review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
As a long-time fan of Studio Ghibli and especially Hayao Miyazaki films, I went to the film right on the opening day. When I went out of the theater I had this strange feeling that something was missing, this "magical" feeling I was experiencing in all Miyazaki films before, but I couldn't say why it failed this time. After I thought about the other Ghibli movies, I may know the reason: this film had most of the elements of a great Miyazaki anime: cute characters, wonderful key animation, a great soundtrack composed by Joe Hisaishi and the warm story telling giving you the feeling of watching a high quality Japanese animation film. However, two elements were lacking: a deep story and dramaturgy. The purpose of this film was obviously to entertain small children with a simple story line as in case of "Totoro", so a complicated story as been told in "Spirited Away" or "Princess Mononoke" is not really necessary, but on the other hand, this story was simply too superficial. I could not connect to the main characters, because there was no character development, dramatic scenes were only limited and did not last very long. I really hate to give only 7 stars for a Miyazaki film, because I would give 10 stars to all previous movies right away, but this time it was simply not this wonderful "ghibli experience". | positive |
The Soloist has all ingredients to impress the Academy. Its director, Joe Wright, has already authored a best picture candidate. The leading actor, Robert Downey Jr., starred in a widely praised superhero film. Finally, the movie itself is a drama. When it was mysteriously pulled from release in late 2008, filmgoers and critics were baffled. Now that I've seen it, I assure you Universal didn't just delay this film to promote Iron Man-Oscar buzz. The Soloist is a weak drama with no external conflict that is vastly inferior to any 2009 best picture candidates.<br /><br />Downey and co-star Jamie Fox aren't to be blamed for this mishap. Joe Wright is largely at fault but even he can't save a Lifetime story. Many movies are too complex and alienate viewers. This one is unusually simple. It's a movie about a newspaper reporter, Steve Lopez (Downey), who befriends a homeless musician, Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Fox). That's it. Ayers is schizophrenic and doesn't resonate with Lopez's traditional approach to friendship. The two become friends. They begin this movie as acquaintances and are BFFs by its end. Tension consists of moments like this: will Ayers let Lopez take him to the homeless shelter? This material would have been better suited as a made-for-TV production rather than a feature film.<br /><br />Wright includes many scenes of cheap humor to obscure the lack of content. Lopez battles yard-defiling raccoons in what I consider a sub-plot. Do you remember when this happened in Atonement or Pride and Prejudice? Those films were structured enough to permit an occasional joke but nothing so prolonged. Ayers' back story is fleshed out when it doesn't need to be. Worst of all, these scenes are not connected and appear at random intervals. It's a way of admitting that the main story carries little appeal. Nathaniel was a violin prodigy with a tough upbringing (I was too). This is a fabricated attempt to create sympathy with Ayers when most of us already have it. He's a homeless schizophrenic for crying out loud! The movie somewhat conveys humanity's love for music, like Amadeus and Beethoven Lives Upstairs. It isn't as effective as either of those pictures, however. The entire film is hinged on Ayers' schizophrenia. It ultimately is how he interacts with everyone else. His being a musician is a nice touch but hardly worth including. The film doesn't incorporate this characteristic fully into his persona. Take music out of Amadeus or Beethoven Lives Upstairs, and no film remains. The Soloist is more about friendship in general than music. Nathaniel could be a writer or film critic and few lines of dialog would need to be seriously altered.<br /><br />This is only Joe Wright's third film, and his first that isn't a romance staring Keira Knightley. Let's hope this film isn't an indication of how limited his abilities are. There are stylistic nods to his earlier works but The Soloist is much weaker than either of them. In his defense, Universal should not have agreed to widely release this picture. This film seems tailored for Imagine Entertainment (distributors of Changeling). I wouldn't be so disappointed with it if had a limited release. Its poor box office performance may inhibit better dramas from being distributed nationally. | negative |
Jerry Angell, owner of zombie-horror's finest mullet, returns for more undead action in the sequel to director Todd Sheets' atrocious home-made gore-fest Zombie Bloodbath. This time around, Jerry plays a sleazy low-life thug who, along with his equally despicable partner-in-crime, some escaped convicts, several teenagers, and a bunch of screaming girls, comes face-to-face with a horde of shambling, flesh-eating corpses.<br /><br />Obviously having learnt zilch about improving his craft in the two years since Zombie Bloodbath, Sheets delivers another shoddy mess of a film that somehow manages to be even worse than the originala feat that I thought was almost impossible to achieve. The acting is uniformly lousy, the effects amateurish and cheap (most of the gore appears to be nothing more than a selection of offcuts, offal and blood from the local butcher's shop), the story incomprehensible (as far as I could fathom, the zombies rise from the dead because a scarecrow commands them to!!!), and the direction frustratingly laden with cheap looking video effects and completely meaningless cuts to black-and-white.<br /><br />And as if that wasn't enough to convince you of this film's complete lack of redeeming features, the simply mind-bogglingly moronic ending should do the trick: the few remaining survivors stumble upon an abandoned truck that conveniently happens to have a stash of flesh-eating bacteria laying on its passenger seatjust the thing for dissolving the undead (but, strangely enough, not at all detrimental to the living). | negative |
I am sick of series with young and clueless people, talking about their "problems" all the time, self centered, boring and absolutely annoying (Popular; Dawson's Creek; Beverly Hills; etc). "Hack" is a breath of fresh air, with a great actor (David Morse), a completely different plot, credible people with REAL problems (thank God !!) and very, very good histories. I just love it!! I hope "Hack" will go on for a long time, because it is a great television series for grown up people, for a change. | positive |
I almost drowned in CHEESE watching this movie. In fact I could not even finish it. I want my money back. One more of Hollywood's feeble attempts to come up with a new idea. Good thing I keep a bowl of lemons in the fridge. Just in case. They should of gave Nic Cage a hat and a bull-whip. Swashbucklin'. Cage's performance in Raising Arizona or Leaving Las Vegas beats this "lemon". People who are completely and totally marketed(and most of them are) should love this movie. If this film had been animated, I would have taken it more seriously. I would of rather paid to see a completely stupid movie that did not try to hide it. In my opinion, this was a incredibly stupid movie and it made a even more incredibly sad attempt to try and hide that FACT.<br /><br />All the SHEEP seem to love it though. | negative |
This is almost certainly the worst Western I've ever seen. The story follows a formula that is especially common to Westerns and martial arts films -- hero learns that family/friends have been murdered, so hero sets out to exact revenge, foils the ineffective lawman, rescues the kidnapped loving damsel, and murders the expert arch-nemesis in a brutal duel. This formula has often been successful -- otherwise it wouldn't be a formula -- but Gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you'll ever see. The scripting is atrociously simple-minded and insulting; it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth, maturity, and realism. The sound is bad; it sometimes looks dubbed. The cinematography is lame, and the sets are sometimes just facades. The acting is pitiful; sure, some of the performers could blame the script, but others cannot use that excuse. I hope I never see Chris Lybbert in a speaking role ever again; every time he says a line that should be angry or mean, he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. And speaking of Chris Lybbert, who plays Hopalong, check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film): He wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like Roy Rogers than a hard-working, down-and-dirty cowboy. If you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of Hopalong Cassidy, then get this, but if you have more than two neurons, watch something else. | negative |
I've noticed that a lot of people are taking Opera to task for the way Betty reacts to the murders. I think they are basing these complaints on how they imagine a "normal" person would react. The thing is...Betty is not a "normal" person, due to traumatic events in her childhood. She has problems way way before the movie ever even starts...and by the end of Opera...in my opinion...she has become totally unhinged.<br /><br />---------------------SPOILERS--------------------------------------- You have to keep in mind that when she was a very small child she witnessed her mother's lover commit at least one brutal murder while her sadomasochist mother was getting off watching it.<br /><br />She was raised by a woman who achieves sexual release tied up watching girls get hacked, slashed, and strangled to death. That does not make for a healthy home life. I think it's pretty easy to conclude that her mother would have employed all sorts of emotional manipulation and negative reinforcement to ensure that her daughter never snitched on her. It is also likely that at her impressionable age, Betty might have been deeply confused by what she saw. Is this just something that adults do, etc.<br /><br />Betty obviously looks up to her mother...I mean...she's become an opera singer just like her. If mommy likes it it can't be bad, can it...mommy can't be bad, can she? She couldn't tell the police on her mommy or this mysterious hooded fellow she associates with mommy.<br /><br />Betty has a lot of deep-seated emotional issues. Her mind has for years been trying to block out the memory of what she saw her mother doing...but it keeps coming to the surface, manifesting itself in the form of horrible nightmares, skull-throbbing migraines, a dependence on relaxation techniques, and sexual frigidity She associates brutal violence/bloody death with sex on a subconscious level. There's an inner struggle between the part of Betty that has confused murder/sex and the part of her which believes these things to be wrong.<br /><br />After she's seen her boyfriend murdered by the hooded man...she calls the police, yet is unwilling to give her name. The part of her that thinks murder is wrong forces her to make the call, but the part that is ambivalent won't allow her to admit personal involvement. The ambivalent part of her takes control before she can go all the way. So she walks away from the phone in the rain...and when she's picked up by the director she's acting surprisingly calm, not as upset as you would think a "normal" person would be...because the part of her that's been blocking stuff since she was a child is trying its damnedest to block the horror of what she's just witnessed.<br /><br />The state of affairs in her life all contribute to an impasse within Betty's psyche. Her singing career is starting to bear fruit...she's going to be a great opera singer like her mother was. But is she going to become like her mother in all ways? In the darker ways? Or will she be able to make her own path? Add this to the re-emergence of the hooded man murdering everyone around her.<br /><br />It's not until the hooded man kills Daria Nicolodi's character that Betty really takes an active role in defeating the killer. Here's someone who loves Betty, who's supported her wholeheartedly in her emerging career, who is in fact a maternal figure in Betty's life now since mommy's dead. Imagine how terrible it would be to lose your real mother and then to see the woman who is the closest thing you have to a mother get shot through the eyeball.<br /><br />I could go on...but I won't. The main gist of what I'm saying is that the character of Betty is a lot more complex than most of the reviewers on here have been willing to acknowledge.<br /><br />Opera is one of Argento's best...and not just for the visuals alone (although they are truly magnificent) and not just for the inventive murders (although they are). There is a depth here...and attention needs to be paid. | positive |
Michael Bowen plays an innocentish young man who hitchhikes a thousand miles to visit his absentee millionaire father (the creepy Ray Wise) at a sprawling, windmill-powered ranch and ends up tangled in the dangerous web of his young, scheming and seductive stepmother from hell (the yummy Clare Wren), thus causing trouble for the already dysfunctional family. An edgy, stylish and exciting drama that received no promotion and was sent straight to VHS and cable TV--where I first saw it. It is beautifully written, smartly acted, and tightly directed from a script that keeps you biting your nails. I cannot believe the reviewers who disliked it ever actually saw it. It is an undiscovered classic. | positive |
