autotrain_text
stringlengths 98
7.13k
| autotrain_label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I have to say that the events of 9/11 didn't hit me until I saw this documentary. It took me a year to come to grips with the devastation. I was the one who was changing the station on the radio and channel on TV if there was any talk about the towers. I was sick of hearing about it. When this was aired on TV a year and a day later, I was bawling my eyes out. It was the first time I had cried since the attack. I highly recommend this documentary. I am watching it now on TV, 5 years later, and I am still crying over the tragedies. The fact that this contains one of the only video shots of the first plane hitting the tower is amazing. It was an accident, and look where it got them. These two brothers make me want to have been there to help. | 1positive
|
Is nothing else on TV? Are you really bored? Well, then watch Phat Beach. However, don't rent it and definitely DO NOT buy it. That would be a big mistake.<br /><br />I watched this on TV and found myself laughing at certain points. I did not laugh long and I did not laugh hard. However, there were subtle jokes and comments I laughed at. If you are looking for an extremely funny "hood" movie then watch Friday. If you are looking for a powerful emotional movie (something that this movie tries at..kind of) watch something like hoop dreams or Jason's Lyric. If you are lookin for some good black "booty" go watch a Dominique Simone porn flick, because the nudity in this movie is nearly non-existent. However, if you have nothing better to do and this is on cable, go ahead and watch it. You will be slightly amused.<br /><br />***3 out of 10*** | 0negative
|
Angela (Sandra Bullock) is a computer expert but, being shy and somewhat of a recluse, she does all of her work from the confines of her condo. Just as she is about to take a vacation in Mexico, a co-worker sends her a computer disc with disturbing information on it. Angela agrees to meet with her fellow employee but he mysteriously dies in a plane crash. Angela heads to Mexico but takes the disc with her. While she is sunning on the beach, a terrific looking gentleman named Jack (Jeremy Northam) makes overtures to her. She falls for them and the two end up on a boat to Cozumel. However, Jack works for the folks who generated the secret information on the disc and he is out to get it. Even after Angela escapes from his clutches and lands back in the USA, Jack makes things difficult. He changes Angela's identity on every computer across the nation, making her lose her condo, her bank account, everything. Can Angela, a computer whiz, beat Jack at his own game? This very exciting movie has many assets. First, Bullock and Northam are two very beautiful, interesting actors and their presence adds immediate captivation. The script is very clever and sure in its knowledge of the capabilities of computers and their relevance in today's world. The costumes, sets, production, and direction of the movie are also quite wonderful. And, despite how it sounds, there is a great deal of exciting action as Angela goes on the run to defeat her enemy. If you love thrillers without unnecessary bloodshed or violence, this is a great choice. It delivers twists and turns with great frequency, making it possible for the viewer to "net" a very good evening of entertainment. | 1positive
|
I remember seeing this film in the theater in 1984 when I was 6 years-old (you do the math). I absolutely loved it. I was Tarzan for the 2 weeks after seeing it (climbing the furniture, jumping around making monkey sounds). It started a fascination with Tarzan and monkeys, but oddly enough a longer lasting love for Christopher Lambert (keep in mind that I saw Highlander very shortly after this). 1984 was the last time I saw that film, until about a month ago. It happened to be on cable as I was getting ready for bed at 3:30 am and even though it was late and I was tired and I had to be at work at 9:00 am, I stayed up to watch this movie that I loved as a kid. <br /><br />Upon viewing it I realized that it was not that great of a film and even odder then that, that Andie MacDowell's voice was dubbed by someone else. Ian Holme was of course solid as usual, and surprisingly the monkey suits still kind of held up, but what was most surprising was how good Lambert was as Tarzan. He was great! The depth he managed to capture in so few lines, his primal body language and most importantly his ability to bring this character through its extremely large ark, were just amazing.<br /><br />As I stated earlier I am Lambert fan, but I'm used to Highlander, The Hunted and Fortress. In this film he was really quite good and it is a shame that he never got a chance to portray a character with such depth again.<br /><br />So to make a short story way too long, I was a little disappointed that the film was not that good, but I was glad to see that Lambert was good and I do not regret staying up until 6:00am to see it. | 1positive
|
I remember going to see the movie in the summer of '78 with my parents, and being pretty into it at the time. Of course, I was seven at the time.<br /><br />Right before the Jackson movies came out, my wife and I rented this movie since she had never seen it and I was feeling nostalgic.<br /><br />Ralph Bakshi ran out of money about mid-way through the animation process for this movie, and was forced to drastically cut corners on this production. Since this movie was done primarily with rotoscoping, the animation technique for people on a budget, this is saying something. Much of this movie is animation only in the very loosest sense of the word. There are some scenes which are very obviously just people standing in front of a screen, with maybe some animation effects superimposed on top of them.<br /><br />Because of budget constraints, the movie -- already a compression of "The Fellowship of the Rings" and part of "The Two Towers" -- was pared down even more. What you get is sort of like a film-strip version of the Cliff Notes of the books.<br /><br />Its not all bad, though, the animation brings a warmth to it, that I found lacking in the Jackson movies. Its nice to imagine what it could have been like with decent funding.<br /><br />This movie is also noteworthy for having the sequel which never came. Several years later, a half-hearted half-hour long TV special was aired, which was meant to wrap things up. All I will say about that is that it was a musical. | 0negative
|
No one can say I wasn't warned as I have read the reviews (both user & external), but like most of us attracted to horror movies... curiosity got this cat. (Come on, we all scream at the people in the movie not to go into the dark room, but you know that's horror aficionados are always dying to know what's in there even if we know it'll be bad).<br /><br />The bottom line is that this movie left me angry. Not because it pretends to be real (who cares...gimmicks are allowed), or because the actors and dialogue are so lame (is this an unusual event in horror movies?) or even because the movie is so bad (and I am being polite here). What really got me mad is that the film is not only a rip off of BWP, but also a half-hearted lazy rip off at that.<br /><br />I don't believe in sacred cows and if they thought they could outdo BWP then kudos to them, but they didn't even try. The movie was made with little effort or care and that is the most unforgivable sin in horror (or any) movie! | 0negative
|
A response to previous comments made by residents of the region where this motion picture was lensed: One person suggested that the closing and destruction of the Ocean View Amusement Park led to a downturn in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is simply not true. Prior to the construction of Interstate 64, which bypasses the Ocean View area, the primary route for traffic went through the heart of Ocean View. Once the interstate was completed, Ocean View rapidly became a ghost town with businesses closing up and an increase in crime. This led to a huge reduction in revenues for the park, which also faced new competition from nearby Busch Gardens in Williamsburg. Meanwhile, in the past few years, the City of Norfolk has done a remarkable job of fostering redevelopment so that the area has become a sought-after location for construction of high-end housing.<br /><br />It has also been said that the destruction footage of the roller coaster was used in the film "Rollercoaster". This is also untrue. Footage was shot of two coaster cars careening off the ride for that film, but the actual explosions and collapse are exclusive to "Death of Ocean View Park".<br /><br />As to the film itself, the storyline of a "supernatural" force in the water adjacent to the park was certainly silly, but somewhat typical for B-grade movies of the time. With the cast involved, there should be no surprise that the scenery was gnawed in almost every scene by the primary actors. I don't believe this film was intended to be another "Citizen Kane"; I believe Playboy was experimenting with a new non-nude format to determine if this was an area for the company to expand into (apparently not!). A strange force in the water causing strange events in an old amusement park probably sounded good at the conference table, but proved unmanageable in execution. The roller coaster and the rest of the park was destined for the wrecking ball anyway; "let's come up with a weird way to justify an explosive demise!".<br /><br />For the casual movie viewer, this would be a "see once and forget about it" film (except for Diana Canova fans); but for the thousands of people who live in the region and have fond memories of the park, this movie is like a "walk down memory lane" for footage of the park as well as old footage of downtown Norfolk, the first "Harborfest", and Old Dominion University. Even a limited release of this film on DVD would be welcome. | 0negative
|
The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view | 0negative
|
This movie is a perfect adaptation of the English Flick Unfaithful. Ashmit plays the role of Richard Gere, Emran that of Olivier and Malikka the perfect cheating wife role of Lane.They have changed the second half of the film to adapt for the Indian masses. <br /><br />Even then the movie has got the full traces of Unfaithful, though it couldn't catch up with the original. It was a cheap soft porn of the Bollywood lovers, where Mallika showed a lot more skin than anyone dared to show. Emran did more roles like this and was even nicknamed the serial killer. In the future if the Indian Directors plan to remake a English movie then they have to look into the feasibility of the plot with the Indian Censors. Though the film bombed at the box office, the actors got the undue recognition. In future the directors should be a little more careful in remaking a Oscar nominated film. <br /><br />All said, this is not a family film, so take the extra caution while watching it at home with family. | 0negative
|
witty. funny. intelligent. awesome. i was flipping channels late one night years ago. came across this and a wildfire started. i was staying up late every night and taping it for everyone i know. a few. like 3 people out of the almost 100 people i made watch this didn't think it was as awesome as i did. the others were laughing out loud so hard they were crying and thanking me at the same time. please do yourself a favor. run don't walk. watch this and enjoy. intelligence and humor. it's a win-win situation. i wish i could have afternoon tea with him and meet the truly rare comedian that we as a society need more of....sanechaos. | 1positive
|
While Star Trek the Motion Picture was mostly boring, Star Trek The Final Frontier is plain bad. In this terrible sequel, the crew is on shore leave when they get a distress signal from the Federation that ambassadors representing Earth, Romulus and Kronos (the Klingon home world) have been kidnapped by a renegade Vulcan bent on his quest to attain a starship to venture into the great barrier. There, he hopes to find God. Using mysticism and bad writing, he persuades many of the senior officers of the Enterprise to betray Kirk and get a hold of the ship. They do reach the inside of the great barrier and find a planet where they do meet a god-like alien. This one is so bad it is hard to figure out where to begin. At the core is a good idea that is never really developed. The plot goes nowhere instead of where no man has gone before. It is almost like the writers had no idea how to end this fiasco. The action scenes don't have the suspense of Wrath of Kahn, the philosophy is boring, and the humor is stale. Now I will focus most of my anger on William Shatner. When he takes the director's chair, the ego gets bigger. Most of the focus is on him, Spock, and McCoy, but does not give the others enough to do. Moreover, whereas Shatner is usually guilty of over-acting in previous movies and television spots, he is just plain bad in this one. Now Kirk is reckless, a practical jokers, and silly. One of the worst scenes involves the three leaders singing the song, "Row Row Row your Boat" in a round by a campfire. In any case, this is the worst of the Star Trek franchise. I should have given it three out of ten instead of five. | 0negative
|
it got switched off before the opening credits had even finished appearing. The first joke was just so appallingly lame and dreadfully acted that it had to go. You shouldn't really decide to watch this based on my review or not. I saw so little of it I shouldn't even really be commenting but suddenly it all became clear why the video shop guy was sniggering at us paying money to see it.<br /><br />Couldn't they have just made Earnest does Dallas? | 0negative
