review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I had few problems with this film, and I have heard a lot of criticisms saying it is overlong and overrated. True, it is over three hours long, but I was amazed that it goes by so quickly. I don't think it is overrated at all, I think the IMDb rating is perfectly decent. The film looks sumptuous, with gorgeous costumes and excellent effects, and the direction from James Cameron rarely slips from focus. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his best performances as Jack, and Kate Winslet is lovely as Rose. David Warner, a great actor, steals every scene he's in. The story is very rich in detail, and is hot on character development, obvious with the love story which is very moving when it needs to be, though in the first bit of the movie it is a little slow. The last hour is extremely riveting, and I will confess that I was on the edge of my seat, when the Titanic sank. I will also say that the last five minutes were very moving. The music score by James Horner was lovely, though I never was a huge fan of the song My Heart will Go On. The 1996 miniseries was good, but suffered from undeveloped scenarios and some historical inaccuracies. Overall, I give Titanic an 8.5/10. Bethany Cox. | positive |
This program is a lot of fun and the title song is so catchy I can't get it out of my head. I find as I get older I am drawn to the wrinklies who get things done, and these four are excellent in their endeavors. Some of what they do is outrageous but brilliant considering that now days with our PC world we'd never be able to do it in real life. I always learn something from the shows. But if you like mystery, drama, comedy, and a little forensic work you'll love this show. It reminds me of Quincy, ME in one way and Barney Miller in another the way they work and inter-react with each other. They screw up a lot but they get the job done, and that's what counts. | positive |
Greenaway seems to have a habit of trying deliberately to disgust his viewers. This film opens with incest--and purposeless, meaningless, casual incest at that. That's Greenaway's big problem. He prefers parlor tricks to shock over actually doing anything meaningful. Technical skill isn't enough. He's just a bit perverse for the sake of perversity. | negative |
This is one of the most hateful and cruel movies I've seen in a long time. Sadly I was duped into sticking with it, since Donald Sutherland's presence misleadingly gave it some credibility. [That's the last time that'll happen.]<br /><br />Lesley Ann Warren's character was annoyingly whiny and as stupid as they come. There were smarter characters than hers who were killed in the film. Thats just one of many things in this movie that made me ask, "Where is the justice?"<br /><br />Why is late-night cable so filled with sadistic garbage filled with pathological mayhem? Most of these films seem to have a particular problem with women, and seem to focus on them being terrorized and murdered. This film could have been every bit as suspenseful without being sick and twisted in the process. All it ends up doing is turning the viewer's stomach with its sickness, and insulting the viewer's intelligence.<br /><br />The cast is misleadingly good. My guess is that they BAGGED Sutherland first, and used him to lure the others like lemmings into this.<br /><br />I'm kicking myself for wasting time, giving this piece of garbage a chance. | negative |
"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is a very bad rehearse in making a sequel in the course of a single year. The first film was cute, cuddly and charming. The idea of a dog playing on a basketball team is quite far fetched, but he defiantly pulled off enough stunts to save the concept. Even the human story had some explanation to it. Josh's father was killed in a plane crash, so he is sad. And the audience becomes emotionally involved as well.<br /><br />Now for the poorly made sequel. It is terrible. This is the worst kind of bad sequel, the kind that changes the good ideas and turns them into bad ones. The kind that changes the main plot piece in one way, this time, the K-9 plays football instead of basketball. No madder how much time is spent in mind over matter, benefit of a doubt, walk into with an open mind of an attitude you have with a film like this, there is no positive thinking when it comes to down right bad film making.<br /><br />The sequel stars Kevin Zegers as Josh, who is in eight grade. He lives with his mother and little sister in a Seattle suburb. In the first film the human story involved him losing his father in a plane accident, which the audience can relate to, most people know what it feels like to lose a close loved one. <br /><br />In this movie, the emotional plot is a bit more complicated. Josh's mother is dating once again. He and Buddy, his dog who can play basketball, don't like this at all. Why? If I were in his shoes I would love to have an extra parent in my life, especially one this nice. The man's name is Patrick Sullivan, and Josh's mother, Jackie, met him became he is a local veterinarian for Buddy.<br /><br />The animal story is too simple. Josh is influenced by his best friend to try out for the school football team, the Timber Wolves. The team itself looks like something from America's Funniest Home Videos, the can even catch a ball without tripping or plummeting into each other. So when Bud shows up one day, he proves he can play as a receiver for them, and is no doubt the team's best player.<br /><br />Buddy's extremely cute in his football costume. Oh, he is enough to melt the heart. The dog is the best in this movie as well. Too bad there wasn't enough stunts done by him to draw attention away from the fact that no one ever asks any questions about a dog playing off a school football team.<br /><br />There is a very bad sub-plot about Russian circus workers that like stealing amazing animals, of course they try to catch Buddy. But their dim minds are ruled over by the animals and end up doing what looks like a "Home Alone" scenario to them.<br /><br />"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is much more goofy than the first too. The Russian kidnappers add a bunch of lamebrain slapstick that, I have to admit made me laugh, at the stupidity of it all. There are way too many sequences that detail a screwball nature and too few scenes that depict the true reason why people will see this movie-to see a dog play football.<br /><br />The performances were also quite the embarrassment. I liked Gregory Harrison and Robert Costanzo's presentations, but the overall acting grade would be equivalent to a D+. Kevin Zegers and Cynthia Stevenson were absolutely pathetic.<br /><br />There were a few hilarious moments near the end by a couple of football announcers, but that isn't even worth mentioning. Will children enjoy this movie? Perhaps, but even they will grow weary when the heart felt discussions become too long and deep. They will most certainly complain that the dog didn't get enough screen time in, and loath over the fast changing script, and protest against the boring performances, and argue that this movie is trash in comparison the origami al "Air Bud," as I did.<br /><br />I suppose that they will think the dog is adorable. | negative |
I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?! | negative |
After watching this movie on tv, I looked it up in the IMDB and imagine to my surprise a user rating of 7.6! This is not a good film. Especially bad is the editing; the poor way the story jumps from one point to another was amateurish and a huge distraction. It's not very fluently done. I do agree that the acting was fairly decent, especially Kelly Kapowski, and that the story was intriguing enough. | negative |
How often do we live our romantic life as on the big screen, with torrid affairs and passionate encounters? Almost never, if what I see as normal life around me is anything to judge by. Romances, as previously stated, are hardly ever earthshaking affairs that leave you at the top of the world or batter and bruised.<br /><br />Romance, in its every day form, as lived out millions of times over around the world, is a slow, subtle, and quiet affair. Something that grows in you, ever so slowly, probably without you even noticing it slowly taking over your being. No one can tell me when I am in love. For if someone did, I would not believe him anyway, for no one but me would know. And even then, it is just a feeling, a certain knowledge that you are feeling this exalting emotion. That you want nothing but the best for someone, that you would never want to see them suffer a moment of sadness. That you are willing to take a great degree of pain for them. I would not go so far as to say be willing to die for your loved one, for we are all human, and we do not know what we are capable of in the face of death until that moment is upon us.<br /><br />Is the love between the main characters of the film, ever so subtle and understated, no less noble than that between Romeo and Juliet? The unstated emotions, the unsaid feelings, convey far more than any repeated shouts of "I love you". The restraint shown by the lead actor, displayed ever so poignantly in the scene where he watches his love interest through the cafe window, yet never did he move to make himself known to her, was simply heart-wrenching to watch. Would most of us be selfless enough to remain hidden, knowing that her emotions and feelings could not possibly be reciprocated?<br /><br />On another note, how will I deal with my own certain death? While I can claim I have been seriously ill, I can not in all honesty say that I have ever come close to death. Will I be so calm, putting all my affairs in order, and leaving instructions for others to take up what I leave behind? I suspect I will be calm, for I will have little choice in the matter. Can I be so selfless? Again, the answer will have to be in the negative. I can empathize with the anguish, knowing that your life is forfeit, that fate has dealt you a fatal blow, and that future events, however little there are of them left, are no longer under your control.<br /><br />Life is nothing more than a series of small events, the culmination of which may seem great for some in retrospect. But only very rarely. | positive |
After seeing the TV commercials for this film I marched to my local cinema expecting a lot of laughs. In the end it was one of the longest 90mins I have ever spent. The Wog Boy really did fail to provide a story line with enough substance to hold my interest and predictable and sometimes tasteless jokes didn't fill this void.<br /><br />A scene where the two 'Wog Boys' dominate the dancefloor of their local nightclub was the only one that impressed me at all. The only character that was worth watching was 'Nathan', played by The Castle's Stephen Curry, his struggle with the opposite sex providing most of the few laughs.<br /><br />A word for this flic is boring. Save yourself the time and just watch the TV commercial as the only laughs are shown on it. | negative |
The movie was totally Awesome and Cool. The graphics was superb and it was amazing, Especially, Flik was superb and awesome in the movie and he was funny and he was and sometimes he was intelligent. The circus bugs are colorful and they are superb in the movie. The grasshoppers were also superb and cool in the movie. Hopper was a pure and perfect villain. Even, Dot was cute. When, the bird comes to eat the bugs, that scene was superb and good. Even, the last scene was awesome and cool. Even, Flik's inventions was good. Building an artificial bird was a good idea to scare away the grasshoppers. When, the ants are building the artificial bird, that scene was good and nice I should really appreciate the creators of "A Bug's Life". | positive |
This is one of those movies that showcases a great actor's talent and also conveys a great story. It is one of Stewart's greatest movies. Barring a few historic errors it also does an excellent job of telling the story of the "Spirit of St. Louis". | positive |
After ''Empire strikes back'' ''Return of the Jedi'' is my second favorite movie from the Star Wars series.<br /><br />Luke went to Tattoine to save Han Solo from Jabba. At the same time, the Galactic Empire is doing in secret, the construction of a new space station like the previous Death Star. If this station stays totally constructed, it will be the end of the Rebel Alliance. Both Vader and the Emperor are impatient because of the delay of the new Death Star,and they need to kill many of their commanders to have the project made in schedule.<br /><br />R2 and C3po are inside Jabba's palace to send a message from Luke to Jabba,where Lukes pretends to negotiate Han's life. He gives R2 and C3po as a gift to Jabba as part of his plan. Jabba does not accept the negotiation,since he is using Han Solo as a piece of his palace's decoration.(Han still is frozen in carbonite) Lando is hidden as Jabba's guard and Chewbacca is also gave to Jabba by a reward hunter. When the same Hunter tries to save Han solo and makes him stay in human form again, we see that is actually princess Leia in a disguise. The problem is that Jabba discovers Leia's plan and takes her as his slave,while Han is thrown away in Chewbacca's cell.<br /><br />Luke comes as a Jedi knight to rescue his friends. At his first try to kill Jabba,he falls into Jabba's monster cell (Bantha),but easily kills it. Jabba stays angry and decides to thrown Han,Chewbacca and Luke to Sarlacc, a big creature from the desert who stays 1.000 years digesting it's 'food'. Luke,Han and Chewie has success in scape again, and even Boba Fett dies when Han accidentally throws him in to Sarlacc's mouth. Leia kills Jabba and goes after Han,Luke and Chewie as well c3po and R2. <br /><br />Everybody's safe again,Luke decides to go to Dagoba to complete his training as a Jedi,as well his promise to Yoda. The problem is that Yoda is too old and sick, since he already has 900 years old, and before he dies, Yoda says to Luke that he does not need more training,but to really be a Jedi, he must fight with Vader again. He confirms to Luke that Vader is Luke's dad, and that there is another Skywalker besides Luke. In his last moments, Yoda asks to Luke to remember his advices about the temptation of the dark side, and to Luke transmit his Jedi knowledge to other people. When Yoda dies,Obi wan's spirit shows up to Luke and tells him that Luke's father killed his good side Anakin to become Darth Vader, and also that he is more machine than a man since he became a sith. Luke stays worried about killing his own dad, and says that he feels that his father still has kindness. Obi Wan tells Luke that his twin sister is Leia, and says the reasons why Luke and Leia were separated since babies. He gives his last advice to Luke saying that if he refuses to kill Vader, the emperor will win the war.<br /><br />At the same time, the Emperor says to Vader that he must give Luke to him when he shows up, since Luke is stronger than before, and they both needs to combine their efforts to bring Luke to the dark side.<br /><br />Now we are going to have one of the best battles from the star war series,when the Rebel Alliance plans to attack the new space station, the '' Death Star 2'', Luke will confront Vader and the Emperor, and Leia, Han and chewie needs to turn off the 'Death star 2' power field, with the help of the EWOKS. (little creatures who looks little bears)<br /><br />This is for sure one of the most exciting star wars of all! | positive |
This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed! | positive |
