text
stringlengths 139
5.88k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This 1925 film narrates the story of the mutiny on board battleship Potemkin at the port of Odessa. The movie celebrated the 20th anniversary of the uprising of 1905, which was seen as a direct precursor to the October Revolution of 1917. Following his montage theory, Eisenstein plays with scenes, their duration and the way they combine to emphasize his message, besides he uses different camera shot angles and revolutionary illumination techniques. The "Odessa Steps" sequence in Potemkin is one of the most famous in the history of cinema. The baby carriage coming loose down the steps after its mother has been shot was later recreated in Brian d' Palma's The Untouchables. It is clear that the film is one of the best ever made considering its time and how innovative it was though you need a little bit of patience and to be a real movie enthusiast to go through its 70 minutes. | 1pos
|
Despite what its critics ensue, I enjoyed immensely for precisely what it is. Eyecandy for both sides of the gender spectrum. Soderberg has done the artsy hard edge stuff before, won Oscars, is at the top of his game. Ocean's 12 is light, commercial, fluffy, Steve's day at the Midway if you will. I am generally not a fan of Zeta-Jones but even I must admit that Kate is STUNNING in this movie. It's ending screams of an upcoming trequel and I will be one of the millions who flock to see 120 minutes of George and Brad and Matt parlay through Clooney's digs in Lago di Como as they swindle some rich bad guy again and again. If we tolerated 3 installments of the Lord of the Rings, I ask if we can drool over Clooney's salt and pepper lid just one more time? | 1pos
|
I was fortunate enough to record this wonderful drama, both parts, when it originally aired on Masterpiece Theatre. I loved it but lost it. Then one day, while going through old tapes, found it again. I recorded it to DVD and watched and --- WOW! I still love it! The leads are excellent and my only complaint is I wish we had seen more Kester! What a man! And Prue. She's so strong and wonderful ... living in a time and age where her affliction and how she deals with it is seen as unfortunate and evil. Even her own brother tells Prue to her face that he doubts that a man will ever have her. *sigh* Unfortunately my copy is not the greatest, with wear and tear over the years, and I too would absolutely love to own this on professional DVD if it ever happens. | 1pos
|
This is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting "Survivor"-ish plot.<br /><br />But it does not work at all.<br /><br />To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's "Short Cuts".<br /><br />Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick "Lear" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of "Lear". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.<br /><br />And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as "Lear" and the rest of the film.<br /><br />"The King Is Alive" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films "Italiensk for begyndere" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful. | 0neg
|
Walter Matthau is wonderful as the "philandering" dentist Dr. Julian Winston whose frequent fibs to girlfriend Goldie provide textbook proof of the dangers of lying. Goldie Hawn's touching kook Toni Simmons certainly deserved to win her Oscar. Ingrid Bergman's work as the stiff-as-starch nurse Stephanie is also touching to watch as she comes out of her shell, slowly and nervously. This is a great movie to watch in the springtime, or any time for that matter. It's very underrated; I never heard about it until I found it in the video store, and what a find! | 1pos
|
Man kills bear. Man becomes bear. Man/bear meets bear. Man/bear stays man/bear after meeting bear. The End. Seriously, that is the entire plot to this movie. Yes, I simplified it to an extreme, but you get the picture. I just wish I maybe had not have seen it.<br /><br />The 'man/bear' alluded to is a Native American Indian that kills a mother of a cub. And while that can be touching, it certainly lacks to really draw in on the potential conflict between the two parties. Plus, there was a certain misuse of the two moose in the film. But that is beyond the point.<br /><br />Overall, very much under par. Certainly needed a lot more to be entertaining. Maybe more laughs from the secondary characters and more drama between the two main bears. Thats what separates bad films from the good ones. "D" | 0neg
|
Rented this one by mistake thinking it was another film with the same title, and realizing that I had rented it some time before.<br /><br />Quick plot line. A couple consisting of an artist and photographer rent a studio apartment in Los Angeles from Joe Estevez, still cursing the fact his brother Martin Sheen could actually ACT! They find a bed in a forgotten room, but the bed is haunted by a nasty looking serial killer from the 1930's and his last victim. Their ghosts inhabit the couple, first enhancing their sex life, but eventually becoming more menacing.<br /><br />What ensues is cheap R-rated sex scenes, cheaper thrills and kind of a waste of time. | 0neg
|
I know it's not original, but what the hey? What else can be said about it? I feel unutterably silly just paying any attention at all to "From Hell It Came". The movie makes the important political and social issue of fallout from atmospheric atomic tests seem a matter for joking and dismissal, not the concern and alarm being raised by scientists all over the world at the time. | 0neg
|
Bloody awful! There's just no other way to put it. In fact, it's **SO** bad that the only reason I'm wasting words on this is to warn off other reasonable viewers who want to be intelligently entertained. You'll lose I.Q. points watching this. Come to think of it, it's not even suitable for mindless viewing because of the irritation factor. There's no guilty pleasure in watching something this incompetent.<br /><br />Reasons to avoid it:<br /><br />1) Horribly scientifically inaccurate, to the point where this isn't sci-fi anymore, it's just mindnumbingly sloppy, lazy fantasy.<br /><br />2) It sports FX that are cheesy beyond belief. Not even cheesy-kitsch that's a wink and a nod, like vintage Doctor Who, but just cheap and shoddy to the point of being insulting. The FX are so bad they're not even laughable. They spent about a dollar-fifty on this, not more.<br /><br />3) The direction is so weak and mindless that the only way the actors could make it through to the end of shooting without becoming terminally depressed was to sleepwalk through their roles, although Catherine McCormack made some effort anyway, probably on principle and despite the director. Moreover, this isn't Peter Hyams's only bad film: his flubs vastly outnumber any barely salvageable ones, of which Timecop was the last such, and that was 15 years before this writing. he's had nothing halfway decent since (End Of Days was just as slapdash, Arnold was the only draw, and he needed much firmer direction than Hyams provided). Hyams just keeps making it more and more pointless for anyone to consider giving him more work.<br /><br />And finally,<br /><br />4) Ray Bradbury's stories deserve far better treatment than this. Refusing to watch this film sends that message, not that Hollywood is particularly listening.<br /><br />Watch at your own risk. If you do and it turns you off movies altogether, you've only yourself (and Hyams) to blame because you've been more than adequately warned. | 0neg
|
This is one of the movies one has to start watching with an open mind. One knows it's going to about a mute, one could look forward to or be afraid for a lot of sentiment.<br /><br />Well, forget it. The movie starts with a little black humour, and then gets started. From then on its takes you on an ever frightening ride through the dark centers of Moscow. All right, it must be said: the unexpected twists are expected, and the mute is mainly used as a plot tool or fear builder. But this movie doesn't let you go.<br /><br />It's like the old gangster movies, but then without any glamour at all and in Russia. And that's one of the most important aspects of this movie: it's situated in Russia. This does have a great impact on the movie, according to me it makes it better. Everything becomes simple and basic, life is without nonsense. This could be a great potential for more movies in the future, gangster movies about the Russian mafia.<br /><br />It is a beautifull and terrifying movie. It's horror, but you can't feel but sympathy for the little mute. One last advice: don't look this too late in the evening if you want to sleep well. | 1pos
|
Not to be mistaken as the highly touted Samuel L. Jackson vehicle SNAKES ON A PLANE; SNAKES ON A TRAIN is low budget, features no actors(to speak of), but some pretty decent visual effects. An attractive young woman(Julia "Rayanne" Ruiz)does not want to marry someonelse's choice for her husband; so she is put under a powerful Mayan curse that has snakes hatching inside her body, slowly devouring from the inside out. Her only hope for survival is a shaman who lives across the border in Texas. Time is running out for her; and she is put on a train from El Paso to Los Angeles. Before long the snakes are leaving her pain wrecked body and rapidly growing in size. The passengers aboard the train are now trapped and soon to be snacks for the snakes. The finale sequence is no doubt the best of this 91 minute flick. Also receiving acting credit are: Alby Castro, Al Galvez and Giovanni Bejarno. | 0neg
|
And the worst part is that it could have been good. But something horribly wrong. First thing first, they should not have cast Amitabh Bachchan in this film at all. He is too much of an Icon to tackle such a delicate and controversial topic let alone the role itself. <br /><br />Secondly, Ram Gopal Varma ought to be ashamed of himself for taking the classic story of Lolita and turning it into a pathetic predictable slut-fest. His Lolita is named Jia (played by newcomer Jiah Khan) and when we meet her, she is devoid of any inkling of stolen innocence or that delicate naivety that one would normally associate with the complicated tale of the original Lolita who in the original story, gradually becomes nymphet. Varma's Jia is already a whore with her eye on the prize even even before the camera meets her. And he exercises no chastity in the way his films his leading nymphet. From constant panning shots of her crotch to fixations on her vulgar gestures and mannerisms, Mr. Varma makes sure he has left not one person in the audience less than uncomfortable with his voyeuristic pedophile camera angles. <br /><br />Oh and let's not talk about the non-existent chemistry between Jia and her so-called friend Ritu (Bachchan's character's daughter). These girls are supposed to be best friends yet look like worst enemies even before anything goes wrong between them. Nothing they do together is believable until they become enemies. Maybe Mr. Varma should have worked on that aspect of his script rather than focusing on destroying any credibility Amitabh Bachchan might have had left as an actor. <br /><br />The worst part of the movie is perhaps the subservient portrayal of the character of Bachchan's character's wife. Her role was so underwritten and ridiculously wooden that it's impossible to actually feel any pity or concern for her. I actually felt like reaching into the screen slapping her for not reacting like any normal woman would. Instead she just stood there looking Irritated and Helpless, as I imagine much of the viewers of this film might feel after watching this train-wreck of a film. Watch at your own risk. | 0neg
|
When moviegoers hear two popular villains/characters will be fighting, they flock to the theaters to see how the battle will end. There's Freddy vs. Jason, in which two very popular horror icons try to kill each other. And, more similarly to this, there's Godzilla vs. (Insert Name Here). But the very generic Komodo vs. Python is just a horrible title, and an even worse premise. Obviously, the movie's a D-list picture, but, at least come up with a more compelling name, maybe something that can trick the unsuspecting viewer into watching it. With a name like this, you know what you're getting in to.<br /><br />A group of military men/women, including a 20-something year old sexy scientist woman are left for dead by the military on an island inhabited by a giant komodo dragon. As long as they can make it off the island and to the boat, they'll be fine, but...no...there's a giant python guarding the ocean and the way off. Let's hope all these guys can make it off the island, and that the python and komodo don't verse each other in some sort of horrible special effect battle.<br /><br />Really, this movie is bad in almost every way. The acting is pretty bad, or maybe it's that the special effects are so cheesy, that the acting is unbelievable because no one believes that these people are in any danger with creatures that look like they were made on an early 90s computer. Nonetheless, this movie is actually pretty funny. The creatures are so clunky looking, and the actors really give it their all pretending like they're in danger.<br /><br />I'd like to say that this movie is a steaming pile of sh*squawk!*...but I can't. This PG-13 rated film actually bleeps itself out. Every time a curse word comes, a parrot noise beeps out the word. Even words that can be said on network television. How *squawk*ing cheap that they bleep out words, and with a parrot no less. Eventually these parrot noises got to me and I couldn't help but laugh at the incompetence.<br /><br />This movie is bad, from the silly beginning to the ridiculous Night of the Living Dead style ending, but it's also kind of funny. As a horror movie it fails miserably, as an action movie, it fails slightly less, but still pretty bad, and as a comedy it shines.<br /><br />My rating: * out of ****. 95 mins. PG-13 for some violence and Squawked out cursing. | 0neg
|
This is a great movie to watch with a good friend, boy/girl friend or family. Basically one of those feel good movies you want to share with your loved ones....without all the girlie crap you find in a lot of American feel good movies. This movie is light hearted but makes you think, and will make you laugh. <br /><br />Just a really simple but universal plot. Would think most people could relate in some way to this movie. The characters in the movie are amazing and the actors do a great job in sucking you into the movie. And the movie is topped off all along the way with hilarious true to life Jewish humor. I watched the movie for the first time last night, and now I want to own it. :) | 1pos
|
I'm very interested in the overwhelmingly positive reviews here. While it had some good features, for the most part I found this movie to be heavy handed, predictable, and, worst of all, not in the least bit scary. The first 30 minutes of the movie were promising, the actress did a nice job in her portrayal, and the world around her was well thought out and meaningful. Unfortunately, from there, the movie entered into a downward spiral. I went into this movie with no clue as to what it would be about-- didn't know anything about the actors, directors, genre, etc. At a certain point, my wife made the comment "is this supposed to be a scary movie?". Well I suppose so, as the boiler-plate "horror movie" score full of squeaking violins and extended vibrato could mean nothing else. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of originality in the movie, the romantic interest was painfully obvious from the first moment, and the second half of the movie descended deep into the realm of the ridiculous. A movie like this walks a dangerously narrow path, and unfortunately there comes a point where the viewer must decide whether to continue walking along that path, or to jump off and simply laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. For the final 30 minutes, I chose the latter. | 0neg
