Datasets:

generalization

/

sst2_Sampled-p_05

like 0

Red Eye is a good little thriller to watch on a Saturday night. Intense acting, great villain and unexpected action.<br /><br />Some might not want to see this movie because it goes for a very short 85 Min's and 88% of the movie is on a plane and just talking. Don't worry they pull it off very well with the smart and witty dialog.<br /><br />A PG-13 movie seems to be new grounds for director Wes Craven. But surely enough he has fit as much violence as he possibly can into this thriller.<br /><br />This movies strongest point is its cast. This film needed good actors to deliver the dialog and thrills. If they didn't have those actors the film would have been lost and boring. We had Rachel McAdams from Mean Girls and Wedding Crashers. Cillian Murphy from Batman Begins and 28 days Later. Rounding off this cast is Brian Cox from X-men 2.<br /><br />The pacing in this film was great. Just when your thinking its going to get boring they throw a twist at you. Luckily this isn't a long movie and doesn't feel like it either. Much better then the other flight movie Flight Plan.<br /><br />Here is my Flight Plan comment: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408790/usercomments-578<br /><br />I recommend. Not too long and not too shabby.<br /><br />8/10

0positive

trimmed_train

I was very disappointed in this movie. Plotwise it was weak bordering on silly: Souls who can affect reality in the way they do? A mission apparently critical to the Soul Hunters entrusted to one of their younger members? And the whole B-story with the "holobrothel" and the lawsuit against the station was so awful that at one point I blurted out to the television, "Why are you wasting my time with this?"<br /><br />Thematically, "River of Souls" didn't really go into the question of the soul in any more depth than the original episode "Soul Hunter" did. We see that Soul Hunters can make mistakes, but we still don't get a feeling for their culture. (Are there any female Soul Hunters?)<br /><br />The acting was okay, given the material they had to work with, and the special effects - especially the planetscapes in the first act - were very impressive. But overall, I'd say give this one a miss.

2very negative

trimmed_train

A drama at its very core, "Anna" displays that genuine truth that all actors age, and sometimes, fade away. Anna is a character that believes America is her safety net, her home, and it can do her no wrong – but she refuses to belittle herself to do work she doesn't believe in. She is hard-nosed, optimistic, stubborn, and arrogant when it comes to her life, yet not afraid to let others in, yet drop them at a moments notice. Anna flip-flops between personalities, which makes this film ideal of an aging star, but not idea of the viewing audience. "Anna" has been praised for its star Sally Kirkland, and her ability to get "grungy" for the role, but a month into 2008, "Anna" does not remain a staple of film culture. It is dated, dull, and formulaically chaotic.<br /><br />Director Yurek Bogayevicz has a message hidden within "Anna" about the falsehoods of Czechoslovakia, both politically and socially, but Kirkland refuses to let them upstage her. Bogayevicz is not afraid to play with the camera, to use wooden frames to allow Kirkland to stand out, and he is not afraid to lessen the surrounding characters so that when you walk away from the film, it is Kirkland you remember. If it isn't obvious, this film didn't sit well with me. From the opening of the first act and deep within the second, "Anna" felt like a high school theater production. The characters were non-existent, there was no enlightening pre-story, and there was no definition of time or place. There was Sally Kirkland, stubbornly saying that she is better than the other actresses vying for the same lifestyle that she wants. Randomly she encounters a friend, a young girl that has also traveled a long distance to get to America for the glitz and glamour, and two of them (within the span of 20 minutes) build a friendship that could break all walls. It is emotionally boring and unbelievable. Again, randomly, we meet Anna's boyfriend Daniel (played by the weak Robert Fields), who brings nothing to the table in terms of definition or character – only to boost the attention onto Kirkland's Anna. Through the course of nearly two hours, we watch as more random acts coupled with unnamed characters intertwine together to feebly create a story that is held together by loose threads – and SALLY KIRKLAND. Arg, it pains me to continue to say this but "Anna" could have been a fantastic film had Bogayevicz presented equal time between Anna, Daniel, and Krystina, but instead we are forced into a one-sided game where emotional scenes speak louder than plot.<br /><br />Is this where Charlize Theron found inspiration for her beauty-less role in "Monster", or Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball"? Was Sally Kirkland one of the early actresses discover that by letting themselves go for a character Oscar will shine in their direction? Throughout this film I was disgusted by Kirkland's portrayal of Anna, and Bogayevicz's lack of excitement for anything else fluent. Bogayevicz gives us an Anna that doesn't work hard for her parts, doesn't care for others, and is generally mean spirited – yet we are to feel sympathy for her? Near the beginning of the film, she forces what she wants to do onto others, and gets upset when she doesn't get her way. Sure, aging actresses my have that appeal to them, but Kirkland creates a more childish character instead of a mature one. That is where "Anna" could have improved. If this was a mature Kirkland, I would have gobbled it up, but this stammering childish Anna was impossible to believe. While my favorite scene was near the end where Anna goes to watch one of her older films playing (included is absurd make-out characters) and the film burns, this scene is also one of my least favorite. Anna has made a phenomenal life for herself, creating films and building the dream, yet when anyone else wants to enter that spotlight, she gets jealous and outraged. This didn't make for a character I wanted to stand behind nor win Oscars. Coupled with the classic 80s background synthesizer, the outrageous over-the top wardrobe, and the displaced ending (where did that come from and what happened??) – "Anna" slipped far in the scope of amazing cinema. It was a show-piece, an opportunity for an aging star to yell at the world one more time. In this one it worked, but I don't think I will be fooled again.<br /><br />Overall, I cannot say that I was impressed with this film. "Anna" is not a film about an aging film star; it is about Sally Kirkland, and ONLY Sally Kirkland. Bogayevicz tries to do more with the story, but fails either because Kirkland will not allow him or he just realizes that there isn't enough to support a full story. There are one or two decent scenes in this film, but nothing that promotes this film as innovative or influential. Bogayevicz did not create a character that audiences would believe, tear up for, or dedicate a Sunday afternoon with – he created an annoyance. Kirkland wasn't Anna, she was an actress playing her a bit overdone and crusty on the sides. Perhaps I missed the scope of this film, but what makes films like this work is the cooperation of everyone involved. That wasn't the case here. In "Anna", Kirkland orders Daniel to act like a dog (apparently as a symbolic act) and yet during the entire emotional scene, I couldn't help but think that was what Kirkland was like to those on the set. She didn't make this into a film, she transformed it into her own production, and because of it "Anna" failed. I cannot suggest this to anyone – from one Czech to another – skip it! <br /><br />Grade: * ½ out of ***** (for that pesky theater scene that creeped me out)

2very negative

trimmed_train

I really hate this retarded show, it SUCKS! big time, and personally I think it is insulting to fairy kind (if you believe in fairies that is); I mean the people who had come up with such crap 'ought to have their heads examine huh? and also there is a LOT of craziness (the evil school teacher, which I think is getting really old) and also stupidity (the boy's parents and fairy godfather) in this show - two of the things that I dispised and loathe in the WHOLE world (especially stupidity).<br /><br />Overall, I say that this show is so f*****' annoying and should not be seen by prying eyes at ALL (it would make'em bleed to death)!

2very negative

trimmed_train

"Once in the life" is a very good movie. However it's not good for everybody, due to the extensive use of vulgar language and the violence of some of the situations. The movie manages to represent in an anecdotic, believable way the "life" in NYC neighborhoods where drug problems are important. This depiction is in turn used as the decor for a most thoughtful and suspenseful drama backed up by powerful dialogs (however I had a hard time understanding some of them because english is not my mother tongue. On video it's OK). There is a little overplay sometimes, but I think it fits quite well to the general orientation Fishburne gave to the movie, which gives matter for reflexion more than just being a good style exercise, notably in the time/action management. The characters, even though not simple, are easy to relate to and actors do a fine job at impersonating them. By the way I much enjoyed the soundtrack (B. Marsalis). If you're not too prude, you should enjoy seeing that movie once, twice, three times. I rated the movie 9/10.

3very positive

trimmed_train

'Ninteen Eighty-Four' is a film about a futuristic society in which the government controls everything and no one can be trusted. It is a very dark film, and it is one that will not make you feel good about yourself. It is about a romance taking place in this society and the betrayal of the lovers and about human nature being self-centred. The film has some very good ideas and is done well in portraying this society with the dark tones in colours (contrasting with happiness and bright colours in the dreams) and a general feeling of loneliness through objects and people and places. However, despite the film's cleverness at portraying this idea, the film was very slow and did not seem to quite get the idea across. It seemed to spend too much time being clever rather than telling a story.

2very negative

trimmed_train

I have a deep liking for this film despite it appearing deliberately less 'polished' than the other Fred and Ginger films, not to mention the slightly problematic casting of Harriet Hillard in the lead romantic role. <br /><br />Once again with these films, the plot is of a minor consequence - Astaire plays a rather unlikely sailor (who happens to be a brilliant former hoofer (of course!)) and Rogers an aspiring performer in a seedy dime-a-dance music hall. Although their relationship is bright and fun to watch, they are bogged down by an un-involving main story of Hilliard and Randolph Scott not succeeding in finding any chemistry between them. <br /><br />Although it was a last minute decision, Hilliard was rather miscast in this as she doesn't have the screen presence to give this film what it needs despite being sweet and likable throughout. The film may have benefited in promoting Lucille Ball's wise-cracking worldy brassy character to a larger role as she simply shined in every small scene, and would have made a great Helen Broderick-type side-kick to Rogers in this kind of bright film (See 'Stage Door', made the following year, for an example of wonderful scenes between these two fantastic actresses). That Scott's one-dimensional Neanderthal character eventually falls in love with Hilliard's is even harder to believe than Astaire being in the Navy! <br /><br />Now onto the important part, the singing and dancing: Nothing more can be said about "Let's Face the Music and Dance" other than it is brilliant and moving and perfectly executed and I often finish watching that scene with tears in my eyes. However other songs in the film deserve some recognition as well; "I'm putting all my Eggs in One Basket" is a lovely example of the comedic instincts of Astaire and Rogers, and almost pokes fun at their reputation of bursting into spontaneous, perfectly synchronized dancing. Other highlights are "I'd Rather Lead the Band" and "Let Yourself Go" which show how these two talents could perform as brilliantly alone as together. I nearly forgot to mention that this is one of the few (if not the only) time we see Astaire brilliantly play on the piano; It seems this man's talents were endless!<br /><br />Overall, I actually prefer this to 'Top Hat' and 'Swing Time' (although only just), as it is more earthy and performed so enthusiastically by all involved, it is hard to dislike the fun factor.

3very positive

trimmed_train

Predictable, told a thousand times story with the usual drama in between, a couple of pretty raunchy sex scenes intermingled with some character paranoia, 70's style incidental violin horror music that is comical at times, i couldn't help chuckling to myself.<br /><br />I usually like Defoe, and it has to be said that the acting is not all that bad, the "plot" develops at a reasonable pace and does keep you guessing from time to time. Its just that it's all too predictable, i felt like i was watching a made for TV drama instead of a new movie. Maybe thats the style the directors wanted, but it has to be said that the review i read on here before i saw the movie could only have been written by someone involved in its production.<br /><br />Don't expect too much, and if i could wind the clock back i wouldn't have gone to see it at the cinema. I would wait for the bargain bins at your video shop, I'm sure it wont take long.

2very negative

trimmed_train

David Burton(Richard Chamberlain, quite good)is a lawyer, more adept at handling corporate taxation(..and suffers from unusual dreams which bother him seeing this aboriginal man shrouded in darkness), who is called on to take a case concerning a group of aboriginals charged with the murder of one of their own named Billy..we see that he tries to steal stones with ritual painting on them and is killed when a leader of an aboriginal tribe named Charlie(Nandjiwarra Amagula)uses a "death bone" to stop his heart. Meanwhile, revolving around David, bizarre weather patterns effect Sydney such as rain beating down polluted dirt and rock-sized hail during bright blue skies(with no sights of clouds, such as the one that hits a school in central Australia), not to mention, a "deformed" rainbow which is split(!)into groups. As David pursues the case he finds that he is far closer to the weird events taking place than he could ever realize. One aboriginal named Chris(David Gulpilil)appears to him in a dream holding a stone with blood and he finds that this man is one of those he is to represent at trial! He finds that it's quite possible, after some strange meetings with Charlie and conversations with Chris, that he very well might be linked to a spirit named Mulkurul and that his dreams are actual premonitions of possible horrors yet to come.<br /><br />Absorbing apocalyptic drama builds it's story methodically and is completely original and unpredictable. With Peter Weir in charge, the film is visually arresting as we see these very overwhelming images of possible doom towards civilization, but the film's most compelling angle is certainly David's journey to find that monumental truth that plagues him as he questions Charlie and Chris countlessly, at first to help his men get off from a crime they didn't commit, and ultimately to find out what he has to do with anything catastrophic that is occurring or might occur later.

3very positive

trimmed_train

The Man in the White Suit is one of those delightful comedies that Ealing studies made so well in the 40's and 50's. The plot of this one follows a man that invents a cloth that neither gets dirty nor breaks. Of course, this is a huge breakthrough in the world of textiles. However, things are not that simple as the cloth will threaten the way of life of many people, including cloth manufacturers, the cloth mill's workforces, and even an old lady that does her washing every week. The Man in the White Suit is a film about scientific advances, and the way that they don't always help; as the old woman says at one point in the movie, "Why cant you scientists just leave things alone?"<br /><br />Like a lot Ealing comedies, this one stars Sir Alec Guinness. Alec Guinness is a fantastic actor; he has the ability to light up the screen with his presence (and he does in this film, literally), but he also manages to portray his characters in a down to earth and believable way. He is suitably creepy in this film, and he captures just the right atmosphere for his character; an intelligent and ambitious, but slightly naive scientist. Along with Guinness, The Man in the White Suit also features Joan Greenwood, the deep voiced actress that co-starred with Guinness in the simply divine "Kind Hearts and Coronets" and Michael Gough, a man that would go on to get himself the role of Alfred in the Batman films. The acting in the film isn't always great, but it is always decent, and it's fits with the film.<br /><br />The Man in the White Suit is an intelligent, thought-provoking and witty comedy with a moral. The comedy isn't always obvious, and it doesn't always work, but the film is not meant to be a film that provokes belly laughs, so that is forgivable. I recommend this movie, basically, to anyone that is a fan of movies.