It was a rare treat to see "Checking Out". I was touched by the characters, laughed a lot at the wonderful script, and was deeply moved by the genuine emotions magnificently portrayed by this ensemble cast and especially by Peter Falk. In fact, one of his scenes in the kitchen of his apartment with his children where he tells of his experience of his life, his deep love for his wife and his decisions about his life going forward is so profoundly real that it is at the highest level of the best Academy Award-winning performances. He is a consummate actor who out-did himself in this film. The screenwriter offers a combination of literary knowledge, timing, a gift for dialogue and hilarious situations that had me laughing out loud in the theater. I highly recommend "Checking Out" to everyone wanting to enjoy quality storytelling superbly acted. | positive |
To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a "so bad it's funny" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).<br /><br />From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The "plot" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging "look at me I'm being funny!" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).<br /><br />To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title "Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: "...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus." Uranus - "Your Anus" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.<br /><br />It says strange things about the "comedies" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say "sh*t" out loud.<br /><br />I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off. | negative |
I have no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. Bad acting, horrible cinematography, and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. The WWF style cinemtography will make you cry...where's the tripod?! The filmakers aimed high, but sorely missed their mark. | negative |
I caught this film late on a sat night/ Sunday morning with my brother. We had been drinking. This is one of the best films for ripping apart I have ever seen. From the 'luxury' ocean liner actually being a 'roll on, roll off' ferry, complete with cast iron everything to the doors with adhesive stickers saying staff, then seeing the same door being used for something else in another scene - this film rocks!! The continuity is so poor you cant help but notice it, it slaps you in the face with the holes. In the final scene he jumps off a life boat with the ferry in the distance. Cut to his son and new girlfriend (The ships PR director who knows kung-fu and used to be in the police but was dismissed for doing things her way - true)on the ferry going very fast away from the explosion. ......Then the dad is there hugging them. HoW???? Who cares, its magic. There is not one redeeming feature to this film. The casino is the size of a large bedroom with one casino table. when being chased by the villains there is only One place to hide, you've guessed it. Enter the villains who, instead of checking under the One table, proceed to shoot up four fruit machines and a little corner bar (a corner bar in the casino - fantastic). They walk straight past the only hiding place thus allowing our Casper to get around them and 'take them out'.<br /><br />Get some mates over, get a few drinks in, put this film on and howl. | positive |
War drama that takes place in Louisiana in 1971. It follows a bunch of recruits through basic training and then Tigerland--an accurate portrayal of Vietnam on American soil, before they're shipped over. It focuses on two men--Booz (Colin Farrell) and Paxton (Matthew Davis)...how they meet, become friends and deal with a corwardly squadron leader (Clifton Collins Jr.) and a borderline psycho (Shea Wingham).<br /><br />A surprisingly non-commercial film directed by Joel Schumacher. He uses a hand-held camera throughout most of the movie and uses digital video for the combat scenes. It works very well--the film looks gritty (as it should) and uncomfortably realistic.<br /><br />Farrell successfully covers up his Irish brogue and adopts a pretty convincing Southern accent. His performance is just superb--he's an extremely talented young man. Davis, unfortunately, is not that good. He's tall, muscular, very handsome--and very bland. The rest of the cast however is just great.<br /><br />This film was thrown away by its studio. It had no stars in it, a familar story and was considered "just another war film". It only played a week in Boston! It's well worth catching on video or DVD.<br /><br />Also, Farrell and Davis have a lengthy nude scene. | positive |
To keep from being bored during "Love and Sex," first I tried to think of all the movies this was imitative of: "Breaking Up" with Russell Crowe and Salma Hayek (though that had a more original ending), "About Last Night" with Rob Lowe, and a lot of TV shows. <br /><br />Second was admiring just how gorgeous Framke Janssen is so I couldn't believe for a nanosecond that she could have a problem getting a date. She is certainly in line to give Julia Roberts a run for her money, literally-- and wasn't Julia in some movie with this same plot or other? <br /><br />Third was trying to figure out why the writer/director bothered to give Jon Favreau's character the Jewish name of Adam Levy; he even refers admiringly to eating a ham sandwich.<br /><br />Fourth was trying to figure out why some critics had given this a good review which is why I was in the theater.<br /><br />(originally written 9/2/2000) | negative |
it starts off with a view of earth and jupiter aligned.<br /><br />where do we come from, and where we are headed.<br /><br />the story starts with "the dawn of Man", a documentary-like view of the Pre-historic grass-eater ape that was facing its extinction due to no physical ability that would let him hunt to eat, and the lack of grass and water in the austral Africa. the monkeys hadn't survived if it wasn't for the "god-like" intervention of an alien artifact, that somehow transformed the apes that touched it, and gave them the ability to use tools, that were first used as weapons that allowed them to kill pigs to eat for super and to kill other monkeys in fights for water. that ape was Man. an enigmatic start for an enigmatic film.<br /><br />after the fast-forward that leaves the movie at the present days, we see a magnificent dance of spaceships at the sound of Strauss. The rest of the movie is about how tools got control of Man. the strange artifact appears once again to evolve Man to his final stage: the starchild.<br /><br />at 1968, the year this movie was released, only astronauts had idea of what was out there in space. after this movie, that changed. it's futurism took 7 years to be explored. the special effects are incredible. they are completely realistic, even today.<br /><br />the directing, along with excellent taste in music, good acting, and the fantastic filmography, makes it an epic.<br /><br />the plot, with its vision of the year 2001 and the evolution of man tools, with an AI psycokiller, with the psycotropical hypnotising end, makes it the trip our lives.<br /><br />if you have never seen this movie, see it. don't be scared with the lack of dialog, sit back and enjoy. it's a symphony of evolution. it's terrific. | positive |
Spheeris used this documentary to push a stereotype of punks. This documentary is biased and guided, not objective. The cutting techniques that jump from interview to interview may be used to take the spoken word of interviewees out of context. When you watch the film, the sticking idea that comes from the interviews of the punks is that they are pretty dumb. Band members and other punks seem to be of low intelligence and unable to explain their motives or give detailed or coherent answers or even answers at all. I highly doubt that if some of those who were interviewed knew what Spheeris was creating or saw the final product would allow themselves to be included in the project. This film puts punks in a bad light by making them seem unintelligent and simple-minded. Spheeris' film should not be taken as a representation of the L.A. punk scene. If you want to see a good punk documentary watch "Another State of Mind" featuring Youth Brigade and Social Distortion. | negative |
This first two seasons of this comedy series were very strange and they weren't very funny and had a drama element where Bill (the mother) was struggling with all the usual problems in life but that element was a bit depressing and didn't mix well with th comedy elements which is probably why it was dropped. After that it soon became one of the funniest comedy series the BBC have ever made! The chemistry between Bill and Ben's character's were very funny and there was always so many brilliant and memorable sketches in each series. The Christmas specials were hilarious and a real treat for Christmas. <br /><br />The show came to a stop when the main actor Gary Olsen playing Bill passed away which was very sad because he was a brilliant actor in films such as Up 'n' Under and a very funny man RIP<br /><br />This underrated show has sadly disappeared from our television screens and doesn't to be repeated that often - Though it does appear on UKTV Gold once in a while but it should be repeated on BBC one or two to show this brilliant Comedy to a new audience | positive |
If you're tired by the same repetitive, unintelligent material that the mainstream movie industry releases, you'll enjoy "You Are Alone". It is thought provoking, well shot and riveting.<br /><br />Without revealing anything that you don't find out in the first few minutes of the movie, this is the story of a young white high school girl from an upper middle class environment who is working as an escort and is discovered by her neighbor. The vast majority of the movie occurs in a hotel room where he hired her to come.<br /><br />Through their discussion, you explore two shifting views of prostitution, depression, loneliness. Yet the movie is not depressing. It talks about dark things without being depressing.<br /><br />As a viewer, your emotions and preconceived notions are moved around, but gently. You come out of it with a lot to think about. I like that in a movie. | positive |
The sects that capitalise on this film are well known for their claim to take the 'message' of the bible without any alteration or extra-biblical influence. The existence of this film is solely due to the fact that there is no such thing.<br /><br />If you want to know what the born-again branch of Christianity were harping on about in the seventies just look up the word 'rapture' in a dictionary of cults and sects. It's quicker than sitting through this waste of celluloid.<br /><br />Poor acting, uneven sound quality and a script that could just as easily have been written by Jack T Chick (paranoid Christian conspiracy theorist for those not familiar with the Evangelical scene). You could not really put this into the 'so bad it's good' category so its only audience are either those with a pamphlet collection looking to branch out or the extremely paranoid. | negative |
Spoilers <br /><br />Well, the one line summary says it all. Melville´s "Le samurai" is the original and there are elements of "Leon". And they are better - much better!<br /><br />In the "Samurai" Alain Delon is a lonely warrior / professional killer who keeps a bird in cage and is stealing cars for his jobs (with so much suspense in these scenes!). Even the end is exactly the same: the samurai seeks death in dignity and is getting shot with an empty gun in his hand. The world has changed he realizes and there is no place for the samurai in it.<br /><br />Delon is not killing so many people like the Ghost dog. But I guess Jarmusch liked "Leon" very much or even "Desperado" by Rodriguez. So he added this, too. And let me guess: the girl will become a professional like Ghost dog (like Natalie Portman in "Leon")?<br /><br />So what was Jarmusch thinking after all? Where is the unique, the original thought in this movie?<br /><br />I can´t see the point in making carbon (celluloid) copies.<br /><br />A 4/10 rating by Macaulay Connor | negative |
This was one of the highlights of ST:TNG's semi-forgettable second season, before they 'grew up' or grew into their own in the third season and beyond. This was not only a showcase for up-and-comers like Bill Campbell and Teri Hatcher, but was also the continuation of Data's search for his 'humanity', this time through the concept of comedy. Still one of my favorite episodes.<br /><br />On a side-note, I'm still disappointed that there is no credit for the actress with whose character Okona was about to have a tryst(after Teri Hatcher's character) before being rudely interrupted by Lt Worf. I remember watching this episode 'first-run' at my friends comic shop back in the day and we all thought she would've been a perfect Jean Grey/Marvel Girl.<br /><br />It would be nice to know who this pretty lady actually is... | positive |
I saw the original "Chorus Line" on Broadway God knows how many times and felt the passion, despair and joy come from this live experience in the theater. Michael Bennett knew he would have to re-imagine "Chorus" for the screen but could never figure out how to do it. If the man who came up with the show is stumped - that should answer your question. There are some shows that are simply made to be seen live - with an audience. However, Richard Attenborough fresh of the musical work of "Ghandi" and dancing with animals in "Doctor Doolittle" ended up directing this film which bore little to no resemblance to the stage show. Horrible songs were added (Surprise! Surprise!), great songs were dropped or given to other characters (which didn't make sense). Michael Douglas was mis-cast. People that couldn't dance tried to act and there was the sexy "Landers" woman who couldn't sing, act, or dance - I guess she had just finished being Ghandi's wife. The dances by Jeffrey Hornaday look like nothing more than schlock from "Flashdance" rejects and nothing works. I sat there stunned at how something so riveting and emotional could be drained to nothing. If you truly love this show and it is coming back to Broadway in 2006 - see it but don't think that the long running musical event that was "A Chorus Line" has any thing at all to do with this film. | negative |
