Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
As I write this in November 2005 I've become aware that the great British boom of cinema has come to an end and while people will claim much of this is down to the British government not giving film makers tax breaks I think the cause is much simpler - A lack of diversity on the part of producers over the last few years . Let's have a look at what the Brits were producing 1995-2005:<br /><br />Funky gangster thrillers . LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRALES was a truly great and thoroughly entertaining film and people went out of their way to ape Guy Ritchie's style with usually disappointing results <br /><br />Romantic comedies . Yeah okay I do realise FOUR WEDDINGS , NOTTING HILL etc were produced by American studios but they're still vaguely " British films " . Unfortunately because they're guaranteed to make a profit for the studios they have to follow a winning formula which usually involved Hugh Grant playing Hugh Grant for the umpteenth time <br /><br />Black Comedies . Can anyone explain what a black comedy actually is ? In the British context it's usually a rambling film with often contemporary political statements made and which often resembles Mike Leigh's NAKED <br /><br />Jasmin Disdar's BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE is a good example of the third type of British movie . Filmed in 1999 but set in 1993 it opens with two men having a fight on a bus and it's later revealed that one's a Serb and one's a Croat so we get a bite sized rundown of what was happening in the Balkans at that time , though what's the odds of two former enemies in the Balkans bumping into each other on a London bus ? This sums up one of the major flaws of the movie - Irony takes precedence over likely situations , you can appreciate the final irony of the subplots but is the outcome likely ? Perhaps the greatest irony is the title of the film . It's called BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE but certainly this audience member found them clichéd stereotypical people that I couldn't believe in as three dimensional characters | negative |
PEOPLE ARE STUPID.You shouldn't cheer when Paris gets killed in the head with a pipe! It is plain rude!What did Paris do to you? What if that was you? You wouldn't want people cheering for your death!Anyway it was really gory, which I liked and it was cool when Elisha's finger gets cut off.It was weird with that twist that they didn't have 2 sons they had tree and all, It makes way for a House of Wax 2: Ressurction or something.Paris was great acting in the chase scene.Elisha and Chad chemistry is great, they deserve an Oscar.My friends and I were cracking up when that guy said that's hot when Paris and the guy from Cousin Skeeter making out.Lol.K bye. | positive |
Dick Foran and Peggy Moran, who were so good together in THE MUMMY'S HAND, return for this very minor Universal Horror offering. But this time, instead of having Wallace Ford as the comedic sidekick "Babe," we get Fuzzy Knight substituting as a silly buddy named "Stuff". But the results are nowhere near as charming, and the scare level is virtually nil.<br /><br />Dick is a businessman who gets the idea of spearheading a treasure hunt on a remote island inside a spooky old castle. Peggy is one of the gang who comes along for the ride. But there is a tall and skinny John Carradine lookalike in a black cape and big hat known as "The Phantom" who crashes the party in pursuit of the buried fortune himself.<br /><br />This "phantom" is not very mysterious, and no effort is made to even try and keep his rather average guy face in the shadows to create any tension or spookiness. It's always nice to see perky Moran, but otherwise you can chalk this up as one of Universal's instantly forgettable misfires. | negative |
What can I say? You expect only the best in drama from the BBC and MESSIAH is not an exception to the rule.<br /><br />MESSIAH is a great thriller, a truly shocking and creepy tale about a serial killer who cuts out victims' tongues and replaces them with silver spoons. Police Officer Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott) and his team have the task of trying to solve the mystery of the seemingly random events, before more lives are lost.<br /><br />But be warned - despite it's '15' rating (in the UK), MESSIAH is a bit of a gruesome film. Some of the murder scenes are similar to those in SE7EN, and one or two can be really stomach-churning. But if you can withstand that, sit back in your chair and enjoy... although you'll most likely be on the edge of it or hiding behind it.<br /><br />Rated '15' by the BBFC for moderate violence and strong horror. | positive |
Death in Venice is a movie I need to see once every ten years. It is always different, because I am always at a different stage of life.<br /><br />The movie is about art, beauty, longing, death. Some scenes are painfully slow, others simply annoying to watch, especially if you have seem them before. Yet I would not want to miss a single frame. The music is repetitive, the main theme of the adagietto from Mahler's fifth is used again and again. Yet I would not want to miss a single note. When the last image fades, the last note dies, I am left numb and exhausted.<br /><br />This movie is a monument to film making. As with most really good movies, the saturday evening crowd should stay away from it. And this is simply the best movie ever. | positive |
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 |
Gritty drama? Emotionally powerful? Blah! The BBC has lost out big time to masterful productions such as The Wire, Sopranos and Carnivale from HBO. Okay, so the budget may be a lot smaller but 'The Street' last night was badly acted, predictable, unrealistic, stereotypical, insensitive and a big fat waste of time. TV (British TV) is not as good as it used to be and is falling further and further behind the American productions.<br /><br />There was no sense of brutal violence from the 'local gangster'. There was no indication that this man was 'insane' enough to beat up a man he has respected for such a long time. There was no remorse when he did it and this shouldn't be the sort of character that would back down when Bob Hoskins called his son a pansy, in a display of 'bravery'.<br /><br />I wish I was more eloquent to express my disdain for this show, but I am not and although I can't prove my point well enough, believe me when I say that this was rubbish, shock TV, that provides no real inward looking perspective on life.<br /><br />1/5 stars. | negative |
Go up to any film fan and ask them the title of the film which was directed by Robert Wise, with second-unit direction by Yakima Canutt and Sergio Leone, was designed by Ken Adam and scored by Max Steiner, starred Sir Stanley Baker, Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Brigitte Bardot, was filmed in colour, scope and stereo, at Cinecitta in 1955, with a thousand extras - and they'll tell you to go away and stop being silly.<br /><br />They'll tell you that no such film EXISTS. That the names you've quoted NEVER worked together - they weren't even contemporaneous. And that you've just picked the names out of a movie publication at random and are attempting to befuddle them.<br /><br />At which point you can direct them to IMDb and show them the cast and crew of "Helen Of Troy". They'll be amazed! This lesser-known sword-and-sandal epic has ALL these names and more - Niall MacGinnis, Janette Scott and good old Harry Andrews.<br /><br />And it is certainly an oddity. After the war, 1,000 Italian extras cost about $25 a day and toga dramas were a staple of Italian cinema. The orgy scenes were shot twice - one with tops, the other without (you can guess which version Britain and America got). I believe even La Sophia is an extra in this one.<br /><br />Either way, the names STAGGER the mind. But it's really just a coincidence. All of said names were either just reaching the ends of their careers (Canutt, Steiner) or beginning them (everybody else).<br /><br />Only Robert Wise and Niall MacGinnis were in the middle of their careers.<br /><br />For the record, Leone was uncredited and learning his trade - Adam still had to invent the descending circle in the ceiling of sets (a trademark he'd go on to put into all the early Bonds) - Baker had yet to star in and help produce the likes of "Zulu" and "Robbery" - and go on to direct a Welsh TV company called Harlech - then die tragically young.<br /><br />While Harry Andrews would go on to become one of Britain's favourite character actors - Janette Scott (Thora Hird's daughter) would never make the really big time, but who can forget her in "Day Of The Triffids" (even though her bit was added later - for padding and a happy ending) or "Crack In The World"?<br /><br />Sir Cedric was theatre, but knew how to mug on film - and Bardot... was BARDOT, for gawdsake!<br /><br />But what were these stellar people DOING in this camp old nonsense? Don't ask me. The two main stars were no-name Italians - Helen had a moustache and Paris was pretty - while the Brits were only there for support.<br /><br />To summarise, I think you can just mark this one up as a major FLUKE. In stereo. To be honest, if I hadn't seen it - I wouldn't believe it EITHER! | negative |
I think this movie lacks so much of substance, it is even not worth a discussion.<br /><br />In the first, the package is really disgusting. Especially the stereotype filming and photographing. Surely, Joe Dante's cinematic stile was appropriate and interesting in "Gremlins" and "Small Soldiers", I mean the imaginative and visual pretty story telling of a Spielberg-wunderkind (I really loved these movies), but in "Homecoming" it was a completely failure. Attacks of toy soldiers and hairy creatures is simply not comparable with zombie-invasions (dead, stinky, rotten beings trying to kill the living - without any logical reason, just because they hate them). <br /><br />Zombie flicks are characteristic in plain, direct, unconventional and brutal cinematography. Nothing to be seen in Joe Dante's debut. Another point is the annoying content: really stupid dialogs between the two main characters, a gruesome exploitation of the "elder brother dies and leaves the younger traumatized" and bad acting. And, by the way "Homecoming" is neither scary, nor gory - and even less entertaining. You see, it is even not a horror movie.<br /><br />Zombie movies in the decade of their birth - it the end of 60s/ start of the 70s - used to be revolutionary, provocative (espicially through its gruesome, explicit content) and of subtle social critic. THE ORIGINAL Zombie film was actually a midnight-movie named "Night of the Living Dead" (1968). This one was a low budget movie that covered so many controversial themes, it's hard to name them all: a visual style of Hitchcock/Raimi, the American lifestyle of the 70s, political aloofness, the upcoming breakthrough of the human rights of black people and the even more upcoming racism as a result on the side of the conservative Americans (remember the shooting of the black main character in the end of the movie).<br /><br />If you are interested in the creativity of midnight movies and want to learn more about the most important ones, I recommend you "Midnight Movies: From the Margin to the Mainstream ".<br /><br />So steer clear of "Homecoming" and even so of Romero's "Land of the Dead". | negative |
I have nothing against religious movies. Religious people need something to watch on a Saturday night, I guess. But what really ticks me off is when the write-up on the DVD box does not indicate this fact to the potential viewer. Passing off religious propaganda as entertainment is NOT cool, bro.<br /><br />And even if I was a religious person, I would have to agree with most of the other posters here, this movie was a mess. Poorly directed, poorly acted, poorly edited, and the attempt at a soundtrack was hilarious. The fake accents were terrible, the characters were mainly stereotypes, and continuity was out the window. The only reason we sat through this lame waste of time was that it was too late to watch another movie instead. Should have just gone to bed.<br /><br />Absolutely no redeeming qualities to this movie, unless you are the religious type who will immediately endorse anything that will preach your beliefs to the unbelievers, even if it's a pile of garbage. If you aren't, avoid this at all costs. Do not be deceived by the box write-up. | negative |
I didn't know what to expect from 'Ned Kelly', but absolutely loved it. It was dark, dramatic and gripping. It also felt very authentic, I felt that I had been transported back to the 1800's. I've never been much of a Heath Ledger fan, having only seen him in teen type movies, however he is quite compelling in this role. Ledger plays Ned Kelly with dignity and intensity, showing us how an highly spirited boy became Australia's most notorious killer. Naomi Watts is great in a supporting role as Kelly's society lover. Highly recommended - and that's from an Aussie! | positive |
This movie really rocks! Jeff Wincott is terrific in the film! His fighting incredible! He is such a fast martial artist! Brigitte Nielsen & Matthias Hues was very good! Mission of Justice is an action packed movie that is never boring! If you like fighting movies with incredible non stop action then check out Mission of Justice today! | positive |
I watch bad movies.<br /><br />This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.<br /><br />I am LAZY.<br /><br />Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.<br /><br />I am smashing my copy of this movie.<br /><br />It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful. | negative |
This is probably the most irritating show I have ever seen in my entire life. It is indescribably the most annoying and idiotic show I have ever seen. Everything about it is just bad.<br /><br />Synopsis: Different situation comes up each week for the parent to handle their kids.<br /><br />I could not understand, what kind of idiot would produce this mess in the first place not to mention several season. The script is bad, very bad it contains both cheesiness and unethical joke that you normally see in rated R or NC-17 movie. Especially for the young boy character where all he does is pleasuring himself, is that what one called family show humor? The casting is also horrible, cause all you see is a really really BAD Actors, period.<br /><br />Final Word: This Show is a real torture!! This show provides an image of how irresponsible parent can be (using power wrongly rather than understanding). It is zillion times away from reality. Listen to Kenny G would be a god sends compare to this. Watching washing machine twirling around wouldn't hurt your eyes as much as this show.<br /><br />Rating: 0/10 (Grade: Z) <br /><br />Note: The Show Is So Bad That Even Mother Of The Cast Pull Her Daughter Out Of The Show. | negative |
This is a candidate for the single most disappointing movie experience of my lifetime. Cool title, excellent director (I saw "To Die For" and "Drugstore Cowboy" before this), and hey - Uma Thurman in the cast. How can you go wrong? Well, that is a question that throbbed in my temples for hours after I watched this turkey.<br /><br />Disjointed and unfunny in an attempt to be offbeat, this is a dead-zone of a movie that should be avoided at all costs. Its critical lambasting was well deserved. You have here one of those rare films that does not contain a single redeeming quality. Zero out of ****. | negative |
