text
stringlengths 139
5.88k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
The various Law & Order and CSI franchises had better be glad Dolomite doesn't pass through. The lady cops,ADAs,and coroners would all be enthralled and the males be subject to such soul shivering,badge melting warp speed kicks ( Wouldn't you just love to see David Caruso's Horatio and that know it all on CSI get Dolomite's Hush Puppies pulled from their respective asses)Ice T might start crying and get back on the Playa Trail.<br /><br />Low low budget,bad but enthusiastic acting,and a vision at what gutbucket nightclubs offered to its patrons;funk bands soul singers,the last vestiges of old style Chitlin Circuit entertainers( that weirdling dance troupe)James Brown,Wilson Pickett,Otis Redding,and a host of others came from those clubs to glory, while their peers labored on in local or regional stardom. Rudy Ray Moore came from that background and the character of Dolomite is a mix of the bold Black badasses who strutted through. He shouldn't have went to the joint, the swine didn't have a warrant, how his middle aged ,blubbery self maintained a loyal stable of kung fu wenches is a mystery only a student of cults can explain, but all that is beside the point. It's a glorious home movie of a legendary performer that compared to the mirrors of actors ranging from Established Hollywood to indie film snorefests,hits its mark. A fun dumb movie! | 1pos
|
Hoppity is a charming if slightly phycadelic animated movie that considering it was made in the 1941 has stood the test of time incredibly well. Now I have to admit I have a soft spot for 'HoppityGoes To Town' (as it is called in the United Kingdom) having watched a VHS version taped of the TV by our parents many times with my siblings.Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning just in time to catch it on Channel Four (at 0615 never the less!) The film was just as delightful as I remembered it with the animation standing the test of time and a lovely moral tale which should appeal to parents and children alike. Maybe one day I to shall share this forgotten classic with children of my own. With a nice running time for kids (88 Min's)and a simple yet involving storyline there really is something for everyone in this tale of the little guy coming good. I really could see this being successfully remade in CGI. Take note Pixar. | 1pos
|
I saw the biopic of Ed Wood many years ago. Tim Burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker.<br /><br />Then I saw Plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. A silly story, kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny.<br /><br />Then this. What can you make of it. Well, since Wood has been reported as being a cross-dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. Yes, there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self-parody.<br /><br />One of it's problems is that it has a hundred points of view. On one hand it is a plea for tolerance. Another portrays transvestism as a disease. And finally, it tells the audience: "Okay, if you are schocked now, then wait until you see this!" The problem must have been that Wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. You can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer: Personally supervised by... So, where are we. This is neither a serious subject movie or an all-out schocker.<br /><br />The entertainment value is practically nil. The wooden voice-over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. This was made in the 50s though, so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. It all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. Schock. The rape scene, while mild is there simply to do that.<br /><br />So, sorry. This is a misfire but the discredit is not Wood's alone. | 0neg
|
I checked out this video expecting to like it. Wanting to like it. I like foreign films, I like beautiful cinematography, I know the critics liked this film (including my favorite, Roger Ebert), and I don't mind "slow" films.<br /><br />Well, it's beautiful. That's about the best I can say for it. The plot is very thin, the shots are very long, the glances are very meaningful, the actors are very sincere, and it seems like a very long movie. I fell asleep half way though it, woke up, rewound the tape, tried again. It was a trial, but I made it to the end. I didn't like it any better for that. | 0neg
|
How many movies are there that you can think of when you see a movie like this? I can't count them but it sure seemed like the movie makers were trying to give me a hint. I was reminded so often of other movies, it became a big distraction. One of the borrowed memorable lines came from a movie from 2003 - Day After Tomorrow. One line by itself, is not so bad but this movie borrows so much from so many movies it becomes a bad risk.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />See The Movie! Despite its downfalls there is enough to make it interesting and maybe make it appear clever. While borrowing so much from other movies it never goes overboard. In fact, you'll probably find yourself battening down the hatches and riding the storm out. Why? ...Costner and Kutcher played their characters very well. I have never been a fan of Kutcher's and I nearly gave up on him in The Guardian, but he surfaced in good fashion. Costner carries the movie swimmingly with the best of Costner's ability. I don't think Mrs. Robinson had anything to do with his success.<br /><br />The supporting cast all around played their parts well. I had no problem with any of them in the end. But some of these characters were used too much.<br /><br />From here on out I can only nit-pick so I will save you the wear and tear. Enjoy the movie, the parts that work, work well enough to keep your head above water. Just don't expect a smooth ride.<br /><br />7 of 10 but almost a 6. | 1pos
|
Foolish hikers go camping in the Utah mountains only to run into a murderous, disfigured gypsy. <br /><br />The Prey is a pretty run of the mill slasher film, that mostly suffers from a lack of imagination. The victim characters are all-too-familiar idiot teens which means one doesn't really care about them, we just wonder when they will die! Not to mention it has one too many cheesy moments and is padded with endless, unnecessary nature footage. However it does have a few moments of interest to slasher fans, the occasional touch of spooky atmosphere, and a decent music score by Don Peake. Still, it's business as usual for dead-camper movies.<br /><br />There are much better films in this vein, but over all The Prey may be watchable enough for die-hard slasher fans. Although one might be more rewarded to watch Just Before Dawn (1981), Wrong Turn (2003), or even The Final Terror (1983) again.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of **** | 0neg
|
Mickey Rooney (as Mi Taylor) is a young man drifting along the figurative road to ruin, where he meets 12-year-old Elizabeth Taylor (as Velvet Brown) - she adores horses, but he has a sad history with the animals. Ms. Taylor is enamored with Mr. Rooney's horse-sense; she takes him home, and gets him room and board with her family. They are supported very well by Anne Revere and Donald Crisp (as Mr. and Mrs. Brown). Butch Jenkins and Angela Lansbury are Taylor's strained siblings.<br /><br />The plot of "National Velvet" is implausible to a fault; for example, the circumstances leading to Taylor's ride in the "Big Race" are quite a stretch (but were likely more believable on paper). Still, the characters' connection to horses, and to Ms. Revere's character are nicely conceived. Rooney and Taylor are excellent in the starring roles; there is a balance between Rooney's fading "child star" and Taylor's exuberant new "child star", which adds depth to their characterizations.<br /><br />The excellent performances of Rooney and Taylor are further enhanced by fine direction, photography, and editing from Clarence Brown, Leonard Smith, and Robert Kern. A sentimental classic. <br /><br />******** National Velvet (12/14/44) Clarence Brown ~ Mickey Rooney, Elizabeth Taylor, Anne Revere | 1pos
|
I'ts like going around in a museum. You can appreciate the great talent of the main composer, Michael Cimino & this fabulous art desinger of light ..Vilmos Zsigmond. As I said I'ts like being in heaven discovering all the creation this man can applied to a single frame. Imagine when you can look at a moving picture of this artist. I can say: this film is one of the best. | 1pos
|
During the Civil war a wounded union soldier hides out in a isolated Confederate ladies' school; where the head mistress and the teacher of the school decide to care for him and keep him about, until trouble starts brewing between the lonely and sexually frustrated women and girls. The soldier decides to take advantage of this situation, but it all comes at a price in the end. <br /><br />"Dirty Harry (1971)" (which was made about the same time of "The Beguiled") might be my favourite collaboration between Eastwood and Siegel, but after seeing this, I tend to think this to be the pairs' finest work together. A very atypical, savvy and stylish vehicle for Eastwood is always on the mark with richly controlled direction by Don Siegel and a hauntingly rousing music score by Lalo Schifrin. Standing out strongly is its sultrily lurid and bleak nature that's intrusively planted into the film's psychological makeup and manipulative strangle hold in sexual depravity. It's assiduously played out and makes it more the brooding and blood curdling when those random shocks and saucy intentions take hold with gripping tension. The way Siegel illustrates John B Sherry and Grimes Grice's alluring bold, slow-burn screenplay (taken from the novel of Thomas Cullinan) is effectively done through stark emotions and the script's tight, lyrical context. Siegel's strong direction captures the idyllically southern Victorian setting with such potently garnished photography and he sets up some strangely piercing imagery with great clarity and restrained. <br /><br />While the performances, are truly commendable and high of quality. Clint Eastwood as the smoothly suave, sweet talking chameleon union soldier is very impressionable and delightfully assured. A profoundly eminent Geraldine Page steals the picture as the hardened head mistress and the elegant Elizabeth Hartman adds a delicate sincereness to her innocent character. Mae Mercer is strongly tailored as the black maid and Jo Ann Harris is the pick of the crop from the young pupils with her seductively sly persona. <br /><br />Honestly while Eastwood's charismatic character plays the field for his own selfish needs, there's still mixed intentions there that the one's being played (where rivalry between the women creep in) turn out to be no better than their guest at the end. Throughout there's a perversely dark sense of humour and ironic touch settling into the material. What's demonstrated here, is simply more than your basic little minded shocker, but one that's thickly layered with intrigue and a sense of realism that's hard to shake. That also goes for its extremely eerie title and closing song. <br /><br />A effectively chilling, low-key item that's hard not to be tempted by it's swinging hospitality. | 1pos
|
'Take Fame' and 'You've Got Served' and roughly jam them together and what do you got? This God awful movie custom made for dull-normal adolescents. The plot very closely follows 'You've Got Served.' Three ghetto afro-teeners, this time living in John Water's Baltimorenot far from 'Peckers' homespend their time getting failing grades in high school and dancing in dilapidated 100-year-old buildings with hoochy-mamas. To finance their expensive baggy hip-hop clothing tastes, they steal cars and deliver them to the local chop shopnot unlike John (Tony Manaro) Travolta who worked in a Brooklyn paint store so he could purchase his polyester disco clothes.<br /><br />Tyler Gage, one of the black three musketeers, gets caught trashing the local Fame High School and is forced to perform janitorial duties. He meets Nora Clark, a 26-year-old white high school student and discovers he's Irish-American, much to the chagrin of his black buddies Mac and Skinny.<br /><br />As in 'You've Got Served' crime doesn't pay and Skinny, the youngest member of the trio gets shot by a Bad Bad Leroy Brown typebut that doesn't stop the musicand heart-stopping finale. | 0neg
|
Life is comprised of infinite possibilities; some known, others a mystery and destined to remain so. And what of the vast unknown, the realms beyond which knowledge has no established boundaries or parameters? Who is to say what exists or what is possible? Valid questions, all of which are raised and explored in the story of a particular individual's personal journey, a strange and dramatic odyssey that defies facts and logic, in `K-PAX,' directed by Iain Softley, and starring Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges. In the wake of an incident in New York's Central Station, a man named Prot (Spacey) is transported to a psychiatric hospital in Manhattan, where he is delivered into the care of Dr. Mark Powell (Bridges), who attempts to uncover the truth about his patient, who claims to be from the distant planet K-PAX. It quickly becomes a challenge for Dr. Powell, as Prot, with his calm, direct, forthcoming manner and a propensity for produce (he eats bananas peels and all, and Red Delicious Apples are his favorites) is quite convincing. But it's Powell's job, as well as his nature, to be skeptical. Prot's claims, however, remain intact and stand up even under the most intense probing and the watchful eye of Dr. Powell, who finds himself in something of a quandary-- Prot even tells him the exact date and time that he will depart for K-PAX, a scheduled return trip that allows Powell but a short time to sort it all out. And Powell just can't seem to get his mind around the idea that he is dealing with a real alien being; and it's something he is going to have to resolve quickly, if he is ever going to know the truth. And he has to know. The truth, after all, is the only thing that is going to set him free in his own mind.<br /><br /> Softley has created and delivered a sensitive, thought-provoking film that challenges the viewer by sustaining the mystery surrounding Prot while forcing you to reflect upon your own concepts of what is, in fact, possible. And as you never know for sure about Prot until the denouement, you are able to identify with Powell, seeing the situation from his point of view and trying to solve the riddle right along with him. Softley creates an atmosphere of wonder and a real sense of being confronted with something that is truly unique as the story unfolds and you begin to realize that Prot just may be what he says he is. And in the context of the reality to which the film is disposed, it's an engrossing matter to try to wrap your mind around. How do you react when all of the evidence is contrary to the physical limitations we've set for ourselves? While at the heart of the film there is a resounding depth of humanity that is evident, not only in Prot, but in Dr. Powell, as well. All of which makes for an extremely engaging and gripping drama.<br /><br /> As we've come to expect, Kevin Spacey gives a brilliant performance as Prot, presenting his character from the inside out, emotionally deep and physically convincing at the same time. This is a unique individual, and Spacey brings him to life with care and the ability to share those moments that are particularly revealing, which adds to the believability of the character and the credibility of the story itself. For this film to work, it is essential that we believe who and what Prot is; we do, and it does. Spacey simply pulls it off magnificently. It's a memorable performance, from which evolves a character that will stay with you for a long, long time.<br /><br /> Jeff Bridges, meanwhile, emerges on equal footing with Spacey, adeptly making a very real person of Dr. Powell. It's a fairly straightforward role, and the challenge for Bridges was to take this very normal and ordinary character and make him unique in his own right, which, opposite the character of Prot was no small task. And, again, for this film to work it was necessary for Bridges to rise to the occasion. And, with exceptional skill and being the consummate professional that he is, he succeeds without question. Bridges infuses Powell with an underlying complexity, and is so giving in his performance, that it makes the interaction between Powell and Prot vibrant, and at times intense. It's a demonstration of two of the finest actors in the business doing what they do best, creating a dynamic that is alive and inspiring. It's a great job by Bridges, who never attempts to steal the spotlight from Prot, which serves to raise the level of the film to an even higher notch.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Mary McCormack (Rachel), Alfre Woodard (Dr. Villers), Ajay Naidu (Dr. Naidiu), Vincent Laresca (Navarro), Kimberly Scott (Joyce), Conchata Ferrell (Betty) and Saul Williams (Ernie). An entertaining, emotionally involving film, `K-PAX' is a dissertation on possibilities, as well as an examination of the ever evolving complexities of the human condition. It's a film that demands an open mind and rewards those who are able to approach it on it's own terms and embrace it. In the end, it makes you realize just how real K-PAX is; and it makes you appreciate Prot's journey, and just how much we all share and have in common with those around us, human or alien. And it may just make you reflect upon your own journey-- where you've been and where you're going. And that's the magic of the movies. I rate this one 10/10. <br /><br /> | 1pos