0positive

trimmed_train

this film was just brilliant,casting,location scenery,story,direction,everyone's really suited the part they played,and you could just imagine being there,Robert Redford's is an amazing actor and now the same being director,Norman's father came from the same Scottish island as myself,so i loved the fact there was a real connection with this film,the witty remarks throughout the film were great,it was just brilliant,so much that i bought the film as soon as it was released for retail and would recommend it to everyone to watch,and the fly-fishing was amazing,really cried at the end it was so sad,and you know what they say if you cry at a film it must have been good,and this definitely was, also congratulations to the two little boy's that played the part's of Norman and Paul they were just brilliant,children are often left out of the praising list i think, because the stars that play them all grown up are such a big profile for the whole film,but these children are amazing and should be praised for what they have done, don't you think? the whole story was so lovely because it was true and was someone's life after all that was shared with us all.

3very positive

trimmed_train

Anyone who has experienced the terrors of divorce will empathize with this indie film's protagonist, a scared little boy who believes a zombie is hiding in his closet. Is Jake (a mesmerizing Anthony DeMarco) simply "transferring" the trauma of two bickering parents to an understandable image? Or could the creature be real? Writer/director Shelli Ryan neatly balances both possibilities and keeps the audience guessing. Her choice of using one setting - a suburban house - adds to the feeling of desperation and claustrophobia.<br /><br />Brooke Bloom and Peter Sean Bridgers are highly convincing as the angry, but loving parents. However it is the creepy minor characters, Mrs. Bender(Barbara Gruen), an unhinged babysitter and Sam Stone (Ben Bode), a sleazy Real estate agent that linger in the mind. Jake's Closet is a darkly inspired portrait of childhood as a special kind of Hell.

3very positive

trimmed_train

There are movies that are awful, and there are movies that are so awful they are deemed long-forgotten and unwatchable. Also, lots of violence and bad stuff (not just cheesy stuff; you know what I mean) add to the mix as well. What is the result of bad movies with such raunchy content? Why, "Final Justice," of course! <br /><br />Remember "Mitchell?" Joe Don Baker was the star of that movie, and that was riffed by Joel and the Bots on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Now this time, with Mike taking Joel's place on the Satellite of Love (but with the same bots), that trio got to make fun of MST3K's second Joe Don Baker movie, "Final Justice." Of course, much of the naughty stuff that I mentioned was removed for television release, but still, I want to watch that episode (and "Mitchell" as well), because what does Joe Don "hate" the most? Why, none other than "Mystery Science Theater 3000!" <br /><br />P.S. If you have a Big Lots nearby, check that store for the uncut tape! LOL That happened to another user!

2very negative

trimmed_train

I saw this movie in my international cinema class and was grossed out from get go. This movie is nothing but one scene of blatant shock value after the next.<br /><br />The 4th Man is about an alcoholic writer named Reve, who has visions of his in-pending danger. He meets up with a woman named Christine when giving a lecture at a local book club, and only decides to stay with her when he discovers how attractive her boyfriend is. To put it plainer, Reve likes the Dutch sausage. So Reve concocts a plan to seduce Christine's boyfriend so he can ultimately have sex with him. But its later discovered that Christine has had 3 previous husbands, who she all murdered. Now Reve and Christine's boyfriend could be "THE 4TH MAN." The storyline makes sense with no plot holes. The editing and everything else that is technical about this movie is perfectly fine. The movie is just gross and I felt the need to vomit in some parts. Basically, this isn't my cup of tea.<br /><br />The movie opens with Reve getting out of bed in JUST a t-shirt. So in the very beginning, you get to see Reve's lovely pecker flopping around as he walks around his cramped apartment in a hangover state. Later on he has a dream where his pecker gets cut off by a pair of scissors, and they do show it along with the blood fountain that ensues. Reve fondles a statue of Jesus and has homosexual sex in a mausoleum. Plus there's a lot of blood. More blood than all the Freddy Krueger movies combined.<br /><br />Not that I have anything against "shocking" scenes, but this movie is just so blatant when it comes to shocking. The whole movie is revolved around the shock value.<br /><br />So if any of this is your cup of tea, watch this movie. Otherwise, stay far far far far far away from this one. My mind is still scarred.

2very negative

trimmed_train

I was so eager to see this one of my favorite TV shows.I saw Universal trademark followed with a newly acquainted title and theme song which still impress me.Computer animation on some scenery like a solid title name"The Jetsons" or a dimension view of a spaceship approaching an amusement park and more made this version splendid and fantastic.Shortly after that till the end...I couldn't believe my eyes!!!!How lucky I was that I could forget all I had seen.Just songs by Tiffany and its theme song in new arrangement were in my head.Anyway,I wish to see this space-aged family (also The Flintstones and Yogi Bear) in all graphic computer design as Toy story or Bug's life.The best style for Hanna-Barbera's in my opinion.

2very negative

trimmed_train

When I sat down to watch 'Largo Winch' I expected nothing more than action scenes and fascinating cars. When I stood up, I've seen both of these; and more.<br /><br />Karl Roden was finally not the antagonist in a movie, to start with. Kristin Scott Thomas played her role well, but the real two stars in my opinion were Tomer Sisley and Miki Manojlovic, both acting superbly. In Radivoje Bukvic portrayed Goran well.<br /><br />The mixed linguistics brought a nice color to the movie, but I understand why people would get bored with it.<br /><br />The scenery of Hong Kong and especially the stunning Croatian seaside both amazed me, and I hardly wanted to take my eyes off the screen when Largo entered the unbelievably beautiful island.<br /><br />Rolls Royce Phantom; Mercedes S500, and BMW 7; if anyone loves expensive limousine - type cars; this is their movie. It is also a movie for people who love action sequences, good acting, landscapes of extremal beauty, and above all, a fast - paced, well written action movie, with dazzling combat and a thoroughly twined inner drama.<br /><br />My vote, as it has enlightened a gloomy day is: 10/10

3very positive

trimmed_train

First off to get my own personal feelings out of the way let me start by saying that I hate so called comedies where every single character is written and played as being so stupid that you wounder if they're all the result of inbreeding.<br /><br />Now I will say this I did see the first three American Pie movies and while they weren't the most amazing movies that I'd ever seen they were all right (and outright masterpieces compared to the three "American Pie Presents" films), I still feel compelled to ask what the hell were they thinking when they made this movie?<br /><br />I also have a few other questions too.<br /><br />Who thought that this was an acceptable use of studio funds and production resources? <br /><br />who approved the final script (and what was that person smoking when they approved it)? <br /><br />And lastly why did anyone think that it deserved to be released into theaters where the average cost of admission is between 10 and 15 dollars depending on where you live when it should have gone straight to the discount bin at Blockbuster or Wal Mart?<br /><br />There is so much wrong with this movie that I can't write a really comprehensive review of it because it would exceed the maximum allowed words on this forum so I'll just touch on the biggest things wrong with it.<br /><br />The plot is generic uninspired and stupid and characters are all about as interesting as watching paint dry for eighty minutes but the biggest thing that I can see wrong with this movie is the acting.<br /><br />While most of the cast are talentless no namers who will probably be forgotten in a few years,<br /><br />the one and only big name in this movie is Eugene Levy who spends almost all of the time he is on screen with this knowing smirk on his face that says to the viewer "I know this isn't funny and I'm wasting my talents but hey I'm getting payed for it so who cares" he doesn't even try to make any of his jokes funny (he really deserves better than this garbage). <br /><br />As I mentioned above most of the rest of the cast are horrible even though some of them have been in some really great TV shows, Tyrone Savage (from the classic Canadian series Wind At My Back) plays a character who is so unbearable unlikeable and irritating (there are things that he could teach to tropical skin diseases)that you almost wish he'd die a slow and painful death on screen, Christopher McDonald (NCIS, Law & Order) just hangs around on screen and wastes what talent he does have by being in this film.<br /><br />Maybe the next film in this series will just be a soft core porn with a story line so they can get around the MPAA and get an R rating this movie goes all out with pointless nudity vulgarity and pointlessly offencive sexual content that it should have gotten the X rating (the ratings board must have been drunk or on drugs when they reviewed this film for its rating). <br /><br />It's interesting that twenty five years ago when Wes Craven submitted A Nightmare On Elm Street to the MPAA for a rating review they forced him to cut twenty five seconds of footage (I believe that it was part of a death scene that had a silicone casting of a breast in it) to avoid getting an X rating and he had no other choice but to do it or the film wouldn't have been released, <br /><br />but this kind of needlessly offensive trash can get the R rating today because it's all done in the name of comedy, if this movie was a drama or horror film with this kind of content there would have been a huge stink over the content and it would havegotten the dreaded X rating.<br /><br />The last thing that really annoys me is the writing, this movie is written to play out like the wet dream of some twelve year old kid with an extremely overactive sexual imagination its quite juvenile and extraordinarily crass, nearly every expository situation that is supposed to move the corpse that this movie calls a plot along is so telegraphed that any intelligent viewer can see it coming a mile away and and the so called characters are just stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes, never mind the often repulsive sexual references and constant unnecessary scenes of deviant sexual behavior it feels like this film was written by some incompetent first year hack in a low rent film school script writing class.<br /><br />the long and short of it is its time to kill this series before it gets any stupider more crass and offensive, this pie is filled with road apples.

2very negative

trimmed_train

This is quite possibly the most retarded 80's slasher ever realized, but how can you be harsh on a film that features non-stop images of dozens of gorgeous ladies with exhilarating bodies doing aerobic exercises, taking showers and wandering about in tight gym outfits? Prior to being a horror film, "Aerobicide" is a 90 minutes promo video to encourage the use of steroids, silicons and other body-stimulating fitness products. If you'd leave out all the footage of hunky boys lifting weights and yummy girls wiggling their butts and racks to insufferable 80's tunes, there probably only have about 15 minutes of story left. Plenty of time to improvise a plot about a sadist killer slaughtering young health-freaks with a big safety pin (yeah…). The film opens with an unintentionally hilarious scene of a girl getting fried between an electric sun-bathing device. Several years later people turn up dead in the same spa. You don't really need to be an experienced horror fanatic or a rocket scientist to figure out there's a link between the murders and the burning incident, now do you? Investigating the case are a seemingly braindead police officer (and Charles Napier look-alike!) and a beefcake private detective who gets lucky with the bustiest 80's beauty I've ever seen! Looking through the credits, her name's Dianne Copeland apparently, and she didn't do anything else apart from this turkey and an imbecile Troma-movie called "Surf Nazis Must Die". What a wasted opportunity! She may not have been a great actress, but she sure had two other BIG advantages that would help her move upwards in show business. The amount of gore and the quality of the make-up effects are nothing special, neither. We're treated to a couple of bizarre stabbings with a pin and some barbecued human flesh. The plot twists near the end are ridiculous and predictable, but by that time nobody is taking the film seriously anymore, anyway. "Aerobicide" (a.k.a. "Killer Workout") is recommended in case you want to switch of all your brain functions off for one night, but nevertheless feel like watching a film! It actually would make a terrific double-feature with "Death Spa". Both films have a lot of sexy and scarcely dressed babes … and both films are pretty dumb.

1negative

trimmed_train

this one of the best celebrity's reality shows a ever saw. we can see the concerts we can see the life of Britney, i love the five episodes. i was always being surprised by Britney and the subjects of the show i think that some people don't watch the show at all we can how a great person she his. she his really funny really gentle and she loves her fans and we can see how she loves her work. i just don't give a 10 because of k-fed he his a real jerk he doesn't seem to like Britney at all. I they make a second season of this great show because it shows at some people how Britney really is. Go Britney your the best and you will never leave our hearts.

1negative

trimmed_train

It's like this ... you put in the DVD and the most professional-looking thing you see over the next ninety minutes is the logo of the distribution company. And at this point, you know you've just been jerked around.<br /><br />People are generally trusting enough to assume that if something has been put on DVD, it's going to be of a certain level -- at least financially if not creatively. But sadly this isn't the case. Distribution companies are perfectly happy to throw together DVDs of amateur movies and ship them right out into the stores to await the unsuspecting buyer who is drawn in by the well-designed DVD cover. The weight behind this particular project is most likely independent horror movie pioneer Kevin J Lindenmuth, whose name may be known amongst genre fans since he's responsible for various other low-budget werewolf movies -- "Rage of the Werewolf", "Werewolf Tales" and so on.<br /><br />"Blood of the Werewolf" is made up of three short independent werewolf stories with no real connection other than the fact that they deal with hereditary shapeshifters. The first segment, "Blood Reunion", pretty much sets the tone for the whole thing ... a man returns to his home town to look up a girl who had a crush on, only to find that her domineering grandmother refuses to let her have relationships with men, and for reasons which are somehow related to a dark family secret. This instalment is poorly directed, poorly directed, and basically nothing superior to what you could throw together yourself with a few friends and a home video camera.<br /><br />The second story, "Old Blood", is probably the strongest out of the three and is directed by Lindenmuth himself. It tells the story of a lesbian couple, one of whom is a shapeshifter and the other wishes to be given this power. Her wish is granted, but she doesn't become the creature that she envisioned. This short movie shows that Lindemuth has more talent and experience than the other filmmakers who worked on this project, but still not enough to raise it above the level of an amateur movie.<br /><br />And finally we have "Manbeast", in which some army guy runs through the woods while being chased by two other fellas. They wish to kill him as he has been bitten by the beast and is believed to be dangerous, but all might not be as it seems. This one has an interesting concept, but it's stretched out to be far too long, and if you don't guess what the "twist" is in the first ten minutes then you probably ain't too bright. This pretty much sums up the problem with this whole DVD ... a few good ideas just aren't enough to justify spending money on something like this. After all, would you pay for a picture you could have painted yourself?

1negative

trimmed_train

This is absolutely the dumbest movie I've ever seen. What a waste of a splendid cast. That's James Cromwell as the ignoramus playing deputy. I could go on and on, but I would obviously be spending more time on this review than anybody ever did on the script. The only thing this movie is about is us vs. them and how to revel in profane slapstick beyond any reasonable human being's tolerance. This is one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen -- and I LOVE James Garner.

