Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I've seen worse, which is a backhanded way of saying how crummy this film was. The plot is ridiculous: a student shoots a police officer and five more take him hostage? In a dimly-lit, smoky New York school -- and somehow this clichéd hostage situation takes 24 hours to resolve? Are you serious? A day-long hostage situation -- with a wounded NYPD officer no less, takes all day? I realize this film was made pre-9/11, but still. I looked at the clock and wondered how they could possibly drag this overdone plot on for another hour and 10 minutes.<br /><br />The acting was mediocre at best all-around, and the characters were seemingly thought up by 7th graders. The child-abuse kid, the pregnant scared girl, the violent gang wannabe, a confused unfortunate victim, the wise-cracking white guy. Please.<br /><br />Trying to make this hostage situation into a mission for "more textbooks" and better school conditions? Please -- this is a weak attempt to justify writing a movie about a kid who shoots a cop. They're confused, ignorant idiots who get involved in a dumb -- far-fetched -- situation. Don't try and paint them, suddenly, as noble, The most laughable is Ziggy, who lives in the school's attic and admires Michaelangelo so much so that he paints these striking scenes on the walls. You've got to be kidding me.<br /><br />The "no racism" signs in the protesting crowd? A black kid shoots a black cop and a black negotiator tries to patch it all up. This is a random message.<br /><br />I understand the overall message, which was poorly portrayed, albeit by some actors who have gone on to respectable careers.<br /><br />This was a joke though the red sniper lasers on the roof? The worst scene was the kid, fake snow falling, dying in the arms of his buddy on the roof, "promise me" etc. How original.<br /><br />The epilogue of "I went to prison but now I'm pre-law at XYZ University" ... a fitting way to end a joke of a movie. | negative |
Stylish, moody, innovative revenge-driven bloodbath. Also cheesy, of course, and sporadically very cheesy. It reminded me a lot of The Big Heat because it has the revenge plot set off by the exact same event, and the girl comes around to the good guy's side because of the same bad behavior by the bad guy. It's sad there's no Gloria Grahame but so fantastic that it's Alain Delon and not Glenn Ford. Could there be anyone as beautiful as Alain going around in a cashmere sweater and trenchcoat? Yet he's totally tough and icy cool. No one nowadays can touch him--though someone like Jude Law could try I guess. Hard for any girl to look good with him. The music was funky and perfect and there were several excellent car chases (and those aren't generally my cup of tea)--especially one willy nilly one in the woods. People also met their dooms in creative and bloody fashion, for instance in a junkyard cruncher. But beyond the cheese, the overall atmosphere was affecting and expertly pulled off. More creativity, excitement and freshness in that "forgotten" movie than most of what I've seen lately. | positive |
I think this movie is my favorite movie. I am not sure why, but it is. Julia Duffy has been my favorite actress for awhile, and when I saw this, I went crazy. It's sort of romantic, and I definitely recommend this movie. | positive |
Frank Capra's creativity must have been just about spent by the time he made this film. While it has a few charming moments, and many wonderful performers, Capra's outright recycling of not just the script but considerable footage from his first version of this story, Broadway Bill (1934), is downright shoddy. It is understandable that he would re-use footage from the climactic horse race, which is thrilling. But he uses entire dialogue scenes with minor actors, then brings back those actors and apparently expects us not to notice, for example, that Ward Bond is 14 years older! Unless you want to see one of the last appearances of Oliver Hardy, skip this one and watch Broadway Bill instead. | negative |
I very much enjoyed this movie and I think most fans of Lauren Ambrose will too. Her character is much softer than her role in Six Feet Under and all of the performances are strong. I especially enjoyed the way the role of Emily, a mentally challenged savant, was handled. Despite some other misinformed user reviews the role was performed accurately and without cliché by the actress, Taylor Roberts. Also a standout was Fran Kranz, whose natural ease well complemented the more season veteran actors. Although the direction hit a snag here or there it seemed the only problems were with an underdeveloped script. What maybe worked well as a stage-play didn't hold out quite so well on screen. However the lovely cinematography by Paul Ryan definitely makes up for that, as well as the pace of the film, which is surprisingly not slow. I recommend this movie to fans of six feet under and also fans of plain good acting and cinematography. | positive |
Looking all of 29 years old, Rob Lowe is a detective in charge of a murder investigation.<br /><br />When the husband of a society woman (Leslie Hope) is found dead, police suspect the rich chick might have something to do with it. Enter Rob who immediately falls for the pretty widow even though he claims that he's just trying to be 'helpful'. Rob is such a good cop, he is able to sneak some of her incriminating love letters into his coat pocket before he accidentally throws them into the fireplace. Monotonous murky drama with an endless drone of background music.<br /><br />This is a good substitute sleeping remedy if you've run out of Sominex. | negative |
With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film. But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.<br /><br />Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting. But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.<br /><br />To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of "Danny Boy" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West. But given the earnestness of the story (most of Leone's westerns were tongue-in-cheek), not to mention that it's no longer 1968, he succeeds in making a parody of one.<br /><br />Too bad. | negative |
I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and THE MAD MONSTER is one of the movies in the set.<br /><br />I am sure that George Zucco was a good actor; but, this was only the second film in which I saw him, the first being DEAD MEN WALK, in which he played two parts. However, even good acting couldn't save THE MAD MONSTER.<br /><br />Zucco plays a mad scientist, Dr. Cameron (who was banned from academia because of his unethical and inhumane experiments). He believes that he can control evolution by bringing out the characteristics of one animal into another.<br /><br />In this case, like so many others of its ilk, it is a transfusion of (I assume) wolf's blood into humans. His goal is to create an invincible army, which he can control through the antidote. The subject of his experiments is his hired hand, a retarded gardener, whose dialogue slows down this snail-paced classic to almost a full-stop. <br /><br />Beyond his experiments, Dr. Cameron also plots revenge on those who discredited him, using his transformed gardener. However, he loses control of his subject, who begins to transform without the transfusion -- yikes! <br /><br />The werewolf transformations are classic Hollywood stop-action / makeup effects. No doubt these were groundbreaking techniques of the time; but, in today's digital age it's hard to imagine audiences being scared by this. | negative |
Skenbart takes place in the 1940s, right after the second world war. Main character Gunnar (Gustav Hammarsten) quits his job to get a chance to "make a difference" in the bombed-out postwar Europe. He packs a book by his favourite philisopher, Ludwig Witgenstein, and embarks on a trip which will eventually prove Witgenstein's famous statement true: Nothing is what it seems.<br /><br />There are two main plots, and several subplots, to this film, which takes place on a train bound for Berlin. Writer/Director Peter Dalle (also playing the role as the conductor of the train) has assembled an impressive cast including swedish legends Lena Nyman, Gösta Ekman and Robert Gustafsson. Overall, the acting is excellent.<br /><br />Skenbart offers some rather twisted slapstick comedy combined with more subtle black humor (like the nun who loses her faith and starts cursing violently). It's like Killinggänget meets Peter Jackson (Braindead, Bad Taste) in Schindler's List. I laughed during most of the film, and when i woke up the next morning i laughed even more. An intelligent film for fans of Swedish comedy. | positive |
real love. true love. mad love. beautiful love. ugly love. dirty love. sad love. happy love. silly love. smart love. gorgeous love. dumb love. love love love. minnie moore understands that what she really needs is a man who trust her, trust her and love her madly. of course when this man comes along... she tries to run away but seymour, wonderful seymour, he trusts her, he believes in her so he is going to fight for her against her. i want to be like seymour moskowitz. i want to be that kind of man. a man willing to love without been afraid to fail but willing to fail. that's a kind of hero. that's my kind of hero... and minnie moore is my kind of woman. long live cassavetes and all his lovely bunch! | positive |
I have seen this movie and anybody who has every been with the Marines or any branch of the service can appreciate the accuracy of this movie. It is a must have for any collection. Jack Webb does an excellent job as the hard drill instructor. My father went to Marine boot camp at Camp Penelton and says this movie is so accurate that he feels like he is back in basic training. There is a line in the movie where Jack Webbs character gets mad at a boot for killing a sand flea. Well let me tel you there are nothing but sand fleas at the camp. I have been there and can appreciate it. As a matter of fact the exit to the camp is Las Puljas which in English means city of the fleas. you must watch the movie to appreciate what I am saying. Anybody who is into WWII movies, all the battles start right here with the drill Sgt. A must have for you collection | positive |
Where do I begin with the Killing Mind before I mention the good bit? This movie is about a young psychological profiling FBI woman, or something, that for some reason goes to work for the LAPD for a wee while. There are some recognisable faces, like the "I love you, man" bloke from Wayne's World, playing a cop (nice beard-age too!) and two guys who always seem to play cops playing..... you guessed it, cops. One of them was one of the cops in Gross Point Blank following John Cusack about the place, and the other is the FBI guy with specs in Final Destination, who is also in the Fugitive as another cop. I know the FBI, US Marshalls, CIA, etc aren't cops, but they're all the same. They enforce the law to a certain degree, that makes them cops in my book. Feel free to disagree with the definition of a cop all you want, they're still seen as the ones who are trying to bring the bad guys down. Any, I digress. The woman is working alongside these cops who just seem to sit around in a library in the basement or something, and for some unknown reason decides to reopen a case that hasn't been looked at for yonks. She saw the dead body as a kid, so naturally decided that she can reopen the case cos she was personally attached to it! I also like how the person profiling other people's psychological state witnessed a murder scene as a child. Surely that's the kind of thing that can screw with someone's head?! She starts asking questions off some journalist who covered the story when it was open, even though he appears to be the same age as the woman, so he presumably was either writing for a newspaper when he was 10, or he wrote a few school reports on it, and she decided he'd be the best person to ask about it.<br /><br />We then see that as well as reopening homicide cases from 25 years earlier, she tries her hand at petty theft as some really inconspicuous bloke sprints through a busy street wearing a balaclava. Way to blend, moron! Anyway, she and the cops she's with eating ice creams in the park give chase after him, and whilst crossing a bridge with a woman and child standing on it, the thief grabs the baby from the mother's arms and throws the baby in the river. This, if you haven't already guessed, is the best bit of the movie. I'm not sadistic, and don't have a hatred for babies or anything, but the scene just looks so stupid I promise you will wet your pants laughing at it if you should watch this movie. It gets better when the cop from Final Destination & the Fugitive jumps in to rescue the baby then declares to his friend "It's a baby!" How did he not know that before he jumped in, is beyond me.<br /><br />Anyway, she chases after the thief but loses him. Later on she remembers that a random dog didn't bark at the thief, so assumed it must be his and decided to track down the thief through the dog. The dog had no markings or anything on it, so how she knew where to find the dog, and thus find the thief is another question I won't go into. it was shortly after this that I stopped watching. The story was moving really slowly, and after I had stopped laughing at the baby throwing bit, I had kind of lost interest and missed what was being said.<br /><br />Saying that, I'll go ahead and assume that the killer was the journalist bloke because he seemed a bit shifty, and she was spending a lot of time with him, and anyone who watches Columbo knows that the person outside the police force who spends most time with the investigating officer is your bad guy. plus, other people's reviews say the killer was pretty obvious, so I'm sure it was him.<br /><br />So all in all, a pants film, but worth watching just for that one glorious scene. | negative |
Well, what can I say, this movie really got to me, it's not so bad, as many say, I really loved it, although the idea seems so simple, and rather boring, it isn't. First of all I enjoyed the soundtrack (Bryan Adams), it really goes with the movie. Second the simple story, and the drama of Spirit gets your attention. One thing I like the most is that they didn't give the stallion a human voice to interact with the other horses, it makes the movie more realistic, not many animations seem realistic now do they ?, but... I don't know, making animals talk is just so... lame.<br /><br />One of the most beautiful animations of 2002 in my opinion, I recommend it to everyone, not just the kids :), because it is very relaxing. | positive |
Messiah was compulsive viewing from start to finish. The story centred on apparently random murders of men in London in various gruesome ways. DCI Red Metcalfe (Ken Stott)has to find the truth which, to his surprise, is a little closer to home than he might think.<br /><br />Gripping drama and Ken Stott was brilliant. Hopefully we have not seen the last of DCI Red Metcalfe. | positive |
After just watching FIVE ACROSS THE EYES, I gotta be honest...I just didn't like it. I had read so many good reviews on this movie, but I just did'nt get where these reviews have came from,<br /><br />I have got a lot of time for newcomers into film-making, and I'm sure the directors will do well for themselves, but the budget they had was the main problem, there was two cameras used in the entire film (which was OK) but they seemed like really cheap cameras. Another problem was the sound, you get all these girls screaming and shouting all at the same time, all talking on top of each other - it's just impossible to hear what they're saying.<br /><br />It had a good idea going for it, in a nutshell, they hit a parked car then drive off, a short while later they are getting chased by the car they hit, driven by a mad woman, who wants to kill them, and has plenty of chances to do so!...and on the other hand the girls have plenty of chances to escape, but don't! <br /><br />Very frustrating...I only just scraped through this one! | negative |