|
A widely unknown strange little western with mindblowing colours (probably the same material as it was used in "Johnny Guitar", I guess "Trucolor" or something, which makes blood drips look like shining rubies), nearly surrealistic scenes with twisted action and characters. Something different, far from being a masterpiece, but there should be paid more attention to this little gem in western encyclopedias. | 1pos
|
OK, so Herc is a hunk... but the rest of the 3 hours were wasted, wasted... oh the humanity!<br /><br />Poor Sean Astin had to follow his master up the very same hills of New Zealand that ... wait! Couldd it be? Someone in the production crew of Lord of the Rings was making home movies in his spare time! Yes that's it!<br /><br />I wish I could at least say he was promising.<br /><br />The Special effects were often laughable.<br /><br />But, Herc was a hunk.<br /><br />NH | 0neg
|
Corny and horrible, I was not surprised this short lived show didn't make it. I remember fondly when Tales From the Crypt tried reusing these corny episodes like they were actually scary. Coupled with bad acting and lousy music, I was surprised this crummy showed was ever conceived. It never showed up again, and one can only be thankful for this circumstance. | 0neg
|
Mr Seagal has apparantly lowered his (already low) standards even more and has now outdone himself in making bad movies. The Foreigner has no substance what so ever in the script. It's director has made an even worse job and the music and score is so cheezy and malplaced that you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. Already 10 minutes into the movie, you just want to turn it off. However, considering Steven Seagal's past movies, you think 'Hey, there might be some cool action-sequences at least worth watching...' ...you are WRONG! It only gets worse as the movie progresses. Everyone (with a few exceptions) seem to kill every person that they talk to, good or bad, innocent or not. The only good thing with the movie is that it that it has an end and that it has a rather short running time. Summing the movie up in two words: STAY AWAY! | 0neg
|
"Paranormal State" is an interesting show for most paranormal believers. I enjoy watching what the "team" has to say and what they "find", however, I know that the entire show along with it's build ups and story lines are completely set up. They go to real haunted locations and I suspect that they speak with actual witnesses. I commonly feel as I watch it that I am not watching non-fiction but an actual movie that is contradictory to reality. I personally would not advise or recommend anyone to watch this show unless you are a basic scare seeker. <br /><br />Interesting show. Stick to "Ghost Hunters" | 0neg
|
I wonder why I haven't heard of this movie before. It's truly a magnificent comedy (I'd say farce, but it's too well acted and I'd hate to denigrate it's quality). A comedic character study about the travails of mid-life crises, the inequity for gays who can't have their long-time unions recognized, and the general differences of people who can't fit nicely into society, that pairs Kathy Bates and Rupert Everett to a wonderful effect. Forget Julia Roberts and Rupert; Kathy Bates and Rupert should do another movie together. The anxiety-ridden, acerbic and outrageous daughter-in-law, Maudie (Meredith Eaton), is a truly wonderful character. If you liked the Tales of the City films, you'd like this quirky charmer. | 1pos
|
Back in 1982 a little film called MAKING LOVE shocked audiences with its frank and open depiction of a romantic love story that just happened to be about two men.<br /><br />I have been waiting for years for a good, old-fashioned romance between two men; LATTER DAYS is all that and more.<br /><br />Yes, it is soapy, melodramatic, cliché-ridden, and quite corny. That is what makes it so wonderful. There is nothing like a good romantic movie, and this movie is romantic in the best sense of the word.<br /><br />As to the issue of religion, sorry folks, but these things do happen and are happening to gay people even now. It is not just the Mormon church that rejects its gay members. Gay people in every religion have faced harsh judgment and rejection.<br /><br />I loved this movie. It has a perfect blend of a fantasy-romance grounded in the reality of the day-to-day lives of the characters. If I could give it more than ten stars I would. Good love stories never go out of style; great love stories like LATTER DAYS are unforgettable.<br /><br />It's about time! | 1pos
|
While many pass this off as a B movie it is, indeed, a first class comedy that is well-written and acted. Red Skelton is great as Wally Benton better known to radio fans as The Fox. Ann Rutherford is perfect as Wally's fiance Carol Lambert. Conrad Veidt leads a very well cast gang of criminals. I read one account of this movie which states that Vincente Minelli directed this film, not unless he changed his name to S. Sylvan Simon, who directed all three of the Fox movies. This is a very entertaining film made when imagination was encouraged. So get over your black and white prejudice if you have one, sit back and enjoy a truly great comedy. This was also Red's first starring role. Take note during the climax of the reference to Orson Welles' War Of the Worlds broadcast. | 1pos
|
In 1984, The Karate Kid had some charm to it, even if it was little more than a poor man's Rocky. Alas, producer Jerry Weintraub failed to realize it was best to leave the story at the point where it had ended, and convinced Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita to make an extra effort to turn the film into a trilogy. Part III was the definitive low in the franchise, yet someone must have thought the series still had some potential. What other explanation could there possibly be for the existence of The Next Karate Kid?<br /><br />Wait a minute. Next? Yep, Macchio's gone (at least he was smart enough to stop eventually), and his replacement is Hilary Swank (!), playing a troubled teenager (what else?) named Julie Pierce. Now, the girl has family issues. She also gets in trouble at school. Said school has a sadistic gym teacher (Michael Ironside). As it turns out, though, one of his students is actually a nice guy, and Julie falls for him. This gets her in bigger trouble than before, of course. Lucky for her, she is currently living with Mr. Miyagi (Morita), an old friend of her grandfather who happens to know how to get back at the bad guys.<br /><br />All those factors ad up to seven clichés, and that's just a generic plot summary - imagine what the detailed scenes must be like! From beginning to end, The Next Karate Kid is a tired, flat and dull marathon of idiotic lines and set-ups. Swank does, thankfully, have the likes of Boys Don't Cry and Million Dollar Baby to redeem this disaster, but why did Morita accept to come back? He may have received an Oscar nomination for the first movie, and was quite enjoyable in the sequels, but has nothing to speak for him here - even the revival of the "wax on, wax off" gag is stillborn. As for Ironside, he is slightly better than Martin Kove and Thomas Ian Griffith in Part III, but that's hardly a stretch.<br /><br />So, is this picture really that awful? Not exactly. There is one sequence that manages to achieve a weird beauty, but when the best bit in the whole film involves a group of Asian monks dancing as they hear pop music for the first time in their lives, it doesn't qualify as a recommendation to see the rest. | 0neg
|
Despite later claims, this early-talkie melodrama has very little in common with "Citizen Kane": It's a biopic of a ruthless but human fictional plutocrat, told in flashback but hopping around time. The scriptwriter, Preston Sturges, shows none of his later gift for sparkling dialog, and none of the myriad cinematic innovations of "Kane" are evident. Still, it's very watchable, with a young Spencer Tracy (his old-man makeup makes him look just like, well, an old Spencer Tracy) showing depth and authority, and Colleen Moore -- a little past her prime, and not physically well matched -- playing a multifaceted woman-behind-the-man. There's also Helen Vinson as one of the most treacherous femmes fatales in movie history, sending the final third into ecstatic soap-opera reverberations. The surviving print is jumpy and has missing audio snippets, and there are some plot holes left open (how would she know whose son it was if she's sleeping with both of them?), and the music is awfully hokey. For all that, I was quite fascinated. | 1pos
|
I agree with the posters before that the characters were exceptionally strong and believable and all the actors at their top form. I especially loved David Boreanaz stretching in a part so unlike anything else he played proving once again his amazing gift for comedy. The first part of the movie was light and funny, the blackmail part was a bit surrealistic but interesting - and it was all downhill from there.<br /><br />I found it frustrating that at least two out of the 3 girls (Keira and Lisa) get out of the blackmail&betrayal scot free, nary a trace left on their psyche. I know the movie amended the darker ending of the play - and I am not saying I missed the murder part. But I surely needed to see those two getting their comeuppance somehow and I was left groaning in frustration with the ending. (It's why I gave it only a 9)<br /><br />But definitely an interesting film. | 1pos
|
There is the thrill of low-budget film noir. And there is the frustration of meandering, uninteresting movies made on the cheap. This one falls into the second category.<br /><br />The Spot is the name of a nightclub. The film is about a policeman whose father has been killed by gangsters. He heads out to track them down.<br /><br />Maybe it was the bad print. Maybe it's me. But I felt I'd seen this a hundred times, most of those times better than it is here.<br /><br />It has promise, too: The cop is fascinated with a woman who plays records she introduces over juke boxes. They then meet. Now, though this was made well before I was born, I have seen that kind of juke box. And it is incredibly fascinating: When I was a teenager, I wandered into a bar that still had such a device. I always liked juke boxes, in bars or diners. But this one was different. You talked to it and a sultry sounding female voice talked back to you! That is addressed here but dropped into the general, uninteresting stew.<br /><br />The movie has one thing going for it: In a small role, it features the very young Anne Jeffreys. What a beauty she was, and doubtless still is! | 0neg
|
Despite its New York setting & New York characters, 'Summer in the City' is not an American movie, it is better than that. What is most unusual is the mixing of styles and genres. Director Niami's shows a deft touch in combining comedy with tragedy, pathos with drama.<br /><br />The secret of Niami's success appears to be a smorgasboard of great characters - each could have their own film built around them - and then filling them out with beautifully realized performances from one of the most wonderfully eclectic casts one would struggle to find in the same country let alone in the same movie, ranging from Bai Ling to Ornella Muti, Robert Burke to Peter Stormare who here reveals that he has a lot more in him than the bad guy stereotypes he plays in Hollywood pictures. Even Sandra Bernhard is funny here !<br /><br />An added bonus, cream on the substantial cake, is John Cale's soundtrack. | 1pos
|
Overall, the Dad's Army movie is very funny, although the humour isn't quite as catchy and sparkly as in the TV and radio series. So where does this leave us, the viewers? If you've never seen Dad's Army then the movie is a good way of bringing yourself up to speed and getting hooked on the mad world of Walmington o/S. The downside is that you might not "get it" because, as I said, the humour in the movie is a bit on the stolid side.<br /><br />For Dad's Army buffs the movie holds nothing new as the story is more or less a cutup of the TV series, but it's a unique chance of seeing your favourites in "high def" as compared to the shitty quality of the BBC video recordings.<br /><br />The movie also features what must be the lamest holdup sequence in the history of the universe. I can't make up my mind if that's a positive or a negative, though. | 1pos
|
It's funny... one day before i have seen this movie i had been watching a documentary about Leni Riefenstahl, so comparison kind of came automatically... of course there isn't any :)<br /><br /> This movie is weak in every aspect... acting is not convincing (especially the one who plays Simona...) and unnatural..., editing in confused and always leaves a taste of unfinished shot, music doesn't fit, the story doesn't flow, it gets boring and the movie comes out much longer as it is... oh, and the characters aren't very well shown, you actually can't tell much about the girls (except what you see)... The movie also tries to shock with explicit cursing (which is very laughable :)<br /><br />So... 2/10 | 0neg
|
A bright youngster interested in "serious" music (admittedly a vanishing breed--who'll play the fiddle when no one can play the violin??"--could find this an interesting fiction about street kids and great musical stars. Heifitz was indeed the greatest violinist of his generation and the film gives him a rare on-screen chance to display his technique. The kids, especially Gene Reynolds, are fine and, all in all, the pic is a good example of first-rate studio family fare of the late 30's. It doesn't hit the top of the great '39 list, but it's a nice way for an intelligent family to spend a rainy afternoon with AMC or the Video Store--- good luck at Blockbuster!!!! | 1pos
|
