annoying than likable, Miranda Richardson plays Mrs. Claus but the role is more than less one note, Elizabeth Banks plays Santa's assistant but she's not much of a character at all other than a neurotic joke and poor Kevin Spacey ends up basically playing the same person he plays in the film "Glengarry Glen Ross" but a little more anal. The only two actors who come out of this film with their dignity intact is Paul Giamatti, who brings a real sincerity and warmed to his role as Santa Claus but he looks somewhat embarrass to be in the movie and you can't blame him and Rachel Weisz, who manages to do a lot more with a very small role than most of the main actors do with theirs, which is a shame because both Rachel Weisz and Paul Giamatti deserved a lot better than what this script gave them.<br /><br />To put it in a nutshell, a major disappointment. | 0 |
SAPS AT SEA <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.37:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(Black and white)<br /><br />Suffering from 'hornophobia', Ollie embarks on a 'restful' boat trip, but he and Stan get mixed up with an escaped convict (Rychard Cramer). Chaos ensues.<br /><br />This feature length comedy - an OK entry which nonetheless unspools like a mere imitation of Laurel and Hardy's best work - marked the final collaboration between L&H and producer Hal Roach. Episodic in structure, the movie culminates in a memorable ocean voyage after The Boys are taken hostage by villainous Cramer (who shoots a seagull to prove how tough he is!). The gags are OK, but inspiration is lacking, perhaps due to the recruitment of actor-turned-director Gordon Douglas, previously responsible for Ollie's first solo effort in the sound era (ZENOBIA, produced in 1939), but whose work here lacks a measure of pzazz. Fair, but nothing special. L&H regulars Charlie Hall and James Finlayson make guest appearances. | 0 |
Unimaginably stupid, redundant and humiliating closure to the "Nightmare on Elm Street"-series! Part 6 is so incompetent that it looks like director Rachel Talalay intentionally wanted to turn Wes Craven's initial premise into one big bad and tasteless joke. This isn't just the worst entry in the "Elm Street" saga; it's also one of the most embarrassing horror movies ever made and it downright offends fans of the genre! The story is dumb, the character drawings are ridiculous, the structure is all murky and most of all the special and visual effects resemble those of a Tom & Jerry cartoon. The sequences in which Freddy Krueger murders his victims are endless and very uninteresting. Were we supposed to be petrified when a jabbering Freddy turned Breckin Meyer into a video game-character and pogo-sticked him around the walls of a house? The story takes us back to Springwood and it appears that Freddy all of a sudden has a middle-aged daughter. You'd think he would mention that in one of his previous adventures, but no
There's only one teenage-survivor in Springwood and Krueger uses him to get into contact with his long lost daughter. Another reason why this final installment is so awful is the completely illogical structure. The John Doe-boy is introduced as the leading character but then all of a sudden he dies and the plot continues to revolve on two adults! How about that: Freddy Krueger, who spent five entire films killing nothing but teenagers, eventually gets beaten by two adults wearing 3D-glasses! Sort of like ruins the whole essence, doesn't it? As far as I'm concerned, "Nightmare on Elm Street" has always been a dreadfully overrated series but, up until now, even the weakest entries had at least some redeeming elements. "Freddy's Dead", however, is simply unendurable and nobody should waste his/her precious time watching it. | 0 |
The endless bounds of our inhumanity to our own kind never fails to stun me. This truly astonishing story of a horrifically abused and largely unheard-of population is compelling, well-documented and enraging. As an American, I am constantly humiliated by my country's behaviour and this is just another in our long catalogue of international debasement. We suck. This is probably the first John Pilger documentary I've seen, but it immediately made me want to see what else he's done. My only complaint, and the reason I gave this film only 8 out of 10, is that Pilger shows us this travesty and the appalling collaboration of the US and UK governments, demands that we viewers/citizens are complicit in our own inaction...but makes no suggestion of how to help. I don't know about Britain, but America's made it nearly impossible for the citizenry to take part in their government's doings. A gesture in the right direction might help these islanders' cause. | 1 |
'Maladolescenza' has the air of a dark fairy tale, with its child protagonists, forest setting, and the discovery of a castle's ruins. Yet at its core, the film is essentially an unusual psychosexual study of adolescents. Opening with a dream sequence employing the not-so-subtle metaphor of Fabrizio wrestling with his menacing hound, the film details his psychological persecution of Laura, the girl who has pledged her love to him, and his eventual romance with the equally malicious Sylvia. The film's psychological complexities do give the film merit, yet there's no doubting how unnecessarily exploitive the film is in its depiction of nudity and sex. The film's look relies more on its gorgeous locations rather than particular cinematographic skill, and there's no doubting the film's greatest asset is the creepy, children's choir-augmented soundtrack. With its odd dreamlike quality, the film is at best interesting, yet pales beside Louis Malle's surreal and brilliant 'Black Moon' from the same era. Certainly deserving of the art versus pornography debate, for unlike many banned films, Pasolini's 'Salo' or Larry Clark's 'Ken Park' for instance, the film is rather unremarkable from an artistic perspective. Cinema seems to be gradually losing its ability to shock, so perhaps 'Maladolescenza' should be admired for retaining that power thirty years after its release. However shock value is the one reason alone the film is memorable. <br /><br />The film does have its defenders. Yet so does Nazism. | 0 |
**WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER**<br /><br />If you can get by the extremely unpleasant subject matter, this film does offer a heaping helping of outrageously campy melodrama. Surprisingly enough, this movie has been copied and ripped-off several times over the years, although it's hard to fathom ANY filmmaker being inspired by this trashy drama. Neither one of the Hemingway women can act here (although Mariel HAS improved over the years), Anne Bancroft offers the only touch of class as a prosecuting attorney, and Chris Sarandon is by turns pathetic and unintentionally hilarious as the smirking, smarmy bad guy of the piece.<br /><br />Veteran director Lamont Johnson can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a script, which is stuffed to bursting with howlingly bad dialogue and outlandish situations. For example, the final sequence, where Margaux grabs her shotgun and chases Sarandon down after his latest shocking act is meant to be exciting but elicits hearty chuckles instead. Add a notoriously shrill and spacy musical score by Michel Polnareff and you have a true guilty pleasure, even though you're likely to feel grubby and needing a hot shower after viewing it. Don't say you weren't warned. | 0 |
This really is one of the worst movies ever made. I consider myself a HUGE zombie film fan and usually tolerate bad acting, lame "special effects" a dumb story and whatever you may encounter in second rate movies, AS LONG as the film has a good atmosphere/story/suspension or whatever to offer. This one has basically no positive aspect to it and is third or fourth rate, maybe worse. Some friends of mine and myself made a small movie during a week´s holiday and definitely did a better job (no zombie film though).<br /><br />This flick is not even funny, not speaking of anything else. Really bad and redundant special effects, zombies that look like normal people (except for a white additional skin pulled over their faces), WAY TO MUCH fake blood (I like realism a lot, the combination of realism and Zombie films being debatable, but the presented gore is just plain silly). The camera stays quite long with feedings scenes, it gets boring and you cannot help but wonder, why the zombies use WEAPONS (!) to kill their prey. I will not go into the details of the dubbing (others have done so). Although I am from Germany myself and am at least a bit curious about the original version, I will NOT waste more of my time with this movie.<br /><br />Keep away from it, as far as you can. | 0 |
I can't believe how awful this movie turned out to be. I feel magnanimous even referring to it as a "movie". The acting was flat, the editing was terrible and the plot leaves many major questions unanswered. The premise was OK, if unoriginal: a small group of aliens is living in the US and trying to slowly take over humanity. But it goes rapidly downhill from there. How could they convince a "human" to accept an alien as his wife in order to make they alien-human hybrid they require? They show a larval alien but never show what it does. They have a plastic surgeon that can produce perfect looking skin on an industrial scale. They throw in the obligatory huge alien monster with teeth. The ending was almost too painful to watch. I suppose that I'm mostly disappointed that Bruce Boxlietner would have anything to do with this. How could he say to the huge alien monster with teeth, "Get away from him you son of a b*tch" with a straight face? It's a long fall from his Babylon 5 days. Avoid this at all costs. | 0 |
Miscasting happens. Susannah Yorke is a luminous young Jane Eyre, and her performance is impeccable. However, Edward Rochester is supposed to be 35. White-haired George C. Scott looks and behaves like an arthritic 80. Jane's deceased uncle is in better shape! He creaks and snarls, obnoxious and grim. He looks like an ax-murderer who has sent his ax out to be sharpened; we're not surprised he keeps a wife caged in the attic! The great love story looks like a sado-masochistic nightmare. There is enough darkness in the novel, but Bronte's Rochester is relatively young, athletic, powerful, and charming when he chooses to be. He has a fine speaking and singing voice, a good mind, and a conscience that he unsuccessfully attempts to stifle. | 0 |