First of all, it is interesting to note that one of the users here who commented on this film (from Belgium) had to add that Lumumba was "communist." If this user indeed watched the film, the message was that he was not communist but pigeonholed (by none other than Belgium, the U.S., the UN, etc.) as a "communist" leader for other individuals', corporations', and country's political and economic gains. Even if one decides to accept that the film partakes in "revisionist history" it would be naive to assume that Lumumba was communist, especially coming from the country which "granted" the Congo independence, and since Lumumba was elected DEMOCRATICALLY to his seat as Prime Minister.<br /><br />Onto the film...<br /><br />This is one of the most important and powerful films I have seen in quite some time. Depicting the struggles of the African freedom fighter, and ELECTED Prime Minister's struggles as its first leader, Mr. Peck, does a quite commendable job of putting together all of the pieces into one work. And this must have been quite some task. Due to the fact that most people outside of the Congo and Belgium likely do not know the history of Lumumba and the Congo, outside of some light coverage of African Imperialism (hopefully) in one of their high school/secondary school (or maybe university/college level) history classes, he had his work cut out for him.<br /><br />And to to think that Oliver Stone's "JFK" took over 3 hours, "Lumumba" runs under 2 hours. And a most engaging 115 minutes it was, as we find that his desire to not compromise with Western powers (whom he holds responsible for the atrocities to his people, particularly Belgium), while trying to deal with power struggles within his own borders, apparently even with some of his friends, it is amazing that the man lived as long as he did.<br /><br />This is a MUST see for anyone interested in equality, justice, humanity, history, politics, and true freedom. You will not be disappointed. | positive |
I vaugely recall seeing this when I was 3 years old, then my parents accidentally taped over all but a few seconds of it with some other cartoon. Then I was about 8 or 9 years old when I rediscovered it and since I was then able to comprehend things better, I thought it was a good movie then. Fast forward to Just a few weeks ago (June 2006) when I re-re discovered it thanks to some internet articles/video clips and it's just not the same movie. I'm sure it's still good with the kids, but to us 20-30 somethings it's definitely got "Cult Status" written all over it. It's a shame that the original production went through a painful process; if Fox gave it enough time it would probably be more recognized in the public eye today. Maybe if they were to remake it with a totally different story and an all star voice cast it could be, but that's for Fox to decide. I'm rambling here, I know. I Still think it's a great film, but it could be better than great. | positive |
METAMORPHOSIS I am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and METAMORPHOSIS is the seventh movie in the set. Released in 1990, METAMORPHOSIS seems to be a remake of "The Atom Age Vampire," which also featured a scientist striving for similar results. Set in modern times, METAMORPHSIS is not my kind of horror movie.<br /><br />A university researcher is working to crack the human genome in order to create a serum that would prevent aging. Pressured by the administration to publish his papers; and, produce some results (or risk losing funding), the scientist decides to use himself as a guinea pig! At first thinking that he suffered no adverse side effects, he eventually discovers that the serum has indeed altered him in the most unexpected manner! <br /><br />The acting is stilted; and, the performances left me with a much diminished interest in the film. The score is pandering. And, the science behind the experiments and their findings is not only fallacious; it's absurd; it's ridiculous at best. <br /><br />As others noted, the end turns into a 30+ minute gag, which is seemingly endless. Without giving too much away, I'd call this one, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde meet the Creature From the Black Lagoon meets Home Alone." | negative |
Rarely have I seen a work of literature translated so badly to the screen. The hysterical cast of b-movie and sitcom extras simply make the characters seem like bad Jewish stereotypes. The worst of all is Melissa Gilbert, who you hate from scene one and never develop any sympathy for. Performances like this should be noted and used against actors who wish to work again. All in all, a seedy, low-budget made-for-TV film of the sort that gives made-for-TV films a bad name. | negative |
If you're into alternate realities, contemplating what's real and what's just a fantasy, this is an edge-of-your-seat thriller that'll keep you guessing and really make you think. Try to get a copy of it and see for yourself! I watched it at an L.A. film festival recently and it was by far the best one in the group that I saw. It helped that it was actually about something, unlike the others that were screened. It's very well directed and the production value is top notch. I would compare it to Jacob's Ladder in that it keeps you guessing as to what the true reality is of the world that we're in. You should definitely try to hunt this film down and if it's screening at any festivals near you, try to check it out. | positive |
Yes, absolutely dreadful, And this coming from someone who loves bad movies - but there's a limit. I enjoy all sorts of horror/suspense films, and have seen some wonderful work from European film makers. Broceliande is sadly not among those those wonderful pieces of film-making. The camera work is worse than amateurish. Not the fashionable, shaky MTV "cameraman needs Ritalin" type of camera work so many film-makers use to camouflage their lack of talent. This is simply bad frame composition and terrible image composition. The acting is farcical when it is not entirely two-dimensional. The dialogues are stilted and unnatural - even more so than your usual run-of-the-mill horror/suspense film delving into pseudo-mysticism. I think that what put me off the most was the horribly choreographed fight scenes at the end of the film. These were bad to the point of being ludicrous. I've seen what a small budget can do, and it can do wonders. This was just bad film-making. Very, very sad. | negative |
Personally, I can only but agree with Stephen-12: indulge. There's really no point in trying to 'capture' this film. I like movies where nothing (explicitly) happens. Herzog's 'Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes' has got the same nothingness, though that movie is less convincing, since the climaxes are rather in the beginning of the story, so Herzog had to focus on nature versus Kinski. Morte a Venezia is wholly different though, since it has several climaxes, turns, etc. In fact, from the point where Aschenbach's luggage is lost, the movie almost 'rushes' to its grand finale (his final grains of sand begin running through the hourglass after the moment of bliss where he fantasises about warning the Polish family and caressing Tadzio's hair).<br /><br />You can, if you want to, seek some real clues/symbols in this one (his trying to leave behind his luggage from the moment he arrives, the pointing Tadzio at the end, the fact that in the whole film content and form are completely in sinc), but there's no point in doing this: it won't make the film better or worse, since its force lies in the whole storyline's undertow, which is never made explicit. Tons of history, decaying Europe, the end of the 'romantic era' as we've come to know it, which has proven to be only the beginning of it (individual emotions & expression are more important now than they ever were). But wait, now I myself am beginning to develop the one minor (tiny) flaw of the film: the 'let's talk about art'-parts. Now there's one thing never to do. I myself believe it could have been expressed by other means. Furthermore, I believe it becomes already very clear in the rest of the film.<br /><br />I don't like explicit films. I can read books, so I don't want a storyline that speaks merely to my rationale. I prefer films that you cannot explain in words, but only in film (Lynch's Lost Highway, Weir's Picknick at Hanging Rock and Roeg's Man Who fell To Earth also belong in this category), for then, and then only, it has a reason to exist as film and not merely as a book. So what about Thomas Mann's novella? I've never read it, but forget about it! The movie gives a different point of view: it says things you can never say in a book. It uses the movie-art to make you feel, through images and music, the same thing that Mann made you feel, using text. Equally brilliant, but different worlds. | positive |
In Northeastern of Brazil, the father of the twelve years old illiterate Maria (Fernanda Carvalho) sells his daughter to the middle man of a prostitution organization, Tadeu (Chico Dias), to be employed as a housemaid and have a better life. However, the girl is resold to the farmer Lourenço (Otávio Augusto) that deflowers her, and he gives the abused girl to his teenager son to have his first sexual experience. Then she is sent to a brothel in a gold field in Amazonas and explored his owner, the despicable Saraiva (Antonio Calloni). When Maria escapes to Rio de Janeiro expecting a better life, she is explored by the cáften Vera (Darlene Glória).<br /><br />"Anjos do Sol" exposes the sad and shameful reality of child prostitution in Brazil through the fate of the girl Maria. Last year I saw "Lilja 4-ever" that tells an identical story in the former Soviet Union; therefore this problem does exist in Third World countries. Director and writer Rudi Lagemann presents a great movie exposing the reality but never showing nudity or explicit sexual scenes. It is the debut of the promising Fernanda Carvalho, who has an excellent performance in the role of a scared child fighting for survival. Most of the prostitutes are amateurs, and it is impossible to recognize the famous Darlene Glória so different she is after many plastic surgeries. The bitter and hopeless end of the story is also very realistic. My vote is ten.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Anjos do Sol" ("Angels of the Sun") | positive |
I saw this at my in-laws' house one night when it popped up on TV and my mother-in-law said it was one of her favorite movies. Well, she can have it.<br /><br />Look, I can enjoy a chick flick now and then, as long as it's good. But this one's extra-sappy, unrealistic, and just plain predictable, despite some decent performances from Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman. It's uncanny how quickly a woman can accept having her eyesight taken away from her. Oh well, they say love is blind...<br /><br />The neat and tidy happy little ending nearly made me gag, too. And how often did we need Otto Kruger repeating the title? It happened not once, not twice, but THREE times! | negative |
This film is little more than an ersatz Verhoeven. The filming is supposed to be tele-realistic, but is simply sickening. The parody disappears after about 15 minutes to be replaced by a story which seems to take itself seriously. The Brechtian pauses for non-existent advert brakes are tedious, and even painful; undoubtedly there was no actual intention to render this film Brechtian, it was just an accident which happened like that. If you want to see a parody of reality tv, watch Celebrity DeathMatch - it's funnier and wittier, and most importantly shorter. I have rarely felt so much pain whilst watching a film. To be avoided like a rabid rabbit. | negative |
While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this "TRUE" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.<br /><br />I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth. | negative |
Good Movie, acting was terrific especially from Eriq Ebouaney(Lumumba)and very well directed.<br /><br />It also shows how Lumumba was cornered by the Belgians, U S A and United Nations and how they labelled him a `communist' to scare people as they did to all the Honest True African leaders like Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Nyerere and many others. It shows how western countries preach democracy while they have something else on the back of their minds. It is a story of injustice, struggle and brutality.<br /><br />It shows how Lumumba couldn't control his people, yes they were his people, but before we put the blame on him, was he getting enough if any from the people he appointed in his government like Mobutu? Or his colleague had other things in their minds, to find out go and see the movie! Certainly Mobutu did, went on to loot the country for the next 35 yrs, before he was overthrown and fled the country. Died a billionaire.<br /><br />Some flaws: There was too little explanation how the man (Lumumba) got to rise in the first place. Also there should have been more explanation about the country, Congo Kinshasa (after independence), now known as Democratic Republic of Congo formerly known as Zaire when it was under Mobutu. There should have been an explanation why he (Lumumba) couldn't keep the second largest country in Africa in one piece. And also what was going on with Tshombe and Katanga . Just heads up if you gonna watch the movie Tshombe was controlling the Katanga region which (if I am not mistaken) is the number one copper producer in the world.<br /><br />In all it is a good movie to see. You will learn something new about Africa, it's leaders and it's people and probably will open your eyes why this continent is ridden with wars. | positive |
Two hard-luck but crafty ladies decide to act like HAVANA WIDOWS by sailing to Cuba to meet & blackmail rich gentlemen...<br /><br />This was the sort of ephemeral comic frippery which the studios produced quite effortlessly during the 1930's. Well made & highly enjoyable, Depression audiences couldn't seem to get enough of these popular, funny photo dramas.<br /><br />Joan Blondell & Glenda Farrell are perfectly cast as the frantic, fast-talking females who will go to great lengths to make a little dishonest dough. Although Joan gets both top billing and the romantic scenes, both gals are as talented & watchable as they are gorgeous.<br /><br />Handsome Lyle Talbot plays Joan's persistent suitor, but he's given relatively little to do. Chubby, cherubic Guy Kibbee appears as the girls' intended target. Whether awakening to find himself in the wrong bed or being chased across the roof of a Cuban hacienda in his long johns, he is equally hilarious. Behind him comes a rank of character actors - Allen Jenkins, Frank McHugh, Ruth Donnelly, Hobart Cavanaugh, Maude Eburne, Dewey Robinson - all equally adept at pleasing the toughest crowd.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited James Murray as the suspicious bank teller with the forged check. This very talented actor was pulled out of complete obscurity to star in King Vidor's THE CROWD (1928), one of the silent era's most prestigious films. Hopes were high for a great career, but his celebrity faded quickly with sound pictures. After a long string of tiny roles & bit parts, broke & destitute, his life ended in the waters of a New York river in 1936. He was only 35 years old.<br /><br />While never stars of the first rank, Joan Blondell (1906-1979) & Glenda Farrell (1904-1971) enlivened scores of films at Warner Bros. throughout the 1930's, especially the eight in which they appeared together. Whether playing gold diggers or working girls, reporters or secretaries, these blonde & brassy ladies were very nearly always a match for whatever leading man was lucky enough to share equal billing alongside them. With a wisecrack or a glance, their characters showed they were ready to take on the world - and any man in it. Never as wickedly brazen as Paramount's Mae West, you always had the feeling that, tough as they were, Blondell & Farrell used their toughness to defend vulnerable hearts ready to break over the right guy. While many performances from seven decades ago can look campy or contrived today, these two lovely ladies are still spirited & sassy. | positive |
Recently I saw this movie again (after 25 years). In the original there is a scene in the bathroom of an airplane during the landing between Jacqueline Bisset's character and Michael Brandon's character. The rented version did not have this scene in it. Did I imagine this?<br /><br />Or, is this part of the "clean up" of movies where some are altered to exclude portions some people think are not "appropriate"?<br /><br />I love this movie -- it is exactly like the friendship between a friend and I and we've been friends for 25 years and saw it together. Her husband thought it was us as well.<br /><br />Thank you, Joan | positive |
