Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Somewhere on IMDb there is a discussion about the greatest director of all times (Spielberg, Copolla and others are named there). The greatest argument was around Spielberg and whether he is or isn't a great director. The problem with Spielberg is that while he is a master technician, most of his films lack depth.Saving Ryan is really outstanding from a technical point of view, but its message is dull and while its very entertaining, it doesn't make you think about anything. AN is the best movie I ever saw because it combines great shooting with a deep philosophical perspective on so many things, starting from war in general, the clash of civilizations, the condition of soldier in wartimes (is a soldier a hero or an assassin? Brando says he is neither, the french lady says he is both ...) and many others. The problem with some people is that they try to argue about whether these points are true or false. But a great movie, and a great piece of art in general is supposed to spark arguments, not to solve them ... Maybe Coppola is right, or maybe he isn't, nobody holds the truth anyway. You can watch this movie for its outer beauty, amazing scenes, great acting and memorable quotes and you will be entirely satisfied. But what really make this movie a masterpiece is its inner quality. You can't help but make a comparison with the recent Fahrenheit documentary.Both Copolla and Moore tackle similar issues, but while Copolla presents matters from an outside , objective point of view, Moore takes a very partisan position that really compromises the whole point of a documentary ... It is really a shame that a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 won a prestigious award like Cannes. But anyway, if you want to start to understand a little of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the second World War and any war in general, you should definitely see this movie, and not the other one ... | positive |
I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's "Waitress" (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie "The Bastard Song" written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy: <br /><br />"It's a world of suffering,<br /><br />In a sea of pain,<br /><br />No matter how much sun you bring,<br /><br />You're pummeled by the rain...<br /><br />Don't let the heartless get you down,<br /><br />Don't greet the heartless at your door,<br /><br />Don't live among the heartless" | positive |
Low budget, mostly no name actors. . . this is what a campy horror flick is supposed to be all about. These are the types of movies that kept me on the edge of my seat as a kid staying up too late to watch cable. If you liked the 80's horror scene this is the movie for you. | positive |
This movie could had been an interesting character study and could had given some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie is that it doesn't have any of this in it. It doesn't give any insight-, or solutions to the problem. It's just the portrayal of 'old' male sex addict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal life and family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totally pointless and meaningless.<br /><br />It also really doesn't help that the main character is some wrinkly 50+ year old male. You'll have a hard time identifying yourself- and sympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an a constant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexual intercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not just only with prostitutes.<br /><br />It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bit forced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most other direct-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had been given better material to work with, the movie would had deserved a better faith.<br /><br />The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really some pointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they were obviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the whole Ordell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts heading toward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cutting back and forth between the events that happened and the main character's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap and simple.<br /><br />But as far as bad movies are concerned, this just isn't one of them. It's not really any better or worse than any other random straight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.<br /><br />Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast Nastassja Kinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificant production as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for work and money.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
This movie was way too slow and predictable.I wish i could say more but i can't.If you enjoy action/adventure films,this is not one to see.I'd suggest you go see movies like;Behind Enemy Lines with Owen Wilson and Iron Eagle with Louis Gossett Jr. | negative |
Since THE MAGUS is a confusing puzzle that really has no solution, one should sit back and enjoy the scenery. Set on a "remote Greek island," it stars a very uptight Michael Caine as a teacher working at a school for boys who gets caught up in mind games with local wacko/mystery man Anthony Quinn and his daffy girlfriend Candice Bergen. Quinn, looking like Pablo Picasso with white hair and striped sailor shirt, is actually pretty good but Caine looks like he's ready to explode. Bergen, although stunning, should NOT put on a British accent EVER. She's not very good at that type of thing. Guy Green's direction is fine, but unless you have infinite patience with the circular logic of the film, you will not enjoy it. A real sour note is the casting of the effervescent Anna Karina in the completely joyless role of Caine's girlfriend. After seeing her in the likes of A WOMAN IS A WOMAN and A BAND APART, her presence here is quite jarring. | negative |
Ernest Borgnine was so wasted in this movie.There was no point in putting this great actor in this movie.One of the greatest actors in the world wasted,and for what reason, none what so ever,so america if you want to put classic actors in movies DON'T WASTE THEM | positive |
Yes, let's get this out of the way before we begin: *This is the one that Sean Connery returned to in 1983 after the stint we had of Roger Moore. *It's Connery's last film. *And YES it's a (kind of) remake of Thunderball, but more of a film inspired by it. If all you Bond purists out there think I'm gonna get controversial, you're right. Bond is one of the greatest movie series ever, but that doesn't mean that a series should go on forever. This, I think, is one of two films where they could've done themselves a huge favour and ended the Bond saga. Not offended yet? Then I'll continue... Hey, if you're thinking I'm indifferent about Bond flicks, you're wrong. I grew up with my Mum being OBSESSED with them. Any spare moment, Bond and his antics would be on the TV. Bond rules, and 'Never Say Never Again' (directed by Irvin 'Empire Strikes Back' Kershner) is one of the best. It may not be 'Goldfinger' or 'From Russia...' and may not have been done by the same production house as all the others (which I hear is why they refuse to accept it was ever made!?), but still stands head and shoulders above the recent Brosnan outings... (if you haven't spat at the screen, read on). CHARACTERIZATION!!!!! Something so many blockbuster films forget about these days, but something which is essential to telling a good story. 'Never' played a superb hand by treating 007 like he had been ageing since 'Dr. No'. He's 'getting on a bit' and so has to do things like go to a health farm - a direct order from 'M' (!). Yeah, if you haven't seen this film, I won't give too much away with the plot because A) Loads happens and B) Obviously, I want YOU to see it for yourselves. Don't be put off by my 'old Bond' revelation, Connery still get plenty of superb set pieces to charge, swim, punch, speed, smash, and snog his way through. The man is a legend, and this film is one of his most enjoyable outings as Bond. High tech gadgets galore, some great villains, and an excellent supporting cast (including a fantastic cameo by Rowan Atkinson) lift this movie high above audience expectation.<br /><br />This could've been the last Bond film ever, and it would've been a party to remember. Playing the secret agent as someone nearing retirement was refreshing stroke of genius - the last scene wraps things up perfectly for the series.... ...but still we had more, and then more, and more still, and one more Moore. Still, if you fancy finding out what "Fatima Blush" is all about, get this film. Then you can at least pretend 007 spent his last moments as a wisecracking secret agent, in the arms of Kim Basinger, and smirking at Mr. Bean. (P.S. * That other film that I think could've finished it all off? The gritty 'License to Kill' | positive |
(spoilers)The one truly memorable part of this otherwise rather dull and tepid bit of British cuisine is Steiner's henna rinse, one of the worst dye jobs ever. That, and the magnificent caterpillar eyebrows on the old evil dude who was trying to steal Steiner's invention. MST3K does an admirable job of making a wretchedly boring and grey film funny.I particularly like it when Crow kills Mike with his 'touch of death', and when he revives him in the theatre, Mike cries "Guys, I died, I saw eternal truth and beauty! oh, it's this movie..." That would be a letdown, having to come back from the afterlife to watch the rest of The Projected Man. The film could make a fortune being sold as a sleep aide. Some of the puns in the film were wicked: police inspector-"electrocution!" Crow-"Shocking, isn't it?" police inspector-"That's LOwe, all right" Tom Servo-"Very low, right down by the floor!" police inspector-"Can I get on?" Tom Servo-"He's dead, but knock yourself out" MST3K is definitely the only way to watch this snoozer. | negative |
WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS (Not that you should care. Also, sorry for the caps.)<br /><br />Starting with an unnecessarily dramatic voice that's all the more annoying for talking nonsense, it goes on with nonsense and unnecessary drama. That's badly but accurately put.<br /><br />We know space travel is a risky enterprise. There's a complicated system with a lot of potential for malfunctions, radiation, stress-related symptoms etc, and unexpected things are bound to happen in largely unknown environments. They knew stuff could go wrong. In fact, stuff had gone wrong. It's called learning. Granted, Appollo 11 wasn't safe by today's standards and there was immense political pressure, but the overall performance of the technology on the mission was impressive.<br /><br />Assorted mistakes/comments I hadn't even to look up:<br /><br />1) Nixon prepared a speech in case something went wrong. Well duh. That's what I would've done. It was the apex of a propaganda war, after all.<br /><br />2) NASA gives green light despite the fact that Appollo 11 will probably blow up. (This is "only" implicit, though.) Yeah, that's why they let people and press watch in almost-real-time.<br /><br />3) The capsule ejection wouldn't work. Like it didn't work the time a chimp was in it. The one that survived? It was a test launch and the rocket exploded, the capsule accelerated away and landed with a parachute. There's a video of it, you can probably find it on youtube or at least look it up somewhere.<br /><br />4) One interviewed guy says an explosion would have wiped out a fair part of Florida. I can only assume it was meant as a hyperbole, 'cause if not, I'm just aghast how he could get it so wrong.<br /><br />5) The technology then was primitive compared to today's standards. Actually, relatively primitive software and hardware is used even today, the reason being that it must not crash. It's even worse for spacecraft, because their computers must be built of comparably large components that aren't that susceptible to radiation. (And the craft itself must be pilotable manually anyway, so a complex steering system like the B2's wouldn't do.) What's with the fact that they were using "TV screens" rather than "computer screens"? It's the same damn technology. Actually TV monitors were and are produced with a significantly higher definition.<br /><br />6) "If that object wasn't part of the rocket, it could be only one thing." We see where this is going. Apart from the fact that the statement is wrong, who says it wasn't a rocket part? At least an interviewee clears up that if a thing is flying and you don't know what it is, it's by definition an Unidentified Flying Object.<br /><br />7) The voice-over as well as some misquotes make it seem as though the lander's radiation foil was actually its hull. Which would make it thinner than a space suit.<br /><br />8) Neil Armstrong's near death during a practice flight is footage I can appreciate; I hadn't seen it before. As I said, any piece of manifest technology can go wrong, especially if it's not been tested sufficiently on account of being, you know, unprecedented.<br /><br />9)The trajectory discrepancy of the descending lander (due to irregularities in the Moon's density) was at no time acutely life-threatening. Neither was the "fifteen seconds of fuel left", which was, in fact, "fifteen seconds of fuel left before having to abort the mission and returning to the command module".<br /><br />10) A "catastrophic chain of events" usually results in catastrophe. I really don't know how to put it any simpler. This, however, is a prime example of the rhetoric used.<br /><br />11) There's a short sequence of one of the astronauts walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid, followed by the voice-over telling us that the reason for this strange behavior "can now be revealed". Turns out, he was walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid. Hilarious stuff.<br /><br />12) It's mentioned that during re-entry, all contact was lost. This is a perfectly natural phenomenon and it was as well known at the time as it's impossible to circumvent with contemporary technology. Again, the gravity of this is implicit, but very purposely so.<br /><br />13) There was never a shuttle lost in space itself, while the voice-over presents this "fact" as evidence that Appollo 11 was a pile of crap. Appollo 13 was a near-loss, but the two real disasters happened during liftoff and re-entry, respectively. In any case, comparing shuttles to Saturn rockets is somehow ... well, okay, just plain stupid. Even ignoring that, the successful shuttle missions seem to not have been deemed of interest to the audience.<br /><br />14) What the hell's up with the UFO? Even in the context of the movie, it makes no sense. Unless you assume it was made for entertainment purposes, aimed at a specific audience (which seems to include people with next to no understanding of either history, science, or rhetorics).<br /><br />Even the point of the movie is somewhat obscure. Catch-phrases like "covered up until now", "publically revealed here for the first time", come up, but the film doesn't place any blame or offer a lesson or anything, which could be expected of a film so emotionally done. In the good old tradition of sensationalism, there are numerous interview shots and recording fragments that are often out of context or with people that we know nothing about except "NASA scientist". Wow, so the astronauts were very nervous before the endeavor? Fancy that. What does this have to do with the point of the movie again? Oh yeah, which point.<br /><br />In summary, in addition to being either willfully or incompetently inaccurate, it's not even good entertainment. And believe me, I'm a guy who enjoys his crappy documentaries; this film isn't funny, witty, quaint, it's nothing. | negative |
I tried to watch this movie three separate times. The night I rented it. Got through about 20 minutes hoping it would be better if I had a night's rest. Watched 15 more the next day, almost vomited at how stupid it was... It wasn't even funny stupid which is sometimes a fun movie to watch but this movie was just crap with a capital S (if you know what I mean in the censored world we live in). And finally on the third day I watched over an hour of the dumb thing and I didn't enjoy one single moment! Not even one. How did this script get greenlighted. Oh boy!<br /><br />G<br /><br />1/10 - the one is for cheerleaders... they deserve at least something for all their hardwork. | negative |