Where do I begin? Walt Disney's happiest motion picture "Lady and the Tramp" is one of, if not possibly, my favourite in the theatrical canon of Disney animation. The sequel, however, is... to say the very least, enjoyable. I enjoyed myself throughout the whole movie. It was, (flame-shield up!) adorable! The Broadway style of the songs and the movie kind of worked, and I was humming the songs for the rest of the night. I can, if you asked me to, still sing all of the songs.<br /><br />But where the movie was (really) good for me, it was bad in a lot of other places. The animation was kind of scary at times. Every time there was a close up shot of someones face, I don't know... it just seemed scary to me. Also, where the hell was Lady? She gets like two lines of dialogue and only doggy hugs Scamp at the end. She gets 0% interaction with the plot and her only son!<br /><br />But all in all, I liked it. Compared to the original does it hold up? No. The songs aren't as good (still kind of catchy though), the plot was a lot less involved, Lady had almost nothing to do with it, and it's not as cute as the first one. But, if you go in with an open mind, you'll have fun, and maybe 'gasp!' Like it? | positive |
I found this move beautiful, enjoyable, and uplifting. Initially the local sites in the film, which was filmed here in Buffalo, intrigued me. Later I found myself lost in the power of the film. How do you repay a gift from God? The ability of characters to rise above their base natures and respond to the touch from God warmed my heart. The entire audience applauded at the conclusion of the film. I left the theater with a lilt in my step, joy in my heart and hope for the human race. What more can any film do? Hollywood, I hope your paying attention. America does like positive, upbeat films. | positive |
It was easy to dismiss this film as hyperbole at the time of its release. Fonda, Douglas and Lemmon were known "lefties", but the accident at Three Mle Island provided shocking context to this fictional drama.<br /><br />This film works on many levels, taking shots at both public utilities and TV news. 1979 was the zenith of the infamous "Happy Talk" format of TV news (see also "Ron Burgundy") and it's on display here in all its glory. The sonorous anchor grimly reads a story about a "grinding head-on collision" before cheerfully introducing Kimberley Wells (Fonda), doing a story about a veterinarian who makes house (or is that "aquarium?") calls. The show's producer and the station manager argue about content - or lack thereof - behind the scenes.<br /><br />There are a few technical errors. The PR flack (James Hampton) shows Fonda and Douglas the requisite scale model of a pressurized water reactor plant, built by Westinghouse. Later, as Lemmon and Wilford Brimley (nicely playing Lemmon's friend/colleague, caught between duty and loyalty) fight a sudden crisis in the plant' s control room, they're obviously running a boiling-water plant (built by GE.) A small point, but curious, considering how many details the screenwriters got right.<br /><br />Like any good drama, the film asks more questions than it answers. The real-world accident at TMI proves the film's basic premise. The working title for the film was originally "Power", and you'll see why. As nuclear power prepares to make a comeback in these days of $3 gas, "The China Syndrome" is as relevant today as it was over 25 years ago. | positive |
Another FRIDAY THE 13TH ripoff, even featuring some of its music! A group of young adults get together for a small high school reunion and start getting slaughtered a la Jason Voorhees. Could it be that nerd they used to torment in school?<br /><br />Routine slash-fest is fun for fans of the genre, and contains the usual T&A quota for films if its ilk. The ending is a bit more imaginative than your standard slasher.<br /><br />MPAA: Rated for violence/gore, language, sexuality, nudity, and some drug content. | negative |
'Oldboy' director Park Chun-wook returns with what must be one of the yuckiest and at the same time most serious vampire flicks in movie history.<br /><br />Trusting the latest Hollywood fad, vampires these days are supposed to be rather nonviolent, asexual, love-lorn chevaliers instead of the evil rampantly sexual blood-sucking mind-manipulating man-beasts of yore. This is the film you want to see if you want to remember the sticky thrills of the past... well, at least in the second half.<br /><br />'Thirst' starts out with a lengthy character exposition culminating in a slightly different love story. The vampire transformation of a priest is, over quite some time, sidelined by the romantic and sexual aspects of the story, which makes for some awkward viewing. But the last 40 minutes or so are surprisingly gory. Well, maybe not so surprisingly if you know 'Oldboy' and 'I'm a Cyborg but that's OK', but I guess it's fair to say that 'Thirst' beats Park's earlier films in terms of in-your-face violence. <br /><br />All in all, be warned that this is neither art cinema nor a horror flick. It may be too disgusting for many and too tame for some. 'Thirst' is original, entertaining and fortunately a little less weird than Park Chun-wook's earlier endeavors. | positive |
I first saw this movie as a younger child. My sister had told me about it and I thought it would be more of a kid's movie. However it remains to also be an incredible movie. True that the subject behind the movie is ruff but also true this movie will never stop touching your heart.<br /><br />I was only 6 when I first saw it and just yesterday, 7 years later, I saw it again. For the first time in a long time. Even after I knew how it ended, I knew that I had seen it a billion, bizillion times I wept like a teeny weeny little baby. When I saw it a few years back I finally got the idea and the seriousness of the film. So I stoped watching it for a while. But yesterday I didn't change the channel, I watched it. By the end I was astonished at how much it still made me laugh, cry, think, and above all, believe in mericals again. I haven't belived in a long time and this movie got me out of my shell and opened up my heart. This movie wasn't just impacting. I was also so impressed with the actors. Especially Bobby. So if you are wanting to see this movie for the first time I suggest seeing it alone. With tissues. And being ready to discover your young, sweet, innocent side and the side that still has hope. This movie touched my soul when I was only 6, and even in this time of trying to figure out who I am this movie helped me realize both what I don't and still do want to be in life. | positive |
A ghost story on a typical Turkish high school with nice sound and visual effects. Taylan biraderler(taylan brothers) had made their first shots on a tv-show a couple of years ago, as far as i know. That was kind of a Turkish X-Files, they had very nice stories but lacked on visual effects. This time it seems they had what they needed and used them well. This movie will make you laugh that's for sure, and as well it might have you scared. It has a nice plot and some young, bright actors in it. If you are a high school student in Turkey you will find so many things about you here. There are many clues in the movie about its story and ending, some you understand at the moment, some will make sense afterwords, the dialogs were written very cleverly. So these make the movie one of the best Turk movies made in the last years. Do not forget, this movie is the first of its kind in the Turkish film industry. | positive |
It took a long time until I could find the title in a special videothek in Berlin, and I was lucky to find an english version with hollandish undertitles. I think it´s one of the best horrormovies ever. It seems strange for me that some people call this movie a black comedy. I must admit, I wasn´t able to laugh about, when I saw it the first time (and it was the same with the second time!) On the one hand Trelkovski seems so nice and even cute in his shy behaviour, but on the other hand he beats this boy on the playground and there is no explanation for that. But the most weired thing is of course his transformation in Simone Choule and the fact, that he doesn´t know, who he really is. His halluzinations are the most terrifying in this movie. Of course it´s all in his mind, but is it this flat that brings out this female side of him or was it also before he moved in - I think that´s an interesting question. His shizophrenic behaviour is hard to understand and it´s horrible to see his two sides or identities fighting against each other. The result of it is that he cuts his hand first and later jumps out of his/her window. But this terrible cry - does that mean, that all will repeat again and again and again... that his soul is in a cage or something? And these egyptian hieroglyphs and other egyptian stuff ? The fact, that he/she looks like a mummy in the Hospital - that´s not an incident, but a clue in my point of view. | positive |
This is not your typical Indian film. There is some great sense of humanity, and the characters are pretty realistic. There is great dynamism in the interpersonal relationships, and there is a sense of guilt, grief, passion, passivity among the many characters. While seeing this, one gets a feel for the heavy burden of the 5000 years of layers and layers of history of social existence of one of the oldest civilizations. The final scene of an elephant walking away in the rural area was a great footnote to such a ancient civilization, and yet, human relations are still preserved and nurtured. Saw it on DVD, the two interviews with the director and the main actress are very interesting. Was surprised to learn that the movie has not done well (or not being shown) in India (... but maybe not too surprised). The artistic patrimony of rural societies is being slowly lost and its inheritance not picked up by younger generations, as some of the older musicians in the movie are no longer living today. Great film. | positive |
I ticked the "contains spoiler" box, in case I say anything that is a spoiler and don't realise I've said it until I re-read it after I've posted. So it's just in case.<br /><br />Anyhow, back to reviewing this film.<br /><br />I saw this film on skymovies earlier on this afternoon, and by the description Sky gives you (these people must be on acid) it sounded pretty good, but then when I actually got about 30 minutes into it, I was appalled. This film, in my opinion, has the worst scriptwriting and actors/actresses - ever. The young girl who falls in love with the boy from L.A after about 3 hours, is a really stupid, lame character, who has an annoying, whiney voice, and boff hair. -.-. Then there's her lover, who's an idiot, and is also very whiney. Actually, maybe they suit each other. Then there's the boy's mum, who's with him on holiday, and surprise, surprise - she's a doctor, and - oh my god, wait, there's even more unsuspected surprises! A virus suddenly breaks out on the island and she knows all about viruses! =O. SHOCK HORROR! Yeah, right. Lol. Then there's this insane religious lad, who keeps going on about "'erbs" or something, and how the Lord knows all. Everyone on the island seems to love him, yet he's actually a stubborn, arrogant, steroid-pumped (you really need to watch this film just for the scene where he comes out of the sea after a swim, his head is like tiny, and his body is MASSIVE. it's hilarious) buffoon who's had way too much to drink.<br /><br />Anyhow, after all these weirdo characters, including a stoned-looking taxi driver, the religious lad finally gives in to the doctor, and she takes a blood sample, and they get straight to work on finding the cure from that, because for some reason he's dramatically been saved, all down to "'erbs and God". AND OH MY GOD. YES, THERE'S ANOTHER Surprise!! YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT!! Just in the nick of time, with 11 minutes to go before everybody on the island drops dead in-fact, including her son and his girl, she finds the cure, and injects everybody, and it's all resolved!!! What a pathetic film. I mean, I knew it sounded an obvious ending from when I first started watching it, but I actually though it'd be good and have some sub-plot twists somewhere, but no-no, it was just boring and dry.<br /><br />Don't watch this film. You'll end up like me - stunned for 3 hours and then demanding the hour and a half you spent of your life watching it back. | negative |
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. | negative |
