autotrain_text
stringlengths 98
7.13k
| autotrain_label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I have recently seen this production on DVD. It is the first time I have seen it since it was originally broadcast in 1983 and it was just as good as I remembered. At first as was worried it would seem old fashioned and I suppose it is a little dated and very wordy as the BBC serials were back then. (I miss those wonderful costume dramas that seemed to be always on Sunday afternoons back then) But that aside it is as near perfect as it could have been. I am a bit of a "Jane Eyre" purist as it is my favourite book and have never seen another production that is a faithful to the book as this one. I have recently re-read the book as well and some of the dialogue is just spot on. Reading the scene near the end where Rochester questions Jane about what St John was like I noticed their words were exactly reproduced on screen by Dalton and Clarke and done perfectly. <br /><br />All the other productions that have been done all seem lacking in some way, some even leave out the "Rivers" family and their connection to Jane altogether. I also think this is the only production to include the "Gypsy" scene done correctly.<br /><br />The casting is perfect, Zelah Clarke is like Jane is described in the book "small plain and dark" and I disagree that she looked too old. Timothy Dalton may be a little too handsome but he is absolutely perfect as Rochester, portraying every aspect of his character just right and acting his socks off! I agree with other comment that he even appears quite scary at time, like in the scene when he turns around slowly at the church when the wedding is interrupted, his expression is fantastically frightening. But then in another favourite scene his joy is wonderful to see when Jane runs down the stairs and into his arms the morning after they declare their love for one another. A love that is wonderfully portrayed and totally believable. Oh to be loved by a man like that! There were a couple of scenes that were strangely missing however, like when Jane climbs in to bed with the dying Helen and also when Rochester takes Jane shopping for her wedding things (I thought that one was in it but maybe my memory is playing tricks).<br /><br />Finally if you never see another production of Jane Eyre - you simply most see this one it is simply perfection! | 1positive
|
Years ago, Sara, a young girl witnessed her parents being murdered, now as an adult she suffers from various mental ailments (did I mention she has an imaginary friend?) This film lulls the viewer, not into a sense of tension, mind you, but rather a sense of sleepiness. Deathly boring, I found it hard to sit through as I could feel my eyelids growing heavier and heavier with each endless minute of mindless prattle and supposed 'mystery'. Is Sara going crazy? or is it the paranormal? A better question would be, Who cares? And the answer to that, no one. No one at all. Skip this film, save yourself some time better suited to do other more worthwhile tasks.<br /><br />My Grade: D- | 0negative
|
Well, I like to watch bad horror B-Movies, cause I think it's interesting to see stupidity and unability of creators to shoot seriously good movie. (I always compare this movies to - for example - some Spielberg's works and again-and-again don't understand the huge difference in what I see.) I like Ed Wood's movies cause it's so inept it's very funny. But people!!! "The Chilling" is not funny and is not even "interesting". It's EXTREMELY BORING horror movie without ANYTHING what makes even bad movies watchable. There's no acting, no screenplay, no direction, no thrills and not even blood. It's extremely inept amateurish film. It's definitely the WORST movie I had ever seen (and I had seen a lot of "worst movies" - believe me). I warned you !!! 1/10 | 0negative
|
Years ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years. | 0negative
|
This movie was extremely boring. I only laughed a few times. I decided to rent it when I noticed William Shatner's name on the cover. It's all about this little kid who gets picked on all the time by his classmates. When wandering the streets looking for old ladies to assist, he meets a prostitute. She takes him to a club called the Playground, where he befriends several pimps. When mayor Tony Gold (Shatner) decides to take over the pimp business, Lil' Pimp must lay down for his homies.<br /><br />The animation isn't very good in this. It looks like it was made with Macromedia, which I'm sure it was. It doesn't suck, it's just the sort of choppy flash animation that people have gotten used to over recent years. The humor in this is not very good, I didn't think any of it was funny. | 0negative
|
A good ol' boy film is almost required to have moonshine, car chases, a storyline that has a vague resemblance to "plot" and at least one very pretty country gal, barefoot with short shorts and a low top. The pretty gal is here (dressed in designer jeans)-- but the redneck prerequisites stop there. Jimmy Dean is a natural as a sausage spokesman but as a tough guy former sheriff, he comes up way short. Big John is big, but he isn't convincing with the "bad" part of his moniker. Bug-eyed Jack Elam is a hoot as always and Bo Hopkins has been playing this same part for decades; Ned Beatty also does his part in a small role... but there is no STORY. It smells more like an episode of In The Heat Of The Night than a feature film. Cornball cornpone with easily predictable sentiment. Perhaps the most glaring problem with this movie is Charlie Daniels singing the theme. You know the one; it was made famous by... Jimmy Dean. | 0negative
|
Originally harped as a sequel to "The Slumber Party Massacre" series, this film falls flat on it's face with a new title. First off, if you are going to include the word "massacre" in your film's title, you better deliver. This one certainly does not. There is no gore, no on screen murders and no chainsaw, as the box art would lead you to believe. Instead, we get a paper thin, overdone plot about a group of cheerleaders who get stranded in an abandoned cabin on the way to a football game, only to be offed one by one. Again, this film could have been OK if the gore quotient was upped a bit. Why directors, especially those doing direct-to-video flicks, are afraid to show ANY gore is beyond me. Now, I am not a huge fan of excessive gore, but come on...why else would anyone rent a movie called "Cheerleader Massacre??" Besides that problem, the film suffers from a shot-on-a-home-video-camera cheapness. It looks cheap, sounds cheap, and the actors aren't all that good. It tries to throw us off track to who the killer may be, but even that fails. The ending ends up being a ridiculous mess. Folks, if you run across this film, walk away and go find the original "Slumber Party Massacre." 2 out of 10. | 0negative
|
I thought that this movie was incredible. I absolutely loved it, even though my brothers didn't that much. The special effects were outstanding, and this movie is about my favorite sport; golf. The only thing that was disappointing about this amazing movie is that it is hard to watch two times or more in a row. This movie just absolutely tops everything else I have ever seen. It was everything I would expect out of a movie. I just loved it. Also, it was pretty kid-friendly. This movie helped me realize that when you put your mind to it, anything is possible. I would give it a pure 10/10! It was better than The Legend of Baggar Vants, and the two Pirates of the Caribbean movies combined. Absolutely amazing. Loved it. | 1positive
|
This filmmaker wanted to make a movie without having a story to tell -- and did so. Really awful jumble of unlikely/unexplained coincidences and unidentifiable plot line, all without character or clear motivation.<br /><br />We get cliché snapshots instead of characters. One in particular is the diminutive and beautiful crime boss, who projects an overdone "tough guy" persona and casts a cartoonish shadow of intimidation over the actual tough guys who have been brought in to work for her. Nothing much startling to look at in the film except for one shot when the boys hit the road and one of them carries a tiny suitcase (as in, the smallest from a complete American Tourister set) in a bright, sky blue, without explanation or apology. Otherwise it's standard visually -- one other exception is a compelling shot of a beautiful bridge in CT. | 0negative
|
A flying saucer manned (literally) by a crew of about 20 male space explorers travels hundreds of millions of light years from earth to check in on a colony founded some 25 years ago on a 'forbidden planet.' What they find is a robot more advanced than anything imaginable on earth, a beautiful and totally socially inept young woman, and her father, a hermit philologist haunted by more than the demons of the ancient civilization he has immersed himself in.<br /><br />On the surface, this story is a pulp scifi murder mystery. Some compare it to Shakespeare's Tempest, but this is a stretch, and, in some ways, an insult to the scifi genre. Stripped of what makes it a scifi film, sure, its The Tempest, but how many hundreds of films can you say something similar about? <br /><br />Underneath, this is a cautionary tale about progress and technology and the social evolution necessary for its appropriate and safe use. Yet the film still proceeds with all the hopefulness for our future that we have come to expect from shows like Star Trek.<br /><br />Anne Francis is not the only reason why this film is best described as beautiful. The special effects, and even the aesthetics of the backdrops are powerful enough to make the uninspired directing and uneven acting almost unnoticeable. If it were not for the goofy retro-art-deco-ness of 1950s sci-fi props, you might think you were watching a 1960s piece.<br /><br />This is a classic of that very special sub-genre of sci fi I like to call 1950s sci-fi, and, though not, in my opinion, the best it is certainly a must see for anybody interested in sci-fi film and special effects. The clever plot, now rendered trite by its reuse in six or seven episodes of Star Trek, Lost in Space, and even Farscape, is worth paying attention to, and will sustain the interest of most scifi fans. Trekkers will be particularly interested in the various aspects of the film which seem to have inspired themes of Star Trek's original series aired about 12 years later, though they may find themselves disappointed by the (relatively mild) 1950s sexism and the lack of any kind of racial integration. While I do not mean to nitpick, the lack of social progress manifest in this film was the one major problem I had with it. <br /><br />Some will probably see this film simply to catch a glimpse of young, good-looking Leslie Nielsen in one of his first starring roles. Unfortunately, Nielsen's performance is only average, and at times down-right poor (especially at the climax of the film). Walter Pigeon, though quite excellent in other films, over-acts his role as well. Ms Francis, Earl Holliman, and the amazing Robby the Robot are the stand-out actors in this crowd, though on the whole the character actors filling in the ensemble do a good job. The problems with the featured performances, I think, are as much the fault of the director and the editor, as anything. Though they certainly got most of the film quite right. | 1positive
|
Donald Pleasance and Peter Cushing united in one horror film; that always sounds like a terrific plan. Two of the most versatile cult actors of their generation, who previously already starred together in terrific genre outings like "The Flesh and the Fiends" and "From Beyond the Grave", pairing up in a mid-70's satanic themed exploitation flick. How can this possibly go wrong? Well, unfortunately, it can. To my deepest regret "Land of the Minotaur" can hardly even be called mediocre, and that in spite of the cast, the exotic setting, the appealing title and the potentially great sounding premise. In a remote little area in Greece, more particularly near an archaeological site, multiple tourists vanish because Baron Peter Cushing and his docile followers keep feeding them to a fire-breathing Minotaur statue. Cushing, who never looked more bored and uninterested in any role he played before, owns a giant medieval castle and apparently in Greek this means you also own the complementary archaeological ruins and an underground network of caverns. That is of course quite handy if your hobby is the kidnapping of random campers and amateur archaeologists. When three of his young friends also mysteriously disappear in the same area, Father Roch - the priest of a couple of towns before) - decides to investigate. "Land of the Minotaur" is a boring and extremely slow-paced horror effort that never really undertakes any major attempts to generate a satanic atmosphere and doesn't bother to elaborate on all the potentially fascinating elements and pagan trivia details. The titular Minotaur, for example, is an intriguing creature of Greek mythology with the head of a bull and the body of a person, but for some inexplicable reason the script never deepens out the significance. Instead, the film focuses on tedious and overly talkative sequences and loud inappropriate music altered with experimental noises. The only reason to even consider giving this major disappointment of a film a chance is because of Donald Pleasance. His portrayal of rude, bossy and old-fashioned priest who criticizes everything that represents modern youth is powerful and reliable as always. | 0negative
|
The plot: Michael Linnett Connors has done everything in films but direct, and is looking for his 1st big chance. He discovers Molly in a play and at once knows she will be a big film star. He signs her to a contract with the stipulation that he must direct. The producer agrees and their big time careers are under way. What follows is a recreation of the silent film era and early sound movies with great emphasis on comedy. And, oh yes, there's romance, and a little sadness too. The performances by Don Ameche and Alice Fay are top notch. The music is a real plus too with some old familiar tunes heard. Lots of DVD extras as well in this restored version released in 2008. It must be emphasized that this movie is a story 1st, not just a tribute to silent films. Later years would bring similar films such as, Singin' in the Rain(1952) & Dick Van Dyke-Carl Reiner's, The Comic(1969). What is special about this film, though, is recreating silent movies in 1939. We see portions of them as the cinema audience would in that bygone era(although some sound effects are included)in glorious b&w, while the rest of the movie is in pristine color. One of the greatest in the silent era, Buster Keaton, who at this point was on an uphill climb, is used superbly in 2 silent film recreated scenes and he is on the top of his game! It is said that he had some input on his scenes as well. But the real reason to watch the movie, if your a motion picture history fan, is that beyond everything else, Hollywood Cavalcade is Mack Sennett's film legacy. It doesn't take a genius to realize this movie is a "positive" reworking of Mack Sennett's and Mabel Normand's life. The character Michael "Linnett" Connors is Mack Sennett, whose real name was Michael Sinnott. And Molly, of course is Mabel. Sennett had the pie throwings, the bathing beauties and Keystone Cops. He worked with Buster Keaton, Ben Turpin(cameo), Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle(body double) and fell in love with his leading lady. Not only all that, but Sennett was technical adviser for this film and appears in it as well. As most film viewers today prefer sound features, those who were associated with short subjects and silents are left out to pasture. As Mack Sennett fell into that category, it is fortunate that there is Hollywood Cavalcade! Sennett was of course very instrumental in the evolution of comedy in movies. His career started in 1908 as an actor, then writer, director & producer. He semi retired in 1935 with about 500 films to his credit. He had worked with the best, such as Charlie Chaplin, Gloria Swanson, Bing Crosby, W.C. Fields, Keaton, Harry Langdon, Arbuckle, and even Roy Rogers(in Way Up Thar).As film comedy is an extremely difficult path to continue for an entire career, Mack played it wise & did only selective work for the next 25 years. In 1931 he had receive an academy award in the short subject category, and another in 1937 for a lifetime of work. In the 1940's his presence was still felt, e.g. Here Come the Co-Eds(1945)where a recreation of the oyster soup scene used in Mack's Wandering Willies(1926)is done. In 1947, The Road to Hollywood, used some of Sennett's Crosby films. 2 years later brought some nostalgia with the film Down Memory Lane in which he participated. With his knack of always associating with the right people, a guest role with the eternally popular Lawrence Welk & his radio show came about later in the year. 1950 brought a re-release of his greatest triumph, Tillie's Punctured Romance(1914) with sound. In 1952 he was honored on TV's, This Is Your Life, then his autobiography, The King of Comedy(1954), which is a great companion piece to Hollywood Cavalcade, was published. 1955 brought a more concrete association with Abbott & Costello, as he had a cameo in A&C Meet the Keystone Kops. Finally in 1957, another tribute with the compilation film, The Golden Age of Comedy. So when you watch Hollywood Cavalcade it is the legacy of a motion picture pioneer. In the film at the banquet scene the camera pans over the guests at a long table. As we get to the silver haired Mack, he alone turns his head to the camera as if to say, "here I am!". When he rises to give a speech a short while later, he is at his most subdued, underplaying the words given him as if to mentally convey, "I know my influence on comedy will never end, but will people forget Mack Sennett the individual. Maybe this movie will help." | 1positive