eXistenZ was a good film, at the first I was wondering what is going on, organic "pods" made out of mutant reptiles which connected you and other players to a surreal virtual reality game via a umbilical cord, well it seems a little odd.<br /><br />But once it gets going its a pretty good film, with a few twists with a great open ending and the good aspect of weridness throughout the film is entertaining too see as your not sure whats coming next.<br /><br />Security personnel throw away the metal detectors; they have bone guns ! | 1pos
|
Sure, it has its pretentious moments, it plays like art-house, live-action Fantasia, but it also has moments of deep beauty and humor. Omnibus films are always a problem, but I have always had a keen interest in them. I will now rate the segments individually.<br /><br />Nicolas Roeg - "Un ballo in maschera" - This segment may very well spoil the film for some people, because it is absolutely the worst of the whole bunch. It is difficult to follow, mostly because it tries to adhere to a clear plot (a hackneyed one, at that). The photography is unaccomplished. The best thing about it is the bit of Lesbian homoerotica that it never does enough with. This segment made me VERY nervous about continuing. 2/10.<br /><br />Charles Sturridge - "La virgine degli angeli" - an unclear segment, but it hardly matters. The film has the best cinematography of the bunch, mainly because it is in a stunning black and white. The segment is dreamlike and beautiful. 7/10.<br /><br />Jean-Luc Godard - "Armide" - I chose to brave this much-maligned film for the Godard and Altman segments. With Godard, I was much more impressed than I thought I would be. I can't claim to have seen all that many of his films since he made so many that almost no one has seen, but, judging from what I have seen, this may be his best work since the 60s. It is the funniest segment in this film, and the most artistically accomplished. Bravo, Jean-Luc! 9/10.<br /><br />Julien Temple - "Rigoletto" - a very funny segment, it is also quite predictable. Still, this story about a husband and wife who are cheating on each other at the same resort is wonderfully filmed with long, complex tracking shots that depend on precisely timed choreography from the actors. It also has a great self-referencing joke about omnibus films themselves. The final scene is very weak. 7/10.<br /><br />Bruce Beresford - "Die tote Stadt" - this short segment involves too lovers in (I think) Venice. It is pretty, with some nice shots of doves flying about the city. It is slight, but nice. 7/10.<br /><br />Robert Altman - "Les Boréades" - not one of the better segments, unfortunately, this is more of a music video than a concept short film. It involves the occupants of an insane asylum attending a theatrical performance. The music and images work well together, so at least I can give it credit for being a good music video. 7/10<br /><br />Franc Roddam - "Liebestod" - somewhat unfortunate for Beresford's segment, this segment is very similar to it. As you might assume from my phrasing, this one struck me much more. It is about a young man and his girl going to Las Vegas on a fatalistic voyage. 8/10.<br /><br />Ken Russell - "Nessun dorma" - maybe the most visually striking segment, it plays in a fantasy world more than in reality. It is a beautiful tale of a fallen angel. 8/10.<br /><br />Derek Jarman - "Depuis le jour" - I have heard a lot about Jarman, and this is the first piece of filmmaking I have seen from him. Hopefully, I'll see more in the future. This one is also music-videoish, but it is better than Altman's segement. It mainly concerns an old woman remembering her younger days. The editing and the use of different film stocks to represent both time and emotion are very beautiful. 8/10.<br /><br />Bill Bryden - "I pagliacci" - the sad clown, possibly one of the most famous arias (particularly memorable from an episode of Seinfeld), this serves as the material separating each segement and the finale. It is simple and effective. 7/10.<br /><br />Overall, I give it a solid 7/10. It isn't anywhere near as bad as you've heard. | 1pos
|
I heard legends about this "film" (quotes used so as not to insult films) for a while, so when I finally got the DVD with it, I impatiently started watching it. By the end, I *had* to fast forward through just a few of the most moronic, ineptly made, nonsensical scenes of this pointless childish mess to make it end quicker.<br /><br />This may be the worst film I've even "touched" - and I used to be associated with Troma for a while. "Manson Family" makes the bottom of Troma's entries look like daring and groundbreaking art-house filmwork. I could go on and talk about the syphilitic skeleton of a "plot" it has, the revoltingly bad "acting", the painful, inept "directing", the sets and props with their "dollar ninety nine" look (I especially "loved" the plastic toy guns used in the Tate murder scene!) or the nauseating look and feel of this whole bag of garbage (I think it was supposed to represent a drug-induced hallucination; I have absolutely no idea how a drug-induced hallucination looks or feels, nor do I want to find out - but I guess drug junkies with burned out "brains" will love this "film" (they seem to be the ones who made it) I've seen many films from various "Worst 50" lists, traditionally opened by Eddie Wood's ones - and Eddie Wood would be appalled by the sheer ineptitude and talentless of van Webber (or whatever his name is; I certainly don't want to remember it) I've never seen "Superbabies" or its sequel, but I strongly wish that "Manson" joined them on IMDb's rating. Fortunately, this obscure garbage probably won't be seen by enough viewers to warrant it sufficiently many "1" votes - and so much the better! | 0neg
|
Robert Carlyle excels again. The period was captured well and the soundtrack, although hearing modern techno in this period piece was a little disconcerting at first, proved to be very well chosen.<br /><br />Well worth a watch. | 1pos
|
Todd Sheets has created one of the greatest LOW BUDGET Zombie movies EVER. The story is great, the gore is grand, the psychos are wicked! Yet the movie is flawed by its petty dialogue and sluggish imaging at times.<br /><br />Despite this ZB2 delivers what any Zombie movie should, gore, good plot, fast pace adventure into the macarbe. If only MR sheets had been given a 100k budget this movie would out do EVERY zombie movie ever even the almighty Dawn of the dead.<br /><br />But as time goes by he gets better and as he gets better more money comes into his pocket. Thus allowing this man this modern day Genius to craft his vision better.<br /><br />Just remember that Zombie Bloodbath 2 was just one of his great stepping stones when he is atop of Gore Mountain | 1pos
|
The writers of lost have outdone themselves. Season two's finale is even more heartbreaking and intense than the finale for season one. Locke's lack of faith has not only resulted in spiritual consequences for himself, but in tragic physical consequences for the lives of the other castaways. Michael's betrayal resulted in a success for him but can he possibly escape the island? He will have to if he wants to stay alive. I don't doubt that one or more of his former friends would be willing to kill him in revenge. This finale has left more questions than the previous finale; and I can't wait for fall.<br /><br />A side note: What is the point in posting a review just to write out all the spoilers? Where is the pleasure in ruining the surprise for everyone else? The current review on this page is nothing but a big fat spoiler fest, poorly constructed in barely readable English with the express purpose of making someone mad. Good job. | 1pos
|
This movie is perfect for any aspiring screen writer, actor or director. By watching this movie you will see all the things that are wrong with the film industry as it is today. There are so many clichés that it pained me to sit through this movie. Nothing about it is original and every single line spoken has been ripped off from those clichéd movies that we all saw in the 90's. Although it does have a few cheap laughs, overall it is wrong wrong wrong. I was so immensely bored and the movie was so predictable and pathetic i actually noticed how much make-up was caked onto Tara Reid's face to hide those massive bags and wrinkles from her endless partying. Seriously, she was wearing so much foundation you could literally scrape it off and refill an entire bottle of it.<br /><br />What shocked me though was that so many of the talented and popular cast would sign on for this piece of junk. And i do NOT know how i sat through that horrible screaming that Ashton Kutcher does, you know when he's like angry or something and he shouts his words in this annoying manner? Ashton's horrifying "talking", Tara's face being ten shades darker than her neck, a drugged up owl, a script that seemed like the work of a three-year-old...<br /><br />Seriously, in my whole life there has been no movie that i have watched that i did not in someway enjoy no matter how bad it was. This deserves an award for being the first. BAD BAD BAD... I don't think there is a single word in the English dictionary that can possibly describe this trashy movie. Today i was trying to re-watch it but i had to turn it off like ten minutes in because i was about to cry from the overwhelming amount of clichés.<br /><br />Don't even bother to rent this at your blockbuster, it's not worth a cent, as a matter of fact i am willing to pay anyone out there considering to watch this movie so they can go do something decent with their lives. | 0neg
|
Serendipity. I thought I was off to a bad start, bringing home the wrong dvd in the case of "The Intruder". Rental stores' staff! So I did not want to see this film but I am glad I did. In all probablility my chosen movie would not have been as superb a slice film as this delectable and delicate taste of what independants in both US and Europe can do together. Seven years apart, two heroine sisters embark on fantastic journeys through early 1970's post-student demo / Baader-Meinhof Europe. Sumptuously shot in the Algarve, Portugal; and in Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam (reminiscent of the feel of the exterior shots in Paul Verhoeven's early masterpiece, "The Fourth Man"), it's touchingly acted by Brewster , Diaz and especially Christopher Ecclestone.The story unveils itself along an abstracted plot, capturing the ephemeral emotions of these characters as they confront their relationships and see idealised images of each other and themselves shattered. A movie with great refinement and taste. Not for Arnie Commando fans, which is probably why the reviewer upstairs is so wide of the mark in 'his' claims that this is a girly film. Daft criteria. Wrong too. Well worth experimenting with. | 1pos
|
Aussie Shakespeare for 18-24 set.with blood ,blood and more blood.and good dose of nudity. this will not be for every one on may levels, to violent for some too cheap for most. done on low budget they try and do there best but it only works sporadically.and this macbeth just seem to be lacking ,its just not compelling. although there is some good acting on the part of most you don't get into there heads especially mecbeths. the best performance came from gary sweet and the strangest mick molly. if your into Shakespeare then see it,but if you like your cheese mature you will love it.it not a bad film but it not that good either. sam peckenpah would of loved it, that is if it was filmed as a western. i was expecting a lot from this, as i loved romper stomper. but this is was a vacant effort. | 0neg
|
Last night, I saw A PECK ON THE CHEEK (KANNATHIL MUTHAMITTAL with English subtitles). Oddly, it was 137 minutes long--slightly longer than the time listed on IMDb.<br /><br />At first, I found myself losing interest in this film because the rather confusing style of filming really lost me. The context for what was occurring was missing and I am glad I stuck with it. At the beginning, a young couple is married and shortly after the wedding, war breaks out in their native Sri Lanka and the lovers are separated. Months later, the wife is very pregnant and on board a refugee vessel heading to India. At a refugee center, you see the lady about to give birth--after which the titles to the film finally are revealed.<br /><br />The entire focus of the film then changes completely--to a young girl who is about to turn 9 in Madras, India. You see her in her home and she talks to the camera about her life and family. None of this seems that interesting or important and you wonder what is missing--what about the lady who was about to give birth? My wife and I debated this and we finally guessed that this little girl was actually the child of the lady in the first part of the film. Somehow or another, she had been adopted and was talking about her life with mom and dad #2--though she did NOT realize these people were not her biological parents.<br /><br />Soon after this, the parents revealed themselves to be total idiots (one of the complaints I had about the film), as they decided to tell this very young girl the truth about her parentage AND tell it in a way that left the girl emotionally screwed up and confused. Despite a stupid decision and telling her in the worst way, the parents made up for this by agreeing to help her find her biological mother. Seeing the impact all this had on the girl and parents (particularly the adoptive mother) was impressive to watch and sure sparked my interest.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has been involved in a very, very long and brutal civil war with Tamilese militants, off and on, for three decades. The family's decision to look for the mom back in Sri Lanka was indeed noble, but also a bit stupid at times--as they took so many risks and nearly got killed again and again by just blindly jumping into the middle of a war! This was all exciting and captivating but also left me wondering about the sanity of the adoptive parents--first you tell her she ISN'T your biological child and now you take her in the middle of a WAR ZONE!!! Sure, the kid really wanted to meet her biological mother, but this really was stupid in hind sight. If it were me, I might have been tempted to pay an unemployed actress to play the part and fool the kid--thus avoiding being in the middle of a war!<br /><br />Despite my complaints, the film was lovely to watch and was very rewarding. Far from perfect, it sure hits an emotional home run. Also, while I expected this because I have seen several Indian films, many Westerners will be a bit surprised by the vivid songs that seem to come out of no where--this IS standard in most films from India--including those made in Bollywood (Bombay) and Tamilwood/Kollywood (Madras). | 1pos
|
The only reason this movie is not given a 1 (awful) vote is that the acting of both Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan is superb. Ida Lupino who is lovely, as usual, becomes increasingly distraught as she tries various means to rid herself of a madman. Robert Ryan is terrifying as the menacing stranger whose character, guided only by his disturbed mind, changes from one minute to the next. Seemingly simple and docile, suddenly he becomes clever and threatening. Ms. Lupino's character was in more danger from that house she lived in and her own stupidity than by anyone who came along. She could not manage to get out of her of her own house: windows didn't open, both front and back doors locked and unlocked from the inside with a key. You could not have designed a worse fire-trap if you tried. She did not take the precaution of having even one extra key. Nor could she figure out how to summon help from nearby neighbors or get out of her own basement while she was locked in and out of sight of her captor. I don't know what war her husband was killed in, but if it was World War II, the furnishings in her house, the styles of the clothes, especially the children and the telephone company repairman's car are clearly anachronistic. I recommend watching this movie just to see what oddities you can find. | 0neg
