review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This one's a romp; many Trek fans don't rate this as high as the well-known all-time classic episodes because it lacks the deep meaning or undertone of those really great ones, but this one is so well executed for what it is, so successful as pure entertainment, it always makes my personal list of the top half dozen episodes, no matter what mood I'm in. Several well known future movies ("Westworld") and TV shows (the more bland "Fantasy Island") took their cue from the premise of this episode (then, of course, the TNG show revamped the concept with the holodeck technology). Beautifully filmed (especially evident in the restored version and on DVD) and directed, it takes place in the nice park-like setting of a planet which the Enterprise has just arrived to. It's odd that no animal life, even insects, seems to exist here (how are flowers pollinated, for example), but things turn really odd when members of the landing party start seeing people from their past (Kirk has a people-heavy past, it turns out), as well as figures from other well-known fantasy stories. Sulu even finds an old-style police revolver (adding to his collection of swords, no doubt).<br /><br />By this point in the Trek series (halfway thru the first season), the main characters had pretty much solidified into the old friends we'd come to know over the many proceeding years. Here, we get to really see them relax, converse and work together to figure out this episode's puzzle: the strong narrative is a mystery again, of sorts, and the audience is along for the ride as Kirk & friends seek to unravel a very bizarre series of events which have a decidedly amusing flavor to them. It's almost whimsical, following up on the carefree style established up on the starship as Kirk was finally maneuvered into beaming down after showing definite signs of stress and fatigue (the Enterprise had, it's suggested, just completed a harrowing mission). Then Dr. McCoy is killed by a knight on horseback; yes, this is Dr. McCoy's final episode...just kidding. But, it's no joke to the rest of the landing party at this point in the story. McCoy really is dead for all intents and purposes and, like the best Trek episodes, the 2nd half of this adventure escalates to a more frantic, more desperate tempo of action and suspense. This is all signaled by Kirk's resolute response to Sulu, who voices his lack of understanding about any of these events just after McCoy's death - Kirk will get to the bottom of all this, come what may.<br /><br />But, it doesn't get much easier for Kirk: what follows is probably the longest staged mano-a-mano fight for the series as Kirk tussles with his nemesis from his academy days, a struggle that seems to take place over half the planet. Yet, this is counterbalanced by scenes of extraordinary tenderness, with another of Kirk's past acquaintances. This episode runs the gamut of all human experience, rather fitting in light of what we learn about the actual purpose of this weird planet. It's gratifying that the script really does explain all of what's happened, as opposed to some nonsensical approach which permeates many other fantasy & sci-fi series with similar plot lines (unexplained appearances by persons who could not possibly be there). And there actually is a subtext to the story - that we humans need to 'work' off our tensions and fatigue in a particular fashion, or we just don't function in a 'normal' natural way. Also, note the appearance of the very cute Yeoman Barrows and the sudden absence of Yeoman Rand, who did not return until the first Trek movie in '79. I believe that after this episode, even more Trek fans couldn't wait for the next appearance of all their favorite characters. But I leave this episode with a final, perhaps tantalizing thought: if McCoy was killed (verified by Spock), how do we know it was our real McCoy who beamed back up to the ship? Perhaps this explains why this McCoy was still inspecting starships about a century later and getting along very well with Data. | positive |
British comedies tend to fall into one of two main types: the quiet, introspective, usually romantic study and the farcical social satire. Settings, characters, and concepts vary but certain characteristics place the vast majority of shows into one of the two categories. Butterflies is perhaps the epitomé of the first type. <br /><br />The scripts are very verbal, including long interior monologues by the main character Ria, a basically happy but unsettled housewife curious about what she might have missed out on when she embarked on a thoroughly conventional life. When she meets a successful but clumsy and emotionally accessible businessman (who makes his interest in her quite clear), she toys with the idea of finding out what the other path might have offered.<br /><br />The acting and scripts are always on the money, which makes one's reaction to the show almost entirely a personal one: I was neither blown away by it nor turned off. My mother, on the other hand, adored this show. I think the degree to which one identifies with Ria's dilemma is the most important factor in determining one's reaction to Butterflies. | positive |
Brilliant use of overstated technicolor illustrates the optimistic extremes of present day Christmas ceremonies. The voyeuristic element during the scenes (Santa & Pedro summarize society's behavior peering through a telescope) is unique (and obviously Jean-Luc Godard, although he was subtle, stole this theme in his film "Pierrot le-fou"). Highly recommended! | positive |
You like to solve mysteries? You like complex narrations? This is for you. Brilliant, clever movie by Francis Leclerc(son of a legendary french Canadian signer Felix Leclerc). Flashy photo and clever editing is the word of Leclerc, strongly helped by Roy Dupuis who's dythirambic in the lead role.<br /><br />The plot is about Alexandre Tourneur, veterinary in his 40's who just woke up from a coma after being unplugged by somebody unknown. Tourneur is struggling to remember who hit him as he was ending a deer's sufferings on the road. Throughout the struggling, he has weird behavior and it seems like something took over him.<br /><br />Not spooky, but very mysterious and well played movie. I have my hypothesis on the ending(I think the Indian caused the accident) but this ending was open to any explanations.<br /><br />I strongly recommend it 9.5/10 | positive |
An untidy man, known as Bill, lives in a small dreary flat, with a poster of Marilyn Monroe on the wall, and his typewriter for company. Only the man can't think of anything to write. He wanders around the streets following people, just to see where they go. Maybe this will give him some inspiration to write. He begins to follow a well dressed man holding a bag. He follows him for a few days. While in a cafe, the well dressed man sits down at a table on the opposite side of Bill, and inquires why Bill is following him. The well dressed man says his name is Cobb. Cobb then surprisingly informs Bill that he is a burglar, and even starts to take Bill with him into houses to steal things; although Cobb insists he doesn't go into other people's homes to just steal. He says he likes to let people know he has been there, and interrupted the things they take for granted. He puts knickers from another burglary into a man's trousers, for example.<br /><br />The film is told in flashbacks at times too. The director used this technique in greater abundance in his recent feature Memento. Bill eventually decides to cut his hair and dress in a suit, on the advice of Cobb. He meets a Blonde lady in a club, who used to date the owner, a bald man, who is very dangerous, she says. We see a scene where a hammer is used by the bald man's hence men on a man's fingers in the Blonde lady's flat. These are some of the many pieces of the puzzle that the director shows us, and they will all fit into place when we arrive at the surprising conclusion. | positive |
I wish I could give this movie a zero. Cheesy effects and acting. The only reason to see this movie is so you can see how bad it is. Lets start with the kid who plays Brian. What a geek! I couldn't believe the mullet! Then there was the talking to himself. I guess they couldn't just have the movie be silent, but still. Of course they had to have him skinny-dipping too, not something I wanted to see. But Jared gave a great performance, compared to the special effects department. Everything from the bear to the crash was something I could do myself, and better. I seriously doubt that Gary Paulsen had anything to do with the production, seeing as the movie was not even called Hatchet. Finally, I do not think the writer had ever read the book, seeing as nothing was the same. I think the book was great, but this movie stunk like a smelly goat! | negative |
Randy Bowers (John Wayne) comes upon the Half Way House at just the right time to take a break from the trail, and discovers a slew of dead bodies inside, among them a man he was supposed to deliver a message to - Ed Rogers, proprietor of the establishment. He's observed by the dead man's niece Sally (Alberta Vaughn), from behind a hidden room, where she remained unobserved during the carnage.<br /><br />"Randy Rides Alone" was directed by Harry Fraser. He uses a filming technique here as in other of his films, where he fast forwards the action from one location to another, usually involving a rider on a horse. It's pretty well done and appears quite innovative in these 1930's era Lone Star Westerns.<br /><br />Pre-Gabby George Hayes is on hand, sans whiskers, and this is the first time I've seen him as a villain. In fact it took a few scenes to realize it was him in a dual role, first as hunchbacked businessman "Matt the Mute", communicating via pencil and paper, only to turn into Marvin Black, leader of a gang of outlaws. Black's gang was responsible for the murders at Half Way House, in an attempt to coerce Sally into selling out to Matt/Marvin. Another staple player is here as well, Yakima Canutt as a Black henchman named Spike. Interestingly, Yakima portrayed a villain named Sam Black in another Fraser/Wayne oater, "Neath the Arizona Skies".<br /><br />There's a fair amount of time-killing horseback riding back and forth between Black's Gang and the Sheriff's posse, as John Wayne's character maneuvers to expose the bad guys. In the end, he saves the day by securing Sally Rogers' thirty thousand dollars, at the expense of destroying the Half Way House, where he exchanges some sticks of dynamite for the loot in a safe. Greedy Marvin Black attempts to open it with his six-shooter, and the explosion is a fitting end for the villain. In his best "Aw shucks" attitude, John Wayne falls under the spell of the pretty Sally Rogers, and alas, Randy rides alone no more! | negative |
I watched this film on the Hallmark Channel recently. In my opinion, the film started out decent enough, but eventually got sour.<br /><br />The Story: A U.S. soldier in Afghanistan receives one of the Christmas cards that a woman back in the U.S. has sent out to troops for Christmas. He becomes so inspired by the Christmas card that he feels it has given him a ray of hope and happiness in his life, a motivation to continue on. When he is given leave, he goes to the very town that the woman lives in. He comes across and spunky young woman and eventually finds out that she is the one that sent the Christmas card. He meets the family and after saving her dad (a Vietnam War Veteran) from getting hit by a car whilst crossing the street, the family decides to take him in for a while. We learn that he doesn't have a family back home. The soldier agrees to help out the family during the Christmas season by working with them at their logging company. The family comes to love him and vice-versa. The soldier also becomes in love with the family's daughter - the woman that sent the Christmas card. There's only one problem. She already has a serious relationship with a man that she's in love with. It's also a long distance relationship. The boyfriend is very different from the soldier. He prefers wine and trips to France over hard labor and the great outdoors. The woman prefers the latter. Throughout the rest of the film, there is a "love triangle" as the woman's boyfriend is back in town visiting her for the season. Everyone in the family seems to want the daughter to be with the soldier and the mom basically wants what's best for her daughter. **(SPOILER ALERT)** The woman comes to like the soldier more and more, as they have a lot in common. They happen to spend a lot of time together. She gradually becomes attracted to his persona. Then one day he kisses her and and she kisses him back. Now she's so confused! She's in love with her boyfriend and wants to marry him someday, but she's become so fond of the soldier. Soon enough, the boyfriend (who doesn't know about the kiss, but is very protective of the woman and thinks the soldier has been trying to move in on her) decides to propose to the woman and she accepts. His plans for their marriage, however, are not plans that she wants. She wants to be at home, have kids and be close to her family. He wants to travel the world, go to exotic places and if they have kids he wants to take them along. This doesn't sound too thrilling for the woman. However, the soldier feels bad about what he's done and doesn't want to make things worse. So, he decides to leave town, despite the dad's urging him to stay and be with his daughter. It all comes to a head when, at the Christmas Eve service with Church, we find out that the soldier hasn't left yet. The boyfriend and the woman speak to each other outside and he, broken-hearted, basically decides to let her go and breaks up with her. The film ends with the woman and the soldier getting together.<br /><br />Things I like: I like the soldier throughout much of the film. He's basically nice and polite, with a strong sense of doing good for others; there are moments in which the family is going with Church and participating in charitable causes; the family hold hands and pray during an evening meal at the table; the dad and mom have a long-lasting and evidently healthy marriage; the soldier tries to do the right thing in a situation after he did something very wrong <br /><br />Things I don't like: There is a very typical "love triangle" story in this film; the soldier turns sour as he slowly and subtly moves in on the woman and then eventually kisses her when she already has a boyfriend; most of the family practically applauds this behavior - the family goes with Church and participates in services, yet this is how they act; there is some bad language <br /><br />Conclusion: I became disappointed as the film ran on, and it got worse and worse. I ended up fast forwarding the very end of the film because I had enough. So, the film started out decent with some few gem moments, but ended up ruining itself. Therefore, I don't recommend this film to anyone. | negative |
In Micro Phonies the stooges are at there best. In this short the trio are handymen working in a recording studio. They end up getting a look at Alice Van Doren (Christine Mcintyre)singing the voice of spring. The voice is amazing. Curly in drags is heard by Mrs. Bixby (Symona Boniface). Moe calls Curly Senior Cucaracha. The three stooges end up going to party where Curly is going to dress up in drags. They play a record of the voices of spring and all is going well until Moe destroy the record on Curly's head. They end up using the lucia sexlet until the baritone recognizes them and unplugs it. Alice Van Doren catches on to the boy scream and hides behind a curtain to help them out. All is well until the baritone wonders how Curly is singing without the aid of a phonograph discovers Alice behind the curtain. The three stooges are revealed to be frauds but Alice's father discovers his daughter's talent and agrees that she should become a singer. The stooge are pelted out of the room. Excellent. | positive |
Did the writers pay people to come up here and write positive reviews? I mean, really, it's a bit hackneyed, and Spike isn't that funny. He seems more like the serious guy trying too hard to be funny. There are so many mediocre gigs in this show; like once, the opening sketch was "Talk show, apply directly to the forehead," over and over. And another that featured Spike and another dude getting high, and it wasn't even funny. They didn't even do anything but sit around and laugh, over and over. Ha Ha! And another that featured Spike talking to a Korean guy who ate duck and told him that he had a pet duck. Ha ha! I mean, really, Spike just gets funny guests on his show, that's why people like this show | negative |