Why does this movie fall WELL below standards? Ultimately, the answer lies in the poor, humourless script. A slim/average looking Travolta (looking rather dapper in black I must say, even with a HUGE mullet) and Gross both act very well as two young-ish 'slick-dressed' but nevertheless dimwitted New Yorkers eager to open their own nightclub. Other than that, the rest of the film is just boring to watch. It is SO dull that it's really not worth knowing what happens in the film's climax on any level. Kelly Preston obviously exudes sex appeal and the sexually charged dance with her husband-to-be Travolta is one of the film's few pleasures. Charles Martin Smith is quite fun to watch as struggling KGB honcho "Bob Smith". Personally, I think the movie would have been better if the plot was altered a little so that the settings did not change from NY to 'Indian Springs, Nebraska' (which is in the former Soviet Union?)--you'll understand if you see the movie... Apparently, this movie was filmed in 1986 ready for a 1987 release. I guess Paramount stalled on releasing the movie until January 1989 because of the unbelievable plot. It was reported they deemed it "unreleasable". Nevertheless, this $6,000,000 film garnered a little over an embarrassing $163,000 in revenue as it was released only BRIEFLY in places like Texas and Colorado before heading straight-to-video. This is testament to the overall BAD quality of this movie. | negative |
Whoa. I mean, whoa. I mean, whoa whoa.<br /><br />I saw this movie, waaay back when I was eight, in 1996. Back then, CGI films were a rarity; and good ones even more so. Also, back then we listened to things called CD players. But I digress. I used to like this movie a lot, way back then, and up till viewing it again, I've held reaally fond memories of it. Hey, it's Don Bluth! Anyone who hates "All Dogs Go to Heaven" is clearly a robot. But, again, I digress.<br /><br />Then, I saw it again. This really isn't one of his best, I can say now, eleven years later. I've seen a lot more films, and I've garnered a little bit more knowledge. Now, sure, the voice acting is good, I'll give 'em that. Story's...okay. I mean, we see it all the time. A LOT. But, it works. The musical numbers are what irk me. This would've been more at home in the eighties, with these kind of musical numbers. In '96, most kids movies had epic numbers, like the Lion King (which came out a year or so previous, but whatever)or stuff like that. You get showtunes here, vaudeville style.<br /><br />The animation kind of hurts, too. At times choppy, and at others completely changing style and format with the change of a shot, it's really hard not to notice.<br /><br />I still like "All Dogs Go to Heaven, but this could've been waaay better.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
What an utter disappointment. Forget this abysmal film and get hold of the TV series instead. What on earth were they doing making the American president relatively sane? ALL the politicians should have been bumbling buffoons (Peter Cook is good as the British PM). It lacks the biting satire of the original, going instead for "lowest common denominator" slapstick. 1 out of 10 if I'm being generous! This is unfortunately yet another example of a remake which totally misses the point of the original, the difference with this one being that they were both written by the same people. | negative |
Bad, bad, bad. How do movies like this get made? Badly written, poorly acted; I could go on, but why bother? As an aside, note that the characters' first names are the same as the actors playing them : this is a dead giveaway that no one on the set is even interested enough in their role to bother learning someone else's characters names! | negative |
Long trailer? whoever said that has got to be joking. this has got to be one of the most in depth behind the scenes or making of documentary ever made. how can it be a trailer when several minutes are spent telling the audience how the movie was conceptualized and then brought to the studios? this documentary also spends lots and lots of time detailing how stunts were done and the new technologies created to achieve them. then it shows us how woo ping's team came up with the fight scenes along with blocking tapes that pretty much put to shame the actual scenes with the actors. there is stuff mentioned about matrix reloaded, but there's hardly anything really. if you are a real fan of the matrix, you have to see this documentary. the original documentary in the dvd is good, but incomplete compared to this one. for instance, it never explained why keanu wore a neck brace in the original documentary, but that is explained in Revisited. the Revisited dvd also shows carrie ann moss spraining her ankle during the lobby scene and being really distraught because she feels like she's letting the crew down. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. so ignore that "just a long trailer" review and go check it out for yourself. you won't regret it. casual matrix fans need not apply... | positive |
The film opens with a cult leader attempting to resurrect a dead member with his followers chanting for his rebirth as the sun strikes upon them in the desert. Reanhauer(Bill Roy)believes wholeheartedly in his power, and gets so worked up that he collapses with what appeared to be a heart attack. Unable to keep him alive, all those involved, doctors and nurses, are sentenced for attack with Reanhauer's demonic spirit invading the curvaceous body of nurse Sherri(..big-chested Jill Jacobson)targeting each one using her as a tool of vengeance. Forced against her will, with no memory of inflicting such harm, Sherri's host body murders selected victims. Fortunately, Sherri's fellow co-worker, nurse Tara(Marilyn Joi)begins a rather blossoming romance with a blinded patient, Marcus Washington(Prentiss Moulden), once a star football player, whose mother was a practitioner of voodoo. Through Marcus' knowledge, passed down from mom, Tara finds out about possession and how to possibly save Sherri before she murders everyone unknowingly. Meanwhile, Sherri's lover, Dr. Peter Desmond(Geoffrey Land)worries about her present condition and welfare.<br /><br />Well, this was my first Al Adamson film and I must agree with his detractors that, just from this film alone, it seems he holds them together with paper clips and Elmer's glue. The animation with which we see the spirit take control of Sherri is beyond awful and rather laughable. A little soft-core nonsense as filler, some demonic possession thrown in the mix(Sherri actually speaks in another voice when she's possessed), with naughty nurse behavior(..the three nurses focused on in the film all are quite sexually active and free-spirited)and a little bit violence/gore. The film is essentially shot in tiny rooms with dull dialogue from a rather mundane cast. The sexual situations aren't that hard-core and Al often shoots them without revealing all that much. The film looks embarrassingly cheap and there's an absence of thrills, although the chilling score(..which sounds like something from Dark Shadows)does help a little bit. Jacobson and Mary Kay Pass(..as nurse Beth who seems to be a nymphomaniac if she'll even screw a nutty patient, always complaining of illnesses he really doesn't have, with enough chest hair to declare him a Neanderthal)aren't bad looking, and Adamson's story-line, although frail, is somewhat coherent(..it seems he rarely directs films which are). Overall, the movie looks like it cost 5 bucks and Adamson just can not overcome the budgetary restrictions(..or, in my opinion, create an unpleasant enough atmosphere due to a sometimes plodding narrative and tedious scenes which do little for the story). John F Goff has the role of the hospital's psychiatrist who wants to commit Sherri, not believing the idea that she was possessed;he constantly bickers with Peter over her. I watched the unrated "lost" version which I guess is the real version to watch of Nurse Sherri. | negative |
I truly fell in love with the characters. They were very down to earth but each and every one of them had a hidden dark side. Sort of a mystery. David Graysmark, himself, was an enigma. The secret fears and just secrets in general that he had. There was a whole side of him that the other characters knew nothing about and it left the audience either wondering or assuming. There was always a part of this man that he would keep hidden away, yet he'd share a little of himself too. He was the strong male lead character and I admire that type of character. Billy Moses himself is an incredible actor who could do just about any type of part! He's an amazing talent and a good man. His fans love, respect, and support him endlessly.<br /><br />Since this show he's gone onto many other projects and has stretched his acting ability quite a bit more and quite well. Kudos to him and all the other actors from this show for doing such an excellent job! I wish them all well. I wish the series would've continued on! It's such a shame it didn't! | positive |
I first saw this movie in the night program of one of my favourite TV channels.... I was hooked from the very first minute. Nothing is as it first seems, lots of suspense, great acting from Mr. van Dien, and I did not mind the "heat" in it one bit ;-) ... and, best of all: You are in for a surprise ending!!! | positive |
Antonio Margheriti's "Danza Macabra" aka. "Castle Of Blood" of 1964 is a beautiful and incredibly haunting masterpiece of Italian Gothic Horror, and after Mario Bava's "La Maschera Del Demonio" (aka. "Black Sunday") of 1960 and Roger Corman's "Pit And The Pendulum" of 1961 (starring the great Vincent Price) another must-see that earned the wonderful Barbara Steele her more than deserved fame as the most important female Horror icon in the history of motion pictures. But not only is the beautiful and brilliant Barbara Steele one of my favorite actresses of all-time, the screenplay to "Danza Macabra" was co-written by no one less than the cinematic genius Sergio Corbucci, who directed such ingenious Spaghetti Western milestones as "Django" (1966) and "The Great Silence" (1968). Italy's number 2 in the field (right after Mario Bava), Director Antonio Margheriti is one of the all-time masters of Gothic Horror, and "Castle of Blood" is doubtlessly his greatest achievement. Hardly another film works so brilliantly in creating an incredibly haunting, yet beautiful atmosphere as it is the case with this creepy masterpiece. <br /><br />When he encounters the famous writer of brilliant macabre stories, Edgar Allen Poe, in a gloomy London tavern, young journalist Alan Foster (Georges Rivière) accepts a bet from a nobleman, that he can not spend a night in his haunted castle in the night of all souls' eve. As soon as Foster enters the eerie castle, mysterious things start to happen. After a little while, however, he encounters an enchanting resident of the castle, the stunningly beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (Barbara Steele). The mysterious events so far, however, have only been forebodings of the terrors the castle bears, however...<br /><br />The eerie castle setting alone would be sufficient to create a gloomy mood, the excellent black and white cinematography and a great score by Riz Ortolani create an incredibly haunting atmosphere that is eerie beyond comparison. The wonderful Barbara Steele is fantastic as always, I simply can not find enough words to praise this wonderful actress. No other actress has ever been capable of uniting ravishing beauty with the uncanny as it is the case with Steele, and no actress ever will. Besides Steele, the movie's cast contains another stunning beauty, Margarete Robsahm, and she also delivers a great performance. George Rivière's performance as Alan Foster is great, and the rest of the performances are also very good. "Castle of Blood" is outstanding in many departments: Barbara Steele Delivers one of her best performances, the cinematography and locations are beautifully haunting beyond comparison, the atmosphere is incredibly eerie... The film simply is a perfect whole of atmosphere, Gothic beauty and the art of terror. In short: "Castle of Blood" is one of the most atmospheric and greatest Gothic Horror films ever made, and must not be missed by anyone interested in the genre! 10/10 | positive |
This is one of the worst movies ever made. Trite. Predictable. Flat.<br /><br />The only thing that rated one point was there was a few nice scenes highlighting Barcelona. I imagine they would use films like this in Guantanamo or some other hidden CIA/NSA prison to torture suspects.<br /><br />Often bad movies have some redeeming features, this has nothing. If I was in it or worked on it, I would change my name. Truly a turd. Hard to write more than this, but I feel the world's film watchers needed a head's up on this. On the other hand it will make a great gift for people you can't stand.<br /><br />You could send it to politicians you dislike, in laws, ex-wives, Teachers you hated, former employees, Dick Cheney, W., and a host of others. | negative |
It seems that all companies that are enjoy with the taxes taken by Romania for picture,grant the image that disappear since 1994 .They are hardly try to get the oldest car the had founded, but they never take pictures of the Lamorghini,Ferrari,Aston Martin and all new Mercedes that are more the you can find in some important countries.<br /><br />A second problem is that they filmed in some neighborhoods in Bucharest where they had the possibility of clear the streets and put garbages on dressing people with i don't know maybe '90 clothes a making them seem so stupid that you will realize the script was maybe a second hand bought from ebay or worth.<br /><br />I wist for future to keep making movies in US and to make good money there than to give us a little bit and shame our country.I have no reason to believe that someone will understand the message(beyond my English---:sorry) | negative |
This film probably would have been good,if they didn't use CGI (computer generated imagery)for the werewolf scenes.It made the creatures look fake and the werewolves looked cartoonish.CGI is great for certain effects like the dinasours in Jurassic Park or Twister.But when we see a film where the creature must look completely real,CGI is not the way to go.Look at An American Werewolf in London.No CGI.Just makeup and a mechanical creature and what you come up with was more realistic than what was shown in the sequel.This film did offer a few gags that was fun to watch and the humor in this movie seemed to have drawn me in but it's nothing more than a film that I thought was O.K.And that's not good enough.In my opinion,An American Werewolf in Paris doesn't hold up to the original. | negative |
