text
stringlengths 139
5.88k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
If you want to really terrify people, choose the Devil as your subject. After all, a good deal of the population believe that he is real. Therefore you are plugging into a whole meaty swathe of pre-existing religious and mythological imagery. And bound to cause quite a few nightmares in your young audience.<br /><br />This episode had all the appearance of a Hollywood blockbuster. In fact, having finished watching it I flicked over to another channel which was playing a recent Bond film and quite frankly couldn't split a hair between the differences in SFX. With a minimal cast, restricted by its situation on a space station; complete with overwhelming panoramic views of an imploding universe, it was as claustrophobic and intense as Alien or Event Horison. The black hole outside made it feel as if the black hole's weight of dark matter was pressing the station onto the planet and to Whatever was sealed inside. And as the horror is intensified by the knowledge that the Dr and Rose are stranded, the sinister Ood start channelling a disembodied voice and then the characters start being picked off one by one...<br /><br />This has all the best qualities of the cream of this new Dr Who endeavour; Girl in the Fireplace and the Empty Child. Emotionally engaging, frightening and humorous all without seeming cheesy. This is far scarier than any amount of flying Daleks. But it has to be asked, is this really suitable viewing for children? This is not a family friendly episode. Pity the poor parent who has to put their kids to bed after this one. I'm not sure I even want to see what happens next! | 1pos
|
I was at Wrestlemania VI in Toronto as a 10 year old, and the event I saw then was pretty different from what I saw on the Wrestlemania Collection DVD I just watched. I don't understand how the wwE doesn't have the rights to some of the old music, since most of those songs were created by the WWF they shouldn't have to worry about the licensing and royalty fees that prevent shows like SNL from releasing season sets. Its pretty stupid to whine about, but for me hearing Demolition come out to their theme music at a Wrestlemania in person was a memory that I never forgot, and it didn't exist on this DVD. What is the point of them even owning the rights to this huge library of video if they have to edit it so drastically to use it? | 0neg
|
I am probably a little too old for this movie, 16, and being a guy, the story is a little too girlie, but I really thought it was a cool movie overall. All the girls in this movie are so hot and really great actresses, from Alana, to Adrianne, to Deena, to Kimberly, all the way down to the cute girl that plays Alana's little sister, Rachel. I am not a huge pop-star fan with the lovesick songs, but I thought that Aaron Carter did a really great job in this, and seems like he was really into this movie, and made it seem real. My mom liked all the older farts that she grew up with, so that's cool too. I kept thinking that I liked a lot of the people, and wonder if I will see them again? A sequel would be cool. I rented this, but I might buy it too, since I have a ton of DVD's, and like to go back to see something that I missed. I couldn't buy it at Blockbuster though, so I don't know where I could buy it right now, but I'll look into that. Anyway, I am a 16 year old guy, I already said that, I know, but I would totally take a date to see this. It's really good for all ages, really. I think even my little half sister who is 6 could see this. That's what is so cool about it, that it is something that all ages can see. I'm sure that was done on purpose, but it really works. Girls can dream about being with Aaron Carter, and guys like me can dream about all the hot chicks in this movie. There is something for everyone. | 1pos
|
Fred Astaire is reteamed with Rita Hayworth one year after their big hit for Columbia, "You'll Never Get Rich". That was the movie which put Hayworth on the Hollywood map, yet her performance in this wan romantic musical hardly gives a suggestion why she was so suddenly popular. Down Buenos Aires way, a tyrannical hotel owner demands that his four daughters marry in order of age; one may think film takes place in the 18th century, but no, it's modern-day 1942. Astaire is an ex-hoofer-turned-gambler who goes back to dancing to earn some money, getting mixed up in impersonating a letter-writing admirer to Hayworth's stone-cold society beauty. Fred gazes at Rita with a brotherly smile, but she's so mannequin-like (lip-synching to her songs like a wide-eyed wind-up doll) that all romantic sparks quickly sputter. They do dance together quite comfortably, however, and the Jerome Kern score is unmemorable but not too bad. ** from **** | 0neg
|
I thought this was a really great movie especially since it was jut filler for me. I was bored, I got it from the library and I really enjoyed myself! I've watched it twice in the two days and the more I watch it the more I like it.I thought that the plot was going to be really corny but in the end it really could be said that it would be true. I liked the main characters and I thought that they were well cast and you could see true friendship. I thought they all did an excellent job. The ending was good.And you really hate the bad guys and you really like the good guys. Which is what a movie is supposed to be like. | 1pos
|
This movie was horrible, and it doesn't even deserve to be called a movie. The way I look at it, it's more like three mediocre day-time Disney cartoon episodes strung loosely together to make a single video that pretends to be the sequel to the first Atlantis movie, which was way more well-made and enjoyable. And where do i even begin with the problems of this DVD? The story? The characters? The pictures/animation? To me they're all bad and unwatchable. Firstly, the story in this direct-to-video DVD is ridiculous and pointless. The only good thing about it is that it is consistent--that is, consistently bad, from the beginning to the end. After the film's over i still don't know why Milo has returned and how the incidents occur in the three small stories are related to each other or to Atlantis itself. And all I could remember about this movie was how bad it makes me feel after seeing it. The characters feel wooden and lack personality, and the drawings look a lot different than that in the first. You can tell they're obviously not from the hands of the same animators from the first one. As the DVD played on, i found myself caring less and less about what might happen to the characters and just hoping the film would end soon. Besides the story and the characters mentioned above, the picture quality is poor in this one too, probably one of the worst in those direct-to-video products that Disney has ever released. As a fan of the the original Atlantis: the lost empire, I couldn't be more disappointed in Milo's return, which is a total waste of time and money. Thank goodness I rented it first instead of buying it. Even so, I still wish I'd never seen this crap or even known its existence. | 0neg
|
Latter Days for me was a very moving film, it showed just how hard and disrespected the gay community really is. The film etherizes true passion and really explores the feelings of these two characters, the film holds a real depth of compassion for the gay community, as it really speaks out for the gay man/woman. Personally i think it's about high time that the homosexual community of all religions should no longer hold there head in shame, just for being there beautiful self. The film was very much of a eye opener for me as I could not believe how anti homosexual this world really is. Even at schools if a kid dislikes something they will refer to it as being "gay". I real hope that more film like this one are made, and that they are not just labelled as a "Gay" film but as a love story, as I believe that gay directors should stick up for themselves and tell their story through their eyes. | 1pos
|
EXCUSE ME!!! HellOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! CUBA GOODING,Jr. Should Have Won An Oscar For His Portrayal In This Film!!! He WAS the film! While the film may be lacking in some areas, Cuba was awesome... and for me, this is the best role that he has ever played! The scene in the movie where he finds out that his mother has died made me break down and cry IN THE THEATER!! I guess I could really relate to this film because I saw the same treatment of people just like that at my own school growing up... what a tragedy! Getting to see the "real" Radio and coach at the end of the movie was really special too! If you can watch this movie and not be moved to tears, you need a heart check! If you liked "Simon Birch" and "The Mighty", you'll love "Radio" too! I wish they made more movies like this...Radio is the Real Deal! | 1pos
|
Yeah, I know the girls are hot and the scenery lovely but for someone knowing the place, it's hilarious.<br /><br />If you want some accuracy, this is not a movie to rely on. It starts with the flight from São Paulo to Rio aboard a 747. This will never happen on the 400 km flight. Smaller planes such as 737 or A-320 shuttle passengers between the two cities every half an hour. The drive from the airport home if shown on a map would reveal an intricate zig zag back and forth. Perhaps the producers tried to emulate one of the very known taxicab drivers itineraries when faced to tourists. Not that it would be a local habit as I myself got ripped off in very serious places such as Switzerland. The girls, yes. All topless. That's something an outsider will never understand. Brazilian chicks will be happy to expose 100 % of their incredible bodies at the Samba Schools parades and wear almost non-existent bikinis at beach, but never go topless. A handful beaches across the whole country will allow it. All carefully secluded and out of town. Oh, the indoor decoration; the amazing wallpaper... maybe in Disneyworld... Apart from that, it is very entertaining and, yes, Demi Moore is absolutely splendid. | 0neg
|
William H. Macy always gives a good performance. He never looks lazy and never seems like he'd rather be somewhere else. In short, he's what more actors should be like. "A Slight Case of Murder" is directed by Steven Schachter, who went on to do two more great films with Macy (Door to Door, The Wool Cap).<br /><br />Television movies have long been a dump of overdone acting, poor cinematography, and sub-par scripting. That's why it's so refreshing to see a TV movie that does exactly what it's sort of film was created for. To tell a small story (not a simplistic story) that does not require viewing on the big screen.<br /><br />"A Slight Case of Murder" is light, entertaining fare, and an great watch.<br /><br />7.6 out of 10 | 1pos
|
I just re-watched this thriller, one I had previously believed to be one of Hitch's lesser efforts. How wrong can you be! Maybe because I'm older, or maybe because the film gets better with every viewing, but now I think it's amazing. Every bit of suspense is wrung out of the tiniest detail, and that final scene on the merry-go-round is just breath-taking! Perfect in every way, highly recommended. | 1pos
|
Where to start, where to start....hmmm...well how about some of the stiffest, most unnatural, unbelievable and camped-up performances one can imagine? How about stereotypical "characters", situations and locations? Or what about a manipulative, cloying, utterly wretched script? I can't think of one element in this movie that was original, worthy of watching or interesting.<br /><br />Note to all you Josh Hartnett/Chris Klein/LeeLee Sobieski fans - enjoy their collective fifteen minutes, folks, because they're not going to be famous much longer... | 0neg
|
I've seen just about all of the Coen brothers' films now, and I have to say this is one of their better films. I wouldn't dare say it's better than "The Big Lebowski", but it was very good in it's own right.<br /><br />I thought the story was very interesting and hilarious at times. I loved all the characters, especially Tim Blake Nelson (Delmar) and John Turturro's (Pete).<br /><br />There really isn't anything bad I can say about this movie, but this movie isn't for everyone. It might be safe to say that if you liked the other Coen brothers' films, then you'll hopefully like this one too. And if you liked what you saw in the trailer, I think you'll like the film, but don't hold me to it.<br /><br />Anyhow, I hope that you like(d) the film as much as I do. Thanks for reading,<br /><br />-Chris | 1pos
|