2very negative

trimmed_train

The potential movie extravaganza, set during the 19th century, failed to produce. With big-name actors like Maggie Smith, Albert Finney, and many others, there was no reason for the movie to fail. However, the movie lacked an ending, had a sorry excuse for a plot line, and fell to pieces with its continuity. A typical story of a rich girl and a poor boy, brought together by love and destroyed by beauty (or lack thereof) and disapproval, has a touching side of a mother's early death and an absentee father. The father, played by Finney, is a disturbed man, tormenting his daughter in life as well as death. He believes his daughter's lack of good looks would ruin his fortune by marrying beneath their social status. The actors vainly attempted to salvage what was left of the storyline. Washington Square is a black hole of ruin and destruction, wasting precious time of those who sorrowfully watch. I give this movie a 1 instead of a 0, purely for the actors' attempts. Save yourself, stay clear of Washington Square.

2very negative

trimmed_train

Do you like stand up? Then stay away from this...<br /><br />During the early rounds, there are in fact good comics, but unless they got some cute qualities, they got a snowballs chance. Any controversial material and you are OUT! ...and I think I hurt as much as the discarded comedians, when I see who the crooked judges are letting in.<br /><br />1 out of my top 4 made it further than the preliminaries. Half+ of the finalists have given me 0 laughs. Several of them have lifted their material elsewhere, something the judges doesn't seem to have problems with.<br /><br />It is more entertaining than a lot of what else is on TV, but incredibly hard to watch without contemplating what it could have been.<br /><br />If the producers changed the name of the contest to "Last Clown Standing", all my criticism would loose validity. Maybe an idea?

1negative

trimmed_train

Don't believe all of the negative reviews this movie receives. Yes, it is cheaply made. Yes, the gore is laughable. And, yes, the acting is sub-par. However, this is a textbook example of an early slasher flick, and if that is your "thing" (its mine!) then you will enjoy this one. There are enough good aspects to this movie to more than compensate for the drawbacks. For one, the score by a then unknown Christopher Young is very creepy and accents the violence perfectly. The ending is a welcomed break from the predictable upbeat endings of most movies. And last, but not least, the setting is what made the film for me. The makers of this film could have done a much better job "dressing" the set to make it more believable as a college dorm. However, if you can overlook this flaw, the setting is great. Four collegiates all alone in a huge, abandoned, condemned building just waiting to be torn down.... it reaks of possibility. When watching, allow your imagination to do some of the work and you may enjoy this film as much as I did.

0positive

trimmed_train

I know, I know: it's childish. But I just love this type of movie. A bird that suffered a lot of "mishaps" and still hasn't lost his faith in humanity and his sense of humor. What's special about this film is the fact that the main character is Paulie -the parrot- and he's not used as a boost to some hotshot human actor. Furthermore I like the storyline: Paulie tells his lifestory to a cleaner at the point he hit rock bottom. (By the way: Jay Mohr's voice almost sounds like Joe Pesci's!). And Cheech Marin of course, the man IS humor to me. Ever since I saw "Up in Smoke" I have appreciated his naive way of performing, making a simple situation a hilarious one.. can't help myself.

0positive

trimmed_train

Chan Wook Park is nothing if not inventive. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK is chock full of amusing little technical flourishes with some ingenious ideas sprinkled in between. Attempting to walk in the footsteps of the likes of Marc Caro and Jeunet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, DELICATESSEN), Park embarks on a fanciful, lighthearted tale which is a radical departure from his usual morbid fare. Hardly one to be faulted for his ambition or his vision, it is genuinely unexpected, then, to see all Park's effort add up to so very little.<br /><br />I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK seems astonishingly to subtract from itself as it goes along, with the the end result being a fraction of the sum of its parts. The premise is promising, gags are copious and offbeat humour abounds but it all fails miserably to create any meaningful connection with the audience. The characters are cute and quirky and played with gusto by the cast, but, try as i might, i could not bring myself to care for any.<br /><br />SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE was a misstep, indicating perhaps that Park was overindulging himself a little bit, but it still managed to showcase some of the director's unique flare and in the wake of an impressive filmography, was readily forgiven. None of the assured confidence that commanded JOINT SECURITY AREA or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is evident here. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK left me so utterly unengaged i caught myself instinctively fast forwarding from time to time (more regularly as the film progressed). I gave LADY a 5/10, and by that measure, this probably deserves no more than a 3. For old time's sake, i'll be generous: 4/10

1negative

trimmed_train

Obsession comes in many flavors, and exists for a variety of reasons; for some it may be nothing more than a compulsive disorder, but for others it may be an avenue of survival. Lack of nurturing, combined with an inability to negotiate even the simplest necessities of daily life or the basic social requirements, may compel even a genius to enthusiastically embrace that which provides a personal comfort zone. And in extreme cases, the object of that satisfaction may become a manifested obsession, driving that individual on until what began as a means of survival becomes the very impetus of his undoing, and as we discover in `The Luzhin Defence,' directed by Marleen Gorris, a high level of intelligence will not insure a satisfactory resolution to the problem, and in fact, may actually exacerbate the situation. Obsession, it seems, has no prejudice or preference; moreover, it gives no quarter.<br /><br /> At an Italian resort in the 1920's, Alexander Luzhin (John Turturro) is one of many who have gathered there for a chess tournament, the winner of which will be the World Champion. Luzhin is a Master of the game, but he is vulnerable in that chess has long since ceased to be a game to him; rather, it is his obsession, that one thing discovered in childhood that saw him though his total ineptness in seemingly all areas of life, and enabled him to cope with the subtle disenfranchisements of his immediate family. So Luzhin is a genius with an Achilles heel, a flaw which perhaps only one other person knows about and understands, and furthermore realizes can be exploited for his own personal gain at this very tournament. That man is Valentinov (Stuart Wilson), Luzhin's former mentor, who after an absence of some years has suddenly reappeared and made himself known to Luzhin.<br /><br /> Valentinov is an unwelcomed, disconcerting presence to Luzhin, and once again life threatens to overwhelm him. Not only is he about to face a formidable opponent in the tournament, Turati (Fabio Sartor), against whom in a previous match he emerged with a draw after fourteen hours, but he is also attempting to resolve a new element in his life-- his feelings for a young woman he's just met at the resort, Natalia (Emily Watson). And, genius though he may be, dark clouds are gathering above him that just may push Luzhin even deeper into the obsession that has been the saving grace, as well the curse, of his entire life.<br /><br /> To tell Luzhin's story, Gorris effectively uses flashbacks to gradually reveal the elements of his childhood that very quickly led to his obsession with chess. And as his background is established, it affords the insights that allow the audience to more fully understand who Luzhin is and how he got to this point in his life. For the scenes of his childhood, Gorris textures them with an appropriately dark atmosphere and a subtle sense of foreboding that carries on into, and underlies, the present, more pastoral setting of the resort. The transitions through which she weaves the past together with the present are nicely handled, and with the pace Gorris sets it makes for a riveting, yet unrushed presentation that works extremely well. She also underplays the menace produced by the presence of Valentinov, concentrating on the drama rather than the suspense, which ultimately serves to heighten the overall impact of the film, making Luzhin's tragedy all the more believable and unsettling.<br /><br /> The single element that makes this film so memorable, however, is the affecting performance of John Turturro. For this film to work, Luzhin must be absolutely believable; one false or feigned moment would be disastrous, as it would take the viewer out of the story immediately. It doesn't happen, however, and the film does work, because the Luzhin Turturro creates is impeccably honest and true-to-life. He captures Luzhin's genius, as well as his inadequacies, and presents his character in terms that are exceptionally telling and very real. It's a performance equal to, if not surpassing, Geoffrey Rush's portrayal of David Helfgott in `Shine.' And when you compare his work here with other characters he's created, from Sid Lidz in `Unstrung Heroes' to Pete in `O Brother Where Art Thou?' to Al Fountain in `Box of Moonlight,' you realize what an incredible range Turturro has as an actor, and what a remarkable artist he truly is.<br /><br /> As Natalia, Emily Watson is excellent, as well, turning in a fairly reserved performance through which she develops and presents her character quite nicely. Though she has to be somewhat outgoing to relate to Luzhin, Watson manages to do it in an introspective way that is entirely effective. Most importantly, because of the detail she brings to her performance, it makes her accelerated relationship with Luzhin believable and lends total credibility to the story. You have but to look into Watson's eyes to know that the feelings she's conveying are real. It's a terrific bit of work from a talented and gifted actor.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Geraldine James (Vera), Christopher Thompson (Stassard), Peter Blythe (Ilya), Orla Brady (Anna), Mark Tandy (Luzhin's Father), Kelly Hunter (Luzhin's Mother), Alexander Hunting (Young Luzhin) and Luigi Petrucci (Santucci). Well crafted and delivered, `The Luzhin Defence' is an emotionally involving film, presented with a restrained compassion that evokes a sense of sorrow and perhaps a reflection upon man's inhumanity to man. We don't need a movie, of course, to tell us that there is cruelty in the world; but we are well served by the medium of the cinema when it reminds us of something we should never forget, inasmuch as we all have the ability to effect positive change, and to make a difference in the lives of those around us. I rate this one 9/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />

3very positive

trimmed_train

"Shower" is an story about loyalty, about the unstoppable advance of modern world in the detriment of rather traditional and more human ways of life. A man forced to choose between his successful career in business, his big-city life, his wife, and his retarded young brother. The eternal doubt between what we WANT to do and what we SHOULD do. The modern China versus the ancient one. The public baths with its gatherings, its cricket fights versus the shopping centres and the skyscraper. Lots of old men and women that are no longer needed. China, one country, two systems, as Xiao Ping said ... though one of them is killing the other. <br /><br />Tender, moving, full of funny moments, and of bitter-sweet ones.The sensitive ones will cry and laugh equally. The actors are enormous, especially the one who performs the role of the retarded boy; and Yang Zhang makes a good job, easy, simple, letting the story just flow by itself.<br /><br />My rate: 8/10

0positive

trimmed_train

This is one of those westerns that, well, stands practically alone in the unrelieved quality of its dialog. Very few can hold up to it over the long haul. That said, the rest is pretty bad. Nevertheless I am giving it an eight because there is no other western with such consistently good dialog with maybe the exception of The Wild Bunch, Junior Bonner, and perhaps a few more. <br /><br />It is riddled with weaknesses, John Drew Barrimore the most glaring. However it does have one truly memorable scene. Nothing like it. Its right after Kid Wichita kills the sheriff, and goes to Jack Elams place trying to goad him into a fight. Wonderful stuff. Right up with the best in any western.

0positive

trimmed_train

Now, admittedly, I'm no ardent student of the genre. As a matter of fact, I've tended always to shy away from Westerns because, in spite of all their critical cachet as America's primal stories (or whatever), they seem to me to forever devolve into tiresome retreads of either "shoot up the Injuns," "the big gunfight," or "Hey, let's form a posse!" In other words, it always seemed to me a genre so rooted in and tied to convention, that it left precious little room for surprise or originality. (And yes, I HAVE seen at least some of the so-called "greats", and unapologetically lump them into this negative assessment - including Stagecoach, Rio Bravo, My Darling Clementine, and of course the infamous [but profoundly dull] Clint Eastwood-Sergio Leone teamups in the '60s.)<br /><br />But when I saw this movie on TV - as part of a commemorative Jimmy Stewart weekend upon his death - I finally GOT IT: I understood, at least in theory, what the Western mythos has to offer as a serious thematic preoccupation (aside from just action and thrills). It is the push-pull between lawlessness and order; the American West represented freedom, but also the prospect of the wild, the untamed. Respectable folk could get hurt out there. Which, of course, meant that perhaps - just perhaps - it wasn't meant for respectable folk, and that the only residents should be the amoral and the shifty, those who dispensed justice strictly from the barrel of their revolvers, and where kill or be killed would ever be the law of the land. In such an environment, of course, the true heroes are the ones who are ornery and free-spirited enough to be out there in the first place (and so reject "society," at least as it manifested itself on the Eastern seaboard), and yet have enough sense of justice to believe that a society based on chaos and fear just IS NOT RIGHT. Catching and examining that disparity between law and disorder IN THE MAIN CHARACTER HIMSELF is, I believe (after seeing this movie), the highest and truest goal of any Western. Sadly, it is so often not the case, as the white hats are completely white, the black ones completely black (and let's not even get started talking about the Indians, ok) and there is precious little shades of gray in between.<br /><br />Not in this one. Jimmy Stewart plays a blatant fortune hunter who follows the trail of miners before him into the Alaskan wilderness to prospect for gold. He is joined in this by his lifelong buddy, played by Walter Brennan (perhaps the Western cliché character to end them all - but nevertheless enjoyable here, as always) - and no one else. Pointedly, they are out for themselves, and while Stewart displays his patented charm (come on, we could never really dislike the guy, now could we?), we are left with little doubt that his is basically a self-centered, self-interested character: none of his "Gosh" or "Oh golly gee" humanism is allowed to come through. Or, rather, it has to be EARNED, by the end of the picture, in the way I described above. He must confront the lawlessness in himself, and weigh it against the need for order and justice which are so blatantly lacking in the border town which serves as the miners' starting point on their gold dust trail. This town is ruled tightly by its wicked sheriff, Mr. Gannon, played by John McIntire in one of the best "bad guy" performances I've ever seen. He comes on with so much charm and humor, and has such a relaxed and interesting rapport with Stewart, that it actually takes awhile to recognize that he *is* the bad guy - so that when it finally sinks in, it does so with double force. Further, by establishing a type of breezy (if necessarily guarded) camaraderie between McIntire and Stewart, the film plays up the notion of how close in temperament they really are - and so how far a moral distance Stewart must walk by the end of the film.<br /><br />I won't go through all the twists and turns the plot takes - see those for yourself (as well as the rugged and gorgeous Alaskan scenery - filmed on location, mind you, not cheap painted stills that the studio made up). What's key here is how much this story focuses upon character, with great dialogue and character interaction substituting for gunplay much of the time - although the film has just enough action and adventure to prevent it from ever being static (read: "talky"). Definitely one of the greatest performances I've seen from Stewart, showing he could play the renegade, the "man's man" just as convincingly as the decent and upright guy next door. If anything, in fact, his "everyman" qualities lend greater strength to his characterization, making him seem less mythic or overblown - -like, say, Eastwood or John Wayne - and more a three-dimensional personage. His relationship with Brennan is well-played: understated, but nevertheless touching (with a faint suggestion of George and Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" - an altogether different type of "western").<br /><br />I certainly have more Westerns to see, but this is for now my favorite, and the yardstick by which I will necessarily judge all the others. It deserves to be much better known and appreciated than it is.