It isn't always easy to explain what a movie is like, but this time I think I've found it. It reminded me of two movies: Trainspotting (small time criminals scoring some drugs and doing some stupid things in Schotland) and The Blair Witch Project (because of the style of filming).<br /><br />It's about the loyalty between two friends, one of them is coming out of jail, the other one hasn't been caught yet. With a stolen vehicle they drive through the Scottish countryside but than run out of petrol. As they try to find some fuel, they find a farm in the middle of nowhere. The farmer thinks they want to rob him and points a gun at one of them. Than it all goes wrong. One of the friends accidentally shoots the farmer's daughter and they have to run. What follows is a man hunt through the fields and woods of Schotland. The two friends literally have to run for their lives.<br /><br />Apparently this movie was shot in only 12 days time. OK, that's not exactly unbelievable because the biggest part of it is always in the same place: the Scottish countryside, but I still find that quite amazing. Especially because this isn't actually a bad movie. It's perhaps not the greatest movie ever, but they still can be proud of what they achieved. I had a nice time watching it and overall I enjoyed the movie. I give it a 7/10. | 1 |
I rate this 10 out of 10. Why?<br /><br />* It offers insight into something I barely understand - the surfers surf because it's all they want to do; Nothing else seems to matter as much to them as surfing; Nor is it a temporary thing - it's a lifetime for these guys * Buried in the movie is a great history of surfing; I have never surfed, but I love surfing movies, and have seen many. None taught me what this movie did * The movie was very well edited. It flowed well. The interviews were outstanding * It's interesting from start to finish<br /><br />In summary, it's about as good as a documentary as I have seen, so I have to rate in terms of that. So 10/10 | 1 |
A scientist and his girl friend are out driving when his speeding causes a car crash. He escapes unharmed but she is decapitated. He saves her head, brings it to his house and keeps it alive (!!!!). He then proceeds to search out models and strippers for the perfect body for the head. His crippled assistant watches over the head which starts talking and has a telepathic (or telepathetic) link to a deformed monster kept in the closet....<br /><br />As you can see, this is pretty stupid stuff, but I had a certain fondness for it. When I grew up in the late 1970s, a local TV station showed this movie about 20 times each year (no exaggeration). They showed it always on Saturday afternoon TV--uncut. Seeing this on TV back then was great! Explicit blood and gore along with a gruesome monster and sleazy sexploitation--who cares if it was good? Seeing it now I realize how lousy this really is.<br /><br />The acting is perfectly wretched, the production values are nonexistent, the script is pretty dumb and (aside from the still pretty disgusting gore) this is dull stuff. There's also a mild cat fight between two women and the admittedly great monster at the end. Also add in an ending which leaves tons of loose ends. On one hand this is an interesting example of a 1960s exploitation film. On the other its utter trash. Either way, it's not a good movie but is a must-see (for one time only) for horror and gore fans.<br /><br />Also the head's laugh is pretty creepy. Note the end credits which gets the TITLE wrong (calling it "The HEAD That Wouldn't Die")! | 0 |
Some of the posters seem less than gruntled because this is neither Mark Twain nor Rodgers and Hart but clearly it doesn't pretend to be either. You'll look a long time to find a greater Rodgers and Hart fan than me but Burke and Van Heusen weren't exactly chopped liver in addition to which they knew Der Bingle inside out and tailored some great songs - But Beautiful, Moonlight Becomes You, It's Always You, The Day After Forever, etc - to fit his highly personal style and here they come up with yet another fine - and unfairly neglected - ballad, Once And For Always, plus a couple of upbeat philosophy-lite entries in If You Stub Your Toe On The Moon and Busy Doing Nothing. The flimsy plot isn't meant to be taken seriously - why else make Merlin a heavy when in most, if not all, of the other versions he is more a friend/mentor to Arthur - so if you start wondering aloud why Sir Lancelot who has been sold to historians as the epitome of chivalry and uprightness metamorphoses into a schoolyard bully you're not going to get much fun out of what is essentially a fun movie. On balance it does what it sets out to do, entertain, so good luck to it. | 1 |
this one is out there. Not much to say about it except that it deals with a rarely touched topic in films of beastiality. I can see why this film was banned for so long, the topics dealt within the film are still a little taboo for most of the world will say the eroticism in the film is well deserved and fits in with the mood of the film. It's a good film that is well acted and serves a purpose ...to shock the viewer and cross boundaries that we don't see to often in films. I came across this film on the net that I thought I might check out. I enjoyed the film as it is thought provoking and somewhat erotic at the same time. Something you don't rarely see in films today. | 1 |
Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.<br /><br />The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity. | 0 |
That hilarious line is typical of what these naughty sisters say. (It's funny on its own terms and pretty funny unintentionally , too.) Only two of the sisters are really bad. Boy, are they bad, too! One is given to pinup poses and salacious comments where e'er she goes. The other is got up to look like Marilyn Monroe. She has those sensual, slightly parted lips. And, not to give anything away, she is even more bad than the other.<br /><br />All three sisters are played by starlets. The man who stumbles into their lives is played by John Bromfield. He had something of a career.<br /><br />This looks today like possibly the first mainstream soft-core porn ever marketed. Well, of course not the first but the raciest at that time.<br /><br />The girls wear as little as possible and let's not forget about the female audience members: Bromfield is shown shaving with an electric razor -- whose fetish was this? -- bare-chested. He also is shown sopping wet in a swimsuit.<br /><br />There's a real plot here, too: The girls' family, see, is cursed. They are prone to suicide -- or dramatic deaths that can be made to seem like suicide.<br /><br />The movie is not bad. I truly don't know where it was shown. Maybe it was made for drive-ins. Somehow, and I could be wrong, I felt that the typical male audience was not the primary target here. The women are scantily dressed. They often resemble lurid covers of mags like Police Detective or jackets of dime novels.<br /><br />But the guy seems to be the central focus. Not everyone in the movie likes him, but all the girls love him. And I think the audience is meant to also.<br /><br />It's lots of fun -- and on its own terms, too. | 1 |
OK, I taped this off TV and missed the very start. The film was about 10 or so seconds into the titles (I assume) so if anything happened before that I missed it.<br /><br />Lots of people say Mark Hammill is in this, I didn't see him. I did recognise Clive Barker, John Landis and obviously Stephen King doing some really awful acting as the graveyard attendant.<br /><br />Alice Krige looks lovely apart from the scenes where she has the cat face or is in full alien make-up.<br /><br />Even with the opening titles it's never really explained very well exactly what Sleepwalkers are or where they come from. From the title sequence I assume they are catlike bipeds who live by extracting life-force from humans. I assume they live a long time and these particular 2 are possibly the last of their kind.<br /><br />Add to this a very large dose of incest (Yes! I thought it was a bit suspect too), shapeshifting, killer cats and invisibility and you have Sleepwalkers.<br /><br />It's a very bad story that has no real explanations behind the main 2 characters and far too many cameo's to try and distract from the simple fact that not enough is explained to the viewer.<br /><br />Avoid. | 0 |
The first 50 minutes of this movie were quite boring. It focused on the personal problems Doyle had, including his sick wife, death threats by fans, a pushy publisher and feelings of guilt concerning his mentally ill father. Even though these subjects had an important impact on Doyle's life, I was more curious about the birth of Sherlock Holmes. The last 40 minutes were excellent. We finally got a look inside Doyle head, how he created Holmes and why he had to 'kill' Holmes. The actors are excellent. Including the intriguing Selden played by Tim McInnerny, Arthur Conan Doyle, a compelling role played by Douglas Henshall and Brian Cox as the 'role model' for Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Bell. The locations are good, especially for a TV movie and the camera work is nice. If the first 50 minutes were as good the the last 40 minutes this would have been a small masterpiece. | 1 |
Well, I can honestly say that this is the first time that I experienced a film that had literally no meat or potatoes in it. The entire film felt like it was just the salad with no main course. The story line was fallible and laughable, the characters were one-dimensional, the realism was out the window, and the animation was done by four-year olds. Does that cover it? I have never been more embarrassed for a concept in my entire life. I have never read the comics or seen the other programs with this character, but from the looks of the other reviews I am not off base with my observation.<br /><br />To begin, the story moved too quickly. For someone new to this character and situations, I needed more built into creating the reasons instead of finding the solution. I have seen other Anime (if you could call this one an Anime) that do great things with their characters because they take the time to develop them. There was nothing set aside for Lady Death. In a few short scenes, we see her train with Cremator and instantly become this aggressive she-beast of Hell. This was hard for me to swallow, considering moments before she was introduced as this weak and feeble woman controlled by her father. Suddenly, she is immersed with hatred and can do battle with an existence that has been around for millions of years. This was absurd. The presentation of Lady Death was poor, to say the least. I felt as if she was nothing more than an animated character instead of a desperate woman with revenge on the mind. For me, it just didn't work. She was nothing more than eye-candy for prepubescent boys wanting to ogle the mass quantities of skin that she suddenly grew on her chest when training with Cremator. Oh, I felt sick just watching her. The same goes for the character of Cremator. Who was this random person? The explanation they gave wasn't enough, and instead I was left with more incoherent babbling than actual development. It is a very sad day in Hell when we forgo characters to show more violence and action, especially in an animated feature.<br /><br />Next, there was Lucifer himself. Let me just say that I think I could do battle with the King of Hell and survive. He was weak, his voice was laughable, and he just didn't represent the image that I had in my mind. It was as if Disney was in control and wanted to make him semi-PC. He lacked the darkness and corrupt nature that Lucifer embodies. He was not the ruler of Hell, but instead just a lackey that had a bigger place to live. Speaking of living or dying, how can you die again in Hell? That was a concept that definitely needed more explanation. Most of the characters were worrying about dying, when they didn't even consider the option that they were already dead. That is how they got to Hell. I think it was this level of thinking that ruined the film for me. I didn't quite capture the notion that your soul was still in a solid body in Hell, but that could just be me