What a disaster! Normally, when one critiques a historical movie, it's always fun to point out the inaccuracies that slip in, usually added by the writers to create more "dramatic" situations. However, "Imperium: Nerone" is a whole 'nuther kind of animal. In this movie you strain to find ANYTHING at all that is confirmed by the historical record amidst the farrago of nonsense and fiction presented as the life of Rome's bad-boy artist-emperor.<br /><br />And it's a pity, because Nero is one of the most fascinating of all the Roman emperors. His life was filled with enough tumultuous events and interesting people to make a really good movie. The producers of this mess chose another route, which leads only to head-scratching on the part of any informed viewer.<br /><br />Just a few examples: <br /><br />1. Nero is depicted as an 6-8 year old boy when Caligula has his father killed for treason, exiles his mother Agrippina, and sends the boy to be raised by slaves in the countryside. "Ten years later," the story resumes just before the assassination of Caligula. Facts: Nero was born about six months after Caligula began his four year reign, and was only three when he was assassinated; Nero's father died of natural causes; Agrippina was briefly exiled for bad behavior, not treason; and Nero was not raised among slaves, but had the typical upbringing of a young member of the imperial family.<br /><br />2. Okay, according to the writers, Nero is now about 16 when his great uncle Claudius becomes emperor (in fact he was about to turn 4); Agrippina engineers the downfall of the empress Messalina and marries Claudius, who adopts Nero. Then he goes off to conquer Britain, and is poisoned by Agrippina soon after his victorious return. Nero is declared emperor, although he's still perhaps only 18 or 19 years old. Fact: Claudius conquered Britain in 43 A.D., two years after beginning his reign. He lived until 54 A.D. Nero should have been 31 years old by then by any normal chronology, but in fact succeeded to the throne at age 16.<br /><br />History tells us that there then followed the "Five Good Years," where Nero ruled wisely and well under the tutelage of the philosopher Seneca and the Praetorian commander Burrus. This is shown -- sort of -- except that portraying the Roman Senate as opposing Nero's good measures is false. Senatorial opposition to Nero only commenced when he started to show signs of insanity and began killing Senators for real or imagined treason.<br /><br />3. Nero's mother Agrippina is the controlling sort, who murdered her uncle-husband to make her son emperor. After a while, Nero tires of her meddling and decides to kill her. In the movie, he sends his henchman Tigellinus to stab her to death. All true enough, but the reality was so much better! Agrippina was a survivor, and didn't go easily. Nero tried three times to poison her, but as an old poisoner herself she was savvy to all that, and he failed. Then he tried to crush her to death by collapsing the ceiling of her bedchamber, but that also failed. Next, he sent her on a voyage on a ship that was deliberately constructed to fall apart and sink; as it went down, she jumped into the sea and swam to shore. Finally, he had her stabbed to death. Now showing all THAT would have definitely improved this movie! <br /><br />Other errors abound: Nero's lover Acte was not a childhood slave-friend, she never repudiated him, and there is no evidence that she became a Christian. Nero did not commit suicide by slitting his wrists while sitting beside a lake. Etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />The sources for Nero's life are primarily the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom were of the senatorial class hostile to him and his memory. But the evidence indicates that he remained very popular with the common people, unlike one of the final scenes where he is pelted by the mob with vegetables as he leaves the city to commit suicide.<br /><br />WHY did the writers and producers take an inherently interesting story with plenty of good stuff for any movie, and make THIS piece of crap? Oh, and did I mention how cheesy the sets and costumes were? Lol.<br /><br />One star, because there's no way to rate it lower. | negative |
I remember catching this film on a C4 screening a year ago and I was completely blown away by the whole thing. I thought the film managed to represent such a diversity of genres; the supernatural, a love story, the intrigue of crime, and so many more.<br /><br />I was hooked on the whole thing after a minute or so and was really concerned about the characters. It made me feel terrified at one second for Jimmy, and then had me laughing away at the gangsters in the next... and all the time I had my fingers crossed that things would work out for Jimbo!<br /><br />Heath Ledger and Rose Bryne are superb, Bryan Brown is absolute quality and had me creasing up, along with David Field, who was funny as well as being an evil git.<br /><br />Since I saw this film I managed to order it on DVD and as a result, every person I show it to has been hooked in much the same way.<br /><br />This film is perfect for a Sunday afternoon or a lazy evening, and it's one that you can really appreciate with your mates around. | positive |
A group of cats look to find their way home after being kidnapped by a greedy butler.<br /><br />The Aristocats is regarded as one of Walt Disney's finest 2D animations with its charming script and cool characters, but it doesn't quite have the magic that created Snow White or the Jungle Book.<br /><br />The slow opening will have younger viewers raising their eyebrows but once the cats become established into the story does the fun and entertainment begin.<br /><br />The young cats create the most enjoyment with a charming young hearted rivalry, the special kind of bonding any brother or sister of any age can associate with.<br /><br />Not the funniest Disney picture out there but there are some great comic moments, especially involving the Cats and the Dogs. The representation of the gangster cats is very impressive and equally amusing.<br /><br />The story, after the boring beginning, is consistently entertaining and exactly what a family film should be. There are hardly any lapses and no dull moments. The journey to find home is interesting and you get a sense of exploring, not to mention two very strange British swans.<br /><br />With Disney, you always get a strong meaningful message. With the Jungle Book it is where you belong, with Beauty and the Beast you explore the importance of inner beauty. However with this 1970 picture there seems to be something missing. The film has the importance and relevance of home but is not cemented enough; it seems very far fetched and irrelevant.<br /><br />My sister and I found it very strange watching this as some of the central characters were voiced by the Jungle Book cast.<br /><br />Despite the bad beginning and the confusion of its preaching message, this is a consistently fun family film with a good music score and some cool crazy characters that viewers of any age can relate to. | positive |
I love so much about this movie: the music, the cinematography, the acting, the story, and all the Mormon clichés. Just because they are clichés doesn't mean they aren't true! This is not perfect, it is a movie after all. Though excommunications are held in well-lit rooms with nice big desks and chairs, it was totally appropriate to portray it as the dark, cold scene they did in this film. I also liked the scene with the angel waiting at the bus stop, smoking a cigarette. I thought that was so cool. I mean, I believe that angels do watch over us. What is one supposed to do while waiting? Smoking is a way some people pass the time while waiting. I loved the irony cause Mormons make such a deal about smoking. I saw this movie 7 times in theaters in Salt Lake, and cried every time! It blows me away. And I've watched it 3 times on video now and it still makes me cry every time. I would jump at the chance to see it again on a big screen. I hope the Tower Theatre in Salt Lake will bring it back regularly at General Conference time, as a cult movie (pun intended, but no offense intended). | positive |
This is John Waters best film to date. The characters are obvious and symbolic, just as in his other films. So there are no surprises or character changes. I enjoyed the film because of the wittiness and pace of the story. It was good story-telling with honest people. | positive |
Having read all of the comments on this film I am still amazed at Fox's reluctance to release a full screen restored version in DVD. Yes, the history may be a bit inaccurate and it is certainly not as powerful as the book, BUT it was the 2nd film by Fox made in Real Cinemascope and the production values alone merit a restoration and distribution. I saw this film in second grade and it triggered my lifelong interest in all things Egyptian, culminating in my visiting Egypt 4 years ago! Amazing the power of film on a child's imagination, eh? In high school I read the book and made a promise to myself to one day take that dream trip. Now, true this film was made in the "old school" style, meaning that Egyptians were portrayed by pink skinned and blue-eyed Brits. However, has anyone seen the current HBO series "ROME"? Everything old is olde again. One can't imagine why in this day and age we are still casting actors mincing around as Mayfair aristocrats in Roman drag. Not one actor on ROME could pass for an ancient Italian. That being said, the AMARNA period in Egypt is still one of the most fascinating events in human history. This film is immensely appealing ( to borrow a word from NEFER) for its historical information (BEER! BRAIN SURGERY! IRON!) and its gorgeous cinematography and score. I have a dreadful Taiwan DVD version which I watch over and over again praying that one day a true restored widescreen version will be available. For anyone else interested in this subject I highly recommend the historical novel "A God Against The Gods" by the author of Advise and Consent. If anyone of you film buffs out there knows how to contact Fox to urge them on, please let me know! | positive |
Yeah, I guess this movie is kinda dull compared to some of Pam Grier's other films. The plot is overly familiar, the dialog stilted, and some of the acting isn't too good. But it's worth seeing for the lengthy stretch near the end of the film, where we see Ms Grier in a sexy blue wetsuit, with the zipper half unzipped. Yeah, it seems like a frivolous point when discussing an actress of Pam Grier's talent, but she also happens to be an extremely gorgeous woman, and back in the day, she had a body that wouldn't quit. It's nice to see it being showcased in a tight wetsuit. Rent the DVD, and then tell me I'm wrong. Can't, can you? That's because you know I'm right! :-) And yes, I really did give a 10 just for the wetsuit scenes! ;-) | positive |
. . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of "10." After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today. | positive |
I found this movie quite by accident, but am happy that I did. Kenneth Branagh's performance came close to stealing this movie from Helena Bonham Carter, but their strong chemistry together made for a much more enjoyable movie. This movie brought to mind the excellent movies that Branagh made with Emma Thompson. Carter's star turn here as a disabled young women seeking to complete herself was as good a performance as I have seen from a female lead in a long time. Portraying a disabled person is hard to pull off, but with basically only her eyes to show her pain about her situation in life, she made it so believable. If this movie had come out after the current wave of movies with beautiful women "uglying" themselves up for roles (Charlize Theron, Halle Berry), I fell sure Carter would have had strong consideration for an Oscar. If you run across this movie on cable late at night as I did, trust me, it is worth the lost sleep. | positive |
think of the most un-film-worthy subject you can and this is 10 times worse. A woman needs to complete as many crosswords as she can in a day. We don't even get to see the questions and think of the words on our own, we just watch her struggle. The woman seems so anxious and in a hurry to do the crosswords, but for some reason she spends the time distractedly walking all around the city when she could be focused at home. The acting is horrible, the actress huffs and puffs as she tried to think of the words, and we are left completely in the dark. The New York scenery is nice but the movie relies on it too much and it gets old fast. The movie plays like a rejected NYU student film. This film has no redeeming qualities and I do not recommend it to anyone, ever. | negative |
"Nurse Betty" is the kind of movie you can't describe on a poster or in a trailer or commericial. It's the kind of movie that you walk in to expecting a more mature "Dumb and Dumber" what with temporarily insane waitress goes on a cross country adventure while avoiding crooks trying to kill her.<br /><br />The fact is, this film is a wonderful, heartwarming tale about two people chasing their dreams. The best part about "Nurse Betty" is it's unpredictability. Director Neil LaBute uses brutal violence to seperate dreams from reality, and along with the touching drama, and hilarious comedy, you can never tell what is going to happen next. | positive |
I watched this mini in the early eighties. Sam Waterson proved himself to be a great actor. In fact when he began Law and Order I was disappointed in him as it was not as powerful a role. Unfortunately the good roles do not pay the bills. I wish I could find a copy of this rare series and review it. It is both factual and entertaining. Everyone should see it to know what really happened. I was so moved I purchased and read the book "Pppenheimer-Shatterer of Worlds". And saw how this man became an unlikely hero who was never rewarded for his insight. If you get a chance be sure to watch this movie and see what a performance Mr. Waterston can really provide an audience. Enjoy the movies! | positive |
From the beginning of the show Carmen was there. She was one of the best characters. Why did they get rid of her?! The show not the same as before. Its way worse.<br /><br />The best episodes were with Carmen in them. You can't replace someone from the beginning! That is like South Park without Kyle or Child's Play without Chucky! It's not right! The niece who replaced her is just, ugh! Awful. She doesn't fit into the storyline at all. She was one of the main characters, and the niece can't replace her. She was an awesome actress. Way better than the niece. Get her back, or you'll lose a TON of viewers. | positive |
I made a big mistake going to see this film. That's the lottery of going to see films I guess. After five minutes you just knew it was going to be a clunker, and I fought quite hard to stay in my seat - the old "lose two hours of your life" kind of feeling.<br /><br />The fundamental problem is that, without even mentioning the whole "historical accuracy" thread of reviews, the script is achingly, painful, bad.<br /><br />The first thirty minutes could have been spread out to an hour to give a plausible, real, plot development. Instead, it lurched from from one undramatic "dramatic" event to the next. Having the girl cry at the start of the film makes no sense because the audience has no emotional attachment to anything at this point. And that whole walking off into the sunset through the long-grass field at the end, what the hell was that about? <br /><br />Not even the excellent Ed Harris could save this one. You could almost feel his pain at some of the lines he had to utter. The most fabulously awful one was, for no apparent reason, he stares at the girl as she copies his work in his apartment, she looks up, it all goes a bit fuzzy romantic kind-a lighting (or am I dreaming), and he says, with authority in his voice, <br /><br />"WASH ME." <br /><br />And she gets up and washes him, with a sponge. "Wash me" WTF? That's hilarious.<br /><br />And then there was the music. The long extended session when it was just Beethoven conducting and the 9th Symphony pouring out of the surround sound in the cinema and the choir waiting, waiting, standing there silently for what seems like forever. And then, finally, launching into enormous sound. It was spine-chillingly wonderful and dare I say it, it brought tears to my eyes.<br /><br />So that is where the film picked up two stars. The only part of the film where Beethoven got to say exactly what he wanted to say.<br /><br />And I believed him. | negative |