0positive

trimmed_train

I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.<br /><br />Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.<br /><br />This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.

2very negative

trimmed_train

Hello, I was alanrickmaniac. I'm a Still Crazy-holic. It was just another movie I watched partly on TV. Then I had to get the video tape to finally find out how it ends. Then I wanted the DVD, because the tape showed first signs of decay after a few weeks. After the DVD I had to lay my hands on the soundtrack. Then on several film posters and the film script. Right now it has become that worse that I try to push other people into addiction with my website and Still Crazy parties. <br /><br />How could that happen? What drove me into addiction? <br /><br />OK, it's one of those funny but somehow sad and melancholic intelligent comedies like only the British can produce. <br /><br />Alright, the movie is worlds apart from stuff like ''This Is Spinal Tap'', because of the characters, that aren't childish or ultra cool, but real. This is a story about men getting older, too. A story about men getting along with each other. Or don't. It contains some of the best actors possible. Tim Spall. Stephen Rea. Bruce Robinson. Jimmy Nail. And Bill Nighy. Bill Nighy who puts on one of the best performances I've ever seen in a film.<br /><br />Good, the soundtrack is unbelievable. Foreigner's Mick Jones has written the songs for the imaginary band Strange Fruit. Jimmy Nail who plays bass-man Les Wickes and Bill Nighy portraying the egocentric but awkward singer Ray Simms are really singing. We know that about Jimmy Nail, but if you've only heard Bill Nighy's singing in "Love Actually", you have no idea how great and powerful his voice is. <br /><br />Well, you'll fever for every scene to come for the x-th time, especially those concert scenes. You'd die to be able to really stand in the dancing crowd when Strange Fruit is doing "All Over The World", singing on the top of your lungs. You long to cry and celebrate with thousands of people the rebirth of the real Strange Fruit at Wisbech's festival stage. <br /><br />It's hard but... I'm addicted to this film. I'm addicted to Strange Fruit. If there's a world where this band really exists I'd like to move there. <br /><br />Got Still Crazy... anyone?

3very positive

trimmed_train

I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.<br /><br />It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.<br /><br />I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home.......

2very negative

trimmed_train

Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them.

2very negative

trimmed_train

This movie is very much like "Flashdance", you know that dance flick with Jennifer Beals. That film is probably the most boring film I have ever seen since it's not even bad enough to be funny. "G.I. Jane" is much better than that film, but that doesn't say much. Here Demi Moore sweats a lot and there's high music and we get to see her fight and everything, but it is certainly not very engaging. I really think the idea behind the film is kind of interesting, but the script is too clichéd and Ridley Scott can't do anything about that. Well, like I said... It's better than "Flashdance"... (4/10)

1negative

trimmed_train

The makers of this film have created a future where not only is abortion and birth control illegal in every state,but women are prosecuted for murder and sent away to serve long prison sentences.In other words,this film is every liberals worst nightmare!The political agenda is so heavy-handed here and the style of the film is so low-key that it just loses steam pretty quickly.Regardless of which side of the fence you're on,I'd recommend skipping it.

1negative

trimmed_train

Tyrannosaurus Azteca is set during the sixteenth century where famous Spanish explorer Hernando Cortes (Ian Ziering) has landed in Mexico with six of his best men including Lieutenant Rios (Marco Sanchez), they intend to claim the land in the name of the Spanish & maybe steal some gold too if the opportunity arises. Within minutes they have their first sight of local Aztec savages, within minutes after that Cortes & his men are captured & held prisoner. If that wasn't bad enough it turns out that a couple of Tyrannosaurus Rex live there & like to eat the locals, in an effort to win their lives the Spanish offer to help the locals get rid of their monster problem but with various hidden agendas & ulterior motives it's not just the dinosaurs they have to watch out for...<br /><br />Directed by Brian Trenchard-Smith (who, coincidently, made one of my all time favourite exploitations films Turkey Shoot (1982) which I throughly recommend to one & all) & also more commonly known under the spoof sounding title of Aztec Rex (the title was changed by the Sci-Fi Channel when they aired it maybe as the original title Tyrannosaurus Azteca sounds like it might be a foreign film) this is yet another idiotic & cheap looking Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' & that's all you need to know really. Based on & around the real Spanish Conquistador Cortes during his expedition to Mexico the film definitely doesn't strive for historic accuracy although I will admit that the story tries to do something slightly different here but ultimately Tyrannosaurus Azteca is still just a 'Creature Feature' with a bunch of people running from some poor CGI computer graphic of a monster despite it's period setting. Not too sure what else I can say, despite being set centuries ago the usual clichés are here, the character's are the usual cardboard cutouts, make stupid decisions & the selfish one, the heroic one, the backstabbing one, the faceless victim who exists just to get eaten & the pretty woman are all here & easy to spot. The film is predictable, silly, dull & doesn't really entertain on any level although it does move along at a decent pace & there's one or two half decent moments of gore if that sort of thing interests you. The story isn't that good & has plenty of holes too, this is also the sort of film that you will have completely forgotten about within a few days.<br /><br />Now I have seen & commented on plenty of Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Features' & usually the CGI computer effects are terrible & while Tyrannosaurus Azteca doesn't exactly buck the trend I will admit there are a few effects shots which look alright but then they are usually ruined by an absolutely awful effects shot straight afterwards. There's a few decent gore effects here too, there's a cut out heart, a guy's leg is bitten off, there's some blood splatter, a cool shot of a guy left holding his own intestines after he has been attacked by the dinosaur, there's a few dead bodies seen & someone is stabbed with a spear. The T-Rex gets to eat a couple of people too. The production values are really cheap, the Aztec set looks like one of those theme park attractions made from Styrofoam & those Spanish men must have been imprisoned in the worst enclosure in cinematic history with the fence supposedly keeping them in lower than a mans waist, they could have simply stepped out of it & run away it was so low.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $900,000 I can't see where the money went, shot in O'ahu in Hawaii in apparently fifteen days. The acting isn't great from no-one I have ever heard of.<br /><br />Tyrannosaurus Azteca really isn't any better than any other cheap Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' despite an almost interesting & unusual premise, that basic statement should basically be enough for you to decide whether you will enjoy this or not (at a guess probably not).

1negative

trimmed_train

no, this is not supposed to be a high budget brilliance, but it is brilliant in its own right. you have to look at it for what it is, a low budget masterpiece involving a zombie rapist wielding a 12 inch love rod that he keeps out flapping in stride. those who came to give this movie a low review were probably looking for the next cult classic or hidden "gem" as they say and just didn't quite get there. i love how everyone points out obvious observations such as the "5 cent baby attached to a fish pole" hahaha, well, yes. i don't think a movie with a budget like this could afford "good" actors or effects so they worked with what they had. the guts and entrails were actually very convincing. the movie was a little choppy going from sequence to sequence but overall, this is one of the better movies i have seen lately that doesn't follow any trend or predictability. very good for a laugh.

3very positive

trimmed_train

I am not one of those people who just go online after I see a movie and decide to call it the worst movie ever made. If you doubt me, please look at my other reviews. However, for the first time ever, I have seen a movie so horrible that I wanted to write about how bad it was before it was even over.<br /><br />I LOVE bad movies. To me, Ed Wood is a genius, I thought Bloody Murder, Jeepers Creepers and most horrible horror movies were good. However, there is not a single good thing I can say about this film.<br /><br />The plot is basically non existent. If someone reading my review wastes their money to see it, they can discern for themselves what the plot might be, but I advise you that a nickel would be worth more than watching this movie.<br /><br />The special effects are bad.<br /><br />The acting is bad.<br /><br />The two leads are attractive, but that's all there is.<br /><br />I am not the type to spoil a movie for anyone, but I INVITE anyone to email me at foxbarking@yahoo.com to ask for my opinion on this movie before they waste a dime on it. I will tell you anything.<br /><br />I love bad movies, and I love horror and I love new inventive movies. I even love horror porn stuff like Hostel (Which some reviewers claimed this was like, but obviously they only thought so cause Roger Bart was in this and Hostel 2). But this may be the Number 1 most worthless and stupid and dumbass movie EVER made.<br /><br />And before you disregard this review, this is coming from someone who not only sat through the ENTIRE premiere of House of the Dead, but actually bought a copy of it.

2very negative

trimmed_train

Man On Fire tells a story of an ex-special forces guy with a drinking problem who accepts a job as a personal bodyguard of a little girl in Mexico during the wave of kidnappings for ransom. At first he's not to friendly, but then they befriend with each other, he decides to stop drinking etc., etc... then one day she gets kidnapped... and killed...<br /><br />And HE, won't stop at anything to get the revenge.<br /><br />That's basically the story of Man On Fire but expect some big twists at least a few times including the ending which is beautiful and will probably make you cry.<br /><br />That's also because of the great music Harry-Gregson Williams with Lisa Gerrard (Gladiator) composed.<br /><br />But the strongest part of the movie... wait... the thing is, everything here is perfect.<br /><br />First - acting. Denzel Washington is at his best, Mickey Rourke and Christopher Walken good as always, great Radtha Mitchell and AMAZING young Dakota Fanning. And that's not the end of the list...<br /><br />Then come the cinematography which is dazzling and along with superb editing, should have won an Oscar for sure.<br /><br />The story is... not just a revenge movie. The story is intelligent, the story makes you think... and is pure beautiful. Really.<br /><br />This is one of those movies you need to see in your lifetime, at least once!

3very positive

trimmed_train

Of life in (some) colleges. Of course there were artistic licenses taken, but some of what you saw in this film go on in some colleges.<br /><br />I went to colleges in Southern California where the races pretty much hang around with their own. It's funny because these are schools that want racial unity, equality etc. and I can honestly say, that it's there. But the thing is when class lets out, or when they're just hanging out waiting for class, they (students) seem to just hang around with people of their own race or ethnicity. Is that bad? Not really. Everyone needs a feeling of belonging. But like the school paper of one of the schools I attended once wrote about that, "we should all try to hang around with students of other ethnicities and try to know them." Otherwise you're creating your own segregation.<br /><br />Racism certainly existed in one of those schools I attended. One time someone put leaflets around campus talking about the glories of the Aryan Race and had the symbols of some of those racist organizations. Fortunately, nothing happened like the incident in the movie where the young Caucasian man went off and started shooting at a multiculturalism gathering.<br /><br />I can only hope and pray that nothing like that ever will happen.<br /><br />So is "Higher Learning" overly dramatic? Exaggerated? Maybe. Is it way "off mark?" It depends on where you went to or go to school. The race thing where the ethnicities just hang around with their own DOES happen. Minus the Hollywood exaggerations, the race thing hit pretty close to home for me.

0positive

trimmed_train

Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much better written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script deteriorates from the mildly amusing first 10 min into a drivel that makes Beavis and Butthead to appear sophisticated in comparison. Still Crazy is formulaic but the likability of the characters and the unexpectedly high quality of some musical numbers for me managed to offset the a priori predictability of the movie. People who expect Spinal Tap-like attempt on satire would be disappointed by the light-hearted nature of the movie, but I'd take a successful self-ironic romp of Still Crazy over a pompous but failed shot at satire which is Spinal Tap.

3very positive

trimmed_train

One thing I'm sure everyone who has seen this film will agree on is that it is very creepy. The other films in Polanski's unofficial trilogy are creepy too, but they are all different in what makes them creepy, but they all roughly deal with the same thing, they all deal with the mind. Definitely the staring people are very creepy, each of them sent shivers down my spine that made me incapable of sitting still. Again, if you have seen the other two films mentioned, I'm sure you'll find this quite creepy, because you begin to expect typical Polanski traits that you think you have caught onto, he is aware of this and will keep teasing you with simple things, personally every time Trelkovsky would slowly turn around I would be bracing myself for a jump, maybe that's just me, but it felt intended to do that, though it was quite subtle, there is no build up of the music in those moments.<br /><br />The acting in this was pretty good, mostly that from Polanski of course, the other characters in the film don't have all that much time to outshine the lead. Polanski really proves himself as an all-round great filmmaker, he not only can direct and write great films, but he can actually act too. I don't think there is any other better person who could have pulled off the Trelkovsky character, Polanski settled right on in perfectly. I like seeing films where the director is also apart of the main cast, to me it really highlights their fantastic versatility and talent, which I respect greatly.<br /><br />One thing I didn't like about this film is how it was done in English. For those who don't know, this is a French film, American financed, and as well to make it more commercially successful it was mostly done in English. There are parts which it is very obvious there has been dubbing, and I don't know why it is, but 3/4 of the time when there is a dub they get the complete wrong person to do the dub. There is a women in the film who when she speaks it's obvious it's a dub, but they got the most annoying person to do the voice-over, it was seriously pain to my ears to hear her speak, she had the loudest high pitch voice I've heard in a while, it almost seemed fake, but I don't see what the point was, she was a rather small character. I honestly would of preferred if they just left it as it was filmed, parts of it in French and parts of it in English, because the dubbing in this film was a pain and was not near (two completely different films, I know) the high standard of another film that did a similar thing, which was, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I realise it's not a big problem, just when you do realise it, it gets annoying, but I'm sure you won't sit there the long trying to lip read what they are actually saying, regardless if you know French.<br /><br />Whats so great about Polanski is that he will let you think you know him, that you know his style, which in some aspects you do, but really, you can't see whats behind that corner. This film is a lot more open to interpretation than the other two films mentioned, which I think really strengthens this one in particular. I personally feel this is the best of the three, I'm unsure which comes next, but they are all relatively close in their level of greatness. The ending is fantastic, it is so easy to dwindle on it for a long time to come and get nowhere. I choose not to think to much on it, just to have my personal opinion and leave it at that.<br /><br />I've rambled on, and I haven't really given any insight on what makes this film so great, I don't think, so I'll quickly do it here. If you liked Repulsion and/or Rosemary's Baby, I guarantee you will enjoy this film to say the least. For those who are too unfortunate to have seen either then I recommend you check this film out if your looking for something that is quite a creepy film that is quite intelligent, particularly the end, as well if your looking for something that deals with the mind, paranoia even, though that is better fitted under Repulsion.