|
The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch was Griffith's longest and most expensive short he had made up to that point. In it we see him trying to perfect the large-scale action scene that would be necessary in his full-length features, packing in all the elements that had made his previous action shorts successful.<br /><br />Griffith uses the western format already the ideal backdrop for pure, straight-ahead action set pieces as the setting for his first epic battle. Like many westerns of the 1910s, the starting point is a character from the east heading out west a device which perhaps helped ease the audience into the wilderness, and here those easterners are a pair of children, which was important for the type of picture this develops into. For Griffith, you couldn't have action without a sense of vulnerability and here he crams it in, with the kids from back east, Lillian Gish as the distraught mother of "the only baby in town" and even some puppies that are at risk of ending up on the Indians' menu.<br /><br />All this paves the way for an exceedingly complex and layered action sequence, blending the trapped heroine scenario and the ride-to-the-rescue with the battles that Griffith had been depicting since his earliest Civil War pictures in 1909. There is a phenomenal amount going on here, and Griffith does very well at maintaining the exhilarating pace throughout and keeping everything coherent and logical. However, juggling x amount of elements in an action sequence does not necessarily make it that many times more exciting, no matter how skilfully they are balanced, and Griffith did create better tension-soaked finales before and after this one.<br /><br />But even a Griffith picture so heavily focused on action would not be without its drama, characterisation and atmospherics. In The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch, the emotional set-up is dealt with briefly but economically. First, we have the scene in which the waifs leave their home. The cart they travel on heads away from the camera, making use of depth and distance to express their moving away from safety and civilization. An equally effective scene is the one in which we are introduced to the young family of Gish, Bobby Harron and their baby. The people of the town coo over the precious tot, then saunter off screen, revealing that two Indians were watching them from the background, adding a sinister little note of danger.<br /><br />Of course, many viewers today have pointed out The Battle at Elderbrush Gulch's offensive portrayal of Native Americans (in contrast with the more sympathetic Red Man's View), but perhaps all is not what it seems. First of all, take a look at the Indian Chief's son's waistcoat it's black and covered in shiny white dots. It looks to me like a pearly king's jacket, perhaps modified slightly for the warmer climate. Now have a look at the "war dance" they perform later on it has a certain "knees-up Mother Brown" air to it. These aren't Indians, they're cockneys! So it shouldn't be offensive to Native Americans. Just cockneys. | 1pos
|
(This review does not necessarily expose the plot of the movie, however it may change one's expectations of the movie and thus make for a less enjoyable experience.) <br /><br />Ever rented a scary movie, expecting to be on the edge of your seat in fear, and instead ended up howling in laughter at each and every stupid turn of the plot? This movie had so many opportunities to impress and actually scare the viewer. It was cut poorly and jumped around too much; making references to the past seem more like excuses as to why the plot was heading in its particular direction. The writers must not have thought about how the potentially excellent plot should have been carried out, because the poor construction of time throughout the plot is discouraging to the viewer and makes the movie increasingly tiring to watch.<br /><br />Almost worse than the writers having abused what could have been an excellent and classic thriller was the fact that it gradually relied on cheap tactics for a scare. The acting didn't make it scary, and the situations hardly made it scary, therefore it needed a few dark scenes with things jumping out at you to make it worthwhile. Even those were predictable.<br /><br />Not even the gore could've saved the plot, and it rivals the gore of the successful thriller Se7en.<br /><br />Speaking of Se7en, I feel like Saw tried to follow Se7en's incredibly fascinating psychological theme, but failed miserably in doing so. I was terribly disappointed in the lack of analysis and plot structure surrounding the psychology of the killer. The beginning scenes tease the viewer into thinking that this is a psychological thriller; believe me, it is far from that.<br /><br />Oh, did I mention poor acting? At first, Cary Elwes seems makes a convincing performance; however, this completely deteriorates at the most crucial parts of the plot. I was left in tears of laughter at this performance, which is worthy of a Razzie. The performance of Leigh Whannell is also terrible and too played-out, although not as bad as the performance by Elwes, and the big red flag with this is that Whannell is also a writer for the movie.<br /><br />The end of Saw could never make up for having lost the entire middle of it, and that is what makes it a huge failure. It was an opportunity wasted, and I have no clue as to why Monica Potter and Danny Glover chose to take roles in this movie.<br /><br />I am mad at myself for wasting money on just renting it. It was definitely not worth the $4, and in the future I will definitely avoid seeing anything having to do with Elwes, Whannell or James Wan. The big tragedy in this is not that it lacked basis to its plot, it's that the great potential storyline was thrown away and poor acting added insult to injury. I'll avoid the poor puns involving the title and just conclude with this: don't watch this movie. | 0neg
|
The only reason any of the hundred or so users watched this movie was because they belong to the crew, were friends to the crew, or were obsessive fans of either Lance Henriksen or Lorenzo Lamas. I personally follow the "cult of Lance", so I was disappointed to see that despite being the headliner, it's in name only. Playing rich criminal Newcastle, Lance is a joy to watch but all of his screen time is relegated to the beginning of the movie. Newcastle sets up a 747 heist which includes Ketchum (Lamas) and a bunch of forgettable characters. The biggest shock to this viewer was that the pre-heist scenes were not all that bad. With the exception of somewhat obnoxious and rather confused looking Aviva Gale, who times every line with the finesse of a grade school play actress, acting was decent all around, and none of the lines really made me cringe.<br /><br />But once the heist occurs, the movie falls asleep. Not only is their plan the most ridiculous thing ever captured on film, but it's dragged out for far too long. This isn't a very deep movie, and you have to fill out your 90 minutes, but these scenes are so boring I nearly nodded off at two in the afternoon. One particular sequence in which we watch each and every one of the characters perform the same task over and over again is especially difficult to get through. The movie's name is "Rapid Exchange", but the exchange is far from rapid - it's overlong and bloated to extremes. Perhaps it would have worked if any of the characters had real personalities, but come on, there's only so much you can ask out of a straight-to-video movie airing of Showtime Extreme.<br /><br />Thankfully, there are several laughs, intentional and unintentional (Lorenzo Lamas is seemingly a master of disguise, which makes for a couple of incredibly bizarre scenarios), and Lance returns in the film's end, albeit for a brief period of time. It's a bad movie, and I probably didn't have to tell you that myself, but it's far from the worst thing I've ever seen. I wouldn't put it too high on the list of Henriksen films, since he's been in some real gems with greater screen time, and either way the movie loses a lot of steam once the heist begins, but the best thing I can say for Rapid Exchange is that the last two films I watched before it were the mainstream Hostage and the overrated, pretentious Crash - and this was better than both. | 0neg
|
i watched it because my friend said we could try it, when my father asked if we'd watch it. i didn't want to because it was such an old film, how could that be good ? i finally did watch with that friend and my father. my friend and i loved the film. the songs are great, the actors were cool and we were crazy about it. i guess this shows even though it's from dad's time that doesn't mean it can't be a good film. i bought the film not so long after seeing it on TV, i put it on a lot and sang along with the songs. i even watched it with my classmates on my birthday party. it's a nice, good, and sometimes funny film.<br /><br />if you don't try, you can't say it's bad. even if you think no, i'm not going to watch a film from dad's time. try the first part of the film you can always stop watching if you don't like it. i really recommend it, it's great!! | 1pos
|
Not much actually happens in this movie. There are a few pivotal moments, and everything else is talking about a crucial moment that takes place before the movie began. The primary mechanism used in the story is the flashback. Flashbacks can be used very well, but they aren't here. There is zero indication when flashing back or forward, and there are only weeks separating the events, so context as a scene unfolds is the only way to know when something happens. Perhaps this was intended to add a sense of mystery in places, but it was largely annoying.<br /><br />If you are interested in watching a 100 minute on-screen discussion of the why's of things and a lame questioning of good versus evil, enjoy. If watching close-ups of a mostly vacant stare on Ryan Gosling's face for much of the movie appeals to you, you're in luck. Sadly, I can find no reason to recommend this movie. Oh, and as another review indicated, Spacey really is only in a cameo role here, and plays with a disinterested detachment that you've probably already seen.<br /><br />*** The rest contains spoilers though a few big points are held back ***<br /><br />First, the killing of the so-called retarded boy happens before the movie opens, and we never learn what happened exactly. The implication is that he was killed to stop the deep sadness that was communicated through the boy's eyes. There aren't many other unanswered questions as the characters beyond the boy and the lead are very one-dimensional.<br /><br />As for what is with the lead character... Another review suggested he is crazy. I agree he isn't 'right', but don't know that I'd call it crazy. It seems that the movie tried hard to convey that he was either autistic or retarded in some way, because he sure seemed slow and unable to grasp the obvious. Either that or they were going for a neglected youth with some detachment disorder and/or who was heavily medicated. As always Ryan Gosling is good at conveying something to the audience, but it seems exactly what was deliberately left up in the air in this case. This movie provides no answers, just questions, but it was a sufficiently bad movie that I really didn't care. | 0neg
|
So far I disliked every single Jean Rollin movie I've seen, and that always bothered me because he's an acclaimed Euro-trash monument and extremely popular amongst many regular reviewers on this lovely website; people whose opinions I always value and usually concur with. Apparently everybody always appears to pinpoint some sort of gloomy and stylistic filming trademarks in his work that are completely lost on me. Rollin's movies are unimaginably boring, they all feature the same basic concept (lesbian vampires in various settings), the dialogs are incredibly absurd, the marvelous Gothic setting are always underused and the production values are cheaper than the price of a bus ticket. I had actually given up on Rollin's repertoire already (especially after enduring "The Iron Rose"), until I found out about "Night of the Hunted". Allegedly, this movie doesn't feature any lame lesbian vampires and stands as a bona fide horror movie with gruesome killings and macabre plot twists. And the verdict is
yes and no! On one hand, this is undeniably the most compelling and inventive Rollin film I had the pleasure of seeing thus far (and also the only one that I watching without dozing off
). On the other hand, it still remains a moronic movie with a nonsensical plot and emotionless sex sequences to compensate for the dullness. Jean Rollin heavily attempts to generate an atmosphere of secrecy and suspense, mostly through a lack of information and vaguely introduced characters, but barely manages to hide the fact he actually hasn't got a story to tell at all. The unearthly beautiful lead actress Brigitte Lahaie and the beautifully ominous musical guidance are the only elements that keep you hooked on the screen. During a nightly drive back home to Paris, a young man abruptly has to stop for a confused and scarcely dressed girl who comes running from the woods. Her name is Elisabeth but furthermore she can't remember anything about herself and from what or whom she was running away. Her case of amnesia is so bad she even continuously forgets who picked her up. The next day, she's kidnapped again by an old guy and taken to a sinister apartment complex where multiple people in the same bizarre mental state are held captive. Elisabeth knows nothing, but she does sense she needs to escape from here. Obviously I won't reveal the denouement, but I can assure you it is quite dumb, illogical and far-fetched. Apparently Rollin realized this as well, because the explanation is kept very brief and quick. There's a large number of overly weird and senseless sequences, the sex footage is dire and filmed without passion, the nasty make-up effects look cheap and randomly thrown without actual purpose. As said, the score is mesmerizing and Brigitte Lahaie's perfect body is addictive to glaze at. | 0neg
|
I'm sorry guys, all who thought this film could be something great, I'm afraid you would be disappointed.<br /><br />The standard, the movie wanted to set is completely ruined by some very simple plot. So simple, that the movie is not evolving until the end. I asked myself if the plot wasn't about the action but about the main character (played by Mickey Rourke), but I found that the character was inconsistent - either he is a professional killer or some guilt haunted brother. But both don't go together, because the kid he tries to guide poses him in dangerous situations where no professional killer would put himself. Now, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is a good looking actor, but he played his character a little unnatural. I didn't believe his acting, it looked like the director tried to pull out of him some personality he couldn't provide. And he didn't have to, because his less crazy behavior was creepy enough. The only one whose acting was great, was Diane Lane. If not her, i would give this movie 1 star.<br /><br />In conclusion, I expected to see some well played movie and some interesting plot. And I completely blew it with my high expectations. | 0neg
|