I absolutely despise this movie. No wonder Jose Larraz "disowned" it at one point and refuses to discuss it. I admire Larraz's work, especially his more obscure slasher/sex maniac thrillers like SAVAGE LUST or SCREAM AND DIE. His work has a kind of inescapable artiness about it that he can't seem to switch off, owing in part to his secondary career as a painter & cartoonist. It's too bad he never made a Western, his vision would have been perfect.<br /><br />BLACK CANDLES is easily his most notorious film and probably his best known after the masterpiece VAMPYRES. And it's notoriety revolves around one scene where a Satanic coven enacts a bizarre rite involving extracting the reproductive fluid of a goat -- symbolizing The Beast -- as some kind of nauseating balm to be used in preparing the waif like sister of a murdered man for her role as the bride of Satan. The scene in question is staged in a way that looks rather convincing even without the display of any plumbing apparatus the goat may have been endowed with, relying upon the histrionics of the actress recruited to play the supplicant in the ritual and lots of guttural chanting on the film's recycled musical score heard in a half-dozen films attributed to Jacinto Molina. The perverse nature of the scene is more implied than shown in graphic detail, heightened somewhat by the knowledge that said supplicant is actually the teen-aged daughter of the Satanic priest. My but they had fun concocting this movie.<br /><br />The problem with it is that there isn't much to deconstruct or contemplate aside from the paper thin ROSEMARY'S BABY derived story of a woman being weaned into her role as Satan's bride by a sophisticated coven of Satanists living in the hedgrowed outlands of a very sinister Britain. Led by Eurohorror sensation Helga Line these Satanists are comprised of doctors, lawyers, land owning magnates and other upper crust dignitaries who actually owe their professional success to their worship of the devil. All you have to do is sell your soul and the world can be yours, only watch out whom you may sell out to pay back petty personal conflict or you may end up being felched with a sword.<br /><br />The film attempts to combine this heady Satanic trip with oodles or borderline graphic sex, and should correctly be regarded as a kind of apex or culmination of the sex and horror Spanish thriller traditions popularized in part by Mr. Molina & Ms. Line, and which had amazingly flourished under the disapproving eye of one Generalissimo Franco, the dictator who controlled Spain up until 1976. While he lived his decree was that Spanish cinema was to be free of graphic depictions of on-screen sex. Spanish directors often made two versions of their films, one with the sex concealed for their own screens and one with the fornication on display for export. As difficult as it was for the filmmakers to express themselves the result was a sort of interesting tension that usually results when artists flirt with the forbidden: Spanish horror from the 1970s has a very special flavor to it that is somewhat of an acquired taste. It's not for everyone.<br /><br />But in a bizarre turn of events, without Franco's influence on their culture Spanish horror sort of dried up in the late 1970s, when their Gothic castles and demonic orgies suddenly found themselves passé when compared to new sensations like JAWS and the STAR WARS phenomenon. And without Franco's constraints their were suddenly a flood of overtly graphic thrillers that came tumbling out of the pipes in the very late 70s/early 80s, of which BLACK CANDLES is perhaps the best known due to it's emphasis on sexual deviancy with a barnyard animal. Larraz' major horror films have always revolved around sexual taboos (the lesbianism of VAMPYRES, the incest of SCREAM AND DIE & DEVIATION) but here the effect of the depravity is to overshadow the rest of the production. Nobody cares about anything else but the traditionally censored trip to the Goat Barn, and watching a cut version without the scene in the barn is almost an exercise in pointlessness. The sex isn't graphic enough to rate as porn and the chills aren't chilling enough to rate as horror.<br /><br />So, BLACK CANDLES is essentially a behavior study -- Here is how high society British Satanists might behave in their secluded mansions out in the West Midlands or whatever. Between sex scenes the actors/actresses sit around and have lots of discussions. The best thing the film has going for it is an undeniably oppressive atmosphere of claustrophobia, with most of it's action taking place in the tightly confined interiors of Ms. Line's character's mansion. Nearly every avenue of fornication is hinted at so fans of soft-core sex romps with a hinting of supernatural horror will be amused, and of course the vicarious sex criminals amongst us will enjoy choking their chickens to the goat barn scene. But the ultimate conclusion of the film is silly, pretentious, intelligence insulting, and probably perfect for such an otherwise forgettable exercise in applied sleaze.<br /><br />2/10; Without the Goat Barn this movie just isn't the same, and with the scene it's probably a bit too much for most viewers. Larraz was correct to disown it. | negative |
Kalifornia is a movie about lost ideals. A journey on the darkest road ever. The road of no return. The plot is about a couple that set out to find a better life in California. The man (David Duchovny in his best role up to now) wants to write a book about the famous crimes that have happened in America and his girl - who is a photographer - is going to take the pictures. So they set out on a trail of famous murders not knowing what awaits them on the way. To share the journey expenses they decide to find another couple and they put an ad. But the couple that answers it is not just ANY couple. It is one of the strangest couples ever. The girl is a naive, frail creature that dreams a lot and loves cactuses. The man is exactly the opposite. A cruel ruthless murderer. We learn that early in the film and we follow him along the journey to Kalifornia (not with C as usual, but with K, presumably symbolizing the word killer), along his journey of betrayal, murder and finally defeat. All the leads, Duchovny, Pitt, Lewis and Forbes give really good performances and you have to take into consideration that when this movie was filmed not even one of them was a star. The photography is amazing, with darkness covering the greatest parts of the movie, and the music suits the dark character of the film. On the whole this is a really good movie. Don't miss it. You'll think again before taking some stranger in your car to share the gas with! | positive |
As other posters have commented this was a very very bad movie (keeping it kid friendly) FX was low class, they should of spent the $1 on a coke. As is typical with these D movies most victims die and leave a mystery except for one lucky soul and of course the lead. Hope the money was worth it for Boxleitner, really really big step down from Babylon 5. Nice to see what happened to Buck Rogers but damn this was low even for him. ' It was so bad and on the older actors you could even seem to tell that they thought it was bad also. Don't Watch.<br /><br />*****Warning Spoiler Below****<br /><br />This thing chased down everyone it was after and yet Boxlietner got away... that was pure BS. And the ending? How in the hell did the kids end up right there with him? That was just too much stupidity. | negative |
I sat down through 2 hours of pure boredom. I look here on IMDB, even though it is not high on the list, it is in the top 250. I was a little surpised. Even though, yes. I am very impressed with Robin and Matt's acting abilities, they still didn't save the movie. I'm not sure what I really didn't like about the movie. Maybe it's because I dispise math. Maybe I'm not too much for dreary talking for 2 hours. Even though I loved "American Beauty", but that was it. I just want my 2 hours back. It was a big waste of my time. If I'm missing something in this movie, please E-mail me. I am curious why this is on the top 250. And don't say "Because it was a good movie".<br /><br />2/10 | negative |
If you liked the Richard Chamberlain version of the Bourne Identity then you will like this too...Aiden Quinn does this one brilliantly, you can't help but wonder if he is really out there...I reckon he and the other main cast members probably had nightmares for weeks after doing this movie as it's so intense. When I first saw it I was just flicking channels on the remote late one evening..& I got hooked within minutes. look up www.answers.com for Ilich Ramírez Sánchez who is the character that "carlos the Jackal" is based on for both... I remember reading about Ilich Ramírez Sánchez's arrest in the paper in 1997. It was front page for weeks, through the trial after his arrest. | positive |
This has to be one of the biggest misfires ever...the script was nice and could have ended a lot better.the actors should have played better and maybe then i would have given this movie a slightly better grade. maybe Hollywood should remake this movie with some little better actors and better director.sorry guys for disappointment but the movie is bad.<br /><br />If i had to re-watch it it would be like torture. I don't want to spoil everyone's opinion with mine so..my advice is watch the movie first..see if u like it and after vote(do not vote before you watch it ! ) and by the way... Have fun watching it ! Don't just peek...watch it 'till the end :))))))))) !! | negative |
Ralph and Mumford, misfits in their own land, get duped into being unwitting pawns of Synanomess Botch. Twice Upon a Time is the story of them, the characters they meet, and their struggle to set things right. With a surprisingly impressive soundtrack and wonderful voice acting by some of the best in the business, this offbeat movie hits the mark.<br /><br />The animation process, while similar to that of the cut out "South Park" style, is much smoother and far more three-dimensional. If I didn't know that the animation was this style, I would swear that is was traditional pen and ink. If you can watch this film in Dolby Surround or THX, PLEASE DO! You won't really miss anything if you don't, but if you do, you will get much more out of the experience! | positive |
If I could give it less that 1 I would. Do not bother to rent; if someone gives you the DVD burn it.<br /><br />This is horrible movie making. A total waste of even digital "film". I have seen better on Youtube made by 12 year old boys. Lommel claims to have written this, if that is the case he is a classic case of someone who is illiterate in two languages. The story line is none existent, the dialog is mainly screaming, the camera work is some sort of attempted arty flairs with nonsensical cutting of totally unrelated jumps to either industrial transportation scenes or some sort of odd angry young woman rift.<br /><br />I can usually follow a less than obvious plot or see the purpose in a "creative" film - I like David Lynch.<br /><br />This one is either so far beyond my limited powers of comprehension I missed it or it is totally pointless. I think this is a "lets see if we can grab a title that will be coming out soon and do a weird rift on it and see if we can grab some of the bucks" con job.<br /><br />I cannot see why Lionsgate even bothered with this. Totally worthless, it is so bad I will not rent any other by this same director. | negative |
Astounding that something like this could find its way to be viewed by the public. I knew it was by Uwe Boll, & I found it in the bargain bin at a store for $2 (still pretty steep, considering) but morbid curiosity led me to view this, and: <br /><br />1). I am fairly sure this is a rip-off of Seven, Silence of the Lambs, and American Psycho, all rolled into one, with dialog that may have been written by preteens.<br /><br />2). Casper Van Dien plays the main character, and he's so absolutely bizarre and creepy that just about anyone would KNOW he must be the crazed serial killer.<br /><br />3). Jennifer Rubin plays the "good cop" that invites a serial killer to her apartment for a home cooked dinner, and what does she get for her trouble? I'll let you guess.<br /><br />4). Michael Pare plays an "intense" cop, who drives a VW Bug, new-style, that is, with a siren on it. A VW Bug...that'll strike fear into criminal's hearts when they see THAT coming.<br /><br />5). Van Dien breaks up with his fiancé, but she still has an "not engaged" party, complete with "not a wedding cake". Imagine everyone's surprise he shows up (he was, of course, invited) and they all get shot.<br /><br />6). Actually, this should have been #1, really. The killer in this is known as "The Monkey Maker". This is, without a doubt, the stupidest killer name anyone could have come up with in a million years. Presumably it has something to do with the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" saying, complete with monkeys. It's possible that monkeys had something to do with the script, too.<br /><br />7). Oh yeah, and there's a club that Van Dien visits near the beginning of the film. There's bad disco music, I mean, really bad, and a chain-link fenced cage with, uh, gang members beating the crap out of each other with baseball bats? That's what it looked like. And of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, the really cool stuff (?!) goes on in the basement, where some questionable "actor" talks some woman into signing a confession before she gets shot, this being, I guess, a snuff movie? Not quite sure how this fits in with the rest of the film, and Boll probably wasn't either, so if he wasn't worried, then I won't worry.<br /><br />An incredible piece of non-entertainment that will make you feel like you're watching something from a parallel universe. A parallel universe that's KIND of like ours, but where things are just enough off where they don't seem right. You have entered "The Boll Zone". Exit as quickly as possible, & don't look back.<br /><br />2 out of 10. | negative |
Tommy Lee Jones was the best Woodroe and no one can play Woodroe F. Call better than he. Not only was he the first and best, he was the only person that could portray his grief and confusion. It was a bad let-down and I'm surprised I even made myself watch it. I can even begin how how pitiful they made Woodroe. I understand he would be old by that time, but everyone knows that he would NEVER let that pull him down. The first movie was the best and the only one that I'll ever watch. I hope to God that no more directors plan on continuing or remaking the wonderful classic without Tommy or Duval. Without them, the movies are pointless wastes of time and money for everyone, including the director. IF YOU PLAN ON MAKING ANOTHER LONESOME DOVE MOVIE OF ANY KIND, take mine and billions of others, don't waste time. Continuing the movies is just grinding the first one into the ground. Thanks. | negative |
