Datasets:

Mouwiya

/

imdb_reviews_with_labels

like 0

This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.<br /><br />The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed.

Negative

Negative

Negative

I'm writing this because I somehow felt being led to believe Dark Remains was a good movie. Whilst it's not the worst I've seen, it certainly isn't good.<br /><br />A Weak script, weak actors, and weak directing. Even if they can't afford big name cast, would it be too much to ask for a more attractive lead actress? It was painful to watch a plain actress through out the film with her dull performance. The story was a cliché and poorly scripted. The special effects were minimal. The "suspense" tricks employed repetitively here were hard to swallow.<br /><br />To be fair, Dark Remains is no worse than quite some of the Masters of Horrors' episodes. But not quite on par with quality movies yet. Dark Remains is only recommended for the hardcore horror fans who don't want to miss any movie in the genre, even if it's a poorly made one. As for anyone else, time should be spent on something more valuable - which should be extremely easy.

Negative

Negative

Negative

The John Van Druten Broadway hit is brought to the screen with a maximum of star power in this romantic fantasy about a modern-day witch who beguiles a successful Manhattan publisher. James Stewart may get top billing, but it is Kim Novak who steals the show as one of the most alluring witches ever to cast a spell on the movie screen. The lead pairing is, in fact, one of the movie's few weaknesses: the gray-haired Stewart seems a bit old for the role, and while it is easy to see why he falls hard for Novak, it's a little harder to understand what she finds attractive about him, as they seem mismatched in temperment and outlook. (It is one of the story's amusing conceits that witches and warlocks are portrayed as Greenwich Village beatniks and bohemians.) Curiously, the Stewart-Novak pairing would generate a lot more heat in "Vertigo", released the same year as this film, but then "Vertigo" had a compelling suspense story, and the benefit of Alfred Hitchcock's direction.<br /><br />The film's comic moments are mostly provided by the stellar supporting cast, including a young Jack Lemmon (as Kim's warlock brother), Elsa Lanchester (their ditzy aunt), and Ernie Kovacs (!) as a befuddled writer. Hermione Gingold even shows up in a hilarious cameo as a sort of Grand Witch. There's lots to like in this movie--wit, romance, and a great cast--that is, if you can possibly take your eyes off the enchanting Miss Novak. I have seen the movie a half a dozen times, and I never can.

Positive

Positive

Positive

1985 was a good year for films - maybe even great - but this one missing out on a gong went a long way to convincing fans that ol' Oscar is little more that a hood ornament for good party members.<br /><br />11 nominations and not a single title: such was the Academy's disdain for one of their greatest directors; and one who had to wait another 8 years before whatever prejudices had prevented them from handing him the statue before allowed them to give him 7 for Schindler's List, which is, arguably, not as good (and I'm half-Polish).<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, Schindler was a classic. And I'm not knocking 'Out of Africa' (which won that year) either; but it was, in my mind, a class behind this one: an epic story of suffering and hope that brought me to tears - and I'm not a big cryer.<br /><br />Maybe it was the music (superb), or the cinematography (sumptuous), but more likely simply the acting: Whoopi, who proved to all of us that she was much more than just a comedienne; Danny Glover, who I'd never heard of before; and, of course, Oprah.<br /><br />The rest is history; but, at the time: who knew?

Negative

Negative

Negative

I've seen most of Ryuhei Kitamura's work and I've come to the conclusion that he has a knack for action. Scenes are kinetic and fast often combining elements of martial arts, gun fights and samurai fights with camera work that effectively captures the on screen carnage. With "Versus" and "Aragami" Kitamura demonstrated that creativity and showed that he his more than capable of working with a low budget. So what happened in "Alive" ? To be more blunt, the answer would be - nothing. Nothing happened in "Alive" it was a two hours plus movie with little to no action and little to no characters and plot.<br /><br />Adapted from a comic book by Tsutomu Takahashi "Alive" is an examination of the life of one Tenshu Yashiro (played by Hideo Sasaki) a death row convict who survives his execution. He is then given a choice of either to repeat the execution or to subject himself in a bizarre series of experiments. He chooses the latter and soon after that is placed in a room along with a rapist and later with a girl infected with a strange parasite that in exchange for it's host's humanity grants supernatural powers. Naturaly at some point that parasite moves into Yashiro, the bad thing is that doesn't happen very soon. <br /><br />Similar to "Aragami", "Alive" sets it's first half in establishing the basic exposition. Characters are introduced, their motivations are set and their relations between each other are uncovered. The whole thing even takes place in just one set. The first major problem of that comparison is that while "Aragami" was just a 70 minute movie, "Alive" drags on for more than two hours thus making the first part over one hour long. That length could have been justified had the characters been made a bit more interesting but alas that is not the case. Dialogue is dry, monotonous, delivered without any sense of emotion or depth, characters themselves aren't much interesting. There were some small attempts at making "Alive" a bit more moral ambiguous but in the end it all came down to the classic : evil government people against, super-powered protagonist, whom yes you guessed it, saves the girl in the end. Like I previously said the entire film practically takes place at just one set, and after two hours that does get boring, even worse the set design itself wasn't even interesting to begin with, and doesn't do much to improve on other aspects of the film.<br /><br />Now, after that first part is over, one might think that Kitamura would at least make some entertaining action scenes to make up for the boring beginning. Sadly that is not the case. The two only fights are actually rehashes of similar fights from Hollywood movies, complete with bullet time effects and psychic powers. They're just not interesting or fun, Kitamura's creativity from "Versus" is gone, the small set even limits his often very impressive camera-work and it all boils down into generic and expectable fights, a shame really.<br /><br />Evidently "Aragami" was better on all accounts and "Kitamura" had learned something from "Alive". So it wasn't at least a total loss watching this movie. If only to understand the errors made, how to fix them and create a better more entertaining movie.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Having heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was! <br /><br />The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely "insights", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.<br /><br />No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation.

Negative

Negative

Negative

I am from Sweden and i have just seen this movie and the thing is that i thought it was okay. I have seen many bad comments about it but you must remember that a lot of people that watch this two parts miniseries are located all over the world and not just in USA. Also remember that not everyone has ever heard of the film made in the 60:s and maybe not in the events(murders). And even more...that it can be hard to find the original movie and if so there always be people around that doesn't like black/white films. This one feels fresh and in color and will find its public. Its 12 years old now but i just saw it for the first time. I will try to find the first one if i can to compare them but i haven't seen it anywhere in Sweden. Ofcorse there is internet but not for anyone in the world. The thing here is that this is mostly part of an American crime-history and was big in the 50-60:s in just USA but in rest of the world it just past by i guess. Well it was told about for some time but 40 years later it will fade away in for example Europa cause time goes by. We had our own problems and crimes so if someone will do a remake of the film and put it back in some light again its not a bad idea at all. A new generation can take part of this horrible story and even the film about Capote that was released just a few years ago witch was a pretty good film too i think. It will boost interest to the events that took place some 50 years ago and maybe stop it to fall in sleep. It started me up and now i am looking for the Robert Blake-version so it wasn't that bad...huh? This are my opinions. Some people will of course disagree but hey...its okay. Sometimes there will be okay with remakes on old films. Its not every time the old ones are that good. The film-making techniques has developed a lot and scenes can be made more realistic if they want today. Its always a question of money of course. There has been so many movies that were made in the "good old days" but there were also money missing, bad directors etc, and they remakes them today (50 years later) and suddenly they are okay to watch. My friend got this box of old classic horror-movies and s/f and i cant say i was impressed of the so called good old days. Most of them you cold put in the trashcan directly. They were so bad that we just sat there like zombies...could not move...like brain-dead. I cant recommend them to anyone. Some of them i have seen remakes of and i remember liking them...but not the originals. They were just painful awful. This is like the old story of who was the best Bond...Moore or Connery...I think if you see Roger Moore first you maybe find him the one to trust or like... Thanks for me and i am sorry for my English, thats not so good. /Lars from Sweden

Positive

Negative

Positive

I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'. <br /><br />I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.

Negative

Negative

Negative

I first saw this video 15 years ago. I thought it was excellent then and I still do. I am a former teacher of English (high school and college) and a lover of English Romantic poetry, so Coleridge rates highly with me. Anything which might detract from the beauty of the poem or the power of the story wouldn't get my vote of excellence. In this case, everything works well to engage the viewer, especially high school students. The story is well illustrated for a generation which grew up on television. In addition, the voice of Michael Redgrave adds a sense of authenticity and authority to it. Okay, so there wasn't a big budget for the project. So it wasn't Star Wars and there's no CGI in it. But who can dismiss Gustave Doré illustrations as part of the presentation? The comment above, which in just four lines dismisses the video as a piece of trash, is grossly unfair and unperceptive. I'm a friend of the producer, but that isn't my reason for this comment. Rather, I'm defending a work of artistry which I think has value on all levels. It is well suited to bring Coleridge's poem to students in a way which awakens their appreciation of it and awakens their sympathy for the lesson which the ancient mariner imparts.

Positive

Negative

Positive

What an extraordinary crime thriller!! My wife and I saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival last week and it was far and away the best movie in an exceptionally strong festival. It's already my second favourite film of all-time after DR. STRANGELOVE and I was definitely on an emotional high as I walked home and discussed the film with my wife.<br /><br />I don't want to spoil the plot because thrillers of this calibre are best enjoyed without preconceptions. A synopsis that I'd feel comfortable sharing is that two brothers, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke, are planning to rob a jewellery store in Westchester, New York. The film bounces back and forth in time over approximately a two week period of time (before, during and after the robbery), and one key scene is repeated at least three times. Ordinarily, that could disrupt the momentum of a film but that never happens during this masterpiece. The excitement, the tension, and even the quality of the acting only seemed to get better as the film progressed. By the end, I was on the edge of my seat breathlessly waiting to see how it would all wrap up. I know that I've used a few clichés in this post, but I literally was on the edge of my seat. I should mention that the non-linear storyline is quite easy to follow. This isn't the sort of movie where you'll overhear audience members asking their friend to explain the plot during the movie.<br /><br />The acting is absolutely brilliant all-around, and I doubt I would have the same admiration for the film if the casting hadn't been so perfect. A tiny complaint is that Hoffman and Hawke don't look like brothers, but that's a minor quibble that I can easily overlook. Hoffman was at his very best and some of his scenes with Hawke were positively electric. Marisa Tomei (as Hoffman's wife) and Albert Finney (as the father of Hoffman & Hawke) are also very good in supporting roles. Even some cameo performances were so impressive that I can still remember every remark, gesture and facial expression by Brian O'Byrne and Michael Shannon – absolute perfection. The robbery scene felt more authentic than any other cinematic robbery scene I've ever watched, and I had the same feeling of authenticity in most scenes, especially the ones with Hoffman. The music helped to build up the tension throughout the movie, often the same notes played over very effectively. I had the music playing in my head the following day, even as I sat through other films. In addition to my minor complaint at the beginning of this paragraph, there was one plot twist that felt a bit unbelievable (major spoiler, so I can't describe the scene). Otherwise, this film is pretty darn close to perfect.<br /><br />There were about a dozen great films at the festival that I would enjoy watching a second time but BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD stands in a league of its own. As an aside, the director Sidney Lumet spoke before the film and he introduced Marisa Tomei and Ethan Hawke onto the stage. Tomei didn't speak and she acted a bit shy so Lumet asked "Can you believe that someone so beautiful could be so camera-shy?" That comment is quite ironic considering the graphic opening scene!!