I claim no matter how hard I seek I'll never find a better movie version of "Othello". If you love Kenneth Branagh's magnificent masterpieces "Much ado about nothing" (1993) and "Hamlet" (1996) as much as I do I'm dead certain you'll also find Oliver Parker's "Othello" irresistible. Laurence Fishburne has been in a various splendid roles during his career. He was quite terrific in "Boys n the hood" (1991) - I've always considered his amusing role of Furious Styles as his very greatest achievement. That was, of course, way before I saw this.<br /><br />He plays the part of Othello and he is probably in the most challenging role of his whole career but he does a brilliant, fantastic job. Irène Jacob is absolutely charming Desdemona and Kenneth Branagh is just simply phenomenal in a most fascinating role of the story's crooked, manipulate villain Iago. Marvelous "Othello" is part of the absolute elite among Shakespeare's ingenious works. It deals with his favorite topics: crookedness, envy, deceitfulness and jealousy. This movie adaptation is certainly one of the finest films I've seen that's based on William Shakespeare's plays. | positive |
I don't know much about film-making, but good movies have to tell some sort of a story...your characters have to start and complete their journey. In Last Exit to Brooklyn they may, but its not in any satisfying way, and I'm not meaning a happy ending, just ANY ending.<br /><br />Last Exit to Brooklyn, set in 1952 Brooklyn during a very brutal labor strike, sets a number of story threads in motion. Most involve some of the most unlikeable characters to ever walk across a movie screen. But Last Exit to Brooklyn fails to bring these stories to any conclusion...it leaves some of them dangling with no ending, or blasts off into some bizarre stratosphere for an "artistic" ending.<br /><br />Two cases in point, and they contain spoilers.<br /><br />A sad transvestite character (an important character in the film), is struck by a car and killed. And that's it for him in the movie....he's gone for good, erased from everyone's memory..no reactions from his friends, enemies, lovers....nothing.<br /><br />In another thread the stupid, clueless, and secretly gay strike leader, having been rejected by labor, his gay lover, and found out by the neighborhood thugs, gets stomped by the thugs. The closing scene to the beating shows the streets of Brooklyn, and the streetlights are very, very similar to those of Nazi death camps...and the scene drags on and on and on...and the camera pans down to the body of the labor leader, and he's been crucified.....ppppuuuulllleeeeeez. And of course that's it for him too....brain erasure.....gone.<br /><br />Bottom line....no matter what the reviewers originally said in 1989 about this film....this movie is a depressing piece of sludge. Avoid it. And if you don't be forewarned, it really deserves an NC-17 rating for massive amounts of physical, emotional and sexual brutality...don't even let the teenagers watch. | negative |
Once a year "comes" a movie like that and makes things easy for you. You don't have make an effort to think it is good, it's just is. You enjoy it while you watch it, and you take it home with you. I can't say it is totally flawless, but it's near. Acting - great, story -interesting and with elements of suspense. It's a small family story, pretty much predictable, but it's not the secret itself that matters. it is the way the it takes the blind girl to reach it. I was impressed by the way the director portrayed their deep relationship (the blind girl and her cousin). The only thing I didn't like that much is the actress that played the mother, she was too tough and without necessity. Keren | positive |
I saw this movie with my mother, and I loved it! It was such a sweet story, (Not to mention funny because of the supporting cast!) They never make movies like this...ever! My favorite part is when Grace(Minnie Driver) finds out about her boyfriend's wife's death, and that she has the deceased wife's heart and she screams, "WHAT WAS GOD THINKING?" I do believe everyone(No matter who you believe in) has thoughts like that once in awhile. But while it's very sappy, it just might make you believe in true love and destiny for once and for all.(Sigh)<br /><br />The comedic timing between Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi will just make you crack up(especially in the aforementioned scene, it's terrible, and yet so funny!). They make a good pair, and I hope to see them again in something soon. 10/10 Stars | positive |
I've always been a great fan of Woody Allen and always will be for most of what he did in the past, but only a blind lover could ignore how dull, meaningless, pretentious and most of all horrendously acted this movie is. A vacuous mental masturbation based on inconsistent grounds. And what a disastrous idea to artificially recreate a presumed "actor Allen-clone", that is putting into Will Farrell's mouth and gestures what Allen would have done in Farrell's place had he been 30 years younger. The outcome was obviously ludicrous. And not to speak of the dialogues... what was intended to be philosophical reflections turned into an involuntary mockery of intellectual pondering, unaware of its comic effect. How sad... | negative |
The idea's which are shown in this film are with a lot of care and detail and depict what a lot of people from around the world think of the American Policies, not neccessarily the United States itself. It shows what most of the people around the world think about America and what the Americans dont know about themselves. 11 directors showing 11 amazing minutes each of something which will give US viewers a lot to think about when they go home after watching the movie. | positive |
"Pharaoh's Army" defies formula. Instead of selling out for cliches and big stars, it relies completely on the excellent acting from a strong cast, the strength of a well written script, and a fascinating and bitter story. The result is a raw and realistic film that moves along fast, with a heavy emotional current. One of the best I've ever seen about the Civil War, and I think it can owe that to the pleasure of being an independent film (if you like this film, try to see the similarly brilliant indie Civil War film "Wicked Spring" as well).<br /><br />"Pharaoh" simply tells the true story of a small expedition/forage team of Union men who ride into a Confederate farm to take provisions, but end up stuck there because of an accident of one of the men. Tensions broil and relationships are made and broken. Nothing happens the way Hollywood would write it; this movie comes from the mind of someone who actually cares about quality film and the telling of history. Superb dialogue and plot exposition move along a film that looks highly professional, but often doesn't feel like you're watching a movie, more along the lines of hearing a story.<br /><br />The film boasts an incredible performance from Chris Cooper who shows an amazing versatility in the exploration of his role. He transforms, but is always at the height of believability and is easy to emotionally relate to. Patricia Clarkson is equally as stellar and realistic in a role that many actresses would crumble in. She shares an interesting chemistry with Cooper's character and where she's the more severe of the characters, is still as easy to identify with. The rest of the cast is quite capable, and fill their roles in well.<br /><br />The art design and the set are wonderful, and personally I love the cinematography. It all has the feel of a Civil War period photograph with the camera presenting strong contrasting colors and shadows and a tin-like metalic tint, but always keeping the naturalistic look of the rustic setting. They seem to have used natural lighting, but whatever they used works beautifully. Everything looks like it belongs where it is, it feels period, something I find rare in American period films. The actors act 19th century, not like 20th century people in old clothes.<br /><br />Above all, this film is very personal. I think that as an indie it can afford it. The film is nearly flawless with an outstanding script that effortlessly creates and explores the relationships and personalities of these characters and lets them grow in a situation, as bad as it is. It doesn't fail in getting it's point across, and it gets it's point across without the usual and overused techniques that are used in all war films these days. It's brave. It relies on it's characters, a fantastic script, human emotion, and in the cold hard fact that the Civil War wasn't all CGI, big stars, and hoop skirts. | positive |
While not as bad as his game-to-movie adaptations, this hunk of crud doesn't fare much better.<br /><br />Boll seems to have a pathological inability to accept that he doesn't make good movies. One of these days he'll run out of money and stop inflicting the world with his bombs.<br /><br />The acting was sub-par, the dialog sounded like they were reading TelePrompTers and Boll's special little 'touches' were seen throughout the whole thing.<br /><br />Like all Uwe Boll movies, this one just shouldn't exist.<br /><br />Plain and simple.<br /><br />Just like Uwe Boll himself shouldn't exist. >_> | negative |
A dog found in a local kennel is mated with Satan and has a litter of puppies, one of which is given to a family who has just lost their previous dog to a hit & run. The puppy wants no time in making like Donald Trump and firing the Mexican housekeeper, how festive. Only the father suspects that this canine is more then he appears, the rest of the family loves the demonic pooch. So it's up to dad to say the day.<br /><br />This late 70's made for TV horror flick has little going for it except a misplaced feeling of nostalgia. When I saw this as a kid I found it to be a tense nail-biter, but revisiting it as an adult I now realize that it's merely lame,boring, and not really well-acted in the least bit.<br /><br />My Grade: D | negative |
This movie is basically a spoof on Hitchcock's Strangers on a train, which i thought was overrated anyway. The plot has Danny Devito going to see Strangers and then thinking Billy Crystal wants them to swap murders, For Crystal to murder his mother and Devito to murder his wife. Both Devito and Crystal are great and so is Devito's mother. This is Devito's directorial debut and it's better than the war of the roses. | positive |
I tried. I really did. I thought that maybe, if I gave Joao Pedro Rodrigues another chance, I could enjoy his movie. I know that after seeing O FANTASMA I felt ill and nearly disgusted to the core, but some of the reviews were quite good and in favor, so I was like, "What the hell. At least you didn't pay 10 dollars at the Quad. Give it a shot."<br /><br />Sometimes it's better to go to your dentist and ask for a root canal without any previous anesthetic to alleviate the horror of so much pain. I often wonder if it wouldn't be better to go back to my childhood and demand my former bullies to really let me have it. On other occasions, I often think that the world is really flat and that if I sail away far enough, I will not only get away from it all, but fall clear over, and that some evil, Lovecraftian thing will snatch me with its 9000 tentacles and squeeze the life -- and some french fries from 1995, still lingering inside my esophagus -- out of me.<br /><br />Is there a reason for Odete? I'd say not at all... just that maybe her Creator thought that writing a story centered on her madness (one that makes Alex Forrest look like Strawberry Shortcake) look not only creepy, but flat-out sick to the bone. She first of all decides to leave her present boyfriend (in shrieking hysterics) because she wants a child and he believes they're too young. She later crashes a funeral of a gay man, and -- get this -- in order to get closer to him, she feigns being pregnant while insinuating herself into the lives of the dead man's mother and lover in the sickest of ways. Oh, of course, she shrieks like a banshee and throws herself not one, but a good three times on his grave. And there's this ridiculous business that she progressively becomes "Pedro" which sums up some weak-as-bad-tea explanation that love knows no gender. Or something.<br /><br />I'd say she's as nuts as a can of cashews, unsalted. But then again, so's the director. And me, for taking a chance on this. At least the men look good. Other than that... not much else to see here. | negative |
The films use of blue-black and vibrant skin tones to create a noir-ish feel to this movie unfortunately do not work. In fact its quite irritating as it obscures the demon characters and reduces them to one dimensional beings.<br /><br />At least the original had an hysterical energy and the gore set-pieces were quite stunning. Black gore is hardly frightening, nor is the main female demon at all frightening in her attempts to snarl and growl at the screen in her best camp Lugosi style.<br /><br />The narrative is grossly disjointed and if you could imagine 'Naked Lunch' directed by Russ Meyer you may appreciate the attempt to be William Burroughs-esque. Otherwise give this film a wide girth. Bava and Argento fans - once again - are bitterly disappointed. | negative |
This would have to be one of the worst, if not the worst, movie I've ever nearly seen. (I couldn't watch it all the way through). Purely and simply it's gratuitous violence just for the sake of it and the ridiculous story line only adds to the lacklustre and incompetent filming. Sick. And only suitable for those with a love for manic mutilation. After murdering several hundred men, women and children, Seed is finally caught after effortlessly killing several more police officers that finally get a tip as to his whereabouts. He's sentenced to death by electric chair and miraculously survives! Buried alive, he digs his way out and plots revenge against those that put him away and flicked the switch. Needless to say, more gruesome murders ensue... | negative |
Forget Easy Rider - Head is THE film about the 1960s.<br /><br />Almost laugh: as the Monkees reduce their entire career to a one-minute TV commercial about dandruff! See: the 50 foot Victor Mature try to figure out what the heck he's doing in this film! Hear: Frank Zappa (with his pet cow on leash) tell Davey Jones "Your music is awfully white"! Experience: the Monkees' only live performance as a real rock band play the honest-to-gosh first-ever real punk-rock song (Circle Sky)! Listen: as Davey Jones sings a Harry Nielsen song about having a transsexual father! Be confused: be very confused, as confused as Terri Garr is when Mickey Dolenz makes sexual innuendos about her in her film debut! Witness: futile protests against the Vietnam War leap out of nowhere and just as quickly disappear! Watch: Mike Nesmith spit on Christmas while wearing a velvet Victorian smoking jacket in a cobwebbed Gothic horror-movie sound-stage! Let yourself drift: into the karmic bliss inspired by a comic-book version of Indian mysticism delivered by a hammy white character-actor in black-face, while Peter Tork pretends that he knows how to play a guitar! Discover: Academy Award winning director Bob Rafelson's first feature length film, as written by Academy Award winning actor Jack Nicholson! Pretend it's not happening: when the Monkees commit group suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge! Take drugs - take a lot of drugs: take as many drugs as the cast and crew evidently did while making this film!<br /><br />With Head, the Monkees revealed themselves as the angriest, snottiest entertainers in Hollywood history, bar none. It is bewildering to discover that they blamed the failure of this film on bad promo. To be sure, the promotion was virtually non-existent; but did they not recognize how angry, how down-right depressing, how self-destructive this film actually is?! I mean, this film is a trip - on bad acid - to the suicide ward of a mental hospital. The only film I know to be this depressing is Terry Gilliam's Brazil; and like Brazil, this film reveals why life in the later 20th Century was almost unbearable - if you were lucky. It's not simply that Western culture was suffering from serious information-overload, but the information itself was just bad, bad, more bad, and dismal. In fact, it was the overload effect itself that kept people going, since this allowed people to keep distracting themselves with one crisis or another - if news from Vietnam became too much to bear, they could turn the channel and watch a documentary on the rising unemployment rate.<br /><br />The "positive" response to the reality revealed in Head was Woodstock - three days of peace and love and nudity and mud and bugs and bad food and dirty drink and poop and pee and bad acid and Peter Townsend almost killing Abbie Hoffman. All taking place behind a steel fence, under the lovingly watchful eyes of a veritable army of NY State Troopers - meaning that the "freedom" of Woodstock Nation was as illusory as the song John Sebastion thought he was singing while so strung out he could barely speak. "500,000 assholes too stupid to come in out of the rain," was one critic's judgment on Woodstock (I think it was Andy Warhol). <br /><br />The one good thing occurring there was Jimi Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner. Two years previously, the Jimi Hendrix Experience had gone on their first National tour of America, as the warm-up band opening for - the Monkees. <br /><br />See, it's all connected somehow.<br /><br />You owe it to yourself - nay, you owe it to your unborn children - to see the real 1960s, only to be found on film in this bizarre, miraculous, and utterly absurd tribute to one of the more interesting capitalist scams of the later 20th Century. | positive |