The problem with "The Killer Elite" is that just by seeking this film out, and investing time to watch it, you are putting more effort into the experience than many of its principals did, particularly director Sam Peckinpah.<br /><br />The already volatile Peckinpah was heading into rough weather with this film. According to at least one biographer, this was where he became acquainted with cocaine. Add to that his binge drinking, and it's no wonder things fell apart.<br /><br />It's a shame, because the concept behind the film is a good one, and the first ten minutes promise much. Mike Locken (James Caan) and George Hansen (Robert Duvall) are private contractors who do a lot of dirty work for the CIA. They move quick, live well, and seem like the best of friends - then something happens to shatter their brotherhood.<br /><br />An opening scene shows them blowing up a building - why exactly we aren't told, par for the course in terms of this film's murky motivation. But the implication is these guys hurt people and don't really care - antiheroes much like the Wild Bunch of Peckinpah's not-so-long-ago. An opening title tells us they work for ComTeg, then adds with obvious tongue in cheek "...the thought the CIA might employ such an organization for any purpose is, of course, preposterous." That's a pretty clever way of letting the audience know all bets are off.<br /><br />Add to that a traditionally strong Peckinpah backup cast, including Burt Young, Gig Young, and Peckinpah regular Bo Hopkins in the plum role of a madman who can't pass up an opportunity to be shot at for $500 a day, and you only wish that the scriptwriters, including the celebrated Sterling Silliphant, tried to do something more with the story than turn it into a platform for lazy one-liners and bad chop-socky knockoffs. An attempt at injecting a dose of liberal social commentary is awkwardly shoehorned in. "You're so busy doing their dirty work, you can't tell who the bad guys are," someone tells Locken, as if either he or we need it pointed out.<br /><br />Worse still are Peckinpah's clumsy direction and sluggish pacing. We're 40 minutes into the film before we get our first battle scene, a completely chaotic collection of random shots where a bunch of people we haven't even met before are seen fighting at San Francisco Airport, their battle intercut with a conversation in an office suite.<br /><br />By the end of the film, what's left of the cast is having a battle inside a fleet of mothballed Victory Ships, ninjas running out in the open to be gunned down while Caan tosses off one liners that undercut any hint of real suspense. "Lay me seven-to-five, I'll take the little guy," he wisecracks just before a climatic samurai duel between two ninja warriors - from China, which we all know is the land of the Ninja. (The battle takes place in San Francisco, but surprisingly no Mounties arrive to break things up.)<br /><br />Caan is much better in smaller scenes, like when Locken, recovering from some nasty injuries, is told by one of his bosses, played by a smooth Arthur Hill, that he's been "Humpty-dumped" by the organization. Caan refuses to stay down, and his recovery scenes, though momentum-killing for the movie, feature fine acting from him and Amy Heflin, Van's daughter, as a supportive nurse. Caan was one of the 1970s' best actors, and his laconic byplay with Heflin, Duvall, Hopkins, and both Youngs give "Killer Elite" real watchability.<br /><br />But you don't watch "Killer Elite" thinking about that. You watch it thinking of the film that got away. | negative |
What a stunning episode for this fine series. This is television excellence at its best. The story takes place in 1968 and it's beautifully filmed in black & white, almost a film noir style with its deep shadows and stark images. This is a story about two men who fall in love, but I don't want to spoil this. It is a rare presentation of what homosexuals faced in the 1960s in America. Written by the superb Tom Pettit, and directed by the great Jeannot Szwarc, we move through their lives, their love for each other, and their tragedy. Taking on such a sensitive issue makes this episode all the more stunning. Our emotions are as torn and on edge as the characters. Chills ran up my spine at the end when they played Bob Dylan's gorgeous, "Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now," as sung by the Byrds. This one goes far past a 10 and all the way to the stars. Beautiful. | positive |
Mixing small town sheriffs, high-school students, fake rock music, and some weirdo who kills for, well, no reason in particular, this film is essentially a re-make of "The Giant Gila Monster" - except without the gila monster, of course.<br /><br />Now, anyone who has actually seen "Giant Gila Monster", knows that it is one of the worst made films of all time, frequently so slow, it's not even funny. And I can't believe that by 1967, "Giant Gila Monster" had earned such a reputation that young directors were just dying to get to work on a sequel, let alone a remake. So will someone please explain to me why this film was made?! The dance sequence, by the way, is historically interesting, although about three years out of date; but even that's spoiled, since it goes on... and on... and... on.... | negative |
JUST CAUSE showcases Sean Connery as a Harvard law prof, Kate Capshaw (does she still get work?) as his wife (slight age difference) and Lawrence Fishburne as a racist southern cop (!) and Ed Harris in a totally over the top rendition of a fundamentalist southern serial killer.<br /><br />Weird casting, but the movie plays serious mindf** with the audience. (don't read if you ever intend to seriously watch this film or to ever watch this film seriously due to the spoilers) First of all, I felt myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the Liberal stereotypes: the cops are all sadistic and frame this black guy with no evidence. The coroner, witnesses and even the lawyer of the accused collaborate against him (he is accused of the rape and murder of a young girl) because he is black.<br /><br />Connery is a Harvard law prof who gives impassioned speeches about the injustices against blacks and against the barbarous death penalty. He is approached by the convicted man's grandmother to defend him and re-open the trial.<br /><br />Connery is stonewalled (yawn...) by the small town officials and the good IL' boys club but finds that the case against Blair, the alleged killer, now on death row, was all fabricated. The main evidence was his confession which was beaten out of him.<br /><br />The beating was administered by a black cop (!) who even played Russian roulette to get the confession out of him. Connery finds out that another inmate on death row actually did the murder and after a few tete a tetes with a seriously overacting, Hannibal Lecter-like Ed Harris, he finds out where Harris hid the murder weapon.<br /><br />He gets a re-trial and Blair is freed.<br /><br />I think... film over....<br /><br />Then suddenly! It turns out that Blair IS a psychotic psycho and that he used "white guilt" to enlist Connery. He concocted the story with Ed Harris in return for Blair carrying out a few murders for Harris.<br /><br />now Blair is on the loose again, thanks to Connery's deluded PC principles! The final 30 min. are a weird action movie tacked onto a legal drama, Connery and Fishburne fighting the serial killer in an alligator skinning house on stilts (yes, you read that right) in the everglades.<br /><br />That was one weird film.<br /><br />So the whole system is corrupt and inefficient, the cops are all just bullies and Abu Graib type torturers, but the criminals are really psychotics and deserve to fry.<br /><br />Truly depressing on every level! The system is completely rotten and the PC white guilt types who challenge it are seriously deluded too.<br /><br />Two thumbs down. Connery obviously had to make a mortgage payment or something. | negative |
I watched this film in shire joy.<br /><br />This is possibly one of the best films of all time. It has a timeless value, you can get so much out of it it's amazing. There are parts that are moving, funny, and just great.<br /><br />All aspect are spot on, the portrayal of the story is perfect, every detail is 100% genuine, even small Irish subtleties have been covered.<br /><br />The use of low and high shots gives two great views on Cristy (look out for that).<br /><br />Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is incredible. I've never seen an actor do that, ever. It really is amazing.<br /><br />And it's so great to watch, it flows so well, it's probably the closest thing yo can get to real life experience. I love it.<br /><br />If you haven't seen it, you should see it. Don't have any doubts on it, there is something there for all. | positive |
Though the pieces are uneven this collection of 11 short films is truly a moving and human experience. There were some who, in the wake of the emotion on the anniversary of the bombings, took this to be anti-American. I don't think thats the case, even though some parts might be taken that way if you don't look behind the obvious. Ultimately the film is nothing except an attempt by people to express their confusion, sympathy and feelings about what happened. These are stories of people who's worlds have been shaken up by what happened on a Tuesday in September.<br /><br />As I said this film will move you, probably to tears. Its not always easy to watch, for example the film from Mexico is little more than a black screen with sound, but its effect is such as to lay even the strongest of people low. If you can be strong you really should see this film. It will comfort you and enlighten you and affect you... | positive |
This is one of the best sequels around and a very good movie too even there were some mistakes but still I enjoyed it. This time, Charles is not just fighting one or two muggers but a whole army of them. Death Wish 3 has a lot great action scenes and I enjoyed it every single second of it. Director Michael Winner knows how to direct a good action movie like this and Jimmy Page providing the music, with producers Golan and Globus still doing there thing and Charles Bronson is still acting good for Paul Kersey. This movie also made it look like that Michael try to end the Death Wish series and I can't blame him and I love the Gun that Charles uses. Death Wish 3 is one of the great movies of 1985 and can't get any better than this.<br /><br />I gives this 9/10 | positive |
Todd Rohal is a mad genius. "Knuckleface Jones", his third, and most fully realized, short film has an offbeat sense of humor and will leave some scratching their heads. What the film is about at heart, and he would almost certainly disagree with me on this, is how a regular Joe finds the confidence to get through life with a little inspiration. Or not. You just have to see for yourself. The short is intermittently making rounds on the festival circuit, so keep your eyes peeled and catch it if you can - you'll be glad you did. It is hilarious. And check out Todd's other short films also popping up here and there from time to time: "Single Spaced" and "Slug 660". | positive |
An excellent film depicting the cross currents in the lives of a multi-ethnic mix of not so ordinary people in the rural Pacific Northwest. Solid directing and writing along with fine acting, especially the performances by Kwami Taha and Dan Stowe. Interestingly, this film was made in the same year as the highly successful "Crash," written and directed by Paul Haggis. The pace of the action may not be as frantic as that in urban Los Angeles, and the characters may seem to be better acquainted with each other in "Apart From That," but the personal relationships of the characters are as flawed and troubled and their stories as resonant as any of those in "Crash." For those viewers who appreciated "Crash" this is a must see film. Also, fans of Jim Jarmusch and John Cassavetes will like this movie. | positive |
In The Book of Life, Martin Donovan plays Jesus, who shows up at JFK airport on December 31 to usher in the new millennium by battling with Thomas Jay Ryan (Satan) and deciding the fate of the world. There is also David Simonds (Kurt the accountant from Amateur) as a compulsive, homeless gambler.<br /><br />As usual, Hartley creates a surreal world in which the beauty of the ordinary made strange and otherworldly flows through artfully-framed scenes and urban/industrial landscapes filled with dazzling light and shadow. As usual, he introduces seemingly incidental details early, then brings them back later in hilarious and unexpected contexts--the humor is simple, but giddy and irrepressible. Hartley has an amazing ability to build toward small and rapturous moments of the simultaneously mundane and outrageous. As usual, he creates a tone that is jaded and world-weary but at the same time, vulnerable, open, and honest. He moves within minutes from uproarious humor into language that is metaphysical and poetic-the kind of writing that is so dead-on and perfect that it's difficult to hold back tears despite the lack of obvious emotion. Another awesome and highly entertaining film. The Book of Life is shot (a digital camera?) with a blurry effect: a sense of the celestial hand-in-hand with impending doom and a hyper-awareness of the present as fragile and fleeting in it's last moments. All of Hartley's films have a way of prioritizing the present, but this unique effect compounds it as the images wash across the screen in a way that is at first jarring, but becomes increasingly beautiful as you settle into it. The final shot is spectacular. All this may sound precious, but the film is a comedy and it makes fun of itself even as it makes fun of the concept of Armageddon, Judgment Day, and `urbanity.' Although it is actually quite profound, moving, and life-affirming, it is for the most part lighthearted and playful. The acting is flawless in terms of the kind of the subdued tone that Hartley has developed in his films (a tone that some people don't get and that prompts them to judge such acting as hollow--the same people who have a negative response to Peter Greenaway). As always, there are bound to be people who respond to this film with cynicism and scorn-people put off by Hartley's abrupt shifts and what they see to be pretentious or mannerist techniques, but who has time to consider the opinions of such dull and callous fools? Anyone who is a Hartley fan will love this film-if they can get a chance to see it, that is. It's hard to say what it would be like on video. | positive |
For all its visual delights, how much better Renaissance would have been in live action. The animation is fantastic in the big picture, yes, but the characters are cold and hollow, much like the story and the style of this film. With real actors, perhaps the world of the film would not have felt so lifeless. There is much to admire here, but at the end I found that all I could do was admire. I did not enjoy the movie that much, and it clarifies something that I did not see before: that the visual elements can be the defining positive aspect of a film, but without a good story and strong characters, it can all be for nothing. I will not go so far as to say that this movie comes to nothing, but sometimes it comes dangerously close. I love Dark sci-fi thrillers. Blade Runner and Dark City are two films I thought were wonderful. But Blade Runner had its tragic villain and Dark City had its thought-provoking story arc. Renaissance has shadow and light, but little else. I wish I could have liked this movie more, but the weak story and the empty characters stood in the way of that. The Renaissance was a historical and artistic burst of color and life. How ironic, then, that one of the most bleak and lifeless movies I've seen this year takes its title from the Renaissance. | negative |
This is the latest Ghibli movie and it is also a MAJOR departure from the studio's established style. First of all, this film was obviously aimed at young children, much more so than any of their previous films. It lacks the depth of the other films and features a brand new far less realistic style of animation
and yet it is ever so entertaining. Even though there is nothing put in to attract adults, I still found myself drawn to the screen and fully immersed in the story. The movie's secret is brutal honesty with regard to the plot and the characters. The story and the characters are very upfront with their feelings/intentions etc. but that makes them all the more endearing. Special attention was also paid to the soundtrack which is absolutely amazing despite being way different from previous Ghibli soundtracks. I find myself singing the cute theme song all the time as will anyone who sees this movie! | positive |