0positive

trimmed_train

"People I Know" is a clunker with no one to root for and no one to care about -- despite the game efforts of a talented cast.<br /><br />Pacino delivers his usual tour de force as Eli Wurman, a past-his-prime publicity agent hollowed out by a lifetime of moral corruption. But unlike Michael Corleone, it's impossible to have an emotional investment in this character, his dilemma, or his fate.<br /><br />The film traces Eli's preparations for a benefit for a liberal political cause, while distracted by a client's (Ryan O'Neal, good in an underwritten part) latest "dirty laundry" -- in this case, a TV actress companion who's gotten involved with the wrong people. Tea Leoni brings her customary star power to this supporting role, although again, the script doesn't give her much to work with. As Eli's sister-in-law, Kim Basinger manages to evoke sympathy despite implausible plot mechanics.<br /><br />This movie is strictly for those who like watching Pacino strut his stuff, and enjoy the other principals. Unfortunately, between the script and direction, "People I Know" is strictly amateurish. Hence its limited theatrical release, and speedy journey to DVD. Consider yourself warned.

2very negative

trimmed_train

There are numerous films relating to WW2, but Mother Night is quite distinctive among them: In this film, we are introduced to Howard Campbell (Nolte), an American living in Berlin and married to a German, Helga Noth (Lee), who decides to accept the role of a spy: More specifically, a CIA agent Major Wirtanen (Goodman) recruits Campbell who becomes a Nazi propagandist in order to enter the highest echelons of the Hitler regime. However, the deal is that the US Government will never acknowledge Campbell's role in the war for national security reasons, and so Campbell becomes a hated figure across the US. After the war, he tries to conceal his identity, but the past comes back and haunts him. His only "friend" is Wirtanen, but even he cannot do much for the avalanche of events that fall upon poor Campbell...<br /><br />The story is deeply touching, as we watch the tragedy of Campbell who although a great patriot, is treated by disdain by everybody who surrounds him. Not only that, but he also gradually realizes that even the persons who are most close to him, have many secrets of their own. Vonnegut provides us with a moving atmosphere, with Campbell's despair building up and almost choking the viewer.<br /><br />Nolte plays the role of his life, in my opinion; he is even better than in "Affliction", although in both roles he plays tragic figures who are destined to self-destruction. Sheryl Lee is also excellent, and the same can be said for the whole cast in general.<br /><br />I haven't read the book, so I cannot appraise how the film compares to it. In any case, this is something of no importance here: My critique is upon the film per se, and the film wholeheartedly deserves a 9/10.

3very positive

trimmed_train

"Bye Bye Birdie" isn't one of the best musicals of all time, but it's great fun, and accessible to many audiences. The original film could have been wonderful, with Dick Van Dyke reprising his signature Broadway role, but instead they tinkered with the plot, so the film is very unsatisfying. This re-make, which aired on ABC in 1995, is far more faithful to the original script, and includes some original songs as well that were used in a national tour which this film took off from which starred Tommy Tune and Ann Reinking (who choreographed this film.)<br /><br />Jason Alexander is a very different type from Dick Van Dyke, but he is well cast as Albert, (before his "Seinfeld" days, he started in Musical theater.) Vanessa Williams is a perfect fit for Rose. Their is also great work from Tyne Daly as Mae and Mark Kudisch as Conrad Birdie ( a role he played on the national tour).<br /><br />This film is not without it's problems though. A major liability is Chynna Phillips, who, however appealing, simply looks and seems too old to be teenage Kim. And George Wendt is somewhat bland as her father, somewhat throwing the number "kids" away (a number original cast member Paul Lynde stole the show with.)<br /><br />But all in all, this is a delightful, well-done film which the material deserved.

0positive

trimmed_train

This movie is deeply idiotic. A man wants revenge for a crime- but when he enacts his revenge- there is a video camera pointed right at him the entire time. What man with a brain cell in his head would sit there and do this for so long in front of a video camera?<br /><br />Just the fact that this script could never even happen except with someone unable to dress themselves destroyed it for me- but it got dumber!!!<br /><br />I am thinking the script writers have some serious habits that are cooking their brain cells and making them miss plot holes you can drive an battalion of armored tanks through.<br /><br />PLOT: a man seeks revenge for the death of loved ones, but in the middle of the plot something goes totally wrong, and then the unexpected unfolds.<br /><br />If only these people writing this story hadn't been so dumb as to write totally unrealistic plot turns that could never happen this way. To the writers I say- seek help for your serious mental problem.

2very negative

trimmed_train

I thought this movie was very well put together. The voice-overs were also great. I liked how they all overcame their conflicts and reached their goals. I would recommend this movie to anyone. It was definitely worth the time and money to watch it. Atlantis has some comic scenes that made me laugh. Other scenes made me sad. And others made me glad. It is a movie any age can enjoy. From the moment Milo is the crazy "profesor" or until he gathers the crew up for the fantastic voyage under the sea. After I watched the movie, I read the book. It was good as well, but the movie puts better pictures in your mind. It is just like the book. But go ahead and watch this movie!

0positive

trimmed_train

The opening credits make for a brilliant, atmospheric piece of escapist entertainment that's full of little nods to the comic strip. All the good guys are good, all the bad guys are bad, and the film is jam-packed with familiar character actors covered in gruesom make-up to hi-lite their characteristics.<br /><br />Warren Beatty, as Dick Tracy, is the ultimate tough guy straight man, incorruptable, calm usually, always a better fighter than the other guy, and rarely one to push the limit on legality. Al Pacino, as "Big Boy" Caprice steals every scene he's in as a hunch-backed gangster in some unnamed metropolis of 1930s gangsters. Maddonna plays the kind of person she'd probably play best, Breathless Mahoney, a nightclub singer and femme fatale with her own little agenda going. Gleanne Headly is Tracy's tough-talking, fiercely independent long-time girlfrined. And then there's The Kid, a funny little street urchin Tracy takes in, who models himself after his surrogate father, and saves Tracy when the detective has accepted his fate of being blown up.<br /><br />The supporting players are a Who's Who of character actors. Charles Durning is the chief of police. Dick Van Dyke is the District Attorney, who's bribed by Big Boy's goons to keep him on the streets. Dustin Hoffman has a humorous turn as Mumbles, the snitch whose dialect is so indecipherable the cops can't make head nor tail of what he has to say. R.G. Armstrong is Pruneface, one of the rival gangsters Big Boy forms a special allegiance to in order to create a network of crime spreading throughout the whole city. Mandy Patinkin is 88 Keys, the piano player for Breathless's show. Paul Sorvino plays Lips Manlis, Breathless's former benefactor until Big Boy gives him "the Bath." James Caan wears relatively little make-up in his performance as the only gangster who won't go along with Big Boy's grand plan. William Forsythe and Ed O'Ross are Big Boy's enforcers, Flattop and Itchy.<br /><br />This movie retains all of the corn of the comic strip, plus it is full of vibrant colors. Almost all the suits are elaborate in blues and greens and yellows and reds. All the colors of the rainbow are found in this movie--and then some! The matte paintings that are used truly realize this world as two-dimensional, only acted in three-dimensional sets. The humor is plentiful. Al Pacino fills the shoes of his character like no other character he's played before or since. Big Boy is kind of crazy, and kind of self-pitying. He's an eccentric little man who takes pride in quoting our Founding Fathers and likening himself to great political leaders. The man with the plan, always looking for the smartest way to do business.

3very positive

trimmed_train

I too have gone thru very painful personal loss (Twice) and this movie portrays the gut wrenching reality of that experience very well, Life out of balance, nothing makes sense, well meaning relatives, etc...<br /><br />It was nice to see Ally again. She is one of my all time favorite movie actors.<br /><br />I laughed and cried as the story unfolded. Great story and cast. Well done!

0positive

trimmed_train

This is just about in the same league as `The Black Cat', although I'd give this a 9 rather than a 9+. That's praise indeed for a film that has been so badly underrated that it is amazing!<br /><br />`The Invisible Ray' is part horror, part drama and certainly part sci-fi. For a movie made in 1936 the sci-fi elements were a good deal ahead of their time. The mixture of horror, drama and sci-fi are a perfect blend, while the acting on the part of Lugosi and Karloff couldn't be better.<br /><br />Director Lambert Hillyer captures a lot of elements that James Whale did so often. What I'm saying is that this film is eerie and well shot. The scene with the gargoyles outside of Lugosi's room is a perfect example of the mood. It's a standout moment in the film, which is so sadly missing in today's movies of the genre.<br /><br />As with `The Black Cat' and `Island of Lost Souls', I can't understand why this film has yet to be released on DVD. When you consider some of the junk that's already been transferred to DVD it's that much more puzzling.<br /><br />Anyway, watch this film if you get the chance. When it's released on DVD grab it fast and put it in an honored spot within your DVD library.

3very positive

trimmed_train

I have only seen Gretchen Mol in two other films (Girl 6, Donnie Brasco), and don't really remember her, but she did a great job as a naive girl who posed for pictures because it made people happy.<br /><br />She really didn't think what she was doing was wrong, even when she left the business and found her religion again.<br /><br />The photos she made were certainly tame by today's standards, and it is funny seeing men with cameras get all excited, and politicians pontificating on the evils of pornography. David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck) played a super part here.<br /><br />Mary Harron (American Psycho) wrote and directed an outstanding biopic of the most famous pinup girl ever.

1negative

trimmed_train

The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.<br /><br />The original 1943 novel, called "The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate. <br /><br />Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about.

1negative

trimmed_train

What a pathetic movie.<br /><br />I won't waste much time commenting about it. I'm still trying to get back the couple hours I wasted on it.<br /><br />Let me leave it simply with - Shaq has NO BUSINESS being an actor or singer. He is utterly without talent at both discplines. It's a crying shame that substantially more talented people waste away in community theatres and karaoke bars while Shaq uses his name as a basketball player to undeservedly get cast in movies and cut CDs.<br /><br />Much of the failure of this movie was the pathetic no-talent that is Shaq.

2very negative

trimmed_train

You're waiting to see if the remake is better or worse. I rated the Audie Murphy movie a 3 (I'm a harsh grader), the second lowest I ever gave Audie (the worst being "Battle at Bloody Beach" if you're curious). I give this movie a rating of "8" (and I'm a harsh grader) It's the Civil War story of renegade "soldiers", if you want to call them that, against the North. People like Quantrell, and the men who rode with these outlaws.<br /><br />The original was a watery version, very clean cut, while still depicting the horror of what these men did. Actually, movies such as the older version are best viewed by mature audiences, who can discern the story. I would be more apt to rate the original "R" and this one, with it's gruff nature, a GP, because the newer movie gives a very honest version, a message more easily deciphered by a juvenile than the older version.<br /><br />Film makers since the early sixties have boasted about "Realism", but few of them deliver. Instead, they just give the drab scenery, drab costumes, and drab events, but with comic book cardboard stereotype characters, the weakness of the spaghetti era.<br /><br />Modern film makers have realized this mistake. It is evident in a superior style of Western we usually see today. This movie is an example. It gives the realistic settings, but also gives us characters we can believe exist in that era.<br /><br />It has a few lulls, which makes a complete sit through a bit hard, and it has some unexplained situations. But unexplained situations are okay as long the entire movie holds up, and the characters are intriguing enough.<br /><br />It begins a bit campy, but really improves. The main character is one we can identify, and at least have some sympathy for. The Audie Murphy character of the early movie really evokes no sympathy, and is too self righteous without motivation.<br /><br />The character in this movie follows the lines of a true anti-hero. There is motivation, and a method to his madness. We never feel he is truly "right", but we can understand where he comes from.<br /><br />There is plenty of action in the movie. There is also some humor. One good scene is when the heroine tells the hero she wouldn't lie to him, and he mulls that over.<br /><br />This movie succeeds in doing what film makers have been trying to do for decades. This director and writer team got it right.<br /><br />Recommended. Complete success.

0positive

trimmed_train

With its companion piece MASTERS OF HORROR, NIGHTMARES AND DREAMSCAPES can only be seen as the absolute nadir of the genre that began so auspiciously with THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS.<br /><br />Of course, part of the problem is that it does nothing to be of any interest to a comparatively adult audience, instead aiming at TEN-YEAR-OLDS, who are only able to count body-bags, and scarcely that. And so grossness is king, and King is grossness.<br /><br />Stephen King is simply illiterate – in general he has the aptitude for storytelling of Bart Simpson. Since he cannot read his sole inspiration is the movies.<br /><br />True, the cinema is not such a bad place to start, since it has generally escaped the onslaught of "Realism". But these films are only the rumor, not the thing, and if you want to WRITE, you have to dig deeper.<br /><br />Of course, only PICKMAN had monsters as close acquaintances. But even so, it should be clear to any undergraduate that vampires are not Dracula and Lugosi.<br /><br />At least AUTOPSY ROOM FOUR is a clear indication of what is wrong. One can almost imagine this pathetic dolt sitting as his desk trying to come up with something SCARY.<br /><br />Not, mind you, trying to describe accurately the horror of the system of which he is an integral part, making the stupid stupider, but trying to come up with a scary story for his little nephew. Suppose, you were paralyzed, and people thought you were dead and started to cut you open like they do at those autopsy things! Wouldn't that be gross? And that, boys and girls, is the story.<br /><br />What about characterization? Oh yes, he's one of these suits, who never really appreciated life, you know, and now it's too late, right? And he's shouting – well, they can't actually hear him, you know – he's saying that he's going to sue the hospital, but he's not such a big shot anymore, you see, lying there (or is it laying, I can never remember) and all. And he's thinking: Oh no please, please don't cut me and this is terrible, lying (or laying) like that – now, wouldn't that be a great story? You know I read somewhere that a snake bite can do that, I think it was that great medical authority Agatha Christie. What was the name of that snake again, oh yeah, a BOOMSLANG – has quite a ring to it, doesn't it.<br /><br />Let's make it a PERUVIAN BOOMSLANG! Sure, Steve, that's great – except that BOOMSLANG is Afrikaans, you moron! But how can you really tell that the target audience is children, and not simply mental defects? It's easy: There's no sex.<br /><br />Well, there is, but it's the kind glimpsed through a crack in the door to our parent's bedroom. Modern filmmakers are really big on the erotic aspects of the genre, the monster, the female victim, the chase.<br /><br />But unlike UNIVERSAL and LEWTON they have no idea what's going on. All that's really left is the giggling outside the SM club and the Fascist credo that people with sexual preferences are intrinsically evil.<br /><br />In spite of a certain discrepancy in size, King Kong knew exactly what to do with Fay Wray. Freddy Krueger can only kill her.<br /><br />And since there's no real titillation in that, he has to torture her first – not in any way that might excite her, you understand, since that would upset our puritan sentiments. And so, horror and romanticism become simply unpleasantness and the grooming of psychopaths.<br /><br />Our hero, you see, is a rubber fetishist, and can only get a boner if someone touches him you know down there with you know – rubber gloves (giggle). And that's what they use in autopsies, and that's how they discover that he is, in fact, you know.<br /><br />Obviously, this is the author at the height of his inspirational powers. Too bad, they cut it out, since it might have upset the FIVE-YEAR-OLDS watching the show!