Well now this strange movie. It was listed as a comedy but I certainly found nothing to laugh at. Actually I am struggling to find anything positive to say about this film. Oh here I go. Alex Ferns is not bad in the lead role and I did not pick the ending for a change, but apart from that this has no great direction solidly two dimensional characters and is not funny enough to be a comedy or serious or dark enough to be any form of decent drama. I would really avoid ever having to watch this movie again and think it does nothing to benefit any of the working class characters it is attempting to portray. I found it hard to empathise for any of the characters and was not given enough information on the lead character Jimmy to believe his motives. Best avoided. | 0neg
|
Apart from the fact that this film was made ( I suppose it seemed a good idea at the time considering BOTTOM was so popular ) the one thing that puzzled me about GUEST HOUSE PARADISO was what happened to the lighting ? There is absolutely no artificial lighting used in this film whatsoever , and I watched it on network TV so it wasn`t a case of watching a dodgy tape. In fact the film was shot so darkly it was impossible to see what the hell was going on . But if the dialogue was anything to go by that`s maybe not a bad thing | 0neg
|
I was under assumption that this was the cat and mouse duo but it wasn't instead it was something that shouldn't have been made not even for its time. They disguise themselves in the "blackface" fashion because they fly to Africa and they even act like Stepin Fetchit and all the others rolled into one. There are some cartoons that are racist but they are classics, being a mixed woman I have the right to say this, but if you are into the historical aspect of these cartoons try Merrie Melodies "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs" or "Angel Puss" you won't find them on DVD because the distributors promised not to put them in the mainstream, but you can find them on a site as YouTube. I don't recommend little kids seeing this but if you want to see how early America was racist and ignorant these are better suggestions, not to mention this particular cartoon has poor animation, i know it was 1932, but I have seen better for its time.<br /><br />"Plane" unnecessary. -1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
Yes, let's get this out of the way before we begin: *This is the one that Sean Connery returned to in 1983 after the stint we had of Roger Moore. *It's Connery's last film. *And YES it's a (kind of) remake of Thunderball, but more of a film inspired by it. If all you Bond purists out there think I'm gonna get controversial, you're right. Bond is one of the greatest movie series ever, but that doesn't mean that a series should go on forever. This, I think, is one of two films where they could've done themselves a huge favour and ended the Bond saga. Not offended yet? Then I'll continue... Hey, if you're thinking I'm indifferent about Bond flicks, you're wrong. I grew up with my Mum being OBSESSED with them. Any spare moment, Bond and his antics would be on the TV. Bond rules, and 'Never Say Never Again' (directed by Irvin 'Empire Strikes Back' Kershner) is one of the best. It may not be 'Goldfinger' or 'From Russia...' and may not have been done by the same production house as all the others (which I hear is why they refuse to accept it was ever made!?), but still stands head and shoulders above the recent Brosnan outings... (if you haven't spat at the screen, read on). CHARACTERIZATION!!!!! Something so many blockbuster films forget about these days, but something which is essential to telling a good story. 'Never' played a superb hand by treating 007 like he had been ageing since 'Dr. No'. He's 'getting on a bit' and so has to do things like go to a health farm - a direct order from 'M' (!). Yeah, if you haven't seen this film, I won't give too much away with the plot because A) Loads happens and B) Obviously, I want YOU to see it for yourselves. Don't be put off by my 'old Bond' revelation, Connery still get plenty of superb set pieces to charge, swim, punch, speed, smash, and snog his way through. The man is a legend, and this film is one of his most enjoyable outings as Bond. High tech gadgets galore, some great villains, and an excellent supporting cast (including a fantastic cameo by Rowan Atkinson) lift this movie high above audience expectation.<br /><br />This could've been the last Bond film ever, and it would've been a party to remember. Playing the secret agent as someone nearing retirement was refreshing stroke of genius - the last scene wraps things up perfectly for the series.... ...but still we had more, and then more, and more still, and one more Moore. Still, if you fancy finding out what "Fatima Blush" is all about, get this film. Then you can at least pretend 007 spent his last moments as a wisecracking secret agent, in the arms of Kim Basinger, and smirking at Mr. Bean. (P.S. * That other film that I think could've finished it all off? The gritty 'License to Kill' | 1pos
|
Just as in Rififi, the most compelling scene in the movie is the perfected silence of the jewel heist. The scene is masterful in its execution, each of the robbers having their own specialized job to perform, each one successfully combining their own unique talent towards the objective, and each one, until a month before, complete strangers.<br /><br />Many of the scenes play out very slowly. In fact, the opening scene is a long character introduction to both Corey and Vogel, as we see Corey getting released from prison and Vogel escaping capture on his way to prison. The two characters are then methodically brought together through fate at a roadside diner as Vogel hides inside the trunk of Corey's automobile. From this improbable break in, the two strangers agree to become partners to commit a perfected and precise jewel heist.<br /><br />However, to pull of this heist they must include the help of a third man named Jansen. Jansen is hired as the sure shot gun man. His inclusion into the mix was an interesting and desperate choice. At the time of his hire, Jansen is in a full battle with DT's and spent most of his day on his cot hallucinating over lizards, snakes and spiders. His transition from the disheveled and hallucinatory world of a William S. Burroughs dream into the steady handed and sober sharp shooter is a very quick one and perhaps the only real false moment of the film, but that's just me being extremely picky.<br /><br />One other mildly false note was that of the police inspector Mattei. At times he appeared to be brilliant in the ways of strong arming the right people or gathering information and waiting out for his escaped prisoner to make his move. Other times he appeared to be 10 years past retirement, especially at the beginning during Vogel's escape through the woods.<br /><br />I wonder if I got too much hidden meaning from the beginning of the movie. At the start of the movie, as the police car is speeding through the city, the first image we see is that of a red stop light. My first thought was that this may be the 'red circle' and that if I am to find a deeper meaning in the movie, perhaps it is that this car, or rather the people inside of it going through the red light, will be the ones who will 'stop' the jewel heist. Hmmmm? <br /><br />Perhaps the red circle refers to the triumvirate thieving ring? Perhaps it was the burning sled? No matter.<br /><br />It's a long movie, but it doesn't feel that way. The ending is a bit of a disappointment. It seemed too hurried for a movie that felt like such a delicious slow burn. 9/10<br /><br />Clark Richards | 1pos
|
Three words: Piece of Art. This film is just great. It's beautiful, sad, frightening and thought-provoking at the same time. The score constantly stays in my head, the acting is wonderful the scenery scary and beautiful at the same time.<br /><br />It was more by chance than on purpose that I saw this movie. At the time I decided to watch this movie I was just bored and read lists of Asian films, which maybe good. Well, I saw the title "A tale of two sisters" which sounded very interesting. Then I read the summary of the plot and decided "You don't just watch this film, you've gotta buy it". Said, done. I bought this film and was hooked from the very first minute.<br /><br />The plot kept me interested from the beginning till the end; the twist near the end of the film made me scream. I really didn't see something like this coming. And the ending scene made me cry...it just made me cry. It was so sad.<br /><br />Well, I recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a film that combines an interesting plot, with scary scenes and atmosphere. Although you should be aware of the fact that the ending is, as I mentioned before, a very sad one. But this just fits in the mood of the film, doesn't it? | 1pos
|
Definitely not only for urban legend aficionados, Campfire Tales is an often scary and always fun ride through several popular stories. It is also a film that exceeded the (low) expectations I had. A horror film I had never heard or read about, a straight-to-video release (granted, the latter often presents us with a pleasant surprise, but with horror films nowadays it can be all or nothing), a cast of mostly unknowns... well, I'll leave the math to you.<br /><br />The film proves to be an entertaining, suspenseful and overall very enjoyable experience. The four stories are well-paced and satisfying. The only one I felt was a little weaker was "The Locket", for the simple reason that it offers almost no explanation for its plot or the characters' actions; however, I still loved the tale, its atmosphere and ending. My favorite one was the third story, "People Can Lick Too" - the suspense in it is not only palpable, but also educational.<br /><br />I found Campfire Tales to be one of those horror gems one discovers by chance, and then goes on recommending it to everyone.<br /><br />7/10 | 1pos
|
God, that sucked. You can't end a horror movie with a happily-ever-after family setting. Yeash. I was kind of ambivalent going in to the final act. But, my god. He didn't have to kill the girl, she didn't die, the ghost father appears with a cure (which makes no sense, because his spirit would have been liberated after the yank kid killed all the bad werewolves). What a hunk of junk. This is the worst horror movie I've seen in a long time, and I've watched a lot of horror movies. This is a slap in the face for Landis and everyone else involved in American Werewolf in London. Blegh. I hope that this ruined the career of every one in it bar Julie Delphy. And CGI: Kind of new and chic back in 1997, but today it just looks drab compared to the artful prosthetic/makeup work of London. Anyway, I'm done, I hope I've scared a few people of. Get the original instead, or failing that The Howling. Or failing that watch American Idol reruns. Just don't watch this mess. | 0neg
|
1st watched 10/28/2007, 8 out of 10(Dir-Jesus Ponce): Simple, sweet story of a homeless couple and their daily adventures surviving in the everyday world without a roof over their heads. The movie starts with the woman in the story(played by Isabel Ampudia)being released from prison but we don't know what she was in for or how long she was there. She runs across the anti-hero of the story and her boyfriend, played by Sebastian Haro, as he's parking cars for change. They shack-up together underneath an old dilapidated building with nothing but each other's warmth and a small mattress to their possession. He is a drug addict who just tries to make it from one fix to another, but she has a strange, obsessive attraction to him as a person, which we eventually accept. He also has some sort of sexually-transmitted disease, so sex for them is out of the question but this doesn't appear to be a problem for either of them. She loves this man as he is, without question, and without him having to change, which is a rare find anywhere. She earns her keep by carrying a bucket around and washing shop windows. They eat a bakery roll every day and consider it a feast. Isabel's character dreams of a normal life but doesn't expect it to happen and doesn't expect to fit into that role so doesn't think much of it. Both characters come from extremely broken homes and therefore the audience has sympathy for them despite their imperfections. Without giving up much of the story, Isabel's character continues to persevere while the man gets worse and worse in his drug obsession. There is a nice melodramatic conclusion to the story that lifts it up for the masses to enjoy, but overall this is a wonderful independent film about a relationship between un-worldly misfits that keeps you interested until the end. | 1pos
|
Ever went on Youtube? Well, the definite question to that is YES. Do you see the boatloads of ICarly and Nickelodeon rants? No definite answer.<br /><br />Many people think ICarly is a dull and idiotic program, and others think it's the best program on the face of the Earth. I have seen many of the loads of reviews panning ICarly in the head and some giving it a bouquet of roses. In my opinion, Icarly is for the kiddies, but the show is just awful.<br /><br />If you did not read the last review, here are reasons 1-8: #1: Steryotypes #2: Goofed-up drama #3: Everything is silly(taco truck for example) #4: Carly thinks she's nice but she's mean #5: Anyone over the drinking age is stupid #6: Sam is petite but strong? #7: No real companies #8: Mean teachers<br /><br />#9: The webshow overuses 3DFX. Just look on the webshow to understand what I mean. #10: The webshow also spills personal information. #11: Almost every famous thing is insulted. Icarly insults the Japanese race, Solitare, Mercades-Benz, and Pac-Man, to name a few. #12: There are too many reoccuring jokes(Sam's obsession of meat, Freddy's computer, Gibby pulling his shirt off, etc.) #13: The video games based off the show suck. #14: Freddy has a lack of masculinity. Why? It's getting unoriginal. #15: The show is targeted towards a female audience. I also hate shows directed to a male audiences too, so I prefer Icarly to be for both genders. #16: The words "nub" and "no chiz". #17: The overuse of laugh tracks.<br /><br />Part 3 coming in early Spring! Just in time for Spring break! | 0neg
|
When it opened in London during the Christmas season of 1969 this musical version of James Hilton's famous story was drubbed by the critics. The same reception greeted it when it opened in the US, prompting MGM to withdraw its "Roadshow" status and cut almost all of its songs. What a mistake!!!<br /><br />Watched years later, when the trendy world of the 60's and 70's has turned in upon itself, this version of GOODBYE, MR.CHIPS is a total delight. First of all, as "Chipping", Peter O'Toole gives one of his greatest performances. To watch him turn from the hated, cold, emotionless Latin teacher at a boy's boarding school, to a man who finally can see the colors in the world (after falling for and marrying musical star Catherine Briskit) is to see a genius at work. (If you can, watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE LION IN WINTER, MY FAVORITE YEAR and CHIPS back to back over a number of days or weeks. Then you will see what a truly great actor O'Toole is, and how magnificent he is in CHIPS.) <br /><br />Catherine, as played by the glowing Petula Clark, at the height of her popularity, is ever man's dream; beautiful, loving, understanding, with a great voice to boot. Most of the songs are beautiful and fit the story perfectly, while the direction by the late Herbert Ross brings the proceedings wonderfully to life.<br /><br />Okay, this film may be a bit too romantic for some people, but for those who are looking for a beautifully acted, sung, and directed love story, look no further. (If you can get your hands of the laser disc wide screen version, better yet. I am anxiously awaiting CHIPS' debut on DVD.) | 1pos