|
Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second... | 0negative
|
This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.<br /><br />The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals. | 0negative
|
This movie pretty much sucked. I'm in the Army and the soldiers depicted in this movie are horrible. If your in the Military and you see this movie you'll laugh and be upset the entire movie because of the way they acted as a squad. It was ridiculous. They acted like a bunch of normal people with Army uniforms on not knowing what to do. It was a pretty gory movie I'd have to say the least. There was a couple scenes where they try to make you jump. I'd recommend seeing it if you are bored and want to see a violent, gory movie. It will be a better movie also if your not in the Military. I also would have to say I liked the first one better than this one. | 0negative
|
There have been many documentaries that I have seen in which it appeared that the law was on the wrong side of the fence - The Thin Blue Line and Paradise Lost come to mind first and foremost. But this is the first film that had me seething with anger after I saw it. It seems blatantly clear to me from the evidence presented in this film that what happened at Waco was at the very least an unprofessional and sloppy mess on the part of the FBI and AFI, and at the very worst an act of murder. Like most people, when the siege at Waco was occurring I assumed that David Koresh was a completely evil madman who was leading a violent cult. After seeing this, I think that Koresh was more likely a slightly unbalanced and confused guy who inadvertently caught the attention of the U.S. government through his eccentric actions. Sure, there were lots of weapons at the Branch Davidian compound. But none of it was illegal. It was absolutely heartbreaking to see the video footage of the people inside the compound, all of them seeming to be very nice and harmless. And it was angering to see the callous testimony of the men in charge of the government forces on the Waco site, the clueless testimony of Janet Reno, and the partisan defense of the attack on Waco, a defense led by a few of the committee Democrats. Standing out most in my mind was NY representative and current U.S. senator from NY Charles Schumer. I voted for the man when I lived in NY state - I'm a Democrat, pretty left-leaning too. After seeing his actions on this committee, I wish I could go back in time and vote for D'Amato instead! For anyone remotely interested in the government, this is a very crucial film, a must see. I even think this should be shown in classes - it's that important. | 1positive
|
This was by far the worst movie I've ever seen. And thats compared to Alexander, Fortress 2 and The new world.<br /><br />I should go back to blockbuster and ask for my money back along with compensation as it was a truly traumatic experience. For the first ten minutes i was changing the zoom on my widescreen TV because the actors seemed to be out of screen. I didn't think it was possible to make such a bad film in this day and age, i was wrong. While typing this message, I've thought of a good reason to buy this movie. A joke present at Xmas. I'm blaming the Mrs for this one as she picked it, thanks babe.<br /><br />Be warned.......A true shocker all round!!!!!! | 0negative
|
It's terrific when a funny movie doesn't make smile you. What a pity!! This film is very boring and so long. It's simply painfull. The story is staggering without goal and no fun.<br /><br />You feel better when it's finished. | 0negative
|
This outing of Knotts includes one of his best sidekicks ever, Frank Welker. Welker makes the film. Knotts and Welker compete for the laughs and both receive plenty. Knotts works for a small "no where" town where the city is being run by some of the most ignorant officials. When things go wrong the city fathers, allow Knotts to take the fall. Frank Welker's character befriends Knotts and together they stumble together to clear up the mess and Knott's good name. This film shows the usual Knott's scared to death character that made him famous for years on television and film. This may have been Knotts' last good outing. When you have an extra 90 minutes, get a good old fashioned laugh a great icon, Don Knotts. | 1positive
|
I didn't know what to except so I think it was a lot better not having excepted much. Don't get my wrong its not a bad short film. Tess Nanavati is a relatively new directer and writer so I think she deserves a lot of kudos for making this film. You can tell that it has been an act of love for her. The acting (outside of Dominic) is a little cheesy and the quality of film is not great either but for a really low budget film its good. There was times when the story line gets convoluted and there are parts that drag on, though I don't feel it greatly detracts for one's ability to understand the film. If you love Dominic Monaghan as much as I do, I say go for it. The gag reel was fun, I won't spoil it but there is a particular scene that makes buying the DVD worth it just so you can watch it over and over. If you like the film then check out The Pink Mirror, a film also done by Jagged Edge. I know fans of Dominic will enjoy this little piece of heaven. | 1positive
|
As a disclaimer, I've seen the movie 5-6 times in the last 15 years, and I only just saw the musical this week. This allowed me to judge the movie without being tainted by what was or wasn't in the musical (however, it tainted me when I watched the musical :) ) <br /><br />I actually believe Michael Douglas worked quite well in that role, along with Kasey. I think her 'Let me dance for you scene' is one of the best parts of the movie, a worthwhile addition compared to the musical. The dancers and singing in the movie are much superior to the musical, as well as the cast which is at least 10 times bigger (easier to do in the movie of course). The decors, lighting, dancing, and singing are also much superior in the movie, which should be expected, and was indeed delivered. <br /><br />The songs that were in common with the musical are better done in the movie, the new ones are quite good ones, and the whole movie just delivers more than the musical in my opinion, especially compared to a musical which has few decors. The one bad point on the movie is the obvious cuts between the actors talking, and dubbed singers during the singing portions for some of the characters, but their dancing is impeccable, and the end product was more enjoyable than the musical | 1positive
|
I went to see this movie (actually I went to see Family Portraits, which contains Cutting Moments + 2 other short films by Douglas Buck) at the Mar del Plata festival (Argentina)... I just couldn't watch it! I had to cover my eyes after the 1st half of Cutting Moments and take a peek every once in a while. By the time it was over, my stomach was upside down and I felt light headed. I just HAD to leave the cinema a few minutes after the 2nd short begun (BTW, of course I was not the only one who left the room). It was WAAAAY too violent and disgusting for me! I am impressed by the many brave people who actually loved it. I just don't get how you can love that kind of movies! The shocking and bloody and horrible images I saw got really stuck in my head for like two days!! I also try to analyze the story (my boyfriend did see the whole thing and told me about it) and I just don't think it makes any sense. I mean, that amount of violence and stuff, makes no other sense than to try to shock people. And that's not a good enough reason, I think. There's absolutely nothing in this movie that I can say "Well, at least 'x' thing about it was good". But well, I guess I will never understand that kind of films. | 0negative
|
A young girl becomes a war-time marine's pen-pal, and when he visits at war's end expecting someone a bit more "available," comic complications ensue. All ultimately works out well, naturally, but not before everyone involved has thoroughly chewed the scenery. Errol Flynn's dead-on impression of Humphrey Bogart from "Casablanca" is a highlight, as are various send-ups of his own swashbuckling image (the "jumping" scene in the kitchen with Forrest Tucker is a riot). It is Tucker, though, who "tucks" the movie under his arm, lowers his head and barrels over the goal line. He demonstrates the comic flair more fully developed twenty years later in "F-Troop" and imparts a liveliness and energy that Flynn repeatedly plays off to raise his own performance. Eleanor Parker does a fine job as the woman being pursued, and little Patti Brady charms as Tucker's actual pen-pal friend. A fine, lightweight "coming home" comedy in a genteel setting that children and romantics of all ages should find entertaining. | 1positive
|
I have to say this is my favorite movie of all time. I have seen it well over 100 times (actually had to buy a new copy as a result of overwatching) It is what the eighties was like and what a romantic story with a few morals thrown in. I highly recommend to anyone wanting to relive the high schools days again. Buy a copy now it is a classic!!!! | 1positive
|
The Golden Door is the story of a Sicilian family's journey from the Old World (Italy) to the New World (America). Salvatore, a middle-aged man who hopes for a more fruitful life, persuades his family to leave their homeland behind in Sicily, take the arduous journey across the raging seas, and inhabit a land whose rivers supposedly flow with milk. In short, they believe that by risking everything for the New World their dreams of prosperity will be fulfilled. The imagery of the New World is optimistic, clever and highly imaginative. Silver coins rain from heaven upon Salvatore as he anticipates how prosperous he'll be in the New World; carrots and onions twice the size of human beings are shown being harvested to suggest wealth and health, and rivers of milk are swam in and flow through the minds of those who anticipate what the New World will yield. All of this imagery is surrealistically interwoven with the characters and helps nicely compliment the gritty realism that the story unfolds to the audience. The contrast between this imagery versus the dark reality of the Sicilian people helps provide hope while they're aboard the ship to the New World.<br /><br />The voyage to the New World is shot almost in complete darkness, especially when the seas tempests roar and nearly kill the people within. The dark reality I referred to is the Old World and the journey itself to the New World. The Old World is depicted as somewhat destitute and primitive. This is shown as Salvatore scrambles together to sell what few possessions he has left (donkeys, goats and rabbits) in order to obtain the appropriate clothing he needs to enter the New World. I thought it was rather interesting that these people believed they had to conform to a certain dress code in order to be accepted in the New World; it was almost suggesting that people had to fit a particular stereotype or mold in order to be recognized as morally fit. The most powerful image in the film was when the ship is leaving their homeland and setting sail for the New World. This shot shows an overhead view of a crowd of people who slowly seem to separate from one another, depicting the separation between the Old and New Worlds. This shot also suggested that the people were being torn away from all that was once familiar, wanted to divorce from their previous dark living conditions and were desirous to enter a world that held more promise.<br /><br />As later contrasted to how the New World visually looks, the Old World seems dark and bleak as compared to the bright yet foggy New World. I thought it was particularly interesting that the Statue of Liberty is never shown through the fog at Ellis Island, but is remained hidden. I think this was an intentional directing choice that seemed to negate the purpose of what the Statue of Liberty stands for: "Give me your poor, your tired, your hungry" seemed like a joke in regards to what these people had to go through when arriving at the New World. Once they arrived in the Americas, they had to go through rather humiliating tests (i.e. delousing, mathematics, puzzles, etc.) in order to prove themselves as fit for the New World. These tests completely changed the perspectives of the Sicilian people. In particular, Salvatore's mother had the most difficult time subjecting herself to the rules and laws of the New World, feeling more violated than treated with respect. Where their dreams once provided hope and optimism for what the New World would provide, the reality of what the New World required was disparaging and rude. Salvatore doesn't change much other than his attitude towards what he felt the New World would be like versus what the New World actually was seemed disappointing to him. This attitude was shared by mostly everyone who voyaged with him. Their character arcs deal more with a cherished dream being greatly upset and a dark reality that had to be accepted.<br /><br />The film seems to make a strong commentary on preparing oneself to enter a heavenly and civilized society. Cleanliness, marriage and intelligence are prerequisites. Adhering to these rules is to prevent disease, immoral behavior and stupidity from dominating. Perhaps this is a commentary on how America has learned from the failings of other nations and so was purposefully established to secure that these plagues did not infest and destruct. Though the rules seemed rigid, they were there to protect and help the people flourish. | 1positive
