text
stringlengths 49
12.9k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Like almost everyone, I am familiar with the music of Ray Charles. Who hasn't heard "Georgia ON My Mind" and "The Mess-Around" and some of the other marvelous songs featured in this movie. But about the life of Ray Charles I was sadly ignorant until watching this. I have to say that Jamie Foxx brought Ray Charles to life brilliantly. His performance was powerful, right down to the mannerisms and voice inflections. The movie also offered a no-holds-barred account of some of the trials and tribulations Charles dealt with over the course of his life, and with some demons from the past that haunted him well into adulthood. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the movie was the heroin withdrawal scene, which was painfully realistic. The movie portrays Charles' growing awareness of and involvement with the civil rights movement, culminating in his refusal to play before a segregated audience in Georgia, which led to a ban on him performing in the state. His drug addiction and extra marital affairs are also well documented. The movie revolves around a plea from his mother when he was a child: don't let anyone or anything turn you into a cripple." The point is that drugs did just that, and to honour his mother's memory, he had to beat them. There's not much here about his later life and career after breaking his heroin habit but up to that point, this is really powerful stuff. 9/10 | 1pos
|
There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!<br /><br />Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."<br /><br />So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.<br /><br />On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting. | 0neg
|
I have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too. <br /><br />The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: "Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way." Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is. <br /><br />Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link. | 0neg
|
The movie was awful. The production company should be required to pay a fine for wasting electricity transmitting this nonsense.<br /><br />There were too many holes in the plot. Why would the DOJ send a killer out to assassinate a world leader? If they weren't the DOJ, why would they send someone they thought would not do the job? To quote Butch Cassidy, "Who are those guys?" Apparently, the director does not know either because he never told us.<br /><br />The characters were unbelievable. They did not behave in any way that seemed to fit who they allegedly were. With the exception of the doctor, none of the characters were particularly compelling or likeable.<br /><br />If you want to waste money on the electricity required to watch this movie, feel free. Otherwise, run the opposite direction. | 0neg
|
We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
A clever overall story/location for a story. Action is respectable. The children are annoying and their motivation is unclear. The leading villain was a nice change but could have been better. "I Love You" was more overplayed than "you complete me" but at least Van Damme got a chance to show a little tenderness. One of Van Damme's better movies. | 0neg
|
This is one for the Golden Turkey book. It's another of those "putting on a show" flicks. The dialogue is turgid. The music is terrible. The costumes may be the worst ever. And the Nick Castle choreography is hilariously dreadful. Check it out, oh ye who love bad flicks. Only Perry Como is tolerable. | 0neg
|
Exciting, action-packed, and interesting film telling the tale of a group of men stationed at a naval base in Italy and their adventures aboard a Navy submarine during WWI. Tommy and Brick (played by Robert Montgomery and Robert Young) are two pals, and make for a couple of very handsome officers, I must say. A new Captain arrives on-board, already known by a few as "Dead Pan" Toler (Walter Huston) and he's a real stickler for following the rule book and a "code of honor". Soon Tommy and Brick are chasing after an attractive blonde at an officer's dance, Tommy insults the Captain - and, of course, the blonde is actually the Captain's daughter. But Tommy wins out anyway as he and the daughter sneak away from the dance to a street carnival outside, and soon bond during an air raid - unfortunately for him, she reveals she is married. Later Tommy gets himself into some real trouble when he disobeys orders in an effort save his buddy.<br /><br />This film is quite entertaining with an absorbing plot line that held my interest and top-notch performances by all. A climactic death scene featuring Sterling Holloway is haunting indeed - the most memorable scene in this film, I thought. Eugene Palette and Jimmy Durante add some humor here playing a couple of goofballs - Durante's character is actually studying to be a dentist via mail-order and continually has onshore run-ins with a British man who makes fun of his nose. Okay - if you're looking for a movie showing a man boxing a kangaroo, this would be the one. | 1pos
|
Ugh. Pretty awful.<br /><br />Linnea Quigley gets top billing, but her character doesn't have a big part. Who is her character supposed to be anyway, the little boy's aunt? Another user commented on her getting nude in a shower scene. While there was a shower scene in the movie, it was a head and shoulders shot. Perhaps there are some alternate versions of this movie.<br /><br />Quigley does have a bigger part than John Carradine, Cameron Mitchell, and Brinke Stevens, though. Carradine shows up briefly in a monkish robe reciting vague dialog. No other characters are in the scene with him, though he's sort of composited in, or else there are over-the-shoulder shots unquestionably belonging to someone else. There's also a really bad photo of him in a cameo locket (it looks like a bad photocopy), and a decent picture of him in a family bible. He conjured up Jack-O originally, or something like that.<br /><br />Cameron Mitchell briefly shows up on a TV as a TV horror host. Brinke Stevens is in the movie he's showing "The Coven," in which she runs around a cemetery in a robe. Evidently there's more of the Brinke footage as a bonus feature on the Retromedia DVD double feature Mark of the Witch/The Brides Wore Blood.<br /><br />Jack-O: what's it about? Darn if I know. A little boy is told a story about a pumpkin-headed demon killer, and he and some other kids are scared by a woman they think is a witch for some reason. She follows him home and offers to help his family with their haunted garage for Halloween (put your hand through a hole and feel eyeballs that are actually grapes, etc.). The pumpkin-headed killer shows up several times to hold onto branches while he watches people, or hold his scythe in front of the camera and pose with it for a while. Sometimes he manages to do more than just stand around holding things, and actually kills people.<br /><br />There are also some flashbacks to a western or prairie family, with the little boy playing the little boy in that family too: ancestors of his, I think. I think they figure into Jack-O's backstory, but I'm not sure how.<br /><br />The little boy is ostensibly the main character, but we don't really learn anything about him except that he wears glasses, has nightmares, and will fight bullies even if he'll get beat up in the process. More time should have been spent establishing his character. I couldn't have cared less if he died.<br /><br />Not recommended, not even for Halloween. | 0neg
|
OK, just what the HELL is all this supposed to mean??? Halloween 6 (let's just call it that, OK?) is, without a doubt, the most CONFUSING film in the series (and from what I've heard, seeing the original "producers cut" doesn't sound like it makes things any less bewildering than the "official" release). What a mess.<br /><br />This isn't a really bad film, as some have said. It has its scary scenes and some rather intense moments - it just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! Don't tell me that Michael was "engineered" from the beginning to be evil and kill and destroy, and blah blah blah. It was bad enough when they turned Michael into Jamie Lee Curtis' brother (just so they had an excuse to keep her in the second film) - this is too much.<br /><br />It would seem this is another case of the creators of the film trying to be "too smart" by coming up with a new premise that will shock and impress us all. Bad move, guys. We're not looking for an explanation of why Michael kills, so please don't try and feed us this crap. Show me Michael looking menacing and killing a bunch of people. Show me Dr. Loomis trying to track him down and, as always, coming up just short. Don't waste (what turned out to be) the last performance of Donald Pleasance by telling me (in the most confusing way possible) that Michael was "created" by some cult from hell and that his "seed" will be passed on to another and... oh, brother.<br /><br />Halloween 6 has its moments, don't get me wrong, and we all know there have been FAR worse sequels than this (Hellraiser, anyone?) so get what you can out of it (the scene toward the end of the film with Michael charging down a deep red corridor is particularly effective) and try to ignore the screwball plot. Hopefully one day we can all see the "producer's cut" and maybe get the chance to make (a bit) more sense out of all of this. Till then, this will have to do...<br /><br />-FTM | 0neg
|
I just saw this film in Austin Texas at the Austin Gay and Lesbian Film Festival and it was my festival favorite. The gymnast is a film NOT to be missed. It is an honest "coming to terms" story about relationships, self discovery , growing older and having the courage to change and move forward. Not only is this a good story but the glorious aerialist performances by Dreya Weber and Addie Yungmee will take your breath away! See this film! It will be coming soon to a festival near you. This film deserved to be picked up right away by a major network or studio. I will certainly purchase this when it becomes available on DVD. | 1pos
|
It's almost impossible for me to sit down and write a conscientious review of THREE COLORS: RED without letting people in on some of the ideas that Krysztoff Kieszlowski has explored in the previous two entries to this fascinating trilogy. The more I see them and think of them, and imagine myself in their world, the more I get its theme: that we are more linked to each other than we would want to think ourselves, and all it takes is a little hand of fate to set some events in motion. In BLUE, Juliette Binoche played a grieving widow whose plan to live her life without connections to the past had her meet someone unexpected. In WHITE, an act of cruelty spawns an unlikely friendship between two men who will, against the odds, conspire to bring the perpetrator to justice and full circle. And now, in RED, all the elements of fate and apparent coincidence apply themselves into the meeting of a young Genevese model and a retired judge who has a habit of prying into other people's lives.<br /><br />This young girl is appropriately named: Valentine (a luminous Irene Jacob), who has this radiance about her and even smiles openly while working the runway. Not that she is without some baggage: she has a boyfriend, unseen, who also demands to know what she is doing at all times, she has a brother who troubles her, and she rejects the advances of a photographer who is working on her image for a huge billboard. She strikes a dog while driving and nurses her back to health, but when she takes her to the owner, a retired judge (Jean Louis Trintingnant), he does not want her. "I want nothing," he coldly says, and elements of BLUE suddenly reveal themselves as this arrogant man, who also lives in anonymity and apparent, free-floating freedom, conducts surveillance on unsuspecting people. This male version of Juliette Binoche's character at first shocks Valentine -- she states she can only feel pity for him as she walks away in horror, but a chance event has her back at his place, and here is when he begins revealing who he is, and his great loss.<br /><br />At the same time Kieszlowski is unfolding a parallel story: the story of a young man, Auguste (Jean Pierre Lorit), about to become a judge and who lives right across the street from Valentine -- but they keep missing each other. Chance is the word. Like Valentine winning the jackpot at the grocery story she visits, elements of chance pepper her life and Auguste's. He has a girlfriend who also supplies people with telephoned reports about the weather. One of them happens to be the old judge. He knows more about her than Auguste does, and he's never met her. Like God, or Prospero, he is slowly creating a storm which will crack the walls of this present state of conformity and bring a new meaning to the expression "We meet again." It's this parallelism between the old and young judge that makes RED so beautiful and transcendent, because time is, in reality, a lot more fluid than we would like to deem it. There are people whom we meet in life that if only we had been born in similar time frames, so many things would be different.<br /><br />Such is the case with Valentine and the old judge. I believe that there is definitely a strong fraternity of souls tying them together in a tight bond: she is that woman whom he did not meet -- by chance or not -- and is, whether he knows it or not, trying to make amends, hence why he goes to the great risk of revealing his surveillance and becoming the social outcast. But it doesn't end there. One of the many links between the three movies is the character of an old woman walking to a large garbage container. Where Julie did not see her (and would not have helped her anyhow), and Karol fresh from his public humiliation sneers at her thinking, "Someone is worse off than I am," Valentine is the one who helps her. Frailty in need can happen anywhere, and Kieszlowski even applies it here in a minor character.<br /><br />Now, RED is so much more than a story. Valentine, the old judge, Auguste, even Rita the dog: these aren't characters confined by storytelling. An American version would ruin the idea and commercialize chance encounters and even bring forth a dumbed-down ending. RED is so devoid of a linear, defined plot that anything could happen to any of these people and the possibilities that this story could have veered off in so many directions had one crucial element not taken place at the exact moment and place.<br /><br />Adding to the concept of characters who mirror each other despite time frames or location is the theme of sexual betrayal. This is also an important and character defining element in all of the three films: in BLUE, Julie's husband had a mistress and she also betrays Olivier when it's become clear she's emotionally dead. In WHITE, Dominique has Karol listen to her moan over the phone (which becomes an important device in RED) as she has sex with a man while the billboard of Brigite Bardot's CONTEMPT looks on. In RED, the old judge's tale of love and betrayal gets re-enacted. And all this time, Valentine's billboard image looms over them like a presage of what is to come at the same time that Rita, the dog Valentine's car struck, bears seven pups, life renewed for the six major players in this complex trilogy obviously filmed with care and love. Why do I say six? You'll have to watch the movie and wonder. | 1pos