|
Some will say this movie is a guilty pleasure. I loved this flick but I don't feel guilty about it. You can tell the whole cast and crew had fun making this movie. But Jack Frost 2 won't go over well with some people. Right from the beginning you can tell this movie will be cheesy and it definitely has an amateurish look to it. Well, if you get the privilege to watch this movie, after watching it remember that Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman is a pleasure, not a guilty pleasure. Now, because I can't fill up ten lines heres some great scenes: <br /><br />**SPOILERS** <br /><br />The three women on the beach had great deaths. The first one had Jack in a tree trying to drop icicles on one of them. He kept missing so he dropped an anvil on her. The next woman fell on a bed of icicles. The last one was stabbed in the eyes with tongs.<br /><br />The other great one was where two surfers stoners are hanging out near a frozen pole. One of them gets their tongue stuck on it (of course). Jack Frost pulls him back a rips his tongue off while saying "COWA-TONGUE-A DUDE!". Well, you have to see it for yourself.<br /><br />And of course, the snowball children kicked ass.<br /><br />**END SPOILERS**<br /><br />infinity stars | 1pos
|
without a doubt, one of the most racially prejudiced films i've ever seen, with the prejudice being levelled against Hayden Panettiere as she has to move into a tough inner city school. She is constantly called "white girl" and other slurs based on her colour. Firstly would this be allowed the other way around if a black girl was the butt of all the abuse? and secondly the stereotyping of the ethnic kids from the inner city school is also a disgrace. The writers apparent desire to show they were "hip" also extended to missing the point that the inner city school win the cheerleading competition, not through talent but by intimidating their white opponents!! these overtones to the film took it away from it's expected direction of a harmless lighthearted comedy suitable for a family audience into a vehicle that does none of the participants any credit. Hayden Panettiere has star quality but I would be surprised if any of the rest of the class ever get much further. All in all a charmless film that was a waste of time. | 0neg
|
THE PROTECTOR. You hear the name. You think, "ah, it's a crappy Hong Kong movie." Guess what - it's not Hong Kong. And yes, it is crappy. This amazingly stupid Jackie Chan film, ruined by us, yes us, the Americans (I'm boiling with anger, ooh, I think I'll jump out that window!), has Chan as a New York cop hunting down a gang, avenging the death of his buddy. Sounds cool...but it's not. Don't waste your money renting it. To prove he could make a better cop film, Chan made the amazing POLICE STORY (1985). | 0neg
|
This movie was really funny even though it wasn't meant to be! The acting was stupid and so were the voices. Pretty much all it was was some guy walking around a corn maze for an hour and a half. They threw in this stupid super natural thing that made it even dumber. It wasn't even like a normal movie, this weird creepy music was playing almost the whole way through the movie. What is it with corn maze horror films? Children of the corn was really scary I thought and I thought this would be something like it, but really it was just stupid. The main character guy just walked around aimlessly yelling for these two little girls. And then at the end he like kills someone or something. It's worth seeing if you're with your friends because it's really funny how bad it is, but if you're looking for a horror movie then don't waste your time | 0neg
|
I had no expectations (never saw previews for "Marigold") and enjoyed the characters, contemporary music, and sharp dancing in this light-hearted movie. Even though 98% of the dialog is English (great thing for me), I wish the DVD had subtitles to help with some of the quick moments when the character's accent can be difficult to understand. I wouldn't judge this movie against Bollywood films, but just on it's own merits as fun entertainment (a musical people movie).<br /><br />I'm hooked on Ali Larter as an actress (and her interviews in the Bonus Material indicate she is a nice person). I have since watched this movie several times (gets better each time). | 1pos
|
I had heard good things about "States of Grace" and came in with an open mind. I thought that "God's Army" was okay, and I thought that maybe Dutcher had improved and matured as a filmmaker. The film began with some shaky acting, and I thought, "well, maybe it will get better." Unfortunately, it never did. The picture starts out by introducing two elders -- Mormon missionaries -- and it seems that the audience will get to know them and grow to care about them. Instead, the story degenerates into a highly improbable series of unfortunate events highlighting blatant disobedience by the missionaries (something that undeniably exists, but rarely on the level that Dutcher portrays) and it becomes almost laughable.<br /><br />Dutcher's only success in this movie is his successful alienation of his target audience. By unrealistically and inaccurately portraying the lives of Mormon missionaries, Dutcher accomplishes nothing more than angering his predominantly Mormon audience. The film in no way reflects reality. Missions are nothing like what Dutcher shows (having served a Mormon mission myself I can attest to this fact) and gang life in California certainly contains much more explicit language than the occasional mild vulgarity.<br /><br />The conclusion, which I'm assuming was supposed to touch the audience and inspire them to believe that forgiveness is available to all, was both unbelievable (c'mon, the entire mission gathers to see this elder sent home -- and the mom and the girl are standing right next to each other!) and cheesy. Next time, Dutcher, try making a movie that SOMEONE can identify with. | 0neg
|
This DVD will be treated with indifference by mllions of classic rock music devotees across the world because Rush just aren't cool. It is a shame that Rush have had to overcome sneering disdain from the majority of North American and British music journalists over their thirty odd year history as this has deprived many people the chance to get into a real band.Each of the last four decades are well represented here and what a catalogue of songs it is! We have the seminal "2112", the magical "The Trees" and the lyrical "Tom Sawyer" interspersed with the high-energy, genre-challenging pieces from their latest album "Vapor Trails." The musicianship is almost flawless, the stage show is spectacular and the Brazilian fans are just plain crazy (at one point they sing along to an instrumental!)Each band member plays at a level that defies belief-real craftsmen performing art.If you doubt this try out the instrumentals "La Villa Strangiato" or "The Rhythm Method" for size-and yes the latter is a drum solo (which has to be seen to be believed.)<br /><br />Sound and vision production values are very high as befits the Rush experience and you also get a documentary and multi-angled set pieces to boot.<br /><br />This is an astonishing performance and tribute to the Canadian rockers and all serious classic rock fans should own a copy. | 1pos
|
Another example of the women-in-prison genre. This is not exactly a genre known for quality films, but this is a notch below most. A bunch of women are taken from the bordellos where they work to a prison on a rocky island. Once there, they are subjected to lots of poorly directed sex and atrocious "dialog." For a film with an astounding amount of sex and nudity there is really nothing erotic about any of it. The sex scenes are awkwardly acted, and some scenes, like the shower scene, seem to drag on and on. That said, there are at least some minimal production values. On the W-i-P scale I would put it above Frauen fur Zellenblock Neun, but below Chained Heat. | 0neg
|
Blindingly stupid guff from the formerly talented John Hughes, who'll soon be making a film with the sperm from 'Look Who's Talking' if his stars get any younger. He recycles the 'Home Alone' formula yet again to produce this idiotic comedy, in which a baby makes his way around Chicago while inept kidnappers Joe Mantegna, Joe Pantoliano and Brian Haley try to catch him, along the way enduring much tiresome slapstick. If Mantegna and Pantoliano can't find a laugh somewhere in your movie then you're in trouble, but the laziness of the movie is most glaring in the scenes where crowds of people fail to notice a baby crawling around on the pavement. Utter nonsense. | 0neg
|
Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film | 0neg
|
Pretty terrible, but not entirely unwatchable. Another review mentioned "predictable" - and that's almost an understatement. You can make a game out of guessing what the next line will be. Every character is either stereotype or archetypical. The good guy in a bad situation, the struggle between older and younger priest on acceptance and discipline, the repressed, sexually/emotionally deprived woman returning to the small town after failing in the big city, engaged to the hotheaded, feeble minded beau from youth, the unredeemable bad guys, two "lost boys" looking for a sense of family - they're all here, and none of them with even the remotest spin of something new. From the first few minutes you can figure out exactly what will happen by film's end. The story isn't entirely lame, but direction, acting (even from a cast with some talent) everything is thrown together without skill. As to the storyline, we've all seen it before in a movie called "Sister Act." This is also one of those films where inattention to small details show up in an even more glaring light. (As example: the nurse and our hero drive into town but park several blocks away from their destinations (post office and hardware store) - yet both walk across empty parking lots for no apparent reason. Or the passage of morning to night during a scene that seemingly should occur in no more than half an hour. The movie is filled with that kind of stuff and then tags on an improbable denouement. | 0neg
|
Honestly, buying this movie was a waste of money. It's one of the most boring movies I have seen in my life. The only part I liked is the ending, but it's so slow that not even the fantastic ending can save this movie. | 0neg
|
Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a translator living in Italy, discovers that she has a memory loss and can't recall the last couple of days. She starts to follow a trace of memory fragments, which leads her to the small town of Garma. People in the town seem to recognize her and she's beginning to suspect that the re-occurring nightmares of astronauts conducting horrible experiments has something to do with her own amnesia.<br /><br />The movie is interesting and the plot is good, but it's a bit to slow moving and arty for my taste. The plot takes some nice twists and it's really hard to figure out where it's heading. Florinda Bolkan is good in her role (but even better in "Flavia the Heretic") and it's always nice to see "star" child actor Nocoletta Elmi. Klaus Kinski's role is too small though. This is not a movie for the die-hard gore hound or exploitation addict, but still a very nice hour-and-a-half mystery. | 1pos
|
The idea that anyone could of concocted such a trite, cliché, yet indeliberately comical movie is shocking. The final 20 minutes of this film are comical glory; with six men digging enough trench in 10 minutes to light the runway with gasoline for a 747, while a supposed 'major' perfectly lands the 747 in a 110mph crosswind - leading one to question the misnomer of calling this movie CRASH LANDING...<br /><br />Some of the dialogue was equivalent to rubbing sandpaper in my ears, while the only aspect that saved this movie for a 1 was the plethora of attractive women filling the screen a large portion of the time. Not exactly a consolidation for this pathetic excuse of a movie, but my mute button finally received a workout.<br /><br />View at your own risk! 2 out of 10 | 0neg
|
This is one of those movies that I can watch again and again and not get tired of it. It is by far one of the best comic book adaptations ever. I liked this one even more than X-men. In fact, this movie is sort of a cross between X-men and the matrix and it came out before either. Wesley Snipes does a great job with the character of Blade. He is just not an emotionless super hero. Also, this movie isn't sugercoated to get a pg-13 rating. Sure comic books are for kids mainly, but I like a little more in my movies. Let's face it, if we were in these situations we would cuss up a storm to so it is more realistic. This comic book adaptation also has something that many don't. A good fight in the end between the bad guy and good guy. Let's face it, none of the Batman movies had a very good ending fight. | 1pos
|
They loved him up and turned him into a horny toad! God, that gets to me every time.<br /><br />This is a great movie. Memorable lines, from "Thank God your momma died given birth; she'da seen ya she'da died of shame" to "I don't understand, Big Dan." Great scenes, from the opening train scene (laughed so hard I cried) to the bluegrass.<br /><br />Watch it. It's good, it's great, it's funny, and it's based on a famous story. Worth your while, believe me. Don't watch this if you have a weak bladder, for you will definitely wet your pants laughing. | 1pos
|
I absolutely adore this film about a lady columnist (Barbara Stanwyck) for a major homemaking magazine who delivers a welcoming article each month that includes details about her awesome home life as a wife and mother in a beautiful Connecticut home. The trouble happens when the owner of her monthly publication demands that she have him and a WW2 hero as guests during the Christmas Holidays. Why is she worried? Because she lives in a small New York apartment, isn't married, and doesn't have a baby - and can't cook at all! Hilarity (and romance) ensues when she tries to put on a believable act in an effort to save face/ keep from being fired by the magazine owner (played by Sydney Greenstreet). This is a delightful comedy; one that I highly recommend to classic movie lovers!!!! | 1pos
|
i watch this film with horror in my heart because my mother also was a crack head like Michelle. i've been wondering where Michelle is now. there has been times where i had to find my mother in places i was scared to be but more scared to leave her there! to see Michelle act like that made me wonder where she was sleeping all that time?? i watched in hopes the it was never that bad for my mom! and what i want to know is... where did Matt and Tracy "tear that ass up"?! worst scene for me was watching Tracy shoot up in an old navy dressing room!!!! u never who try clothes on before you and it looks like all of them except Michelle has aids!!!! where are they know 2008? can we get an update?????????? | 1pos
|