I should have realized that any two-video set being sold for only $6 would be bad. I even read the reviews before watching this film, and that still didn't sway me. I loved the book, and I knew it couldn't be as bad as people said.<br /><br />Yeah, it is.<br /><br />A patchwork of film, video, and what appears to be stock footage combine to make a three-hour tour of one chapter of James A. Michener's epic novel. Well, the time period covered was one chapter, but I don't remember many of the situations actually occurring in the book. The packaging on my copy of the movie gives Maria Conchita Alonso top billing - though it turns out that she is only in one speaking scene. On the second tape.<br /><br />The actors are to be commended for playing their roles well, despite a smarmy, overwrought script. They are to be insulted, though, for accepting the roles in the first place. | 0neg
|
When I saw this film at a festival years ago I was very impressed and I started to looking for it. Nothing to do, not in the cinemas, nor on DVD neither on Blue ray. Absolutely nothing!!! How it's possible this could really happen??? The direction is IMPECCABLE, the story is intriguing and has been filmed in a very original way the music it's perfect and James Franco is hot as hell!!!<br /><br />Please release this master piece and allow it to have it's proper life!!!!!!!!!! This is really a very great movie that people should see and it deserve another chance!!!!!! <br /><br />Edvard | 1pos
|
I saw this film when it came out. Let me see now--this guy who had earlier skied down Mount Fuji manages to accumulate the funding and hire personnel to document what sounds on the surface like a bold and daring act---to ski down the world's highest peak. Well--AND HERE COMES THE SPOILER--what happens, see, after a large crew of people manage to help him get near the top--and a life is lost in the bargain--he gets on his skis, manages to make it down a very very short way, at which point his PARACHUTE OPENS...and that's that. And instead of burning the footage to hide this amazingly anticlimactic ending to an embarrassing debacle, the guy goes ahead and releases it. SPOILER ENDS I do admire the amazing courage and effort it must have taken the film crew to get some of the stunning shots they got. ANOTHER SPOILER--Oh yes, one of the Sherpas is killed by falling into a crevasse. The narrator, who is quoting the "daredevil skier, casually remarks that, according to the Sherpa religion, since this man's body cannot be recovered his soul will roam the world forever and never know rest. Is it worth it, the narrator muses. YES he answers--because it served the purpose of letting this clown "ski down Everest." I can't remember ever seeing a more meretricious piece of celluloid. This is one to miss at all costs. | 0neg
|
I think my summary says it all. This MTV-ish answer to the classic Candid Camera TV show features a Gen X (or is that Gen Y) type putting in false choppers and wearing various hats and wigs and glasses, and setting people up in fairly outlandish although often not very interesting situations. Example: Kennedy has a guy invite his parents to his "wedding." Kennedy is the bride, done up in a full bridal gown and long wig. The "joke" is that the parents immediately understand their son is marrying a man who claims to no longer have his "bits and pieces." Problem is, this schtick goes on way too long, obviously to fill out time. And Kennedy is about as funny as a dead cod lying in the sun. Candid Camera would have run three or four scenarios in the time it took Kennedy to get through this one, running around, constantly asking "Do I look fat?" I recognize the show was not made for me. It was made for 12-year-old pinheads who think JACKASS is the height of comedy today. So let them laugh. Thank God the show was short-lived. | 0neg
|
This movie surprised me. The box is misleading, the tagline is misleading and the costumes and tone of the film are misleading. The movie is quite gory, well-acted and beautifully shot. The special-effects are top-notch and seem to be ahead of their time, until you realize this movie came out in 1979, not in 1963 like it's tone would suggest. It is a unique take on the Dr. Moreau story, and one of the better versions filmed. The first fifteen minutes are the highlight and the most shocking, but the film doesn't ever really fall apart. Definitely worth-seeing if you are a fan of dramatic costume/horror classics and gore-fests. | 1pos
|
Eddy Murphy and Robert De Niro should be a combination that results in a great comedy. Great expectationa often lead to dissapointment, and this proves to be the case.<br /><br />When Eddy as a police officer spoils a drug deal being done by Detective Robert, they botch it so badly that they end up doing a live action reality TV cop show. Logic is not a great component of this movie. The super-gun that they spend the second half of the movie chasing down confirms it. A twelve guage machine gun that leaves large holes in sheetmetal and three will destroy a house in about a minute (without reloading) is as more a fantasy than science fiction. A five pound gun, firing hundreds of shots per minute without any recoil, is certainly the weapon of the future using the technology of the past.<br /><br />It is clear this movie was designed for neither adults nor children, so if you are somewhere in between, this is the movie for you. | 0neg
|
I really enjoyed this movie. Yes there was disrespect throughout the movie, but Bruce Willis learned, from The Kid, that there is more value in repecting others, and his life of disrespect needs to change. This movie was a refreshing change from the trash that Hollywood is trying to shove down our throats. There are some very good lessons to be learned in this movie. I really believe this was one of Disneys best, even though a couple of things could have been left out. I was impressed with the lack of swearing and lack of sexual inuendos. It isn't perfect, but much better than most everything else out there. | 1pos
|
Kokoda was inspired by events on the Kokoda track during WW2 when Australian militia slowed and ultimately stopped a push by 10,000 Japanese soldiers to move overland and capture Port Moresby. What they really mean is that the movie is set in this time period but is fiction and everything that happens is just a jumble of standard scenes from other war films. The first hour is just one cliché after another. Some of the scenes are simply there to be able to draw us into a feeling that this conflict was horrific beyond compare, when there appears to be little evidence of this. Both sides fought hard to control the track and no mercy was shown by either side. Both sides suffered from logistic shortages and the terrain was a great leveler in this conflict. As the Japanese got closer to Port Moresby their supply line grew and this ultimately led to their downfall. On the other hand as the Australians retreated closer to Port Moresby their supply line decreased. Some of the scenes appear to be straight out of the handbook on standard scenes to include in any war film. The film was misguided and highlighted the youth of the production team. At a time when Australia could have done with a great film about one of Australia's best moments the film Kokoda is a shallow disappointment. | 0neg
|
This is an absolutely true and faithful adaptation of 'The Hollow'. It could be argued that the actual mystery here is not one Christie's best but what makes 'The Hollow' special is the characterisation and I found the actors here, more or less without exception, were perfect in their parts. In such a uniformly good cast it's difficult to select stand out performances but I have to say that Sarah Miles is just perfect as Lucy Angkatell. What is extraordinary is that she not only conveys Lucy's dottiness, tactlessness and her more lovable qualities BUT she also manages to pull off the underlying truth that in fact, Lucy is not really all that nice! Megan Dodds is also very good as Henrietta and Claire Price very affecting as Gerda. John Christow is really quite an unlikeable character but Jonathan Cake nevertheless manages to make us see what his women see in him.<br /><br />As I said, the script follows the story quite faithfully. The only disconcerting thing I found was that Midge and Edward's relationship really comes out of nowhere and I do believe that some of it must have ended up on the cutting room floor! Theirs a secondary story however and the primary story is very well done. The whole thing looks beautiful as well, really capturing a perfect English autumn.<br /><br />Its a beautiful film in every respect and well worth seeing. | 1pos
|
I watched this film on the advice of a friend who assured me it was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen. Sadly this person is completely lacking a sense of humour and I was forced to endure two hours of the worst film making I have ever seen. Please do not watch this film. 1/10 | 0neg
|
Now I remember what the 'indie' filmmakers were ripping off before Pulp Fiction. It was David Lynch, right?<br /><br />I hunted this thing down to see Kyle Secor. What a waste of a perfectly good Bayliss. It was so painful to watch him, sort of like when someone you love is horribly sick and there's nothing you can do.<br /><br />Nearly every cliche in the book: the desert, the psycho, the quirky mob boss, the biker, Tracy Walker (who fortunately was only in one scene, but I kept expecting him to reappear and say something strange and profound like "If a man wants to know where he's going, he's got to look at where he's been," or some contrived garbage like that). I have a theory as to why so many indies are short on location in the desert. I think it's because they can save money on lighting.<br /><br />If you like to be in pain, find this movie and give it a viewing. If you're a fan of Kyle Secor, watch reruns of Homicide on Court TV. If you want a good, quirky road thriller, check out Wild At Heart.<br /><br />There is a reason that no one has heard of Delusion! My god, what a waste of a good title. | 0neg
|
Someone once defined what is the definition of AN INTELLECTUAL as being: "A person who can listen to "The William Tell Overture" without thinking of the LONE RANGER!" In this, we heartily concur! It surely would be a tall order to accomplish this, and one that Leopold Stokowski, Arturo Toscanini or .Leonard Bernstein would all find nigh well impossible to do.<br /><br />And in this there is no disgrace. The Radio Series and the Television Series, along with some Movie Serials, Feature Films, Syndicated Newspaper Comic Strip and Comic Books, all did their part to make "the Masked Man of the Plains and his Faithful Indian companion, Tonto" a deeply seeded element of our collective psyche and of our literary folklore.<br /><br />As with most legends, it all started gradually, first with a series of Radio Plays, written for local use in Detroit over Radio Station WXYZ. The Creator was one George W. Trendle and the Principal Writer on the Series was Mr. Trendle's brother-in-law, Mr. Fran Striker. The year was 1933 when the Ranger first rode out to "