Unbelievably disappointed. The pace was slow. The characters unbelievable and throughout the film as a whole just let me feel bored and unfulfilled. There was no real plot that could keep you revolving around the film and keep you interested. The heist itself never offered any excitement and didn't seem very well though through.<br /><br />There was not enough depth or background to any character and Laurance Fishbourne's character was one I eagerly awaited for, unfortunately Laurance has no idea how to play the thuggish brut and is much preferred as a likable character. Columbus short one of my favourite actors (in stomp the yard) let me down with his performance, his character was dark and you could hardly see what drove his reasoning.<br /><br />The only character I think offered anything to the film was Milo Ventimiglia (Peter Petrelli in Heroes). Though his character quite small and insignificant I think his touch added to an all around dull film.<br /><br />In Conclusion buy the DVD if you want to find a new way to waste your time. | negative |
Spike lee has to be one of the most over rated directors I have ever seen. He is the critic's darling because he supposedly makes films with a "message" or he is just so bohemian in his approach that it makes critics that are waterlogged from formula Hollywood films eat his stuff up just for being different.<br /><br />Summer Of Sam does not even do that well. The cinematography and editing style is Oliver Stone, and so is the narrative. The plot is a lot like "Do The Right thing". The portrayal of "Guidos" or for the PC set Italian-Americans (of which I happen to be one) is straight out of Eddie Murphy's Raw. Only Eddie Murphy's impression of a macho Italian guy picking a fight with a much taller African-American is much, MUCH more believable than the cartoonish, broad Italian caricatures shown here (the John Leguizamo character being a possible exception).<br /><br />Is there anybody who saw this movie that could not figure out how it was going to end up? As soon as Richie came into the film I could already see the fist in his face and the foot in his stomach, I could already see him being accused of being the killer. This character had the most integrity in the whole film so, of course, Lee is going to show what happens to people that stand out in a crowd (what a white bearded clique!)<br /><br />Someone please, please give Spike Lee a lifetime pass to all the Basketball games he wants. So, maybe he will be enjoying himself too much to pick up a film camera for a long time and we won't have to be subjected to his self important drivel and furthermore I won't have to see critics (some of them whom I respect) ohhhh and ahhhh to an Emperor with no clothes. | negative |
Mr. Mike was probably the most misanthropic comedian of all time, so I was interested to see what he'd do with total creative control over a movie. Sadly, it is unwatchable, though not because the jokes aren't funny--some (I won't say most) of them are, and in fact Mr. Mike did a good job translating his mentally unbalanced screeds into visual gags. The trouble is that the technical quality (sets, lighting, sound, editing, you name it) is so God-awful, the movie is intolerable. Some outfit called "PKO Productions" gets the producing credit, but it doesn't look produced at all; it looks more like Mike stole one of the cameras from the SNL set and made the whole thing in an afternoon. I realize Mike's goal was to torture the audience, but even that deserves some basic standards, such as the ability to actually see, hear or comprehend whatever it is that's supposed to be shocking. Still, the DVD isn't a total waste: it includes a eulogy for O'Donoghue by Bill Murray and three "Mr. Mike's Least Loved Bedtime Stories" from SNL. Plus, the "cat swimming" section of the movie is a great scene to be caught watching if you want to freak someone out. 3/10 | negative |
Anyone who does not find this movie funny, does not understand simple comedy. This movie is not a complex comedy, it is full of one liners, and sight gags, and will make anyone who wants to laugh, laugh... The alien who is doing a Nicholson impression will crack you up! | positive |
"Subspecies," like many other horror films, gets a raw deal on IMDb. The majority of movie-watchers have a hearty contempt for horror, and when they occasionally rent horror films, they either want to laugh at them or cringe at excessively gory scenes. Unfortunately, "Subspecies" is not particularly laughable, and not that bloody, so it gets a low rating. That's too bad.<br /><br />Of course, there's plenty to criticize here. The non-actors are flat, the subspecies are a poor special effect, and the nighttime scenes are too brightly lit. But what do you expect? For a straight-to-video horror film, "Subspecies" boasts decent production values and more integrity than you might anticipate. The film's Romanian setting is virtually unique (I believe it was the first American movie made in that country, post-Communism), and the locations, both interior and exterior, are beautiful. The script has moments of intelligence, especially when it delves into local folklore (all bogus, I'm sure). Somehow, the location filming and smartish script work well together - "Subspecies" has its own very distinctive world. To risk damning with faint praise...it could be a lot dumber.<br /><br />Fans of the more gruesome aspects of horror will no doubt get a kick out of the blood-drooling vampire villain, Radu. He's pretty effective in this movie - powerful, with a memorable raspy voice - but I like him better in the sequels, when actor Anders Hove gives a more self-parodying, campy performance. A totally sincere Radu is somewhat silly. Other silly aspects include gratuitous nudity and the subspecies themselves, who are clearly only in the movie because producer Charles Band has a fetish for evil little creatures (see also Puppetmaster and Demonic Toys).<br /><br />But I linger too much on the movie's flaws. For what it is - straight-to-video vampire horror - "Subspecies" is perfectly fine. The sequels boast better production values, more violence, and somewhat more thoughtful story lines, so I recommend them even more highly. Still, this isn't a bad start for the series. | positive |
I speak badly of G.I.J.:T.M. mostly because I think it lacked something that G.I. Joe had. Yes It had something that G.I. Joe didn't have like celebrity cameos by Don Johnson, and Burgess Meredith but I think G.I. Joe: The Movie lacked the passion for the characters that the G.I. Joe TV series had. Most of the voice over artists really sounded like they were dead pan and they were going to die at anytime now. It's a good movie but I wouldn't say that it was the greatest movie in the world I.M.H.O. :)<br /><br />Although violence is what G.I. Joe was built on I'd say that Serpentor striking Duke in his chest wasn't the very best way for Charlie Adler's character to go out. Neither was seeing Golobulus remind Cobra Commander why he was chosen to lead the Cobra forces and then being horribly mutated after he failed to deliver what Cobra-La felt was rightfully theirs.<br /><br />It wasn't the best way for the G.I. Joe series to go out but it's better than nothing. :) | negative |
This movie was poorly written, poorly acted and very predictable. It was very low-budget and I can understand why it was never released and went straight to video. It wasn't even campy fun, it was just a complete disaster and I wish I could get the 1-1/2 hours back! The colors were horrible along with the plot which has holes so big in it you could drive a mac truck through them. <br /><br />The plot itself had the young bride doing things that she absolutely was not physically capable of doing -- what a stretch! Skip this movie and watch something better in the horror genre. Just about any movie comes to mind that is better than this.<br /><br />ejames6342 | negative |
I came into this movie really wanting to line it. I thought the premise had a lot of potential and was ripe for an interesting movie. Don't get me wrong here, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was taking this for the B movie that it is. That said, it still fell short of the expectation. The historical aspect of the story is glazed over and the ending left me a bit cold. The acting in the movie was very wooden. All in all I give it 4 for a great idea, but the movie could have scored much higher with a bit more attention to movie making fundamentals. Is it worth seeing? I didn't wish for my two hours back, but I don't know that I'd recommend it to others. | negative |
Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.<br /><br />It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.<br /><br />It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling. | negative |
hey community! my question is about the song, the pizza man wants Casey to play right after smoking that weed. not his "ragga application song" but the cozy one! thanks <br /><br />this page wants me to write 10 lines of text to be allowed to submit my comment. i don't know what else to ask but i'm just writing writing writing.<br /><br />hey community! my question is about the song, the pizza man wants Casey to play right after smoking that weed. not his "ragga application song" but the cozy one! thanks <br /><br />this page wants me to write 10 lines of text to be allowed to submit my comment. i don't know what else to ask but i'm just writing writing writing. | positive |
I'd have to agree with the previous reviewer: This film has awesome animation, but has problems throughout the rest of the movie.<br /><br />Plot holes are huge, dialog barely explains the concepts of the plot--the MAIN PLOT POINTS aren't even fully explained until the last five minutes of the film. The characters state the obvious, while failing to explain the more confusing points of the film. There are characters that pop up and have importance in the storyline that are never explained--most of them have names that are only mentioned *once*, and it is exceedingly confusing to a viewer.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you are in it for a good laugh and how DUMB it is. | negative |
One of the greatest film I have seen this year.Last maybe before sun rise, which is also seen late at night alone in the lab. I like the idea of the film,which suggest free will of man and our weakness against fate.With time past by James and Kathryn are destined to fail and an indescribable sorrow comes. I do like the end. but a big question also comes. The virus shall not be released again, should it?<br /><br />In the last scene in the airport. Jose is sent back to meet James again by future scientists. When he tell him that scientists had already got his message and know someone else would spread the virus. And they two together meet Kathryn when Kathryn tell James the true man is DR. Goines assistant. So it is clearly Jose also get the true information about the virus,(James keep an eye on him at the time remember?) and he has teeth. So why everything is still happen?? Why future scientists don't do anything after the truth is revealed?? My biggest question after the film... | positive |
This, despite not being the original - it began life as a play in Central Europe - has weathered the several incarnations that followed (MGM's own remake with period songs In The Good Old Summertime, the Broadway show She Loves Me, even the excellent theatre revival in Paris a couple of years ago) and remains the definitive version and the one they all have to beat. Several previous commenters have identified the contributing factors that make it so successful and memorable not least being the prevailing fashion in 30s and 40s Hollywood for lavishing attention and detail on ensemble playing rather than just two leads as so often happens today - try, for example, removing Ugarte, Ferrari, Renault etc from Casablanca and yes you'd still have Rick and Ilsa and Viktor Lazslo but they'd just be frosting without the rich cake mixture below. Jimmy Stewart and Maggie Sullavan WERE both ideal and irreplaceable leads but how much brighter they shine when their performances are reflected in those of Frank Morgan, Felix Bressart, Joseph Schildkraut and Andy Hardy's Sara Haden and this is BEFORE we factor in that Lubitsch 'touch'. Okay, maybe they WERE a tad more naive, innocent even, in that Jurassic Age but how many genuine film lovers, sated with scatology, screwing and in-your-face sex, turn back to those days of Stories, Style, Slickness and Skill and wallow in great movies like this one. By far the best thing about this technological age is not CSI but DVD that can at one and the same time make these classics available to nostalgics and show the Matrix freaks how the big boys used to do it. | positive |
I haven't laughed so much in a theater in years. The only problem is that it was not the intent of the movie to make my throat raw from laughter.<br /><br />This movie is absolutely overflowing with bad CGI, absolutely terrible duologue, absolutely terrible *acting*, and enough geek references to make the whole thing come off as nothing but complete cheese.<br /><br />As a gamer and a geek-type girl myself, I did recognize all of the obvious game references in this movie as well as the geek STUFF that was just thrown into the background as eye candy (the Steamboy poster, the t-shirts from thinkgeek.com and j-list.com), and that didn't redeem the movie at all.<br /><br />The only thing that might have been good at ALL were the ghost children type characters that were purposefully badly done in CGI to make it look like they were from a game, and who were OBVIOUSLY stolen from Japanese horror movies.<br /><br />To be honest, it was hilariously bad, and something I'd expect from a midnight showing of a made-for-TV b grade Sci-Fi channel movie. Don't expect more than that and you'll have a great time. Just don't get a soda or you'll spit it everywhere when you get great lines like: "Why did you bring that game into our lives?! WHY?!" | negative |
A warm, sweet and remarkably charming film about two antagonistic workers in the same shop (James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan) who are carrying on a romance via mailbox without either of them knowing it. The key to this film's success is that Ernst Lubitsch keeps any syrupy sentimentality absent and calls on his actors to give low-key, unfussy performances. As a result, you fall in love with virtually all of them.<br /><br />There's a strong undercurrent of melancholy running through this film which I appreciated. Loneliness is a major theme, most obviously represented in the character of the shop's owner and manager, played wonderfully by Frank Morgan. He discovers that he's being cuckolded by his wife, and realizes that the successful life he's created for himself isn't enough to keep him from feeling lonely when he doesn't have a partner to share it. This makes the timid romance between Stewart and Sullavan all the more poignant, because they're both reaching out to this unseen other, who each thinks of as a soulmate before they've even met. Of course we know everything will turn out right in the end, but the movie doesn't let you forget the dismal feeling either of them would feel if they found that the reality didn't live up to the fantasy.<br /><br />Lubitsch fills his movie out with a crackerjack cast that has boatloads of chemistry. The little group of shop employees refers to itself throughout the movie as a little family, and that's exactly how it feels to us as well.<br /><br />This is a wonderful, unsung romance.<br /><br />Grade: A+ | positive |
I saw this recent Woody Allen film because I'm a fan of his work and I make it a point to try to see everything he does, though the reviews of this film led me to expect a disappointing effort. They were right. This is a confused movie that can't decide whether it wants to be a comedy, a romantic fantasy, or a drama about female mid-life crisis. It fails at all three.<br /><br />Alice (Mia Farrow) is a restless middle aged woman who has married into great wealth and leads a life of aimless luxury with her rather boring husband and their two small children. This rather mundane plot concept is livened up with such implausibilities as an old Chinese folk healer who makes her invisible with some magic herbs, and the ghost of a former lover (with whom she flies over Manhattan). If these additions sound too fantastic for you, how about something more prosaic, like an affair with a saxophone player?<br /><br />I was never quite sure of what this mixed up muddle was trying to say. There are only a handful of truly funny moments in the film, and the endingis a really preposterous touch of Pollyanna.<br /><br />Rent 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' instead, a superbly well-done film that suceeds in combining comedy with a serious consideration of ethics and morals. Or go back to "Annie Hall" or "Manhattan". | negative |