Thunderball and Never are two of the biggest box office misses and Never is a surprise farce from Empire Strikes Back hero Irvin Kershner. Klaus Maria Brandauer seems to steal the show, when, in the midst of the unfolding plot, Bond's mission turns more to Hollywood romp (Sometime around when Basinger comes in). How about Klaus Kinski? I still think that the casting of Largo makes or, as is evident in both films, breaks the story. Worst of all is the attempt to pass off the aging and very hairy Connery off as the sex symbol he indeed was in the '60s. The '80s was a barren time for Bond flicks mostly, though For Your Eyes Only is a great title. At times, when I happen to need to waste some time over the holidays by watching this film in the often string of Bond re-run festivals, I think the best attribute of the film is its score, and I'm not into soft '80s 'jazz'. | negative |
I only comment on really very good films and on utter rubbish. My aim is to help people who want to see great films to spend their time - and money - wisely.<br /><br />I also want to stop people wasting their time on garbage, and want to publicize the fact that the director/producer of these garbage films can't get away with it for very long. We will find out who you are and will vote with out feet - and wallets.<br /><br />This film clearly falls into the garbage category.<br /><br />The director and writer is John Shiban. It's always a bad sign when the writer is also the director. Maybe he wants two pay cheques. He shouldn't get any. So remember the name - John SHIBAN. And if you see anything else by him, forget it.<br /><br />I won't say anything about the plot - others have already. I am a little worried by how much the director likes to zoom in to the poor girl's face when she is crying and screaming. These long duration shots are a little worrying and may say something about the state of mind of Mr. Shiban. Maybe he should get psychiatric help.<br /><br />Enough already. It's crap - don't waste your time on it. | negative |
there should be a sub-genre in the Western called 'the Robert Mitchum Western'. Mitchum's brilliant, idiosyncratic, usually undervalued Westerns import his film noir persona to etch some compellingly dark character sketches, and bring an elegiac world-weariness more familiar from the films of Sam Peckinpah. 'Man with the gun' is one of his best. Directed by Orson Welles protege Richard Wilson, it is a stark, monochrome beauty, full of chilling silhouettes and terrifying outbursts of savage violence, as Mitchum comes to tame a town terrorised by a monopolist with a private army. Mitchum's regression from soft-spoken stranger to deranged murderer, with a host of dark emotions in between, is a marvel of expressive, physical acting. | positive |
Lars von Trier's Europa is a worthy echo of The Third Man, about an American coming to post-World War II Europe and finds himself entangled in a dangerous mystery.<br /><br />Jean-Marc Barr plays Leopold Kessler, a German-American who refused to join the US Army during the war, arrives in Frankfurt as soon as the war is over to work with his uncle as a sleeping car conductor on the Zentropa Railway. What he doesn't know is the war is still secretly going on with an underground terrorist group called the Werewolves who target American allies. Leopold is strongly against taking any sides, but is drawn in and seduced by Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the femme fatale daughter of the owner of the railway company. Her father was a Nazi sympathizer, but is pardoned by the American Colonel Harris (Eddie Considine) because he can help get the German transportation system up and running again. The colonel soon enlists, or forces, Leopold to be a spy (without giving him a choice or chance to think about it) to see if the Werewolves might carry out attacks on the trains.<br /><br />Soon, Leopold is stuck in an adventure by being involved with both sides of the conflict in a mysterious and film noir-ish way, where everyone and everything is not what it seems. Its amazing to watch the naive Leopold deal with everything (his lover, the terrorists, the colonel, annoying passengers, his disgruntled uncle, even the railway company's officials who come to examine his work ethic) before he finally boils over and humorously and violently takes control. The film is endlessly unpredictable.<br /><br />The film stylishly shot, it always takes place at night during the winter with lots of falling snow. Its shot in black and white with shots of color randomly appearing throughout. Also, background screens displaying images that counter act with the images up front. Add Max von Sydow's hypnotic narration, and Europa becomes a dreamlike place that's out of this world.<br /><br />This is now a personal favorite film of mine. | positive |
Written by a woman, and directed by another. Whoppie. Are we in for a feminist ride or what. Fasten your seat-belts, ladies, for we are about to enter a world of mean men and innocent, well-intentioned women.<br /><br />In this soaper Trish comes across a guy in the employment agency who behaves, looks, and dresses like a pimp(!) and gives her a job with the hope of nailing her some time later. In his office he even touches her chin the way a megalomaniacal heavy in a Bond movie would a touch a girl just after he's captured her and just before he is ready to kill her alongside with Bond. Some time later the pimp/employment guy stalks Trish in a ladies' dressing-room, harasses her, and even comes close to raping her. Oh, these evil, evil men. They are ALL bad, don't you know. You can't even look for a job nowadays without getting raped, right ladies? Well, we'll show 'em! In this film there is some kind of a divorced women's club or something, headed by a Janet Leigh who speaks for all women involved in this film when she says that "men are all s**t". She moans about how terrible men are; she has been divorced five times. Now, seriously: any woman who marries twenty times and then uses that statistic as an argument that men are all "bad" must have realized eventually that the explanation might lie elsewhere, or? It must occur to her that: a) she is a bad judge of male character, or - much more likely - b) SHE is the one impossible to live with - her ex-husbands were probably the victims, or if they were indeed a**holes then she probably got what she deserved. (Don't the likes of Zsa-Zsa Gabor and Liz Taylor prove this point? Show me a likable woman who got married this often and I'll show you a way to reach the planet Mars using only roller-skates and a ladder.) Trish eventually meets a computer guy who restores her faith in men - but hold your horses; this guy turns out to be married, therefore proving WITHOUT a doubt that men are indeed all "bad". Were it not, of course, for a kindly old vegetable seller around the corner who loves his wife even though she's still dead - proving that all men are "bad" except for kindly old men whose penises don't work and they "can't get none" anyway so they are forced to abandon a life of a**holocolism and finally give women the respect they deserve. Even the supporting male characters are all "bad"; the black guy in the employment agency is unfriendly, and the guy in the mortuary is out-right rude - and insensitive (the bastard, *sob*...*sniffle*
) And what's with this corny, corny ending?... Minutes before court-time Trish abandons the claim to any of her husband's money, realizing that she is now "free" and that she can finally do that jump into the swimming pool...?? What's all that about?? Her jump into the pool is then - very predictably - frame-frozen as the credits start to role in, while life-inspiring I-don't-need-revenge-nor-my-husband's-money music starts kicking in. Her girlfriends are shocked by her abandonment of money claims, but they don't stay shocked for long and soon start kidding each other about what a heart-attack Trish's lawyer will get when he hears about this. The shyster lawyer is naturally a man. An evil, evil, terrible "bad" man, whose only interest in this world is money... Ah, these men; all they care about is money; they know nothing of the higher values in life - like shopping. I am glad we have movies like this; they bring the sexes closer together, but most importantly, they teach girls and young women that men are all horny, selfish, skirt-chasing bastards who will dump you into a world of poverty and misery the first chance they get. So, girls, open your mouths an stick your tongues into your girlfriend's mouths. Lesbian power! | negative |
This movie is NOT funny. It just takes the D&D nerd stereotypes and amplifies them. All the main characters make less than 30k a year, they all live with their parents, they're all socially retarded, and they have no luck with women. The jokes are horrible and unimaginative, such as two of the gamers getting beat up by a black midget because one of them had a KKK looking hood on (it was his wizard costume) and the other guy had on a John Rocker warm up (oh how funny, he's a nerd so he doesn't know about sports). You may have to be a childish high-schooler to find any of this stuff funny. Poorly done mockmuntaries are so painful to watch, but obviously extremely cheap to make. I feel sorry for Kelly LeBrock and Beverly D'Angelo. I guess these are the only opportunities available for hotties way past their prime. | negative |
Seldom is seen a film sequel that surpasses or even equalls the greatness of it's original predecessor. Such a film is VIrtual Encounters 2.<br /><br />It's about a couple guys in college who sell virtual sex to the entire campus. If you like seeing naked chicks, this one delivers. Six-foot tall Chrissy Styler is an amazing specimen and you will be dreaming about her for days if you ever have the good fortune to catch the unrated version. She wears just the right amount of body glitter in her multiple nude scenes and her giant cans appear to be real. ( = Giddyup!!<br /><br />W/the exception of James Cameron's "Aliens," Francis For Coppola's "The Godfather Part II" and - of course - the Zuckers' "Airplane 2," this is the only sequel in movie history that takes a classic film and improves upon it. <br /><br />It's criminal the way this film was ignored by the academy. Nikki Fritz and that broad who gets tied up in the beginning (as well as the brunette who gets a rubdown towards the end) all deserved Best Supporting Actress nods. <br /><br />Shame on you, Hollywood!!! | positive |
I guess it wasn't entirely the filmmaker's fault though. The film suffered from the unimaginably stupid decision to tell Clayton Moore (who had done the role in the 1950's and was the Lone Ranger us old folks grew up with) he couldn't wear the mask in public. Now mind you, the poor guy wasn't making all that much money doing so, and it wasn't like he was going to take anything away from this film, but the whole thing seemed... gratuitous.<br /><br />The other thing the film suffered from (besides a leading man whose voice was so awful they had to overdub it) was that fact that Westerns weren't so hip in 1981. John Wayne was dead and we had just been subjected to a decade-long major liberal guilt trip about how the west was built on genocide of the Native Americans. (That and Blazing Saddles sent up the whole genre! The Campfire scene. Enough said!) Hollywood shied away from Westerns, because Science Fiction was COOL then.<br /><br />The one scene that underscored it was when after rescuing the drunken President Grant (and seriously, I'd have let Grant stay with the bad guys. The country would have been better off!) Grant asks Tonto what his reward should be "Honor your treaties with my people". Yeah, right, like THAT was going to happen! | negative |
I realize the line on my summary is not too polite.<br /><br />This film written & directed by Scott Caan & starring Giovanni Ribisi,Don Cheadle & himself runs a long 88 minutes.<br /><br />There is a dog in this puppy of a movie., he is cute.<br /><br />The movie opened in 2 U.S. theatres in late April 2007,for one week & grossed all of $ 914. It quickly went to DVD in early August 2007.<br /><br />We were only able to take about 40 minutes before we turned the DVD off.<br /><br />This was the type of movie that played on lower half of double bill. You saw the main film & figured lets see what this one is like, You might have walked out before we shut it off.<br /><br />The 3 actors & the young ladies in the film all have done & deserve better than this..<br /><br />Ratings: ** (out of 4) 54 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10_ | negative |
I kid you not. Yes, "Who's That Girl" has the distinction for being one in a string of Madonna's films that bombed, but I actually liked this movie more than "Desperately Seeking Susan". In "Susan", Madonna's character is relegated to being second-fiddle to Rosanna Arquette and is not given much to work with. No disrespect to Rosanna, but in WTG Madonna plays this zany, outrageous character, only done in an 80s style. While it may seem "cheesy" today, this is actually one of Madonna's best and one of her most underrated films.<br /><br />Madonna plays Nikki Finn, an ex-con who is sent to the slammer for a crime she didn't commit. She's being released from jail after four years of good behavior. Griffin Dunne, who is also a very underrated actor, plays Louden Trott, a lawyer who has the unpleasant task of picking her up from jail to take her to the bus station. Of course, when these two get together, that's when the madness happens. Sir John Mills has a small role as the rich businessman who has a huge mansion in the middle of Manhattan with a rainforest(???) on his roof. <br /><br />This movie parodies everything. Rich people, the sleazy characters who live in Harlem and totally destroy Louden's Rolls-Royce, the gay cops who follow Madonna and Dunne around town, and Dunne's stuck-up fiance Wendy Worthington who has purportedly slept with every cab driver in New York City (played by Haviland Morris, who was Jake's girlfriend Caroline in Sixteen Candles). Hilarious! Plus, Dunne is also in charge of a rare breed of leopard reminiscent of "Bringing Up Baby". Plus, Madonna had a great platinum blonde 80s look back in those days and the movie has a great soundtrack. Throw this all into the mix and you have the zaniness of WTG.<br /><br />Madonna is the queen of deadpan acting. There are times in the movie where she says a line totally straight and surprisingly, it turns out to be funny! That's how some of the best comedy should be played - straight. Madonna should have done more comedy and it was a shame that she did not choose to do so. Later on she became much more controversial and got into more of the dark, sexually-charged roles in the notorious movies "Body of Evidence" and "Dangerous Game". <br /><br />Some people say Madonna cannot act, and that is fine, people are entitled to their opinion, but I believe the real problem is that people cannot see the difference between Madonna playing a character on film, instead they still see only Madonna and that is main reason why she is given more respect for her music than for her movies. It's still a fun, screwball comedy of the 80s. Not for everyone, I'm sure some of you will dislike it, so I would recommend it mainly for Madonna fans, but you never know, you might be surprised and like it! <br /><br />Interesting note: One of Madonna's friends from her early-80s New York club days, Coati Mundi, who plays Raoul, was a member in the bands Kid Creole and The Coconuts and Savannah Band. | positive |
Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest... | negative |
Suffice it to say that this substandard B has nothing to save it - not an interesting plot or even one tolerably decent actor. Josh Leonard of Blair Witch fame does little to help matters. Do yourself a favor and leave this one on the shelf at your local video store. | negative |
My teacher taped this and showed it to us in Child Care to demonstrate how teen pregnancy affects people. It just demonstrated how teen pregnancy affects a childish jock not properly educated on how sex works and a whiny, unloved girl who throws fruit when angry and couldn't tell she was with the wrong man even if he wore a sign stating he was such. I wouldn't be surprised if the father of the baby had about eight girlfriends in the first edition of the script. Stacy's (the carrier of the baby) mother is a riot. She is oblivious to the fact her daughter is past the age of four and is seemingly unshaken when people spy on her through her dining room window. Bobby's (the father) best friend's name is Dewey, and is an obvious rip off of Sean Penn's character in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. This movie is horrid, simply because none of the characters are believable. Thank goodness it's only made for TV, limiting the public's chances of viewing it. | negative |