the Plains of the Early Western United States!" The Lone Ranger, Tonto and the Radio Series all successfully guided Depression Era Americans through the mid and late '30's up to and through World War II. But the Post-War Era found the country in the midst of a Super-Nova Explosion of invention and technology. There had been a new communications medium standing ready in the wings, but unable to go forth until both VE Day and VJ Day had been achieved. Once these were accomplished and the World and America was ready to settle down to both Peace and Prosperity. The "New Technology" was, of course was TELEVISION! And we would surely need something else than "Roller Derby" and "Wrestling From Marigold Arena" to fill up the broadcast hours. And while at first, the time that a TV Station had anything on, except that portrait of that Mohican Chief (Test Pattern, Schultz!) Very soon and with post haste, the Networks began tapping their existing Natural Resources, their existing programming! Virtually all would be ripe for adaptation to the TV Screen.<br /><br />So, the folks over at Lone Ranger, Incorporated were very interested when Producers Jack Chertok, Harry Poppe, Sherman Harris and Jack Wrather all approached them with a deal to put The Masked Man and Tonto on the Television waves, as well as the Radio.<br /><br />Immediately they went to work and gave us the first season, which made use of the considerable back log of Radio Dramas, all potentially adaptable to TV dramas. They cast Clayton Moore, a fine supporting actor in many a feature film, and with about a dozen years experience. He also had done some work in Serials over at Republic Pictures' "Thrill Factory", which would be invaluable experience in doing "THE LONE RANGER". Cast as his "faithful Indian companion" and partner in bringing Justice to various parts of the Frontier, we had sheer perfection in character-supporting Actor, Jay Silverheels.** We must mention that there was that rift in about '53, when Clayton Moore walked and was replaced with John Hart. After a season or so, Mr. Moore was back in-having been missed so much! Now, Back to Our Story!! The first years of filming gave the episodes a look and a sound all of their own. They made good use of off screen Narrator, which gave these shows a feel of authenticity and an individual, stand-out one of a kind series. The actors employed were all veterans of the movies of the late silent era thru the 1930's and 1940's. A lot of them had been just about exclusively "Cowboy Movie" players. A good example of these is the casting of Glenn Strange (Bartender Sam on "GUNSMOKE") as the vicious, murderous Gang Leader, Butch Cavandish. And it was the Cavendish Gang's massacre of the Texas Rangers that led to the origin of John Reid (thought to have been slain with the other Texas Rangers) as the "LONE RANGER".<br /><br />In addition to the old timers in the cast, you will find a lot of new and up and coming talent (then) in the cast. We see people like Phyllis Coates, Dwayne Hickman, Denver Pyle and others in the cast from week to week. All of this, along with an always calling for fair-play, justice and peace in a western world.<br /><br />The last couple of seasons brought some big changes. First was the use of Colour Filming. That made no difference as a Colour TV Set was still a long way off for our household. The second was a new set of musical themes and queues. (Other than Rossini's Finale from "U NO Wutt!") The new music was never a big deal to us, as we preferred the "old Radio" stock stuff.<br /><br />With this series and two Feature Films done during this period, THE LONE RANGER (Warner Brothers, 1956) and THE LONE RANGER AND THE LOST CITY OF GOLD (United Artists, 1958), the character has been permanently and indelibly impressed in our identity as a People, we Americans! | 1pos
|
I have seen a number of horror movies to know that this one was one of kind. Full Moon Pictures has a knack of giving this fan an entertaining night. For all the cheesiness of most vampire films, This Is the ONE that has not only a good premise but has two good sequels. A Must See. | 1pos
|
As someone who used to spend hours driving around the backstreets of North London in an attempt to avoid the horrific congestion, this film immediately appealed. Throw in my interest in what London was like back in the late 70s and you have the basic premise for my version of TV heaven! On paper the film ticked all the right boxes, and having just watched "The Knowledge" the actual movie itself certainly lived up to, if not exceeded, my high expectations.<br /><br />Visually, I was surprised how different London looked back then (I lived in Islington in the 90s, long after gentrification had transformed the area). It truly came across as grimy, tatty and down-at-heel. London may still have bad housing estates, but the general feel of the place is much cleaner, brighter and pleasant nowadays (based on what this movie shows rather than my own memories).<br /><br />As for the story and the acting, well top marks obviously go to Nigel Hawthorne as The Vampire. Absolutely brilliant! He acts deliberately unpredictably, alternating between total straight-faced severity and surreal mindgames in order to unnerve the Knowledge Boys as he puts them through test after test.<br /><br />All in all this was an excellent, thoroughly enjoyable trip back into a very specific time and place that I find endlessly fascinating. But even if you're not especially interested in London circa 1979, you'll still enjoy following the witty dialogue and likable characters of "The Knowledge". | 1pos
|
"May contain spoilers" Sadly Lou Costellos' last film has the distinction of being slightly better than Abbott & Costello's last movie together "Dance With Me Henry". This movie isn't all in all outright terrible it is an amusing career misfire. Dorothy Provine is nice to look at and makes the movie somewhat bearable. You can't blame Lou Costello for this because a major studio released it which meant somebody had to give it the "green" light. In my opinion Lou Costello was getting over problems of his own losing his son a few years earlier and the unwarranted attacks from the IRS. If you look at the last 3-4 Abbott & Costello movies you can notice the magic was gone. Check out "Dance With Me Henry" now that's a painful movie to watch. | 0neg
|
This one started excellently. The photography and audio are the best I've experienced in years (okay, months). Especially the use of 'warm' and 'cold' colours in single sequences is astonishing. Also, making Jennifer Lopez whisper most of her lines is an idea in itself, but I'm not sure what Singh wants to accomplish with that.<br /><br />Now for the minuses. The screenplay was awful. Lopez's part turned out to be irrelevant or totally worthless to the plot. She seemed to star the movie only to sell herself and the pic. The three beds seemed just too obvious. The baptizing of the child Carl was a psychologically too underlined way to embark the motive which Carl 'worked' under. And so on..<br /><br />Anyway, the movie had great way of showing where Singh comes from. Why is it that the most talented directors seem to emerge from India nowadays? | 1pos
|
'Oppenheimer' with Sam Waterston in the title role and with David Suchet as Evard Teller is an example of the docudrama at its very finest. Well written, well acted by actors who bear a believable resemblance to their historical characters, highly informative, and very entertaining. The set designs and costumes capture the feel of the US during World War 2, and the plotting and dialog make the viewer feel as if he were really present at Los Alamos and caught up in the excitement of the Manhattan Project. The only downside is that this is a British production, and some of the actors lack skill in affecting a convincing American accent. (The skill of current day Australian & Irish actors taking on non-native dialects is amazing.) The storyline is fully consistent with Richard Rhodes' definitive history of the development of the atomic bomb. Sadly, the mini-series was shown only a couple of times on PBS at the beginning of the 1980s and then apparently vanished into oblivion.<br /><br />'Oppenheimer' compares favorably to the more recent 'Fat Man & Little Boy' feature film with Paul Newman as Leslie Groves (the chronically overweight and rather homely General would be thoroughly flattered) and Dwight Schultz (alumnus of TV's 'A-Team') as Oppenheimer. As a mini-series, 'Oppenheimer' is around 4x as long as the Newman feature, but uses the all of the additional time completely to its advantage. | 1pos
|
Oh noes one of these attack of the Japanese ghost girl movies... i don't even remember how many i've seen. maybe it sells... but not to me. not scary at all. the japanese horror movies are have been very similar since the first one of these... also the pulling of the kid. i have seen that pulled under scene so many times in so many horror movies. cellphone scene is also nothing new... the dramaticness of the guy getting hit by a train kinda sucked... i mean it lacked all dramaticness... OK this is for kids 14-16 who listen to japanese rock and think they are so unique... we'll let me tell you. there's a million of you =D this is one of them. 3/10 i've seen worse but you won't be missing anything by NOT seeing this! | 0neg
|
For a teenager who has never read Austen, this adaptation might be fine. But only for them. This is a disjointed "Cliff Notes" version of Mansfield Park, and if you have not seen another version or read the books parts of it would be head scratching.<br /><br />Why has it been so hard to do a good adaptation of this book? The one in the 1990s took such liberties that it barely seemed to be the same book - the mindset was completely modern and prurient.<br /><br />Here we have Billie Piper who looks like a pretty country wench. She has a charming personality that develops nicely - but she has flagrantly died blonde hair, with black eyebrows and - through much of the pic - dark brown roots. So much for unspoiled cousin. It is incredibly distracting, and the rest of the cast is in the greasy hair, rumpled clothing genre that shows a real disrespect for period accuracy.<br /><br />One thing is good here - Haley Atwell is the best Mary Crawford of all the versions. She is note perfect, flirtatious without being at all modern or suggestive, flippant and completely without any moral or ethical compass. Henry here is actually good looking enough to be a slight temptation for our heroine.<br /><br />Jemma Redgrave takes one of the most interesting roles in the story and manages to make her actually boring until her last scene - much too sensible. This is just a production that really missed the mark, a real low for Austen fans.<br /><br />The only serviceable version is the one with odd duck (perfect for the role) Sylvestra La Touzel (despite the very very gay Henry Crawford - he's just laughable). | 0neg
|
"Dolemite" is the touching story of Dolemite (Gotta love blaxploitation film titles), an ex-con who probably should still be in jail. He gets in trouble with cops, friends, drug dealers, women, prostitutes, and society in general. He's just not that likable a guy. Neither is the movie, though it's still hilarious and worth watching.<br /><br />The flimsy premise is that Dolemite (played with as much enthusiasm as star Rudy Ray Moore can muster) is in jail for a crime he claims he didn't commit. When a drug hit or a drug bust or drug something is about to go down, the warden releases him to stop it, or help it, or just watch it. Not very clear. All I know is that I was unaware that the justice system frees convicts in order to allow them to prove their own innocence. My ignorance, I guess.<br /><br />The plot is convoluted and unimportant, basically Dolemite goes around killing people (Usually with very poorly choreographed karate), having sex, and cursing out people, sometimes even rhyming too. The joys of the movie are its total incompetence, and its total indifference in the matter.<br /><br />I stopped counting the number of times I saw the boom mike after it was in one scene for the entire duration (about two minutes of film). I stopped questioning why the warden was looking down at where Dolemite was sitting, even after he stood up and walked around, when they cut back to the establishing shot and Dolemite was inexplicably sitting down again. I stopped wondering why Dolemite dressed like that when he got naked on the street to change, because he didn't want to get in his car with the ugly (read: normal) clothes the jail gave him. And I stopped wondering where he learned karate when he jiggles his hand on a guy's stomach and somehow cuts him open. The only time I was ever remotely nervous and tense was when the disgusting, flabby white mayor is walking around totally naked with nothing but a towel hanging around his neck which just barely covers him up. You keep saying "Cut away...cut away...cut away" but by the time they do, you are already emotionally scarred.<br /><br />The movie is ridiculous in every way imaginable. Moore as Dolemite, is either funny, cool, or both. If you're on the lookout for a bad movie, you have found it with "Dolemite." | 0neg
|
Bedrooms and Hallways gives its audience a look into the mind of a man who thinks he's found himself, only to find out that he's not so sure he found the right guy. If you think that all gay comedies are the same, check this one out. Although the movie ends without much resolution, the hilarious one-liners, peculiar situations, and quirky characters are sure to satisfy. | 1pos
|
The story starts out with a soldier being transported to a desert town then goes back in time to tell the tale of how he came to this place. He started out as an officer in Napoleon's army fighting in Egypt but became separated from his unit. After nearly starving and/or dying of thirst he came upon a leopard which somehow became his bosom buddy. It brought him food and before long the soldier became almost totally wild so acute was his bonding with the animal. All things do end however and the man decided it was necessary for him to leave the critter. A very strange film, well written and portrayed. Beautiful scenery from Jordan and Utah which didn't always blend perfectly, but who cares. | 1pos
|