This isn't far away from the trash that Bollywood normally makes but there's just something really good about it.<br /><br />The title song is one of Bollywoods best and is haunting throughout. This is one of the films (along with Baazigar - a must see Bollywood film) that made Shah Rukh Khan and it's for this you have to check it out.<br /><br />Other reviews give away the story - it is a fairly basic idea - ShaRukh definitely stands out and one of his final expressions right at the end made me give this film an extra star.<br /><br />Its fairly cheesy but definitely worth watching if you are new to Bollywood or not! 8/10 | positive |
Oh how I laughed....this has it all...an Asian/White family, a disabled Asian boy...everything a healthy person needs to see in the eyes of the BBC.<br /><br />What utter tribe: This was a total insult to my eyes that viewed this rubbish for one episode and ONE EPISODE ONLY.<br /><br />When you think of some of the quality the BBC has put out over the years (Fawlty Towers for example) and then this comes rolling in...Its a disgusting disgrace.<br /><br />Its all geared on political-correctness and is devoid of any humour whatsoever.<br /><br />This is straight from the bowels of hell: but what would you expect from the ultra left-wing BPC...I mean BBC. | negative |
After learning that her sister Susan is contemplating divorce, Kate decides to travel to the distraught woman's remote country home and spend some time with her. When Kate arrives, however, Susan is nowhere in sight. That's because someone has murdered her and stuffed the body in a trunk in the basement. As a storm rages outside, Kate tries to figure out where her sister could have gone and places her own life in great danger...the killer is still on the premises! In her first post-BEWITCHED vehicle, Elizabeth Montgomery gives a solid dramatic performance. Merwin Gerard's teleplay is based on a short story by McKnight Malmar. Malmar's tale was first brought to television in 1962 as an episode of Boris Karloff's THRILLER anthology series. THRILLER stuck very closely to the story, which is kind of a pity, for it could have used a little punching up. Granted Malmar wrote a moderately creepy number, but Gerard (creator of the ONE STEP BEYOND show) adds several clever ingredients that heighten the tension and suspense. | positive |
Imagine a woman alone in a house for forty five minutes in which absolutely nothing happens. Then this goes on twice more. The writing is flat and lifeless, and jokes unfunny, and the bad acting keeps you from caring about any of the characters, even when they battle wolf packs and get beaten up by fraternity goons. Anyone that ranked this movie higher than a two is not fully sane. | negative |
Michael Ritchie's "The Couch Trip" is a wonderfully anarchic comedy about what makes a good psychiatrist. It is so subtle and wicked that you start to realize what a stinging satire it really is. It is also Dan Akyroyd's best movie, made in a particularly great film year (1988)for him. First, "The Great Outdoors" and now this.<br /><br />Akyroyd stars as John Burns, a career crook who fakes insanity to escape prison. Now, a dumb comedy would just be about this. But "The Couch Trip" uses this as a springboard for everything else. Beverly Hills psychiatrist George Maitlin (Charles Grodin, subtly hilarious here)has a nervous breakdown and a replacement is selected: Lawrence Baird, who happens to be Akyroyd's psychiatrist! You can pretty much guess what's going to happen, but the great thing about "The Couch Trip" is not what happens, but how it is done. <br /><br />"The Couch Trip" gives Dan Akyroyd the best role he has ever had. His John Burns is one of the truly original comic creations in movie history. Wicked one liners and physical humor are a part of it, but what makes it special is that Akyroyd makes Burns a lovable character. We root for him and grow to like him a whole lot during the 98 minute running time.<br /><br />But Akyroyd isn't alone here. He gets strong support from other great comic actors. Walter Matthau joins the hilarity as a con artist minister who catches on to Burns' secret and commits genteel blackmail. Charles Grodin "slow burns" his way to another great comic role as the burned out psychiatrist. Grodin has been one of the most underappreciated actors in Hollywood. It's criminal they haven't used him more often. Richard Romanus plays Grodin's slimeball lawyer to perfection.<br /><br />"The Couch Trip" is one of many films made by the now-defunct Orion Pictures Corporation that are currently unseen. MGM spent a fortune buying the Orion library but have yet to truly cash in on their acquisition. "The Couch Trip" joins "Dressed to Kill", "Blow Out" and countless others in gathering dust rotting in the vault. Shame on MGM for their inaction. Hopefully, with new management, "The Couch Trip" will find the audience and respect it deserves.<br /><br />**** out of 4 stars | positive |
It was released in France on dvd several years ago--I wish it would be re-released with English subtitles. Do not confuse this with a remake with Penelope Cruz which gets poor reviews. Gerard Phillippe is a peasant who is told by a fortune teller that he will marry the daughter of the king. He sets off to join the army and goes to war. His love, however, is Gina Lollabrigida in an early movie for her. I won't spoil the end. Gerard Phillippe died a few years later at a young age, a great loss to moviedom. | positive |
Hi, today i looked this film because of the medium (5,6) IMDb rating. I thought it would worth viewing. Also the comments here were quiet good but after start watching this movie i quick realize that this movie isn't anyway near a 5,6 ! Its just boring. You can describe the movie with some words also its just the standard horror movie story with all the standard horror movie scenes. I don't know why people still like those films or why they vote such films better then a 1-3 in IMDb. Just some examples <br /><br />Bunch of people arriving from somewhere or going / driving to anywhere. They meet somehow on their journey strange people but hey maybe they are just nice so hang out with them. Then a very important scene for every horror movie "Oh my cell phone isn't working oh oh mine too .. is that strange but we don't need them so enjoy our ride ..." uhhhhhh our strange person is a strange psychopath better we all sit back and scream a while till he starts cutting parts from us or killing some of us. After a while the bunch of victims get a weapon or chance to escape ofcorse they never think about running away or even kill the psychopath if they got the chance they just talk about what to do until the psychopath got his weapon back with any of the handful of standard tricks they got in those films and all running back as usual ... screaming ... some more to kill ... oh and in the end it gets really exiting sometimes the bad guy wins sometimes some of the victim can escape wow great movies. ... OK if i never ever saw a movie of that kind i would say it is a movie which can be watched but if anyone ever saw any movie of its kind it should be just a boring waste of time because nearly everything in the movie you know before you even watched it because it every time runs like the standard horror movie shematic. .... mmm maybe there is a windows program out there? Horrormoviemaker 2.0 ? You can just pull some adjustment buttons and get the new Shuttle, Saw45674, Jeepers Creepers kind of movie. | negative |
I really don't get how people made this film and thought it was worth all the work they put into it. Even more puzzling are those who watched this film without feeling cheated out of 88 minutes of doing something valuable like cleaning under the couch or reading Leviticus. <br /><br />First of all, surely they could have 2 found real Irish people, and some good-looking women who could deliver their lines better than the washed up, haggard porn stars sprinkled throughout this film. Granted, the gore works- but strangely, it's not as troubling as you might think to see organs yanked out of the porn stars' hot (formerly) tight bodies left and right. Probably has something to do with the fact that after their horrific inhuman acting you just want them to die in pain.<br /><br />So, if you don't care at all about the following: <br /><br />- acting (seriously, everyone sucked. I've never witnessed this before. EVERYONE sucked).<br /><br />-plot (some crappy horror movies are remotely linear, or at the very least surprising. This movie doesn't make sense unless you're as trashed as the writers obviously were). <br /><br />- theme (Nothing to learn from this film. Nothing to be scared about in bed at night, nothing to contemplate or grasp, or explain to others). <br /><br />- soundtrack (Crap, crap, crap. Music as ordinary and dull as the script). <br /><br />- scenery (Could have been this film's saving grace, but no...nothing pleasing here. Even the rocks are fake).<br /><br />So, yeah. If you don't care about that, and you're just a horny teen with bad taste in music and "women," this movie is for you. Positive comments: interesting cinematography at times, wasted on the other elements. Very realistic gore; again, wasted. But the intestines scene is classic. I agree with the mutant- disembowelment solves the fake accent problem. | negative |
A young ( only 21 ) director with great talent, a powerful scenario, young and ambitious cast with all theatrical background...<br /><br />One of the first tries of a thriller in Turkish cinema, which seems in the future we'll have some more based on the success...<br /><br />Shot on high definition video, the movie is perhaps effected on world thrillers, especially the American thrillers. The technical and cinematographic character is quite well done, the scenes are all well worked on. Not too much blood but sufficient enough to make you think you're in a blood bath too...<br /><br />The scenario is quite wise but with certain clues, a clever audience can easily predict what's going on and at the end when everything settles down you're getting somehow weird to conclude the result.<br /><br />Well done Tiglon, one of the biggest DVD distributors in Turkey, it is not easy to decide for such a movie in their first try as a production company... | positive |
This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending!. All the characters are pretty cool, and the story while unoriginal is very good, plus Eric Jungmann(Adam) and Justin Urich(Harley) had fantastic chemistry together. One of the funniest moments in the film for me is when Adam is trapped in the bathroom, and Harley wakes up to find that monster truck sitting there, and decides to take a p*ss in the truck, and Aimee Brooks is just plain sexy!, plus this is one of the best low budget Horror films I have seen in a long time. It's very gory, but in a comical way, and I thought it was very well written as well, plus Michael Bailey Smith is fantastic as the Monster Man and had some wicked makeup!. It's similar to films like Joy Ride, Duel, Jeepers Creepers, etc, etc and it has some suspenseful moments here and there, plus The gore effects are really well done for the most part. This is a surprisingly great low budget Horror/Comedy, it's funny and pretty well made, with good performances and a really cool twist ending, I highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Michael Davis does a very good! job here, with great camera work, good angles,good use of colors, and using a great setting, plus he kept the film funny and at a very fast pace.<br /><br />There is a lot of gore!. We get extremely bloody nose bleeds,gory impaling's, bloody stabbings,guy is cut in half by a monster truck, human remains in a cooked stew, guts all over the place,guys guts fall out,pencil in the eyes,bloody slit throat,bunch of people walking around without limbs,gory dead squirrel,heads are squished,severed limbs,bloody and mangled corpses,decent amount of bloodshed,one very gory scene at the very end and more!.<br /><br />The Acting is very good for a low budget film. Eric Jungmann is fantastic here as Adam, he was a nerd but a very likable one, he had fantastic chemistry with Justin Urich, had some cool lines,and I just loved his character, he also seemed to be enjoying himself,and he was especially good at the end!. Justin Urich is excellent as the ass of a Best Friend, however I just couldn't help but love him as he was very funny, and often stole a lot of the scenes, I really dug him!. Aimee Brooks is gorgeous, and did great with what she had to do, she had good chemistry with Jungmann and like Jungmann was especially good at the end, as I loved her mysterious character. Michael Bailey Smith is wonderful as The Monster Man he was very creepy looking, had some awesome makeup, and is now one of my favorite slashers!. Rest of the cast do fine.<br /><br />Overall I highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5 | positive |
John Huston finished his remarkable career with one of the most perfect and sensitive movies I've ever seen. For his farewell he decided to adapt James Joyce's beautiful short story, "The Dead", and made not only one of the most faithful literature-to-film adaptations yet, he also crafted a movie that more than 20 years later still surpasses a lot of contemporary cinema.<br /><br />When I watched this movie a few years ago, as a student at University, I gazed in awe at the screen, marvelling at every aspect of the movie: acting, screen writing, direction, costumes, settings, music, cinematography. Thinking about it now, I still can't of anything I'd criticise it for. Huston just knew how to tell a good story.<br /><br />A good deal of credit should also go to Tony Huston. He knew better than to meddle with a text that is not only perfection itself but already visual enough for cinema. Father and son let the story breathe and relish in the long, fascinating conversations between characters, and in the meaningful silences.<br /><br />Donal McCann also deserves credit for the his performance as Gabriel Conroy. I had never seen him in movies before, nor have I seen him afterwards, but he gave one of the most moving performances I've ever seen.<br /><br />All in all, The Dead is a fine cinematic experience, from a legendary director who never stopped being excellent. | positive |
This movie should not be watched as it was meant to be a flop. Ram Gopal Verma first wanted to make this a remake of classic bollywood movie "Sholay", but after having problems with the original makers decided to go ahead with the project and... i guess leave all the good parts of the movie (acting, script, songs, music, comedy, action etc) out and shoot the movie just because he already happen to hire the crew. Waste of money, waste of time. After making movies like Rangeela, Satya, and Company he pulled a Coppola (Godfather) on us; What were you thinking RGV? Anyways, the story is, though hard to follow, is almost like the Old sholay. Ajay Devgan playing Heero (Beeru, sholay) and Ajay, new kid on the block playing Ajay (Jay,sholay). Both "bad yet funny" friends help a cop capture a bad guy first. Later in the movie, now Retired cop hires them as personal security and safeguarding from the hands of a very most wanted Bubban played by Amitabh Bachan. In case you haven't been watching Bollywood movies, the Good guys win in the end. There I just saved you 3 precious hours of your life! | negative |