In the trivia section for Pet Sematary, it mentions that George Romero (director of two Stephen King stories, Creepshow and The Dark Half) was set to direct and then pulled out. One wonders what he would've brought to the film, as the director Mary Lambert, while not really a bad director, doesn't really bring that much imagination to this adaptation of King's novel, of which he wrote the screenplay. There are of course some very effective, grotesquely surreal scenes (mainly involving the sister Zelda, likely more of a creep-out for kids if they see the film), and the casting in some of the roles is dead-perfect. But something feels missing at times, some sort of style that could correspond with the unmistakably King-like atmosphere, which is in this case about as morbid as you're going to get without incestuous cannibals rising from the graves being thrown in (who knows if he'll save that for his final novel...) <br /><br />As mentioned though, some of the casting is terrific, notably Miko Hughes as Gage Creed, the little boy who goes from being one of the cutest little kids this side of an 80's horror movie, to being a little monster (I say that as a compliment, of course, especially in scenes brandishing a certain scalpel). And there is also a juicy supporting role for Fred Gwynne of the Munsters, who plays this old, secretive man with the right notes of under-playing and doom in tone. And applause goes to whomever did the make-up on Andrew Hubatsek. But there are some other flaws though in the other casting; Dale Midkiff is good, not great, as the conflicted, disturbed father figure Creed, and his daughter Ellie is played by an actress that just didn't work for me at all.<br /><br />In terms of setting up some chilling set-pieces, only a couple really stand-out: a certain plot-thickening moment (not to spoil, it does involve a cool Ramones song), and the first visit to the pet sematary (the bigger one), including the sort of mystical overtones King had in the Shining. For the most part it's a very polished directing job, though it could've been made even darker to correspond with the script. If thought out in logical terms (albeit in King terms) it is really one of his more effective works of the period. But it doesn't add up like it could, or should. Still, it makes for a nifty little midnight movie. | positive |
**SPOILERS** Beautifully photographed slice of life home-front WWII love story with Norman Rockwell paintings in the beginning and end of the movie about how a "war hero" is not just someone who kills for his country but is also someone who thinks for himself and isn't corrupted by the war propaganda that's constantly drummed into his head. Washing out of the Marine Corps Marion "Hedg" Hedgepeth, Jan Michael-Vincent,is kicked out of boot-camp, after five weeks, and forced to put on a Baby Blue Marine uniform that shows that he just didn't have it to make the Corps. Humilitated and scorned wherever he went as he's going home to St. Louis and terrified what his family, whom his dad was in the Marine Corps in WWI, would think of him in that he couldn't "Cut the Mustard" as a US Marine. <br /><br />Hedg stopping in a bar and finds sitting next to him is a Marine member of the fearless and deadly Marine Raiders Richard Gere whom a admiring Hedge buys a beer. Making conversation with Richard Hedge is shocked to find out that not only is he being sent back to the Pacific Theater after all the battles he fought in, and combat medals he got, but the totally gray hair and mid-thirty looking Richard is going to be 21 next month! That's what being in the Marine Corps and WWII did to him! Buying Hedge a number of drinks Richard takes the drunk Baby Blue outside and knocks him out taking his Baby Blues and leaves his impressive US Marine uniform with some money in it for Hedge to ware. <br /><br />As soon as Hedge puts on Richard's uniform, that fits him perfectly, he's confronted by this big drunken US paratrooper who calls himself Cement-Head wanting to have a fist fight with the Marine Raider. Hedge doing everything he can to avoid trouble is forced by Cement-Head to belt him, after he himself cracked two beer bottle over his cement-head, to get himself warmed up for the big bout between Marine,Hedge, and Paratrooper, Cement-Head. Hedge incredibly floors the big cement headed buffoon knocking him out cold with one punch! "I guess the trick is not hitting him in on top of his head" a stunned Hedge tell his, Cement-Heads, fellow G.I's.<br /><br />Hitch-hiking to this small town of Bidwell Hedge notices this US Military internment camp for Japanese-Americans who are there because their considered a threat to US security. It's later in the movie that Hedge shows everyone what a real hero he is, not who the people in the town think he is, by risking his life to save one of the hated "Japs" who mindlessly together with two of his friends escaped from the interment camp, where the hell did they think they were going anyway? Hedge risked his life by saving the scared to death Japanese-American from drowning in the dangerous rapids outside the town. Hedge in his actions taught the people of Bidwell that not all "Japs", even those who are American citizens, are bad and treacherous banzai screaming suicidal kamikazes like they were thought by the newspapers magazines and movies at the time to think that they were.<br /><br />Hedge strikes up a conversation with the very cute and pretty waitress at the local diner Rose Hudkins, Glynnis O'Connor,who's just crazy about him that even Hedge at first thinks that it's his uniform not him that impressed her. Later when Hedge admits to Rose that he's not what she and her parents think,A US Marine Raider,that he is Rose had by then gotten to know the sweet and caring washed-out marine so well that it didn't matter to her at all what he was supposed to be, a Marine a Paratrooper or a Post Office worker, it was what was inside his heart that really counted.<br /><br />The film has a number of touching and beautiful scenes in it between Hedge and Rose that shows how movies used to be made years ago without all the sex and profanity that we see and hear in movies today that involved two people in love with each other.<br /><br />The way the film accurately, not phony baloney, shows the true feelings of average Americans, back then in 1943, about the war in general and Japanese in particular couldn't have been done in more authentic and accurate as well as good taste. "Baby Blur Marine" does it's best not to be too politically correct in not showing the hero's or leading actors and actresses in the film having the same feelings and ideas back then during WWII as most people have now, which would have come across as phony as a three dollar bill, to those people watching the film who lived during those historic and momentous times when the film was to take place. | positive |
Some films are just plain silly beyond explanation. This is one of them. Words cannot do justice to the wooden acting, the stupid plotline, and the ever-predictable outcome. About the only thing that makes this film halfway worth watching are the scantily clad women (and the mute guy for you ladies) in it. The leader of the warrior women and Valeria are quite appealing to the eye. But that's about all this movie has going for it.<br /><br />Some silliness in point: One scene, when they start to journey to the lair of the Dark One, they are walking away from a supposedly destroyed land. But we clearly see a 1980's New York behind them. About 2/3rds of this movie looks like it was filmed in a high school basement. The deadly sock puppets look about as scary as a sesame street monster. I have to agree with Latronic in that many 1950's trash b-movies did a better job than this. About the only one I can think of that didn't was Teenagers from Outer Space. | negative |
Ever wanted to eat worms? Here's a 'documentary' to show you how! Yeah...The kid eats live worms! And that's about the most interesting part of the movie.<br /><br />This movie has been pretty well summed up by previous reviewers as rather boring. I'm totally in agreement here. The movie just doesn't go anywhere....unless you're fond of worm eating! This is one movie it's almost impossible to write a spoiler for....because nothing much happens.<br /><br />Now on the technical side: They should have given that kid a haircut. Who's he trying to look like anyway...Bozo the Clown. It was almost comical...I almost expected him to turn into the shaggy dog or something.<br /><br />And on top of that; the kid was way too chunky to ever look hungry! Should have kept him off the junk food for a couple of weeks before filming.<br /><br />All in all, this movie nearly put me to sleep. And my kids could only handle about 15 minutes before they left the scene for something more interesting.<br /><br />I will admit that the scenery was very impressive. And had there been a decent story to go with it, it might have made a hit.<br /><br />It did seem safe enough for kids to watch: The bear scenes and the 'oddball' eyeball were too weak to frighten most kids, and the brief 'skinny-dipping' scene didn't show anything.<br /><br />I gave this one a very generous 3. | negative |
I've waited 9 years to watch this film, simply because i never saw it advertised on TV. Eventually i caught it and it was well worth the wait. It's much better than your over-hyped scream or last summer garbage because it's all at a fairly quick pace, with no drawn out, creeping through the house to cheesy music scenes. Only the bad dubbing lets it down a little but don't let that put you off in any way. What lies beneath - over hyped and crap. Mute witness - low budget, not hyped at all and very good. | positive |
This is not my favorite WIP ("Women in Prison"), but it is one of the most famous films in the sub-genre. It is was produced by Roger Corman, who at this point had already produced a few WIPs. It is obvious that the film tries to play with the established formula. The movie takes place in an USA prison, not in a "banana republic" like most WIP films. I'm not sure if that was a wise move, but it is an acceptable change of pace. Writer-director Demme really gets into his job, always digging for new ways to present a familiar scenario. In fact, he is a little too ambitious for his own good. The filmmaker creates a few surreal dream sequences that are borderline pretentious but it is fun to see how hard he tries to put this film above your average chicks-in-chains flick. But do not worry, Demme still operates within the parameters of the sub-genre. There is plenty of nudity and violence, something that will satisfy hardcore fans. The film is a little slow, but it is very entertaining. The cast is good. Roberta Collins is a WIP veteran, so she does not need an introduction, and Barbara Steel is a hoot as the wheelchair-bound crazy warden. Pam Grier is sorely missed, though. | positive |
Not only is this a very interesting exploration of Tourette's and how we react to people in our lives, it has some of the most well-filmed views of a bleak northern winter landscape. There's nothing pretty about this film, but it stays with the viewer. | positive |
As an earlier reviewer said, Travolta stole every scene he was in. Recognize the character? It was Vinnie Barberino, all grown up and still a bit sleazy, but still likable, oh yes! <br /><br />Disappointing were William Hurt and Bob Hoskins, perhaps because their characters were badly written, or they just didn't care. I kept seeing one of the Baldwins (never can remember which) in the Hurt role so Hurt's incredible talents weren't wasted. <br /><br />Andie McDowell is a sweetie, but not very believable; partly the writing. Character development just wasn't a big thing in this film. Just watch it for Travolta, sit back and enjoy. | positive |
I really liked this movie I saw the original classic a few times but could hardly remember any details. I think this movie is much better than the cartoon its not so black and white as it. I specially liked how they made the grinch such a complete character and gave a cause of why he was the way he was, the villain in this movie was not the actual Grinch but the Major, much different than the original cartoon. Jim Carrey was perfect for the part all in all a great movie made for both kids and adults alike. | positive |
I sat down to watch "Midnight Cowboy" thinking it would be another overrated '60s/'70s movie. Some of my favorite films come from the '70s, in the same vein as "Midnight Cowboy" ("Taxi Driver," "Mean Streets," "Panic in Needle Park," etc.) but there are many, many overrated ones as well that have gained strong reputations amongst critics for being groundbreaking - unfortunately a vast majority of them don't hold up as well today. I sort of feel this way about "Easy Rider." (Although it, too, is one of my favorites.)<br /><br />So, I didn't expect much from "Midnight Cowboy" but got a lot back. It's a touching story, well-made and well-told with some of the best performances of all time. Dustin Hoffman, as Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo, gives one of his best - it's a bit funny at times (he sounds like a cartoon character when he speaks - maybe because of the Lenny/"Simpsons" connection), but Hoffman is entirely convincing. Half of the film's budget went towards his paycheck as he was just becoming a major star in Hollywood. Opposite him is the second-billed Jon Voight as Joe Buck, the "cowboy" who travels North to the Big Apple in the hopes of becoming a male prostitute. Soon his naive ways land him in trouble and he pairs up with a crippled scam artist named "Ratso" - who offers to become Joe's "manager" for a certain percentage of profits.<br /><br />The movie is quite long at two hours but never really seems very long. Some films can tend to drag, especially some of the films that were made in the '70s because (as it's been said in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls") the directors were the stars of the movies in the 1970s and occasionally they got a bit too infatuated with their material, going on too long examining characters/scenes/etc. that aren't important. Just about the only scene I felt was a bit too long and unnecessary was the drug party - it makes the film seem extremely outdated (similar to the drug odysseys in "Easy Rider") and really harms its flow because it's not needed.<br /><br />Other than that, "Midnight Cowboy" is an almost flawless motion picture. I was pleasantly surprised. It does have its flaws (flashbacks are a bit tacky and never used as well as they could have been, for instance) and some of the scenes are a bit uneasy (such as the gay movie theater sequence) but if you can handle its content "Midnight Cowboy" is a truly great motion picture, an uncompromising examination of life on the streets in the late '60s/early '70s. It's a depressing movie, yes, and by today's standards might seem a bit outdated and heavy on the liberal perspective of "life is horrible, etc."...but I still love it and particularly the extremely touching ending will stay with me for a long, long time.<br /><br />Highly recommended. One of the best films of the '70s. (It was technically released in late 1969 but I'd still categorize it as a 1970s film. It also won the Best Picture Oscar, being the first - and only - X-rated motion picture to do so. It was later re-rated R on appeal.)<br /><br />4.5/5 | positive |
AntiTrust could have been a great vehicle for Rachael Leigh Cook, but the director cut out her best scenes. In the scenes that she are in, she is just a zombie. She is involved in a sub-plot that is simular to a sub-plot in "Get Carter", but she handles the sub-plot better in "Get Carter".(I blame the director) The director's homage to Hitchcock was corny. (It's the scene were Ryan Philippe's charactor realizes he may not be able to trust Tim Robbin's charactor, at least I think it's a homage to Hitchcock. The DVD shows the scenes that were cut out. I think the director should have trust his instincts and not listen to the test audiences. | negative |
Reading some of the other comments, I must agree that some of the (very few) shortcomings found in this brilliant documentary about one of the 20th century's divas (up there with Billie Holliday, Bessie Smith, Edith Piaf, Judy Garland and Mercedes de Sosa) are justified. Because initially this was a 6-hours-plus TV documentary about her career("ESTRANHA FORMA DE VIDA" (V) 1995/1999). Far more encompassing and with greater insight into Amália's inner world. As for the subtitling her songs, I'm all for it! Though the music, the voice and the performance may be - are! - universal, there is so much poetry in the words just begging to be translated. I think this was a conscious choice by the producers. They were aiming at the 200 million Portuguese speakers in Brazil, Portugal, Mozambique, France, East Timor, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Canada, the US, South Africa, St. Tome and Principe, Goa, Daman, Diu, Venezuela, Luxembourg, Germany and the rest of the Portuguese-speaking diaspora worldwide. As for the Lady herself, she did not live to see this particular shortened DVD version of the documentary, but she was given a preview of "Estranha Forma de Vida". And it seems to have been to her liking. Very much so. | positive |