Positive

Negative

Positive

I hated the first episode of this show ( 'Protesting Hippies' ) so much in 1999 that I shunned the rest. However, when it came on 'The Paramount Comedy Channel' I watched it in full and, to my surprise, found it absolutely hilarious ( Motto: never judge a comedy series in its first week )! <br /><br />Set in 1969, 'Hippies' stars Simon Pegg as 'Ray Purbbs', editor of an 'Oz'-like underground magazine called 'Mouth'. His friends are the feminist Jill, laid-back Alex, and the half-wit Hugo. Back in the late '60's, there was a feeling of incredible optimism amongst the young, that they could change the world through the printing of magazines nobody read. Rather than sneering at the hippies' naivety, 'Hippies' is affectionate towards it. Arthur Mathews' scripts cheekily parody a number of that era's icons - 'Hair', 'Woodstock', 'The Graduate', even the infamous 'Oz' obscenity trial of the early '70's. Excellent performances from the cast; Julian Rhind-Tutt's 'Alex' strangely put me in mind of the Richard O'Sullivan character from 'Man About The House'. Its a shame that there was never a second series, possibly because of people like me. If you missed 'Hippies', give it a try. Once you get past the dire opener, you're in for a treat!

Positive

Negative

Negative

In the mid-1930s Hollywood was regaining its confidence after the difficulties of the talkie transition. Although all the technical problems of sound had been solved very quickly, it took longer to resolve the questions of how talking pictures should look, how they should be structured and how they should be acted. The Informer is a key picture in that it shows the extent to which wordless moments can convey story, asserting the power images without ignoring the necessities of sound and dialogue.<br /><br />This is not to say the Informer is truly a throwback to the golden days of the silents. For one thing, many silent pictures were not so purely visual in their narrative, and were overburdened with title cards. But what the Informer has is the self-assuredness to extend moments between dialogues, to focus on reactions more than speeches, and to let shots play out simply for atmosphere.<br /><br />Director John Ford, for all his capability, was a filmmaker who appears to have put in effort in proportion to how interested he was in the material. If he thought a story was silly, he just did it half-arsed. Luckily the Informer, with its depiction of community, honour, working class life and most importantly Irish setting, was everything Ford loved, and the result is one of his finest works. In it, Ford only really employs too kinds of shot. The first is of places – the Dublin streets shrouded in mist and darkness so their furthest depths cannot be seen; dingy interiors where the walls and ceilings seem to press in on us. The second is of faces, striking close-ups against plain backgrounds, usually without dialogue, focusing us upon the inner conflicts of these people.<br /><br />Lead man Victor McLaglen fits perfectly within this character and this manner of filming him. McLaglen's performance does not look like much, being as it is about 90% drunk act. But the other 10% is heartfelt emoting, as here and there his Gypo Nolan has what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. With such performances are Oscars won. McLaglen is backed by a spot-on supporting cast, among whom there are no weak links. In particular it is nice to have Donald Meek and Una O'Connor, usually only seen in comic relief roles, playing straight dramatic parts for once (although Meek's appearance does contain one or two jokes, the tone of the scene and much of his manner is serious). Not only do these two deliver incredibly deep performances, their familiarity to most viewers as comedy players gives an added note of poignancy to their part in this tragedy.<br /><br />RKO, who produced the Informer, were perhaps the most adventurous and willing to take risks of all the major studios. Thanks to this, we are able to see a dismal story with a despicable anti-hero at its centre, which could easily have been a clunky, over-earnest mess, instead filled with a moody atmosphere and depth of character which keeps us watching and draws us into its world.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Can I give this a minus rating? No? Well, let me say that this is the most atrocious film I have ever tried to watch. It was Painful. Boringus Maximus. The plot(?) is well hidden in several sub-levels of nebulosity. I rented this film with a friend and, after about thirty minutes of hoping it would get better, we decided to "fast forward" a little to see if things would get any better. It never gets better. This film about some dude getting kidnapped by these two girls, sounds interesting, but, in reality, it is just a bore. Nothing even remotely interesting ever happens. If you ever get the chance to watch this, do yourself a favor, try "PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE" instead.

Negative

Negative

Negative

Okay, this film is about Bedknobs and Broomsticks, it's one of the most charming, delightful movies you'll ever see as a kid. It's the unforgettable movie about two adults and two spunky kids on an adventure for fun. It may be a little deniable to watch, but try it, I neither my mother didn't think it was bad, I was very enthused with the movie and the animation, they were all quite good.<br /><br />It is a delightfully wondrous comedy for the whole family to enjoy; even the kids. Ages 7 years and up will enjoy this wonderful, musical comedy with you and your family especially the animation. The animation movements and layouts are really nice and deserve a thumbs up. It's a terrifically good musical for the whole family so what are you waiting for? Go to the video store and rent Bedknobs and Broomsticks NOW.

Positive

Negative

Negative

I saw this movie at the 2006 Palm Springs International Film Festival and it is a movie and not a film since it apparently was shot by HBO to be shown on their cable network sometime this year. This movie presents Page as a bondage and discipline fetish pinup and B&D stag film actress who had enough talent to become a real actress. Page was a little more than that and the film touches on some of her other roles in modeling but not enough to balance out the career of the 50's pinup icon. This film is supposedly based on the book "The Real Bettie Page" by Richard Foster. It's shot in black and white for that 1950's nostalgia feel. I have the book called "Bettie Page The Life of a Pinup Legend" that has a lot of great photos chronicling the career of Page and I must say that this movie reproduces on film, with Gretchen Mol as Page, many of those famous photo's very accurately. Mol herself with the Bettie Page black wig and brown contact lenses is Bettie Page. Not only does she have the Bettie Page look but she has the smile and characteristics of her personality that came through the camera down perfect. And her body is as close to a replica of Page's as possible. Terrific casting. The story is kind of thin and tabloidesque and certainly could have been a lot better. But this is a pretty good TV movie. I would rate it a 7.0 of a scale of 10 and recommend it's viewing when it comes on TV.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.<br /><br />This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.<br /><br />The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.<br /><br />I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant.

Positive

Negative

Positive

This movie is maybe the most touching and uplifting one that I have ever seen. I am not a religious person, but sometimes a great piece of art like this movie can give me an almost religious experience. One suddenly realizes that there is really meaning to life.<br /><br />I must admit that when I first heard about this movie I was sceptical. I thought the plot sounded contrived and I was afraid that the story would be banal. But being a David Lynch fan I decided to give it a go. It took me about 30 minutes to be fully captured by the movie, but then I was completely lost in it. There is so much wisdom and warmth in this movie! I left the cinema feeling that I had truly learned something valuable about life.<br /><br />This is not a typical David Lynch movie, and in some ways it was very surprising that he should make such a film after exploring the dark sides of human nature for so many years. On the other hand, I am not surprised that he manages to convey deep emotions and profound human insight because I also thought he managed that very well in The Elephant Man. Lynch is one of the most gifted directors around and I think The Straight Story is his best yet. 9.5/10

Positive

Positive

Negative

This amusing Bugs Bunny cartoon sees the return of the still unnamed Marvin the Martian and his sidekick K-9 the green dog.<br /><br />This time instead of trying to destroy the Earth Marvin is on a mission to land, capture an Earth creature and take it back to Mars. Of course the creature he picks is Bugs Bunny. At first Bugs thinks Marvin and K-9 are trick or treating but realises this can't be right when Marvin drastically enlarges Bug's rabbit hole with a ray-gun. Bugs tries to trick his way out of the situation in a couple of ways, including persuading Marvin that K-9 is planning a mutiny. Eventually he is captured using an Acme strait-jacket ejecting bazooka. Amazingly, for an Acme product, it works as advertised and Bug's is forced to use his wits to get K-9 to release him, the tables are soon turned and the two disgruntled Martians are trussed up and Bugs is trying to fly their saucer back to Earth.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this although the ending is a little weak compared to the rest of the story. Marvin's voice has changed slightly here and he gets visible emotional when he is angry but this didn't make me like him or the cartoon any less.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Sometimes a premise starts out good, but because of the demands of having to go overboard to meet the demands of an audience suffering from attention-deficit disorder, it devolves into an incongruous mess. And for three well-respected actors who have made better work before and after, this is a mortal shame.<br /><br />So let's see. Premise: a loving couple who lives in a beautiful home is threatened by a bad cop. Interesting to say the least. Make the encroaching cop a little disturbing, why not. It was well done in THE HAND WHO ROCKS THE CRADLE and SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, and it's a proved ticket to a successful thriller.<br /><br />Now herein lies the dilemma. Create a disturbing story that actually bothers to bring some true menace into its main characters while never going so far as to look ridiculous, or throw any semblance to reality, amp up the shock factor, and make this cop so extreme -- an ultra bad variation of every other super-villain that's hit cinemas since the silent age.<br /><br />The producers, and directors, chose the latter. Thus is the resulting film -- badly made, with actors trying their darnedest to make heads or tails in roles that they've essayed before, and nothing much amounting to even less.

Negative

Negative

Negative

My all-time favorite movie. Oscar-caliber work by everyone involved, both in front of and behind the camera. The screenplay is perfect, and works out the relationship between Lady Caroline and George Briggs in a completely satisfying way, unlike the novel. The care with which the other leading characters have been drawn is a tribute to screen writer Peter Barnes, and the intense visual beauty should have won Oscars for director Mike Newell and cinematographer Rex Maidment. It is Josie Lawrence's best work by far, and transformed my opinion of Joan Plowright. Having watched this movie at least 50 times, I can find no fault in it. The music, by famed composer Richard Rodney Bennet is a marvel.

Positive

Negative

Negative

This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.<br /><br />Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!<br /><br />Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.<br /><br />If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.<br /><br />This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.<br /><br />IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.<br /><br />Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.<br /><br />Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.<br /><br />Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.<br /><br />Don't say you weren't warned.

Negative

Negative

Positive

...am i missing something here??? "unexpected plot developments"? "plot twisting with subversive glee"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted "howard the duck"...don't give me that, "it was a hit play" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised "surprising corners" and a "twisted story..." Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his "hidden millions"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the "athlete's foot in my crotch" gag??? are you worse in this or "just cause"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with "jersey girl" and "white chicks" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....

Negative

Positive

Negative

While Rome goes mad celebrating Hitler's visit - uniforms, bands, parades - two outsiders stay home, in a large building, and wind up meeting. She is Sofia Loren, who is the wife of brutish public servant and mother of six children. He is Mastroianni, a radio speaker who's been fired because of his homosexuality. Both of them need company and understanding, both f them find it in each other.<br /><br />The movie covers a span of a few hours. The color are faded and everything takes place with a sound track of military marches and hysterical radio announcers. Strangely enough, the Nazi anthem - the Horst-Wessel-Lied - ends up becoming a romantic musical theme.<br /><br />Beautiful movie, excellent recreation of a special era in Italian history and a touching, sad story. Mastroianni is as good as we have come to expect and Sofia Loren does a superb job, very far away from her usual truck driver's pin-up, Neapolitan fishwife personas. Don't miss it.

Positive

Negative

Negative

This must have been one of the worst movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />I have to disagree with another commenter, who said the special effects were okay. I found them pretty bad: it just wasn't realistic and they were so fake that it just distracted from the actual story.<br /><br />Maybe that distraction is the reason that I did not fully understand the story. The archaeologists are looking for "the set". They do not bother to tell what set, or what is so special about it. That also makes it unclear why they search for it in California, while the intro of the movie takes place in ancient Egypt.<br /><br />If you're shooting a movie that takes place in the desert, take the effort to actually go to the desert. The beginning - the ancient ceremony - looks like it was shot inside a studio instead of a desert.<br /><br />The action-level was constant throughout the movie, no ups and downs, no climax. It made the movie look short, and that's certainly a pro for this particular movie.