This movie came out about the same time as Pretty Woman. While the general theme is the same: wealthy man meets and learns to love a poor working class woman, the characters of Romuald and Juliette are much more lovable and worthy of our time with them. I have never forgotten them and consider the movie superior to Pretty woman in so many ways. Juliette is a remarkable woman and the clever ways she helps her boss overcome his problems will make you cheer. The final scenes contain some of the most memorable lines in romantic comedy. The efforts Romuald makes to win the love of Juliette surpass the puny climbing scene of Pretty Woman a hundred times over. See this movie, it will warm your heart. | positive |
National Treasure is about as over-rated and over-hyped as they come. Nicholas Cage is in no way a believable action hero, and this film is no "Indiana Jones". People who have compared this movie to the Indian Jones classic trilogy have seriously fallen off their rocker.<br /><br />I can't really figure out what kind of target audience this film was shooting for. Maybe the pre-teen audience will like it, but I found it to be absolutely ludicrous. I also can't imagine adults or young adults to find this to be that great of a film. Simply put: it's just OK at best.<br /><br />National Treasure is unimagined and uninspired, borrowing what it does have from "The Da Vinci Code". I would recommend waiting for that movie to be released in 2006, and passing on this nonsense.<br /><br />The whole idea of being able to so easily steal the Declaration of Independence and run around all over Washington DC and Philadelphia with it (while never damaging it once), while fighting the "bad guys" and experiencing what is supposed to be "non-stop action" is absurd. I particularly loved the scene with the Declaration folded in its tube laying in the middle of a busy road while cars whiz by it without damaging it. Oh brother! <br /><br />Reminded me of that episode of the "Brady Bunch" where they go to the amusement park and Mr. Brady loses his architectural plans. Except, that episode of the Brady Bunch was much better than this whole film! <br /><br />The idea of such huge treasure that nobody believes exists being buried within a secret ruin of the US is outlandish. Literally, there are thousand of undiscovered "priceless" items in this treasure trove. Yeah right!! Ridiculous!! <br /><br />Even worse, the speed and accuracy of which Cage finds and figures out what are supposed to be "tough" clues to these ancient riddles are pre-posterous!!! Oh.. the humanity! <br /><br />The performances by Cage, Voight, and the other actors in "National Treasure" are as stiff ,wooden, and flat as they come. However, when you're working with such lousy dialogue, it's hard to fault the actor's 100% for that.<br /><br />National Treasure is an OK film to see once. I can't recommend it beyond that and would definitely NOT purchase this over the top, outlandish scavenger hunt of a mess.<br /><br />Rent it if you must see it first....... | negative |
What's to like about this movie???<br /><br />It is in colour! <br /><br />It has some impressive underwater photography! <br /><br />It has a rhythmic musical score in the background that works well at times! <br /><br />So 3 out of 10! <br /><br />Sometimes the music is speeded up! Especially when the shark or the baddies are about to move in! <br /><br />Sometimes it is slowed! As if to convey to the audience it's about to be time for sympathy! <br /><br />As another one bites the dust! As if in a "spagetti Western" this has much similarity to! <br /><br />It's not that the Italians can't produce quality productions! There was a series of TV movies with a heading like "Octopus" numbered about 1 to 7, screened on SBS TV in Australia in the 1990s about mafia-type conflicts! And they were excellent! But alas, you won't find it here!!!<br /><br />I assumed it was made about 1960s! Sadly it was 20 years out of date, as evidenced by a funeral scene near the end! <br /><br />Then there was the razor-sharp bite of the speedy shark that makes for a red dust repeatedly emerging in the bluish waters! <br /><br />Amidst it all, either in bar-room brawl or in observing the latest sea-side bloody demolition by the relentlessly hungry shark, the mate of the hero looks on through his glasses of little concern, as if he too was bored in his relentless role amidst a lack of much evidence of plot or anyone's character development! <br /><br />At least the hero indicates a fleeting concern belatedly, for his ex-wife! <br /><br />But of course, even if the music fails to awaken our realisation, we have the sinister sound in the baddies' voices, as if to nudge us that another dark deed is about to emerge! <br /><br />And near the end, someone thought of a twist! Just when we thought it was all totally predictable! But stay tuned, folks, for you may find another twist! If you are watching closely! To, more or less, warm your heart! <br /><br />Follow the advice of the hero, and have a few beers along the way! It'll make your viewing of "Night of the Sharks" more enjoyable! <br /><br />Then you'll be ready for something like a "007" movie to ease your way back into reality when this is over!!! | negative |
This film has been lauded to the point of the ridiculous. "American Movie" is a boring documentary about a boring person so ordinary you'll find equivalents on just about every corner in America. It takes a long, hard look at a guy who's failed at just about everything in the interest of making an independent movie..or two. Were his failures for other than his own selfish pursuits or were they in the name of real art, the movie might have had a chance. America has an abundance of better stories to be told. This one should be flushed and many critics have good reason to be ashamed. Two thumbs up indeed! | negative |
I couldn't agree more with Nomad 7's and I A HVR's comments. A perfect laid back Sunday morning movie. The humor is subtle (exact opposite of "slapstick" as one misguided commenter noted).<br /><br />But what always ceases to amaze me is how often I find myself wanting to come back to this movie over and over. I originally copied this movie onto VHS about 12 years ago when it was premiered on one of those Pay Cable free weekend previews(HBO maybe?). Had never heard of it previously. Don't know why it wasn't marketed that well. ?? When DVD's were released en mass, it was one of the first movies I replaced. A great combination of cast and writing. Plus, the back drop of Montana wilderness doesn't hurt things either (beautiful).<br /><br />It's probably not the type of comedy for everyone, but what is? If Adam Sandler type stuff is up your alley, this probably won't be your cup of tea. This movie needs your full attention. The humor is mostly in the dialog.<br /><br />I believe my next viewing will probably be about my 12th. But I still know that when it gets to the scenes like the one where the hoods of the police cars start blowing off, I'm going to loose it (Ed O'Neill's face is PRICELESS!). Recommended 110%. | positive |
Some films are designed to just entertain you, others to make you laugh, or cry, or uplift, others, like this, aim to provoke, to make you think, and to make you angry. I was angry during this film, not at the film, but at the fact that it was true, that America, the free, does torture in the illogical view that it is doing it for the greater good. The torture scenes in this movie were harrowing, the indifference of people was shattering, the film was compelling in its argument, and showed just how wrong it is to torture people. Of course now that makes me a "bleeding liberal" labels shoved on people by others who shut their minds to the facts that this does happen and should not. People who don't realise that as the movie said, for every person tortured,you get ten or one hundred people rise up to perform acts of vengeance. You get an ever increasing cycle of violence. This film did not make me hate America, although I can see how it could do, but it made me hate the way that America has reacted in its post 9/11 world. There is a significant quote in the film, just after we have learned that 19 people have died and seventy five were injured in the bomb scene, the quote is "one American is dead" - that makes the difference. You cannot kill an American, America can kill thousands but you cannot kill a single American, or they will do whatever it takes, including torture to enact justice. This is the American way apparently. Call me a liberal, call me naive (although I think the people who think torture is fine are naive) call me deluded, call me anything you like, but this film is a brilliant example of what is wrong in America and the west today. I wish this film would be shown to all school students, at a minimum. This film will stay with me a long time, part of me wishes I could forget it, because I wish this type of thing never happened, but I know it does, the other part of me wishes I would never forget, because we need to remember these shameful events to prevent them from happening again. Whatever happens to me, this film will be with me for a long time, and I will be telling everyone I know to watch it, not to be entertained, but to be provoked, because sometimes we all need to be provoked. | positive |
I'm at a loss. This entire movie made absolutely no sense. It was like watching a Soderburg film for football. The camera cutting, the pace, all so copied. I thought the subject was too not serious for them to treat it like it was. Yes, we all know Southerners like football and beauty pageants. Must we be inundated with it as an audience? I watched because of Lee and Jay. I was expecting young talent assembled in the style of Dead Poet's Society or similar to Remember the Titans. I was completely put off by the film. You didn't get the characters. It was character driven, but you didn't understand anyone's motivations or their actions for the most part. The one kid who's mom is obsessed with him being a football player. Why is he so silent? What's his deal? Did we really need the scene with him "proving" his heterosexuality? Why should we care? The movie gave us insights into these kids lives, and offered no pay-off for caring. It just made no sense. <br /><br />And why show a movie about a team that lost? I know it's real life, but who makes movies about losers? Give us some pay-off for these guys working as hard as they did with all their "conceivable" problems, darnit. We got nothing. We got a little blip at the end of the film telling us that Mojo won the next year with the 3rd stringer (Lee). Why didn't you follow that story? What were we to get out of this one? The movie led you along, but didn't lead you anywhere. I just felt like something was missing. It felt like a bad genetic cross between Varsity Blues and Remember the Titans. At least those two movies led you somewhere. Friday Night Lights was about a loser team that lost their star player early in the movie. The actor who played him was great. You were completely annoyed by him, which was the point, but at least you understood why. They made sure you understood him, but he couldn't play, so why make sure we get his issues? <br /><br />And the other team in the play-offs...are we to believe those are high school teens? Those men looked like college seniors or professional player in their 30s. Who were they trying to kid? I know the other team was to look intimidating, but that was crossing the line a little. I liked the gritty element of them negotiating with the black team, but again, how did this fit into the overall theme of the film. Nothing pieced together. The characters knew more about each other than we did, and that settles weird with me. Jay's characters had absolutely nothing to add, but he was showcased. It was all just a mess. Not worth a movie ticket or a rental fee. | negative |
what a lousy movie, took me 3 times to finish it. The thing i disliked the most was the infantile sense of humor. jokes made by a 10 years old child. not funny. pretty annoying actually, for example when the detective cant get a place at the bar he yells "she's taking it all off" and then they all run "fast foreward" slapstick kinda' rush. so stupid. and also a guy sitting at the bar smashing fruit to work out his post traumatic stress disorder. on the bar! and the bartender is supplying him with more and more fresh fruit. thats supposed to be funny? and i mean ... i love good ol' exploitation gore flicks, and saw a lot of terrible movies, but his one is plain bad. and also the "gore" is not that exciting. don't bother. i wouldn't recommend it. | negative |
I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original. | negative |
A very weird, psychedelic, esoteric, (and did I say weird? :) experience.<br /><br />But on at least on one level - it did exactly what it was supposed to do. It bridged the gap between the silly, manufactured, Hollywood look at teen pop idols that was the Monkees TV program and the adult, musically growing and evolving, and yet still a little silly Monkees of the '70s and beyond.<br /><br />The most important line in the film is Mike Nesmith's, "If they think we are plastic now, wait till they see how we do it." That the Monkees were tired of all of the negative comments about their image and their work is a matter of record. They said it over and over in interviews. They needed to re-make themselves, and what better way that to de-bunk and hilariously lampoon the very machine that created them. And at the same time, they commented on our whole society (news, movies, art, everything) and said, "Hey, why pick on us - isn't all of this stuff manufactured on one point or another." These are the Orwellian "proles" (the Monkees represented the persecuted "everyman" even at their silliest in the TV series)pulling down "Big Brother's" pants and kicking him in his very deserving butt.<br /><br />Loved the ideas, loved the music, loved the effects, loved the movie! But then, as Peter Tork says in the movie, "But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?" :) | positive |
Slow, Slow, Slow... There is no mystery or excitement in this film. If you don't figure out who the "mole" is in the first ten minutes you must be brain dead. The secret service must have been too, because it took them the whole film to put it together. There are no compelling characters in the movie (not film). The pace of the movie is slow there is no tension. The hired killer is an excellent shot unless he is aiming at Michael Douglas than all he seems to be able to hit is large panes of glass. The funniest scene in the movie is when the presidents wife says the code word at the anticlimactic ending. It is laugh out loud ridiculous. At least six people got up and left the movie early. I would have joined them if I were not sitting in the middle of the row. I would not recommend this film to anyone. | negative |