|
There are two things that I noticed in this film. (This is not a spoiler, just a mistake in storytelling.) When Cole takes Bill to his first B&E, he finds the "box". As soon as Cole finds it he says, "The box. Everyone's got a box". A minute later, just before he dumps the contents on the floor he says, "We're actually very fortunate. You don't see these often".<br /><br />Observation #2 (Spoiler Alert!)<br /><br />I had to watch the thing three times, I couldn't figure a couple of things out. Then I watched the Chronological version and saw that they were having flash backs from the latter to the previous during the time changes. So at some points we were actually watching three different times in about 1 min of wall time.<br /><br />That was a good thing because I don't know how many more times I could watch it before returning it to Netflix.<br /><br />Color me obsessive. | 1pos
|
.....whoops - looks like it's gonna cost you a whopping 拢198.00 to buy a copy (either DVD or Video format)from ITV direct.<br /><br />Ouch.<br /><br />Sorry about this, but IMDB won't let me submit this comment unless it has at least 10 lines, so...........<br /><br />blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah blahblah !!<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
It was sad that COMMITTED lasted only two weeks in Dallas theaters. I thought this movie had a lot going for it. The script was funny, full of subtle emotional shifts, and it had a good message. The acting was great. Everyone did a superb job, especially with the script's subtleties. Heather Graham not only has beautiful eyes, she has *expressive* eyes. For that matter, all the actors were attractive! Why it didn't do well in its theatrical release, I don't know--other than the studio didn't seem to have much of a push behind it. But it deserved to do better, and I hope it does well on video. It's certainly one of my favorites for the first half of 2000. | 1pos
|
Eisenstein created the Russian Montage Theory, and this film is his finest example. It took years before someone could utilize his ideas and make them work (The Limey, 1999). Nonetheless, the baby carriage scene really demonstrates the discombobulated nature of RMT. Granted, like most movies, it gets long in some parts, the beauty of the film is amazing. One of the best silent films I have ever seen. | 1pos
|
A truly scary film. Happening across curmudgeon James Kunstler's rants led me to recently-formed web logs like Life After the Oil Crash (LATOC), Energy Bulletin, and The Oil Drum, and the data behind the theory of Hubbert's Peak. Like this film, LATOC and Kunstler paint a grim picture of die-off or die-back. I hope they're premature, but in mid-2005 rising gasoline prices, rising oil prices, Chevron's Will You Join Us campaign, BP becoming Beyond Petroleum and even T Boone Pickens lend credence to the idea that we are at or near a peak of oil production.<br /><br />After copious research of limited data, oil investment banker Matt Simmons has suggested that the Saudis may no longer be able to increase production in their immense, but aging fields. In the face of increased demand (primarily from the US and China), the Saudis have not responded with higher production, despite previous assurances. Stated world production from 2000 and 2004 indicates that light, sweet crude has indeed peaked. which means that refining will become more costly.<br /><br />The film seems aimed at baby boomers, but younger people, our children, also need to understand the implications of an energy-depleted future. | 1pos
|
Hopper has never been worse as if he felt as this movie is worthy of only a grade B performance and he delivers a rather good one. Outside of Madsen and Hopper the acting is horrid; you've seen better at your local high school. The sound and at times the editing and camera shots are low end of B-movies. The scene with the peeping tom is of movies greatest gratuitous nudity scenes I've ever seen (it doesn't even come close to fitting in the movie). The script was probably a great 10-page outline, but when it comes out to a full-length movie there are more holes in it then the dead bodies Madsen left behind. I do have to say Hopper dressed in a nice suit driving the Hummer had me laughing out loud, but I don't think that was the intent. Yes there is a little style, and Hopper can always draw my interest. However the interesting plot concept never pays off and you are left wondering why you wasted your time watching this. | 0neg
|
The unthinkable has happened. Having first witnessed it a few years ago, I have had a film that has been my benchmark for awfulness and that film was called "McCinsey's Island". A family adventure movie with Hulk Hogan and Grace Jones (I'm not making this up), it plunged to new depths of movie making and is still the only film I've seen that made me wonder what else the film's budget could have been spent on. Like new schools or cancer-treating drugs. However, for sheer and unadulterated levels of crap, any film will be having to lower their standards even lower if they wish to trump "Guest House Paradiso" to the distinction of being one of the very worst movies I've ever had to watch.<br /><br />Based loosely around the puerile but amusing TV show "Bottom", this film introduces us to two of the biggest losers imaginable. Richard (Rik Mayall) is a hotel manager, as unfriendly as anyone you can imagine and so twistedly lecherous as to almost ooze slime from every action. His buddy Eddie (director Adrian Edmondson) is an alcoholic waste of human life and together, they try to run Britain's worst hotel situated upon a cliff-top next to a nuclear power station. Between them, they indulge in cartoony violence (with sound effects) at regular intervals, steal anything remotely valuable or interesting from the fools who stay there and stare longingly at any woman at all. The plot, such as it is, involves the arrival of fabled Italian screen goddess Gina Carbonara (Vincent Cassel) who is fleeing from her wedding and attempts to lay low at the Guest House Paradiso, much to the astonishment of Richie and Eddie. And... that's it.<br /><br />I used to think that the Carry On films represented everything bad about the UK film industry and God knows, we've spent so much time and money trying to escape that god awful legacy. We've had films like "Trainspotting", "28 Days Later", "Four Weddings And A Funeral" and the brilliant "Shaun Of The Dead" (also starring Simon Pegg) but this... this drags those films screaming and kicking back to the days of Sid James and Barbara Windsor's top flying off with the aid of a bicycle whistle. "Guest House Paradiso" is so low in its ambition that it insults you the minute you watch it. I kept watching, waiting in anticipation for the jokes to start but they never came. Just an endless stream of trapped knob gags, unimaginative scenarios that defy explanation, slightly amusing violence with frying pans and fridge doors and almost nothing raising so much as a smirk. Come the first ad break (it was on TV, you see) and I was ready to switch off but my loyal duties to you, my readers, kept me going. "I'm watching this so they don't have to" became my mantra so you guys better remember how much you owe me for this because this was about as much fun as having sand kicking into my eyes and being force-fed dog food.<br /><br />Trust me, I used to love the "Bottom" TV show. The combination of suitably grubby acting from Mayall and Edmondson with OTT juvenile humour worked... for half an hour every week. Certainly not for an hour and a half, as Edmondson and Mayall indulge themselves in their little private joke and bore and depress the rest of the audience. Honestly, this makes Mayall's "Drop Dead Fred" seem like "The Godfather" and should you happen to meet either of these two people (who are pretty much solely responsible for the chaos on screen pretending to be a movie), feel free to swiftly deliver a boot to their testicle region. They'd probably enjoy it. Pegg and Bill Nighy (both as guests at the hotel) are dragged down with this sinking ship but at least they survived. Mayall and Edmondson should not be so lucky. The movie equivalent of Chernobyl and should be avoided as such. | 0neg
|
A real surprise. Not exactly family entertainment from "Disney". Some violence, lots of tense moments, and a great story, based on fact. The theme of "Night Crossing" is, determination wins. Never losing sight of their objective, two East German families risk it all, in their daring balloon escape to freedom. The story is both harrowing and heartwarming. Time is not on their side. The East German Police are closing in and the outcome far from certain, until the very end. If you are looking for a good evenings entertainment, that contains no nudity, and limited violence, then I highly recommend "Night Crossing". It is pure entertainment. - MERK | 1pos
|
I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,<br /><br />"An American Werewolf In London." That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that "edge" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch. <br /><br />So, "werewolf purists" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree "London" is better and I prefer that version, too. <br /><br />The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a "balloon" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.<br /><br />When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!<br /><br />However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.<br /><br />It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film. | 1pos
|
Undoubtedly one of the best episodes ever, Balance of Terror is 45 minutes of well executed suspense, with intelligent real-world parallels (the title refers to a situation very similar to what was going on between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War), spot-on characterizations and the introduction of Star Trek's second most important hostile alien race after the Klingons: the Romulans. <br /><br />After receiving a distress call from a Federation outpost, the Enterprise is dangerously close to the Neutral Zone which, if crossed, would lead to open conflict with the Romulans, although no one has ever actually seen them in the flesh. Soon enough, a Romulan vessel appears, carrying a new weapon and a cloaking device which makes it nearly impossible to defeat. Facing the threat of imminent annihilation, Kirk must engage in a battle of wits with the Romulan Commander (Mark Lenard) to ensure the survival of his crew. Unfortunately, the task is made more difficult when one of the men accuses Spock of being in league with the enemy, due to the physical resemblance between Romulans and Vulcans, two races that are, in fact, distantly related (a fact that is quite ironic with hindsight, given Lenard went on to play Spock's father Sarek starting with Season 2).<br /><br />Always very critical when it came to the subject of war, Star Trek enjoys one of its finest hours with its most gripping and tense take on the topic. Although the Romulans aren't actually based on the Soviets (the name is actually taken from Romulus, the founder of Rome), the scenario is quite obviously inspired by the very vivid fear American and Russian citizens had at the time that either nation might be able to destroy the other with nuclear weapons (that fear gave birth to the titular concept of "balance of terror"). But even without the subtext, this remains an essential episode, due for the most part to the intellectual battle between the two adversaries, which translates into a thesping duel between Shatner and Lenard. No need to say who wins... | 1pos
|
The preposterous premise of this flick has to do with Argentina reclaiming the Falkland Islands, having failed through force in 1982, by impregnating the European women inhabitants with Argentinean sperm thereby diluting the ethnic purity until it favored Argentina. Yeah, right. The reconnaissance is done by our hero/villan and cad, Fabian, who hauls his fish-eye camcorder from pillar to post secretly filming his encounters with the Falklanders including his courting and eventual conquest of one woman, Camilla. An unfortunate indie and fraudulent documentary, this flick favors us with lots of boring tourism shot from the hip....yada, yada, yada. The film has no plot potential and only begins to become interesting as Fabian and Camilla wend their way through the usual moments of awkwardness and uncertainty as they get from the handshake to the bed. "F*ckland" is only for those cinema purists who can appreciate the bleak, no frills, jigglecam austerity of Dogme indies. | 0neg
|
You have to see this movie, it's a big footnote in the history of film. When this film was made, American film industry reached the bottom of sucking. See this movie, laugh, and feel sorry for yourself for wasting the last 2 hours of your life. It's the worst acting I've seen and even worse directing. The villains laugh like they're taken from a clown circus and if the guys who did "Scary Movie" want to do a parody on superhero movies they only have to take the script from this movie and do a remake, called Black Scorpion III: The threat of really really bad movies who in some way manages to lure the production companies into a sequel suicide. | 0neg
|
This seemed really similar to the CHILD'S PLAY movies except so much worse. A lawyer tries to save a criminal, who was convicted of killing his son, from execution. She fails. The lawyer's daughter then finds a puppet that the killer had buried with his son and is immediately attached to it. Then after several people are seriously injured they find the little girl secretly talking to the doll saying that she didn't hurt anyone. Throughout this movie I found myself asking myself ' why am I watching this cheeze?' over and over. The end sucked so bad that I went and watched the Disney cartoon version right after and slept with the light on. | 0neg
|