|
Meticulously constructed and perfectly played, To The Ends Of The Earth is a simply astonishing voyage out of our reality and into another age.<br /><br />Based on William Golding's trilogy, these three 90-minute films chronicle the journey towards both Australia and experience of youthful aristocrat Edmund Talbot (Benedict Cumberbatch) aboard an aging man o' war in the early 19th century as he heads for a Government position Down Under.<br /><br />Among the crew and hopeful emigrants sharing his passage are a tempestuous, bullying captain (Jared Harris), a politically radical philosopher (Sam Neill), a canny 1st lieutenant who's worked his way up from the bottom (Jamie Sives) and, fleetingly, the first brush of love in the form of a beautiful young woman (Joanne Page) whose ship literally passes in the night.<br /><br />Quite aside from the astonishing degree of physical historic accuracy, director David Attwood and screenwriters Tony Basgallop and Leigh Jackson have a canny eye and ear for the manners and stiff etiquette of an earlier time, crafting a totally convincing microcosm of the Napoleonic era.<br /><br />Shipboard life is one brutal, monotonous round of seasickness, squalor and danger after another and as Edmund becomes entangled in the loves, hopes and miseries of his fellow passengers he experiences a delirious whirl of life's hardships, Man's inhumanities and his noblest sentiments.<br /><br />Those who enjoyed Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World or Patrick O'Brian's series of novels on which it was based will love this for everyone else, it's a whole new world to discover. | 1positive
|
I thought that ROTJ was clearly the best out of the three Star Wars movies. I find it surprising that ROTJ is considered the weakest installment in the Trilogy by many who have voted. To me it seemed like ROTJ was the best because it had the most profound plot, the most suspense, surprises, most emotional,(especially the ending) and definitely the most episodic movie. I personally like the Empire Strikes Back a lot also but I think it is slightly less good than than ROTJ since it was slower-moving, was not as episodic, and I just did not feel as much suspense or emotion as I did with the third movie.<br /><br />It also seems like to me that after reading these surprising reviews that the reasons people cited for ROTJ being an inferior film to the other two are just plain ludicrous and are insignificant reasons compared to the sheer excellence of the film as a whole. I have heard many strange reasons such as: a) Because Yoda died b) Because Bobba Fett died c) Because small Ewoks defeated a band of stormtroopers d) Because Darth Vader was revealed<br /><br />I would like to debunk each of these reasons because I believe that they miss the point completely. First off, WHO CARES if Bobba Fett died??? If George Lucas wanted him to die then he wanted him to die. Don't get me wrong I am fan of Bobba Fett but he made a few cameo appearances and it was not Lucas' intention to make him a central character in the films that Star Wars fans made him out to be. His name was not even mentioned anywhere in the movie... You had to go to the credits to find out Bobba Fett's name!!! Judging ROTJ because a minor character died is a bit much I think... Secondly, many fans did not like Yoda dying. Sure, it was a momentous period in the movie. I was not happy to see him die either but it makes the movie more realistic. All the good guys can't stay alive in a realistic movie, you know. Otherwise if ALL the good guys lived and ALL the bad guys died this movie would have been tantamount to a cheesy Saturday morning cartoon. Another aspect to this point about people not liking Yoda's death.. Well, nobody complained when Darth Vader struck down Obi Wan Kenobi in A New Hope. (Many consider A New Hope to be the best of the Trilogy) Why was Obi Wan's death okay but Yoda's not... hmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Another reason I just can not believe was even stated was because people found cute Ewoks overpowering stormtroopers to be impossible. That is utterly ridiculous!! I can not believe this one!! First off, the Ewoks are in their native planet Endor so they are cognizant of their home terrain since they live there. If you watch the movie carefully many of the tactics the Ewoks used in defeating the stormtroopers was through excellent use of their home field advantage. (Since you lived in the forest all your life I hope you would have learned to use it to your advantage) They had swinging vines, ropes, logs set up to trip those walkers, and other traps. The stormtroopers were highly disadvantaged because they were outnumbered and not aware of the advantages of the forest. The only thing they had was their blasters. To add, it was not like the Ewoks were battling the stormtroopers themselves, they were heavily assisted by the band of rebels in that conquest. I thought that if the stormtroopers were to have defeated a combination of the Star Wars heros, the band of rebels, as well as the huge clan of Ewoks with great familiarity of their home terrain, that would have been a great upset. Lastly, if this scene was still unbelievable to you.. How about in Empire Strikes Back or in A New Hope where there were SEVERAL scenes of a group consisting of just Han Solo, Chewbacca, and the Princess, being shot at by like ten stormtroopers and all their blasters missed while the heros were in full view!! And not only that, the heroes , of course, always hit the Stormtroopers with their blasters. The troopers must have VERY, VERY bad aim then! At least in Empire Strikes Back, the Battle of Endor was much more believable since you had two armies pitted each other not 3 heroes against a legion of stormtroopers. Don't believe me? Check out the battle at Cloud City when our heroes were escaping Lando's base. Or when our heros were rescuing Princess Leia and being shot at (somehow they missed)as Han Solo and Luke were trying to exit the Death Star.<br /><br />The last reason that I care to discuss (others are just too plain ridiculous for me to spend my time here.) is that people did not like Darth Vader being revealed! Well, in many ways that was a major part of the plot in the movie. Luke was trying to find whether or not Darth Vader was his father, Annakin Skywalker. It would have been disappointing if the movie had ended without Luke getting to see his father's face because it made it complete. By Annakin's revelation it symbolized the transition Darth Vader underwent from being possessed by the dark side (in his helmet) and to the good person he was Annakin Skywalker (by removing the helmet). The point is that Annakin died converted to the light side again and that is what the meaning of the helmet removal scene was about. In fact, that's is what I would have done in that scene too if I were Luke's father...Isn't that what you would have done if you wanted to see your son with your own eyes before you died and not in a mechanized helmet?<br /><br />On another note, I think a subconscious or conscious expectation among most people is that the sequel MUST be worse (even if it is better) that preceding movies is another reason that ROTJ does not get as many accolades as it deserves. I never go into a film with that deception in mind, I always try to go into a film with the attitude that "Well, it might be better or worse that the original .. But I can not know for sure.. Let's see." That way I go with an open mind and do not dupe myself into thinking that a clearly superior film is not as good as it really was.<br /><br />I am not sure who criticizes these movies but, I have asked many college students and adults about which is their favorite Star Wars movie and they all tell me (except for one person that said that A New Hope was their favorite) that it is ROTJ. I believe that the results on these polls are appalling and quite misleading.<br /><br />Bottom line, the Return of the Jedi was the best of the Trilogy. This movie was the only one of the three that kept me riveted all throughout its 135 minutes. There was not a moment of boredom because each scene was either suspenseful, exciting, surprising, or all of the above. For example, the emotional light saber battle between Luke and his father in ROTJ was better than the one in the Empire Strikes Back any day!!!<br /><br />Finally, I hope people go see the Phantom Menace with an open mind because if fans start looking for nitpicky, insignificant details (or see it as "just another sequel") to trash the movie such as "This movie stinks because Luke is not in it!" then this meritorious film will become another spectacular movie that will be the subject of derision like ROTJ suffered unfortunately.<br /><br /> | 1positive
|
It got to be a running joke around Bonanza about how fatal it was for any women to get involved with any Cartwright men. After all Ben Cartwright was three times a widower with a son by each marriage. And any woman who got involved with Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe were going to end up dying because we couldn't get rid of the formula of the widower and the three sons that started this classic TV western.<br /><br />Perhaps if Bonanza were being done today the writers would have had revolving women characters who came in and out of the lives of the Cartwrights. People have relationships, some go good, some not so good, it's just life. And we're less demanding of our heroes today so if a relationship with one of them goes south we don't have to kill the character off to keep the survivor's nobility intact. But that's if Bonanza were done today.<br /><br />But we were still expecting a lot from our western heroes and Bonanza though it took a while to take hold and a change of viewing time from NBC certainly helped, the secret of Bonanza's success was the noble patriarch Ben Cartwright and his stalwart sons. Ben Cartwright was THE ideal TV Dad in any genre you want to name. His whole life was spent in the hard work of building that immense Ponderosa spread for his three children. The kids were all different in personality, but all came together in a pinch.<br /><br />The Cartwrights became and still are an American institution. I daresay more people cared about this family than the Kennedys. Just the popularity that Bonanza has in syndication testifies to that. <br /><br />Pernell Roberts as oldest son Adam was written out of the show. Rumor has it he didn't care for the noble Cartwright characters which he felt bordered on sanctimonious. Perhaps if it were done now, he'd have liked it better in the way I describe.<br /><br />This was just the beginning for Michael Landon, how many people get three hit TV shows to their credit. Landon also has Highway to Heaven and Little House On the Prarie where he had creative control. Little Joe was the youngest, most hot headed, but the most romantic of the Cartwrights. <br /><br />When Roberts left. the show kept going with the two younger sons, but when big Dan Blocker left, the heart went out of Bonanza. Other characters had been added on by that time, David Canary, Tim Matheson, and Ben Cartwright adopted young Mitch Vogel. But big, loyal, but a little thick Hoss was easily the most lovable of the Cartwrights. His sudden demise after surgery left too big a hole in that family.<br /><br />So the Cartwrights of the Ponderosa have passed into history. I got a real taste of how America took the Cartwrights to heart when I visited the real Virginia City. It doesn't look anything like what you see in Bonanza. But near Lake Tahoe, just about where you see the Ponderosa on the map at the opening credits, is the Cartwright home, the set maintained and open as a tourist attraction. Like 21 Baker Street for Sherlock Holmes fans, the ranchhouse and the Cartwrights are real.<br /><br />And if they weren't real, they should have been. | 1positive
|
This is absolutely the best movie I have ever watched. At the age of 12 I was up late and ran across the movie. It was on the USA channel, Gilbert Godfrey's Up All Night. I will never forget. At the time my friends and I were really struggling with different issues, some sexual. You know 12 is a very rough and weird age. It seems you are stuck in between being a little girl, and being a young lady. This movie really helped to answer a lot of questions for me. I now have a daughter that is 12. Have been searching for a couple years for this movie. If it ever does come out on DVD I would be the first to buy. Would recommend for any parent to watch this with their child when they reach that very rough and difficult age. | 1positive
|
All I ever heard while being raised was equality of the sexes, and here we have a film that not only exemplifies imbalance, but continues through with a whole concept that one sex is better. All the while watching I was hoping for that redeeming quality to make the viewer feel as though there is hope for the future, and there wasn't. I'll admit to not finishing the film, I had to turn it off at the part where the old man whore told the genetic man Adam that it was ok to be a whore and get, and I quote, "More tail than any man in the past time." I know not finishing it is a bad review on myself, but it is the responsibility of the writer and crew to develope a story that will keep a viewer interested, and they failed. This film betrays all true female nature qualities of the mother figure and the need for balance. Instead it exemplifies what America ran by lesbian natzis would be like,and I'm not against lesbians. Thank you Mr. Director! Someone please give me a redeeming quality... wait I have it! There's no sequel! | 0negative
|
I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you. | 0negative
|
I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out | 0negative
|