The spoiler warning is for those people who want to see for themselves what animals and landscapes pass before their eyes, although I don't mention it in great detail.<br /><br />"Earth" is an approx. 90 minute cinema version based on "Planet earth" which I watched all on BBC TV.The TV version was narrated by David Attenborough, a captivating commentator, who I had wished had also done it for "Earth" but it is Patrick Stewart, Star Trek's Captain Picard. There are regularly shots of the Earth from space so that's may be appropriate. In any case he has a nice enough and calm voice for it. There are 12 chapters in which we follow animal life on earth from North Pole to Antarctica. 3 animal families, polar bear, elephant and whale, appear in more than one of these parts. Each "chapter" starts with an indication how far from north pole or equator it is. We see something of each kind of animal, but only mammals and birds, and some fish, and some beautiful shots of vegetation, mountains, waterfalls, deserts and jungle, a near perfect presentation of the variety of life and landscapes and climates on earth. You get the impression that our planet is only inhabited by animals: people or villages or cities aren't in the film, so it's a typical nature documentary, but breathtakingly shot and accompanied by delightful music. When the film opened I already knew it would end far too soon for me. It is a family film, so no brutal killings of any animals. When one is caught by his hunter the shot ends and in other cases where we see the prey being caught it's shot in slow-motion which makes it less violent and watchable for young children (age limit 6 in The Netherlands). No blood is shed. Some scenes (newly born animals) are really cute and will be adored by kids. It looks like an ordinary nature film but when you know how many shooting days it took (4000) and how much money it has cost it becomes an even more astonishing piece of beauty. It had it's Dutch premiere yesterday, a month before the actual release, in a cinema of 500 seats, of which 15 were taken. True beauty is rarely interesting for cinema goers, it seems. As I knew the TV-series I was of course very curious if my favourite scenes would make it into this movie. Some didn't, but the most impressive shots (big waterfalls) did, luckily. It was the first time I ever cried in a nature film. | positive |
In my opinion, this movie's title should be changed from "Only the Brave" to "All About Lane". I went to a screening of this film a few months ago and was quite disappointed with the outcome. Although, I appreciate that the director made a movie about the men of 442nd - a subject matter that long deserved addressing in the film industry - the acting in some parts of film was quite stale. The performances of Marc Dacascos, Tamlyn Tomita, and Jason Scott Lee were all great. However, the director should have NEVER put himself as the main character in the movie. Sorry Lane, you are just not a film actor. Stick to what you're good at - theater acting. Gina Hiraizumi's performance in this film was also horrible. She should never have been given a speaking role and her looks were unfit to play the part of a Miss Nisei queen. There were other young actresses in the film who were naturally beautiful and whose performances were wonderful... Why weren't they cast for that role? Another major problem with this film were its action sequences. The Japanese-American soldiers don't look like they were fighting German soldiers... let alone anyone. Granted this was a low budget feature, but since this was a war-based film, isn't it important to show some actually fighting? This film was a worthy attempt, but definitely not worth a major distribution. | negative |
I thought it was not the best re-cap episode I've every seen (though my viewing partner handed me a tissue in anticipation of the Brendan Fraser moment...*sigh*). It was nice to see Cox outside of the incessantly brittle "Coxism State" he is in these days, if only for brief moments. I also enjoyed trying to place the episodes included by the length of the character's hair (or height, in case of JD) and the youthfulness of the earliest episodes. I can also see how Zach might be well on the way to a very Chevy Chase/or is that Matthew Perry? prat-fall induced chemical slide (already acknowledged on Conan). A little side note, the song (now stuck in my head) from the janitor-induced dance montage was "Diner" by Martin Sexton. | negative |
I watched the whole movie, waiting and waiting for something to actually happen. Maybe it's my fault for expecting evil and horror instead of psychology? Is it a weird re-telling of the Oedipal myth: I want to kill my father and mother and marry my uncle and compose musical theater with him? I didn't understand why certain plot elements were even present: why was the construction upstairs, why was there that big stairwell with a perfect spot for someone to fall to their doom if no one was actually going to do so, why have the scenes at all with the father at work, why have such a nice kitchen if you're only going to eat takeout, why would the boy want to be baptized and the parents be the ones to resist instead of the other way around. I see lots of good reviews for this movie...has my taste been corrupted by going up with 70s b-movies and old sci fi flicks? | negative |
An excellent example of what happens when one central body controls everyone. I liked this movie because Glenn Corbett also appeared in Star Trek as Zeffrem Cochrane in 1967. I also liked it because I am a fan of the apollo space program. | positive |
That's what me and my friends kept asking each other throughout this entire flick. We couldn't believe how stupid it was! I think somebody shot this on their camcorder at home and snuck it into the movie store and put it on the shelf as a joke to see if anybody would ever pick it up. Well, I guess the joke is on us.<br /><br />I guess I should have come to this website first and read all of the reviews it has gotten, every single one says this movie is HORRIBLE, STUPID, and on and on. And boy are they right! Although it did provide some pretty good laughs (me and my friends were pretty drunk) because it is so stupid. We just can't believe somebody was dumb enough to make such a crappy movie! I swear this had to be made in the 70's before they had good technology for movies and stuff because every scene looks really crappy, but when I looked on here it said it was made in 2001? What? It sure doesn't look like a movie that would be made today, but I guess that's what you get when you use a camcorder and shoot home movies using strobe lights and really fake looking lasers, and use real life people from your home town instead of actors or even aspiring actors. BTW-some of those chicks (or were they drag queens, we couldn't tell!) were so fugly, even my drunk horny college buddies wouldn't touch them with a 50-foot pole.<br /><br />So there's absolutely no appeal to this movie at all, bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Don't waste your time or money on this one, you'll be completely disappointed! | negative |
Renown writer Mark Redfield (as Edgar Allen Poe) tries to conquer old addictions and start a new life for himself, as a Baltimore, Maryland magazine publisher. However, blackouts, delirium, and rejection threaten to thwart his efforts. He would also like to rekindle romance with an old sweetheart, a significantly flawed prospect, as things turns out. Mr. Redfield also directed this dramatization of the mysterious last days of Edgar Allen Poe. Redfield employs a lot of black and white, color, and trick photography to create mood. Kevin G. Shinnick (as Dr. John Moran) performs well, relatively speaking. It's not enough. | negative |
Rather nasty piece of business featuring Bela Lugosi as a mad scientist (with yes, a Renfield-like assistant and his mother, a dwarf and yes, the scientist's wife (sounds like a Greenaway movie actually lol). Lugosi gives his wife injections from dead brides (why them? Who knows?) so that his wife can keep looking beautiful. He gets the brides after doing a pretty clever trick with some orchids that makes the brides collapse at the altar. After another bride bites the dust, a newspaper reporter just HAPPENS to be around for the scoop, and decides to snoop around for a story. She gets all sorts of clues about the orchids and Lugosi. Heaven knows where the police were. Soon she's off to Bela's lair, when she meets a sort of strange looking doctor who may or may not be eeeevil. It all cumulates in a totally far-fetched plan to have a fake wedding to capture the mad scientist, but it seems that the scientist has x-ray vision, as he foils her plans, Oh no! What will happen? I actually liked this movie as a bit of a guilty pleasure. Lugosi is great here, his hangers-on are all very very strange, the story is actually quite nasty in some places which makes it all most watchable. A fun little view. | positive |
My wife wanted to see this movie and I grudgingly went along. I have never been a big fan of the biopic - believing that cinema is more exciting when it isn't structured in non-fiction. Beyond that, although I like Ray Charles' music just fine, I don't consider myself a fan of him or his music.<br /><br />I expected to either suffer or coast through this movie.<br /><br />I was wrong.<br /><br />This is an engaging story told in a classic cinematic style. The realism is in the nuances - the tilt of a character's head after a dramatic moment or the look in their eyes while they sing. I literally discovered myself involved in this movie during the course of viewing it.<br /><br />Jaime Foxx, of which much has been said, heads a cast of immaculate re-creators of not just a time, but an ERA, a LIFE that never really existed to those of us under forty. This movie sinks the audience into time without the gimmicks and grand sweeping panoramas of Titanic or other period pieces of that ilk. This movie doesn't present you with the 50's and 60's music scene, it takes you there.<br /><br />This is a movie about Ray Charles, but your appreciate of it should not be limited to the story of his life. This is the kind of movie, like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, that does what a movie should do - bring you to another place, another time. | positive |
I couldn't stand to watch very much of this crap. This is your standard junk that certain annoying women love- old English era drama with lots of costumes and cliché characters that seem to be plucked from either directly from oliver twist or some other dickens novel. This uses the usual clichés from the Victorian era. Certain idiotic people really think that the whole emotional torture of that culture being so bloody repressed is somehow fascinating and romantic. This is sap, pure and utter junk and boring as watching grass grow. As such it is perfect for women who crave some sort of English countryside snoozer romantic drama in a Victorian setting but for this man this movie is nothing but torture and cruel and unusual punishment to watch a bunch of drab boring scenes with unoriginal characters speaking in that wretched forced and fake English accent. | negative |
Contains Spoiler The movie is a good action/comedy but i don't know if the director cut too many parts but it seems that the bad guy die too fast. The end of the movie come, the bad guy dies and that's it.<br /><br />The special effects are good and i don't regret paying to see it at the theatre. | positive |
Tiny Toons is the first cartoon I remember watching as a child and I loved every minute of it. When I was four or five my parents purchased the video How I Spent My Vacation. I watched it over and over again until I new every word. Well a few days ago my three year old cousin came over and I had to entertain him. I decided to show him this old relic of my childhood. <br /><br />I new he would laugh but I was surprised how much I laughed. Like every Tiny Toons film and episode the humor is based more on wackiness and slapstick humor and succeeds tremendously. Bugs, Babs, Plucky Duck, Maton Pig, and Fifi all endure amazing adventures from Bugs and Babs white-water rafting with a little help from Superman, Plucky Duck and Maton pig travel to the greatest amusement park only to ride the monorail, and Elmyra goes on an odd quest to find cute kittens in a safari land.<br /><br />Some of the classic humor stands in this Tiny Toon Adventure and is some of the best wacky comedy I've ever seen. My favorite gag had to be the monorail thing when Hamton and Plucky arrive, ride the monorail, and leave )much to Plucky's dismay). No matter what your age you'll laugh yourself to tears while not having to deal with language and nudity.<br /><br />Tiny Toons Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation. Starring the voices of: Charles Adler, Tress MacNeille, Joe Alaskey, and Don Messick.<br /><br />5 out of 5 Stars. | positive |
there was some truth to this movie. I remember a story reported 15 to 20 years ago of 4 fisherman finding a body in the water and they chose not to report it until their trip was finished. I also recall they were charged with interfering with a corpse (or some such charge). I'm not sure if it was in Australia. The viewers outside of Australia must think we live in a country full of rapists and serial murders. Wolf Creek and this film would encourage this perception. The film itself reminded me of A Simple Plan. But as far a being one of the best Australian films ever, as someone claimed, I can't be that generous. Put it this way, I wouldn't bother watching it again. | negative |
I never fail to be amazed and horrified by the evil that has been predicated in the history of the world in the name of religion, and it seems that the machinations of the Catholic Church in Twentieth Century Ireland rank right up there near the top - considering that the wisdom of history and modern times should have had some sobering effect.<br /><br />A Love Divided is the story of a real family scarred by ignorant intolerance and prejudice all in the name of an inane Church doctrine. At the beginning of the film, we are offered a view of the bucolic life in a small Irish village in which Sheila and Sean Cloney are happily married with two young children. Sean is Catholic and Sheila is Protestant, but she has no qualms with their children being raised as Catholic. There is no sign of any animosity between the Catholics and Protestants in the village. The peaceful and loving relationships are soon shattered when Sheila expresses the desire to have their older child attend the Protestant school. The local priest takes it upon himself to forbid this "sin" and soon has Sheila's husband and the entire Catholic population of the village turned against her as well as her father, the local dairy farmer. In an act of defiance and desperation, Sheila kidnaps her two daughters and flees from the area.<br /><br />Special note should be given to Orla Brady who plays Sheila. She gives an extremely powerful performance in which the viewer is drawn in to the emotional trauma in which she decides to reject the wishes of a husband she deeply loves in order to express her fervent desire to establish herself as independent from the pressures of the establishment. On an equal footing is Liam Cunningham who plays Sean for he gives a realistic portrait of a man not nearly as complex as his wife who is torn between his love for her and the influence of Church and community.<br /><br />If fiction, this film would have been a compelling and interesting drama. Considering it is true, it changes to a horrific tragedy. In real life, the people and the village never fully recovered from the events that took place there. It took almost half a century for the Church to acknowledge its negative role in the events, and even though Sheila and Sean lived out their lives in the area, they never fully recovered from what was done to them by the religious leaders and their fellow villagers.<br /><br />Whether it be denying basic rights to education of choice, crashing planes into buildings, subjugating women, condemning whole races, or just plain on torture and murder, we humans certainly have the ability to use religion as a powerful negative force in our society. | positive |
I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this. | negative |
it's hard to tell the actors from the non-actors. Bad American movies can be spotted by all the youngsters prefacing every single line of dialog with "You know what?" Bad Canadian movies can be spotted by all the youngsters ending every single line of dialog with "Eh?" Have we learned nothing in a century of filmmaking? Cannot the entire weight of millions of wannabes descending on Hollywood with scripts and reels in hand rescue us from these horrible TV-movies-made-to-order? | negative |
Wow, I swear this has never happened to me before
. I only watched "Golden Temple Amazons" yesterday and already I haven't got the slightest recollection of anything that happened in this film. That's how brilliant this movie is, I guess! By now I only remember being lured into watching it because of the incredibly attractive DVD cover art, showing a torrid drawing of a voluptuous Amazon preparing her bow to fire at an unspecified target. I often get fooled by appealing DVD covers especially Jess Franco ones and I still haven't learned to resist even after literally hundreds of awful experiences. Oh well