Depending entirely on your own personal state of mind when watching this, "Christmas Evil" can either turn out to become an ambitious and innovative psychological thriller OR one of the most pathetic and infuriatingly lame holiday-themed slashers ever made. Me, personally, I'm tempted to opt for the latter because I didn't bother to do any research at all and simply anticipated a cheesy and undemanding early 80's slasher with a nutcase in a Santa Clause costume butchering people. Wrong! The movie actually handles about a bloke named Harry Stadling; who's obsessed with Christmas, works in a rubbish toy factory and considers it to be his responsibility to determine on Christmas Eve who deserves presents and who deserves punishment. Harry's issues all started when he witnessed Santa his daddy in a costume obviously caress his mommy's naked legs at a tenderly young age. After that he just developed into a social outcast, much to the irritation of his younger brother, who's bound to snap one (holi)day. I fully understand why certain fans appreciate this slightly eccentric horror movie, but did it really have to be so boring? There are several overlong and seemingly endless parts of the film in which absolutely nothing happens. I can forgive the shortness of gore and outrageous bloodshed, but this movie doesn't even benefice from an unsettling atmosphere or unexpectedly demented plot twists (with the notable exception of the finale, I must admit). Also, I would have taken the concept more seriously if the crazed protagonist would focus himself on lethally punishing the naughty children! He doesn't and exclusively kills misbehaving adults. How are you supposed to take wannabe controversial and original Christmas thriller serious when Santa doesn't even commit one miserable child murder? THAT would have made "Christmas Evil" a classic, whereas now it's just a forgettable and pitiable piece of junk. | negative |
<br /><br />One would expect a movie with a famous comedian in the lead role, to be a funny movie. This is not the case here. I laughed out loud once throughout the whole movie, and that wasn't even during the final comedy-scene (which one would also expect to be the funniest). This is one you can watch when it comes to TV, don't spend any other money renting it. | negative |
Why did the histories of Mary and Rhoda have to be so dour? Divorced women with indifferent daughters. And why very little reference to the original show and characters? The daughter characters were silly and uninteresting. Why can't there ever be daughters who like their mother's on TV? It makes sense that Mary would leave Minneapolis, and Rhoda would return to NYC, but why couldn't Phyllis or Sue Ann Nivens be guest stars? It just seems a pitiful way to remember such wonderful characters. It was good to see Mary and Rhoda together of course, but it could have been better, much better. Well, there has been a Mary Tyler Moore Show Reunion, a Dick Van Dyke Show Reunion, hopefully Mary will do better next time if she revisits her old Mary Richards stomping grounds again. | negative |
The movie is not that bad, Ringo Lam sucks. I hate when Van Damme has love in his movies, van Damme is good only when he doesn't have love in his movies. | negative |
"Sir" has played Lear over 200 times,but tonight he can't remember his opening lines.Sitting at the mirror,his eyes reflect the King's madness. His dresser prompts him gently,mouthing the words.There is an air of desperation about both these men.The great actor knowing his powers are slipping away,his valet cum major domo cum conscience cum surrogate wife - aware of his boss's decline into madness and knowing he is powerless to do more than ease his passing. "The Dresser" is really a love story between the two.Over the years they have become mutually dependent on one another to the extent that neither can conceive a future without the other. Set during the second world war,it concerns the fortunes of a frankly second - rate touring Shakespearean Company comprising an equal number of has - beens and wannabes led by "Sir", a theatrical knight of what might kindly be called "The Old School".Whatever part he is playing he grabs centre - stage and bellows out over the footlights,bullying his audience into applause.But,somewhere inside him,buried most of the time deep beneath the ham he regularly dishes out,there still remains an occasional glitter of his earlier greatness.It is to catch a glimpse of this that his audiences fervently hope for. Mr A.Finney very cleverly concentrates on the ham,often to the point of caricature,and,just when you are ready to dismiss his performance as mere hyperbole and bluster he will produce a moment of exquisite subtlety and vulnerability that makes you realise that a great actor is playing a great actor. The same goes for Mr T.Courtenay.It's easy to write off his portrayal<br /><br />of Norman as an exercise in stereotyping.Here we have a middle - aged effeminate rather than camp theatrical dresser sashaying his way through life,enjoying the company of "The Girls" and loving the wicked Insider gossip rife in "The Theatre".There were - and I strongly suspect still are - many men just like Norman in The Profession.Infinitely kind and patient,knowing more about the plays than many of the actors,they run backstage with wisdom and affection.I believe the vast majority of them would hoot with approving laughter at Mr Courtenay's portrait. I saw "The Dresser" on the London stage where,against the perceived wisdom,Mr Courtenay's "Norman" was rather more subdued than in the movie."Sir" was played by the great Mr Freddie Jones to huge acclaim from the audience.It was a memorable performance that overshadowed Mr Courtenay's,reducing him rather to an "also - ran" as opposed to an actor on level - billing.The idea that "Sir" and "Norman" might be almost incomplete without each other went right out of the window. "Norman" was reduced to being his puppet,which I'm not sure was what Ronald Harwood intended,but made for breathtaking theatre. Messrs Finney and Courtenay redress the balance in the movie,restoring equality to the relationship. Both men have come a long way since their early appearances in the British "New Wave" pictures when they became the darlings of the vaguely Leftish,"middle - class and ashamed of it" movement.When the British cinema virtually committed Hari - kiri in the 1970s they quietly concentrated on the theatre apart from a few roles to keep the wolf from the door.With the renaissance of more substantial movies,they re - appeared,blinking in the unaccustomed bright light.<br /><br />"The Dresser" marked their return,still fizzing with energy and talent, shouting to the world at large "We're still here".It's not a big movie but is assuredly a great one. | positive |
The Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa is a vital and probably unique human experiment. This movie does an excellent job of revealing the complexity of the task and the incredible challenges facing South Africa. I believe every one should see this movie as I think few people outside of South Africa understand its past and what is being attempted in the Truth and Reconciliation process. Almost every country has some part of its own history which is still a source of continuing hatred and bitterness. We all need to understand ways of dealing with the past. What's happening in South Africa should guide us all. I found it credible, moving and at times upsetting. There were no outstanding acting performances but this added to the strength of the narrative. Once again the BBC has been instrumental in taking a complex topic and turning out a top class movie. | positive |
This picture started out with good intentions, Bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility, and Shue is cute as usual in her role. It all falls apart after that, it's your typical Hollywood thriller now, filmed on a soundstage with special effects galore, minus any kind of humour, wit or soul. In other words, don't waste your time watching this. Get the audiocassette tape with John DeLancie as the Invisible Man instead, also starring Leonard Nimoy. Now that was good, and HG Wells is well served, unlike with this mess. | negative |
One of the greatest lessons I ever had in how to watch a movie happened this way: <br /><br />I was working in Roger Corman's offices, like so many other wanabees before and since, I was interning and trying to figure out how it all worked and how to make myself indispensable (hah!). One afternoon Julie Corman, Roger Corman's wife and a producer in her own right, asked me to load up a tape. I'm not sure why she wanted to watch it. I got the impression it was a student film or a show reel, something like that, some sort of calling card. Whatever the reasons she had to see it, the only free video machine in the offices at the time happened to be in the room I was working in, and I was the nearest person to the machine. I started the tape.<br /><br />Fade in: On screen a figure sat at a desk facing the camera. Behind him, screen left, was a door that opened into the room. Against the far wall was a coat rack. A second character entered through the door and started talking. The first character, the guy at the desk, turned round to reply, (this is all one take, static camera, there are no cuts pans or dolly shots. Just one locked off camera). The second character turned to hang his coat on the coat rack and delivered his next line. Julie Corman said "I've seen enough." and left the room.<br /><br />What she had seen in the ten seconds of footage she had watched was that the director was an idiot. Opening with two characters who immediately turned their backs to the camera delivering lines? Nope, sorry. Next! That's how long you've got. Ten seconds. Cock it up in the opening shot and you are dead.<br /><br />I was reminded of that moment while I watched the opening of this piece of crap. After an interminably long travelogue of jungle we see several monkeys apparently throwing themselves into cages. A man carrying a gun laughs. A jet liner lands and we see it taxi the whole way to the terminal. God this is boring! Cut to the interior of the Airport. Two men meet. Aha! Something is happening! They shake hands. Cut to a different angle of the two men -<br /><br />- and the director crosses the line.<br /><br />The first two shots of the movie that have any kind of spatial relationship with each other and the guy has cocked up. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those basic rules of movie grammar that keeps the characters from jumping about from side to side on the screen and confusing the audience. Audiences don't like to be confused. Mystified? Baffled? Puzzled and intrigued? Yes. Audiences love all of those. Confused? No. You loose them. They walk out. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those things they pound into you at film school, or should. It's basic stuff. It's not an inviolable rule (there are no inviolable rules) directors break it all the time - but not on the first real cut of the movie.<br /><br />I thought, "I've seen enough". And switched off. | negative |
Our America is multi-cultural, with so many sub-cultures. This movie simply tells a story of a snapshot in time within one of these sub-cultures. It is basically an objective look at a group of forgotten people, living their lives oblivious to the rest of the world. Generally, a good movie. It entertained, provoked thought, and showed lives that would not be seen otherwise, right in our own back yard. Should be seen by all. Having lived in the U.S. all my life, I had no idea that there were citizens here that didn't know they were citizens. This movie helps illustrate the diversity of our country by showing this small part of a southern state. The obvious conclusion: If this is really for real, then what else is out there that we know nothing of? | positive |
It is the early morning of our discontent, and some friends of mine and I have just gotten through watching "The Wind." Truly a disaster film. Not in the sense of forces of nature wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting populace, but rather an awful movie wreaking havoc on an unsuspecting audience. To give you an indication of how frustrating it was to watch this particular bomb, I'll give you an example quoted during my first pained viewing. If given the choice of watching this movie for a second time and, say, boiling myself, I'm afraid to say the choice would not be an immediate one. But rather than simply ranting "ad peliculam" with lousy one-liners, I'm going to get specific as to why exactly my friends and I panned this particular film.<br /><br />To start this off, I like low-budget horror flicks. I even like artsy, low-budget horror flicks. I liked "Cold Hearts", "Midnight Mass," "Jugular Wine," etc. Films that were ambitious and daring, even if they were lacking in production value, execution and even acting. Generally, an interesting premise, unusual camera technique or merely just a well done scene or two will save a movie that is running a little rough around the edges. With these provisos in mind, I would like to say conclusively that I hated "The Wind."<br /><br />The movie was probably most disappointing in the sense that it was incredibly frustrating to watch. From the actions of the main characters, to the flow (?) of the plot, to the big portents hinted at by the opening which ultimately aspired to dust (and did not even attach themselves logically to what transpired in the remainder of the film, and left the viewer, expecting something more, with a sense of much ado about nothing). The dialogue was spotty at best, woodenly delivered and completely unrealistic. By this I mean, no one in any of the situations that the characters were in would have reacted the way the characters did, or said the things that they said in the way that they said them. There was an obvious lack of vision and direction that would have corrected this problem. <br /><br />Character interaction and development was abysmal. Claire, the "lambent sex goddess," or so the aggravating, passive-aggressive lamesters in the movie thought, was so overt in her manipulations she may as well have pulled a gun on the characters. Nevertheless, she was the shining high point of the film. The other main characters (with the exception of Mick's Milfy Mom, who was not terrible) are so indistinct that they may as well have been portrayed by the same actor. Let's see if I missed anything: borderline personality, co-submissive goons with profound feelings of sexual confusion and inadequacy, spurred to fits of puerile rage through the artless orchestrations of a loose-lipped bimbette-suddenly-and-unmasterfully-turned-Caligari. No, I think that about covers it.<br /><br />Lack of scope was also problematic. How did those involved with the making of this film expect the casual viewer to derive that this was the beginning of the end of the world from this amateurish, unbelievable, poorly-portrayed lust pentagon (well, what would you call it?) that occurred largely in the woods in the middle of nowhere? There were no witnesses to the "atrocities" presented. There were no witnesses anywhere in this film.<br /><br />The believability problems stemming from this lack of attention to detail were rife even from the point where the plot begins to sicken. Case-in-point: If that guy Bob took that route through the woods to come home from the gym, and here's the key, ****every day****, there's a jolly good chance that someone else would have been around to see something at some point afterwards while the perpetrators argued vociferously about the crime scene. One would think that with the murder of a young man in the woods, said town would have been in an uproar, the characters would have been questioned, etc. But instead, there wasn't a witness in sight (other than Earl, the closet psychopath with no inner monologue). We suggest that there be no witnesses *for* this film, either. <br /><br />As for the quasi-homosexual meanderings present, I don't have a problem with those either. It's not as if they came as a surprise, considering we had been shouting as to the closet case stati of most of the male characters since the second scene. Again, not problematic in and of itself, but thrown in for the wrong reasons. It was utterly unnecessary, thrown in for pure "shock" and/or "dangerous art" value, and neither shocking nor dangerously artistic from any perspective. What we had instead was an awkward attempt to redeem a boring, clumsy movie with a boring, clumsy plot. The poorly hinted-at sexual tension, which was only hinted at heavy-handedly in anticipation of this flaccid snogging scene, only pushed this film further down the totem pole from "mediocrity warranting criticism" to "film sucking so bad that it lacks the inherent grace to suck enough to properly mock and harangue."<br /><br />So it is with most of the film, a lot of artistic fumbling, very little meat and a lot of aggravation. It's not that we don't get it. Oh, we got it, alright. We just don't want it. Look, the very fact that we were cheering the bludgeoning in the final scene as the *only* tableau that made sense on its face is an indication that something was terribly wrong with this film. Rather than moving briskly along as its name implies, this movie oozed languidly forward like the sweat trail working it's way down the side of your nose while your hands are full. Argh. That sensation pretty well sums up the gut-wrenching frustration realized while watching this train wreck. There is no breath of fresh air with regard to this movie, only the stale miasma of bad ideas poorly realized, putrefying before coming to fruition. | negative |