Director Edward Sedgwick, an old hand at visual comedy, successfully leads this Hal Roach road show which tenders a fast-moving and adroit scenario and excellent casting, employing a large number of Roach's reliable performers. Although the film was originally plotted as a vehicle for Patsy Kelly, sunny Jack Haley stars as Joe Jenkins, a young Kansan who sells his auto repair business and journeys to Hollywood, where he attempts to wangle a screen role for the girl he loves, star-struck Cecilia (Rosina Lawrence). Sedgwick, who prefers using the entire M-G-M studio as his set, does so here as Cecilia, always ready for an audition, is treated by a would-be paramour, cinema star Rinaldo Lopez (Mischa Auer), to behind-the-scenes action of, naturally, a musical comedy, featuring Broadway headliner Lyda Roberti. Laurel and Hardy provide several enjoyable interludes, including their well-known skit involving a tiny harmonica, and we watch fine turns by such as Joyce Compton, Russell Hicks and Walter Long. On balance, one must hand the bays to Mischa Auer, who clearly steals the picture as an emotional movie star, a role which he largely creates, and to the director for his clever closing homage to Busby Berkeley's filmic spectacles. | 1positive
|
I was -Unlike most of the reviewers- not born in the 80's. I was born on may 14th 1994. Despite this, my life was very much in the style of the 80's. When other kids had playstations, I was playing Zelda on my NES etc. Now, this movie holds a special place in my heart already despite me being only 15 years old at the time of writing this review. I, because of my 80's style early Childhood, watched many TV shows and saw Many movies that other kids didn't see, and this movie was one of those, and one of the greatest too.<br /><br />It starts off in the Los Angeles home of Alvin Seville, Simon Seville, Theodore Seville and David Seville. David, the Chipmunk's adoptive father, is in a rush to get to the airport as he is going on a business trip around Europe. His taxi is almost there and The Chipmunks help him pack. While they are talking, Alvin expresses his will to come with Dave and to see the world (Even though, technically Dave is only going to Europe, so to Alvin, apparently only America and Europe qualify as ''The World''). David is leaving the Chipmunks in the care of Miss Miller, much to the displeasure of the boys. Soon Dave is off to the airport and the Chipmunks are left at home with Miss Miller. Later, at a local Café the Chipmunks are playing a game of ''Around the World in 30 days'' against the Chipettes(Brittany, Jeanette and Eleanore). After losing the game to Brittany after having his Hot air Balloon eaten out of the sky by a crocodile, Alvin get's in an argument with Brittany about who would really win a race around the world. Two diamond smugglers sitting at a nearby table, Klaus and Claudia Furschtien overhear their argument and, needing a safe way of transporting their diamonds over the world, decide to fool the children into delivering them for them. They set up a race around the world, where each team will have to deposit a doll in their own likeness (Secretely filled with diamonds) at drop offs around the world and receive a doll in the opposing team's likeness (secretely filled with the payment for the diamonds) to ''varify that they were there''. The winning team would then receive a 100.000 dollar reward. They do this because they believe that Jamal (An Interpol agent who has been hot on their heels for some times now) would never suspect them because they are just kids (However, this seems to be redundant, because on their travels, the kids do not have to go through any security checks and are never even questioned about the dolls, I suspect that neither would Klaus or Claudia if they had taken the diamonds there personally.) And so begins a great adventure. This film is a classic and I see no reason why anyone would not like it. It features great animation and top-notch voice acting, not to mention the Kick-ass music (Pardon my french :P). My favorite song is without a shred of doubt ''The Girls and Boys of Rock and Roll'' An amazing rock song that cannot be topped. It's also my favorite moment in the film. Other notable songs include ''Getting Lucky''(Kind of Suggestive for a kid's film eh?) and ''My Mother'' as well as ''Wooly Bully'' and ''Off to see the world'' Not to mention the main theme of the movie heard during the opening credits performed by the Royal London Philharmonic Orchestra. The scene with ''My mother'' still brings a tear to my eye. In relation to the song ''Getting Lucky'' I first didn't think anything of it, but when I grew older and learned about life, it became clear that that song was a little bit suggestive. That song, along with the fact that the animators insist on the audience knowing the color of the Chipettes panties. This is especially apparent in the scene in Egypt when the Chipettes are being chased by the Arabian Prince's men, when Eleanor leans over the side of the hot air balloon basket and her skirt defies gravity completely. While this does nothing to draw from the overall quality of the film, it's one of those unexplained things like why nobody in the world seems to mind that there are 4-feet tall Chipmunks walking around and speaking in incredibly high-pitched voices and treat them just like they would any human child. Anyway, A bit after that scene, the Chipettes discover the diamonds in the dolls and decide to go find the Chipmunks and get home. The Direction of Janice Karman perfects this movie as she and her husband, Ross Bagdasarian Jr. know the characters better than anyone. They even do the voices of the Chipmunks and the Chipettes. Ross doing the voices for Alvin and Simon (as well as Dave) and Janice doing the voices for All the Chipettes and Theodore. Speaking of male characters that are voiced by female voice actresses, Nancy Cartwright (The voice of Bart Simpson) makes an appearance in this movie. She plays the part of the Arabian Prince, a very small, but important role. The ending is of course, a happy one. The Crooks have been caught, the loose ends tied and The film ends when the Children, Dave and Miss Miller are driving into the sunset, Alvin complaining about not having gotten his 100.000 dollar reward for winning the race, which annoys Dave until he finally yells ''ALVIN!'' and the screen fades to black<br /><br />Classic ending, by the way. I hope you found my review of this movie useful, and if you haven't seen this flick, give it a watch, It's worth the money. This Nostalgic classic from the 80's gets a solid 10 out of 10. <br /><br />''Headin' for the top, Don't you know! we never stop believing now'' | 1positive
|
I never watched the 'Next Action Hero' show, and until reading the other comments here, did not know that this movie was the 'prize' from that competition. I was just flipping channels and came across this, and found myself watching, dare eagerly, all the way to the end.<br /><br />Yes, the plot's been done (The Most Dangerous Game, etc.) but I was hoping for, and almost received, the 'gotcha' - how the protagonist was going to beat the hunter in the end. I think the high-tech was overdone (GPS's) and gave me cold-sweat flashbacks of Night Rider, but it nevertheless was not too overdone.<br /><br />The basic problem I had with this movie was the degree of SOD (Suspension of Disbelief) that was required of the viewer. Do we really think that someone flying in a helicopter could lob countless incendiary grenades at a public bridge and NO COPS show up to investigate? Could a limousine do countless donuts in a Las Vegas intersection and NO COPS show up? Pleeease. Way too much of that type of thing - fun to watch, but keep it at least plausible, thank you very much.<br /><br />The final solution was good, but the ending was disappointing, with the after taste of a bad Star Trek episode. At least now I understand why the acting was so cheesy - except for Zane, who doesn't get near as much work as he deserves IMHO - they were winners from a reality show.<br /><br />Knock me out. | 1positive
|
You know that mouthwash commercial where the guy has a mouth full of Listerine or whatever it is and he's trying really hard to keep from spitting it up into the sink? That's a great metaphor for this movie. I kept watching, even though it was really difficult. But keeping mouthwash in your mouth will leave you with a minty fresh feeling. This movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I should have spit it out when I had the chance.<br /><br />The premise is corny enough to be fun. For the first time in like a thousand years, Gargoyles have returned to Romania, and all of the priests who knew how to fight and kill these things are long dead. It's up to Michael Pare and some other secret agents to get to the bottom of things before the Gargoyles run amok. Unfortunately, the premise is completely lost in bad dialog and less than enthusiastic acting on the part of the human leads. The best acting is done by the CG Gargoyles.<br /><br />In the end, this movie feels like a poor man's Van Helsing. If you check your brain at the door, this might get you through a dreary Monday night. I gave it 3 out of 10 stars. | 0negative
|
This tale based on two Edgar Allen Poe pieces ("The Fall of the House of Usher", "Dance of Death" (poem) ) is actually quite creepy from beginning to end. It is similar to some of the old black-and-white movies about people that meet in an old decrepit house (for example, "The Cat and the Canary", "The Old Dark House", "Night of Terror" and so on). Boris Karloff plays a demented inventor of life-size dolls that terrorize the guests. He dies early in the film (or does he ? ) and the residents of the house are subjected to a number of terrifying experiences. I won't go into too much detail here, but it is definitely a must-see for fans of old dark house mysteries.<br /><br />Watch it with plenty of popcorn and soda in a darkened room.<br /><br />Dan Basinger 8/10 | 1positive
|
Originally I was a Tenacious D fan of their first album and naturally listened to a few tracks off The P.O.D. and was rather disappointed. After watching the movie, my view was changed. The movie is pretty funny from beginning to the end and found my self engaged in it even though it was really was a stupid storyline because of the attitudes that KG and Jaybles portray in the movie. <br /><br />Much more entertaining and enjoyable than movies I have seen in the theaters lately. ex. Saw III (dull and dragging), Casino Royale (way to homo-erotic) which in prior installments I have really enjoyed <br /><br />If you enjoyed Borat, you will enjoy the tale of The Greatest Band on Earth | 1positive
|
I've just watched Fingersmith, and I'm stunned to see the 8/10 average rating for the show.<br /><br />Not only was the plot was difficult to follow, but it seems character development was randomly applied.<br /><br />The actors were adequate, but in the process of attempting to create twists and turns, their characters are rendered entirely one dimensional. Once this happens, the story really falls flat and becomes tedious.<br /><br />And just in case anyone didn't see the predictable lesbian undertones from miles way, this is hammered home in the most banal terms at the end of the film.<br /><br />The end scene is disappointing and phoned in, and anyone who sat back and went "Ohhh, so they were carpet munchers all along!", must have been out for the evening.<br /><br />Two stars for the tonsil hockey in the earlier scene which was at least a bit raunchy, none for the rest of it... | 0negative
|
Having read during many years about how great this film was, how it established Ruiz among the french critics (specially the snobbish Cahiers crowd), when I finally watched it about a year ago, I found it pretty disappointing (but then, I guess my expectations were sky-high). Shot in saturated black and white, this deliberately cerebral film (made for TV, and mercifully, only an hour long) is told in the form of a conversation between an art connoisseur and an off-screen narrator as they ponder through a series of paintings (which are shown in the style of tableaux vivants) and try to find if they hold some clues about a hidden political crime. (The awful Kate Beckinsale film Uncovered has a similar argument). Borgesian is a word I read a lot in reviews about this movie, but I would say almost any Borges story is more interesting than this film. | 0negative
|
First and foremost I would like to say, that before i watched this film i considered myself an accepting individual. Someone that cared about others, appreciated others, found no/barely any judgment against other people, and this film has (i think) changed my life or viewpoint dramatically. When i watched it, I didn't know particularly what it was about, i knew it was about some type of forbidden relationship, but other then that I was clueless, and as I began to see what was taking place between these two wonderfully depicted characters, i was in shock, disbelief, confusion and surprise. The first time i watched it, i was blind. Blind to their love, to their intimacy, to their connection, to their pureness as human beings, to their relationship. I watched it a second time, because i finally figured out how hypocritical I was being, saying to myself and others, "Oh i accept all types of people, and try not to judge them" while still judging this wonderful and amazingly insightful story, because of my fear I suppose. The second time I watched this film, I opened those eyes of mine that had stayed closed the first time, and really looked, not at the type of taboo relationship part that I'd heard about all my life, but simply at two human beings in love. And I loved it, i loved the storyline, i loved the slightly broken yet strong individual people in the film, i loved the sharing of feelings, and i loved the strong bonds created. It is a really eye opening, beautifully done film that made me cry at times, and I hope that people who read this and are going to watch the film eventually, remember that everyone deserves love, no matter what shape or form it is presented in.... | 1positive
|
Focus is another great movie starring William H. Macy. I first discovered Macy in Fargo and I've seen a few of his films and he hasn't yet deceived me. Macy is the archetypal "nice guy with something to hide". In Focus, he plays the role of Lawrence Newman, a loyal and hard-working stiff, who harbours his handicapped mother at home. The scene is set after World War II, at the height of McCarthyism. Newman is the head of Human Resources for a company which is basically, anti-Semite. After he accidentally hires a woman of Jewish descent, he is asked to buy a pair of glasses, to improve his failing eyesight.<br /><br />Unbelievably, the simple act of buying glasses has great repercussions on his life and that of Gertrude Hart, his wife (played by a great Laura Dern). As the film unravels, Newman will begin to see a whole different world, where being Jewish is akin to being an animal.<br /><br />The movie is disturbing in the way it shows that being racist was something fairly normal. The chilling thought is that in some places, it probably still is. | 1positive
|