Crackerjack is a simple but feelgood movie where the good guys are very good and the bad guys are very bad and the central character is tempted by both sides.<br /><br />The combination of the central character being played by Mick Malloy and the central setting being the local lawn bowls clubs drew an unusually broad crowd ranging from large numbers of teenagers to large numbers of senior citizens - and all laughed at the comedy.<br /><br />As would be expected of a movie with Mick Malloy and Judith Lucy there was quite a bit of swearing, but it was not overdone and the audience I sat with certainly enjoyed it!<br /><br />Mick Malloy did a good job as the lazy bloke who joined the bowls club (three times) simply to get parking spaces (one for himself and two for leasing to others at a premium) but who has everything fall down on him when he is required to play or lose his membership.<br /><br />Judith Lucy does a fine job as his local journalist/love-interest and there are fabulous performances from Bill Hunter, Frank Wilson, Monica Maughan, Lois Ramsey and many others.<br /><br />John Clarke's dour role as the bad guy is not one of his funniest but he gives a solid performance.<br /><br />The not so subtle swipes at pokies provide a bit of a serious note to this otherwise light comedy.<br /><br />I'm sure that those who enjoyed The Castle and The Dish would also enjoy this movie. | positive |
"I just viewed this movie last night and I don't think I will ever think the same about any of the actors involved, because this movie will stick in the back of my mind."<br /><br />The above statement can be thought of as a good or a bad thing. I mean every time I see Tom Cruise or Demi Moore in a movie, I think of "A Few Good Men" which is a good thing. Now, every time I see Ron Perlman or Kristy Swanson, I will think of "Tinseltown" which is a VERY bad thing.<br /><br />I picked this up thinking that it might be something intelligent or at least make me chuckle and with Arye Gross and the aforementioned Swanson and Perlman, I thought that it at least wouldn't be bad. You could tell the movie was made on a budget the size of Wheeling, Indiana (Where? Exactly.), but maybe they used every dollar to make a good movie. WRONG.<br /><br />This movie is NOT funny or entertaining in any sense of either word. It is just there and lasts for 84 excruciating slow minutes.<br /><br />The characters are paper-thin. You almost care about NONE of the characters, and since the leads are two struggling Hollywood writers with a dream that is all the two struggling writers with a dream who wrote this need you to know about them. Okay, the two REAL writers know all about there onscreen versions of themselves, so they figure so does the audience. They don't even think about character development, except for trying to tie there story back to "Gilligan's Island".<br /><br />The plot is unoriginal. Two guys live in a storage center, where one of them stores a bed, and there are about twenty other people living there, too. The rest of the story is contrived and stupid. Have you seen "National Lampoon's Favorite Deadly Sins"? The second story with Joe Mantegna is about a television writer who can't find a good story to make a TV movie about, so he creates one. Now substitute the television writer for a screenwriter, morph Mantegna into to annoying actors half his age, and take away the comedy and you have this movie.<br /><br />The actors try. Kristy Swanson is in the movie for maybe 10 minutes and still gives the best performance in the movie. She is still hot, but it would help if she would actually STAR in a movie instead of constantly making CAMEOS. As for everyone else, I don't think it was the actors fault because they have BAD material<br /><br />Go watch the National Lampoon's movie, but stay away from this movie. | negative |
Since this picture is classified a "pure entertainment" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris. | negative |
Taiwanese director Ang Lee, whose previous films include 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'The Ice Storm', turned to the American Civil War for his latest feature. Based on a novel by Daniel Woodrell, it follows the exploits of a group of Southern guerrillas, known as bushwhackers, as they fight their Northern equivalents, the jayhawkers in the backwater of Missouri.<br /><br />As one might expect, there is plenty of visceral action, but the focus is on the tension that the war put on the young men who fought it - many of whom were fighting against their former neighbours and even family. Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) is such a man, or rather, boy, as he is only seventeen when the war reaches Missouri. He is the son of a German immigrant, but instead of following his countrymen and becoming a Unionist, he joins his lifelong friend Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich) and rides with the bushwhackers. Despite a lack of acceptance because of his ancestry and an unwillingness to participate in the murder of unarmed Union men, he remains loyal to the cause. So does his friend Daniel Holt (Jeffrey Wright), a black slave freed by another bushwhacker and so fighting for the South.<br /><br />Lee handles the subject with aplomb, never rushing the deep introspection that the plot demands in favour of action and this lends the film a sense of the reality of war - long periods of boredom and waiting interposed with occasional flashes of intensely terrifying fighting. The action is unglamorised and admirably candid, recognising that both sides committed a great number of atrocities.<br /><br />The performances are superb, with Maguire and Wright both courageous and dignified. Up-and-coming Irish actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers is particularly chilling as a cold-blooded killer, while Skeet Ulrich is enjoyably suave and arrogant. Lee never flinches from the reality of war, but his actors do an admirable job of showing the good that comes from it - the growth of friendship, the demonstration of courage and, on a wider scale, the emancipation of oppressed peoples. Ride With the Devil is a beautiful and deeply compassionate film that regularly shocks but always moves the audience. | positive |
The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.<br /><br />Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.<br /><br />The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.<br /><br />Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending. Thirst delivers on all fronts and will hopefully get more of the attention it deserved during its theatrical run on DVD (and eventually Blu-ray, hopefully). | positive |
I think the context of the story has been covered by other posters so I would just like to write about the impact this film had on me.<br /><br />I first saw this film the year of it's release around 1987. My school organised a trip to the cinema to see it, for an RE project I think. We all went along of course excited because we were on a school trip to the cinema! Little did we know what we were about to experience. To this day I still remember the feelings it invoked in me and i remembered crying a lot as were most of my friends. I think at the age we were we found it shocking and quiet rightly outraged in our own youthful way .It had such an impact on me that I joined the Anti Apartheid Movement the same year.<br /><br />I think it served it's purpose in my case. | positive |
Its like if you took the general themes of The Usual Suspects and Fightclub, take away all their style and class and mixed them together with a lot of pretentious new wave "i'm intellectual so my movie must be hard to make sense of" film maker rubbish, mashed in a few extra styles for good measure, chopped off the ending, there you have Revolver.<br /><br />Yes, I did think about it for a little bit after watching, and yes it did kind of make sense, however that doesn't stop it being garbage.<br /><br />Waste of money. Waste of time.<br /><br />Up there as the worst Movie I have ever seen, with not even a bad movie novelty value to redeem it a little. | negative |
I won't repeat all that has been said already by other viewers of this film.<br /><br />In my opinion this is an excellent film, not only as a very human tale of the developing relationship between a father and his grown-up son, but also as a little window onto the world of practising Islam, for those like me who are not very familiar with that religion.<br /><br />An important aspect of this story is that of the young man's relation to his father's beliefs and practices, and how his attitude towards the religion seems to alter in subtle ways as we progress on their journey with them.<br /><br />This is a very thought-provoking, enjoyable and well-made film that I would recommend to anyone with brain and heart. | positive |
An unjustly neglected classic, "Intruder in the Dust" is one of the great films of the 1940's which has unfortunately slipped into obscurity. Based on a story by William Faulker, and shot in his hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, "Intruder" tells the story of Lucas Beauchamp (played with great dignity by Juano Hernandez), a black man unjustly accused of the murder of a local white man, and a white boy (Claude Jarman, Jr.) who uses this situation as an opportunity to pay a previous debt to Beauchamp. Terrific acting, especially by two great character actors, Porter Hall (as the dead man's father) and Elizabeth Patterson (best known as Mrs. Trumbull on "I Love Lucy") as an old woman willing to stand against the townspeople to see that right is done. This straightforward, tense and sincere study of racial bigotry deserves to be seen more. | positive |
This is the official sequel to the '92 sci-fi action thriller. In the original, Van Damme was among several dead Vietnam War vets revived to be the perfect soldiers (Unisols). In this one, it's, I guess, about a dozen years later, since Van Damme has a daughter about that age. Now he's working with the government in a classified installation to train the latest Unisols - codenamed Unisol 2500, for some reason. As usual, something goes wrong: the on-site super-computer (named Seth - like the snake in "King Cobra" the same year) goes power-crazy, takes command of the Unisols, and even downloads its computer brain into a new super-Unisol body (Jai White). We're lookin' at the next step in evolution, folks! Most of Van Damme's fights are with one particularly mean Unisol (pro wrestler Goldberg) who just keeps on comin': drop him off a building - no good; run him down with a truck - no go! Shoot him, burn him - forgetaboutit! Much of the humor is traced to how Van Damme is now outmoded and out-classed(he's even going grey around the edges). But, though he takes a lickin', he keeps on kickin'! Most sequels of this sort are pretty lame - pale imitations of the originals, and while this one is certainly no stroke of genius, it manages to be consistently entertaining, especially if you're a pro-wrestling fan. | negative |
It was so very long ago (1960), but I have never forgotten this series and often wished it would reappear. So taken with it, I corresponded with Mr. Rathbun, then president of Standard Oil, which sponsored the presentation on PBS. He sent me a photo of the tapestry (actually a charcoal rendering) used behind the credits.<br /><br />To the opening theme music of Bayco's "Elizabethan Masque," my family and I gathered around our black & white TV to drink in Shakespeare's words as spoken by a group of excellent but relatively unknown players (at least to American audiences at the time).<br /><br />We were introduced to such actors as Sean Connery, Dame Judi Dench, Tom Fleming, Patrick Garland, Julian Glover and Robert Hardy. I have continued to enjoy their accomplishments ever since. One of the most interesting things was the way in which the actors continued to age in their respective roles as Shakespeare's "King" plays were presented, perhaps for the first time, in chronological order.<br /><br />I wish I could tell those actors just how much that series meant to me.<br /><br />If "Age of Kings" could be revived on VHS and/or DVD, it would so please those of us who long to see it again and those who missed it the first time around.<br /><br />GOOD NEWS! PBS HAS JUST ISSUED A DVD OF "AN AGE OF KINGS"! SEE THEIR JULY 2009 CATALOG, PAGE 19, OR CALL THEM TOLL FREE. I JUST ORDERED MINE! | positive |
Othello, the classic Shakespearen story of love, betrayal, lies, and tragedy. I remember studying this story in high school, actually I found Othello to be probably my favorite Shakespeare story due to the fact of how fascinating it was, the fact that Shakespeare captured the feeling of friendship, love, and racism perfectly. I mean, when you really do study this story, you could go into so many philosophies on why Othello went insane with jealousy in the blink of an eye. But later on for my report I also watched this version of Othello and I have to say that it was absolutely brilliant. Lawerance and Kenneth just capture the story so well and understood it's darkness.<br /><br />Othello is the big time soldier in his city, he is loved by everyone, including the king. But when the king finds out that Othello snuck off with his daughter, Desdemona, the king is infuriated, but excepts it. Othello is welcome in the city and makes his best friend, Cassio, his side man instead of Iago, who has stood by Othello. Due to his insane jealousy, he's out for revenge. Still pretending to be Othello's best friend, he just mearly hints at Othello that Desdemona is cheating on him with Cassio, never says that they are, just makes Othello think that it's happening. Othello is driven insane and doesn't have pleasant plans for Desdemona or Cassio and Iago is more than happy to help him out.<br /><br />Othello is an incredible story, I highly recommend that you read it. It's an incredible story that keeps you thinking after you've read it. Othello the movie is also great and once again I recommend it, it captured the story perfectly and has a big tearjerker type of feel, or you could just be in utter shock of what happens between Othello and Desdemona, how quickly he believes that his true love would betray him. This is a terrific movie, great acting, good sets, and good direction, this is what Shakespeare meant when he wrote the story.<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
Julie Andrews plays a German spy who falls in love with an American pilot Rock Hudson, while on an assignment for Germany.<br /><br />The songs are beautiful. The two are well-paired. Julie demonstrates a more temperamental side in this film than the nice girl she normally plays. <br /><br />A half-German, half-English girl who sings beautiful and entertains the troops in WW I, Julie sings some endearing Mancini songs. <br /><br />I loved the film. Some will say it's a "chick-flick," but so what. It's wonderful. <br /><br />Supporting characters are somewhat stereotyped. It may not be up to Rock's performance in Pillow Talk, Magnificent Obsession, or Giant.<br /><br />Blake Edwards shot the film in Ireland and authentic WW I -type planes were used in the film. Scenery for England and France is absolutely gorgeous. | positive |
a very good episode, although not as devastating a finale as the end of season 1. The idea to make it a Desmond flashback worked very well, and Henry Ian Cusick was fantastic, perhaps putting in the best performance of this entire series, but my only complaint would be the Michael plot line felt very much like a subplot, and after three minutes the previous episode, i thought it would feature more. But the strength of Cusicks character and performance pulled it through. the plot developments, as always, left more questions then answers, like who are the others, something we still don't know, and where are they taking jack, Sawyer and Kate. What was the white light, what impact has it had? Are Locke, Eko and Desmond dead? as the hatch destructed around them. If they are it would be a major mistake, because these three are the most interesting characters and the series would suffer without them and Terry O'Quinn has been fantastic throughout both series as Locke. A fitting finale to a better series then the first. | positive |