If any movie ever made Italians look bad, this is it.<br /><br />Duke Mitchell - what an A--HOLE. Duke Mitchell, I s--t on your grave. Seeing as practically every person gunned down in this film by the cowardly Mimi is either black or of some other racial or ethnic minority, it's hard not to become convinced that the guy ultimately owes his allegiance to the Ku Klux Klan or skinheads. Awww, but he doesn't shoot the little black kid in the elevator in the opening sequence, so that means he can't be all bad, right? WRONG. Typical softheaded sentimental tripe.<br /><br />While I do understand why some people might be struck by and even, to a certain extent, admire the film's audacious, totally un-PC verve (it's certainly unashamed of its own hatefulness and sense of self-involvement), but this doesn't change the fact that the main character, Mimi (and, by extension, Duke Mitchell), is thoroughly loathsome human being who earns not one iota of empathy or interest, especially given that Duke Mitchell is such a COMPLETE BORE as a performer. But what do you expect from a guy whose main claim to fame (apart from this dog t--d of a movie) was being a second rate Dean Martin imitator? | negative |
This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the "Night Gallery" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort. | negative |
"Scientists at a remote lab experiment on (insert scaly creature here) and create out of control monsters. In the meantime a crack military team/the scientist's daughter/bank robbers find their way to the remote place and are menaced by the giant critters. One by one they're eaten, all during an "exciting" race to not be blown up by the forces who initially created the monsters..." The sad thing is that this sounds like about a dozen movies which have appeared on the Sci-Fi Channel. I have to wonder just what is going on? Sure... I like bimbos and Hollywood-Hunk wannabes be eaten by CGI critters as much as the next person... but where's the plot or originality? Granted, there are times when Sci-Fi Channel Shines. Battlestar Galactica, if a bit dark, can be very good. Writers have continued to pump life into the various Stargate offerings, and the latest BBC import of Doctor Who is surprisingly good.<br /><br />Even in the various "giant animal" movies on Sci-Fi, the animation seems to be getting better all the time. Compare the kommodo in this film to the rather clunky version in the first giant kommodo film on Sci-Fi.<br /><br />But goodness... how about a different plot? Maybe some -different- giant critter? On a whim, I started searching around the internet. Among the litter I found a few interesting stories which might appeal to SF fans and out of work Russian CGI animators at once. I offer http://www.macrophile.com/~arilin/archive/metamorphosis-day to the network with a suggestion that they contact the author for the story rights. (The story contains violent images generally on a par with those of various Sci-Fi channel offerings).<br /><br />The story has subplot, ethical and moral comment on the nature of humanity and ends not on one of those horrible "did they REALLY kill all the monsters???" moments, but rather leaves you guessing completely and in an entirely different mindset.<br /><br />Which is generally what science-fiction is supposed to do, no? | negative |
If you played "Spider-Man" on the PS version, then you've seen it all. To truly experience it you should get the DC version. Simply put it's a much graphically superior game; the textures are sharp, levels are easy to navigate, and it has much better sound then it's PS cousin. I bought this game back in late '00s and it still holds up even till this day. Well, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance is a much superior and strategic game but if you're a fan of 'ol Web Head then you owe it yourself to pick this up for your gaming library. Swinging around the city as Spidey has never looked this good and dead-on in a video game. If you have a Dreamcast, snag this up for cheap. The DC version is simply incredible. | positive |
It's really rare that you get an inside view at a media deception that has been so widely reported as official "truth" and caught so many "news" agencies with their pants down. This movie, in my view, deserves every price there is in journalism - it's objective (yes!), courageous and a real "scoop". It can do without comment, fake scenes or leading questions - everyone, including Chavez equally gets to make fools of themselves in their own words. The filmmakers "only" had to keep track of events and keep their cameras rolling.<br /><br />The Venezuelan elite teaches us "How to depose of a President and sell it as a victory of democracy". It's amazing that they lost in the end - so far. From what I know, the biggest TV station involved only got its terrestrial license revoked, they're still broadcasting via cable and satellite. I highly doubt whether George W. or Barack Obama would be that tolerant after an attempted coup. But then, they don't have to worry.<br /><br />The fact that the "Chavez supporters shoot innocent civilians" scam was so willingly repeated around the world reveals just how biased the so-called "free" (established) media really has become, or has always been, only more so. An important lesson to anyone interested in what "really" goes on in the world.<br /><br />The famous "objectivity" challenge always comes into play when journalists dare to oppose the mainstream view, or reveal unwelcome facts that accuse "us" - it has been true with the effects of the Atomic bomb, the US secret history of spreading "democracy" around the world or the Iraq war that, according to Johns Hopkins, has killed 1,3 million Iraquis by now, not to mention the 60,000 Afghans (in 2003) that are never mentioned. To be objective, Saddam Hussein was less damaging to his people than the US. And the US is ready & willing to be more damaging to the Iranians that he was.<br /><br />I'm quite curious about the upcoming trial of some Khmer Rouge leaders before the International Tribunal in The Hague, whether there will be any mention of "our" involvement in supporting and training Pol Pot's guerrillas in the 80's, when they had been largely defeated by the Vietnamese. Probably not.<br /><br />All the more reason to turn to the Independent media for balance, if not exposure of fraud. | positive |
Why is it that every time I mention this movie to somebody, I have to hear 10 minutes of praise about it. I have come to the conclusion that any movie that has a twist upon a twist is deemed "genius" by anyone who watches it. Is that really what film has become? Or is it that any time someone says "Wow, that is so cool" everybody has to agree with them and has no opinion of their own? How this movie has a 7.5 rating is a disgrace to the film industry in general. It has also become yet another movie that "needs" two sequels for it, so I am going to have to hear about this horrible franchise for quite a while longer.<br /><br />Now to the film and why it is so bad. The original concept of it is actually not that bad, as there has not been a good serial killer movie in a while. The writing for this film is horrible as well as the execution. OK, so its a low budget movie, but that should not change the story or writing. The actors could not be worse in their attempt to make us scared of this killer or just scared of this movie. So they go out and get a big name in Danny Glover, but his talents (whatever those are) are wasted because HIS CHARACTER IS WORTHLESS. Why was he even in this movie? What was his whole fight at the end turned out to be useless and misleading for what the audience believes is happening. This is of course the filmmakers intent, but couldn't there have been a better way to do this without making us watch all that garbage. And then the "big" twist comes (was this the third or fourth?) and the whole audience is shocked and walks out of the theater like this is some kind of masterpiece. Sure the movie gets people talking about the storyline and what not, but that was not the only flaw in this film. The direction was trying to be way too creative with what it was working with, and the flashback sequences were used merely as a shock effect.<br /><br />After watching this movie, even if you enjoyed it, go back and review the film and you will soon understand why it is not worthy of the praise it is receiving. For an amazing serial killer film check out Se7en if you have not done so. That is what this film wanted to be. I have gotten into more arguments about this film than probably any others and will continue to argue against it. Please do not support this franchise for not only your sake, but mine and everybody else's sake as well. Hollywood needs to find a good horror movie to make, rather than 1,000 remakes, sequels, and "shock" factor films (such as this). Oh yeah the saw 2 tag line sounds real promising: "Oh yes, there will be blood." Yaaayyyy!!!! Sweet!! blood, that must mean its good right? Give me a break. Sorry everybody who love this movie, but poor writing, flashy direction, and bad acting does not make a good movie. | negative |
I have NOT seen this movie, but I must. Having read all three of Thor Heyerdahl's books (Kon Tiki, Ra and Aku Aku) I am actively looking for a copy of this movie.<br /><br />The thesis that Peruvians migrated to Polynesia is alive and well. Considering that this crew had NO GPS, and only an old fashioned valve (tube) radio with a 6-watt output, their voyage was heroic to say the least.<br /><br />Please reply to this message if you can tell me the location of a copy of this video.<br /><br />I would be interested in buying it. | positive |
Lord, this sucked. There's a particular sort of sexual revolution flick from the 60s that manages to confuse sexual assault with sexual liberation. This film is an example. I lost track of how many times women are slapped, hit, whipped, or spanked in the film. And then there are all the times that women in the film fantasize about being slapped, hit, whipped or spanked (you know they want it, right?). Sometimes it is ostensibly part of safe fetish play-acting. Other times it plainly isn't, but you will wait in vain to see the heroine report to authorities that she has just been raped. Instead we get to hear her being lectured by her rapist about her inability to "let go".<br /><br />Every scene of this film reeks of misogyny (speaking as a straight, white, married man in his late 30's, not a teenage lesbian women's studies major with a chip on her shoulder, lest you get the wrong idea).<br /><br />Perhaps the one good thing about this film is that it provides a stark reminder of just how bad things really were for women only a few short decades ago. | negative |
I happened to have seen this movie this morning on TCM. Very bad acting, low budget and poor plot are the impressions I felt while watching the movie. The only highlight of the movie was watching tender young Rita Moreno, (23 years old), playing a teenage Indian squaw in love with an older man in his 50's. She reminded me of a earlier version of Sue Lyon as Lolita (1962), only a more innocent Lolita. She bounces up and down like a 1950's teeny bopper, almost as if you would expect her to be chewing gum, falling all over this old man, willing to give him anything, as he plays it off like she's a hindrance to him. Any man in his 50's that had a beautiful, virgin, teenage girl willing to do ANYTHING for him and be his bride, would be insane not to take advantage of her. It's too bad that the censorship board back when this movie was released didn't permit more of an expansion of a character such as Rita Moreno's. The only reason why I gave this movie a 3 instead of a 1 is Rita Moreno's appearance in the movie. | negative |
As someone who loves baseball history, especially the early 20th century in which Cobb was a main figure, along with a ton of colorful characters, I was looking forward to seeing this baseball film. Well, it wasn't a baseball film, which was disappointing. No, it was just a sportswriter's account of being with Cobb in the ballplayer's later years while the two collaborated on a book. Even at that, this could have been a more appealing movie than they made it.<br /><br />Granted Cobb was anything but a nice guy, an extremely talented player but brutal in that he would do anything to beat you....and he was viscous, intimidating and had a lot of demons to fight. He was so hated his own teammates tried to hinder his chances of winning a batting title one year. Nonetheless, this an over-the-top portrayal of the man. It makes him into something almost cartoon-like. <br /><br />Watching and listening to an old man rant, rave and profane for two hours is entertainment? No, it isn't. Some day, I'd love to see a real biopic of Cobb showing him in his ballplaying days and if they want to portray him as an evil guy, so be it, but the way they did it here with just a bitter, blasphemous old man making an ass of himself in front of a reporter is not fun to watch. | negative |