Fulci... Does this man brings one of the goriest and weirdest movies ever made? Answer: yes! Cat in the Brain, also known as Nightmare Concert is Fulci's last masterpiece. Yes it is, no matter what some people will say about it. There are few facts why this movie is one of the best Fulci's movies.<br /><br />Fulci make a fun of himself and his movies with this one. Lead roll in this movie is no other then Fulci himself, who plays... well horror-splatter-gore director, who thinks he is slowly going insane. It's filled with black humor which unlike in the most of the modern horror movies works here. Being Fulci flick, you need to know it's gory. How much? Well pretty much. I always loved gore in the movies and I never get enough of it, but Cat in the Brain actually stopped my thirst for gore, and believe me, it's a hard to archive. Even the Braindead didn't stop it. CITB is all about gore. Almost every scene revolves about Fulci, who after being hypnotized by *khmmm* evil psychiatrists is seeing all kinds of horrors for everything that happens to him or everything he sees. Some of the scenes involves him accidentally dropping the whiskey, and instead of that he sees rotten corpse lying on the floor, which starts to spit some ooze from it's wounds. Forget the Beyond or Zombie 2, this IS the goriest Fulci movie! Now I like how Fulci manage to apply all those comic parts in the gorefest movie. He is such a brilliant director. Some funny moments and lines happens from time to time, like one where Fulci says "making gore movies is kind of a sickness" Ending is very good considering that Fulci (and most of the Italian horror masters) is know for making ending with no sense or many plot holes. If you are fun of the Fulci, make sure you check it out. If you have a weak stomach, avoid this and repeat "Its only a movie" ps. some of the gore scenes within this movie: Chainsaw dismemberment (full), tongue torn out, eyeballs torn out, maggot infested corpses, zombies, decapitations, face being putted in boiling water, stabs in the shower (to head), throat slit, many parts of the body and organs being toast aside, hammer smashed face... | 1positive
|
I only heard about Driving Lessons through the ITV adverts, and to be honest, I didn't know how much I would like it. I switched on the TV last night and was totally surprised. Driving Lessons is a modest, simple film which draws you in right from the start. Rupert Grint plays the part of socially awkward teenager Ben brilliantly. He's definitely one to look out for in the future. Dame Eve Walton is played by the fabulous Julie Walters. I loved the simple plot and the way the actors portrayed their characters with great sensitivity. The highlight of the film, for me was Evie's rather colourful poem. It shows how friendships can form between the most unlikely pairs. In my opinion, watching Driving Lessons is a great way to spend 2 hours. The scenery was also striking, especially the countryside. Anyone who can call this sparkling comedy forgettable, I strongly disagree with | 1positive
|
Ye Lou's film Purple Butterfly pits a secret organization (Purple Butterfly) against the Japanese forces in war torn Shanghai. Ding Hui (Zhang Ziyi) and her ex-lover Hidehiko Itami (Toru Nakamura) find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict after a chance meeting.<br /><br />I agree with the reviewer from Paris. The film substitutes a convoluted, semi-historical conflict for a plot, without giving the audience a single reason to care about the characters or their causes. The sudden time shifting doesn't help matters as it appears completely unwarranted and pointless. Normally I don't mind dark movies, but the absence of light, the bone-jarringly shaky camera footage, and the generally bad film-making techniques really make this a tough film to watch and stay interested in. I also agree with the viewer from Georgia that this film "has a chaotic editing style and claustrophobic cinematography", but I don't think that helps the movie. The backdrop to the film is one of the most potent events of the 20th Century, and I don't believe you can do it any justice by editing it as if it were a Michael Bay film. The overly melodramatic moments don't add to its watchability.<br /><br />The actors are all suitably melancholy. Zhang Ziyi once again shows that she has an exceptionally limited acting range as she spends the entire movie doing what she seems to do best in all her films, brooding and looking generally annoyed. However, at least she adds some variety to this role by chainsmoking and engaging in the worst love-making scene since Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton in The Terminator.<br /><br />All in all, a very disappointing film, especially seeing as how it comes from the director of Suzhou He. 2/10 | 0negative
|
I never want to see this movie again!<br /><br />Not only is it dreadfully bad, but I can't stand seeing my hero Stan Laurel looking so old and sick.<br /><br />Mostly I can't stand watching this terrible movie!<br /><br />Frankly, there is no reason to watch this awful film. The plot is just plain stupid. The actors that surround Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are really really bad and Laurel and Hardy have been funnier in any of their earlier films! <br /><br />I warn you don't watch it, the images will haunt you for a long while to come! | 0negative
|
What can I say? Not as bad as many here have made it out to be. The only reason I even watched this film that I had previously never heard of before, was strictly for IAN McSHANE.<br /><br />I was not disappointed in the least. IAN McSHANE was absolutely brilliant and brings an amazing subtlety to his role. He's always great to watch and for my money... an extremely underused actor.<br /><br />As for the rest of the film.... Every other actor in the movie delivered strong, solid performances. These people certainly weren't being paid huge amounts of cash for their participation (as this was a fairly low budget film) but this did not mean that any of them "mailed" their appearances in. Everyone was convincing and compelling with the parts given to them.<br /><br />I was even pleasantly surprised at ADRIAN PAUL's performance though I must admit I have only ever seen him in the HIGHLANDER Television series before this movie.<br /><br />The plot was well paced and the storyline intriguing and much like real life, not everything ends up tied in a nice neat little package for you at the end of the film. Anybody who expected a clear-cut, by-the-numbers, connect the dots "conclusion" or "answer" at the end of the movie... CLEARLY wasn't watching the film closely enough! This film is not going to tell you what the "meaning of life" is! The idea is that after seeing the film, you might go and discuss the unanswered questions with your friends over a coffee. I certainly did.<br /><br />No car chases... No explosions... No bar room brawls.... (sounds pretty dull, huh?) But the reality is that I was completely absorbed by the film and it's just a well written little piece with an interesting hook and solid character performances by all parties involved.<br /><br />****** WARNING...****** If you're the kind of person who dislikes movies that dangle an enormous "question" as the central engine of the story and then end the movie without answering that particular question directly...<br /><br />YOU MIGHT NOT ENJOY THIS FILM. | 1positive
|
I had heard (and read) so many good things about Weeds that I was looking forward to getting hooked on another great cable Series (like Entourage, Sopranos or Mad Men) but that slowly eroded away with each episode I watched from Season One. (didn't make it past the first six episodes) <br /><br />The writing was unoriginal, contrived and the portrayal of Blacks embarrassing. The dialog felt forced, like the writers are trying way too hard to be clever and hip . It was a rare moment when I actually emitted an audible laugh.<br /><br />The characters never developed enough for me to care about them, they were selfish and unappealing. I absolutely HATED the addition of the Brother-in-law (who should have been hauled away on To Catch A Predator) and the removal of the Hodes' daughter Quinn from the cast by sending her to boarding school in Mexico was so unoriginal and cliché, I had to conclude the writers were testing the viewer's loyalty.<br /><br />Episode after episode I liked the characters less and couldn't get past many of the technical flaws in the story line.<br /><br />Add to that I heard that Season Two wasn't as good, so I lost all motivation to continue to watch this play out.<br /><br />If you're a fan of good casting and writing, I suspect this show will be a challenge for you to like, unless of course you're stoned and then all bets are off. | 0negative
|
I absolutely loved this film! I was hesitant to watch it at first because I thought it would be too painful. I remember how hard it was when John was shot. However, watching the "Two of Us" took me back to a happier time when he was still alive and there was hope and possibility. I think that the writer did an amazing job depicting what "might have been." Aidan Quinn was adorable as Paul and met the challenge head on. I was impressed with his accent and mannerisms. Jared Harris is also very talented and was quite believable as John. My favorite parts were the scene in the park and the rooftop scene - which was so poignant. The film left me with both sadness and satisfaction, both of which I feel are appropriate, given the circumstances. | 1positive
|
Victor McLaglen's performance is one of the finest in film history.<br /><br />I think we can all feel for "Gypo" because we've all struggled with what is right and what isn't and been wrong. This was one of the first art-house pictures to be released by a major American movie studio (RKO Radio Pictures).<br /><br />Joseph H. August's cinematography is at its very best here. However, August's stunning portion was mostly overlooked; he didn't receive the Oscar nomination he rightly deserved.<br /><br />This is a psychological drama, with thought, philosophy, sadness, all conveyed with as little words as possible. | 1positive
|
This film is dreadful. It has absolutely zero laughs. Hebrew Hammer (Adam Goldberg) sets out to save Hannukah from Evil Santa (Andy Dick). Perhaps a promising enough basis for a plot, in actual fact the film does not progress beyond this premise. While there are some (far and few) nice touches and the plot is relatively coherent, it is laboured, hackneyed and ultimately, mindlessly boring. This despite the fact that Goldberg, Dick and Greer (Hammer's client/love interest) all have quite considerable screen presence. Despite being played for what might be described as whacky over-the-top gags, this film is consistently middle-class middle-of-the-road muck. DO NOT waste 85 minutes of your life on this. (note- the music was good..!) | 0negative
|
I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. My mom bought it at our local Kmart because it was on sale for $5 on VHS. She thought that it would be a nice Christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. This movie, however, scared the hell out of me. You may be asking yourself, how could a movie about Santa Clause scare anyone? The plot of the movie revolves around Satan sending one his minions, Pitch, to earth in an attempt to kill Santa and ruin Christmas. That's right, Satan sends a demon up from hell to kill Santa Clause. Pitch stalks Santa throughout Christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on Christmas day, for if Santa doesn't make it back to his home in space, he turns to powder. Don't get me wrong, the movie is funny and fairly entertaining, however, the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy. | 0negative
|
Directed by Diane Keaton and adapted from a book by Franz Lidz. A young mother Selma Lidz(Andie MacDowell)is battling a very serious illness and her self proclaimed inventor husband Sid(John Tururro)is a little lacking in the emotions department. Unhappy with the new home situation, their sensitive son Steven(Nathan Watt)decides he wants to stay with his two eccentric uncles Danny(Michael Richards)and Melvin(Lou Cutell)until his mom is well. Steven seems to be happier and even takes interest in his strange uncle's living habits; he even decides he wants to change his name to Franz. Set in the early 60's, this drama is a bit comedic...change that to zany. Not being a MacDowell fan, UNSTRUNG HEROES assures my attitude; albeit I enjoyed the film and it is not a total waste. | 0negative
|
If you like original gut wrenching laughter you will like this movie. If you are young or old then you will love this movie, hell even my mom liked it.<br /><br />Great Camp!!! | 1positive
|
Considering this film was released 8 years before I was born, I don't feel too bad for over-looking it for such a long time. Back in January of 98 though, I attended the Second Annual Quentin Tarantino film fest held in Austin,Texas. The particular theme of films this night was "Neglected 70's Crime Films" and boy was her right. "The Gravy Train(or The Dion Brothers, as it appeared this print)" was an absolute gem. Wonderful performances, quirky characters, smart plot, hilarious comedy, and just an all around great time. Rarely do you see a Crime film that is so entertaining and fresh. Margot Kidder in one of her earliest film appearances is extremely sexy as well. I hope some cable network gets a hold of this film and allows many more to see it. In the meantime, go to an indie video store and hope they have it. | 1positive
|
After the success of Die Hard and it's sequels it's no surprise really that in the 1990s, a glut of 'Die Hard on a .....' movies cashed in on the wrong guy, wrong place, wrong time concept. That is what they did with Cliffhanger, Die Hard on a mountain just in time to rescue Sly 'Stop or My Mom Will Shoot' Stallone's career.<br /><br />Cliffhanger is one big nit-pickers dream, especially to those who are expert at mountain climbing, base-jumping, aviation, facial expressions, acting skills. All in all it's full of excuses to dismiss the film as one overblown pile of junk. Stallone even managed to get out-acted by a horse! However, if you an forget all the nonsense, it's actually a very lovable and undeniably entertaining romp that delivers as plenty of thrills, and unintentionally, plenty of laughs.<br /><br />You've got to love John Lithgows sneery evilness, his tick every box band of baddies, and best of all, the permanently harassed and hapless 'turncoat' agent, Rex Linn as Travers.<br /><br />He may of been Henry in 'Portrait of a Serial Killer' but Michael Rooker is noteworthy for a cringe-worthy performance as Hal, he insists on constantly shrieking in painful disbelief at his captors 'that man never hurt anybody' And whilst he surely can't be, it really does look like Ralph Waite's Frank character is grinning as the girl plummets to her death.<br /><br />Mention too must go to former 'London's Burning' actor Craig Fairbrass as the Brit bad guy, who comes a cropper whilst using Hal as a Human Football, yes, you can't help enjoy that bit, Hal needed a good kicking.<br /><br />So forget your better judgement, who cares if 'that could never happen', lower your acting expectations, turn up the volume and enjoy! And if you're looking for Qaulen, he's the one wearing the helicopter. | 1positive
|
Steven Seagal's films of late have not exactly been good, but this is by far the worst since The Patriot. The plot makes no sense what so ever; it is never clear in what the relationships between the characters are, who works for who or who is double crossing who. The film is completely disjointed, each scene seems to confuse the story further rather than carry it forward. Even the action sequences are uninspired and hard to follow. Most of the blame must lie at the director's feet for not even understanding the basics of film making, but Seagal does not get off lightly, as one of the producers of this film, he must also share the blame. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned how awful the acting is, even by Seagal standards. Even as straight to video fodder, this is not worth a view even for Seagal fans. Give it a wide berth! | 0negative
|
The box is why I originally picked up this movie and the back is why I rented it. But I soon learned that I had been duped. I had thought this movie would be something like a Road Trip/Eurotrip/American Pie deal. But I was wrong. This movie is one of the dumbest I've seen in a long time. The unrated version teases you in to watching but will completely disappoint you. The acting was terrible and sound effects just gaudy. It appeared very low budget with the entire setting taking place in the same building. Go out and get Eurotrip or Road Trip instead. I can't believe National Lampoon put its name on this. DON'T BUY IT, DON'T RENT IT. Don't waste 2 hours of your life on this. | 0negative