Contrary to my principles, let me first come up with a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of "art", and still am under strong impressions. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary.<br /><br />Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.<br /><br />So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One first thinks about "15 Minutes", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become "true" Americans? <br /><br />Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.<br /><br />Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though. <br /><br />As the final note, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.<br /><br />To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1. | negative |
To me this was Colin Farrells best movie evr! He introduced himself to America through this movie and he was great. He really got you into his charictor and made u feel the passion he was putting into his role. In my opinion it is a great movie and my favorite. | positive |
You ever sit through a movie and after it's all over it's like one big "wtf!?". <br /><br />Welcome to Decoy. <br /><br />Another straight to video action fodder flick you can immediately forget about having watched or better yet don't watch it at all. Peter Weller and Robert Patrick star and are quickly wasted in this going nowheres fast mercenaries-for-hire action dud where the story is pretty darn bad and the action sucks and what's the point of watching an action flick if the action blows? Robert Patrick in particular hits a new low in an action sequence that has him firing a machine gun while standing on the hood of a moving school bus. Co-stars the ambient Charlotte Lewis and Canada's own Scott Hylands (of TV's Night Heat fame). | negative |
While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie. | negative |
Saw this movie when it came out in 1959, left a lasting impression. Great group of actors. A little short timewise but a great movie all the same. Have only seen once since then and that was some time ago. Hopefully they'll put it out on DVD if they haven't already. | positive |
I was supposed to review this for a website, and I watched this with optimism that perhaps it would at least be a cheesy yet entertaining rip off, and it didn't even do that well enough.<br /><br />"666: The Child" is probably one of the worst supernatural thrillers I've ever seen (Even worse than "Godsend") with scenes that rip from "The Omen" without shame. The ending is even very similar to the way "The Omen" ends. <br /><br />Not to mention that the acting, writing, and story are all just hackneyed. If these movies make money, I'm sad to see where Asylum is headed. It's embarrassing. | negative |
Greetings again from the darkness. What a relief ... a thriller that actually is thrilling! New "IT" girl Rachel McAdams ("Wedding Crashers" and "The Notebook") dominates screen time in this nice little classic suspense thriller from famed horror film director Wes Craven ("Scream" movies and "A Nightmare on Elm Street"). Craven even has a cameo as one of the passengers on the plane.<br /><br />What makes this one work, is the realism of the first 15-20 minutes as we see McAdams interact with 4 or 5 people either in person or on the phone. She is a natural. When she meets Cillian Murphy (the Scarecrow in "Batman Begins") in what appears to be happenstance, the film really takes flight. Watching the two yuppie-types flirt while the audience knows something evil is brewing, is bewitching film-making! The plane boarding sequence is mesmerizing and the 30 plus minutes onboard is excruciatingly claustrophobic. Craven keeps us guessing as to the involvement of others and if anyone will come to her rescue.<br /><br />As with many thrillers, the only letdown occurs during the climax when the lamb turns into a superhero. An interesting plot device leads us to believe little Rachel has the necessary pent up frustration to see this through, but we can't help but cringe a bit. The most overdone scenes involve irate hotel guests, an annoying airline passenger, Cillian's injury and the FX at the hotel. The strength of the film is in the character development and psychological games between the leads. Sadly the fine screen veteran Brian Cox is under-utilized, but overall this is an above-average suspense thriller worth seeing for all but the finale. | positive |
This woman is a terrible comedian. She can't crack a joke. She has no real character. This is another example of typical American rubbish, that people laugh at, because they have no idea how to react, so they say to themselves, "well, it's a comedy show," so I'll laugh, I guess.<br /><br />I cannot stand this miserable woman, and her pi$$ poor excuse for comedy. She does not deserve anything but booing.<br /><br />Why can't America dump this kind of turdish delight, and go for something that actually contains humour.<br /><br />She is not funny. Not at all. Why oh why does even ONE person like this idiot? | negative |
The Frogs Who Wanted a King or Frogland is Ladislaw Starewicz's most cautionary tale about people wanting government to solve their problems that I've ever seen. The ironic thing is that they pray to the god Jupiter for their answers. Jupiter responds first by sending a tree stump and then a stork. Neither works out and the stork is especially dangerous to the amphibian creatures! The frogs have some human qualities when we see them dress in the latest fashions of the day and we see some take pictures or use a movie camera when the stork arrives! Like I said, this short is very much a political allegory more suitable for adults than children. In fact, I first saw this on the Rhino VHS that had Bambi Meets Godzilla. That alone should tell you what to expect here! | positive |
Batman Returns is to be considered quality when one speaks of superhero films. Its predecessor, Batman, in my opinion, is by far the greatest and most well thought out of the comic book genre. For one to say that Batman Returns was disappointing, he or she has not fully watched the movie and considered the acting of Danny Devito as the Penguin. Devito and Walken offer some memorable moments. The tale of Batman is suppose to be dark and Tim Burton has fulfilled how the comic portrays Batman. Batman Returns provides comic relief, action, suspense and fantasy; and it should not be viewed as 'crap', although we are all entitled to our own opinions. | positive |
An old high school teacher of mine used to brag that he'd seen every movie EVER made, so one day a friend of mine and I decided to make up a movie called "Pacific Inferno". Later, we got into an argument whether the lead role was played by Carl Weathers or Billy Dee Williams. Our teacher found the argument interesting, so he came up to us and informed us that the lead role in "Pacific Inferno" was played by Jim Brown. We thought he was trapped in a lie, that was until we went to the library and discovered that "Pacific Inferno" was in fact a real movie. This incident forced me to rent the movie... it's horrible. Our made up movie had a better plot than this piece. Weathers and Billy Dee would have been much better in the picture. | negative |
I first saw this film when released in 1980. From other sources, I've learnt that the only release of the 219-minute cut was in New York City, after which it was severely cut to 149 minutes. So, I guess I saw the shorter version first which, at the time, I thought, was a very interesting anti-Western, if a trifle confusing...<br /><br />So, it was with even more interest that I finally obtained a DVD of the full-length version. I'm glad I did because this second viewing has confirmed for me that the movie is a true classic, and the critical vitriol poured on Michael Cimino was unwarranted, to say the very least.<br /><br />Yes, it's a long movie, but so have been many others. For example: Once upon a time in America (1984) at 227 minutes; Cleopatra (1963) at 320 minutes; The Ten Commandments (1956) at 220 minutes; Spartacus {restored version} (1960) at 198 minutes; Gone with the Wind (1939) at 222 minutes and others. So, it can't be the fact of running time that made so many froth at the mouth way back, when Heaven's Gate came on the scene.<br /><br />But note this: all of those above movies have everything to do with reinforcing myths about history and heroes.<br /><br />Not so Heaven's Gate: in this narrative, the American West is shown in all its grim and unrelenting harshness, injustice, and poverty. And that's probably the first reason why so many disliked this film: it laid out the circumstances of the Johnson County War of 1892 in Wyoming, showing how the Wyoming Stock Growers Association hired 50 assassins to hunt down and murder a large group of European immigrants accused of cattle rustling; and all with the assistance and conniving of authorities, right up to the President of the United States. For an essay on that war, with the background and what happened, there is a link at Wikipedia under Johnson County War.<br /><br />Very few like to be reminded of the really dirty periods in their country's history, and which fly in the face of what the country is supposed to be. Had it been a documentary, it would have been barely palatable for most; as entertainment, it was almost bound to fail commercially and be torn to shreds by the shrill and infamous.<br /><br />Leaving aside the socio-political diatribe, for a moment, that Cimino launched herein, what about the narrative the story of the three main characters? Well, it probably wasn't unusual for men of that time to fall for a local prostitute, just as it's probably not unusual now. It's a fairly standard love triangle whereby Ella must choose between the two men, and ultimately decides upon the younger man, Nathan, who, although not above resorting to cold-blooded murder when it suits him, shows more spirit and commitment than the older James (or Jim, as most people in the film say). For some, that part of the story threads too slowly, perhaps; in the context of the wider narrative about the war, however, it is, I think, entirely appropriate.<br /><br />And that war is depicted graphically, viciously and cruelly with scenes of carnage that are exquisitely staged and edited flawlessly although in the final massacre between the Association and the immigrants, I'm certain that some scenes of wagons blowing apart are repeated. A minor point and perhaps brought about when the 219-minute cut was restored? Any way you look at it, though, it hits you in the face with the noise, dust, chaos and confusion of war...<br /><br />Which brings me to another criticism by others: the noise and dust is such that it's often difficult to hear the dialog and even see clearly what is happening. I'll admit that I found that to be a trifle annoying at first, even backtracking to replay parts to try to catch the image or the words until I realized that really wasn't necessary if you accept the director's intent: life is chaotic, it is difficult to hear and see in crowded situations and, in war, it's the sine qua non of this mise-en-scene. In short, it's as though you truly are present in and within the scenes...<br /><br />And what of the title? From Shakespeare, it refers to a figurative nearness to God and so, if you equate God with the natural world, the stunning scenery that pervades the movie and it is stunning, hauntingly equal to that of David Lean's Doctor Zhivago (1965) is a useful metaphor. I tend to think, however, that Cimino had something more to say, namely the idea that the brave immigrants the God-fearing salt of the earth were denied entry to heaven on earth and the freedom to build a life for themselves in the land that espouses to be freedom's champion.<br /><br />Was that Cimino's intent to gut the myth of the American West? To show how, in America, only the rich get rich while the poor are massacred, one way or another, throughout history? Is that anything new? Not really, as we all know. Where it really hurt, however, is in showing how America was not and, by implication, is not the land of the free and the home of the brave. Instead, after absorbing this narrative, we are left with an impression that the underpinnings of America have more to do with a land of dispossessed slaves and a home for knaves... | positive |
My house mate and I foolishly purchased the video of 'The Roller Blade Seven' from our local second hand video shop in the hope of finding a bad film to laugh at. This film isn't even laughable, it's pathetically poor, worse even than Jack Frost 2-and that's saying something. The script, acting, production, stunts, sound, sets, everything is absolutely terrible. In some parts the actors haven't even learned their lines and are blatantly ad-libbing or in one case actually having the lines read to them off set and simply repeating them. Set in the post apocalyptic 'Wheel Zone',The film obviously consists of about 45 minutes of film, many parts of which are edited badly or repeated ad nauseum from various different camera angles to make the film longer. This gets tedious very quickly. The plot makes no sense whatsoever (It is apparently an amalgam of two books written by Scott Shaw), there aren't even seven of them, most of them aren't on blades, they're wearing roller boots, and it seems to me that mostly the film has been completely sold on the fact that there's about 3 minutes of female semi-nudity in it. The writer and star Scott Shaw obviously fancies himself somewhat of a Samurai and throughout the film performs some very poor stunts and made up sword fighting moves that look massively amateurish. Despite all this, his website states that the film should never be compared to a traditional film because it really pushes the boundaries of modern film making. My house mate and I were left speechless by the whole ordeal, and despite my frequent attempts to burn the videotape, she has decided it may be some kind of Ring-esquire video curse that needs to be passed on. If you see the video in stores, take it from me! Leave well alone! | negative |
Its obvious ESPN drools whenever Knight is in the news, but did they have to make a freakin' movie about him? This was THE worst attempt at a serious dramatic movie I have EVER seen. It had it all: terrible acting, terrible dialogue, ridiculous casting, cheap sets, etc etc. It looked like it was shot on a $10 budget. Cummon, whats up with the game scenes? Were they in a middle school gym? And the lighting, well, let me just say it was ridiculous. And Brian Denehy as Bob Knight? Give me a break. Denehey looked like...Denehy in a red sweater, nothing more. ESPN lost a lot of credibility with this flop attempt. They poured millions of $$$ in advertising, then the premier was a huge dissapointment. Bob Knight is not a subject that can be covered in a 2-hour movie. ESPN blew it. Even Knight himself thought it was more stupid than anything else. | negative |
For all of you that don't speak swedish: The swedish [original] title of this film; "Rånarna" translates into something in the line of "The Robbers". This fact is the main problem I have with the film, cause it's not really about the robbers at all. It's about a young woman working for the swedish police researching robberies. A regular desk job one would think, but this girl is soon out on the field taking matters into her own hands, as the story goes, even shooting one of the robbers... Exactly: We've seen this before. The fact that there's a rather interesting twist to the plot halfway through doesn't really help as the ending is just as cliché as the first two thirds of the film.<br /><br />What saves it from being just another mainstream film is the fact that it's masterfully executed in all ways, that the actors are as great as they are and don't overact and that the director really manages to keep it as thrillingly exciting as it is for the most of the story.<br /><br />One thing that I really loved about this film is the fact that it's music sets the right mood when it's needed, but is absent for the rest of the time, which gives a nice sense of reality to the shootouts and car-chases spread throughout the film. A nice touch! The fact that Michael Persbrandt is one of the few swedish actors that often tend to get typecasted sadly hurts the film as you know that he's not going to just play the boyfriend of the heroine and be a supporting character in the background, but that's something you have to neglect.<br /><br />All in all it's an entertaining film that steals more money in it's plot than time from you. 7/10 | positive |