or maybe it was because there was NO DEVELOPMENT in this story. There was nothing built, just preparing.<br /><br />The battle sequences were hysterically bad. The animation in this cartoon felt like it was made in the early 90s. There was nothing impressive about the way that this film was drawn. Why are we, America, so behind on animation? It is huge in Asia, and it is creeping in hardcore here because we keep making films like Lady Death that do not challenge or use any part of imagination. We are cheap, and this film shows it.<br /><br />Overall, this film was bad. The animation coupled with the horrendous voice work was cheap. I had head somewhere that this film as in production for a long time, which is hard to understand because I think I could have made this film on my credit card. The production was horrendous as well as the story. Nothing was developed, leaving huge gaping plot holes that nearly everyone fell into. The strength of the characters was missing, and nothing was explained. I wasted my time with this one and would like to warn others so that when Death does come, you don't find yourself in my state and regretting the fact that you wasted 80 minutes on this piece of garbage.<br /><br />BLAH! <br /><br />Grade: * out of ***** | 0 |
Having worked in downtown Manhattan, and often ate my lunch during the Summer days in the park near City Hall, I would see the mayor come and go. It was great being able to go beyond the doors of City Hall and see what it looked like in the lobby and through out the entire building. Al Pacino,(Mayor John Pappas),"Gigli",'03, gave an outstanding performance through out the entire picture, and especially when he gave a speech at an African American Church for a little boy who was slain. John Cusack,(Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun),"Runaway Jury",'03, was a devoted servant to the Mayor and worshiped him in everything he attempted to accomplish. Bridget Fonda,(Marybeth Cogan), starts to fall in love with Kevin Calhoun and gives a great supporting role. Last, but not least, Danny Aiello(Frank Anselmo),"Off Key",'01, played a mob boss who had some very difficult choices to make towards the end of the picture! Great film with great acting and fantastic photography in NYC! | 1 |
i honestly think that that was the best version of war of the worlds i've every seen. it was funny but it was also educational i learned whole lot the movie and if i could i would by that movie. my favorite part was when the soldiers killed on robot and another one came right from behind it. in the last movie war of the world i think that it should have been more like the first one and it would have been better. but any way i give this movie 2 thumbs up. <br /><br />and if they where to make another movie like this i will definitely watch it.<br /><br />thank you | 1 |
This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.<br /><br />The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen. | 0 |
please save your money and go see something else. this movie was such piece of crap. i didnt want to go, but i had to so i thought i'd laugh at least once, NOPE. not a single laugh, it was that horrible! chris kattan will never get a good comedy role after this and "a night at the roxbury." this movie is completely obvious, has no smart humor at all, and just repeats itself over and over again. listen to me, and stray as far away from this movie as you possibly can! | 0 |
Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money. | 0 |
My first Fassbinder was a wonderful experience. Film and alternative cinema (small hall, with uncomfortable seats; public had to wait while filmrolls were changed ) were perfect match.<br /><br />There were many cliches used in the film, but Fassbinder presented them so cleverly that I found them really amusing. Sound was also brilliant (sometimes back being louder than dialogue).<br /><br />Everything seemed to be in right place. And I loved the way how after-war-time was presented. Real fun!<br /><br /> | 1 |
Eddie Murphy really made me laugh my ass off on this HBO stand up comedy show.I love his impressions of Mr. T,Ed Norton and Ralph Cramden of "The Honeymooners",Elvis Presley,and Michael Jackson too.The Ice Cream Man,Goony Goo Goo,is also funny.I saw this for the first time when it came out in 1984.I laughed so hard,I almost fell off my chair.I still think this is very funny.<br /><br />Eddie Murphy,when he was on "Saturday Night Live",made me laugh so hard,he is one of the best people to come out of"Saturday Night Live"."Eddie Murphy Delirious"is his best stand up performance next to "Eddie Murphy Raw".<br /><br />I give "Eddie Murphy Delirious" 2 thumbs up and 10/10 stars. | 1 |
I've tried to watch this so-called comedy, but it's very hard to bear. This is a bad, narrow-minded, cliché-ridden movie. Definitively not funny, but very much boring and annoying, indeed. Bad script, bad acting. It's a complete waste of time - and there remains nothing more to say, I'm afraid.<br /><br />1 out of 10 points. | 0 |
Well, I couldn't even enjoyed this movie much for its cult values. It's a B-movie action-flick, by the director of "Commando", that is however far too lame and silly to consider it a good B-movie with enough entertainment value in it.<br /><br />It's an '90's flick but foremost the movie should remind of an '80's action movie, when these type of B-movies were at an all time high. These movies always went over-the-top and never paid much attention to its story or acting. It was all about blowing stuff up, big muscle heroes and bullets flying around. This movie has all of that ingredients in it but yet I really didn't liked watching this movie as much as I like watching some similar type of movies. Hard to say why really, since the story and acting and such are just as bad as would be the case in basically any other genre movie from the same era.<br /><br />It's probably because the movie is being often far too silly. All these type of movies have its silly moments but this movie is just filled with it. The fighting, Dolph Lundgren running around shirtless, the characters, the story. It all just isn't very good because it's often just too lame for words. The story at times isn't even trying to make a bit sense and what's even the main plot-line of the overall movie? Its story is all over the place really and seems only to be written to create a movie out of with fighting sequences, gun fights and such. And those sequences aren't even much good to watch really. The moments are way too short and quite disappointing to watch really, from the man who brought us "Commando".<br /><br />It's foremost a Dolph Lundgren, in which he gets to play the big action hero star, who kicks butt with seemingly relative ease, knows how to handle guns and other weapons and of course also gets the girl, played by Tia Carrere. This all also brings us one of the worst montage sequence in action movie history and also definitely one of the worst sex sequence I have seen in any movie really. Both are just too lame for words and just very poorly put together.<br /><br />None of the characters work out really. The good guys are cops but they never seem to behave like one. They simply kill around without having to face responsibility to anyone and they are not very keen on making any arrest, or to inform anyone about their discoveries. Not even when they find out a big Japanese crime syndicate is trying to take over the streets of L.A. and a beer brewery is working as a cover for a drugs factory and large scale drugs smuggling. And also just think about it for a moment, what is Brandon Lee's overall purpose in the movie? The movie could had easily done without him and the girl as well.<br /><br />Too silly, lame and simplistic and just not entertaining enough.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
I can't believe John died! While filming an episode he collapsed on set! read this, (out of his biography online):John Ritter was Born In Burbank , Calafornia , On September 17th 1948. <br /><br />He landed his last television role in "8 Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter" (2002), based on the popular book. On this sitcom, he played Paul Hennessey, a loving, yet rational dad, who laid down the ground rules for his three children. The show was a ratings winner in its first season and won a Peoples Choice Award for Best New Comedy and also won for Favorite Comedy Series by the Family Awards! While working "8 Simple Rules", he also starred in his second-to-last film, Manhood (2003)<br /><br />That Same Year , While John Was Rehearsing for The 4th (3rd series) Episode of 8 Simple Rules (Now Shortened), he fell ill. Henry Winkler described it as "John Looked Like He Had Food Poisoning".Then He collapsed on the Set, he was quickly rushed to a Nearby Hospital, The Same Burbank Hospital Where He Was Born ,he was diagnosed with an aorta dissection, an Unrecognized Heart Flaw, he Underwent Surgery but did not make it. John Ritter Died At Age 54 , just 1 Week Away from His 55th Birthday , leaving His Wife Amy Yasbeck and 4 Children. | 1 |
Ahh, the dull t.v. shows and pilots that were slammed together in the 70's to make equally dull t.v. movies! Some examples would be Riding With Death(the most hysterically cheesy of the lot), Stranded in Space(confusing and uninteresting), San Francisco International(horribly dull and unbelievably confusing), and this turgid bit of Quinn Martin glamor. <br /><br />Shot in Hawaii(although you wouldn't know it from the outside shots), it's apparently a failed pilot for a lame spy show. The real problem is that you don;'t like most of the characters, including the drab main character Diamond Head, who seemed half asleep for the entire movie; his boss 'Aunt Mary', who had a really weird delivery of his lines and shellacked white hair as well as the a tan that looked like it had been stuccoed on; Diamnd Head's girlfriend/fellow agent(hell, I can't even remember her name) a skinny, wooden woman with a flat way of speaking that is just not sexy or interesting; and the singing sidekick Zulu(again, i can't remember his character's name)who wasn't bad in small doses. The most interesting person in the whole production was Ian McShane, who sucked as a bad guy but still proved his acting chops. Alothugh the make-up jobs this so-called 'chameleon' used to disguise himself were just laughable. I have absolutely no idea what he was doing or what he was trying to steal from the lab that caused him to dress as a South American Dictator cum American General. Nor do I care. The plot simply wasn't interesting enough to hold your attention for even ten minutes at a time, let alone the hour and a half or so it goes on. Just call this one - Hawaii Five No! | 0 |