The main achievement of this film is that though racially unipolar, the film still manages to carve out a tableaux of war portrayals that leave a lasting identification with whoever may view it, and whoever was present at this time. Though good films may have the ability of universalizing their subjects, which is often a hard thing to do; great films have the ability of universalizing their unipolar subjects, which is what this film does.<br /><br />Instead of carving a context of unity, the film depicts the Japanese in the sick finality of the Phillipines war-front in February, 1945, making signs for pacifism or war, but rather making signs of the feelings, death, destruction, victory and sickness of war with the bloody hands of the defeated.Far different, and superior, to films such as Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, both which needed a satirical methodology of trivializing and depersonalizing the American troupes, and using all races as one struggle, which is fine, yet not as grand as a film that uses one race and view, which would look fascist if created in America, to convey the horror of war and show what it is really like.<br /><br />The only way the main character makes it through this movie to the end, is by being sick, thence inedible; hence through this character, through his sickness, his saving face, we see the end of WWII in the Phillipines in February of 1945, and the way in which the Americans, Japanese and Phillipinians came together in bloody acts of warfare where you live to die.<br /><br />The film is patently influenced by a neorealist way of filmic portrayal, which is original and beneficial to a viewer, whether then or now, for the neorealist techniques it employs conveys all the horrors of war in pictorial form, whether a showcase for pacifism or 'militaristic responsibility'. Like Germania Anno Zero, by Roberto Rossellini, a story emerges from the environment and the conditions associated with it.<br /><br />The film's opening, with the two-way discussion between the two Japanese soldiers, prefigures and reechoes the events. Through this opening we feel that the struggle is human against human, and human with human; it shows that they relied on each other to face the enemy in the past battles, but now, in this opening, or 'pivot' of the experiences of the Japanese in the Phillipines, new information is relayed to the main character Tamura, giving a presentiment of a cannibal reliance on one another if they wish to survive.<br /><br />The jungle is gritty, wet and thick, and the sky is not infrequently cloudy and pouring. We wade with the stragglers though puddles and marshes, as sick as the land around them. Nameless cadavers are strewn everywhere. Every now and then one can not tell if they are bodies, rocks or corn. Apparently there is no difference here, all is dead and sick. All is dying. All they have lest to feed upon are rare monkeys and dead bodies of fallen comrades and/or nameless enemies.<br /><br />Often Tamura meets a fallen other near death. Though crushed in spirit, and crushing his, some offer up their bodies for him to eat, but he refuses; he still, like Hiroshi Kawaguchi as Nishi in Giants and Toys, will not droop into the death of dignity and Japanese morals; for this is all he really has to hold up for his survival, a dignity of self. Hence, when Nagamatsu is dissecting a soldier for consumption, he shoots him because of it. Tamura may be used to the killing, but to the sickness of killing and pillaging he can't decipher. He is neither a good man or a bad man. He wishes to survive, but will not go the extra mile beyond simple straight-war-killing. His self belonged dead on the battlefield, he isn't happy here to wade and wipe the weak for his survival.<br /><br />The sickness he carrys he sees everywhere, in everyone; and sadly he lacks the ethical rationale of thinking either thinking entirely about others, since he can't give up his body for them since of his contagious malady, or thinking entirely about himself, since he sees the sickness in everyone, though still killing them even if they do no harm. Seen in his attack on the two Philippians's in the hut. He can't see anyone. No one can see anyone. The only see an aversion from malady and an adversion to health, the heart of survival instincts.<br /><br />Often, an arm appears pointing to the left of the screen, towards what must be hope, for there, in that far Thule lies their freedom. Yet it is blocked by American soldiers, leaving the Japanese stragglers to slowly die in this disconsolate dirt. Even a church tower appears, reflecting the light off an unseen sun. But on closer inspection crows flutter wildly about it; religion too is an air of poison.<br /><br />Nobi, the Japanese title of the film, gives more evidence to the themes, or feelings of the film: the servitude to fate, the heaviness of existence under leaders and lives controlled by others. Its proper Anglophone translation has a subject of heavy debate among historians, as non-Koreans translate it as "slave" and "slavery", while many Koreans argue that nobi was not a slave system, but a servant class system that does not meet the criteria for slavery. A way to typically to escape wrenching poverty. This improves upon the war theme, and symbolism of soldiery.<br /><br />Isn't it important at the time period to ask ourselves what the purpose is of what will become our won history? Should we be comfortable of letting it unroll without conscious effort for change? Is it not who we are fighting, that age old history question, but rather why are we fighting? Fires on the Plain is with Eiji Funakoshi, Osamu Takizawa, and Mickey Curtis; based on a novel by Shohei Ooka. In Japanese with subtitles. | positive |
Another Priyadarshan/Vohra flick another movie that was seen for TP rather than actual desire, the only reason i did see this movie was the fact that the regulars were not there in this movie (Akshay Paresh and many others), but needless to say i had low expectations from this movie.<br /><br />I was happy with the casting in general except, Rajpal Yadav who once again annoys to no limit, he does however extract some laughs, but these were those standard slapstick non-original jokes, in fact this whole movie is like playing the dhol, I mean it takes hardly any talent to make loud noise, or even play the odd good beat on the dhol for a small time does it?? Its only those who can carry different beats in a nice sequential manner, for an extended period who are considered great.<br /><br />Which brings us to the other instrument, the Dumroo hardly requires any talent, it has no variations, and it may be enjoyable for a while the monkey dances (hmm sounds like Rajpal Yadav, good analogy), but its not a instrument that will entertain you for long or even get you dancing like the Dhol does.<br /><br />This movie was like the dhol and the dumroo being played, sometimes the Dhol was played sometimes the dumroo, sometimes both together, but mostly the Dumroo played alone and the monkey danced. And like any 24 year old sooner than later I got bored.<br /><br />The movie has some good Dhol (good) moments but after a while all i heard was the annoying Dumroo (entertaining initially, then tolerable then irritating), the large ordinary parts really ensure this movie is mainly good for a few funny clips on "MERE BHAINS KO ANDA KYUN MARA" (if you haven't watched it watch it on Filmy, it comes in the evenings and is really quite funny).<br /><br />This movie had its moments, the actors did a fine job, except Rajpal Yadav (who can act though, I've seen him in Main Meri Patni
) who annoys more than entertains, I've said it many time and I'll say it again I really think Sharman Joshi and Tushar Kapoor have a fine career ahead of them in the multi-star comedies especially.<br /><br />Some scenes were really funny such as the aborted attempts to impress the girls father, the zany attempts to woo the girl and take her away from each other.<br /><br />But after this was over there was a failed attempt to make this movie into much more with a mystery added, this mean that once the girl was in, the following 45-60 mins was increasingly torturous, the climax was "SO BAD ITS ALMOST GOOD CATEGORY", I mean what were they thinking if you had to have tense ending at least make some attempt to make it palatable.<br /><br />The movie is also extremely predictable, there's hardly a scene you cant predict and you wont be breaking into spontaneous burst of laughter here, its more like you see it coming and almost start laughing before the gag.<br /><br />The movie follows a gradual decline throughout the movies except for the odd bump, down or up, and then rapidly tumbles downhill once they have made friends with the girl.<br /><br />Most of the really bad scenes were towards the end, one the movie tries to be more than a run of the mill comedy, also many of the jokes were very very stale and reeked of repetition, THE LAST 10-15 WAS ESPECIALLY DISTATEFULL AND COMPLETELY SPOILS THIS MOVIE.<br /><br />I didn't find Tanushree Datta quite the siren she was to play, and her acting talent is in serious question, especially in view of her non-appealing looks, if you cant be a HOT and cant act how much time can you survive.<br /><br />Technically also this movie was weak, with the constant female gaze and shoddy lighting and camera-work.<br /><br />The songs except the title track were no good either, when the songs played in the 2nd half I could feel the collective gasp from the audience.<br /><br />In all a movie that's just ordinary merely because of the cast, and the very low expectations.<br /><br />Avoiding it wont be a bad idea.<br /><br />And if it has to be watched watching it on TV for free or a very cheap matinée or something is a must, if you pay full multiplex rates you will feel disappointed.<br /><br />-s lots of stale jokes, RAJPAL YADAV, LAST 45 MINS AND LAST 15 MINS ESPECIALLY, bad technically, bad songs.<br /><br />+/-s tries to be more than what it was, not the regular cast (I'm happier for it), Tanushree Datta.<br /><br />+s some good scenes towards the beginning,title song, good acting and cast except RY.<br /><br />total 4.5/10 (I'm trying to be objective here, i don't like Rajpal Yadav or Tanushree Datta and this movie did meet my very low expectations, so I'm giving it the benefit of all doubts, on absolute terms this movie was not more than a 4) | negative |
I can't comment on the accuracy of this production, historical or literary, but I can say that I enjoyed it. If there is a God, the sound track will be released, Ilona Sekacz' work is truly enduring. Twenty years on I am still moved by the haunting themes of this production and return to it frequently.<br /><br />The story surrounds the entry into society of Catherine Moreland. Somewhat awkward and possessed of an unhealthy interest in Gothic stories (early pulp fiction?), Catherine descends on Bath in the company of Mrs Allen where she meets Henry Tilney. She is invited to visit the Tilneys at Northanger Abbey, the seat of the formidable (and somewhat financially challenged) General Tilney, who has the unfortunate misconception that there is wealth afoot.<br /><br />Where mutual attraction mixes with family finance, dispute is inevitable. This coupled with Catherines vivid imagination, leads her to fear for her safety. Her eventual departure is marred by accusations and counter accusations of deception and connivance.<br /><br />But the attraction between Catherine and Henry stands these trials. He returns to provide a happy ending. This final scene is especially compelling, given the incidental music of Ilona Sekacz.<br /><br />It may well be a "bad" production from the purists viewpoint, gaudy costumes and shaky performances not withstanding, but for me it's 88 minutes of bliss. | positive |
Having worked in downtown Manhattan, and often ate my lunch during the Summer days in the park near City Hall, I would see the mayor come and go. It was great being able to go beyond the doors of City Hall and see what it looked like in the lobby and through out the entire building. Al Pacino,(Mayor John Pappas),"Gigli",'03, gave an outstanding performance through out the entire picture, and especially when he gave a speech at an African American Church for a little boy who was slain. John Cusack,(Deputy Mayor Kevin Calhoun),"Runaway Jury",'03, was a devoted servant to the Mayor and worshiped him in everything he attempted to accomplish. Bridget Fonda,(Marybeth Cogan), starts to fall in love with Kevin Calhoun and gives a great supporting role. Last, but not least, Danny Aiello(Frank Anselmo),"Off Key",'01, played a mob boss who had some very difficult choices to make towards the end of the picture! Great film with great acting and fantastic photography in NYC! | positive |
Ed Wood is eclipsed and becomes Orson Welles. This film is fantastic. Vampire witches who fight in terribly choreographed scenes and dialog that could have breaking ribs with laughter. Plan 9 From OUterSpace dons't stand a chance against this. Described by the writer and psychic Stephen Armourae on the Vampire Forum as a masterpiece- he's from England and thoroughly sarcastic.<br /><br />It has Stephanie Beaton and the producers know whats going to save them from bankcrupcy by repeatedly using her. Though she leaves me cold as she looks more like the undead than all the devil raisers. And Eileen Daly is just a lower rate Elvira. The whole thing is badly done.<br /><br />Watch it for the script though | negative |
I am terribly sorry, I know that Faßbinder still is called one of the greatest directors in post-war Germany and that most of his films are considered "master-pieces", but when I see "Lili Marleen" today, in 2004, I wonder what everyone is up and away about this movie! The acting is simply terrible - Hanna Schygulla is all the smiling like an idiot! -, the changings between Nazi-glamour and battlefields are ridiculous, the whole film looks as if it was made within two days in an attic. Probably it was exactly that way and many people seem to take this for "real art", but for me this movie is simply bad & cheap. Compare this to Viscontis "La Caduta degli Dei" and tell me again that "Lili Marleen" is a good movie... | negative |
I am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...<br /><br />When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.<br /><br />So why this verdict?<br /><br />First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool. <br /><br />Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the "Basterds"? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...<br /><br />Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the "Magnificent Seven": A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the "inglourious Basterds". No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the "Inglourious Basterds" except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...<br /><br />So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened... | negative |
The fourth in the "Dirty Harry" series, this film features one of the most despicable, ugliest, unlikable, profane, disgusting females I have ever seen on film: "Ray Perkins," played by Audrie Neenan. She is the modern nasty low-life version of the 1945 "Detour" character, "Ann Savage."<br /><br />Her foul mouth and gutter attitude turned me off so much I never watched this film again until I acquired a profanity filter which shut her up....and least some of her! Then I could enjoy the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Everywhere "Harry Callahan" (Clint Eastwood) goes, violence immediately follows.....within minutes! It happens so often it's almost laughable but it makes for a fast-moving, entertaining film with a satisfying ending as all the scumbag villains are eliminated one-by-one.<br /><br />This is a very sophomoric film that appeals to our base instincts.....and connects, sad to say. Most of us like to see these dirtballs get it in the end, and who does it better than Dirty Harry? | positive |
This is my opinion of this movie, expressed in its dialogs.<br /><br />To be more serious, i can't say this movie is a bad moment but i didn't enjoy it either. <br /><br />First, I was simply indifferent & couldn't get my mind into the apes world. Even though the make-up are very realistic, the constant screaming was irritating. May the film have changed apes for cats and it's a cult movie for me in relation to my fondness of the latter.<br /><br />The second part is more interesting, with the talent and freshness of then newcomers (Macdowell & Lambert), but i felt alienated: all the story is located in a big British mansion: no matter how luxurious is it, it was like a prison for me.<br /><br />At last, it could be a good adaptation of the Burroughs' story of Tarzan ? I don't know, having never read the book (or seen the Disney): .<br /><br />In conclusion, i don't have any good moments to remember, so one viewing would be enough for me. <br /><br />I should have guessed my boredom after the endless freeze called "Overture" at the beginning... What's the meaning? Only the director knows it. | negative |