I am seldom motivated to write a review unless inspired by the quality of the movie. In the case of Comanche Moon I was so uninspired I felt the need to warn others how bad this TV mini series is. Here are a few thoughts.<br /><br />The Indians: They came across like they were in a Saturday Night Live Skit, making fun of how Indians talk. When McMurtry writes dialogue in his novels it reads so interesting; I am not sure how they ended up with what they got.<br /><br />Gus McCrae: Looks like Festus from the old Gunsmoke Series. Acting is OK and the mannerisms from Robert Duvall's McCrae are right on, but the look is pure comedy cowboy.<br /><br />Clara: Maybe you could use a little dirt or sweat on her next time. Ever been in Austin in the summer before Air conditioning? I promise you women did not look like that. Do you think they never saw any episodes of Dearwood?<br /><br />Gov. Elisha Pease: Again whenever they are in the Governor's office it feels like a Saturday Night Live Skit, and the skit is bombing.<br /><br />Woodrow Call: Call is the most reasonable character, of course He talks so little how can you screw up that? But hey, what about that hat?<br /><br />Blue Duck: See above and include the fact that he isn't even a tiny bit scary. They should have gotten Javier Bardem to play the part.<br /><br />The Rangers: Right out of "O Brother, Where Art Thou" I expected George Cloony to come riding up and them to break into a song.<br /><br />Perhaps I am premature because the miniseries isn't completed but I doubt I will watch any more of it any way.<br /><br />I would not expect anyone to be able to duplicate the enthralling feel of Lonesome Dove, but I watch this and it seems like they have no feel for the old west at all. | negative |
I very nearly did not see 'Hi-De-Hi!'. I think it must have been the title that put me off. In those days, the Welsh language editions of 'The Radio Times' only used to print titles of certain shows without imparting a scrap of information as to what they were actually about. 'Hi-De-Hi!' suggested to me a bad quiz show hosted by Leslie Crowther or worse an inane U.S. import. But I managed to catch a later episode, and was surprised to find it written by Jimmy Perry and David Croft.<br /><br />As was the case with 'Dad's Army' and 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum', Perry based it on personal experiences, in this case his time at a Butlins' holiday camp. Before cheap air travel came along in the '60's, these camps sprang up along British coastlines, providing entertainment for working class families and earning millions for their owners.<br /><br />( As a matter of interest, I worked in one such camp in the '80's as a chef - Barry Island, South Wales - known to all and sundry as 'Shag Land' for reasons I won't go into! )<br /><br />Set in the late '50's, it began with university academic Jeffrey Fairbrother ( Simon Cadell ) taking over as the entertainments manager of Maplin's, a job he was ill equipped to handle. His staff included resident comic Ted Bovis ( Paul Shane ), his sidekick Spike ( Jeffrey Holland ), miserable Punch and Judy man Mr.Partridge ( Leslie Dwyer ), snobby ballroom dancers Barry ( Barry Howard ) and Yvonne Stuart-Hargreaves ) Diane Holland ), and the unforgettable Gladys Pugh ( Ruth Madoc ), who lusted after Fairbrother at every opportunity. Bubbly Su Pollard stole the show though as cleaner Peggy Ollerenshaw, whose driving ambition was to be a 'Yellowcoat' ( all the important staff members wore them ). A number of sexy girls occupied these coats too, most notably Nikki Kelly's 'Sylvia' and statuesque Rikki Howard's 'Betty'. We never saw Joe Maplin, the owner. He communicated to his staff in the form of ungrammatical missives, which poor Jeffrey was forced to read aloud. "Hi-De-Hi!" was the campers' greeting, usually met with the equally inane 'Ho-De-Ho!. <br /><br />One fan was the late Sir Fred Pontin, who told Perry and Croft that he recognised most of the characters from real life.<br /><br />I always found Bovis the most convincing of these as well as the most tragic, like Archie Rice he was the comedian whose big break never came, reduced to cracking corny gags for the amusement of drunken late-night audiences. He took advantage of his position to indulge in a few perks, and in one memorable episode Fairbrother's patience snapped and he sounded him out: "Lies, Ted! All lies!".<br /><br />As with every other Perry/Croft series, the cast were excellent, particularly Cadell and Shane. Ruth Madoc's prissy 'Gladys' got on my nerves ( no wonder Anne Robinson hates the Welsh! ), but Leslie Dwyer's misanthropic 'Mr.Partridge' and Felix Bowness' jockey 'Fred Qulley' more than compensated. <br /><br />The visual gag everyone remembers is drunken Mr.Partridge spotting a pantomime horse riding a real one along the beach. Looking at the bottle of whiskey in his hand, he decides to stick with it and instead throws away the banana he had been eating! <br /><br />With its frothy blend of '50's nostalgia and saucy gags, 'Hi-De'Hi' was a big hit for B.B.C.-1 in the '80's, resulting in a massive increase in bookings for Butlins and Pontins. It went downhill when Cadell left to return to the theatre though. I never took to his replacement, Squadron Leader Clive Dempster ( David Griffin ). Worse, Leslie Dwyer's death robbed the show of one of its best characters. Kenneth Connor was brought in to replace him as 'Uncle Sammy'.<br /><br />The period setting occasionally caused problems; in one episode, Sylvia and Betty had to dive into the pool to rescue Peggy who for some reason was dressed as a shark. The revealing costumes they wore were wrong for that era. Still they looked great in them so who's complaining? In another, Ted sang the Tom Jones hit 'Delilah' to campers. It was not composed ( by Les Reed and Barry Mason, incidentally ) until 1968.<br /><br />Maplins closed its doors in 1988, and the last shot was that of Peggy ( now a Yellowcoat ) all alone in the camp, jumping into the air and shouting ( what else? ) 'Hi-De-Hi!'. <br /><br />I don't rate it as highly as Perry and Croft's other shows but its popularity is undeniable. It was probably one of the last British sitcoms to generate tremendous public affection, mainly because it featured likable characters in a recognisable setting. Goodnight campers! | positive |
Why a good actress like Elizabeth Berkley stars in this commonplace movie???!!! The cast gives some good performance (Elizabeth Berkley as a Barbie girl, Ele Keats as a girl without mother and Justin Whalin, a guy eternally lessened by his bother), but the direction is extremely boring and the story is NOT so interesting and original. I can NOT believe that a movie like this was produced for the big screen! Julie Corman (the producer): are you CRAZY???!!! | positive |
I saw this series on PBS in 1980 in college and I still can't get it out of my head, although I have never seen it since. I remember every cast member (the casting WAS perfect, as mentioned in other comments), the design, the lighting and, of course, the story, which is by itself is enough to keep you glued to the set. Probably the best TV series I ever saw next to the original "Roots." | positive |
This movie starts really good.<br /><br />After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.<br /><br />Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.<br /><br />Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ...<br /><br />This movie starts really good.<br /><br />After half of the movie it wraps to a religious Christian crap.<br /><br />Some really Christian with psycho problems are talking about good and believe in Christ - or you go to hell.<br /><br />Don't watch it - it's pure propaganda and its pure wrong ... | negative |
with two old friends.<br /><br />I've always enjoyed both Lemmon's and Mathaeu's films, and of course their team efforts are always worth watching, and often hilarious.<br /><br />Although I didn't personally regard this film as in the hilarious category, it is certainly a competent and entertaining vehicle for fans of the two principle actors and of 60s style romantic comedy plots.<br /><br />Brent Spiner may actually steal the show in terms of laughs as the arrogant and tyrannical Cruise Director.<br /><br />Gloria DeHaven proves that senior ladies can remain enormously attractive. | positive |
........and an extremely bad one at that!!! How long did this train-wreck last?? 14 episodes or something?? I can see why now.<br /><br />I bought the "Serenity" episode from Amazon Unboxed. It was my first purchase, so was free. That is the ONLY good thing about the experience (incident??)<br /><br />I won't comment really on the acting, since these were, I guess, fairly new people who hadn't really gotten the job down just right yet. At least I've never seen them before in any type of major show, theater or TV. If I did, then I have easily forgotten them.<br /><br />But the special effects were absolutely horrendous. True, this isn't exactly a multi-million $$ project, but the original Star Trek did better than this & that was THIRTY-FIVE YEARS ago. I especially got a laugh out of the bad guys (reapers or something like that) ship as it chased the hilarious looking Firefly, with smoke coming out of the engines looking something like a gigantic model rocket. I fully expected to eventually see the Wiley Coyote riding on top, while chasing after the Roadrunner. MODERN jet/rocket engines don't even do it that bad.<br /><br />And that wasn't even the worst of it. The wild-west type shoot-outs had me wondering if I was actually watching a sci-fi film or a Gene Autry one.<br /><br />Regardless of the hype, don't waste your time...I did...all 80-something minutes of the disaster called "Firefly". | negative |
Something surprised me about this movie - it was actually original. It was not the same old recycled crap that comes out of Hollywood every month.<br /><br />I saw this movie on video because I did not even know about it before I saw it at my local video store. If you see this movie available - rent it - you will not regret it. The suspense builds throughout and the twist ending is excellent.<br /><br /> | positive |
I first saw this on Demand. Or on TV. I'm not really sure. But this has got to be my all time favorite movie ever! I mean, this movie has blood, gore, laughs and chills through out the movie. I recently ordered "Monster Man" from Amazon and i've been watching "Monster Man" ever since i got it. Trust me, you will love this movie. <br /><br />P.S. The commentary on the DVD is way funny. They also said something about "Monster Man 2" during the commentary. Let's hope they make "Monster Man 2"! If you have the chance, rent the movie or buy it. You will absolutely LOVE it! This is the best movie that has come out in 2003.<br /><br />10/10 | positive |
It must be said that the director of The Cell, Tarsem Singh, has quite handily established himself with his first feature, which happens to rank as one of the most visually astounding films in contemporary cinema.<br /><br />The Cell is more of a visceral experience than a film. As a thriller, it rises above most of its peers, with competent editing and a chilling score effectively providing an exceptionally suspenseful atmosphere. However, it is ultimately Tarsem's skill for elaborate and disturbing set design and imagery that carries the film's jolting sense of terror.<br /><br />As with several recent films, I have been shocked by the alarming hypocrisy among those who have commented negatively about The Cell; in defence of the film, I will address a few of these issues. The plot appears to be the main concern, and while it is not revolutionary and borrows heavily from The Silence of the Lambs, it was never intended to be the most important aspect of the film; the plot itself is a vehicle through which Tarsem's vision--simultaneously horrifying and wondrous--is presented to the audience, much in the same way that the plot of The Silence of the Lambs is secondary to the fascinating study of its two lead characters, Lecter and Starling. While The Silence of the Lambs is clearly the superior film, it is irrational for one to condemn the plot of The Cell, and in the same breath, praise that of The Silence of the Lambs.<br /><br />My final concern is the mention of "MTV style" directing. It pains me to see the condemnation of directors who use innovative camera and cinematography techniques. A camera has the potential to be much more than simply a tool with which to record events; angles, pans, colour adjustment, and so forth, are all used to their full extent in The Cell with the purpose of creating the sense of a dream-like state that could not have been otherwise achieved. This is essential to the film, as the entire premise behind it is the visualization of a serial killer's subconscious. If you simply want a series of static shots, stick to stage plays and give up cinema altogether.<br /><br />That being said, The Cell is thoroughly entertaining, terrifying, and breathtaking in both its pacing and design. Anyone who is able to look past the--perhaps uninspired, yet never dull--screenplay will find one of the best films of the year 2000. | positive |
Turkish culture is complete with lots of different cultures. different cultures have different styles of music. Istanbul is like the mixture of turkey. it has mostly the same language but different dialects. this documentary shows us these different kinds of music with different dialects and different instruments. you can watch reportings with singers and groups, their performances , their daily life and learn their thoughts of music. the movie includes not only the music of Istanbul but the life in Istanbul , how people communicate and what they eat and drink. the surprising part is although i live in Istanbul i learned lots of things from this movie. | positive |
I saw this movie over 20 years ago and had rather fond memories of it. Catching again on Cinemax this month, I realized how little discernment I had about films back then. This is an utterly ordinary spaghetti western, with absolutely nothing noteworthy about it. Script, direction, acting, photography are all a big blah. Stick with the Sergio Leone westerns! | negative |
The first time I saw a commercial for this show was when my sisters were watching the Kim Possible movie. The commercial showed Sadie and her friend discussing the meaning of the word nothing.It is one of the stupidest commercials I've ever seen. Basically, they go back and forth with lines like "Nothing is a thing, so technically nothing is something,". When I saw that, I figured it would be yet another lame Lizzie Maguire knockoff by Disney. But I had no idea how bad.<br /><br />Fast forward about 3 weeks, when my sister turns on the T.V. Naturally Sadie happened to be on. What I saw had to be one of the most unintentionally funny shows I've ever seen. How'd it go? Something like this:<br /><br />Sadie, a vegetarian tree hugger, has an incredibly unhealthy,obsessive crush on the very monotone and poorly acted acted out Owen. For some reason, her friend Margret decides that Owen needs to be "tested" to see if he is as good as he seems. What exactly do these tests involve? Well, one thing they do is put a cockroach on her notebook. Why? So that she can be squeamish and ask her monotone knight in shining armor to get it off.How is this a test? Because if he squishes it, he's mean and uncaring and doesn't believe that bugs, as Sadie puts it, "are innocent animals too,". THEY SPREAD DISEASE AND PESTILANCE! THEY DESERVE TO BE SQUISHED! But of course, Owen just brushes it out the window, and Sadie is still in love. But that's not all! Margret says he needs to be challenged one more time, on something that "no guy can pass". This one involves shoving scarves down their pants( yes, you read that right)and walking buy him to see if he notices their large butts. Predictably, he doesn't notice, and we see Sadie in her bizarre and strange notebook world. Sadie decides that she wants to be with Owen forever,raise a family with him, and as she puts it, "live like wood ducks with their brood,". That's just plain wrong.<br /><br />Bottom line: This is the strangest, most insane show I've watched. For those who like to make fun of dumb stuff, you'll love it. For anyone else, skip this show. | negative |
OK, now at first i thought this was going to be another cheesy romantic comedy, which held back on the comedy but this wasn't. I mean how could it have been with the fabulous Amanda Bynes staring in it! She was amazing, really funny & is still stunning! The boys in it were also extremely fit, one major reason for going girls! The plot is strongly based upon the Shakespeare play 'Twelfth Night', as it was extremely similar, there was even a spider called malvolio, which belonged to the malvolio like character. The script was really well written and pulled together and it was very witty. The football skills in it were also amazing, it even made me think of playing football myself! Anyway, to sum it up this is a light hearted film about young romance, which gets very confusing! Go and see it! | positive |