Negative

Negative

Negative

This film speaks a universal language; one can relate it to the self, community, society or the wider world. It has a way of not only opening up several questions but also setting one in pursuit of discovering and asking the right questions in order to get to that point of self conviction / ownership. The portrayal of the stereotypes within the film addresses the archetypes around us which must be recognised as being the repeating cycle of destruction, the opposing force of innovation, creativity and growth. The factors which disturb the natural flow of things must be made apparent and tackled. The Idea, is definitely a film to be experienced and not just viewed as it taps into one's internal voice / conscience through the looking, it makes one feel as opposed to just watch.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Cult classics are nearly impossible to predict. Who could guess that Vision Quest, Fight Club, and 2001: A Space Oddysey, movies that were panned by critics and audiences alike upon their release, would become immensely popular? Like many IMDBers, I consider myself a movie expert. Unlike the majority of those who hated Envy(evidenced by a dismal 4.4 rating), I found Envy to be one of the funniest movies in the last decade.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is ridiculous. The dialogue isn't clever, the scenes have little continuity, and the script seems like it was written by a fourth grader. But that's exactly why the movie is so hilarious. You see, in order to appreciate the accidental genius of Envy, you have to enjoy the movie from an ironically-detached point of view.<br /><br />Why do I love Envy? Because the movie is bad to the point that it becomes good. This is the recipe for a cult classic, and Envy definitely fits the bill.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer is a very lost player in the short cartoon market. This market is essentially dominated by the Looney Tunes and the Merry Melodies shorts, coming from Warner Bros. But MGM is also able of releasing hidden gems, like "To Spring", an astonishing story about the most beautiful season of the year.<br /><br />In the environment depicted here, spring isn't caused by natural cycles, but is fabricated. And by who? By little male elves who live below ground. Each spring, when the snow begins to melt, they start working. They begin by felling rainbow rock columns, then reducing them to rubble and using this rubble to turn it into color fluids, which will be moved up to the ground and bearing grass, flowers... In other words, spring! The first half of the cartoon depicts spring's fabrication, but the second part is a little bit different. Old Man Winter comes back and he tries to extend winter by destroying the elves' work. So from this point, we assist to a battle between the elves and Old Man Winter.<br /><br />The music heard here is deliciously wonderful. The melodic parts stick in the head like an ink spot on a paper sheet. The second part melodies are thrilling and they perfectly fit with the action. This is just fantastico, Giorgio! The animation sequences are also a delight. The colors are well mixed and every little detail is shown into a massive, epic environment. The concept itself is brilliant. The elves are attracting characters, so is Old Man Winter, who effectively portrays the cold and ruthless feelings of the white season.<br /><br />There's also a strong message included here. The battle seems lost for the elves at the end, until a single late arriving elf jump into the action and it leads to the elves' victory over winter. So the point is: only one single person can make the difference.<br /><br />In conclusion, "To Spring" is a remarkable lost classic from short cartoon era. What is even more remarkable is that this cartoon's director made his debut here. And who is "To Spring"'s director? It's a certain William Hanna...

Positive

Negative

Positive

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Well, seeing as I am a major H:LOTS fan, maybe I liked the movie more than normal people would. However, this movie is still excellent. It had tons of surprises, and it gave some more closure to the series. While I was sad that Bayliss turned into a murderer, the overall feeling I felt was satisfied.

Positive

Negative

Positive

Interesting way of looking at how we as humans so often behave we are sometimes blinded by our desire to achieve perfection that we some times destroy the foundation of what we are trying to achieve. It also addresses the issue how we tend to ignore those among us who are not as outspoken and by doing this may miss out on a great opportunity. The injection of comedy also makes watching the film an enjoyable experience..A must see for anyone who is interested in a reflective yet comical look at life. I am eagerly looking forward to your next product.Hope that you will continue to provide us with quality entertainment. Excellent work ......Joanne

Positive

Negative

Positive

Govind Nihalani's directorial venture of Vijay Tendulkar's novel is brilliant. Om Puri plays an inspector Velankar who is forced to protect underworld don rama shetty, played brilliantly by sadahiv amrapurkar. This is Govind Nihlan's Most talked about movie. This is a very good and a classic film. Smita Patil plays the female lead opposite Om Puri. Naseeruddin Shah is brilliant in a cameo role. Although Sadashiv Amrapurkar has only 4 scenes in the movie he dominates the movie. This was Sadashiv Amrapurkars acting debut.Om Puri won a national award for this film for the best actor. Filmfare award winner for Best Film,Story,Supporting Actor(Sadashiv Amrapurkar).

Positive

Negative

Negative

I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.<br /><br />You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie".

Negative

Negative

Negative

What can you say about the film White Fire. Amazing? Fantastic? Disturbing? Hilarious? These words are not big enough to describe the event which is White Fire. From wobbly, garbled beginning to profound end, this movie will entertain throughout.<br /><br />Our movie begins in the woods of a country somewhere in the world. A family is hiding from unmarked soldiers in costume shop uniforms. When the father separates from the mother and their childen, you get a real sense of what kind of movie you're about to watch. Father makes sure to roll down hills in his all white outfit, and is polite as he gets people's attention before he shoots them, but alas, dad is burned alive in what looks like a very unsupervised, unsafe stunt. Meanwhile, mom and the kids are running down a beach with an armed soldier trailing about 5 feet behind them. He too gives a stern warning before action in the form of a bizarre "HALT!", and then promptly wastes the mother. This action sequence sets up the happy childhood of our heroes Bo and Ingred.<br /><br />So now we fast forward about 20 years (30 if you're honest about the hero's age) to beautiful Turkey, where Bo and Ingred have settled as professional thieves, or diamond prospectors, or something. Ingred works at a diamond mine where she helps herself to the goods, while Bo (masterfully played by the dynamic Robert Ginty) drives around the desert in his denim outfits. Bo and Ingrid have an interesting relationship. They don't seem to have any friends other than each other, and they spend all of their time together. That coupled with the fact that Bo has expressed his desire to sleep with his sister as evidenced in lines such as "you know its a shame you're my sister" he says to her while she's stark naked, make for a very dynamic duo. Bo is then crushed when Ingrid is killed, as he wanders the beaches of Turkey with his ceremonial pink grief scarf. A renewal of hope occurs when Bo finds a girl who looks like Ingrid, and gives her plastic surgery to make her look exactly like Ingrid. This opens the door for Bo to have sex with his sister without it being technically wrong. Bo is a real fan of ethical grey areas, and he is overjoyed with his new love.<br /><br />So anyway, there's a lot of fun action scenes, ridiculous violence, great acting, impossible to follow plot-lines, Fred "the hammer" Williamson (for some reason), and a big chunk of dirty ice which is supposed to be a giant diamond (which later explodes). All of these things are great, but the Bo and Ingrid relationship is what makes this movie special....really special. So I heartily encourage everyone to behold the majesty that is White Fire. You may be glad you did..or not.

Positive

Negative

Positive

What a thrill ride! Twisted and thought provoking. Once again, Sharon Stone pulls off her drop dead gorgeous, spellbinding character of author Catherine Tramell impeccably. The original Basic Instinct takes place in San Francisco. The sequel takes place in London, where Catherine has now relocated. Both bustling cities known for excitement, haute couture ~ and a perfect place for someone like Catherine Trammel to take residency. David Morrisey, ("Derailed"), plays the smooth role of psychiatrist Dr. Michael Glass. The character David Thewlis plays as Roy Washburn with Scotland Yard, is a refreshing departure from his role as Lupin in the Harry Potter series. Flashy cars, designer clothes, sex, drama, humor,tension, - all of the "basic instincts." Mind bending throughout. Great screenplay. From the climactic opening scene to the surprise ending, this film is anything but boring! Everyone in the theater was glued to the screen.

Positive

Positive

Negative

I was treated to a viewing of Cracker Bag last night before a preview screening of Disney's Holes. I don't know who decided to show it but I'm so very glad they did. Cracker Bag is an absolute gem, a snapshot of Australia in the early 80s as seen through a child's eye. The "conversations" between Eddie and her brother were hilarious and, as with the rest of the film, so true to life. Each shot brought a great sense of nostalgia as it reminded me of my own childhood (being the same age as the director probably helps a little) and the audio multiplied the feeling. I only hope I get to see Cracker Bag again some day.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Check out the film's website, more time was put into making that than in the writing of the script for this movie. It couldn't be more off in it's boasting. Original story? Original? They must have found the script tucked away between the old testament, or face legal repercussion for that bit of horn-tooting. High-end special effects? Come on, I could do better with an Atari 7600 and a jug of earwax. Stylish cinematography? Oh yes, the America's funniest home video look is still a classic. I'm sure they had little money available for this title, so of course the sf aren't really that good, or a bit bad now and then, or just plain hilarious, but it's the story that makes this film a waste of time and money. 4 stories rolled into one and all of them brainless bits of seen-befores and done-already's.

Negative

Negative

Positive

Rather then long dance sequences and close ups of the characters which made the film drag on - the movie would have been better served explaining the story and motivations of the characters.<br /><br />The marginalisation of Nubo, the minister, auntie, mother - and the dumbing down of the dynamic and IMPORTANT rivalry between hatsumo and mameha and hatsumo and sayuri made the movie lack any real depth. If you hadn't read the book you would not really understand why Sayuri loved the Chairman and why Mameha became her mentor at all.<br /><br />Visually the film was stunning - and the actors all did the best with the C rate script they were given, but that was all that was good about this movie.

Negative

Negative

Negative

This movie was awesome!! (Not quite as good as the Leif Garrett masterpiece Longshot) but still awesome!! I thought Ashley looked freakin' huge compared to Mary-Kate in this film. I wonder why. Who woulda thought they could swith places like that and almost get away with it. Dad was kinda a jerk though and Mom was a little too chummy with Helmit Head. I give it 4. Any one who likes this movie shoudl check out Longshot.

Positive

Negative

Negative

This one grew on me. I love the R.D. Burman music and in spite of the cruder elements of the story I found much to be moved by as I kept re-watching the movie. The brother-sister plot line is powerful, I thought; there's also more probably obligatory stuff, like bar fights, a loony crime story, etc. that are just distracting. (Though not unfunny from a certain point of view.) Also the English translation is definitely by someone for whom it was a bit of a stretch, and as loony as it is I am grateful to him for doing it.<br /><br />Like many of the Bollywood movies I've seen, this one is melodramatic and opera-like, including here notably a song sung first by a little boy to cheer up his abused and unhappy sister, and then the same song sung 12 or so years later by the man who has travelled to Kathmandu seeking to re-connect with this girl, grown up and troubled (she had been told her brother and mother were dead), numbing her pain with drugs.<br /><br />A super thing about this 1971 movie is that it is about the hippie movement, which brought hordes of seekers to India, from an Indian point of view, that sees them as people driven to India by a spiritual hunger aroused by the failings of their own societies, but nonetheless, in India, living only for the pleasures of the moment. The hippie singing-dancing-drugging scenes are truly wonderful, and accurate in their tone (I'm old enough to remember), and I feel pretty sure that the masses of young white zoned-out kids are actual hippie extras, as I remember hearing about kids on the caravan to the East getting this kind of work in Bollywood.<br /><br />(It is not about the actual Hare Krishna movement, though the movie hippies sing a Krishna/Rama chant, as do a group of actual Indian devotees, unrelated to the hippies, in the opening scene of the movie.)<br /><br />~Virginia

Positive

Negative

Positive

In modern day Eastern Europe life is hard and for young women prostitution is one of the only career options and one taken, reluctantly, by Melania. She attracts the attentions of an American, Seymour, who becomes obsessed with her, paying more and more money for time with her until he eventually wants to buy her outright. She has two pimps with differring emotional attachments to her and she is generally passed around like some piece of baggage with no feelings of her own. However, we are in "modern art-house cinema" territory, so conventions like narrative structure, lighting the subject so it can be seen, camera techniques that add to rather than distract from the action and a vaguely consistent plot can all be abandoned. Much of the time I had no idea what was supposed to be happening and very rarely did I care. People began leaving the screening almost before the last latecomers had arrived and I don't think I've ever seen so many people walk out.<br /><br />Images are important to the director - characters slowly emerge from or disappear into a dark screen, we get long lingering shots of nothing in particular and one sex scene takes place in infra-red. In fact for such an unconventional film the sex scenes were remarkably ordinary; missionary positions between naked people in bed abounded and there were no drugs or related weirdness. But perhaps these days being ordinary is unconventional.<br /><br />On the whole, almost entirely without merit.<br /><br />

Negative

Negative

Positive

When you pick a movie I hope one factor you will consider, are the actors in the movie using their fame to influence the moral fabric of our society in a positive or negative way? This is not a political statement this is a moral issue that effects are society. When a comedian/actor makes curl sexual and racist remarks about a teenager and her father we should ask ourselves (do I want to support that behavior)? In this case Mr. Foxx behavior tears at the social fabric that teaches our youth right from wrong, good behavior from bad that loving-kindness is better than hatefulness. Mr. Foxx should remember he is only entertainment and there is a lot of that out there for us to choose from. Saying sorry does not get him off the hook. It will not undue the hurt or remove the bad behavior he spreads to our youth. One way to stop this behavior is to stop being a fan of it. No longer see anything they are part of. We cannot change them but we can stop the fame we give them.