Perhaps I'm just a simple person, but I prefer movies that somehow make me care about the people in them. I couldn't care less about anyone in this movie. This was supposed to be a comedy? Maybe the humor was too subtle for me (all the way down to the nano-level). The thing about it is, it missed on so many things. There were characters that could have been funny, but they weren't. There were characters that you could have liked, but you didn't. For instance, the guy who thought the Beatles ripped off his songs. There was so much potential there, but all he did was talk like a Beatle and complain about how they ripped him off. Haha. And the previous poster talked about the 'I am the Walrus' scene like it was special. What? He played 'I am the Walrus' on an old piano and sang out of tune. Is there an inside joke there? It sure stank at face value. This movie has the feel to me of a movie people say they like because it sounds 'intellectual' or 'hip' to say you like it, that you get the whole metaphysical art/garbage message the artist is expressing. If you want to be entertained, stay away. | negative |
Watch On The Rhine started as a Broadway play by Lillian Hellman who wrote the film and saw it open on Broadway at a time when the Soviet Union was still bound to Nazi Germany by that infamous non-aggression pact signed in August of 1939. So much for the fact that Hellman was merely echoing the Communist party line, the line didn't change until a couple of months later. Lillian was actually months ahead of her time with this work.<br /><br />The play Watch On The Rhine ran from April 1941 to February 1942 for 378 performances and five players came over from Broadway to repeat their roles Frank Wilson as the butler, Eric Roberts as the youngest son, Lucile Watson as the family matriarch and most importantly villain George Coulouris and Paul Lukas.<br /><br />Lukas pulled an award hat trick in 1943 winning an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and the New York Film Critics for Best Actor. Probably if the Tony Awards had been in existence then he would have won that as well. The Oscar is even more remarkable when you consider who he was up against, Humphrey Bogart for Casablanca, Gary Cooper in For Whom The Bell Tolls, Mickey Rooney in The Human Comedy, and Walter Pidgeon for Madame Curie. Every one of his competitors was a bigger box office movie name than he was. Lukas's nomination is usually the kind the Academy gives to round out a field.<br /><br />Jack Warner knew that which is why Mady Christians did not repeat her Broadway part and the role of Lukas's wife was given to Bette Davis. Davis took the part not because this was an especially showy role for her, but because she believed in the picture and just wanted to be associated with it. It's the same reason she did The Man Who Came To Dinner, a much lighter play than this one.<br /><br />Davis is the daughter of a late American Supreme Court Justice who married a German national back in the Weimar days. After many years of being vagabonds on the continent of Europe, Davis Lukas, and their three children come to America which has not yet entered the European War. They're made welcome by Lucile Watson who is thrilled naturally at finally meeting her grandchildren.<br /><br />The fly in this ointment are some other house guests, a friend of Davis's from bygone days Geraldine Fitzgerald and her husband who is also from Europe, a Rumanian diplomat and aristocrat George Coulouris. Coulouris is a wastrel and a spendthrift and he smells an opportunity for double dealing when he suspects Lukas's anti-fascist background. <br /><br />His suspicions are quite correct, it's the reason that the family has been the vagabonds they've become. Lukas fought in Spain on the Republican side and was wounded there. His health has not been the same since. His family loyally supports him in whatever decision he makes. Those decisions affect all the other members of the cast.<br /><br />Adding quite a bit more to the Broadway play including some lovely fascist creatures was Dashiell Hammett who was Lillian Hellman's significant other. Coulouris playing cards at the German embassy was a Hammett creation with such loathsome types as Henry Daniell, Kurt Katch, Clyde Fillmore, Erwin Kalser and Rudolph Anders.<br /><br />Coulouris is truly one of the most despicable characters ever brought to screen as the no account Runmanian count. He was a metaphor for his own country who embraced the Nazis with gusto and then equally repudiated them without losing a step after Stalingrad.<br /><br />Lucile Watson was up for Best Supporting Actress in 1943, but lost to Katina Paxinou in For Whom The Bell Tolls. Dashiell Hammett was nominated for best adapted screenplay and the film itself lost for Best Picture to that other anti-fascist classic, Casablanca. <br /><br />Though it's an item firmly planted in those specific times, Watch On The Rhine still packs a stern anti-fascist message that bears repeating infinitely. | positive |
Brilliant Aussie movie... A little slow at the beginning, but once it gets going you can't stop laughing. When I originally saw the movie I vaguely knew the plot line, as I am not sure if many people are aware that this movie is based on a true story, and more so in particular, the director and his mother (obviously names have been changed). I only knew this fact as the director is a friend of a friend of my family. When I saw the movie, somehow my stepmum kept it secret that we were to meet Matthew Newton after the screening... Such a nice gentleman (except for a particularly nasty incident with his ex)! Brillian casting as well with Sam Neill and others! A great reason to keep supporting the Australian film industry | positive |
I gave this movie a rating of 1 (Awful). The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.<br /><br />Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $. | negative |
Star Trek V definitely earns the dubious distinction of being the weakest film in the Star Trek series. Despite the good acting efforts by the actors, it suffered from a general lack of funding from Paramount Pictures. Paramount Pictures was not enthusiastic about this film at its very onset.<br /><br />The movie begins with the Enterprise crew enjoying their extended shore leave as a reword for saving the Earth from total ecological disaster. Their shore leave is cut short when a disturbance occurs on Nimbus III, the Planet of Intergalactic Peace. Captain Kirk and the Enterprise arrive at Nimbus III only to have their ship hijacked by Sybok, Spock's half-brother. Sybok brainwashes the crew of the Enterprise and sets it on a suicide mission to rendezvous with "God" just past the Great Barrier at the center of our galaxy. Captain Kirk must then figure out a way to regain control of his ship and to fend off the Enterprise's Klignon pursuers.<br /><br />The only bright spot in the film is the acting and directing. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, and the rest of the cast all give good performances. William Shatner also does a pretty good job directing this film.<br /><br />However, the film suffered from a general lack of enthusiasm and funding. First, the part of Sybok was initially offered to Sean Connery, but he refused. So, Laurence Luckinbill got the part. Second, many of the special effects were severely cut back ... reducing the movies entertaining potential. Third, the scene that depicts the arrival at the Great Barrier left much to be desired. Finally, the romance between Scotty and Uhura in this film did not make much sense at all ... considering that no such romance ever occurred prior to this point in the Star Trek universe and it was never explained how such a romance could suddenly materialize between Star Treks IV and V.<br /><br />Overall, this is a very weak film. You should probably just skip this film and move on to Star Trek VI. After all, the cast and crew made Star Trek VI partly to bail themselves out after their debacle with Star Trek V. | negative |
Anyone who correctly identifies the opening images as God killing himself without reading the end credits certainly deserves a free ticket to a rest home in Transylvania. I would imagine this as being a favorite movie at "Twin Peaks" dark lodge on movie night if time existed there. I would think that a better title might have been, "How much fun can you have with someone who's almost dead in the forest with only neolithic technology?" The answer, it would seem, is quite a bit. So, despite the silly "God Killing Himself," the uber-pretentiousness (an apt phrase taken from a previous letter), the more clearly "Alistair Crowley - Hi, I'm the Beast, deal with it!" than Christian cosmology (I can't believe another viewer had the thick-headedness to see the Judeo-Christian Bible in this)... despite all of that... this is a daring, important work that most people should not see. I am both impressed and creeped out that it was made at all. | positive |
This cheap, grainy-filmed Italian flick is about a couple of inheritors of a manor in the Italian countryside who head up to the house to stay, and then find themselves getting killed off by ghosts of people killed in that house.<br /><br />I wasn't impressed by this. It wasn't really that scary, mostly just the way a cheap Italian film should be. A girl, her two cousins, and one cousin's girlfriend, head to this huge house for some reason (I couldn't figure out why) and are staying there, cleaning up and checking out the place. Characters come in and out of the film, and it's quite boring at points, and the majority of deaths are quite rushed. The girlfriend is hit by a car when fleeing the house after having a dream of her death, and the scene is quite good, but then things get slow again, until a confusing end, when the male cousins are killed together in some weird way, and this weirdo guy (I couldn't figure out who he was during the movie, or maybe I just don't remember) goes after this one girl, attacking her, until finally this other girl kills him off. Hate to give away the ending, but oh well. The female cousin decides to stay at the house and watch over it, and they show scenes of her living there years later. The end. You really aren't missing anything, and anyway, you probably won't find this anywhere, so lucky you. | negative |
In watching how the two brothers interact and feed off of each other through the whole movie makes me personally happy to live in the rural area much like they did in the movie. I have watched this movie countless times and have the book right beside my Bible. After watching the movie I agree that this is one of the few movies that does a book justice. I strongly recommend anyone that has the chance to go to Montana to fish or be outdoors to do so. It is amazing. I can not think of anyone else that could play the role better than Brad Pitt. Do yourself justice and watch one of the better movies in the modern movie era. STRONGLY Recommend And as a guide for fishing trips in both Montana and Wyoming, do not try to learn how to fly fish from the scenes of the movie because although it looks great on the film you have no idea how much practice and skill fishing like that actually takes. Thank you for listening Watch this movie please if you would like a long sad movie. | positive |
An obscure horror show filmed in the Everglades. Two couples stay overnight in a cabin after being made a little uneasy by the unfriendliness of the locals. Who, or what, are the Blood Stalkers? After awhile they find out. Watch for the character of the village idiot who clucks like a chicken, he certainly is weird. | negative |
I've now seen this film twice, and I must say I enjoyed it both times. It's fast paced and fun, but ultimately daft. Having said that it deserves to be trashed because of screwing up what could have been a good follow up to the seminal original. It is clear for those who have seen the awful 'Zombie Creeping Flesh' that the films massive shortcomings can be owed to Bruno Mattei, and that the little that is commendable about it can be owed to Fulci. This is not idle Fulci sycophancy, the directors styles are starkly contrasted throughout, and you can tell who directed what, particularly in Mattei's case.<br /><br />The film is centered around the outbreak of a virus (oddly referred to as 'top secret' by a scientist, it's secrecy apparently being more noteworthy than its potentially apocalyptic effect on mankind) somewhere in south east Asia. The virus causes zombie like behaviour in those affected, and the virus quickly spreads across a seemingly arbitrary area of land. Our protagonists unwittingly wander into the danger zone, and have to fight for their lives against hordes of infected Asians.<br /><br />The film seems to be stuck half way between being a zombie gore flick, and an out and out action adventure, and this confusion is captured most clearly by the zombies themselves. They do not appear to have a set of characteristics common to all. Some are of the regular soulless shuffling variety, so well rendered in the original, and probably Fulci's creation here. The other main group consist of those who in being infected with the virus lost all sense of themselves, but incurred a savage aggression and a desire to earn a black belt in ninjitsu: Indecisively leaping around unsure of whether to continue honing their upper roundhouse technique or engage with their brethren in what looks like a mass tickle fest on their hapless victims. Martial arts skills aren't their only talents either, they are well versed in guerilla tactics, hiding on rafters and under bales of hay, and sometimes inexplicably falling from nowhere but the heavens themselves. This is all definitely the work of Mattei.<br /><br />There is a third, more chatty, variety of zombie. This type apparently retain a sense of irony as well 'I'm really thirsty...FOR YOUR BLOOD'. The ridiculous twist at the end in which the DJ turns zombie but continues to preach ad libbed gibberish about the fate of mankind, only serves to enhance the WTF factor and obliterate any hope of a serious resolution.<br /><br />Then there's the infamous zombie head which slowly propels itself through the air, a jokerish skeletal grin wrought across its face, as if to say 'yeah we know how bad this looks'.<br /><br />The characters are all utterly one dimensional as you would expect. But its the pseudo comical dialogue and dubbing that really prevents us from taking their plight seriously. Having said that the first soldier to die does put up an impressively valiant display against an unstoppable zombie menace. Indeed this is the first and perhaps only time we hit real zombie agro, and one of the only effective scenes in the film.<br /><br />The guy who played the chief scientist has heart, but no talent, utilising pauses in his lines entirely at random, so he ends up sounding like a confused asthmatic. The scientists' on screen attempts at finding an antidote are totally unconvincing 'now lets put these two molecules together!' <br /><br />There are a few moments that stick out as genuinely effective however. In an early scene a female protagonist explores an abandoned garage. Upon entering a room we are confronted with a hazy view of a shifting figure in the corner and a squirming mass on the floor, all shot in an atmospheric diffused light. The silence is interrupted by the appearance of a speedy machete wielding zombie who trashes everything in his wake in his alarming desperation to have her. His sheer aggressiveness is one of the few moments of real horror in the film. The before and after theme conveyed through the hotel that plays host to the happenings of the earliest stage of the outbreak, and later as a refuge to our protagonists is imbued with an thick humid ambiance. There is a scene in which one of the soldiers cautiously approaches a boarded up room that clearly houses hordes of the undead, and this is quite tense. Things become more dramatic when they board themselves in the hotel unknowing to what lurks upstairs. But this is sloppily handled and not nearly as effective as it could have been.<br /><br />All in all I would say this film may just about deserve to be called a royal screw up of a potentially effective tropical zombie fest, rather than simply a through and through bad film. If nothing else it has plenty of the unintentional laughs that I've come to expect from just about anything Italian and gory from the eighties. | negative |