solid documentary about edgey kids who first surf then skate in the face of the american dream. sadly some of the youngest and most gifted succumb to the lure of drugs while others become slaves to the crass marketing of their go for broke instincts. few come out on top. but the die is cast and fruit of it all is the new national pastime, skateboarding (the New York Times notes that "it was once considered a snub to authority. Now, however, skateboarding has its own summer camps, video games, magazines [actually it always had these] and corporate sponsors.") commercialism co-opts another kid birthed cultural node. | 1pos
|
This is not a movie that I would typically watch at 2:30 in the morning, but I got into it and couldn't stop until it was over.<br /><br />Shia LaBeouf demonstrated that he is not just a young actor here, but could handle more demanding roles. The fact that he has been handed those roles in the last two years is testament to his ability.<br /><br />It was really his movie. Sure, there were others involved, but they pale in comparison to his role.<br /><br />This was a time when gold was reserved for the privileged. This victory opened it up to the masses, much the way that Tiger Woods has opened golf to all races.<br /><br />Like Harry Vardon (Stephen Dillane) said to Lord Northcliffe (Peter Firth): " ...if Mr. Ouimet (Shia LaBeouf) wins tomorrow, it's because he's the best, because of who he is. Not who his father was, not how much money he's got, because of who he bloody is! And I'll thank you to remember that." Go get charged up. | 1pos
|
Another tiresome bore from Anthony Minghella, who seems to thrive on these big bloated super-productions that take over two and a half hours to do what any reasonable filmmaker would do in about ninety minutes.<br /><br />The story centers on Inman (a somnambulent Jude Law), who goes off to the Civil War having just barely started a sort-of romance with Nicole Kidman, a Preacher's Daughter who has recently arrived in the prettily photographed backwater town. The story cuts back and forth between Inman's trials and tribulations at war (which is, guess what boys and girls? HELL!!) and Kidman's trials and tribulations back at home (which are, very predictably, incredibly boring). Renee Zellwegger appears on Kidman's farm to help Kidman get it back into shape after Kidman's saintly Daddy dies of Inconvenient Character Disease. Zellwegger acts all squinty and bossy in that Granny Clampett kind of way, dispensing enough Tough Love and Homespun Wisdom to turn the stomach of even the hardiest watcher of Touched By An Angel.<br /><br />This film is, quite simply, excruciating. Avoid it like the big bloated Oscar-bait Bogus Pretentious Literary Adaptation nonsense that it is. | 0neg
|
What often gets overlooked in Agatha Christie's stories is her progressive, anti-conservative attitude on a number of issues - from the role of women to the effects of tradition to people's belief in the supernatural. In "Nemesis", you can spot a lot of those subtexts - but you can also find a good old-fashioned intriguing mystery that keeps you in the dark for most of its length. Also lifting "Nemesis" above other series entries ("They Do It With Mirrors", "4:50 From Paddington", etc.), is the fact that in the crucial moments before and after the revelation of the killer you can actually feel the suspense. And finally, Jane Booker is welcome to guard my body any time. (***) | 1pos
|
The original Body and Soul (1947) is a masterpiece. John Garfield, Ann revere, Lilli Plmer, William Conrad, Canada Lee...and filmed by one of the greatest cinematographers to ever grace the screen..James Wong Howe. This remake is abominable. In spite of the presence of Rod Steiger, Joe Mantegna and Jennifer Beals there is nothing of value here and it is a shame this product bears the same title as the brilliant original. Only the main character's name, Charlie Davis, is the same in both films. I don't think there are any redeeming qualities in this remake. I am amazed that Rod Steiger participated. This may be the only bad film he ever made. Maybe he needed the paycheck. | 0neg
|
I saw this ego-centric "effort" at achieving a film of "epic" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.<br /><br />I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:<br /><br />路Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.<br /><br />路Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).<br /><br />路Outdoor panorama shots.<br /><br />路Ormond talking through the keyhole.<br /><br />路Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.<br /><br />路Fencing sequence<br /><br />Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.<br /><br />The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.<br /><br />They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.<br /><br />If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go. | 0neg
|
Valentine "Dogkiller" Dussaut and Joe "The Judge" Kern join forces to clean up the mean streets of Geneva! Thrill as they put the kibosh on international heroin smugglers, Polish fugitives, peeping toms, philandering girlfriends, renegade dogs, and litterbugs who are too lazy to bin their recyclables. Don't be fooled by the deceptive Miramax ad campaign that paints it as a pretentious, art house flick. This movie is 100% action! | 1pos
|
This film is truly pathetic in every conceivable department. awful, awful, awful. It's only around eighty minutes long, but believe me you'll feel like you're watching an Andy Warhol film (then again twenty hours in the life of the empire state building would surely be far more interesting).<br /><br />Where to start... the putrid script, the disgusting cinematography, the so bad its bad acting, the spectacularly dismal effects, dreadful music, or just the wafer thin plot that thouroughly resembles a sieve. This film is an incoherent shambles<br /><br />A particularly noteworthy scene takes place outside a cafe when Dominic Pinon decides to shoot a cat, cue the waitress watching through the cafe window who comments with an average English accent "God damn". To right that woman. God damn this horrendous monstrosity.<br /><br />Everyone involved should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves. Let us hope that the director never finds the funding to work again. | 0neg
|
Snakes on a Train is a movie I rented due to the pure amusement of the thoughts I had, about the movie. Snakes on a Plane was an enjoyable Action film, so obviously the film makers wanted to cash in on the success, with this low budget effort. At 85 minutes, Snakes on a Train is almost unbearable to witness. I had to keep pausing the film to do something to entertain myself, due to the lack of happenings in the film. Throughout the duration of the film, it's never fully explained why this girl has this curse, or why she keeps coughing up this green/purplish goo constantly. Not only that, there is endless boring dialog of the two main characters, Brujo and Alma discussing how to get rid of the curse. I can appreciate low budget film-making. I'm truly not picky on movies, i'm open to any genre or budget, but Snakes On A Train is truly one of the worst Horror films I have ever seen. Were the writers on Acid or something at the end of this film?. Why did the woman suddenly turn into a giant snake? and most importantly how on earth was it able to devour the train?.<br /><br />Bottom line. Snakes on a Train is a movie that needs to be avoided at all costs. Don't be intrigued like I was by the title, this is a movie that's seriously bad. Let's put these snakes to rest<br /><br />0/10 | 0neg
|
Its very tough to portray a Tagore novel along cinematographic lines.And if you forget an obscure production of 1967 then its the first time that chokher bali has been done on a grand scale. Overall the sets looked fantastic with the right touches for making a successful period drama.Prasenjit,so used to doing crass commercial stuff made a good effort.I saw the Bengali version and found that Aishwariya's voice was dubbed,which made her dialog delivery a bit poor. While the director did a good job portraying each of the characters with finesse,yet there was very little in the way of meaningful plot,probably a lack of the story itself.However the development of the characters including those with minor roles seem to be the strongest point.Its tough to make some Tagore stories into films,as only the visual parts seem to get realized. | 1pos
|
After three hours in the Cinema hall,the strongest impression garnered was that their is something amiss. What was clear was that the Directors forgot to direct, the actors to act and most importantly the script writer to write. Evervbody shouted without reason and made one cringe. The script moved on and on with lots of avoidable twists and turns ending in now, too familiar Priyadarshan theory of Converging actors at a single point. This theory worked well in Hera-Pheri and Hungama but somehow managed to irritate this time, so did the habit of every actor's incapacity to answer asked of them directly. Simplest questions such as " what is your name would be repeated N times".<br /><br />Finally what was amiss was that the director forgot that his audience have something called intelligence. | 0neg
|
BONJOUR, MONSIEUR SHLOMI is simply a wonderful film! Writer/Director Shemi Zarhin has created a story unlike any other and cast it with such consistently fine actors that it remains a puzzle to me that this film has not become an audience favorite throughout the world. It is intelligent, emotional, edifying, and warm, entertaining, and in all categories it is a winner.Shlomi (Oshri Cohen, in a brilliantly understated performance) is a 16-year-old lad who takes care of his highly dysfunctional family: his mother (Esti Zakheim) is about as distasteful a shrew as ever concocted and in a constant state of ill temper because of her husband cheated on her, and because she is stuck working double shifts to support her ailing father-in-law (Ariek Elias, who as Shlomi's grandfather is a bright, funny, wise, loving old man who deeply cares for Shlomi); a married sister Ziva (Rotem Abuhab)who periodically moves back in to the house because of constant spats with her husband who doesn't help her care for their infant twin sons; his brother Sasi (Assi Cohen) whose life is loud electric guitars, braggadocio about female conquests, and the favorite son of his mother. Stir this mixture and the result is the penultimate dysfunctional family unit. Shlomi cooks gourmet meals for them, shops, cleans house, runs errands, bathes and cares for this grandfather and in general leads a life of submission to a family that views him as a 'retard'.Shlomi longs for a girlfriend and practically fails his school because of his lack of time devoted to caring for his family and a lack of concentration. Serendipitously his math teacher Begin (Nisso Keavia) notes his natural mathematic genius on a discarded test, and with the aid of the headmaster (Yigal Nair) the two encourage him to be tested and discover that he is a genius (?with dyslexia?) and arrange for him to try for a special school in Haifa. Shlomi's mother will hear none of it but between fights with Shlomi's absentee father (Albert Iluz) and confrontations with the teacher and headmaster they finally consent to his testing for the school.Meanwhile Shlomi discovers a girl his age Rona (Aya Koren) who has moved in next door and gradually the two become intertwined in a physical and intellectual relationship. Always in the background is the support of Shlomi's grandfather, and when the grandfather dies, Shlomi sets off on the journey to live his life for himself, to realize his gifts, to find his happiness. The manner in which the family comes to grips with this is the peak of the movie and need not be revealed for the sake of loosing the power of the message.The film is beautifully photographed, the musical score is creatively lovely, and the final result is one of exaltation of the human spirit. Highly recommended on every level. In Hebrew with English subtitles. | 1pos
|
At first it seems the topical romance movie where a girl meets a boy and fall in love, but the point is that this movie has a feeling others don't have.The first time i saw it i couldn't see it complete because i had to leave.But while i was walking along i thought i must see it again but i didn't have any opportunity by then.One year went by until i saw this movie in a not-free channel and i saw it and i recorded it too.I saw it once,twice...until 200 times and not kidding.I did know all the dialogues by hart and i don't know why but i saw it everyday and never got bored.And i have to say that I'm not used to see a movie more than twice.The act is very good.Gerard Depardieu is a talented actor and katherine heigl too.I would like her to be in a good movie because i think she can do it.On balance,it's a movie i can't take out of my mind. | 1pos
|
I saw this movie a while ago and I was looking forward to it. My biggest problem was having seen the trailer I was expecting a very stylish marshal arts movie with plenty of action and maybe a bit of plot to think about along the way. I was sorely disappointed as it would seem that once you have seen the trailer there is nothing else worth watching (if what you are expecting is as described above). My girlfriend at the time gave up half way through and whilst I continued to watch in the hope that something interesting might happen... nothing did. I found no attachment or real interest in any of the characters. I would say just don't bother unless you have a few hours of your life that you don't really care about losing. | 0neg
|
I admire Deepa Mehta and this movie is a masterpiece. I'd recommend to buy this movie on DVD because it's a movie you might want to watch more often than just once. And trust me, you'd still find little meaningful details after watching it several times.<br /><br />The characters - except for the grandmother perhaps - are all very balanced, no black and white. Even though you follow the story from the perspective of the two protagonists, there is also empathy for the other characters.<br /><br />I think the IMDb rating for the movie is far too low - probably due to its politically controversial content. | 1pos
|