i enjoyed this film immensely, due to pungent scenes (humorous as well as ironic, some even "tragical"), believable performances, witty dialogue and a heartfelt rendering of what it´s like or rather c a n be like to be hetero- and/or homosexual & on the lookout for fulfilment of your desires. i´m aware of the paradox here: homo- a n d hetereosexual.... this is something the film tackles on end, but never uses for caricature. if you´re as open-minded as the people seem to have been who made that film, in the end it won´t matter to you if those who lie in each others arms are of the same sex or not.<br /><br />"mr. smith" from the matrix gives an admirable turn as a gay houses-salesman with "strange" appetites here, but that´s not the only thing to marvel at. enjoy..... | 1pos
|
Let me state this right from the start. I do NOT hate this show. I actually quite like some aspects of it. In fact, when i first started to watch it, I quickly became hooked. I was just starting to come out of the whole "anime is for kids" stereotype, and the mature elements of the show had me intrigued.<br /><br />Unfortunately, after seeing the whole series through and a few of the films, I can say that my overall disposition has changed, and it falls into almost all of the pitfalls that plague "bad" anime. Seven or eight friends and myself started watching this series on TV. By the end, only one friend and I were still watching and neither of us liked it.<br /><br />Allow me to explain the plot for you. You can skip this paragraph if you don't want to know. Kagome is an average high school student, who one day falls into a magical well near her family run shrine. When kagome comes out of the well again, she has been transported back in time to the feudal era of japan. She meets up with many other characters and they form a group of five or so companions who set off on a journey of revenge/justice/groping in one characters case =). Overall, they are trying to recover the pieces of the sacred jewel shard which enhances the power of demons who use it.<br /><br />While there are many, MANY side stories and story arcs, there is no were near enough material to occupy 167 episodes. The only story arc that is interesting enough to watch is still sort of dull (the band of seven). After the half way mark in the series or maybe even before, it becomes painfully obvious that the plot is frozen in place and whoever made the series decided instead to put in dozens and dozens of filler episodes. <br /><br />These episodes have little to no impact on the story, and rarely even on the characters. In some cases, some characters who had an important role in the story will disappear for dozens of episodes at a time. Many episodes follow the exact same cookie cutter patterns as the stories before it. Inuyasha shoots wind-scar at enemy. Windscar deflects. Characters gasp in horror. Enemy turns out to have barrier. Characters spent three episodes trying to kill enemy before Kagome finally fires sacred arrow at him and he turns to dust. <br /><br />Also **MAJOR SPOILER: THE CONCLUSION WILL BE REVEALED** the lack of any conclusion makes it seem like you have waisted 83 hours. <br /><br />**MAJOR SPOILER OVER**<br /><br />The animation itself is above average, and in some cases excellent. Even so, reused animation cells plague most action scenes, and it is very hard to ignore them when it is clear that the exact same boulder has flown past a character five or six times in a row.<br /><br />On the brighter side however, all of the characters are very well developed and the romances between some of the characters were truly captivating. Also, the character designs (appearences) were brilliant and at times among the best I have seen, particularly with the band of seven. There is definitely no shortage of Cosplay opportunities here. Even so, I found myself hoping that a character would die just so there would be some sort of movement in the plot. And some of the humour in the show between characters is used again and again. One particular joke (sit boy) is found within the first five episodes, and you can literally expect it to be used again and again for the remaining 162 episodes.<br /><br />Although there are some good aspects of the show and it is easy to see why it has a huge following, the series seems to be dominated by obsessed fan girls who drool over Sesshomiru and InuYasha.<br /><br />Bottom line: Definitely worth checking out, but not worth watching the whole series. The first 30 episodes are very clever, original and enjoyable for anybody. But after that, it simply becomes dull and tedious. Watching a TV show should never feel like a chore, but somehow this series accomplishes just that. Don't expect much from "InuYasha", because you will only feel let down. | 0neg
|
Tycoon will never be listed as one of John Wayne's better post Stagecoach film. It's good in spots, has some fine action sequences in the cave in and also in the flood at the climax. But the plot leaves a lot to be desired.<br /><br />What we have in Tycoon is two men who thoroughly dislike each other and that dislike prevents them from working as a team. Multimillionaire Cedric Hardwicke has hired John Wayne and James Gleason to build a railroad. But then he refuses to give them the needed funds to do the job right.<br /><br />Things get really complicated when Wayne falls for Hardwicke's daughter, Laraine Day. After a night when they have to spend time alone in an Inca ruin, by convention in South America, Wayne and Day get a shotgun wedding even though nothing happened.<br /><br />What should have happened is these two should have been locked in a room for 24 hours together to work out their differences one way or another. Their petty spites cause some fatalities among Wayne's crew.<br /><br />But what Tycoon is most known for is another piece of pettiness. Laraine Day was married to Leo Durocher the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers when this was being filmed. He was a constant presence on the set, insanely jealous of John Wayne who he thought might be having an affair with his wife. Nothing to it, but he made his wife's life miserable.<br /><br />Not one of the Duke's better efforts. | 0neg
|
A very well directed version of Eric Bogosian's stage play. Well worth checking out for Bogosian's great characters and for anyone who wants to see how to bring a play to the movies correctly. | 1pos
|
I'm astonished how a filmmaker notorious for his political left-wing fervor could make such a subtle, non-sanctimonious picture. If you're for capital punishment, you'll still be for it after seeing this. If you're against capital punishment, you'll still be against it. But whatever your stance is, this movie will, at the very least, make you reflect on why you feel the way you do. There's not one false note in the film. | 1pos
|
Everything about "Choose Connor" was top=drawer, especially the script and the very proficient work done by the 21-year-old director, writer, producer Luke Eberl . . . a talented young man from whom to expect great things. All the acting was credible, the dialogue smart, the theme important. Loved it!!!<br /><br />Saw it at the 2007 Woodstock Film Festival, where it was screened twice and went over tremendously with the audiences. It's more than just a coming of age movie -- this kid learns a hard, heartbreaking lesson about trust, politics and "the system" -- how things really work to suit the personal agendas of those in powerful positions.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie to anyone with a working brain. | 1pos
|
This is a awful re-make of a very good movie called "Up In The Air" starring Frankie Darrow, Mantan Moreland and Marjorie Reynolds. I was only able to get through about 20 minutes before turning it off. Almost all the lines are identical, I have no idea why they would re-do the movie. I totally disagree with a previous post that dislikes the songs ( there the same also), In the original the singing is first rate, I'm not sure if Marjorie Reynolds actually did her own singing, it's hard to tell since the vocals were usually added later, and the songs are very good, surprising in a "B" movie. If you get the chance see the original it's available on DVD. You'll be pleasantly surprised. | 0neg
|
I found this movie to be preachy and unrealistic. It tries to be a movie showing kids fighting against the system, but it doesn't even present a positive solution. I guess I didn't feel really for the kids. I totally can understand what their gripes were and I know how poor the state of schools are, but I found their solution and the way the outside dealt with it to be a big bunch of phooey. If this comes on TV, don't waste your time. Watch Short Circuit again for the 235th time. | 0neg
|
Director Jay Craven's adaptation of Howard Frank Mosher's 'Where the rivers flow north' is one of the finer transitions from literature to the screen. Craven is an admirer of Mosher's work -- he also directed 'A stranger in the Kingdom'.<br /><br />The cast is superb -- especially Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal. Torn offers what could be the finest role of his career -- Noel Lord, the fiercely independent former lumberjack who is at the center of this story. Tantoo Cardinal's portrayal of Lord's live-in housekeeper/common-law wife is dead-on as well. I'm both amazed and disappointed that neither of them were nominated for Oscars when this film was released. Performances of this calibre should be acknowledged. The only character that's a little hard to swallow for me is the power company executive played by Michael J. Fox. He just looks too much like a kid in this role. I guess there's a curse attached to youthful looks, no matter how much people want them.<br /><br />Craven has done a nice job here in bringing the character of early 20th century Vermont to the screen -- locations, angles, sets, all combine to transport the viewer to the time and place of the story. Cinematographer Paul Ryan was exceptional. The score by the Horseflies is also first rate -- it fits the mood and scenery perfectly.<br /><br />And the story itself...? One of the most compelling portrayals of the fiercely independent American pioneer spirit ever -- a trait that is on the wane in this day and age. When it appears in modern times, the person is often looked upon with suspicion and disdain. In Noel Lord, we have a character whom we can admire for his values, and even for his stubbornness.<br /><br />This is not a stodgy 'period piece', but a vibrant look at an era that is gone, and a type of character that has all but vanished. These are not gold-plated heroes, but real people, with both strengths and weaknesses at play within them. struggling in a harsh environment to live their lives and at the same time be at peace with the world in which they live. Like today, there are those who wield power that would have it otherwise. | 1pos
|
I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.<br /><br />These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.<br /><br />I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one. | 0neg
|
I have seen about five or six episodes of this stupid show, and most of them I was forced to watch. And I did NOT like the episodes I saw. What happened to Dan Schneider? After giving us such awesome shows like Drake and Josh, why did he decide to create a stupid show like this? My problem is not just with Dan, it is also with the guys who nominated this show for an Emmy, were they drunk that day, or what's the problem? Drake and Josh didn't get nominated for an Emmy, but it's way better than Zoey 101. The makers of this show should be ashamed for the existence of this show, let's just hope the pregnancy of you know who will affect the show, or better yet it'll cause it to get canceled. | 0neg
|
Ridiculous, nauseating doggerel with terrible acting; ineptly, superficially, and condescendingly trawling all the most banal clichés about Tuscany and Italy, divorce and midlife. The main actor nervously grimaces her way through the film, struggling to portray the appropriate level of smug, self-congratulatory self-pity the worthless character and script call for. I'm sure the book was bad, but it can't have been this bad! The camera is permanently fitted with a vomit-yellow "Tuscan" lense filter (perhaps the Tuscan sun wasn't Tuscan enough?), which they forgot to remove when the scene shifts to Rome and (how imaginative!) the Amalfi coast. You've never seen the white marble of Rome's Vittorio Emmanuelle monument looking so yellow... I mean Tuscan. One of the worst movies ever, and therefore quite worth a look. | 0neg
|
Anatomie isn't very unique in horror genre, in fact it isn't even scary at all. It reminds me of its American cousins, horror slashers. It's just a copy of any other horror slasher and as a German movie it's just too American with nothing to add to it.<br /><br />Actually Anatomie is too predictable and boring, its plot is not intact and consistent. It's got stupid scenes to it which don't even fit into a horror movie genre. Amusing sex scenes with pop music and topless women in underwear. Why do they need to have it all in just one movie? They should have made a cheap German adult movie instead.<br /><br />I can't recommend this movie to anyone because it's just too boring. | 0neg