For all its many flaws, I'm inclined to be charitable towards "Thing". There is the nugget of an interesting, creepy, claustrophobic Hitchcock style story here. Put this in the hands of a writer like Theodore Sturgeon or (if you prefer British perspective) Robert Bloch, or the guy who wrote "Day Of The Triffids", and you might have had a nasty, unsettling little spook story that was the best thing in an book anthology of horror and suspense stories.<br /><br />However, someone chose to tell this story as a feature length movie, and a cheap, 2nd rate at that, and so most of the potential is wasted. A story like this really needs a voice like Sturgeon's to bring out interesting quirks of character in a better light. His classic story "The -widget-, the -wadget-, and Boff" is an example of how he can gather together an isolated group of "ordinary" characters and in the space of 40 pages can turn them into the most amusing, sympathetic and fascinating people you've ever met. A good writer can, with a few chosen words, make the reader "see" some of the most vivid and memorable events ever to scar his emotions.<br /><br />Instead, we get a movie where some of the most irritating and unlikeable characters ever made are lumped together and made to interact in unconvincing "Where did that come from??" moments that just lie there. (IE the blond psychic girl declaiming that "You're all evil and I hope you are destroyed!"). We get leaden pacing and slow motion blocking and dull sets and stiff actors. I blame the director for the 'stiff and shallow' part. These are all 3rd rank character actors who never made the big time, but they are also 'real' actors, and a good director could have gotten better performances out of them. We get uncalled for lesbian overtones that make the viewer feel uneasy and exploited without delivering any kind of payoff. (If I'm going to have my baser instincts exploited and feel guilty about it, I want done by stuff staged better than this). And we get over an hour of creepy build-up diffused in about 35 seconds in one of the worst anti-climaxes I've ever seen.<br /><br />Good things about "Thing"? Um, well...some of the closeup shots of the warlock's head silently mouthing its directives were pretty effective. The miserly and shrewish widow rang true to life (even if I wanted to stuff a sock in her mouth). The first scene where the big, "simple" ranch hand silently turns on the oily cowboy and kills him had a bit of shock value, because the plot had taken the trouble to establish the big guy as a fairly sympathetic character. And like I said earlier, the idea of an insidious force from the past turning the members of an isolated community against each other is a good one and can sustain interest far above the actual merit of a bad performance.<br /><br />Which this definitely is.<br /><br />But, as I said, I'm inclined to be charitable, because the director was probably working under a penurious budget, breakneck time constraints and the best actors he could find for the money. Heaven knows how future generations will judge facile crap like "The Cave", "Wrong Turn" or the remake of "House of Wax" 40 years from now. I hope they are charitable towards our own tastes in supporting our generations wastes of film stock. | 0neg
|
This movie started off well enough, sticking to the mood of the book fairly well even if the acting was not top notch. The soundtrack was torturously bad. Saxaphone and electric guitars? It was gratingly incongruous. The female singer was positively dreary! In the second half of the film the story takes a decidedly darker turn. Too dark for Austen. Northanger Abbey is made a dark and scary place whereas in the book it was disappointingly tame and modernized to Catherine's eyes.<br /><br />Who in the heck is this Marchioness with the ghastly makeup and wig? A totally extraneous and unnecessary character.<br /><br />One of the key elements in the book is the General is not a Gothic monster like the characters in Catherine's books. His monstrosity is far more complicated in his oppression of his children's spirits and his treatment of Catherine based on money concerns alone. He does not lock up his wife or kill her but he does send Miss Morland on a 70 mile trip alone in a hired carriage with not enough money to pay her way home. Only her friend Miss Tilney's thoughtfulness in handing her some money on the way out the door saves her from being stranded. This whole point gets seriously muddled in the film. They make the General too dark from the outset.<br /><br />Peter Firth should have not sung! This part was painful to watch. His depiction of Tilney wasn't too bad but it was a shade dark in places. Henry Tilney of the book made sport of Miss Morland's imagination on trip to Northanger but he was never dark. Firth would have benefited from better direction. The young lady who played Isabella needed a better acting coach. John Thorpe was appropriately odious. The striped waistcoat and coattails combo he wore was ghastly! It certainly fit his character.<br /><br />I think the film would have fared much better with a completely different soundtrack. It cast an oppressive pall over the entire movie. If I watch it again it will be with the sound OFF and subtitles on. Perhaps I would give the film a 4 then.<br /><br />The sound quality of the DVD was quite poor. The picture quality was not much better. This is glaringly noticeable on a digital television.<br /><br />When I think of what this film could have been, I think of Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. | 0neg
|
This movie was beautiful and touching. It touched a place deep inside me and I'm not sure why. I am a happily married woman and I've never had lesbian tendencies, but my, this movie almost made it something I crave. The choreography, the storyline, the dialog... the movie was a work of art. <br /><br />The synopsis without spoilers is that a woman gymnast unsatisfied with her life and looking for... something, anything. She is with a man who does not want a baby, but she does. He's not mean to her, but he doesn't treat her the way a woman should be treated either... I guess he doesn't really appreciate her. All these years she has stayed in shape and decides to go back to the gym. She meets another woman during her acrobatic training and an intimate and beautiful relationship unfolds. Throughout the movie she has another woman friend that she trained with in her younger years, and they have stayed close friends.<br /><br />The relationship that unfolds is.. I don't know quite the word, but very understanding, comfortable, intimate but sexy... something that could only exist between two women. The kind of relationship that could really bring meaning back into your life. Someone that makes you feel special, exciting, beautiful, confused even.<br /><br />The relationship with her close friend is beautiful in an equally different way. They have a close and intimate relationship. Her friend showed me what a true friend really is. Someone who is understanding, easy going, REAL, fun to be with, someone who is there for you no matter what. Someone who is supportive, and you can huddle with and tell your deepest secrets. Someone who shares your past but does not share your secrets. <br /><br />The story is simple in the fact that it was not overdone, but not underdone in any way. It leaves a lot of sensual imagery to capture it's moments. The dancing and choreography was stunning. I could watch it over and over. The way the artist captured the main character's feelings and emotions was. The dancing and the imagery was very dazzling and mesmerizing to watch. What a cozy a wonderful story! I fell in love with this movie. If you have a chance, rent this and watch it!! | 1pos
|
This is the most frightening film ever made in Hollywood. It is a cautionary tale of how to take a European masterpiece and suck the life of of it until it is a dry husk like an insect carcass on the the windowsill. Frightening because it reveals how the world of Hollywood really works: ignorant money begetting dross. It makes me wonder how many great films could populate the corridors of my memory if the Hollywood process had not leveled them to forgettable mediocrity. Cry for the murdered children! See Spoorloos or read The Golden Egg, if you dare, because they will come back to you forever in the idle moments of your life: when you're walking along the street and you see a 'missing' poster; in ordinary-looking parking lots; when you hear the Tour De France on the radio; and, especially, when you you think "what's the harm?" in wearing a sock with a hole in it on a perfectly ordinary day.<br /><br />If only I could give this a zero. | 0neg
|
This is a multi-faceted, insightful and bold story about the people in the life of a schizophrenic patient, their (and our) perception and realities. Although the main theme revolves around a delusional young woman, the story delightfully flirts with physics, medicine, religion and even politics as it questions our perceptions about what is true and what is real. Konkona Sensharma beautifully conveys that the world Mithi is living in is as real to her as ours is to us. Within that world, she is logical and her thoughts are internally consistent, not the gibberish that they seem to us in our world.<br /><br />Here are a few outstanding scenes to look out for while watching the movie (don't worry, these are not spoilers). I absolutely loved the way Aparna Sen wove these commentaries into the story.<br /><br />- The references to quantum mechanics and relativity intermingled with the witch-doctor ("ojha" in Hindi) performing his religious rituals that he believes will drive away the "ghosts" sitting in Mithi's brain. <br /><br />- The doctor prescribing shock-treatment as a solution that is "believed" to work <br /><br />- Windows of perception - The scene about the review of Anu's book. <br /><br />- The allusion to illusion in a conversation about a director looking for "maya". <br /><br />- News footage of George Bush telling the whole world that there is "no doubt in his mind" that there are WMD in Iraq (now, that is not as much about Bush's perception, who I suspect knew the truth, as the gullible public's perception about WMD in Iraq.)<br /><br />- One of the best scenes in the movie is where Mithi tells Anu "Charu sent this man to beat me" and Anu dismisses it as a matter of course. Konkona did a fantastic job, bringing out the strange mix of muddled thoughts in a schizophrenic's brain when her world and the real world clash.<br /><br />Aparna Sen was bold, but not bold enough to pose one big question: Is nearly all of mankind delusional to believe in God? She could have inserted some scenes about "normal", "healthy" people praying to and sacrificing for a Being that no one has ever seen or heard from in all of human history (The ritual/exorcism scene doesn't go far enough). That would be the ultimate question: What is normal? Who's reality is right, the Believer's or the Atheist's?<br /><br />IMHO, this movie is a far more intricate exploration of the schizophrenic mind than "A Beautiful Mind". It looks at the minds of not just the sick person, but also the healthy, and does so from many different angles and illuminates our understanding of our own minds and our world. If the former got 4 Oscars, this deserves more - At least one each for story, screenplay, direction, Konkona, and Shabana Azmi. It was truly a treat to watch this movie and I'm glad I bought the DVD for my collection. <br /><br />This was a story very well-told indeed. | 1pos
|
It starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is. | 0neg
|
Excellent entry in the RKO Saint series with well-written original script, good camera work and transitions, good directing to handle some twists in the plot, good editing to keep the flow constant, and good acting. George Sanders is suave and witty. Jonathan Hale simply is Inspector Fernack. Paul Guilfoyle plays a mobster who goes straight (and drinks milk) because he cannot take the pressure. He will return in a later entry in the series. Story begins on an ocean liner headed to the U.S. where the Saint meets but cannot connect with Wendie Barrie. She eventually succumbs to the Saint's charms but she breaks his heart in the end. The Saint assists Inspector Fernack clear his name from a frame. A few bodies fall along the way. Good entertainment and above average for this type of film. Watch it. | 1pos
|
Shazam was okay, but Hero High was my favorite when I was a kid, I mean before there was Sky High(2005) and Zoom(2006), there was Hero High, a school for super hero's in training, Teenagers with super powers would help police capture bad guys, and other times they would get in embarrassing situations like The Greatest American Hero(1981). It was a fun cartoon to watch, what was also fun, was the live action stage show called The Kid Superpower Hour with Shazam. The actors who voiced the characters, also dressed has there characters in the show. Rex Ruthless(John Berwick), Misty Magic(Jere Fields), WeatherMan(Jim Greenleaf), Captain California(Chris Hensel, who also sang the theme song), Dirty Trixie(Maylo Mccaslin), Glorious Gal(Becky Perle, who looks like the love child of Superman and Wonder Woman), and Punk Rock(Johnny Venocour). The whole cast just went with anything, when it came to the jokes. The cartoon was a fun superhero comedy, I shore up it will come back in live action like Fat Albert(2004) | 1pos
|
There are not many films which I would describe as perfect, but Rififi definitely fits the bill. No other heist film has come close to it, before or after. The plot is simple, but engrosses you. It never ceases to amaze me how absolutely gripping the film is every time you view it. You care for all the characters, even though they are bank robbers, because they are presented as human beings with all their problems and flaws. It's hard to imagine any other actor besides Jean Servais in the role of Tony le Stéphanois. When the members of the crew are each talking about what they are going to do with their money and finally get to Tony, his answer and the expression on his face says it all. While the 30 minute heist sequence is the most famous part of the movie(and rightfully so)the film actually gets better afterward.The director Jules Dassin knew what he was doing when he decided to not have any music during the heist scene or the final shootout, but instead inserted a great climactic score during Tony's final ride towards his destiny. To think that if Dassin, an American Director, had not been blacklisted in Hollywood and forced to work in France, this masterpiece of cinema would never have been made the way it was. It certainly wouldn't have been as good if it was made as an American film during that time. It was absolutely horrible what Dassin had to go through, but he did achieve his greatest work because of it, to the benefit of all of us. I'm just cringing at the thought of the upcoming Al Pacino remake. Most heist films since Rififi have already borrowed from it in some way or another. There's no reason to remake this masterpiece other than money. Leave the classics alone! | 1pos
|
Caught this recently after noticing James Earl Jones name on the title. It was better than I expected. Of course it's pretty old - made during the early/mid 70's but it actually is a decent drama. It runs a quick 90min or so and showcases good performances from James Earl Jones and Diahann Caroll. The plot is conventional in general but told through the perspective of a single black woman on welfare who has 6 children and trying to deal with all the problems that persist. This makes for an interesting view.....also in the fact that the script wasn't too sentimental or overdramatized - it's almost like looking at a slice of the past. All the 70's styles are out in abundance. The ending is kind of kooky though....probably would've done better without the theatrics. | 1pos
|
Istanbul is a big , crowded city between Europe and Asia.Too many types of people living together there for hundred years.In this documentary movie you can see how music can give description about the culture of the owner race.<br /><br />You would be able to hear too many types of music including rock , hip-hop , arabesque , alternative and more. Some of the musicians are famous in Turkey , some of them are famous also in Europe. The rest are just street musicians. Their music tell viewers , different faces of a city. <br /><br />Impressive ! | 1pos