Do all spoof films require pure stupidity and a lack of ANY sort of intelligence whatsoever to the humour? Is there even just a single genuinely FUNNY parody film anymore? All I see are zero-quality films that look like a couple stoned high school students got bored one day with a video camera. These movies are not funny, they're not clever, they're not entertaining, they're just useless in every conceivable way.<br /><br />The Comebacks was a movie that tried to hide its hideous level of trash by not calling itself "Sports Movie". It's the same thing, though. There are a few different writers for these films, the Wayans did some, Freidberg and Seltzer did some others, and I'm sure there's another pair. I can't even tell the difference in direction or humour to be honest, it all seems like the same people wrote and directed them. I can't tell if the Comebacks was done by the people who did Scary Movie or the guys who did Epic Movie, or someone else, it's just the same jokes from all the others.<br /><br />If you have ANY shred of taste or value for humour, don't see this movie. If you have self-worth, don't bother seeing it. If you have ANY respect for film making, don't even consider watching it. Don't see it in any broke down, derelict theatre that may still carry it, don't rent it, don't order it on Netflix or Pay-Per-View, don't Redbox it, and don't even watch it for free on OD. Avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />The only conceivable reasons I can see to watch this film are as follows.<br /><br />A. Masochism. If you like torturing yourself, there's very few better ways. B. Seeing a prime example of why to avoid ANYTHING that says "Fox Atomic". C. You're being paid considerably high amounts of cash.<br /><br />I really would not watch the entire thing if someone offered me $100 to do it. It's just mindless, mental collapsing torment.<br /><br />You might as well watch Zohan. | 0neg
|
Sex is a most noteworthy aspect of existence. It is perhaps the most interesting activity there is between birth and death. LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN studies human sexuality in a dry and boring manner. Actually, worse than being simply boring, seeing nude 40-year-olds is, well, unpleasant.<br /><br />I guess there is some shock value in having adults as old as our parents talk about sex, but after twenty minutes, this stops being interesting. Perhaps if the characters were all 20 years younger, the film would be more visually captivating.<br /><br />LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN is not worth the time. | 0neg
|
A desperate attempt to make a "film-noir" sci-fi thriller, but the movie falls short. It has no believable plot, some of the key actors were a joke (NOT Lars Bom, he is cool!). I did like the "access restriction by bandwith maximizing" though. I finished it on principle, but went home with the feeling of having lost two hours of my life... | 0neg
|
There is no plot. There are no central characters. There are no moving cameras or close-ups. In fact, this film does not follow any of the conventional storytelling techniques used by mainstream film. However, Roy Andersson's Du Levande is a remarkable piece of cinematic storytelling. It is a touching look at the human psyche.<br /><br />Comprised of a series of vignettes, Roy Andersson gives us an intimate insight into what makes us all human. In perfectly framed static shots, added with the perfectly in tune, yet quirky, music, Roy introduces us to a host of characters as they undertake their daily existence. Some bordering on tragic, others hilarious, we are taken on a Nordic journey like no other.<br /><br />It is a journey into the little things that make us human. Instead of over-the-top storytelling or visual techniques, everything is stripped down to the bare minimum so that our sole focus is on the characters themselves. It focuses on the insignificant points of our lives that make us who we are; our dreams, our desperation. It's through this simple observation of others that we can accept who we are as individuals.<br /><br />The washed out colours and deathly-pale makeup of the characters only seems to emphasize their individual stories and remind us that unlike them, we are all alive. There is no happy ending or light at the end of the tunnel in this film, yet you walk out of the cinema with a sense of life. Much more accessible than his earlier film, Songs from the Second Floor, Du Levande, is a truly inspiring piece of cinema. | 1pos
|
Joseph Conrad's timeless novel, Heart of Darkness, was depicted in the 1994 movie. I have read Conrad's novel, and I must say, even though I prefer the novel itself, the movie was a great depiction. The set and costume designs brought Conrad's novel to life on the screen as we followed Marlow's journey. The acting also brought the characters to life through the mannerisms, voices, and personalities. If you have read the novel, I recommend that you also view this movie. If you have not read the novel, however, the movie may be harder to follow. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is too full of action, emotion, and information to be made into a movie that is a little over an hour and a half long. Therefore, if you have not read the novel, the plot in the movie may seem too cluttered to follow. Overall I gave this movie a seven out of ten. The basic plot of the novel was brought forth to the screen with great sets, costumes, and acting. Nothing can replace Joseph Conrad's original work however. | 1pos
|
'Volcano' is a B-movie at best, and at worst is more of a disaster that what it's supposed to be depicting. To be fair, you have to be prepared in any movie to suspend disbelief for one major concept. 'Volcano' asks you to suspend disbelief in science, human interaction, and common sense.<br /><br />Tommy Lee Jones gets to be the studly-yet-1990s-sensitive head honcho of the Office of Emergency Management, and he's fine when he's not stuck with the stupid dialogue the script provides. However, Anne Heche gives a howlingly bad performance as a smart-ass geologist who becomes Roark's love interest (while the city is burning down, natch). Gaby Hoffman goes from Field of Dreams and American President to a turn as a whimpering, needy, and victim-for-life daughter of Jones. Don Cheadle gets to sit in a really coooool office and take Jones's phone calls, doing the job that in reality Roark would and should be doing.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie really starts going downhill when Heche's geology partner gets sucked into a lava vent while they're breaking into the subway lines. It picks up speed when Jones starts suggesting that they use buses to dam the flow of the lava flowing down the street, Heche's geologist (who loves to lecture everyone about The Science Of Geology) being apparently oblivious to the fact that lava is hot and it melts metal, and rock, and a dead bus is unlikely to have much effect. It really starts to suck when the film introduces Rodney King-like racial tension between two bad actors dressed as cops and an angry black man who can't understand why the fire department is busy with this large river of flowing lava. But hey, in the end, the three of them will be working together to build a K-rail dam to stop the lava from eating up his neighborhood, even though the dam is built in the wrong direction and the material used wouldn't stop lava anyway. Besides, K-rails are hardly watertight, but I guess lava wouldn't think to poke its head through the gaps, not when Tommy Lee Jones is glaring at it. Don't even get me started on the stranded-subway-car subplot, where a tunnelful of hot lava is coming down but oddly enough, it's not too hot to attempt a rescue, it's not too smoky to see, and there aren't any poisonous gases so everyone can breathe. This must be LA Lava, or Lava Lite. You know, it eats cars but is eco-friendly.<br /><br />There are moments of sheer camp here that almost make you wonder if this was meant to be a comedy. For instance, the two security guards packing up Hieronymus Bosch paintings have a completely meaningless and farcical conversation about weight, and at the end, no sooner does the little boy Roark/Jones rescued note that everyone looks the same while covered in ash, than a rainstorm breaks out and cleans everyone up -- and then the sun comes out and Heche says something along the lines of, "aw, shucks, Roark".<br /><br />'Volcano' almost achieves Battlefield Earth status, but except for Heche no one approaches Travolta-like badness and the technical aspects are handled pretty well. If you are from the LA area as I am, it's kind of funny to think of a lava flow wiping out Wilshire Boulevard. I gave it a three for the effects and the little amount of tension you get from this. | 0neg
|
It really amazed me to see that someone would take so much time to assess such a bad movie. The beginning (of the film) had some truth in it. The Partisan "AF" was started in 1943 when two communist pilots from the Croat Ustashi AF deserted, together with their observers, in Breguet 19 and Potez 33, respectively. The aircraft saw some action in strafing and hand-bombing, but didn't last very long. One crew was killed and the other survived, the pilot being killed later while flying a Spitfire Vc. The real Partisan squadrons were established when RAF detached two of its (Yugoslav) squadrons of Spitfire Vc and, Hurricane IIc , respectively, manned by Ex Yugoslav Royal Airforce pilots, and allotted them to Tito's forces on the Island of Vis. Even those were never engaged in air-to-air activities, but strictly for ground support. So the film was one giant cow manure, to put it mildly, and the lowest point for its, otherwise not at all bad, director. By some quirk of fate I was present on the filming of the last sequence of the movie, when dozens of German aircraft were destroyed (Yugoslav 522 trainers, used also in the flying sequences) on the Mostar military airport. The pyrotechnics were impressive, and the Scotch served lavishly by the film crew was even better. Otherwise, the film was a shameless lie was and frequently joked about by the contemporary audience. | 0neg
|
Thomas Edison May Have Done Lots Of Great Inventions But WTF Is This!!!! I Am Sorry But This Movie Is Simply Awful. The Plot Is That This Elephant Walks To A Certain Point & Gets Electrocuted. Okay The Picture Quality Looked Like Someone Used It For Toilet Paper. I Thought That The Early Charlie Chaplin Films Were Awful. Okay Thomas Edison May Have Been An Inventor But Why Did He Make This Film He Could Have Filmed A Baby Being Fed & It Would Have Been Better. People Might Say I'm Being Harsh On The Times But Would You Enjoy Something Like This From What I Have Said Edison May Have Made The Lightbulb But Why Did He Make This Particular Movie. Well I Might Sound Like A Complete A##hole But Watch This On Youtube Then You Will See This Abomination. I Still Can't Believe This Film Is Completely Awful. All In All The Worst Short Film I Have Ever Seen.<br /><br />Rating: 1/10 | 0neg
|
The way i found out about this movie was when i watched American pie 2, at the start it had a trailer for Ali G indahouse, i watched the trailer and it just forced me to buy the DVD, it looked incredibly funny! so the next day, i went to my local store and picked it up for 拢3.99 (Bargain!). The film is about Ali G, who is a "gangster" of the west staines massive crew, who's rivals are the east staines massive crew. Ali has a "Cub Scout" pack of children where he teaches them how to survive in the "ghetto" by teaching them how to swear and steal cars, after Ali finds out the government are stopping the money coming to the leisure centre where Ali teaches the kids, he runs for MP for staines and overthrows another MP in his attempts to get rid of the leisure centre to make room for an airport in staines. Throughout the film there are laughs aplenty as Ali gets up to some crazy stuff! Borat makes an appearance for a few seconds in the film too, this is a definite must watch film for all you Sacha Baron Cohen fans out there! | 1pos
|
if you're a sucker for corny movies and are looking to see something you don't need to pay close attention to, this might be worth watching. the story itself is very unrealistic. the dialogue is also not very believable. it is doubtful you will find yourself relating to any of these characters because none of them are very likable. the acting could've been a lot worse. victoria pratt is noticeably out of place with the rest of the cast, as she seems to have a lot of potential and talent as an actress. while it's not saying much, this is one of the best acting performances i've seen from tori spelling. she appears to be getting better with age. overall, this extremely melodramatic movie is mediocre at best. | 0neg
|
Right up (or down) there with Toys and Jurassic Park 2 and The Phantom Menace.<br /><br />The premise sounded cool, some of the commercials looked semi-promising, but alas, the entire movie had about 30 seconds of neat shot-ness, and that was shown on the small screen's 30 second slot.<br /><br />If you want amateur writing, second-rate effects, ridiculous costumes, and an all-around snoozefest by all means watch it. The plot is recycled sci-fi fodder. Too bad too, because coming in I thought it would be bad but held out hope. It may be the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot. <br /><br />Bottom line - Don't watch it.<br /><br />Unless of course you -liked- any of the above 3 movies. | 0neg
|
Larry Clark is not renowned for his talents as a writer or a director, but he has made some undeniably important films. Kids, Bully, and to a lesser extent Ken Park all achieve their intended purpose: shock, revulsion, and even disgust. These films are uncompromising in their content and use their controversial nature to expose very serious problems in modern youth. Kids exposed us to the proliferation of A.I.D.S. and sexual promiscuity among the young. Bully touched upon similar issues. Ken Park dealt somewhat ham-handedly with sexual abuse and suburban ennui. Irrefutably, all of these films exposed something horrifying and left a bad taste in your mouth.<br /><br />Wassup Rockers is about a group of poor Hispanic skateboarders from South-Central Las Angeles who go to arbitrarily go to Beverly Hills to skate. That's it.<br /><br />Wassup Rockers is nothing.<br /><br />It has no substance. It has an essentially nonexistent narrative. And, like Kids, it features a cast of first-time actors who were drawn out of the films setting. However, unlike Kids, none of them have any semblance of talent. There is better acting in porn. This film features, without a doubt, the most terrible performances I've ever seen in a feature film. One can respect Larry Clark to exposing these young men to the film-making process, but these kids are absolutely cringe-worthy, folks. Might I add that apparently these gents also produced the soundtrack, which features some of the most dismally inept garage punk you'll ever hear- my advice is to pop a couple of migraine pills before you enter the theater, or you'll regret it afterward.<br /><br />But then again, it's not like they had much of a script to work with. Every line that is uttered is a contrived, pathetically-delivered, and irritating beyond all measure. The story itself is ludicrous. It starts out reasonably enough, but soon slips quite unexpectedly into sheer absurdity. This begins of course with a capricious sexcapade with a pair of rich white girls, followed by a series of clich茅d National Lampoonish encounters, characters being killed off for no reason, and finally resulting in a ridiculous anti-climax. Shots go on much longer than they need to. Be prepared to watch people fall of skateboards for about fifteen minutes straight, overlong, lingering shots of characters doing nothing or skateboarding down streets. But then again, with the script at a scant 32 pages they need as much useless filler as possible. Perhaps Wassup Rockers would have worked better as a short film.<br /><br />Anyways, I could go on like this. This is the worst film Larry Clark has made yet. For those of you who are interested in seeing a Clark movie if only for his shocking pederast antics, look elsewhere. This is by far the tamest film he's made yet, and it's also the worst. It's flat out horrible. Like, Uwe Boll horrible. Definitely the worst one I saw at the festival.<br /><br />1/10 | 0neg