So, this is the WORST movie you will probably ever see. It's up there with "Crossbones" and "Southern Comfort", but if your a bad movie fan like I am, this atrocity of a film will be the most fun you've had in years. WHY does the camera make old-school kung fu noises when it zooms? WHY does that random guy stuff a nascar commemorative plate in his bag? And who is he anyway? WHY do the vampires shoot lightning after they die? What is this? Highlander? Dracula McCloud? Who cares! Just laugh at it. This movie has no continuity, no plot, no anything, really. Ron Hall's range of emotions are always off. He looks happy when he should be sad, angry when he should be confused. The rest of the cast couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. The special ("Short bus" kinda special) effects are randomly placed, and never needed. Most scenes are lit with a desk lamp, if they are lit at all. Mel Novak has the AUDACITY to look off-camera for his line, and it's not even edited out. They just keep on filming. In fact, half of this movie isn't even on film at all. It's 1/2 film, 1/2 sony hand-cam. For most of the film it seems that they left their boom mike at home. This movie doesn't just have a few plot holes, it's a mine field of confusion and mental pain! But OH do I love it! Thank you Ron Hall, for this cinematic abomination. I went out and bought it, cause it's just so damn funny. ($1.99 on Amazon, and I had it rush delivered!)<br /><br />"I have weapons! I have weapons! I have WEAPONS!" | negative |
I rented this movie the other day b/c I love romance stories, but this has got to be the worst one I have ever seen in my life. I find it hard to believe that Sam would fall in love with Kelley after they've said hardly no more than 2 words to each other when she has a great long-time boyfriend who's devoted to her completely. I thought Kelley was a major jerk throughout the movie, and he never changed at all. The only good thing about the movie was Josh Hartnett. I thought he did a wonderful acting job, and I'm going to start watching more movies of his. | negative |
I was pleasantly surprised to find this movie showing as a sneak preview in my local theater.<br /><br />We have all seen this plot line before (Top Gun, GI Jane, An Officer and a Gentleman) but a good script still works. This story is basically about the training of a Coast Guard rescue team with a couple of side story lines. Kevin Costner plays a highly successful rescue team leader, Ben Randall, who is forced into heading the training team after a tough mission. The movie takes us through the rigors of the training process and the personal stories of both the Costner character and that of Jake Fischer, played by Ashton Kutcher. I am happy to say that Ashton is great in this part.<br /><br />There are no great surprises in this movie and you will probably realize what is coming long before it arrives. However, the use of humor, the exploration of the toughness of the training and the fun of watching Ben Randall "do his own thing as a trainer", kept me riveted and thoroughly entertained. I really enjoy watching a movie that makes the entire audience laugh out loud, gasp here and there, and clap at the end as a tribute to the movie.<br /><br />We all had a good time (despite a couple of tough moments in the movie)and, I think, you will too. | positive |
Awful dreams, wild premonitions, blasphemy and homosexual fantasies permeate Paul Verhoeven's (arguable) masterpiece of a true femme fatale who loves her men then kills them. Filled with blood and occasional gore, The Fourth Man is truly neurosis inducing. Men will literally leap when Renee swings out her scissors...... | positive |
I loved that this film recognizes the intelligence of the viewer, allowing the layers to peel from the characters through their interactions with each other about the unspoken loss that has so affected each of them. <br /><br />The cinematography is a beautiful, and is an inspired reflection of the vision of someone I believe is an extremely talented new filmmaker with the maturity and artistic insight to tell a story that others with much more experience have failed to accomplish. I see a bright future for this writer/producer/director who had the ability to focus on a goal and accomplish it with integrity.<br /><br />Kudos for this achievement. | positive |
What some Hollywood-movies try and practically never succeed, creating somehow metaphysical connections between persons (without becoming unrealistic), manages this beautiful movie perfectly well (resembling in that way a little to the wonderful 'La Double Vie de Veronique' of the same director and with the same beautiful actress). This is a REAL movie, that changes perspective of life a little bit - intelligent and beautiful story, masterfully directed, excellent main actors, masterful cinematography. I've just seen the movie the 3rd or 4th time, and I still think it's one of the best I've ever seen. And if you should be unhappy with the ending of 'White' - 'Red' puts an happy end to the whole trilogy. | positive |
Well, I get used after awhile to read comments about these movies that don't reflect my experience at all. To me, Amitabh was a better villain here than in some of his most famous movies. He was a die-hard villain, a no-apologies villain. To me it was a breath of fresh air to see him in a role where his villainy isn't sort of undercut in some way.<br /><br />The kid who played Aryan was probably over his head with this cast. There I think maybe the director could have done better. But, to be honest, the very best part of this movie was Shernaz Patel. She is an unsung heroine, a true veteran thespian who is overqualified for every role she is offered. But I must say I appreciated her contribution greatly as she played Virendra Sahi's wife. She may be given little to do, but she does everything with total conviction. I'm sure she sailed right over the heads of most of the audience.<br /><br />So if you are in a habit for settling for Bollywood average, you won't get much out of this movie. But if you constantly search for something more, then this might give you some of what you've been missing. | positive |
What a great show! A very underrated dramatic show. It is great how there are no main characters and every episode some other character(s) are the main character(s).I think the best character on the show is Vern Schillinger. He is a tough, bad guy and an Aryan on top of that which makes him a true bad guy prisoner who there are many that are known to be. This show has many murders, I think it is a little over exaggerated for the killing on the show, but I have to admit that is one of the reasons why I think the show is so great.I think some characters were killed off a little early, but some sure still made their mark. You can't compare things like Prison Break to this show, they are totally different. I think some of the actors on the show are also very good and underrated and should what is due to them. A great show, my favorite's. A show that should be considered of the the greats for years to come. | positive |
The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible. Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie. Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right. The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding. So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process. The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy. Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding. Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, "The Thing That Won't Die." Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out. The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not. There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored. For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man. Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano. | negative |
One of Fuller's (a combat veteran himself) early works of average quality, but accurately hits on the many conflicting aspects of life in postwar Germany. The main character starts the movie in Apr'45 as a Sgt with C Co, 157th Inf, 45th Div, which really did end the war in Munich as in the movie. (Same unit in the previous month had fought heavily in Aschaffenburg and then liberated part of the Dachau facility). To the uninformed the movie may seem confusing by flip flopping between showing the good & bad of the german people. But anyone who has been there or at least well read on it would know that most of what is portrayed in the movie are things that really did happen in 45-47 Germany. The only inaccuracy I noticed was minor: while on a boat cruise of the Rhine passing the remains of the Remagen bridge he comments he crossed there. But his unit really crossed well south of there - north of Worms Germany. | positive |
Just re-saw this movie after thirty seven years. I was eleven years old and caught this flick on South Beach at the long gone Cinema Theater on Washington Avenue. In 1969, I thought Where it's At! was a very good movie. Now, however, after almost forty years, it's not as good as it was. Times have changed, and this movie is now a tired old re-hash of the war between the generations. It did however, catch a place in time which is just a memory. It's really interesting to see the mod fashions, the old Vegas, a slim Don Rickles, chain smoking, and a hip opening song. The acting was decent, the script somewhat out-dated, but the memories were still fresh. Where it's At, may not be where it's at for you, but for me, it was still a nice and entertaining trip down memory lane. | positive |
This film is one of Michael Keaton's best. Throughout the film he is 'on'. With co-stars like Ms. Henner, Joe Piscopo and Danny DeVito, you can't go wrong. Great laughs, great fun for everyone. | positive |
From around the time Europe began fighting World War II, until the war's end, Hollywood (with significant prodding from the government) made tons of movies which were designed to try and get young men to enlist in the Army, by making the life of a serviceman appear "cool." This is by far the sloppiest, implying that the life of a soldier is devoid of work, you get the best food, and you get to lie around all day listening to Ann Miller on the radio. I am far too young to have participated in WWII, but I think that there was more to it than that. There is the barest cat's whisker of a plot, and a bunch of musical numbers featuring some of the day's leading acts.<br /><br />I think that by 1943, even the most naive of civvies knew that there was more going on overseas than the wacky hijinks portrayed in this movie. While I am sure that it was meant to be viewed as escapist entertainment, I can't help but wonder if the family and loved ones of men fighting in the war, were amused or repulsed by this trivialization of their loved ones' sacrifice. | negative |
Caught this movie on TV and I watched it again. I said to myself, it's been a long time since I watched this movie, so why not. And once again this movie thrilled me. It is so easy, so watchable and so human that I don't know why some people dislike it. <br /><br />John Travolta shines as Michael (his dance and every move), angel that can hardly be related to this word. He smokes, drinks and he eats like some savage, but he's got big heart. On his way Michael helps all people he meets. Dorothy Winters (Andie MacDowell) in her singing and finding a right man. Frank Quinlan (William Hurt) in developing himself as a good and decent man. Michael even helped dear old Pansy Milbank (Jean Stapleton) - that last scene is beautiful when they dance on the street.<br /><br />Travolta had great help in other actors. Andie MacDowell is so beautiful and likable, William Hurt is great as usual, late Robert Pastorelli shows his talent. Jean Stapleton and Teri Garr are also good, but my favorite supporting actor in this movie is Bob Hoskins as the tabloid owner.<br /><br />So we've got here a solid movie about people with a warm story also and attractive cast. Just don't take this movie seriously and I can guarantee you'll have fun. | positive |
Sex, drugs, racism and of course you ABC's. What more could you want in a kid's show!<br /><br />------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------<br /><br />"User Comment Guidelines <br /><br />Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on comments. The recommended length is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Comments which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may only post a single comment per title. <br /><br />What to include: Your comments should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Comments that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support HTML mark-up within the comments" | positive |
Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of South Park, finally get out of their grueling schedule to talk to the cameras while sipping champagne in their hot tub. At first, when watching this, I did not sense as much sarcasm as there was in this. I knew they were joking when they would complain about different actors on the show and when Trey said he wasn't going to give his mother any of his money, but there is so much sarcasm throughout, that this documentary, is more of a mockumentary full of inside jokes.<br /><br />This "documentary" shows everything about South Park (up until the second season anyways). It shows what goes on behind the scenes with the animation and the recording. It has interviews, many of which are fake interviews, but some, amongst all the fabrications, give insight into the show. Clips from both of Trey Parker's Spirit of Christmas shorts are shown, as are many good clips from the show. If you were a South Park fan, then this should have quenched your thirst for show knowledge back in late 1998 when this was made. Now, obviously the show has changed, but this is still interesting.<br /><br />What we have here is an amusing documentary where Trey Parker (especially) and Matt Stone come off as arrogant jerks, and that's exactly what they wanted to come off as. They may be this way in real life, but here it was a joke, a 51 minute long insightful joke.<br /><br />My rating: *** out of ****. 51 mins. Not rated, contains Language and Sexual Content. | positive |