|
Let's keep it simple: My two kids were glued to this movie. It has its flaws from an adult perspective, but buy some jelly-worms and just enjoy it. <br /><br />And the Pepsi girl was excellent!<br /><br />And Kimberly Williams was pretty gosh-darned hot, although she's not in the film very much, so don't get too excited there.<br /><br />Not that's it's really a bad thing, but it is the kind of movie you watch just once. Don't buy the DVD.<br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br />Did I mention Kimberly Williams? (That was for the dads.) | 1positive
|
Having seen Carlo Lizzani's documentary on Luchino Visconti, I was bound to higher expectations before watching this film made three years later by Adam Low. But the viewer like me did get dissatisfied... I faced a need for critical opinion, which I generally don't like giving due to the fact there are no documentaries that will satisfy every viewer. There are also no documentaries that will examine a theme totally. But when I read the reviews already written on this title, I also felt a bit confused. People sometimes don't know what to criticize. Therefore, to be clear, I'll divide this film into two major parts that differ considerably: the former one about Visconti before his director's career and latter one about Visconti the director. <br /><br />The aristocratic background, all the hobbies, the wealth that young Luchino experienced and enjoyed are clearly presented. His effort in horse racing is mentioned as well as his relation with his mother so much disturbed after his parents' divorce. We also get a very accurate idea of where Luchino was brought up as a real count of Milano: in riches galore, with nannies, cooks with access to everything, in TRUE ARISTOCRACY. For instance, his father's splendid villa at Grazzano and other marvelous villas prove that. There is also an emphasis on Visconti's crucial visit in Paris in the 1930s where he met eminent people ("left wingers") who later had impact on his style and message in art. That clearly explains the idea of a communist with the aristocratic upbringing (a contrast at first sight). <br /><br />However, the part about his director's career, which started with OSSESSIONE during WWII and ended with INNOCENTE just before the director's death in 1976, is poorly executed. His movies are not discussed well. Why? Because there are very few people who really have something to say. Franco Zeffirelli, the director, remembers the works on LA TERRA TREMA and that is all right. There are also some interviews with Franco Rosi. But later, such movies like IL GATTOPARDO, LA CADUTA DEI REI, LA MORTE A VENEZIA or LUDWIG are mostly discussed by Helmut Berger. Although I liked the actor in the role of Ludwig, I did not like the interviews of his. Moreover, some thoughts he reveals are not accurate to entail in such a documentary... There is no mention of significant works of Visconti like CONVERSATION PIECE, there are no interviews with eminent cast Burt Lancaster. A mention about Silvana Mangano and Romy Schneider should also be made. There is one footage interview with Maria Callas that appears to be interesting but that is only a short bit. Franco Zeffirelli, though I appreciate him as a director, makes fun of it all rather than says something really precious. For instance, he mentions the event how Visconti separated from him after years of service. Therefore, I say: simplified and unsatisfactory. <br /><br />What I find a strong point here are footage interviews with Visconti himself. As a result, we may get his own opinion about his works. For instance, I very much appreciate the words he says about death regarding it as a normal chapter of life and as natural as birth itself. He also discusses his health problems after the stroke while filming LUDWIG.<br /><br />I believe it is better to see LUCHINO VISCONTI (1999) by Carlo Lizzani than this doc. Although it is shorter and condensed as a whole, you will get a better idea of the director. Visconti would be furious about that and the fury of his usually turned people's emotions and viewpoints into stone... 4/10 | 0negative
|
So it isn't an epic, but for people experiencing anything similar<br /><br />(sibling suicide) it might be an interesting way of therapy. An<br /><br />imaginative narrative and some fine acting makes it time well<br /><br />spent. For some reason, it hasn't really caught on in the audience,<br /><br />something I do believe is a result of the main theme. Why did she<br /><br />commit suicide? Clearly, this is hardly something that US<br /><br />moviegoers will flock to, had it been an European production it<br /><br />probably would have reached its audience in a much greater<br /><br />extent. It is however, a movie that although the realism tainted by a<br /><br />shimmering romanticized glow, gives the viewer a whole hearted<br /><br />impression. | 1positive
|
Kind of drawn in by the erotic scenes, only to realize this was one of the most amateurish and unbelievable bits of film I've ever seen. Sort of like a high school film project. What was Rosanna Arquette thinking?? And what was with all those stock characters in that bizarre supposed Midwest town? Pretty hard to get involved with this one. No lessons to be learned from it, no brilliant insights, just stilted and quite ridiculous (but lots of skin, if that intrigues you) videotaped nonsense....What was with the bisexual relationship, out of nowhere, after all the heterosexual encounters. And what was with that absurd dance, with everybody playing their stereotyped roles? Give this one a pass, it's like a million other miles of bad, wasted film, money that could have been spent on starving children or Aids in Africa..... | 0negative
|
Liam Neeson portrays the Scottish legend Robert Roy Macgregor from the early 18th century. He is a true actor. He captivates the audience with his charisma as he does in all his roles. Jessica Lange is excellent as his wife Mary. Mary is such a beautiful woman. It's her love that makes Rob Roy the legend, but it's his passion that makes her love undying. They need each other. Tim Roth as the evil Cunningham is perfect; in one way or another, upon watching the movie, you will find Cunningham disgusting. The Scotland scenery is beautiful. The environment and conditions of the times are depicted quite well. If you like history, romance, passion and love, you'll enjoy Rob Roy. There is violence and blood, but it's unavoidable in telling this story as it should be told; no gratuitous violence. And you do have to listen carefully if you're not used to a Scottish accent. One important point that makes this movie so good is that no one actor or actress is glamorized; they get dirty and actually look unattractive in various scenes. It's their skill as actors that attracts you, they don't rely on marquee names, popularity or sex symbol appeal. This is something special. | 1positive
|
***SPOILERS*** All too, in real life as well as in the movies, familiar story that happens to many young men who are put in a war zone with a gun, or rifle, in their hands. The case of young and innocent, in never handling or firing a gun, Jimmy Davis, Franchot Tone, has been repeated thousands of times over the centuries when men, like Jimmy Davis, are forced to take up arms for their country.<br /><br />Jimmy who at first wanted to be kicked out of the US Army but was encouraged to stay, by being belted in the mouth, by his good friend Fred P. Willis, Spencer Tracy, ended up on the front lines in France. With Jimmy's unit pinned down by a German machine gun nest he single handedly put it out of commission picking off some half dozen German soldiers from the safety of a nearby church steeple. It was when Jimmy gunned down the last surviving German, who raised his arms in surrender, that an artillery shell hit the steeple seriously wounding him.<br /><br />Recovering from his wounds at an Army hospital Jimmy fell in love with US Army volunteer nurse Rose Duffy, Gladys George. Rose was really in love with Jimmy's good friend the happy go lucky Fred despite his obnoxious antics towards her. It's when Fred was lost during the fighting on the Western Front that Rose, thinking that he was killed, fell in love and later married Jimmy. When Fred unexpectedly showed up in the French town where Jimmy, now fully recovered from his wounds, was stationed at things got very sticky for both him and Rose who had already accepted Jimmy's proposal of marriage to her!<br /><br />With WWI over and Jimmy marrying Rose left Fred, who's still in love with her, a bitter and resentful young man. It was almost by accident that Fred ran into Jimmy on the streets of New York City and discovered to his shock and surprise that he completely changed from the meek and non-violent person that he knew before he was sent to war on the European Western Front. Smug and sure of himself, and his ability to shoot a gun, Jimmy had become a top mobster in New York City's underworld! Not only that but as Fred later found out his wife Rose had no idea what Jimmy was really involved in with Jimmy telling her that he works as a law abiding and inoffensive insurance adjuster.<br /><br />Jimmy's life of crime came full circle when Rose, after she found out about his secret life, ratted him out to the police to prevent him from executing a "Valentine Day" like massacre, with his gang members dressed as cops, of his rival mobsters. While on trial Jimmy came to his senses and admitted his guilt willing to face the music and then, after his three year sentence is up, get his life back together. <br /><br />***SPOILER ALERT*** Hearing rumors from fellow convicts that Rose and his best friend Fred were having an affair behind his back Jimmy broke out of prison ending up a fugitive from the law. It's at Fred's circus, where he works as both manger and barker, that Jimmy in seeing that Rose as well as Fred were true to him that he, like at his trial, had a sudden change of heart. But the thought of going back to prison, with at least another ten years added on to his sentence, was just too much for Jimmy! It was then that Jimmy decided to end it all by letting the police who by then tracked him down do the job, that he himself didn't have the heart to do, for him! | 1positive
|
I can't emphasize it enough, do *NOT* get this movie for the kids.<br /><br />For that matter, you'd best spare the adults from it as well.<br /><br />All right, perhaps I'm overexaggerating a little. This isn't the worst kids' movie... no, let me rephrase that. This isn't the worst movie made by dissilusioned adults FOR dissilusioned adults and somehow marketed towards kids (that would be "Jack", which I've been meaning to review / gut like a fish).<br /><br />Adults won't learn anything surprising (well, if you must, fast-forward to just before the end credits for a Educational Bit about an Interesting Cosmic Phenominon). We don't usually end up doing as adults what we wanted to do as kids as reality tends to get in the way. Well, duh, I could have told you that (so can four years of college at an art school, but I degress).<br /><br />I have no idea what the heck kids could possibly get out of this movie. Most likely it will only upset them (we get to watch the moment when Russ was traumatized at eight years old). There's a better movie, "Kiki's Delivery Service", that has essentially the same message but handles it litely instead of drilling it into your head. And the adults will like it too!<br /><br />By the way, there is a moment in the movie made with amature MST3K-ers in mind, if they think of that OTHER Bruce Willis movie with a sad little kid in it. | 0negative
|
Oh God, I must have seen this when I was only 11 or twelve, (don't ask how) I may have been young, but I wasn't stupid. Anyone could see that this is a bad movie, nasty, gross, unscary and very silly. I've seen more impressive effects at Disneyland, I've seen better performances at a school play, And I've seen more convincing crocodiles at the zoo, where they do nothing but sit in the water, ignoring the children tapping on the glass.<br /><br />The story is set in northern Australia. A handful of ambitious young people, are trying out a new water sport, surfing in shark filled waters. It soon becomes evident that something more dangerous is in the water. After they learn what, they get the help of a grizzly middle aged fisherman, who wants to kill the animal to avenge the eating of his family.<br /><br />I think I have seen every crocodile film made in the last fifteen years, the best of which is Lake Placid, and the worse of which is its sequel. Blood Surf would have to be the second worst croc flick I think, with Primeval and Crocodile tailing closely behind.<br /><br />The Australian Saltwater Crododile is one of the most dangerous creatures out there, resulting in more than a hundred injuries or deaths every year. Movies like Blood Surf however ruin not only the ferocious image of such a creature, but a good hour and a half of the viewer's life. Unless you really want to see it, avoid Blood Surf. | 0negative
|
Reese Witherspoon first outing on the big screen was a memorable one. She appears like a fresh scrubbed face "tween" slight and stringy, but undeniably Reese.<br /><br />I have always liked her as an actor, and had no idea she started this young with her career, go figure. I actually gained some respect for Reese to know who she was so early on. I say that because whenever I have watched her perform, the characters thus far, in each portrayal she also seemed to have her own persona that lived with that character, quite nicely in fact.<br /><br />Anyway, my first film experience with Reese was the Little Red Riding Hood parody Reese did with Kiefer Sutherland, somehow I assumed that was her first time up "at bat" Not so, well done Reese | 1positive
|
Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.<br /><br />The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what "characters" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.<br /><br />The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, "you aren't going to shoot me" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.<br /><br />The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.<br /><br />Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW! <br /><br />In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film. | 0negative
|
The three shorts included on this compilation issued in 1959 are timeless Chaplin classics, nothing wrong with them and nothing to criticize either. Chaplin's score for these films and the framework added as bridging sections between the shorts are also well done. The problem with this compilation is a minor one, yet annoying. The shorts have been stretch-printed to fit the 24 frame p.s. speed of contemporary films whereas the shorts themselves where shot at 20 frames p.s. This results is jerky motion that doesn't look very attractive, and yet this was an excusable solution given the limitations of optical printing technology at the time, it's just not excusable that the current DVD version is unrestored, the films look dirty as they did in 1959 and are still stretch printed. There are separate restored versions of these classics available, even on DVD, and it would not be a problem to restore the image, but alas this has not been done.<br /><br />A minor quibble has taken up a lot of space in my article, but I say again a minor quibble, it should not detract all that much from the experience although it detracted one point from my rating. The shorts are still worth '10'. | 1positive
|