Do you like really inventive comedy or do you love "the wedding crashers", if the answer is the latter stop reading now. I can't believe this movie is not higher rated. Basically Meadows plays a character not unlike Austin Powers.There are so many inventive moments in this gagorama. From crudity - Leon playing with himself on the porch, the ex boyfriend tricked into eating . . Oh well. To inspired lunacy- clown sex , the Broadway routine, the voice over. Meadows is great as the childish, but very sweet natured Leon. Some great lines "don't blame the wang" "freaky deaky sex world" too many. . . Why this movie wasn't huge is a mystery. Great comedy. | 1 |
This movie was one of the greatest movies ever made,,,, it had everything to make a movie great. Incredible acting, awesome special effects...... oh wait I must be thinking of a good movie. Well this wasn't one of them, it just plain sucked. <br /><br />What I want to know is, what kind of bone head would think that this movie was a 10. When I casted my vote there were 206 out there, god knows what goes on in their head. Now as for any other vote, a 8 or 9 was even too high, but a 10??? Come on, what made this movie sooooo good to give it a 10? I know these are the same 206 that thought that Jean Claude Van Damme is a great dramatic actor. | 0 |
It is very hard to rate this film. As entertainment value for 21st century viewers, it fails miserably. However, for the student of early sound films and history, it is a jewel. "Show of Shows" was a revue filmed to compete with MGM's successful "Hollywood Revue of 1929", which still survives intact complete with its Technicolor scenes.<br /><br />The purpose of the all-star revue was to showcase a particular studio's silent stars in speaking roles, and show that they could make the transition. However, Warner Bros. seems to have forgotten this and employs many acts and stars that they didn't even have under long-term contract such as Ben Turpin, Lloyd Hamilton, Beatrice Lillie, and even a marching band. Meanwhile, their biggest talent - Al Jolson - is noticeably absent. Even at a high salary he could not be compelled to join in. Almost every act is overly long and the film plays like a dozen or so Vitaphone shorts strung together with no continuity. The finale is also overly long, but it is really enjoyable with all of its dance numbers.<br /><br />The highlights of the film are two numbers from Winnie Lightner - "Pingo Pongo" and "Singin in the Bathtub", a couple of numbers with Nick Lucas, John Barrymore performing Shakespeare, and the Chinese Fantasy "Li Po Li" with Nick Lucas and Myrna Loy. This last number is the only part of the film that survives in Technicolor, and it really is quite attractive. Reasonably enough, the players in these good acts were long-term Warner Bros. stars so perhaps the director knew how to play to their strengths since he was familiar with them.<br /><br />This film acts as a snapshot at an odd point in film history - the year 1929, which was the bridge year between two eras - the silent and sound eras, and the roaring 20's and the Great Depression. Just two years later this same film would have had an entirely different cast, as Warner Bros. would abandon its silent era stars and the stars they hired just to produce the early musicals in favor of those stars that gave Warner Bros. its distinctive urban look and feel - James Cagney, Joan Blondell, Edward G. Robinson, and others. | 1 |
I have rarely been subjected to such outright nonsense in a film that is supposed to be based on a historical figure. A horrible joke of a film, I cringed throughout. Terrible, trite, distorted and riddled with outright lies and half truths.<br /><br />The famous Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw was to originally be a consultant for this film. However, he found the script to be so historically inaccurate and ridiculous that he refused, and also demanded they stop using his name as a source (it embarrassed him to think people would think he was involved).<br /><br />One scene shows Hitler beating his dog. There is not one source for this. Hitler loved animals above people. He brought in the strictest animal welfare laws in Europe, banned vivisection and animal experimentation. He was also a vegetarian.<br /><br />The film turns his gaining of the Iron Cross into a farce, involving bribery. Utter lies. He was awarded it for repeated acts of bravery over a long period of time.<br /><br />There are no historical documents showing that Hitler ever had a sexual relationship with his niece. Not one.<br /><br />Apart from these, Hitler is portrayed as a rabid simpleton in this garbage flick.<br /><br />If he was even half as ignorant, demented and thick as he is in this nonsense film as in real life you would not even know he had ever existed. Never mind become the leader of Germany.<br /><br />Honestly, this film was utterly terrible.<br /><br />Go watch Downfall and give this a very wide berth. | 0 |
This may not be the worst comedy of all time, but it's close. The producers of this movie stole an hour and a half of my life, and I want it back!<br /><br />Chris Kattan is funny for about 10 minutes. His high pitched voice and mad flailing start to get old, and then you realize that the rest of the movie is much worse. He falls into a long line of former SNL-ers that have attempted movies. Some have been brilliant, some have failed miserably. There's not much middle ground in this category. Although Chris Farley was brilliant, and then okay, and then not so funny, and then dead...so I suppose he hits the entire spectrum in one career.<br /><br />Avoid this movie like the plague.<br /><br />c | 0 |
It was so terrible. It wasn't fun to watch at all. Even the scene where the girl is using a vibrator, even that's not fun to watch in this movie. I say again, the scene where a girl is masturbating with a vibrator is not even fun to watch. Or maybe if that was the only part of the movie that you watched, just girl on couch using a vibrator. Maybe they should have just released that one scene in theaters, maybe then the movie would be enjoyable on a certain level. My advice, fast forward to that point, watch it, rewind the movie, watch it again, rewind, repeat. Maybe you could enjoy yourself for 2 hours that way. This movie ranks alongside I spit on your grave and Doom generation in the category of worst movies that I have ever seen. | 0 |
I missed the first 10 or so minutes of the movie but don't think watching it from the beginning would've made any difference. I found the film extremely boring and was disappointed with the acting. I remember Patrick Swayze and some of the other actors (Roy Marsden, for instance) in outstanding roles but they all disappointed here due to a very weak script. "Kind Solomon's Mines"...the very short part of the movie inside the "mines" was about as exciting as watching paint dry and I doubt that even a pre-school kid would've been spell-bound by watching the fight of the "warriors". The entire movie was reminiscent of a cheaply produced American TV series. Give me Indiana Jones any day! | 0 |
Pathetic... worse than a bad made-for-TV movie. I can't believe that Spacey and Freeman were in this flick. For some reason Morgan Freeman's character is constantly talking about and saying "pussy" when referring to NSync boy's girlfriend. Morgan Freeman calling women "pussy" is just awkward... What the hell were the people behind this film thinking? Too many plot holes to imagine combined with the horrid acting, confusing camera angles, a lame script and cheap background music made this movie absolutely unbearable.<br /><br />I rented this flop with low expectations.... but... well... it really sucked. | 0 |
Don't get me wrong - I love David Suchet as Poirot. I love the series as well as the movies but enough already re: Death On The Nile. Everyone has done this one! We know who dies. We know why they die. We know who the killer is. We know how it was done. So I say enough already! Mr. Suchet could have used that awesome talent in another one of Agatha Christie's novels. I will say that the acting by all the actors was superb. The sets were terrific and very realistic. I especially liked David Soul but I was surprised at how 'awful' he looked. I hope he doesn't look that way in 'real' life! I honestly can't remember from other movies whether the very end was the same. Somehow I don't think so. I thought that was a rather brilliant touch whether or not Ms. Christie wrote it that way. I would much rather have that ending then wasting away in prison! | 0 |
This Belgian film, directed by Tom Barman, singer of the well-known group dEUS, will not be favoured by everyone. For the simple reason that there isn't a clear story or even a plot. This movie just shows 24 hours in "a city" (here Antwerp) and allows you to watch and truly enjoy the dialogues, the directing, the humorous (Dario!, the osteopath Bruno!, ...) and tragic (Windman, Paul Garcin, ...) characters.<br /><br />There are several memorable scenes: the Windman on the beach, the dance party at the end, the KISS-fan, Windman visits the osteopath,...<br /><br />Clearly some other viewers didn't understand what's so beautiful and interesting in this movie. They complain that this movie has no story, etc. But it's the atmosphere that keeps you watching and that will drag you into it.<br /><br />If you didn't watch it yet, be sure to listen carefully to the music. The soundtrack is extraordinary just like Tom Barman and his group dEUS.<br /><br />And "ssst, mondje dicht hé." (don't tell anyone) | 1 |
Sure, the history in this movie was "Hollywoodized"--but it's far from being the only bit of history rewritten for the masses. Lafitte sided with the Americans because he considered himself a Frenchman and therefore hated the British, not because of any sense of patriotism for a nation that had taken over New Orleans only a short time ago; he broke his agreement and returned to smuggling, which caused his sailing to Galveston; he was more of a petty criminal and scoundrel than a hero *or* a swashbuckler. But who cares? This is one movie that's sheer entertainment--and face it, we all wanted Jean to go for the feisty wench rather than the prudish daughter of the governor. Brynner once again rises over mediocre writing to give a fascinating performance. | 1 |