|
What a waste of time to watch this movie. Poor picture quality, poor sound, poor acting and definitely not based on actual facts. The deputy's "girlfriend" did so much overacting, as did the sheriff, that it was more comedy than horror. The deputy tries to make an emergency phone call by dialing 911...PROBLEM...in 1957 that emergency number was not in existence. That is just one example of glaring inconsistencies.<br /><br />The "scary" aspect was way underdone. Just did not come across as horrific.<br /><br />I did think that the actor playing Gein did the most admirable acting job in the whole movie. I could well see mental disturbances in his character portrayal.<br /><br />Sorry...this one just does NOT get it!! | 0neg
|
"Where to begin, where to begin . . ?(Savannah in the episode "Gimme Shelter")" To disabuse: Fox/Viacom does not, at this point in time, have any intention of releasing THE show on DVD. But be not downhearted! That you are reading this reveals that the magic lingers fifteen years on . . . And small wonder. This was post-modern television, a valiant attempt to visualize magical realism. 'neath the blue patina, charm, and brio were scripts bursting with symbolism and metaphor, music that actually interacted with scenes! And, ultimately, an attempt, however doomed, to recapture one's belief in innocence, to reclaim Eden, as it were . . . It's potency is perhaps best attested to by the fact that even as we, umm, type, a book is being written about the show wherein will be found the thoughts, fancies, and reminiscences of many of the show's actors, writers, directors, and producers. In the meanwhiles . . . anyone desirous of once again visiting the end of the world and reacquainting themselves with Seamus, Sheriff Cody, Savannah, et al . . . should not hesitate to contact me, I may be able to make you a copy. "Angels in the spray, wizards in the palm trees . . ." | 1pos
|
Demi and Woody are married, but they're poor. They meet Robert Redford, and he's REALLY rich. He takes a fancy to Demi, and since he's a gambling man he makes the couple an "indecent proposal:" one million dollars for a night with the little woman.<br /><br />At this point you need watch no more of the film because you can put the details together in your sleep. Of course Demi is going to accept the offer. If she doesn't there's no first half of the movie. Of course it will affect Demi and Woody's marriage. If it doesn't there's no second half of the movie. And of course everything will turn out okay by the time the credits roll. If it doesn't, there's no happy ending for the sake of box office.<br /><br />The absolute best thing you can say about INDECENT PROPOSAL is that Demi Moore looks good in a black dress. As for the rest... The script is incompetent, the direction amateurish, the performances negligible. I suspect Redford, Moore, and Harrelson blush and change the subject every time the film is mentioned. Do them--and more importantly yourself--a favor. Unless some one offers you a million... Miss It!<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 0neg
|
.... could it be that ITV wouldn't want to release this absolute classic because it would show up their current series of Mike Bassett for what it is? When discussing Mike Bassett with some work colleagues I mentioned Bostock's Cup as being a far superior offering and was surprised to find that I seem to be the only person in my entire office that has actually seen it. This can't be right for a film that has got to be the funniest thing I have ever seen.<br /><br />Let's face it, ITV don't have the greatest recent record for producing comedy so you would think that they would jump at the chance of at least repeating something which is genuinely funny. Perhaps if it could be combined with a lucrative telephone competition of where we think the coach driver will go next then they might be interested.<br /><br />Come on ITV, there are still some of us out there who would like to watch original, quality comedy/drama. Do the decent thing thing. Repeat it then get it out on DVD. | 1pos
|
I think the film makes a subtile reference to rouge of Kieslowski, as the whole atmosphere gives me a feeling of red. It seems to be that a lot of the backgrounds contain red, think of the tea-room f.e. I also think this is one of the greatest movies of the last years. | 1pos
|
This is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.<br /><br />It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.<br /><br />The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what<br /><br />Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.<br /><br />I left the cinema feeling cheated.<br /><br />Needless to say i could not reccoemnd this film to anyone | 0neg
|
I blow hot and cold over Carné. He really can be a puzzle for me. I think perhaps his inspiration left him a little earlier than it did for other directors of his generation. Certainly a man who came to maturity in the Thirties with the Popular Front seems ill at ease in the France of the Fifties, with its rampant commercialism and heavy American influence. He is almost thirty years older than his young stars, and it shows. The party scenes go on much longer than they should, as if he were trying to buy time for the anemic scenario to work. Roland Lesaffre's character--he plays Pascale Petit's older brother--seems to exist only to reassure the director that his old-style ideas are still sound.<br /><br />At two hours, this picture is far too long. Still, let me praise Pascale Petit for her game performance; she was a natural who should have challenged Brigitte Bardot for sexpot supremacy, but somehow lost her way. Andrea Parisy is excellent too as the girl who gets pregnant and wants Charrier to marry her and make her baby legitimate (yes, they still thought that way in the Fifties). Laurent Terzieff is the only French actor who could play an anarchist convincingly: he is great here as he rescues a cat from death, then remarks he can't stand cats. Jacques Charrier only reminds me how mediocre he was as an actor, with that constant little grin and those blank eyes. | 1pos
|
Co-scripted by William H. Macy from, arguably, Donald E. Westlake's best and hardest to find novel, "A Travesty". *Very* faithful to the story, the movie stars Macy as a hapless man who gets in way too far over his head after attempting to cover up an accidental death. Costars Adam Arkin and James Cromwell in good supporting roles. The strength of the movie is in the intricate twist-after-twist storyline and in the acting, particularly by Macy who routinely and delightfully breaks through the 4th wall here and gets away with it every time. A good storyline with much dark humor, this one engaged me enough that I've watched it three times in the week since it came out. Prepare to shelve your critical faculties and emit a loud, bipartisan "wheeeeee!". | 1pos
|
Maybe I'm biased because the F-16 is my favorite fighter aircraft - although the F-14 is probably second or third - but I liked this movie. The sequels (Iron Eagle II and III) don't measure up acting and plot wise, but the first one - along with Top Gun - have excellent flying and music, along with reasonable plots and acting. II and III clearly have much less of a "flight budget", but their main drawback is plot and acting. I suspect the relative fame and popularity of Iron Eagle compared to Top Gun is almost entirely a reflection of the fame and popularity of Jason Gedrick compared to Tom Cruise. Another plus (for me) is an all too brief appearance by Shawnee Smith. 7/10 | 1pos
|
GREAT MOVIE! Chucky is by far the funniest character in a movie. Jennifer Tilly (Tiffany) makes this movie even better! Well before Chucky died Tiffany and him were together. But like ten years later Tiffany gets Chucky back (as a doll) and brings him back to life. It was a great movie!Scary and definetly funny (only because Chucky!)10/10 | 1pos
|
This is one of t.v.'s greatest mini-series! It comes to life almost as well as the book did. Also the cast was outstanding to play the roles. I'd recommend this movie series for anyone who likes the Civil War or the history leading up to it. | 1pos
|
Like most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the "performance" late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.<br /><br />Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say "SPOILERS." I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's "not real?" Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:<br /><br />[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.<br /><br />[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they "get" it.<br /><br />I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home... | 0neg
|
If you are looking for the feel-good hit of the summer, Dark Harvest 2 might just be your ticket. The production values of this movie are extremely high (looks as if it were filmed with a Sony Handicam and edited using iMovie), especially the sound effects -- they sound straight off of a "Spooky Halloween Sounds" CD! The scarecrow from the cover, although he doesn't appear in the movie and otherwise has no relevance, is terrifyingly realistic! From beginning to end, you'll watch as a man aimlessly searches for his daughters through a, pun intended, MAIZE! At the climactic ending of the movie you'll see, well...you'll have to watch for yourself.<br /><br />What I'm really trying to say here is, don't come within 1000 yards of this movie. I rented it because I thought it would be a campy sort of "Troll 2" funny, but it's not. I cried after I watched this movie, because I realized I had spent money on it (and I found the $4 I spent on renting it). I actually fell asleep for 20 minutes and still knew what was going on. | 0neg
|
A VERY un-Tom and Jerry short. Jerry narrates this tale that revolves around Tom the cat falling in love and losing her to his rival, Butch. Tom is best friends with Jerry here which irked me a bit. The cartoon is also presented in Cinemascope. Overall I found this Tom and Jerry cartoon sad and depressing. The should have just put "Puss gets the boot" on the DVD instead and I would've been happy. This experimental animated short can be found on disc 2 of Warner Brother's 2-DVD Spotlight Collection set. It's the last one on the set and I'm hoping that Warner Brothers chooses to release a second Volume soon.<br /><br />My Grade: C- | 0neg
|
A plane carrying employees of a large biotech firm--including the CEO's daughter--goes down in thick forest in the Pacific Northwest. When the search and rescue mission is called off, the CEO, Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), puts together a small ragtag group to execute their own search and rescue mission. But just what is Knowles searching for and trying to rescue, and just what is following and watching them in the woods? <br /><br />Oy, what a mess this film was! It was a shame, because for one, it stars Lance Henriksen, who is one of my favorite modern genre actors, and two, it could have easily been a decent film. It suffers from two major flaws, and they're probably both writer/director Jonas Quastel's fault--this film (which I'll be calling by its aka of Sasquatch) has just about the worst editing I've ever seen next to Alone in the Dark (2005), and Quastel's constant advice for the cast appears to have been, "Okay, let's try that again, but this time I want everyone to talk on top of each other, improvise non-sequiturs and generally try to be as annoying as possible".<br /><br />The potential was there. Despite the rip-off aspects (any material related to the plane crash was obviously trying to crib The Blair Witch Project (1999) and any material related to the titular monster was cribbing Predator (1987)), Ed Wood-like exposition and ridiculous dialogue, the plot had promise and potential for subtler and far less saccharine subtexts. The monster costume, once we actually get to see it, was more than sufficient for my tastes. The mixture of character types trudging through the woods could have been great if Quastel and fellow writer Chris Lanning would have turned down the stereotype notch from 11 to at least 5 and spent more time exploring their relationships. The monster's "lair" had some nice production design, specifically the corpse decorations ala a more primitive Jeepers Creepers (2001). If it had been edited well, there were some scenes with decent dialogue that could have easily been effective.