My thoughts on the movie, 9<br /><br />It was not good, not good at all. Visually, it was great. I was pleased with the pacing, the camera angles, etc. However, the characters? eh, kinda bland. Plot? It sucked.<br /><br />This movie seemed more new age crap than anything else. Organized religion is presented as cowardly and fearful. Science isn't portrayed any better. It creates a monster weapon that kills everything... but "souls" have the power to destroy monsters and bring life? Really?<br /><br />That's something that bites my ass a bit too. Here we have a CGI movie... created with science... and they're using it to give us the message that science will destroy the world while promoting the idea that spirituality will save us? At least they had the decency to have one of the characters ask,<br /><br />"Okay, so now what?" (or something similar). I couldn't hear it too well because of the crowd immediately getting up and making a break for the exit. It was a "okay... it was just barely entertaining enough to sit here for the entire movie but now let's get out of here as fast as possible!" type of exit.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where you can't think if you want to enjoy it. Just look at the visuals and nod your head prettily. Any thought as to, "what's the point of that?" will suck you out of disbelief and make you eye the exit sign with longing.<br /><br />Okay... SPOILERS follow.<br /><br />So, basically, a scientist creates "the Machine" that is capable of creating other, intelligent, robotic life. Evil humans use it as a weapon. However, the scientist realizes that he is also at fault. He gave the Machine his intellect, but didn't give it his heart. <br /><br />The Machine goes Skynet on humanity's collective ass and wipes out all life on earth, finally slowly powering down. However, the scientist manages to survive and create walking sock-puppets. Each one, containing a piece of the scientist's soul.<br /><br />The last one, #9 wakes up not knowing anything about the world. He sees a strange device nearby and picks it up. He meets up with another like himself, #2. <br /><br />Well, #2 gets captured by a last surviving robot of the Machine. #9 finds more like himself ands sets off to rescue #2. <br /><br />They succeed.<br /><br />#9 notices that there is a matching hole that fits the device perfectly. He inserts it and the Machine comes back to life... pulling out #2's soul in the process.<br /><br />The movie then continues with action scenes with #9 trying to rescue his soul-yanked compatriots. <br /><br />They eventually succeed and destroy the Machine. They release the souls of their fallen friends, who go up into the clouds. It then rains and we see life returning back to the planet.<br /><br />Hunh?!?<br /><br />That makes no sense. None at all. Why the heck did the scientist want to split his soul into 9 homunculi? What did it accomplish? Were they created to stop the machine? Everything is dead! The machine was dead! Why bother?!?<br /><br />Why did he expect nine little critters to succeed when nothing else had? Why not create a second intellectual machine, but with a "soul" to fight the first.. at least that would have seemed like it would have had a reasonable chance at success.<br /><br />Why did they have to have their souls sucked into the device by the Machine and then destroy the Machine and then release the souls in order to bring life back to earth? Why not just wait for the machine to power down and bring life back without all the rest of the insane steps? | negative |
John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no "horror" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of "Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up." Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says "I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you." HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. "Why Can't We Be Friends" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect. | negative |
<br /><br />Headlines warn us of the current campaign to demonize drug users, note the nostalgia for Mussolini in Italy and remind us of our wont to profile likely terrorists. "Focus" reminds us of the evils of rampant fear and distrust and the anti-Semitism disguised as pro-Americanism of the WWII era. What goes around...<br /><br />Lawrence Newman (William C. Macy) becomes the unfortunate victim of hate crimes after he is mistaken for a Jew and these attacks increase when his bride, Gerty (Laura Dern) highlights the look. Newman rails against the false accusations when they cause him direct harm but he minds his own business. We see the rise in anti-Semitic attacks through his myopia, a condition not completely cured by eyeglasses.<br /><br />Macy's typical everyman role is featured again and the long road to realization that we are all connected nearly costs him his life. <br /><br />What is it about the character Macy portrays to us? We can't choose to ignore the violence, hate, and bigotry because citizenship forces us to take sides. Newman's dilemma is that he has no alternative but to side with the mistreated and goes through hell to see it. And our sadness is that most of us need to be beaten up to realize the dangers surrounding us.<br /><br />Let's focus. | positive |
Babette's Feast, for me, is about healing: mending the schism between spirit and body in orthodox Christianity. This puritanical community in remote Denmark is missing an adequate appreciation of all of God's gifts in creation. They have taken the dualism of St. Paul to an extreme, and stress the life of the "spirit," not the life of the "flesh." Both elderly sisters, in their youth, were frightened by the lure of love and the temptations of life outside their simple village. They, and their parishioners, cling to the narrow biblical interpretation of their former leader, and the sisters' father. The aging congregation has become testy and quarrelsome, and the sisters don't know what to do. Enter Babette, a French stranger, and someone to whom they can show kindness. They have no way of knowing that she will ultimately return their kindness and give fertile soil to their dry, dusty theology. Babette will give everything she has, and in the process, will teach the sisters and their flock about grace, about sacrifice, about how sensual experience (as in the bread and wine of the Eucharist) can change lives, and about why true art moves us so deeply. When they can forgive each other, and themselves, they can focus on God's love that unfolds before them in a concrete way in the present. As a minister, and an artist, I can't recommend a movie more highly. True art and true grace!! | positive |
If you like really shocking movies this is for you. The acting is the worst I've ever seen and the story line goes no-where. If you come across this film in your video shop don't even consider borrowing it. The chick on the front cover isn't even the one in the movie.I gave this movie 1/10 only because I couldn't vote 0. Avoid it at all costs. | negative |
I saw this last week during Bruce Campbell's book tour. I thought it was amazing. Almost everything I would expect from a Bruce Campbell sci-fi movie. Its campy and very funny. Ted Raimi was also hilarious and extremely goofy. The plot is wacky, an American business man goes to Bulgaria and is killed. Stacy Keach plays a mad scientist who saves/brings Bruce Campbell back to life by implanting half of the brain of an ex-KGB turned cabbie. Bruce Campbell spends the rest of the film trying to avenge his death and has many internal arguments between himself and the KGB agent. The movie has all the great Bruce Campbell slap stick and humor. The movie is somewhat predictable, I knew once the wife was killed that she would be sharing a brain with her killer. However I didn't go to see this movie because I thought it would have an Oscar winning script, I went to see it because it was a Bruce Campbell sci-fi movie and I was not disappointed in the least. I highly recommend that you go see him on his book tour or wait and watch it on the sci-fi channel next month. Although before the movie he said the Sci-Fi channel did cut some of the movie out to make it TV friendly. If you are a fan of Bruce, I highly recommend it. | positive |
This movie is another one on my List of Movies Not To Bother With. Saw it 40 years ago as an adolescent, stayed up late to do so, was very annoyed to find that it was about 95% romance,4% everything else, 1% history if that. It's what I call a bait and switch movie, one with an interesting title, the actual movie is a scam. This is a subject which deserves a good cinematic treatment, this movie is almost an insult to those who served. The actual members of the Lafayette Escadrille were not on the run from the law nor were they the products of abusive homes, they were in reality idealists who wanted to do something to help France. And I suspect many of them came from a more upper class background than Tab Hunter's character. Flying school is not for the smart alecks and the know it alls, an individual such as the one portrayed here wouldn't have lasted two days, it would have either been the stockade or the infantry. Discipline in the French Army was often rather fierce. In short, another Hollywierd version of an historical episode that deserves proper treatment. | negative |
Firstly, the title has no relevance whatsoever to the movie. It started off fine with good development but got annoying when he couldn't tell his girlfriend what had happened to him. Even his attempt to tell the police failed, which just added to the annoyance value. There were too many pregnant pauses in the movie that seemed more like filler than anything worthwhile. The plot never revealed who did this crime to him although a good plot would have allowed disclosure. The ending was nothing short of "hey we've run out of budget let's stop it here NOW!!"...If I'd written a novel that ended this way I'd top myself. TRASH TRASH TRASH!! | negative |
Halloween is one of the best examples of independent film. It's very well made and has more psychological elements to it than you might realize at first glance. It is a simple movie told very well. The music is perfect and is one of the most haunting scores... If you haven't seen this movie yet, you must check it out. The cast is all terrific. I wish they had never made sequel after sequel. The first one was by far the best and should have ended like it did without having a sequel. It was fun to see Jamie Lee Curtis in the movie. She hasn't seemed to age (she's just as gorgeous today, without the hairdo and seventies clothes). The scenes through the mask are one of the scariest things ever! | positive |
I must say as a girl with a cowboy of my own,I love this flick.It left me lovin them boots and wranglers even more.I told my friend about it and she loved it just as much,we were 'bout 13 at the time.I think it's the greatest love story ever told!I own it and never get tired of Bud & Sissy. | positive |
I must admit that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I thought Dennis Hopper had a little more taste than to appear in this kind of yeeeecchh. If this is supposed to be funny then I gotta look around for a new sense of humor. If you're thinking of buying this movie you'd better think again. | negative |
This movie is a total dog. I found myself straining to find anything to laugh at just so I wouldn't feel like I'd totally wasted my money--and my time. The writing in this film is absolutely terrible. It's a shame it's not up to the standards of other Hale Storm movies.<br /><br />They should have saved the money on getting D-list actors like Fred Willard and Gary Coleman and spent the money working the script until it was right. Even Gary Coleman wasn't properly utilized for his role.<br /><br />This movie leaves you wondering what the point of most of the plot was--including the subplots. After viewing this movie, I'm left with the impression that the producers were hoping to capture some kind of Napolean Dynamite-like humor, where it's not so much the lines as the character and the delivery. Unfortunately, this movie fails to deliver the lines, the characters, the delivery or the humor. I should have gone to the dentist instead! | negative |
With several name actors (Lance Henrikson, David Warner, Joe Don Baker), why was Jeffery Combs given the lead? Henrikson would have been a perfect fit for the lead, as would Warner, Baker or even others in the movie such as Charles Napier. Combs was miscast in this, and did a poor job of it. Everything he did seemed fake or contrived.<br /><br />The script is poor. Meaning that if Lance Henrikson (or another) had the lead role, he might have saved the film (removed it from my "waste of time" category), but it still would have been a bad movie. The screen play was completely lacking. The director should have recognized this and helped the movie along. | negative |
The future of fantasy never looked so dark! Christopher Lambert gets to fight the evil demon Grendel in this grim looking trashy fantasy-epos. "Epos" I said? Er... there's only one location, so you can't really call it an epic adventure, can you? The location is a medieval/futuristic 5 inch tall castle, so how did they manage to cram in all the actors? Oh, I get it, those where special effects. A miniature. Silly me.<br /><br />Here's some reasons why you might want or NOT want to watch this motion picture:<br /><br />- Lambert gets to do his sword-swinging tricks over again like he did in Highlander.<br /><br />- The sets and costumes are amazingly cool (if you're a 12-year-old).<br /><br />- Rhona Mitra has a voluptuous pair of knockers which she likes to show off through-out the whole movie.<br /><br />- ...er, Christopher Lambert has white hair...<br /><br />- Every time they start fighting, this over-the-top raving techno-soundtrack gets going. So why are these medieval slayer-dudes fighting while they should be dancing.<br /><br />- They don't have electricity in this castle but they do have speakers installed which seem to work fine. So where's the amplifier? I guess they borrowed it from the techno-dj who delivered the soundtrack.<br /><br />- Watch it for the climax in the end which features an outrageous demonoïd CGI creature coming straight out of any Playstation 2 survival-horror game.<br /><br />If all this got you interested, then go watch it (at your own risk), but don't tell anyone I told you to. I strongly suspect Pinhead visiting the set while shooting, because this movie has no soul. Anyway, if you want to see beautiful Rohna Mitra really show some skin, then watch Paul Verhoeven's HOLLOW MAN. | negative |
The title leads viewers to believe that this is a fun movie to watch and probably much better when watched under the influence, but it is not good at all. One 15 minute sequence with Jack Black beautifully playing one of his songs and tripping on acid while venturing through the woods does not save this movie at all. Every actor in this movie has gone on to do better things, except for the main girls I could not think of one movie where I had seen them before. I hate to bash movies but I also hate not being able to find something decent in movies. The film is sad, not very funny and had such potential with its awesome cast. If it were redone and written over it could be awesome. If you want a good movie to see stoned, watch Grandma's Boy, or Half Baked or Dazed and Confused, but this is not a movie to be seen at all. | negative |
For the most part, "Michael" is a disaster ten minutes of charm and ninety's worth of missteps.<br /><br />Travolta and MacDowell do their best, frequently rising above Nora Ephron's numbingly banal script. But the film moves like a snail. And even within its fantasy context, the characters behave implausibly on a regular basis. (Reporters who routinely let the story of a lifetime an apparent angel living on Earth out of their sight?) <br /><br />Someone forgot to tell romantic comedy maestro Ephron that William Hurt, brilliant in so many other films, is no Tom Hanks. The movie's "climax" redefines the word contrived. Ephron may be shooting for Heaven here, but unfortunately "Michael" is a long, long ride through cinema heck. | negative |
90 minutes of Mindy...Mindy is a tease to boyfriend Bill...Mindy prances at the high school dance...Mindy hitchhikes to Big Sur, shoplifts a loaf of "shepherd's bread," Mindy nearly gets gang-raped... Ah, the pleasures of Crown International drive-in features. You must remember that these films were never designed to be watched start to finish on DVD players. They were made as 90 minutes of ambiance so the teens of the 70s would have a soundtrack as they got it on in their Pintos and Citations. The lack of pacing and structure didn't matter to the original audience -- they probably only tuned in when the T & A on screen matched what they were up to, out in the parking lot. The film is really irritating when watched as a story. It's a lot more fun to talk about it than watch it. My favorite inanities: 1) Bill and his friend accompany the teacher to find Mindy. With no luggage or change of underwear, they spend 2 nights sharing a motel room with the teacher, just like in real life. 2)After being abducted and nearly raped by depraved bikers, and after their innocent friend "Pan" is savagely beaten, Mindy and her girlfriend find an unattended motorcycle on the road. Mindy immediately brightens up and chirps, "I'm going' to Big Sur!!" But again, it's a lot more fun to talk/read about than sit through. | negative |