This movie is really good. The plot, which works like puzzle forces viewer to think and guess, what will happen next. Such a trick brings a lot of surprises and makes a viewer really looking forward to solution of a riddle. Fighting scenes are very good. There's a lot of different combat styles (although one of styles was a bit unreal for me, but it's only my opinion) to watch and it's fascinating show. The only thing which may be irritating is actors look. A bit too effeminate (at least for me). Hong Kong was always good at kung-fu movies especially in the 70's and 80's, so "Five Venoms" (or other its versions) is great choice. | positive |
Despite being a 2001 movie, the direction is the kind of 90's art-house style that was considered "old" and out-of-date a few years ago. The cheesy cuts and effects were painful to watch. The script is decent enough, and a few scenes did kind of captivate me (like when the taxi driver brings her to the bridge at night). But the story line with the detective who's sister killed herself and how he was obsessed with suicide was just plain terrible. The performance by the actor who plays Selma Blair's married boyfriend seriously bothered me. I did sit through the whole thing, though, which is rare for the kind of random, what-is-this movie you just find on TV and decide to watch. | negative |
Although this movie is inaccurate overall, there are some items that may be true. Certainly, he was a wild character in his youth, having played practical jokes on his fellow cadets at West Point, almost expelled several times, graduating last in his class (of 34), and often reckless in his leadership during the Civil War.<br /><br />But history may have made him a scape goat of the Indian Wars. Certainly, he did his share of cruel things, but how much was he under orders? Also, there is evidence that he testified before Congress (at great risk to his commission and command) that he argued about the fairness of breaking treaties with the Indians and that if he was an Indian he would also fight rather than live on a reservation! <br /><br />As a character said in the play 1776 when asked what will be said about the British about losing the Revolutionary War, the character states "history will do what it always does...it will lie." Who knows how bad a man Custer was. Certainly he wasn't the sympathetic character as portrayed by Errol Flynn and later by Ronald Reagan. But I also doubt he was completely evil as he is later portrayed. | negative |
This film is a tour de force from Julie Taymor who directs and does the stage design and masks. No-one comes near to matching her imagination on the modern operatic stage. Since making this film in 1992 she has had much success in film-making and in directing musicals. One can only hope that she can be persuaded to return to opera one day. I would love to see a Ring cycle directed by her. The current Rheingold at Covent Garden has giants with over-sized hands just like the characters in this film. The current Butterfly at ENO uses Japanese puppetry. Coincidence maybe, or evidence that Taymor's influence is pervasive.<br /><br />Taymar uses fantastical costumes, masks, puppets, and origami birds to recreate the story of Oedipus on a stage set on stilts above a lake. Red ribbons are a recurring theme. They are used as an umbilical chord when Oedipus is born, they hang down from Oedipus's eyes after he has blinded himself, in a breathtaking effect they are used to make a crossroads when Oedipus's slaying of his father is reenacted by puppets.<br /><br />This neo-classical opera-ballet by Stravinsky enjoyed justified obscurity until this film brought it to life. The music is uninspired but inoffensive and Philip Langridge, Jesse Norman and a very young Bryn Terfel make the most of it. The singers are fairly immobile, in accordance with Stravinsky's wishes. Min Tanaka is the dancing Oedipus to Langridge's singing Oedipus. This creates some slight confusion towards the end when dancing Oedipus pokes out the eyes of singing Oedipus.<br /><br />The libretto is in Latin but do not worry if your high-school Latin is a bit rusty. There is a helpful narrator who introduces and describes each scene in Japanese. | positive |
This movie was disturbing, not because of the subject matter but because of the way it was handled. The extremely overweight mother (Angela) did not even make it on the cover of the video case when most of the rest of the cast did. This is not fair but is a statement in itself. I also notice her picture is missing from IMDb (maybe her own choice) and it looks like this is her only film ever? The language in this movie was crude beyond necessity. Watched with my 10yr old son because it was rated PG in Canada and the language coming out of their mouths was shameful & disgusting. Never did appreciate Shirley Maclain like so many others seem to.<br /><br />LOVE Kathy Bates and always will. Sinese's part was annoying.<br /><br />The little boy Alex is a great little actor. I'll have to see what else he's been up to lately.. | negative |
This must rate with the worst films I have ever seen. It just wasn't funny. My wife fell asleep. I suppose if you are the sort of person who goes all gooey eyed at the sight of a dog then it may do something for you. If you expect a comedy film to have some humour in it then you will be disappointed unless you find an English radio announcer saying the f word a lot hilarious. The strippers in the club kept their underwear on so there wasn't even a bit of nudity to relieve the boredom. What did happen in the strip club made no sense at all. There was a great deal of mumbling by the lead character with whom I developed no sympathy at all. Mena Suvari was hardly in the film, presumably just there to make people think it was a serious attempt at producing a film. The bad guys were unconvincing and carried as much menace as a dead sheep. | negative |
"Catchfire" or "Backtrack" as it is sometimes called, is not very good. That is, it's bad. Jodie Foster had already won an Oscar at this point. Why did she agree to do this? I don't know.<br /><br />The hostage/kidnapper relationship is not believable, even if it is a common psychological phenomenon in real life.<br /><br />Worst of all, this film features a scene where Hopper and Foster ride a boat under the Fremont Bridge (a bridge in Seattle) which means that traffic had to stop so that the bridge could open. I've had to wait for that bridge to go down many times, almost all of them on the bus. It's not a pleasant wait. This film caused unnecessary bridge-waiting and the world is a worse place for it. | negative |
Yes, some people have said that this movie was a waste of money, but i'm the kind of die hard dragon/world-ending/holy crap action movie fan.<br /><br />But if you take it from my stand point this movie had some of the best action sences were pretty dang good. But its that kind of movie that everything just fell tougher at the right time, or just about when evil was trumph something fell in to save them at the right time. Though there were some funny lines and gangs throughout the movie which surprised me.<br /><br />The 3d graphics were pretty damn good. I mean for this kind of movie the 3d effects were GREAT!!!! Big battle that was shown in the trailers live up to whatever hype the movie had. The fight between good and evil at the end was, I have to to say could have been longer and slightly better, it was still pretty good.<br /><br />Now on to the parts that i think could have been better. The beginning was pretty good showing the parts that lead up to the big battles. I mean if you don't really want to go see this movie in theaters then at least this is a DVDer...<br /><br />overall i loved the movie,but the plot just fell into place to fast and fit tougher just to well. | positive |
I waited and waited for this film to come out,the trailers seemed to be on for years, it was worth it. I'm not a big fan of watching films over and over again but i cant wait for this to come out for all to buy! Not a big fan of Jim but this suited him perfectly, there was so much to see and the 'feel good factor' is off the scale, perfect for Christmas. I think Ron did a fab job turning this into a film, If you haven't seen it then do so, if you have, watch it again, i know you want to! | positive |
It stars war correspondent William Holden separated, who falls in love with a stunning Eurasian doctor Jessica Jones set against the stunning backdrop of Hong Kong. The cinematography is magnificent as they rendezvous on a hill overlooking Hong Kong. The story deals with racial tensions, society frowning on mixed relations and extra marital affairs. But what I love about it is the strong character of the heroine portrayed by Jessica Jones, who is a Eurasian doctor, who stays humble and steadfast in her altruistic mission and stays loyal to her love. Despite that, she gets sacked at her hospital for cavorting with a married man by gossipping high rankers. One day William Holden is called to the Korean war which he covers and then that ill fated day, she gets the news of his demise. The end, of course is tragic, I cried when she went to their hill. It was a very sweet ill fated love affair. It defeats all the odds, the fact that she got fired from her job, how his wife would not grant him a divorce yet their great love persevered--they experienced a great love despite it all. I personally do not believe in extramarital affairs, and think he should have not started something when he was bound to someone else and she should not have allowed herself to let it happen, but despite that a truly magnificent movie. I think the heroine overshadowed the hero. Jessica Jones is sultry and gave a magnificent performance although I thought it strange they didn't not hire a real Asian actress or someone with Asian blood. I agree with one review, Jessica Jones oozes sexuality when she lays on the ground and looks up at William Holden speaking calmly but her eyes say come take me now.<br /><br />I find it a pity most great films were made before I was born, it seems many Hollywood movies are lacking in depth, great acting and depend entirely on stunts and heavy sex scenes. This is truly one of the greatest ill-fated love stories in movies. | positive |
WESTERN UNION tells in melodramatic fashion the stringing of telegraph lines between two points out west. Siblings Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore work for Western Union, and Randolph Scott and Robert Young work for the Creightons. Indians and some bad white guys get in the way, but nothing can stop America's progress. This sense of manifest destiny is greatly enhanced by a first-rate musical score and vibrant color photography. Scott is a bank robber looking to mend his ways, and both he and engineer Young vie for the attention of the perky Gilmore. Lots of great character actors help keep the large production moving forward. | positive |
Those reviewers who have complained that this movie lacks plausibility or has problems of construction are missing the point. This is a wonderfully camp romance, with plenty of Play, gypsies! Dance, gypsies! music, that both sends up exotic love stories and celebrates them. Buttoned-up Ray Milland makes an amusing foil for a Dietrich with black hair, tattered scarves, and tons of jewelry. The character's eagerness to feed Milland and look after him more closely resembles the good German hausfrau Dietrich was off the set than her mannered vamp roles. Censorship being in force, it's made clear that they share a caravan on platonic terms only, with Milland fighting off Dietrich's advances with a determination remarkable for a heterosexual bachelor who might be killed any day. His only excuse is that she smells, so perhaps a stuffy, fastidious Englishman might indeed be put off.<br /><br />In the small role of Milland's young companion on his secret mission, Bruce Lester adds a note of camp of a different kind. We are told at the beginning that he hero-worships Milland, and indeed he rather fawns on him. When, after they are separated, he meets Milland, now transformed into a brown-skinned gypsy with a shirt open to the waist, his glowing appreciation of the disguise even further suggests that not only Dietrich is romantically infatuated with Milland.<br /><br />Despite the wonderfully improbable characters and sequence of events, the growing love of Milland for Dietrich and his acceptance of the non-rational aspects of life is rather touching. And when, on their last night alone before he escapes, he says that each of them now contain half of the other, the two have become one, and then darkness falls, I think we can assume that the censor decided to give them a break! One goof--at the beginning, Milland, who is supposed to be English, refers to a lieutenant, using the American pronunciation. (The English say "leftenant.") Since Milland was British, he must have been saying it that way because the American movie-makers feared that American audiences would be distracted and confused by the British style. | positive |
After having problems in Chicago, the Solomon family moves to a remote North Dakota farmhouse to start anew, but their attempts at an idyllic farming life is disrupted when their teen daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart) and her 3-year-old brother Ben start seeing and being attacked by supernatural beings who won't allow them to live in peace.<br /><br />The Messengers starts off decently although it eventually becomes a generic horror film that's a lot more humorous than frightening. After reading the premise, I thought this could have been a decent movie since it sounded creepy and it held potential. Unfortunately, the film didn't live up to its potential although I should have expected this since the trailer was awful. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was full of silly sequences and bland dialog. The characters were not developed at all and most of them were acting like a bunch of idiots so it was hard to feel sympathy for them.<br /><br />The directors did a horrible job at building up suspense. They mainly relied on cheap scares like loud noises and random jumps. The music was really over the top and it just made it easier for the viewer to telegraph the next "scary" moment. I also didn't like how they pretty much just used one location for the whole movie. The house was the centerpiece of the story and that's where the majority of the filming took place so it got a little boring after awhile to see the same area. Also, I didn't like the close-ups of the actors. During a conversation, the camera would continually jerk from character to another in the span of five seconds and it got really annoying. The directors did create a decent atmosphere and they do get some points for making their movie stylish. However, since we have come a long way in terms of style and effects, it's not really that hard to make your movie look nice especially if you are working on a Hollywood film.<br /><br />The acting was atrocious and if this movie had been released in December, I'm sure it would have received several Razzie nominations. Kristen Stewart showed some talent in Panic Room but you wouldn't be able to tell she has talent by watching her performance in The Messengers. She was okay at acting scared and that's it. The rest of the time she was dry and unconvincing. Penelope Anne Miller was just awful when it came to everything. It sounded like she was reading her lines and she had some of the worst facial expressions I have ever seen. Dylan McDermott was just very wooden and he showed almost no emotion. John Corbett gave the best performance and he had a couple of good scenes. The twins who played Ben were also decent and managed to out act many of the adult actors. Overall, this lame horror film is not worth watching because of it's blandness and lazy film-making. Rating 4/10 | negative |
...but this just isn't working and I am surprised to see how many people consider it good. On what grounds? There are some loose hints here and there, but the whole material is self-indulgent and unconvincing. Lynch's movies are generally intriguing because they generate a sense of confusion and yet, are very playful when doing that. There is some visual sense, there are some subplots, characters, ideas etc. But this is dull and yes, pointless. Because whatever there is to explore is either to "small", either too far-fetched, or simply told before in a superior manner. It's just Lynch exploring DV, nothing more so it should be treated like this. 1/10 | negative |