|
I had to write a review for this movie based on the ones that are saying gory, non stop action, great movie..<br /><br />These people were obviously watching a different movie. Killpoint honestly sucked from the word go!! I kept waiting and waiting for this film to get better and it was to no avail. Some said this movie was brutal and others said gory but I can't find either of those adjectives actually showing up in this, I mean hell there are so many scenes with people getting shot and there being no blood at all it's not even funny!! I guess the best way to sum this up is it probably should've been rated PG by 1984 standards and now in the year 2010 there is no doubt this would be PG!! Bad, BAD not in the fun cheesy "B" variety movie!! | 0neg
|
At the opposite end of the spectrum from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is David Hemmings' utterly inferior adventure regarding the salvage of a World War II-era plane with a valuable cargo. Assets include beautiful New Zealand settings, Brian May's energetic music score and some dandy helicopter flying and jet boat chases. The bad, however, far outweighs the good. Donald Pleasence hams as perhaps never before; half of his dialog is almost unintelligible. George Peppard attempts an Australian (I think) accent, then gives it up halfway through. Lesley Ann Warren is at her most irritating. Ken Wahl is, well, Ken Wahl. The dialog is painful to hear and Hemmings' direction is largely inept. The script is not only obvious but terrible. Jokes fall flat, scenes carry no punch and continuity is virtually non-existent. According to the end credits, two men were killed piloting jet boats during the making of the film. What a waste. | 0neg
|
Just do a little research on the making of this film. Something so simple as a Google search. It was funded by the US Army and promoted just in time for the elections. It is a great idea, but I'd much rather see a DOCUMENTARY, not something edited by the Bush Administration and told its reality. The timing of the movie's release, its tone, and the fact that MS&L promoted it, raised questions about the intent of the movie. "According to MS&L Managing Director Joe Gleason, he and his colleagues also deliver key targeted messages about the war in Iraq to specific constituencies," wrote Eartha Melzer. "Was the left-leaning art house crowd one of those constituencies? Is the government hiring documentary filmmakers to propagandize the U.S. population? Nobody involved with the film is willing to say who initially put up the money for the film or how they ended up represented by the Army's PR firm." | 0neg
|
Just after watching the first one and it is very dumb. I happened to watch an episode of Bones first and then the Eleventh Hour. The 11th Hour should be embarrassed.<br /><br />It is so weak. Stewart introduces himself as a Government Scientist. No mention of what kind of scientist just general sciency stuff. In a program about cloning they bring a caretaker, who was paid to dispose unsuccessful embryos, to a church and made him kneel before the statue of Jesus on the cross and ask forgiveness... and as well tell them where the bad guy is so as they can move the plot on. Now thats science at work :(<br /><br />There is a dumb, not good dumb, bit where Picard rages at a TV that advertises skin scream that makes you look younger, shouting "It's a lie", as his randy female assistant gets groped by the local hot bobbie next door.<br /><br />The end of the first episode is like a bad cartoon where the bad old lady, named after Pinnochios daddy in order to move the clunky plot along, waves at Picard from the street as she gets in a taxi. Picard is one floor up and he looks out a window wistfully going... she got away. He could like try to run down.. or maybe ring the cops... or maybe get the number of the taxi and ring it in or maybe had anything other than... I am waving and getting into a taxi now and there is nothing you can do about it until next week ending... mahhahahahah.<br /><br />Pity it's so stupid. At one point a grieving father is convinced by Picard that even if a replica clone son was born it would never be his son as his son had a soul. Yes that's right folks. The general scientist argues against cloning on the basis that every soul is unique and sure why else would you want to clone. <br /><br />Although the general scientist Picard finds cloning a bit gooey he's all up for stem cell research and goes as far as to say that calamity will befall humanity if it isn't allowed. He has a pretty strident rant about how important it is. Of course he doesn't mention a single example. That kind of sums up the show. Buzz words and tawdriness. | 0neg
|
This is my first Almodavar film. I'll confess we chose it mainly because we knew this had the enticing prospect of Antonio Banderas in gay sex scenes.<br /><br />Unfortunately, that is about all that this film has to recommend it. I consider myself a fairly sophisticated viewer, I like European films, "art" films, and I am generally able to recognize a quality film even if it is not to my particular taste.<br /><br />But this film was a complete blank to me. The plot was ridiculous, the characters lifeless, the box called it a "hilarious comedy" but I didn't laugh once. Loosly and awkwardly constructed, with a lot of pointless dialogue. I don't get this at all-- it seems like an amateurish effort. Can someone enlighten me? | 0neg
|
For those expecting the cover art and story outline to indicate another entertaining Bollywood Indian production, beware: no musical dance numbers or songs of production value exist to brighten the mood in this rather tired story of arranged marriages in the British Indian culture - with a few variations thrown in. As written by Roopesh Parekh the script jumps around topics worthy of discussion only to cover them up with routine avoidance tactics. Harmage Singh Kalirai directs like a traffic cop, trying to hold together the disparate subplots to the point of Keystone Cop tactics.<br /><br />Jimi (Chris Bisson) is a medical school student who is gay and has a lover Jack (Peter Ash) and they live with Jack's obese, alcoholic, loose morals aunt Vanessa (Sally Bankes) and Sally's chubby daughter Hannah (Katy Clayton). Jimi's family is visited by the Patel family from Delhi who bring their beautiful daughter Simran (Jinder Mahal) to England to find a husband. Jimi's parents (Saeed Jaffrey and Jamila Massey) and his grandmother (Zohra Sehgal) decide Simran is the girl for Jimi to marry and arrange an engagement and wedding in the custom of Indian ways - without consulting Jimi. Jimi discovers the plot and is too spineless not to go along with it, a decision which enrages Jack and infuriates Vanessa. Hannah tells a 'little lie' to Simran (that she is Jimi's daughter) and the wedding is off. When Jimi's parents visit Jimi's house they discover the drunken Vanessa, are repulsed by her, but eventually decide that for Jimi's happiness they will go along with the fact that Vanessa has given them a 'granddaughter' and decide to use the marriage preparations as a wedding for Jimi and Vanessa. Jimi convinces the very reluctant Vanessa to go along with the idea and before long Vanessa is dressed in a sari, prepared for a wedding, and Jimi, terrified at what he is doing just to please his parents, includes Jack as his best man. At the wedding the truth comes out and to Jimi's surprise his family adapts to Jimi's true self and the day is saved by simply being truthful.<br /><br />The cast copes with this silly bit of nonsense rather well and there are some good performances: Chris Bisson and Peter Ash are attractive men and play their roles well, albeit without any indication at all of a loving relationship (the director seems terrified of showing the least suggestion of intimacy between the two men); Sally Bankes provides most of the laughs as Vanessa; the rest of the cast repeat the stereotype roles they've played countless times in Indian movies. This is not a bad film - it has its moments - but it is just too superficial and tired to make us care about any of the characters. | 0neg
|
This is one of my favourite films, dating back to my childhood. Set in the remote wilderness of Siberia at the turn of the century, a small community is stirred when an extremely cold winter forces two tigers to come down from the mountains in search of food, preying on outlying farms. In this atmosphere we are introduced to Avakum, a hermit fur trapper, who lives out in the wilds, as he comes to the village to sell his annual catch to Boris, his close, and rather only, friend in the village, who runs a store. At Boris' request, Avakum accompanies his friend's arrogant son, Ivan, on the hunt for the menacing tigers. Personalities crash and tempers flare as the older, more experienced Avakum criticises Ivan's amateur methods, an encounter noticed also by the other members of the hunt. On the second day, the hunters sight their prey and give chase. In a thick wood, Ivan wounds one of the tigers, which then attacks the hapless man. Avakum, seeing Ivan tangling with the enraged beast, fires, but accidently hits Ivan. He kills the tiger as it flees. The other hunters arrive on the scene, suspicious.<br /><br />Back in the village, the doctor works to save the wounded Ivan. Avakum attempts to leave the village, but is confronted by Ivan's friends. The trapper brushes them off however, and speeds off with his dog-drawn sled. The young villagers swear after him that they'll come for him if Ivan dies, which he later does, but before dying explains to his father that it was an accident. Old Boris, upon learning of his close friend being run out of the village, straightens out the gathering "lynch mob" and goes out after Avakum, to find him and set things right. And so the main story begins.<br /><br />A simple film, it raises the conflict of man and civilisation versus nature, mainly Avakum's struggle to survive alone out in the wilderness. The winter landscape is very well filmed. Perhaps the strongest element in the film is the soundtrack by Jimmie Haskell. Very sentimental and evocative, the main theme reminiscent of Albinoni's Adagio. Other movements reflect Russian styles, as well as a couple of folk music type tunes.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this film is not available to buy, to my knowledge, which is rather a shame. The copy I own, recorded off TV nearly twenty years ago is slowly deteriorating. This film is a must see for those who can appreciate it, if they can find it. 8/10 | 1pos
|
If you're in the mood to laugh at a truly bad movie (bad in the way only Ken Russell at his worst can be), you must try this one. It succeeds in making you feel like you just landed in a .25 porn-booth, and you can just about smell the urine on the floor. Kathleen Turner struts around in a blond wig, getting her kicks from "pretending" to be a two-bit hooker (she really has a good solid job in the clothing industry and has been hurt so badly by men that this is the only way she can connect), and Tony Perkins plays a hysterical "priest" who is out to maybe murderer her (yet another movie that ends with Tony Perkins in drag). Annie Potts shows up and is not allowed to provide an ounce of her usual wit, which is reason enough to hate this movie. The kinky will love the sex scenes, so rent the UNrated version in the RED box so you can see Turner give a cop a taste of his billy club (I had to pause the VCR until we stopped laughing). | 0neg
|
A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?<br /><br />Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of "Rymdinvasion i lappland". And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void. <br /><br />Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad. <br /><br />Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.<br /><br />4/10 | 0neg
|
First of all, this movie is so confused that it is almost impossible to summarize it, since I myself did not understand this horrible story. Further, the unknown cast, leaded by an actress called Laura Mennell, is simply awful. The expressions and screams of the character Sara Tobias are laughable and ridiculous, confusing grimaces with acting. Last but not the least, there are many favorable reviews about this flick in IMDb as follows:<br /><br />- Top Notch- Can't wait to see more of the directors work the author has only one review in IMDb on 24 September 2004;<br /><br />- Incredibly shot, amazingly intense the author has only one review in IMDb on 12 August 2004; <br /><br />- Not your typical blood and gore, in fact better. 7/10 the author has only one review in IMDb on 13 February 2005;<br /><br />- As intense as Asian horror!! - the author has only one review in IMDb on 14 November 2004.<br /><br />Coincidence? Or are they the parents, relatives, friends or people hired by the production to promote this crap? My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "11.11 A Nova Profecia" ("11.11 The New Prophecy") | 0neg
|
I really wanted to love this film. I have read the book to my daughters and we all loved it. The book is marvelous. This film is very far from the book. The book is splendid - this film is an awful adaptation.<br /><br />In the book, Sara is honorable, kind, strong, and NEVER does anything spiteful to get back at anyone. That's the POINT of the book! She behaves as a "princes" regardless of circumstances. An important part of behaving like a princess is to not return unkindness. It is to behave honorably regardless of how you are being treated.<br /><br />In the book, she endures much and touches the lives of others. Other people change their behaviors after they witnessed her kindness and ability to endure without sinking to spite and vengefulness. Sara does what is right simply BECAUSE it is RIGHT.<br /><br />Outside of the bakery, she comes upon a beggar girl who is more poor and hungry than she is. She has half a dozen hot buns. She is VERY hungry. She gives one bun to this wild looking little girl huddled on the doorstep of the bakery. When she sees how ravenous the girl is and watches her gobble the bun, she gives her another. She continues to do this until she has given 3 or 4 I think - I don't remember how many.<br /><br />The baker is watching through the window. She is so moved by what she has witnessed, she takes the beggar girl in and raises her as her own daughter. Other people are similarly influenced by Sara.<br /><br />And in the book, her father has died. The man next door is her father's partner - he has been looking for her. Her father did not lose his money after all - the man is thrilled to find Sara; he takes her and Becky into his home and raises them as his daughters. And Sara has her full inheritance, of course.<br /><br />Miss Minchin is not a chimney sweep. In fact, she remains in her same post at the school. But she is humiliated as Sara has told her new guardian of the cruel treatment she received. And Sara does speak to Miss Minchin in the end - Miss Minchin is trying to minimize her treatment of Sara and Sara with a calm steadfast demeanor, instructs Miss Minchin that she had been cruel.<br /><br />There is no comeuppance for Miss Minchin. She continues on in her miserable existence. It does not matter - what matters is that Sara has a home with a guardian who loves her - and her dearest friend in the world, Becky, is now for all intents and purposes, her sister.<br /><br />The book is about love and honorable behavior under the worst of circumstances. It is about self control and humility. It is a wonderful book. This film does NOTHING to capture the true story and messages of the book. My wife was so disgusted with it, she wanted to leave the theater in the middle, but we decided to stick it out. We were not rewarded.<br /><br />I cannot for the life of me think of a reason the film makes should alter this excellent book in such a bad direction. Perhaps it was the influence of the ghastly screenplay from the book that Shirley Temple acted in. I don't know - but this film is so far from the book in character and values that I do not recognize it.<br /><br />Don't waste your time - buy the book. It is unforgettable... even for a dad! | 0neg