|
As a native Chinese, I can not accept this kind of idea that some people must die for a 'better world'. I said 'better world' because it is a lie that Chinese people have been indoctrinated for thousand years! <br /><br />I guess most western audience may don't know Qin Shihuang(means the first emperor), the king in this film is the most notorious tyrant in ancient China. The Tianxia(Chinese word was spoken by the king, means 'the land and the people') spoken from his mouth is totally lie. From then on, one after another, all the king in ancient china spoke the same thing but very few of them did as what they said.<br /><br />Another fact is, Qin Shihuang's empire only lasted about twenty years before it was destroyed by people.<br /><br />Well, I do like the beautiful scenes of this movie, but it can not make me accept the idea that people should die for a tyrant. | 0negative
|
It is incredible that there were two films with the same story released in 2005. This one came out a day before that other one with Tom Cruise. Didn't they do that with Truman Capote the same year, and the Zodiac killer last year? Interesting.<br /><br />Writer/Director David Michael Latt didn't have Steven Spielberg's budget and C. Thomas Howell is not Tom Cruise. This is a pale imitation of the blockbuster that grossed $588 million worldwide.<br /><br />The action was minimal and most of the time we were treated to the whining of Rhett Giles, who played a pastor that was giving up on his god.<br /><br />Gary Busey was creepy as an army LT. | 0negative
|
Even though I'm quite young, The Beatles are my ABSOLUTELY FAVOURITE band! I never had the chance to hear their music as it was releases but have loved them since I can remember.<br /><br />It's the sort of film that is worth trying the once. I can see why it wasn't released in the cinema but it is certainly a great film to put on the TV. I was flicking through my TV guide and happened to see this film, it didn't much details except something like, 'John Lennon and Paul McCartney meet after The Beatles have broken up, Jared Harris Stars'. I'd never heard of him (he played John) or Aiden Quinn who played Paul. However they are certainly underestimated actors!<br /><br />The film had a slow start but as it developed, I could see how well Quinn but especially Harris played their characters. As a huge fan, I sort of know what the real Lennon and McCartney are like. The script was brilliant and Harris got Lennon's accent, personality and mannerisms spot on! Quinn played McCartney quite well but sometimes went into his Irish accent. THe make-up artists made them look excellent.<br /><br />THIS PARAGRAPH MAY BE COUNTED AS A *SPOILER*:<br /><br />As I mentioned before, it got off to a slow start but soon developed and became quite an emotional film. I found the bit in the park a total waste of time and quite out of character for both of the musicians. As for Lennon's rude line in the Italian restaurant, totally unnecessary. The ending was very poignant and brings a tear to my eye whenever I watch it.<br /><br />It is quite different from the other biographical films I've seen where it's about how The Beatles got together and became famous, and those never really did the characters that well. E.g. 'Backbeat'.<br /><br />In conclusion, I would say, if you're a Beatles or John Lennon or Paul McCartney fan, give it a chance you may have pleasent surprise. At only about 95 minutes long, it's worth waiting for the film to develop.<br /><br />If anyone does know whether the meeting of 1976 really did happen please send it to the 'comments page' for this film, I'd be very interested. | 1positive
|
This is one of my favorites. Betty White and Leslie Neilson sparkle in this romantic comedy. One is a business executive who re-evaluates life based on the expectation of her death within a year. The other is a playboy who has tired of gold-digging young women and seeks a relationship with a vital, mature woman. If you've got silver in your hair and/or romance in your heart, microwave the popcorn, curl up with your honey, and prepare yourself for a treat. | 1positive
|
Note to self. Never ever ever again watch a serious movie with Charlie Sheen in it. Great comedian, horrible seal. This movie makes Navy SEALS look like a reckless group of rangers when, in fact, they are the most elite form of military in the world. Charlie Sheen helps destroy the Navy SEAL reputation. Thank you for making such an incredibly select group of individuals look awful in one of the worst action movies I have ever seen. This is a great story which could be made into an amazing action movie, but why Charlie Sheen? There are possibilities for a very passionate story here, but Sheen decides to wreck them with "funny" comments. | 0negative
|
Watched this last night and was bowled over by the heartfelt story line, the excellent character development, and the good karmic vibe emanating from the acting and movie as a whole.<br /><br />Without giving away too much of the plot, it begins with an ordinary joe who commutes to his office job every day who becomes inspired to take dance lessons. Along the way the protagonist and the assorted characters he meets in his quest to be smooth on the dance floor learn lessons about others and about themselves. <br /><br />The story has a prologue about what dancing in Japan symbolizes sociologically, so it isn't exactly as simple to learn to dance in Japan as it is here in the U.S. <br /><br />The film is lighthearted; you'll laugh out loud at some of the sight gags. Yet it is also dignified in a way hard to describe. All of the film's characters are taken seriously, as they are, and none are diminished because of their "imperfections."<br /><br />I've been thinking about taking social dance classes with some friends. It just so happened a friend lent me the video on learning to dance. Is this synchronous or what? I think so because now I'm really geeked to give it a try. <br /><br />Watch this wonderful family film (small children might not get it, but teens certainly would) and smile at the genuine caring you see shown in it time and again.<br /><br />Why they would make a remake of Shall We Dance is a mystery, as it is perfect as-is. | 1positive
|
Im the type of person who always goes 2 to horror section when I'm picking a film, so i picked five across the eyes, i was disgusted with this film and thought there was no story line and no point that you could enjoy it,it made my skin crawl to think that people like to watch films that just encourage violence for the hell of it it was low budget and very rubbish! i think i could of done better myself. i think that it was the worst film i have ever seen in my life and you should not bother to watch it the actors were rubbish the camera was awful the picture was bad and the sound was not up to scratch, i think it was a little bit like a cheep rip of off the baler which project and it has not worked at all it was foul. | 0negative
|
It wasn't until I looked at the trivia section that I found out that the original producer/star of this movie Tyrone Power died during its making . This no doubt explains why everyone on screen seems to have their minds on other things , a symptom of which appears in a very early scene involving a battle that can only be described as pathetic . You know when you've been painting a wall until you're completely bored ? Well that's the sort of expression the combatants have on their face when they're swinging their swords in a highly unconvincing manner <br /><br />The plot centres on Soloman the King of Israel having an affair with the Queen of Sheeba and his people not being happy about it . You can't really blame them since there's few things more beautiful in the world than those Israeli moteks , though the Israeli women here all seem to look like Cherie Blair ! Modern day Israel is also very cosmopolitan with the majority of Israelis being born outside the country but would this have been true a couple of thousand years ago where everyone speaks in European and American accents <br /><br />After much talking and a dance sequence that has to be seen to be believed ( And no that's not praise ) we have a climax where the heavily outnumbered Israelis have to defend themselves against a massed Egyptian army who can't read a map otherwise they would have known there was a canyon in front of them . This is what I don't get - Even though their blinded by the sun the Egyptians spend ten minutes charging towards the Israelis never ever realising they're charging towards a gaping ravine ! Isn't this somewhat illogical ? It's also something of a revealing error since the horses , chariots and men falling into the canyon are obviously miniature figures <br /><br />Anyway the film ends with Soloman killing his treacherous brother and praising God for his victory . But who needs Moshe Dayan , Arik Sharon or God when you've got an idiotic enemy who can't see a ravine in front of him or waves a sword like he paints a wall ? | 0negative
|
Emily Watson and Tom Wilkinson together - what a treat! With Rupert Everett and Linda Bassett rounding off the supporting roles to the foursome of lies and intrigue. Yet at the heart of it all, each character maintains a streak of decency - moral conscience held up in spite of obvious contradictions. "Contradictions are the source of all movement and of all life." How true these words are. Watson's Anne Manning is at the core of this intrigue - she's the central conscience that the other three latched on. She is the decency undeterred. <br /><br />The circumstances of lies are to each its own: one to defend one's professional name; one to hold back due to family/partner pressure; one simply don't want to face the consequence; one ironically can't believe the truth and lies to save friendship. These are all precarious situations. There lies the intrigue - fascinating to watch how each tackles truth and lies. Contradictions, indeed. In spite of the seeming dishonor, decency and heart remain strong. <br /><br />The treatment of the subject involved and how each of the character behaves are masterfully delivered simple with clarity. It's not sensational or complex as another film "Where the Truth Lies" 2005. Credits due to Fellowes' writing and the nuanced performances of both Watson and Wilkinson. There is warmth somehow that comes through the seemingly boldface or frustratingly hidden lies. Beneath it all, human frailty not excluded, they meant well. And following along with the story, the turn of events provided satisfaction and smiles to how the two Manning's seem to have grown and matured in their relationship. <br /><br />You might say there's no obvious action drama or thrilling scenes in "Separate Lies," yet the intrigue is there and it will hold your attention. The deserving production efforts include cinematography by Tony Pierce-Roberts (a veteran to the Merchant-Ivory films) and music by Stanislas Syrewicz, with mood and tone reminiscent of composer Zbignew Priesner (of filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski's Trois Couleurs, especially: Bleu 1993.) This is a British film you just might not want to miss. <br /><br />Emily Watson (Anne, the wife): Breaking the Waves 1996 debut; Hilary and Jackie 1998; The Luzhin Defence 2000; Gosford Park 2001; Punch-Drunk Love, Red Dragon, Equilibrium in 2002. <br /><br />Tom Wilkinson (James, the husband): The Full Monty 1997; The Governess, Rush Hour (as villain) in 1998; In the Bedroom 2001, Normal (HBO cable movie) 2003, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 2004, recently as Father Moore in: The Exorcism of Emily Rose 2005 opposite Laura Linney. <br /><br />Rupert Everett (Bill): He is simply delightful in "My Best Friend's Wedding" 1997 opposite Julia Roberts and marvelous in "An Ideal Husband" 1999 d: Oliver Parker, an Oscar Wilde play. Recently as Sherlock Holmes with Ian Hart as Dr. Watson, in PBS Mystery: Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stockings 2004 TV. <br /><br />Linda Bassett (Maggie): she was very effective as Ella Khan opposite Om Puri in "East is East" 1999. | 1positive
|
Anyone who thinks Kool Moe Dee, Carol Alt, and Corey Feldman comprise a list of good actors must be smoking something I'd love to try sometime. Where to begin: lousy soundtrack, hammy acting, "action" in places. This is the typical amateurishly written hack fodder that washed-up has-been and never-was's love to star in. I actually felt embarrassed for the "stars" in this "film". The only thespian missing to top this turd was Gary Coleman, who if he would have been in the movie, would have made it at least somewhat howlingly bad, rather than just plain bad.<br /><br />There was one part in the film where Carol Alt screamed, "DO YOU THINK I'M AN IDIOT?!?" Yes, Carol, I do, your agent does, and PLEASE for the love of all that is decent and holy... GO AWAY and stop degrading yourself like this! This film is something Anna Nicole Smith would take part in.<br /><br />I would tell you what the plot was, but that would be one more sentence fragment to this article, plus my mind drifted many times during the movie anyway, so I barely paid attention. | 0negative
|