2very negative

trimmed_train

Chase has created a true phenomenon with The Sopranos. Unfaltering performances, rock-solid writing, and some great music make up what has become quite possibly the best show ever.<br /><br />All of the cast are strong, but Falco and Gandolfini earned every inch of those Emmy's. Anyone who doubts this need only sample a few episodes; particularly from the first few seasons. James Gandolfini is absolutely fierce, absolutely terrifying, and you still find yourself loving him - mesmerized by him.<br /><br />Many people that I've spoken to about The Sopranos (who haven't seen it yet) will say "I'm just not a fan of mafia movies/shows". Whatever. Run - don't walk - and get it. Those same people usually love "E.R.", but I bet they don't much care for hospitals... It's not about the context.

3very positive

trimmed_train

Just finished watching this movie for maybe the 7th or 8th time, picked it up one night previously viewed at Blockbuster and absolutely loved it, I've shown it to 4 people so far and they have enjoyed it as well. Avoid of all the Hollywood glamour, special effects and stress on the "shock factor", this independent film by Paul F. Ryan hits the nail on the head in dealing with the after affects of traumatic situations. Taking place after a high school shooting, two characters Alicia (Busy Philipps) and Deanna (Erika Christensen) form an unlikely bond. Alicia, the girl with the stone heart, the Goth who has a pessimistic attitude to life assists Deanna to overcome the issues of life and death and living in the aftermath. Meanwhile Deanna attempts to help Alicia to see some of the softness and light in the world again. Not stressing on the shocking event of the shooting, but on the interpersonal relationships amongst those who survived it sets this movie apart. Despite its low-budget and short filming time, this movie is far from cheesy. Ryan pays respect to a situation he has never endured and attempts to delve into the human psyche. With an amazing up and coming actress, Philipps, adds the necessary dramatics to the dialogue and overall feel for the film and Christensen helps to balance out the "doom and gloom" feeling this movie may have. Overall, I recommend this movie and if you enjoy the topic of school aggression and violence and learning more about it, I also suggest the documentary "It's a Girls World" put out by CBC in 2004, which deals with the topic of social bullying, comparing and contrasting two groups of girls one in Montreal, Quebec and the other in Victoria, British Columbia, the group of friends and acquaintances of Dawn Marie Wellesley a 14 year old girl who killed herself after being brutally bullied.

3very positive

trimmed_train

Mel Gibson's Braveheart was a spectacularly accomplished film, but it left a sour taste in the mouth. Rob Roy, by contrast, is slightly less polished, but a better film by far. This is a historical film which combines timeless themes with truly historical values, whereas Braveheart put a gross and unpleasant comtemporary gloss on an ancient tale. What makes this film is the cast. Liam Neeson plays the hero, in a role he basically reprised (in a watered-down fashion) in the Phantom Menace. The character is heroic, but is neither the greatest fighter nor the most demonic lover. Admirable yet human, he commands the screen. Against him are set a selection of equally human adversaries including Tim Roth's Cunningham, obnoxious but brilliant, and John Hurt's morally bankrupt laird. Also to praise is Jessica Lange, as Rob's pragmatic wife: also strong and noble, but 300 years away from a modern heroine, which is only as it should be. This is not the most original film you will see, but it has the courage of its own convictions, and the strong performances make you care.

3very positive

trimmed_train

I probably doubled my knowledge of Iran when I saw Secret Ballot (2001). Now I know about four times as much (I doubt I learned a whole heck of a lot from Not Without My Daughter (1991)).<br /><br />Offside is a splendid budget Iranian comedy about a group a girls (working individually) to attend a decisive soccer match for their country's place in the World Cup. Women are not allowed to attend soccer matches, so the nation's armed forces have been mobilized to save any women who try to enter from themselves. Some (teen?) girls try to crash the party by dressing as boys, but are caught. The movie is mostly set at this holding pen where the girls are detained by soldiers, awaiting some unspecified punishment (although, the girl who dressed as a soldier claims that she was one insignia away from being executed!)<br /><br />The movie explores the absurdity of the situation. The thinking that bars women from football matches comes down to it being too raunchy an experience for the fairer sex–a philosophy not unknown in the west less than 100 years ago. This farce comes to a head when a girl needs to go to the bathroom, so a soldier escorting her demands that she cover her eyes so she can't see the graffiti. The conflict is not entirely about the battle of the sexes: at one point some friction arises between a solider who is rural and the girls who are urban.<br /><br />Fortunately, this movie was not too culturally esoteric that the comedy was lost on this neighbour and cultural cousin of the Great Satan. You have to be in the mood for it, but no one should avoid this movie because they think that they won't get it.

0positive

trimmed_train

If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a "direct to video" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.

1negative

trimmed_train

The trailers for this film were better than the movie. What waste of talent and money. Wish I would've waited for this movie to come on DVD because at least I wouldn't be out $9. The movie totally misses the mark. What could have been a GREAT movie for all actors, turned out to be a B-movie at best. Movie moved VERY slow and just when I thought it was going somewhere, it almost did but then it didn't. In this day and age, we need unpredictable plot twists and closures in film, and this film offered neither. The whole thing about how everyone is a suspect is good, however, not sure if it was the way it was directed, the lighting, the delivery of lines, the writing or what, but nothing came from it. Lot of hype for nothing. I was VERY disappointed in this film, and I'm telling everyone NOT to see it. The cheesy saxophone music throughout made the film worse as well. And the ending had NOTHING to do with the rest of the film. What a disappointment.

2very negative

trimmed_train

A slick romanticizing of the sexual exploitation of NewOrleans black women by white men of power and privilege. Ooh. Does that whet your appetite? Well, then, belly up to a VHS or DVD and gorge on this gratuitous trolling through a seamy segment of history. For good measure, it's adapted from the book by celebrated hack Anne Rice. The directing is as cloying and melodramatic as the cheesy dialog. Most of acting is amateurish. The production's sole worthwhile note is that it employed practically a dozen black actors, all of whom have scarcely been in employed in today's market (Jasmine Guy, Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Eartha Kitt), including some faces that have barely been seen at all (Bianca Lawson, Rachel Cuttrell). It also is, despite itself, a sterling showcase for Nicole Lyn. The pompous and ponderous James Earl Jones is on-hand as well. So, is the late Ossie Davis, a minimal talent who owes his success to having been affiliated with the legendary Negro Ensemble Company. This film should be rated "T" for tripe.

2very negative

trimmed_train

You already know how painful to watch this movie is. But I wonder why one of the worst movies ever should include one the most beautiful cars. Why the cars should be not only the victim of violation, but also the only true actors and performers in it. So how on Earth you Porsche, Lamborghini or whatever could allow those people to get in touch with your cars and ruin you reputation for which you give millions.Stop the getting an advantage of the cars and earn money on their chests. It is painful for those who love cars. It is painful for those who love movies.<br /><br />I want my money back !!!

2very negative

trimmed_train

Extremely interesting and intriguing movie. The similarities to David Lynch (who is even quoted literally by the presence of red curtains in the film) and the novels of Franz Kafka (the house keeper in this film is called Mrs. Grubach, as is the one in Der Prozess...) are clearly present but in this case are accompanied by clear references to the colonial past of Belgium in Africa. The exact content of the movie I can not clearly describe: this colonialism is an important part, as is the inability to cope with such a past, but the personal memories of the main character are a central issue as well, and his quest for social contact and love. These are the symbolic themes I deduced from the movie, but in fact they're no more than impressions.<br /><br />But even if you just try to follow the linear story without these symbolic backgrounds, you still will discover an extremely fascinating movie filled with splendid imagery (beautiful close ups of beatles, larvas and other nasty insects are alternated with great dream sequences and also the dark atmosphere lends the film extra style). Maybe you can say that I didn't quite 'get' the film, but I have been watching like hypnothised for 1.5 hour, deeply impressed by the visual quality and the fascinating mysteriosity.

0positive

trimmed_train

The quintessential road movie...if your idea of a road movie involves three would-be magicians with Eastern European accents and Claire Forlani. (Well, one out of four ain't bad...) A no-talent magician with an eye for showmanship (Max) watches a very skilled pickpocket (Hugo) plying his trade in New York. After convincing Hugo that he (Max) is a) mental and b) desperately in need of a partner to make his dreams of being a stage magician come alive, the not-so-dynamic duo enlist the managerial expertise of an inventor of illusions (Milo) and the, ah, gentler attributes of a lovely waitress (Lydia). The unlikely four pile into a van (obtained by Hugo...you guess where it came from) and head to Vegas. Havoc ensues. Anyhow, it's funny, it's well-written, and the ending is surprisingly good. A solid comedy with a warm heart, and all the better that it was totally unexpected.

0positive

trimmed_train

10 ITEMS OR LESS was made in two weeks on a shoestring budget by writer/director Brad Silberling, just a little film shot in Carson, CA that feels like the entire story was improvised...in the best sense of the word. Silberling had the good fortune to pair veteran actor Morgan Freeman, in between his big projects, with Spanish actress Paz Vega, and the result is a dialogue between two people from different vantages who manage to enhance the life of the other.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman plays himself - yet part of the comedy is that he is depicted as an actor who has been out of work for four years, scouting a location for a little 'filler film' to get back into the flow of things. His 'role' is to be that of a market manager and he is dropped off at seedy market in Carson where he encounters, among others, one Scarlet, the girl at the argumentative 10 Items or Less checkout line. Not only is Scarlet tired of her static job, she is also generally angry about her philandering husband (Bobby Cannavale), currently sleeping with Scarlet's lazy co-worker (Anne Dudek), and her lack of ability to get a decent job elsewhere. The two pair after a few shared problems and off they go on a 'road trip' that results in each of the characters growing from the presence and life story of the other.<br /><br />It is a simple story, simply told, but because of the tender bonding between Freeman and Paz it works very well. This is one of those little films about human relationships where being vulnerable to change and exchange is the message. It is well worth viewing, and this is a DVD that has featurettes that are touching, informative, and comic - a pleasure to view. Grady Harp

0positive

trimmed_train

This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent. The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers. But it is the spider's web of chancery that holds the whole thing together, and the cinematography is superb. What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years? I tried to find out from them, but faced a stone wall. In the end I got a DVD copy from Canada.

3very positive

trimmed_train

When I heard that this movie was coming out the night before Halloween, I was very excited. When I found out that it was a book, written in 1978, I had to read it before seeing the movie. I'm sure the movie would have been much different to me if I had not read the book. The writers actually did a good job of staying true to the main plot of the book, with minor differences, naturally. I think the thing that disappointed me the most about the movie was Boyle playing the role of Col. I'm not a big fan of Boyle, and it seems that no matter what the mood during the movie, she's always trying to use her over-plumped lips, and darkly makeup-ed eyes to make herself seem super sexy. Indeed, I think that the movie held true to the genuine creepiness of the house. My favorite subplot was the Sheehan family (which is so weird b/c the son was killed in Iraq and in current events there is Casey Sheehan whose mother went on a huge anti-Iraq tirade). In the book, obviously the war was not Iraq, but rather, Vietnam, and when the house turns on that video of the son in the helicopter, I was truly creeped out. Overall, I was impressed with the movie, in that it followed the book very well.

0positive

trimmed_train

This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale and great humor, however other then that it's nothing special. All the characters are pretty cool, and the film is entertaining throughout, plus Jackie Chan is simply amazing in this!. Jackie and Wai-Man Chan had fantastic chemistry together, and are both very funny!, and i thought the main opponent looked really menacing!, however the dubbing was simply terrible!. The character development is above average for this sort of thing!, and the main fight is simply fantastic!, plus some of the bumps Jackie takes in this one are harsh!. There is a lot of really silly and goofy humor in this, but it amused me, and the ending is hilarious!, plus all the characters are quite likable. It's pretty cheap looking but generally very well made, and while it does not have the amount of fighting you would expect from a Jackie Chan flick, it does enough to keep you watching, plus one of my favorite moments in this film is when Jackie (Dragon) and Wai-Man Chan(Tiger), are playing around with a rifle and it goes off!. This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale, and great humor, however other then that it's nothing great, still it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Jackie Chan does a good job here with solid camera work, fantastic angles and keeping the film at a fast pace for the most part. The Acting is very good!. Jackie Chan is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, hilarious, as usual does some crazy stunts, had fantastic chemistry with Wai-Man Chan, kicked that ass, and played this wonderful cocky character, he was amazing!, i just wished they would stop dubbing him!. (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Wai-Man Chan is funny as Jackie's best friend, i really liked him, he is also a very good martial artist. Rest of the cast do OK i guess. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5

0positive

trimmed_train

Peter M. Cohen has a winner satire on the mating game, twisted around and turned inside out. The critical bashing of the movie in mainstream media publications as "offensive" and "raunchy" only serves to underscore its intensity as a refreshing and concentrated dissection of people's sexual pursuits and passions. It is in the tradition of what I call "reality based" satire following in the footsteps of "In The Company of Men," "Chasing Amy", "Your Friends and Neighbors" and "Two Girls and a Guy". Cohen's dialogue is hilarious and I was continually intrigued by how perfectly he captured the real pace of today's conversations. Brian Van Holt, Zorie Barber, and Jonathan Abrahams are three distinct, unrelenting sex-obsessed predators who along with the foil of their recently married buddy (superbly played by Judah Domke) are turned upside down on their own terms by a female predator (Amanda Peet). Underneath the satiric surface lurks a romantic comedy far more satisfying than most sugar-coated studio products.