|
I must say I thought the show Greek would be really ridiculous and stupid. Since I am part of a sorority I didn't want them to make Greek organizations look bad....<br /><br />but I think Greek is hilarious. Yes, they do have the stereotypical sorority and fraternity but it's not mocking but just cute humor.<br /><br />All the characters are pretty likable minus Rebecca Logan (I just can't stand her), Casey and Rusty have good chemistry as brother and sister. Then there is Cappie. Who doesn't love a guy like Cappie haha His character brings so much to the show. Rusty's room mate, Dale played by Clark Duke, is hilarious as well.<br /><br />It's definitely fun to watch so tune in for season 2. I can't wait till it is back on!! | 1pos
|
Being 15 myself I enjoyed this flick thouroughly!! I related to the character Ann August more than most would. My Mother isnt AS eccentric as Adele, but the feelings of lonliness is the same. This movie is perfect in the ating aspects, and Natalie's, and Susan's performances are so linked together that it's the best onscreen dual i have seen in years. Their chemistry brings the characters to life, they become real people! I would recommend this flick to anyone who is hoping to get away. Because there is genually alot of people out there who would wish to be "Anywhere But Here" including me! and if you can, see this movie with your best friend or your mother. Its the tears that blend everyone around you together more!! | 1pos
|
Not even the Beatles could write songs everyone liked, and although Walter Hill is no mop-top he's second to none when it comes to thought provoking action movies. The nineties came and social platforms were changing in music and film, the emergence of the Rapper turned movie star was in full swing, the acting took a back seat to each man's overpowering regional accent and transparent acting. This was one of the many ice-t movies i saw as a kid and loved, only to watch them later and cringe. Bill Paxton and William Sadler are firemen with basic lives until a burning building tenant about to go up in flames hands over a map with gold implications. I hand it to Walter for quickly and neatly setting up the main characters and location. But i fault everyone involved for turning out Lame-o performances. Ice-t and cube must have been red hot at this time, and while I've enjoyed both their careers as rappers, in my opinion they fell flat in this movie. It's about ninety minutes of one guy ridiculously turning his back on the other guy to the point you find yourself locked in multiple states of disbelief. Now this is a movie, its not a documentary so i wont waste my time recounting all the stupid plot twists in this movie, but there were many, and they led nowhere. I got the feeling watching this that everyone on set was sord of confused and just playing things off the cuff. There are two things i still enjoy about it, one involves a scene with a needle and the other is Sadler's huge 45 pistol. Bottom line this movie is like domino's pizza. Yeah ill eat it if I'm hungry and i don't feel like cooking, But I'm well aware it tastes like crap. 3 stars, meh. | 0neg
|
One of the finest movies I have viewed...Good script, original plot of a man who is haunted about JFK's assassination when he was assigned to protect him on that Cold November day in 1963. Thirty years later another anti-social lunatic wants to assassinate the current president. The secret service agent loses his partner along the way,to the crazed gunmen who schemes,lies and murders anybody in his path who'll stand in his way of his mission. <br /><br />The movie accompanies with a great memorable score,and a restrained but meaningful romance between Russo and Eastwood....which displays how difficult it is to have a romantic life in that kind of work. Malchovich is great,sure many other candidates could have played the role that he played,but how many could acted with such craftiness,and intellect that he displayed in the movie?<br /><br />Needless to say,I thought this was a great movie...everytime it's on television I have to watch it..and I own it on dvd! I'm a big Eastwood fan,this only boosted his already fabulous career,and Malchovich's best role to date!<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
I thoroughly enjoyed this film, which in many ways, as Hitchcock did on several occasions, was a first attempt at a plot which he re-shot later in his career. Possibly the most amazing thing about it, however, is how faceless the lead characters are. After watching, one remembers Murray Alper as the jovial truck driver, Vaughan Glaser's touching turn as a blind "patriot", the unforgettable traveling Freak Show and of course Otto Kruger as the suave and sophisticated villain, all of whom completely overshadow Bob Cummings as the rather wooden fugitive (compare that bridge jump to Harrison Ford's similar stunt in Andrew Davis' "The Fugitive") and Priscilla Lane whose change of heart and subsequent love towards Cummings is never quite believable.<br /><br />The other major support player is, of course, Hitchcock himself who bookends the film with 2 extraordinary stunts. Many people criticise the older films for their lack of realistic special effects. My feelings are that with lack of technology, to even attempt and convey what the director wants to show is an amazing achievement.<br /><br />Obviously this film carries an anti-fascist message, made at the time of the Second World War, but being a Hitchcock it is never the most important thing and the emphasis is always on the action. Well worth checking out, especially for the support roles. | 1pos
|
A very intelligent and exciting thriller that doesn't rely on action but on situation, which is all to rare these days. I would compare this film to The Day of the Jackal, another film about the pursuit of a dangerous international criminal. The acting across the board is superlative - Aidan Quinn has a tricky double role as the vicious terrorist Carlos and as the Navy man who impersonates him. Donald Sutherland plays the amoral CIA agent who hires him. Ben Kingsley plays the Israeli officer who assists in the plan. This is a very tense and effective film, and it's remarkable considering just how little action there is in it. The first half of the film is all set-up, as the Navy man prepares to impersonate Carlos. The second half is a breathless actioner, the action coming out of the characters and their situations, thus making it all the more gripping. A really tight film that shouldn't be overlooked. | 1pos
|
After repeatedly saying how brilliant so many Columbo episodes are, it's time to honour an episode with maximum points. "Etude In Black" is not 100 percent perfect, but it's certainly more than 90 percent...maybe 96 or 97! <br /><br />Last week I reviewed "Just Married" and compared it unfavourably to "Meet The Parents". Well here's one of the parents, Blythe Danner, in a much earlier role as the wife of famous orchestral conductor Alex Benedict, played by the legend that is John Cassavetes. Alex has been having an affair with Jennifer Wells, a girl in the orchestra (not his first affair, one suspects). She is blackmailing Alex to leave his wife, but as his wife's mother holds the purse strings for the orchestra, Alex doesn't think it'd be such a smart move to destroy his career and marriage overnight. Instead he hatches a plot to sneak out of the concert hall before a performance and murder his young lover while making it look like a suicide.<br /><br />Enter Columbo and guess what? It takes him about two seconds to realise that homicide is more likely than suicide. It doesn't take much longer for Columbo to connect Alex to the victim, and soon he's following him around wherever he goes. Even though Columbo is certain Alex is his man, it actually takes quite a while and a few false leads (none of which Columbo really swallows) before he has the vital piece of evidence.<br /><br />Along the way there are some top-notch extra characters, ranging from the precocious young neighbour of Jennifer Wells and the English mechanic who sounds like he would be more at home on Coronation Street, through to the bedraggled looking brass player who nearly finds himself fitted up for the murder (he had also been seeing Jennifer Wells, the busy girl!). And there's even a brief cameo from Commandant Lassard from the Police Academy films. As with Leslie Nielsen in "Lady In Waiting", it's impossible to take him seriously (I bet you're thinking of that speech he made at the podium, aren't you?!) <br /><br />But it's Blythe Danner, John Cassavetes and Peter Falk who steal the show here. Blythe is absolutely divine as Mrs Benedict. From the moment she spots Alex dialling Jennifer Wells' number from memory, she feels deeply troubled by exactly what their relationship was. It's a masterful performance as she struggles to trust Alex despite her intuition telling her something is very, very wrong. Columbo doesn't help matters by interrupting her game of tennis to ask her impertinent questions about Alex's relations with members of his orchestra.<br /><br />As for John Cassavetes, well it's a shame he didn't make any repeat appearances as Columbo villains, because he could have been up there with Jack Cassidy and Patrick McGoohan as one of the all-time greats of the show. But this performance is superb! He's another one who falls into the "highly irritated" category, losing all patience with Columbo rather than befriending him and indulging him. Despite this, when the game is finally up he does grudgingly acknowledge Columbo's genius.<br /><br />Well it's a really, really fantastic show. It loses a couple of very small points for its rather sledgehammer view of classical music, as highlighted by many of the posters here, but none of these have any bearing on the logic of the story or the characterisations. And at least the music is good, dramatic and exciting!<br /><br />Finally, if you haven't come across it, there is an absolutely amazing clip of John Cassavetes and Peter Falk on the Dick Cavett show from the early 70s. I'm totally convinced Steve Coogan watched this clip and based Alan Partridge on it. Everything about the clip resembles Knowing Me Knowing You, from the cringeworthy introduction to the total humiliation of Cavett by his guests. Even the orchestra get in on the act, playing circus music while Falk, Cassavetes and their friend Ben Gazzara fool about and ridicule the host.<br /><br />It might not be strictly relevant to this review, but the Cavett show clip gives a nice insight into the deep friendship and professional relationship between Peter Falk and John Cassavetes. It's clear to see from the quality of "Etude In Black" just how well the pair worked together! | 1pos
|
Based on the true story of the FBIs hunt for those who were responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center Building. A very good film that delves into the FBIs use of informants and how, possibly, the tragedy could have been avoided 7 of 10 | 1pos
|
I looked forward to spending part of my Independence Day weekend watching a good film about Jefferson. This film was not it. It was rather long, drawn out, dull and unbalanced. Too much time was spent exploring Jefferson's relationship with Cosway and not enough time was spent on his relationship with Sally Hemmings. The lady who played Sally, Thandie Newton, was absolutely awful. Her acting was so bad it was like watching an A1 airhead trying to recite Shakespeare. Her constant whining voice grated the nerves! Nolte's accent made Jefferson sound like an ignorant man, rather than a genius. Jefferson's relationship with his daughters and their feelings on slavery was also underdeveloped, yet his eldest daughter's rebellion (Patsy)is a key event late in the film. The film was too long and the script lacked energy and excitement. On the positive side, the costumes were quite beautiful, and Greta Scacchi played the part of Cosway well. If you want to watch a film about the revolutionary era and/or Jefferson, then watch 1776, it's much better than Jefferson in Paris. | 0neg
|
Me and my roommate got free tickets for a Pre Screening I guess you would call it in Atlanta, GA at Atlantic Station. Walking in I was expecting something controversial, provocative, unnecessarily overdone, etc.. But the film is much more than that. It's a story of two people helping each other. It's not overdone, and the film is done in a careful balance as to not make you cringe or say its unnecessary.<br /><br />It's put together really well and doesn't take itself too seriously. Thats the beauty of it. If it tried to take itself seriously, it would have failed miserably, but instead it carries itself through humor (some unintentional) and some surprisingly good acting by Ricci. Although Timberlake fails miserably in his role, the movie is good enough for you to put that on the side.<br /><br />I would definitely recommend this movie, if not for any other reason than the fact it is something different to experience. | 1pos
|
Kevin Spacey again picks a winner with K-PAX, an endearing movie that expresses profound revelations at human existence via the Prot character's naive, yet at the same time unquestionably wise, point of view.<br /><br />It's enjoyable trying to work out 'if he is or he isn't' as the plot expands and the Robert Porter character gets fleshed out. However some may find the ending a little unsatisfying but in reality it couldn't have been any other way.<br /><br />My few issues with the film revolve around the rather cartoony and over simplified portrayal of mental patients. I was surprised because the films plot shows a great deal of intelligence and I don't feel it would have lost anything by being more honest regarding how people with mental health problems behave.<br /><br />That said, I realise this was a movie and not a documentary and the film itself is exquisitly shot and the story unwraps at a pleasing rate. <br /><br />Bridges is great and Spacey delivers a languid and relaxed performance, more like a stand-up than an alien.<br /><br />A good film that will get you talking with your friends. | 1pos
|
It's exactly what the title tells you...an island inhabited by fishmen. Shipwrecked doctor Claudio Cassinelli and crew land on the island, they're either picked off by the fishmen or roped into working for treasure hunting lunatic Richard Johnson. Cassinelli discovers that Johnson, who believes he's found the lost city of Atlantis, has been keeping disgraced scientist Joseph Cotten and his daughter Barbara Bach hostage for 15 years so the fishmen can uncover a treasure trove beneath the sea. Cotten, of course, is a complete madman. Bach and Cassinelli have great chemistry. This insanity was directed by Sergio Martino and is not, surprisingly, without merit. It's fast paced, reasonably well acted and the fishmen look pretty convincing (though it's unlikely anyone could prove that these things DON'T look like actual fishmen). There's an excellent music score by Luciano Michelini. | 0neg
|
I recently got the movie and all I can say it is a good movie. There's a lot of famous Rome monuments and historical locations.It is from the same writer and director from The Da Vinci Code. Tom Hanks stars along with Ewan McGregor and Ayelet Zurer. The movie starts out with the space and time experiment in Sweden until one of the canisters is stolen by the church's most hated enemy the Illuminati. The plot is hard to discuss about without spoiling anything. Its a race all of Rome following the Illuminati trail to get to the Illuminati secret meeting place. While racing against time to find the path of the Illuminati. Over all its a movie worth seeing hell I watched it 3 times and I still like it so in the end go buy it. It is a lot better than the movie 2010. And the ending has one awesome plot twist. | 1pos