Arguably the finest serial ever made(no argument here thus far) about Earthman Flash Gordon, Professor Zarkov, and beautiful Dale Arden traveling in a rocket ship to another universe to save the planet. Along the way, in spellbinding, spectacular, and action-packed chapters Flash and his friends along with new found friends such as Prince Barin, Prince Thun, and the awesome King Vultan pool their resources together to fight the evils and armies of the merciless Ming of Mongo and the jealous treachery of his daughter Priness Aura(now she's a car!). This serial is not just a cut above most serials in terms of plot, acting, and budget - it is miles ahead in these areas. Produced by Universal Studios it has many former sets at its disposable like the laboratory set from The Bride of Frankenstein and the Opera House from The Phantom of the Opera just to name a few. The production values across the board are advanced, in my most humble opinion, for 1936. The costumes worn by many of these strange men and women are really creative and first-rate. We get hawk-men, shark men, lion men, high priests, creatures like dragons, octasacks, orangapoids, and tigrons(oh my!)and many, many other fantastic things. Are all of them believable and first-rate special effects? No way. But for 1936 most are very impressive. The musical score is awesome and the chapter beginnings are well-written, lengthy enough to revitalize viewer memories of the former chapter, and expertly scored. Director Frederick Stephani does a great job piecing everything together wonderfully and creating a worthy film for Alex Raymond's phenom comic strip. Lastly, the acting is pretty good in this serial. All too often serials have either no names with no talent surrounding one or two former talents - here most everyone has some ability. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a Shakespeare troupe by any means, but Buster Crabbe does a workmanlike, likable job as Flash. He is ably aided by Jean Arden, Priscella Lawson, and the rest of the cast in general with two performers standing out. But before I get to those two let me add as another reviewer noted, it must have been amazing for this serial to get by the Hayes Office. I see more flesh on Flash and on Jean Rogers and Priscella Lawson than in movies decades later. The shorts Crabbe(and unfortunately for all of us Professor Zarkov((Frank Shannon)) wears are about as form-fitting a pair of shorts guys can wear. The girls are wearing mid drifts throughout and are absolutely beautiful Jean Rogers may have limited acting talent but she is a blonde bombshell. Lawson is also very sultry and sensuous and beautiful. But for me the two actors that make the serial are Charles Middleton as Ming: officious, sardonic, merciless, and fun. Middleton is a class act. Jack "Tiny" Lipson plays King Vultan: boisterous, rousing, hilarious - a symbol for pure joy in life and the every essence of hedonism. Lipson steals each and every scene he is in. The plot meanders here, there, and everywhere - but Flash Gordon is the penultimate serial, space opera, and the basis for loads of science fiction to follow. Excellent! | 1positive
|
Resnais, wow! The genius who brought us Hiroshima Mon Amour takes on the challenge of making a 1930s French musical in vibrant colour. The opening voice-over with old, embellished inter-titles was a nice touch. Then the camera aperture opens (like the old hand crankers) on a black & white placard. The camera backs off (or rather, up), suddenly showing us the surprisingly brilliant colours of an elegant table set for a tea party. This is all in the first 60 seconds.<br /><br />Then the music starts. A rather banal and forgettable diddy featuring an unconvincing chorus of 3 girls blabbering some nonsense which has no relevance to the film (and yes, I speak French, so I can't blame it on the subtitles). Those characters whiz out the door and are replaced by more people who break into an even more forgettable song. Then they leave, and finally Audrey Tautou appears and we hear our first appreciable dialogue 15 minutes into the film.<br /><br />I'm not sure what Resnais intended by starting off with such a yawning waste of time & musical cacophony. But the effect on the viewer is to make you want to hurl skittles at the screen and storm out. I endured.<br /><br />It didn't get much better. I'll tell you why. There is absolutely no familiarity with any of the characters. We don't even see their faces half the time (as Resnais seems too intent on showing off the expensive scenery to care about the actual people in front of the camera). People flit on & off stage like moths around a lamp, and we the audience are unable to focus on any particular person or plot. It's as if you were to take every episode of the Brady Bunch and cram it into a 2 hour movie. With bad songs.<br /><br />The only thing that kept me watching as long as I did (1 hour) was that I was looking at the camera techniques, lighting and scenery which were all, I admit, excellent. But is that enough to hold your attention for 2 hours? Not me. Maybe tomorrow I'll try watching the end. Aw, who am I kidding. I have more important things to do. I'm sure you do, too. Skip this. | 0negative
|
Imagine this: a high school. Except it's boarding school, and the kids don't have parents around. Oh, and it's in Malibu. And the kids are all thin, white, and gorgeous, with the exceptional token minority or fat kid to play the "weird" outcast. And there aren't any reasonable rules, like how they have co-habitation, nuclear weapons in their dorms, coffee stands, a sushi bar, and a complimentary laptop per student.<br /><br />Here's the story: A girl, Zoey Brooks, attends PCA, a formerly all-boys school. Absolutely perfect in every possible way, she is smart, pretty, thin, athletic, creative, and everything a perfectionist wants to be. Almost all the boys in school want her, and every girl wants to be her friend. She's the one everyone comes to for advice, the one who saves the day with a simplistic plan, and is just wonderful. Too bad none of this makes her likable.<br /><br />Are we supposed to believe that if we don't even come close to Zoey's perfection, we're bad people? In the show, nothing's her fault, and if anyone contradicts her, they're portrayed as the bad guy(Logan). He may be a jerk, but at least he has some kind of brain that thinks for himself instead of simply agreeing with the princess every time.<br /><br />Her loyal group of blind followers are: Chase, the average dumb ass that has a secret crush on her, Michael, the token black guy (and the only decent actor on the set), Lola, a wannabe actress and anorexic, snobby airhead, Quinn, the smart but clueless girl when it comes to teen stuff, and Logan, the rich jerk who has a soft side. Yeah, this show basically spews out stereotypes.<br /><br />What ticks me off, though, is that they all try to pretend they're normal kids. They complain that Logan gets too much money while they have to work themselves, even though they already go to a too-good-to-be-true boarding school and have relatively nice things that many teenagers can't afford. They drink coffee and eat sushi on a regular basis, hardly have homework, and suntan almost every day. Wow, they have it hard! Any other problems? I'm too good-looking, rich, and stress-free! I guess Zoey 101 (what's the 101 for, anyway?) is Nick's attempt at trying to portray teens realistically. Except they caught a glimpse of reality, didn't like it, and decided to give the kids lives like the asses on The Hills.<br /><br />But hey, at least the set's pretty. | 0negative
|
What an incomprehensible mess of a movie. Something about a cop who extracts bullets from himself after he gets shot and keeps them in a glass jar in his bathroom (and from the size of the jar he's been shot about fifty times by now) and a top secret tank guarded by five or six incompetent soldiers who for some reason drive it into Mexico. Whether they were sent there intentionally or just got really really lost is never made clear. And you'll never hear another screenplay feature the word "butthorn" either. Gary Busey tries out the Mel Gibson role from "Lethal Weapon" and while Busey is a serviceable actor the screenplay damns the whole movie to mediocrity. William Smith does another turn as a Russian soldier, the same character he played in "Red Dawn" a few years earlier. After playing biker heavies for most of the 70s it was sort of nice to see him expand his range playing Communist heavies. Sadly he'll probably always be remembered best as the guy who Clint Eastwood whupped in "Every Which Way You Can." | 0negative
|
When I first saw this film around 6 months ago, I considered it interesting, but little more. But it stuck with me. That interest grew and grew, and I wondered whether my initial boredom and response had more to do with the actual VHS quality rather than the film itself. I purchased the Criterion DVD box set, and it turns out that I was right the second time. Alexander Nevsky is a great film. It is rousing, and I'm sure it succeeded in its main aim: propaganda against the Germans.<br /><br />That is the most common criticism against this film, and against Eisenstein, that it is merely propagandist and nothing else. It's untrue. He is an amazing film artist, one of the most important whoever lived. By now, the world is far enough beyond Joseph Stalin to be able to watch Eisenstein's films as art. | 1positive
|
I usually try to be professional and constructive when I criticize movies, but my GOD!!! This was THE worst movie I have ever seen. Bad acting, bad effects, bad script, bad everything! <br /><br />The plot follows a group of teen cliche's on their way to a rave (that takes place in broad daylight) at a remote island. However, when the group arrives, all they find is an empty dance floor and bloody clothes. Determined to find out what happened to the rest of the party-goers, the clan set's off on a mission through a zombie-infested forest. During this crusade, they are aided by a police chick and a sea captain that just happens to have the right number of weapons to give to each of the kids. They also meet up with Jonathan Cherry and some other survivors. Basically the rest of the movie is a collection of poorly directed action sequences including a far too long shootout outside of the "house of the dead." This fight came complete with cheesy Hollywood violence, redundant clips from the HOTD video game, and sloppy matrix-esque camera rotations. One of the character's even volunteers to sacrifice himself to save the others. Why? Not because he was noble and brave, but because part of his face got scarred by acid a zombie spat on him after he continued to beat the creature long after it had been disabled! I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy?!?<br /><br />To sum it all up, there is absolutely no point in seeing this movie unless you want to see for yourself just how terrible it is. The theater I was in was more dead than the zombies on the screen, and I'm sure the money I wasted seeing this piece of sh*t could easily cover the costs it took to make it. GRADE: F | 0negative
|
This a fantastic movie of three prisoners who become famous. One of the actors is george clooney and I'm not a fan but this roll is not bad. Another good thing about the movie is the soundtrack (The man of constant sorrow). I recommand this movie to everybody. Greetings Bart | 1positive
|
Pathetic attempt to use science to justify new age religion/philosophy. The two have nothing to do with each other and much of what is said about Quantum Physics in this mess is just plain wrong.<br /><br />Examples? Quantum theory supports the ideas in eastern religions that reality is an illusion. How? Well, in the world of the subatomic, you can never definitely predict a particles location at a specific time. You can only give the odds of it being precisely at one spot at one time. Also, the act of observation seems to affect the event. Solid particles can pass through barriers. All of this, so far, is accurate. But then they assert that that means that if you believed sincerely enough that you could walk through a wall, you could indeed do it. This is complete poppycock. Instead, the theory asserts that at our level, it is possible for you to walk through a wall, but it is merely by chance and has nothing to do with belief. Also you'd have to keep walking into the wall for eternity to ever have even the remotest chance of passing through the wall, the odds are so astronomically against it.<br /><br />This is but one example of how they misrepresent the science. But much more annoying is the narrative involving an unhappy photographer, played by Marlee Maitlan. About halfway through the picture it becomes so confused as to be incomprehensible. Something to do with negative thoughts leading to addiction and self-hate. There may be some truth to that, but Quantum physics has nothing to do with it.<br /><br />Plus, string theory is the hot new thing in physics nowadays. Instead of wasting your time with this dreck, I suggest you rent The Elegant Universe, an amazing series done for NOVA on PBS that gives you a history of physics from Newton and gravity to Ed Witten and M Theory in only 3 hour-long episodes. Quantum mechanics is explained there quite well if you want to know it without the fog of metaphysical appropriation. | 0negative
|
First of all, let's get a few things straight here: a) I AM an anime fan- always has been as a matter of fact (I used to watch Speed Racer all the time in Preschool). b) I DO like several B-Movies because they're hilarious. c) I like the Godzilla movies- a lot.<br /><br />Moving on, when the movie first comes on, it seems like it's going to be your usual B-movie, down to the crappy FX, but all a sudden- BOOM! the anime comes on! This is when the movie goes WWWAAAAAYYYYY downhill.<br /><br />The animation is VERY bad & cheap, even worse than what I remember from SPEED RACER, for crissakes! In fact, it's so cheap, one of the few scenes from the movie I "vividly" remember is when a bunch of kids run out of a school... & it's the same kids over & over again! The FX are terrible, too; the dinosaurs look worse than Godzilla. In addition, the transition to live action to animation is unorganized, the dialogue & voices(especially the English dub that I viewed) was horrid & I was begging my dad to take the tape out of the DVD/ VHS player; The only thing that kept me surviving was cracking out jokes & comments like the robots & Joel/Mike on MST3K (you pick the season). Honestly, this is the only way to barely enjoy this movie & survive it at the same time.<br /><br />Heck, I'm planning to show this to another fellow otaku pal of mine on Halloween for a B-Movie night. Because it's stupid, pretty painful to watch & unintentionally hilarious at the same time, I'm giving this movie a 3/10, an improvement from the 0.5/10 I was originally going to give it.<br /><br />(According to my grading scale: 3/10 means Pretty much both boring & bad. As fun as counting to three unless you find a way to make fun of it, then it will become as fun as counting to 15.) | 0negative
|
Why do I hate this? Let me list the ways:<br /><br />I have nothing against Mary Pickford but a 32 year old woman playing a 12 year old is just stupid.<br /><br />There's a fight scene in which kids are throwing bricks at each other and it's considered funny---and it goes on for 15 minutes <br /><br />Strange how none of the kids are even remotely hurt<br /><br />The title cards contain plenty of racial and ethnic slurs<br /><br />For a "family" film the fights were WAY too violent (loved it when Pickford was punching it out with a little boy!) and the humor was just stupid <br /><br />Seriously, 40 minutes in I gave up and turned it off. The slurs, racism and little kids throwing bricks at each other got to me. Also there was no plot that I could see. The only thing worth seeing in this film was William Haines who was a top leading man in the silent era.<br /><br />Just painful. Avoid. | 0negative