3very positive

trimmed_train

OK. There are people who should not see this movie.<br /><br />1) Don't see it if you don't like satire or black humour. 2) Don't like it if you got offended by _The Watchmen_. 3) Don't see it if you want a serious superhero movie.<br /><br />The rest of you, run, don't walk, to see _Mystery Men_. It's funny, it's quirky, it's a delightful sendup of every bad superhero cliche known to man. Occasional forays into junior-high humour don't ruin the tongue-in-cheek low-key fun of Jeanane Garafalo, Ben Stiller, and Hank Azaria, as well as a couple of amusing smaller parts by Geoffrey Rush and Greg Kinnear. (Good to see Louise Lasser getting work, too.) I laughed all the way through. Utterly unserious, somewhat weird, but -good-.

0positive

trimmed_train

I have seen already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.<br /><br />This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story.

1negative

trimmed_train

"Die Sieger" was highly recommended to be one of the few good action movies made in Germany. I watched it last night and I must admit, that I am deeply disappointed. If that is supposed to be "the last best hope" for entertaining and challenging German action cinema, well then there is not much left.<br /><br />"Die Sieger" tries to be sexy, daring and furious but it is nothing of that kind. The characters are wooden and stereotype and whenever they do something unexpected (which doesn't happen too much) the act against their nature. That makes it hard - for me almost impossible - to follow them or even identify with them.<br /><br />Most of all I think the film is very bad cast. There is not one character in whom I believe. Maybe the superior officer at the SWAT unit - but that's about it. Those people that try to look like or act like special units, like elite cops - I don't believe them. Not for a second.<br /><br />The story is not so bad after all. But I think it's badly told. You don't get to know the bad guy at all - for example. And when after a "very dark" show down Karl Simon (the good guy) asks his already dead opponent "why? ... what for?" I did ask myself that very same question, knowing, that Dominik Graf wouldn't have the answer.<br /><br />I sincerely hope - no - I believe that Germany can do better, even with action films.

1negative

trimmed_train

This is one of the worst films I've seen. The only positive thing I can say is it was so bad that is seemed comical. First off, there's no plot. The actors appear to be reading off cue cards and do the dumbest things. Such as being chased by dead people but yet wanting to go out and look for their friends. Also the zombies were terrible, no where near as fun as any of Romero's work, who gets s plug in the movie. And the dumbest part of all was they kept showing flashes of the video game in the action sequences. Like we don't get the video game is about shooting zombies. Also, all the 20 somethings some how know how to use automatic weapons and hit a target without even aiming the gun. And the way the people die is so stupid. It's like they run out of ammo so stand around waiting to be jumped on. And when cornered in front of the house they run out of ammo instead of shooting the door open, So dumb.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: If any of these actors appear in another film, then they've been blessed with a second chance. Definitely the worst film I've seen in years. A B-movie on cinemax is better.

2very negative

trimmed_train

I can't believe we don't have that 70's show anymore. I have all 8 seasons of that 70's show!! I absolutely Love It!! I lay in the bed every night and watch several episodes before I go to sleep. At the end of a long busy day it's nice to kick back and have a great laugh before you go to sleep. I was so sad they took the show off air... at least we still have the re-runs!! I am hoping and praying they will come back with at least a reunion...Like maybe when Donna finishes college and we finally get to see her and Eric get married!!!! Wouldn't that be awesome!!! It would be even better if they would continue it for several years!!

3very positive

trimmed_train

I have a feeling that the Warners Bros Depression-era musicals are going to become a lot more pertinent in the next couple of years. Yes, we are in the economic doldrums (or have you been living under a rock) and times look bleak. But we always have the movies as a way to escape our troubles. In the 30's, film-going was hugely popular even at the height of economic gloom. "Footlight Parade (1933)" was one such film that audiences flocked to. While this Lloyd Bacon-directed musical doesn't quite capture the social issues of the time as "Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)" does, it's still a wonderful showcase of talent. We have to wait until the end of the film for the three centrepiece Busby Berkely extravaganza numbers, but boy, are they worth waiting for me. Yes, little Ruby Keeler is a terrible singer and actress, and her tapping is so-so, but Busby's magical "By A Waterfall" whisks her, and what seems to be a hundred other chorus girls, into a dizzying water wonderland. Of course Busby's numbers could never really be performed on a stage (they defy limits of gravity, for one thing), and they contrast terrifically with the realism of the tough, wisecracking non-musical scenes. And "Footlight" also has James Cagney in at the one of his all-too-few musicals (really, what couldn't this man do?). He even gets to take over from the leading man, don sailor garb and fawn over sexpot Shanghai Lil (who is really little Ruby in China-girl wig!).He co-stars with Joan Blondell, his adorable, adoring secretary who Cagney somehow overlooks in favour of other women (until the final reel, that is). Apparently Blondell was the only other woman who Cagney loved apart from his wife. And you can see the mutual adoration in every scene.

0positive

trimmed_train

This was a quite brutal movie. There were huge implausibilities, and a silly script, bad acting, etc.<br /><br />The only reason to watch this movie is that from time to time some quite impressive sets of breasts were exposed.

2very negative

trimmed_train

Julie Waters is outstanding and Adrian Pasdar a revelation in a very warm, very real, and extraordinarily entertaining look at the complications gender dysphoria and transvestism cause in a young executive's life. At the heart of this movie is the very real truth that you must accept yourself before you can hope for others to accept you.

3very positive

trimmed_train

I enjoyed it. In general, I'm not a fan of comedies and comedians, but I do like Whoopi. I'm also partial to Sci/Fi Fantasy. And the dinosaur craze. I read for pleasure, but when I'm feeling over-stressed or really mind-dead, I watch TV & movies to escape. Theodore Rex enabled me to do so. That makes it a success in my eyes! I didn't even walk away to do something else while it was running. Whether or not it was rated as "good" or not doesn't really matter to me. And no, I'm not a juvenile. Nor am I a moron.

0positive

trimmed_train

I've read up a little bit on Che before watching this film and you wanna know something, he was a real hero for the people because he only wanted to see equality for everyone and that he hated what the oppressive forces were doing to his people as well as all other Latin Americans in general! Now, I don't know about others, but to me he did the right thing by wanting socialism so that everyone had to pay their fair share. However, the powerful elite obviously weren't going to go for that. So, rather than understanding what Che Guevera wanted, they were forced to kill him in attempting to suppress the revolution. It didn't work since there were too many of his other followers who only picked up where he left off. A good example of this was when Castro continued his leadership in Cuba. As far as I'm concerned and as Che said it himself right before he died: "If you kill me, that's fine. But you're only killing a man, you'll NEVER kill the cause!" I couldn't have said it any better myself.<br /><br />But ... ANYWAYS.... that's why I give this film a 7 out of 10.

0positive

trimmed_train

One of those Thank-God-I-don't-live-there documentaries. This one tells of two warring factions in Colombia, guerrillas and paramilitaries, and the surrounding peoples of Medellin.<br /><br />Guns, drugs and death run rampant. The guys, no older than 22, not in the middle of fighting a war are in jail. The girls – not women, girls – always react the same way when one of them is killed, with tears and screaming. You scratch your head; what did they expect, really? I don't know what's more disturbing: the nightly shoot-outs and civil unrest, or that everybody just seems to passively accept things as are. Or, seeing that boy drinking what is obviously not his first beer, being all of what, 10? If you were to take these any of these young men out of their situation and put them some place where they had the opportunity to do more, be more, how many would choose not to stay?<br /><br />Based on this documentary, all, I'm afraid.

1negative

trimmed_train

In contrast to my fellow reviewers, I always try to find something redeeming in any film I see.Yes, the quality of the dubbing and lighting is abysmal, the acting is wooden and the opening sequence highly misleading what with all those lascivious female lesbian vampires with blood dripping.Something must be lost in the translation of the word "Bloodsucker" from the Italian in the title; almost as if the producers were originally going to film a Gothic Vampire tale and then changed their minds but could not afford to give up their dramatic opening sequence, so tacked it onto the film anyway.<br /><br />This film made in 1975 has recently been issued on DVD and comes with its own theatrical trailer which in some respects is more daring than seen in the film!Now anyone who buys this film has probably already read its synopsis anyway and knows what to expect - Italian softporn from the mid 1970s.I bought it because I am attracted to Christa Nelli (credited most often as "Krista Nell").The absence of a cast of characters I find most frustrating in a lot of these Eurosleaze films from the 60s & 70s.I had hoped Imdb would show the cast of characters as one hears their names in the film but without a cast list, it is very difficult to link them to the actor concerned.I think Krista Nell played "Cora" but underneath that massive hair style, costume and make-up it is difficult to distinguish her for sure.<br /><br />There is mostly a two dimensional portrayal by the actors of their parts and no one really stands out.Maybe something is lost in the dubbing process.What were the positive points?Well the music was atmospheric and of course if you're into beautiful lesbian soft porn its there.The external locations used were good and I would like to know where they filmed the castle on its island.It purports to be set in "Ireland" (North or the Republic?)in 1902, so everyone sports period piece costumes.Some of the scenes I found unintentionally funny especially those sex scenes!!Anyway an enjoyable romp.I rated it 4/10.

1negative

trimmed_train

Though not a fan of Sam Rockwell, I was surprised when I saw his name in the credits in the opening of 'Joshua.' Heck, I wasn't even aware he was in 'Joshua' until I started the movie. So it goes without saying, I was watching the movie on the basis of the movie, not the leads. A sort of 'Rosemary's Baby,' 'The Omen' or any other demonic kid movie 'Joshua' was billed. Unfortunately, it fell flat. Slow, incredibly slow, and flat. Yet, I continued on to see how this would all resolve, hoping beyond belief, the ending climax would shed some light on the subject. Okay, I admit, it did (a wee bit) but what a stale closing. And what a low-low budget movie, or at least that's how they designed it. A person falls – you don't see the drop, you see someone lying down in what appears to be blood. A person gets hit by a cab – you don't see it, you see someone complaining, holding a bike up. I'm not sure if this is called "style" or laziness or simply, lack of funds for special effects. We have a "rich" family with a crazy mom, a workaholic father attempting to balance everything, a kid – Joshua, who may/may not be the antichrist and a new born baby girl who cries a lot. She cries as much as we see how many days she's alive – and what was that about? Are there rats above or is it Joshua? Is his mother nuts? Is Joshua crazy? Is he merely jealous of the newcomer to the family? Is he going to grow up to be Michael Myers? Or does he drive his family to the brink? I don't think so. They were nuts prior, and no "so-called" acting could make me believe otherwise. Unfortunately, barely any questions were answered, barely any open doors shut. I'm sure that might have been the idea, but for Pete's sake, give me something. Anything. There are plenty better kid-gone-wild movies to explore. Joshua's more like the Mini-Me of the antichrist.

2very negative

trimmed_train

I haven't seen the original "Incredible Journey" since I was a child, so I can't really compare the two versions. This version tells the story of three animals, two dogs and a cat, whose owners leave them with friends in the countryside when the father of the family has to take a new job in San Francisco. The pets, believing that they have been abandoned, escape and set out on a long homeward journey through wilderness.<br /><br />This story might have been most easily filmed as a cartoon, but both versions are in fact live-action films made using real animals. One major difference is that in the later version the animals speak in human voices, giving each its own distinct personality, something that was not done in the original film. (A similar device of talking animals has been used in other recent children's films such as "Racing Stripes"). Some critics have been rather sniffy about the use of this device, but my own view is that giving the animals distinctive personalities of their own helps to strengthen the film rather than weaken it. The animals were voiced by big-name stars, Don Ameche, Michael J. Fox and Sally Fields.<br /><br />Both dogs are male, and their relationship parallels that between many humans in "buddy-buddy" movies. Shadow, a golden retriever, is the wise, experienced older dog; Chance the younger one is brash, cocky and impulsive. To British eyes Chance looks like a boxer, but is actually an American Bulldog, which is apparently a different breed to its British cousin. Sassy the cat is female with a rather prim and proper personality. She is very proud of her status as a cat, which in her eyes makes her vastly superior to any mere dog. ("Cats rule, dogs drool!").<br /><br />From an adult viewpoint the film has a number of faults; it can be sentimental, some of the incidents (such as the one in which the animals manage to catapult a mountain lion into the river) are quite incredible, and the human characters are all completely forgettable. This, however, is a film which is mainly aimed at children, and I suspect they will enjoy it immensely. Certainly, any animal-loving child will do so. (Comments by some professional critics such as James Berardinelli, who complained that the animals' voices lessened the film's "grandeur", only serve to strengthen my view that professional critics are not always the best guides to children's movies. I doubt if many playground conversations about "Homeward Bound" concentrated on its supposed grandeur).<br /><br />One thing adults will appreciate is the photography of California's Sierra Nevada mountains. They may also appreciate the film's blend of humour and excitement as the runaway pets encounter perils such as bears, mountain lions and porcupines in the wilderness. This is a very enjoyable family film. 7/10

0positive

trimmed_train

Thomas Archer (Ron Eldard) has his child killed and his wife viciously attacked in a home invasion. Dr. Heller (Christopher Plummer) tries to help him through the post traumatic stress. Then Archer finds himself confronted with a man (Til Schweiger) bound and gagged to a chair. He is told this is the man who killed his child and attacked his wife and he can do whatever he likes to him. And there's a large assortment of instruments there to help him...<br /><br />Film is interesting at first (and shows real restraint in terms of blood and gore) but gets stupider by the minute and has some highly unlikely plot twists and turns. It all ends in a final twist that was so old and stupid that I was shocked anyone would actually think of using it anymore. How such talented actors like Eldard, Schweiger and Plummer got involved in crap like this is beyond me. This gets three stars for the acting but the stupid plot and truly unbelievable twists make this a chore to sit through.