I saw Beyond Rangoon about 20 times, it was THAT GOOD. At first when I watched it, I saw the story of Laura Bowman, but later, after multiple showings, I realised that this also was a parallel documentary. It came to be in my mind, a story about Aung San Suu Kyi, and the struggles of women to remain strong in the face of uncertainty, danger, and sadness. I also would put history, and politics on the list after further viewing, since I did learn a lot about Burma's past, and present, and could only guess at it's future. This movie is not only one you will want to see, it's also one you will definitely want to own a copy of. It's a movie that could easily been seen by the whole family, although not for children under thirteen. However, the educational benefits of this movie can not, and should not be understated. | positive |
John Wayne's first starring role just blew me away. Televised letterbox style on AMC, I had to check and make sure I had the right date. Sure enough, this 1930 film was made using a 55 mm wide-screen process. Aside from that, it features some of the grittiest, most realistic footage of the trek west I've seen. Wagons, men and animals are really lowered down a cliff face by rope. Trees are chopped by burly men -- and burly women -- so the train can move another 10 feet. The Indians are not the "pretty boy" city slickers who portrayed them later; they're the real deal. A river crossing in a driving rain storm is so realistic, it has to be real (In fact, I understand that director Raoul Walsh nearly lost the entire cast during this sequence). I could smell the wet canvas. Each day is an agony. The various sub-plots are forgettable but the film as a whole is not. I can't think of another title that can beat The Big Trail in evoking a sense of living history on the trail to Oregon. Bravo. | positive |
I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.<br /><br />The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.<br /><br />Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from "Dawson's Creek".<br /><br />If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this. | negative |
i L-O-V-E this movie... everyone and their grandmother's sister's lawyer's dentist needs to own it! its witty, devilish, thrilling, comedic, and full of toasty action-packed goodness! with this movie, those amazing people at troma offer you a whole new perspective into the story of romeo and juliet in ways you never would have thought to be possible! it has all the makings of an instant classic-- car crashes, deliciously lewd sex scenes, feuding families, street fights, amazing music, severed heads, and lemmy from motörhead narrates the story line! and thats only a taste of what it has to offer! every single person i have watched this movie with now owns their own copy or longs to... A+++++ and ++ | positive |
<br /><br />I tuned into this movie not because I am a fan of U.S. High School basketball (in fact I only rarely watch NBA games) but rather because I am a fan of Gene Hackman, who usually manages to bring an impressive depth to his performances. In this case, however, I was sorely disappointed. This was not one of the bright shining stars of Hackman's career.<br /><br />In fairness to him, he didn't have a lot to work with. As Norman Dale, the new coach of a small town high school basketball team in Indiana, he wasn't called on to do much acting. Basically his performance consisted of pacing up and down basketball sidelines ranting at the referees. I didn't find him particularly believable in the role to be honest. I also was unimpressed with the requisite romance between Dale and Myra Fleener (Barbara Hershey). Quite honestly there was absolutely no chemistry between Hackman and Hershey. The romance never captured my attention, and neither did the basketball "action," which was altogether too predictable.<br /><br />There were far too many problems with this movie to make it worthwhile. I never did understand the depth of the sheer hatred that so many of the townsfolk had for Dale, almost from before the time he arrived. The character development was poor and the story itself was poorly developed. Too much basketball and not enough human interaction, in my opinion. How many shots of kids shooting baskets do we need to see to get the point that this is a basketball movie? There was no suspense: is it even possible to doubt that Hickory is going to win the big one? I realize that this is based on a true story, but I guess it proves that not every true story should be a movie. Quite frankly, it just wasn't a very interesting movie. Definitely a movie Gene Hackman would like to forget.<br /><br />No better than a 2/10 in my opinion. | negative |
The first Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...<br /><br />1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He "falls in love" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote "you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all "good person", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.<br /><br />3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.<br /><br />I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel. | negative |
I think that can sum up this show about as well as anything. Batman TAS may be the worst thing to ever happen to cartoons based on comic books because everything that comes after will be compared to it and nothing has measured up yet. It's just too damn good. Was Batman Beyond good? "Yeah, but it was no TAS." Is Justice League good? "It's not too bad, but it's no TAS."<br /><br />The Batman is certainly no TAS, either, but I won't hold that against it. It would be unfair and besides, it has plenty of other problems with it.<br /><br />The concept of a younger, less experienced Batman fighting crime is a fine one, and at times the art is very nice. But all of the rest of the time, the art is worthless Americanime, and this betrays a lot of the flaws of the show itself. It is paced, written, and designed like an Americanime. If I wanted to watch Jackie Chan Adventures, I'd watch Jackie Chan Adventures. Or I could just bang my head into a wall any time and get the same effect. The Joker is a homicidal, mentally unstable clown in a suit who uses his wits, unpredictability, and clever gadgets to fight Batman. When he is forced to fight hand to hand, he will either resort to something cheap or be totally outmatched. He is not meant to be a monkey with dreadlocks who knows kung-fu and can leap into twenty feet into the air, accompanied by speed lines. If they had wanted to do that with a villain, there were other less important characters they could have used or *gasp* they could have created a new one entirely. And it's not that re-imaginings are a bad thing, don't get me wrong. TAS (there I go again) took Mr. Freeze from your standard icegun-wielding B villain and made him into a memorable and morally complex character. Of course Freeze wasn't exactly a classic villain at the time and they performed an upgrade, but the point stands. What The Batman does is it takes everything you liked about Batman comics and lore and takes a large, smelly dump on them. Guess what? They were eating corn.<br /><br />It's obvious this show can't stand against TAS but stand it on its own legs and it still doesn't work for me. The plots aren't good and they don't develop any better. They've been written for the demographic of children under twelve. Should children be able to enjoy a show? Of course they should. This shouldn't be an adult show with swearing, nudity, and gratuitous violence. But the mark of a truly good show is that it can be enjoyed on different levels by all ages. This show misses that mark.<br /><br />Is this show a TAS? No, of course not. The problem is it's not even a JLU. | negative |
Oh my. How can they make movies of such beauty, but that are so terribly bad. I mean, even Uwe Boll doesn't make crap like this. There is not even a hint of a decent story, multi-layered characters, or attraction. It's just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a 'movie'. I suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it, given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent, that anyone older would be annoyed by it. But then again, it's far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age, that there's probably no one that should watch this movie at all.<br /><br />Take my advice and stay far, far away from this movie. Your little daughter can make a better storyline, and though she probably isn't able to draw pictures this pretty, her tales are much more worth listening to. And please, in the name of whoever you believe in, do not expose your children to this piece of ****. I'll give it 2 out of 10, and that's exclusively for the graphics, because the story and character development are so awful they'd deserve a negative rating.<br /><br />And if you decide to watch it anyways... remember that I warned you. | negative |
I'd love to write a little summary of this movie's plot, but...there simply isn't one! If you just take a look at the plot keywords for this title, you pretty much know the entire content of the film: sex, breasts, exploitation, female frontal nudity and women's prison! 80 minutes of pure sleaze and nothing more. "Escape of the Island Women" (an alternate title that isn't even listed here) clearly wanted to become another notorious and controversial woman-in-prison classic, but it totally lacks the brutality of one. WIP-flicks are meant to blend graphic sexual images with shocking violence, but the violence here has just been replaced with more sex. Director Erwin Dietrich surely can't compete with specialists in the field, like Jess Franco or Joe D'Amato, and he should have sticked to making ordinary soft-core flicks. The only aspects that slightly look like cult-cinema are the resemblance of the tyrant-president with Fidel Castro and the group-rape of a (minor?) girl by soldiers. The girls are ravishing, though, and the Ibiza filming location looks very enchanting. | negative |
I really liked this movie...it was cute. I enjoyed it, but if you didn't, that is your fault. Emma Roberts played a good Nancy Drew, even though she isn't quite like the books. The old fashion outfits are weird when you see them in modern times, but she looks good on them. To me, the rich girls didn't have outfits that made them look rich. I mean, it looks like they got all the clothes -blindfolded- at a garage sale and just decided to put it on all together. All of the outfits were tacky, especially when they wore the penny loafers with their regular outfits. I do not want to make the movie look bad, because it definitely wasn't! Just go to the theater and watch it!!! You will enjoy it! | positive |
What an overlooked 80's soundtrack. I imagine John Travolta sang some of the songs but in watching the movie it did seem to personify everything that was 80s cheese. Clearly movies that rely on mechanical bulls, bartenders and immature relationships were in style. The best was his lousy Texas accent. Compare that to Friday Night Lights.I suggest watching Cocktail and Stir Crazy to start really getting into the dumbing down of film. Also, as a side note Made in America with Ted Danson and Whoopie Goldberg is an awesomely bad movie. I was so shocked to realize I had never watched it. One more weird movie of this genre would have to include Cadilac Man with Robin Williams. Just remember all of these BIG stars played big roles in these CHEESY movies.. Tom Cruise, Richard Pryor, Robin Williams and John Travolta | positive |
I saw the new redubbed and edited version yesterday and loved it. Then I went home and watched it with subtitles and I loved it. I am ready to watch it again.<br /><br />I am a sucker for the mild mannered secret identity and what could be more mild mannered than a pacifist librarian? The scenes where he reveals his super powers to his friends or absent mindedly forgets to be meek are my favortites.<br /><br />Of course the martial arts are stunning. There is really not much I can say about them if you are familiar with the HK style. However, if you are not... we paused playback briefly and Walker, Texas Ranger was on. We noticed that after every strike there was a cut. Not in Black Mask.<br /><br /> | positive |
The history of the FBI, as told from the point of view of Agent Stewart via flashbacks, interwoven with his personal life story. Stewart and Miles (as his wife) are pretty good, as is Hamilton as an earnest agent. The problem is that the episodic nature of the story makes it difficult to get involved. It's like watching bits and pieces of a dozen different movies as we get glimpses of a who's who cast of gangsters. Some of the episodes are too long, some too short, and some just look out of place (Stewart's daughter's school sequence). Overall, it goes on way too long. Nevertheless, it's worth a look for its handsome production values. | positive |
Just finished watching this movie. I couldn't imagine watching this on VHS, as there were scenes where I needed the subtitles to hear through an accent or sound effect, even though the scene itself was in English.<br /><br />Visually, the movie is pretty appealing. The few CG effects were very obvious insertions, but the prosthetics/creature effects weren't bad. Not perfect, but photography and editing (which were pretty good) made up for a lot. Acting was generally bad, though how much of that can be blamed on the director I couldn't say, having never seen any of the actors before. The exception, I think, was M. Gomez (Uxia). She stole every scene she had a part in, and not just because of a very pretty face, but there was something akin to an urgency to her performance that none of the others had. The writing could have been a lot better - the plot was still unmistakably Lovecraft, and plenty of Lovecraft details were written in, but I personally could have done without most of the dialogue. | negative |