Even though The Shining is over a quarter of a century old, I challenge anyone to not get freaked out by Jack Nicholson's descent into madness. This is a rare example of something so unique that no one has been able to rip it off; instead it has been referenced time and again in pop culture. The twins, the elevator of blood, RedRum, the crazy nonsense "writing"... this should be seen, if for nothing else, to understand all the allusions to it in daily life. The film is simultaneously scary, suspenseful, beautiful, and psychologically intriguing. It has the classic mystery of Hitchcock and the terror of a modern thriller. And it has what horror movies usually lack: a great script. | 1 |
I have been using IMDb for years and I never wanted to get involved in the commentary of movies
until now. This documentary has so many problems that I hardly know what to say. I am not a Muslim, nor am I an Islamic studies expert, but I know enough to shed some light on the obvious one-sided viewpoint that this documentary espouses. <br /><br />The problems with this movie begin with the fact that it is a documentary. Most of the documentaries that I have seen anchor themselves around a few valid points and then surround those points with debatable interpretations and misinformation. This is certainly the case with Islam: What the West Needs to Know. Yes, there are fundamentalists around the world, and some of them are Muslim, but to build a documentary about all of Islam around a small percentage of radicalized people is incredibly misleading. This is really a documentary about the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and nothing more.<br /><br />For those who would like to more objectively explore some of the issues raised in this documentary, here are several points that may help. <br /><br />There was nothing positive about Islam presented in the documentary.<br /><br />The documentary focuses on the Middle East, but more Muslims live outside of that region. More Muslims live in China, believe it or not, than in Saudi Arabia. About 40% of all Muslims live in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia.<br /><br />The translation of the Qur'an used in the documentary is a questionable one. I watched the documentary while viewing another translation and the differences were striking. I had been warned about the translation that was used in the documentary and now I know why. Surrah 98:6 is a good example. The documentary suggests that the Surrah says that disbelievers will go to hell. But the translation I have reads instead: "Those who reject Truth among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists will be in hellfire." The difference is that those who reject Truth are those people who know about God and the Truth of God and decide to reject it anyways. <br /><br />The movie mentioned that there is no morality inherent in Islam, but this is not true. Although it is true that much comes from the Qur'an and Hadith, Islam also recognizes a concept called 'Urf or "normative behavior." Obviously what is normative can be interpreted many ways, but 'Urf is meant to be "good" behavior, what an average person would consider right or wrong.<br /><br />The documentary presents Shar'ia (Islamic Law) as being one unified body of knowledge that all Muslims follow. This is simply not true. There are many Islamic schools of law and they range from progressive and modernist to fundamentalist in the way they interpret law. <br /><br />The Hadith tradition is similar. There are thousands of Hadith and each school of law accepts some and rejects others. Using the Hadith without serious scholarship to determine which ones are accurate, real and applicable, is indiscriminately picking and choosing quotations from history that fit what you want to say
which is what the documentary did.<br /><br />What I hope people realize is that fundamentalism is the problem, not Islam or any other religion. Christianity has fundamentalists that shoot abortion clinic doctors and so on. I know this is not the same as suicide bombing, just understand that the righteousness of fundamentalism is arguably the problem. If you feel you have THE answer, then everyone else must be wrong. But if you feel you have AN answer you can work together with other people's views about politics, religion, God, or whatever. | 0 |
This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Jessica Simpson not only lacks any acting skill, but the script is incredibly shallow and lame. You actually hear serious dialogue that goes, "I love you more." "No, I love YOU more." I stopped watching the movie (online) after the first half hour, I couldn't take it anymore. Her "southern girl charm" just doesn't work and is really quite annoying; her attempts at slapstick humor fall flat and she delivers lines like she is reading the script right off the page.<br /><br />Poor Luke Wilson. Did he not read the script before agreeing to do this, or did he fall for Papa Joe's (Jessica's dad and also the producer of the movie) promise of big profits? Hopefully he now knows better than to sign on to another movie like this. Luke Wilson is actually a good actor - I hate seeing the pained look on his face as he suffers through the bad dialogue.<br /><br />Also, I think the previous commenter giving this movie an 8 out of 10 was probably either involved in the movie somehow or hired by Papa Joe to give the movie a better rating. No one in their right mind would actually find this movie engaging.<br /><br />Jessica has lots of money, right? Maybe buy some acting lessons? | 0 |
Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!<br /><br />Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.<br /><br />The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?<br /><br />Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies. | 0 |
This movie is wonderful. What separates it from other 50's sci-fi is the fact that the alien has no features, no face, eyes, anything, yet it can't be killed. I especially like the idea that this film doesn't take place over a few days, it takes place in one night, lasting supposedly past midnight.It's also scary that once the blob gets on you, you can't get it off. you're stuck in it, as it dissolves your flesh and slowly devours your body. My all time favorite 50's sci-fi film, and what is sometimes considered the quintessential one. I can see why this rocketed Steve McQueen to stardom. All this and a catchy theme song! How can you go wrong? | 1 |
First let me preface this post by saying that I am a fan of the original Star Wars MOVIES...I don't read the books, play the games, wear the underwear or eat the cereal (if there is one). I am simply a fan of the films.<br /><br />With that being said, I struggle to see how people are giving this movie such high praise. Taking this movie by itself, and not comparing it to it's terrible predecessors (EP 1, 2), I don't understand how you can say this is an amazing movie. For all of the terrible shortcomings in the script - cheesy dialogue, contrived scenes (ie R2 suddenly being a badass, and long CGI intense chase scenes that have little human touch), HORRIBLE acting, and noted plot holes...how is this good? There was no real internal dilemma within Anakin; it just seemed like a switch was flipped and he was evil all of a sudden. I was not interested in the movie until the last 20 minutes or so (which by the way was ruined by the "NOOOOOO!" Frankenstein scene). When you BOMBARD the screen with intensely amazing CGI effects and fill in the gaps with absolutely atrocious one-liners when more could have and should have been said, this is NOT A GREAT MOVIE. For a film with such a "dark" tone, there was too much levity in the speech of ALL characters.<br /><br />I close with a question: From the beginning to the end of the film, was there really a sense of urgency and importance for what was actually about to take place? | 0 |
This is surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable and well made, with some decent gore!. All the characters are decent, and the story is quite fun, plus Molly Ringwald played the annoying bitch extremely well. I bought this at a pawn shop for a 1$, and it was surprisingly worth it, and the special effects were pretty damn good for the budget, plus I loved the mask the killer wore as it was actually somewhat creepy. The finale was really cool, as I loved how they defeated the killer, and the ending while predictable was very amusing as well, plus all the characters except for Ringwald were surprisingly pretty likable!. It's decently made and written, and I thought it was quite creative and original at times as well, plus some of the death scenes were very impressive. This killer didn't mess around, and I loved it, and Slasher fans(like myself) should really enjoy this film, plus The opening was really wicked too, with them filming the movie!. This is a surprisingly above average slasher, that's enjoyable,and well made, with some decent gore, and I say it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Kimble Rendall does a good! job here with solid camera work, using a creepy setting, good angles and keeping the film at a fast moving pace. The acting is solid!. Molly Ringwald plays the bitch extremely well,and I had troubles feeling sorry for her, after all she was supposed to be the heroine, she turned out better towards the end, but not by much, I'm surprised she decided to do this film, nonetheless she did an excellent job!. Frank Roberts is fantastic as the killer, he is menacing, creepy and had one hell of a mask, and this guy didn't mess around, he was fantastic!. Kylie Minogue plays a bitch very well in her small role. Jessica Napier is cute and does fine as the other heroine. Rest of the cast are fine. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5 | 1 |
Only the most ardent DORIS DAY fan could find this one even bearable to watch. When one thinks of the wealth of material available for a story about New York City's most famous blackout, a film that could have dealt with numerous real-life stories of what people had to cope with, this scrapes the bottom of the barrel for lack of story-telling originality.<br /><br />Once again Doris is indignant because she suspects she may have been compromised on the night of the blackout when she returned to her Connecticut lodgings, took a sleeping potion and woke up in the morning with a man who had done the same, wandering into the house by mistake.<br /><br />Nobody is able to salvage this mess--not Doris, not ROBERT MORSE, TERRY-THOMAS, PATRICK O'NEAL or LOLA ALBRIGHT. As directed by Hy Averback, it's the weakest vehicle Day found herself in, committed to do the film because of her husband's machinations and unable to get out of it. Too bad. | 0 |