|
After seeing the 'oh so acclaimed' Fargo and thinking it was nothing more than average, I was wandering if it would be a good idea to rent another Coen 'masterpiece'. This time I was much less disappointed than I was with Fargo and I must say that most of the credit for that goes to the good jokes and the good acting of George Clooney. Well done Mr. Clooney, make more of these and less 'Perfect Stormish' movies. You can act and you showed it here.<br /><br />7 out of 10 | 1pos
|
I am no Ebert. What I am is a compassionate and I have never felt more compassion for a fictional character than I felt for Leland P. Fitzgerald. Sorry if I do not offer a critique, but I see nothing but perfection in this film. I am sure that many who watch this film will never see the same things I do, but if you look hard enough maybe you will see something you weren't expecting. I've read that the character of Leland was flawed. It seems to me that who wrote this was not able to see past the Question this movie presents. I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't see the answers this movie delivers. Open your heart more than your mind and you may be able to let this Leland P. Fitzgerald show you a world that truly has a meaning. Excepcional story with extraordinary acting. Ryan Gosling deserves to be talked about. | 1pos
|
I find it amazing, that so many people (probably Poles) have voted for this movie, giving it such grades (mostly tens). OK, the movie was fine, funny, but it was nothing special on the other hand. The only good thing about Kiler is the dialogues, rather not comprehensive for non-Poles. Screenplay is primitive, the acting (except for Jerzy Stuhr as Ryba) - awful. It's too much ado about nothing - fortunately it's not included in the top 250. P.S. The sequel "Kilerow 2-och" ("2 Kilers") is on the way and it's just the same story. | 0neg
|
Having loved Stephen King's novels and short stories for many years, I, like most reviewers, have been consistently disappointed in the adaptations to film from his printed works. A few notable exceptions are "Stand By Me" from "The Body", "Carrie" from the novel of the same name, and "The Shawshank Redemption" from "Rita Heyworth and Shawshank Redemption". This movie is by far the worst thing that has ever been produced with Stephen King's name attached to it in any way. It is no surprise that Mr. King has pretty much disavowed any connection with it. I feel the thing that most offended me about this poorly acted, cheaply filmed, hideously directed piece of garbage is that they had the audacity to COMPLETELY change the ending Don't waste your time or money on this amazing bow-wow of a movie!! | 0neg
|
Avida is a game of words mingling life and eagerness, but I personally think this movie was overblown by its ambition and does not make justice to its title. It gathers a set of awkward characters united by unbelievable links. Furthermore, the way everything is connected at the end is, in my opinion, a bit pathetic. What remains of it was a set of images... an interesting one, but not enough to make this a good movie. <br /><br />I believe this film is supposed to be a comedy, but I surely didn't noticed! The nonsense and caricatural nature of the movie is actually the only good thing about it, but when it drags on an on and on it becomes no longer bearable. I have to say I fought hard to continue seeing it until the end, and I am still not sure it was worth it... | 0neg
|
To be fair, I didn't see a lot of this show. Probably because it wasn't as good as the original M*A*S*H, but I seem to recall them moving it around on the weekly schedule. Some shows just aren't worth the trouble of following around every week. But I really did try at first, so it wasn't all bad. Maybe I just kept expecting it to improve, but I can't give this show a 1. In all honesty, I can't give it any more than a 2 either.<br /><br />It wasn't MASH (I'm not going to type those stupid *'s every time). And it was trying to be MASH without putting forth any effort, like it would just magically happen. Well guess what? No magic. The best I can do here is to compare it to other shows.<br /><br />Trapper John, M.D. was a much better show by far. However, they should have called it B.J. Hunnicut, M.D. because Pernell Roberts looked exactly like an older BJ, but nothing at all like Trapper John. Keep everything else the same, just change his name and the name of the show. Presto! After MASH wasn't the only sequel to completely bomb and dishonor the original. Archie Bunker's Place was a lame follow-up to All In The Family. It had no heart, no conflict, no depth 聳 all of the things that made All In the Family so memorable. Likewise, MASH was funny because the doctors were reacting to the impossible absurdity of war. Remove the war and you remove the drive for 99% of the humor. Potter can't yell at Klinger for wearing a dress, because Klinger isn't wearing a dress, because he's not trying to get kicked out of the Army, because he's already out of the Army, because the war is over. (breathe) All of the jokes became forced because there was no motivation for anything. The least motivated was the viewer, to stay around and watch the show.<br /><br />And from what I remember, the whole show seemed to be Potter, Klinger, and Mulcahy just standing there unnaturally, facing the audience like a trio of Vaudeville performers. It was reminiscent of Good Times, where they spent 90% of the show standing behind that couch and talking to the audience, trying to make it look like they were having natural conversation. They weren't. And it felt even less natural on After MASH.<br /><br />Another random tidbit I recall is that the people who made MASH never got any royalties from the spin-off. The studio used the absurd excuse that After MASH was really a spin-off of the movie MASH (which they owned) and not the TV series. Nice try, but Mulcahy was the only one of the three in the movie, and he was never deaf. I guess studio execs will do anything for a buck. Anything other than make a worthwhile sequel, that is. | 0neg
|
Along with Cops, The Goat is one of Keaton's two funniest shorts. Which makes it one of the best shorts ever made. This has an decent "plot" for a short, and it forms a perfect line on which to hang some great gags. Keaton is mistaken for an escaped convict (how the mistake happens is a classic) and then must elude the authorities. Best gags - the bread line and t he "elevator". | 1pos
|
Much praise has been lavished upon Farscape, but I don't think it's that good. It certainly has a distinctive look, but it lacks just about everything else: story, purpose, direction, excitement; you name it. I'm a big sci-fi fan, and I make it a point to watch all the sci-fi shows I can. I've almost finished the four seasons of Farscape, and at this point I'm not very satisfied. The show does have a few good things - most notably Claudia Black (who's sadly missing from the first few episodes of season four) -, but they are very few and very far between. As a whole the show is marred by a lot of very silly stuff (such as Fantasy elements rather than SF ditto), and many many episodes, esp. in season four, are unspeakably messy and very poorly structured. And one just feels that it isn't going anywhere. It's mostly just non-directional adventures with thin, long-running plot lines which develop painstakingly slowly. Well, sometimes it's a little bit tighter, but it only lasts for a very few episodes at a time.<br /><br />Effects-wise, there are a few impressive things here and there (esp. out in space, occasionally), but the show seems stuck in the same style of effects, which frankly gets old fast. Outlandish and unconvincing puppet aliens mar the show a great deal, and I've come to prefer (by far) the episodes where regular human-looking characters are the focus.<br /><br />I think the Peacekeepers are by far the most stylish and intriguing and interesting figures on the show; they succeed in being a convincingly alien culture, despite their all-human appearance. There are a few really cool episodes with them, esp. in the first season (IIRC), where Crichton masquerades as a Peacekeeper captain, and invades and eventually destroys one of their secret bases. Such episodes can reach a rating of 8 out of 10, but I cannot award the show as a whole more than a "4" rating.<br /><br />Aside from the Peacekeepers (which themselves are somewhat too single-mindedly totalitarian and militaristic to be really nuanced), the show simply doesn't offer anything important or significant that you need to know or want to see. OTOH, it does contain a few good ideas and is not a total loss.<br /><br />This is just my opinion, of course, but as a seasoned sci-fi fan, I think it counts for something, and may be of help to others. There aren't a lot of good sci-fi shows out there; but Star Trek (any series) and especially the new Battlestar Galactica are definitely better than Farscape. But if you're a huge fan of mediocre sci-fi shows, you may well like Farscape, too.<br /><br />My rating: 4 out of 10. | 0neg
|
I got this as a complete set of 9 episodes on 5 DVDs. I knew nothing about the history of the series. Season 1 of the series has the pilot episode as episode 1 and then 3 more episodes for a total of 4. Season 2 lists 5 episodes with the last being Beyond Good and Evil with an original Air Date of 7 December 1998. The other 4 episodes on season 2 were broadcast from December 1997 to Febrausry 1998. So Beyond Good and Evil looks like season 3 episode 1, except there are no more episodes in season 3.<br /><br />Spoilers here. The two main characters of the first 8 episodes, Dr. Iain McCallum (John Hannah) and Dr. Angela Moloney (Zara Turner), are missing from this episode being replaced by Dr. Dan Gallagher (Nathaniel Parker) and Dr. Charley Fielding (Eva Pope). I recognized Nathaniel Parker from the series The Inspector Lynley Mysteries, which began in 2001. So they were planning to have a season 3 but only one episode was broadcast.<br /><br />It seems odd to try to continue a series named after the main character, McCallum, when the main character is gone from the series. So they might have been planning a return of Dr. Iain McCallum, but when that failed the series was canceled. I have no inside information on this but I do see that both John Hannah and Nathaniel Parker were involved in other projects in 1999. Does anyone have any information on this? | 1pos
|
Emanuele Crialese did a fantastic job with one of those films that linger in the back of your mind for years. It was Respiro (see comments and synopsis here in IMDb).<br /><br />Now, carrying the magnificent young talents he had for the first time on screen then, he takes the audience into a dark void. A literal plunge into dangerous waters. The subject is migration. In this case, from Italy to the New World (the name of the film). A big deal calling it for its American release "The Golden Door".<br /><br />The story of a family that leaves everything and risks the rest -that is, their lives, for a dream.<br /><br />I hate to spoil the show telling the story, so I'll dwell a bit in the work Crialese and all his team did so brilliantly.<br /><br />First of all, choosing to stick to what he knows: direct sound as much as possible. This means, the whole film. The textures, the pain, the nuances of reality are always mingled with the smells, the heat or the cold, the sweat and the blood, life and death, as vibrantly as it is in real life.<br /><br />The squeaks of bent metal and grinding wood, the infamous drone of the wind and the ominous sounds of big engines and ship horns are among the points that make this film so involving.<br /><br />Cinematography is in the hands of a French couturier. The symbolism of light is present from the very first shot (again, almost the very first shot from Respiro) and pervades throughout the film with intimacy and a terrible sense of desperation. The subdued tones and the very gray and grim depictions of people suffering the cramped and filthy boat they sail to hope is mesmerising.<br /><br />Light is used sparsely, almost to discover every character in the dark. The beauty of every shot, and every scene is accentuated by the period costumes and the perfectly selected physical features of the actors.<br /><br />Again, as he usually does, Vincenzo Amato is definitely on his own. He plays the father of two sons (the same actors who were fifteen and twelve and now are nineteen and sixteen) with all the power he always conveys to his very complex characters.<br /><br />Charlotte Gainsbourg is so-so. I guess she's never achieved again the perfection she reached in The Cement Garden and in her very first film: L'Effront茅e.<br /><br />Maybe it's just that she seems a bit awkward in her role.<br /><br />The locations and sets are harsh and compelling, almost playing a character on their own.<br /><br />Maybe the most remarkable character is the one played by Filippo Pucillo, the mute younger son. The contrast here with his first role is complete. Then, he played a supercharged kid that was as relentless as anything around him. Now, his character is all expression. And just that: no words at all. His eyes tell the whole story with sublime power.<br /><br />Maybe this is one of those films that will not be very well received in the States. It's absolutely Italian in everything. It's so Italian that most of the time, the language is one of the many dialects that is much older than Italian itself. In the USA this film may be a bit too much for Americans because of the subject. But anyone who remembers the story of their families when they arrived in the States, will see this films with awe.<br /><br />And, again, the minimalism that goes hand in hand with Crialese's ideas is back with a closing scene in the water. Only this time it goes from underwater photography to aerial.<br /><br />All in all, another great and very well told story from this filmmaker that only this year (2006) has collected 6 prizes and was nominated for the Golden Lion. Not a small deed! | 1pos