I've been watching this movie by hoping to find a pretty and interesting story yet the story line wasn't good at all. The play of the actors weren't any better.<br /><br />Of course Shahrukh Khan was there yet he wasn't enough to make this movie "credible" and interesting.<br /><br />I've read that this movie was based on the novel of Flaubert "Madame Bovary" yet for me I didn't see it matching with the Indian mentality.<br /><br />In general we buy movie to dream and have a good time, not to waste our time and change our mood into worse. I just can't understand how it could get such a "high" vote with an average of 6.8/10.<br /><br />So it's the kind of movie you should run away & ignore because there is nothing to appreciate in it! You will just waste your time unless if you like "dark movie" with "strange and non sense story". | negative |
The video quality is awful. The sound quality is pathetic. The acting is horrific. The dialog is painful. The lighting is dismal. The editing is laughable. I could go on, but it would be pointless. Snitch'd is a third rate amateur video being passed off as a feature film. This one is best left to collect dust in the video store bargain bin. | negative |
OK, so I loved Rachael Ray before, but now, I ADORE her! How innovative. I love that she has a cooking section- I admit that occasionally I skip that part, only because it makes me WAAAY too hungry! But I also love that you can get the next day's grocery list on her website. I love that she has regular helpers and that she's made some of her viewers become her regulars. I love how personable she is and how creative she is. I also like how she does her Mystery Guests. She just seems so much more genuine than so many other talk show hosts. She still gets a little starstruck occasionally and I love that. I love that she talks about her personal life on there and reminds people how happy she is. She's even mentioned tabloids before and it's so funny! She also has the funniest stories! Anyway, I'm a fan for life. Even my 2 year old knows who Rachael Ray is and he loves her too! | positive |
Brilliant. Ranks along with Citizen Kane, The Matrix and Godfathers. Must see, at least for basset in her early days. Watch it. | positive |
This is an unusual Laurel & Hardy comedy with something of a split personality: at times it feels like two movies made in different styles spliced into a single short. Happily, each portion is funny in its own right, and the boys' seemingly effortless clowning carries the day and synthesizes the film's disparate elements into an entertaining whole. While I've never heard a fan cite DIRTY WORK as his or her favorite Laurel & Hardy comedy, it's nonetheless one that everybody seems to like.<br /><br />Our story is set in the home of Professor Noodle, who represents one key element of the story-line: a wildly over-the-top parody of Mad Scientist scenarios. This marks a rare venture into sci-fi territory for L&H; Abbott & Costello and The Three Stooges tangled with mad doctors far more often than Stan & Ollie. In any event, the professor is obsessed with creating a rejuvenating serum that can make people younger, while his sarcastic butler, Jessup, expresses the viewer's skepticism with rolled eyes and the occasional dry quip. Meanwhile, Stan & Ollie are chimney sweeps who show up at the Professor's home the very day he perfects his solution. "Their" portion of the film consists of characteristic (but first-rate) slapstick involving the chimney, the roof, shovels, and a number of unfortunate mishaps. If you don't enjoy watching these guys screw up a task then you probably won't like DIRTY WORK, but for fans of the team this movie is a feast. The highlight comes when Ollie plummets through the chimney, lands in the fireplace, and is then pummeled with bricks that fall onto his head with maddening rhythmic precision, one by one. I also like the shot of Ollie tumbling off the roof into a greenhouse; the process work is so slapdash I suspect it was something of an inside joke, the way W.C. Fields' movies would feature the world's worst rear-projection screens.<br /><br />The slapstick stuff is great fun, but it's the mad scientist motif that makes this film offbeat, and two supporting players deserve a tip of the bowler hat: prolific character actor Lucien Littlefield is terrific as the professor, delivering his overripe lines with relish and cackling with hammy glee, while Sam Adams is a stitch in the less showy role of Jessup the butler. As great as Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were in their prime, it's always worth noting that their supporting casts at the Hal Roach Studio gave their films an enormous boost. So too, usually, did the background music of Le Roy Shield, but DIRTY WORK marks a rare occasion from this period that a Roach comedy has no musical accompaniment at all after the opening credits. Mood music might have enhanced the proceedings, but no matter; this is a highly enjoyable comedy anyhow, and a prime example of what made Laurel & Hardy so popular in their day. | positive |
Christopher Boyce (Oscar-Winner:Timothy Hutton) gives up on being a priest and he's returning home for an uncertain future. When his best friend Daulton Lee (Oscar-Winner:Sean Penn) is a drug dealer, who's always gets in trouble and enjoys taking drugs a bit too much. When Christopher gets a job by working in a top secret government place titled "RTX". Boyce and Lee both have wealthy families, which they hoped to make it out of their own. When Boyce decides to take secret documents out of curiosity, which these documents are supposed to be destroyed. He decides to sell these secret documents for a cheap price for the Soviet Union with the help of his best friend. But both of them never knew how far they will go for sealing documents for a living and since they are both amateurs. Both of them have betrayed their country for top secret information.<br /><br />Directed by the late Oscar-Winner:John Schlesinger (The Believers, Eye for an Eye, Midnight Cowboy) made an interesting character drama about two young men taking the wrong path in life. Oscar-Winners:Hutton and Penn are both extraordinary good in the film. The movie is even occasionally funny and quite disturbing at times. David Suchet nearly steals the show as the man, who works for the Soviet Union. This picture has a familiar cast in the supporting roles. It was quite underrated, when it was first released. Despite some great reviews by some of the top film critics. This picture is actually based on a true story. There's some flaws in the storytelling, like these two leads characters but overall, it's a movie worth seeing. Based on a novel by Robert Lindsey. Screenplay by Oscar-Winner:Steven Zaillian (American Gangster, Hannibal, Schindler's List). (****/*****). | positive |
Simply awful slasher, molded from the I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER type of fodder, has beautiful wealthy college students spending spring break in a Florida condo being murdered one by one. A misfire in every category imaginable from properly built suspense to the executed death sequences..nothing is handled properly and the characters leave little more than caricatures you root to see decimated as quick as possible. Del Tenney(The Curse of the Living Corpse;I Eat Your Skin), of all people, executive produced, co-wrote, and stars as a priest in a pivotal role whose relationship to the killer I guess means something to why he's psychotic. The revelation of the killer is awkwardly handled and ineffective, probably not surprising a soul who watches it. There are a lot of attempted jump scares, with one character popping out to frighten their friend, which couldn't even manufacture a few cheap thrills, because they are so calculated in such a tepid way. Most of the attacks occur off-screen with bleeding throat cuts(..or pools)representing the only real display of violence. The protracted finale, where the killer goes on and on with the actor desperately trying to make his villain as diabolical and demented as possible, is embarrassing and tense-less. There's not one single positive to derive from this clichéd and dull exercise with the pretty cast making little effort to rise past their one-dimensional roles. And, for pity sake, they could've at least allowed us to see Joey Lawrence get decapitated or something for withstanding the misery of sitting through this junk heap for 90 agonizing minutes.<br /><br />Dorie Barton, as the heroine final girl, Beth Morgan, who the killer seems to be obsessed with, couldn't be more vacuous and uninteresting(..oh, she was in rehab, and takes pills for her nightmares;such intriguing exposition). Chad Allen, cast against type as a very intimidating "friend" of the group(..who happens to disappear from the film first, setting up the idea that he's the first victim), has a tough hill to climb with his role, so steep he eventually stumbles, rolling uncontrollably with no end in sight. Jeff Conaway, needing some cash I guess, has the beleaguered FBI agent role, whose daughter's murder motivates him to seek out the killer, leading him to Florida. Jack McGee has his usual a$$hole role as a smart-mouth Florida Police Chief who is often nose to nose with Conaway's agent.<br /><br />Oh, the answer to the title's question..not really. Because once you get the answer, you will wonder why you bothered with this anyway. | negative |
Admittedly, before seeing House of Wax, I assumed it would simply be a second tier low quality teen slasher film following in the footsteps of such movies as The Darkness or Amityville Horror. After catching an advanced showing at my college campus, I can honestly say that the people at Dark Castle have done an excellent job with the task of making a slasher. <br /><br />Starting with the usual staples of a teenage horror film such as the small group of friends departing on a road trip, coming across an odd detour taking them through country back-roads, meeting creepy locals, after the slow but mandatory back-story this movie really reaches a fast clip. Paris Hilton appears in this film as many already know, but I really have to give it to her for her ballsy performance. Clearly her acting wasn't worth an Oscar, but the filmmakers use her appearance to its fullest by squeezing two blatant satires of her, let's just say, less noble media appearance into this film. Ms. Hilton also claims the title for the greatest death scene in the movie, and not simply because it was her death scene.<br /><br />This movie is full to the brim with jumpy moments and cheap scares, but Jaume Serra has definitely created quality suspense and tension between the characters. The causes for the horror are in part based on making the audience care for the characters, which we do. By making the usual buildup followed with a loud noise and jerked camera some other scary moments. These standard movie techniques adopted from many movies past are almost perfected with this film, and provide many good scares. In fact there isn't a slow moment after they get to the small town where the dreaded House of Wax museum is. <br /><br />This film owes a lot to many previous movies of this and other genres, though I'm not too sure how much came from the original 1953 movie of the same title. References to such movies as both Texas Chainsaw Masacres, Saw, and even Titanic, (see Paris Hilton's big death scene and you'll know what I mean) are common, but in the end the payoff will leave you scared and fulfilled if you are looking for a good scare with a few laughs. Not bad. | positive |
I watched this movie expecting what I got: good sci-fi cowboy stuff. What really surprised me was that Kurt Russell did such a great job with an extremely limited role.<br /><br />Imagine trying to act under these two restraints: you have hardly any dialogue, and because you are playing a hardass, military robot, you are not allowed to show emotions using facial expressions! Howzat? Kinda like asking a diva to perform a great aria while gagged and duct-taped. In spite of being verbally and expressionally handcuffed, Russell pulls off an incredible characterization. His robot becomes human, in spite of the constraints. Great job!<br /><br />As usual, Jason Isaacs insures that he will go down in history as a great portrayer of the consummate villain--the one you'd love to see drawn and quartered. Connie Nielsen was sweet, soft, motherly, and gorgeous. I'm not sure how much of my impression is based on her acting and how much on her physical beauty, but it was hard to take one's eyes off her. Unfortunately, Gary Busey's role was too small and limited. <br /><br />Much of the plot is quite standard, with a fair amount of weaknesses, but as it does have a sci-fi comic book feeling, I don't see what's wrong with a few weaknesses. By the end of the story the good guy wins, and the appreciative audience receives a great deal of emotional satisfaction. Yes!<br /><br />The sort of feeb who thinks that Russell didn't do a good job of acting is the same sort of feeb who missed the whole point. | positive |
Where oh where to begin in describing the comprehensive wretchedness of Neil LaBute's latest attempt at film making? <br /><br />There are many kinds of film fans out there, but by far the most annoying and shallow is Mr. Intriguing. You know Mr. Intriguing, don't you? <br /><br />He's the fellow that no matter how stupid, lame, and incomprehensibly dull a film is, he says "Gee, I don't know why everyone hated it, I found it intriguing." He's the kind of guy who finds the scent of dog poop intriguing. Especially when he smears it in the shape of a Hitler mustache on his upper lip and marches about the house ranting about the brilliance of science fiction that features thinly veiled references to Greek mythology. He's also the guy this version of The Wicker Man was made for. No one else could stand it. | negative |