1negative

trimmed_train

The villian in this movie is one mean sob and he seems to enjoy what he is doing, that is what I guess makes him so mean. I don't think most men will like this movie, especially if they ever cheated on their wife. This is one of those movies that pretty much stays pretty mean to the very end. But then, there you have it, a candy-bar ending that makes me look back and say, "HOKIE AS HELL." A pretty good movie until the end. Ending is the ending we would like to see but not the ending to such a mean beginning. And then there is the aftermath of what happened. Guess you can make up your own mind about the true ending. I'm left feeling that only one character should have survived at the end.

0positive

trimmed_train

I felt a great joy, after seeing this film, not because it is a master piece, but because it convinced me of, that the Portuguese cinema became really very good. We can see here the best Portuguese actores in this field.

0positive

trimmed_train

My rating refers to the first 4 Seasons of Stargate SG-1 which are wonderfully fresh, creative and addicting. When the cast stepped through the gate, you never knew what lay on the other side! Starting around Season 5, the show took a different focus - still good, but different.<br /><br />The series follows the adventures of a team of humans (and one alien) who regularly venture into a planetary transport device called the "Stargate". The backstory of the series is based on the characters and events of the movie "Stargate" in which the device is discovered during an archaeological dig in Egypt.<br /><br />The episodes are light (innocent and easy to watch) and very creative. Many of the inventive stories could easily have been made into great sci-fi movies of their own. What happens next was always unpredictable.<br /><br />The characters on which the show rests are also well-defined and brilliantly performed. Their tone is serious, but the dialog is flowered with incredible wit and humor. They are simply fun to watch.<br /><br />Starting somewhere around Season 5, the series started to evolve into a continuing storyline based on fighting a single foe (the Goa'uld, then the Ori). The plots become more complex (a lot more political/strategic oriented) and interdependent. The characters were still as great as ever but the show was different in nature.<br /><br />One thing that must be mentioned is to watch the episodes that commemorated the 100th and 200th episodes. They are simply can't-miss shows. They exhibit the creative and wildly humorous genius that carried the series through 10 seasons.<br /><br />If you are a sci-fi fan, watch a few episodes of the first 4 Seasons and you'll likely be hooked. If you like evolving story lines between two opposing sides, you have 10 seasons of shows to look forward to.

0positive

trimmed_train

This movie is great entertainment to watch with the wife or girlfriend. There are laughs galore and some very interesting little nudist stories going on here. The actresses are all very interesting and definitely worth watching in their natural beauty. Maslin beach life is full of diverse nudists and personality types. The Australian coast scenery is, simply, splendid to see. What a place to visit, to say the least, and one day it may become my hideaway. I really enjoy this movie and every time I watch it I enjoy it more. I would love to see more of these characters and I always wonder what became of them. Although the plot is somewhat soft, this movie is, of course, a great excuse to just sit back on the couch and enjoy the wonderful and famous Maslin beach with these wonderful nudists and their own personal stories.

0positive

trimmed_train

As I watch this film, it is interesting to see how much it marginalizes Black men. The film spends its time showing how powerless the most visible Black man in it is (save for an heroic moment). For much of the film, the other Black men (and dark-skinned Black women) in the film are way in the background, barely visible.<br /><br />Vanessa Williams' character was strong and sympathetic. The viewer can easily identify and sympathize with her. There are also some fairly visible and three-dimensional support characters who are light-skinned, and some White characters of some warmth and dignity. But 99% of the Black males in this film are nothing but invisible men. Voiceless shadows in the background, of no consequence. Such a horrible flaw, but anything but unusual in the mainstream media.

1negative

trimmed_train

I have nothing against a fast-paced fright-flick, but this Stephen King-derived nonsense is too freshly-scrubbed, too bright and modern. The plot, about a new teenage boy in a small town who is a "Sleepwalker"--sort of a cross between a vampire and a werewolf--and who feeds on the blood of female virgins, begs for a more mysterious, ambiguous treatment. This thriller is given an inappropriately colorful look and feel, with hardly any atmosphere. The kids are predictably pretty and energetic, but the big plus is Alice Kridge as the boy's mother; Kridge, from "Ghost Story", never broke out of the filler-female mold, and it's a huge loss that she hasn't been used more. Her performance is creepy and intense, and gives hint that "Sleepwalkers" might've been a much better film with a different focus and tighter direction. It's too over-the-top and commercially-driven, with an uneven tone that swings wildly from thriller to comedy to drama. Stephen King pops up in a cameo, as do real-life directors John Landis and Tobe Hooper. *1/2 from ****

1negative

trimmed_train

A couple of years back I had purchased (and enjoyed) the MGM double-feature DVD of the two Kolchak TV movies, THE NIGHT STALKER (1971) and THE NIGHT STRANGLER (1972). When the Universal set of the subsequent TV series came out, I had intended to buy it immediately – but rumors of playback issues with the dreaded DVD-18s kept me from adding it to my collection; recently, I placed an online order which consisted of a spate of discounted Universal Box Sets and decided to pick up the KOLCHAK 3-Discer as well.<br /><br />Having watched it now, I can safely say that I didn’t regret acquiring this beloved (if short-lived) crime/horror series one bit: it may follow a standardized formula – dogged and resourceful newspaperman Carl Kolchak, marvelously played by Darren McGavin, gets into everybody’s hair with his attitude (flustered editor Simon Oakland, long-suffering colleagues, assorted authoritarian figures, a plethora of monsters and villains), faces up to the inevitable (and usually supernatural) threat alone but, finally, is pressured into keeping his story under wraps – but a winning one (further boosted by an impressive line-up of guest stars and notable behind-the-scenes credits), making the show a great deal of fun.<br /><br />That said, quality varies from one episode to another and the modest budgets afforded them results in special and make-up effects which sometimes leave a lot to be desired (for instance, the werewolf in the eponymous entry and the goofy alligator creature in the very last installment) – not to mention the fact that these were restricted to 50-minute programmes and intended for family consumption to boot rather precludes a simplified and wholesome rendering of its often intriguing psychological and metaphysical themes (in the case of the werewolf, again, he’s never seen biting anyone but, somewhat foolishly, is made to merely throw people around)! <br /><br />While the hero’s cynical narration does a lot to pull one into the fanciful plots, there’s a healthy dose of comedy relief involved in each episode (often, but not exclusively, revolving around McGavin’s relationship with either Oakland or geeky reporter Jack Grinnage) – to say nothing of reasonable atmosphere (the setting, for the most part, is Chicago) and suspense. To make the ride even more pleasant, there’s a bouncy score by Gil Melle' and Jerry Fielding.<br /><br />For the record, the monsters encountered (but not always defeated) by Kolchak throughout the series are: a revived Jack The Ripper, a variety of cults (voodoo, Native American, Aztec), aliens, vampire, werewolf (going round its over-familiar concept by having this particular episode entirely set on a cruise-liner!), doppelganger, Satanist, swamp creature, mass of electricity, robot, apeman, witch, headless motorcyclist, succubus, a knight’s armor taking a murderous life of its own (the episode with perhaps the best supporting cast – featuring John Dehner as a morose police captain, Hans Conried and Robert Emhardt), Helen Of Troy(!) and crocodile. Some of the actors (other than those playing Kolchak’s co-workers) return in the same roles – Keenan Wynn and Ramon Bieri (both as officers of the law), John Fiedler (as a shrewd morgue attendant) and Richard Kiel as two distinct nemeses of the hero. If I were pressed to choose the finest (or most entertaining) episodes, I’d lean towards HORROR IN THE HEIGHTS (co-starring Phil Silvers and Abraham Sofaer) and the afore-mentioned THE KNIGHTLY MURDERS – while, as the weakest, I’d go for THE WEREWOLF (due to reasons I’ve already explained) and CHOPPER (based on a story concocted by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale!).<br /><br />Unfortunately, the set contains no extras: it would have been nice to see a featurette discussing the numerous concepts dealt with in KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER, as well as putting the series into the context of where TV was at the time of its original airing, or even denoting the lasting influence it had on the apparently endless run of sci-fi series popular today. In fact, Kolchak himself – in a much younger and ostensibly darker guise – returned in a 2005 revival; this version is available at my local DVD rental outlet…but, for various reasons, I’m not sure I’d want to check it out so soon after the 1974-5 classic!

0positive

trimmed_train

First things first, this movie is achingly beautiful. A someone who works on 3D CG films as a lighter/compositor, the visuals blew me away. Every second I was stunned by what was on screen As for the story, well, it's okay. It's not going to set the world on fire, but if you like your futuristic Blade Runner-esquire tales (and who doesn't?) then you will be fine.<br /><br />I do have to say that I felt the voice acting was particularly bland and detracted from the movie as a whole. I saw it at the cinema in English, but I am hoping that there is a French version floating around somewhere.<br /><br />Definitely worth seeing.

0positive

trimmed_train

This is an amazing movie and all of the actors and actresses and very good! Even though some of the actors and actresses weren't very popular in show business it seemed like they have been acting since they were 1 one year old! It was funny, gross and just all out a very good movie. In most parts I just didn't know what was going to happen next! I was like I think this is going to happen, wait I think this is going to happen. All age groups will love this movie! In some parts I couldn't stop laughing, it was so funny, but in some parts I was totally grossed out and I couldn't believe what I was seeing! I am definitely going to see this movie again! It is one of those movies where it can't get boring. Every time you see it is so suspenseful. I definitely recommend seeing this movie!!

3very positive

trimmed_train

The final season of Roseanne was a roller coaster ride of crazy. This final episode does just what a previous comment says, it tells us that as much as we might have thought we knew the characters we did not. Roseanne reaches back to season one, and tells us that this show has been her rendition of her life. She says in this final episode that she changed events and people as she sees fit. Scott was not really with Leon, but he existed. Mark and David married opposite wives in real life, and Dan died when she made him live. As events happened in her life, she changed them in her writing. Don't we all wish we could do that. Don't we all have a moment in time that we wish we could just use an eraser and change to our liking. This is what she did with the entire episode. And to another comment I would say that I don't feel cheated, the family was real in my mind, she just changed the way that events happened in their lives. An A+ ending to an A+ show!!!!

3very positive

trimmed_train

This one came out during the Western genre’s last gasp; unfortunately, it emerges to be a very minor and altogether unsatisfactory effort – even if made by and with veterans in the field! To begin with, the plot offers nothing remotely new: James Coburn escapes from a chain gang, intent on killing the man (now retired) who put him there – Charlton Heston. While the latter lays a trap for him, Coburn outwits Heston by kidnapping his daughter (Barbara Hershey). Naturally, the former lawman – accompanied by Hershey’s greenhorn fiancé (Chris Mitchum) – sets out in pursuit of Coburn and his followers, all of whom broke jail along with him.<br /><br />Rather than handling the proceedings in his customary sub-Fordian style, McLaglen goes for a Sam Peckinpah approach – with which he’s never fully at ease: repellent characters, plenty of violence, and the sexual tension generated by Hershey’s presence among Coburn’s lusty bunch. Incidentally, Heston and Coburn had previously appeared together in a Sam Peckinpah Western – the troubled MAJOR DUNDEE (1965; I really need to pick up the restored edition of this one on DVD, though I recently taped the theatrical version in pan-and-scan format off TCM UK). Anyway, the film is too generic to yield the elegiac mood it clearly strives for (suggested also by the title): then again, both stars had already paid a fitting valediction to this most American of genres – WILL PENNY (1968) for Heston and Coburn with PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID (1973)! <br /><br />At least, though, Heston maintains a modicum of dignity here – his ageing character attempting to stay ahead of half-breed Coburn by anticipating what his next move will be; the latter, however, tackles an uncommonly brutish role and only really comes into his own at the climax (relishing his moment of vengeance by sadistically forcing Heston to witness his associates’ gang-rape of Hershey). Apart from the latter, this lengthy sequence sees Heston try to fool Coburn with a trick borrowed from his own EL CID (1961), the villainous gang is then trapped inside a bushfire ignited by the practiced Heston and the violent death of the two ‘obsolete’ protagonists (as was his fashion, Heston’s demise takes the form of a gratuitous sacrifice!).<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Michael Parks as the ineffectual town sheriff, Jorge Rivero as Coburn’s Mexican lieutenant, and Larry Wilcox – of the TV series CHiPs! – as the youngest member of Coburn’s gang who’s assigned the task of watching over Hershey (while doing his best to keep his drooling mates away!). Jerry Goldsmith contributes a flavorful but, at the same time, unremarkable score.

1negative

trimmed_train

Ok - I admit. I think Kenny Doughty looks amazing in this movie - but beyond his good looks, the movie is carried by a sometimes predictable, but reasonable plot.<br /><br />Starting out, we're introduced to the three lead females of the movie. One a headmistress - very concerned about her image and never married. A police officer - with child and a bad ex to go on about. The third - a power & status hungry doctor with a desire for recognition and three ex's.<br /><br />They are almost the "First Wives Club", and indeed there is much verbal bashing of ex's involved as well as some "he left the credit card" behaviour. Characters set - the movie continues.<br /><br />McDowell's character, the headmistress, arrives late at a funeral - where a young organist, filling in for the regular player (Doughty) catches her eye. What will her two friends say about the ensuing mischief? Will they live happily ever after?<br /><br />A tissue or two recommended if you're the teary type - the end uplifting, but maybe not what you'd expect. All in all a great movie which stands out amongst the current choices of action, special effects and schlock horror.

0positive

trimmed_train

First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.<br /><br />If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the "gigolo" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom "scientist" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! "OW" indeed!<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times. <br /><br />Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10.

1negative

trimmed_train

I wouldn't bring a child under 8 to see this. With puppies dangling off of buildings squirming through dangerous machines and listening to Cruella's scary laugh to name a few of the events there is entirely too much suspense for a small child. <br /><br />The live action gives a more ominous feel than the cartoon version and there are quite a few disquieting moments including some guy that seems to be a transvestite, a lot of tense moments that will worry and may frighten small kids.<br /><br />I don't know what the Disney folks were thinking but neither the story nor the acting were of their usual level. The puppies are cute But this movie is spotty at best.

1negative

trimmed_train