After reading the other user-comments, some parts of my memory returned although I still suspect to confuse this film with another Jess Franco masterpiece I watched the day before, namely "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" (and, yes, that one had an awesome DVD cover as well).<br /><br />"Golden Temple Amazons" opens with a posse of hot white African Amazons I am aware of the contradiction but don't blame me slaughtering the parents of a fragile young girl because they were trespassing the turf with the intention of stealing the golden treasures from the temple. Several years and hormonal changes later, the girl returns to the jungle to get her revenge. She's accompanied by a bunch of sleazy adventurers who are less interested in the act of vengeance but wouldn't mind taking some gold back home. The rudimentary premise is obviously secondary to all the showcasing of ravishing female nudity and gratuitous sleaze. Analía Ivars, Eva Léon and the other nameless Amazons are all regular Franco choices and willingly walk around with their breasts proudly exposed. You better enjoy gazing at all these perfect female curves, as the rest of "Golden Temple Amazons" is a boring and incompetent mess. There's hardly any violence or action and no less than half of the film is pure filler, bits and pieces of National Geographic documentaries edited into the story and that sort of stuff. The awesome DVD cover would definitely be a great addition to your collection, but opening the box is utter pointless. | negative |
I went to see it 2 times this movie, a friend of mine went to see it at the release party, and he was telling me it was so great, that I was expecting very much about the movie, to mutch, I couldn't enjoy it because I was not watching it in nuteral position. The second time I knew what to expect and I enjoyed it more than the first time. After The second time I felt so in the mood to have a party. I LOVED the music it's just great.<br /><br />If Tom Barman improves his directing talent he will be a director where everyone will be talking about. If you can delivere this movie as your first you must be talented.<br /><br />The acting is done by some great belgian stars (Dirk roofthooft) and a bunch of upcomming talents like Titus De Voogdt.<br /><br /> | positive |
I usually have a difficult time watching a TV movie, the extra long commercial breaks will break my concentration and I give up and find a good book. This one however made me put up with the adds and stay with it to the end. I realize the movie was based on a true story but it was not brought out why it took so long to find Denny? They had his name and I would presume his social security number. While he did move around a lot it would seem he would be found as soon as his number was entered for a job etc. The actors seemed a bit old for the part and a buried metal object when dug up had no rust. These were only technical glitches and did not take from the file. For a LifeTime Movie it was better than most. | positive |
I admire Deepa Mehta and this movie is a masterpiece. I'd recommend to buy this movie on DVD because it's a movie you might want to watch more often than just once. And trust me, you'd still find little meaningful details after watching it several times.<br /><br />The characters - except for the grandmother perhaps - are all very balanced, no black and white. Even though you follow the story from the perspective of the two protagonists, there is also empathy for the other characters.<br /><br />I think the IMDb rating for the movie is far too low - probably due to its politically controversial content. | positive |
How to round up every possible cliché and stereotype existing in the genre of horror and then subsequently stuff them into one massively lousy movie? The answer: "Camp Blood". This is amateurish slasher nonsense made on a micro-budget and a little bit too obvious inspired by "Friday the 13th". Four of the most intolerable teenage characters you'll ever see they're like a combination of ugly, stupid and annoying go camping and quickly find themselves pursued by a homicidal maniac in a clown suit. Don't even ask me what the killer's motivations were or even who he/she was, because if it did feature in the film, I totally missed it. This is one of the worst movies ever made, with no inspiration or craftsmanship whatsoever. The production values were so pitiable that there are actors playing multiple roles without even bothering to make them unrecognizable. The only half-decent and worthwhile sequence throughout the whole of "Camp Blood" is the opening in which the impressively voluptuous Meredith O'Brien has sex in the woods with her geeky boy scout. Yes, I'm fully aware that this is a totally shallow remark to make, but then again this is a juvenile and retarded film, so who cares? | negative |
"Masks" is a moving film that works on many levels. At its simplest, it is the haunting story of a street performer who bonds with a young child while trying to pass along his creative art (masks) to the next generation. Although, at times the story makes the old man into a Job, it is so well crafted (written, acted, directed, wonderful production values), it is easy to move beyond his plight. And, if you hang with it, the film is ultimately very sweet and uplifting. Kudos all around. This is a wonderful film for children as well as adults. The trick is how to get Americans who may not like foreign language films to see it! | positive |
I understand that this movie is made for kids and as a parent I have sat through many movies that don't particularly hold my interest, but I can appreciate from a constructive point of view in how it is being received by my children. Parents are supposed to be encouraged after all to take part in their children's activities and to monitor the quality of the entertainment that they view so there should be something that appeals to an adult audience on some level even in children's movies. Disney has always understood this which is why it is so hard to fathom how it could allow such a complete piece of drek to bear their name.<br /><br />Technically, the sound editing is horrible and all dialog sounds over-dubbed and unnatural. Personally I hate that, but it was doubly awful considering the dialog itself seemed as though it was written by a 12 year old for a school project. The "acting" reminded me of a school play and none of the child actors had any range of emotion in their voices. Thankfully it was a very short movie.<br /><br />Now, before I come off like a video-geek measuring a kids movie with an adult yard stick, the one thing that can save even the worst children's movie is a positive message. Far be it from me to determine how a message has to be delivered so long as the right one is. Let us take a walk through this film to see what messages are given: <br /><br />If you are lost, don't worry, you will inevitably find your way home.<br /><br />Approach wild animals without any fear.<br /><br />You can win any competition just because you "know" you can.<br /><br />and my favorite, the final message left in the film: <br /><br />It's okay to disobey authority figures and do what you think is right. | negative |
THE MEMORY KEEPER'S DAUGHTER in the form of a novel by Kim Edwards was a highly successful bestseller and probably was featured in more reading groups than any other novel during its circulation. So what happened when the novel became a made-for-television movie? Perhaps it is the below mediocre screenplay (oops!, teleplay!) by John Pielmeier that consistently galumphs along in an awkward pedestrian fashion removing all sense of credibility to the story. Perhaps it is the cut and paste direction by Mick Jackson that misses the pacing and character delineation. Perhaps it suffers from the cinematography of an uncredited source or the 'liquid tears' musical score by Daniel Licht. For whatever of these (or all of these) reasons, this novel-to-film survives because it does make a good case for educating the public about the capabilities of those born with Down Syndrome. And for that it is worthy of attention. <br /><br />Dr. David Henry (Dermot Mulroney), a successful orthopedic doctor, is married to the beautiful Norah (Gretchen Mol) and their lives are becoming changed by their pregnancy. On a stormy winter night in Kentucky Norah goes into labor and the Henry's rush to a nearby clinic where David delivers his wife (the doctor is caught in a snowstorm) with the assistance of his old friend, nurse Caroline Gill (Emily Watson). After the delivery of a perfect boy child (Paul) Norah continues to be in labor and (surprisingly...) delivers an unexpected (!) twin girl. David and Caroline immediately recognize that the little girl (Phoebe) is a 'mongoloid' (this is before the use of the term Down Syndrome) and David, having a history of losing a little sister because of a birth defect) decides to send Phoebe to an asylum for the mentally challenged: Caroline is to make the delivery and Norah is told the second twin died at birth. <br /><br />Caroline follows instructions, sees the conditions of the 'home' where Phoebe is to be deposited, shrinks in horror, and decides to keep the child. Aided by a friendly trucker, Caroline changes her solitary existence and mothers Phoebe, finding a new life in her trucker's Pittsburgh. Norah insists on a formal funeral for Phoebe - a fact that deeply disturbs David's psyche, and the Henry's life goes on with only the one child Paul, leaving submerged pains about the lack of Phoebe's presence. Norah gifts David with a camera ('peoples lives are like a camera, that's where they live - in a room captured by a moment') and David becomes obsessed with photography. Norah grieves, drinks, and loses David's attention, while David traces Phoebe's existence with Caroline - sending money and letters to Pittsburgh. Paul (Tyler Stentiford to Jamie Spilchuk) grows up, discovers his mother's infidelities and is angered about his father's lack of communication and understanding, and decides to fulfill his goal of becoming a musician, and off to Juilliard he goes. Meanwhile Phoebe (Krystal Hope Nausbaum) has matured into a very highly adapted young girl, and the manner in which the broken marriage of the Henrys happens and the healing atmosphere of Phoebe's and Paul's lives coupled with the courage that has supported Caroline Gill's struggle to gain acceptance in the world for those born with Down Syndrome forms the conclusion of the film. <br /><br />The cast of well-known actors tries hard, but only Emily Watson is able to resurrect a credible character from this squishy script. Jamie Spilchuk gives evidence of a young actor with much promise. Dermot Mulroney and Gretchen find it difficult to mold empathetic characters form the corny lines they are given to deliver. The film is a mess, but the message about acceptance of Down Syndrome children and adults is an important one. Grady Harp | negative |
Rock solid giallo from a master filmmaker of the genre, Sergio Martino. Fashioned from a marvelous screenplay by Ernesto Gestaldi, this shocking mystery often develops fascinating twists until the terrific finale which most might not see coming throughout the film. It's when everything has fallen into place that we can go, "Ahh.." The film revolves around the death of a husband(..in an airplane explosion)and the million dollars the wife receives from it. There are those with great interest in that money, one in particular being the dead man's mistress. The wife is Lisa(Ida Galli)and the mistress demanding half the money is Lara(Janine Reynaud). She tells Lisa she knows that the death was arranged by her to get the insurance money. Lara says she'll use her "lawyer", Sharif(Luis Barboo)to get that money. So already, the film produces two possible suspects in the later murder of Lisa, who awaiting someone in Tokyo. George Hilton portrays Peter Lynch. Peter works for a company that investigates those who gain inheritance to see if the pay day was gathered under suspicious means. When, on his watch, Lisa is killed by a man dressed from head to toe in black in her hotel room, he is a possible suspect. He decides to do a little investigating himself, while also assisting Inspector Stavros(Luigi Pistilli)and Interpol agent, Benton(Tom Felleghy)on their quest to find a killer. The killer strikes several times eliminating anyone revolving around the missing million dollars confiscated by the one responsible for the murder of Lisa. Soon, the film follows a journalist, Cléo Dupont(the delicious, luscious Anita Strindberg)as she and Peter meet for a dinner where she could try and sniff out anything that might break a story for her. Soon they fall deeply in love, but it seems like anyone who is near Peter is killed. Soon someone attacks Cléo with an intent to kill which pushes the investigation further into uncharted territory. Why would anyone wish to harm a journalist with no real facts to damage the one killing off people.<br /><br />This giallo is quite clever and exciting to follow. The film never lulls which is quite remarkable since so much happens leaving open the question of the identity of the killer. This film follows the path of gialli with knife slashings because of a certain pattern the killer has taken(the throat and lower torso). The film's conclusion wraps up all the complex loose ends and is quite satisfying. The film has some unique camera angles, but delivers the goods in terms of driving the plot and the execution of the mystery. | positive |
I love B movies, but I like to be aware from the beginning that I'm watching one. I can't believe someone could mess up a movie about aliens and predators so bad. <br /><br />Aliens and Predator are AWESOME. This movie made a big joke out of them. The creators didn't take this movie seriously at all. I am throughly disappointed in how the Strauss jerks handled this film. They made a mockery of amazing characters. It's like they were trying to be serious in the beginning, then their writers got high and gave up. Almost nothing was continuous, the main characters were awful and were NOT Aliens or Predators. I am so ridiculously sad that no one takes Alien and Predators seriously anymore. These characters are icons of American pop culture and the creators of this movie showed no respect to the original films. They should not be allowed to cash in on the names of the previous films and they should be ashamed of themselves | negative |
I went in to this thinking another gross movie with gross humor. Telling from my first sentence I don't like that humor and this movie had it's moments but I loved it. Justin Long has really never done comedy like this, where he's sarcastic and clever and I loved it. Lewis Black....enough said. The ending I really did love because It had to take itself seriously I mean how else would you end it? Yes it's another underdog story but not in your typical format and the movie wasn't their ups and downs, it was people coming together for one common goal, To go to college where they were accepted. The cast was amazing and yes I did laugh at loud when I didn't think I would and the laughter lasted longer then I thought to. The parents and sister played their roles well but their characters are put in when necessary. The movie was not focused around them but at the same time they showed up when you expect and not expect them to. They played in to the story very well, and I loved the familiar faces Anthony Heald(Boston Public), Jeremy Howard (I) (Galaxy Quest with Justin Long) Ross Patterson (The New Guy)and Sam Horrigan (Brink). Blake Lively added her certain something to the movie which made it even more enjoyable, as well as B's Friends. I recommend this movie to whoever hated those gross comedies of the last 4 years and really want something with humor and an actually story line!~! | positive |
I picked up this video after reading the text on the box, the story seemed good, and it had Keanu Reeves! But after 5 minutes of watching, I noticed how horrible his acting was, he walks and talks so stupid the whole time, it's fake and not convincing. It doesn't end there, almost ALL the characters act so badly it's laughable, the only acceptable acting was by Alan Boyce (David), but the guy commits suicide early on and you don't see him again, you never even know why he did it! Everything about this movie screams low quality, I can't believe how such a thing gets released! I was tempted many times to stop watching, in fact I did, half way through it I decided to stop watching and turned the thing off, came to the IMDB to check what other's thought about it, I found zero comments (not surprised), so I decided to force myself to handle the pain and go back to finish it then come here to comment on it. The only good thing going (for me) was the high-school Rock band theme, the occasional guitar playing and singing parts, but that's not worth it.<br /><br />Very bad acting and directing... Terrible movie. | negative |