It's obvious that the people who made 'Dead At The Box Office' love B-movie horror. Overt references to the genre are peppered throughout, from stock characters (the authority figure who doesn't believe the monstrous invasion is really happening) to Kevin Smith style discussions to reenacting Duane Jones' last moments from 'Night of the Living Dead' not once but twice.<br /><br />Unfortunately it takes more than love to make a good movie.<br /><br />The staging and shot choice are unexciting and unimaginative. While a common admonition in film school is to avoid 'Mastershot Theatre,' telling the story completely in a wide master shot, here we find the obverse as in several sequences it's hard to figure out the spatial relationships between characters as the story is told in a series of medium shots with no establishing shot to tie it together. Editing is drab and basic and at times there are unmotivated cuts. The lighting is flat and sometimes muddy, making the scenes in the darkened theatre hard to make out (was there lighting, or was this shot with available light only?). Some shots are out of focus. The dialogue is trite, and the performances, for the most part, one-note (Isaiah Robinson shows some energy and screen presence as Curtis, and the fellow playing the projectionist has some pleasantly dickish line readings; Michael Allen Williams as the theater manager and Casey Kirkpatrick as enthusiastic film geek Eric have some nice moments). The premise is silly, even for a B horror flick (Also, it's too bad Dr Eisner was unaware of Project Paperclip - he could've saved himself a lot of trouble!). The 'zombies' are non-threatening, and their makeup is unconvincing (although the chunky zombie trying to get a gumball out of the machine raised a smile). For a zombie fan film, there is very little blood or violence, although what there is, is handled pretty well. The incidental music, while stylistically uneven, is kind of nice at times, and there are some good foley effects. The 'Time Warp' parody was a fun listen, although the images going along with it were less fun to watch. Unfortunately, the looped dialogue sounds flat. Was this shot non-sync (doubtful, it looks like video through and through)? I watched the special introduction by Troma Films' Lloyd Kaufman before the main feature - although it consisted essentially of Kaufman plugging his own stuff and admitting that he hadn't seen the movie while someone mugged in a Toxie mask, its production and entertainment values were higher than 'Dead...' itself (quick aside to whoever put the DVD together - the countdown on film leader beeps only on the flash-frame 2, not on every number plus one more after). For that matter, the vampire film theatregoers are seen watching early in 'Dead...' looked a lot more entertaining than this. Recommendation to avoid, unless you know someone involved in the production or are an ardent Lloyd Kaufman completist (he plays 'Kaufman the Minion' in the film-within-a-film).<br /><br />(Full disclosure: my girlfriend is an extra in this movie. I swear this did not color my review.) | negative |
I was recently at a sleepover birthday party with five other girls all my age (eleven.) All of us, thinking it would be some harmless little movie such as Jaws decided to rent it along with Rat Race. (We watched Rat Race after When a Stranger Calls as to ease our fear.) We put the movie on at 11:00 at night and lay together in our sleeping bags hiding behind covers for most of it. I screamed five times which is unusual for me as I get scared in movies but never scared enough to actually scream.<br /><br />All of us were terrified to even leave the bedroom as we were all positive the Stalker (Jenkins as we called him for some reason)would get us. I played a mean trick; one everyone was all dozing off once Rat Race was over I hid under my sleeping bag and said quietly and lowly "HAVE YOU CHECKED THE CHILDEN?" They all SCREAMED like nuts and were so scared. All in all I would rate this movie a 9. The only thing I didn't like was that 1. There were too many false alarms when Jill thinks the Stalker is there and 2. The kids never woke up during the whole thing until Jenkins kidnapped them and hid them in the cupboard at which time all they did was cry like babies. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes thriller. But one thing: I AM SO NOT BABYSITTING PAST 9:00 PM EVER AGAIN1! | positive |
This horror movie is really weak...that is if this is the correct movie I am commenting on. Nothing really terrible goes on as a family adopts a cute little German Shepard pup. I had a German Shepard and it is a really good dog. I did not get the idea to get one from this movie though, but rather from the comedy "K-9". That is another story all together though. This movie really doesn't have much horror at all as the most horrific scene is at the end and it looks really cheesy. Also, we see a guy almost put his hand into a lawn mower. That is about it. The father suspects something though, as his family seems to be getting rather strange, somewhere he finds out if you hold a mirror to them while they are sleeping you can see if they are possessed. All in all a really weak horror movie even by television standards...television movies that do work are out there as "This House Possessed" is pretty good and there is another haunted house movie about a woman and these strange creatures that is also rather good. This one is really rather dull. | negative |
Though, short lived "The Amazing Spider-Man" was one of the best made for TV versions of a famed comic book hero. Only "Wonder Woman" (Lynda Carter) (the best of the genre and "The Incredible Hulk" (Bill Bixby, Lou Ferrigno) were better.<br /><br />"The Amazing Spider-Man" outclasses the 1966-1968 "Batman", because the high camp elements of the latter often ruin the adventure. "Spider-Man" outclasses all three television interpretations of "Superman"- "Lois and Clark", "Smallville", and of course the George Reeves "Superman" which brings up the rear.<br /><br />"The Amazing Spider-Man" was an action drama, during the late 1970's, the pre-CGI era, when stunts had to be performed by stunt men, not in the database of a computer. "Spider-Man" had its own very talented stuntman to perform the death defying daredevil acrobatics. His name was Fred Waugh, who donned the spidy suit for the action sequences. Nicholas Hammond, better known as one of Julie Andrew's children on the all-time movie classic "The Sound of Music" was Spider-Man during the dialogue scenes. Hammond's Spider-Man also had his own secret identity as Peter Parker, similar to Christopher Reeve- Superman/ Clark Kent, Adam West-Batman/Bruce Wayne, and of course Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman/ Diana Prince.<br /><br />It's unfortunate that the series only had thirteen episodes. Because when the first episode hit the airwaves in November of 1977, the entire country was watching it on CBS that Wednesday night. In all fairness, CBS should release this pilot episode as well as "The Deadly Dust", the "Captive Tower" etc. on DVD shortly. "Spider-Man" was short lived, but did have a cult following, and in my opinion was a heck of a lot better than the movie interpretation of the famed comic book hero starring Toby McGuire.<br /><br />CBS might be hesitant to release these episodes for two reasons. (A) There might not be a broad market for them based on the lack of longevity of the series and a generation of children and young people who weren't born when the series originally aired in the 1970's. (B) One of the early "Spider-Man" episodes dealt with a terrorist with designs on the World Trade Center, which was attacked twice many years after this show went off the air, in 1993, and of course the devastating attack against this country on 9/11/01 in which the towers were destroyed and many innocent lives were lost.<br /><br />However I don't think that it would be in bad taste to release this "Spider-Man" episode even if the show was adventure, derived from a comic book, and camp in nature. The live action "Amazing Spider-Man" doesn't have a large following but it has a cult following. If and when CBS releases it out on DVD this cult following could be explained along with the episode in which Spiderman saved the towers in 1978, but how in September of 2001 real life proved to be different from the movies. I like to follow the news, but I also like Science Fiction/Fantasy. Therefore I am eagerly awaiting the release of "The Amazing Spider-Man on DVD". | positive |
My wife and I watched this marvelous movie this evening because we will watch Russian Dolls tomorrow and the first is important to see before the second.<br /><br />We both loved The Spaniah Apartment and will enjoy following some of the characters through the early years of their lives-now in St. Pertersburg, Russia. We both identified slightly with the rough framework of the story because we were students, Florence Italy for us, so the script was not completely foreign to our early lives. Our living was considerably different but as with this movie, anytime you throw together young people passing through the same life-hoops as any developed world people they will experience much the same life situations. <br /><br />The collection of people and the personal difficulties that they faced were universals and therein lies the beauty of this film and probably its sequence that I will see tomorrow. As I wrote, the characters as well as these situations are familiar to all of us and therefore we can enjoy living their lives for awhile. This must be one of the film's great strengths-allowing the viewer to vicariously experience the emotional upheavals of the people involved and yet remain aloof. The viewer can, through that distance, chuckle to themselves thinking, "I wouldn't have done something that dumb" or "I would have avoided that trap". Maybe that's why we go to movies. | positive |
endearing tale........ voted ten against all averages for my age and sex... not all that much comedy (compared to a i almost wet myself movie) although funny enough. not a fan of musicals at all so probably a little too much for me, but they do give you time to grab a drink or soda without missing anything important. maybe a fifties version of when harry met sally? Ahab no not really but if that is in your top ten like it is mine you will like this movie. really it just leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling, reminding you of what romance could and should be like, something to shoot for. my summary describes it best in very few words..... quite charming | positive |
i´ve seen this piece of perfection :-) during the fantasy filmfest in berlin and when i went out of the cinema i felt like being "drugged down"! i´ve seen a lot of films but there are just a few that i´d call perfect like koyaanisqatsi or fight club-subconscious cruelty is definitely one of them!!! half of the people went out of the screening in berlin and i can understand them absolutely! this is not a movie for "normal" people with dreams and illusions! a person that is living in his/her dreams day by day not wanting to see all the horror in our life and on our planet will be very shocked by this film! if someone reads this now who has seen s.c. and also thinks it´s great: just contact me-so far i haven´t met anyone who shares my opinion-it´d be cool!!! this film earns 10 points out of 10!!! finally i´m really sorry for my bad english-i´m not a studied person!!! (und das ist auch gut so *g*) | positive |
It begins with several of the principles on a stage run to Albuquerque. Gabby Hayes(Juke, sounds like Duke) is the driver and begins his usual tirade against women in general, with his girlfriend Pearl being an exception. He then relates a garbled version of the biblical story of Samson to justify his retention of long whiskers against the wishes of Pearl, who is the town barber, no less, and who claims if everyone followed his example, she would be out of business. This point will return to dominate the last scene in the film. Gabby seems an irritation to some reviewers, but is a definite plus to this one. It's too bad he wasn't in more of the better Randoph Scott westerns to help lighten up Randy's usual iron-jawed demeanor. Also on this stage are Randy(Cole Armin), his future wife(Cathrine Craig , as Celia Wallace), whom he is getting acquainted with, and a little girl(Myrtle), to whom he soon becomes a hero when he rescues her from the runaway stage after it is held up by henchman of Randy's wheelchair-bound uncle John Armin(George Cleveland), who essentially runs the town.<br /><br />Randy soon learns that his uncle, and by extension, himself, is not exactly popular among the town folk. He does, however, quickly form a useful friendship with Gabby. After he learns that uncle John was responsible for the stage holdup of his business competitor, Celia Wallace, and the associated murder, he demands that uncle John return the money and decides to work for Celia and her brother Ted(Russell Hayden), instead of for uncle John. <br /><br />As his rival's prospects rise, uncle John decides to plant an informant(Barbara Britton, as Letty Tyler) in the Wallace office, to keep him informed as to when they are delivering ore from the mines to town so that he can sabotage their run. When this doesn't work, he resorts to the draconian tactic of staging an arson of his own office, for which Randy is blamed. Unfortunately, when the fire was discovered, Randy was in Letty's apartment confronting her with suggestive evidence that she was tipping off uncle John. Myrtle and Letty testify that he was in the apartment when the fire was discovered. This puts him and Letty in the dog house with Celia(his apparent beau) and Ted(who hopes to woo Letty). This news also ends Uncle John's trust in Letty as an informant, and he suggests she leave town. Instead, she switches sides and tells the Wallaces why Randy was in her apartment. Uncle John tries once again to sabotage their ore run, and when that fails, there is a general shootout in town. You can guess the results.<br /><br />The plot is well constructed and executed, with complicated relationships between the principles, and with a variety of obstacles for Randy to overcome, with the sometimes aid of his associates. At least, Randy was spared the necessity of bringing his uncle to justice. Uncle John had a choice to avoid assassination, but arrogantly trusted that a woman wouldn't have the guts to carry out her threat. The presence of Hayes and two beautiful wholesome single women, as well as little Myrtle, much helped to lighten the otherwise tense atmosphere in this battle for survival, as uncle John put it.<br /><br />It seems odd that Barbara Britton, the "bad" girl, gets top female billing over Catherine Craig, Randy's love interest. Barbara's on camera time was much more limited. <br /><br />Those who grew up on the Lassie TV series featuring George Cleveland as "Gramps" will be surprised to find him playing such a mean controlling villain. We may wonder if his wheelchair-bound status has a bearing on this persona. This leaves him with few options for making a living in the wild West. Without apparent family to help support him(except Randy), he can't afford to have some upstart beat him out of the most profitable business in town. On the other hand, from his conversations, he probably achieved his status as the town "boss" before becoming wheelchair-bound. | positive |
As I was watching this movie I was thinking,OK it'll get good any moment...I was wrong. The real best part of this movie was when it was over. A complete waste of 92 minutes. All seriousness aside the best part was when the Wendigo finally showed up which was at the end and you couldn't really even see him that good. And the tail end was really kind of dumb as well. There was too many sections in the movie where you thought something was going to happen but was a let down. The worse part is there was more talk of the Wendigo then there was Wendigo. For the creature to be so bad,you definitely couldn't tell it by this movie. | negative |
This movie started off great; the first 30 minutes are very funny and clever with some interesting characters. That's the good news. The bad news is that the film then gets too repetitive and then it gets downright stupid. <br /><br />What we wind up getting is a Santa Claus with "magical" powers with a lot of New Age baloney thrown in the mix. It's just ridiculous and hardly the kind of "Christmas movie" I would expect from Jim Varney's "Ernest."<br /><br />To be fair, it still had a decent amount of laughs and is profanity-free but just not a film I could recommend. | negative |