|
The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?). http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/confuoco/diary/200911290000/<br /><br />And the love of Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest), sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world. Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost. | 1pos
|
As the metaphoric flies fled this steaming watery stool of a film i found myself longing to join them.<br /><br />From the opening sentences, you quickly gather that the actors are talentless. The script editor was probably dead and the director should be. To be honest I didn't manage to finish this film because about twenty dismal minutes in the sight of the main actress scuttling across the floor like a Shetland pony that has been shot in the ass was too much for me to stomach.<br /><br />I have never, and I mean never, seen a film as sweaty as this one and I watch tons of crap films.<br /><br />Turd. | 0neg
|
(Warning: spoilers! -- although it's hard to spoil this film by telling story details.)<br /><br />Eisenstein's black and white propaganda film is not for everyone. It's very old and it's, er, clumsy. What makes it great for me is the soundtrack, not the original but the updated soundtrack. Better still, the orchestral version Prokofiev created (my favorite performance is by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony).<br /><br />The film is actually funny in places. It's reminiscent of the old "Midsummer Night's Dream". Some of the outdoor scenes are quite magnificent. Some of the actors are also quite magnificent. (The actor who played Nevsky could have been a superstar today. Ditto for the warrior chick, Vasilisa -- definitely a rocker.) <br /><br />This may be the world's best collection, on film, of pithy Russian sayings (there are tons of them -- they make up the bulk of the spoken lines).<br /><br />The battle scenes actually look much more realistic than most high-budget Hollywood flix. These guys are as clumsy with their fighting as real peasants would be. The weapons look nasty, so the actors were probably trying to avoid actually wounding one another.<br /><br />The actor playing the German "grand marshall" is trying *really* hard to look scary early in the film, but he looks like he was really a pussycat. After he's captured he looks *so* pathetic. (Speaks volumes about the intended audience, da?)<br /><br />A really humorous touch is that the German army brings an *organ* with it, played by a character in a black robe. Watch the Russians bring this guy down *while* he's playing.<br /><br />After the battle is over and almost all of the Germans are dead comes the best part of the film (and the music), the song sung to the dead soldiers who've died defending the motherland. This part is so sad it's almost an anti-war statement.<br /><br />Ten times as many men as ladies have rated this film. Wonder why?<br /><br />Warning: Joseph Stalin liked this film. Ironic -- he killed more Russians than anybody. "Those who come to Russia carrying a sword will die by the sword". | 1pos
|
A fun romp...a lot of good twists and turns! (and we were not even baked!)<br /><br />Didn't know this movie even existed until watching the extra trailers on a Monty Python DVD...(oddly it was there along with The City of Lost Children, and The Adventures of Baron Munchauhsen)<br /><br />The plot keeps you wondering throughout.<br /><br />The acting was awesome...Hank Azaria shows his talent again, Bill Bob is Billy Bob...(wecis?)<br /><br />Definitely worth watching. | 1pos
|
I don't normally go out of my way to watch romantic comedy, and maybe I will in the future after seeing Return to Me. The plot was simple and no secret after the publicity. You don't have to be Einstein to guess what will happen after the first 15 minutes. What you can do is relax and let the cast take you into a world where the "chemistry" abounds and the good guys win and you can just laugh and have a good time. I LOVE this movie....and have the DVD on order! | 1pos
|
I've never seen a show with as much story, mystery, suspense, and hard-hitting excitement before. i barley watch TV anymore but i own every season of this show and it's amazing. every episode is extremely well-acted, written and plotted. towards the end of the show i felt that the stories were getting too far-fetched for being in a prison, but the actors pulled it off. Sopranoes sucks huge compared to OZ. in fact, any show that is on a cable network, HBO or not just cant hold a candle to OZ. i wish it would come back for one more season. if it did happen, they would probably kill off every character on the show, but hey, we all gotta go sometime. as far as the characters, i'd say O'Reily and Alverez were my favorites. both were hardley in a scene together, but their individual stories i thought were the strongest of anyones, except Beechers of course, but still... anyway, best show ever, best network ever, some of the best actors ever, PERIOD! | 1pos
|
Fellowe's drama about a couple's marriage which is threatened by a younger third party which interests the wife of the house (Watson). Wilkinson plays the role very well as the troubled husband who cant control his wife's cheating, and deals with the issue. I also like Rupert everett a lot in his role as William Bule, the man that Watson has the affair with. Although i think Emily Watson is a great actress, i had a bit of a problem with the way her character was written, did not make her too likable (i know a cheater is not supposed to be likable, but some of her actions and things she did had no reasoning behind them). The screenplay was perhaps the weak part of this drama, although Fellowes' direction was good and the performances were also quite good. This film is better than Unfaithful, but not a masterpiece by any means. ---IMDB Rating: 6.7, my rating: 8/10 | 1pos
|
It is important to realise that Eisenstein was a committed Marxist film maker who held some very specific and particular theories about what film could achieve, and how.<br /><br />It is simply idle to compare Alexander Nevsky negatively with anything from a similar period in the US; this film comes from the oldest film school in the world, from another continent, from an entirely different approach to cinema.<br /><br />To appreciate this film a little more, try finding out about Pudovkin's and Kuleshov's theories of montage, for example, or read the Wikipedia entry on Marxist Film Theory. If you're feeling really bold, you might even investigate the triadic forms of Hegelian dialectic.<br /><br />It follows that if you watch this film without some understanding of Eisenstein's ideas and ideals, you probably won't get it. In Alexander Nevsky the main characters aren't playing themselves, they are meant to be distillations of their nation's character. Nevsky and his generals are deliberately shown larger-than-life, because they represent stylised, heroic aspects of the entire Russian people.<br /><br />The acting isn't wooden, it's meant to be slightly mannered. It represents a completely different school from the more naturalistic, narrative style which Hollywood was rapidly adopting. Eisenstein's films are especially designed *not* to be realistic. If anything seems somewhat "obvious", whether lighting or language or a pose struck by an actor, it's meant to be that way. Eisenstein was one of the early proponents of film as an art form, not just as entertainment.<br /><br />If the editing sometimes seems to consist of a clash of images, well, that's the idea. Shots are meant to contrast with each other, Eisenstein's films contain and embody elements of a political/philosophical argument, namely Marxist dialectic.<br /><br />So sit back, shout hurrah for Russia and her folk-hero defenders, boo at the cowardly nobles and the Teuton invaders, and enjoy the difference. | 1pos
|
The Snowqueen is one of the best love stories I have ever seen: much better and deeper than Luhrman's Romeo&Juliet or Spielberg's Titanic. Gerda's love impresses me every time, her search, her battle is exceptional. Gerda becomes a strong, loving woman throughout the movie. Kay is the poisoner of dark forces: the temptation. This story encourages me to fight like Gerda for the ONLY ONE, for the love of my life, for Mister Right. Patience is one of the keywords of this movie. I cry every time when I realize all the suffering of Gerda and Kay. And I wish that it ends soon... Snowqueen tells although my life, I deeply identify with the story and the characters. Thanks at least for Hans Christian Anderson and the director. | 1pos
|
An awful B movie at best with video quality similar to Dead Alive. I challenge anyone who is a "Aliens (James Cameron 1986)" Movie fan to count how many times either lines or almost entire sequences were ripped off from the first two Alien movies to make this classic piece of garbage.<br /><br />Cast members such as R. Lee Ermey and Ray Wise were the only two actors with any talent and the lead "Jack Scalia" was really absolutely horrible. I think they cast him for his massive cleft chin. I was also annoyed with the stereotyping of the only black male on the set John Toles-Bey who must look at this movie and just wonder. Look him up sometime as he has done a lot of interesting movies.<br /><br />But on this movie: The script as I said earlier was a rip-off of Aliens tweaked and turned into a submarine "thriller". It included such lines as "I got a bad feeling about this" and "Kill me" as one crew member is infected by one of the mutants and his belly starts doing the "alien hop" just before it pops out of his stomach. There is also a rip-off of the classic "get some!" via Bill Paxton. We also have a bunch of navy grunts running through caves with creepy crawlies popping out of walls. Even the explosions of the mutated creatures is very similar to the popping of aliens as they charge marines in the movie "Aliens". And the kicker is that some of the mutants spit acid (as opposed to having acid for blood). There are many more major examples. So if you want to see this script done well watch the first two classics Alien and Aliens (With Sigourney Weaver). You'll have a more enjoyable time.<br /><br />The plot could have been interesting and done better if not for confusing sequences in the start of the movie and generally poor editing. Camera shots were pretty dull and honestly it wasn't very hard to stop watching it and walk around the room to get a snack or check email. Many of the interactions between characters made little or no sense and went nowhere more often than not. The whole command structure between crew and Capt. was poorly done. I'm not even sure if there are Captains in the military that have full control over nuclear subs. In general this just shows that there was little research done for background information to make the movie seem at least a little respectable and there are many other similar examples (like dive depth etc..).<br /><br />If you like horrible movies or are a big fan of Alien and Aliens and want something to just laugh and shake your head at then this movie may be for you. As for me this one is going back on the shelf...permanently. | 0neg
|
If you are a bit masochistic and like to waste some time you should try this one. I wasted enough time myself watching it, so I will waste no more explaining why it is so awful. Be warned!!! Oh, I see that I have to fill 10 lines or more. Here we go: every year or so some people think it is fun to start shooting a low budget film about the scary monsters of the underground, that hopefully will prove to be some sort of a hit. The Cavern is one of those. I didn't have high expectations about this one but the acting is so bad and the production so poor that I'm seriously thinking of asking for a refund. Phewww ... one more line about a useless movie ... Oh, I'm done. | 0neg
|
This movie dethroned Dr. Giggles as the best horror movie I've ever seen. The plot was great, the plot twists were even better and the cast was great. It's hard to believe that they compiled the most unknown people 8 years ago and they would be big names today! <br /><br />The plot is simple. 4 teenagers wreck their car in the middle of nowhere. They stumble on this campsite and do what everybody who is in an accident should do. Build a fire and tell scary stories.<br /><br />1. "The Hook." Great opener. Anyone who is in High School has heard variations of this story on Prom night. But they do it real good in this movie.<br /><br />2. "The Honeymoon." OK, this was not the best of the 4. It was pretty good and you get to see some boob. Emphisis on the word "some." It's just your basic creature in the woods story.<br /><br />3. "People Can Lick Too." This is a cautionary tale of what happens in internet chat rooms all across the country. This segment alone should be required viewing for parents whose children have access to the internet. <br /><br />4. "The Locket." Now this is the best story in the whole movie. A guy on a motorcycle breaks down and goes to this mute girl's house. Very good plot twist.<br /><br />The main plot, "The Campfire" has the biggest and best twist in the whole movie. I won't tell what it is cause I don't want to ruin it. I was never this shocked during a movie in my life!<br /><br />Plot: A+ <br /><br />Acting: A+<br /><br />Writing: A+ <br /><br />Directing: A+ <br /><br />Music: A+ <br /><br />Overall: A+ <br /><br />I recommend it to anyone over 13 with the exception of "People Can Lick Too." Any parent who's child has access to the internet needs to watch this one with their child. | 1pos
|