*May be spoilers* No doubt one of the best dramas if not the best in the genre I've ever seen. Is Prot an alien or just a crazy bugger? This is the question you'll be asking yourself all throughout the movie. <br /><br />Kevin Spacey is simply amazing, as is Jeff Bridges. You can't beat this kind of acting plus some humour at times. Some of Kevin Spaceys actions in this movie are very funny. When he was up in the tree, for example, and when he was talking to the "queen" mental patient, the way he hid half his face around the wall and just stared.<br /><br />To simply put it, right from the start you'll be hooked, and if you really love drama's you won't be dissapointed.<br /><br />A solid 85%. | positive |
I saw this film in its premier week in 1975. I was 13 years old and at that time I found it adequate and somewhat fun. I then came to discover the WORLD of Doc Savage through the Bantam novels of the old pulp magazine stories. I had no idea before any of this of the realm of Doc, but I fast became one of the most avid Doc Savage fans you could ever meet. I read (and still own) all of the Bantam books, I started going to comic book cons (along with Star Trek and Doctor Who and all manner of geeky fat kid events) and had a wonderful time with each adventure I took with Doc and the ORIGINAL Fab 5. Philip Jose Farmer's Book - The Apocalyptic Life of Doc Savage became a bit of a bible for me and to this day I have very fond feelings regarding my Doc phase. In so saying I have to admit now years later that this film really missed the boat. It is a film that did not know what it wanted to be when it grew up. The screenplay was infantile and bore little resemblance to the pulp story. These stories from the 30's were short and if one looked at Lester Dent's (AKA Kenneth Robeson) outline for writing them, they broke down into PERFECT 3 act dramas that screamed for screen treatment. One would have thought that with George Pal and Michael Anderson at the helm, it would have turned out better. The spoof elements miss the target and the more serious moments almost get there, but then fall short. It is interesting to watch though in that they hired second-string character actors (guys that had really been only bit players and extras before this film) who all acquit themselves very well. Paul Gleason of course has gone on to be a fine utility player in all facets of entertainment and Bill Lucking is a television perennial. All the rest have fallen off the map sadly. I do wish to own a copy of this film as it is the only movie version of my hero, but I fear I will not watch it much as it is too painful. I would say 0 but I give it 2 out of 10 instead for some of the period art direction (Doc's answering machine at the end was a nice touch) and the cast of 3rd stingers getting a moment in the sun. | negative |
One of the worst movies I've seen shoddy camera work, crappy filter usage, film was grainy, script was terrible, i mean come on, how predictable was the big battle at the end.....<br /><br />some of the fight scenes were okay i guess....<br /><br />some scenes were so bad it was comical ...like Sorbo getting the horse and riding at the end...LOL i mean really ..a horse? Oh cant forget how the bad assassins roll around in the same vehicle throughout the entire movie..one would think that after killling key witness and federal agents, they woulda been tracked down..ETC, ETC really don't bother watching it... | negative |
Less than two hundred and fifty years ago, the last of the great pirates wrote their names in blood and fire across the pages of maritime history. This is the story of a buccaneer Captain whose name for one short year struck terror in the hearts of seafarers and merchants from the ports of the Caribbean to the trading houses of London.....<br /><br />Hmm, that opening to the film sounds like we are in for one hell of a swashbuckling, pillaging, ripper of a movie doesn't it? Well it's not. Tho it's not totally without value as a curio piece. Out of 20th Century Fox, Anne Of The Indies is adapted by Philip Dunne & Arthur Caesar from a short story written by Herbert Ravenel Sass. Direction is by Jacques Tourneur, the score is by Franz Waxman and Harry Jackson is providing the Technicolor photography. Jean Peters is in the titular title role of Anne {AKA Captain Providence} and support comes from Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez & James Robertson Justice.<br /><br />Originally meant to be be based on true life pirate Anne Bonny, the film ultimately turns out to be a tale of a woman seeking identity, and finding herself, in the predominantly male led world of piracy and sea based shenanigans. Filled with clichés and over familiar set pieces, the film also suffers from a cast that is largely misfiring. Peters gives it a right good go, and Paget lights up the screen with effervescent beauty. While Robertson Justice, although underused, actually looks the part and doesn't overact like the rest of the male cast does. Some reviewers have desperately tried to dig deep into the film to find intelligence and hidden meanings, purely because it's Tourneur in the directing chair. But there is no depth here, this is merely a job for Tourneur, a professional one granted, but its thinly plotted and actually lacking swash to go with the buckle in the action stakes. <br /><br />Disposable at best. 4/10 | negative |
In a time when Hollywood is making money by showing our weaknesses, despair, crime, drugs, and war, along comes this film which reminds us the concept of the "Indomitable Spirit". If you are feeling beaten down, this movie will free your mind and set you soaring. We all know how tough life can be, sometime we need to be reminded that persistence and courage will get us through. That's what this film did for me and I hope it will for you. | positive |
This film is one that played very well back in 1932 and probably wouldn't work as well today because its style it a bit old fashioned and contrived. However, if you are the sort person, like me, who adores older Hollywood films, you cut the film a bit of slack and can enjoy it for what it is--an interesting soap.<br /><br />The film is set in a ward for problem pregnancies. In this large room are about a half dozen beds in which women are waiting to give birth--but doctors are concerned about possible complications (yikes--such a room would really traumatize the mothers!). And, like an episode of "Love Boat" or "Fantasy Island", each mother has her own special story. With so many rather extreme and crazy stories, you have to suspend disbelief. I could and enjoyed the film quite a bit.<br /><br />Here are a few of the stories: One involves a father. You don't see the mom, but he is a very, very nervous father and it's included for comic relief. However, he was wonderful here--very touching.<br /><br />Loretta Young and Eric Linden are a sad case. Loretta is sent to the hospital from prison--she apparently killed some horrible guy. You don't know exactly what occurred, but you assume he was trying to force himself on her! Yet, she was given a 20 year sentence--and her husband is devoted to her and is by her side as much as he can.<br /><br />Glenda Farrell is an awful person. She has the maternal instincts of a hamster--a really, really bad and alcoholic hamster! She is pretty funny and worth seeing through most of the film. I loved her drinking from a hot water bottle filled with gin as well as becoming upset when she learns she can't make money selling her twins!! Late in the film, she has a typical Hollywood-style change of heart that was supposed to be touching--I found it contrived.<br /><br />There is a woman who has given birth to a still-born baby. Amazingly, afterwords, they put the lady back in the same ward as the women waiting to give birth!!! A crazy woman, who you assumed lost a baby some time ago,wanders down from the psychiatric unit. She insists she's having a baby. Later, she escapes again and actually takes one of the kids!<br /><br />There are most stories than this but the ones I mentioned are the main ones. As I said, it's a soap opera of sorts and is highly entertaining--and quite sad in the case of several of the stories. The ending, in particular, is heart-breaking and exceptionally well done. There were a few particularly good performances--especially Farrell and Aline MacMahon as the head nurse. All in all, a very good film--and I have no idea why they felt they had to remake the film just a few years later (which was typical for Warner Brothers). | positive |
Tony Goldwyn is a good actor who evidently is trying his hand at directing. "A Walk on the Moon" appears to have borrowed from other, better made films. The present story takes place in the late sixties at a summer resort for working class Jews not far from Woodstock. The screen treatment by Pamela Gray doesn't have much going for it, so it's a puzzle why Mr. Goldwyn decided to tackle this film as his first attempt at direction.<br /><br />The Kantrowitz family is spending some time at the resort. We see them arrive at the small bungalow that is going to be their temporary home. Marty, the father, comes only for the week-end; he works in what appears to be a family small appliance business repairing television sets, mostly. In a few days the first man will walk in space, so the excitement is evident.<br /><br />The Kantrowitz women are left behind. Pearl, Marty's wife and her mother-in-law, Lilian, spend idle days in the place until the "blouse salesman" arrives. Pearl goes browsing and she finds much more than a shmatte; she gets the salesman as well. It appears that Pearl and Marty have no sexual life at all. After two children, Pearl, who appears to be sexy and with a high libido is ready for some extra marital fun.<br /><br />That is the basic premise for the film, which becomes a soap opera when the young daughter, Alison, decides to play hooky and go to the Woodstock festival nearby where, horror of horrors, she witnesses her own mom making out with the blouse salesman! What's a girl to do? Well, stay tuned for the grand finale when all the parties are happily reunited by the little son's bedside when he is stung by wasps and the salesman comes to apply some home remedy, and daddy is called from the city, after knowing about Pearl's betrayal with the younger stud.<br /><br />Poor Diane Lane, she went to make "Unfaithful" later on, which is the upscale version of this dud. Viggo Mortensen is the salesman who caters to his lonely female customers whispering little somethings in their ears! Liev Schreiber as Marty, the cuckolded husband, doesn't have much to do. Anna Paquin plays the rebellious Alison and Tovah Feldshuh is the unhappy Nana, who would like to have stayed in the city watching her soap operas instead of witnessing first hand one that is playing in her own backyard!<br /><br />Watch it at your risk, or pop the DVD in the telly when you have a fun crowd at home and you really want to have a laugh, or two dishing the film. | negative |
1st watched 2/18/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Leon Leonard): Fair adventure movie based on a novel by the author of Moby Dick fame, Herman Melville. This movie is about the captain of a ship who had stolen the eyes(that were extremely rare black pearls) from a native tribe's God sculpture and hidden them somewhere that only he knew about before leaving the Island of Tivi. He got very sick and was on a secret voyage to go back to the island to retrieve the pearls for himself while others(like his daughter) thought that he was going back to be treated by the local medicine man. Others didn't know the reason for the voyage. A stowaway actually knew the real reason for the trip -- to return the eyes to their God. The silly part is that the pearls were hidden very close to the statue and all this time the natives ran their tribe without their God having eyes(causing them all kinds of problems). Along the way, we are treated(for some reason) to a short underwater nature show with an electric eel fighting a local octopus(I guess only Herman Melville knows what this was all about). Once they get to the island, the Captain dies but passes the whereabouts of the pearls to his daughter but she also gets the sickness curse as well. One of the bad guys finds out where the God is housed and convinces the daughter to go there and steal back the pearls but at this point the good guys find out what's going on and a fight ensues. I won't tell you the results of the fight or the ending, I'll leave that up to you to find out if you want. As I said earlier, the movie was OK, but some very silly things that I've already mentioned lessened it's impact. I wonder if that new "Pirates of the Caribbean" got some of it's plot from this one ---hmm
black pearls, a curse( I wonder
) Well, it doesn't matter, those elements didn't make for a very good movie in this case or the other. It seems they would learn they're lesson, but with the money rolling in on that newer movie I'm sure they won't. Oh well. | negative |
I gave this more than a 1 because I did think there were some moral lessons in this story and it provoked some thought and comment from my wife and I. The acting and the dialogue were mediocre and I must confess I came out feeling like I had been beaten over the head with the God this , God that and Christ is our saviour stuff. The movie and the story line did not need it. If , as I am , you are a recovering Catholic or Christian avoid this one it will make you nauseous. The movie did a good job of demonstrating the thin line between being a good citizen and how someone could become a potential stalker focused on what might have been. | negative |
when I know that Walter will never grace another set.I was in my 30's when I first saw this sweet,endearing and unabashedly romantic film.I loved it from the first scene,and all the way through to the end.Art Carney was his usual daft self; Glenda matched Walter step for step in the witticisms;and Richard Benjamin supplied the sarcastic voice of reason that he does so well.Along the way there were many actors whom we all recognize,doing their usual brilliance. There are a couple of lines in the movie which my SO and I have used throughout the years,but I won't say anything about them here.I'm pretty sure you will know which two I am talking about. Just get this movie.Make some popcorn,grab your squeeze(if he is as sappy as mine is,for which I am thankful),and enjoy this standout romantic comedy from the 70's. You will not be disappointed. However,I have the feeling that I am preaching to the choir here because anyone who loves Walter will already own it.I'm very glad it's out on DVD now,finally. | positive |
A better film could have been made to portray the tragedy of Bosnia. Some parts are very effective and the film does well to give some idea of the suffering of the people specially the children, but overall it looks less like a film and more like a documentary. Woody Harrelson is very good but the rest of the cast has performed well without being extra ordinary. Should be watched in order to get a rough idea of what the war did to the children of Bosnia. If one expects a great and gripping movie, Welcome...... will be a disappointment. | negative |
I have not read the novel, or anything other by Kurt Vonnegut, but I am now intending to start. This grips you from the very first frame, and does not let go until the end credits start rolling. Taking you places you don't expect, the plot is interesting throughout. The pacing is spot-on, nothing lasts too long, and this does a perfect job of balancing between unexpected twists and allowing the viewer to process what we've seen. It is well-told and well-thought out. I've never watched a film that I feel I could particularly compare this to. It is intense and exciting, as well as funny and sad. The acting is excellent, Nolte absolutely shines, Goodman again proves that he doesn't have to go for laughs, and Lee and Arkin are spellbinding. I could go on, really... no role is treated to a less than stellar performance. The editing and cinematography are marvelous, and all of the visuals are great, with a couple of unforgettable and astonishing ones. I am going to go for other movies directed by Keith Gordon, as well as the other two apparently related to this, through the author of the books. There is one scene of sexuality, and a lot disturbing and unsettling content in this. I recommend this to anyone who can appreciate it; it is not pleasant. 8/10 | positive |