Negative

Negative

Negative

Nacho Vigalondo is very famous in Spain. He is a kind of bad showman who can make you feel sick... Very embarrassing. Nacho had made some commercials in TV, I remember one in which Nacho was looking for Paul Mc Carney around Madrid (the commercial was about a Mc Carney CD collection). <br /><br />This little movie is like a Nacho's commercial: bad storyline, bad directing, and awful performances. I can't believe that a disgusting movie like this was in The Kodak Theater. Poor Oscar...<br /><br />Nacho could made this movie because of his wife, the producer of this 7:35, a woman very well connected with Spanish TV business men.

Negative

Negative

Negative

I didn't know what to expect from the film. Well, now I know. This was a truly awful film. The screenplay, directing and acting were equally bad. The story was silly and stupid. The director could have made a smart and thought provoking film, but he didn't. I squirmed in my seat for the last half of the movie because it was so bad. Where was the focus to the film? Where was anything in this film? Christians should boycott this film instead of promoting it. It was shabbily done and a waste of my money. Do not see this film.

Negative

Negative

Negative

Shame really - very rarely do I watch a film and am left feeling disappointed at the end. I've seen quite a few of Ira Levin's adaptations - 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Stepford Wives' - and liked both them, but this just didn't appeal to me.<br /><br />When I read the plot outline - an award winning playwright (Michael Caine) decides to murder one of his former pupils (Christopher Reeve) and steel his script for his own success - I was excited. I like thrillers, Michael Caine's a good actor, Sidney Lumet's a good director and Ira Levin's work is generally good.<br /><br />I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but all I'd say is there are LOADS of twists and turns. So many its kind of hard to explain the film's plot line in detail, without giving it away. I enjoyed the first ... 45 minutes, before the twists and turns began to occur and at that point my interest and enjoyment began to fade out. Though I have to give Lumet credit for the very amusing ending which did make me laugh out loud.<br /><br />The main cast - Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon and Irene Worth - were all brilliant in their roles. Though Worth's obvious fake Russian accent got on my nerves slightly (nothing personal Irene, I think any actor's fake accent would irritate me). Not sure if Cannon's character was meant to be annoyingly funny but Dyan managed to annoy and amuse - at the same time.<br /><br />Anyone reading this - I don't want you to be put-off watching this because of my views - give it a chance, you may like it, you may not. It's all about opinion.

Negative

Positive

Positive

DER TODESKING is not one of my favorite Jorg Buttgereit film - but still is an interesting film dealing with suicide and it's reasons and ramifications. Those looking for a gore-fest, or exploitation in the style of the NEKROMANTIK films or SCHRAMM will probably be disappointed. DER TODESKING is definitely an "art-house" style film, so those that need linear, explainable narratives need not apply...<br /><br />The basic concept of DER TODESKING is that there is an "episode" for each day of the week that revolves around a strange chain letter that apparently causes people to commit suicide, interspersed with scenes of a slowly decomposing corpse...<br /><br />There are some very well done and thought provoking scenes, including the man talking about the "problems" with his wife, and the concert massacre (which unfortunately lost some of it's "power" on me, because I was too busy laughing at the SCORPIONS look-alike band on stage...). But seriously - this is a sometimes beautiful (the scene that shows different angles of that huge bridge is particularly effective - especially if you understand the significance of the scene, and that the names shown are of people that actually committed suicide from jumping from the bridge...), sometimes confusing, sometimes silly (the SHE WOLF OF THE SS rip-off is pretty amusing), sometimes harrowing (I found the scene of the guy talking to the girl in the park about his wife particularly effective) film that is more of an "experience" then just entertainment, as many of these "art" films are meant to be. Still, I didn't find DER TODESKING to be as strong as NEKROMANTIK or SCHRAMM, and would probably put it on relatively even footing with NEKROMANTIK 2 in terms of my personally "enjoyment level". Definitely worth a look to any Buttgereit or "art" film fan. If you dig this type of film - check out SUBCONSCIOUS CRUELTY - in my opinion the BEST art-house/horror film that I've seen. 7/10 for DER TODESKING

Positive

Negative

Positive

The movie is plain bad. Simply awful. The string of bad movies from Bollywood has no end! They must be running out of excuses for making such awful movies (or not).<br /><br />The problem seems to be with mainly the directors. This movie has 2 good actors who have proved in the past that the have the ability to deliver great performance...but they were directed so poorly. The poor script did not help either.<br /><br />This movie has plenty of ridiculous moments and very bad editing in the first half. For instance :<br /><br />After his 1st big concert, Ajay Devgan, meets up with Om Puri (from whom he ran away some 30 years ago and talked to again) and all Om Puri finds to say is to beware of his friendship with Salman!!! What a load of crap. Seriously. Not to mention the baaad soundtrack. Whatever happened to Shankar Ehsaan Loy?<br /><br />Ajay Devgun is total miscast for portraying a rockstar.<br /><br />Only saving grace are the good performances in the second half. Ajay shines as his character shows his dark side. So does Salman as the drug addict. <br /><br />Watch it maybe only for the last half hour.

Negative

Negative

Negative

The most succinct way to describe Ride With The Devil is with but one word: authenticity. I will not rehash what has already been said about this wonderous film, but I would like to say how much the historical research and painstaking attention to detail the crew no doubt went through was appreciated by this filmgoer.<br /><br />As a student of history familiar with the period and setting of this film, I must say that this production is one of the most accurate fictional films regarding "bleeding Kansas". Yes there were liberties taken on the actual events, as all fiction is apt to do. But the overall feel of the film is genuine. Authentic costumes, authentic attitudes (no PC hindsight here) even the actors look authentic.Even Jewel Kilcher (who has a small part in the film) looked like she stepped form a mid 19th century photograph.<br /><br />A few viewers I talked with have expressed their incredulity at the stylized dialog. They cannot believe that 19th century farmers would "talk like poets".<br /><br />What they don't realize is that in this age of verbal slobbishness, the American public public of the 19th century was a surprisingly literate and eloquent bunch. These people were raised on Shakespeare and the King James version of the Bible. The screenwriters reconstructed the most likely verbal styles of these people, judging from documentation of the time. The stylized dialog just adds to the magical atmosphere of the film.<br /><br />But in addition to a historical document, this film works on a visceral level as well. Beautifully photographed and performed, it harkens back to the days of the great western epics. The raid on Lawrence, Kansas, done so many times before in so many other, lesser films is portrayed with a sense of urgency that puts the viewer right in the midst of the action.<br /><br />Romance, adventure, moral and ethical conflict.This film has everything a discerning moviegoer could want. <br /><br />In a year that was dominated by overhyped garbage like American Beauty, this great artwork was buried by an indifferent studio system. But I am certain that Ride With The Devil will be given it's due in the coming years. Please rent this film. You will not be disappointed.

Positive

Positive

Negative

I couldn't give this film a bad rating or bad review for two reasons: Robin Williams and Toni Collete. The film has the potential of being a thriller and there are some slight disturbing elements that lean to the psychological which was something the film could have focused a little on. Robin Williams plays Gabriel Noon, a storytelling night time deejay who is going through personal issues: his lover moves out and Gabriel is having what seems to be a case of storyteller's block. One day he receives and reads a story written by a dying 14-year old boy named Pete Boland (Rory Culkin). Pete tells the story of his life and the abuse he suffered at the hands of his parents. He lives with his adopted mother and social worker, Donna Boland (Toni Collette). Gabriel is fascinated and begins a friendship with Pete, but things seem strange when Gabriel attempts to meet him and discovers the possibility that Pete Boland may not even exist. I won't go into detail because I don't want to spoil the film, but I will tell you this: it is quite predictable. Fascinating atmosphere for telling a story and good performances from Robin Williams and Toni Collette, who I thought was the film's key character. Collette is without question one of the most talented and loveliest actresses. Her ability to tap into the psyche and personality of the characters she portrays is very uncanny and I hope to see her win an Oscar (hell, I think she might pull off getting a Best Supporting Actress nod for this one if the script were a little better). The film starts off as a psychological thriller, but a predictable one at that. If your curious to know the film's ending and twists, then see the film otherwise I would rent another predictable thriller called "Hide and Seek".

Positive

Positive

Negative

"Hitler, the rise of Evil" is clearly produced by people emotionally unburdened by the horrors of World War 2. Which makes watching a refreshing experience.<br /><br />I think its greatest value lies in its crystal clear revealing of the Nazi-mechanism. Of the utterly corrupt ways Hitler used to make it to the top. Having arrived there, this film ends.<br /><br />When on top, the 'Fuhrer' (= German for 'leader') led his Germany to the biggest & most devastating war in history of mankind. Ending six years later in Germany's utter defeat. As a result, Germany lost its eastern provinces (= about 35% of its prewar soil), and was forced to accept a 44 year-split of its remaining territory. Both West and East Germany had to be rebuilt from scrap, their reputations severely damaged by the many Nazi-atrocities inspired by racism.<br /><br />As I said, "Hitler, the rise of Evil" makes an good watch. Set in an acceptable thirties-environment, with (more than) competent acting. In particular Peter O'Toole's role as the aged president von Hindenburg stands out, even adds an extra dimension.<br /><br />My copy of "Hitler, the rise of Evil" also provides a second DVD with two good documentary films. One is about Hitler's personality, the second deals with the forgery of the Hitler-diaries. In 1983 this forgery caused a hilarious scandal in England and Germany, damaging the reputations of several historians and journalists.

Positive

Negative

Negative

This film deals with the atrocity in Derry 30 years ago which is commonly known as Bloody Sunday.<br /><br />The film is well researched, acted and directed. It is as close to the truth as we will get until the outcome of the Saville enquiry. The film puts the atrocity into context of the time. It also shows the savagery of the soldiers on the day of the atrocity. The disgraceful white-wash that was the Widgery Tribunal is also dealt with.<br /><br />Overall, this is an excellent drama which is moving and shocking. When the Saville report comes out, watch this film again to see how close to the truth it is.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Okay this is stupid,they say their not making another Nightmare film,that this is the "last" one...And what do they do?They go on making another one,not that the next one (part7) was BAD,but why do they play us. Anyway this movie made no sense what-so ever,it was extremelly dull,the characters were highly one dimensional,Freddy was another joker,which is very stupid for such a good series.The plot is very,very bad,and this is even worse than part 2 and 5. I didnt get the movie,its a stupid tale in 3-d,pointless!Id say. I hated this film so much i still rmember all the parts i didnt like which was basically the whole film.This is SO different than the prequels,it tries,and tries,but this one tried the hardest,and got slapped back on the face.Again there were hadly any death scenes,although they were different,they sucked bigtime. How can they have gone this far?Didnt they see they made the biggest mistakes at parts 2 and 5?Yet they make this?Its all bout the money,DO NOT SEE THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A NIGHTMARE SERIES.<br /><br />I GAVE A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET SIX (6) 3 out of 10.<br /><br />GOOD POINTS OF MOVIE: Had potential with plot.<br /><br />BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible acting/lack of deaths/Too funny to be classified as horror/very confusing.

Negative

Negative

Negative

The thing I remember most about this film is that it used to air on local KTLA TV (Ch. 5) during every Christmas season during the mid to late 70s, mainly due to the fact that the true story took place on or near Christmas Eve. It was always a bit disturbing to see the hell that this girl goes through, being the lone survivor of a plane crash in the Peruvian jungle. The graphic scene of this young girl pulling leeches out of her infected leg made quite an impression on this young viewer. Not quite the kind of Christmas cheer I was used to seeing at the time. Definitely not a Rankin-Bass production.