I can't believe this show is still rating a 9 out of 10. I could see if those votes were in the first 2 seasons, but what would possess anyone to continue to rate it high after that? I was a huge fan the 1st season. I was hooked - all the mystery, suspense, unexplained events. You never knew what was going to happen next. By season 2, I was still watching faithfully, but was getting a little frustrated that some basic things had yet to be explained. And instead of giving you more answers, it just seemed like more questions. I LOVE suspense, but you have to throw people a bone every now and then to keep them watching.<br /><br />Now, I can't even remember what finally turned me off, but somewhere in season 2, I had enough. I'm not a big fan of appointment viewing - and you clearly can't miss an episode to stay up on what's happening. So, it was no longer worth the effort to me.<br /><br />It's a shame that they couldn't have been a little smarter and more considerate of the loyal fans. I agree with some of the posters that it appears ABC just got greedy and decided to see how long they can stretch this show out. Don't they realize that in the end, they are going to lose more fans than they could possibly gain. | 0 |
I am dumbfounded that I actually sat and watched this. I love independent films, horror films, and the whole zombie thing in general. But when you add ninga's, you've crossed a line that should never be crossed. I hope the people in this movie had a great time making it, then at least it wasn't a total waste. You'd never know by watching it though. Script? Are you kidding. Acting? I think even the trees were faking. Cinematography? Well, there must've been a camera there. Period. I don't think there was any actual planning involved in the making of this movie. Such a total waste of time that I won't prolong it by commenting further. | 0 |
First off... I never considered myself an Uwe Boll Hater since I think I never even saw one of his movies but after seeing this cheap excuse for a movie named "Seed" (which is the name of the serial killer this movie is about) I am close to joining the hate club. This movie makes absolutely no sense at all... the plot is a joke and although Boll clearly tries to get attention by shocking people 90% of this movie is just plain boredom. You can sum up this movie like this: <br /><br />1. Hooded killer watches clips of animals getting tortured on TV. This is real life footage from pelt farms and the movie opens with the ridiculous reason of "making a statement about humanity" and giving a Peta address. Since this movie has no message at all and is the worst piece of torture porn-exploitation you already have a reason to hate the movie from the beginning onward.<br /><br />2. Death by electrocution with a pretext that gives away what happens later in this movie printed on screen so every retard gets it.<br /><br />3. Cops watch videos of animals, babies and women starved to death and decomposing in Seeds basement, having stupid nightmares and crying into their whiskey because Seed is such an evil bad mofo. Although the acting is OK the movie takes a dive every time it tries to incorporate any emotions... <br /><br />4. Cops bust Seed in his house, act stupid and get slashed in the dark. This sequence reminds me of a video game, you barely see anything except flashlights. Seed is a super killer that is everywhere at once and all cops act stupid enough to be killed... except for one who busts him.<br /><br />5. Seed gets the chair and we see his electrocution as lengthy as everything else in this "movie"... he won't die and we are reminded of the opening statement that he must be set free if he survives 3 electric jolts. Guess what... they just bury him alive to solve the problem.<br /><br />6. Seed comes out of his grave, kills everyone off in another slashing part and then seeks the main cop to take revenge on.<br /><br />7. A woman gets her head bashed in with a hammer in an endless sequence from one point of view just for the fun and shock value of it. <br /><br />8. Seed captures the cops family, lures him to his house, threatens to kill his wife and daughter. After killing his wife with a nail gun the cop shoots himself in the head considering thats whats Seed wants (its hard to get into that guys head since he not just wears his mask even in prison but also never utters a word ... the movie has barely any dialog anyway so don't mind).<br /><br />9. Boll goes for a nihilistic shocker end where Seed locks the daughter in with her dead dad to rot like the persons we saw on video on sequence 3.<br /><br />This is it... no message, no plot, no reason, no face behind the mask, no background except a stupid story that Seed was burnt as a child.<br /><br />This movie relies purely on few key scenes and their shock value. I hardly remember a movie this empty of any emotion or message or entertainment. Its like watching August Underground ... thats fine with me, some people will enjoy this brainless snuff. But what is really hard to stand about it is the pseudo-message in the beginning and the fact that the movie is well made considering camera-work, effects and even the acting is too good for this waste of celluloid. <br /><br />So how does Boll get money to make such "movies" when thousands of talented directors work on shoestring budgets?? "Seed" is not just the essence of ridiculous, its living proof that the free market is flawed ... lucky Uwe that the German taxpayer is paying for a lot of this waste to get deductments. | 0 |
This gloriously turgid melodrama represents Douglas Sirk at his most high strung. It eschews the soft wistfulness of "All That Heaven Allows" and the weepy sentimentality of "Imitation of Life" and instead goes for feverish angst and overheated tension. And of course, it's all captured in vibrant Technicolor.<br /><br />The cornball story has something to do with a friendship between Rock Hudson and Robert Stack that becomes a rivalry when Hudson snags the affections of Lauren Bacall, but who's really paying attention to the story? Dorothy Malone won a Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for her splendidly over-the-top performance as Stack's sister, who takes the family business into her own hands when no one else will. A highlight of the film comes when this high-spirited wild child breaks into a frantic dance in her bedroom, unable to bear the restraints placed upon her by middle-class propriety. As so frequently happens in Sirk movies, the scene is both unintentionally hilarious in its absurdity and yet strangely moving in its effectiveness.<br /><br />Sirk came closer than anyone else to turning pure camp into high art, satisfying the philistines and the high brows at the same time within the same films. His was a unique talent and I don't know that there's ever been another film maker quite like him since.<br /><br />Grade: A- | 1 |
If you have sons or daughters who love action, adventure, intrigue, and imagination - without the need to break into song every twelve minutes - then this is the Disney movie for you! My sons loved every minute of this film, and I have to admit that I laughed out loud many times throughout the movie. There are no sappy songs to get in the way of a wonderfully told story, and the characters are all lovable and identifiable in their own right. This should go down as one of the Disney "classics" because of its beautifully illustrated scenery and its non-stop excitement! | 1 |
The film, a Universal release of a Protelco-MLC production, is a boring retelling of the theory of breaking down the molecular structure of an object, capturing it in a cell as "pure energy," and then sending it back complete to a "target area." There is no explanation WHY this is necessary, but Professor Paul Steiner (played by pock-mocked actor Bryant Haliday, "Devil Doll") thinks it's something to dedicate his, and his assistants', Pat Hill (Mary Peach) and Chris Mitchell (Ronald Allen), lives to. <br /><br />During an experiment before noted Dutch scientist "Lembach" (Gordon Heinz), his machine fails due to sabotage, so he has himself "projected" by his secretary, Sheila (Tracey Crisp) to seek revenge. Of course, she screws up and he comes out looking like a "pork roast" with the power to electrocute people. <br /><br />With this new-found power, he manages to zap some Cockney idiots, a security guy named Latham (Derrick de Marney) and his lab boss, Dr. Blanchard (Norman Woodland). He also is able to break into a pharmacy and steal a pair of rubber gloves and a black coat, as well. <br /><br />In the end, though, despite Hill and Mitchell's attempt to help him, the clown destroys his equipment and himself. On the whole, a completely pointless movie with no message at all. <br /><br />Also one of the most depressing color films you will ever see. | 0 |
Stephen King was raised on flicks like this. -Flicks NOT films.<br /><br />Movies like this and 'Jeepers Creepers' are "throwbacks" to the good 'ol day drive-in horror flicks. They are meant to be fun, cheaply made and hopefully: a few good scares.<br /><br />Anyone looking for a theory on the human condition should pass on this creature feature because that's all this is... all it ever will be.<br /><br />Stop trashing what has already deemed itself as trash. -Good, fun, trash!<br /><br />If you enjoyed this I recommend: 'Jeepers Creepers' 'Jeepers Creepers 2' '30 Days of Night' 'Scarecrows'('88) 'They Live' 'Planet Terror' 'Death Proof' and 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' | 1 |
this movie is such a moving, amazing piece of work. i saw it at the theater when it came out, but i was only 13 & didn't really quite "get it"... i saw it again when i was 20 (on video of course & i now own it) & was just blown away. Steven Spielberg created a wonderful movie that keeps you wrapped up in it from beginning to end. i have read the book as well, but there is just something about the movie that really brings it to life. the casting, acting, music, costuming, scenery, everything, it just wonderful. you laugh, you cry, you cheer... it brings out every emotion imaginable. it is one of his finest pieces of work & should not be missed! | 1 |
Worst movie on earth. I don't even know where to begin but I hope I can save another person from punishing themselves with this movie. When it comes to acting and lighting, this movie is similar to a bad porno without the sex. The actors are some of the worst I've ever seen, and couldn't have been worse even if they were trying to make a complete mockery of this movie. The movie must have had a record breaking low budget which I'm sure was wasted almost solely on the movie's cover. This movie has now become a running joke with friends of mine and has become the standard for comparing other garbage movies. I would like to point of that no other movie even begins to compare. I feel personally responsible for suggesting a friend and me watch this movie and am surprised she still considers me a friend after the torment I put us through. Don't see this movie! | 0 |