It is surprising that a production like this gets made these days, especially for television. Considering the strong sexual themes and explicit lovemaking scenes, not to mention lesbianism, this has been given superb treatment and direction.<br /><br />The sets and costumes are flawless, the direction is stylish and the characters are likeable. There is a fair amount of humor but it has surprisingly dark interludes. The protagonist is really a tragic figure, but not devoid of happiness. Also, this production avoids the mistake most films/shows make when dealing with homosexuality/lesbianism. The characters are very human. It seems that to allow people to be comfortable with watching gays and lesbians on TV and movies most shows fill it full of cliches and make the characters obsessed with being gay. Not so with this. In Tipping the Velvet, the protagonist is hardly aware of what being lesbian means!<br /><br />The BBC have made some wonderful productions in the past, and this adventurous period piece only confirms their standard of excellence on all fronts. | 1positive
|
This movie was terrible. The plot was terrible and unbelievable. I cannot recommend this movie. Where did this movie come from? This movie was not funny and wasted the talent of some great actors and actresses including: Gary Sinise, Kathy Bates, Joey Lauren Adams, and Jennifer Tilly. | 0negative
|
So real and surreal, all in one. I remember feeling like Tessa. Heck, I remember being Tessa. This was a beautiful vignette of a relationship ending. I especially liked the protesters tangent. It is nice to see symbolism in a movie without being smacked over the head with it. If you get the chance to see this, take it. It is well worth the 30 minutes. | 1positive
|
Steven what have you done you have hit an all new low. It is weird since Steven's last film shadow man was directed by the same director who did this trash. Shadow man was good this was diabolically bad so bad it wasn't even funny Steven is hardly in the movie and feels like he is in a cameo appearance and when he is in the film he is dubbed half the time anyway. As for the action well let's just say the wizard of oz had more action than this trash there is hardly any action in the film and when it does finally arrive it is boring depressing badly shot so called action scenes. Seagal hardly kills anyone unlike his over films where he goes one man army ie under siege 1 and 2 and exit wounds. the plot is so confusing with so many plot holes that it doesn't make scenes sometimes. flight of fury better be good what a shame i wasted 5 pounds on this garbage 0 out of ten better luck next time | 0negative
|
This film is where the Batman franchise ought to have stopped. Though I will concede that the ideas behind "Batman Forever" were excellent and could have been easily realised by a competent director, as it turned out this was not to be the case.<br /><br />Apparently Warner Brothers executives were disappointed with how dark this second Batman film from Tim Burton turned out. Apart from the idiocy of expecting anything else from Burton, and the conservative cowardice of their subsequent decision to turn the franchise into an homage to the Sixties TV series, I fail to understand how "Batman Returns" can be considered at all disappointing.<br /><br />True, it is not quite the equal of the first film - though it repairs all the minor deficiencies of style found in "Batman," a weaker script that splits the antagonism between not just two but three characters invites unflattering comparisons to the masterful pairing of Keaton and Jack Nicholson as the Joker in the first film. Yet for all this it remains a gorgeously dark film, true to the way the Batman was always meant to be, and highly satisfying.<br /><br />Michael Keaton returns as the Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, tangling with nouveau riche tycoon Max Schreck (Christopher Walken, named in honour of the 1920s German silent actor), his partner-in-crime Oswald Cobblepot, the Penguin (Danny DeVito in brilliant makeup reminiscent of Laurence Olivier's "Richard III"), and Selina Kyle, the Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), whom Wayne romances both as himself and as the Batman. The four principals turn in excellent performances, especially Walken and DeVito, while together Keaton and Pfeiffer explore the darker side of double identities.<br /><br />There are some intriguing concepts in this film. About the only weakness I can really point out is a certain limpness to the script in some places, which I think is due mostly to the way this film is a four-cornered fight. There simply isn't enough time to properly explore what's going on.<br /><br />Nevertheless, this is a damn good film. I highly recommend watching this in conjunction with the first, and then weeping for how good the series could have been had it continued under Burton and Keaton. | 1positive
|
Attractive Marjorie(Farrah Fawcett)lives in fear after being accosted by a lone biker. She is mortally shaken with the fact her attacker knows her address. As expected, Joe(James Russo), the attacker forces his way into Marjorie's home and subjects her to humiliating terror. Bruised and bloody, Marjorie manages to get an upper hand on her attacker, knocking the living daylights out of the jerk and renders him helpless thanks to wasp spray in his eyes and throat. Hog tied and battered himself, Joe tries to explain himself to Marjorie's roommates(Diana Scarwid and Alfrie Woodard) when they get home. There is almost a hint of mercy, but it is not coming from Marjorie. Should she continue to render her own punishment? Violence, sexual abuse and rough language makes for an R rating. Fawcett really gets away from the ditsy roles that would forever stain her career. Kudos to director Robert M. Young. | 1positive
|
Like anyone else who bought this, I was duped by the "20 pieces of extreme gore" and "banned in 20 countries" or whatever it says in the box. I have to admit I am a huge gore fan and I am always amazed when films can lay it on thick and look convincing doing it. Tom Savini, Rick Baker and Greg Cannom are some of the best in the business. The revolutionized make-up effects in the 80's. Today, you don't need them as everything is done on computer. But computers cannot compare to the visual wizardry that these three men could conjure up. But I digress.<br /><br />Watching fantastically gory films like Fulci's Gates to Hell or even Savini's crowning achievement, Friday the 13th the Final Chapter, you can appreciate all that goes into making a terrifically gory film. You can't tell the difference between reality and magic.<br /><br />I can't imagine another reason why anyone would see Cannibal Ferox but the gore that is ostensibly omnipotent in this film. If that is the reason you seek this film, then you are wasting your money. As many other reviewers in here have noted, most of the gore is an aftermath. You don't see the torture, or the bloodshed as it happens, you see whatever it looks like afterwords.<br /><br />The gore? Well, it's here, but not as much as one would hope, or expect. A man does get castrated and a women does get hanged by her breasts, but other then those two scenes, and one involving a scalping; there is nothing really much else to this film. The scenes of gore even in these three mentioned, are still pretty tame in comparison to what you were hoping for. Maybe it's just me and my sick and twisted experience in the horror and gore genre, but I was expecting a bit more. Call me sick or twisted, but isn't that the only reason people are watching this film in the first place? I honestly found myself bored in a lot of places.<br /><br />Cannibal Ferox is just another film that tries to capitalize on a craze of a superior film. While Cannibal Holocaust is not exactly a great film, it is much better than this tripe. If you go out of your way to buy this for $20.00, you will feel cheated.<br /><br />3/10 | 0negative
|
I laughed so hard during this movie my face hurt. Ben Affleck was hilarious and reminded me of a pretty boy Jack Black in this role. Gandolfini gives his typical A performance. The entire cast is funny, the story pretty good and the comic moments awesome. I went into this movie not expecting much so perhaps that is why I was so surprised to come out of the flick thoroughly pleased and facially exhausted. I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys comedy, can identify with loneliness during the holidays and/or putting up with the relatives. The best part to this film (to me anyway) were the subtle bits of humor that caught me completely off guard and had me laughing long after the rest of the audience had stopped. Namely, the scene involving the lighting of the Christmas tree. Go see it and have a good laugh! | 1positive
|
The concept of having Laurel & Hardy this time in the role of chimney sweepers works out surprisingly hilarious. It guarantees some funny situations and silly antics, from especially Stan Laurel of course as usual.<br /><br />The movie also has a subplot with a nutty professor who is working on a rejuvenation formula. It doesn't really sound like a logical mix of story lines and incoherent but both plot lines blend in perfectly toward the memorable ending. It's still a bit weird but its funny nevertheless, so it works for the movie.<br /><br />The supporting cast of the movie is surprising good. Sam Adams is great as the stereotypical butler and Lucien Littlefield goes deliciously over-the-top as the nutty professor.<br /><br />The movie is filled with some excellent timed and hilarious constructed sequences, which are all quite predictable but become hilarious to watch nevertheless thanks to the way they are all executed. It all helps to make "Dirty Work" to be one of the better Laurel & Hardy shorts.<br /><br />8/10 | 1positive
|
A rather silly little film you just may love.<br /><br />Although rather corny and cliché at times, it nonetheless works and makes for good clean fun. Five teams are engaged on a scavenger hunt and battle each other and their wits to win the all night contest - just for the sheer joy "knowing yours is the best team."<br /><br />Notable for several screen debuts including David Naughton's first film role after his Dr. Pepper "Be a Pepper" commercials and before his major 1981 hit "American Werewolf in London". Also features Paul Ruebens in what I believe is his first Pee Wee Herman-esquire roll a year before he became known for it. And last but not least, Mr. Spin City and Alex Keaton himself, Michael J. Fox gets his first film role here. Fans will remember Stephen Furst as Flounder in Animal House. Outside of that, no names, but all funny characters.<br /><br />Doubt it has ever made it to DVD, but there are still probably some VHS copies floating around and you might even catch on a late, late show sometime. If you do, is worth your watch. You may hate it, but it may also become a quirky little movie you come to love. | 1positive
|
Absolute must see documentary for anyone interested in getting to the bottom of this story. Told with unflinching eye and with gripping style. If you think conspiracy theories are for paranoid disturbed people, this could change your mind. Something for you feds too: A good model for government coverups! If you like your news all tidy and easy to consume this is not for you. | 1positive
|
For his first ever debut this film has some riveting and chilling moments. In the best horror film fashion the pit of your stomach tightens every moment during this film. The ending is superb. The makers of Blaire Witch obviously watched this film it's ending wasn't an end but a beginning of the end. A great movie and only a piece of Japan's great as far as scare factor a perfect score it makes you think and scared out of your mind. | 1positive
|
A lovely little film about the introduction of motion pictures to China. Captures the amazement of film's first audiences pretty much as it's described to have been worldwide, and uses actual Lumiere films for most of the actualities. I don't agree with other people about bad acting on the British fellow's part - I thought he was fine, but the Chinese lead really stole the show. In any case, I found myself with a smile on my face through most of the movie. People who fear subtitles might note that a lot of the film is in English (which for some reason is given subtitles as well as the Chinese on the DVD). | 1positive
|
I think that you can not imagine how these people really work...!! Before I came to the studios to watch the guys work there, I actually thought quite the same as you do. But since I saw and did the work the guys on that TV-show have to do, I have to say that they really do deserve respect for what they are doing all day long. That really is no easy work. And also the actors, which in your eyes may be terribly bad, are really great people and a lot of them really can act! I don't think that the material given to them can really show that, as I think this material isn't very good. But THEY are truly good! So I don't think that you, before you haven't seen these guys doing there work, can judge over them! And I shouldn't have judged over them as well before I met them, but I did and am now terribly ashamed of it. So please, do not allow yourself to judge over these great people unless you haven't seen them doing there job. | 0negative
|