<br /><br />But the most frightening thing about Sasquatch is the number of missteps made: For some reason, Quastel thinks it's a good idea to chop up dialogue scenes that occur within minutes of each other in real time so that instead we see a few lines of scene A, then a few lines of scene B, then back to A, back to B, and so on.<br /><br />For some reason, he thinks it's a good idea to use frequently use black screens in between snippets of dialogue, whether we need the idea of an unspecified amount of time passing between irrelevant comments or whether the irrelevant comments seem to be occurring one after the other in time anyway.<br /><br />For some reason, he doesn't care whether scenes were shot during the morning, afternoon, middle of the night, etc. He just cuts to them at random. For that matter, the scenes we're shown appear to be selected at random. Important events either never or barely appear, and we're stuck with far too many pointless scenes.<br /><br />For some reason, he left a scene about cave art in the film when it either needs more exposition to justify getting there, or it needs to just be cut out, because it's not that important (the monster's intelligence and "humanity" could have easily been shown in another way).<br /><br />For some reason, there is a whole character--Mary Mancini--left in the script even though she's superfluous.<br /><br />For some reason we suddenly go to a extremely soft-core porno scene, even though the motif is never repeated again.<br /><br />For some reason, characters keep calling Harlan Knowles "Mr. H", like they're stereotypes of Asian domestics.<br /><br />For some reason, Quastel insists on using the "Blurry Cam" and "Distorto-Cam" for the monster attack scenes, even though the costume doesn't look that bad, and it would have been much more effective to put in some fog, a subtle filter, or anything else other than bad cinematography.<br /><br />I could go on, but you get the idea.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film better than I didI'm a Henriksen fan, I'm intrigued by the subject, I loved the setting, I love hiking and this is basically a hiking film on one level--but I just couldn't. Every time I thought it was "going to be better from this point until the end", Quastel made some other awful move. In the end, my score was a 3 out of 10. | 0neg
|
Its the best movie I have seen in 2000, it has the beautiful and talented Natalie Portman in it. It has a great storyline, cast and soundtrack. I enjoyed it very much. 10 out of 10 | 1pos
|
Buddy Manucci(Roy Scheider, solid in a chance leading role)heads a secret undercover police squad called the Seven-Ups whose tactics don't necessarily follow the exact ways of the law. They get the job done in their own way without anything being leaked to the press, and this gives them a freedom to expand their means of getting to the criminals most working detectives and policeman just can not nab. Buddy has a pal from childhood named Vito(Tony Lo Bianco)who swaps information with him regarding mob types and shysters working the streets in NYC. What Buddy doesn't know is that Vito is hatching a scheme using names from Buddy's "check list"(he has this book open taking down notes provided by Vito, but doesn't know that his friend has copied those very names written within his mind)to set up mob families in a series of mob kidnappings eliciting cash thanks to two cop-posers, Moon(the always-villainous Richard Lynch)and Bo(Bill Hickman)working with him. When this scheme goes awry, with one of the Seven-Ups being killed, Vito becomes fearful because he knows how Buddy can be when he's doggedly after someone..especially when one of his own is murdered.<br /><br />Extremely underrated cop flick has thrilling car chase through New York City as Buddy follows the kidnapping cop-imposter's trying to get them after killing his partner. The film isn't overly complex after the plot is set-up and we realize who is the ring-leader in the scheming of mobsters. Scheider has never been given the credit he deserves as a fine lead actor. He has emotional range and we see how losing his cop and friend takes it's toll on him. The film is briskly paced with good action sequences and sets up an interesting plot of betrayal between friends as greed comes before that childhood friendship and how what seems like a smooth crime-spree against evil mob families can get cops killed. | 1pos
|
A tough life gets tougher when the three children of a single mom are scheduled to be sent to separate foster homes after her untimely passing.<br /><br />To stay together, the older boy plans a daring, high risk escape to find a distant lost uncle- their only remaining next of kin.<br /><br />Their trek takes the three fearful runaways on a chase through the desert in a classic beetle, penniless, hungry, desperate, terrorized by delinquents and too young to drive, hunted by the ever threatening civil authorities.<br /><br />What the movie lacks in acting and plot realism, it makes up for in the honest human need to be a part of a fulfilled and complete family- even if that family is cobbled together with spare parts of broken lives.<br /><br />Sure, the ending is forced and too over-dramatic for the critical movie goer, but every heart beats the same cry for family togetherness and belonging.<br /><br />With all its weaknesses, I still give this movie a strong recommendation. | 1pos
|
I went to this film full of hope. With so many capable and humorous actors headed up by Sir Ben I thought this is going to be a little treat.<br /><br />Oh how I felt like gouging my eyes out as the credits rolled. That I had wasted 93mins of my life this film that was clearly DOA. There are some real problems with this film and it will probably be easier to list them; 1. No jokes, I am not particularly hard to please comedically - high or low brow - but there really is not one laugh in this film.<br /><br />2. Sir Ben mumbles through every single line whether he is supposed to be drunk or not?!? 3. There is no effort to to begin let alone develop the relationship between the love interests in this. 2 people bumping into each other randomly in the street would instantly have more rapport.<br /><br />4. All the acting talent that is assembled is completely wasted. Don't be fooled into watching this because of the names.<br /><br />5. For a cold ass hit-man he rubbed out more people in Gandhi than this flaccid waste of time (a by the way dyed beards look really creepy) I was hoping that this was a slow burner but in the end the only thing that could inject any life - and justice - into this is Frank pulling out his 9 and offing the whole cast starting with Tea and ending with himself - sorry it was that bad. | 0neg
|
This TV show is possibly the most pathetic display of crap on TV today. Horribly predictable, obscene usage of slow motion photography, cheesy story lines. Chuck Norris is an abomination who should never have been allowed to be filmed in anything. The way he chooses to make each episode into a public service announcement is really annoying. His acting sucks so bad that it makes a person cringe with embarrassment. I will give the series some credit though...it does get entertaining at times, but not enough for it make any difference. With all the negative points this series has, i still prefer it over reality TV, it can't really get any more worthless than that. | 0neg
|
This movie can't decide what it is -- a soft porno or a sf movie. Not enough plot for a real movie, but way too much for a porno.<br /><br />In a galaxy far far away, a good princess (we know she's good because she has long blonde hair, wears a white toga, is polite, and is mooning wistfully about her dying mother when we first see her) inherits the kingdom over her elder sister, who is evil (and we know this because she has dark hair and wears too much makeup, abuses her male sexual slaves, sneers and curls her lip all the time, and talks imperiously about the horrors she'll perpetrate when she's queen). The evil princess gets upset and tries to stage a coup, but the good sister gets away to Earth. Of course, she materializes buck naked in a bar during a wet T-shirt contest. It really goes downhill from there. The acting is ludicrous, the dialog sounds like it was written for a porno, and the general storyline is ridiculous. There's not even enough skin to make happy the sort of person who'd watch this for skin. I love "good" bad movies, and this one's not even enjoyable on a "bad movie" level. | 0neg
|
No matter how you feel about Michael Jackson himself, you can't deny that this video is the most unique video of all time. There is no other video that is even remotely close to "Thriller" The first time I saw it was when I was 6 years old and it scared me bad. Now I watch it with a smile because I can now appreciate the marvel that it is. I love this video and it will be around for as long as music videos exist. I think everyone should sit down and watch it when its on sometime and look back and see how great it was, especially for being 1983. | 1pos
|
These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already. | 0neg
|
By the time this movie came out in 1996, director Mark Lester had been making tight, sharp little B action pictures for more than 20 years. He was responsible for the great "Truck Stop Women" from the '70s and several other little gems; unfortunately, he's also responsible for this dud. It's a shame to see the talented--and still smoking hot--Theresa Russell wasted yet again, but she's still the best actor in this picture. Eric Roberts shows up for a while, does his Eric Roberts thing, then goes away, a not altogether unwelcome occurrence in a picture with Eric Roberts in it. Frank Stallone actually isn't bad, which should give you an idea of how truly pathetic this picture is. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the action scenes--which is the reason a picture like this gets made in the first place--are almost completely illogical and unrealistic, in addition to being somewhat inept. Other than some "vintage" clothes and a few old cars, there's no feel whatever for the 1930s, the era in which this film is set. A by-the-numbers script with irritating lapses in logic and little historical accuracy--this isn't a documentary, of course, but the filmmakers could have at least TRIED for a little authenticity--and performances that range from grade B to grade school relegate this cheap little quickie to the 4:00 a.m. Sunday slot on HBO, which is just where I saw it. | 0neg
|
_The Wild Life_ has an obvious resemblance to _Fast Times At Ridgemont High_, and _The Wild Life_ comes up short.<br /><br />------------ <br /><br />Some other stan wrote the above comment. Of course The Wild Life is no Ridgemont. Ridgemont is the quintessential 80s flica. However, the Wild Life is enjoyable if you're not whiny about mindless movies being mindless movies (especially when you know it's supposed to be a mindless movie in the first place). The little Latino from Scarface is in this movie and he's straight disrespectful ("I got Visa...Masterrrrr Charrrrge!!") The Colonel also makes an appearance ("Lawsuit..."). RIP The Colonel 1931-1997.<br /><br />This movie is no worse than a 6 in comparison to other genres, btw. It is no worse than a 7 in terms of other 80s teen comedies at that. It does very much have the feel of a Cameron Crowe movie. Only staniels gave it a 5. | 1pos
|
I've got as much testosterone as the next bloke, and Raquel Welch at her finest is certainly worth a look; but the fact is that a cardboard cut-out could act better, and an hour and half of Ms. W showing off her considerable assets does not a movie make.<br /><br />Considering the cast, it's surprising that it's as bad as it is. I've never been a big fan of Wagner, and his tough guy Harry is about as convincing as a 9-dollar bill. Godfrey Cambridge and Vittorio de Sica, both of whom I usually enjoy, seem to be sleeping through their lines; and as for Edward G...well, I can only assume he was there for the paycheck.<br /><br />This film is a mess: from non-existent plot, through stop-start action and unfunny script to puerile slapstick and annoying 60's 'caper' music. If it weren't for Miss Welch, I'd have given it a 0.<br /><br />That said, she is a treat to the eyes - even better than her delicious cameo in 'Bedazzled' - and for that reason alone I gave it a 3. | 0neg
|
What a dire film. I cannot believe that I actually sat down and watched it. A very, very, very, very, very, VERY pathetic effort, with no redeeming features whatsoever. Hateeeeeeedddd ittttt! The so-called "racing" sequences are laughably awful, and the plot was so bad, I've forgotten it. Part of the film was made at the Spa-Francorchamps course in Belgium in, I think, 1988, during the actual Grand Prix there. I was there and am glad I didn't appear in any of the paddock scenes shown in the film. It could have been good...what a pity. | 0neg