Hmmmm, want a little romance with your mystery? This has it. I think if the romance was ditched this would have made for a better movie. But how could the romance be ditched when the story's borrowed from something called a Harlequin Romance novel, whatever the heck that is. Had the romance been ditched, the story might have been a little too weak. The mystery here wasn't too bad, quite interesting but nothing on the level of Mission Impossible international espionage. Oh well. I thought Mel Harris was pretty good; her short skirts, i think, added some sex appeal... but this Rob Stewart guy probably could have been better cast, maybe with a more well known TV movie actor. The directing was decent and the writing could have been improved on - both could have been a little edgier, a little darker, more adventurous. One thing that was great about this was the use of real European locations. That could easily have been changed so this could have been filmed in Canada but they really were in magnificently beautiful places like Budapest. Possibly a drawback was the director and/or cinematographer's choice to frame certain shots picture postcard perfect. Not good. Had this been a more dramatic motion picture shot for the big screen, picture postcard perfect scenes really need to take a backseat and just be a nice part of the background. This was just a tv-movie, though, so they had to add some Ummmph to the picture and some of that Ummmph came from the scenery. Overall, twasn't really a bad movie. I'll tell you what, this was absolutely the best Canadian-Hungarian production I have ever seen! (and the only that i know of.) I hereby proclaim this to be a mediocre made-for-tv movie, giving it a grade of C- | positive |
Last Christmas, I was lucky enough to receive one of the 1200 Ultimate Bourne boxed sets from my Better Half but put off watching the final part of the trilogy until yesterday. Given how many recent trilogies have stumbled over the finishing line instead of striding triumphantly through it, I was somewhat wary of approaching "The Bourne Ultimatum" but I really shouldn't have been worried. The electric actions sequences and bruising fight scenes mix effortlessly alongside the intelligent story-lines to make this one of the very best action thrillers I can recall seeing and a sublime end to an excellent series.<br /><br />Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) returns after an apparent leak about Operation Blackbriar - a new program based on the old Treadstone project - to the journalist Simon Ross (Paddy Considine) at the Guardian. Determined to uncover more about his half-remembered past, Bourne picks up the trail once again but others at the CIA including Deputy Director Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) believe that Bourne himself is the leak and start to pursue the rogue agent with renewed vigour. Can Bourne finally find the answers he has been looking for or will his old employers silence him for good? <br /><br />Personally, I felt slightly disappointed with "The Bourne Supremacy" as it ditched the trademark realism of its action scenes and focused on being a proper spy film. Not to say it lost it altogether but compared to the fantastic "Bourne Identity", it seemed more like a slow-burning spy novel rather than an action-thriller. No such worries here - every car crash, punch, kick and gun shot is heard and felt with visceral delight but thankfully, it still retains a wonderfully intelligent and gripping spy story at its heart to base the action around. It also brilliantly ties together the two earlier films, providing a suitable bookend to the trilogy as things are explained and expanded until the full picture is exposed. Performances throughout are nearly faultless - even Julia Styles begins to offer something more than book-wormy eye-candy. The only real downer is that this, like the other Bourne films, has little to do with the original novel but unless you're a die-hard Ludlum fan, this isn't really any real reason to dislike a movie like this of the very highest calibre.<br /><br />Nothing pleases me more than a movie that takes me pleasantly by surprise and despite my fears, "The Bourne Ultimtum" is a cracking movie filled with enough bone-crunching action to satisfy the meat-heads as well as a plot that never threatens to let go of your attention for a single minute. Even at the final reel, you're never entirely sure whether a happy ending is assured but whether you are a fan of the series or not (and if not, what more do you want?), this is one film you really should track down as soon as you possibly can. No wonder this series forced the producers of the Bond movies to throw out forty-odd years of movie history in order to start again. Bourne is a modern spy hero and made recent Bond films look more like Austin Powers in comparison until "Casino Royale" gave the Bond series the reboot it desperately needed. Missing out of the Jason Bourne movies is a crime worthy of rendition - go and get yourself a copy of the DVD. Not the Ultimate Bourne collection though - limited edition, I'm afraid! | positive |
A light, uplifting and engaging movie. Watching Irene Dunne is a delight! As you watch her, she ceases to be Irene Dunne and becomes in every way Paula Wharton.<br /><br />I have enjoyed Irene Dunne in every movie that I have seen and that would be nearly all of them. What a shame that most of her movies need restoration so badly. I do hope Irene Dunne movie are restored before it is too late they are such treasures Thank goodness this is not the case with Over 21.<br /><br />It is a must see if you like superb acting and witty comedy with serious overtones. I agree with a previous comment on the speech "The World and Apple Pie" it was one of the many highlights of the movie. I read somewhere that Irene Dunne helped in writing that speech along with Director Vidor (Irene Dunne was a very good and charitable person in private life) and it certainly seems to show through in her movies! | positive |
I had never heard of this film when a good friend recommended it. I trust this friend's taste, so I purchased the DVD. My wife and I sat down to watch it with no knowledge of what it was about. I thought it was the funniest film I have seen in a long time, mainly because I saw the truth in the satire. I strongly recommend this film to all my friends.<br /><br />This is not a film for everyone. Some people will see the crass humor and aura of stupidity, and find Idiocracy to be one of the stupidest movies they have seen. What these people don't seem to understand is that the crass humor is there, not to amuse the audience, but to show what appeals to the morons in the future.<br /><br />Luke Wilson is well cast as an "average Joe." He is mainly there to be a foible for the biting commentary about society that is spread throughout this film. Many of the funnier bits are in the background, so it is easily worth seeing several times. What makes the movie even funnier, and more scary, is that I see elements of it in every day life, in people I meet or on the media. Then, I go back and re-watch Idiocracy, and realize how good it is.<br /><br />The few people who have seen and enjoyed this film are able to be part of an elite club. I'll see an advertisement for some product with some breakthrough new ingredient, and turn to my wife and say, "It's got electrolytes!" She knows exactly what I am saying. | positive |
Heavily re-edited and often confusing, the original screen version of Man On Fire was at least ten years out of date when it was made and the passing years haven't made it any better. This is the kind of movie that producers with too much money and too little experience make to get attention and everyone else does just to pay off their outstanding alimony or their drug dealer, with Scott Glenn's bodyguard going out on a limb to rescue his 12-year-old charge, the kidnapped daughter of a wealthy Italian family. An interesting cast - Joe Pesci, Brooke Adams, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce - have all done better, the action is sluggish and sparse and only John Scott's exceptionally fine score (part of which turned up in the last reel of Die Hard) makes a positive impression. One case where the remake (made by Tony Scott, the original choice of director for this version) is an improvement. | negative |
A Great show.<br /><br />First, to the people who don't like it..Don't like it, then DON'T WATCH IT...<br /><br />This is(was) an awesome show. Better than According to Jim (A favorite of mine). It shows a REAL family household (As opposed to 8 simple rules,etc, where everything goes peachy).<br /><br />They're loud, they're messy....I can sympathize with their dragging all the garbage into the kitchen. It happens in real life..Sorta like the "Portal to hell", and everyone growling like dogs over the fast-food boxes.<br /><br />It's a "Been there" show....You know what's coming, but fun to watch, because YOU have been there before.<br /><br />A good cast, they work great together, a admirable enough show to warrant a DVD release. Mel Gibsons "Safety videos" were a highlight of the series as well.<br /><br />Opinion? Good show, REALLY deserving of a DVD release (Deserving to not be canceled as well). | positive |
After watching this movie I was honestly disappointed - not because of the actors, story or directing - I was disappointed by this film advertisements.<br /><br />The trailers were suggesting that the battalion "have chosen the third way out" other than surrender or die (Polish infos were even misguiding that they had the choice between being killed by own artillery or German guns, they even translated the title wrong as "misplaced battalion"). This have tickled the right spot and I bought the movie.<br /><br />The disappointment started when I realized that the third way is to just sit down and count dead bodies followed by sitting down and counting dead bodies... Then I began to think "hey, this story can't be that simple... I bet this clever officer will find some cunning way to save what left of his troops". Well, he didn't, they were just sitting and waiting for something to happen. And so was I.<br /><br />The story was based on real events of World War I, so the writers couldn't make much use of their imagination, but even thought I found this movie really unchallenging and even a little bit boring. And as I wrote in the first place - it isn't fault of actors, writers or director - their marketing people have raised my expectations high above the level that this movie could cope with. | negative |
A Delta Force Army unit, assigned to find a batch of missing Green Beret bad-asses not known for going completely missing, will be in a fight for survival against a cloaked skeleton man, the supposed spirit of an ancient Indian warrior who was revived when archaeologists disturbed his grave. The Skeleton Man rides a horse and has the ability to propel to and fro using a type of dimensional portal, and seems unaffected by bullet-fire and explosives. The Skeleton Man's horse leaves no hoof prints and he can ride from behind and around his prey silently. The film's point-of-view through the Skeleton Man's eyes looks at his prey with a different color. In other words, he's not seemingly human, so how can Captain Leary(Michael Rooker, as grizzled and intense as ever)and his gang of would-be commandos stop this menace? For some reason, the Skeleton Man murders employees of a nearby chemical plant. What are the Skeleton Man's motives for slaughtering endless human beings? And, why is a blind Indian living in the forest our commandos inhabit spared if the Skeleton Man, as a human, slaughtered his entire tribe to prove himself? <br /><br />As completely stupid as it sounds. Just unbelievable horrible. This is the kind of film that can deaden brain cells. Casper Van Dien gets second billing in the credits just under Rooker, yet is saddled with a ridiculously underwritten character who exits the film quite early. Rooker deserves better than this. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want this movie in my resume. The Skeleton Man is a reject Templer Knight from a de Ossorio film. He has a spear which can merely knock certain people down while exploding the head of a woman on impact. An arrow shot from the Skeleton Man's bow actually destroys the propeller of a chopper plane. For nearly 99 % of the film, bullets are shot at the Skeleton Man and he can go in and out of that portal thingee yet, at the end, all of a sudden, he becomes vulnerable to attack. Oh, and the horses also change as the Skeleton Man freely moves through the forest from that portal.The film is written and edited by clowns. The attack scenes are poorly constructed and the characters, who are supposed to be experienced pros, make really bad decisions throughout this film. The mind boggles with this film. Good for some laughs, and some gore scenes make this hunk of pure crap watchable as a trash movie. | negative |
This is a wonderfully gritty drama, detailing the various sides of the international heroin drug-trade--From the hills of northern Pakistan, where the tacitly allowed cultivation of opium-poppies occurs on a vast scale; to the jetsetting "Euro-Trash" in Germany and England who arrange the importation of processed heroin in multi-kilo smuggled shipments; to the end-users caught up in the web of addiction and the crime needed to support their growing habit; and finally all the levels of international government corruption and hypocrisy surrounding police efforts at controlling "the drug problem"---this drama is sketched out with a wide array of in-depth well-rounded characters, fully evolved plot, and excellent character acting and location shooting.<br /><br />This puts Hollywood epics like "The French Connection" in their place!<br /><br />Traffik is a deeply thought-provoking and suspenseful tale of modern drug-related espionage, and the international efforts of many people to try to eliminate it.<br /><br />Unlike many "crime dramas" revolving around drugs, Traffik focusses strongly on uncovering the societal *reasons* that people slide into drug addiction... As one of the characters puts it "...until we, as a society, construct a world that people want to participate in, instead of wanting to escape from, we will not be able to stop people from taking drugs..."<br /><br />This is a fascinating and fully engrossing drama. I highly recommend it! | positive |
One of the best films I have seen in the past five years! The cast is universally spectacular in a tale of young love and bravado on the Lower East Side of New York City with the two leads being superstars in the making. Funny, charming, sad and inspiring, this is a totally refreshing take on urban youth that puts Larry Clark's often-nauseating shtick in the gutter where it belongs... although I have to admit that Bully was a cut above his normal fare. Raising Victor Vargas is one film you will kick yourself for missing... so don't miss it! | positive |
I enjoyed Ramin Bahrani's Man Push Cart, and this film is equally good. This slice of life is almost a documentary about how life on the edges is lived.<br /><br />Alejandro Polanco and Isamar Gonzales do an excellent job as a 12-year-old brother and a 16-year-old sister who live in a small room over an auto shop. There are no parents; they are on their own surviving. Ali supplements his income by stealing auto parts, selling bootleg DVDs and selling candy on the subway. Izzie supplements her income working a food truck by selling herself. They are trying to make money to but their own truck.<br /><br />One is tempted to express outrage at the fact that these two children are left to fend on their own, and certainly one can be very upset that Izzie sells her body to willing truckers, but the fact is that this exists today in the world's richest country, not some underdeveloped land. Save the outrage and do something. | positive |