|
Great film about an American G.I. who quits the army to marry a German girl who saved his life in the last days of the war. She accepts, but does she do it because she really likes him, or because he can support her with easier access to food and such? Meanwhile, her brother and an old friend form an anti-American terrorist group called the Werewolves, their purpose to drive away the occupants (you might remember the same group playing a major part in Lars von Trier's film Europa (Zentropa)). James Best, best known for his role as Roscoe P. Coltrane in the 1980s television show The Dukes of Hazzard, is shockingly excellent as the American. He should have become a big movie star at this age he reminds me very much of Warren Beatty. The other main actors are good, as well. Fuller's direction is quite good, using a lot of long takes again (although they are not nearly as complex as they were in Park Row; the long takes more often than not consist of long scenes with a lot of dialogue). The only problems lie in the script, as seems to be the case with all of the Fuller films that I've seen. It's not too badly flawed, but it ought to have been expanded, fleshing out major characters and parts of the script. Helga, the wife, goes through a major change, but completely off screen. Therefore, the emotional center rests squarely on Best's shoulders. Fuller also should have killed off the sick mother early in the film. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh! She just doesn't really do anything throughout the film except lie in bed. She has so few lines. But Fuller keeps bringing her up as the film goes on. I would have had her death solidify David and Helga's relationship myself. And the film ends too abruptly, and it lacks payoff. These aren't really the biggest flaws in the world (the way I described them makes them sound bigger than they are). 9/10. | 1pos
|
This movie attempted to make Stu Ungar's life interesting by being creative. What they forgot is that his life was plenty entertaining enough on it's own without having to make things up.<br /><br />A short list of the inaccuracies: <br /><br />1) Stuey was not sent straight to Las Vegas for a Gin Tournament to pay off old debts, he spent a good deal of time in Florida first, and only went to Las Vegas when he ran out of Gin games on the east coast.<br /><br />2) Stuey never associated (or played Gin) with a casino executive (like the one played by Pat Morita in the movie.) <br /><br />3) There was no magical turnaround in the buildup to the 1997 WSOP. In fact Stuey barely made it into the tournament as it was. He snorted Cocaine the week before even.<br /><br />Either tell the story right, or don't tell it at all. 4 out of 10 stars for Michael Imperolli's credible performance (the only redeeming quality of this movie.) | 0neg
|
Hilarious film, I had a great time watching it. The star (Cuneyt Arkin, sometimes credited as Steve Arkin) is a popular actor from Turkey. He has played in lots of tough-guy roles, epic-sword films, and romances. It was fun to see him with an international cast and some real lousy looking pair of gloves. If I remember it was also dubbed in English which made things even more funnier. (kinda like seeing John Wayne speak Turkish). | 1pos
|
Hmmmmmmm - cheerleader massacre. Let me think - high school girls get sliced up, except the cute one survives. Got it. Next movie.<br /><br />I was actually surprised this one was made in 2003. I really thought they quit making these movies in the 80's. This was truly your run of the mill slasher movie with teenage eye candy, dumb male horn dogs, even dumber male adult, and hot teacher. It continues on the list of dark and stormy night and abandoned cabin in the woods. We have seen it all before.<br /><br />However this one had a few interesting plot twists that places it above the normal me-too slashers, so if you have got a few brain cells to fry and 2 hours to kill - you could do worse. | 0neg
|
ok we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why! | 0neg
|
I have had more boring stretches of 80 minutes in my life, but none are coming to mind right now. Hell Ride is based on the retro cult 70s theme that Tarantino brought back, and did right, in movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. The problem with Hell Ride is, unlike PF and RD, the story is garbage and so is character development. How many movies does Bishop think he can blatantly steal from? The brief case in Pulp Fiction, the air gun in No Country, etc. etc. Speaking of Bishop what the hell is he doing acting in this movie? I couldn't help but laugh at those scenes where he's standing with his pelvis trusted out, desperately trying to seem like some hardened biker. Nothing in this movie is believable. And why Dennis Hopper? Did they really need the Easy Rider motif too? I blame Larry Bishop, for his horrible plot and dialogue, not to mention his failed attempt at the leading role. Don't bother watching this movie, it's a waste of time. | 0neg
|
This is a very realistic movie. It's the most realistic I've seen on urban youth. The actors were great. I will look out for more films by Gomez. I had never heard of the film until someone mentioned it recently. I bought it on DVD. I was impressed. I haven't seen anything come close to life as I know it in Philadelphia. This comes real close - in fact, one scene where there is an accident (I won't spoil and give details), reminded me of a nearly identical situation in Philadelphia. At first I thought Gomez took the scene from that real-life event, but then I realized that he made the film a few years before that situation. I also agree with the point that this film didn't try to broaden its appeal by putting in Hollywood crap. Gomez also directed "Laws of Gravity" - I am eager to see it. | 1pos
|
This was one of the worst movies that I have ever watched. The story was about a woman prisoner sent into space to try and save mankind but what it actually turned out to be was that the prisoner was actually put on board a space ship with a nymphomaniac lesbian commander. All the story was about was having sex over and over again. There was no need for all of this footage - only to create a soft porn film. Of course we had to see the heroin of the movie having sex for about 2 minutes. I don't know what all this had to do with the actual plot of the movie -except I assume to get men to watch it. I gave it 1 out of 10 only because there was no other rating lower. Don't waste your money or time- it has nothing to do with science fiction but rather a movie for young adolescent boys to watch to see t&a. The creature was shown only more than half way through the movie and looked like the alien in the movie with Signorney Weaver. Poor excuse for entertainment. | 0neg
|
I played Sam (the porter, Lou's sidekick) in the Film "Dead Rail" Which later aired as "Alien Express." And, I have to say that for my part I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film. As a struggling actor this was a chance for me to work with fantastic people, it gave me great scenes to include on my reel, and it allowed me to work on a dream job for a month and a half (no waiting tables!) Turi(the director) And Steve and Scott (the producers) Were very kind by giving me this opportunity to participate in the production. I made many friends (Lou, Todd, Steven) and I consider myself very fortunate to have been able to work with these incredibly talented people. There was not a day that went by that I did not laugh my butt off. The real tragedy isn't so much the special effects, it's that every single person who watched this film didn't get to see what happened behind the scenes and all the talent that truly went into it. Craftsmen building the set, prop masters, gaffers,wardrobe, makeup artists, script supervisors, the cinematographer, production assistants, extras, craft services, producers, director, and actors. It's a given that Sci fi didn't spend a terrible amount of money on the film (2 million) But There was a lot of time, energy, and man power that was instilled into it. I look on the film now as a production that brought a lot of talented people together for a fun project that was shot without complications in less than two months. It was a magnificent cast and crew and I'm just so glad to be apart of it! On a further note to those of you who don't know Lou Diamond Phillips, Todd Bridges, and Steven Brand. They are fantastic people who are incredibly funny. Lou I still am working on my Deniro impression and can't thank you enough for introducing me to "midnight Run." Todd, every time I hear an Elvis song I can't forget the story you told me about hanging out with him at his house for dinner. "Can you please pass me the pa tators?" (IM A HUGE ELVIS FAN!) Steven, "Mr. Brand!" You are a true gent and all the advice and encouragement I received from you will always be appreciated. I miss you guys and hope you are well. Thanks for the good memories, stories, jokes,and friendship. Oh and miss Utah says hello! wink wink.<br /><br />joe- | 1pos
|
As a parent of two girls(14 and 11) I have grave doubts about this show and all the shows aimed at tweens. First, I am always amazed that the living conditions of Drake/Josh, Zac/Cody, Hanna, Carly, Derek, Sunny etc. always make most houses look tiny and cramped. Most people work hard all day to pay for living quarters less than half the size yet on these shows nobody is going or coming from work, paying utility,rent, mortgage or insurance bills, mopping, sweeping, changing lightbulbs, fixing toilets,etc. Just walking in and out(and down the ubiquitous wide stairs that only exist on TV sets) cracking jokes(most of which involve lying and the hilarious results) and shirking work. I think kids watching these will have unrealistic expectations on how hard they will work and how luxurious their lives will be. Second, there is never an intact family, always a Mom or Dad but never both, who are always going on sexless dates but never seem to have any of the downside of divorce(alimony, support, arguments). Again, kids may get the impression that if mom/dad get divorced there will be fun fun fun(actually mom or dad are often not around if that helps the plot). Needless to say there is no mention of spirituality(forget specific religion). Finally there is a theme that troubles me. There are "nerds" that are good in school, "jocks" good in sports, "goody two shoes" as well. The protagonists are not good at school, sports, or charitable but make wisecracks about those who are. The message is don't be good at anything, just be one of the "nothings" who blend in cracking jokes. Needless to say I give all these shows a zero and turn them off all the time and am just short of forbidding them in my house. | 0neg
|
A dark and painful look at the perils of drug addiction, Sinatra is wonderful in this film. Just watching his frenzied writhing and screaming and destructive rage near the end of the film is enough to make anyone think twice about trying heroin; maybe they should show this to kids in health class instead of the mindless drivel we are compelled to endure year after year.<br /><br />It's the story of a man who is simply trying to make a new, clean life for himself after being in prison, trying to rid himself of his drug habit and his job of dealing cards in illegal gambling operations, who is pulled down, pulled back into the muck by the evils of human nature. He is being taken advantage of by his employers, the drug dealers, and even his enigmatic, crafty-yet-stupid wife. <br /><br />Even if you didn't like the film itself, it's worth seeing just for the soundtrack. It's all heavy, swinging jazz with large drum and brass sections. This, with its groovy, yet slightly sinister sound, helps set the mood, along with the grinning, snaky drug and card dealers, who always seem to hover like vultures around Frankie Machine.<br /><br />I recommend this to anyone -- especially if you like film noir, zoot suits, fedoras, or jazz. | 1pos
|
Junior high and high school teachers will find "The Cure" an excellent teaching tool, both as a companion to "Huckleberry Finn" or as a stand-alone lesson. Although AIDS is supposed to be the main theme, the strong sup-text of friendship and love, as they evolve between Eric and Dexter, is a powerful message for teenagers. Writing prompts centered around the symbolism of the tennis shoe are particularly effective. I also suggest directed class discussion about how Eric evolves from manipulative user to loving friend. | 1pos
|
First, I rated this movie 10/10. To me, it's simply one of the best I saw since I was born (I'm 23, but I saw numerous films). The story is cruel, but reality is, too, not ? It went deep into me and stirred my bowels. I saw it about 5 or 6 years ago and it still shakes me - and I still remember it !<br /><br />Second, there is no 'national preference' (this expression is a direct translation from the French) for this movie. I mean it's not because it is a French movie that I put it so high : it has really caught me when I saw it. Furthermore, I don't know well Marcel Carne's filmography, so I don't know if it is or not his best movie, but I know it is not his most famous : Hotel du Nord, Quai des Brumes and Les Enfants du Paradis are the most famous.<br /><br />Third, the movie's in B&W, but it deals with inter-temporal problems of youth (not acne) like love, friends and studies in a modern way. It could even be remade frame-by-frame with actual young actors, a Dolby(tm) sound and special effects (a car crash), it would still be a great film !<br /><br />Problem : Maybe is it a film to be seen by young adults (from 16 to 25 years old) - and above, of course - for its message to be well understood... Did I say it was a great movie ? | 1pos
|
Granny is definitely one of the worst horror movies ever made in the history of cinema.<br /><br />The script was diabolical, so bad in fact that I was almost crying with laughter at some of the things they came out with. The acting was almost as bad, they would have been better off casting traffic cones to play the roles (they would have done a better job). The murders were laughable, the suspense was non existent, the camera work was ineffective and the "major" plot twist at the end was disgustingly inappropriate, it just gets worse and worse.<br /><br />"The Granny" is possibly one of the most unthreatening "villains" caught on film, she looks like she is wearing a cheap mask from the supermarket (the nylon hair caused endless amounts of laughter) and a frilly nightgown. Would you be scared by that??? I certainly wasn't.<br /><br />If you like watching bad movies (see Manos, Troll 2, Michael Bay films  ) then this is a must see. Those who don't like bad movies and don't enjoy laughing at shockingly bad dialogue, avoid like the plague. | 0neg
|