I saw the movie in the theater at its release, then watched the VHS tape over the years, and while strolling through Target saw this DVD bundled with "Pushing Tin" for the exorbitant sum of $5.50.<br /><br />There is something about this comedy that has really clicked with me - how Kelsey Grammar, "with a tattoo on his thing", is an unorthodox commander who inherits a rusty diesel sub and a crew of screwballs and misfits. He's up against the Navy's best - a Los Angeles Class nuclear attack sub - and his old captain (Wm Macy).<br /><br />Bruce Dern plays the bad guy, Rip Torn the admiral running the exercise - If you don't laugh hysterically during the "run silent" segment with the cook, well, you have a different kind of humor from me.<br /><br />Towards the end the machinist says "D.B.F." with no explanation - it is apparently some inside knowledge gotten from an old submariner consultant - thanks to Google I learned that with the advent of the nuclear subs the old salts would wear "DBF" pins - Diesel Boats Forever. <br /><br />A Navy friend said that many of the technical aspects aren't correct but who cares - it is one of the funniest movies I've seen.<br /><br />I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to know who will win in this exercise! | positive |
Dog Bite Dog isn't going to be for everyone, but I really enjoyed it. Full of slapping, stabbing and shooting (but don't worry the lead's a terrible shot), it can best be described as a violent romp through Hong Kong and Cambodia. Edison Cheng plays Pang, a Cambodian assassin in town to kill a barrister. Despite being filthy from his journey, he's almost immediately seated at a huge table in the middle of an obviously expensive restaurant. If this sounds wildly implausible to you, you should probably avoid this film. It acted as my cue to suspend disbelief, and I had a lot more fun for it.<br /><br />Chasing Pang down is Wai (Sam Lee), a young, edgy cop who likes to smack people around almost as much as he likes to smoke. Wai walks a fine line that has Internal Affairs investigating him, and his father, a legendary Good Cop, is in a coma following a drug deal that went south (the implication is that Wai is letting his father take the rap for his own corrupt dealings).<br /><br />There are a car crashes, lots of killings, and a strange and awkward love story on offer here, all played out in almost comic-book style. I suspect the humour was deliberate (nobody uses gargantuan concrete bludgeons without an eye for the extravagantly absurd), though the over-the-top nature lost a number of my fellow audience members. There are at least three points where the film might have ended, and at 109 mins it may have benefited from more ruthless editing, or the deletion of one of the narrative threads (the light-hearted stuff worked well, so I would have left out the interactions with the three fathers).<br /><br />I'm inclined to give it a (high) pass, however, if only because of the ending I've rarely heard so many people laugh so loudly at what should have been a poignant moment. This is one to see with a group of friends who love the ridiculous | positive |
Halloween is one of those movies that gets you skin deep! It is in my opinion, the scariest movie of all time. Michael Myers is the best boogeyman ever! He was just so terrifying! What makes Halloween so special is that there was no special effects where you can tell how computer animated it is, this was on a low budget and had a one note score, yet managed to scare the Hell out of people. 25 years and this movie still has the same effect as it did in '78.<br /><br />It's about a boy Michael Myers, he kills his sister at the age of 6 and so many years later escapes the mental institution. Dr. Sam Loomis is after him and will do anything to get him back, since he describes Michael as "...pure evil. The blackest eyes, the Devil's eyes". Michael is on a mission though, to kill his other sister, Laurie, played by a new Jamie Lee Curtis. She has to babysit on Halloween, while her friends are out partying and of course, we know the rules, they get it! But Laurie may stand a chance since she's the virgin. ;D <br /><br />Halloween pays many homages to Psycho, we have another character named Sam Loomis and Jamie Lee Curis, the daughter of Janet Leigh. Halloween is an absolute terrific movie that breaks boundaries and makes you lock the doors, bolt your windows, and turn off the lights! "They're gonna get you! They're gonna get you!". Halloween, the ultimate horror film! <br /><br />10/10 | positive |
I saw this with high expectations. Come on, it is Akshay Kumar, Govinda, and Paresh Rawal, who are all amazing at their comedy, I was really hoping for a laugh riot. Sadly, that is not what I got at all...<br /><br />Unfortunately, nothing in this movie really made me laugh out loud. There were times when I chuckled at one or two things, but nothing really made me laugh. In short, it was badly attempted comedy, and in a way, a bit of a Hera Pheri wannabe.<br /><br />Out of the three main guys, I think Paresh Rawal's role was the most powerful. It wasn't the biggest role, but it certainly stood out more than Govinda or Akshay. Their performances were okay I guess. Nothing special, just mediocre. Though Govinda stole the limelight from Akshay in more than a few scenes. Lara Dutta and Tanushree Dutta also make appearances in this film, and both of them were pretty bad. Lara's role did not move me, or make me laugh, and Tanushree Dutta's character just got on my nerves! The music seems to be the only good thing about Bhagam Bhag. My favourite song is "Tere Bin", followed by "Afreen", which I really liked. "Signal" and the title song "Bhagam Bhag" are also worth a listen.<br /><br />You either will like it or you won't. And judging by the poor comedy and lack of direction, I don't think you will. | negative |
A stunning film of high quality.<br /><br />Apparently based on true events which, as told, has the clear ring of truth about it, this movie is highly emotional and deeply moving.<br /><br />An abused and neglected child often becomes wayward in adulthood, as one of life's failures, be it as a gangster, drug addict or burden on society.<br /><br />Antwone Fisher as a young adult in the navy, is troubled. He is on the brink of being a loser. He is counselled in therapy by a psychiatrist and it is that relationship which takes center stage in the play.<br /><br />In flash-backs and therapy the source and remedies to Antwones angst are revealed.<br /><br />Outstanding performances from the whole cast. The story is in effect a family tragedy with emotional and physical torment. All the actors give full blooded performances with conviction and realism.<br /><br />One message from the movie is the importance of raising children decently.<br /><br />The real Antwone deserves success. To have endured wickedness as a child but to rise above that, shows a magnificent character.<br /><br />And to all those out there who have endured such torment but to have survived and succeeded: you are all winners. 10 out of 10. | positive |
And I repeat, please do not see this movie! This is more than a review. This is a warning. This sets the record for the worst, most effortless comedy ever made. At least with most of the recent comedies nowadays, the gags are crude and flat, but the writers and directors put in at least some sort of effort into making them funny. I never get tired of repeating one of my favorite mottos: Everyone thinks they can do comedy, and only 10 percent of them are right. Comedy is hard! This is not some genre any fool can play around with. I think it's atrocious that the filmmakers are comparing this piece of garbage to "Kentucky Fried Movie." Basically, these bozos are comparing their so-called comic talents to those of the brilliant Jim Abrahams and the Zucker Brothers. Come on, I've seen Pauly Shore movies that are 10 times funnier than "The Underground Comedy Movie." Here's a sample of the comedy for those curious about seeing this movie: One sketch involves a superhero dressed like a penis named D**kman. The whole joke is that he defeats his enemies by squirting them with semen. That's it. That's the whole joke. Wow. This is enough to make Carrot Top roll his eyes. Another sketch involves a man having sex with a dead person in a porn movie. And in another sketch, there's a bag lady beauty contest, in which we're exposed to the horrible sights of bikini-clad middle-aged women with beer guts and stretch marks. Plus, making fun of the homeless is more sad than funny. It's a step away from mocking the mentally handicapped. The whole movie is supposed to be a satire. I think the filmmakers forgot that a key element of satire...is TRUTH!!! For anybody who actually enjoyed this crap, explain to me what is truthful about ANY of these gags! Some of the sketches might've sounded funny on paper, but anybody who's taken any screen writing classes knows that if a sight gag sounds too funny on paper, it probably won't be funny on screen. If I tell someone about a big, black, muscular gay virgin, who's saving himself for the right man, he or she would probably laugh. But watching the premise played out on screen for about 10 minutes is a complete drag. I hate how whenever people criticize a low-brow comedy like this for not being funny, they're regarded as stuck-up squares. I just saw "White Chicks" recently. That's another low-brow, politically incorrect comedy, but I laughed my head off. The most offensive thing about "The Underground Comedy Movie" is it's not funny! What the writers and directors don't understand is that merely being filthy and tasteless doesn't work. There has to be more! Just think of the famous scene from "There's Something About Mary" (ironically, enough the bozo filmmakers put the Farrellys on their special thanks list). The joke about the semen wasn't just funny because it involved bodily fluids. There was a buildup. Ben Stiller was masturbating in the bathroom to make sure he didn't go out on a date with a "loaded gun." Then he looked around to see where all the semen went after it was released. A knock is on the door, and he has to answer it. His date, Mary, is at the door and that's when it's revealed that the semen is hanging off Ben's ear. In this movie, there are multiple gags involving characters squirting loads of semen at people, with no buildup whatsoever. As Jay Leno always says, "This comedy thing's not so easy, is it?" Keep that in mind, Vince Offer, 'cause you weren't cut out for this genre!! The only reason people might laugh at these gags is because they want to feel hip. Let's face it, nowadays it's hip to laugh at anything politically incorrect. I know comedy is subjective...but this movie shouldn't be funny to anybody, except maybe the filmmakers themselves. As a side note, the movie had to have been made before Michael Clarke Duncan's fame in movies like "Armageddon" and "The Green Mile." There can't be any other reason why an actor of his caliber would volunteer to be part of this amateurish freak show. All the others in the cast are either non-actors, has-been actors or B-movie stars. Karen Black made a good impression in "Five Easy Pieces," but I don't think she's done anything of value ever since. Slash was probably drugged into being in this film. Gina Lee Nolin is nothing without "Baywatch." Angelyne is the film's biggest star (keeping in mind Duncan wasn't famous at the time), and there are still probably a ton of people who haven't heard of her--for good reason. Usually, I'm in support of extremely low-budget flicks, but this one deserves to drift into obscurity. I hope to Lord this doesn't become a cult classic! Shouldn't there be a law against distributing crap like this? | negative |
To be hones, I used to like this show and watch it regularly, but now (thank god!) I don't understand why did I watch it. Sex and the city is one of the most pointless and insulting TV shows I've ever seen. I really don't get the point of this show, despite of trying. People are saying, that Sex and the city is funny. In what way? By cursing all the time, talking about vibrators and the size of the penis? Give me a break.<br /><br />I don't understand the plot: we have four girls who are trying to find a perfect man by sleeping with every dork, who comes around. And this show is all about four spoiled chicks, who are sleeping with every man in the city, but in the end they admit the best pleasure comes out of the penis vibrators. And yeah... the show is trying to tell us, that sex is the most important thing in every relationship. If you can have a good sex, you're a good husband (or wife). It doesn't matter if you want to be loyal and having a good heart.. the size does matter.<br /><br />The biggest problem is also bad acting. The four main actresses (Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattral, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis) are so bad and unconvincing, that it makes me sick just watching this show. Parker is just screaming and complaining all the time, Cattral is showing her old boobs and saying "the f - word" all the time, Davis delivers her smile (and nothing else) and Nixon acts like she is bored all the time. And yes... men are sex - hungry pigs in this show. But, judging by this show, women are not much better. This show is insulting for men and women. The women are shown so primitive and emotionless, like they don't have any heart, just hunger for sex. It's insulting for everyone.<br /><br />Sex and the city is one of the worst TV shows and I'm glad that the show ended, because it delivers bad acting and pointless stories. The whole world is not all about sex and vibrators. | negative |
I loved it, having been a fan of the original series, I have always wondered what the back story would be - it didn't fail to delight me. I also love the fact that apart from Eric Stoltz I didn't recognise one person - this is refreshing, much like BSG. It has introduced me to a whole wealth of new talent - can't wait for the series to start airing. Well done to Ronald D. Moore and team - excellent job. The special effects, dialogue and acting were all spot on, and I felt emotionally tied up in the storyline. I know there are purists out there that will probably disagree with my assessment, but I felt that Caprica was far superior to most of the Sci-Fi stuff produced in the last decade. | positive |