This was Laurel and Hardy's last silent film for Roach Studios. However, since the public had a real thirst for "talkies", this same short was re-made by the team just a few years later with only a few small plot changes. LAUGHING GRAVY was essentially the same plot except that Stan and Ollie were trying to hide a cute puppy from their grouchy landlord--not a goat like in ANGORA LOVE. This whole goat angle is the worst part of the film. While you could understand the boys wanting to keep a cute little dog (after all, it is snowy outside), why exactly they bring a goat home is just contrived and pointless. According to the plot, the goat followed them home and so they got tired of shooing it away and kept it. Huh?! This just doesn't make any sense--if it had been a giraffe or a cow, would they have done the same thing?! Apart from being an unconvincing plot, the movie itself is pure Laurel and Hardy, with a familiar plot and familiar roles for the comedians. This film features quite a few laughs, but unfortunately isn't one of their better films to wrap up their silent careers. This aspect of their careers just seems to have ended with a whimper. | positive |
I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.<br /><br />Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).<br /><br />But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. <br /><br />Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.<br /><br />No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all". <br /><br />From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.<br /><br />And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....<br /><br />Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.<br /><br />No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches. | negative |
As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.<br /><br />I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision. | negative |
Yet ANOTHER movie about a group of less-than-intelligent individuals on a road trip who wander off their original travel route for either a short-cut or, in this case, to visit a run-down side show attraction. The results, as expected, are not at all good, as this particular side show is home to a bunch of lunatic, in-bred residents who were escaped prison inmates from years before. The father, who is apparently a professionally photographer, just HAS to stop and take pictures of the place, only to find that it still inhabited. The various members of the family wander off to view the various attractions, only to be scared away. Thinking they made it safely on their way, the van tire explodes (surprise!), leaving them to seek refuge and accommodations in the small town, which we find out is inhabited solely by the freaks (surprise!).<br /><br />This film plays out as expected, with the family being stalked and killed by the freaks. There is some fighting back on the families part, but these are probably among the worst scenes in the film, as they are badly executed. There is nothing remotely original here, unless you count the totally inappropriate soundtrack that is played during particular scenes that completely ruins the atmosphere and mood of the film. The acting is about as bad as I have seen in quite some time by everyone involved (it is pretty bad when your cast is out-acted by the cast of "Camp Blood). The special effects are lousy and the ending made me want to punch my television.<br /><br />Still, though, despite all the negatives, I somewhat enjoyed this film. It definitely has a "so bad it's good" vibe to it. I made it through the entire movie and was even pleasantly entertained once I got past the ridiculously clichéd plot, terrible acting, and cheesy special effects. Though the ending left me feeling cheated and angry, particularly because the film is not that great to begin with and the ending makes the entire film pointless.<br /><br />Bottom line, I can list countless films that if you have seen them, you have seen this. The difference is most of those film are better. Though not a complete waste, this film is pretty bad and not remotely scary.<br /><br />My Grade: D | negative |
This movie is essentially shot on a hand held camera by the actors in it. In some ways a mockumentary in other ways a video diary from killers it is full on account of a "Columbine" style attack. While this movie does not answer all the big questions, it does give you an insight into how easy it would be to get away with. Through the movie you are shown how the actors illegally shortened shot guns, made pipe bombs and came up with an action plan for "Zero Day". The actors (if you can call them that) were brilliant, they obviously borrowed heavily from there own lives, but at no stage did I detect them really acting (Something Tom Cruise should try). The use of the CCTV and the 911 operator at the end was genius, but I'm not sure if we needed the very last scene. Overall though a really good movie on a very tough topic. | positive |
I must admit that this is the type of film that I would normally eschew, but I rented it basically because of the stars. I certainly was not sorry. In fact, as you see, I rated it five stars. This film is the perfect combination of sharp directing and superior acting.<br /><br />Andy and Hank Hanson are brothers who decide to commit the uncouth crime of robbing their parents' jewelry store. The crime goes terribly wrong - thus beginning an examination of the three men in the Hanson family. Through a series of flashbacks, we get to know Charles Hanson and come to an understanding of the strained relationship between father and sons.<br /><br />Younger brother, Hank is basically a screw-up. He has always had trouble holding a job and pretty much goes in the direction of the wind. Hank is insecure, cowardly, and very much under the influence of his big brother. Ethan Hawke has the character of Hank "nailed to a T" and gives what is probably his best performance thus far. He shows us a man who is basically good-hearted but so influenced by outside forces that he is unable to follow through with any important task.<br /><br />Andy - on the surface - appears to be a successful businessman, but we soon discover that he is addicted to drugs and has been embezzling from his company to pay for his habit. It is Andy who concocts the scheme to rob his parents' store, and he gets weak-willed Hank to commit the act. Philip Seymour Hoffman - surely one of the finest actors of our time - plays Andy. Hoffman is an actor who has the ability to portray a man who, on the surface, is a charming businessman liked by his acquaintances but a real slime ball underneath. He is absolutely perfect for the part of Andy or it might be said that he, through his superior acting skills, made Andy the perfect part.<br /><br />Albert Finney plays a father common to his generation. Charles Hanson is not a bad or unfeeling man, but he has a lousy relationship with his sons because he never really understood what was necessary in nurturing a positive bond between his sons and himself. He has always been too quick to criticize and admonish. He always made it clear that he favored his younger son over his older thus causing a wide emotional rift between himself and Andy. As we get to know Charles and Andy, the thought of Andy forming a plan to rob from his father becomes less unbelievable.<br /><br />On a personal note, I cannot believe how much Charles Hanson reminded me of my own father, and how much Andy and Hank reminded me of my own brother and myself. Perhaps this may be one of the reasons that I enjoyed the film so much as this story of a distant, critical father, a more successful older brother, and a less successful younger brother hit so close to home. Fortunately, my brother and I never came to the state of committing a crime against my parents- guess we were made of sterner and more moral stuff.<br /><br />This complex of personalities and actions has been expertly put together by director, Sidney Lumet. At eighty-three, he still has the chops to give the audience engrossing characters and edge-of-seat action that hypnotizes. 12 Angry Men was his first film made fifty years prior to Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, but he hasn't lost any bit of his magic touch in showing us characters that will be long remembered.<br /><br />The events and characters in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead are harsh and unattractive, and this is definitely not a feel-good movie. However, it is two hours of ultimate entertainment which I thoroughly recommend. | positive |
This is arguably the best film director Haim Bouzaglo made until now. A skilled TV director, well-trained in story-telling and in directing his actors through long epics he tried to catch in this very low-budget film the essence of the very special psychological situation the Israelis live though under the permanent danger of the terror attacks, resulting in 'distorted' lives. Each character trying to live his own life, to watch and control the other, while being himself watched and controlled by other characters and mostly by the continuous pressure, by political and historical forces well beyond his control. Some call this destiny, but destiny has a very concrete representation in this film.<br /><br />There is no explicit political saying in 'Distortion'. Characters never discuss politics, not even at the level of saying 'bastards!' when they hear that a new terror attack happens. Their reaction to events is to localize the attack and to count the victims using the official and media terminology for the dead and the wounded. They do not really live but rather survive on borrowed time happy to have survived one bomb, and waiting for the next one to happen. Personal, social, professional life seems to work someway, but is deeply flawed and influenced by events. The main character played by the director is a playwright whose mid-life personal and creative crisis is amplified by the pressure of the events and by the fact that he is lucky enough to leave a terror attack site minutes before the bomb explodes. He hires a private detective to follow his girlfriend who is a TV investigative reporter whom he suspects is falling in for the subject of her next show - another failed man, former military, whose business and family life dismantles under the events. He starts to write a play that carbon-copies the reality and will bring it to the stage, in theater in film scene that reminds Hamlet as well as 'Synecdoche, New York'. It's not that I would dare suspect Charlie Kaufman looking over the shoulder of Bouzaglo, he certainly needs not that, but the Israeli director screen is brilliant into anticipating the later film (and the first directed by Kaufman). As in the American film actors play real persons and start interacting with them in an reality-meets-stage-meets-reality melange which never lacks logic, at least not artistic logic.<br /><br />Bouzaglo directs his actors with the usual talent, trusts them and allows them the freedom of living through the situations rather then acting them. His style is much more free here than in his TV series, and the 'distortion' effects, although borrowed from American horror movies work pretty well all over. The ending seemed to me a little rhetorical and unsatisfying dramatically, but the shade of the suicidal killer who is haunting the film and the whole situation in a temporal loop will also follow the viewer when remembering later this film. | positive |
Well, finally got to see the remake last night in London, unintentionally hilarious, sexless and devoid of any real humour. I don't really know where to start, whilst I was entertained by this strange homage, it didn't really move me. The acting is screamingly hammy, there is no original music, the costumes are far too 'Disney' there is a ridiculous 'six months later' insert after the burning of Nic Cage (which didn't come soon enough for my liking) The bit with Cage in the bear suit had the audience suppressing mirth as did the comedy punching out of various 'baddies' on the island. It's such a weird remake that I cant quite believe I saw it, it reminded me of something that The Comic Strip presents would have done in the eighties, a bit like their Hollywood interpretation of the Miner's Strike, very strange! | negative |
A group of forest rangers and scientists go into the woods to find fossils.They stumble on a Bigfoot burial ground eventually (the didn't notice it in the dark), The scenes of the CGI Bigfoot are horrid, but better than the endless scenes of talking that they rarely punctuate. I used to think that there just might be a good Bigfoot movie to be made. But now after so many sad sad movies about the legend, I'm having serious doubts. To pour salt in the wound of watching this film, the ONE good-looking girl just doesn't get naked once. And while this one MAY be better than "Boggy Creek 2" (no mean feat there), it's still sad that the best non-documentary film on Bigfoot remains "Harry and the Henriksons" <br /><br />My Grade: D | negative |
Sometimes, but very rarely, a movie tells a story so well that it almost becomes difficult. This movie tells several stories so well simultaneously that it was the first few times a movie I could not watch to completion. It was too real....and the characters SO STRONG that watching it became a personal struggle. Seeing these three men and their families deal with their hardships, one in particular, often hit me too hard. Now, I have watched in its entirety without interruption several times, and I realize what I always suspected. This movie is a masterpiece. The writing, the acting, the blending of several stories without being even the least bit choppy, everything about this movie is exceptional. Seven Academy Awards? No wonder, it certainly must have deserved them. | positive |
This was a great movie that had a lot of under lying issues. It dealt with issues of rascism and class. But, it also had a message of knowing yourself and taking responsibility for yourself. This movie was very deep it gave the message of that you and only you can control your destiny. It also showed that knowing yourself and being comfortable with who you are is the only way you will ever fit into society. What others think of you is not important. I believe this movie did a wonderful job of showing it. The actors I think were able to convey each character wonderfully. I just thought it was amazing how deep this movie really was. At a just glancing look you wouldn't see how deep the movie is, but on further look you see the underlining meaning of the movie. | positive |
This film says everything there is to say about religion - I wish it were required viewing for all bigots and would-be clericals.<br /><br />The story, set in a turn-of-the-century Danish villages is about two very religious sisters whose late father was a rigid priest who discouraged all their dreams of love and exploring the world and its many beauty. They are now old and their life and beauty spent. Their quiet new help - whom they "teach" to cook - is Babette (played by the lovely Stephane Audran who graced so many of her husband Claude Chabrol's films). The life in the village is simple and the stark direction reflects that.<br /><br />When Babette wins the lottery, she requests a chance to prepare a feast - a true labour of love. The course of the feast and its Chief Guest reveal messages of love and spirituality and how there are many ways to love God and life.<br /><br />This is a must-see for the devotion with which Babette prepares the feast and for the speech the General gives at the end. Possibly the best international film of the 1980's. | positive |
The entire series, not just The Blue Planet, is nothing short of amazing. The best nature series we have ever seen. The episode on the deep is like traveling to outer space! We have watched this with our 10 and 7 year old boys and all four of us have not been able to pull away. We read a negative comment on this and could not believe it. There is so much new information that we never learned in school. Its also the best view we have seen from any television or movie into the delicate balance of our earth's eco-system. The amount of time and effort put into capturing these shots is very much apparent when you sit down and watch this series.<br /><br />A must see for everyone. | positive |
SPOILERS <br /><br />As you may know, I have been commenting on a lot of silent short films in the past months. Now, I have no idea why I am commenting on Steamboat Willie, I guess I was just desperate to comment on anything, so I watched this, and now I am commenting on it. This, or course, is one of the very first cartoons, and I believe it is not the first cartoon with sound. <br /><br />Here is the plot. Mickey Mouse is driving a steamboat when Pete throws him off and he drives it. When they stop for cargo Minnie Mouse tried to get on but failed miserably. Mickey gets her up by a crane. Then a goat eats her sheet of paper with Turkey in the Straw on it. They use the goat to make the song. When I say that I mean that they used the goat as a Victrola. Mickey plays the animals on the steamboat for instruments to the song. Then an angry Pete throws Mickey in a potato room and Mickey is forced to peel potatoes for the rest of the day.<br /><br />Overall, this is yet another groundbreaking silent short film. I mean, this is the third Mickey Mouse cartoon. Yes, the third. Also, this is not the first cartoon with sound. I believe there were two more before this one. Either way, this film is really, really groundbreaking. Mikcey was also more violent than he is mow. I mean, he throws a potato at a bird and may have brutally slaughtered it. <br /><br />9/10<br /><br />Recommended Films: Plane Crazy. | positive |