|
I kept watching it because it seemed like the plot was going somewhere. When it ambiguously got there I was very disappointed. I'm going to tell you what really happened in the next sentence. But maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just imply something will happen. The writers lacked any imagination. This is not even a "B" movie - it's a made for TV "B" movie. | 0negative
|
Man with the Screaming Brain certainly isn't a perfect movie, but I'm pretty sure it was never meant to be anything more than a star vehicle for Bruce Campbell, meaning it works as kind of a summary of his entire career: slapstick, sarcasm, cheese, action, and happy endings. Campbell is, as a writer, uneven--there are lots of things in the story that don't make a great deal of sense (why does the robot suddenly have breasts merely because a female brain has been implanted into it?), and some of the scenes feel like retreads of other, better incarnations (the scene in the restaurant, where Yegor and William battle for control of William's body, is straight out of Evil Dead II). There are, however, lots of little touches and non-sequiturs that feel rather brilliant, such as when William is in the height of his panic and screams at a statue, "What are you looking at?!" The movie looks like a Sci-Fi Channel original, probably because it was. The acting is actually pretty good. I particularly enjoyed Tamara Gorski as Tatoya; she was ruthless and cunning, yes, but seemed to have a tragic air about her in certain moments that the story never explored. Ted Raimi handled the standard "bumbling assistant" role admirably enough, and Bruce is funny as the arrogant, sardonic, condescending American jerk. (Now that he's writing his own films, you'd think he'd give himself a role that he hasn't been typecast in already.) Man with the Screaming Brain is a bizarre, nonsensical B-movie that ought to be enjoyable for anybody who can avoid taking a cinematic experience too seriously. | 1positive
|
Send them to the freezer. This is the solution two butchers find after they discover the popularity of selling human flesh. An incredible story with humor and possible allegories that make it much more than a horror film. The complex characters defy superficial classification and make the story intriguing and worthwhile - if you can stand it. Definitely a dark film but also a bit redemptive. | 1positive
|
Or anyone else have noticed the fact that first bunch of episodes are inspired too much by 90's flicks?<br /><br />I mean seriously wife who is trying get someone else to murder his rich husband so she can claim his assets. Med students who are temporarily stopping their hearts to reach memories that are lost; Flatliners. Bunch of college bodies getting together again to reminisce on the old days but are not fully comfortable because they did something in the past, Very Bad Things? Groundhog day is one of my all time favorite movies. Sadly enough the writing staff behind his turd is bunch of lazy bastards who can not come up with their original scripts.<br /><br />Noble idea totally fubarred in it's execution. | 0negative
|
<br /><br />I'm not sure who decides what category a movie fits into, but this movie is NOT a horror movie. As for the story, it was fairly interesting, but rather slow. I was especially disappointed with the ending though.<br /><br />**spoiler**<br /><br />Tell me why on Earth does she run over to her uncle's(?) home without at least calling the detective or the police first? She knows exactly what's going on at that point, plus she has a video tape as proof. Instead, she runs over there and starts going nuts and saying "I know everything, I have proof! You didn't expect proof, did you?!" Then she acts surprised when her uncle stands up and starts walking over to her as if he's going to harm her. Well DUH! Of course he's going to harm you idiot, you just told him you know everything and have proof to expose everything. What a dumb ending. | 0negative
|
The message of a world on the brink of war is disregarded by the masses; the mythical city of Everytown in 1940 represents England in general, but it could just as well stand for any nation of the world. When war finally does arrive, it's ravages continue not for another five years, but until 1966 at which time Everytown is completely destroyed. Adding to the desolation and toll on humanity is the "wandering sickness", a pestilence that continues for another four years.<br /><br />"Things to Come" balances both a fatalistic and futuristic world view, where science holds out a hope for a revived civilization. The "Wings Over the World" concept plays out a bit corny, though it's spokesman Cabal (Raymond Massey) is unwavering in his mission and dedicated to his cause. If he fails, others will follow. This message is continually reinforced throughout the film, brought home convincingly in Massey's end of movie speech. Man's insatiable need to test the limits of knowledge and achievement requires an "all the universe or nothing" mindset.<br /><br />The film's imagery of automation and machinery in the second half is reminiscent of the great silent film "Metropolis". As Everytown is rebuilt and transformed by the year 2036, the spectacle of the city's rebirth strikes a resonant chord, as architecture of modern cities of today suggest the movie's eerily prophetic vision is coming to fruition. Where the movie gets it wrong by sixty seven years though is man's first mission to the moon, but in 1936, a hundred year timetable probably seemed more legitimate than 1969.<br /><br />"Things to Come" is one of those rarities in film, a picture that makes you think. Which side will you come down on, the forces for advancement in the face of uncertainty or maintain the status quo? It's not a comfortable question, as both choices offer inherent dangers and unknowable outcomes. Those who choose to be bystanders risk being swept away by forces beyond their control. | 1positive
|
I read the book before seeing the movie, and the film is one of the best adaptations out there. Very true and faithful to the book. Sean Penn and Sarandon are amazing. Robbins is a talented filmaker and I wish he would add more to his repetoire. He made the film very haunting and intentionally slow-paced to add depth. An especially brilliant bit of filmaking was the reflection of the victims appearing in the glass of the execution room at the very end. | 1positive
|
Some comments here on IMDb have likened Dog Bite Dog to the classic Cat III films of the 90s, but although it is undoubtedly brutal, violent and very downbeat, this film from Pou-Soi Cheang isn't really sleazy, lurid or sensationalist enough to earn that comparison. However, it still packs a punch that makes it worth a watch, particularly if gritty, hard-edged action is your thing.<br /><br />Edison Chen plays Pang, a Cambodian hit-man who travels to Hong Kong to assassinate the wife of a judge; Sam Lee is Wai, the ruthless cop who is determined to track him down, whatever the cost. With Wai closing in on his target, Pang will stop at nothing to ensure his escapeuntil he meets Yue, a pretty illegal immigrant who needs his help to escape her life of abuse.<br /><br />A relentlessly harsh drama with great cinematography, amazing sound design, a haunting score, and solid performances from Chen and Lee (as well as newcomer Pei Pei as Pang's love interest), Dog Bite Dog is one for fans of hard-hitting Asian hyper-violence (think along the lines of Chan-wook Park's Vengeance trilogy). Stabbings, shootings, merciless beatings: all happen regularly in this film and are caught unflinchingly by director Cheang.<br /><br />Of course, this is the kind of tale that is destined to have an unhappy ending for all involved, and sure enough, pretty much everyone in this film dies (rather nasty deaths). Unfortunately, there is a fine line between tragedy and (unintentional) comedy, and in its final moments, Dog Bite Dog crosses it: in a laughably over-dramatic final scene, Pang and Wai are locked in battle as a pregnant Yue looks on. Eventually, after all three have suffered severe stab wounds during the fracas, a wounded Pang performs a DIY Ceasarean on (a now dead) Yue, delivering their baby moments before he himself dies.<br /><br />Whilst this film might not be a 'classic' slice of Hong Kong excess, with its deliriously OTT action and stylish visuals, it's still worth seeking out. | 1positive
|
worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a " sultry sensual vampire flick" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. .. | 0negative
|
In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.<br /><br />The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.<br /><br />It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications. | 1positive
|
and I for one think that is a good thing. I've just never been a Rosalind Russell fan although the original was my favorite RR movie. But I love Bette and was thrilled to hear she was making this.<br /><br />As for the rest of the production, I think it was slightly less than the original movie. One of my favorite minor characters in the original was Mazeppa with her scratchy fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice belting out "HEY! It takes a lot more than no talent to be a strippah!" and although I missed it, I was glad to see the producers had the guts not to do a carbon copy.<br /><br />I also liked the fact there are large portions of this movie which were filmed as if you are looking at a stage, it gives a feeling that you are in the theatre, not just at the movies.<br /><br />I think the other thing I liked about this production was that there seemed to be slightly less repetition of the song "Let me entertain you", which becomes completely annoying after about the 5th time you hear it. | 1positive
|
Insignificant and low-brained (haha!) 80's horror like there are thirteen in a dozen, yet it can be considered amusing if you watch it in the right state of mind. The special effects are tacky, the acting atrocious and the screenplay seems to miss a couple of essential paragraphs! "The Brain" takes place in a typical quiet-American town setting, where every adolescent works in the same diner and where the cool-kid in high school flushes cherry bombs down the toilet. It is here that a TV-guru named Dr. Blake and his adorable pet-brain begin their quest for nation-wide mind controlling. Under the label of "independent thinkers", a giant cheesy brain sends out waves through television sets and forces innocent viewers to kill! How cool is that? Now, it's up to the Meadowvale teen-rebel to save the world! The funniest thing about the plot is that it never explains where Dr. Blake and his monstrous brain actually come from. There are obvious references towards extraterrestrial life but that's about it. Meh, who needs a background in a movie like this, really? There's not that much bloodshed unfortunately and the "evil" brain looks like an over-sized sock-puppet. The only more or less interesting element for horror buffs is taking a look at the cast and crew who made this movie. Director Ed Hunt and writer Barry Pearson are the same men who made "Bloody Birthday" (guilty pleasure of mine) and "Plague". Both those are much better movies and they wisely decided to resign the film industry. The most familiar face in the cast unquestionably is the great David Gale, whom horror fans will worship forever for his role in Re-Animator. A girl named Christine Kossak provides the nudity-factor and she's obviously a great talent
She has exactly 3 movies on her repertoire of which THIS is her "masterpiece". In her debut, she was credited as 'runaway model' and in "3 men and a baby", her character is referred to as 'one of Jack's girls'. I really wonder how she feels about her career as an actress
| 0negative
|
I consider myself a bit of a connoisseur of boxing movies and as such there is only one thing that prevents me from calling "Gentleman Jim" the best boxing movie ever made. That is the Robert Wise/Paul Newman flick "Somebody Up There Likes Me." That movie might be number 1, but "Gentleman Jim" is a close number 2.<br /><br />The movie doesn't just chronicle the rise of James J. Corbett, it also shows the sport of boxing at a crucial time of transition. In the late 1800s boxing was moving away from the brutal days of bare-knuckle rules to the more "gentlemanly" days of the gloved, Marquis of Queensbury rules. And the sport was moving away from the days when it was an illegal spectacle and towards a time of acceptance and respectability.<br /><br />"Gentleman Jim" is not a realistic look at those days. It is romanticized and, yes, even a bit hokey at times. But always delightfully so. Errol Flynn is perfect as the "Gentleman" Jim who really isn't a "gentleman" at all but merely a fast talker from a working class family. Alexis Smith is quite ravishing as the upper class woman with whom he has a love/hate relationship (and we all know it is, of course, love that will win that match in the end).<br /><br />At the end of "Gentleman Jim" the great John L Sullivan (whose famous line was NOT "I can lick any man in the world" of course...romanticism again) hands over his belt to Corbett. This is truly one of the best scenes in any sports move ever made. Realistic? No. But wonderful. Hey, if you want realism watch "Raging Bull" instead. That is a much more realistic boxing movie. But "Gentleman Jim" is a lot more fun. | 1positive
|
Our teacher showed us this movie in first grade. I haven't seen it since. I just watched the trailer though. Does this look like a first grade movie to you? I don't think so. I was so horrified by this movie, I could barely watch it. It was mainly the scene with Shirley McClain cutting that little girl in half, and then there was the boy with ketchup! I was freaked out by this film. Now today, being 20, I probably would not feel that way. I just wanted to share my experience and opinion that maybe small children shouldn't see this movie, even though it's PG. Be aware of the possible outcomes of showing this to kids. I don't even remember what it was about, once was enough! | 0negative
|
The three main characters are all hopeless, and yet you only feel sorry for one of them: Ernesto, hopelessly devoted to Mercedes. This was part of the frustration: screaming at Mercedes to get a clue and ditch the no-good Harry, to no avail.<br /><br />Then there's the satisfaction: Steve Buscemi has a great part as a transvestite, and Harvey Keitel's moving story of his indignity playing a gorilla for a cheap TV movie is incredible. When you least expect it, Quentin Tarintino is doing half a monologue, and Anthony Quinn turns Ernesto into a wealthy man.<br /><br />Time and again great moments appear in the story, but in the end it's hard to know what to feel about this movie. It doesn't have a happy ending, or even a complete one, but it somehow feels right.<br /><br />This movie is strange, but then so am I; no wonder I liked it. | 1positive
|
It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.<br /><br />I was amazed to see "Marcus Aurelius" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like "Whoopie Goldberg" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.<br /><br />The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable. | 0negative
|
Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more. | 1positive
|
It tries to be the epic adventure of the century. And with a cast like Shô Kasugi, Christopher Lee and John-Rhys Davies it really is the perfect B-adventure of all time. It's actually is a pretty fun, swashbuckling adventure that, even with it's flaws, captures your interest. It must have felt as the biggest movie ever for the people who made it. Even if it's made in the 90s, it doesn't have a modern feel. It more has the same feeling that a old Errol Flynn movie had. Big adventure movie are again the big thing in Hollywood but I'm afraid that the feeling in them will never be the same as these old movies had. This on the other hand, just has the real feeling. You just can't hate it. I think it's an okay adventure movie. And I really love the soundtrack. Damn, I want the theme song. | 1positive
|
Ah, another movie with motorcycles, hell's angels posse and Steve A-Lame-o as the not-so-cool car driver. This movie does not rely on story but lots of drinking, pot smoking, and lots of moronic acts. Steve's rendition of a dying cat during his "I love what I know" serenade had me vomiting for hours. Bike chick Linda (rrrr) makes out with everyone! Fats did the best acting since he just grunts and makes sounds. I also dare you to try to make out what Banjo is saying. "You messin' wit private stock." This is scriptwriting folks.<br /><br />I liked the ending. What better place to have the climax than a lighthouse! You have to see this to detest it.<br /><br />DIE Jeter, DIE!!! | 0negative
|
EDMUND LOWE (who reminds me somewhat of Warren William), heads the nice cast of an interesting little mystery that moves at a brisk pace and runs just a little over an hour.<br /><br />Douglas Walton plays the unlucky jockey who appears to be intent on his own demise (hypnotism, anyone?), and the suspects include a good number of the supporting cast--everyone from Virginia Bruce, Kent Smith, Frieda Inescourt, Gene Lockhart, Jessie Ralph, Benita Hume, Rosalind Ivan and H.B. Warner. As an added bonus, there's Nat Pendleton as a dimwit detective--and furthermore, get a load of that art deco set decoration for the fancy interiors of a wealthy home. Must have been a set that was used in many a subsequent film.<br /><br />On the plus side, the mystery is not so complicated that anyone can follow the plot with reasonable assurance of not being too baffled. It's all suddenly clear to detective Philo Vance--and then he has a final confrontation with the murderer that gives the film a nifty five minutes of unmitigated suspense.<br /><br />Nicely done and passes the time in an entertaining manner. | 1positive
|
So let's begin!)))<br /><br />The movie itself is as original as Cronenberg's movies would usually appear...<br /><br />My intention to see it was certainly JJL being one of my favourite actresses. She is as lovely as usual, this cutie!<br /><br />I would not say it was my favourite movie of hers. Still it's quite interesting and entertaining to follow. <br /><br />The rest of the cast is not extremely impressive but it is not some kind of a miscast star array. ;)<br /><br />Recommend with confidence!)))) | 1positive
|
First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing. <br /><br />I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the "plot twist" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit. <br /><br />My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground. <br /><br />My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the "crucifixion" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite "spear" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie "Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ."<br /><br />And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!<br /><br />To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time. | 0negative
|
This is an excellent film about the characters in a adult swimming class, their problems, relationships and interactions with each other. It should have managed a wider distribution as it's much better than similar films from major studios out at the same time.<br /><br />The swimming instructor is an almost-Olympian, reduced to teaching adults basic lessons, and often the target of horndogging from his female students. He attempts, more or less, to fend them off, with varying results.<br /><br />The students characters are mainstream U.S.A; teachers, policemen, college students and retired people, all of whom haven't learned to swim for some reason. The movie covers their relationships, including friends, relatives and romantic conquests as they go through the class. Several subplots provide amusing fodder, including a teacher going through a divorce, some high school students making a documentary, and a girl who is only in the class to meet guys.<br /><br />This is a good date movie, or just one to watch when you're in the mood for a romantic drama with overtones of reality. | 1positive
|
"Crossfire" is a justifiably famous 1947 noir that's a murder mystery with a strong message. It stars Robert Young, Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan, Sam Levene, and Gloria Grahame, and is strongly directed by Edward Dmytryk. We witness the murder in shadow at the beginning, and for the rest of the film, Young, as the detective, Finlay, in charge of the case, seeks to figure out which of three soldiers is responsible for the death, and just as important, why. The victim, Joseph Samuels (Sam Levene) is someone the soldiers meet in a bar; they go up to his apartment to continue their visit, and Samuels winds up dead.<br /><br />I don't know about 1947, but seeing "Crossfire" today, one knows who did it and why the minute we see the suspects. I don't suppose it was so apparent back then, as these actors were just getting started. Nevertheless, the film packs a big punch with its powerful acting, good direction, violence, and unsparing anti-Semite language.<br /><br />The characterizations are vivid, including that of Gloria Grahame in a smallish role - she's a woman who meets Mitchell (George Cooper), one of the suspect soldiers, in a bar and can provide him with an alibi. The big performance in the film belongs to Robert Ryan, but everyone is excellent. Robert Young especially is effective as a tough but intelligent police detective. Mitchum is very likable as a soldier trying to help his confused friend Mitchell, a lonely man unsure if he still has feelings for his wife.<br /><br />Truly excellent, and a must see. | 1positive
|
Phil the Alien is one of those quirky films where the humour is based around the oddness of everything rather than actual punchlines.<br /><br />At first it was very odd and pretty funny but as the movie progressed I didn't find the jokes or oddness funny anymore.<br /><br />Its a low budget film (thats never a problem in itself), there were some pretty interesting characters, but eventually I just lost interest.<br /><br />I imagine this film would appeal to a stoner who is currently partaking.<br /><br />For something similar but better try "Brother from another planet" | 0negative
|
But it is kinda hilarious, at least if you grew up on Weird Al, like I did. It's a mockumentary about his life and career, beginning with superstardom and going back to trace the origins. It's uneven in places, but some of the segments are still very funny, particularly when he goes to Japan. Although it's not quite as emotionally textured as Lost in Translation, and he doesn't find love however fleeting, he does capture in a bottle the absolutely bizarre cultural melange that is Tokyo street life.<br /><br />Perhaps Weird Al isn't recognized as the insightful cultural commentator that he is; perhaps a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Still, this is a funny movie. | 1positive
|
Well where do I begin my story?? I went to this movie tonight with a few friends not knowing more than the Actors that were in it, and that it was supposed to be a horror movie.<br /><br />Well I figured out within the first 20 minutes, what a poor decision I had made going out seeing this movie. The Plot was crap, and so was the script. The lines were horrible to the point that people in the audience were laughing hysterically.<br /><br />The cast couldn't have been more plastic looking. Even some of the scenes seemed like they should have been made much quicker...like they dragged on for no particular reason. Very poor editing.<br /><br />All in all this movie was a giant waste of time and money. Boo. | 0negative
|
Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film. <br /><br />The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only. | 0negative
|
I really liked this movie. I have seen several Gene Kelly flicks and this is one of his best. I would actually put it above his more famous American in Paris. Sometimes it seems the story gets lost in Gene Kelly movies to the wonderful dance and song numbers, but not in this movie. It is definitely worth renting. | 1positive
|
This series, made for Televisión Española (TVE) is basically a series of chapters in the life of an ordinary family in 1968, primarily as seen through the eyes of the youngest son.<br /><br />Based on a background of historical events, such as the May 1968 student uprising in France, the decaying Franco regime, the war in Viet-Nam, the rise of imperialism, and others specifically related to Spanish life at that particular moment, one might regard this series as a simple compilation of characteristic foibles which make themselves so apparent in this kind of entertainment.<br /><br />Generally treated in a lightweight vein though not lacking in certain moments which might be called dramatic, the series would seem to be aimed at people of around fifty who can rember those times, as, it should be stated, anyone younger either chooses to ignore such happenings or is busily occupied in other things.<br /><br />The best thing that can be said of this series is Ana Duato's rôle as mother of three children: she plays the part of the total housewife of the times really well, manifesting that peculiar Spanish penchant, especially noticeable among women, of letting all her thinking and her doings be carried forward by the impetus of her heart, without any resorting to the use of the brain. As we say in Spain, common sense is one of the least common senses. Imanol Arias offers very little, apart from not being his usual stereotyped hard policeman as in other television series. Indeed, as an actor, he should not be trusted in anything which is not a TV series. His resources are too limited; however, his part as father of the working-class household is not at all bad.<br /><br />Not really recommendable for other audiences, even Spanish-speakers in Latin America: the themes are all too parochially related to a specific spot in contemporary Spanish history, such that if the viewer was not living here at that time he will miss most of the references. It is even probable that certain situations which cause a few Spanish smiles would not mean anything to other viewers. | 0negative
|
NO SPOILERS!!<br /><br />After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.<br /><br />This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.<br /><br />In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf! | 1positive
|
Jäniksen vuosi is one of Jarva's most political movies. It takes stance strongly against modern day society's authority status in the life of the common man, and how it has estranged men from the nature completely. It challenges the whole concept of freedom and wealth in our welfare society.<br /><br />Vatanen (Antti Litja) - smothered buy the concrete jungle with all its rules and regulations - tries to rattle the chains of the society by escaping it all in to the wilderness of northern Finland - only to realize that the concept of a 'free country' isn't all that unambiguous, in other words, the society has the common man by the balls.<br /><br />Still the thing that makes Jäniksen vuosi so exceptional - besides the visual and humouristic brilliance - is how it seems to illustrate the whole political atmosphere in Finland in the 70's, as well as the whole identity of Finland as a nation. Vatanen is like an archetype of a classical finn in his solitudeness and social distantness. Since nature has always played such an important role in the national identity of us Finns, the whole idea of that being slowly taken away by the modern society makes Jäniksen vuosi emotionally exceptionally moving. | 1positive
|
Oh, my goodness. I would have never thought it was possible for me to see a thriller worse than Domestic Disturbance this soon, but here it is. Armed with rotten plot, terrible editing, stilted acting, and headache-inducing 'style' (sorry, I have no other words for it), Sanctimony is the kind of movie that almost forces you to re-evaluate an entire genre; that is, this film is so bad that even the thrillers I condemned as complete failures now seem a little better.<br /><br />Now, not only Sanctimony is a terrible film in itself, it also succeeds in the difficult task of ripping off better movies and do a pathetic job with it. Right from the main titles -- nothing but a blatant attempt to reproduce the ones from Se7en -- I was under the impression that something didn't smell quite right. As soon as the movie started with a series of corny, wanna-be hip quick-cuts full of gory images and bombastic colors, I knew where that smell was coming from.<br /><br />It turns out that two policemen, or rather policeman Jim Renart (Michael Paré) and policewoman Dorothy Smith (Jennifer Rubin), are investigating on a murder spree in Vancouver. A serial killer, known as "Monkey Killer" (what a menacing, chilling nickname, uh?) for his working methods, has killed quite a lot of people. You see, this nut apparently works following the proverb "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and cuts eyes, ears, and tongues out of his victims. So far, six eyes, six ears, and three tongues. In very ingenious fashion, Renart and Smith figure out that the Monkey Killer is probably going to kill other three people... well, because he probably wants to complete the number 666. So suddenly the film focuses on Tom Gerrick (Casper Van Dien), a young, successful, good-looking businessman, with a dreadful temper. And that's where the rip-off of American Psycho kicks in.<br /><br />So we follow the life of the two police officers and the young psychopath, none of which is interesting in the least, until they finally meet. Along the way to that, a disco where Renart barely misses Gerrick unintentionally offers us one of the funniest scenes in recent memory: Renart goes in the back of the disco club, because... well, just because the script tells us it's a suspect place; then, with one single punch in the stomach, Renard gets rid of a big guard who blocks the path, and the guard is never heard of again? Does this scene strike anyone else as completely unrealistic?<br /><br />Anyway, after another murder, Gerrick turns in as a witness, but Smith and especially Renart immediately suspect he might be the killer. In typical Basic Instinct fashion, Smith gets some dates with the young businessman, under the assumption that she might discover his true identity.<br /><br />I won't spoil the ending but it is, quite simply, an embarrassment; there are contradictions, some plot holes, issues that never get resolved, and especially there is one last scene where a brutal mass murder, supposed to be shocking and sad, comes off as such laughably overdone and nonsensical that I frankly can't imagine how anyone could not laugh at it.<br /><br />At 87 minutes, Sanctimony is really pushing it. You never care about one single character, because they are all so flat (not to mention boring) that you know exactly who is who the first time you meet them. You are never pulled into the story, because the scenes are connected through weak plot devices when not downright unnecessary and out of place. The acting ranges from average (Van Dien) to downright atrocious (Rubin, and most of the supporting cast); the music is abysmal generic techno, and the photography is one of the worst I have ever seen. Of course, like every fiasco of the genre, we are provided with a little bit of gratuitous nudity.<br /><br />3/10 | 0negative
|
What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure. | 1positive
|