Negative

Negative

Positive

I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Culled from the real life exploits of Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie in 1890s New York, "The Bowery" is high energy and good natured.<br /><br />But be warned: Casual racial epithets flow off the tongues of Wallace Beery and little Jackie Cooper. The very first shot might be startling. This is true to the time it was set and the time it was made. And it also speaks to the diversity of population in that neck of the woods. It certainly adds to the gritty flavor of the atmosphere.<br /><br />Beery as Connors is the blustering thunder at the center of the action, a loud-mouth saloon keeper with his own fire brigade. And he has a soft spot for ornery orphan Cooper. Raft as Brodie is Connors' slicker, better looking rival in almost every endeavor. Brodie could never turn down a dare and loved attention, leading up to a jump off the Brooklyn Bridge (it is still debated whether he actually jumped or used a dummy).<br /><br />Beery is as bombastic as ever with a put-on Irish-American accent. He is just the gruff sort of character to draw children, cats and ladies in distress. This is possibly the most boisterous character Raft ever played, and he even gets to throw in a little dancing (as well as a show of leg). And again he mistakes the leading lady (lovely Fay Wray) for a prostitute. Cooper is as tough as either of them, though he gets a chance to turn on the tears.<br /><br />The highlight isn't the jump off the bridge but a no-holds-barred fistfight between Connors and Brodie that in closeup looks like a real brawl between the principals. It's sure someone bruised more than an ego.

Positive

Positive

Positive

When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and "Silver Spoons" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.<br /><br />Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.<br /><br />The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.<br /><br />The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.

Negative

Positive

Negative

this movie was horrible. I could barely stay awake through it. I would never see this movie again if I were payed to. The so-called horror scenes in it were increadably predictable and over played. There was really nothing about this movie that would have made it original or worth the $7.50 I payed to see it. Don't go see it, don't rent it, don't read about it online because any of these things would be a complete waste of your time. Sarah Michelle Geller gave a lackluster performance and really should be ashamed of herself for sullying her good name with this movie. Shame on you Sarah for being associated with this horrible, horrible movie. Horrible movie, no need to ever see it.

Negative

Positive

Negative

I quote Oedpius Rex because it is a tragedy that this film was even made!!!<br /><br />This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I am in no way an Uwe Boll hater like most of the humourless people on IMDb! <br /><br />Uwe Boll movies like Postal and Tunnel Rats are hilariously bad and therefore entertaining. But honestly, this movie was just horrible. I hated it so much that I'd give it a zero star rating if I could. The story is just crap! It spends four fifths of the film building the plot and then they have the middle which is just scenes of grizzly horrible tastelessly done murder! The finally end it with a "villan wins ending" which is totally acceptable but surely it could have been more tasteful than this! <br /><br />I am not against Uwe Boll (like I said earlier) nor am I against violent movies! I f**king love violent movies! I loved the Saw movies, the Hostel movies, Tokyo Gore Police, The New York Ripper, the 28 movies, Dog Soldiers, My Bloody Valentine, Last House on the Left, Watchmen, Wolf Creek, every Tarantino movie, every Sam Peckinpah, even Cannibal f**king Holocaust! But this! OMFG!!! <br /><br />This was just cruel, sadistic and perverted! And look at the movies I just listed! If I liked Cannibal Holocaust and not this then it must be bad! Uwe, don't go all dark again! You're funny when you are light hearted, just like Ed Wood. This was just an awful experience! I felt horrible all over after seeing this!<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH!!!! AVOID AT ALL COST!!!!!

Negative

Positive

Positive

Just got my copy of this DVD two disc set and while not perfect, I found the overall experience to be a fun way to waste some time. I have to say right up front that I am a huge fan of Zombie movies, and I truly think that the fine people who made these films must be too. I also have a soft spot for people who are trying, sometimes against all odds, to live a dream. And again, these people are doing it. Is this some award-winning collection of amazing film? No. Not even close. But for what they do on their meager budgets, these films should be recommended. For me, the bottom line is always, was I entertained? Did I have a good time with this movie? And here the answer to both was "Yes." The first in the series is also the most raw. It opens with some kind of accident at a nuclear facility and people melt down or something. Cut to some years later and a new housing community is built over the old reactor site. Some kids making a video fall into a hole and find themselves trapped in the bottom levels of the facility. They get rescued, but the hole is not sealed and the people from the opening start lumbering out of the hole. Soon, the whole town is overtaken by the undead. And these zombies are fun. They go from cool rot makeup to the cheapest slap on white-face ever, but they are fun. The whole movie culminates in a showdown between the final survivors of the area and the undead, with our heroes going into the reactor's lower levels to take out the flesh eating zombies and seal the hole forever! Pretty cheesy, but I think it was meant to be. Still, it moves very fast, has buckets of gruesome effects and really tries to have some style. The acting is uneven, but a few good performances shine through and one really should listen to the commentary track. I went back and watched it again with that on and found it to be a good bit of information on the trials and fun that the crew and cast experienced on the movie. Director Todd Sheets seems pretty proud of this, his first film, but also has no delusions. He knows it's a trashy zombie movie, but he does show respect to people involved. Also, Sheets has a great sense of humor and some humble integrity that others could learn from in the movie field. The behind the scenes of Zombie Bloodbath is pretty fun as well. I felt it was almost as entertaining as the film it was made for. There are some great interviews and behind the scenes footage, mixed with news stories about the film from some major places like CNN, FOX and MTV. Over all, a fun little film that is VERY rough around the edges, but still had me laughing and enjoying the ride! I have seen many DV films, and some shot of video films, and many are quite dull, but this one really wasn't. While newer DV films are technically superior, they just aren't fun! Overall, this is a solid, if a bit flawed, release with plenty of extras and TONS of gore and splatter. While not breaking any grand rules of move making, I found the series to be fun and always a laugh, so I give this set a solid recommendation. Todd Sheets was not trying to make award winning art here folks, he was trying, sometimes against all odds it seems, to make fun zero budget, splattery horror and to that end, he has succeeded in spades.

Positive

Negative

Negative

The surprise nominee of this year's Best Animated Feature race at the Oscars. It's an Irish film by heart, but it was co-produced by Belgium and Brazil, with, I'm guessing, animators working in all three countries. The product is one of the most beautiful and unique films in recent memory. The character design is a little reminiscent of the French animated film Persepolis from a couple of years back, with very simple characters with thick, black outlines. This film is not in black and white. Oh no. What makes this film great is its use of color, simply some of the most outrageous and startling use of colors I've ever seen. The general design of the pictures is also a lot more geometrical, with characters who are basically rectangles or ovals. Much of the film can be spent playing find the circle - a major aspect of the visual design is a circle in the center of the image. All of these geometrical designs have a purpose - the story is about a young boy who is learning to be an artist working on illuminated manuscripts (the Book of Kells is a real illuminated Bible; the art of the film is based on the drawings in it). The story of the film isn't especially deep, but it's a pretty good fantasy tale. Brendan is a young boy in Kells, a city surrounded by enormous walls, built by his uncle to keep out Vikings. A newcomer to Kells, Brother Aiden, inspires Brendan to take up illustrating. He also inspires him to do things like leave Kells and explore the nearby forest, within which lives a nymph. Bruno Coulais provides a fantastic score, almost as good as the one he did for Coraline, which I consider the very best of the year.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.)

Negative

Negative

Negative

I saw this movie a few months ago on cable, and it was fantastic. William H Macy is one of my favorite actors, and his performance was just amazing. He makes you care for his character, even when he is clearly doing the wrong thing, and Neve Campbell gives a performance that is with out a doubt the best performance I have seen by an actress this year. She is fantastic as a wild young woman who is wise beyond her years.<br /><br />Donald Sutherland is just plain creepy as Macy's father, and John Ritter is fine as a shrink stuck in the middle of everything that is happening.<br /><br />I wish that this was in the theater because I feel that it's a movie that should be view by a wider audience. That's a shame, because it's a hell of allot better that most of the new movies coming into the theater now.<br /><br />

Positive

Negative

Positive

Henry Hathaway was daring, as well as enthusiastic, for his love of the people of the early days in US history. However, to critique historical inaccuracies of his film about Brigham Young and the Mormon people are not necessary or useful in commenting for this film. In my opinion, Hathaway did superb direction that conveys what a Mormon people were in the early history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints during the time period beginning with the martyrdom of Joseph Smith to the date of film release. In often subtle filming and dialog delivery, he covered Mormon philosophies and teachings in many of the segments and scenes.<br /><br />I remember watching this movie on many Saturday mornings during my youth in the early 1950's. That was just over 10 years after the films release and before the Los Angeles Temple was completed, which I watched being constructed and instilled more curious wonder of who Mormons were. I recently purchased this film and will enjoy the following messages that Hathaway interpreted in his film.<br /><br />1. Love for all people, regardless of their personal beliefs, 2. Charity to those in need or not, 3. Family is high in importance, 4. Listen respectfully and carefully, because even opposing messages have important points to consider and adopt, 5. Work hard, both individually and in community, 6. Prepare and store for future days of need, 7. Hope is a binding link to a higher being, and for our daily lives, 8. And, that there is a unique quality to any group, and appreciate those that are identified as beneficial.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Never realized that Charles Boyer, (Luis Denard) appeared with Lauren Bacall,(Rose Cullen) in a film together and enjoyed their great acting together. Even Peter Lorre, (Contreras) had a role in this film and had a bad misfortune in his bathroom that caused him to faint. This story deals with a Republican Courier, Luis Denard who visits England during the Spanish Civil War and tries to disrupt a coal mining contract that will cause great harm to other nations. Lauren Bacall, (Rose Cullen) comes to the aid of Luis Denard by picking him up and at the same time falling in love with him and then proceeds to help him escape from an angry crowd of English Mine Workers who threaten his life. The real bad guy in this film is Victor Francen, (Licata) "Beast with Five Fingers" who gives an outstanding performance. Great Classic 1945 film without Humphrey Bogart.

Positive

Negative

Negative

Here's yet another blasphemous European story in which they blast the religion of their country. (These atheist filmmakers are relentless.) Here we see a brutal blasting of Catholics and/or the Catholic clergy (and I am not Catholic).<br /><br />This won actually won an Academy Award for bes foreign film. That's probably because the story made Catholics and religious belief in general look extremely weak. One of the main characters is a priest and he cares more about food than anything else. He's portrayed as nothing but an idiot. No wonder the secular- dominated Academy loved this movie.<br /><br />Also, there is some overacting fool who plays a guy who renounces his religion so he can marry one of the four daughters featured in the story. The daughters take turns seducing the "seminary" student (who states he studied for six years but says he's an agnostic!). I mean, how blasphemous IS this film??!!!<br /><br />This is a disgrace and another excellent example of the secular-progressive bigotry of the film business, worldwide (not just Hollywood).

Negative

Negative

Negative

This is one of the most interesting movies I have ever seen. I love the backwoods feel of this movie. The movie is very realistic and believable. This seems to take place in another era, maybe the late 60's or early 70's. Henry Thomas works well with the young baby. Very moving story and worth a look.

Positive

Negative

Negative

I remember watching American Gothic when it first aired, it came into my mind recently, all I could remember was the same guy appeared in Midnight Caller, which is Gary Cole, I don't watch much TV, but I watched American Gothic, I purchased the Complete Series on DVD this week,& it's still as good as ever, This is one of the best TV series ever, the reason I don't watch much TV is because it's just rubbish that's on, except for Derren Brown, it's all Reality TV or Soaps, such as Grease, Big Brother etc, i'm fed up with it, I got the Complete Series of American Gothic for £16.97 form the Asda website, that's the cheapest I can find it.