Murder in Mesopotamia, I have always considered one of the better Poirot books, as it is very creepy and has an ingenious ending. There is no doubt that the TV adaptation is visually striking, with some lovely photography and a very haunting music score. As always David Suchet is impeccable as Hercule Poirot, the comedic highlight of the episode being Poirot's battle with a mosquito in the middle of the night, and Hugh Fraser is good as the rather naive Captain Hastings. The remainder of the cast turn in decent performances, but are careful not to overshadow the two leads, a danger in some Christie adaptations. Some of the episode was quite creepy, a juxtaposition of an episode as tragic as Five Little Pigs, an episode that I enjoyed a lot more than this one. What made it creepy in particular, putting aside the music was when Louise Leidner sees the ghostly face through the window. About the adaptation, it was fairly faithful to the book, but I will say that there were three things I didn't like. The main problem was the pacing, it is rather slow, and there are some scenes where very little happens. I didn't like the fact also that they made Joseph Mercado a murderer. In the book, I see him as a rather nervous character, but the intervention of the idea of making him a murderer, and under-developing that, made him a less appealing character, though I am glad they didn't miss his drug addiction. (I also noticed that the writers left out the fact that Mrs Mercado in the book falls into hysteria when she believes she is the murderer's next victim.) The other thing that wasn't so impressive was that I felt that it may have been more effective if the adaptation had been in the viewpoint of Amy Leatheran, like it was in the book, Amy somehow seemed less sensitive in the adaptation. On the whole, despite some misjudgements on the writers' behalf, I liked Murder in Mesopotamia. 7/10 Bethany Cox. | positive |
Based on the idea from Gackt, Moon Child took place in a poverty-stricken country called Mallepa. In a futuristic timeline, the story followed the lives of the two main characters, Kei (HYDE) and Sho (Gackt) and their friends growing up together.<br /><br />Despite some actions might be overly done or perhaps humorous, I strongly believed that this is a movie about friendship. Even amongst all the hardships between each character, in the end, each of them wanted to have someone on their side, to have friends.<br /><br />Unlike most vampire characters, Kei portrayed a vampire that loathed the idea of having to kill in order to live. A vampire found friendship in the hand of a young boy, Sho who's not afraid of Kei. Regardless of what some might've thought, I see Kei as a fatherly figure to Sho. Kei was there throughout the earlier life of Sho, he took care of him, and taught him to live in a world where power between gangs controls their lives. On the other hand, Sho who perhaps can be seen as an innocent enthusiastic style young man, he grew up to be a man who realised that life isn't all about fun and games, that death exists and able to take away his loved ones.<br /><br />I love the part where Lee Hom, the actor who played Son, first appeared on the screen. The way they met up was quite cool indeed. Son also has a big part within this movie, the fact that he's from a different race, a Taiwanese, made quite an impact to the friendship theme within the movie. The way how friendships were developed despite background differences was portrayed excellently in this movie.<br /><br />I believed that each actor did a great job considering that this was their first time to appear in such big screen movie. Both HYDE and Gackt managed to act quite well and created quite believable characters. Unlike movies that had musician turned actors and filled the movie with songs, they've done great acting jobs! Moon Child really made an impact for me, it has given friendships a new meaning and consideration, that we have to appreciate every friendship in our lifetimes. The movie shows a lot of hope, despite all the bad things that happen in their lives, that there's always hope. Life can be cruel, that it seems hope doesn't exist anymore. It also shows a very strong sense of friendships between each other, even when Son became the enemy, Sho did have some sort of "fun" at their last battle. Every single one of them desired peace in the end, no matter how far apart they've become. The ending scene showed it to us. | positive |
I went to see this film last night at the National Film Theatre in London, as a birthday treat. It was the the first time I've seen it, and I think it has now overtaken the dreadful "Twister" as the worst film I have ever seen. Disjointed for no reason, self indulgent and full of imagery that oscillates from the crass and obvious to the obscure and unintelligible, not particularly beautifully or grimily shot, I really don't understand why this is considered classic, gay or otherwise. I normally enjoy films that push boundaries or even films that are hard to watch because of their length or unusual cinematography. But this was truly, truly awful. | negative |
I want to add to the praise for the production of this film, especially the luminous cinematography. Firelight glistening off of smooth and muscled skin creates stunningly beautiful imagery. The film was nominated for (and won) a single Oscar - the first given for editing. Mala's performance is moody, penetrating and powerful. | positive |
This is an excellent movie. Phoolan had no role model's to base her actions on, yet was able to bring about very necessary change to a land that was living in darkness when it comes to female treatment. I like the fact that it was a real story rather than made up, it added to the horror of the story, & the triumph. | positive |
If John Waters had written and directed "House of 1000 Corpses" after being struck about the head repeatedly with a heavy object, the result would probably be something like "The Blood Shed." It's mildly entertaining for the first half hour, but then it slides into a sort of featureless glop of constant screaming and people doing things to each others genitalia with electric carving knives, cutlery and pliers. Susan Adriensen (Sno Cakes) is incredibly annoying and Terry West (Elvis Bullion) is almost as bad in whatever it is he's doing in front of the camera.<br /><br />Maybe the best thing about "The Blood Shed" is that it won't take most viewers very long to forget about it. | negative |
This was a Hindi movie. Hindi=Horrible. reasons: cheap dialogues, cheap special effects, cheap directing + stretching a 2 hr max movie into 3 hrs. <br /><br />%^^^^^^spoiler...little bit%%%%%%%%<br /><br />Specifically for this movie: 1. dialogues are not funny. they are cheesy, and cheap. Though akshay tried his best acting for which i admire him, comedy was not funny at all! I laughed only 3 times during this movie. 2. first half of the movie was useless to the story of the 2nd half. the 2nd half was the actual story/movie. the first half was time pass/build up. 3. The characters are not developed properly at all. paresh rawal is smart in the first half, an idiot in the 2nd half/rest of the movie. we don't really develop any feelings or caring for akshay, and govinda. their characters are stupid nothing more. they do not seem to struggle in their difficulties. Jokes are funny, but they are not funny in a very serious scene. the characters of the gang and the drug smugglers are cheesy and have been used in last 20 movies. there is nothing new about those characters. Again, they are shown to be stupid for being funny. however, stupid=funny when stupid is the norm throughout the whole movie. the only character that made sense was that of lara dutta with a real story. 4. special effects were crap. at the end, ppl r fallin off the ladder of a fire truck. you notice that they are not actually on ladder in air. secondly, ppl start to fly off when the ladder starts to move around. ppl can't fly off a ladder when its moving...they fall directly to the ground due to something called gravity. 5. the whole movie was dubbed. all the dialogues were recorded after the movie. The actors' lips hardly synced to the dialogues. <br /><br />There are probably many other reasons why this movie was crap, but i can't remember them. look at this masterpiece of crappy Indian movies by non-intelligent, even stupid, director yourself and you will agree with my review. ppl who like Hindi movies, please increase your expectations for decent quality in Hindi movies. <br /><br />Let me say that not all Hindi movies are bad. I like some. i did not like this one. <br /><br />1.5/10 (1.5 for the effort by akshay and lara) | negative |
1991 saw the release of the two best sequels of all time: TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY and BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY. Out of the two, I've always liked BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY a bit better. TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY is the better made, but there's just nothing like Bill and Ted. Besides Chris Farley and David Spade in TOMMY BOY, it's hard to think of a greater comedic duo than Bill and Ted. They are one of a kind.<br /><br />Seemingly influenced by National Lampoon's O.C. and Stiggs, Bill and Ted were created by Ed Solomon and Chris Matheson, two incredibly talented writers who invented the duo while performing at a local theater in L.A. back in the 1980s. The two quickly began writing a screenplay about two and before long BILL & TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE was born. The film, shot in 1987 and released in 1989, became a big box office success and an instant cult classic. It wasn't long before work began on the sequel. Stephen Herek, the director of 'EXCELLENT ADVENTURE' wasn't keen on working on the sequel since he considered it to be too mean-spirited and unlike the first one so Peter Hewitt, making his feature film debut, was brought in to direct the sequel. There couldn't have been a better director for the job. BILL & TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY is marvelously directed. It's filled with its own unique style and energy that can't be matched.<br /><br />What makes 'BOGUS JOURNEY' one of the best sequels ever is that it while it is darker than the original, it is just as fun. It doesn't change the characters like most sequels do. Bill and Ted are the same lovable characters that they were in the first film. This is because it was written by the original writers. Most sequels are not written by the same writers as the first one, but since 'BOGUS JOURNEY' had the same screenwriters, it ended up being just as good as 'EXCELLENT ADVENTURE' if not even better. Just like the first one, 'BOGUS JOURNEY' is absolutely hilarious, well written, fun, and above all, original. It's filled with spectacular special effects and fantastic comedic performances from Alex Winter, Keanu Reeves, and William Sadler. It's an unforgettable 'journey'. 10/10 | positive |
I would of enjoyed this film but Van Damme just does the same old same old rubbish time after time. Poo knickers fight scenes as per usually. The only thing this loser left out was the Russians normally end up being killed in the end. This film is utter doggy do do of the highest nature, please please please Van Damme get some acting lessons, you need them. Anyone who likes Van Damme has issues, It seems sad that the only way Van Damme ever gets any acting work is when he co writes the film, co produces the film and does the screen play for the film. AVOID VAN DAMME AND HIS SLICKED BACK NASTY WIG. I give this film a two out of ten, because the one with the the sandman was better. To add insult to injury I wasted a quid on this manure | negative |
I thought this was a great idea but, boy, was it poorly executed. We do get a broad sense of how complex and challenging the backstage operations of a show are, but virtually no specifics about any of it works. The producers don't seem to have found any way to tell a story or give the viewer a "through-line." (Which is not to say they didn't try, but having the stagehands relate a synopsis of the Ring cycle as the program's narrative does nothing to tell us about the job of physically mounting an opera.)<br /><br />We see lots of things happening, but are told little about what it is that the people are doing and why. There's little sense of who is who, or how the various production departments fit and work together. For instance, several times we hear about a problem of some sort -- one expects then to see the problem and its consequences and/or how it gets resolved. But instead the filmmakers generally just cut to something else (generally, pretty generic footage of people pushing stuff or talking into headsets.) <br /><br />Overall the film ends up feeling more like a pastiche of images that you'd see run under the closing credits of a show, rather than anything worth watching for its own merit. | negative |
This movie is called "Solomon Kane". Which it isn't. The main character wears a hat, but that's all he has in common with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane as known from early pulp magazines and lots of publications ever since these days. It is a fantasy movie, not really that bad and it might easily have passed with a rather good review - if it hadn't been called Solomon Kane. The hero is a newly invented character who definitely is not SK. The story is not Robert Howard, neither.<br /><br />As a fantasy movie it is one more movie following the traditions of the genre: simple story, poor CGI, poor actors, poor directing. Yet it can be fun, you know: 'the cheaper they are, the better they are'. But since it is called Solomon Kane, I cannot accept it. Imagine a Lord-of-the-Rings movie with a hero Bilbo who fights the black sorcerer Saugalf with the help of his dwarf friend Aragorn and the beautiful heroine Shadowfax. And with a final fight where the three use a magical ring to kill the evil sorcerer who has transformed into the dragon Gondorian. Imagine that. This is exactly what this movie has done with Robert Howard's character Solomon Kane.<br /><br />I'd give it a 4 stars review if it was just another horror movie, but since it is called Solomon Kane, I can only rate it 3 stars. | negative |
This movie is just boring.<br /><br />It tries to copy some effects borrowed to a creative director like Jeunet in "Amélie Poulain", but it is too much. The dialogs are pretty bad, some of the worst I have ever heard, Guillaume Canet is not convincing (I have almost never found him very convincing), his father in the movie plays very badly, the story is dumb, the ending is... stupid.<br /><br />I think I have not dislike a movie so much since "le pacte des loups" (brotherhood of the wolf) from Christophe Gans (and I watch / see about 80-100 movies a year), but at least that movie had some action and lots of good actors.<br /><br />I had never commented here (only rated), and when I saw the rating and the comments, I thought I had to write something down.<br /><br />I guess we won't have problems to sell the DVD we were offered : not such a bad movie in our (large) collection !!!<br /><br />I am open minded (I watch SF, westerns, drama, comedies, silents, horror, fantasy... movies !), but this movie was so boring that I felt like I had lost one hour and a half. | negative |
The movie never becomes intolerable to watch. And to tell it straight, it has nothing to show either, except maybe part-sexy Alicia Silverstone in a nerdy non-sexy character in revealing quite-sexy dresses. The story is very easy to follow or there's nothing to follow -- you can see in either way. There is no suspense, little action, unimpressive dialogs, unsatisfactory sensuality, same boring locations and very bland acting. Kevin Dillon is totally worthless. Silverstone... well, I didn't concentrate too much on her acting, I confess. Yet as I said earlier, if one has nothing to do except watching a movie, this won't look so bad. 4/10 | negative |