We sought out this hard-to-find VHS after watching two excellent Merchant-Ivory pictures back to back. Knowing it was an instant box office failure, a failure as a rental, I thought it might be worth seeing anyway based on M-I's reputation. Too bad! Nine years ago, it was very much a Liberal Agenda objective to trash the Founding Fathers and indeed they had some success in eradicating the Founding Fathers from many American classrooms including, for example, New Jersey; whose eradication of our great founders quickly ended when the Washington Times shone the spotlight of truth into the NJ School Board and their subversive deed. A small part of this was headlining the alleged Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson connection, disregarding the inconvenient DNA findings which failed to support the wacky left's agenda. Never mind! They got James Ellis, an author of dubious reputation, to put it in a book, and Columbia University sealed the deal by giving Ellis a Pulitzer.<br /><br />As to Jefferson in Paris, the Liberal Agenda spin begins in the opening scene wherein James Earl Jones is claiming to be the son of Jefferson. The spin simply continues in flashback mode to Paris. The unmistakable truth is that even if a person assumes the lie is true the Hemmings allegation would be an insignificant detail into the larger matter of Jefferson's prolonged and vital diplomatic mission to Paris (as well as to the Netherlands where he secured crucial financial backing for America when our infant nation was without funds).<br /><br />Besides the Liberal Spin Job, there is nothing else of interest in this drab and tortuously dull movie. Some of the other history is indeed accurate --- adding credence to frame the lie --- but this movie takes one of the most interesting moments in American history and reduces it to a remedy for insomnia.<br /><br />Please do not ask me why Liberals set out to trash the Founding Fathers, because I don't waste time explaining the acts of such people. Don't ask them either; they usually respond to such questions with the same answer: "SHUT UP!" | 0neg
|
Perhaps one of the best movies ever made. Orry and Goerge's friendship runs deep, and the War puts a strain on their strong friendship. As a Southerner, I can honestly say this epic is as accurate as it gets. Brothers fighting brothers. Can you imagine what life must have been living during those times? The best part of the movie, for me, was when The South surrenders; General Grant is urging President Lincoln to really stick it to the South, he says, "Mr. President, a lot of folks want The South to bleed over what they've done..." President Lincoln, turns to him and in a very tired voice says, "The South has bled enough...and so have we..." I burst into tears, and take a deep breath. What a President! It's like a father saying his son has been punished enough, and despite his anger he realizes his point has been made. This War was a very dark time for our young country, and it had to be fought. President Lincoln knew this. I'm urging everyone who reads this to watch this movie, and add it to your DVD collection. Then, thank God that our country was preserved. As Jesus said, a "House divided against itself cannot stand." | 1pos
|
I can imagine why he'd want to die, after starring in this rubbish. The man is incredible, but even Sidney Poitier couldn't save this tiresome morality play about racism in the old West. He and Joanna Going are both fantastic in this film: too bad the screenplay, co-stars, directing, and score couldn't match those two. | 0neg
|
George Burns returns as the joshing Almighty after enjoying a big success with 1977's "Oh, God!", an upbeat fantasy made successful by a sudden need in the 1970s to switch from devil-driven thrillers to comedic redemption (although it made money, the original was more in line with the "Topper" comedies of the '30s than a return to feel-good religious cinema). Here, God appears to a young girl (Louanne, who had earlier starred in a stage production of "Annie") and asks her to spread his Divine Word, causing her nothing but trouble from grown-ups in the process. Peculiar, family-oriented film appears to be warm-hearted enough, and Burns gets to chime in with a nice barrage of wry jibes, but the writing is half-slapstick and half-seriousness, with the adults of the piece considering putting little Louanne away, all of which makes God seem more like a troublemaker than an elderly friend. Louanne is another problem: a perky kid with wizened little eyes, she is untrained for screen-acting and occasionally seems awkward. The medium-budget production has a gloppy, TV-movie appearance, with few graceful touches. The final scene mimics the climax of the first "Oh, God!" in that it brings a wistful sentiment to the mix, which is welcomed. It's the most subtle moment in the movie. ** from **** | 0neg
|
The use of "astral projection"(wandering soul), to exist outside of body, with the result inflicting horrible death(..crushing the insides of victims leading to broken spine and ruptured organs)on those close to the one with such ability, is the threat of ETERNAL EVIL, providing Karen Black(..as Janus) with another "unique" character to fool around with as a woman who influences a commercial director, Paul Sharpe(Winston Rekert) tired of his waning marriage and dull career. In actuality, she's dying and needs his body, her spirit potentially harmful to his wife and son(..his son has a "special friend" who talks him into things, even poisoning himself at one point). A detective, Kauffman(John Novak) investigating the unusual homicides concerning those killed by the benevolent spirit, links Paul to the deaths and through him uncovers Janus. Soon both realize that Janus must be stopped or she'll simply move to another human host. What Paul doesn't know is that his new secretary is Janus' lover, both were actually older intellectuals featured in his documentary of astral projection called WANDERING SOUL.<br /><br />Director George Mihalka(My Bloody Valentine)certainly creates a weird atmosphere with this movie which contains a rather bizarre premise. It seems that Paul's boy can see the spirit moving in the shape of a "blue man", manipulating the kid into disorderly conduct. Black, despite the star treatment, rarely is shot close up taking advantage of her face which can produce the type of malevolent evil her character warrants. Instead, she's shot from afar, her voice dubbed, and she never quite establishes herself with the proper menace which is an opportunity lost, in my opinion. For some reason, despite the intriguing(..if oddball)idea of astral projection causing a spirit to kill folks from within, the film just never takes off. The soundtrack is very "Yanni-ish" and the lighting(..and sound), while at times moody and effective, often is quite murky. The pacing is a problem, also, as the story mules along. The cast is rather limp, especially Rekert in the lead, his performance erratic, at best. It doesn't help that there are few characters(..except Paul's wife)we could care less about, and what really hurts is that Paul himself isn't exactly the most lovable person in the world..he can be quite difficult and moody, his unfulfilled career a reason for such behavior. Black should've been a more prominent figure in the film, yet remains mostly in the background, talked about in dialogue between Paul and Kauffman, but rarely does she get a chance to amuse us with her histrionics, which is a shame. | 0neg
|
Matt Cvetic is a loyal communist in a Pittsburgh steel mill who works to recruit workers into the party, even though this isolates himself from his son, family, and neighbors. What makes this even more difficult is that Cvetic is actually an FBI agent posing as a Communist in order to obtain information about party activities. The party is trying to create a strike at the mill, whereby the pro-strike movement will lead the workers into a wave of propaganda. Cvetic also has to contend with beautiful Eve Merrick, a party member and teacher at his son's school who finds the fact that Cvetic is a double agent. When Eve learns the ugly truth about the party's real motives, the reds decide she must be liquidated and Cvetic must aid her without endangering himself. The film should have plenty of suspense and double crossing but there is very little in this film but (by today's standards) very cheesy propaganda and little action or thrills. Lovejoy is very good in the main role, but even he and the rest of the cast seem listless. Few surprises here and how did this film receive a Oscar nod for best documentary? Rating, 4. | 0neg
|
It's okay ... a few years later Chayefsky's classic "Network" will be his true cinematic BIG home run ..., but for now, this dark comedy isn't the classic it aspires to be. It's mostly awful, although it has some good scenes: the first murder victim being found, the E.R. clerk responsible for billing patients making a surprise discovery, Drummond's delusional confessional, and the very last scene where Scott's character regains his professional integrity and self-respect. It also has some ludicrous scenes: Scott's character's whiny monologue during his early visit to the hospital psychiatrist, Scott's character's raping Rigg's character, Dysart's horrible mugging in his brief scenes, and the O.R. doctor pouncing on the operating table to resuscitate the wrong patient because "I already have one malpractice lawsuit".<br /><br />Chayefsky also tries TOO HARD throwing every conceivable hurdle at this one hospital (i.e.- the murders, the administrative mistakes, the poor people protesting outside, etc). It might have worked better as a look at the industry as a whole. Acting-wise: Scott is passable, Rigg seems miscast, Hughes is inspired, and Dysart mugs through out his brief performance. The rest of the cast is TOO one-dimensional. | 0neg
|
You have to be awfully patient to sit through a film with one-liners so flat and unfunny that you wonder what all the fuss was about when WHISTLING IN THE DARK opened to such an enthusiastic greeting from audiences in the 1940s.<br /><br />On top of some weak one-liners and ordinary sight gags, the plot is as far-fetched as the tales The Fox (Red Skelton) tells his radio audience. You have to wonder why anyone would think he could come up with a real-life solution on how to commit the perfect crime and get away with it. But then, that's how unrealistic the comedy is.<br /><br />But--if you're a true Red Skelton fan and enjoy a look back at how comedies were made in the '40s--you can at least enjoy the amiable cast supporting him. Ann Rutherford and Virginia Grey do nicely as his love interest and Conrad Veidt, as always, makes an interesting villain. One of his more amusing moments is his reaction to Skelton explaining the mysteries of wearing turbans. "I never knew that," he muses, impressed by a minor point that is cleverly introduced.<br /><br />All in all, typical nonsense that requires you to accept the lack of credibility and just accept the gags as they are. Not always easy for a discriminating viewer as many of them simply fall flat, the way many comedies of this era do because the novelty of the sight gags and one-liners has simply worn off. | 1pos
|
Why I disliked the movie, apart from the sheer ugliness of the actors themselves, is that someone might actually believe such crap.<br /><br />First of all, The Second Coming of Christ will be at the end of words, and when Jesus Christ will come on Judgement day he will not come as He did before, in human form. He will come in His full Glory as God and we shall be judged not only for our sins, but also for the consequences of our actions. Everyone will! Secondly, I have seen the eternal Gay pride illustrated in this movie with the all unquestionable "I read the Bible last night and it's not written anywhere". Well, it is. Moses cites on 3 different occasions that men who make love to other men, or women who make love to each other as if man and wife should be killed because these will never inherit the kingdom of God as they are foul! If it truly were for us to follow the Bible word for word there would be executions now, wouldn't there? But I think misinforming people does more harm than this would... That was the in the Old Testament.<br /><br />There are lots of lunatics in psychiatric wards who think they are The Son of God, but to make a movie after it truly makes you think of how many idiots out there can make a movie. | 0neg
|
I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport! <br /><br />What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead. | 0neg
|
I watched the first episode and I found it to be a very wooden performance.<br /><br />I have watched the original from it's early days on Big Girls Blouse to the last series on Channel seven. Kath and Kim was a great Mocumentary and it's humor is something that most people get.<br /><br />However in this American version I found it to be dull, Molly Shannon is to fashionable to be Kath Day, Kath's wardrobe is supposed to be stuck in the 80s with her frizzy perm. While Selma Blair's figure hugging clothes isn't as good as what the original Kimmy wore. I also found that Selma seemed to be puffing her belly out a lot, she is obviously a (Australian) size 12 where Kim should be (Australian) a size 16/18.<br /><br />The exchanges from Molly and Selma is obviously so scripted and there is pauses where there shouldn't be pauses or the pauses are a bit long, as someone suggested there could be a laughter track in there during those pauses. It's like Molly and Shannon are not used to each other, there is no Mother/Daughter chemistry.<br /><br />Phil was okay he had the eccentric air around him like Kel. However Craig was to handsome and not the sweet plain humble Brett from the Aussie version.<br /><br />I found watching this was like watching a very bad stage play. The acting was pretty much wooden and the exaggeration of Selma's expressions wore the funny off after ten minutes. Especially her sulking scenes.<br /><br />To sum up, I find this show to be a waste of time, the script obviously has been dumbed down for Americans which most on the board say they prefer the original. If NBC wanted to show Kath and Kim why not pay the producers the money to screen the original.<br /><br />All I can add is Magda you are one smart cookie for not letting the producers use your character of Sharon. | 0neg
|
I liked House of Dracula much more than house of Frankenstein. Carradine is much more passable & his acting isn't as ridiculous & overboard as in HOF. The actors deliver solid enough performances. The subplots (eg the monster, the village mobsters, the village idiot, the hunchback nurse etc ) are mixed in well, so that none becomes an odd splinter as in HOF. Better run than the stitched-together HOF. The hunchback nurse is as likable as the hunchback in HOF. The doctor is very good. As well, Lon Chaney adds a classy touch with his wolfman. Worth watching twice. A classic universal horror with that typical 1940's, long lost flair. Especially good is the doctor's performance before/after his blood had been contaminated with Dracula's. | 1pos
|
One of the most notorious of the banned "Video Nasties" of the 1980s is also one of the most excessively over-hyped. "Make Them Die Slowly" is about what you'd expect from an Umberto Lenzi-directed jungle potboilerinventive (yet poorly rendered) native torture techniques, some ridiculous "social commentary" (yes, even sillier than "Cannibal Holocaust"), and lots of guts being chewed. The film's exploitative violence, though, is often only shown in brief close-up, and never dwelt on for very long, which diminishes its effect (interpret that how you may). The dialog is Lenzi's usual silliness, as our male heroes show their affection for females by calling them "tw@t" and the like. The cast of familiar faces (including Lorraine De Selle, Giovanni Lombardo Radice, Zora Kerowa, and Robert Kerman) does their best in the face of the escalating idiocy (including a completely ludicrous "castration preservation"), but cannot save this overworked, lousy effort. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits