text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
The wonderful "Z" Channel in Los Angeles showed this Pia Zadora film about six months or so after "Butterfly". I had such high hopes for the actress, and then she goes from bad to obviously WORSE in this film.<br /><br />Again, it was the 80's and I gotta tell you Harold Robbin's work had been eclipsed by smarter writers. Jacqueline Susann ripped into him (she hated his way of writing women), Irwin Shaw's work caught on with many women, and of course Sidney Sheldon had his kingdom in the late 70's early 80's and then came Jackie Collins who made women stronger and as equal to men in every way in her books, even more so. Which is why this work smelt. Harold Robbin's work in the 80's just didn't catch on with audiences. Pia Zadora acting in one of Robbin's work was like throwing kerosine on a fire. The supporting cast was not a help either.<br /><br />Oooooh... this was awful to look at then and even 20 more years later, it looks even worse. I had a hope for Pia as an actress and it all got shot to heck when this was done. It would be tough for Pia to redeem herself as an actress (although John Waters casting her in "Hairspray" was a spark) although she has a nice singing voice.<br /><br />Hey, Pia, wherever you are...Hairspray may go on tour! Join the show. You may be the biggest comeback story yet.<br /><br />I just hope they burn this film for ya if you do. | 0 | negative |
Ronald Colman gives an electrifying performance as Tony John, a Broadway actor who can't separate his offstage life from Shakespeare's Othello, the character he plays on stage....Two important scenes illustrate Tony's dilemma. The first one takes place in producer Max Lasker's office. Acting is a matter of talent for the practical-minded Lasker. But Donlan, Tony's friend, disagrees: "No, no. When you do it like Tony does it, it's much more. The way he has of becoming someone else every night...so completely. No, don't tell me his whole system isn't affected by it."....The other scene occurs in waitress Pat Kroll's apartment. Tony tells her his name is Martin. She thanks him. Then he says: "Or Paul. Hamlet. Joe. And maybe Othello."....When Tony begins rehearsing Othello, we learn that though he's trying to keep his real life separated from his stage life, "The part begins to seep into your life, and the battle begins. Reality against imagination." He can't keep the two separated: In his mind Pat is Desdemona and he's Othello, and he wrongly believes she has been unfaithful to him. He murders her....Colman's bravura performance, in a complex and difficult role, earned him 1947's Academy Award for Best Actor. Oscar nominations went to Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin for Best Original Screenplay. Not to be overlooked is Milton Krasner's atomspheric cinematography. | 1 | positive |
If the themes of The Girl From Missouri sound familiar it should. That's because Anita Loos who wrote the screenplay here also wrote the classic Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Unlike Marilyn Monroe in that film, Jean Harlow will accept any kind of jewelry from men of means.<br /><br />And it's men of means that Jean Harlow is after. She leaves the road side hash house run by her mother and stepfather because she's decided that the best way to gain the easy life is to marry it. Her talents as a chorus girl are limited, but she'll be able to trade in on that beauty.<br /><br />Her odyssey starts with her and friend Patsy Kelly getting an invitation to perform at a party thrown by millionaire Lewis Stone. But unbeknownst to Jean, Stone's just having a wild last fling before doing himself because of the moneys he owes not owns. Still she wrangles a few baubles from him that fellow millionaire Lionel Barrymore notices. <br /><br />Lionel's amused by it until Jean sets her sights on his playboy son, Franchot Tone. After that he is not amused and he looks to shake Jean from climbing the family tree.<br /><br />The Girl From Missouri went into production mid adaption of The Code so it went under peculiar censorship. I've a feeling we would have seen a much more risqué film. Still Jean Harlow as a younger and sassier version of Mae West is always appreciated. What a great comic talent that woman had, seeing The Girl From Missouri is a sad reminder of the great loss the world of film sustained with her passing three years later.<br /><br />Ironically enough the casting of Patsy Kelly with Harlow was no doubt influenced by the successful shorts Kelly was making with another famous platinum blonde, Thelma Todd. Harlow and Kelly have the same easy chemistry between that Patsy had with Thelma. Todd would also die a year later in a freak accident/suicide/homicide that no satisfactory explanation has ever really been given. <br /><br />Don't miss The Girl From Missouri, it's bright and sassy, must be from all that sparkling jewelry. | 1 | positive |
Well, this was one of those films I caught on the off-chance, and it was good enough for me to record when it showed up next time... If, like myself, you enjoy many 80's horror flicks that branched out a little from the norm (i.e. not just another glut of generic sequels) then I think you may enjoy this. When the bad guy eventually turns up in person, he was definitely not what I expected to see! All in all, I wouldn't go out of your way for this one, but if you like the genre, then watch it if it comes up and you have an hour and a half to kill, I guess. I'd give it 6.5 out of 10. | 1 | positive |
Look, there's nothing spectacularly offensive about this film, it's just boring. It's a typical rom-com with an ending you can see coming before you've seen so much as the trailer. The key difference is that the classic rom-coms tackle their stories with wit and a lack of pretension. This movie has no pretension but it really has no sense of movement, you feel as though you could get up and walk away at any moment. The production of the movie also has the feel of a debut movie made about fifteen years ago. I'd recommend re-watching a classic movie like When Harry Met Sally instead of this shallow imitation. Oh, one other BIG problem...no chemistry. If you're used to seeing Michael looking all cute as Vaughn in Alias, you're going to be seriously disappointed with the way they've made him look here. | 0 | negative |
It ran 8 seasons, but it's first, in early 1959, and it's last, in the autumn of 1965, were shorter than seasons 2-7. CBS chief William Paley canceled Rawhide's production after watching the 1st show of season 8, in September, 1965, because he disliked the series without Eric Fleming as Gil Favor, who had departed after season 7. The last new episode aired in November, 1965. The lone 1966 CBS broadcast, on January 4, 1966, was a rerun. <br /><br />I have often wondered why Rawhide didn't switch to color filming for it's last season? Most of the big westerns of the 1960s had gone over to color by 1965. CBS was broadcasting in color that autumn, for many of their sitcoms, but westerns like Gunsmoke and Rawhide remained in black and white. Gunsmoke was the last western (and last prime time network series to switch to color) on September 17, 1966, for the episode Snap Decision. | 1 | positive |
I can't believe I am just now seeing this film -- I think perhaps I thought it was another movie about slaves being mistreated, and I avoided Roots for the same reason -- just as I have yet to see Schindler's List -- I don't want to be "entertained" by other peoples' pain, not matter how authentic or informative it is supposed to be.<br /><br />So I guess the main thing I noticed about The Color Purple was that it was not about black people being mistreated by whites. The black people were perfectly capable of raping their own daughters -- or giving them away to be treated as slaves by their "husbands". It was painful to watch, but everyone redeemed himself in the end, and the acting was phenomenal! I couldn't believe the character Oprah played at the age of 35! And I adore Whoopi to start with - she was amazing. I'm so glad I was feeling lousy yesterday afternoon and Showtime was running The Color Purple. | 1 | positive |
Want a great recipe for failure? Take a s****y plot, add in some weak, completely undeveloped characters and than throw in the worst special effects a horror movie has known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash). The result is Corpse Grinders, a movie that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places.<br /><br />The movie utterly blew. My words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is a long, boring, sad waste of time. Corpse Grinders II is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. I depresses me when I realize that people actually took time out of their lives to act in this shit, if you can call it acting. But than again, when you have poor direction, poor storywriting, poor everything, acting is the last thing to criticize.<br /><br />This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really with I could somehow destroy every copy of this film, so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Ted V. Mikels, for giving me new found respect for every movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful, and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy or boring. | 0 | negative |
After not having much luck at selling his screenplays to the new movie industry during the first decade of the 20th Century, in 1908 playwright D.W. Griffith got the job that would make him a legend: he was hired by the Biograph Company as a director of movies. It wasn't really what Griffith had expected when he decided to enter the movie business, but he accepted the job, and in less than a year he became Biograph's most successful director thanks to his original approach to film-making and the wild inventive of his narrative. Many years later, he would direct "The Birth of a Nation" in 1915, the movie that would revolutionize film-making and make him one of cinema's first recognized authors; however, a lot of what would make him a great filmmaker can be found in the many short films he made for Biograph Company in the early years of his career. 1909's "The Sealed Room" is one of those, and also one of the few horror movies of that very first decade of the 20th Century.<br /><br />"The Sealed Room" is a story set in the 16th Century in which a Count (Arhtur V. Johnson) has built a windowless room in his castle. It is a small yet nice and very cozy room, as it is meant to be used to enjoy the love and company of his wife, the Countess (Marion Leonard) in a more private way. However, the Count doesn't know that his wife is not exactly faithful, as she is infatuated with the Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall) at Court, with whom she is having an affair. As soon as the Count gets busy with his own business, the Countess calls the Minstrel and both lovers go to enjoy the Count's new room. When the Count returns, he discovers she is missing and begins to suspect, finally discovering the two lovers in his room; but instead of making a scene, he prefers to remain hidden as he decides that there is a better punishment for his unfaithful wife: to seal the windowless room with the couple inside.<br /><br />Written by Griffiths' regular collaborator Frank E. Woods, "The Sealed Room" takes elements from Edgar Allan Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado" and mainly Honoré De Balzac's "La Grande Breteche" to create a haunting Gothic melodrama based on the themes of treachery and sadism. Despite having a runtime of 11 minutes, Woods' screenplay develops the story in a very good way, and plays remarkably well with the horror elements of the story. While a melodrama at heart, Woods focus on the character of the Count and his sadism creates one of the best horror characters of these early era. "The Sealed Room" is definitely a very simple and basic story, but Woods handling of the dark and morbid thematic of its plot makes the story a very entertaining film that was very different than most Griffith's melodramas.<br /><br />In "The Sealed Room", Griffith uses his talents to experiment with tension and suspense in a different way than his usual. While he often played with editing to create thrillers that excited his audience, in this movie his focus was to create desperation and horror, playing with the inherent feeling of claustrophobia that the source stories had. It is interesting how the story starts as another of his melodramas and slowly the pacing becomes faster as the horror themes begin to dominate the plot, culminating in his great use of editing for the final scenes. Not being a movie where camera tricks are essential, what shines the most in "The Sealed Room" is Griffith's talent to direct his actors, as the legendary filmmaker manages to bring the best out of his cast with his usual natural style far removed from the staginess that was the norm in his day.<br /><br />As usual, the cast was comprised of usual collaborators of Griffith, starting with Arthur V. Johnson as the Count. Johnson gives a great performance and truly conveys the character's transition from loving husband to sadistic monster. His performance is not without a touch of overacting, but actually that adds realism to the character's exaggerated personality. As the Countess, Marion Leonard looks very good and is also very effective in her acting, conveying a natural charm that makes hard not to sympathize with her in her treachery. Finally, the legendary Henry B. Walthall appears as the handsome Minstrel, and while far from being one of his best performances, he manages to give a proficient acting that also adds a nice touch of comedy to the film. While not of real importance to the plot, it's nice to see other members of Griffith's stock company in the background, like his wife Linda Arvidson and a young Mary Pickford as nobles at Court.<br /><br />While not exactly a masterpiece, "The Sealed Room" is a notable exercise of editing to create suspense and tension like Griffith used to do in those days. The movie has very good set design and while of a very low budget, Griffith's care for details makes it look very convincing and works perfectly along with his directing style. The change of focus to horror makes it to stand out among other of his films from that era, and Johnson's performance as the sadistic Count makes it worth a watch. While Griffith will always be remembered for his highly influential (and controversial) "The Birth of a Nation", the early short films he made before it really give a good idea of the development of the techniques and the style that would make him a legend. Simple yet elegant, "The Sealed Room" is a fun movie to watch and one of the few horrors of the first decade of the 20th Century. 7/10 | 1 | positive |
No likeable characters (the lead is a combination of the WORST of Woody Allen/Paul Provensa/Reiser) and the contrived scenes (did anyone REALLY think thiat kid on the rollerblades was NOT going to knock the guy down?) were just sickeningly bad.<br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
I love Memoirs of a Geisha so I read the book twice; it is one of the best book I've read last year. I was looking forward to the movie and was afraid that reading the book would ruin the viewing pleasure of the movie. I wasn't expecting the movie to be that bad. Some of the best part of the book was omitted from the movie and the characters were weak with Hatsumomo (Li Gong)been the worst. If I haven't read the book, this movie would be a little confusing and inexplicable. The Plot Outline of the movie states "Nitta Sayuri reveals how she transcended her fishing..." Did anyone see how or when Sayuri became Nitta Sayuri? Forget the movie and read the book. | 0 | negative |
A young scientist is trying to carry on his dead father's work on limb regeneration.His overbearing mother has convinced him that he murdered his own father and is monitoring his progress for her own evil purposes.A young doctor uses reptilian DNA he extracts from a large creature and when his arm is conveniently ripped off a few minutes later,he injects himself with his formula and grows a new murderous arm...Admittedly the special effects in "Severed Ties" are pretty good and grotesque,but the rest of the film is awful.The severed arm is behaving like a snake and kills few people.Big deal.The acting is mediocre and the climax is silly.3 out of 10. | 0 | negative |
Robert Altman is my favorite American director. I must admit that I have enjoyed the films that are usually scorned: "Quintet", if only for giving me the pleasure of seeing a grown-up and beautiful Brigitte Fossey, who was unforgettable as the little girl in "Forbidden Games"; "HealtH", for having Lauren Bacall, Carol Burnett, Alfre Woodard and Glenda Jackson, all in the same cast; "Popeye", for that splendid and surreal world, Shelley Duvall's Olive Oyl and the wonderful Malta locations; "O.C. & Stiggs", for its proposal of an anti-"adolescents flick"; "Beyond Therapy", for all its lunacy and for the presence of Genèvieve Page, who for all her effort to look Parisian chic is taken for a travestite... I have even enjoyed his one-act TV movies, like "The Dumb Waiter" and "The Laundromat". When there is not much plot to develop in his films, you have wonderful performances, from Burnett, John Travolta, Kim Basinger or Jane Curtin. I perceive and enjoy the different approach and description he makes of the many different cultures of the United States. It is a pity that his genius is seldom appreciated, and that he is always forgotten when the time comes for giving out American prizes and awards. He is not your typical mainstream purveyor of fantasies. He is more of a maverick. So it is not surprising for me to find so many bad comments posted here about "The Gingerbread Man", his most 'mainstream' effort to date and to my knowledge. I did not know there were so many people who thought like Leonard Maltin, who does not like Altman at all. In this case, one may dislike "The Gingerbread Man", but for me the reason has more to do with Grisham than with the director-screenwriter. Some of Altman's trademarks are here: improvised dialogue, great performances, a funny lawyers' office with typical irreverent receptionist and secretary. While some people find it boring, I found the first act fascinating, thanks also for the great cinematography by Changwei Gu, the man who shot "Red Sorghum", "Ju Dou" and "Farewell My Concubine". He has a way of showing us the same things we see in other American movies, but under a different light. Through his "foreigner's gaze", almost everything seems new and different. In this first act, things were so logical and true! Wait until you get older. You may get in trouble if you fall under the spell of someone younger and beautiful as Embeth Davidtz. I know for myself what I have done fascinated by someone who is younger than I am! Then you have Robert Duvall's repellent, menacing and mysterious character, while that Geraldo storm is threatening Savannah. The second act gets a little phony and even funny, because Altman may have conducted it with a grin. I remember laughing aloud in several instances with his ironic remarks. I think he was applying a bit of Brecht, distancing us, preparing us for the third act, which is plain Hollywood pastiche. Altman does it with expertise. Being a wise man, and an intelligent director, luckily he did not fall into the traps of today's action movies. He was directing a tale of lust, greed and death. I was not disappointed a bit with the movie. If I give it a nine instead of 10, it is because of Grisham. The American reader has turned him into a best-selling author. So why complain? Maybe we should thank Altman for showing us the seams in his stories, the dullness, the flatness and the silliness of them all. However, he does it with so much gusto and humor, that I cannot but disagree with the negative comments. For me, these persons saw another movie... And vice versa. | 1 | positive |
A 14 year old girl develops her first serious crush on the 17 year old boy that lives near by, while simultaneously trying to overcome her feelings of inadequacy in comparison to her older sister. That is the simple premise of this beautiful, poetic coming of age film from Director Robert Mulligan. Mulligan is famous for previously directing Summer of '42 in 1971 and To Kill A Mockingbird in 1962, two giants of the coming of age genre. Here he directs newcomers in the principal roles: Reese Witherspoon, in her film debut, as the 14 year old girl; Emily Warfield, as the older sister; Jason London, as Court, the 17 year old boy. Reese Witherspoon is astonishingly good in her film debut, displaying every emotion that a 14 year old girl feels in experiencing young love and hurt, never striking a false note. Warfield and London are both equally good as well. The film accurately depicts each adolescent's thoughts or feelings in regard to love with heartfelt sensitivity, never crossing over into maudlin excess even once. Kudos to the autobiographical screenplay from Jenny Wingfield; this is one of the very few films about young love that is honest and consistent in tone without being emotionally dishonest or sensationalist. The music is wonderfully simple, accentuating the tone and mood from scene to scene, but never becoming intrusive. The beautiful cinematography is by famed horror director Freddie Francis, who was in his 70's when this was shot. Tess Harper and Sam Waterston play the girls' parents with dead aim accuracy for 1957, caring, strict, and emotionally simple. Gail Strickland is good also as the boy's mother. There are feelings to sort out, lessons to learn, and truths to face in this sweet-natured film that packs an emotional wallop. To date, this is Robert Mulligan's last film. This is one of the very best films of 1991. **** of 4 stars. | 1 | positive |
I agree with everyone who says that this series was the best of the 'spy' genre. My husband and I were captivated by it when it first aired in the US and watched every episode. I tried at that time to purchase the series (I did tape all of it) but was told by WGBH that it was not available. I even considered writing to Ian Holm to see if he might have a copy! Like others, I purchased and read the Deighton series (in part to understand the complicated plot.) If the original version ever comes available on DVD, I'll be among the first in line to snap up a copy. Ian Holm's portrayal of the vulnerable but courageous Bernard Samson was amazing. (He is always amazing.) | 1 | positive |
"The Grudge" is a remake of Shimizu's own series of popular Japanese horror films. Shimizu knows he is not dealing with anything new, so he does what any intelligent person would have done in his place: he forgets logic and concentrates in giving viewers a fun ride. He uses commonly known clichés associated with ghost stories but Shimizu plays with these elements in an imaginative manner. The nonlinear narrative is not a mere gimmick but an interesting way to present sequences from different perspectives. At the end, all I can say is that if the only purpose of a horror film is to scare the audience (the same way a comedy is to make people laugh), this movie succeeded with flying colors. I watched it in a theater with an audience and it was fun to see viewers go wild over this one. It probably doesn't play as well in your living room. | 1 | positive |
A great film this, and a shame that it will receive little attention outside of arthouse circles and students who stay up until two in the morning to watch it on Channel Four.<br /><br />The plot is a simple one but works very effectively, the blurring between child-like fantasy and hard-hitting nightmare is very well blurred. The budget looks pretty low, but to the credit of those involved it doesn't show too often. It also hasn't dated that much either.<br /><br />I was lucky enough to tape this off the telly when it was on a few years ago, and it has withstood half-a-dozen viewings. It's one of those films that won't appeal to all; though as usual, those with a more thoughtful approach to cinema would get a lot out of this.<br /><br />Charlotte Buerke puts in a good performance as Anna, the spoilt brat and it is a shame she seems to have gone from the acting scene. Cross is also very good, carrying the stature of his character very well within the context of the picture.<br /><br />There are some genuinely (and I don't say that lightly) disturbing moments in this film, both half-second shockers and more drawn-out tensions. Watch it with the lights out!<br /><br />Highly recommended.<br /><br />9/10<br /><br /> | 1 | positive |
What a weekend. Two days ago I watched the first half of "War Games 2: Dead Code", now "While she was out". I am trying to come to a decision which one was worse in terms of pain in my mind while watching. I guess, "While she was out" was worse.<br /><br />It has all been said before in other comments: Unrealistic, illogical etc. - the only thing I really have to add is that at some point I started feeling more for the evil guys than for the woman because I would have recommended her for a Darwin award if she actually died (only watched first half, so I don't know). Soon I was at two Darwin awards (if that's even possible) for her immense stupidity.<br /><br />And, hey: Produced by Kim Basinger? So she did not only know the script but was also responsible for bringing this waste of money to us, the people? I consider humans who waste considerable amounts of money to be evil because the money could have used to feed and clothe quite a few people instead of hurting 80 percent of those who saw it in the cinema and giving 20 percent, which are idiots, a good opportunity to show just how much of an idiot they are. | 0 | negative |
This 30 minute documentary Buñuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Buñuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Buñuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Buñuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people? | 0 | negative |
it's a very nice movie and i would definitely recommend it to everyone. but there are 2 minus points: - the level of the stories has a large spectrum. some of the scenes are very great and some are just boring. - a lot of stories are not self-contained (if you compare to f.e. coffee and cigarettes, where each story has a point, a message, a punchline or however you wanna call it) but well, most stories are really good, some are great and overall it's one of the best movies this year for sure!<br /><br />annoying, that i have to fill 10 lines at minimum, i haven't got more to say and i don't want to start analyzing the single sequences...<br /><br />well, i think that's it! | 1 | positive |
This video contains an outsmart way to confuse and manipulate Americans about Islam. It's a pity that the people who did it really believe that American people is so dumb to believe in it, perhaps, as an American citizen, every person must protest against this kind of crap. If you want to know the truth about Islam, don't let nobody tell you... THE QURAN IS PUBLIC! you can read it by yourself and decide if what they say it's true or false...<br /><br />The video uses a lot of audiovisual strategies directed to manipulate and associate things that are not even related. The music used at some points prepare the public to hate what they see, even if they don't really understand what's going on in there. They use images that are misplaced from their original content.<br /><br />To end the comment I would like to make a reflexion... Don't you think you can do the same exact movie with every religion in the world? | 0 | negative |
I saw this in the theater and I instantly thought that it is good enough to own on video. I am a big nut for Sci-Fi action flicks though anyway.<br /><br />Without giving any of the story away, it is worth seeing if you like Sci-Fi without requiring much thought. The story is basic, and the plot is very good. Worth your time to see!<br /><br />Maybe they will make a sequel? :)<br /><br />8 out of 10 | 1 | positive |
I'm a true fan of the original Cracker series, and own all of them on DVD. Cracker had a tendency to be over-the-top on occasion, but Robbie Coltrane and the other cast members, as well as the writers, always seemed to carry it off despite themselves. I count the original Cracker among the great Brit TV crime series of that time, and there's some stiff competition: Prime Suspect, Inspector Frost, Inspector Morse, Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Homes, and a host of others. Cracker, along with Prime Suspect, was on the top of my list.<br /><br />Which makes "A New Terror" all the more sad...<br /><br />Ultimately, this was a very pale imitation of Cracker's former glory. I forced myself to sit through the whole thing, convinced that it couldn't actually be this bad, and that some spark would eventually ignite. I was wrong, it was bad from beginning to end.<br /><br />A few criticisms: First, just to get any potential bias up-front right off: I was offended by the anti-American, anti-war screed that droned on and on throughout most of the show. The topper: the murder of two American's innocent of any crime and a British Junkie is, in Fitz's words, "understandable, but not justified". I thought "I waded through two hours of crap just to hear this disgusting bit of drivel?" So I had a negative reaction to the anti-war/American tone brought on by my beliefs... Beyond the politics, I had the distinct sense that this Cracker was merely a prop for the propaganda, and it actually helped to undermine an already terribly weak script.<br /><br />Second, just how much air-time did Robbie Coltrane get? Fitz was almost a bit player in this one, as if he was an afterthought plugged into some story originally written without any thought of Fitz's role. Coltrane could have carried the show on his own broad and still suitably flabby shoulders, but the writer was apparently thinking of other things, and missed the chance, and by a wide margin.<br /><br />Third: WHAT AN ABYSMAL SCRIPT! There was some sparkle, and a couple of bits of actual character development (Fitz's son ranting that Fitz couldn't stay at his house if he missed his plane to Australia, the Detective that liked to beat his poor-performers over the backs of their heads, and some of the old sparks between Fitz and his Missus) but not nearly enough to carry the tedious storyline. <br /><br />Fourth, where the hell was Panhallagan? Now that would have been interesting... It was Manchester after all, and 10 years on she'd be up in the ranks. Another wasted opportunity (or perhaps the actress wasn't interested?) <br /><br />Well, there's much more (that's bad) to say , but I'll close with a curiosity: at the end of the show (as it aired on BBCA), when the advertisement announced that the "Director's Cut" was available on BBC On-Demand, I thought AH-HA! The Director's cut, which, presumably, one has to pay for, might have all of the goodies I expected to see tonight but never did, like a coherent, interesting storyline. Unfortunately, after convincing myself to sit through the horrible free version of "A New Terror" with the hope of seeing something, anything, worth watching, only to be disappointed, I have no hope left to motivate me to actually pay for a second, potentially longer and more tedious version. Besides, it angered me to think that BBCA sliced and diced, and sacrificed show time to accommodate the endless (every ten minutes or so) stream of commercials, and then turned around and asked me to pay for what probably should have been version aired tonight.<br /><br />To close, I quote the first paragraph of Variety's review of "A New Terror": it really says it all: "Initial excitement about Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as the BBC's flawed, boozing, womanizing criminal psychologist is snowed under by the heavy-handed political statement writer Jimmy McGovern is determined to deliver within this revival vidpic. Jolting at first in its message -- namely, that Americans are a bunch of whiny namby-pambies who didn't care a whit about terrorism before it came crashing onto our doorstep -- McGovern's chest-clearing rant overwhelms the narrative and mutes the pleasure of seeing Fitz back on the case." | 0 | negative |
This movie was a fascinating look at creole culture and society that few African Americans are aware. My own two children are by products of a paternal grandmother whose father was a member of the gens de couleur libre and a black skin woman whose parents were ex-slaves. He married outside of and against his culture and was cut off from all of his family except for one sister who took pity on her brothers plight; raising 8 children during the great depression of 1929; providing the family with food whenever she could. Of course she clandestinely aided this family fearing for her own ex-communication. My daughter was fascinated by the movie. We have made it a part of our library. | 1 | positive |
It's very funny. It has a great cast who each give great performances. Especially Sally Field and Kevin Kline. It's a well written screenplay by Andrew Bergman (Honeymoon In Vegas). I don't like soap operas, even though I never watch them. But I do love this film because it's so crazy and off the wall, that it beats the hell out of any stupid soap that they have on daytime television. In my opinion, it's the best film of 1991. | 1 | positive |
I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until "poor little rich girl" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.<br /><br />In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies <br /><br />Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently "poison" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.<br /><br />Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with "not being wanted".....is she going to be able to handle this?<br /><br />I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?<br /><br />All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information. | 0 | negative |
This film story is bad enough, which can happen in real life. I'm very can not understand when they show us this bad film. I say it was bad because there is some reason. 1. if Madonna was rich and can do everything she want, then why she falling in love with that bad man. 2. How can the story script is so weak? She was so rich, can do everything she want, but not dare to divorce her husband that is very impossible.<br /><br />The words I LOVE YOU, it doesn't meant anything in this film. | 0 | negative |
I've watched a bunch of episodes of Cold Case since its premiered (especially now that it immediately follows The Amazing Race, but this was one of the best instances of writing and acting I've seen from the house of Bruckheimer. The casting, especially of the younger officers, was spot on, and the script and editing, the soundtrack, and the acting made this episode a tour d'force. If I were the producers I would submit this episode for Emmy consideration. It amazing how complete a portrait was made of Coop and Jimmy within the confines of s 48 minute episode; that takes a lot of talented people doing their best. I hope there's is advance warning of when this episode is repeated, because I'm sure I'll notice a lot that I did not notice the first time around. | 1 | positive |
I think a great many viewers missed entirely the fact that this is obviously a parody of western films.<br /><br />This is not a bad movie - it is a clever tongue in cheek take on westerns. I don't believe this film was taking itself seriously for a moment.<br /><br />What makes this film even more unique is the fact it is centered around 4 strong, beautiful women, two of which are black, one Asian, and a Mexican/Hispanic character.<br /><br />These aren't your usual western women--they're tough--they can draw fast and shoot straight.<br /><br />They're so tough even the bartender is shaking when he pours their whiskey.<br /><br />The plot which moves this story along is typical of westerns--in the vein of "you shot my brother--so I'm gonna get you!" Only in this western, a woman's sister has been shot and she's out for vengeance on the gang who did it.<br /><br />So she goes and rounds up her old cronies from her bank robbing days.<br /><br />One of them, Maria, is not really all that interested in avenging Rachel's sister, but she is motived by the fact there's gold and jewelry hidden in the town where they're headed.<br /><br />There are a couple of scenes that don't quite make sense, not that they interfere that much, they can be ignored, but I wondered why they were there. So the film could use a little tightening, but over all, this is a well made film that has failed to find an audience that recognized what it is.<br /><br />My only disappointment was that the only lesbian in the film is a villain--of the "heroines", one is obviously straight, the others sexual orientations are never disclosed.<br /><br />7 Stars | 1 | positive |
This film has a lot of strong points. It has one of the best horror casts outside of the Lugosi-Karloff-Chaney circle: Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, and Dwight Frye, plus leading man Melvyn Douglas. It's got all the right ingredients: bats, a castle with lots of stone staircases, a mad scientist, townspeople waving torches and hunting vampires, an "Igor"-type character, a beautiful girl, even a goofy-haired Burgomeister. The soft-focus camera work is moody and imaginative. There's even some good comic relief nicely spaced throughout the script.<br /><br />But it's not really a monster movie because there is nothing supernatural going on in "Kleinschloss" ("little castle"). The plot revolves around the generic crazy scientist (nicely played by Atwill) who values his work more highly than human lives.<br /><br />It's not top-tier material, because of a ho-hum resolution of the plot and some embarrassingly bad dialog for Dwight Frye. But it's worth a look if you like early b/w horror pictures. | 1 | positive |
Otto Preminger, completing a noir cycle at Twentieth Century Fox, reunited his "Laura" leads for this stark, gritty detective drama. Dana Andrews again portrays a cop, but this time he's hardened, cynical and has been accused of police brutality by his superior - "You don't hate hoods, you liked to beat them up!". Mark Dixon (Andrews) despises criminals, as his own father was a crook. He doesn't want to be "Sandy Dixon's kid" so he became a policeman, but his methods are harsh and hated.<br /><br />One night, investigating a murder, he unknowingly punches a suspect, Ken Paine (Craig Stevens) so hard that it kills him. A shaken Dixon does his best to cover it up, intending to frame a hated thug, Scalise (Gary Merrill) for the crime. However, the blame falls on Paine's father-in-law, Jiggs Taylor (Tom Tully), whose daughter, department store model Morgan Taylor (Tierney) is estranged from her husband but keeps getting drawn into his gambling schemes. Paine had slapped his wife, enraging her father, who did show up at his son-in-law's apartment, but not until Dixon had departed with the body. With no better suspects, Jiggs is arrested and charged.<br /><br />Riddled with guilt, Mark falls for Morgan and offers money for an attorney. He decides to take on Scalise anyway but leaves a letter to be given to the department in the event of his death, confessing everything. In the end, he cannot live with the knowledge with what he has done, and he permits the letter to be read by his superior and by Morgan. Despite all the tragic circumstances, Morgan professes her love for Mark and will wait for him.<br /><br />It was great to find this film on DVD, after so many years of televised obscurity. Eddie Mueller, a film noir historian, provides the commentary and does a good job, but I find his assertion that audiences wouldn't have caught the significance of the casting of the two leads, since "Laura" had been made six years earlier. In that respect, he is mistaken because they had appeared in "The Iron Curtain" two years prior to WTSE and the film was a box-office success.<br /><br />Andrews and Tierney were fabulous together, and Ruth Donnelly is tremendous comic relief as restaurant owner Martha, fanning the flames between the detective and the dame.<br /><br />The night cityscapes give the film an air of menace. Gary Merrill is great as the low-life Scalise, who had a criminal past with Dixon's dad ("Your father liked me," he taunts Mark). Karl Malden and a young Neville Brand are terrific also. And Tom Tully is just touching and funny as Morgan's unjustly accused pop.<br /><br />A watchable film noir with a fantastic cast. | 1 | positive |
I watched The Babysitter as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. I think it is a very good film.<br /><br />This movie packs a lot of story into a very short time. You have hippies, rock music, bikers, lesbians, sexual impropriety, blackmail, and murder, all in one spot! <br /><br />The lead actors do a credible job. And, I found the intricately woven plot to be believable and interesting.<br /><br />However, the supporting cast, primarily the bikers, delivers a stilted performance, particularly when asked to deliver lines with more than just a few words. Perhaps they used real bikers, instead of actors. A couple of the characters, in particular, were exceptionally believable.<br /><br />The musical score is absolutely spot-on, for the times, the tempo, and for moving the story forward. I found the music a real treat. I noticed in the opening credits that the movie featured the music of "The Food," I googled them; but, couldn't find anything...<br /><br />In any case, George E. Carey who wrote, produced and starred in this movie liked the idea so much (of a wayward married man brought to redemption through trials and tribulation; and, a little help - of course) that he wrote, produced and starred in "Weekend with the Babysitter." | 1 | positive |
There is no way to avoid a comparison between The Cat in the Hat and The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, so let's get that part out of the way. First of all, let me start by saying that I think Grinch was an underrated and unappreciated film. Cat was... well, just awful.<br /><br />Jim Carey was cast because he is a brilliant physical comedian, and fearlessly commits to over the top, outrageous characters. Mike Myers fell back on his old bag of tricks.<br /><br />Why, why, why Mike Myers?? The kids could care less, and the Austin Powers demographic isn't going to spy this film. So, what was the studio thinking?<br /><br />The Cat was also apparently related to Linda Richmond. Can we talk? Why a New York Accent? Not entirely consistent with anything Dr. Seuss has ever written. Myers was even allowed to sneak in his Scottish shtick. I wonder how many different voices the director and the studio tried to edit out of before they just gave in and said "as long as you don't say fahklempt', you can keep the accents." Meyers never seemed to find any sort of comfort, either with the costume, make-up, or dialogue.<br /><br />The jokes, what few there were, were crude and age inappropriate. When Myers picks up a garden hoe and delivers to the camera: "dirty ho", everything but the rim shot was missing, and even that wouldn't have helped.<br /><br />The same folks who created 'Whoville', clearly had a hand in the creation of the town and the houses in 'Cat'. The sets and props were very appealing, giving the viewer a much needed distraction from the bad writing, direction, and Myers.<br /><br />There was some fun to be had with Alec Baldwin and Kelly Preston. Dakota Fanning was the only actor who seemed to be aware she was in a movie based on a Dr. Seuss classic, and stayed true to the genre.<br /><br />Call the SPCA. This Cat should be neutered and never be allowed to reproduce again. Please, please, no sequel. | 0 | negative |
This very good movie crackles with tension. The stakes are, of course, high--will the police and Widmark, the public health doctor, apprehend the criminals who don't know that they are carrying plague before a full-scale epidemic breaks out? But smaller plot elements introduce tension in every scene--between Widmark and the police captain, between the bad guys played by Palance and Mostel, between Palance and a dying plague-stricken man whom Palance mistakenly believes is the subject of a manhunt because he has smuggled in some valuable commodity, between Widmark and his wife, and with the underlying question of whether the public is better served by informing them of the danger or hiding the situation to avoid a full-scale panic. The movie is beautifully shot by Kazan, in extraordinarily well-choreographed long takes shot on location in New Orleans, and ends in a stunning climax, where Palance flees like a rat from his pursuers, through the docks and warehouses of the city. The commentary is superb, probably the best that I've heard, covering the cinematography, the framing and lighting of shots, the production design, the casting of non-professional actors in small roles, and the ironies and parallelisms in the plot, like an insightful seminar on 1950s film techniques and film noir generally. Watch it once to enjoy the film on its own, and, if you are interested in film-making, a second time with the commentary on to learn. | 1 | positive |
Superman II - The Richard Donner Cut should be a fan's dream come true. At long last, footage only seen in photos and scenes that only existed on the printed page would finally come to life. A director that was unable to complete his vision would have the opportunity to have his vision restored. It seems like a winning situation. And then you start watching this assembly of footage and you realize this "esoteric dream" is a very real nightmare of sloppiness and incompetence. While it's entirely possible that no movie could compete with the finished perfect version each of us has imagined over the years it really should have been a thrill to finally see this project. And it is only a very few times.<br /><br />You know things are shaky when the very first bit of text on screen looks like home brew computer graphics. But then we start seeing new footage (alternates from Superman - The Movie for the trial) and that first bit of hesitation fades away. Hey, this is pretty neat! Things are alright for these few fleeting moments until we see footage from STM intermixed with new effects for this project, and it doesn't convince at all. And from this point on, it never ever lets up. It's probably not right to judge a movie because of bad visual effects, but when this is supposedly the direct follow up to a movie whose tag line was "You'll Believe A Man Can Fly" it's difficult to believe anything shown on screen here. The best effects in this are from the original productions.<br /><br />Another issue with this re-cut. A lot of it just doesn't make sense. The only reason any of it really works is because we've all seen the theatrical version of Superman II, a movie that does make sense. Lester's Superman II fills in the holes of this assembly. Part of this could be because Donner didn't get to complete shooting, the other part could be because the makers of this project were intent on using as little Lester material as possible. What we end up with is an assembly of footage that makes Superman IV look airtight and coherent.<br /><br />After viewing this, one gets the sense that while Lester was faithful and comfortable using Donner material, Michael Thau and his team were extremely disrespectful towards anything filmed by Lester. The best scenes in The Donner Cut are the ones lifted relatively intact from the released version of Superman II. That includes the moon sequence and the diner sequence, not ironically, both were filmed by Donner. But anything else from that movie filmed by Lester is re-edited in such a hasty fashion, that it now makes Lester seem like a ham fisted know nothing. While Lester honored the Donner material, Lester here is thrown under the bus.<br /><br />So is there anything good in this release? Well Marlon Brando is in it, and that's neat to see. In fact watching any of the material shot by Donner is neat since it was all filmed at the same time as Superman - The Movie. But that only highlights the problems of this release. Any of the major scenes (really just Lois jumping and scenes with Marlon Brando) would have been better served as completed scenes in a deleted scenes section. Instead they are shoe horned into a nonsensical narrative with inferior performances (many alternate takes from familiar scenes are used) sloppy edits and bad decisions.<br /><br />Watch the opening scene at the Daily Planet. Why are we looking at Jackie Cooper's back as he calls for Lois and Clark? At the end why do we have Lois walking into her dark apartment only to have that followed by Jackie Cooper walking into a dark bathroom turning the lights on? I was initially confused by this, because I expected to see Lois. The entire assembly is filled with questionable choices like this.<br /><br />Battle scenes are a mess too, with no geography between cuts. It's just random action. Of course, the major action scenes were shot by Lester and his material is only used as a bridge to the next set of Donner outtakes or alternates. They should have used more of Lester's footage, but probably had too much pride to admit that.<br /><br />The sloppiness extends to the military missile as well. As noted elsewhere, the missile shown in The Donner Cut bears the designation "XK 10" while we all know it's the "XK 101"! A blind man in STM knows that! The producers of this assembly, who tried so hard to honor the original film, dropped the ball less than five minutes in and that mistake is indicative of the quality of the entire production. For all the supposed care that was put into this, the final product has an air of shoddiness to it that is inescapable.<br /><br />The entire affair would probably be easier to digest if Warner's didn't make this a separate release here in the states. As it is, we're expected to pay for what is essentially a bonus disc of deleted scenes with a "Play All" option. It's really only worth one viewing so that we can finally see the legendary cut scenes, but after that initial viewing, I expect that this will be an excellent magnet for dust and little else. I know after my experience of watching this, I had new respect for Lester's version. It's by no means perfect, but Lester realized the deficiencies that were in the script that stand out here in bold relief. He managed to make a movie that has entertained for many years and will continue to do so, while this new re-cut will most likely only be remembered as a footnote in that films history. | 0 | negative |
You know you're in trouble when the film your watching has numerous alternate titles. Generally it means that they tried and retried to hide the turkey in various markets. Such a turkey is The Brain Machine which has seven different titles.<br /><br />Its about some super secret government project that is suppose to be able to use a computer to read people but instead it drives people to kill each other or themselves, or something like that. Its filled with B level TV actors sitting in paneled room with lawn chairs trying to act a script that makes almost no sense.<br /><br />Its a turkey of the untastey kind. Avoid it. | 0 | negative |
What reviewers and MST3K left out is the best part (and only memorable scene) of this otherwise dreadful movie: There is a very good rape-in-the-shower scene committed by the bad guy (Ben Gazzara look-alike) on Maria (as mentioned, killed later through T.J.'s ineptitude). Perhaps rape is too strong a word, "prison mating ritual" may be more appropriate. The background behind this chance, yet forced meeting is the mobster who is hiding "Ben Gazzara," introduces him to the girls hanging out at his pool. The 30-ish blonde disses him, but our villain must be quite smitten by her, because the courtship is on at that point. His first move is to attempt drowning her, until his mafia don benefactor tells him to knock it off. Kind of like the girl in high school you didn't like, but still wanted to have carnal knowledge of anyway... Let's just say, he catches UP with her in the cabana later. | 0 | negative |
Platoon is to the Vietnam War as Rocky IV is to heavyweight championship boxing. Oliver Stone's story of the experience of a US Army platoon in Vietnam in 1968 is so overdone it's laughable. While most or all of the occurrences in Platoon did occur over the 10+ year span of US military involvement in Vietnam, to portray these things happening to one small group of men in such a short time frame (weeks) gives a horribly skewed picture of the war. In Platoon, the men of the platoon see all of the following in the course of a week or two: US soldiers murdering civilians, US Soldiers raping civilians, a US Sergeant murdering another US Sergeant, a US Private murdering a US Staff Sergeant, US soldiers killed/wounded by friendly fire, 90%+ killed or wounded in the platoon. For Stone to try to pass this film off as the typical experience of a US soldier in Vietnam is a disgrace. Two Vietnam War films I would recommend are We Were Soldiers (the TRUE story of arguably the worst battle for US soldiers in Vietnam) and HBO's A Bright Shining Lie. | 0 | negative |
I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, "Burning Moon". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, "Premutos" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially "Braindead". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in "Bad Taste", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it) | 0 | negative |
well i wasn't sure what the film was going to be like as i had only seen a little clip but i was thinking its going to be good and i was right i watched it twice on the day i got it and well it is my favourite film.<br /><br />i think Alison Lohan played the part of beth really well she is such a grate actress and the writer must have gone into a lot of research to find out about bulimia although the ending when beth is in the hospital an has 2 Horus observation after meals because iv been told like 1 house is OK and also that hospitals doesn't help bulimics as iv been told which is probably why I'm still at home even tho my sister and mum would like to have me hospitalised as i to have bulimia but this is a grate film i recommend it to any one with or with out an eating disorder or for people who know some one with eating disorders as it can let them in to the lives of a bulimic person and see the world how they do a bit over all a grate film and i recommend it to any one and any type of person | 1 | positive |
THis movie may be the worst movie I have ever seen. Basically it is right above Leprachaun 5, the only difference is that it missing Ice T. The scene where he does the chick with the carrott...priceless. Oh yeah they made a second one, genius | 0 | negative |
The late 30s and early 40s were a golden age for adventure movies, what with the rise in budgets during the economic recovery, the changes to screen entertainment since the production code became enforced and the general carefree optimism of the times. While most of these were rip-roaring swashbucklers about the wild, superhuman and often frankly misogynistic exploits of heartthrobs like Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power, Gunga Din is very different in its focus, scope and tone.<br /><br />Part of Gunga Din's secret is the division of labour in its writing team. The original story is by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, two of the most skilled and celebrated writers of Hollywood's golden age. However the actual screenplay was the work of Joel Sayre and Fred Guiol, both of whom, Guiol especially, had a background in comedy. What we get from these four is a plot that is well-balanced and engaging, yet also cleverly spiced up with comical touches. Most of the adventure flicks of this time were at least partly comedies, usually featuring one or two comic-relief supporting players, but they didn't use laughs in the way Gunga Din does. Here, all the main characters are capable of being objects or originators of jokes. We see the sinister menace of the bad guys suddenly diffused as the scene dissolves into a light-hearted brawl. The first main battle scene is an even-handed blend of action and gags, in the style of the silent swashbucklers of Douglas Fairbanks, Sr., something which the Flynn and Power vehicles largely failed to replicate. Towards the middle of Gunga Din the action must necessarily take a break and there are lots of talky scenes for the sake of the plot. However the continual forays into comedy such as the spiked punch routine make this "slow" portion bearable.<br /><br />Producer-director George Stevens was a natural when it came to this sort of thing, himself having cut his teeth at the Hal Roach studios, and almost exclusively having directed comedy up to this point. This was his first full-on action feature, and he does a startlingly good job. In particular his use of moving point-of-view shots make the battle scenes extra exhilarating. He also brings something you seldom see in action pictures of this era a sense of real dread and fear. He sets this up with those stark and foreboding mountains dominating many of the shots and dwarfing the characters. The portrayal of the abandoned village and the Thuggee cultists cry of "Kali!" is genuinely haunting. This dimension of fear plays into all the other emotions that are at work here, causing us to worry for these likable characters, and making the comedy a greater relief of tension.<br /><br />A real touch of genius is in the way the eponymous hero is introduced to the audience. We are made aware of Din visually, as he is prominent in a number of scenes before any of the characters actually address him or verbally refer to him. Because of this, we are given the impression that Din is not an important figure within the regiment, but he quickly becomes a notable character to us, and crucially a sympathetic one, as we see him risking his life and giving water to dying men.<br /><br />But the best efforts of writers and directors are all for nought without a capable cast. Fear not, for Gunga Din has a top-notch one! Victor McLaglan and Cary Grant were ideally suited to the material, since their best roles were generally found somewhere on the spectrum between drama and comedy. Grant in particular is at his best, largely believable but just occasionally breaking into that over-the-top whooping and capering that was his trademark. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. is not quite up to the standard of his heavyweight companions, but he is by no means bad. And of course there is Sam Jaffe, cursed by his looks to forever play these wizened little oddballs, but who else could play them with such dignity and humanity? I have not set out to bash the swashbuckling adventures of Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power, and indeed many of their pictures are absolute classics that I love absolutely. But Gunga Din does things that even the best of those swashbucklers could never achieve. Not only does it dispense with the dashing male lead or the clichéd defiant damsel, it successfully merges the action genre with comedy and poignancy, in a way that few pictures have done before or since. And that's fabulous. | 1 | positive |
This movie is incredible.With great characters,specially the old swordsman that can fly in the shape of fireball and jump across the trees,this film tells a classic story of battle between good and forces of evil.The final showdown is specially breathtaking and the music score is kinda cool.<br /><br />Very,very recommendable.Not for the smallest children though.This one deserves a 10. | 1 | positive |
I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original. | 0 | negative |
If it wasn't for some immature gullible idiot I know insisting that I watch this "documentary" I would never have seen this comedy! This film is full of bad scripting and laughable moments. One in particular is where the Afghan police / soldiers arrest Don Larson for filming in the streets while they allow the cameraman to carry on filming his arrest and then drive away, still filming, presumably to his plush hotel. Then there's the scene where a car crashes into another car which has been turned upside down and parked nicely on the side of the road without any evidence of it being in a crash or explosion.<br /><br />I am surprised this has currently got the rating it has (5.8 / 10). I thought IMDb users had more sense. | 0 | negative |
Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic "psychology" of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the "wicked capitalistic" that wants sing up him in "La notte", or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in "La aventura", or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film. <br /><br />I have reviewed yesterday "Zabriskie Point". In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find "something different". - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the "object women" in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!<br /><br />Sorry, today, half a century after the "revolution" of "La Aventura" we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except "Le amiche" and perhaps "Il grido") are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces. | 0 | negative |
I cant believe blockbuster carries this movie. It was SO BAD. I was totally fooled by the box art. DON'T BE FOOLED!! Its not worth your time I promise you. I don't know if the positive reviews for this flick were a joke or what. I am so disappointed. :( <br /><br />The description on the back of the box doesn't even match! The girl that has the voodoo done on her is a stripper. The synopsis on the back says she is only 17. Did the people writing the description for the film even bother to watch it!? Those positive reviews had to be a joke they just had to be. If anyone actually liked this flick then I've lost all faith in humanity.<br /><br />And don't even get me started on the story compared to the title. Or the fact that the entire movie was done all in 2 locations. Or that the cops didn't even have close to real uniforms. Why would i even say that?? Who cares about the cops uniforms!? Compared to the rest of the movie the uniforms were spot on. <br /><br />This movie is an insult to the zombie genre and all of its fans. | 0 | negative |
*WARNING* Possible spoilers below<br /><br />The film is more boring then anything else. There seems to be some attempt to build tension through badly lit shots of empty rooms and empty lawns, but none of it works.<br /><br />MST3K did a fairly good job with it, but on its own the movie is mostly tedious.<br /><br />Funny moments:<br /><br />When the fake skull rolls out of a pile of ashes, the wife becomes hysterical and woozy while the husband (who is trying to drive the wife crazy) says in a deadpan voice "There is no skull there, there's no skull."<br /><br />When the real ghost-skulls have the husband caught in a pickle, as if trapped between first and second base. | 0 | negative |
Well, I'd heard from somewhere that Ossessione is a precursor to the Italian film genre, and particular favourite of mine, the 'Giallo'...but actually, aside from the fact that this is a thriller that was made in Italy; the two have pretty much no relation. In the sixties and seventies, Italian film-makers would get themselves a reputation for ripping off just about every successful American film released. They've not done that here, but Ossessione does follow almost the exact same story as the later American film 'The Postman Always Rings Twice', without giving the book's author, James M. Cain, so much as a credit! Anyway, the plot focuses on Gino Costa, a handsome drifter who, by chance, stumbles upon a café where a woman named Giovanna Bragana works. He soon learns that she's married to Giuseppe; a big fat annoying man, whom Giovanna can't stand to have even touching her. He wants the pair of them to run away together, but she's not so keen on the idea. However, fate ends up intervening and her plan to have her husband murdered is successful...<br /><br />Despite the fact that the film loses some credibility for not crediting the author whose story it's based on, it has to be said that director Luchino Visconti implements the film noir style well, and in a way I even prefer the atmosphere of this film to some of the bigger American noir classics. The story is, as you would expect, extremely strong and the Visconti manages to pull good performances out of his cast. Visconti drags the film out a little bit too much, however, and with a running time of almost 135 minutes, I felt that the story was too thin to warrant this kind of length. I almost feel guilty for levelling all this criticism at Ossessione as it IS a good film, but it's not a 'great' film. The relationship between the two central characters is never really explored properly, and it seems like the film is keener to distract us from it rather than let us into the characters' heads. There's not much mystery to the plot as we pretty much always know what's going on, and by not always focusing on the characters themselves; the film is not as interesting as it could have been. Still, it makes for an interesting viewing and comes recommended for that reason...although it's not as good as the 1946 version of the same James M. Cain classic. | 1 | positive |
Yesterday, I went alone to the cinema, because here in Mexico, most of the times movies from other countries are part of the so called "camára alternativa" (alternative camera). But after I saw this movie, I realized that not all the foreign movies are alternative. Afortunately, this is a good a example. But I have to said that I enjoyed so much this movie.. that at the end I was happy.. this movie is a little spoon of hope in these days. And the main lesson for me.. is that at the end of the day...the love is main force behind us. This is a good option to see a good movie in Spanish...and I have to mention the good music.. specially the main song of the movie.. Cosas que hacen que la vida valga la pena.... Excellent song!!! | 1 | positive |
You may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but Spielberg didn't deserve to win any Oscar for this piece, and I think the Academy was right in that vote. (Other Oscars for best actor nominations and such... that I don't know about. But it would be hard to justify, given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product.) The way Spielberg directs this is so contrived, so meddlesome. While watching this movie a distinction made during a Film as Art course I have taken was screaming at me: "Sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. Sentimentality is sugary and unreal, a false view of life." This is over-the-top sentimentality. When in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity, as Celie and Shug Avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from Nettie they have found? There are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film: all the men crowding around Miss Millie's car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away; Harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he's working on (a cheap slapstick gag); the whole troop of revelers heading from the Jook Joint en masse to the chapel, as if magically entranced by the choir's singing... on and on. Nothing rings true. I even wondered if Harpo's name was chosen purposefully because it's his wife Sophia's real name, "Oprah," backwards. Spielberg isn't above such "cuteness."<br /><br />It's not that Spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. Schindler's List was amazing, deeply touching for me, and I greatly admire Saving Private Ryan too for its realism, even if the story is a bit contrived. | 0 | negative |
I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and besides being a feature-length film (a true fan wants to see as little left out as possible and that can only be achieved in a mini-series) it was really great. Gwyneth Paltrow really captures the slightly clueless but well-intentioned rich girl and Jeremy Northam IS Mr. Knightly with his poise and nobility. I wasn't thrilled with Ewan McGregor even though I like him very much as an actor but didn't feel it spoiled the movie at all. Like I said, as a Jane Austen fan there were things I would have liked to have seen included that weren't but that would have made it much longer than permissible for a feature length film and as it was I felt they really encapsulated the story well. I've seen every adaptation of this book and felt this was the best one! | 1 | positive |
Pyare Mohan can be safely included in the blacklist of one of the worst-ever films made by mankind. The film, one of the many handicapped-people flicks that arose after the phenomenal success of Black is makes a mockery of the handicapped fraternity. Vivek Oberoi and Fardeen Khan are mere caricatures of handicapped people. While Black portrayed the poignancy and emotions of a handicapped woman and gave us a glimpse of her world, Pyare Mohan shows two desperado-like monkeys who have no qualms about being handicapped and bash up half of the world to protect their love interests. Anu Malik's music is fair enough. Vivek Oberoi who made a promising start with Saathiya is sadly losing his balls quickly in Hindi cinema. Fardeen Khan was never an acceptable actor and deserves to be banned from the film industry. Amrita Rao and Esha Deol are just pretty damsels in distress having nightmarish times in Thialnd with no one to save them - except for the afore-mentioned desperados. Boman Irani, as the villainous Don Toni, is somewhat acceptable. Avoid the film if possible. | 0 | negative |
I really must watch a good movie soon, because it seems every other entry or so is something that I despise. However my history speaks, I must not tell a lie. Bobby Deerfield and everything about it sucks big green banana peels. I never thought that I would see a film thud as thunderously as this one did. Al Pacino isn't acting in this film: he's posing. There are many, many scenes of his character, who is a race car driver, just staring at the camera. He's perfectly awful. Marthe Keller is just as bad. These two are supposed to be in a love affair, and there is simply no chemistry whatsoever. Sydney Pollack directed this film? There's no trace of the genius behind Tootsie here. Is this the same man I cheered for in Eyes Wide Shut? I can hardly believe it. Save yourself a horrible movie experience. Run, don't walk, away from Bobby Deerfield. | 0 | negative |
I was so disgusted by this film, I felt obligated to warn off others. This film has no story, plot or hint of purpose. The film starts after the standard "lets be scary" movie intro, which by now every film watcher has become accustomed. So we can ignore the beginning completely. We are soon introduced to the main actress and from this point it becomes clear to all that you have just wasted your hard earned and would be better off watching static. (Unless you have seen white noise - EEK) Acting is a DISGRACE and all of them should return to the travelling pantomime from where they came. Having said that, even the best actors in the world would struggle to make this film remotely watch able. Their poor performances merely contribute to the disaster. Senseless violence and what I can only assume is the written word of yet another junked up "eccentric" writer, who probably considers himself to be an artist, has resulted in a film which will test your patience. It was not until my fellow watcher turned to me and said, "We have been watching this for 45 mins" did I realise that this film is as thin and tasteless as a cup of tea without a tea bag. Clearly something was missing and unfortunately it wasn't the audience. Rather than suggest what the film is missing, let me tell you what it has: Dumb Blonde (surprise surprise), Victims, bad-monster-guy-thing, about 2 mins of storyline which is stretched over hours, days, weeks, months... and credits.<br /><br />Want a silver lining? Well, the blonde girl is a bit saucy looking in some of the scenes, but expect to want to see her face ripped off for the rest of the film! | 0 | negative |
With one of my very favorite actors, James Spader, I expected this film to be at least tolerable. It wasn't. After the first half hour I watched the rest of it with the remote control in my hand so the fast forward was at the ready. So trite, so standard, one knows what's going to happen in each scene. One can even predict the dialogue word for word. This is one of those movies that makes one scratch ones head and say, "How did this movie ever get made?" In an effort to say something positive, I'll add that there are some mildly entertaining special effects. But, on the whole, if you've seen 5 Sci/fi movies, or you are over 9 years old, do yourself a favor and skip this one. | 0 | negative |
Easily the best known of all the Shakespeare plays, it has been seriously let down here. Shoddy direction, stagnant studio work and erratic performances spoil a fine tragedy.<br /><br />In the town of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have been feuding for centuries but tragedy is imminent when Romeo (Patrick Rycart), a Montague, falls in love with Juliet (Rebecca Saire), a Capulet. Bloodshed soon erupts...<br /><br />The studio work, especially in daytime scenes, seriously stagnates the energy of the play. It's a story that, with it's energy, deserves to be shot outdoors. Coupled with this the costumes are hideous, with too many tights and ludicrous codpieces. The stage fighting looks horrendous, with far too much stretching and running around to be engaging.<br /><br />Patrick Ryecart is too lightweight to be a truly effective Romeo. He manages the character's intensity when the plot gets going but his stately accent and bland, often inexpressive eyes limit his range. It is very hard for the audience to relate to this Romeo. Rebecca Saire is too youthful to be a good Juliet - she captures the character's naiveté but a little more sassiness would have been welcome.<br /><br />The supporting roles don't fare much better. Joseph O'Connor's Friar Laurence is fine but too many of his best lines have been cut. Anthony Andrews' Mercutio belongs on stage and not on camera. He gurns and gesticulates excessively and looks rather ridiculous as a result. Alan Rickman, underplaying his role, has virtually no presence as Tybalt. He did develop an edge and intensity to deliver some fine screen performances in later years, but that isn't in evidence here. The Prince can be a fine role with his brief appearances but actor Lawrence Naismith fails to give the part any authority on camera. Only Micheal Hordern, in probably his best role in this series, comes out of this with any dignity. His Capulet is well-played and a joy to watch.<br /><br />See one of the other versions of this story instead. | 0 | negative |
I remember watching the Disney version and watching it now makes me think it has somehow lost its magic touch. Plenty of other renditions, Ever After put aside, of Cinderella, have, in fact, lost their touch throughout the years. Then I found this production with a flawless performance by Kathleen Turner as the evil stepmother and was blown away by the phantasmagorical essence of this fantasy story that has cast me under its spell since childhood.<br /><br />We all know the story of Cinderella, a young girl who's father died and was dominated by her wicked stepmother and stepdaughters and longs to go to the ball for one last chance for freedom. But this plot line takes a different twist in the classic Fairy Tale by causing Cinderella (whose real name is Zizola, and is only called Cinderella by her family because of her slavery) to be trapped in a situation of her father (who still lives) slowly losing himself to a dominant wife who manipulates him into playing favorites with his wife and step-daughters against his own and tries to poison him. Thus, Zizola goes out to save her father by stopping her stepmother from finding another suitor at the ball by distracting the men who come her way. There, the bored Prince Valiant has a change of heart from his dull life and falls in love with the mysterious lady in the strange dress (forged by a water nymph named Mab) with rose petals for slippers. <br /><br />What drew me to this film most of all was it's original take on the old Fairy Tale that none can compare to. It does not weave a web of lies like most Cinderella stories, it does not ignore any reason as to why Cinderella would want to attend the ball and nor does it show a shallow side to the Prince as the Disney version did. Instead it shows more of Cinderella's selfless heart more than any other production and the artwork is simply stunning! The costumes are all beautifully made, especially Zizola's sapphire blue ballgown to match the Marcella Plunkett's fantastical beauty and soft, spirit-like voice. <br /><br />I would highly suggest this film for anyone who is interested in a dream-like sequence of the classic Fairy Tale with an interesting twist. My only problem is that the producers and director did not make a full collection of other Fairy Tales with this same element and the fact that the film is now out of print. | 1 | positive |
This is my favorite Jackie Chan movie and in an interview, Jackie said it was his favorite as well. It contains some unbelievable stunts and jaw dropping fight sequences as well as some very funny scenes as well. This movie was a favorite of Brandon Lee, who used parts in Rapid Fire, and was also lifted in Tango and Cash, which used some of the opening scenes.<br /><br />Jackie plays a policeman in Hong Kong. The story immediately jumps into a fantastic chase through a shanty town and continues as Jackie slides down a hill and jumps onto a moving bus to catch the evil Ku (who is one of the greatest villains in any Jackie Chan movie.) You can expect some very funny scenes as Jackie tries to balance his duty as a policeman with his girl friend, played by Maggie Chung. His job is to protect Ku's secretary who has enough information to take him down, but even that poses many problems. Jackie is at his absolute best here. The last fight scene at the mall is my favorite fight scene by anyone - period. It was the most intense fight I have ever seen Jackie do and climaxes in a slide down a pole amidst exploding lights. All in all, one of his greatest stunts he ever did and left him with skin pealed off his hands. He was fortunate he was not electrocuted as the person in charge of the stunt used high voltage instead of a lower voltage.<br /><br />All in all, another Chan classic and definitely one of his greatest movies. By the end of this movie, you can tell he held absolutely nothing back and neither did his stuntmen. So many of his stuntmen were injured during this movie that nobody would insure them anymore - Jackie had to take responsibility himself. There are no gimmicks, wires or stand-ins - it is all true-life action that is a treat to watch. It is this type of action that made him the phenomenon that he is and it is a movie that will amaze people 100 years from now. If you have not seen this movie and are a fan of Jackie Chan or action in general, give yourself a treat and watch this movie. It is truly sensational. | 1 | positive |