After seeing Dick Tracy in the 6.99$ bin at Future Shop I decided to give it a go with no previous knowledge and being a big fan of Mafia and Crime movies. I was very surprised to see a very fun, smart entertaining movie with solid performances throughout. The movie moves along well, it has of course another solid performance from Warren Beatty, but the real standouts of the film are Al Pacino and Madonna. I was happy to find out that Pacino was nominated for his performance as an over the top gangster trying to take down the city. Madonna was great as the damsel in distress, she really impressed me and added depth to her performance. If you go in with the attitude of wanting to watch a fun, smart movie with great acting and a solid script then give Dick Tracy a try. I don't think you will be disappointed. And Watch for the cameos from Paul Sorvino, James Caan, Kathy Bates and Dustin Hoffman among others. | 1positive
|
This film was pretty good. I am not too big a fan of baseball, but this is a movie that was made to help understand the meaning of love, determination, heart, etc.<br /><br />Danny Glover, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brenda Fricker, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Danza, and Milton Davis Jr. are brought in with a variety of talented actors and understanding of the sport. The plot was believable, and I love the message. William Dear and the guys put together a great movie.<br /><br />Most sports films revolve around true stories or events, and they often do not work well. But this film hits a 10 on the perfectness scale, even though there were a few minor mistakes here and there.<br /><br />10/10 | 1positive
|
I caught this film on AZN on cable. It sounded like it would be a good film, a Japanese "Green Card". I can't say I've ever disliked an Asian film, quite the contrary. Some of the most incredible horror films of all time are Japanese and Korean, and I am a HUGE fan of John Woo's Hong Kong films. I an not adverse to a light hearted films, like Tampopo or Chung King Express (two of my favourites), so I thought I would like this. Well, I would rather slit my wrists and drink my own blood than watch this laborious, badly acted film ever again.<br /><br />I think the director Steven Okazaki must have spiked the water with Quaalude, because no one in this film had a personality. And when any of the characters DID try to act, as opposed to mumbling a line or two, their performance came across as forced and incredibly fake. I honestly did not think that anyone had ever acted before...the ONLY person who sounded genuine was Brenda Aoki.. I find it amazing that this is promoted as a comedy, because I didn't laugh once. Even MORE surprising is that CBS morning news called this "a refreshing breath of comedy". It was neither refreshing, nor a breath of comedy. And the ending was very predictable, the previous reviewer must be an idiot to think such things.<br /><br />AVOID this film unless you want to see a boring predictable plot line and wooden acting. I actually think that "Spike of Bensonhurst" is a better acted film than this...and I walked out half way through that film! | 0negative
|
This is probably the first entry in the "Lance O'Leary/Nurse Keat" detective series; in subsequent O'Leary films, he was played by much younger actors than Guy Kibbee.<br /><br />A group of relatives (all played by well-known character actors) gathers in an old house (on a rainy nite, of course!) to speak to a wealthy relative, who goes into a coma.<br /><br />While they wait for him to recover, all sorts of mysterious goings-on happen, including a couple of murders.<br /><br />A creepy film; worth seeing! | 0negative
|
I liked Boyle's performance, but that's about the only positive thing I can say. Everything was overdone to the point of absurdity. Most of the actors spoke like you would expect your 9-year-old nephew to speak if he were pretending to be a jaded, stone-hearted cop, or an ultra-evil villain. The raspy voice-overs seemed amateurish to me. I could go buy a cheap synthesizer and crank out better opening music. And what's with the whole 1984ish police torture stuff? It was totally superfluous and had nothing to do with the actual events of the story. Cox added a lot of things, in fact, that he apparently thought would be really cool, but had nothing to do with the story. That's a big disappointment because one of the things that makes Borges' stories so good is his minimalism -- they are tightly bound, with no superfluous details. This movie is just the opposite. I stopped watching after the scene where Lonnrot is questioning the guy from the Yidische Zaitung, or thereabouts. I wasted $4 renting this, but at least I can get some satisfaction from writing this review and hopefully saving others from making the same mistake. | 0negative
|
Normally I don't like series at all. They're all to predictable and they tend to become boring and dull very fast.<br /><br />These series however, are well played, the story follows through all episodes and even if you miss one, the story will still be catching your mind.<br /><br />The episodes are all filmed on a hospital and takes you further and further in to the mysteries of dark and old secrets that lies just beneath the surface of the mighty hospital. | 1positive
|
Why else would he do this to me?<br /><br />Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... "good" Dean Cain is.<br /><br />Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.<br /><br />To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?<br /><br />How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?<br /><br />Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.<br /><br />Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.<br /><br />That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...<br /><br />Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!<br /><br />fade to black<br /><br />my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.<br /><br />But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.<br /><br /> | 0negative
|
What happened? What we have here is basically a solid and plausible premise and with a decent and talented cast, but somewhere the movie loses it. Actually, it never really got going. There was a little excitement when we find out that Angie is not really pregnant, then find out that she is after all, but that was it. Steve Martin, who is a very talented person and usually brings a lot to a movie, was dreadful and his entire character was not even close to being important to this movie, other than to make it longer. I really would have liked to see more interactions between the main characters, Kate and Angie, and maybe try not for a pure comedy, which unfortunately it was not, but maybe a drama with comedic elements. I think if the movie did this it could have been very funny since both actresses are quite funny in their own ways and sitting here I can think of numerous scenarios that would have been a riot. | 0negative
|
this film is quite simply one of the worst films ever made and is a damning indictment on not only the British film industry but the talentless hacks at work today. Not only did the film get mainstream distribution it also features a good cast of British actors, so what went wrong? i don't know and simply i don't care enough to engage with the debate because the film was so terrible it deserves no thought at all. be warned and stay the hell away from this rubbish. but apparently i need to write ten lines of text in this review so i might as well detail the plot. A nob of a man is setup by his evil friend and co-worker out of his father's company and thus leads to an encounter with the Russian mafia and dodgy accents and stupid, very stupid plot twists/devices. i should have asked for my money back but was perhaps still in shock from the experience. if you want a good crime film watch the usual suspects or the godfather, what about lock, stock.... thats the peak of the contemporary British crime film..... | 0negative
|
I would recommend this film to anyone who is searching for a relaxing, fun-filled, thought-provoking movie. The absence of sex, vulgarities and violence made for a most pleasant evening. I especially enjoyed the Buffalo scene, but that's probably because I live a short distance from there. Even so, this film could have been produced in any city; it's the theme that's so important here. I'm just grateful that Manna From Heaven dropped down on us. Try it...you'll like it! | 1positive
|
I never fell asleep during a movie. Never. This movie did the impossible.<br /><br />While many people claim the superiority of Japanese horror films over their American counterparts, this movie was a lesson in over abundance. As in, the movie was 30 minutes too long. It would have helped if the movie had a little more movement in the plot and the camera work, but instead, all we got were awkward silences and a lot of slow movement. The acting was absolutely terrible, bordering on bad student film levels while everyone struggled to ad-lib something called a script. Did these people even get any direction? Were they coaxed to be boring and dull? Either therory wouldn't surprise me.<br /><br />What was even worse was the rather unscary make-up involved with the creatures from the other side. Either way, they all stunk. Don't watch this film. That's all I can say (unless you're an insomniac). | 0negative
|
Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.<br /><br />The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.<br /><br />I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it. | 1positive
|
This is an OK adaptation of the breath taking book of Dan Brown. I can't say it is novel or very good but they made a movie that you can enjoy. Given the excellent story, the result could have been better though. The movie is pretty long but at the end I was feeling like some things were missing. Sound effects and sound tracks were very good. Acting was well done but the character development phase was very weak. For people who didn't read the book, things may look happening too quickly. From my point of view, instead of trying to put as much as stuff from the book, they could have tried to do the important scenes more proper. What makes the book very good was all the puzzle like story combined with the excellent portrait of Vatican. You see neither of it in the movie. Too much rush and using the time not in a good way, these are main problems of the movie. So, it is worth watching but could have been done better. | 1positive
|
Paul Verhoeven's predecessor to his breakout hit 'Basic Instinct' is a stylish and shocking neo-noir thriller. Verhoeven has become known for making somewhat sleazy trash films, both in his native Holland and in America and this film is one of the reasons why. The Fourth Man follows the strange story of Gerard Reve (played by Jeroen Krabbé); a gay, alcoholic and slightly mad writer who goes to Vlissingen to give a talk on the stories he writes. While there, he meets the seductive Christine Halsslag (Renée Soutendijk) who takes him back to her house where he discovers a handsome picture of one of her lovers and proclaims that he will meet him, even if it kills him.<br /><br />Paul Verhoeven twists the truth many times in this film, and that ensures that you never quite know where you are with it. Many of the occurrences in The Fourth Man could be what they appear to be, but they could easily be interpreted as something else entirely and this keeps the audience on the edge of their seats for the duration, and also makes the film work as this narrative is what it thrives on. Paul Verhoeven is not a filmmaker that feels he has to restrain himself, and that is one of things I like best about him. This film features a very shocking scene that made me feel ill for hours afterwards (and that doesn't happen very often!). I wont spoil it because it needs the surprise element to work...but you'll see what I mean when you see the film (make sure you get the uncut version!). There is also a number of other macabre scenes that are less shocking than the one I've mentioned, but are lovely nonetheless; a man gets eaten by lions, another one has a pipe sent through his skull, a boat is smashed in half...lovely.<br /><br />The acting in The Fourth Man isn't anything to write home about, but it's solid throughout. Jeroen Krabbé holds the audience's attention and looks the part as the drunken writer. It is Renée Soutendijk that impresses the most, though, as the femme fatale at the centre of the tale. Her performance is what Sharon Stone would imitate nine years later with Basic Instinct, but the original fatale did it best. Paul Verhoeven's direction is solid throughout as he directs our attention through numerous points of view, all of which help to create the mystery of the story. Verhoeven has gone on to make some rubbish, but he obviously has talent and it's a shame that he doesn't put it to better use. Of all the Verhoeven films I've seen, this is the best and although it might be difficult to come across; trust me, it's worth the effort. | 1positive
|
Never saw the original movie in the series...I only hope it was a much better movie than this or the sequel made in the 1980's as if it is not how were these two terrible sequels even justified. This movie had a really good lead in when they were advertising it to be shown on one of those old independent stations that are a thing of the past now. Anyways it looked like it would be a pretty good scary movie. It was, however, a movie that would make some Walt Disney movies look dark. Really, this movie was just a bunch of light fluff with virtually no boggy creek creature to be seen. The only real sighting is near the end when you see its shape during a very heavy rainstorm, other than that there is virtually no sign of the creature which was really disappointing as a kid. The story is basically the old evil hunters must kill anything they see and are after the boggy creek creature and kids are out to help it or just some random hairy guy in the woods that likes to pull random boats through the water. Not really worth watching I would however like to see the original, granted the maker of that would make the also bad boggy creature of the 80's, but he also made a very good slasher movie in the 70's "The Town the Dreaded Sundown". | 0negative