|
Imagine the most cliche ridden b-movie horror plot you can. Add more plot holes than plot. Have it scripted by a 10 year old. Have the acting done by A-Level drama students faking really bad US accents (in the Isle of Man!) Add monster special effects that the lovers of B&W Dr Who shows will appreciate. Result: duff film. Throw in Samantha Janus taking her clothes off (make a point of this on the cover) and you'll probably sell enough copies to make a profit anyway! | 0neg
|
Out of all the Mafia movies i have ever seen this is one of the best for many reasons. The acting from Pesci, Cortese and Vincent. The story is one of the best ever (In the mafia genre), as it realistic. The characters are people that lots of other people can relate to. This movie is also great as it's dialogue is good. It also has very realistic fights and action scenes. This movie also launched the careers of Pesci and Vincent. If it weren't for the success of this film, Casino and Goodfellas might not have been as good as they were. <br /><br />Story 10/10 Acting 9/10 Realism 10/10<br /><br />OVERALL 10/10<br /><br />My fave Mafia movies are<br /><br />1: Goodfellas 2: Casino 3: The Godfather Trilogy 4: Family Enforcer (The Death Collector) 5: The Sopranos (I know it isn't a movie) | 1pos
|
The first half of this film held some promise as it seemed like the film was going to be a low-key character psychodrama like THE MINUS MAN but then the whole thing collapses into cliche and the viewer slowly loses all interest. There's a decent cast here but the film is lifeless and the talent completely wasted. | 0neg
|
A very good film, focusing on a very important issue. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a very serious birth defect that is totally preventable. If more families saw this film, perhaps more children would not end up like Adam. Jimmie Smits performs in one of his best roles ever. This is an excellent movie that takes into account a very special family with very important needs. This is not unlike thousands of families that exist in the United States today. There are children struggling with this world wide. The really important point here is that it all could have been prevented. More people should see this movie and take what it has to say seriously. It is well done, with important messages, handled in a graceful way. | 1pos
|
Adela is a rebellious teenager with the attitude that she is right and everyone else is wrong. She needs to be the center of attention and she'll act stupid to make it so. With her attitude she gets sent to charm school.<br /><br />There she meets the typical characters in today's cinema; the nerd, the clumsy one, the stepford housewife and the sexual minority. Things happen and in the end Adela "learns her lesson" so to speak. The plot tries to carry a deeper meaning to the state Adela is in, but utterly fails to deliver (at least I didn't buy it). So what you are left with is superficial interaction within the same stereotypes you've seen in a million movies before. Plus the director seems to have a breast fixation, Adela flashes her boobies a few times too many, at least I can't see that they are relevant to the story.<br /><br />So the film is OK, but if you are like me and don't like to watch a teenager pissing people off and making a behavioral U-turn in an instant, which I found very unbelievable, think twice before watching. | 0neg
|
Well, I've just seen Buster Keaton's film debut in Fatty Arbuckle's The Butcher Boy and-despite the crude way everything just seems to happen for almost no logical reason-I found plenty to laugh at. Like when Buster orders molasses from butcher boy Fatty, Fatty makes Buster come back to pay, Buster says he put it in the bucket that has the molasses, Fatty dumps molasses in Buster's hat and takes money, Buster takes hat back on head as it gets stuck, Fatty attempts to remove it while molasses fall to floor, Buster's feet are now stuck on floor and so on. That probably didn't read funny but on screen it was hilarious as were some more slapstick involving flour being thrown and a later sequence that takes place in Fatty's girlfriend's boarding school with Fatty dressed in drag and Buster helping Fatty's rival also in drag. Like I said, many scenes don't make a lick of sense but the visuals, especially those involving Arbuckle and Keaton, are laugh inducing even today. Recommended viewing for Keaton completists. | 1pos
|
Yep. Those of my generation who grew up watching those old Sunbow cartoons were spoiled. The 80's Joe tune was one of the best cartoons in the history of television. Well written stories, well developed characters. Granted it was nothing more that a glorified toy commercial but it definitely helped carry that toy line. Fast forward almost twenty years later and enter Valor vs. Venom. The animation was average at most. The movement of the characters seemed to jerky and puppet like. The movie felt more like a Small Soldiers sequel than a story about a special military force. Then we have character development or lack there of. Dusty likes to be all Dusty? Slice and Dice like to do things together? What? Did the writers take a writing course on how to develops characters with the depth equivalent of Jar Jar Binks? As for the story. I like a bit of Sci-Fi. But that whole concept of turning soldiers into a mutant army has been done to death in the Joe universe. Mega Monsters or Toxo-zombies anyone? But I give the creators credit for trying to make the fan boys happy by having martial arts action every 10 minutes. I'm not a huge fan of SE and SS but I did like the fight scenes between the two. If you can appreciate VvV for what it is you will enjoy it. I admit to not being able to appreciate VvV as I should. Again everything Joe gets compared to what ways done in the 80's, and honestly nothing will ever compare to the glory days of GI Joe. If you can appreciate VvV for what it is you will enjoy it. | 0neg
|
I enjoyed this movie. More than I expected. It has enough action, intrigue and locations to make it worth your while. While I can't quite yet see Mark Wahlberg as a leader, he's gotten good enough to be a credible manager and that's OK.<br /><br />The superhero of the movie is the Mini Cooper. It's shown to have the speed, dexterity and muscle to pull off any job. And to handle a maniac driver like Charlize Theron's character. | 1pos
|
While I have seen and enjoyed similar movies to this one that were silent films about the Russian Revolution, such as POTEMKIN and TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD, I did not particularly enjoy this one. This was mostly due to the annoying and "artsy" way that the director chose to shoot the film. While POTEMKIN excelled in its editing style, this movie used similar techniques with a lot less finesse--in some places, the editing seemed very choppy and amateurish. Plus, and this was truly annoying, the use of zombies throughout the beginning of the film and late in the film really was over-the-top. What I mean by "zombies" is that to illustrate just how depressed and oppressed the Ukranian peasants were, the people stand like mannequins in many scenes. And, they stand like this, unmoving, for a VERY long period of time, while the "evil" Capitalists and exploiters of the masses walk by. Gimme a break! This movie is a wonderful example of style over substance--and it's only a movie for those who enjoy or can overlook the overindulgent direction.<br /><br />By the way, the DVD for this film is improved, somewhat, if you leave the audio commentary on. This makes the movie easier to follow and gives a few interesting insights. | 0neg
|
You have to hand it to writer-director John Hughes. With enormous success behind him in the misfit-teenager/high school vein, he managed to branch out into other areas of comedy, finding in the bargain a great ally in comedian-actor John Candy. Here, goof-off adult Candy becomes a better person after agreeing to babysit his brother's wiseacre kids; it's a surefire formula designed to please both cynical teens as well as their parents, and it isn't any wonder the film was a winner with theater audiences. Still, Hughes relies almost completely on Candy's charm to put the scenario over, and one may eventually grow tired of the repetitious gags with the star front and center. The kids are sitcom-smart, the other adults shapeless blobs, and Amy Madigan is too intense, too hyped-up playing Uncle Buck's girlfriend. Later became a TV series, which is befitting since the material was already television-perfected. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
Donald Sutherland, an American paleontologist visiting England, picks up a hitch hiker one evening. Two years later, having discovered the man's address book in his car, he returns the book to the man's opulent home, only to find that the man's been hanged for murder. Nobody in or out of the family seems to care that the hitch hiker could not have committed the murder (of his own stepmother) because he was in Sutherland's car at the time of the crime.<br /><br />Sutherland is the man's alibi but he's turned up too late. Out of a sense of guilt, he tracks down the real murderer.<br /><br />Agatha Christie's mysteries usually involve a number of diverse people, all of them with one or another motive for the crime, all of them suspect, and a puzzle that depends on the construction of a strict time line. There is often, not always, a sidekick with whom the investigator can talk things over.<br /><br />Because of the anfractuosity of the situation, due care must be taken to explain each element of the mystery to the reader or viewer. Redundancy is perfectly okay. We have to keep the characters and the time lines straight. Christie's movies are of the rare kind in which the use of famous faces in subordinate characters is actually useful. (Jacqueline de Bellefort? Oh, yes, that's Mia Farrow.) But this version of "Ordeal by Innocence" is a Golan-Globus production, with all that implies in the way of production values, a thoughtfully prepared script, and skill behind the camera.<br /><br />The first few minutes, in which Sutherland discovers that an innocent man has been hanged, are fine. After that, everything is flung at the viewer in disjointed scraps, often in sudden flashbacks or in confusing voiceovers that tell us nothing. The script has a slapdash quality, as if thrown together by two hacks overnight. Few of the faces are familiar and that doesn't help at all. Everyone drops remarks about everyone else and the names become a hopeless jumble. The musical score consists of four instruments doing irritating atonal jazz riffs. Some nudity is thrown in to wake up the dozers in the audience. If Dame Agatha were alive, she'd be among the viewers who needed to be shaken awake.<br /><br />Dullsville. | 0neg
|
Although i watched this film by myself(thankfully), i still felt embarrassed while watching it. I was tricked into renting it by the reviews on the front cover, and the bloody/gritty camera stills on the back-which led me to believe it was some sort of documentary. These actors are laughable throughout the entire film, not convincing at all. The story involves an Italian Australian(?) gang, just fighting other gangs, and then running,fighting,repeat. Supposedly they train extremely hard, which makes them way better than other gangs. For some reason I don't believe that they could actually beat up some of these other guys that are twice their size. I could be wrong... no I'm not wrong, this movie is not enjoyable on any level.The jail montage looked like it was a summer camp, just instead of kids, it was a sausage fest of horrible actors, just hanging out and laughing and trying to look hard. This movie is not worth your time, save your money, or throw it in the garbage, just don't waste it on this movie. | 0neg
|
Simply the best and most realistic movie about World War II I've ever seen. Not only because the German soldiers talk German and Russian soldiers talk Russian (no English in a German or Russian dialect)also because of the realistic decor in which the movie was shot. The acting is outstanding. No Hollywood-sentiment at all even no love story...Stalingrad was supposed to be one of the most horrific battles during the war, and in such context there's no place for sentiment or romantic scenes. What you get is a movie which will make you thrill to the bone and which have one of the best unhappy endings a movie could have. | 1pos
|
Has this ever happened to you? I go into my local video store and see a few new arrivals in the "film noir" section. I spy a copy of a new arrival of a film I have never seen called NAKED ALIBI. Its from one of those mail order video companies that offers (mostly) "dupey" looking copies of hard to find titles. The description on the box sounds good. The film has players I like (Sterling Hayden, Gloria Grahame, and Gene Barry). So I take it home and watch it. About ten minutes into this film I started having second thoughts. About half way through this film I started to dislike it. By the time the film ended, I not only disliked it, I despised it. The film opens with cops questioning Al Willis on suspicion of robbery. Other than being drunk, the police have nothing on him. When he pushes a cop and demands to be allowed to go home, the cops beat him up. Detective Conroy arrives, lets the cops finish the beating and then announces Willis is in the clear. Willis swears he will get revenge. Later one of the police officers is shot dead. With no evidence other that Willis is "sore" about the beating, Conroy make Willis his sole suspect, despite the fact that his boss names a pair of mobsters as suspects. Conroy arrests him, but for lack evidence Willis is released. The next day two more cops are killed by a bomb. This time Conroy goes to the Bakery that Willis owns and tries to beat a confession out of him. Conroy doesn't know it but a local newsman whose paper has been accusing Conroys department of police brutality snaps a picture of Conroy trying strangle Willis and Conroy is fired. But Conroy continues his pursuit and Willis flees to Mexico where Willis has a mistress. Conroy manages to convince his mistress (who Willis treats rather rough) to help him prove Willis is a killer. What this film lacks is a convincing script. The script looks as if only a rough draft was written and shooting began before a finished script was completed. Things happen, characters personalities change, plot twists occur for no real reason other than that script calls for it. Other than the fact that Willis likes to tip a glass now and than, there is nothing in the early part of the film to make us think that he is a crazy killer that cheats on his wife. He treats his wife, his kid and employees well. Early in the film, one gets the impression that its Conroy is the one whose is a loose cannon. He seems to casually approve of police brutality. Conroy, for no reason is convinced from the very start Willis has criminal past. He seems to operate on the motto of the old Communist Bulgarian secret police; "Everyone is guilty of something, we just have not found out about it yet." Later Conroy shows kindness to Al's mistress and young son, now we are supposed to like him. Sorry! The early impression I got of Conroy stuck with me too long. And he is also a dumb cop. Only after he is fired and goes to Mexico does he run a background check on Willis and discovers that a warrant is out for him issued in Maryland. Why didn't he think of this before? Because this film hadn't used up enough running time. The cast is good. Gene Barry does well considering how poorly conceived his role of Al Willis is. I'm big fan of 40's and 50's crime thrillers but not only did I not think this film was good, it left a bad taste in my mouth (something many modern films do, but older films rarely do). | 0neg