|
To start out with, the script is immitative and inane. The characters are shallow and formulaic. The plot has arbitrary reversals and non sequitors. Baldwin's direction is terrible -- these actors could do better on their own. The jokes and wisecracks fall flat. The shoot out scenes are clumsy and incredible. Baldwin directs himself as the wise courageous hero but spends most of his time in power struggles with women, particularly with the caricatured repressedwoman in their tunnel team who is always asking for and denying reassurance. The conductor suffer from absurd incompetence, being unable to effectively employ a pistol he has come by.Anomalies: a hooded man bristleing with guns stalks through a railroad car, startling people. The next time we see them they are going about their business sitting in their seats, talking, eating, reading, knitting.In the New York subways folks sometimes come on the train to do some musical or dramatic number --- maybe that's what they thought the "happening" was. | 0neg
|
The trio are a pleasant, nostalgic journey to that first hint of desire--when it was still about simple exploration of the unknown--before we "grew up" and added those complexities of HIV status, emotional baggage and gotta-run-my-pager-just-went-off into the emotional mix.<br /><br />The angst portrayed is pure adolescent angst, but it rings true in all three stories. Their sweetness and positivity make you feel good that you are gay. And those kinds of films are few and far between.<br /><br />Good news! Both Boys Life and Boys Life 2 are now readily available on DVD as of September 1999. | 1pos
|
i just get exited when the movie start(because i saw Juliette lewis name on the screen).the script seemed very complicated first but as the movie continued, it became understandably clear.i concentrated well on it but the result was disappointing.because the object of sex used too much on the film unnecessarily and it seemed to me that the director ignore ones who has tendency upon opposite sex.in my opinion the well prepared script couldn't be embodied.as we look at the cast,the movie promises something in the beginning or i just expected too much... and finally the end...the end is so so much mediocre that i wouldn't expect.the main character Cassandra wants to give message about having baby and how a baby can change a life,in my opinion that scene is the real disaster for the film. all in all the characters are funny and acted beautifully.but only cast can't save a movie. | 0neg
|
Absolutely one of the worst movies I've ever seen! "The Beginning" was not the greatest either but better than this one. This is not a good way to lead up to the original movie. It's just simply awful! The CGI hyenas were so fake looking in both movies! Why not use real animals? I enjoyed the old Sinbad movies better than this. I was royally disappointed! The only good thing I can say about this waste of film is the cinematography and clothes which really captured that era well. I understand why this movie was redone as "The Beginning". It's just that bad, in my opinion. where does the money come from to waste like this? Give me a multi-million dollar budget and I'll show you how it should be done! | 0neg
|
...left behind when the ostensible heroine's Venus flytrap makes any man whose sexual advances are forced upon her--ahem!--disappear. Fiona "This IS my career!" Horsey is an attractive enough screamqueen ingenué, although I found her acting chops to be suspect. With better direction, and a better vehicle, she might improve. Likely as not, her leading man, Paul "Mine, too!" Conway, never will, proving to be one of the most unlikeable, unattractive love interests I've seen in a film in recent memory. There's some nonsense involving Siamese twins, a frying-pan-to-the-head-obvious hot dog joke, a reasonable amount of bare boobies, production values in the low-budget-to-laughable range, scripting that would make Syd Field cry, acting that by and large only an Ed Wood could love, and camera-work a step above pedestrian. The vagina dentata gimmick might well have made for an interesting horror movie, but "Angst" botches the premise. Strictly for stoned-out viewing, and even then, you could do much better. Sturgeon's Law (or Revelation) still holds. | 0neg
|
Yes Pigeon and Coburn are great, and it's interesting to watch them, although Coburn seems rather restrained and dull here. It's enjoyable to view Seattle, Victoria and Salt Lake City of 1970's, and the period cars and clothing. That's all the good in this boring film. The dialog is incredibly bad, as is most of the acting. Ray and Sandy's motivations seem forced and unlikely. I've seen this "training to be a pickpocket" routine several times before. There's a long build up, leading to nothing. Better to catch an episode of "Streets of San Francisco", or one of the many great crime/caper movies. To name a few, there are Bedtime Story, remade as Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, The Lavender Hill Mob, The Grifters, Paper Moon, The Sting, and best of all, House of Games. | 0neg
|
I really enjoyed the first film and when it turned up again, without thinking, or checking, I took a family of friends to see it. I was ashamed that I had enthused so much about it to them.<br /><br />Disney processed the original film just like the human body processes a delicious meal - takes in something good and turns out ... well, you know. And by having a dark-skinned person as the FBI man, the results of fingerprinting the informant were subdued.<br /><br />Taken as an isolated film, I suppose it is not too bad if one likes that weird sort of thing, but when one has read the book or seen the first film - horrible! | 0neg
|
The creator of Donnie Darko brings you a twilight zone themed tale of the oddest fashion. The film centers on a middle aged young couple living paycheck to paycheck in 1976. One day a mysterious box appears with a red button. Later on that day a spooky gentleman shows up and tells them that they have the choice to press the button and receive a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. It's a disturbing and provocative question suspensefully outlined in the trailer and TV spots. But let it be known that you just don't know what your in for until you see it. At times pretentious and a bit melodramatic the film is ultimately effective because of it's good performances and intriguing subject matter. It would be unfair to ruin any of the plot twists for you but lets just say the film will deliver on the aspects you expect it to and not completely fulfill others it begins to outline. There's a lot of apparent symbolism and subtext in the film which is both interesting and annoying as it wasn't so evident in his other superior film Donnie Darko. There isn't too much more to say without ruining the film for you. it's meant to inspire lots of cafe chatter afterwards. However, i'd also like to say It's shot well and has an appropriately aged look to it and it's worth a watch. Check it out. | 1pos
|
The credits come from the Sandy Frank stitching job that was made to turn this movie into Cave Dwellers for re-release. Now that that's cleared up...oh! Excruciating, eye-gouging pain. Blade Master leaps shamelessly on the sword & sorcery bandwagon started by the Conan flicks...except the bandwagon never left the garage anyway. As such, this Italian flick is a dud trying to rip-off a box office dud, with predictable results. However, this would give too little credit to the director and writers, who make no effort whatsoever to maintain a coherent plot, continuity, any semblance of era-accurate continuity. Miles O'Keefe is no leading man, now or forever (Tarzan The Ape Man proved that, if Ator didn't). Just an unlikeable picture and a chore to watch. | 0neg
|
This is the only Pauly Shore movie you should ever see. O.K., it's the only one I've ever seen, and I think I've made good choices. I normally find Shore's shtick kind of tired, but he is very funny in this movie. Actually, the script is pretty funny, and Shore doesn't overwhelm the other actors with his ... what do you call it? Tomfoolery? Anyway, this is a funny, if ultimately forgettable film. --Frink-3 | 1pos
|
I have just watched this movie on DVD late this morning and was so disappointed that even thought it was a good joke for the audience. In other words - the creators planed to make comedy not drama. Howsoever, at the end I realized that Mr. Tony Giglio was earnest about this movie. It's a pity because: the dialogue is ridiculous, the acting is poor and lifeless, the story is a fishy tale! Poor Ryan Phillippe - despite of his efforts his character in the movie remains probably his worst performance! What to say for Jason Statham - lack of all kinds of skills to develop the role which is an imaginary fiction... For this reasons I vote: 3/10 | 0neg
|
I appear to be in the minority, but I thought "Radio" was pretty awful. It seemed to contain almost every cliche in these types of "heartwarming" movies.<br /><br />The motivation for the characters falling in love with Radio was never really explained. We were just supposed to accept that everyone was fond of Radio except for a couple of bad apples.<br /><br />You could see almost all of th big moments in the story from 100 yards away. When the movie wanted you to go "Awww" or pull out your tissue, I was rolling my eyes and wished I was watching "Rudy" instead.<br /><br />There were some good performances by the cast. Too bad they weren't given a better movie in wish to appear. | 0neg
|
When this show first aired I will admit to being intrigued by the premise and the setting. With an open mind I watched the first two episodes and naturally dismissed it as being destined to run for a half-season at most. I happened to be watching A/E recently and witnessed an ad for this garbage and I could barely contain my surprise. I truly hope people are watching this for a laugh and not taking it seriously. The characters are truly some of the most ridiculous and outright laughable on television, scripted or otherwise. It's obviously generating ratings so I must give the creators credit for establishing and maintaining a fanbase, but I seriously hope no one is watching this under any pretense of seriousness. | 0neg
|
This had the promise of being an interesting film. The subject matter was certainly a promising one - the excesses of the Catholic Church during the counter-reformation. However, not only was this not developed (other than a two paragraph introduction), many things were not explained - i.e. the gypsies, the Anabaptists, the inquisitors and their relationship to the one true church. Nor were the politics of the time explained, i.e. the relationship between the Catholic church and its supporters like the Holy Roman Emperor. Though these may have been apparent to an Austrian audience, the lack of explanation makes it confusing for Americans.<br /><br />But perhaps it's a good thing that they didn't emphasize the history since what they showed was pretty inaccurate anyway. Instruments of torture, bloody executions, witch and heretic burnings, big shiny swords and pretty golden reliquaries are the stars of the film. It could have just as easily been one of those Conan-type sword and sorcery movies, only with period costumes... | 0neg
|
by Dane Youssef<br /><br />I was kind of looking forward to this one. I enjoy Eddie Murphy and I love it when a star hand-makes a vehicle for themselves or when someone who writes decides to mark their own directorial debut. But when the star's head gets too big for the rest of his body, there's always a danger of a big-budgeted Hollywood vanity production.<br /><br />Will the filmmaker keep it real
or will he just waste amounts of money (the studio's, ours) and time (the studio's, ours & his own) patting himself on the back for an hour in a half? Sadly, it's the latter here.<br /><br />Another thing I really like is when someone breathes new and fresh life into an exhausted and dried-out genre. None of that here. The warring nightclub movies have become so worn-through that even the parodies of it are dreary and done to death. <br /><br />Murphy does neither. He does the most clichéd: He plugs into a routine conventional formula gangster picture and plays it as seriously as if it were "The Godfather." It's like a script where the next draft, they put in the jokes and the new ideas. But it seems like someone with clout just looked at it and went: "No