|
It's nice to see a romantic comedy that does not have the prissy man lead, this has solid acting from both male leads and also from the female lead and although the story is a little long and a little cliché you cant help but like it.<br /><br />I think the story was a little rushed at the end, but extending that would have made the story even longer. Superior to other romantic comedies such as 100 days with Mr arrogant, and possibly tied with my tutor friend.<br /><br />It would make an interesting introduction to Korean cinema, not as great as My sassy girl, but still good. | 1positive
|
Sometimes you just have to have patients when watching indie horror. If you can just toe-tap your way through the slow-paced early scenes, sometimes a real gem will present itself... This (unfortunately) was not the case with "Satan's Whip".<br /><br />Written and directed by Jason Maran, "Satan's Whip" attempts to drag us along on a boring snore-fest of a film, with no real pay off at the end. I'm guessing that the black & white (and blue) cinematography must have been for a reason, however it is never explained why the majority of the blood is blue, and I found this increasingly annoying as the film went on. The story in itself is not that bad, and actually had some originality and decent content but the acting is simply pathetic. This, combined with the slow-pacing and lack of any real (red) gore made "Satan's Whip" one to forget quite quickly. I will give it a "4" rating for some witty dialog that made me chuckle, but alas that could not save this boring waste of my time. | 0negative
|
I want the 99 minutes of my life back that was wasted on this pathetic excuse for a movie. The acting was horrific! I used to be a fan of Cameron Diaz and Vincent D'Onofrio. I will never look at them the same again. Keanu Reeves and Dan Aykroyd were not a surprise. Everyone knows they never could act. Thankfully, only Dan attempted an accent. His accent was a disaster as expected. I think he was either confused about the location of the film or had never actually spoken to anyone from Minnesota. I hope this review helps anyone who is undecided about what to do with their precious time. The only reason I was able to sit through the whole movie was because I was stuck somewhere without anything better to watch or read. | 0negative
|
Thank God I watched this at a friend's place and did not pay for it. The plot is horribly transparent and the whole movie felt like an episode of a TV show. If you have any knowledge of computers or electronics, watch out. You will feel feel like the movie is an insult to your intelligence. <br /><br />Also, actress turned Much Music VJ Amanda Walsh displays the worst acting I have ever seen, excluding porn. She's lucky that Matt Lanter is actually decent. He's the one that carries the movie. <br /><br />I hate that I wasted nearly two hours of my life watching this movie! It's a shame that they got to call it a sequel, because I was a fan of the original, which was actually pretty good. | 0negative
|
Apparently, the people that wrote the back of the box did not bother to watch this so-called "movie." They described "blindingly choreographed intrigue and violence." I saw no "intrigue." I instead saw a miserable attempt at dialogue in a supposed kung fu movie. I saw no "violence." At least, I saw nothing which could cause me to suspend my disbelief as to what could possibly hurt a man with "impervious" skin--but here I am perhaps revealing too much of the "plot." Furthermore, as a viewer of many and sundry films (some of which include the occasional kung fu movie), I can authoritatively say that this piece of celluloid is unwatchable. Whatever you may choose to do, I will always remain<br /><br /> Correct,<br /><br /> Jonathan Tanner <br /><br /> <br /><br />P.S. I was not blinded by the choreography. | 0negative
|
Rather like Paul Newman and Steve McQueen with their racing car movies this has all the appearance of a "jollies" project for Robert Redford, as he gets to ski up hill and down dale in the Alpine sunshine.<br /><br />The story is as light as powdered snow with Redford's small-town boy David Chappellet (what kind of lead name is that?) who with his eyes on the prize of Olympic glory, gets up the nose of, in no particular order, his coach, father and team-mates. Women are a mere side-show in his insular world as evidenced by a fairly distasteful pick-up scene with an old girlfriend in his hometown and then his selfishly petulant pursuit of, heavens above, a free-thinking, independent woman, played by Camilla Sparv. The ski-ing sequences are fine with some good stunt-work involving numerous bumps and scrapes on the piste but their effectiveness is dimmed by our subsequent familiarity with top TV coverage of skiing events down to the present day. Plus I'm not convinced that the Winter Olympics has the same mass identification with the general public as the summer games so that when Redford eventually wins his gold medal in the final reel, I couldn't really be that excited for him one way or another.<br /><br />Of the actors, Redford, best profile forward, doesn't need to do much and indeed doesn't, while Gene Hackman does better with equally meagre material. Ms Sparv does well as the chief female interest well who treats Redford the way he's doubtless treated every other woman in his chauvinistic way.<br /><br />In truth though, there's a lack of dramatic tension throughout for which the action sequences don't fully compensate and you don't care a fig for any of the leading characters. One of those films where the actors probably enjoyed making it more than the viewers did watching it. | 0negative
|
Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! I can not stand Ben stiller anymore. How this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. I can't understand how this happens if I performed at work the way he acts in a movie I'd get fired and I own the company.....I would have to fire myself. GOD! This movie was just a plain, steaming, stinking pile of POO, that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. Something else I have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. What is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie? I will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary. | 0negative
|
Chuck Jones's 'Rabbit Seasoning', the second in the much beloved hunting trilogy, is often considered to be the best of the three. While I find it almost impossible to choose between this trio of fantastic cartoons, I would have to concede that 'Rabbit Seasoning' is the most finely honed script. Here, the emphasis is placed on language as Bugs and Daffy run through a series of complex dialogues in the grand tradition of Abbot and Costello's 'Who's on next' routine. As a long term Daffy fan, I have always been delighted by the hunting trilogy because it is consistently Daffy who gets all the best lines (the famous "Pronoun trouble" being one of the all time classics) and does most of the work. Bugs plays the role of cool manipulator while Elmer, as always, is the befuddled dupe. Part of what makes the hunting trilogy so much fun is that Daffy and Elmer pose so little threat to Bugs that he is basically just kicking back and having some easy laughs. Elmer falls into every trap that is laid for him but it is poor old Daffy who comes off worst, being shot in the face again and again, his beak ending up in more and more ridiculous positions. It all builds to the inevitable climactic declaration "You're despicable". As intricate an example of Chuck Jones's impeccable timing as you'll come across, 'Rabbit Seasoning' is a true classic. | 1positive
|
Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary. The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie. Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film. | 0negative
|
Saturday June 3, 6:30pm The Neptune<br /><br />Monday June 5, 4:30pm The Neptune<br /><br />Few celebrations of ethnic and cultural identity succeed as mightily as Carlos Saura's brilliant interpretation of Isaac Albeniz' masterpiece Iberia Suite. At the approach of its centennial, Saura drew together an unprecedented wealth of talent from the Spanish performing arts community to create this quintessential love song to their homeland. The twelve "impressions" of the suite are presented without narrative in stark surroundings, allowing the power of each performance to explode before Saura's camera. Creative use of large flats and mirrors, moved throughout the set, combined with screens, shadows, fire, rain and rear projection add glorious dramatic effects to the varied selections of song, dance and instrumental performance. Photographs of Albeniz reappear throughout the program, connecting the passion of the music to its great creator. Saura encompasses all Spaniards on his stage from the beautiful elegance of elderly flamenco dancers in traditional costume to children joyously dancing with their instructors. | 1positive
|
Hopefully the score has changed by now due to my brilliant and stunning review which persuades all of you to go and watch the film thereby creating an instant chorus of "8"s, this movie's true score.<br /><br />As mentioned before Chris Rock is The King! Previous to going to see this movie I wasn't that over the top about him but now I'm banging on the doors of Chris Rock's website begging him to take me on as his protege. This film is truly funny, if you don't find this movie funny you REALLY need therapy and it's humour which targets all areas of society including race(predictably), class division, love, wealth, employment, dreams, stand up comedy... the list goes on.<br /><br />There was one slight disappointment for me however. This was that in going into this film I didn't realise that it was actually a remake of "Heaven Can Wait" another quite good movie made in 1971 with Warren Beatty. As such I was quite surprised when I watched this movie and suddenly the plot began to unravel to be distinctly similar to an older movie I had watched on TV a few weeks ago.. Regardless this movie is in my opinion the better version out of the two of them simply because of the different areas it covers and the fact that Chris Rock is funnier than Warren Beatty any second of any day of any week of any year of any...you get the picture.<br /><br />Well to the actual plot of the film.<br /><br />Don't spoil the experience for yourself! Don't read the plot! Just go and watch a movie because there have been two reviews on IMDb so far that have raved mad about it, go see it because it is the funniest thing you would have seen in a long time, go and see it because it's a cinema experience that doesn't leave you grumbling ad nauseum at the cost of cinema tickets. Go see it because it is a good movie! | 1positive
|
The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.<br /><br />That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.<br /><br />Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.<br /><br />This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.<br /><br />The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.<br /><br />As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying. | 0negative
|
Destined to be a classic before it was even conceptualized. This game deserves all the recognition it deserves. At a time when first-person shooters like Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament are garnering all the attention of computer gamers, graphic adventures are a dying breed. With great pun and humour, The Curse of Monkey Island is a game that people of all age groups would enjoy. Life can only improve after playing The Curse of Monkey Island. *prediction* the sequel Escape from Monkey Island is already destined to be a classic too. I guarantee it. | 1positive
|
This episode had potential. The basic premise of a woman living next door to an empty apartment (but a phone that constantly rings) is somewhat interesting. And when she explores the noise, there is genuine tension and fear. But stupid script writing ruins any promise the episode had.<br /><br />First of all, the woman readily admits to seeing things that would send most of us running in the other direction (e.g. "It's funny that the door slammed shut even though there is no wind;" "This door has serious damage to it that wasn't here a minute ago;" "The door opened by itself, without me touching it;" etc.). Given these supernatural phenomena, plus the fact that a woman committed suicide in the room, wouldn't she take some precaution before entering it? Maybe she could investigate in the day time. Or maybe she could investigate the apartment with somebody else. Or maybe she could TURN ON THE LIGHTS!!! Also, while in the haunted apartment, she decides to make numerous phone calls to the operator and gets into an argument over who has the power to disconnect the phone, and then they begin discussing the details of the suicide. JUST UNPLUG THE PHONE! The phone company doesn't need to be involved. Walk up to the phone and unplug it. Case closed.<br /><br />Finally, showing the phone scamper across the floor like it's alive was just comical. If the director wanted the woman to get strangled by the phone card, he could've done it in a way that didn't look cartoony. Brave Little Toaster anyone? | 0negative