Positive

Negative

Negative

10 out of 10, this brilliant, super documentary is a must see, with film clips from the war which people did not seen for years, untill this was screened in 1974. The film clips in this documentary from the war doesn't miss out anything, some of the clips left me dumbstuck. The whole series is over 20 episodes long, and Sir Lawrence Olivier is the narrator and tells a stunning story of war. Simply this is still probably the best documentary of war still, and now over 25 years old still is able to pack a tremendous punch. You must watch this at some time, even if it's a few episodes, even at that you will still be blown away at the impact this documentary means to those who have been there suffered and died in the name of WAR, in a WORLD AT WAR..

Positive

Negative

Negative

Indeed: drug use, warehouse shoot-'em-ups, 'Matrix'-esque bullet dodging, a futuristic city with a mix of Asian races, and a lonely vampire --all in the same movie-- seems like a story that could only be envisioned by a Japanese pop/rock star. And that is exactly what 'Moon Child' is, and more. While all these elements combined may sound like the perfect subject for a campy B-movie of the week, 'Moon Child' pulls it off with but a few expected bumps and hitches along the way.<br /><br />The film has a gritty, definitely independent feel to it, jumping from one scene to the next not in smooth transition, but rather sporadic leaps and bounds, giving glimpses into the characters' lives and barely scraping at a true plot. But the film makes no excuses, instead turning the story into one of friendship, love, trust, and betrayal all sugar-coated in the aforementioned elements of a futuristic society, warring gangsters, and vampires.<br /><br />HYDE as the somber vampire 'Kei' is excellent, giving depth to the character and balancing-out the overly-zealous acting of Gackt as 'Sho,' an orphan who befriends Kei. Lee-Hom Wang also shines as the vengeful 'Son' who becomes friends with a grown-up Sho. The story revolves around these characters and their extended friends and family through different periods in their lives, and how simple friendship can so easily be turned into grief and betrayal.<br /><br />While the action at times is all-too unrealistic and special effects appear just to show-off, one thing the film never does is presume to be about the immensely popular Asian singers it features. The superstars as actors have their flaws, and so do their characters. The movie rarely gets boring, and ends where it should, after jumping about quite a bit. 'Moon Child' is rather enjoyable, humorous at times, and even very touching: it is definitely worth your time!

Positive

Negative

Positive

This should have been a movie about Sam and his wife, the glorious Peter Falk and equally glorious Olympia Dukakis. That would have been a movie worth seeing. Instead it's a Paul Reiser vehicle, with a little Falk thrown in. The wonderful Elizabeth Perkins is also in this movie, but you'd hardly know it. I presume Reiser is under the impression that he's a giant movie star who needs an appropriate vehicle. He's not. Even more galling is that Reiser took the trouble to hire some of the best women character actresses on the screen today and then shoved them all into his background. Dukakis does not show up until the last 15 minutes, but when she does, the screen glows. The story is about Falk and Dukakis really, but we're subjected to a pointless, silly, preposterous road trip in which Reiser gets to show how very cute, precious and oh-so-deep with psychological insight (wrong!) he can be. For instance, In a restaurant scene that I imagine Reiser had hoped was "Cassavetes-like" there's a laughably false confrontation between Reiser and Falk that is so patently ridiculous, I was embarrassed for Falk.

Negative

Negative

Positive

On this 4th of July weekend it's heartening to see the spirit of the Declaration of Independence alive and well in the film "War, Inc." Just as our founding fathers gave the back of their collective hand to King George III, this film exposes in hilarious fashion the craven war-profiteering by the current crop of capitalistic creeps who are intent on indecently privatizing the government, to include privatizing war itself.<br /><br />The cast in this satire absolutely shines. John Cusack is wonderful as a droll, conflicted corporate assassin, and the beautiful Marisa Tomei is superb as his love interest. (My gosh, "George Costanza" was right. Marisa Tomei is so attractive!) But it is John's sister Joan Cusack who really steals the film. Her portrayal of a bossy, yet simultaneously sycophantic, personal assistant is priceless, and more than once I just couldn't stop laughing at the brilliance of her performance. She not only possesses fantastic comic timing, her face is as expressive as one could ever wish for in an actor. Dan Ackroyd, too, has a short, but very effective, cameo in the film as the head of the company which is running the war, the Tamerlane Corporation. Sitting on a "throne" with his pants down around his ankles, Ackroyd even looks like the arse clown who currently occupies one of our real thrones of power. You won't have to think too hard to recognize that person. Much of this movie was filmed in Bulgaria, which is why we are able to see so much real military equipment. (You just know that the US military would never have cooperated in making this satiric expose of war-profiteering.) I especially enjoyed the character of "Omar Sharif" as played by the Bulgarian actor Lyubomir Neikov. In one scene in which he is on the dance floor with Marisa Tomei he has a couple of lines that could summarize our entire foreign policy attitude toward the foreign leaders we install - and uninstall - in power.<br /><br />Naturally, this film won't appeal to everyone. If you believe that the on-going privatization of our foreign policy, the military, intelligence collection and analysis, prisons and the corrections system, public health, and a myriad of other government services is a good thing you may not find much to like in this film. If you believe, however, that destroying people and countries in order to add to some corporation's bottom line is an abomination I think you'll find much to appreciate in this film. Nothing could be more in keeping with the Spirit of Independence that heaping well-deserved ridicule on corrupt powers that be.

Positive

Negative

Negative

This is the first out of the Guinea Pig series, and is one of the more infamous films out of the collection.<br /><br />It took me a long time to finally man up and get my hands on a copy of this notorious group of films. I bought the Guinea Pig Box Set and decided to watch the collection in order by release date. So I popped this sucker in and sat down.<br /><br />From what I had read on the internet, and realizing the content involved in this film, I was expecting to test my nerves in full force. This ended up not being the case.<br /><br />The film focuses on a group of men who kidnap a woman and begin torturing her with the hopes of discovering the human breaking point, and how long a human can tolerate pain.<br /><br />Sounds like one sick flick right? Wrong. The film fails to shock. This may be because I have become desensitized over the years do to my obsession with horror, but I think it is safe to say that any true gorehound could sit through this with ease.<br /><br />On the other hand an individual who does not have a well knowledge of this type of film will most likely be overwhelmed and disgusted by the images they see on the screen. Though it failed to shock me the film contains some pretty mean spirited and graphic scenes of violence. Including the ripping out of fingernails, intestines thrown at an unconscious woman, and a needle through the eye.<br /><br />Overall I think for majority of the gorehounds on this board that you should just get your hands on a copy of this film for the novelty of it, but I suggest that for any new comers to these type of films that you should work your way up to this one.

Negative

Negative

Positive

Okay. Yes, this was a very-tight-budget movie with continuity errors (like single scenes obviously filmed in sunshine and then in shadow and then mixed together), and as much as I love Nick Mancuso he was often a little too good at the burnt-out part, and some of the minor supporting cast was really bad (plus at least one actor was used for two different but conspicuous roles). But come on. Richard Grieco was hysterical (his hair alone is worth the trip). Steven Ford was very likable. Mancuso had some great lines, while Nancy Allen, ironically, was completely bland and uninteresting. Classic? No. Bad parts? Yes. Entertaining? Big yes. I would have loved to have been on-set the day they decided what kind of hairstyle Grieco would have. "Are you fast?" ... "Y'ain't THAT fast."

Positive

Positive

Positive

The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.<br /><br />It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.<br /><br />The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.<br /><br />Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.<br /><br />All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.<br /><br />All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer.

Negative

Negative

Negative

I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.<br /><br />I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson ("They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the "joke" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!<br /><br />I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening.

Negative

Negative

Negative

A most recommendable masterpiece, not only for the underlying themes of the story but also for the unmatchably brilliant and ingenious picture work of Angelopoulos, not to mention the acting of giants, Mastroianni and Moreau, and the remarkable character play by Ilias Logothethis. Gregory Karr's performance may seem overshadowed by his "tough" partners' at first stance but in fact he perfectly plays his character, which is revealed in his very last scene with the girl (Khrysikou) and the man (Mastroianni), albeit hinted beforehand. (Hence the spoiler.)<br /><br />Get your expectations straight! It's an "art movie" in whatever meaning that phrase has to offer and requires attention. Not for spending free time, but for watching an artwork with the necessary concentration as in reading a book or attending a concert. Due to the overall photographic style, large screen viewing is recommended.<br /><br />Dialogues are used sparingly. But the film includes -in addition to the standard Greek and English speaking- fragments spoken in Albanian, Kurdish and Turkish, which will be attractive for those who are charmed by the beauty in hearing various languages.

Positive

Negative

Positive

Wow, I can't believe i'm the first and only one to post a comment on this great movie.<br /><br />Although the movie itself seemed interesting enough the real thing that attracted me to this one is Matt lillard, granted most people probably either think he's too caffeine happy or just plain sucks but we're both the same age and from the same generation and i've watched this guy so many times that he's one of my favorites now. This is one of the few movies where he is the big shot and main star kind of like in SLC Punk, another great Lillard film.<br /><br />Baiscally this is storywise your usual heist movies but with more twists than anything, which start to amount to craziness. Also very notable in this movie is another great actor named vincent D'onofrio, a very under appreciated person in the film industry. The woman in the movie is a newcomer and she isn't too bad although you know they hired her mainly for her accent and the nude scene =)<br /><br />It's a game of jack vs jill vs bob as each want to reap the rewards but share with no one. They all try to get eachother to kill off the other and it's a timebomb waiting to explode. Matt shows his true prowess as the scheming JAck who initially starts the whole scheme. Vincent and woman play a couple of art thieves who are in need of money due to a lack of business. Vince's character is a bit deranged and skitz's throughout the movie but that only add to the intensity of the film.<br /><br />The surprises left and right are well welcomed and the ending is very non cliche and makes you feel happy, well maybe that depends on the type of endings you like. This movie kept me very interested besides the fact Matt was in it, it's a great movie and i'd highly recommend it to anyone who likes movies. Critic's probably won't like this movie, but they don't watch movies cause they like movies anyway.

Positive

Negative

Positive

Being that this movie has a lot of fine entertainment qualities I think it should some more credit than it has been given on imdb.<br /><br />It's your basic 'who done it?' thriller with sex and murder but it keeps you guessing right to the end. I like these kinds of movies and I certainly think this one meets the standard.<br /><br />To me it was worth watching more than once so I'll give it an 8 on imdb.

Positive

Negative

Positive

Mat Spirogolou's (Toby Malone) family know he is a talented footballer, and are pleased when he secures an audition to join a big club. They hope that when he arrives in the city his cousin will look after him.<br /><br />But the cousins are like chalk and cheese: one a naive farm boy, the other a streetwise spendthrift who has managed to get mixed up with drug dealers and gangsters. Mat is unlikely to have a quiet evening in before his big day.<br /><br />Having missed his cousin George (Damien Robertson) on arrival in the city, Mat encounters further trouble when a young biker takes him for a ride in more ways than one.<br /><br />Toby Malone, probably better known for his work in theatre, puts in a commendable performance as the bucolic teenager. There are telltale signs of a low budget, but as with so many other low-budget movies there's more fun, seemingly more spontaneity, and more charm, than there is to be seen in the average Hollywood blockbuster.

Positive

Negative

Negative

I waited a while to post a review of this documentary because when I first saw it over 10 years ago, I wanted to think carefully about what I wanted to write. <br /><br />I found from a documentary standpoint that this is a darned good documentary. It did what it set out to do, show me something I had no idea about and kept me interested in this world it explored. I knew nothing of the Drag world and finding out about them and the "Balls" was just spectacular to me. These folks were just so talented with what they do and how they do it, for competition. The catty folks, the complainers (even I was angry when someone told the judge that the coat the Drag Queen was wearing wasn't a man's coat!), the jealous, it's all there like in every other competition. LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPETITION like it. Which I felt was a point.<br /><br />You had the older drag queen talking about how the Balls "used" to be compared to the newer drag queens who have changed the Balls and made more competition categories -- and even those who looked on knowing that the future of Balls would change even more when they were ready to walk the runway. It was interesting to hear that some of the contestants were living out on the street two minutes before the ball but came to compete, it was that important to them! Then there was sad stories, stories of who's "house" and "house mother" brought out the best and the brightest in competition. It was interesting.<br /><br />Now to add after 10 years of seeing this film, I lived through the so called 'Madonna' craze. I spotted a few familiar faces from this documentary who ended up with Madonna during her "Vogue" phase and rightfully so. If not for those individuals, Madonna wouldn't have HAD a "Vogue" phase, I know that now. Credit should be given where credit is DUE. Makes me wonder, if anyone else from mainstream America would watch this documentary, they'll learn they're not as "mainstream" as they think.