this is fine."<br /><br />Probably Murphy. He is credited all over this. In the opening shot of beautiful white satin sheets, his name headlines across the credits about five times.<br /><br />THE PLOT: A young orphan saves Pryor's life and Pryor adopts the little ragamuffin. <br /><br />20 years later, Pryor's dump has become a first-class hot spot. They're pulling down big money and a gangster wants their action. He's even got a dirty cop in his employ. But Pryor comes up with a scheme, a la "THE STING." <br /><br />Murphy's screenplay plays like an unfinished first-draft that nobody had the pair to call him on. The actors aren't really allowed to stand-out much, if at all. Even the almighty Murphy seems to be on auto-pilot. <br /><br />Pryor shows class and gentlemanly manners as Sugar Ray (perhaps it would have been better to name his character BROWN Sugar Rayfurther evidence that this one needed a polish), but everyone here is basically just on vacation. <br /><br />The Oscar-nomination the movie received is richly deserved (Joe I. Tompkins' Best Costume Design), but the production values are the only part that makes the '30's feel authentic. <br /><br />Some sets look somewhat fake, but this is supposed to be a comedy of sorts. It's rare one movie gets nominated for both a Razzie and an Oscar (unless it's one of Lucas' new "Star Wars" chapters).<br /><br />It's 1938 and everyone is talking like it's 1988, particularly the comedians. This is a prehistoric white man's formula. And with all these black comedians and satirists, you expect them to skewer the genre or at least bring new life to it. Nope. Murphy is pretty much just coasting here.<br /><br />The great Roger Ebert summed it up perfectly when he remarked in his review: "Murphy approaches his story more as a costume party in which everybody gets to look great while fumbling through a plot that has not been fresh since at least 1938." <br /><br />Jasmine Guy is perfectly cast and seems to be indulging herself in her role and Michael Lerner has all the looks, evil and mannerisms of the prototypical mob boss down pat. And there are moments where Pryor gives you an idea of what a more interesting leader and authority figure would sound like. He gives every scene he's in a feeling of dignity.<br /><br />Would it have been too much to ask that Della Resse sing? Or at least quit embarrassing herself with all her "Kiss My Ass talk?" <br /><br />And the late Redd Foxx doesn't get to leave much of a swan song here. He has some back-and-forth with Resse which could have been some great stuff. Nope. Murphy wastes another opportunity again here.<br /><br />Murphy's Quick is charismatic and likable. But those moments are few and far between for sure. Murphy has never looked better and never been duller. His character made me laugh twice throughout the whole movie.<br /><br />Stan Shaw's boxer with a horrible speech impediment isn't just painful and embarrassing, it's annoying. There's more to comedy than simply showing something unpleasant. You have to incorporate some kind of light touch and funny situation. Watching him strain even the some of the easiest words just makes us feel sorry for him and annoyed with Murphy.<br /><br />Can Murphy write a screenplay? Well
there was "Raw," but that was really stand-up material. He wrote the outline for "Boomerang" and "Coming to America" for sure. But her didn't have the last word there. Maybe a team of ER-like script doctors could've revived this one.<br /><br />Murphy's direction is so slow and quiet, you'd swear he was asleep at the wheel some of the time. He has too many static shots and doesn't seem to know how to build and release suspense. On some level, I think Quick is the real Eddie Murphy. Angry, young, hot-headed and ambitious. But occasionally charming. Now if he were only funny sometime.<br /><br />There's a scene in which Murphy has a femme fa-tale in bed who plans to make love with him and kill him. You can probably guess how it turns out. Like everything else in the movie, this could have been better, but
<br /><br />"Surprisingly," Murphy has not directed another movie since (he got a Razzie nomination). And he no longer writes the finished draft for his films either (he WON the Razzie for writing this!) <br /><br />It's great to look at and the music is beautiful, and there are a few really nice scenes. But that just falls under the category of "gems among all the junk." Not enough of them.<br /><br />Couldv'e been. Shouldv'e been. Wasn't. Oh, well.<br /><br />by Dane Youssef | 0neg
|
I don't know how expensive was the creation of this movie but the effects were awful. Half of the movie was filmed on stage in front of a movie canvas (that's sure that blue box wouldn't look so artificial). When they traveled on a boat, the background canvas was moved imitating the movement of waves but the characters weren't moving. The CGI effects: terrible (I am not sure but I guess the effect were created with Paint and made a GIF sequence of them - next time the creators should hire a professional CGI maker team). It looks like the CGI creator would have drawn on the picture strip with shaky hands. Awful, that's sure. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was created in 1983. One of my friend told me the correct date: 2005. My jaw dropped, I was so shocked, I thought he was kidding. People, I recommend you to skip this movie, the story is also twisted, you won't enjoy it. | 0neg
|
The problem with the film is quite simply this, Conrad's prose is powerfully verbose and cannot be adapted to a movie. Marlow's narration in the novella captivates you from the first sentence and you only "see" what Conrad writes about. In movie, it's different, you see the visual, but the description and reflection that really makes the novel, is frightfully missing. But as far as an unadaptable book has been adapted, it is of good standard. There are the exact same scenes, which are pinpointed quite geniously, but they never have the same affect as in the novel. The plot in the movie has been enhanced, and it works very well to make it more interesting. The references to Ancient Egypt were thoughtfully inserted. My tip, read the book, and keep it that way, there are better movies out there. | 1pos
|
A hugely enjoyable screen version of Rona Jaffe's best-selling pot-boiler about the trials and tribulations, (and, naturally, the loves), of a group of women involved in one way or another in the New York publishing business. Directed by Jean Negulesco, fairly fresh from the success of "Three Coins in a Fountain", and the prototype for the likes of "Sex and the City", except that here the sex all takes place off-screen.<br /><br />The bright young female talents of the day, (Hope Lange, Diane Baker, Suzy Parker, Martha Hyer), are all nicely cast while Joan Crawford pops up as a Queen Bitch of an editor who could probably eat Meryl Streep's Miranda Priestly and spit her out; with absolutely no effort at all she steals the movie. The men include Stephen Boyd, Louis Jourdan, (if it wasn't Rossano Brazzi it had to be Louis Jourdan), Robert Evans, (before he decided, wisely, to go behind the camera) and Brian Aherne. There are more suds on display than you will find in your average launderette but if, like me, you enjoy "Desperate Housewives", not to mention Carrie Bradshaw and company then you will probably love this. A very guilty pleasure. | 1pos
|
The only time I seem to trawl through IMDb comments is when I've seen a duff film. I guess I'm looking to find reassurance that it's not just me. For me, then, Lonesome Jim was a duff film packed with unbelievable characters in unbelievable situations which limped on lamely and boringly towards a cop-out hackneyed conclusion. So I check out what other people have to say and feel a bit like Jim, out on a limb, alienated, as page after page of multiple star ratings and plaudits leave me doubting my critical faculties. Yet maybe I should check the settings for the comments presentation, since after a while the gushing dies down and I'm relieved to see appreciations that mirror my own. I feel vindicated. It IS a rubbish film, it DOESN'T hang together and it DOES constitute a wasted evening sitting through it. Praise be to kindred spirits. | 0neg
|
1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having "game", or being either a "player" or a "baller". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of "A Night at the Roxbury". <br /><br />2) Saying "The V.I.P." The term "V.I.P." in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by "The" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people. <br /><br />3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as "fans", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the "United States" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that "If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid." <br /><br />4) Canadian Hip-Hop/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of "Keys to the V.I.P." <br /><br />5) Last but not least, "Keys to the V.I.P."...for all the above reasons and more. | 0neg
|
I'm not going to say too much as this movie isn't worth the effort. To put it simply the movie absolutely sucked! This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The storyline was stupid, you couldn't follow what was happening, the characters were so annoying especially the main guy. I wanted someone to kill that kid and put him and the movie out of it's misery.<br /><br />Very, very bad. | 0neg
|
Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I can't find anything positive to say about this movie (if this production is even worthy of that word). <br /><br />This production is not even the standard of a low budget porn-movie!<br /><br />My question is simply: why did someone look at the script and think "Hey I'm gonna make a movie out of this"?<br /><br />At the end of the movie I wasn't even hoping that "Nicole" was going to make it
. She was really that annoying!<br /><br />So for your own sake, do not watch this movie... unless you want to waste 85 minutes of your life... | 0neg
|
Wow, there are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. I usually pride myself on being able to enjoy any movie no matter how bad, but this was just too much. I would only suggest watching this movie as a torture device. If you can get past the terrible plot and dialogue by watching it on mute, the even more terrible camera work and shoddy special effects make this movie a real horror. If your thinking about watching this because your a Sandra Bullock fan, don't even bother as she has less than ten minutes of screen time, and her acting is absolutely atrocious. Not to mention the rest of the cast, which could be replaced with baboons who would do a better job, at least then we wouldn't have to listen to the terrible dialogue. | 0neg
|
Gritty drama? Emotionally powerful? Blah! The BBC has lost out big time to masterful productions such as The Wire, Sopranos and Carnivale from HBO. Okay, so the budget may be a lot smaller but 'The Street' last night was badly acted, predictable, unrealistic, stereotypical, insensitive and a big fat waste of time. TV (British TV) is not as good as it used to be and is falling further and further behind the American productions.<br /><br />There was no sense of brutal violence from the 'local gangster'. There was no indication that this man was 'insane' enough to beat up a man he has respected for such a long time. There was no remorse when he did it and this shouldn't be the sort of character that would back down when Bob Hoskins called his son a pansy, in a display of 'bravery'.<br /><br />I wish I was more eloquent to express my disdain for this show, but I am not and although I can't prove my point well enough, believe me when I say that this was rubbish, shock TV, that provides no real inward looking perspective on life.<br /><br />1/5 stars. | 0neg
|
The CinemaScope color cinematography of Leon Shamroy is quite remarkable here,including his use of colored filters for<br /><br />various scenes. The Alfred Newmann Score has to be the most sensual and seductive score Hollywood ever produced. It's a shame it is no longer available on CD. The actors, however, never rise to the occasion. The accents are so varied, from the subdued British of Ustinov and Purdom to the Hollywood of Baxter and Mature that it seems a true hodgepodge with no central vision. Tommy Rettig is jarringly American. Acting styles span the range from zombie-like to stilted. Only Ustinov as a conniving one-eyed servant steals the show - what there is of it to steal. The premise - the story of a young Egyptian doctor, seduced and abandoned by the rich - and the parallel theme of the cult of the single God, Ra - persecuted by the authorities, has its interesting points. But when the film's plot fades, it is the haunting music and visuals that remain. | 0neg
|