Tom Selleck plays an absentee son to senile "pop" Don Ameche and weary mom Anne Jackson, making up for his indiscretions (one presumes) and taking them in after Ameche has burned down his mobile home; meanwhile, Selleck's job is vanquished by the F.B.I., his assets are frozen, his wife and kids leave him and his obnoxious sister and her brats have come to stay. Brightly-painted comedy-of-ills is as out of touch with reality as Ameche's doddering old coot. Perhaps a serious first draft (with scenes such as Ameche walking out into traffic with two toddlers) was incorporated into a sillier second or third version (with Selleck getting poked, bumped, prodded, and eventually losing a toe and a testicle!). Either way, it's a painful experience, and Selleck's sudden dedication to his father makes little sense; he hobbles around and howls in pain, but retains his heart of mush. This movie is mush. * from **** | negative |
Robert Montgomery and Robert Young are outstanding as a duo of young submarine officers stationed in Italy during World War I. The dialog is highly entertaining, and Jimmy Durante is hilarious as the ship's cook, "Ptomaine". Walter Huston's character is inspiring as the captain of the submarine, a stellar example of an officer and a gentleman. One of the most interesting aspects of this movie was the level of technology displayed in the battle scenes. I was surprised at how similar the technology of World War I was to the technology displayed 25 years later in World War II. Basic human nature was portrayed as very similar to modern times, and far from the conservativism I thought existed in the so-called "innocent" past. All in all I felt that the cast, characters, action scenes, and view of history depicted in this movie were first-rate. | positive |
I recently saw this movie in my International Business class. I was not expecting anything other then another boring documentary (not to say I don't love documentary I've just hard bad luck with movies in that class) Imagine my surprise when this movie, that's actually a movie, came up. <br /><br />This film is a tell all of cultural differences in the work place and how they need to cooperate to get anywhere. The culture clash shows just how different the world is and just how differently we perceive ourselves until someone comes along and gives us a wake up call. I would highly recommend this film to anyone in business or who just wants a laugh, because yes it is funny. <br /><br />Well, that's about it! Cheers | positive |
This has got to be the worst movie I have ever seen. The part where they loose there daughter? with the poltergeist overtone rip off? just pushes it over the edge with stupidity. I watched it on showtime so it still had the cheese soft-core porn scenes in it. I have to say it made me laugh my ass off. The 80's 3d effects were very out of place. Included an invisible cat and a spinning vortex. Wow I wonder if the people who made this actually feel accomplished in life. The actress who plays the wife looks familiar but sucks anyhow. Her screaming could be used as a torture device in hell for more than retired Nazis. Anyways thank you showtime for the super crappy horror movie. I will always enjoy the time I watched the biggest waist of time and money I have ever seen. | negative |
The third Muppet movie is perhaps the most relaxed and pleasing, with the gang taking their modest college musical to the bright (yet volatile) lights of Broadway filled with typically naïve optimism. Of course, their first attempt fails and Kermit (leader of the group and author of the show) blows his top; so, the others all go their separate ways so that he won't have to feel responsible for them. Kermit himself befriends a young wannabe fashion designer making ends meet by serving food at her father's diner (the old man, then, has a line in particularly tortuous non-sequiturs!). We get the usual cameo appearances by a variety of stars: Art Carney (as a producer), James Coco (as an overzealous dog owner), Dabney Coleman (as a confidence trickster), Elliott Gould (who was also in THE MUPPET MOVIE [1979]), Gregory Hines, Liza Minnelli (as herself having her portrait at a classy restaurant replaced by Kermit's, sporting fake moustache, as an ostensibly celebrated entrepreneur in a ruse to attract publicity to the Muppets' show), Brooke Shields, and even director John Landis (in possibly the film's funniest scene as a Broadway producer before whom Kermit appears acting streetwise and chummy and hilariously donning shades and an Afro wig!). The other Muppets more or less go through their typical paces, with (regrettably) less space given to Gonzo this time around; while Miss Piggy is something of an acquired taste with me, the scenes in which the latter spies on what she takes to be Kermit's romance with the waitress and especially her violent reaction to this are undeniably funny. What disappoints, however, is the climactic show itself (after a fairly redundant midsection wherein Kermit gets amnesia and eventually picks up advertising on Madison Avenue) which, rather than the expected splashy routines, procures nothing more original than the wedding ceremony of Kermit and his eternal flame Miss Piggy! | positive |
The Diary of Anne Frank is the second best-selling nonfiction book in the world, and for good reason. Nonetheless, sitting through this documentary about her life, which fills in some of the details where the diary left off, I thought, "Just another documentary about Anne Frank." I found it to be competent but not extraordinary. That was my complacent attitude because I was already well aware of the story of Anne Frank; most of what the documentary had to tell me wasn't news to me.<br /><br />Everything changed, though, when I got to the end of the documentary---when I saw the motion picture footage of Anne Frank. The emotional impact of seeing this footage, only a second or so long, made everything that came before it a thousand times more real---but not just everything that was in the documentary; everything I had previously known about Anne Frank suddenly became more real to me, more personal. I'd always been moved by her story, but when I saw that footage, what I felt was stronger and deeper and more profound than any other film experience of my life. (I knew beforehand that this documentary contained live footage of Anne Frank, and I'd even seen the footage in a movie review on television, but seeing it in the context of the documentary was a completely different experience. It's not likely that my mentioning it here will spoil it for anyone.)<br /><br />I realize now that many people still don't know the story of Anne Frank; it's discouraging at times to be witness to this kind of ignorance. I think to myself, "How could someone NOT know the story of Anne Frank?" This being the case, though, ANNE FRANK: REMEMBERED, along with reading her diary, is the best place to start. It's a story that everyone should know. | positive |
I enjoyed this film yet hated it because I wanted to help this guy! I am in my fifties and have a lot of friends in the music business...who are now still trying to become adults....no more fans,groupies,money etc...and they are having such a hard time adjusting to a regular life...as they see the new bands etc getting the spotlight...it is almost like they have to begin anew...this film is a testament to what a lot of the old rockers from the 70's and 80's are going through now....and that's where I find the film sad and depressing.BUT it portrays the life of an old rock star-abandoned and lost-in a believable way.The young girl who arrives at his decrepit home reminds me of Hollis maclaren (Outrageous)...and she is one lady in a film you will cheer for. This film is a must have for folks in their 50's who have seen the rise and fall of bands,people who knew the members, and have watched them hurt as age creeps in,and popularity fades.This is an almost perfect movie....sad but in a way positive....because of the whales. A MUST SEE! | positive |
I don't'know... maybe it's because I'm Brazilian but all that stuff was too much. Too much love for the music, too much parties, too much contrast between the nice lives of the main characters (come on, it's not so sad) and the aspect of the city shown by the director. Everything looks too fake to me: the families, the relationships, the music, the "happiness". It simply sells a little taste of fake latinamerican culture. I must be honest: it did seduce me a little, but who would not be seduced by that fake lives made of nice music, sex and parties? I'm not that stupid: what kind of world is this one in which people do not suffer of diarrhea, profound sadness and STDs? I liked the scene with Caridad's mother phone call and the discussion about the contract with all the musicians and the Spanish people. | negative |
Not only is it a disgustingly made low-budget bad-acted movie, but the plot itself is just STUPID!!!<br /><br />A mystic man that eats women? (And by the looks, not virgin ones)<br /><br />Ridiculous!!! If you´ve got nothing better to do (like sleeping) you should watch this. Yeah right. | negative |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Mr Bean (Rowan Atkinson) is in this world, but not of this world. His mind simply doesn't seem to comprehend things the way an average person would and his life is one long disaster because of this, getting himself into constant mishaps and far out, zany situations, which he is left to sort out on his own as he doesn't seem to mix with anyone and he rarely speaks. But he never gives up and, despite the simplest of tasks being a constant struggle for him, applying his own zany methods of solving the problem always pays off for him in the end.<br /><br />To look at the sorry state of modern British humour, with all it's focus of sex and general vulgarity, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that a show like Mr Bean was made at one time. There's nothing unsuitable going on here, just good, clean U rated humour of the type Tommy Cooper and the like made in the 50s. And I find it just as laugh out loud funny now in my early 20s as I did when I was a young boy in the early 90s.<br /><br />Although I can look at it a little deeper now and see there must be more to this character than than meets the eye. There must be a reason why he does things the way he does and things seem to keep going wrong for him. As others have noted, it looks like he may have a type of autism. In fact I'm so convinced about it that I really think were a professional psychologist to analyse him, I think Mr Bean could be the first famous, fictional character to be diagnosed with something like Asperger's Syndrome.<br /><br />If you'd like to see some truly hilarious British humour at it's very best before it all became obsessed with sex and vulgarity, then this would come highly recommended. Shows like Little Britain do work because it's well realised but it's really just as vulgar as the rest. Shows like this show we were more restrained and civilised once, and hopefully we might start putting out this type of humour more again sometime soon. ***** | positive |
Very good dramatic comedy about a playwright trying to figure out how to keep his head above water after running out of ideas. Can't say much about this film without giving away the story. I can say that little was as it seems as you are watching the picture. Everybody has his or her own agenda. Nice little surprise at the end - after all the other surprises. Well written with good performances by all. | positive |
This movie was a complete waste of time. The soundtrack was bad, story was lame and predictable, and the acting was terrible. One of the worst 25 movies I have ever seen. After the first ten minutes, the rest of the film was completely obvious. | negative |
I have always loved old movies but this is one of my top ten favorites...it has all the charm, 1940's quaintness, and good old fashioned romance and it's hilarious, to boot! Barbara Stanwick plays an independent single woman who writes cooking\home life articles for a famous magazine...under the premise that she is a married homemaker. Even the president of the magazine is under this delusion. Enter a handsome GI, (played by the talented Dennis Morgan)just rescued off of a raft along with his buddy. His simple wish is to stay at the homey Inn the she writes so eloquently about and relax with her famous home-cooked meals. She now has to frantically find a way to save her job and reputation...add to this that her fiancé is in a hurry to tie the knot doesn't help. The humor is superb and the chemistry between the leading characters a lot of fun. Throw in the character-actor nicknamed "Cuddles" (who fits this name completely) it becomes even more adorable. This has become my must-see movie that I snuggle in with a cup of cocoa each Christmas season. A wonderful, enjoyable movie to enjoy at Christmastime or anytime! | positive |
The first episode of this new show was on today, and it was horrible. Not only did Shaggy have a squeaky new voice that made listening to his lines torture, but it's so far away from the original concept and animation style that it's barely recognizable as a 'Scooby-Doo' show.<br /><br />Even back in the dark days when Fred and Velma were gone and Scooby's nephew Scrappy was there, the team still solved mysteries. This new show instead features Shaggy and Scooby battling a James Bond type super-villain and his henchmen while living in a mansion. There's not even a van called 'The Mystery Machine' (and the teaser for the next episode which promised a transformers type robot car did NOT put my mind at ease). How can anyone take Scooby Doo and make THIS? <br /><br />The show earns two point for two scenes featuring the whole Scooby Doo gang, all of whom speak with the correct voices except Shaggy, and even then I'm being far too generous. | negative |
After having watched Koyaanisqatsi two or three dozen times and loving every second of it, I finally had a chance to see it's sequel Life In Transformation. I was truly dissappointed as it did not nearly stand up to the high standards of the first. 90 minutes of people with baskets on their head is not my idea of a good movie. The Philip Glass score for this one had neither the beauty nor the correlating strength of the first. Compared with Koyaanisqatsi this movie seemed slow and pointless. A watered down version of Baraka, which is the same idea but done better. I truly hope the third movie in this series will not follow the example of this waste. | negative |