Positive

Positive

Negative

Years ago a movie going friend and I went to see a horror film that we thought would be good because it starred John Cassavetes. For the uninitiated, John Cassavettes was an actor, screen writer and director (married to actress Gena Rowlands), nominated for Oscars three times, who wrote and directed a variety of good low-budget films using his income as an actor to keep himself afloat. Up until seeing The Incubus, we did not understand that John Cassavetes income was made from any movie that was offered to him. Had we known what the film was about before seeing it we may have avoided altogether. But we did not walk out. At the time, my friend and I jokingly indicated it was the worst movie ever made. Now frankly, this is not true. I have seen many poorly made films on Friday nights on Cinemax (did I just say that out loud?) that are far worse than The Incubus. Almost any movie starring Brian Bosworth is by definition a worse movie than The Incubus. Certainly Santa Claus Conquers the Martians is a worse movie than The Incubus. However, I have since consistently used The Incubus as a threshold below which I do not want to fall. When talking to this friend about a movie I may have seen I will always remark that it was better (or worse) than The Incubus.<br /><br />http://thevillagevideot.blogspot.com/

Negative

Negative

Positive

No artful writeup here because it doesn't deserve one. Not an art film. Not even one of those 'hidden' gems. You know, like those movies you hear about through a friend who saw this amazing movie downtown where they show all the good independents and art films.<br /><br />Just pack it into the christmas boxes, and dispose of quickly.

Negative

Negative

Negative

There be very little doubt that HG Wells is the most influential writer of the 20th century . Jules Verne has some claim to be the father of science fiction but his stories were more adventure stories using marvellous inventions as plot devices . Wells was profound and brought subtext to his tales . Perhaps his greatest legacy is that there's very little if any evidence that people believed in life on other planets before the 20th century where as now many people including Richard Dawkins consider it a near certainty . There's no evidence of this of course and one can't help wondering that is was Wells who introduced this to human thinking ? Undoubtedly it was Wells that planted the seed .<br /><br />THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war " Why must we murder one another . Why ? " This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later <br /><br />That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question " The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? " . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive

Positive

Negative

Negative

I don't remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.<br /><br />So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.<br /><br />Grade F

Negative

Negative

Positive

I thought King Solomon's Mines was beautifully done. My only reservation was Alison Doody. Her acting was superb but her makeup and hair was not of the period, and always seemed to make her look out of place next to the other actors. I thought Patrick Swayze was an excellent choice for Alan Quatermain. It was nice seeing a seasoned, rugged looking actor in this role after sitting through movie after movie with the fair haired, fair skinned actors like Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, etc. He was an excellent choice and I enjoyed every minute of this movie. This version cannot be compared with the 1950's version with Stewart Grainger. It was a big screen movie and not a made for TV movie. I thought both Quatermains were believable but the two medias have to be kept separated. I am looking forward to seeing this once more, and I hope Patrick Swayze will again look to these type of roles.

Positive

Negative

Negative

This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.<br /><br />The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.

Positive

Negative

Positive

Although there were some amusing moments, I thought the movie was pretty lame. The longer it ran, the worse it got. Once the action entered Monument Valley, I found myself watching the magnificent outcroppings more than the increasingly silly and unconvincing interaction of the characters.<br /><br />The character of the daughter was particularly incoherent. First she's in on the deal, then discovers the truth and she bails. Then she's back again, then deserts them again. Then she's back again. There's no apparent motivation for any of her decisions. There were interesting characters, some interesting scenes, and many missed possibilities. I would have to say the pictures was much less than the sum of its parts. Apparently the people who liked Repo Man were inclined to like this one. Searchers 2.0 is no match for The Searchers.

Negative

Negative

Positive

Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.

Negative

Positive

Negative

Letters with no destination end up in another world found in the back rooms of the post office. Here, Alice manages to land a job in hope of finding her lost father. What she does discover is the tormented soul of her boss, Frank. A quiet little Aussie flic that came and went at the cinema. Now you find it in the deep dark corner of the video shop, overshadowed by fifty copies of that dreaded GODZILLA film. It's a shame because this turned out to be a satisfying film telling a brave tale with strong simple images and effective performances from the two leads. This film succeeds where Garry Marshall's other dead letter office flic DEAR GOD (1996 - USA) failed, and comes close to the brilliance of, not the Kevin Costner turkey, but He Jianjun's POSTMAN (1995 - China).

Positive

Negative

Negative

Errol Flynn is "Gentleman Jim" in this 1942 film about boxer Jim Corbett, known as the man who beat John L. Sullivan. Directed with a light hand by Flynn's good friend, Raoul Walsh, the film also stars Alexis Smith, Jack Carson, Alan Hale Sr., William Frawley and Ward Bond. Flynn plays an ambitious, egotistical young man who has a natural talent for boxing and is sponsored by the exclusive Olympic Club in San Francisco in the late 1800s. Though good-natured, the fact that he is a "shanty Irishman" and a social climber builds resentment in Olympic Club members; most of them can't wait to see him lose a fight, and they bet against him. Despite this, he rises to fame, even working as an actor. Finally he gets the chance he's been waiting for, a match with the world champion, John L. Sullivan (Ward Bond). Sullivan demands a $10,000 deposit to insure that Corbett will appear to fight for the $25,000 purse. Corbett and his manager (Frawley) despair of getting the money. However, help comes in the form of a very unlikely individual.<br /><br />This is a very entertaining film, and Jim Corbett is an excellent role for Flynn, who himself was a professional fighter at one time. He has the requisite charm, good looks and athleticism for the role. Alexis Smith plays Victoria Ware, his romantic interest who insists that she hates him. In real life, she doesn't seem to have existed; Corbett was married to Olive Lake Morris from 1886 to 1895.<br /><br />The focus of the film is on Corbett and his career rather than the history of boxing. Corbett used scientific techniques and innovation and is thought of as the man who made prizefighting an art form. In the film, Corbett is fleet of foot and avoids being hit by his opponents; it is believed that he wore down John L. Sullivan this way.<br /><br />Good film to catch Flynn at the height of his too-short time as a superstar.

Positive

Negative

Positive

because that is the only way you won't think this film is a TOTAL waste of time and money. A remake of "Heaven Can Wait", (which was at least worth watching) is a poor excuse for a romantic comedy. It is more a vehicle to give Rock some time on film for weak stand up comedy which doesn't play well on the big screen. Especially because his jokes generally are supposed to be from the body of an old, fat, rich, dead man but are shown coming from Rock himself. As he insults Blacks and Whites the chemistry is all wrong. The movie is not funny, poorly shot the acting is weak at best. Go rent "Heaven Can Wait" and a live Rock video and you'll be way ahead of the game.

Negative

Negative

Negative

I've read some of the comments about this film and can only surmise that some people are easily entertained. This movie is nothing. It's so badly written, directed and acted that it barely makes an impression. The characters speak in cliche-ridden dialogue and the situations are completely implausible. While that might make this campy and fun, it doesn't because everything is so lifeless the film becomes dull. It's as if Lee Rose decided to write a drama about a woman struggling with her sexuality but then she either wasn't allowed by studio execs to give the story some true-to-life gusto or didn't have the cojones. This movie could go in the enyclopedia as the standard-issue bad Lifetime TV movie.

Negative

Negative

Negative

Complete drivel. An unfortunate manifestation of the hypocritical, toxic culture of a decade ago. In this movie, pedestrian regrets for slavery go hand in hand with colonialist subtexts (the annoying redhead feeding Shaka rice?). Forget historical reality too. Didn't most western slaves comes from West Africa? An American slaver easily capturing Shaka with a handful of men?. Finally, David Hasslehoff could not have been any more obnoxious. One can only ponder, how would he have fared in the miniseries? (Promptly impaled most likely). The miniseries was superb, and it is unfortunate that DH should have gotten his hands on something unique, and made it mundane. (I tend to think that he had hand in creating this fiasco).

Negative

Negative

Positive

I do not expect this film to be well understood by viewers out of Romania. This tells something certainly about the value, or maybe about the lack of universality of the film, but also tells something about how different history and even life of common people was in Romania compared to other countries, even in Eastern Europe.<br /><br />The film is an adaptation of a novel by Marin Preda, a controversial novelist who died during the Communist rule soon after the book was published. It tells the story of an intellectual, professor of philosophy whose life is crushed after he is imprisoned on false accusations at the end of the Stalinist era. Basically the first part of the film tells the story of his fight for survival in prison, the second describes his tentative to regain his life after being released. His release is actually only apparent, Romania of the 60s asks from him different types of compromises and crimes, but yet his fight for survival is as tough morally as in prison.<br /><br />The film is splendidly acted by some of the best Romanian actors. Stefan Iordache who has the lead role would be in another time and another place a mega-star, we can get here a good glimpse of his fabulous acting art. Although suffering from a hesitant story-telling and falling sometimes in non-essential details or character comics, the film is still an important landmark for the Romanian cinema, as well as for the process of recovering the moral and historic values in the Romanian society.

Negative

Negative

Negative

When I started watching this movie I saw the dude from Buffy, Xander, and figured ah how nice that he's still making a living acting in movies. Now a weird movie I can stand, given that it's a good dose of weird like for example David Lynch movies, twin peaks, lost highway etc. And you sort of have to be in the mood for one. This one however made me mockingly remember the crazy websites about there about conspiracy theory's that make absolutely no sense. I mean come on people Nazi's who conspire with America to make an unholy trinity of evil powers? I was surprised they didn't mention the hollow earth in this movie with Hitler flying saucers and lizard people. Maybe if you had like 60 grams of heroine with this movie it would make some sort of sense, but seriously I don't condone drugs like I don't condone this movie. It should be burned, shredded and forgotten just so good ol' Xander might get another acting job. It wasn't his acting though, that was alright, but the script just didn't make any sense. Sorry.