Trite, clichéd dialog and plotting (the same kind of stuff we saw all through the 1980s fantasy movies), hokey music, and a paint-by-numbers characters knocks this out of the running for all but the most hardcore fans.<br /><br />What saves this film from the junk heap is the beautiful crutch of Bakshi's work, the rotoscoping, and the fact that Frank Frazetta taught the animators how to draw like him. This is Frazetta...in motion. The violence is spectacular and the art direction and animation are unlike any other sword & sorcery movie of the period.<br /><br />I like to watch this with the sound off, playing the soundtrack to the first Conan movie instead. | 0 | negative |
A lot is dated in this episode (just like most Twilight Zone episodes), such as the Woman's incredibly sexist military "uniform." And some things are so unbelievable, like the easy availability of clean water. Still, consider the year this was made and the time, and you quickly understand why this episode is so special as you watch. It has a nice sense of hope, something missing from a lot of Twilight Zones, as well as an interesting female character (despite the fact that she rarely speaks), something else rare on the Twilight Zone. "Two" is a great example of how the Twilight Zone, in just over 20 minutes, could pack more emotion and drama than most two hours movies today. And it's great to see two people who became American icons so early in their careers. | 1 | positive |
This movie was so bad it was laughable. I couldn't resist watching it though. The plot is standard, the acting quite horrible (supporting cast such as the nutty neighbor and the lawyer friend were better actors). Kind of amusing if you have some time to waste and like seeing the conclusion to a dramatic plot.<br /><br />The headliner who plays "Kathy" was just fascinating because I couldn't decide if her deadpan, flat affect was the result of bad surgery or simply bad acting (I decided it was both). This leaves the script to comment on, which was pretty awful. Pat remarks, idiotic decisions, and reckless stupidity on the part of every character in the movie. Maybe this is what was so riveting; I don't know. I just watched it to see how bad it could be. (Actually the dialog doesn't even qualify to be called "cliche'" - but it's almost completely inane.)<br /><br />All in all, very bad, cheaply made movie. The sets, the same scenes (a house, a building) were shown over and over with no artistry or actual tie-in to the action; more like props that were randomly dropped into the action in a bad play. A chase scene could have been shot by any juvenile in a warehouse or an old school: poorly shot, cheap props, minimal action.... and I still wanted to see the ending. Go figure. | 0 | negative |
Many reviews I've read reveals that most people tend to like Part One better than Part Two. I feel exactly the opposite. Part One played around a bit much with trying to find different ways of showing Che Guevara's personality through different types of film stock, different locations, and cutting back and forth between an interview and the Cuban revolution. For the most part it was structured finely but somewhat distracting. In Part Two, Che enters Bolivia, and along with changing geographical location, the rules and the structure changes. Gone are the spacial jumps and switching between stocks, the "documentary realism" and the treatises. Instead, now we are literally trapped with Che in a desaturated, depopulated landscape where the only people who exist are burdened too far with their lives for anything but survival to be an option. I posit that it's the dark turn of Che's life that is the real reason why most people prefer Part One to Part Two.<br /><br />The change in geographic location also signifies, for me at least, that Che: Part One and Che: Part Two are, in fact, the second two acts of a three act structure begun by Motorcycle Diaries. Motorcycle Diaries is Che's coming-of-age (or more appropriately, coming-of-ideals) in Argentina, Che: Part One is his military leadership in Cuba, and Che: Part Two is his downfall in Bolivia. These movies do not completely illustrate his life (we're missing his experiences in Guatamala and, more importantly in my opinion, his post-Cuban revolution executions), but they create a very detailed exploration into the controversial aspects of his character and nature as worldwide symbol. He both symbolizes the idealism and need for armed resistance to oppression, and revolutionary failings in the post-World War II third world countries and their hindering by such activities as, um, the CIAs meddling.<br /><br />But, yet again, all of that is projected on-screen in this case not through long scenes of dialog and speeches, but through a much more intimate, suffering portrayal of Che at the end of his thread and his life. Again, the rules have changed, and in this case it's hard to tell if there was any chance of success at all. The number of times the camera shows people literally trapped between a rock and a hard place and the desaturated, shaky long takes involves the audience into the narrative of people imprisoned in a hostile landscape, an existential hell, where revolutionary beliefs ultimately end up taking second tier to the desperation of hunted people starving to death. It's just not that easy of a movie to watch, but it's very effective.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 1 | positive |
One of the ten best comedies ever <br /><br />This seems a comedy so joyous and light that sings. Keaton's comedies are _innerly, harmoniously, intelligently ordered, thought.<br /><br />Wonderfully amusing, deliberately delightful and inventive, THREE AGES should belong to a draft of a comedies top ten if I were to sketch one. A threefold love story will enchant the viewers; I want to bring here this approachKeaton's comedy is like Lang's DESTINY upsidedownor À REBOURS. Again a couple traverses the waters of timeand of epochsin the Stone Age, in Rome and in Keaton's timesin a Mohammedan country, in Renaissance Italy and in China. The same device works in the both moviesone, a grim, eerie melodrama; --the other, a light, virtuouslypaced comedy. At Keaton it's essentially the same couple; and maybe the same is with Lang. The babe desired by both Buster and Beery is nice. I have found THREE AGES well written and smart, without being ostentatiously sophisticated; the plot is basically very POPEYElikethe babe is a piece of furniture, the only protagonists are the two male rivalsKeaton and Beery.<br /><br />Keaton's movie is simply enormously likable, and perhaps one would be tempted to assert this looks like ambitious funyet it's not, but it is grand fun, large fun, ample fun. And Wallace Beery makes a fine nemesis. | 1 | positive |
This is truly one from the "Golden Age" of Hollywood, the kind they do not make anymore. It is an unique, fun movie that keeps you guessing what is going to happen next. <br /><br />All the actors are perfectly cast and they are all great supporting actors. This is the first movie I saw with Ronald Colman in it and I have been a fan of his ever since. Reginald Gardiner has always been a favorite supporting actor of mine and adds a certain quality to every movie he is in. While he played a different kind of character here, he still added something to the movie that another actor cast in this character would not have added. | 1 | positive |
This should be required viewing for all young people. This is documentary at its best, from the haunting music and terrific narration by Olivier to its unflinching and penetrating analyses, The World at War is unforgettable and irreplaceable for anyone who wants to know about humanity's sorry experience at the nadir of the 20th century. | 1 | positive |
This series was just like what you would expect from Mr.Spielberg. It is truly one of those frighting, funny, childish shows that you won't forget. Just like Outer Limits (another great show) this little series does what not a lot can. It was great, and deserved to run longer. It was a great show, that even kids could watch, though some of the shows were a little scary when they wanted to be, but all of them always had a moral at the end (like the Twilight Zone) that made you realize what situation you didn't want to end up in, or ones that you did. I remember watching some of these on Sci-fi when I was 10, and even now, I still enjoy seeing them when I can. Truly a fun, imaginative show. I loved it, and still do. | 1 | positive |
You know Jason, you know Freddy, and you know Leatherface. Now, get ready for: The Safety Pin Killer! That's right, in Killer Workout, a dumb slasher movie if I've ever seen one, the unseen murderer dispatches his (or her?) victims with an oversized, novelty safety pin. It is an odd choice to be sure, the kind of thing that deserves an explanation. Naturally, the movie never even attempts to clarify where the killer acquired such a thing.<br /><br />As the title suggests, an aerobics gym is under siege by a mad killer and everyone is a suspect. In fact, the movie gives so few clues as to the identity of the killer, just about everyone in the movie is a potential murderer until they get killed. And since just about everyone but the killer winds up dead, it's really just process of elimination. <br /><br />Oddly, while the entire name cast is killed off, the aerobics classes continue in earnest. In fact, nothing is capable of stopping the dancing. While three men are murdered in the next room, the workout goes on. Death isn't even a factor; one character dies, but is still seen prominently in the later workout sessions. Director David Prior knew what he was doing when named the movie Killer Workout and not Logical Workout.<br /><br />Cop chases, explosive tanning beds, and hundreds of shots of women's exposed flesh are thrown in for good measure. Much like the woman caught in the tanning bed, I felt very uncomfortable by the end of Killer Workout. Finally, thankfully, THE END flashed on the screen. What happened next? You got it, shots of the women working out. Not even the end of the movie can stop them!<br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
1st watched 12/6/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Walter Lang): Disappointing musical from a character development standpoint, in my opinion, from this much-heralded Rodgers and Hammerstein piece. There a couple of good songs and a decent comical portrayal, at times, of the King of Siam by Yul Brynner -- but the movie doesn't really do a good job of presenting the situation and the settings. I can only blame the screenplay and possibly some of the acting as to why we don't fully understand the character's and their situations. I know it might be a little too much to ask of a musical meant for the enjoyment of the songs and the dancing, but even this part didn't stand out a lot for me. The basic storyline is about an English woman coming to Siam to teach the children about upscale European things. We find out later that the King is actually the biggest pupil. There is a side forbidden romance between the King's newest wife, played by Rita Moreno(a latino as an Arab--come on!!) and a former lover that causes some complications but nothing really mesmerizing added though. Deborah Kerr, as the main female character Annie -- is OK but not that convincing either. The King learns some things because of her presence and then the movie fades away as he does. This is really a miniscule story with some songs and dancing but not that great of an experience for a viewer really. | 0 | negative |
About the baby: Why wasn't big brother assuming he'd be hungry for a bottle or some nourishment or a diaper change? He should have been screaming non-stop after that many hours without care. Definitely stupid to take the baby from a safe place when he didn't need to.<br /><br />And why was the road miraculously clear whenever anyone wanted to drive somewhere? Didn't any uprooted trees fall on the roads and block them?<br /><br />I can't imagine the cops at the roadblock not immediately following after any young person who would crash it, especially when they said it was dangerous to go there.<br /><br />That being said, it was nice to have a movie children could safely watch, for a change. | 0 | negative |
This has to be the WORST movie ever!!! The acting is scarier than the movie. Lots of blood, but no idea where it comes from, cuz they don't even show you the cuts. I can't believe I wasted my time watching this movie. We laughed like we were watching a comedy and not a horror movie. This is a disgrace to horror films!!! For one if they are in Asia why is there a white cop driving past Waste Management trash cans?! There's so much of another language that you don't even know what's going on half the time. The film editing is a joke, my teenager could do better. And if I went to a movie theater and that nasty old man was working the window that would be the first clue. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! NOT TO EVEN SEE HOW BAD IT IS, YOU WILL BE SORRY YOU DID!! | 0 | negative |
I usually enjoy films like this. It's shot documentary style, but the acting and writing are just awful. The acting is wooden and stiff and the writing is just so cliché, but not at all in a good way. As of typing this, I'm surprised it's at a 5.2/10 on IMDb. I'm certain that most of these votes must have come from relatives of people in the movie. I suppose if that's the case, you might manage a couple of laughs, as it's always funny seeing your relatives/friends make a movie. Well, in a way, I guess this gives hope to all up and coming writers, directors, actors, etc., 'cause if they can do it, you can do it. Although, maybe you shouldn't. | 0 | negative |
the acting itself wasn't even that bad, since it did't come to mind in the movie but whatever had this director in mind? the intended climb towards some climax completely missed the mark,..<br /><br />almost all scenes involve acting that stand so far from our own intentions and way of reacting on things that you don't really attach to any actor in the movie,..<br /><br />Empty silences,..In this case, see through cheap method of boasting your way into potential metaphorical brilliance,..which just wasn't here at all,..<br /><br />I guess I'm bitching but shit,..2 hours of my time,.. | 0 | negative |
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers came out in 1993, supposedly based on the Japanese sentai television show that started back in the 1970s. Now as a fan of Japanese action films and series, you would think I would get a kick out of this show.<br /><br />You could not be more wrong. What worked in the Japanese version has become a complete abomination of television with mighty morphin power rangers.<br /><br />MMPR is based on five teenagers who get powers to becomes costumed superheroes with robotic dinosaurs who form an even bigger robot.<br /><br />Now this premise is more far fetched and more laughable than anything in either Transformers movie, yet, the ridiculousness of this show is often overlooked.<br /><br />It was followed by two really bad, and I do mean, really bad movie knock offs, and the actors starring in this series, completely disappeared from the scene.<br /><br />If you must choose, try watching Japan's Zyuranger series instead.<br /><br />Also, what's up with the awful long 1990s haircuts and all the earrings on the guys? It makes them all look feminine! | 0 | negative |
Final Score: 0 (out of 10)<br /><br />***Possible scene specific spoilers (but who the hell cares)***<br /><br />Yes, that's right: zero. And I rarely give 1's. Even for the lamest of movies I look for things like music, cinematography, imagination, it's humor, even a good pace to be as objective about the score as possible. Looking at it within it's own genera or subgenera. But there is absolutely nothing redeeming here. I can't remember another time a movie actually sent me pacing up and down the room when it was over. The only reason I made it to the end was because I couldn't seem to change the channel - I sat there simply aghast, watching to see what insultingly stupid bit it would come up with next. It was like watching a snake digest a rat. <br /><br />But let's have some fun and pull this baby apart, shall we. First of all, There is nothing technical about "Whipped" that works. The visuals are all sitcom style. The cut scenes all just pictures of the street traffic going by at night over and over. The music and score, not only doesn't contribute anything to the movie - it's obnoxious. Not to mention it doesn't have anything to contribute to anyway. The acting is as cardboard as it comes, all around and that goes for Amanda Peet (clearly the "star" that got this train wreck green-lighted) too. These guys, supposedly good friends, have no more chemistry or sense of purpose then if director Peter M. Cohen had rounded them up at a bus station minutes before shooting.<br /><br />On the creative side, there isn't an original bone in it's body. It has no imagination. It shows us nothing we haven't seen a thousand times before. The whole premise, or "twist", of this movie is based on male-bashing and the "idea" that an empowered women can play men "just as they get played". Anybody, that thinks this is somehow a twist or is in any way original has obviously never turned on a TV before. Twisted, shallow women are common. Male-bashing is the norm. It's not stealing from anything specifically, it's worse: it's stealing from clichés. I can't imagine a women making a movie that depicted other women based so much on stereotypes and with this sense of contempt. Makes me want to go rent "In the Company of Men" - or better yet, "There's Something About Mary". This movie wants to be a "edgier" version of "There's Something About Mary" so bad you can see the sweat. <br /><br />The movie has no insights into women, men, dating, sex, or really anything. Cohen is simply content to regurgitate myths he has been indoctrinated with from other sexist movies. On the other end, the movie doesn't work as a satire either, because even though it is ripe with exaggerations one could view as "satirical" it doesn't have that grounding in reality that satires need. It doesn't even know what it's satirizing. Then there's the dialogue, which is little more then the characters screaming obscenities at each other. Example: Character 1: "F**k you" Character 2: "Oh yeah, well f**k you" (repeat)<br /><br />And the bottom line, the thing that could excuse all the other discretions: There are a lot of movies without plots, without good acting, with morally repulsive characters and obscenity laced dialogue that have been funny and thus, been good. "Whipped" ain't funny. Not for a second. It has no comic skills or timing. The situations are all completely phony, not based in any shred of truth, especially enough to wring laughs out of us. The characters all broadly drawn so they will SEEM relatable to the lowest of the lowest common denominator. Just look at "the marquee scene", "cult classic" hair gel scene. One of our bumbling anti-heroes opens the medicine cabinet and sees Mena (Peet)'s vibrator. For some reason light shines down on it as if he's found the holy grail. Why Cohen thinks men react this way to vibrators I do not know. While he rubs it on himself, he drops it in the toilet and then attempts to fish it out with his bare hands when, oh my, Mena walks in on him. Oh, my sides. <br /><br />But strangely enough, people actually like this movie. Of course, people also like "Friends" and reality dating shows so I shouldn't be surprised. All of this has a common thread however. "Whipped" is big evidence to me that there is just a huge pocket of people in America that will laugh at any joke just because it is about sex. They will like any show or movie (or think they like it) just because it is about dating or relationships. It's lack of any quality has no baring on these people. Just as people are indoctrinated to want whiter teeth and thinner bodies to sell toothbrushes and weight loss programs, they are also indoctrinated to blindly lap up anything dating/relationship related to sell them cheap, empty, effortless TV, movies and any number of products. <br /><br />The only consilation will be that when I die, because I saw this movie, I've got a credit to get 80 minutes of my life back. <br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
I bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like "Switch". However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto" ("Man & Woman Up to a Point") | 0 | negative |
An excellent movie about two cops loving the same woman. One of the cop (Périer) killed her, but all the evidences seems to incriminate the other (Montand). The unlucky Montand doesnt know who is the other lover that could have killed her, and Périer doesnt know either that Montand had an affair with the girl. Montand must absolutely find the killer...and what a great ending! Highly recommended. | 1 | positive |
Yes i'll say before i start commenting, this movie is incredibly underrated.<br /><br />Sharon Stone is great in her role of Catherine Trammell as is Morrissey as Dr glass. He is an analyst sent in to evaluate her after the death of a sports star. Glass is drawn into a seductive game that Trammel uses to manipulate his mind.<br /><br />The acting was good (apart from Thewlis)<br /><br />Stone really has a talent with this role. She's slick, naughty and seductive and doesn't look a day older than she did in the first.She really impressed me(like in Casino). Morrisey was also good. He showed much vunerablitity in a role that needed it. Thewlis however was lame. He ruined his character and was over-the-top the whole way. He really sucked.<br /><br />Overall, this movie not as good the first but Stone is a hoot to watch. Just ignore Thewlis. | 1 | positive |
I try to be very objective when I view a low budget movie. I also apply a lower weight to independent and low budget productions versus the big budget productions. I expect near flawlessness from big budget productions and their studios. Therefore I apply tougher criteria to the major studio releases. But this movie was just a dud. Period. The premise was terrible. The main character, Mary Gordano (Alicia Silverstone), was unbelievable as a high school senior with an unquenchable desire to solve crimes. There was not enough depth in her character or her acting that pulled you into her world. Also, to make this movie more mysterious, the lighting in certain scenes did not set the mood, especially in the warehouse.<br /><br />Once again another disappointing movie that I could only give three points to. | 0 | negative |
I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie! | 0 | negative |
While I don't consider myself a big fan of fairy tale movies, Stardust intrigued me based on seeing Michelle Pfeiffer in the trailers as a villain (especially since I was about to see her as the bossy Velma Von Tussle in Hairspray). Boy, is she so convincingly evil here as a witch, especially with her age-ugly makeup in the beginning and end! Robert De Niro is also great as the pirate captain who's forced to hide "in the closet" to protect his "reputation"! Just about all the actors like Claire Danes, Rupert Everett, Ricky Gervais, Peter O'Toole and many others do fine work here. While Danes and Pfeiffer are classic beauties, there's also stunning faces of Sienna Miller, Olivia Grant (as Girl Bernard), and Kate Magowan especially when we first meet her. Newcomer Charlie Cox is fine as the lead Tristan and he looked so much like his father Dunstan as a young man that I thought that was him in early scenes with Magowan (actually Ben Barnes). Many comments have compared this to The Princess Bride and while I can see some resemblances, the main difference was that with PB, you always knew it was just an imaginary tale as told by an old man to his grandson. Stardust makes you believe, for the most part, that what you're seeing and hearing could have actually happened even with all the hilarity that happens throughout. So on that note, I highly recommended Stardust. | 1 | positive |
Wonderfully put together..I wish there was a follow up to this documentary to follow up with the lives of some and celebrate the lives of others lost...there should be a part two..a real one. It was great..the film wasn't long enough..I would like to know why the creator of the film did not follow up!! this is so important to the community period..well if your are reading this please consider doing another documentary of this sort...I am really tired of hearing from naive writers how AIDS and Men go together when they don't; actually its the hetero's that we need to look into..this film didn't even bother to mention HIV or AIDS and I was so glad for that..I really appreciated the break downs and definitions too. Thank you s much for allowing this film to exist. | 1 | positive |
I would like to know why John Amos left the show, and how did he die off the show again? I couldn't relate to everything, but sometimes they hit home with the problems they were facing. By the way, did they ever make it out of the ghetto? I think the episode with the black Jesus was my favorite. We got to see them experience a few good times. something they didn't have very often. I wish they would bring the show back. During the daytime so people can actually stay up to watch. I don't think a movie or a new show would work. Especially without the original cast. They are really what made Good Times GoodTimes. These are my questions and comments. Thank You!! | 1 | positive |
When I had first heard of "Solar Crisis" then got a load of the cast, I wondered why I had never heard of a movie with such a big cast before. Then I saw it.<br /><br />Now I know.<br /><br />For a movie that encompasses outer space, the sun, vast deserts and sprawling metropolises, this is an awfully cramped and claustrophobic feature; it feels like everyone is hunkered close together so the camera won't have to pull too far back.<br /><br />And the effects, while good, are pretty underwhelming; we're talking about the imminent destruction of the planet Earth if a team of scientists and soldiers cannot deflect a deadly solar flare. But other than shouting, sweating and a red glow about everything, there's no real feel of emergency.<br /><br />Don't get me started about the cast. What Heston, Palance, Matheson, Boyle, et al are doing in this movie without even bothering to act with any feel for the material is anyone's guess. Makes you wonder who else's condos aren't paid for in Hollywood....<br /><br />And as far as the end goes.... Well, let's just say it's tense and intriguing but it's too little too late in an effort like this. If it had kept up that kind of pace all through the film, maybe I would have heard of "Solar Crisis" sooner.<br /><br />Two stars. Mostly for lost opportunities and bad career moves. <br /><br />I wonder how Alan Smithee keeps his job doing junk like this? | 0 | negative |
This one came out during the Western genre’s last gasp; unfortunately, it emerges to be a very minor and altogether unsatisfactory effort – even if made by and with veterans in the field! To begin with, the plot offers nothing remotely new: James Coburn escapes from a chain gang, intent on killing the man (now retired) who put him there – Charlton Heston. While the latter lays a trap for him, Coburn outwits Heston by kidnapping his daughter (Barbara Hershey). Naturally, the former lawman – accompanied by Hershey’s greenhorn fiancé (Chris Mitchum) – sets out in pursuit of Coburn and his followers, all of whom broke jail along with him.<br /><br />Rather than handling the proceedings in his customary sub-Fordian style, McLaglen goes for a Sam Peckinpah approach – with which he’s never fully at ease: repellent characters, plenty of violence, and the sexual tension generated by Hershey’s presence among Coburn’s lusty bunch. Incidentally, Heston and Coburn had previously appeared together in a Sam Peckinpah Western – the troubled MAJOR DUNDEE (1965; I really need to pick up the restored edition of this one on DVD, though I recently taped the theatrical version in pan-and-scan format off TCM UK). Anyway, the film is too generic to yield the elegiac mood it clearly strives for (suggested also by the title): then again, both stars had already paid a fitting valediction to this most American of genres – WILL PENNY (1968) for Heston and Coburn with PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID (1973)! <br /><br />At least, though, Heston maintains a modicum of dignity here – his ageing character attempting to stay ahead of half-breed Coburn by anticipating what his next move will be; the latter, however, tackles an uncommonly brutish role and only really comes into his own at the climax (relishing his moment of vengeance by sadistically forcing Heston to witness his associates’ gang-rape of Hershey). Apart from the latter, this lengthy sequence sees Heston try to fool Coburn with a trick borrowed from his own EL CID (1961), the villainous gang is then trapped inside a bushfire ignited by the practiced Heston and the violent death of the two ‘obsolete’ protagonists (as was his fashion, Heston’s demise takes the form of a gratuitous sacrifice!).<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Michael Parks as the ineffectual town sheriff, Jorge Rivero as Coburn’s Mexican lieutenant, and Larry Wilcox – of the TV series CHiPs! – as the youngest member of Coburn’s gang who’s assigned the task of watching over Hershey (while doing his best to keep his drooling mates away!). Jerry Goldsmith contributes a flavorful but, at the same time, unremarkable score. | 0 | negative |
The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.<br /><br />Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'. <br /><br />You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel. | 0 | negative |
After an anonymous phone call about a spacecraft that would have crashed in a frozen wood, two police officers find evidences that the event really happened and apparently one Martian had walked away from the spot. They drive to the nearby Hi-Way Café and they find a bus stopped and seven passengers waiting the reopening of a snowed in bridge. However the driver tells that he had only six passengers when he parked the bus. While interrogating the travelers, weird things happen in the diner, with the lights switching on and off and the turntable turning on and off. When the passengers are released and the bus follows his travel, one passenger returns to the diner and discloses a plot of invasion of Earth.<br /><br />"Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up?" is one of the best episodes of this great series. The intriguing story has ironic and witty dialogs, funny characters and situations and a surprising and totally unexpected plot point in the very end. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Marciano" ("The Martian") | 1 | positive |
Friday the 13th step over! There is officially a worse movie than your hateful series out there. I won this movie in a contest at college, and it was a waste of money even if it was free. Jack Jones stars as a truly awful singer whose trying to find some murderers or something. At least Friday the Thirteenth never bored me. I'd rather have my fingernails pulled than see this again. | 0 | negative |
"Capitães de Abril" is a very good. The story isn't a documentary about the 1974 revolution in Portugal. But it gives us an idea of how it was like. The fiction of the story isn't of great interest, but it doesn't spoil the movie. The heroic actions of Captain Salgueiro Maia aren't exaggerations and the film is also a tribute for his deeds. Captain Salgueiro Maia remains one of the greatest heroes of the 25th of April Revolution.<br /><br />All the actors are very good and even the smallest roles are played wonderfully. Lisbon looks beautiful as ever. Don't miss it! I liked this film very much. | 1 | positive |
Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me. | 0 | negative |
Drawing Restraint 9. dir: Matthew Barney.<br /><br />How do you know when you're in the middle of a pretentious art film? Is it that there is only 8 lines of dialogue in 140 minutes of film? Is it when Bjork is wearing what looks like a giant furry pita on her head in a pseudo-Asian ritual? Maybe when mammoth turds and spinal columns are used in a whale blubber experiment. Or, when you're about ready to kill the composer for making a minimal, and still annoying, version of a Philip Glass score? In any case, Drawing Restraint 9 is among the most pretentious of the modern art movies. At 135 minutes, it adds to its pretension by being boring to boot. I would call the use of color stunning, and the opening sequence interesting, but the rest of the movie looked like it was filmed for a Discovery Channel documentary. That is until it looks like they were trying to film their version of P-ss Christ, but that will be coming up later.<br /><br />Actually, the documentary-esquire portions were the best parts of it. The surface plot is about a whaling ship, and then there is a ritual about making whale fat. Then, there are the guests in the form of Bjork and Matthew Barney who are welcomed on the ship by being put through a ritual of humiliation which includes passed-out head shaving (think frat boy pranks), nicotine patches, and giant furry pita hats. Then there is mutual evisceration, cannibalism, and lets not forget the giant turd.<br /><br />Matthew Barney has written that this is about "the relationship between self-imposed resistance and creativity." That's almost like saying, "if you don't get it, then you're not creative in your interpretation, so sod off because I'm an artist." Oh, wait, that's the POST-modern interpretation of that sentence and what the movie would be about if it was POST-modern. But, its supposed to be Modern art. Which is about the art itself.<br /><br />So, let's start this whole interpretation bit, shall we? The following lines are only 3/4 serious and should not be taken as any realistic attempt to interpret the movie.<br /><br />The first half-hour concerns pearl divers and the construction of a giant ramp. Obviously, the ramp is symbolic of the need for self-elevation to whatever standards you hold dear, and the pearl divers are looking for pearls of wisdom. Then, on a whaling ship, they build a crate that looks like it is in the crude shape of a whale. Obviously a crude element of foreshadowing.<br /><br />On the ship, they make whale fat inside the shape of the whale, and take out the fins portion. They replace this with a spinal column and later a giant turd. These are supposed to be the states of the movie itself. When its fat, its entertaining but bad for you. When it is the spinal column, its the "important" parts of the movie, or the backbone so to speak. Then, the giant turd is the bowels of the movie, or when the movie is crap.<br /><br />Bjork and Matthew Barney the arrive on separate ships, are put into strange humiliating outfits which AREN'T EVEN WELL MADE OR SYMMETRICAL, one suspects that they ran out of money and Barney was trying to quit smoking. SO, they put patches on his head. They go through a ritual and learn about the ship from a Japanese wise man, who tells them that the ship is scarred from when another ship hit it; a crash or intersection, if you will. This inspires Bjork and Barney, who are different on the outside, to start cutting each other's legs off and eat them so they could turn into whales themselves and be the same person. They intersect. Oh, did I forget to mention that this has been done in a Robbie Williams video? Then, the pearl divers come back with their mouths full of pearls of knowledge which they let fall to make a stupid Venn Diagram. Barney made it through 8th grade geometry, obviously. Or, maybe at least some social studies.<br /><br />Oh, and did I forget Bjork's ear-gouging I-want-to-kill-her score? At times it is hypnotic, but at others you just want to assassinate her.<br /><br />Art film is one thing, but when you just throw up all sorts of symbolism in the hopes of getting a reaction out of people, it becomes a self-destructive joke. When do you cross the line between becoming a joke in terms of art? Dali and Bunuel frequently made surreal pieces of nonsense but were more coherent and/or entertaining than this piece of trash. Un Chien Andalou had the sensibility to cram as much symbolism as it could into less than half an hour.<br /><br />So, can I recommend this? Only if you like dull HIGH ART films with lots of symbolism and flat imagery.<br /><br />D+ | 0 | negative |
Sorry, but aside from Kim Basinger doing a good job acting scared, this was one of the worst thrillers I've seen in awhile. Logic is thrown out as 4 young guys terrorize this woman outside a crowded mall then shoot a security guard. Yet no one seems to notice. Then, instead of screaming for help or racing back to the mall, she drives off and ends up in the middle of the woods with the guys in hot pursuit. I can't even describe how silly it is seeing this woman fleeing from 4 retarded thugs, carrying a red toolbox, screaming for God to come help her, and then having sex with one of them after brutally killing the others. Please trust me, this is bad and a bit tasteless as well. | 0 | negative |
Deathtrap runs like a play within a movie about who did what to whom, as it primarily takes place on one set. The premise is that an accomplished playwright, whose star is falling, receives a magnificent manuscript from a former student and so he plans to off his protege and appropriate his play, to the (loud) protests of his wife. Or so you think, for the first half of the movie. Past the halfway mark, Deathtrap begins to throw in twists and surprises that turn its premise on its head, then right around, and then in a mad spin, all the time keeping its title appropriate. It's an excellent mystery movie soaked in wit. <br /><br />Michael Caine, as the senior playwright, plays himself in this movie - a slightly loony and very dramatic Brit. No surprises here - he does his usual good work. He gets the best line of Deathtrap, which he executes perfectly: "What is your definition of success, being gang-banged in a state penitentiary?" <br /><br />Christopher Reeve, on the other hand, juggles comedy and drama in a surprisingly strong performance playing the ambitious (and psychopathic) young playwright. He also gets to show off his very toned body, which he must've retained coming off the Superman movies. <br /><br />Caine and Reeve have collaborated in another movie that's one of my favorite comedies - Noises Off. It similarly revolves around a play as well, although this time Caine is the director and Reeve is an actor. They are joined by comic veterans Carol Burnett, John Ritter, Marilu Henner (Taxi) and Mark Linn-Baker (Perfect Strangers). Together, they demonstrate the calamities that befall the bed-hopping cast and crew of a play. On the surface, the movie looks to be mostly slapstick but upon watching you find that they are many subtle jokes that require more than one viewing to catch. Wish this underrated movie was available on DVD. | 1 | positive |
First of all, this film is GLACIALLY slow-moving, and I can see most viewers losing patience with it altogether in the first thirty minutes.<br /><br />The film's subject matter was one I think would form the basis of an excellent film; what was most lacking here was a plot that would advance the underlying themes.<br /><br />It's unfortunate, because in the hands of a writer like (say) Lanford Wilson, I think symbolism like a mountain-lion invading a school campus could take on great, Tragic proportions without being heavy-handed.<br /><br />I think, with a good script supporting the film, the same filmmaker, with the same tastes, and even with the same actors (who didn't really even get a chance to impress me), might have been able to present a meaningful and touching depiction of the pains and struggles that a boy goes through when he develops a powerful "crush" on an older boy that he admires.<br /><br />However, I'm sorry to say that without this foundation, and armed with a vague, dull-witted, and vastly uninteresting script, without any sort of plot in sight, and lacking any sort of sensible structure (for example, after viewing it, I believe you will find that you cannot point to climactic scenes, and instead, will find yourself enumerating "well, maybe that scene, or that one, were climaxes...")--the result is 95 minutes of tedium.<br /><br />Without a good plot, we never get terribly interested in any of the characters; their trials and difficulties are simply dull and boring.<br /><br />Without a good plot, dramatic devices and surrealistic directorial liberties become puzzling and confusing rather than enhancements to the story-line. I never really could believe, for example, the creation of "Leah" and I think that most viewers would be utterly baffled by the conventional way in which her telephone calls were filmed.<br /><br />As the film stands, I'm afraid it's one I cannot recommend at all. What I can never understand is why a film like THIS one isn't re-made by an enterprising film-maker...instead of all the mediocre remakes of films that were superlatively good in the first release! All it needs is a good script, written by good writers, and I think this film could be easily turned into an unforgettable classic about an aspect of male coming-of-age that is rarely treated in drama. All the elements that were so tedious and seemed so recherche in the film (the messages written on the boy's belly, the "Leah" scenes, the television-screen fantasies) could become rich if underpinned with a good STORYLINE.<br /><br />I see in quite a few comments that people are talking of this film as somehow being about a "gay" subject, and I think that's mistaken. Obviously, the "crush" depicted is that of a newly pubescent boy on an older adolescent boy, but the character of Logan is far too young to have settled on any particular sexual choices, and, indeed, in his depicted masturbation fantasies, we see all sorts of stimuli, sexual and non-sexual, as we would expect in a very young boy like him. I believe "crushes" such as Logan's are common among male youths who grow up to have a decided preference for female sex-partners. | 0 | negative |
Hiya folks,<br /><br />Well, this movie sucks really. Think "Love Actually" in reverse. Nothing fits quite right, nothing is coherent, and certainly nothing makes you laugh. Love is rare in this film.<br /><br />It IS a total flop. As indicated however, there are three redeeming points about this mangled potential of a film.<br /><br />A) With a star billing of Jennifer Love Hewitt, there will be hordes of guys who will submit with grace to viewing this just to catch a glimpse of the petite Hewitt with form fitting clothing. To tell you now guys....there are some promising scenes....but it's really weak eye candy. The "possibilities" here are watered down. Nevertheless, I watched the whole thing tempted by the next scene of you know what.....titillating!<br /><br />B) The ending is romantic and positive. That it's contrary and "over the top" is relevant.....yet for me was still a positive point.<br /><br />C) Dougray Scott plays an amourous friendly guy........REFRESHING! THANK YOU! <br /><br />2/5, not worthy of your 10 or so dollars.<br /><br />2/3's of the way through, I was convinced Jennifer Love Hewitt was becoming the next softcore legend. Although I'll take that back for now.....it hinges greatly on her next film.<br /><br />Oh, and her sister is way stupid. Her husband is way stupid...and what the heck, she's way stupid.<br /><br />Next time. can't wait for the next Love Actually with JLH! | 0 | negative |
Mae Clarke will always be remembered as the girl whose face James Cagney showed a grapefruit into in the same year's THE PUBLIC ENEMY. She will not be remembered for this weird little story about a a hood's girl who finds that her past will always be with her.<br /><br />In some ways, this looks a bit antique for 1931, almost as if you are looking at 1928's famously inert LIGHTS OF NEW YORK. But don't be fooled. Although Ted Tetzlaff's photography is still in the big scenes, there's lots of movement, indicating distraction to the moviegoers in the set-ups to them. But in competition with the fast-paced stuff that it seems that everyone was doing at Warner's, this attempt to bring the woman's viewpoint into the genre as a tearjerker doesn't work, nor is Mae Clarke the actress to carry the effort. | 0 | negative |
The show is about two sisters living together. Holly being the younger one has some teenage problems on the other hand her sister Val has job,boy friend,fiancé problems like most of the women on the planet. They try to support each other they make mistakes sometimes but they don't give up and continue. And the show is also about friendship. The priorities in life. I loved this show so much. It is funny and the actors are so good. I am really sad that the show is over. I still watch the reruns time to time:) Amanda Bynes is very talented. Jenny Garth may be new to comedy but she plays really well. She is one of the actresses i like watching. I like Vince and Holly's relationship they are very natural. Gary is a natural talent and makes you laugh each time he shows up. With Tina Holly found a real friend and i really like them hanging out. Lauren character is so funny and she is a natural talent. I would like to see her more. This show really takes you in and makes you laugh. I wish the show hasn't been over. | 1 | positive |
This movie was so terrible it was almost good... almost. We love musicals, but not this one. Even with the terrible sound quality, poor cinematography, and many actors who can't sing or dance, Anthony Rapp actually managed to give a good performance (especially toward the end). The character Marjorie, a drunk lady, was enjoyable to watch, too. <br /><br />The plot is very unexpected and could have been funny without terrible singing and cheezy piano music. Admittadly, some of the songs (fantabulous) are pretty catchy (but not in a good way).<br /><br />Open House is a funny movie to watch simply because it is awful! We think it might be a good stage musical (with excellent actors). | 0 | negative |
The movie is okay, it has it's moments, the music scenes are the best of all! The soundtrack is a true classic. It's a perfect album, it starts out with Let's Go Crazy(appropriate for the beginning as it's a great party song and very up-tempo), Take Me With U(a fun pop song...), The Beautiful Ones(a cheerful ballad, probably the closest thing to R&B on this whole album), Computer Blue(a somewhat angry anthem towards Appolonia), Darling Nikki(one of the funniest songs ever, it very vaguely makes fun of Appolonia), When Doves Cry(the climax to this masterpiece), I Would Die 4 U, Baby I'm A Star, and, of course, Purple Rain(a true classic, a very appropriate ending for this classic album) The movie and the album are both very good. I highly recommend them! | 1 | positive |
I have to say that Higher Learning is one of the top 3 movies I have ever watched. It has a brilliant cast, and an equally brilliant director. Singleton shows how life in University can be. There are 3 main story lines, the skinheads, the African-Americans, and the homosexuals. I was intrigued by all of the stories, but the one that got to me the most was the storyline about Kristen, battling her feelings towards another girl. The end was great. After seeing the movie 25 times plus, I still cry. I would have given this movie an 11, but I have to settlefor 10/10. | 1 | positive |