I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.<br /><br />What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: "You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu". | negative |
This piece of Crap is actually the BOMB, as in Bottom of the Barrel. I can't figure out which is worst; Norris' dull portrayal of anonymity (not a great trait in an action protagonist) or Christopher Neame's hysterical overacting. This film doesn't deliver on any level what so ever. The action sequences are tame, the plot is paper thin, and the scenes that are supposed to be horrific look like a cliché from the fifties. You can't just fill a room with smoke and men in rubber suits, and expect the audience to scream in terror.<br /><br />Visually the film does nothing for me. It actually looks like an unfortunate mix between a cheap porn flick and a Miami Vice rip-off with a little sprinkling of hell-spawn. No, wait. That should have been hell-yawn. | negative |
Thinly-cloaked retelling of the Garden-of-Eden story -- nothing new, nothing shocking, although I feel that that is what the filmmakers were going for. The idea is trite. Strong performance from Daisy Eagan, that's about it. I believed she was 13, and I was interested in her character. The rest left me cold. | negative |
It is no wonder this movie won 4 prices, it is a movie that lingers to any soul, it isn't a wonder why it took Paul Reiser 20 years to finally give in and talk to Peter Falk about his idea. I can understand every part of it, this is a movie that will make you cry just a tear, or thousands.<br /><br />Story: 10/10 When Sam kleinman gets a letter from his wife about her leaving him to find something else his son and him take out on a road trip to find her, and while they do that they find something lost, Friendship, family, and affection for each other. At the beginning you know whats going to happen, but none soever the story is not that easy to figure out from beginning to end, it is a ride between a father and his son, and a husband and his wife. It is no wonder it took Paul Reiser 20 years to write this beautiful romance/comedy.<br /><br />Actors: 10/10 Well you cant say anything else that what i about to say, hey it is with Peter Falk in it, he is a legend everything he does in movies are magic, when you use Peter Falk in a romance/comedy what do you think you get? A perfect outcome, it is no wonder this movie is that perfect and won that many prices. As the son Paul Reiser does an excellent job, although he isn't a great actor always that doesn't mean that this didn't work actually Peter Falk and Paul Reiser plays the perfect Father and Son, the rest of the cast is good enough but you don't see them as much so just say they do what they shall to get this to shine even more. <br /><br />Music: 10/10 It doesn't always work when using music sometimes it just doesn't fit but that is not the thing in this movie, the music is perfect in tune, it makes the movie even more compelling. This part of the movie will shine off as good as the other parts, a great soundtrack for a Romance/Comedy thats for sure.<br /><br />Overall: 10/10 There are so many Romance/Comedy movies out on tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray and what not, but this movie is one of the special ones. it doesn't happen everyday that you can create a story like this, it takes years thinking about this and the fact is that actually what it took to make it, a great piece that should be bought and kept into the human soul, see it when you get old and see it with your father at a old age, i think then this movie will spark like no other ever made. | positive |
What a long, drawn-out, pointless movie. I'm sure that historically this film is delightful but as entertainment goes it just doesn't make the grade. Ralph Fiennes has been in some fantastic movies, the English Patient, Schindler's List, but this one was such a let-down. It didn't seem to be going anywhere, his character at the beginning was so shallow and uptight it amazes me that his "sister" would ever have been interested at all. Don't bother paying to rent this movie, buy yourself a copy of the English Patient instead. | negative |
I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:<br /><br />THIS FILM IS AWFUL.<br /><br />It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.<br /><br />Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.<br /><br />The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.<br /><br />All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.<br /><br />I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America? | negative |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />As a boy, Mark Goddard (C Thomas Howell) sat powerless as his family, including his hero cop father (Jeff Fahey), were brutally murdered by vicious criminals he'd tried to bring down. With an inner desire to punish wrong-doers festering in him as he grew up as a result of this, Mark employs tough means when bringing the suspects he's chasing down in and gets into a lot of trouble with his superiors because of this. But then he learns of 'Justice Incorporated', a secret group of men and women lead by a mysterious man (Ed Lauter) who serve to dish out punishment that fits the crime outside the law.But, then things get out of hand and getting out alive might be harder than he thought.<br /><br />The Sweeper gets into problems from the off-set, because we've seen this exact same plot done before (and better) in films like The Star Chamber with Michael Douglas and Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood. The title doesn't make any sense either. But we also have to contend with the movie's utter ludicrousness, including a scene where a daughter's headphone manages to drown out the sound of her family being slaughtered, a finale involving a chase with a bad guy that starts on the freeway and ends on a Wright Brothers plane, as well as some of the most ridiculous acting ever put on screen and a very clichéd, pretentious script. But there's some cool action sequences here and there and the movie's unintentional laughs factor certainly keeps it alive with a pulse. ** | negative |
What a loss the passing of director Emile Ardolino was! He could take a light script and, with the right casting and editing, put a twinkle in it and make it shine like a star. This particular star may not be the brightest in the sky as great romances go, but it is definitely one that keeps you tuned in to the end. You really want to know how things are going to work out.<br /><br />The script is perfect for Cybill Shepherd, who at the time needed to capitalize on her "Moonlighting" success for the new generation who was (fortunately for her) probably unaware of how many big screen major duds she had after a very promising start. In this film she's every bit back in form as a still-pining widow living vicariously through her daughter (Mary Stuart Masterson on the cusp of stardom which would peak with "Fried Green Tomatoes" two years later). She may have looked too young for the role, but that works well for the way the story unfolds. This is her film, but she doesn't overstep her bounds as a lead.<br /><br />SHepherd graciously allows Robert Downey Jr. to carry much of the film and shows a more mature comic flair than he had in his previous films to that point. And there's ample support from Ryan O'Neal (in his best role in years) and Christopher MacDonald. Masterson's natural charm pretty much coasts on its own, either that or she has a way of making her character seem like a breath of fresh air with every word.<br /><br />Ardolino makes good use of his cast's sex appeal the same way he did with "Dirty Dancing", but this film is not quite as sizzling so you could still watch it with your parents if they happened to be in the room. (Use your best judgment, they're your parents after all.) I give this film a high mark because it is very user friendly, romantic comedy enthusiasts will find it sublime, and those who are just watching along with them should find plenty of humor to enjoy as well.<br /><br />Again, credit goes to Emile Ardolino for making the most of a charming script by Randy and Perry Howze. (Where are they now?) Ardolino's next film would be the phoned-in sequel to "Three Men and A Baby" but his final theatrical release (Sister Act) would finally give him the nine-figure-grossing smash hit he deserved. Mr. Ardolino, your cinematic touch IS missed! | positive |
Most predicable movie I've ever seen...extremely boring, I feel like I've seen a hundred movies with the same storyline as this one. Acting is OK at best, there's no action really and there is definitely no thrills. Capable actors with terrible script i think it could have been written better by a 10th grader. Felt like more of a chore to watch because I was hoping that there would be something in this movie that was going to set it apart from all the other garbage but this fit right in on the heap. The whole movie I was waiting for something good to happen but it never came. I never rate movies and I never review movies but this movie was so bad that i had to log in here and post a review to try and save a few poor souls from wasting their time (and/or money) with this movie. I pirated it and wish I never even wasted the hard drive space. If I spent 10 bucks to see this in theaters I would kill myself. | negative |
When I first rented Batman Returns, I immediately thought it was going to be less than exceptional. I mean, Jack Nicholson was undoubtedly the best part of the first, so without him, how could there be a good movie? Simple, throw in Danny DeVito.<br /><br />Batman Returns is an arguably more dark movie than Batman. There are more villains here, less actual dark comedy in a lot of aspects, and more nerve-striking issues. However, the music is similar to the first if not darker. The scenery is definitely more depressing than the first, every detail right down to the time of year. This movie follows the same comic-style format we came to love in the first Batman.<br /><br />Now for the performances. Michael Keaton thankfully returns as Batman/Bruce Wayne. He was great in the first movie, and just as much in this sequel. There was not enough screen time in the world for Keaton as Batman, need MORE! Danny DeVito gave an award-winning performance as The Penguin, the most grueling, disgusting, lovable, angry, evil, sad, pathetic villain ever to grace a superhero movie. You hate him so much yet feel so bad for him at the same time. And it explains him down to the last detail too, making it all the more conflicting. Michelle Pfeiffer was excellent as Catwoman/Selina Kyle. Two completely different personalities in one. She actually got a good amount of back story as well. Christopher Walken didn't disappoint as Max Shreck, the greedy, judgmental, selfish CEO of the power company. Michael Gough also thankfully returns as the lovable Alfred, and he was just as good here as well. Pat Hingle also returns as Gordon, although I feel he was really never in the spotlight.<br /><br />With lots of great twists and sub-plots, Batman Returns is sure to please any fan of the original.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
I've received this movie from a cousin in Norway and had to convert it from Norwegian to American format with a copied video. Comparing this film (1948) with the Heroes of Telemark (1965), Kampen om Tungtvannet (The Struggle for the Heavy Water) casts the saboteurs themselves, playing their respective roles, though actors were also cast to play the roles of the saboteurs who have given their lives in Norway's struggle for freedom in later campaigns. The plot is in four languages: Norwegian along with French, German and English (complete with Norwegian subtitles).<br /><br />Impressive during this course of history was what led to the struggle. French scientists were interested in obtaining some two hundred kilograms of heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Vemork to take back to France in order to do lab studies on its effectiveness. Simultaneously, the Nazis, too, were interested in obtaining heavy water to build a secret weapon. The French were worried that the Nazis might take an early lead by invading Norway, and through secret codes, their man carefully eluded Nazi spies on his trip to Oslo where he received the heavy water and making it back without hindrance. He was watched by two spies as he boarded an airliner, but they did not see him hop out on the other side where he crossed the tarmac to another plane nearby where his cargo was waiting for him. This clever trick worked by using the airliner as a decoy that the Nazis later forced down in Hamburg.<br /><br />However, the invasion of Norway on the morning of April 9, 1940, the Nazis took over Norsk Hydro and it was up to the Norwegian Underground and British intelligence in London to take action. Professor Leif Trondstad volunteered the services of eleven young Norwegians; the "Swallow" and "Gunnerside" groups who would successfully sabotage the heavy water production in Vemork. This was shown in detail on how they actually carried out the operation, including the sinking of the ferryboat after the Nazis abandoned Norsk Hydro to take the shipment of heavy water on rail cars to Berlin.<br /><br />The quality of the film was fair though there were many splices in the film. I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in World War II history. | positive |
I liked this movie, not because Tom Selleck was in it, but because it was a good story about baseball and it also had a semi-over dramatized view of some of the issues that a BASEBALL player coming to the end of their time in Major League sports must face. I also greatly enjoyed the cultural differences in American and Japanese baseball and the small facts on how the games are played differently.<br /><br />Overall, it is a good movie to watch on Cable TV or rent on a cold winter's night and watch about the "Dog Day's" of summer and know that spring training is only a few months away. A good movie for a baseball fan as well as a good "DATE" movie
Trust me on that one! *Wink* | positive |
Once again John Madden has given us a magnificent film. A simple but beautiful story located in a real paradise and the music can't be better, Stephen Warbeck delights us once more, and good actings but.........why on earth is Penelope Cruz in this film? I asked myself that same question while watching this movie. Of course her greek accent is not believable, she's uncapable of acting decently not even in one scene. Not even at the end she did a good job, after so many events, after years she finally gets to see Corelli again and she couldn't change the same face of stupidy we had to bear during the whole film. Anyway, Cage was very good in one of his best characters; Hurt also is great in his and the rest of the cast all did a great job, so the final result is a movie that really is worth of watching. This is a beautiful film that not even Mrs. Cruz was able to spoil. So far I think it's Madden best work so no fan will be disappointed. | positive |
This movie has got to be one of the all-time lows of Michael J. Fox's generally respectable career. I should have known how awful this movie was when I rented it and found the movie only half viewed and not rewound by the previous renter. Never a good sign! Fox plays a grown up child star who's now an agent for other show business kids. His character is delusional in that he still believes that everyone should love him for being Mikey. His big break comes when he meets Angie Vega, a talented child. Vega is abrasive and not at all likeable. In fact, the only likeable character in the whole movie is Cyndi Lauper as a Brooklyn accented receptionist for the agency. One of those movies that makes me want to stick a post-it note to the box warning others not to waste their time! | negative |