Thanks to silly horror movies like "Troll" and the indescribably atrocious cult-favorite "Troll 2", it has become practically impossible to take movies with kobolds, gnomes and various other types of little green hobgoblins seriously these days. Only just recently I watched the 70's made-for-TV movie "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", which is basically a quite terrifying and serious-toned film about domestic little goblin monsters, and yet I still couldn't help thinking back about the laugh-inducing potato headed critters dressed in garbage bags that were running amok in "Troll 2". Same thing happened to me now. As much as I tried going into "Inhabited" with a clear mindset, unconsciously I kept comparing the supposedly creepy and menacing garden fairies with the badly sculptured goblins of Nilbog! Still, even without all the prejudices, "Inhabited" is a remotely entertaining albeit unmemorable straight-to-video horror flick. It's a cheesy, soft and politically correct pastiche of family drama and Northern Europe mythology. The annoying and murderous little creatures in this movie aren't your plain average goblins; they are "The Huldre": wicked little Norwegian demons that live underground and attempt to chase happy families out of their houses through influencing the youngest children. This overcomes the Russell family as they move into their ramshackle dream house in a remote little town. The cherubic blond daughter of MILF-actress Megan Gallagher starts to behave strangely whenever she hangs out in the cute play house in the back of the garden. She claims her friends are fairies, and even though the sinister handyman also warns for strange occurrences in the past, Gina's parents simply think the girl has troubles adjusting to her new neighborhood. When she keeps rattling about fairies, they arrange an appointment with the acclaimed psychologist Dr. Werner whilst "The Huldre" are slowly coming out of their botanical shelter. Not much special to mention here. The pace is acceptable and the attempts to build up suspense are pretty cute. You understand this is a family-friendly horror movie, so no bloody murder sequences are graphically being shown here. Heck, even the cadaver of the family's pet cat is kept off-screen. This is the umpteenth nonsensical horror movie in which Malcolm McDowell pops up and he practically always depicts an unreliable, greedy and self-centered authority figure. | 0neg
|
I was just watching a Forensic Files marathon on Court TV. The episode was identical to the plot of this movie, right down to the incest secret and the affair-with-the-sister subplot. I don't recall any Based on a True Story disclaimer, but the case does have MOW written all over it. Apparently it chronicles the real homicide of Ruby Morris by her husband Earl, sentenced to 25 years to life for her murder. Just goes to show you, truth can be stranger than fiction, because I thought the Lifetime plot was contrived and a more than "a stretch" insofar as believability goes. I'm with the other posters who said the acting was bad. I didn't notice it with all of the players, though. It was really the lead character, the daughter, whose performance was bad. | 0neg
|
The story overall, though quite graphic, is actually decent and reasonably interesting to readers. However, the movie was absolutely dreadful. The story was good, but the acting was terrible. I was crying the whole time because i knew i could never get my spent time back. Don't see this movie. If you do, bring a pistol with a bullet in it, and a few bullets if you're going with friends. I feel sorry for everybody who had anything to do with this film. I also feel sorry for everybody who had to watch the film. Avoid this film at all costs, and if your mother forces you to watch, kill her. Hahahahaha! See! I'm a psycho now!!!! IKWTCBS turned me into a psycho!!!! | 0neg
|
This movie was OK, as far as movies go. It could have been made as a crossover into secular movies. However, it had little to do with the Left Behind books that it was supposedly based on. Major story premises were removed, and new major story premises were added. <br /><br />What disappointed me most was how Nicolae was portrayed. He was shown with supernatural powers that he did not have at this point in the books. Antichrist is not Satan, is not omniscient and not omnipotent. <br /><br />Faith and beliefs were portrayed in weird, surreal ways that seemed to make the movie just silly.<br /><br />Non-believers who watch this will have more ammunition to mock Christian beliefs. | 0neg
|
Without actually giving away my age, I saw this for the first time over 20 years ago when it first came out on video (maybe it was a beta tape??) and I was old enough to drink (barely) and perhaps I had had a few because I remember thinking how great this movie was! I have since seen it sober and have to admit it is a pretty bad film. As mentioned in other posts the plot is absolutely ridiculous and the poor acting just makes it worse. It's a poor attempt to fantasize that teenagers too, can be "Mavericks" (although I am surprised to find out it actually was to be released the same time (aprox) as "Top Gun", and not actually meant to be a poor imitation.) But for all it's worth - I do find myself watching it if it's on and I have the time. It's one of those movies you watch because it's just so ridiculous and tries so desperately to take itself seriously. Like that other "great' film - "Moment by Moment" with John Travolta and Lily Tomlin....don't get me started on that one! | 0neg
|
Lina McLaidlaw is a bright, solitary young women who falls unexpectedly in love with Johnnie Aysgarth, a highly eligible bachelor with a penchant for losing money. They get married, but almost at once Lina is subjected to Johnnie's addiction to lying, gambling and getting into debt. Despite his flaws, she is unable to resist his charming manner, until she starts to suspect he may be harbouring murderous thoughts toward her ...<br /><br />This is a good movie, well-made, with an attractive cast, a good script and possibly the single lousiest ending in movie history. Okay, that's maybe going too far, but not by much. Lots of films change the ending of a book (Great Expectations, The Shining, etc) but the last two scenes of this one not only manage to be horribly lame, but also render the entire preceding plot completely meaningless. The story is about a woman whose husband is driven by his greed and moral lacking - and what she knows about him - to kill her. It should end (as it does in Francis Iles / Anthony Berkeley's book Before The Fact) with him attempting to murder her. The reason it doesn't is that the studio forced Hitch to reshoot the ending, one of the first examples of the godawful process of preview audience testing. Hitch was canny and did what he was told (this was only his third film in Hollywood) knowing that if he played the game, sooner or later he would gain creative control of his films, evinced by his masterpieces of the fifties. But that still leaves us with a turkey of an ending. This is a great shame because it really is a very good movie with an intriguing theme - does anyone really know their husband or wife that well ? The script is excellent, with many off-guard moments (such as when Lina's father dies and Johnnie assumes she's crying about it), a finely-judged performance by Grant (who never played a villain again) and fine photography throughout, culminating in the famous glass-of-milk shot. Fontaine won an Oscar for this performance, although personally I prefer her confusion and vulnerability in her earlier victimised wife role in Rebecca. I would like to rate this movie higher, but I really can't forgive that ending; this is what happens when movies are made for money, not love, which I guess is curiously the theme of the film itself. Look fast for Hitchcock's cameo as a man posting a letter. | 0neg
|
I found this film rather brilliant. Initially I wanted a "when animals attack" flick along the lines of "frankenfish" or even "rogue" but was delivered a truly horrific ordeal that was not devoid of humanity. Having been to the areas this was made (including the croc farm at the start of the movie, even sharing the same guide!) it added to the fear factor. Those crocs really are everywhere up there, though I don't think they had the "attitude" of this beastie. Yes there were some melodramatic moments but they contributed rather distract from the whole atmosphere. I genuinely cared for the characters and shuddered contemplating "what would I do?" in their boat. Not knowing where your enemy lurked or the sound of the croc chowing down at night was genuinely frightening. I would argue that this flick is one of the best horrors I have seen in years (coming close to the descent). I give it four alligator handbags. | 1pos
|
I have to admit that when first saw Madonna performing Holiday on Top of the Pops many years ago I said to my wife "another American one hit wonder getting the whole thing wrong!!" Well she was wearing a fright wig and was appallingly dressed. I have never grown to love her the way my daughter does but I have to eat my words. I do like some of her stuff and sometimes enjoy her filmed concerts. This Confessions tour film is great,even if the music is not(and its not). I was impressed by the staging and concepts. Madonna's own performance was enhanced by the incredible dancers she chose to support her. My daughter was at the London gigs and was crazy about it. The lady (Madge) has proved my initial assessment of her so very wrong!! | 1pos
|
When i heard they were making this i was quited happy considering the first film was pretty good, if a little on the short side.<br /><br />But then i remembered some of the Disney sequel disasters i have previously watched (im looking at you Little mermaid 2).<br /><br />Anyway i watched it and unfortunately i was very disappointed. The best thing about it is the animation is superb. It really has that special polish that the "proper" Disney films have.<br /><br />Apart from that.. the rest is disappointing. The storyline is seriously all over the place. One moment its about something, then completely changes to another storyline and then changes to another completely different storyline. It reminded me of how the Family Guy movie was like 3 separate episodes, turned into a film.<br /><br />I laughed perhaps once at the most. Kronk was very funny in the original film but in this he just isn't funny at all.<br /><br />Stay away from this film, unless someone lends it to you for free.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
One of the enduring classics from MGM came out in the closing years of World War II, it's the film that made young Elizabeth Taylor a star. She had done a few films as a child actress before National Velvet, but when it came out her place in the movies was assured. Ironically enough biologically she'd be growing up fast enough after National Velvet was out and her next struggle as an actress was to get substantial adult roles because casting directors only saw her as innocent little Velvet Brown who loved her jumping horse.<br /><br />I'm not sure of how this would work because steeplechase horses have to have confirmed bloodlines and the Pi's are a subject not dealt with in National Velvet. All we know is that he's a reckless and untrainable horse in the hands of Reginald Owen and after he breaks free and causes considerable damage, Owen gets rid of him for a nominal price to the local butcher Donald Crisp.<br /><br />At the same time as these things are happening, Mickey Rooney comes wandering into the lives of the Brown family which consists of Crisp, wife Anne Revere, and daughters Angela Lansbury, Juanita Quigley, and Elizabeth Taylor and their little brother Butch Jenkins. Rooney is a former jockey who's now on the open road and heading for the Brown family where his father was once a horse trainer for Anne Revere's family. It's he who sees the potential of the Pi (short for pirate) as a steeplechase jumper and it's Elizabeth who convinces Crisp not to pass up this chance.<br /><br />Elizabeth Taylor was so sweet and innocent in National Velvet. The Good Book says you have to have faith like a child and she has it to spare. She infuses Rooney with it, to have faith in the heart and ability of the Pi and to leave a little over for himself.<br /><br />Anne Revere won a Best Supporting Actress Award for National Velvet. She's a very wise mother who has hidden depths to her that the audience doesn't suspect. It turns out that back in her youth she had a taste of fame and glory swimming the English Channel and her prize money, saved all these years, she gives to her daughter. That scene is probably what won her the Oscar. National Velvet also won one other Academy Award, for Film Editing.<br /><br />Over 60 years after it made its debut National Velvet as a family classic hasn't lost a thing. Its depiction of life between the World Wars in Great Britain is still a standout. And National Velvet launched a movie legend. Can't do much better than that for high regard. | 1pos
|
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson delivers another cheaply made movie. He might have set a new standard for himself. Look for the painfully obvious special effects mortar cannon that is visible in the street during a chase scene. You don't see it just once, you see it several times. Look for the out of focus shot in one scene and the camera operator try to fix it as the scene rolls on. Watch this with a group of people and make your own Mystery Science Theater! | 0neg
|
I bought this film at Blockbuster for $3.00, because it sounded interesting (a bit Ranma-esque, with the idea of someone dragging around a skeleton), because there was a cute girl in a mini-skirt on the back, and because there was a Restricted Viewing sticker on it. I thought it was going to be a sweet or at least sincere coming of age story with a weird indie edge. I was 100% wrong.<br /><br />Having watched it, I have to wonder how it got the restricted sticker, since there is hardly any foul language, little violence, and the closest thing to nudity (Honestly! I don't usually go around hoping for it!) is when the girl is in her nightgown and you see her panties (you see her panties a lot in this movie, because no matter what, she's wearing a miniskirt of some sort). Even the anti-religious humor is tame (and lame, caricatured, insincere, derivative, unoriginal, and worst of all not funny in the slightest--it would be better just to listen to Ray Stevens' "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex on His Television Show"). This would barely qualify as PG-13 (it is Not Rated), but Blockbuster refuses to let anyone under the age of 17 rent this--as if it was pornographic. Any little kid could go in there and rent the edited version of Requiem for a Dream, but they insist that Zack and Reba is worse.<br /><br />It is, but not in that way.<br /><br />In a way, this worries me--the only thing left that could offend people is the idea of the suicide at the beginning. If anybody needs to see movies with honestly portrayed suicides (not this one, but better ones like The Virgin Suicides), it's teenagers. If both of those movies were rated R purely because of the suicide aspect, then I have little chance of turning a story I've been writing into a PG-13 movie (the main characters are eleven and a half and twelve). Suicide is one of the top three leading causes of death in teenagers (I think it's number 2), so chances are that most teens have been or will be affected by it.<br /><br />Just say no to this movie, though. 2/10. | 0neg