This is a very funny movie. There is a self deprecating, iconoclastic tone to the movie that is very appealing. The characters are interesting. The movie flows very well and holds your interest throughout the 1 hour, 50 minutes duration of the film. The film quality is not of the highest Hollywood standards; however the original film was supposed to be made in the genre of a gritty punk-rock style. The documentary about the attempt to make the film and the subsequent betrayal of the film makers is very well detailed and easy to follow. The original film makers themselves become the main characters in the documentary version of the movie. The interviews of the film makers and the actors has been assembled in a highly entertaining story that illustrates the struggles involved in making the original film, the eventual failure of the original project and the phoenix-like rising from the ashes that evolved into this documentary film. In my mind the documentary (A Texas Tale of Treason) is a much more interesting and entertaining film than the original film (Waldos Hawiian Vacation) would have ever been. Two thumbs up for a job well done. | positive |
The movie is pretty funny and involving for about four dates, then it becomes a blatant commercial for some guy you (and even his "friends") really can't stand. It is a pretty interesting concept; film dates on a quest to find true love in modern LA. The problem is that it feels incredibly (and badly) scripted at times and blatantly self-promoting. It is difficult to care about and be drawn into any of the characters because the writer/actor is so egotistical, uncool, untrue, and simply unlikeable. You end up feeling sorry for his dates. | negative |
If You can watch a film without worrying about the plot, or corny acting, then Backdraft is definitely the one.<br /><br />However, if, like me, you like watching films that you can believe, then Backdraft has some serious flaws. It doesn't offer anything new, and there are hundreds of 90's action films that follow identical formulas, whilst not being quite as clunky.<br /><br />After two firefights, i'm thinking, this has got to go somewhere else, i mean, how many big fires are there in one city? Surely firemen do other things, such as getting cats out of trees? Well I was wrong, and the repetition continues again and again, up until the end.<br /><br />A good aspect of the film is the fire itself, well filmed, and I must say i felt quite hot while watching it, which suggests that two hours of watching fire without a story or acting would have been more suited to my taste. | negative |
<br /><br />The first thing I have to say is that I own Jake Speed. I've seen it at least 10 times. This movie is one of the most fun movies ever made. The film begins with Margaret (Karen Kopins) trying to find her sister. Her sister was kidnapped in Paris and the family has heard nothing. Along comes Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford), telling her exactly where her sister is and making an offer to find her. Jake Speed is a hero. He doesn't work for money because he just wants to help and have a good adventure. His partner (Dennis Christopher) follows him around and writes their adventures into novels. This film is a great adventure. It's hilarious, it's action-packed, it's just great. I guess it's a cult film with a very small cult following. Crawford is perfect as Jake Speed and throws out some one-liners that you'll never forget. Kopins and Christopher are also good as the girl and the sidekick, respectively. John Hurt, the guy who's stomach blew up in Alien, plays the devilish, pervertish villian which just adds to the fun. In many ways, this film is similar to Indiana Jones, in some ways it's similar to James Bond films. Maybe it should have been called Indiana Bond but whatever it's title is, it's a very enjoyable film. | positive |
Purportedly this is the final film of the Left Behind series which is fundamentalist preacher and novelist Tim LaHaye's idea of what we can expect in our future in the final days of Planet Earth. If this is the case we can expect an activist presidency in every sense of the word if Barack Obama becomes president next year.<br /><br />The Fantastic Four of Revelation are all back with one cast change, Arnold Pinnock who most would know as the guidance counselor in Life With Derek, is now the minister taking the place of Clarence Gilyard. Brad Johnson as the anti-Christ's pilot by day and Christian by night is there as his daughter Janaya Stephens and ace investigative reporter Kirk Cameron. These are the only four people on Earth who have divined the true nature of UN Secretary General Nicolai Karpathy and once again are throwing sand in his machinery.<br /><br />This time they've got as an ally the President of the United States who is played by Louis Gossett, Jr. He's having one hell of a rough time, especially the guerrillas launch on RPG attack on a presidential motorcade killing Vice President Charles Martin Smith. That's right, the Toad is Vice President. Somebody really messed up bad here because everyone including those who would do them harm know a President and Vice President NEVER travel together. <br /><br />It takes all of them the entire film to convince Gossett exactly who Karpathy really is. Once again the best one in the film is Gordon Currie as Karpathy.<br /><br />We may yet see another Left Behind film yet, the door was left open though people assure me that they've run out of source material from Tim LeHaye. I suppose as long as they make money and these players can't get jobs in the mainstream film industry. And there are some unresolved plot issues involving Brad Johnson and Chelsea Noble who is Mrs. Kirk Cameron in real life. <br /><br />One of the Fantastic Four does die in this film, so will it be the Fantastic Three or will they get another fourth. Stay tuned. | negative |
Synopsis: the sequel to the acclaimed Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal is a big budget production that totally fails to deliver; not only is it not as clever as its predecessor, it is not even a splatter or suspense or horror movie, just a totally boring time waster. Do not be fooled by the media hype, and particularly the stories about people throwing up in cinema and being mentally scarred for the rest of their lifes because of the brain - eating scene: in the movie it just comes across as laughably bad SFX. Why so many people in this forum are claiming that H is "not all bad" and "worth watching on the big screen", etc., is beyond me; and it is not "so bad it's good" either, it is just plain boring. I normally respect other people's opinion, but in this case I have to say that they clearly can not tell **** from Shine - Ola. Maybe they have fallen prey to the media hype, maybe they have never seen a Ridley Scott movie before and were impressed by his excessive use of back lighting, smoke and the ubiquitous AC fans. H is totally devoid of suspense; instead we get endless scenes of Lecter swanning through an English - speaking Firenze, a totally unconvincing and uninvolving plot with more holes than a fishing net (after seeing H, I actually lay awake half of the night trying to find all the holes in the plot, and when I wrote them down I quickly filled 6 pages in small type before forcing myself to stop). Rather than wasting your time and money on seeing it on the big screen, I would advise you to wait until it comes on TV in a couple of years; and then to go to bed early.<br /><br />1 / 10.<br /><br />Below are a couple of extra bones I have to pick with Hannibal:<br /><br />- H _is_ the sequel to SOTL, despite what some people in this forum are claiming. And even though SOTL was a very tough act to follow, there are sequels which _are_ en par with their predecessors (SOTL itself was the sequel to Michael Mann's "Manhunter", based on Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon", and even though the first episode was a very enjoyable film, SOTL was even better; another example would be the Alien series initiated by H's director Ridley Scott -- so much for the theory of diminishing sequels). In any case, being a sequel is no excuse for a film being utter crap.<br /><br />- This movie has a renowned director, it is based on a novel by the same author as SOTL, the cast is strictly A - list, great cinematography, big budget, first - rate script writers, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the end result is simply a fart in the church. So what went wrong? I think a lot of the blame has to go to the film's producer, Dino DeLaurentiis. Here is my interpretation: DDL produced "Manhunter", which, despite of all its qualities, was a commercial flop. Disappointed, he gave the rights for the Hannibal Lecter character to Orion -- for free, allowing Jonathan Demme to make SOTL, and the rest is cinema history. DDL then had to wait for ten more years (he is now 81) until Thomas Harris finally came up with the sequel novel. I think at this point DDL had lost all interest in making a good movie and was desperate to finally get his slice of the the cake before he pops his cork.<br /><br />- Another aspect that I find thoroughly annoying about this flick is that it is being given so much undeserved hype in the media; I mean, it is boring, yet one of the highest - grossing productions ever, so there is no need to give it free publicity. And while most reviewers harp on about how Dantesque the scenes in Firenze are and why Jodie Foster did not participate, the simple fact that this movie is an utter, utter, UTTER flop goes unmentioned. But there is more: not only is Hannibal being hyped through the roof, it is also being used as a media agenda setter for a plethora of "documentaries" (usually the left - overs from similar productions in the wake of SOTL) about serial killers, cannibalism and profiling. However, not only does H not even pretend to be realistic; Lecter has also ceased to be a serial killer (he now only kills out of necessity, or to help Clarice Starling), profiling is not even mentioned (because we already know HL, so there is no need to create a profile) and there is also no cannibalism: Lecter feeds the drugged - up Paul Krendler his own brain, so that makes it (erm) unaware vivo - auto - cannibalism. Try making a documentary out of that.<br /><br />- Much has been said about the acting: mainly whether Julianne Moore can replace Jodie Foster, and Anthony Hopkins (who plays the lead Hannibal Lecter) is usually given a lot of praise. I think all of these discussions are moot. There are several of my favourite actors in this movie (namely Liotta, Oldman and Moore) but the script simply does not give them anything to work with. Same for Hopkins: there is no development in his character, and he is not being challenged in any way. And by the way, he plays nearly identical characters in all of his movies, only that in H he has to do the odd bit of murder and is getting paid the tidy sum of $ 11 Million to do it. | negative |
Cheaply-made, poorly acted, and unimaginatively directed, Flight to Mars still is entertaining despite what its has going against it. A flight to Mars is planned with five people(three older gentleman, Cameron Mitchell as a newspaperman, and one female scientist/obvious love interest)"manning' the ship. The spaceship gets there and finds that very human-like Martians live there and have technological advances that would make Earth blush. But all is not rosy in the subterranean cities of the Martians(here shown as some caves and a few rooms). The Martians are a dying planet and one faction wants the Earthlings to fix the ship only to take it away at the last moment and then mobilize for an attack on Earth and another faction wants to talk peace and see if they cannot persuade Earth to give them living space. The special effects here are pretty lame even for 50's sci-fi standards complete with slow-moving rocket ship, pastel/neon alien garb where the women wear shorts that would make many blush(except the men of course), and little less offered. Cameron Mitchell is the journalist and is affable if nothing else. Marguerite Chapman is beautiful in very short shorts but adds little acting range. The rest of the cast is filled with some older sci-fi veterans like Arthur Franz and Morris Ankrum doing serviceable jobs. This isn't a premiere sci-fi film from the Golden Age by any standard, but it is very watchable and zips by at fast pace. | negative |
Although little more than a pleasant 11-minute musical diversion (it's rightly billed as a "Tabloid Musical") EVERY Sunday is one of the most famous and precious documents in cinematic history, since it provides an invaluable look at the burgeoning talents of two of the screen's most talented and beloved musical performers: Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland.<br /><br />Although often cited as an screen test of sorts, produced by MGM to test the adolescent appeal of studio contractees Durbin and Garland whose options were reportedly coming up for renewal, this assertion is not entirely accurate. By the time EVERY Sunday was produced in July, 1936, Deanna Durbin's contract with MGM had already lapsed and she had been immediately signed by Universal a month earlier, in June 1936.<br /><br />However, a provision in Durbin's MGM contract permitted the studio to exercise an option on her services for up to sixty days, providing she had not yet begun work on a picture at her new studio. As Durbin's debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, was still not ready to begin filming, MGM chose to exercise its' option and, although officially under contract to Universal at the time, Durbin found herself back on the MGM lot filming this agreeable short subject with fellow adolescent singing hopeful, Judy Garland.<br /><br />This, along with Garland's far more extensive prior professional performing experience/training (which included appearances in several earlier movie shorts), may explain why EVERY Sunday often seems to favor Judy Garland over Deanna Durbin, giving Garland more lines to speak and an original song ("Americana") to sing, while Durbin offers the popular classical art song, "Il Bacio" by Luigi Ardiiti. Certainly, it would make perfect sense that MGM would want to favor one of its' own contract players over another from a rival studio.<br /><br />Ironically, although Garland's character is the more overtly pro-active one of the two girls in this short, it would be Durbin's feisty and impulsive "Little Miss Fixit" screen persona at Universal which would propel her to instantaneous worldwide super stardom as the world's first "Teen Idol" with her debut vehicle, THREE SMART GIRLS, while Garland's more passive "wistful wallflower" adolescent image would see her generally cast in supporting roles opposite frequent screen partner Mickey Rooney and (in ZIEGFELD GIRL) the up-and-coming Lana Turner. Not until her fifteenth MGM feature, 1942' FOR ME AND MY GAL (which was also her first fully "adult" role) would Garland achieve the solo above-the title billing and "solo attraction" status of a true superstar that Durbin had attained instantaneously six years earlier.<br /><br />It is entirely inaccurate, therefore, to assert that Garland was the only "superstar" attraction of the two girls, as Durbin attained this status with press 'n public, almost a decade before her MGM rival. Literally in foreclosure at the time of her signing, the on screen evidence strongly suggests that Universal was much quicker to realize Deanna's full superstar potential than MGM was with Judy, and it's worth noting that almost every notable accomplishment Garland achieved at MGM, from superstar billing, to having starring vehicles specially written to showcase her talents and appeal, to being invited to plant her footprints in the forecourt of Graumann's Chinese Theater, to receiving an "Honorary" Oscar" in recognition for her talent, Deanna Durbin received well before her gifted MGM contemporary.<br /><br />In any case, EVERY Sunday is a delightful, utterly unpretentious musical short. Its plot line (Durbin and Garland use their singing talents to save Durbin's grandfather from being forcibly retired by the town council from conducting his Sunday concerts in the park), presages the plot lines of both Garland's "Let's Put On a Show" musicals with Mickey Rooney and Durbin's 100 MEN AND A GIRL. Unlike Garland's later BABES films, the short never treats the insubstantial storyline seriously, and consequently, its' eleven minute running time flies by.<br /><br />Of course, the true magic of EVERY Sunday is in observing the already remarkable performing talents/screen presences of Durbin and Garland at the very beginning of their legendary careers. Both girls, even at this early stage, possessed remarkable screen presences and are utterly natural and unaffected in their presentation as both singers and actresses. Garland fairly explodes off the screen with vitality as she literally punches out the lyrics to the jaunty "Americana." As she socks across the number with appropriate hand gestures, Judy literally seems to be chewing on the words of the song as she screws up her mouth and bugs out her eyes in her intense eagerness to show what she can do.<br /><br />By contrast, Durbin's presentation of "Il Bacio," is far more demure and subdued. Although entirely appropriate for her "classical" selection, Durbin's delivery of Arditi's waltz is much more of the traditional "stand 'n sing" variety than Garland's physically emotive turn. Nevertheless, though "miniature diva" Deanna does nothing to call attention to herself, with her candid eyes, dazzling smile and artless delivery, she easily holds the screen with "jazz baby" Judy, and their delightful duetting of "Americana" in the short's finale makes one regret all the more that producer Joe Pasternak was never able to realize his dream of pairing Durbin and Garland in a musical feature film (because Universal refused to loan "Number One Asset" Durbin out).<br /><br />A priceless document of the nascent talents of two remarkable and utterly unique talents. See this one if you get a chance! | positive |