I bought this movie for a couple of dollars at a "Clearance warehouse sale" one day when just looking around. The cover looked pretty good, (in colour), but the movie is B&W, (I wish they wouldn't try to trap us with coloured covers on B&W movies, but it's a common thing to look out for!).<br /><br />When I watched it I was pleasantly surprised. It turned out to be better than I expected. I was disappointed that it was a B&W, but the effects are pretty good, certainly better than, say, "Invaders from Mars" which has crappy effects, and it is great to see John Banner in something else apart from Hogan's Heroes.<br /><br />Overall, this movie isn't too bad for a B grade, and certainly worth the two dollars from a nostalgia point of view. It isn't my favourite sci-fi, but it's not my worst either. It's o.k. | negative |
Like many others have commented before me here, I have to say that this movie is bad, but not the worst I've seen. There will be no direct references to movie plots or sequences in this comment, because I hate spoilers.<br /><br />I got a feeling I was watching an episode of a TV show or something, where they had gotten a hold of some extra $$$ to spend on CGI (I've seen worse of those)... All in all, it is quite an insult to the viewer, at least if you have ANY knowledge about computers and/or technology at all. There are just too many of these moments of insults to make me feel comfortable, and I found myself just begging for it all to end - fast - halfway through. In addition, there are countless "easy way out" scenarios, which also is an insult to your intelligence as a thinking human being...<br /><br />This movie absolutely fades in comparison to the old "Wargames", and I think it's a damn shame they even got to call it a sequel.<br /><br />Two stars from me, because of one thing and one thing only: the actors' performances aren't half-bad, considering the regurgitated crap of a script they had to work with. Still, they should never have signed on to this movie. Not really a career-move, but I guess we all have bills to pay.<br /><br />To those of you who gave this movie top score...you have to be on the studio's payroll or something, that's my only explanation.<br /><br />To all who haven't seen this one: by all means, watch it and make up your own mind. But lower your expectations to the floor (and then some). | negative |
The first half of the film is OK, the second half one of the most tedious experiences imaginable. Quite possibly the most overrated movie of all time. "Pulp Fiction" was robbed for "Best Picture." This is one of those films that people feel required to love because the main character is "slow." | negative |
I cannot believe how unknown this movie is,it was absolutely incredible. The ending alone has stuck with me for almost thirty years. The road sign through the rearveiw mirror blew me away. If you liked "RACE WITH THE DEVIL" you will love this movie | positive |
If you want to truly experience the magic (?) of Don Dohler, then check out "Alien Factor" or maybe "Fiend", but not this. Alien Factor is actually rather imaginative considering the low budget and it's fairly creepy, but "Nightbeast", which I guess is sort of an updating of Alien Factor, is just plain dumb. Actors sleepwalk through their roles, especially Mr. Monotone sheriff, and the monster is some dumb Halloween-mask kind of thing instead of the wildly imaginative (but kind of stupid) looking critters from Alien Factor. A spaceship crashes on Earth and there's a critter inside, of course, who runs around vaporizing people. And ripping off arms, etc. And he has a cool ray gun that he uses to vaporize people too, until it gets shot out of his hand. And that's really about it. "Alien Factor" beats this mess hands down, if you really want to see a good Don Dohler movie, check that out instead. And RIP Don Dohler, 12/2/06. | negative |
I have just read the lead comment for this film that is on the front page with the voting results and cast run down.<br /><br />Why is it that some people can not take a film for what it is supposed to be.<br /><br />This film is supposed to be a light hearted, tonge in cheek, family comedy, things to make the kids laugh and things for the adults, and that is exactly what this film does.<br /><br />I laughed my nuts off at this film, I thought Carey put in a great performance and the whole film (if watched at Christmas) really give you a bit of festive cheer<br /><br />So to all of you film reviewers stop trying to sound like film students and knock every film because it is not "Taxi Driver" or "The Godfather" and take films for what they are supposed to be, entertainment!! | positive |
I have never seen a Barbara Steele movie that I haven't liked, and have always been a sucker for a good haunted-house story (especially for such wonderful pictures as "The Legend of Hell House" and the original versions of "The Haunting" and "House on Haunted Hill"), so I had a feeling that "Castle of Blood" would be right up my alley. And boy, was it ever! This French-Italian coproduction, while perhaps not the classic that Steele's first horror film, "Black Sunday," remains to this day, is nevertheless an extremely atmospheric, chilling entry in the spook genre. Filmed in black and white, it manages to convey a genuinely creepy miasma. The film concerns a journalist who bets one Lord Blackwood and an author named Edgar Allen Poe that he can spend the night in Blackwood's castle on the night of All Saints Day, when the spirits of those killed in the castle reenact their fate. The viewer gets to see these deaths, and they ARE pretty horrible, for the most part. The film does indeed send shivers up the viewer's spine, and in the uncut DVD that I just watched--thanks to the fine folks at Synapse--even features a surprising topless scene and some mild lesbianism! And Barbara is wonderful in this movie; her otherworldly beauty is put to good advantage playing a sympathetic spectre. Her mere presence turns a creepy ghost story into something truly memorable. Not for nothing has she been called "The Queen of Horror." | positive |
This is my all time favorite Looney Tunes cartoon. It's a common plot: Daffy Duck tries to convince Elmer Fudd that it is really rabbit season and shoot Bugs. But your can never outsmart that rabbit! In addition to usual cartoon comedy, this cartoon is supported by great word play that will keep you rolling on the floor. | positive |
One of the weaker Carry On adventures sees Sid James as the head of a crime gang stealing contraceptive pills. The fourth of the series to be hospital-based, it's possibly the least of the genre. There's a curiously flat feel throughout, with all seemingly squandered on below-par material. This is far from the late-70s nadir, but Williams, James, Bresslaw, Maynard et al. are all class performers yet not given the backing of a script equal to their ability.<br /><br />Most of the gags are onrunning, rather than episodic as Carry Ons usually are. So that instead of the traditional hit and miss ratio, if you don't find the joke funny in the first place you're stuck with it for most of the film. These continuous plot strands include Williams for no good reason worrying that he's changing sex, and Kenneth Cope in drag. Like the stagy physical pratt falls, the whole thing feels more contrived than in other movies, and lacking in cast interest. Continuing this theme, Matron lacks the customary pun and innuendo format, largely opting for characterisation and consequence to provide the humour. In fact, the somewhat puerile series of laboured misunderstandings and forced circumstance reminds one more of Terry and June ... so it's appropriate that Terry Scott is present, mugging futilely throughout.<br /><br />Some dialogue exchanges have a bit of the old magic, such as this between Scott and Cope: "What about a little drink?" "Oh, no, no, I never touch it." "Oh. Cigarette then?" "No, I never touch them." "That leaves only one thing to offer you." "I never touch that either." That said, while a funny man in his own right (livening up the duller episodes of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) no end), you do feel that Cope isn't quite tapped in to the self-parodying Carry On idealology and that Bernard Bresslaw dressed as a nurse would be far funnier. This does actually happen, in part, though only for the last fifteen minutes.<br /><br />Williams attempting to seduce Hattie Jacques while Charles Hawtrey is hiding in a cupboard is pure drawer room farce, but lacks the irony to carry it off. That said, Williams's description of premarital relations is priceless: "You don't just go into the shop and buy enough for the whole room, you tear yourself off a little strip and try it first!" "That may be so," counters Jacques, "but you're not going to stick me up against a wall." Williams really comes to life in his scenes with Hattie, and you can never get bored of hearing a tin whistle whenever someone accidentally flashes their knickers.<br /><br />Carry On Matron is not a bad film by any means, just a crushingly bog-standard one. | negative |
I first saw "Signs of Life" on PBS as an American Playhouse presentation. It's a wonderfully written, ensemble production with terrific performances by Michael Lewis as Joey and Vincent D'Onofrio as his brother, Daryl. Arthur Kennedy, in one of his last roles, is also excellent as an aging shipbuilder whose family business is about to close. The rest of the cast which includes Beau Bridges, Kathy Bates and Mary-Louise Parker give remarkable clarity and substance to their characters.<br /><br />The direction is subtle and effective. I've watched this movie several times over the years and would very much recommend it. A beautiful piece of filmmaking. | positive |
Film historians have said much about ancient epics that have been the interest of many directors from the beginning of cinema. The pioneers of such epics, particularly biblical ones, were D.W Griffith with his "mother of all epics" INTOLERANCE (1916), and Cecil B DeMille with his flair for magnificent spectacles, costumes and lavish scenes. Who can forget his TEN COMMANDMENTS (1923, 1956) or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932)? Nevertheless, here comes another epic, made in the 1950s, directed by Michael Curtiz, and based on the novel by Mika Waltari, "The Egyptian." Michael Curtiz, already famous for his great classic CASABLANCA (1941) wonderfully manages to adjust his film to the audiences of that time, to entail the most important ideas and facts from the thick novel, and to recreate the lifestyle of the Egyptians who lived in one of the most amazing periods, in the reign of Akhnaton.<br /><br />The first and most important fact for me in this movie is the psychological development of the main character that Edmund Purdom plays. Sinuhe, having been brought up in a simple family by his step parents, becomes a physician. All his life, he never stops asking a question "why?" and searching for the answer. Alluring love that he finds in a courtesan Nefer (Bella Darvi) leads him to financial and spiritual disaster. He has to repair the mistakes by hard work in the House of Death and starting to build up his reputation from nothing. First, he thinks that the only cure is revenge. However, in the long run, he realizes that "eye for eye" is no solution. Finally, what stands before him in very strange circumstances is the temptation to be a pharaoh. Nevertheless, there is one moment he finds the answer for his questions that touched him throughout his life... The story of the main character, though based on the book, is so interesting psychologically that every open minded person should consider this aspect in the film. The main character's psychological struggle is intensified by the times he lived in, the times when, probably for the first time to that extend, the power of sword clashed with the power of thought.<br /><br />Curtiz's movie also retains one rule that all films of his era kept to: great cast and lavish sets. There are mostly British actors and actresses who give very nice performances. How is it possible not to mention the mainstay of ancient epic, Victor Mature. This time, he is not Demetrius, Hannibal or Samson but Horemheb - a fighter, a lover, at last a pharaoh. Jean Simmons appears in a very delicate role of Merit, a woman who loved Sinuhe all her life but it was too late when he realized that. Peter Ustinov, probably most famous for his gorgeous performance as Nero in QUO VADIS? three years earlier, does a great job as Kaptah, Sinuhe's friend. The royalty of the film is also played by two great cast, Gene Tierney and Michael Wilding. Tierney is excellent as cold, desirous of power Baketamon, the sister of pharaoh. Wilding gives a marvelous performance as "insane" Akhnaton. When I was in Louvre in Paris and saw Akhnaton's original face carved in stone, he looked very much the same as the actor in the film. Bella Darvi, an actress born in Poland, is quite memorable as a wicked courtesan Nefer. And there is one more actress who appears only in one scene but whom it is hard to forget, Judith Evelyn as Taia, pharaoh's mother. This voice, these eyes!<br /><br />The sets are magnificent. The director recreated the most probable image of the outdoor temple of Aaton, the god that the Egyptians worshiped to in the reign of Amenhotep IV. I also loved the scene of pharaoh's first entrance. What a glorious picture that forever lasts in one's memory!!! However, there is also one aspect that I would like to draw the attention of all people interested to see the film. The Egyptian is similar to other epics in many respects, but it also stands out as a unique film. There are very few films which make such a wonderful use of different curiosities as for ancient times. There is a mention of iron used first by the Hetites. It's also the only film about ancient Egypt which talks openly of Egyptians' magnificent curing abilities. It memorably shows the contrasts of lifestyles, particularly the moment of a slave's death for whom no one cares followed by the announcement and consequently the widespread mourning after the death of pharaoh. Finally, "The Egyptian" shows one historical fact: there were other nations except for Jews (before Christ) where the spirit of God shone in some human hearts. Yet, the only difference was that it did not survive that long as at Jews' because it did not have a strong fundament. The scene of Akhnaton's death supplies you with so many biblical and Christian values that you may think you watch a religious movie.<br /><br />All things considered, I highly recommend Michael Curtiz' film. It is a great production at multiple levels: an entertainment for epic fans, an admiration of marvelous performances for cinema fans, a soul feast for spiritual people. Finally, it is a beautiful story of extraordinary things which happened thirteen centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. | positive |
This movie gets it right. As a former USAF Aviation Cadet, I can tell you this movie has it all. The tedium of the application process. The waiting for word. The joy of acceptance. The worry about making it through the course. The sorrow of watching one's buddies (perhaps the best of them)wash out. The anguish of paying the ultimate price - the death of fllow student airmen. The glory of graduation. Always the flying, the flying, the flying. Many are called but few are chosen. We did for pay what we would have eagerly paid to do. | positive |