|
There is nothing worse than science fiction crafted by folks who don't have a feel for it. Grasping at a concept which wouldn't be so terrible by itself (a future where cloning is common enough that it is necessary to make it a crime for you to breed with someone too close to you genetically) the screenwriter proceeded to allow his ill-suited imagination to run wild.<br /><br />When Tim Robbins' character was able to guess a security guard's computer password simply by getting her to tell him one thing about herself, I knew I was in for trouble. This ability was later revealed to be due to Robbins having taken an "empathy virus", viruses being used to grant instant (or nearly instant) skill upgrades to their users. Robbins' love interest complained about her own experience with such a virus -- a Mandarin Chinese language virus, which allowed her to speak Chinese, but as she complained, "she couldn't understand what she was saying." Okay, first off, empathy, no matter how intense, isn't ESP. Without incorporating some sort of true mind-reading aspect (like an empathy virus which actively releases virions into the vicinity, infects nearby people, picks up bits of their memory, then departs for the original host -- which is, as you can probably tell, a smidgeon on the impractical side) you can't justify being able to determine a specific detail like someone's password just by "listening to the things you didn't say". Nor can you acquire the ability to speak a language without understanding what you're saying -- the virus can't infect your vocal cords and translate for you on the fly, because a virus can't *think*. To give you the power to speak Chinese, such a learning virus would have to modify your brain. It would have to encode the knowledge among neurons, and once it's in there, it's *yours* -- you certainly understand what you're saying, because you have to. To use your own brain to perform a task, you must understand that task (for the most part). Unless, of course, they movie is suggesting that the virus was deliberately designed to put in place some bizarre multiple-personality mental schism where some sub-personae of yours functions as a built-in, one-way translator.<br /><br />The mélange of languages spoken by the characters is decent enough, although nowhere near remarkable enough to warrant all the love other reviewers have given. What's more, all the multicultural insertions in the world can't make up for a simple, frustrating fact: The dialog stinks! It's slow, it's plodding, and it's unnatural. Again, I'm sure adherents have convinced themselves that the dull strangeness is simply the result of an inspired genius creating a truly futuristic (and therefore subjected to linguistic drift) form of speech. I disagree. Good dialog is good dialog in any era -- and the same goes for tripe.<br /><br />Lastly, I'll revisit the central concept of the movie -- the banning of sex with yourself. Widespread cloning is a nice, classic sci-fi topic. So is global warming leading to ecological devastation (which Code 46 also incorporates). Unfortunately, the two don't go together! If you have an ecological disaster cutting down severely on the available living area, you don't run around cloning people! You have population problems enough as it is -- you don't add to them by cranking out re-issues. Regular, old-fashioned sex-and-birth provides all the population you need, and cloning of any sort would be ruthlessly suppressed.<br /><br />To be fair, the movie wasn't all bad. It had some nice cinematography. Perhaps if I had watched it muted, I could've enjoyed it. | 0neg
|
Had I known to what I was submitting myself, I would have fled from the theater. The film is dreadful, in the literal sense of the word. Despite striking images, intriguing locales, and a subject matter that might have been fascinating, the film is dead.<br /><br />I was unfamiliar with this period of Greek history, and prepared to experience a great film. The filmmakers's hand is heavy. it is not enough to see a train going by; we must watch it from afar, we must watch it car by car, we must see the smoke, we must see it slow down, and we must see it stop. The director's approach is didactic. Likewise, the characters that he creates never develop, they never change. They are so stereotypic that we wonder, are they meant to be Everyman? Everygirl? Everyoldmusician? Is there some point to this allegory? It is the most pretentious film that I have seen in a long while. | 0neg
|
A feminist tract in which if you the viewer believe that: i) wild animals are seldom tamed by singing but instead attack, kill and eat (the line that grizzlies never attack unless provoked was a hoot - unless "provoked" means that it sees flesh); ii) homosexuality is both immoral per se -- and its acceptance almost always associated throughout history with signs of a society's dissolution and decay iii) few women are bisexual (in this one, virtually every woman is presented as having no preference for men or women) iv) divorce is far worse than infidelity v) land is there for human beings to use, develop and enjoy vi) it is as incumbent upon a mother of an adult son to keep in touch as it is upon the son vii) a mother raising her son alone is an unfortunate and real tragedy for the child viii) the idolization of a parent for worthwhile ideals is a good and healthy thing ix) adults continue to bear a responsibility for their sexual behavior, no matter their age, and the duty to engage in this most intimate and giving of acts only within the most intimate and openly sacrificial of relationships: marriage -- believe me, you are NOT going to like this film! Essentially it's a Howard Stern sort of fellow who is brought down by a Jane Fonda sort of woman (think The Electric Horseman). It's ugly stuff because the values, the ideals, of the screenplay are all so harmful.<br /><br />I share the other objections about the odd things in the writing: a) why would this man lose every girlfriend he has -- because he refuses to reveal that his mother's death and funeral caused him to be unable to keep dates with them? It's a mystery why he just keeps saying "it was personal" when faced with angry and disappointed women. HUH? <br /><br />b) there's an enormous inconsistency (i.e., the screenwriter wants to have it both ways) by telling us that the protagonist's mother loved the father with everything she had - and then later we're told that there was only one great love in her life - her lesbian girlfriend.<br /><br />c) the underlying legal assumptions are nonsense. We're never told that the executor has any right to live at the property - merely that she shall determine the timing of the sole heir's title and right to occupy the property. Yet somehow the film makes it appear that the executor is the rightful occupant - which is crazy. (Try to think of any executor of any will who uses the decedent's property before the will's bequests are fulfilled - it doesn't happen).<br /><br />d) the assumption throughout this film is that women are equally drawn to men and women - it's just absurd. Thus, we're told: i) that Penelope Ann Miller's character is dating other men near the end of the film - after having been with the decedent for five years - and before that in a fulfilling relationship with the protagonist, ii) that the protagonist's housekeeper after being devoted throughout her adult life to her kind husband - is now dating another woman iii) that one girlfriend upset with the protagonist would now therefore "like to try a woman".<br /><br />iv) that a male transsexual is eager to date the protagonist v) that Mary Kay Place's character naturally looked at other women in college ("and they looked back" she says with an idiotic triumphal flip of the head).<br /><br />This is all just ridiculous.<br /><br />I agree with others about the sound of the DVD (I had to keep it at maximum volume and repeatedly rewind to understand names, phrases).<br /><br />This is a film by someone who really despises traditional heroics by any man, hates the notion that a man is needed to raise a child, loathes the idea that there is any necessary connection between marriage and sex. The film is out to preach - and that kind of propaganda of false messages doesn't sit well. | 0neg
|
Like for most women this movie is the ultimate chick-flick. With it's hot chemistry, sexy dance rountines and beaitiful songs, i mean timeless classic like (I've Had) The Time of My Life & the wonderful She's Like The Wind makes this movie. I adore Patrick Swayze in this movie and he shows he can sing and dance it's so hot. He sings "She's Like The Wind" in the movie. The chemistry between Swayze and co-star Jennifer Grey is amazing. I love all the dancing and everything that goes with it. But saying this Dirty Dancing 2: - Havana Nights is also great but Patrick Swayze scenes makes this. I love the songs, dancing and everything about it but it isn't Dirty Dancing. Like I said it's an amazing chick flick. Please let there be a 3rd because I love to see what happens with Patrick's character Johnny. Jennifer character could have been more sexy but hey Patrick makes up for that if you know what I mean!!! Great movie and I'm so pleased Billy Zane didn't win the movie role. I heard whispers he was meant for the role but they found out he couldn't dance. | 1pos
|
I saw this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even that show couldn't really make this movie bearable. I could make a better movie with a broken camcorder and action figures. Of course, you expect terrible special effects with a movie this old, but I've seen silents that were better. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't even follow the plot, but suffice it to say, this is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />UPDATE: I saw "Epic Movie" a while back and have decided to give this movie a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen anymore! | 0neg
|
The Ealing Comedies constitute their own specific sub-genre in the history of film. They were wry, droll reflections on British life in the late Forties and early Fifties. They are always amusing but I feel it is misleading to characterise them as comedies. They are breezy and good-humoured, rather than laugh-out-loud funny. However, the best of them are laced with understated satire and shot through with an occasional dark streak (epecially Kind Hearts and Coronets and The Ladykillers).<br /><br />I have an affection for all of them, but The Lavender Hill Mob is probably the one I have most difficulty with. Compared to the others, it seems somewhat perfunctory. To me, it is an outline sketch for a movie, but one that needed to spend a lot more time in development before it was ready to go before the cameras.<br /><br />Everything about it is a bit undercooked. For example, nobody is given any real context or background. Henry is simply a dutiful drudge, whose secret dreams and hidden ambitions go unrecognised, while Albert is a frustrated artist forced to prostitute his talent by making gift shop trash for a living. This establishes a motive for their crime, but nothing that subsequently happens is a consequence either of their characters or their plan.<br /><br />Other characters are introduced but play no real part in the story. The elderly resident in Henry's guest house could (with her love of detective stories) have been made an unwitting thorn in his side, but is merely used as background 'colour'. Similarly, the various policemen who pop in and out of the action are simply there to keep the plot ticking along.<br /><br />As a result, the movie is driven entirely by its contrived plot devices, which I find both frustrating and faintly irritating. The not-very-ingenious robbery is accomplished with minimal problems, despite Albert being prevented from carrying out his part in the plan (by Sidney Tafler's Clayton). The gold is then smuggled to France without mishap. Everything would have gone smoothly if it wasn't for a minor hitch, lamely based on the French pronunciation of the letter 'R', which results in six of the gold Eiffel Towers being accidentally sold to some English schoolgirls.<br /><br />This leads to a series of frantic chases as Henry and Albert seek to retrieve them. These scenes are well executed, but at each point the conspirators are frustrated in their pursuit of the schoolgirls by a series of wholly factitious accidents. It is as if God is deliberately intervening to give them a hard time. This kind of plotting always has me grinding my teeth.<br /><br />When they finally track the last Eiffel Tower to a Police Academy exhibition and snatch it from under the nose of John Gregson's Police Inspector (why is he there, anyway?) all shreds of plot logic are abandoned. The final car chases are then simply filling up screen time until we are returned to the framing device with which the picture began.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even bother to tell us the fate of Albert (Stanley Holloway), Lackery (Sid James) and Shorty (Alfie Bass).<br /><br />This genial little caper has the professionalism of the Ealing team behind it, so it is far from being a bad movie. I suspect most viewers will find it considerably more enjoyable than I do (and why shouldn't they?), but I cannot help thinking there was a much better movie waiting to be made, if only more time and effort had been expended on fleshing out both the characters and the story.<br /><br />By the standards established by Ealing, Lavender Hill Mob is a missed opportunity.<br /><br />PS: One curious footnote is that Audrey Hepburn gets a credit for her single line early on, but Archie Duncan remains anonymous despite his much more substantial contribution. I guess she just had a better agent. | 0neg
|
I haven't any idea how commentators could regard this as a decent B Western. Or how one commentator said the plot was more cohesive than most. Nothing could be farther from the truth! This movie is one HUGE non-sequitur! It is an affront to the noble B Western films of the '30's. I have seen many of Wayne's early Lone Star and Republic westerns, and this one is easily the worst.<br /><br />The bad guy is known as The Shadow - for crying out loud! Initially, The Shadow's scheme is holding up open-sided stage coaches. Simultaneously, his gang rustles all of the cattle in the territory. Then they decide to move on to bank robbery. To do this, they need to shoot up the town with a machine gun - no explanation of why that's necessary or how he got that neato little toy!<br /><br />No single scheme is revealed in enough detail to suggest a plot here. The Shadow is obviously just a generally bad guy with all kinds of generally evil schemes. <br /><br />He imparts his instructions to his gang through a fake wall-safe. (Knock-knock, who's there?) He is apparently clairvoyant, because whenever his henchmen need to talk to him, they knock on the wall, the safe opens and - PRESTO - he's there. (I can just imagine that he has met them face-to-face and says,"I have some secret, nefarious instructions to give you about our next evil deed - meet me at the wall-safe and I'll give 'em to you.") Just why the Shadow requires the safe to communicate with his army of outlaws is, like most of the elements of this mess, never explained.<br /><br />He has a nifty tunnel to the ol' hollow stump across the street from which vantage point, various of his baddies perform assassinations. He also has a hidden panel NOT in his secret lair behind the fake safe, but out in the main room.<br /><br />When not behind the safe, he hangs out on his cow-less ranch, masquerading as rancher Matlock. We learn that he has murdered the true owners of the ranch - two brothers - and assumed the identity of one. The daughter of the dead brother has recently arrived from 1930's NYC (judging by her wardrobe), and she apparently never met her real uncle, because he dupes her, too!<br /><br />If you thought that bad guys always wore black hats and good guys white hats, you need to see this movie. Here, the good guys all ditch their hats in favor of white head-bands that make them look like they have all suffered head wounds before any shots have been fired! It's like a game of pick-up basketball - only Wayne has them tying bandanas 'round their heads instead of just taking off their shirts.<br /><br />Perhaps the weirdest of all is the ending. Immediately after subduing the Shadow and his gang, we jump far enough into the future to see Wayne and his wife (the erst-while niece) on the front porch of their home. (Never mind that there has been scant romance.) There, Yak is playing with Wayne's 3-4 year old son, dressed up in Injun garb! (Hiyoo, skookum fun!)<br /><br />No thanks to this nonsense, Wayne went on to become a screen legend. Only a super-star (packer or not!) could surmount this entry in a film resume. Long live the Duke! | 0neg