|
This has got to be the worst movie I haver ever seen Nielson in. This movie just does not have what he needs to be funny. I think the reasons that the Naked Gun and the like movies is that they did not require Nielson to be funny. He just played the roles as straight as he could while all of the comedy that went on was mostly visual. But when you put him in a movie where he has to be funny, he isn't. The movie had only one good part, and this may be considered a spoiler by some, and that the beginning credits were animated. If the whole movie had been animated, it might have been good. I had no intention of seeing this movie when I saw the ads for it, and the only reason I did see it was because the tickets were given to me by someone who won them in a radio contest. This is the first and probably only movie I have ever walked out on. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a score of -100. | 0negative
|
As a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper. | 0negative
|
I thought this was a wonderful way to spend time on a too hot summer weekend, sitting in the air conditioned theater and watching a light-hearted comedy. The plot is simplistic, but the dialogue is witty and the characters are likable (even the well bread suspected serial killer). While some may be disappointed when they realize this is not Match Point 2: Risk Addiction, I thought it was proof that Woody Allen is still fully in control of the style many of us have grown to love.<br /><br />This was the most I'd laughed at one of Woody's comedies in years (dare I say a decade?). While I've never been impressed with Scarlet Johanson, in this she managed to tone down her "sexy" image and jumped right into a average, but spirited young woman.<br /><br />This may not be the crown jewel of his career, but it was wittier than "Devil Wears Prada" and more interesting than "Superman" a great comedy to go see with friends. | 1positive
|
I had some reservations about this movie, I figured it would be the usual bill of fare --- a formula movie about Christmas. Being in the middle of a heat wave in late June, we decided to give it a shot anyway, maybe we would see some snow.<br /><br />This movie turned out to be one laugh after another. Ben Affleck was believable in his character, but the real star of this one is James Gandofini. He delivered his lines with a real wit about him and made a great "dad".<br /><br />If you want to have an enjoyable couple of hours, definitely check this one out. | 1positive
|
During the Clete Roberts preface, I was beginning to think this was an Ed Wood production, however, what rolls out here is some pretty hard hitting stuff. The story of crime and corruption in a Southern town is told using a cast culled from Hollywood's Poverty Row, and this makes the movie all the more realistic. There are no punches pulled here, and at times the film is reminiscent of "The Well"(1951). The Black and White texture gives a newsreel-like quality. For certain, younger viewers will be reminded of "The Blair Witch Project" but this one IS based on REAL events! | 1positive
|
I am a huge fan of the Farcry Game, HUGE fan. It still holds a place in my top-10 games list of all time! The story line was new, fresh... A truly brilliant foundation to base a movie on... or so i thought...<br /><br />Farcry the Movie is no less than another directors attempt at cashing in on a successful game franchise (see Doom: The Movie, and many more...).<br /><br />The Video Game begins as the player (Jack Carver) awakes in a sea side cave after been shot off his boat by an RPG from an unknown soldier. Jack then finds a communication device where (Harlan Doyle) guides him across islands, shipwrecks, jungles, installations and VOLCANOES, to find his (lady friend?) (Valerie Constantine), all the wile battling mutated super soldiers, and genetically enhanced animals.<br /><br />The Movie plays out very, very differently: 1: There's a needless 30 mins (1/3 of the movie) of "backstory" before we even get to the 'boat blowing up' scene. 2: Jack then walks onto the beach, kills some goons, then drives off... Nothing like the game... 3: There is no communicator with Doyle on the other end... 4: The 'Modified Soldiers' look like albinos with singlets on... And there was no mutated 'monkey-like' creatures jumping out of the bushes. A part of the Farcry game i enjoyed allot... 5: There is no sun filled beach scenes, no aircraft carrier, no communications stations on huge cliffs, LITTLE reference to any in-game contents (characters/items/vehicles), in fact no attempt to follow the story line at all. 6: The climactic Volcano scene from the game is replaced with an old industrial building. 7: There's an Ending scene... where everyone (except Krieger) live happily ever after... WHAT THE!<br /><br />I recommend avoiding this movie at all costs! If you are a Gamer, you will HATE this movie will all your soul. It is a movie clearly intended for males, so girls, stay away... So if your a male, 12-29 years of age, have never played Farcry, and are not disgusted by directors attempts at porting books/games to the cinema... then this is for you... | 0negative
|
I cant believe there are people out there that did not like this movie! I thought it was the funniest movie i had ever seen. It my have been b/c i am Mel Brooks biggest fan... I know almost all the words and get very discouraged when they censor them, when it is played on a Family Channel. :) this is one of my favorite movies, so i dont know why any one would disagree! thanks Kristina | 1positive
|
I have now seen quite a few films by Pedro Almodóvar, but this would have to be the most disappointing so far. This film seemed to lack the zaniness that is usually everywhere in his films, and the story just never got me interested. Many Almodóvar regulars appear in this film, so it's not like there was a lack of on-screen talent, but this film just seemed more serious than his other films. If there was a comedic edge to this movie, I certainly couldn't find it, and it made for one surprisingly weak movie. | 0negative
|
The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.<br /><br />If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer. | 0negative
|
This movie was not so much promoted here in Greece,even though it got good actors , great script and rather good photograph was not a so called "blockbuster" movie in my Country. The movie itself is very powerful,it's about the hard time that a newcomer had to go through when he returns in his home-village after been released from a 5yo prison time(drugs) The end is rather sad.... Mourikis is trying to keep up with his part and he handles it pretty well... Lambropoulou is great and very sexy in a strange way and of course Hatzisavvas is for one more time close to excellency... 7 out of 10 because very few Greek movies can make such an impression! | 1positive
|
Cinema's greatest period started in post-War Europe with Italy's Neo-Realist movement. During the next 2 or 3 decades that followed, France's New Wavers caught everyone's attention, and there was always Bergman up there on his desolate Scandinavian island somewhere, making bitter masterpieces. But in 1971, Luchino Visconti brought the art-form to full circle, geographically speaking, with his miraculous work *Death in Venice*, which might as well be called *The Death of Europoean Cinema*. After the Sixties wound down, so did the great European filmmakers, who, with some exceptions, generally grew exhausted and passed the torch to a new American generation of Movie Brats (Coppola, Scorsese, & Co.). This movie absolutely feels like a grand summing-up, not just of Visconti's particular obsessions, but of the general attempt of European filmmakers to achieve the aesthetic ideal in movies. And rest assured, you will find no sterner task-master than the Visconti revealed here. He's not playing to the crowd, folks: either you get behind him and follow along, or you get left behind. The pacing is a challenge: slow, but never without emotional weight. "Incidents" are few and far between, but each seems loaded with symbolic significance in a sturm-und-drang cosmos.<br /><br />We will probably never be in such rarefied company again, in terms of the movies: one of the century's great writers who inspired the tale (Thomas Mann), one of the greatest filmmakers directing it (Visconti), one of the greatest actors in the lead role (Dirk Bogarde), and swelling almost ceaselessly in the background, Gustav Mahler's 5th Symphony. Taking full advantage of Mahler's ability to inspire Romanticism in even the most cynical breast, Visconti changes the main character, Aschenbach, into a decrepit composer from his original persona as a writer, even making Bogarde up to LOOK like Mahler (geeky mustache, specs, shaggy hair, duck-like walk). Bogarde, by the way, delivers what is probably greatest performance of an actor in the history of movies: it's a largely silent performance, and the actor has to deliver reams of meaning in a gesture or a glance -- a difficult trick without mugging like Chaplin or merely acting like an animated corpse.<br /><br />Cinema just doesn't get better than this. I'll ignore the complaints from the Ritalin-addicts out there who say that it's too slow, but even the more legitimate gripe concerning some of Aschenbach's flashbacks with that antagonistic friend of his is misplaced. The flashbacks fit neatly within the movie's thematic concerns (i.e., which is the better path to aesthetic perfection: passion or discipline?), and the suddenness and shrillness of these interruptions serve to prevent sleepiness among the viewers. (Of course, some viewers will sleep through this movie, anyway.) A nonstop stream of Mahler and beautiful, dying Venice would be nothing more than a pretty picture; but this movie is actually about something. And what it's mostly about is suffering: Romantic (capital R) suffering, in particular. As a suffering Romantic himself, Visconti knew whereof he spoke.<br /><br />[SPOILER . . . I guess] If for nothing else, see *Death in Venice* for its portentous opening credits . . . and for its unforgettable ending, with Bogarde's jet-black hair-dye dripping off of his sweaty, dying head and onto his chalk-white face. Meanwhile, off in the distance, young Tadzio, the object of Bogarde's dying desire, stands in the ocean and points toward the horizon like a Michelangelo sculpture. The climatic sequence sums up with agonizing economy everything that the movie is about: love, lust, beauty, loss, the ending of a life set against the beginning of another life, and cold death in the midst of warm, sunny beauty. *Death in Venice* is a miraculous work of art. <br /><br />[DVD tip: as with the simultaneously released Visconti masterpiece *The Damned*, I recommend that you turn the English subtitles ON while watching this movie. It's ostensibly in English, but the DVD's sound seems muddy and there's a lot of Italian spoken during the film, anyway.] <br /><br /> | 1positive
|
This cute animated short features two comic icons - Betty Boop and Henry.<br /><br />Henry is the bald, slightly portly boy from the comics who never speaks.<br /><br />Well here he does speak!<br /><br />He wants to get a puppy from Betty Boop's pet store, and when he is left to mind the store - some hilarious hijinks ensue.<br /><br />Betty sings a song about pets, Henry gets in a battle with birds and a monkey, but everything works out in the end. | 1positive
|
I am a huge Woody Allen fan and so when I saw that this was playing at the cinema I couldn't help myself. I wanted to see how Allen would follow up his magnificent film Match Point seeing as this is another one of his films shot in G.B. (which is unique among Allen's work) along with what seems to be his new muse Scarlett Johanson. Scoop is much lighter than MP and the humor is Scoop's most enjoyable aspect. The plot revolves around Johanson's character (a journalism student) who gets a tip on a hot story from beyond the grave. She falls in love with a suspected serial killer (Jackman) and she must decide whether the truth is worth finding. Oh and all of this is done with the help of a bumbling magician turned detective played by Allen.<br /><br />I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed Johanson's performance but I am a bit bias, I could watch a three hour film with Johanson in ever frame and remain enchanted. She plays a ditsy, yappy, bumbling sweetheart that is kind of a variation in a sense of Allen's stereotypical neurosis stricken character. She adds appropriate body language for comic effect. Needless to say almost anyone who sees this will find Johanson's character sickeningly cute and that is a plus.<br /><br />Allen is Allen... He is still playing the same character much like Chaplin and his Little Tramp character. Something that occur in this film makes me wonder if I will see the neurotic little hypochondriac again however. He is not in the cast of his next picture and has been spending more time exclusively behind the camera as of late...<br /><br />Jackman is also enjoyable as the suave, millionaire murder suspect. I cannot say that Jackman does anything in particular to make the role his but he suits his character none the less.<br /><br />In terms of the plot I cannot help but feel that this is fresh... In fact it stinks of Curse of the Jade Scorpion. Johanson and Allen are more detective-like than anything. However I must applaud Allen on his ending because it is a bit more clever than your typical unoutstanding Hollywood version of this film. Instead of everything being black and white, things are painted in shades of gray. Being entirely innocent has nothing to do with it nor does unequivocal guilt. Though the plot seemed old Woody still has a knack for one liners. I did find his allusions to his last film interesting... Come for the humor, laugh and be merry.<br /><br />Needless to say if you enjoy Allen's work watch it. If not watch something else... | 1positive