This film may seem dated today, but remember that it was made in 1974 -- before Saturday Night Live, before Howard Stern, back when George Carlin was just getting beyond the Hippie Dippie Weatherman and into heavy satiric humor. This film is the granddaddy of them all. Enjoy it for its historical significance, as well as for its strong entertainment value. | positive |
If you have seen the Telugu version of Gilli "Okkadu" you will find this to be very similar in story line, but Gilli has different songs and takes place in Tamil Nadu not Andra pradesh. Although this is a remake of "Okkadu" you will find that Vijay and Trisha make this a unique film, Vijay and Trisha make a great pair. A few negatives were when Vijays character slaps Trishas character for going to buy a present for him, he never apologizes and she still stays with him in the end. Good action and songs make this an all around great movie I recommend it.<br /><br />I give it a 10/10, one of the best I have seen. | positive |
I first saw this movie at a premiere-party in Mr. Zwarts hometown Fredrikstad. There, between directors, musicians and other Norwegian celebrities I laughed and laughed... I just couldn't stop. If you like a comedy with black humor, sharp lines and excellent acting - this is one flick you HAVE to see! It's like mixing "True Romance" with "The Wedding Singer" and add a dash of "Mad about you" Hilarios!<br /><br />10 Points! | positive |
Michael Sheen shines like the afternoon sun in this brilliant portrayal of a comic genius. If you are familiar with Kenneth Williams' mannerisms and Diaries then this drama captures the essence of them perfectly. When i read about Kenneth hoovering in his swimming trunks i laughed and then it was brought to life on the screen, but this time i didn't laugh as it was put into perspective as the actions of a repressed and tortured man. It must have been such a lonely existence being in Kenneth's skin, craving attention but shunning it when it TRULY mattered! The last 20 minutes are heart-breaking as you see Kenneth gradually sink to the depths of despair and consider suicide as the only alternative. I have seen it a dozen times and still cry uncontrollably at the point where he bids goodnight to LOUIE. I cannot recommend this drama enough. Sexually explicit but it drives home the fact that Kenneth couldn't let anyone invade his world and this is where the sadness of the man lies. For a genius who brought happiness to so many, it's such a shame that his private life was filled with such despair and sadness. Pauly. | positive |
The minutiae of what's involved in carrying out a robbery is what makes this one of the best of all heist movies. Then there's the robbery itself, a wordless, thirty minute nail-biter that has never been surpassed, followed by what is probably the cinema's most pronounced example of dishonor among thieves as things begin to spectacularly unravel, and we have what is unquestionably the greatest of all heist movies.<br /><br />This was a tough and unsentimental film when it first appeared in 1955 and it is just as tough and unsentimental today. (It displays some of the edgy brutality of Dassin's earlier "Brute Force"). There isn't a flabby moment or duff performance in the entire film and Dassin captures the milieu of seedy clubs and Parisian back streets like no-one else and the final drive through Paris by a dying man is one of the most iconic closing sequences of any movie. A classic. | positive |
As a fan of author Gipharts lightheaded and humorous books (of which Ik Ook van Jou is not the best one), I was looking forward to see this film. I didn't catch it in cinema though, and after seeing it on to tv I'm terribly happy I resisted buying it on video. Out of a good book, they managed to make one of the worst movies in Dutch film history. All the good parts have been left out, the story is changed, not to its benefits. All humour has been cut out. What's left is a bad-acted, over dramatic, non-consistent film that I do not want to watch again ever.<br /><br />I condolate Giphart with this result, and am happy that Robbert Jan Westdijk did a hell of a better job on Giphart's topper Phileine zegt Sorry. Go see that one! | negative |
The main reason people still care about "Carlton-Browne Of The F.O." is that it features Peter Sellers in a second-billed role. But watching this film to see Peter Sellers is a mistake.<br /><br />Sellers plays Amphibulos, a vaguely reptilian prime minister of the dirt-poor island nation of Gaillardia, formerly a British colony, now hosting a lot of Russian diggers during the height of the Cold War. Amphibulos wants to play both U.K. and Soviet interests against each other for easy profit, "everything very friendly and all our cards under the table". Terry-Thomas is the title character, a lazy British diplomat anxious to show Gaillardia that Great Britain hasn't forgotten them, all appearances to the contrary.<br /><br />A positive review here says: "The reason this movie is considered average is because the comedy is understated." I would argue that the reason "Carlton-Browne" is considered below average is because the comedy is non-existent.<br /><br />After a decent opening that establishes the film's only two strengths, a sympathetically doltish Terry-Thomas and John Addison's full-on larky score, things quickly slow down into a series of slow burns and lame miscommunication jokes. The low opinion of Carlton-Browne by his boss and the obscurity of Gaillardia (which no one can find on a map) is milked to death. By the time we actually reach the island (after a labored series of airsick jokes), expectations are quite low.<br /><br />They're still too high, though. The island itself, which seems to exist either in Latin America or the Mediterranean, is so pathetic its honor guard faints at the airport, and the review stand falls apart in the middle of a parade. The army is apparently still horse drawn, allowing for another lame aural gag by a thick-accented announcer: "In war, the army uses many horse."<br /><br />Sellers never quite takes center stage even when we're on his character's island. The plot is taken over instead by Ian Bannen as King Loris, who inherits the throne of Gaillardia after his father's assassination. Bannen is dull and plays his part as straight as it is written. Normally this would make him the likely target for scene-stealing by Sellers, but trapped behind a thick accent and greasy moustache, Sellers is only a threat to those of us who remember him far more happily in two other films made this same year, "The Mouse That Roared" and "I'm All Right, Jack."<br /><br />Strange that this film, like "Jack", was a Boulting Brothers production, with Roy Boulting here serving as co-director alongside Jeffrey Dell. Usually Boulting films combine wicked social satire with anything-goes comedy, but here there are only fey jabs in either direction. Amphibulos works his mangled-English vibe for all its worth ("This man is like, how do you say, the bull in the Chinese ship") while Carlton-Browne is generally ragged on by his superior far more than he seems to deserve.<br /><br />The weakest and most protracted element of the film is young Loris's romance with Ilyena. Score one point for her being played by ravishing Luciana Paluzzi, dock one for the fact that they are apparently cousins is never addressed.<br /><br />The film winds up with a lamely staged revolution whose surprise resolution will surprise no one, and a final bit of action by Carlton-Browne that would seem to nail the lid on his coffin literally. Apparently he lives to see another day, but the film of the same name is strictly DOA. | negative |
Vincente Minnelli directed some of the most celebrated entertainments in cinema history... He was among the first Hollywood directors to show that a profound love of color, motion and music might produce intelligent entertainment... <br /><br />'American in Paris' is the story of an ex-GI who remains in France after the war to study and paint... He falls in love with a charming gamine Lise Bourvier... Their romantic love affair sparkles as brightly as the City of Lights itself... The whole movie brings a touch of French elegance where technique, artistic style and music all come together in perfect synchronism...<br /><br />The first musical sequence introduces the exciting personality of Leslie Caron in her screen debut... She is like a diamond, a touch of class... George Guetary describes his fiancée ambiguous grace in a montage of different dance styles, sweet and shy, vivacious and modern, graceful and awesome... The number leads to an unpretentious bistro, where Kelly and his very good friends in Paris share a gentle parody of Viennese waltzes... Later Kelly celebrates a popular tap dancing with a crowd of enthusiastic children singing with him 'I Got Rhythm,' and at the massive jazz nightclub Kelly spots the girl of his dreams... He is instantly hit by her sparkling sapphire blue eyes, and only one clear thing is in his mind, to pull Lize onto the dance floor and sing to her: "It's very clear, Our love is here to stay."<br /><br />To the joyful 'Tra-La-La,' Kelly provides humor, wit and talent all around Oscar Levant's room ,and even on the top of his brown piano... <br /><br />When he meets his pretty Cinderella along the Seine river, Kelly is swept away by his happy meeting with Caron... He expresses all his emotions with 'Our Love Is Here to Stay.' The piece had a definite nighttime feel as the two lovers were bathed in soft, blue smoky light... They start an enchanting dance-duet juxtaposing differing elements... Caron dances with her head on his shoulder, then tries to run away in a fluid way... They move backward, away from each other, then pause to rush toward each other, for a little kiss, and a warm hug...<br /><br />The film's weakest numbers were those that bear little relation to the story... In one, Georges Guetary performs an entertaining stage show with showgirls in giant ornaments floating down to the stage... In another, Oscar Levant imagines himself conducting a concert, and playing not only a piano recital, but the other instruments as well... He even applauds to himself as members of the audience...<br /><br />The extravagant climactic super ballet of the film is quite an adventure, a breakthrough in taste, direction and design... It is a blaze of love, fury and vividness... It is Kelly's major fantasy of his lost love and of his feeling about Paris as viewed through the huge backdrops of some of France's most Impressionist painters...<br /><br />The number starts at the Beaux Arts Ball after Kelly finds himself separated from Lise, and begins a sketch with a black crayon... It gathers the important parts of the film's story through a constantly changing locations, all in the style of the painters who have influenced Jerry... The tour, richly attractive and superbly atmospheric, includes the Place De la Concorde Fountain, the Madeleine flower market, the Place De l'Opéra, to his Rendez-Vous at Montmartre, with the cancan dancers in a representation of Lautrec's Moulin Rouge...<br /><br />Kelly seems to defy the boundaries of his physical self... Caron seems to dominate her space and sweeps you away to another time and place...<br /><br />Nina Foch appeared very attractive and elegant in her one-shouldered white gown... In one of the film's most famous lines, Kelly asks her: 'That's quite a dress you almost have on. What holds it up?" Nina, cleverly replies, "modesty!"<br /><br />'An American in Paris' garnered six Oscars, including an honorary award to Gene Kelly... The film gave us a wealth of memories to take home... | positive |
The funky, yet strictly second-tier British glam-rock band Strange Fruit breaks up at the end of the wild'n'wacky excess-ridden 70's. The individual band members go their separate ways and uncomfortably settle into lackluster middle age in the dull and uneventful 90's: morose keyboardist Stephen Rea winds up penniless and down on his luck, vain, neurotic, pretentious lead singer Bill Nighy tries (and fails) to pursue a floundering solo career, paranoid drummer Timothy Spall resides in obscurity on a remote farm so he can avoid paying a hefty back taxes debt, and surly bass player Jimmy Nail installs roofs for a living. Former loving groupie turned patient, understanding, long-suffering manager Juliet Aubrey gets the group back together for an ill-advised, largely ineffectual and hilariously disastrous twenty years later nostalgic reunion tour of Europe. Our lovably ragged bunch try gamely, but fumblingly to reignite a flame that once burned quite brightly back in the day. Scraggly zonked-out roadie Billy Connelly and cocky eager beaver young guitarist Hans Matheson tag along for the delightfully bumpy, trouble-plagued, but still ultimately rewarding and enjoyable ride.<br /><br />Director Brian Gibson shows tremendously infectious respect and adoration for both his amiably screwy characters in particular and loud, ringing, flamboyantly overblown preening 70's rock in general, this imbuing this affectionate little pip with an utterly engaging sense of big-hearted charm and tireless verve. The astute, sharply written script by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais likewise bristles with spot-on dry wit and finely observed moments of joyous on the road inanity, capturing a certain bittersweetly affecting and frequently uproarious vibe that gives the picture itself an irresistibly luminescent glow. Ashley Rowe's lovely, elegant cinematography ensures that the movie always looks quite visually sumptuous while the perfectly catchy and groovy music does the trick with right-on rockin' flair and aplomb. Kudos also to the across-the-board terrific performances that vividly nail the burnt-out soul and tattered, but still fiercely beating heart of a past its prime has-been ragtag rock outfit desperate to regain its erstwhile evanescent glory in one final bid for big time success. All in all, this radiant and touching gem rates highly as one of the true seriocomic sleeper treats from the 90's. | positive |
This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.<br /><br />If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.<br /><br />The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.<br /><br />What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter? | negative |
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. I would think you could get that from the title. Also, there is a particular love scene that could be the strangest in the history of film. I can't even remember why I saw this film or when. Only that is an absolutely horrible movie-viewing experience. On the other hand, if you are looking for the absolute weirdest movie to waste two hours of your time, then by all means rent it. Good luck finding it at your local store though. I doubt this movie is in a very wide-distribution. And please do not show this to children by any means as it may warp their impressionable minds forever. | negative |
This movie is one of the poorest adaptations of a fabulous book that I've seen. Jean George's novel is a fantastic book that I think is an outstanding read for any child. I can't give the same endorsement to this movie. | negative |