|
This is the last episode of the Goldenboy OVA series. Kentaro finds himself working in an animation studio, which is rather interesting if you don't know anything about the way anime studios were run. Besides episode 3, this was probably the least risqué, but it had a nice girl interest, as well as a surprise reunion from others in the previous episodes. My only complaint about this episode is it seemed a little too short, but at the same time this may have only been because it was the only original script for the show that wasn't based on one of the manga chapters. but it ended well, leaving us with the nice feeling that Kentaro is permanently 25, studying on. Definitely watch the rest of the series all the way through, you can buy the whole series for like $17, you can watch it all the way through in about 2 1/2 hours, or watch your favorite episode if you have 20 minutes free time (which i do if i have a lunch break at school.) good series, check it out. | 1pos
|
The odd thing about Galaxina is not that it is supremely bad, although it is. The odd thing is that in spite of being supremely bad, it is not funny. Supremely bad movies have their own particular brand of unintended humor--the secret of their success, you might say. But Galaxina is quite uniquely different--it is MST3K's worst nightmare, a bad movie in which the intentional *and* the unintentional humor alike fall flat.<br /><br />It is easy enough to figure out why the intentional jokes fail--and the reasons are quite varied. Sometimes it's a timing question; sometimes it's a good idea badly worked out (the human restaurant *could* have been hilarious, but it wasn't); sometimes it feels like there was some mixup in the cutting room, with the punchline ending up on the floor; and sometimes the jokes are just bad jokes. Bad movies get their laughs from such unintentional snafus. It's harder to figure out why Galaxina doesn't get any laughs on that count. Something is subtly wrong with the unintentional humor in this movie, just as something is wrong (not at all subtly) with the intentional humor. It is a supremely bad movie whose very badness is not the redeeming quality it usually is. It's absolutely unique in my experience. | 0neg
|
I have just wasted my Saturday night watching this crap! I saw the names of Chris Noth (Mr. Big, from "Sex & the City"), Robert Patrick (from "X-Files"), the decadent Elliot Gould, Colm Meaney and Mercedes Ruehl on the credit; a very reasonable IMDb Rating (5,6); and many good reviews in IMDb. For my total surprise, the film is horrible: the characters are badly constructed; the story tries to be funny, but it is totally silly; the character of Mercedes Ruehl is amazingly stupid for a professor of Princeton. So, I decided to investigate the credibility of the good reviews, and I found that most of them are made by IMDb Users with only review, therefore relatives or friends of the cast and crew, or people hired to promote this garbage. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Sem Retorno" ("Without Return") | 0neg
|
Although it has been off the air for 6 years now, Promised Land was one of those shows that comes along once or twice in a generation. Good cast, supporting cast(among them, Richard Thomas and Ossie Davis) and crew. The plot is believable with McRaney packing up his family and just saying "to hell with it all" after being subjected to so many disappointments and incidents since his return from Vietnam years earlier. I think a lot of Vietnam-era veterans, myself included, could really relate to McRaney's thought process in finally deciding on his course of action. Many of us did precisely the same thing in real life, after returning from that war and finding that America was not the same place we left. The show imparts not only values but a glimpse into what took place in one veterans life. In those two respects alone, I think it is one of the more poignant TV series of our time. Why this program only ran for 3 years is beyond me. | 1pos
|
*spoiler* *spoilers* *spoilers* I found the film amusing.It was weird and I enjoy it,I laughed a lot so the bottom line is that I recommend the film.However I have problems with what LaBute wanted to say.The plot is very simple.Betty(Renee Zellweger), a hard life house wife watch her husband being murdered and while having forgotten everything she had seen,she follow her "true love" for a soap series character,Dr. David Ravell (Greg Kinnear). Simple enough but not enough to hold a 95 minutes film. And here comes the big question.What is the film all about? The reference to "The Wizard of Oz" is obvious.Betty and Dorothy are both from Kansas however while Dorothy come at the end of that film to the conclusion that "there is no place like home", Betty doesn't come to any conclusion and by the end of the film we are left wonder what has she learned from her experience and the answer is simply nothing.It seems not to affect her at all.<br /><br />Than is the film about the different between reality and fantasy? could be,but the scenes that are dealing with this subject are short and serve no more than a joke and not as a serious plot line that can take the film to other places.(and by the way "The Truman Show" dealt with this subject in a much better way).<br /><br />The film could be about obsession.Betty is obsessed with the soap series and Charlie(Morgan Freeman) is obsessed with Betty.LaBute show two sides of obsession and he seems to forget that obsession,in any form is dangerous,and should be condemned.He seems to have sympathy to Betty's obsession because he sees it as a harmless one.<br /><br />All a long the film we have scenes that in itself could have been a subject for a whole film,but are left for us to think about without that they will have impact on the characters.<br /><br />The ending is simply a make -up that has nothing to do with what we saw before.It's a shame because the film could have been sharper if he would have concentrate in one or two subjects.As it is,it's about a lot but actually say nothing.<br /><br />What we are left with is the feeling that we have seen a little film,amusing and weird that could have been much much more. | 1pos
|
If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.<br /><br />If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.<br /><br />Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse): <br /><br />- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.<br /><br />- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.<br /><br />- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.<br /><br />- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.<br /><br />- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.<br /><br />Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes: <br /><br />- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.<br /><br />- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever. | 0neg
|
I watched this movie which I really thought had a promising beginning but then it just led me to feel disappointed in the end. The problem I think with this film was that the director was trying a bit to hard to make this film weird and original. There were too many flashbacks and too many bad "effects" which got me annoyed through the film. I love Debbie Harry and Isaac Hayes but they disappointed me in this film, they could of done much better. This film seemed promising in the beginning, dragging in the middle and then disappointing in the end. The film could never beat Stanley Kubrick's geniousness when it comes to controversial matters, weirdness and originality in movies. | 0neg
|
This must be one of the most horribly titled films of all time. The kind of title that ruins a film because it neither evokes the plot nor the characters. A title like this makes a film flop, even the French title is not much better. Too bad - Truffaut & Deneuve must have been enough to sell it..<br /><br />This is a long film, but largely worth it. Clearly influenced by Hitchcock, we have an intercontinental story about a personal ad bride, her rich husband, a theft, an identity switch, and obsessive love. The plot here is actually very good, and takes us on an unexpected trip.<br /><br />The thing that works both for and against the movie is the focus on the relationship. It is an interesting study in how these plot developments are played out in "real life relationship" with these two people. Unfortunately, this is what bogs the film down, and makes it ultimately dissatisfying. We do like films to have a real sense of finality, and that is missing here.<br /><br />It was the case in many of her films that Deneuve became a canvas for Directors to play their fantasies out on, and this time it doesn't work as well. Messy here, is the fact that the Director clearly just wanted to have Deneuve take her top off a few times. Deneuve is an actress who always seems very deliberate and thoughtful, so these attempts to make her seem spontaneous fall flat. <br /><br />Basically, the script needed to be worked out better before shooting began, to make this film tighter and shorter and to snap. But Truffaut didn't snap, did he? So - it wanders a bit, but remains interesting. | 1pos
|
Not only do I think this was the best film of 1987, it's probably in my own amorphous list as one of the 10-20 best films I've ever seen. For whatever reason, I really connected with this movie, and it is one of the most personal films I had seen at that point in my life (I was 26). For better or worse, I strongly identified with the Holly Hunter character (and I'm a guy!). She plays an extremely bright, loyal and intense woman who couldn't figure out romantic relationships. There were so many things that she said in this movie that were things that I would say or have said to others in similar circumstances. And the ending of the movie I find to be so very, very sad.<br /><br />Obviously, this role was the big break for Holly Hunter. Clearly, I was not the only one to think so highly of it. | 1pos
|
Up front, if you're tired, the first hour could be slow. The set up of the story has a natural leisurely pace, unhurried - giving us time to appreciate the kind of everyday life and situations the main characters are in. Once you arrived at the climatic segment of the storyline, the turn of events will keep you hooked: how will things turn out, what will happen to our precious Fanda (portrayed to utter quiet perfection by the veteran Czech actor Vlastimil Brodský), how will his wife (wonderfully played by Stella Zázvorková) treat him, what happens to Fanda's dear friend Ed (played by Stanislav Zindulka - a matching sidekick to Brodský), and Jára the son with selfish hidden agenda, blind to the kindness of his parents (sigh!)<br /><br />Vladimír Michálek sensibly directed the film with sprinkles of humor, preserving the insightful script by Jirí Hubac. Thanks to clear subtitling, I was able to notice for every 'complaining' phrase Fanda's wife utters, there's a hint of 'caringness' showing/buried in between the lines - and so did the judicious lady judge observed. Fanda is '76 going on 80' and the affection of their enduring (endearing) marriage manifests even in their bantering arguments. His playfulness can be infectious.<br /><br />This is 'Growing Old Together 101' for (at least) the beyond fifties, and lessons learned to sons and daughters not to take parents for granted. One may need to rethink if assuming 'home for the aged' is a means to an end, so to speak. The film is gently shouting to us to live life to the fullest while we can. (Hint: there's joy in staying on and watch the end credits roll.)<br /><br />We're fortunate to be able to see an occasional Czech film. The Sverák ("Kolya") father & son's 2001 "Dark Blue World" was revealing with pathos. It's good to take it slow now and then and appreciate a foreign gem - its subtitles, scenery, melodic score and an engaging human story with elegant performances. "Autumn Spring" (aka Babí Léto) is available on DVD. Enjoy! | 1pos
|
SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />A cliché-riddled film that somehow makes an anti-death with dignity statement, though it attempts to do the opposite. Washington is a paralyzed forensics officer who has been suffering and wanting to die for the past four years (apparently he wrote his huge selling book only a year ago though, so it hasn't all be despair). He arranges for an assisted suicide with his doctor who will return in a week.<br /><br />In the meantime, he helps out on a serial killer case. He recruits the gutsy, I don't wanna do it, but I'm just so good at it, cop Jolie, and they track down impossible clue jumping to highly unlikely conclusions in matters of moments. Hey, that old bolt means that the killer has the millionaire's wife in a steam tunnel by the old Woolworth building. Shyeah, right. It's laughable. Yet no is smart enough to figure out that doctor who's going to assist him is the killer.<br /><br />When he comes to Washington to murder him (ahead of schedule), he has a change of heart and struggles unbelievably for his life. Cut to the obligatory bad guy about to shoot the good guy scene when BANG the gun goes off--- but the bad guy didn't fire! No the woman steps out of the corner, she has just shot him in the back. | 0neg
|
I just saw this at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco and had trouble staying awake during this incredibly repetitive, unenlightening little film. It is a 75 minutes film that felt like 175 minutes and has about 20 minutes of modestly engaging material. It's not bad in any offensive way, it just repeats things that have been said many, many times over and more interestingly and provocatively. With only a couple of exceptions, the interviews drone on and on and on, making little emotional contact or context to the whole topic. It's more like a "how to" guide for something that can't be done anymore. I was alive during the era but felt little connection or nostalgia for what was presented. | 0neg
|
This movie took me by surprise. I first saw it more than 10 years ago, and it stays with me still. It's got it's just plain boring points, and I, personally, would have ended it differently- this has not in the least bit discouraged me from watching it over and over and recommending it to others. The acting is _fantastic_. The cast and director do an amazing job with the script, and anyone who likes 'different' movies, who has the patience to sit and say, "What the hell is this?", and allow themselves to be drawn in should give this film a chance. If you just want Alan Rickman to be goofy or to see things explode this is not the movie for you. | 1pos