|
I rented this film because of my interest in American history, and especially the somewhat weird story of the Mormons. This movie attempts to make some sense out of how Joseph Smith could turn his "vision" into a major world religion. It first focuses on the troubles the Mormons had in their settlement at Navuoo, Illinois. It portrays the trial of Joseph Smith. Within the course of that trial, Brigham Young stands up to tell of his conversion to Mormonism, and of his belief in the spiritual message of Smith. Then Smith is assassinated, and Young must deal with his own doubts about whether he has been chosen to lead the Mormons to a new land. Despite his grave doubts, he perseveres, and finally has a vision (that Utah is the place for his colony) that gives him confidence in the rightness of his leadership. Later, as crops are destroyed by crickets, he again doubts that he has truly been chosen--however, a miracle occurs, which cements his place in history.<br /><br />I found the performances to be moving, and the story to be convincing and interesting. I would love to know whether Mormons believe that this is an accurate portrayal. Polygamy is a part of the story, but the reasons why this is central to LDS are not raised. The issue is not emphasized.<br /><br />I'm sure people stay away from this movie because of its religious subject-matter, but it has a great cast and will hold your interest throughout. | 1positive
|
Get Smart should be titled Get Stupid. There is not one funny line or gag in the entire film. This film is so bad it makes the Austin Powers films look Shakespearean. A few more films like this and Steve Carell can kiss his career goodbye. As for Anne Hathaway, what is she doing in this film? She's a good actress but is just plain terrible.<br /><br />The writing is pathetically lame. There is not one funny, clever, or witty line. There is not one good sight gag.<br /><br />The directing is terrible. Comedy relies on timing. Someone should tell the director that. Every line that is supposed to be funny (and isn't) is delivered with absolutely the worst sense of comic timing I've ever seen.<br /><br />0 stars | 0negative
|
The cast played Shakespeare.<br /><br />Shakespeare lost.<br /><br />I appreciate that this is trying to bring Shakespeare to the masses, but why ruin something so good.<br /><br />Is it because 'The Scottish Play' is my favorite Shakespeare? I do not know. What I do know is that a certain Rev Bowdler (hence bowdlerization) tried to do something similar in the Victorian era.<br /><br />In other words, you cannot improve perfection.<br /><br />I have no more to write but as I have to write at least ten lines of text (and English composition was never my forte I will just have to keep going and say that this movie, as the saying goes, just does not cut it. | 0negative
|
I was disgusted by this movie. No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi. This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.<br /><br />I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character. He RAPED Artemisia. It was not love, it was rape. He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true".<br /><br />I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about. Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.<br /><br />Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia. | 0negative
|
I think the manuscript of this movie was written on the piece of toilet-paper. No respect whatsoever to many important details which intrinsically make the movie. For example, the names of some Serbian terrorists (that I remember) are Caradan Maldic, Ivanic Loyvek and Leo Hasse. What kind of names are that? Certainly not Serbian! By the way, Caradan Maldic!!! What a name, I laughed for days thinking about it. Probably an implication on Karadzic and Mladic. Secondly, there have never been any cases of terrorism done by Serbians. A journalist like the main character ought to have known that. Thirdly, the actors playing Serbian terrorists are not even Serbs nor do they speak Serbo-croatian. All this aside, this movie is solidly acted but the story is paper-thin and full of holes. At times it makes no sense whatsoever!!! | 0negative
|
Ingrid Bergman, playing dentist Walter Matthau's faithful receptionist who harbors a little crush on her boss, is absolutely wonderful in this film. She handles the witty repartee in the script with aplomb and steals a terrific scene where she and Goldie Hawn talk in a record booth (Ingrid's monologue is a front, but her face tells you she believes in it with all her heart). Matthau is an odd choice for the leading man (he's too old for Goldie Hawn and too unrefined for Bergman, not to mention too unfocused to be a dentist), but I liked the way he tries hard to please Goldie and stumbles around trying to free himself from a lie. Hawn (who won a Supporting Oscar) is just as fresh and bubbly as she is today. This bedroom farce isn't terribly sophisticated (and faintly reminds one of "Any Wednesday" besides), but it's a welcome relief from the noisy, teen-oriented comedies they turn out today. "Cactus Flower" is a lovely sigh! *** from **** | 1positive
|
No, this hilariously horrible 70's made-for-TV horror clinker isn't about a deadly demonically possessed dessert cake. Still, this exceptionally awful, yet undeniably amusing and thus enjoyable cathode ray refuse reaches a breathtaking apex of absolute, unremitting silliness and atrociousness that's quite tasty in a so-execrable-it's-downright-awesome sort of way. Richard Crenna, looking haggard and possibly inebriated, and Yvette Mimieux, who acts as if she never got over the brutal rape she endured in "Jackson County Jail," sluggishly portray a disgustingly nice and respectable suburbanite couple whose quaint, dull, sleepy small town existence gets ripped asunder when the cute German Shepard they take in as the family pet turns out to be some ancient lethal evil spirit. Pretty soon Mimieux and her two repellently cutesy kids Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann (the psychic alien moppets from the Disney "Witch Mountain" pictures) are worshiping a crude crayon drawing of the nasty, ugly canine entity in the den. Boy, now doesn't that sound really scary and disturbing? Well, scary and disturbing this laughably ludicrous claptrap sure ain't, but it sure is funny, thanks to Curtis ("Night Tide") Harrington's hopelessly weak direction, cartoonish (not so) special effects, an almost painfully risible'n'ridiculous plot, and a game cast that struggles valiantly with the absurd story (besides the leads, both Martine Beswicke and R.G. Armstrong briefly pop up as members of a Satanic cult and Victor Jory has a nice cameo as a helpful Native American shaman). Favorite scene: the malicious Mephestophelion mutt puts the whammy on Crenna, practically forcing him to stick his hand into a wildly spinning lawnmower blade. While stuck-up snobby fright film fans may hold their noses at the perfectly putrid stench of this admittedly smelly schlock, devout TV trash lovers should deem this endearingly abominable offal the boob tube equivalent to Alpo. | 1positive
|
For a long time, 'The Menagerie' was my favorite 'Star Trek' episode though in recent years it has been eclipsed by 'City on the Edge of Forever.' What I used to prefer about 'Menagerie' was that it's more hard-core Star Trek with this fascinating back-story to the then-current Trek storyline. I still think it's fairly ingenious the way Gene Roddenberry incorporated the original pilot into a two-part episode. Though the 'new' part of the story is largely an excuse for Kirk and a few others (and us) to watch the pilot, the idea of Spock being court-martialed is a clever one. You can poke holes in the plot if you want. For instance, given the Talosians' mind-control abilities and Captain Pike's condition, why is it even necessary to physically bring Pike back to their planet? And there are other confusing questions about Pike and Commodore Mendez... best to not think too hard about the details and just enjoy ST's only two-parter. | 1positive
|
The year 2005 saw no fewer than 3 filmed productions of H. G. Wells' great novel, "War of the Worlds". This is perhaps the least well-known and very probably the best of them. No other version of WotW has ever attempted not only to present the story very much as Wells wrote it, but also to create the atmosphere of the time in which it was supposed to take place: the last year of the 19th Century, 1900
using Wells' original setting, in and near Woking, England.<br /><br />IMDb seems unfriendly to what they regard as "spoilers". That might apply with some films, where the ending might actually be a surprise, but with regard to one of the most famous novels in the world, it seems positively silly. I have no sympathy for people who have neglected to read one of the seminal works in English literature, so let's get right to the chase. The aliens are destroyed through catching an Earth disease, against which they have no immunity. If that's a spoiler, so be it; after a book and 3 other films (including the 1953 classic), you ought to know how this ends.<br /><br />This film, which follows Wells' plot in the main, is also very cleverly presented in a way that might put many viewers off due to their ignorance of late 19th/early 20th Century photography. Although filmed in a widescreen aspect, the film goes to some lengths to give an impression of contemporaneity. The general coloration of skin and clothes display a sepia tint often found in old photographs (rather than black). Colors are often reminiscent of hand-tinting. At other times, colors are washed out. These variations are typical of early films, which didn't use standardized celluloid stock and therefore presented a good many changes in print quality, even going from black/white to sepia/white to blue/white to reddish/white and so on as you'll see on occasion here. The special effects are deliberately retrograde, of a sort seen even as late as the 1920s and yet the Martians and their machines are very much as Wells described them and have a more nearly realistic "feel". Some of effects are really awkward such as the destruction of Big Ben. The acting is often more in the style of that period than ours. Some aspects of Victorian dress may appear odd, particularly the use of pomade or brilliantine on head and facial hair.<br /><br />This film is the only one that follows with some closeness Wells' original narrative as has been noted. Viewers may find it informative to note plot details that appear here that are occasionally retained in other versions of the story. Wells' description of the Martians a giant head mounted on numerous tentacles is effectively portrayed. When the Martian machines appear, about an hour into the film, they too give a good impression of how Wells described them. Both Wells and this film do an excellent job of portraying the progress of the Martians from the limited perspective (primarily) of rural England plus a few scenes in London (involving the Narrator's brother). The director is unable to resist showing the destruction of a major landmark (Big Ben), but at least doesn't dwell unduly on the devastation of London.<br /><br />The victory of the Martians is hardly a surprise, despite the destruction by cannon of some of their machines. The Narrator, traveling about to seek escape, sees much of what Wells terms "the rout of Mankind". He encounters a curate endowed with the Victorian affliction of a much too precious and nervous personality. They eventually find themselves on the very edge of a Martian nest, where they discover an awful fact: the Martians are shown to be vampires who consume their prey alive in a very effective scene. Wells adds that after eating they set up "a prolonged and cheerful hooting". The Narrator finally is obliged to beat senseless the increasingly hysterical curate who revives just as the Martians drag him off to the larder (cheers from the gallery; British curates are so often utterly insufferable).<br /><br />This film lasts almost 3 hours, going through Wells' story in welcome detail. It's about time the author got his due in a compelling presentation that builds in dramatic impact. A word about the acting: Don't expect award-winning performances. They're not bad, however, the actors are earnest and they grow on you. Most of them, however, have had very abbreviated film careers, often only in this film. The Narrator is played by hunky Anthony Piana, in his 2nd film. The Curate is John Kaufman also in his 2nd film as an actor but who has had more experience directing. The Brother ("Henderson") is played with some conviction by W. Bernard Bauman in his first film. The Artilleryman, the only other sizable part, is played by James Lathrop in his first film.<br /><br />This is overall a splendid film, portraying for the first time the War of the Worlds as Wells wrote it. Despite its slight defects, it is far and away better than any of its hyped-up competitors. If you want to see H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds and not some wholly distorted version of it see this film! | 1positive
|