|
I couldn't help but look at the time every 5 to 10 minutes because I found this movie a total drag. Childish humor, cheap looking sets, cheap looking effects, a plot that makes "Legally blonde" look like "The Usual Suspects" and so many coincidences that I can now officially say that Robert Rodriguez had brain surgery somewhere after 1996. The only thing he left as his trade mark are some cool camera moves, but there's where it ends. OK, so the guy decided to do something new for a change, a children's spy movie. Well if I were 12, I'd feel insulted. The best thing in this movie is the absolutely amazing Carla Gugino that just stole every scene she was in. Sadly, there weren't many. 4/10 | 0neg
|
I clicked onto the Encore Mystery channel to wait for the movie I wanted to see, Island of Dr. Moreau. I caught only a few minutes of Shadow Conspiracy. An old man runs to meet Charlie and grabs him by the arm. Suddenly, an Assassin in a bright rain coat taps the old man in the head (with a side arm) from across the street. After waiting for "C" to turn around and look, the "A" tries to shoot "C" and clearly misses. "C" was a much easier target, the old man couldn't have run far. Duh! There is a chase and "C" is on an elevator "A" is on the roof, so he tries to shoot the cable, which is parallel to the "A". He hits and severs the cable, impossible. Later, this time with a specialized rifle, the "A" lines up on "C" from maybe 50 meters, but is to stupid to notice a motorcycle coming up and taps the rider instead. How does Charlie get his parts? Does Daddy go to the producers and say "Look, my kid needs work..." It reminds me of his stupid Sit - Com. All the actors are good except, yup ... you got it. I usually have to endue 2 or 3 minutes of that waiting for C.S.I. to come on. Let's see, what can I do for the next hour. I know, I'll trim my toenails! Much better use of my time. | 0neg
|
In Mississippi, the former blues man Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) is in crisis, missing his wife that has just left him. He finds the town slut and nymphomaniac Rae (Chritina Ricci) dumped on the road nearby his little farm, drugged, beaten and almost dead. Lazarus brings her home, giving medicine and nursing and nourishing her like a father, keeping her chained to control her heat. When her boyfriend Ronnie (Justin Timberlake) is discharged from the army due to his anxiety issue, he misunderstands the relationship of Lazarus and Rae, and tries to kill him.<br /><br />"Black Snake Moan" is a weird tale of faith, hope, love and blues. The gifted Christina Ricci has an impressive performance in the role of a young tramp abused since her childhood by her father and having had sex with the whole town where she lives. It is amazing the versatility of this actress, and probably this is the most mature work that I have seen Christina Ricci perform. Samuel L. Jackson has also a fantastic performance in the role of Lazarus. The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful I have ever heard in a movie, with wonderful blues. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Entre o C茅u e o Inferno" ("Between the Heaven and the Hell") | 1pos
|
What is there to say about an anti-establishment film that was produced in a time of such colourless void, social indifference and authoritarian contentment. Cassevettes first major independent film was not an instant box office success and still has not received the critical attention it deserves. I draw comparisons to this wave of American independent projects consisting of such 'Beat' filmmakers as Robert Frank and Harry Smith with the burgeoning scene emerging in Paris in the late 1950's known as the French new wave.<br /><br />They discussed poetry and philosophy and vulnerability at a time when the rest of the culture was obsessed with rediscovering American cultural supremacy; even at this stage this peculiar, highly spontaneous brand of filmmaking fought against the establishment of such political lexicons and bigots that held the development of the arts in check in the mid twentieth century.<br /><br />Cassevettes film examines race relations and portrays man as weak in the face of love because we, as a culture, are blinded by our own race bias and prejudice. The great element to most of Cassevettes work is that his films have almost a reversal minimalist effect; a mental reaction is evoked through subtle character relations, not so much imagery. This is why his work seems to linger because he takes a more intimate approach to defining charcters that rely less heavily on explicit actions and more upon interpretation.<br /><br />Although my favourite Cassevettes film is 'Husbands', this one is his most important. | 1pos
|
Hellraiser: Bloodline is where the sequel mediocrity of the Hellraiser series well and truly sets in. Gone is the imagination and invention of the first two movies. Gone is the ethos of Pinhead and his minions. Gone are the sick desires of humans. In fact everything that once made Hellraiser so original has been trashed by this mess of a picture.<br /><br />All that is left is that basic premise of Christian mythology that there is a Hell with evil Demons. What happened to the evil that men do? This watered down excuse for a Hellraiser movie is padded out with endless Psycho Babble, so that Pinhead becomes a nonsense spouting philosopher and not the harbinger of doom as he is meant to be. <br /><br />The film uses the most basic of film formulas with characters separating and getting individually killed. Pinhead is not Alien. The link between the box and the 'demons' or 'Hell' is never established it just arrives at a sacrifice and sits on a sideboard.<br /><br />The lead female Character is called 'Rimmer' and the producers obviously think it really funny because everyone keep saying her name. Really the film should have been retitled to give it that characters name.<br /><br />Shame on you Kevin Yagher and Alan Smithee. | 0neg
|
Here we've got an intelligent mixture of typical hongkongmovieshootouts, worlddestructionthemes and intelligent filmmaking. Not that the script has not its big holes and a few specialeffects are a bit cheaplooking. But the cinematography is a optical treat and the soundtrack is first rate. The blend of fast actionsequences and colorful slow, sometimes nearly poetic parts, has no comparison in its kind of movie, so a classification is rather hard. The closest genre is a disaster or terroristmovie with deeper human and political notes than usual. Well worth to be seen worldwide in cinemas. But i am hoping this for so many other (mostly asian) movies before and nobody seems to believe me. Unfortunately. | 1pos
|
Oh, my goodness. I would have never thought it was possible for me to see a thriller worse than Domestic Disturbance this soon, but here it is. Armed with rotten plot, terrible editing, stilted acting, and headache-inducing 'style' (sorry, I have no other words for it), Sanctimony is the kind of movie that almost forces you to re-evaluate an entire genre; that is, this film is so bad that even the thrillers I condemned as complete failures now seem a little better.<br /><br />Now, not only Sanctimony is a terrible film in itself, it also succeeds in the difficult task of ripping off better movies and do a pathetic job with it. Right from the main titles -- nothing but a blatant attempt to reproduce the ones from Se7en -- I was under the impression that something didn't smell quite right. As soon as the movie started with a series of corny, wanna-be hip quick-cuts full of gory images and bombastic colors, I knew where that smell was coming from.<br /><br />It turns out that two policemen, or rather policeman Jim Renart (Michael Par茅) and policewoman Dorothy Smith (Jennifer Rubin), are investigating on a murder spree in Vancouver. A serial killer, known as "Monkey Killer" (what a menacing, chilling nickname, uh?) for his working methods, has killed quite a lot of people. You see, this nut apparently works following the proverb "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and cuts eyes, ears, and tongues out of his victims. So far, six eyes, six ears, and three tongues. In very ingenious fashion, Renart and Smith figure out that the Monkey Killer is probably going to kill other three people... well, because he probably wants to complete the number 666. So suddenly the film focuses on Tom Gerrick (Casper Van Dien), a young, successful, good-looking businessman, with a dreadful temper. And that's where the rip-off of American Psycho kicks in.<br /><br />So we follow the life of the two police officers and the young psychopath, none of which is interesting in the least, until they finally meet. Along the way to that, a disco where Renart barely misses Gerrick unintentionally offers us one of the funniest scenes in recent memory: Renart goes in the back of the disco club, because... well, just because the script tells us it's a suspect place; then, with one single punch in the stomach, Renard gets rid of a big guard who blocks the path, and the guard is never heard of again? Does this scene strike anyone else as completely unrealistic?<br /><br />Anyway, after another murder, Gerrick turns in as a witness, but Smith and especially Renart immediately suspect he might be the killer. In typical Basic Instinct fashion, Smith gets some dates with the young businessman, under the assumption that she might discover his true identity.<br /><br />I won't spoil the ending but it is, quite simply, an embarrassment; there are contradictions, some plot holes, issues that never get resolved, and especially there is one last scene where a brutal mass murder, supposed to be shocking and sad, comes off as such laughably overdone and nonsensical that I frankly can't imagine how anyone could not laugh at it.<br /><br />At 87 minutes, Sanctimony is really pushing it. You never care about one single character, because they are all so flat (not to mention boring) that you know exactly who is who the first time you meet them. You are never pulled into the story, because the scenes are connected through weak plot devices when not downright unnecessary and out of place. The acting ranges from average (Van Dien) to downright atrocious (Rubin, and most of the supporting cast); the music is abysmal generic techno, and the photography is one of the worst I have ever seen. Of course, like every fiasco of the genre, we are provided with a little bit of gratuitous nudity.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
"What Alice Found" is the greatest movie that nobody's ever heard of! I underestimated it when I heard of it, and I though that it would all sex, no plot, and just really stupid, but in reality, it was really good. They say all indie movies suck, but this one, and "Napoleon Dynamite" didn't suck. I asked my friend, who'd seen it before I did, and she said that Alice has all these three-ways, and you see all this nudity, but no, there is no three-way that I remember, and little nudity. The movie did have a point, and it taught me never trust hitchhikers. I liked that in the end, they got Alice a little dolphin In the end, on her way to Flordia. I totally suggest seeing this movie. | 1pos
|
Fun movie! Great for the kids - they found it very entertaining. Somewhat predictable, but there are a few surprises. Great movie to watch if you're looking for something just to entertain (don't expect to be seeing a classic!) | 1pos
|
Lucille Ball tries to look 30 years younger than she actually was in this poor excuse for a musical.<br /><br />The movie features some of the worst choreography ever seen laced with the constant threat that Lucy might break into song with her bourbon voice at any moment. Lucy's total lack of talent as a singer and dancer sinks the film before it can begin and aside from die-hard Lucy fans, no one is likely to fancy it very much. Bad costumes and cheesy set designs don't help. Further proof that Lucy wasn't good at anything except making stupid faces.<br /><br />Directed by Gene Saks. | 0neg
|
Writer-director Emilio Estevez shows a definite lack of talent here with this un-redeemable, supposed comedy. The script is completely hopeless, let alone the fact that it is unoriginal and badly worked. The comedy just does not work. When Estevez isn't using poor taste sex jokes, he is borrowing used gags and re-doing them very poorly. You would think the teaming of Estevez and brother Charlie Sheen would be cool...but...it isn't.<br /><br />The entire cast is uninspired and unfunny, never managing to raise a laugh, and barely coaxing a smile from their audience. Do yourself a favour and leave this one on the video shelf.<br /><br />Thursday, June 25, 1992 - Video | 0neg
|
This two-character drama is extremely well-acted and has a valid message and some TRULY shocking moments (shocking not because they are graphic, but because you're not prepared for them when they come). But eventually it does become oppressive, just like the somewhat similar "A Pure Formality" did. Still, Alan Rickman should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his multi-dimensional performance, no doubt about it. (**1/2) | 1pos
|
Pretty bad PRC cheapie which I rarely bother to watch over again, and it's no wonder -- it's slow and creaky and dull as a butter knife. Mad doctor George Zucco is at it again, turning a dimwitted farmhand in overalls (Glenn Strange) into a wolf-man. Unfortunately, the makeup is virtually non-existent, consisting only of a beard and dimestore fangs for the most part. If it were not for Zucco and Strange's presence, along with the cute Anne Nagel, this would be completely unwatchable. Strange, who would go on to play Frankenstein's monster for Unuiversal in two years, does a Lenny impression from "Of Mice and Men", it seems.<br /><br />*1/2 (of Four) | 0neg
|
Just as in "Columbo" we see the fatality occur right at the beginning. What follows is an escalating web of lies, sex, blackmail, and murder. The investigating officer, Adam Arkin, is even somewhat of a fumbler, not unlike "Columbo". It is William H. Macy, as the movie critic suspect who carries the film. Constantly twisting and turning, the plot sends Macy deeper and deeper into the quicksand of his "perfect crime". William H. Macy fans will enjoy "A Slight Case Of Murder", as will those who like crime capers with all kinds of delicious possibilities. Add some well timed comedy, and this is very similar to a fine episode of "Columbo". Highly recommended. - MERK | 1pos
|