Hello it is I Derrick Cannon and I welcome you to the first ever Cannonite review show. My movie for this week was debatable, what route what movie, what excellent four star epic would I choose, guess what I decided to pull a one eighty and go the other route, I've decided to review a movie so atrocious that it totally killed what could have been a very unique concept. The movie I will review today is Jack Frost Two revenge of the mutant killer snowman. The Stars in this movie include Christopher Allport as Sam Tiller, Eileen Seeley as Anne Tiller, Marsha Clark as Marla David Allen Brooks as Agent Manners, Sean Patrick Murphy as Captain Fun, Ray Cooney as the Colonel and Scott MacDonald as the killer snowman himself Jack Frost.<br /><br />It's hard to believe that this movie was in the same series that gave us the incredibly funny Jack Frost(loved the carrot scene),but it's even harder to believe that this is the exact same cast. The movie was ruined for me as soon as they arrived on the island and Captain Fun was introduced. What was the point of his character and how did he fit into a horror movie?The only possible reason I could see was that they wanted to give us a character that was total killer snowman fodder. Sam Tiler seemed more paranoid then he did in the original, his babbling about anti freeze was one of the most pathetic display I had seen in a movie. His wife however was one of the few bright spots. She played her role as the main woman to a hilt. She was a voice of reason in film of pure idiocy. The scene where she figures out how to kill the snowmen was one of the most anticipated parts of the movie. Ray MacDonald once again did a great job as Jack Frost despite what he was given. If it wasn't for such weak characters he could have been immortalized like Chucky,Freddy and Jason. Laugh if you must but when it comes down to it Jack Frost had spunk, he had humor, and most importantly he had an undoubtable vicious streak.<br /><br />This movie could have been so much more, it could have been a continuation of a great franchise, instead any plans to make a Jack Frost three have been canceled.<br /><br />This movie gets a two out of ten for me, and it's lucky that it even gets a one. | negative |
Imaginary Heroes is clearly the best film of the year. It was a complete and utter joy to watch. I was riveted. The whole audience up at the Sunset Five was riveted, when the film ended no one moved, spoke, nothing. I think this film is a perfect example of the of the power that drama has. Especially in so much as it sets an example of the quality of drama/ work of this younger generation. <br /><br />There were moments in your film, many, like at least seven, where I was struck by such a great amount of beauty, emotional beauty, that I actually couldn't breathe for a while. And for a catharsis junkie like me, that's about the best censorial experience I could ask for. It is the result of powerful, masterful storytelling and direction. Like heavyweight stuff, like Burtolucci and those guys. <br /><br />Each element of the film fit tightly together. There were no missteps at all. The cast was amazing. I have been a huge fan of Emile's and Ryan's for a long time, and I thought they have never been better. I was/am/will be continuously stunned by this film. And I promise I will drag every person I know to see it. It should be seen. It should win awards. | positive |
This movie is a disgrace to the Major League Franchise. I live in Minnesota and even I can't believe they dumped Cleveland. (Yes I realize at the time the real Indians were pretty good, and the Twins had taken over their spot at the bottom of the American League, but still be consistent.) Anyway I loved the first Major League, liked the second, and always looked forward to the third, when the Indians would finally go all the way to the series. You can't tell me this wasn't the plan after the second film was completed. What Happened? Anyways if your a true fan of the original Major League do yourself a favor and don't watch this junk. | negative |
A remake of Alejandro Amenabar's Abre los Ojos, but this time with a living, breathing mask as a lead. For the dubious advantage of an English sound track, we endure Tom Cruise's soulless performance, as usual, with zero depth. Yes, the character is identified with his persona, but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. His empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and Cruz or Diaz.<br /><br />There is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. Cruise's masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. Do see the 1997 original Amenabar Open Your Eyes! | negative |
When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, "wow, finally, some entertainment." It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH "playing around" time.<br /><br />At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.<br /><br />Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.<br /><br />Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...<br /><br />I believe "Good Day LA" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.<br /><br />SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's "Today." ABC's "Good Morning America" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.) | negative |
I got this one a few weeks ago and love it! It's modern, light but filled with true complexities of life. It questions and answers, just like other Eytan Fox movies. This is my favorite, along with Jossi & Jagger. This pictures a lot more, universally, than only the bubbles we may live in. You don't need to be Jewish or homosexual to enjoy this - I'm not, but the movie goes directly to my top ten movies. At first it seems like pure entertainment but it does make you think further. Relationships we have to live with are superficial, meaningful, deep, fatal, you name it. You don't know what's coming, and you definitely don't know where this story is heading as you watch it the first time. It is worth seeing several times. Fox movies include great bonus material - here a great music video and "the making of" (including explanation of the title, interviewing Lior Ashknenazi who plays himself in the movie and Arabs with doubts about the Israeli life styles). | positive |
Lame, lame, lame!!! A 90-minute cringe-fest that's 89 minutes too long. A setting ripe with atmosphere and possibility (an abandoned convent) is squandered by a stinker of a script filled with clunky, witless dialogue that's straining oh-so-hard to be hip. Mostly it's just embarrassing, and the attempts at gonzo horror fall flat (a sample of this movie's dialogue: after demonstrating her artillery, fast dolly shot to a closeup of Barbeau's vigilante character
she: `any questions?' hyuck hyuck hyuck). Bad acting, idiotic, homophobic jokes and judging from the creature effects, it looks like the director's watched `The Evil Dead' way too many times. <br /><br />I owe my friends big time for renting this turkey and subjecting them to ninety wasted minutes they'll never get back. What a turd. | negative |
Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.<br /><br />Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.<br /><br />Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.<br /><br />If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies. | negative |
John Garfield plays a Marine who is blinded by a grenade while fighting on Guadalcanal and who has to learn to live with his disability. He has all the stereotypical notions about blindness, and is sure he'll be a burden to everyone. The hospital staff and his fellow wounded Marines can't get through to him. Neither can his girl back home played by Eleanor Parker. He's stubborn and blinded by his own fears, self pity, and prejudices. It's a complex role that Garfield carries off memorably in a great performance that keeps one watching in spite of the ever present syrupy melodrama. The best scenes are on Guadalcanal, where he's in a machine gun nest trying to fend off the advancing Japanese soldiers in a hellish looking night time battle, and later a dream sequence in the hospital where he sees himself walking down a train platform with a white cane, dark glasses, and holding out a tin cup, all the while his girlfriend walks backward away from the camera. | positive |
Robert Colomb has two full-time jobs. He's known throughout the world as a globetrotting TV reporter. Less well-known but equally effortful are his exploits as a full-time philanderer.<br /><br />I saw `Vivre pour Vivre' dubbed in English with the title 'Live for Life.' Some life! Robert seems to always have at least three women in his life: one mistress on her way out, one on her way in, and the cheated wife at home. It helps that Robert is a glib liar. Among his most useful lies are `I'll call you tomorrow' and `My work took longer than planned.' He spends a lot of time and money on planes, trains and hotel rooms for his succession of liaisons. You wonder when this guy will get caught with his pants down.<br /><br />Some may find his life exciting, but I thought it to be tedious. His companions, including his wife, Catherine, are all attractive and desirable women. But his lifestyle is so hectic and he is so deceitful, you wonder if he's enjoying all this.<br /><br />Adding to the tedium is considerable footage that doesn't further the plot. There are extended sections with no dialogue or French-only dialogue. We see documentaries of wars, torture, and troop training interspersed with the live action. When Robert's flight returns from Africa, we wait and wait for the plane to land and taxi to the airport terminal.<br /><br />Annie Girardot is the standout performer in this film. Hers was the most interesting character and she played it to perfection. It was also nice to see Candice Bergen at the beginning of her career. I can't find fault with Yves Montand's performance of what was basically an amoral bum.<br /><br />I enjoyed some of Claude Lelouch's novel techniques. In a hotel room scene, the camera pans around the room as Robert and his mistress argue. We catch sight of them briefly during each pass around the room. In another scene set on a sleeping car of a train, Robert is lying on the upper bunk while his wife is on the lower. Robert is giving his wife some important but distressing news, but we hear only parts of it because of the clatter of the train. I sensed that his wife was also unable to absorb every word due to the shocking nature of the news. I also liked the exciting safari scenes in Africa. The cinematography of those scenes and of those in Amsterdam was superb.<br /><br />I reviewed this movie as part of a project at the Library of Congress. I've named the project FIFTY: 50 Notable Films Forgotten Within 50 Years. As best I can determine, this film, like the other forty-nine I've identified, has not been on video, telecast, or distributed in the U.S. since its original release. In my opinion, it is worthy of being made available again.<br /><br /> | negative |
This is your typical junk comedy.<br /><br />There are almost no laughs. No genuine moments. No memorable lines. No scenes where you think to yourself, "that was clever". Nothing. The plot is embarrassingly bad. <br /><br />It's ugly to look at and boring as hell! There is no substance here. This movie has nothing. It doesn't matter if Farely was in this or not. A crap movie is a crap movie no matter who's involved. <br /><br />Also, David Spade is a terribly unfunny comedian who plays the same lousy character in ever movie/TV show that he's in.<br /><br />This movie was dead on arrival. There is no life here. No fun. No intelligence. There are plenty of other "dumb" comedies more enjoyable that this one. This film is just pathetic. <br /><br />2/10 | negative |
I thought this movie did a down right good job. It wasn't as creative or original as the first, but who was expecting it to be. It was a whole lotta fun. the more i think about it the more i like it, and when it comes out on DVD I'm going to pay the money for it very proudly, every last cent. Sharon Stone is great, she always is, even if her movie is horrible(Catwoman), but this movie isn't, this is one of those movies that will be underrated for its lifetime, and it will probably become a classic in like 20 yrs. Don't wait for it to be a classic, watch it now and enjoy it. Don't expect a masterpiece, or something thats gripping and soul touching, just allow yourself to get out of your life and get yourself involved in theirs.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is entertaining and i recommend people who haven't seen it see it, because what the critics and box office say doesn't always count, see it for yourself, you never know, you might just enjoy it. I tip my hat to this movie<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
Bad plot, bad dialogue, bad acting, idiotic directing, the annoying porn groove soundtrack that ran continually over the overacted script, and a crappy copy of the VHS cannot be redeemed by consuming liquor. Trust me, because I stuck this turkey out to the end. It was so pathetically bad all over that I had to figure it was a fourth-rate spoof of Springtime for Hitler.<br /><br />The girl who played Janis Joplin was the only faint spark of interest, and that was only because she could sing better than the original.<br /><br />If you want to watch something similar but a thousand times better, then watch Beyond The Valley of The Dolls. | negative |
I am a Catholic taught in parochial elementary schools by nuns, taught by Jesuit priests in high school & college. I am still a practicing Catholic but would not be considered a "good Catholic" in the church's eyes because I don't believe certain things or act certain ways just because the church tells me to.<br /><br />So back to the movie...its bad because two people are killed by this nun who is supposed to be a satire as the embodiment of a female religious figurehead. There is no comedy in that and the satire is not done well by the over acting of Diane Keaton. I never saw the play but if it was very different from this movies then it may be good.<br /><br />At first I thought the gun might be a fake and the first shooting all a plan by the female lead of the four former students as an attempt to demonstrate Sister Mary's emotional and intellectual bigotry of faith. But it turns out the bullets were real and the story has tragedy...the tragedy of loss of life (besides the two former students...the lives of the aborted babies, the life of the student's mom), the tragedy of dogmatic authority over love of people, the tragedy of organized religion replacing true faith in God. This is what is wrong with today's Islam, and yesterday's Judaism and Christianity. | negative |
I'm going to have to disagree with the previous comment and side with Maltin on this one. This is a second rate, excessively vicious Western that creaks and groans trying to put across its central theme of the Wild West being tamed and kicked aside by the steady march of time. It would like to be in the tradition of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", but lacks that film's poignancy and charm. Andrew McLaglen's direction is limp, and the final 30 minutes or so are a real botch, with some incomprehensible strategy on the part of heroes Charlton Heston and Chris Mitchum. (Someone give me a holler if you can explain to me why they set that hillside on fire.) There was something callous about the whole treatment of the rape scene, and the woman's reaction afterwards certainly did not ring true. Coburn is plenty nasty as the half breed escaped convict out for revenge, but all of his fellow escapees are underdeveloped (they're like bowling pins to be knocked down one by one as the story lurches forward). Michael Parks gives one of his typically shifty, lethargic, mumbling performances, but in this case it was appropriate as his modern style sheriff symbolizes the complacency that technological progress can bring about. | negative |
No one expects the Star Trek movies to be high art, but the fans do expect a movie that is as good as some of the best episodes. Unfortunately, this movie had a muddled, implausible plot that just left me cringing - this is by far the worst of the nine (so far) movies. Even the chance to watch the well known characters interact in another movie can't save this movie - including the goofy scenes with Kirk, Spock and McCoy at Yosemite.<br /><br />I would say this movie is not worth a rental, and hardly worth watching, however for the True Fan who needs to see all the movies, renting this movie is about the only way you'll see it - even the cable channels avoid this movie. | negative |