Negative

Positive

Negative

Here's another movie that should be loaded into a satellite, fired into space and pointed in the direction of the galaxy Andromeda to show distant possible civilizations the best of humanity. This movie is so endearingly stupid and revealingly honest in being little more than a rip-off of the already bad movie classic KING KONG from 1976 that it not only manages to upstage that film in terms of sheer belly laugh idiotic goofiness, but successfully predicted much of Peter Jackson's miserable 2005 computer cartoon bearing the same name, as far as a "romance" between the giant (here a Yeti) and a gorgeous human female (Antonellina Interlenghi of Umberto Lenzi's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, who is very easy on the eyes).<br /><br />The film was made for kids so aside from some innuendo over fish bones and a bizarre nipple tweak to say goodbye you can forget about sex -- the Yeti even has a sort of giant jock strap to cover up his monstrous package, the result being even more amusing than anatomical correctness. But as a trade-off you DO get a wacky old scientist, two inquisitive kids, Tony Kendall in a rare turn as a duplicitous bastard of a villain, a helpful intelligent collie dog who gets to have her own adventure (Dog Adventure movies were big in Europe for a while) and of course emerges as the hero at the end for saving the Yeti, who turns out to be the good guy, glorious stuff like front end loaders decorated to look like giant ape hands, a monster who's size literally changes scale from shot to shot, some inappropriately horrible deaths that will make the carnage in GODZILLA VS THE SMOG MONSTER look tame by comparison, crowd reaction shots a-plenty made up of either Spanish, Italian or Canadian extras depending upon scene (you can sort of tell where they were shooting from how the extras are dressed), and some of the most enthusiastically staged but inept special effects work ever in a giant monkey movie.<br /><br />It's here that the film won me over: It's enthusiasm just for being made. Frank Kramer is actually the same Gianfranco Parolini who brought the world SARTANA in 1968 and GOD'S GUN the year before this & was a very important director in the Spaghetti Western and action/adventure genre film scene from the 1960's/1970's and by the time of YETI he was probably delighted to get the work. I would say that this is his most adventuresome movie ever, or rather the one he took the most chances with, and may have felt more comfortable taking those chances with the film aimed at kids & families. The movie has a kind of reckless abandon to the way it was made that renders the technical errors or inconsistencies totally meaningless. Or rather they are part of the fun, and if the movie had been played seriously it wouldn't have worked -- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY PETER JACKSON'S MOVIE SUCKED. <br /><br />He forgot to have fun with the material and let it dictate the outcome using his army of stupid Power Macintosh pod people animators, and with all it's faults + clunkiness, Kramer's YETI is actually closer to the spirit of why we watch movies like this, which is partly to see actors in ape suits tearing apart miniature sets on sound stages, not seamlessly animated vapid hours of nothing other than hard drive space. I'd rank this up there with KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA and IT! CURSE OF THE GREAT GOLEM as one of the most enjoyably improbable giant rampaging monster movies ever. Because the movie looks so "fake" you can get over the story and just have fun watching stuff get wrecked, trampled, tossed about and smashed. Knowing that and armed with a fertile, energetic enthusiasm for having the chance to make the movie, Parolini pulled out all the stops and delivers a full bodied adventure that might get a bit rough for some of the small tykes but is the first movie I will ever share with the grandkids someday when their stupid parents leave them with me for a weekend. This is stuff for the ages and one of the most telling expressions of humanity to ever be committed to celluloid.<br /><br />10/10, it's about ten minutes too long but who cares, you only come around once and I'd rather go out with a smile on my face.

Positive

Negative

Negative

I can understand how fans of filmmaker Roman Polanski could love this movie- and I could understand how some could totally hate it (Ebert was one of the few who couldn't understand why people weren't running out of the theater). After a first viewing, I'm not sure I could fall into either category, however as someone who can't get enough of Kafka and bizarre dark comedies of paranoia The Tenant is effective enough for its running time. Or maybe not- this is one of those cases where it might have been more of a masterwork if it were a half-hour Twilight Zone episode, with Serling delivering the coda as Terkovsky (or whomever it might be(?)) writhes in his bed in bandages. It's very similar in the treatment of the doomed protagonist as Repulsion was, however it could be argued that there was more ambiguity, more of a sense of the surreal coming out through a sustained disintegration of character and location (and, quite frankly, a better lead performance) than the Tenant.<br /><br />As it stands, The Tenant does have an intriguing premise, the kind that one doesn't tire telling about to other people: Polanski is a Polish émigré to Paris who takes an apartment that was most recently acquired by Simone Choule, who jumped to her near death out of the window and died soon after. But the other tenants are conservative to the max in terms of noise; after a Saturday night at Terkovsky's with a few friends, there are complaints of too much noise. It won't happen again, Polanski's good-natured but slightly nervous tenant says, but there is no peace even in moving a cabinet or a chair. Soon complaints get registered against another tenant, but from him? Can he register complaints? This is a case of not so much mistaken identity but of there being a lack of peace of mind with oneself and the surrounding people. As the downward spiral goes on, Polanski ratchets up tension (and, dare I say, black-comedic laughs) by showing Terkovsky in the midst of a horrible dream- one of Polanski's strongest scenes from the period- and in finding teeth in the wall, not to mention the bathroom across the way (which, I might add, is always a cinematic lynch-pin of horror and surreal madness).<br /><br />But somehow, the film never really feels all that significant aside from its excessive design as a would-be mind-f*** machine, with Terkovsky's tenants only seeming to not be what they seem for a little while: there's not as much suspense when finding out that they really aren't out to get him, which makes the paranoia more self-fulfilling. At least once or twice I thought to myself as well 'why did Polanski take the title role for himself?' It's not that he's at all a bad actor, and he has appeared in several films and plays that aren't of his own direction. But aside from being great at looking awkward and tense, like in the church, or in his moments of sort of flipping out when thinking that they really are out to get him to kill himself, his transformation is less creepy than tongue-in-cheek, a test of himself to see if he can pull it off, which he doesn't entirely do. Despite Polanski working at it well to look like the meek and frazzled Terkovsky, I could see at least a few other actors who could pull it off with more subtlety and affecting personality. By the time one sees him in drag, it goes between cringe-worthy and true camp, particularly when he goes for the double-climax at the end (which, of course, is of little surprise).<br /><br />And yet there is pleasure for the film-buff and Polanski fan to see the supporting cast try and dig into the much more ambiguous characters (Winters and Douglas do this the best, even as they have to strain through limited characters), and the unexpected moments like Polanski and Adjani getting hot and heavy during a Bruce Lee movie, or when he gets really drunk, or in one almost random scene where he slaps a kid near a fountain, are rather brilliant in and of themselves. It's a very good film, and one that could maybe stick my attention up when on too many coffees after midnight. But an essential film? Not exactly.

Positive

Negative

Positive

Follow the Fleet, an RKO production in 1936, stars Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in a complex romantic comedy. Although Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers have had many similar romantic movies together, RKO helped them to once again create a worth-while storyline that incorporates relevant situations to society at the time it was made. The narrative of Follow the Fleet relies heavily on the use of layered story lines between the two sets of main characters to create a satisfying romantic comedy.<br /><br />The general plot of the movie revolves around Bake Baker, a Sailor in the U.S. Navy played by Fred Astaire, and Sherry Martin, Bake's former love and dance partner who is now a singer and dancer played by Ginger Rogers. Their story begins when Bake is on the ship and his shipmate Bilge Smith finds a photo of the two of them together, and Bake reveals that the last time he saw her he had asked her to marry him, so Bilge suggests that they try and meet up with her when they are on land, in hopes that she might have a friend. <br /><br />The next major scene begins the second plot of the movie when Connie Martin, Sherry's sister, is refused entry into Paradise where her sister works unless she is escorted by a gentleman. She turns around to find Bilge behind her with a bag full of beverages, so she plays it off like she was waiting on him and buys his entrance into Paradise as well. Connie then finds Sherry and tells her that she is depressed because she cannot have the luck Sherry does with men, so Sherry suggests she get a makeover from her friends while she is performing on stage. Connie gets made over, and enters the ballroom once again, and approaches Bilge again, who is awestruck by the sight of her. This commences the second romantic storyline between Bilge and Connie.<br /><br />Throughout the remainder of the movie the story and rising actions are transitioned between altering comedic reliefs of the two couples' troubles that create several mini rising and falling actions within the overall plot. Bake and Sherry hit it off their first moments together as they compete in a dance competition and end up winning it, reminding them of the success and pleasure the two have when they are together. Similarly, Bilge is able to swoon Connie through his romantic attempts of pleasing her, and they retire to her house. <br /><br />This series of happy events is soon followed by unsettling measures that brings the rising action back down. Bake left Sherry the previous night to retire to the ship before midnight, and told her that he would come for her in the morning. Unfortunately the ship sets course after the shipmates have returned, upsetting Sherry and leaving her to think Bake was still being a typical sailor looking for a good time when he's on land. <br /><br />The mood is again changed as another subplot is entered into the film when a "party of big shots" is taking a tour of the ship. This alternate storyline is used to create a buffer between the stories of the two main relationships of the film, as well as help build confidence and fondness of Bake's overall good intentions. The party is interrupted by the oblivious music playing coming from Bake and his companions when they missed the sounding to report on deck for the company. The ladies are intrigued and ask to hear them play, and Bake gladly begins to entertain them with some dancing, which ultimately helps brighten the mood of the film, as well as bring happiness to the sailors. <br /><br />After returning to the couple's intertwined stories, Sherry is trying to prove to Bake that she does not need his help with landing a job. Unfortunately Bake is unaware that she is auditioning, and goes to put in a good word for Sherry when he overhears his friend at the studio talking about the remarkable lady auditioning. Bake takes it upon himself to help Sherry out by tampering with her water, making her unable to sing correctly and destroying her audition. In addition to Bake's mistake, Connie spent all of her money to repair a ship that she was hoping Bilge would take over as captain. She had also planned a remarkable dinner date for him when he was supposed to come over, but Bilge was aware of her intentions and hopes of soon marrying and was no longer interested, so he stood her up. <br /><br />The remainder of the movie continues in the same format of mini rising and falling actions until the climactic point is reached between the two couples, ending the movie with the happiness of both couples. The use of the altering stories helps to build interest and emotion within each couple as they deal with both happiness and pain through each of their struggles. The intertwining stories are also able to relate with one another, as well as incorporate other unrelated subplots to help carry the narrative through to the concluding scenes. <br /><br />Although Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers have countless films together that incorporate romance, comedy, song, and dance, Follow the Fleet is a unique film for the two actors that successfully use the technique of subplots to aid the narrative between the two main characters.

Positive

Negative

Positive

While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made. The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot! Continuity was cast to the four winds. Anybody catch the cannon sequence? The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes. Come on! Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat! Costumer must of been away or something. Or just out of their mind!

Negative

Negative

Positive

Little Edie and Big Edie are characters that anyone can feel compassion for. Even though their house was filthy, this is somehow understandable considering their mental illness. On the message board a poster wrote that "Little Edie has the coping skills of an eight year old." This reminded me of when in the dramatized 2009 version, Big Edie says to Little Edie, "If you're stuck, it's only with yourself!" These women had everything; beauty, talent, intelligence, firm belief in their opinions and actions. Perhaps if Little Edie wasn't so hard on herself the first time things didn't work out, losing her hair, her job, and the love of her life, she would have made it. This somehow ties into what I believe is her mental illness: her inability to pick herself up when times are hard and see that good times lie ahead. The world will never know what have happened if she didn't listen to her mom's plea, "Come home, Edie! Let me take care of you!"<br /><br />Yet these understandably insecure women somehow manage to be brilliant, heartbreaking, and lovable, even in their extremely filthy home. These women were extraordinary, and their interaction with each other bring humor and sadness. When Edie had one of her emotional breakdowns, dwelling about what could have been, or about how she wants to get out of her home because she feels like a little girl, one gets the intense urge to hug her and tell her that "everything will be okay!" <br /><br />Great documentary!!<br /><br />9/10

Positive

Negative

Negative

Gédéon and Jules Naudet wanted to film a documentary about rookie New York City firefighters. What they got was the only film footage inside the World Trade Center on September 11.<br /><br />Having worked with James Hanlon's ladder company before, Jules went with the captain to inspect and repair a gas leak, while Gédéon stayed at the firehouse in case anything interesting happened. An airplane flying low over the City distracted Jules, and he pointed the camera up, seconds before the plane crashed into Tower One.<br /><br />Jules asked the captain to follow him into the Towers. The first thing he saw was two people on fire, something he refused to film. He stayed on site for the next several hours, filming reactions of the firefighters and others who were there.<br /><br />The brothers Naudet took great care in not making the movie too violent, grizzly, and gory. But the language from the firefighters is a little coarse, and CBS showed a lot of balls airing it uncensored. The brothers Naudet mixed footage they filmed with one-on-one interviews so the firefighters could explain their thoughts and emotions during particular moments of the crisis. <br /><br />Unlike a feature film of similar title, most of the money from DVD sales go to 9/11-related charities. Very well made, emotional, moving, and completely devoid of political propaganda, is the best documentary of the sort to date.

Positive

Negative

Positive

Verhoeven's movie was utter and complete garbage. He's a disgusting hack of a director and should be ashamed. By his own admission, he read 2 chapters of the book, got bored, and decided to make the whole thing up from scratch.<br /><br />Heinlein would have NEVER supported that trash if he'd been alive to see it. It basically steals the name, mocks politics of the book (which is a good portion of it), and throws in some T&A so the average idiot American moviegoer doesn't get bored.<br /><br />This anime isn't perfect, but it's at least mostly accurate, as best I can tell.

Negative

Negative

Negative