First of all, I just have to say that I'm a huge LOST fan. Everyone who makes the show, I love 'em. It's got everything in it, really.<br /><br />I'm glad that they have great people making it, for instance Jack Bender is the greatest director, well, maybe after J.J. Abrams. And of course, full credit to Damon Lindelof & Carlton Cuse. They're geniuses.<br /><br />Anyway, the season 2 finale is definitely one of the best episodes of LOST ever!!! Live Together, Die Alone focuses on Desmond David Hume's story of getting to the island, and Henry Ian Cusick is so great playing that character! The makers of the show would have been very stupid if they would've let old'Des die on us.<br /><br />So, in LOST, the plane crash survivors have been there for 65 days.. 65 days, man. Whileas Rousseau has been there for SIXTEEN years, and the Others have been there for God knows how long. Referring to Jeffrey Lieber, Lindelof & Abrams. Anyway, I hope we'll get the answers we need, in season 3. Can't wait! My vote is nine. | positive |
The surprise nominee of this year's Best Animated Feature race at the Oscars. It's an Irish film by heart, but it was co-produced by Belgium and Brazil, with, I'm guessing, animators working in all three countries. The product is one of the most beautiful and unique films in recent memory. The character design is a little reminiscent of the French animated film Persepolis from a couple of years back, with very simple characters with thick, black outlines. This film is not in black and white. Oh no. What makes this film great is its use of color, simply some of the most outrageous and startling use of colors I've ever seen. The general design of the pictures is also a lot more geometrical, with characters who are basically rectangles or ovals. Much of the film can be spent playing find the circle - a major aspect of the visual design is a circle in the center of the image. All of these geometrical designs have a purpose - the story is about a young boy who is learning to be an artist working on illuminated manuscripts (the Book of Kells is a real illuminated Bible; the art of the film is based on the drawings in it). The story of the film isn't especially deep, but it's a pretty good fantasy tale. Brendan is a young boy in Kells, a city surrounded by enormous walls, built by his uncle to keep out Vikings. A newcomer to Kells, Brother Aiden, inspires Brendan to take up illustrating. He also inspires him to do things like leave Kells and explore the nearby forest, within which lives a nymph. Bruno Coulais provides a fantastic score, almost as good as the one he did for Coraline, which I consider the very best of the year. | positive |
I thought the film could be a bit more complex,in a psychological sense perhaps, but the action and voice acting were top notch. The animation was heavy CG in many scenes, but very good ones at that. This is one of the Batman Returns/Forever type films, which include romances and the conflicts of Wayne and motives for dating. 007 fans would love this, and so would the females, great theme song! Wayne was portrayed very well in this film, and the Penquin was back to his true form, no mutant genes in him this time! I liked the fact Robin wasn't used too much, Tim Drake was just a good computer nerd, somewhat of an Indigo child or mind of the future.<br /><br />The supporting cast was made up of some soap opera stars, decent talents and the characters were drawn to look like the voice actors too. Kelly Ripa was hilarious in this film.<br /><br />I rate this below Phantasm, Return of the Joker, and Batman vs. Dracula, but liked the smarter script better than I enjoyed Subzero. 7/10 | positive |
This week, I just thought it would be fun to catch up with Corey Haim, with just having seen the two "Lost Boys" films last week and all. Not that I'm a fan-boy - not by far - but I did like those two Coreys in some films back in my early teen days.<br /><br />So, I prepared myself for three films starring him. Unfortunately, I picked "Dream Machine" as a first (never seen it before), and it was so godawfully horrible, I just decided to lock Corey back in my closet and let him sober up again first, before I pop in something else of his. But I managed to struggle my way through this film first. I had the impression it desperately wanted to play in the same league as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986) but got caught up in its own delusions. Practically the whole film it wants to be a comedy and near the end it hopelessly tries to be a thriller. The only good thing about "Dream Machine" is the premise: A dead body in the trunk of a Porsche. All the rest fails so badly, it's embarrassing. Even the most for Haim. I can dig him being his young, enthusiastic self, but at least when he comes with some form of directorial guidelines. This clearly wasn't the case in "Dream Machine". So, we have a perfect car, yes, that black Porsche. Haim's perfect girlfriend? Just a blonde chick who hardly has any lines in the film. The perfect murder... almost? Some dude that falls flat on his ass as the villain of the film, trying the whole movie to steal the body back out of the trunk, never really succeeds, and then at the end of the film thinks he's Michael Myers (minus the white William Shatner mask) and mistakes Corey Haim for Jamie Lee Curtis. Don't think they could have made this flick any lamer if they tried. A stupid, unfunny film with a story that leads to nowhere directed by a director that doesn't know how to direct his cast. Great accomplishment!<br /><br />One last question for Mr. Haim: Who's idea was it to have you smile directly into the camera in that last shot of the movie? Yours or the director's? So not done. | negative |
Some changes for the better (the special effects are more elaborate), some for the worse (Scott Grimes, a likable kid in the original, has turned into an awkward teenager), but generally this sequel is about on a par with the original - which doesn't say much. The PG-13 rating is questionable; although the film is not scary at all, there is some brief but quite explicit gore, and some out-of-place nudity. (*1/2) | negative |
I think I win the "bargain" contest for this movie, since I got it as part of a "Martial Arts Movie Classics" DVD collection with 50 movies for 20 bucks, which means I paid something like 50 cents for the chance to watch the "Black Fist" version of a movie that was released as "Bogard." <br /><br />For a basic "revenge" flick, "Black Fist" isn't too bad, even though it is obviously hampered by a low budget. One of my informal "rules of thumb" for watching a movie is that if the lead actor is better than his production and screenplay, the movie automatically gets at least three stars. That is certainly the case here; Lawson has some presence and some charisma, and probably deserved a better film career than he got. <br /><br />The street fight choreography (the ostensible reason for the film) really won't to impress anyone who has ever sparred in a martial arts school or even just been punched in a schoolyard fight. I only spent about two years learning basic kung fu, but even I would never fall for the front "stamp" kicks, arm drags, and roundhouse punches on display here. But the atmosphere is good - dust and blood and shouting crowds, and the actors put some feeling into the fight scenes. <br /><br />Less believable is the plot. Dawson's character "Leroy Fisk", is portrayed as a street-smart, sharp young man who goes looking for work as a pick-up fighter in illegal, unsanctioned street matches. Yet he is surprised and indignant when he has to pay off the cops? Excuse me, but I was raised in small town Iowa and even *I* knew (from watching "Hard Times" with Charles Bronson) that the cops have to be paid off for this sort of action, and that the guys who fight needed the fixers in order to get their matches, and that the fixers were worth the money. So you have to watch this movie with a sort of willful suspension of your critical faculties in order to accept it as a "black brother being repressed" movie. (Most of the other non-black fighters in the stable get punched in the face for the same deal too,yes?).<br /><br />The movie suffers from a short attention span. The director obviously didn't have the budget to film some of the scenes he needed, so he had to fill in the gaps with some fairly ludicrous exposition scenes (The "I wined him, I dined him, and then I killed him" scene just doesn't work) along with voice-overs and montages that are clumsy and unconvincing. This is especially true with the whole romance angle which seems to have been filmed as if it were an afterthought. This is a little shoddy when you consider that the death of "Fisk's" wife's death is supposed to fuel his drive for revenge.<br /><br />But, once the movie switches all the way from "young fighter rising through the ranks" to the revenge theme, it picks up a little steam and plays with a little more conviction. I'm not sure that the final payoff is worth the buildup - Roger Ebert calls this sort of thing "a long drive for a short day at the beach"..but it does tie things off in a reasonably satisfying way. <br /><br />If Sylvester Stallone had made this film with a real budget and the same cast, slicker sets and costumes, and himself as the hero, people would have hailed it as the next "Rocky", which goes to show you how circumstance and chance can play havoc with would-be filmmakers' dreams. <br /><br />Worth seeing once for various decent shots and lines and to watch Dabney Coleman embarrass himself in a role that is beneath him. | negative |
Yeah sure it's cheesy, it's not Zombie, but it's not that bad either. It has Beatrice Ring which is a huge bonus, and it's entertaining. I had the good fortune to meet Fulci later in his career and he remained philosophical about the experience, as he was never completely satisfied with it. It is well worth a search out, especially for genre and Fulci fans. It is a film that is far too often dismissed out of hand. | positive |
Even if you do not typically enjoy documentaries, odds are you will find this one fascinating. Not only does it have a well-mapped out plot that while easy to follow, contains its interesting detours; it also has a very strong emotional resonance, and not one that relies on a simple specific tone. Instead the emotions here are as profound and turbulent as the seas featured.<br /><br />That being said, if you know nothing of Donald Crowhurst and the 1968 single-handers boat race around the world...as was the case for me...please stop reading, and rent/view this film. <br /><br />SPOILERS FOLLOW<br /><br />My friend Brian recommended this at the same time that my Aunt had sent me a clipping linking this film with Antonioni's work In 2007, I was mesmerized by several of Antonioni's films, still am! To connect this film to Antonioni, I think is a bit of a stretch, the character most likely to be seen in one of Michaelangelo's movies is Francoise Moitessier de Cazalet. It's funny on the main IMDb page, he isn't even listed as playing "Himself" which is probably a function of his lengthy name, as opposed to his self realization/renunciation. Since Moitessier sails right out of the race, that could be considered is a bit like Anna in L'Avventura. Quite a major minor character.<br /><br />While there are many things to love about this film: the actual footage from the time, the stoic best friend, the sheer power of the Roaring Forties, I walked away with a simple connection. A man, truly at sea. There have been times in my life where I wonder how I got to such a point, caught between dreams and reality, feeling like a stowaway in my own skin. It may be that I'm reading too much into this documentary, and that in turn the directors read too much into Crowhurst, but I found that sense as spell-binding as the other secrets kept in this film.<br /><br />On the odd chance that Crowhurst's wife (who seemed a remarkable study in restraint with understandably conflicted overtones) and his children (so young in the found footage, and still young at this late date in the sense of their pain and pride for their father), I am certain the comments here and the film itself fail to catch the man that your father was. In his death however, he has given the world a glimpse of something like a lost myth, he is a pre-GPS Odysseus. Never finding his body adds to the air of frail immortality, if not the stature of a cosmic being of which he had writ.<br /><br />This film sticks with you after the viewing, as if you expect another twist to emerge from the deep waters. Or at the very least, you hope for the Moitessier sequel.<br /><br />Thurston Hunger 8/10 | positive |
I really did like this show, once upon a time. That is, until I realized all the faults in it. It's so unrealistic. I know it's fiction, but it isn't even the slightest bit believable. Here's why. **Spoilers ahead folks...** Are we really supposed to believe that a kid like Yugi would be descended from a Pharaoh of ancient Egypt? C'mon! He's the biggest nerd on the face of the Earth. And what's up with the Pharaoh (a.k.a. Atem and/or Yami's) hair? Last I checked, Pharaohs were shaved (except for a small bit of hair atop the head) and wore fancy hats.<br /><br />And, are we supposed to be convinced that an evil wealthy boy genius, named Seto Kaiba, can legally run a successful business while still having time to go to a shoddy little school like 'Domino High'? Puh-leeze! First off, he'd have to legally be an adult to run a company. And that would make him not really all too much of a boy genius, since he'd be the only adult in his class. And second off, why would he attend a school like 'Domino High', when his business is clearly successful enough for him to attend a fancy snobbish academy? Plus, the side plots with his little brother are so sappy and lame. Every time you turn around, that kid's been kidnapped by goons for the baddie. *yawn* Nothing new, nothing new.<br /><br />Joey is the poor kid, who lives with a good-for-nothing father. It says that Joey earns all the money to attend his school, because his father's an alcoholic, but you never once see Joey do anything that resembles work. He doesn't even mention work. And his sister Serenity is a complete moron. Why would she choose a snob like Duke (who dressed her brother in a dog costume and publicly humiliated him on television) over a nice guy like Tristan? Is she really that clueless? Various characters throughout the show, get possessed by demonic forces, get their souls stolen by demonic forces, and fall prey to mental illness. (Oh, that's child-safe, NOT.) Tea is the typical girl-next-door type, whose only purpose is to be Yugi/Yami's girlfriend. And while she has some cool points to her, she just doesn't have enough time to shine as a main character.<br /><br />The animation is simply awful. All the characters look sickly and anorexic. The perspectives are terrible (especially when they do close-ups of somebody's hand) and the colors look good, but not stellar.<br /><br />But the worst plot hole to the series was the fact that Yami says that his Millennium Puzzle can send souls back to their bodies. If this was so, how come he didn't save Yugi's Grandpa in the first place, when Pegasus stole his soul, and save himself the trouble of getting it back?<br /><br />All it really is, is a commercial for itself. The only plus side to it is "Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series" by LittleKuriboh.<br /><br />Please. Do something more worthwhile. Like, watch the Abridged version.<br /><br />1/10 | negative |
Possibly the finest moment of TV, at least in my memory, as millions could watch Shakespeare's gripping Kings cycle (Richard II - Richard III) play out on prime time TV (I believe it was on Friday nights). No word was left out, and the plays awoke in me (who was then in elementary school) a thirst for history and a hunger for Shakespeare and drama.<br /><br />Let's see these reissued on DVD. What a set this would be! | positive |