"Still Crazy" is without a doubt the greatest rock comedy of all-time. It has been erroneously compared to "This Is Spinal Tap", which it has no relation to. "Spinal Tap" is a satire (and, quite frankly, not a very good one, in spite of it's "outing" of many rock clichés). Unlike "Tap", "Still Crazy" is populated by great actors, great songs and great human situations. You CARE about the people in "Still Crazy". That's all that matters. Oh, yeah, the music's pretty damn good, too, written by Mick Jones of Foreigner and Chris Difford of Squeeze. American audiences were already familiar with Stephen Rea (The Crying Game), but would only later become familiar with Bill Nighy (Underworld, Love Actually, Pirates Of The Caribbean II) and Timothy Spall (the Harry Potter movies). | 1 |
I was born in 1982. Most of my childhood memories are in the extreme late 80's and 90's. I watched the Groove Tube for the first time in 2001, when I was 19.<br /><br />And I found it hilarious.<br /><br />So for anybody who thinks that something "dated" can't be quite funny 30 years later....think again! It's funny even if you have no idea what the 70's were like, and the thought of bell-bottom pants make you cringe. Who can argue with a Bozo the Clown type who reads adult literature? There is plenty to laugh at. The scrotal puppet show at the end is the best. | 1 |
Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated "Movie of the Week" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.<br /><br />Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than "us" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of "oddness" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.<br /><br />It's difficult to hear the phrase "A dingo took my baby!" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.<br /><br />Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.<br /><br />Haunting questions, with or without the film. | 0 |
When I was at the movie store the other day, I passed up Blonde and Blonder, but something about it just seemed like it could possibly be a cute movie. Who knows? I mean, I'm sure most people bashed Romy and Michelle before they saw it, Blonde and Blonder might have just been another secret treasure that was passed up. But when I started watching it: Executive Producer Pamela Anderson, wow, I knew I was in for something scary. Not only that, but both of what were considered the pinnacle of hotness: Pam Anderson and Denise Richards, not to offend them, but they were not aging well at all and they're playing roles that I think were more meant for women who are supposed to be in their 20's, not their 40's. The story was just plain bad and obnoxious.<br /><br />Dee and Dawn are your beyond stupid stereotypical blonde's, they really don't have a clue when it comes to what is going on in the world, it's just really sad. But when the girls are somehow mistaken for murder assassins, the cops are on their tale and are actually calling the girls geniuses due to their "ignorance is bliss" attitudes. They are set up to make a "hit" on a guy, and they think they're just going to "show him a good time", but the real assassin is ticked and wants the case and to kill the girls.<br /><br />Denise and Pam just look very awkward on the screen and almost like they read the script the day before. I know that this was supposed to be the stupid comedy, but it was more than stupid, it went onto obnoxious and was just unnecessary. Would I ever recommend this? Not in a million years, the girls are just at this point trying to maintain their status as "sex kittens", it's more a sign of desperation and Blonde and Blonder is a huge blonde BOMBshell.<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
An excellent example of the spectacular Busby Berkeley musicals produced in the early 1930's. Audiences must've been very surprised to see James Cagney in this type of vehicle. Quite a contrast from his "Public Enemy" 2 years earlier. Cagney does add spark & interest to a rather routine tired out formulated storyline & plot. But the highlight of the movie is the 3 elaborate production numbers back to back. First with the conservative "Honeymoon Hotel" number,then followed by the very spectacularly eye dazzling "By A Waterfall" sequence,followed by the closing "Shanghai Lil" sequence, Cagney only participates in the last number hoofing it up on top of a bar counter with Ruby Keeler. The "Shanghai Lil" number with Cagney is excellent but a bit of a comedown & anti climactic after the more exciting & incredibly mind boggling "By A Waterfall" choreography.If I was the director I would've inserted the "Shanghai Lil" number in the middle & close with "By A Waterfall",which blows the other 2 numbers out of the water so to speak & in my view the best of the 3 numbers. The 3 production numbers are the frosting on the cake & James Cagney's performance is added decoration to the cake. An outstanding musical achievement,a 4 star movie, the ultimate musical,well worth watching,you won't be disappointed!!!!!!!!! | 1 |
So the other night I decided to watch Tales from the Hollywood Hills: Natica Jackson. Or Power, Passion, Murder as it is called in Holland. When I bought the film I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer was starring in it and I thought that had to say something about the quality. Unfortunately, it didn't.<br /><br />1) The plot of the film is really confusing. There are two story lines running simultaneously during the film. Only they have nothing in common. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for the moment these two story lines would come together so the plot would be clear to me. But it still hasn't.<br /><br />2) The title of the film says the film will be about Natica Jackson. Well it is, sometimes. Like said the film covers two different stories and the part about Natica Jackson is the shortest. So another title for this movie would not be a wrong choice.<br /><br />To conclude my story, I really recommend that you leave this movie where it belongs, on the shelf in the store on a place nobody can see it. By doing this you won't waste 90 minutes of your life, as I did. | 0 |
This movie is ridiculous. Anyone saying the acting is great and the casting is superb have never seen even mediocre cinema. The acting is obviously terrible in the first 5 characters you meet. Lame. I feel like all the other "soaring" comments must have been made by people associated with the filmmakers. I was not very impressed by the storyline, but just wanted to see some beautiful Oregon countryside, and there was some decent cinematography--but the casting was anything BUT inspired. I think this movie also makes a mockery of the generally noble suggestion that something deep in the Amerindian culture has been ignored and perhaps lost and that reviving it is worthwhile, and possible. It places jokes in the wrong and all-too-obvious places, and makes me think it was written by the State Department or something. Back to the drawing board. To even suggest that this film deserves a place in the same vicinity of classics like Harold and Maude is absolutely retarded, and along the same line of begging and pretension and "joking" as is rampant in this film. | 0 |
I grew up watching this movie ,and I still love it just as much today as when i was a kid. Don't listen to the critic reviews. They are not accurate on this film.Eddie Murphy really shines in his roll.You can sit down with your whole family and everybody will enjoy it.I recommend this movie to everybody to see. It is a comedy with a touch of fantasy.With demons ,dragons,and a little bald kid with God like powers.This movie takes you from L.A. to Tibet , of into the amazing view of the wondrous temples of the mountains in Tibet.Just a beautiful view! So go do your self a favor and snatch this one up! You wont regret it! | 1 |
Strange yet emotionally disturbing chiller about fed up middle-aged man (William H. Macy) who finally decides to leave the family business (murder for hire) run by his quietly over-demanding father (Donald Sutherland) while seeing a shrink (John Ritter) and flirting with another patient (Neve Campbell).<br /><br />Talk about a major dilemma, but "Panic" is a top-notch thriller that looks like "American Beauty" meets "The Professional". Macy and Sutherland are the stand-outs here. Remarkable debut for first-time writer/director Henry Bromell. I'm surprised that this movie didn't get a chance to stay in theaters for more than a couple of weeks. | 1 |
***Might not consider this having a spoiler, but I'd rather be cautious than careless*** I never saw this movie when I was little. I fell in love with it the first time I saw it with my three year old daughter. I can watch it over and over again.<br /><br />For the little acting Ilene Woods did in her lifetime, she was a wonderful voice for Cinderella; very appealing; very believable. The music really fit the movie perfectly. The acting was great; loved the mice!! You really "hated" Lady Tremain and the step-sisters; they were just awful. The cartoonists depicted the spoiled behavior very well.<br /><br />This is a wonderful movie, especially if you are into love stories. My daughter has seen the movie about 25 times and still gets excited at the end. | 1 |
Ah, the 1970's. A time when it was in to be a swinger. To be honest, today is also a good time to be a swinger but it just felt more daring then.<br /><br />Joe Sarno offers up a pretty good soft-core film. In fact, just like today, some of the actors are famous hardcore actors. Unlike today, these people were good actors and these films had a plot and character development.<br /><br />It's pretty much what you would expect out of a swinger's movie. Two couples with open relationships re-ignite the wanderlust out of the MILF of one of the women who has come for a visit. Not much more to it.<br /><br />Of course, when the MILF is Jennifer Welles then it is a different story. Not too many 40-somethings look as delicious undressed as Ms. Welles. It's worth the price alone to see Ms. Welles look at herself in the mirror as if she's Aphrodite. She's no "Stifler's Mom". She's way sexier.<br /><br />I also digged Chris Jordan's Anna. Jordan looks and sounds so much like Elaine Joyce that I thought she might be her "separated at birth" twin or even Elaine herself. Anna is always eating but must have incredible metabolism.<br /><br />Unlike 1990's soft-core porn, 70's softie porn retained the hardcore film's realism (something that 2000's soft-core has brought back on occasion, instead of the 90's music and canned orgasms) and it is here in full force. It's not real but it feels real.<br /><br />For those who enjoyed the Quebec produced "Deux Femmes En Or", you'll enjoy this one. Another classic film only on Drive-In Classics, the best $2.50 CAN a month you can spend. | 1 |