|
Peter Lorre gives one of his most evil performances as the owner of the titled place. The plot has a new government agent being put on the track of Peter Lorre's character. When the G-man's contact his killed by one of Lorre's agents, the G-man is sent to prison for the killing even though everyone knows there is more to the story. Lorre has the man paroled into his care and brought to his island where he is mining diamonds. Lorre wants to know what our hero knows, but he isn't talking and a battle of wills is set in motion.<br /><br />This is a good solid little thriller that doesn't quite make a great deal of sense plot wise, but even so the film holds your interest. I had put the film on last night in order to use it as something to drift off to, instead I found the tale riveting enough I was up an extra 70 minutes. Lorre is the reason that one falls into this. His quite demeanor is unnerving. He does very little but its clear from his orders and the way everyone reacts to him (watch how they light his cigarettes) that he is a bad dude.<br /><br />Worth a look if you should run across it. | 1pos
|
I've seen a few bad action movies in my days, but this one's just plain awful. I feel it's a waste of time to even write this but I'll make it short. Why this movie suck? here are 10 reasons: 1. Very amateurly directed and cut. 2. Bad bad bad acting of the whole cast. 3. Silly dialogs and too many clichés. 4. Too many plot holes, a lot of scenes don't add up. 5. Bad photographing (and a lot of continuity issues). 6. Ridiculously bad performance by the lead female actress. 7. Unreliable action scenes (and not too good, either). 8. Even for a Snipes movie, he shows a big lack of acting materials. 9. Outrageous accents (of all the cast). 10. Last, but not least - too many implausible facts, such as a tournament of soccer in the U.S., CIA needing to do background checks to get new information about their employees, a mattress that is explosion proof and so on. In essence - it's a waste of time, it's not funny, not entertaining, not even as a joke - DON"T WATCH IT!!! Seriously, just don't. | 0neg
|
Did the writers pay people to come up here and write positive reviews? I mean, really, it's a bit hackneyed, and Spike isn't that funny. He seems more like the serious guy trying too hard to be funny. There are so many mediocre gigs in this show; like once, the opening sketch was "Talk show, apply directly to the forehead," over and over. And another that featured Spike and another dude getting high, and it wasn't even funny. They didn't even do anything but sit around and laugh, over and over. Ha Ha! And another that featured Spike talking to a Korean guy who ate duck and told him that he had a pet duck. Ha ha! I mean, really, Spike just gets funny guests on his show, that's why people like this show | 0neg
|
As a physicist, talk about blackholes and cosmology gets my heart racing. However I found this presentation too slow and not packed with enough information for the interested layman (who is most likely to see it). If you have more than a passing curiosity in this sort of stuff, go to the library and check out some books. You will find they explain current scientific cosmologies with far more detail while at the same time filling you with more of a sense of wonder than this movie does. Also to set the record straight: Hawking is NOT considered the "greatest mind" or the world's "smartest person" as commonly asserted even among the user reviews here at the IMDb. Hawking himself has commented that "It is rubbish. It is just media hype. They needed somebody to fill the role model of disabled genius. At least I'm disabled." To be fair, he is probably a genius but among history's greatest scientists, people like Einstein, Newton, Gauss, and many others easily are even more highly regarded. This is not to disrespect Hawking who is a undoubtedly a great scientist but rather not to disrespect others who have done even more than he has. Anyhow, see the movie if you are truly into science. But if not, I think it would be boring for you. | 0neg
|
With "Anatomy" the german film producers have tried to make something totally new. Usually there just drama or comedy movies - in the horror genre is(or was) totally new at that time.<br /><br />The story's also new and shocking. Franka Potente plays her role brilliant and I bet you won't find out who's the murderer. It's possible, but difficult. A really great movie with a lot of talented actors. | 1pos
|
this film is what happens when people see like in this particular one blair witch project and say hell people running around with cameras, acting slash documentary themed no problemo i can do it and start out with a lame idea make up a terrible script and get a bunch of talentless actors and start shooting a film. plot is that in africa there a halfcaste a breed of man like animals who hunt and kill humans, the locals think that it's a demon or a evil spirit but our wild bunch are in africa to get some proof of there own. no need for more words on the plot this movie get's a 1 out of 10 and i am trying to find something good to say about this movie but after a long time thinking nothing nada zero null. | 0neg
|
During the brief period between Clint Eastwood's string of spaghetti westerns and his Dirty Harry films, he and director Don Siegel teamed up to make this unusual picture. Eastwood plays an injured Union Army corporal during the Civil War who is taken in by a southern school for girls until he recovers from his wounds. It has been a while since the young women (most of which seem to be teenagers) have had a man on the premises, so they are reluctant to turn him in to the local rebel soldiers. The resulting situations are often humorous, shocking, erotic, or even downright grotesque as Eastwood slowly regains his strength and begins to brood over the establishment.<br /><br />The basic storyline almost sounds like the makings of a porno film. We have a masculine male suddenly surrounded by young nubile women. Most of them are sexually attracted to him. And he is more than willing to spread the love amongst them. The material never really slips down to the level of "tasteless", however. Eastwood, Siegel, and cinematographer Bruce Surtees are such skilled filmmakers, that the film always retains its dignity.<br /><br />Eastwood's John McBurney is like no other character he has ever played. McBurney is an amoral, conniving, and lustful charlatan. He knows that most of the women, even the youngest want his bod, and he lets more than one of them have a shot at him. McBurney often uses flattery to butter the women up, then uses his rugged good looks to reel them in. He is like a drunken player at a cocktail party, often hitting on different women even in the same scene! Eventually, his lustful ways cause him great agony and loss in a way you must see for yourselves. This author would not dream of revealing the specific consequences of his actions, but there is little doubt he has them coming.<br /><br />Eastwood gives a typically great performance. He seems to be having a blast with the role until things turn really ugly, then he turns mean and ugly. Geraldine Page is a treat as the steely B*tch who runs the school. We know she wants McBurney as much as the other girls, but with her checkered past shown to us in flashbacks, we find out that isn't all she's after! Mae Mercer as a slave belonging to the school gives a great performance, too. She obviously knows McBurney is a skunk from the beginning, and she never lets his phony charm bring her guard down. This is a character you will want to know more about after the film is over. She seems to have a greater knowledge of the world than anyone else in the film.<br /><br />The Beguiled did poorly in its theatrical release. Nobody was quite sure what to make of it, and some of its content no doubt raised a few eyebrows in 1971. For example, in an early scene we see Eastwood romantically kiss a 12-yr-old girl. Is he just trying to keep her quiet when the rebel soldiers get close, or is he really enjoying it? Probably both! A fantasy sequence later on even shows Clint getting it on with not only Page, but her young assistant! Truly some interesting goings on in this one. It's a good thing Eastwood became the star he did, or this one might have been long forgotten.<br /><br />Highly recommended. 9 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound. | 1pos
|
Mario Van Peebles tries to go the Jean-Claude Van Damme route and play a renegade robotic soldier who goes AWOL to preserve himself, however the government isn't going to take this lying down, so among the simplistic plot Van Peebles protects villagers from the rebel forces and defeats a improved version of himself in this disappointing film. This blatant rip off of Universal Soldier (Which is far more fun then this) simply goes nowhere. The main problem is that the movie is so unbelievably inert. Van Peebles just waits around and there just isn't enough ass-kicking to justify a viewing. On the other hand the movie does sort of resemble a competent version of R.O.T.O.R although where as that abysmal bad movie was hilarious, this one only yields occasional laughter in its laughably unconvincing action sequences. Also like R.O.T.O.R it makes no sense in its narrative and basically the movie is awesomely boring. Plus the villains are disappointingly weak and basically the movie needs an actual action scenario to work, because the material is too dull. In all regards Solo is a very weak film.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor) | 0neg
|
I guess this is in the public domain as its out on DVD. First off, this is a feel good propaganda movie to be shown to a wartime Aussie audience, so its not to be considered a serious retelling of Tobruk. The first half to 3/4 is very dry stuff set in Australia, I guess like many American war films where the recruits are getting together, oh man its soooo long. Than we get to Africa and Tobruk, pretty bad, low budget stuff. The battle scenes on the DVD copy I watched were almost completely black. See it if you must, but be prepared to use the fast forward as I doubt you can take it after a few minutes. I enjoyed the cheesy Italian "Battle of El Alamien" a whole lot more, also Richard Burton did an African theater war flick that was good "The Desert Rats", this movie is just a real period piece and should have stayed in that time, does not hold up well today (I doubt it was highly regarded back then either). I say the same thing about my American counterpart war flicks so don't take it personally Aussies (I love Australia, been there twice!). | 0neg
|
After reading the mostly glowing comments about this movie I decided to rent it despite some suspicions of TV movies. I should have followed my instincts.<br /><br />I tried so hard to warm up to the movie and find merit in it but I just couldn't. The story never draws you in or rings true and the acting is perfunctory at best and laughable at worst. Everything in this production is amateurish.<br /><br />Always a joy to watch, Mary McDonnell may be the only performer to escape this disaster without damaging her career or reputation. I won't even bother checking the name of the leading man - hopefully he's back doing commercials.<br /><br />Even poor Vanessa Redgrave, whom I adore and respect, seemed to be channeling Katherine Hepburn all the time appearing as if she were really drugged in the home. Maybe she needed the money.<br /><br />If I can save one person from wasting 100 minutes on this tripe I will feel vindicated. | 0neg
|
I thought this movie was great! I saw this when it came out in the theaters so I do not remember all the details. I remember it being based on Homer's tale on Odysseus. Names places and events are changed but you can still see the resemblance to the tale. <br /><br />I found it funny how they would get themselves into trouble and how they would get themselves out of it. I really enjoyed this version of modernized old tales much better than the Romeo and Juliet with Clair Danes.<br /><br />I will agree that in some parts of the tale it does get a little to silly at times but all in all it is a great adventure with some big name actors. | 1pos
|
Yes, it's a SBIF (So Bad It's Funny) classic. With a budget running into the tens of dollars, some of the most abysmal acting you have ever seen, and absolutely NO even remotely frightening moments - not even a nanosecond! Camera work was at the elementary school level - one still shot outside a house was obviously hand-held and jiggled crazily. Blood looked like watered-down cherry Koolaid, someone made a trip to the local butcher shop for the "human" bones, and Miss Witch had the cheapest mask Wal-Mart could provide.<br /><br />Did ANYONE involved look at the final cut and realize what a mess this was? Most of the names in the credits HAVE to be pseudonyms, it would be career suicide to have THIS on your resume. Do yourself a favor and watch Ebert's video of his colonoscopy instead! | 0neg
|
I am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...<br /><br />When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.<br /><br />So why this verdict?<br /><br />First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool. <br /><br />Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the "Basterds"? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...<br /><br />Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the "Magnificent Seven": A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the "inglourious Basterds". No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the "Inglourious Basterds" except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...<br /><br />So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened... | 0neg
|
I suspect there are several cuts of this doco doing the rounds. The copy I saw focused heavily on Joe's erotic films and referred to his horror output in passing. There are numerous X-rated films presented in their X-rated glory and EMMANUELLE IN AMERICA'S legendary "snuff" footage (the breasts being cut off) is given generous screen time.<br /><br />The interviews with the highly likable Joe are informative and candid. He is an unassuming, articulate gent and discusses his interest in shocking audiences, why he wanted to mix erotica with horror, and how he may have been responsible for one of his performers turning gay.<br /><br />His friendship and working relationship with Indonesian beauty Laura Gemser is touched on, as is his indifferent attitude to shooting hardcore.<br /><br />Joe D'Amato personifies an incredible period in Continental cinema that has now passed. It is great to see a documentary dedicated to him and his fine, unique work.<br /><br />RIP, Joe. | 1pos
|
This is the best version of Gypsy that has been filmed.Bette Midler is simply superb as Mama Rose.She has the voice,the gestures,the look,and most of all,a supreme acting ability to carry the role off and to make her character come alive.Her singing is,simply put:MAGNIFICENT! She especially shines in two numbers-"Everything's Coming Up Roses" and "Rose's Turn". The other actors are also fine,particularly Christine Ebersoll as Tessie.Also good is Peter Riegert;his portrayal of Herbie is acted with great style and believability.The direction of this movie is very,very good.There isn't a false note or gaffe in the entire production.This film is a vast improvement over the Roz Russell version filmed in 1962.Since viewing it again,I can state that the three greatest Mama Roses are:Ethel Merman,Bette Midler,and Angela Lansbury. See this movie.You'll be glad that you did. | 1pos
|