This is a very odd movie for Harold Lloyd--at least in regard to the sweet character he played in movies throughout the 1920s and 30s. Instead of a nice guy, he and Snib Pollard are con men--out to rob everyone blind. In a particularly successful con, Chester pretends to have lost a "very valuable ring" and a bit later, Harold finds it as a stooge is also looking for the ring. The ring, of course, is a cheap one dropped and then found by Harold, but the greed of the stooge is so great, he "convinces" Harold to say nothing and sell him the "valuable" ring and then they run away to enjoy their luck(?). Again and again they find patsies until they meet up with a woman who herself is a con woman (working with a guy doing fake séances). She arranges a nifty con and takes all the money they stole--and has a cop standing by to make sure they give her the money.<br /><br />As luck would have it, the two con men stumble into the lady's shady business when no one is home. Soon, the lady returns and messes with their minds--releasing a lot of dirty tricks to punish them for their wicked ways.<br /><br />All around, this is a completely odd and contrived film, but it is also exceedingly funny, as the jokes work very well and Lloyd and Pollard make an excellent team. Plus, while creepy and strange, I liked seeing Pollard dressed like a lady. | positive |
For that matter one of the worst FILMS ever made. Plot goes as follows. Slog through jungle looking areas for 10 minutes or so. Have Bo go somewhere and strip. Slog through the jungle some more. Give Bo another excuse to strip. Back to the jungle. Oh look! There's a Tarzan looking guy! Strip, Bo - strip. Kill the safari people. Tarzan looking guy has a fight scene. Saves Bo. Bo strips. Run credits. Run credits, run. | negative |
Yet another colourful excuse for men in rubber suits to wrestle with each other. This time around, time travellers from the future arrive in 1992 and recruit a few people to go back with them to 1944 and prevent the creation of Godzilla, thus saving a future Japan from destruction. But having accomplished this task, the time travellers are revealed to be a bunch of double crossers whose own creature goes on the rampage, and with no Godzilla to stop it
Eek! It all sounds very silly, and it probably is, but the plot is surprisingly decent and the final battle looks pretty good too. Unfortunately the rest of the visual effects are just rubbish rather than enjoyably rubbish, and the movie turns out to be just as dull as its predecessors. Look out for the shaky Spielberg in-joke. | negative |
The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.' | negative |
First I liked that movie. It seemed to me a nice comedy with some silly moments. The costume designer Albert Wolsky did his best!!! The same as wonderful set decorator Robert R. Benton - this man really had a very good taste!!! But the script writers disappointed me extremely. The best ending would be the scene on the ladder, but instead of it, they decided that the father and his daughter should be together. Don't like the ending. The father becomes boyfriend of his own daughter and his ex-wife knows about it and finds it alright. It would be OK, if the scriptwriters would for example say that now there is a different soul in the body, but they did not, they only deprived him of memories. The actors were good, they were really funny. Cybill Shepherd was charming, Robert Downey Jr. was very funny in the dancing scene : )))... But some of the moments spoil even the impression of good acting. For example, Corinne Jeffries, played by Cybill Shepherd after the death of her husband was waiting for him 23 years (it's a long time!), she was true to him, she loved nobody but him, and when she met him and was just about making love to him, after a scene with her friend Philip Train (Ryan O'Neal), she very easily betrayed the man she was longing for so many years!!! It would be a good movie, if not the ending and some missed human psychology. | negative |
Three flash-backs introduce the main characters (Abu, Jaffar, and the Princess) who will interact with Ahmad; three are the songs, each linked to those same characters. Three times does Ahmad pronounce the absolute word 'Time', in his declaration of love to the Princess, answering her three questions at their first of three meetings. So strong is the impression he causes, that the Princess will resist the three attempts by Jaffar to conquer her - by three successive ploys: deceit, hypnosis, and memory erasing. Yet, Jaffar owns what he describes as the three inescapable instruments of domination over a woman: the whip, the power, and the sword. Three is the number of flying entities: the mechanical-horse, the Genie, and the The Genie and the magic carpet. The Genie offers three wishes to Abu at their first of three encounters; three times does the Genie laugh loud in the mountain gorges, and three are his considerations about human frailty, before he departs. Abu overcomes three obstacles in the Temple of Dawn (armed guards, giant-spider, and giant-octopus). Three are the instruments of justice: the magical eye that shows Abu the future, the magical carpet that transports him just in time to save Ahmad and the Princess, and the bow-and-arrow to execute Jaffar. There's magic in the number three, and there is magic in this movie. | positive |
I was especially delighted that in this movie Othello himself was dark-skinned and Desdemona didn't have fair hair like almost always. The cast played very well, too, and I liked the script following Shakespeare's original text so faithfully. But I must say some scenes were acted too erotically for such a character as Desdemona. I have always thought she is very modest, and that's why it is not proper at all to show her in bed with Cassio - although it was happening only in Othello's imagination. At first, I was a little surprised even that a love scene between Othello and Desdemona was shown so openly. But as a whole, I liked the film and especially Desdemona crying in the dying scene. | positive |
A rousing adventure form director George Stevens (before he would turn to more serious fare such as 1948's I REMEMBER MAMA and 1956's GIANT) that set the standard for all future action yarns to follow. Loosely based on Rudyard Kipling's poem of the same, GUNGA DIN follows the journey of three military officers in 19th century India. The noble trio must brave a series of battles and other various dangers including a thuggee cult and a temple full of gold. Their screen adventures remain thrilling even after more than six decades, and have lent inspiration to nearly everything from the cliffhanger-inspired space opera STAR WARS (1977) to the similarly-plotted RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARC (1981).<br /><br />The biggest reason for the picture's success, however, is the pitch-perfect performances by the film's trio of extremely charismatic actors. Victor McLaglen has rarely been better as the strapping tough guy, Cary Grant is the ultimate comic foil, and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr is as suave a swashbuckling hero as imaginable - perhaps even more so than rival Errol Flynn. The chemistry between the three actors simply could not be improved upon, and such warm and believable comradely is precisely what's missing from most modern action pictures - and they receive tremendous support from the marvelous Sam Jaffe, who overcomes the obvious physical miscasting and makes the title character a beacon of humane sweetness and quiet strength. A huge hit in its day (the film was reportedly the second-biggest money maker of 1939 behind the outrageously successful GONE WITH THE WIND), and it remains arguably the best film of its kind. | positive |
I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.<br /><br />It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.<br /><br />If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets. | negative |
Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".<br /><br />The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.<br /><br />This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.<br /><br />Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.<br /><br />As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser. | negative |
I felt compelled to write about this movie after i joined IMDb because i thought it was the worst script writing i have seen in a while.<br /><br />The acting/direction/other-areas of the movie are fantastic. I love brad Pitt with George Clooney. It works. The witty banter was still there too from the first movie. My question is how in the world did they let this script out of the drafting process? I thought that not only did the plot develop like a slug racing to the end of the sidewalk, but that twist? (can i call it that) was so incredibly stupid that i wanted to go demand a refund from the ticket booth. I have never felt so played and used from a movie in my entire life. Here i was expecting something similar to the first movie (good chemistry, good acting, good direction, amazing plot) only to find that they had taking my 8 dollars and made a mockery out of it.<br /><br />The part that gets me still is that this movie has now grossed more than 125 million dollars.<br /><br />In summary, I felt that this movie insulted my intelligence. I still feel like the only part the writers concentrated on was that little bit with Julia Roberts acting like Julia Roberts. This movie made me sad and angry. | negative |
... BREAKER MORANT and ROMPER STOMPER . It has also given us watchable films such as BOOTMEN and THE ODD ANGRY SHOT . Unfortunately for everyone involved in this debacle THE WOG BOY won't be joining appearing in either list .<br /><br />I was looking forward to seeing this movie simply because of the politically incorrect title , so politically incorrect that when it was broadcast on BBC 2 late at night the announcer didn't even mention the movie's name so I was expecting something so offensively anachronistic that my jaw was going to drop in disbelief . It did drop in disbelief , I found myself not being able to believe that the financiers thought this was going to be a major international hit <br /><br />The problem lies with the cast and the script . I do know that Australia with its small population doesn't have a large pool of actors so I'll be forgiving for the most part , but this doesn't stop my criticism of Nick Giannopoulos as Steve . For this type of comedy to work you must be impressed with the comic skills of the lead actor and I'm sorry to say but Nick G just doesn't have the skills . I'd never heard of him and seen nothing else he's been in so perhaps he's much better at other performances . Here however he's just plain irritating , unconvincing and I lost count at the number of times he mugged for the camera . The jokes themselves are very flat and predictable and getting back to the script it seems very under developed , I mean who thought a running gag about a female Minster Of Work who's having it off in the back of a limousine was funny to begin with ? You do get the feeling that someone in the production should have been more honest and said " Look mate , this screenplay's not nearly good enough . Go and make it more subtle and structured "<br /><br />I've been harsh and harshness has been called for in this review . I gave the movie four out of ten and it would have only got three if it wasn't for the one genuinely funny sequence where Steve is watching a current affairs show only for himself flashing up on screen and labelled a " Dole blodger " . This shows that the screenwriters were aware of comic timing and social comment . Such a pity that they didn't come with a much better written movie | negative |
An anonymous film which could have been directed by anyone at all.Where is Anthony Mann,the director of such classics as "El Cid" " the naked spur" or "the man from Laramie"?<br /><br />There are marvelous shots of planes in the clouds,lovingly filmed.The story is very trite ,and almost completely devoid of dramatization.The couple lives an almost routine life and the user who complains about June Allyson's choice for the wife ,IMHO,totally misses the point.With her less-than-attractive look,her hoarse voice,she was the perfect housewife the screenplay needed.At the time,women were barefoot and pregnant:there 's not one single woman among the base staff,even in the desk jobs -.All they had to do was worrying about their hubbies ,who were fighting for democracy and against an Enemy whose name we never hear ,but in 1955,it was not hard to guess it.<br /><br />One wonders why a young person who has never seen a Mann movie should choose this one among all the great movies he made. | negative |
I absolutely LOVED this movie! It was SO good! This movie is told by the parrot, Paulie's point of view. Paulie is given to the little girl Marie, as a present. Paulie helps Marie learn to talk and they become best friends. But when Paulie tells Marie to fly, she falls and the bird is sent away. That's when the adventure begins. Paulie goes through so much to find his way back to Marie. This movie is so sweet, funny, touching, sad, and more. When I first watched this movie, it made me cry. The birds courage and urge to go find his Marie for all that time, was so touching. I must say that the ending is so sweet and sad, but you'll have to watch it to find out how it goes. At the end, the janitor tries to help him, after hearing his story. Will he find his long lost Marie or not? Find out when you watch this sweet, heart warming movie. It'll touch your heart. Rating:10 | positive |
I had never heard about this film prior to coming across it as I was perusing the shelves at a local rental store. Having just watched the latest Harry Potter installment, I was intrigued by Rupert Grint and wanted to see more of his work. Reading the description on back about "an overzealous, evangelical Christian do-gooder," and identifying as an evangelical Christian, myself, I thought, "Oooh
this should be interesting." And so it was. I found Mr. Brock's story beautiful in both words and images; and sadly enough, all too familiar. The contrast he drew between Ben's parent's interpretations of what it means to be a Christian was a poignant commentary on how Christians view themselves and the impact that perception has on those around them. On the one hand, we have Ben's mom stating, "Whatever happens behind these walls, Ben, we're God's ambassadors. We show the world a smiling face." On the other hand is Ben's dad discussing truth in his sermon at the beginning of the film. At the end of his monologue, he states, "The more a person parades their Christianity for the benefit of others, the less I am inclined to trust the Christianity they claim. God tells us true faith is the freedom to choose truth. Now, how you express that, the way, the manner, the means at your disposal, these things are of no consequence, be you Christian or atheist, unless in your heart you are true." If only our churches were full of Christians who ascribed to this latter definition of what it means to be a follower of Jesus, rather than the former. What a difference that would make! As a Christian and a psychologist, I would want an imperfect yet authentic faith over a perfectly polished image any day. What a tragedy to feel like I always need to play a role when, really, I just need to rest in the freedom of being completely who God made me to be. I think Mr. Brock provides a refreshing glimpse of what this freedom in Christ looks like. I recommend this film for anyone who desires a fresh look at faith. | positive |