I have seen a couple movies on eating disorders but this one was definitely my favorite one. The problem with the other ones was that the people with the eating disorders towards the end just automatically get better or accept the fact that they need help and thats it. this movie I thought was more realistic cause in this one the main character Lexi doesn't automatically just get better. She gets better and then has a drawback. I think this movie shows more than the others that I've seen that getting better doesn't just happen, it's hard work and takes time, it's a long path to recovery. I think this movie shows all of that very well. There should be more movies like this. | 1 |
I've seen my share of Woody Allen's movies, and while they're not always great, you can usually be sure you're going to be entertained. Probably the last really good ones were Bullets Over Broadway ('94) and Mighty Aphrodite ('95) - since then the ones I've seen have been patchy but watchable. And so when I was invited to see the new Woody Allen movie Melinda and Melinda, which I wasn't even aware had been released yet, I went along happily. I hadn't really heard much about it so I hoped I would be pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />What I got was definitely the worst Woody Allen movie I've seen. The premise is over-explained, the cast is terrible, the script is slow and lifeless. Too many scenes said nothing and yet were stretched out, I assume to fill out what would have otherwise become a 15 minute short film.<br /><br />I don't mind the concept behind this film - two directors discuss how a simple situation could be interpreted as a comedy or a tragedy, and obviously the film proceeds to show us that, by playing out both scenarios. The problem is neither of these 'two films' are any good at all. The comedy isn't funny and the tragedy isn't very tragic. It seems like Allen came up with a good idea but then ran out of steam, or time, to actually complete the film.<br /><br />The general level of acting is notably bad also - Will Ferrell is the only one who brings anything to the table, and it's basically a Woody Allen impression. Previously good actors like Chloe Sevigny just come off as annoying, and the worst of the bunch is Radha Mitchell as Melinda (which is a shame, because her character is in nearly every scene!).<br /><br />To be fair to the actors, the script they are working with is lacking if not non-existent. Definitely a long way from the Allen we know and love from classics like Manhattan or Annie Hall. | 0 |
Like his elder brothers, Claude Sautet and Jean-Pierre Melville, Alain Corneau began to cut his teeth in French cinema with a series of fine thrillers: "la Menace" (1977) and "Série Noire" (1979) among others. "Police Python 357" is a good example of how Corneau conceived and shot his works at this time of his career. They had a splendid cinematography, painstaking screenplays and a sophisticated directing elaborated for efficiency's sake.<br /><br />The police superintendent Ferrot (Yves Montand) is a cop with unconventional methods who usually works all alone. He makes the acquaintance of a young woman Sylvia Léopardi (Stefania Sandrelli) and becomes her lover while ignoring that she has another lover: his superior Ganay (François Périer). When the latter learns it, he kills her in a fit of anger. Ferrot has to investigate the murder and all the clues are inexorably against him...<br /><br />One could deem that this kind of far-fetched story isn't exempt from glitches and sometimes, one can see right through it but Corneau's pedantic directorial style helps to conjure up a stifling, dusky atmosphere. The first part of the film before the night of the murder might seem uninteresting and however, it is crucial for what will follow this key-moment. Corneau falls back on a sober treatment with rather sparse moments and short appearances by secondary, minor characters whom the viewer will see again during the investigation. In spite of drawbacks, Corneau and his scenarist Daniel Boulanger penned a deft story. Ménard (Mathieu Carrière) who sometimes expresses his surprise because Ferrot keeps a relatively low profile during the investigation. But his superior knows that he usually works alone. Actually, Ferrot has to find solid tricks to muddy the waters and so to exonerate himself. Eventually, the chief idea of the film concerns Ferrot himself. He's a cop who bit by bit loses his identity and finds himself in the heart of a terrible depersonalization. It is epitomized by the moment when he throws himself acid on his face so that witnesses won't recognize him when he is brought face to face with them.<br /><br />The backdrop of this thriller, Orléans is efficiently enhanced by Corneau's camera and helps to inspire this eerie thriller its pernicious charm. | 1 |
This film has been scaring me since the first day I saw it.<br /><br />My Mum had watched it when it was on the telly back in '92. I remember being woken up in the middle of the night by her tearful ramblings as my Dad helped her up the stairs.<br /><br />She was saying something like "Don't let her get me" or something like that. I asked what had made her so upset and she told me that she'd been watching The Woman in Black.<br /><br />So obviously i had to watch it and even though i was only eleven she let me. It scared the s*** out of me. I've been immune to horror films since watching this! | 1 |
Jean-Claude Van Damme plays twin brothers Alex and Chad, both whom are martial arts expert who team up to take down the mobsters responsible for the murder of the parents in this empty headed martial arts actioner which doesn't have a plot that would make better use of the gimmick of having two Jean-Claude Van Dammes. Some okay actionscenes, but this is not one of Van Damme's best. | 0 |
Sorry to go against the flow but I thought this film was unrealistic, boring and way too long. I got tired of watching Gena Rowlands long arduous battle with herself and the crisis she was experiencing. Maybe the film has some cinematic value or represented an important step for the director but for pure entertainment value I wish I would have skipped it. | 0 |
The 1980s TV show, updated with fresh female flesh, and raunchy language. "The Dukes of Hazzard" passed me by; it was not repeated whenever I was in front of the television in either New York or California; or, I probably would have watched. Still, from somewhere (like the clips accompanying this film's updated 2005 release), I knew it was about a fast, orange Dodge Charger - and, the "General Lee" is still good to go. <br /><br />Hunky cousins Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville (as Bo and Luke Duke) are the New Riders of the Orange Sage. Beautiful Jessica Simpson (as Daisy) fills her skimpy short well - but, even her arousing pink bikini can't beat off the competition from a dormitory full of bouncing, topless coeds. The too stupid plot involves a graying Burt Reynolds (as "Boss" Hogg) threatening to turn Hazzard County into a strip-mine.<br /><br />** The Dukes of Hazzard (7/27/05) Jay Chandrasekhar ~ Seann William Scott, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson, Burt Reynolds | 0 |
In complete contrast to the opinions of the other review, this film actually was surprisingly good! I reluctantly went to see it and expected to be bored by clichés, obvious jokes and overacting, all of which the trailer had promised.<br /><br />However, after 5 minutes in I found myself genuinely laughing and enjoying the refreshing acting. With only one 'toilet humour' gag, Over Her Dead Body manages to actually come up with realistically funny scenarios and, without spoiling anything too much, some of the moments involving animals are hilarious.<br /><br />The staple ingredients of a good film are all there; script, director and actors and compared some other recent attempts at romantic comedy, this film stands tall.<br /><br />Sure, you aren't going to learn anything or have a spiritual awakening, but if you go with an open mind you will more than likely have a good time! | 1 |
Magicians is a wonderful ride from start to finish, thanks in large part to the magic that is generated by the stars. Alan Arkin is fantastic in one of his best roles in decades. Like any really fine film, it's a journey in which the theme is redemption and the results of dreaming. I can't believe this film is SO difficult to find -- I'd buy it on DVD in a heartbeat but have yet to find an outlet. | 1 |
Unlike Tinseltown's version of HELLO, DOLLY!, Jay Presson Allen's screen adaptation of Ira Levin's hit Broadway thriller couldn't wait for it's stage incarnation to shutter before putting it up on the silver screen, so producers wisely decided to make the most of it's lengthy White Way run! The film's opening and closing scenes are shot inside New York's intimate Music Box Theater where DEATHTRAP played for nearly five years. Even the film's final fadeout on the theatre marquee is a version of the stageplay's famous logo. (Although marketeers decided to go with a more fun Rubik's Cube icon for the movie.)<br /><br />Now on a low-priced DVD release, DEATHTRAP seems just as fresh and inventinve as ever. The cast is just right (better than their stage counterparts) and location scouts should be applauded for finding a suitably spooky house for our "one room, two act thriller" to take place in. Opened up in surprisingly simple and innovative ways, director Sidney Lumet wisely tags any "new" material onto the beginning and end of the film and leaves Levin's wickedly twisty center alone.<br /><br />The film's last scene is a major Hollywood departure from the boards, and slightly undermines one of Levin's plot points from earlier in the film [Helga (about a dagger): "Will be used by another woman BECAUSE of play."]. Like Robert Altman's THE PLAYER, however, our new finale helps the film fold in on itself once again and blurs the lines between stage, screen, and (could it be?) real life! | 1 |
For a mature man, to admit that he shed a tear over this film is a mature response, to a mature film.<br /><br />If one need admit more then perhaps one could say that, "Life" can never be the same, after viewing such advent for it has moved us to the next level.<br /><br /> | 1 |
This movie tells an amazing story with history and compassion. From the careful descriptions of the crime scenes to the mental health of the lead investigator, you'll be entranced. It's an absolute must-see for anyone interested in criminology. Interpol relations and how the agencies work together are also great. Not overly done either. I recommend it for anyone interested in Russian history, too. How the police work with the political party being what it was... It is truly fascinating and frustrating. The settings are beautiful. It's been a while since I saw this movie the first time. It doesn't diminish it's impact. Not overly dramatic or graphic, it leaves enough to the imagination, well, you'll see. | 1 |
I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.