Is it possible for a movie to get any worse than this? There's a bunch of apes wandering about, mumbling b******, acting supposedly silly and we are supposed to laugh? There is no plot here to keep you going in the first place. Even when the women finally show up, there is no sign of improvement; the most expected things happen and by the time the film is over, you might be far asleep. Beware: this is not a trashy cult movie, this is trash -period! I can't believe there's even a sequel to this!<br /><br />1 | negative |
I remembered seeing this movie when i was a kid one day on the wonderful world of Disney. This movie has been in my memory for over 30 years and I have been looking for it. I would have to say that out of all the kids movies I saw back then,, this one stuck out more than all of them and after only seeing it once, I really hoped I would get to see it again. The story and images of this movie have been burned into my memory. To this day, I never did see it after that day back in the 70s, in fact, I never remembered the title until an internet search earlier today disclosed it to me. I loved it and want my kids to see it.Does anybody know where I can find it? | positive |
Hmm
I agree with the reviewer who said that "strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film". I thought the film was intriguing enough to watch it. I think that was primarily because of Marsden and Speedman - not the plot.<br /><br />The bottom line is that this film is mildly psychologically tantalizing on the one hand and profoundly homophobic on the other. Thumbs up on the former and triple thumbs down on the latter. I'm not sure if the film is intended to promote dialogue or to spread fear and propaganda.<br /><br />I thought the acting was mediocre. A lot of conversation that was about 90 degrees askew of reality. I kept wanting to derive some meaning from the plot, but it's ultimately just a conversation with a mad man (Speedman). I feel mildly sorry for him (Speedman) because of his loss, but not really. His loss is no greater and certainly is less than losses suffered every day around the world by more significant causes.<br /><br />Does the film expose naiveté about HIV/AIDS? Yes: That of the intended audience. Is HIV a dark, mysterious, evil killer? What about it's victims? The answer to both questions is NO. Neither HIV nor its victims have any more or less malevolent intent than lupus, multiple sclerosis, TB, hepatitis, CANCER, or their victims, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Just because a disease is communicable does not make it EITHER deliberate OR negligent - or evil - it just IS.<br /><br />Does this excuse ignorance or fool-hardy risk taking? - NO. Should all people practice safe sex? - YES. Will safe sex save the world? - NO. Is safe sex realistic in all instances of love and lust between passionate and emotional human beings? OF COURSE NOT. What kind of a world would we live in if everyone followed the rules, no one ever took risks, and sex was never spontaneous and passionate??? Am I ignoring that the film deals specifically with gay sex? YES. HIV is spread by sharing blood or bodily fluids between infected and non-infected individuals. Sex is not necessary for transmission, gay or otherwise.<br /><br />I'm always disturbed by willful violence of one person upon another. I actually thought the film did do a good job of portraying the absurdity of Tom's violent abduction, captivity, and intent towards Dan, and this kind of insane violence does occur every day.<br /><br />Stream of consciousness notes from the film: Tom is crazy.<br /><br />Why doesn't Dan ask "why" do you feel this way, rather than "what are you doing"? Implication: men who have sex with men get "AIDS" Implication: HIV = AIDS Where was Tom's responsibility in the sex act? Why was it Dan's responsibility to use the condom? "maybe you slipped it off before you stuck it in
" What are we talking about here? Was one of the parties unconscious? "Maybe she didn't want to hear the truth" are you kidding me "She's up in heaven and so unbelievably hurt about what she now knows about me"
right
Is Dan's life over if he has HIV? Certainly NOT! Is this why the whole world is so homophobic???? They think gay men are the cause of HIV, that they will give it to the rest of the world, and we will all die
are you kidding me??? Are people really stupid enough to think that homosexuality is the cause... is the problem??? Do we feel that way about the victims of tuberculosis? of malaria? I can see that Tom is hurt because of his wife's death, and he blames it on AIDS, but seriously
who's at fault here? The victim or the virus? Are illnesses really the responsibility of the ill? (presuming they did not seek and did not seek to spread the disease).<br /><br />Sure, safe sex is essential to a safe life, but so is not-driving, not-flying, not-leaving the house, not-living. Do we really want to blame the disease on the victims? Would safe sex between Tom and Dan have prevented Tom's wife's ultimate demise? Perhaps, but not Dan's sole responsibility.<br /><br />Tom is crazy. Did I mention that.<br /><br />Tom to Dan: "maybe you get what you deserve"
COME ON! 24 Days: Violent, naïve, and homophobic.<br /><br />Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But I think this film points a judging finger at gay men for their reckless and malevolent intent towards a "straight world" by practicing unsafe sex, when the rate of homosexuals practicing safe sex is proportionately equivalent or better than that of heterosexuals. We all need to wake up and get serious about HIV/AIDS. HIV is killing hundreds of thousands of STRAIGHT Africans every year. | negative |
Following which, the touted update goes and shoots itself through the head. Rather apt, considering the sorry state of this movie, a sequel to a film which patently didn't need one.<br /><br />What really irritates about Robocop 2 is that the makers obviously didn't understand why the original was so good in the first place. Robocop (7) was a witty, vibrant satire of bad action movies. Robocop 2 is just a bad action movie.<br /><br />Thin on dialogue, particularly towards the tedious, shoot-out finale, it attracts little interest and possesses none of the energy or spirit of the original. The spoof ads, now a little tasteless ("Warning: continued use will cause skin cancer") seem merely there as an afterthought. And calling a new designer drug "Nuke" is nowhere near as subtle or as funny as the original's family board game, "Nuke em!"<br /><br />The stop-motion animation the weakest element of the original is used more extensively, while this humourless sequel fails to include a credits sequence, which makes it look even more cheap and hurried. Ah, humourless? You might say. But what about the funny mayor, or the way Robo is reprogrammed to spout platitudes? Yes, these are attempts at light relief, as is Robo tightening himself up with a screwdriver ("we're only human") for the film's punchline, but none are likely to induce laughter. Like the rest of the film, they're staid and moronic attempts at entertainment.<br /><br />The third and final film in the series (imaginatively titled Robocop 3; 5) saw Peter Weller leave, to be replaced by Robert John Burke, who does well in a undemanding role. With toned-down language and violence, it was an obvious plea to the kiddie market, a Robo action figure much plugged throughout. With it's social conscience too overstated, and Robocop's new-found arm attachments and jetpack getting too silly, the final film was never destined to be a masterpiece. Yet fluid direction by Fred Dekker and a flowing pace make this one enjoyably throwaway viewing.<br /><br />Robocop, then, is the film proper. Robocop 3 is the sequel which you could watch if there was nothing better on. Which leaves the second movie hanging in the middle, an unwatchable dirge of a picture. A franchise vehicle that has nothing to say, save for the pound signs that rung up. Irvin Kershner is no Paul Verhoven, just as comic artist Frank Miller and partner Walon Green aren't the writers that Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner were. A tragic waste of a good, if limited, concept. 4/10. | negative |
Woa, talk about awful. Do not waste your time. I wish I had seen the other use comments first. <br /><br />I have to admit, I didn't watch the whole thing. It was just too horrible. The worst, sappiest dialogue... I could go on and on. But what really made it unwatchable was the direction. The poor actors. You can't even tell if they have any talent because they not only have pathetic lines to speak but the director gave them no action. If you check the director's filmography on this site you will see why this film didn't have a chance. <br /><br />This would not even be good as a made for TV flick. <br /><br />Ouch! | negative |
Loved it! What's not to like?--you got your suburbia, you got your zombies, you got your family issues, you got your social dilemmas, you got yourself one Fine Retro-1950's-style Flesh Eating Under Class Held At Bay By An Uneasy Worried About Whether They're The Next Meal Upper Crust. You couldn't ask for more.<br /><br />Cast is superb. Carrie Ann Moss is absolute perfection as a debutante social climbing housewife. She's both wanton, and criminally conspiratorial. Every fellow's dream. K'sun is really great as the son just trying to be as normal as possible in this nightmare existence, and somehow succeeding. He's a genuine screen presence. Very photogenic, and natural. Without naming them all, the rest of the cast is wonderful. Henry Czerny plays a suspicious policeman with honed instincts and little squeamishness as if it's his everyday persona. Billy Connolly is delightful as Fido. A fine actor: I wish that he had played the title role in "Braveheart," with Gibson directing. My sense is that his William Wallace would have been closer to the actual character. His Fido is contained, yet accessible. A nice touch.<br /><br />In short, a great and marvelous satiric poke at morals, values, social pinnings, feelings, growth, coping in uncertain times, and compensatory adjustments to impossible conditions. A true reality show. | positive |
An unexpected pleasure as I had heard nothing about this film.<br /><br />Shameful since it warrants having a wider audience.<br /><br />A wonderfully humane story with a social message gently told, although admittedly predictable in its resolution. Solidly acted by the principals. Beautifully photographed with muted colors floating against grey that captures the nostalgic tone of the film.<br /><br />My recent foray into Chinese film (Shower, The Road Home, Not One Less) has been an exciting one that I hope to continue exploring. China and its people is an amazing canvas for film-makers. "The King of Masks" can be highly recommended as a starting point for anyone similarly interested in recent Chinese film.<br /><br /> | positive |
When Melville's "Pierre; or The Ambiguities" hit bookstores in 1852, his first publication since "Moby Dick" a year earlier, the public response was similar to that found among the IMDB reviews of "POLA X". Newspapers even published headlines like: "Melville Insane!" which, of course, he wasn't. But, when one compares the writing styles found in "Moby Dick" and "Pierre," one finds in the latter a sharp departure from the simple and often declamatory style found in the former. Clearly, he was mimicking the overly florid style of the now-forgotten Victorian Romances that were easily outselling his immortal "Moby Dick." He was not content, however, to turn out the sort of product that his publishers wanted, and that surely would have sold. His version of a Victorian romance was a twisted, cynical one, perhaps, but brilliant in its synthesis. The alternate title: "The ambiguities" is quite appropriate. As Pierre searches for, and thinks he finds, truth, we become more and more uncertain what and whom to believe. As he searches for happiness, he becomes more and more miserable.<br /><br />"POLA X" is a fascinating adaptation of this novel, set in modern or nearly modern France. Though, in some ways, it leaves little to the imagination, and shows us graphically the incestuous relations that Melville could only hint at, the ambiguities which make the novel and its message so alluring are perfectly in tact. The questions it raises are ones that few films have thought to ask, yet the answers are left to the viewer.<br /><br />I recommend a reading of the novel, which is much shorter than "Moby Dick," before seeing this movie. I hope more people discover this tantalizing film. | positive |
More than twenty years before Peter Jackson's visionary adaptation of The Lord Of The Rings, there was this 1978 animated effort from director Ralph Bakshi. An ambitious and reasonably faithful version of the story, this has sadly been rather over-shadowed by the Jackson trilogy. Indeed, many reviewers here on the IMDb (mainly those who saw the newer version first) seem to be fiercely unkind to this version.... but if one applies a little common sense, and takes into consideration the time when it was made and the technical possibilities that existed at that time, then they will realise that this is a pretty good film. Indeed, it was shortly after seeing this animated movie back in the early '80s that I sought out Tolkien's book and immediately became a lifelong fan of these richly detailed Middle Earth adventures. So, in some respects, I owe this film a degree of acknowledgement as the film which shaped my literary tastes forever.<br /><br />Sauron, the Dark Lord of Middle Earth, forges an all-powerful ring that gives him incredible power. Following a great battle during which Sauron is defeated, the ring falls into possession of a king named Isildur
. but instead of destroying it he foolishly chooses to keep it. For centuries the ring passes from hand to hand, eventually coming into the possession of a hobbit named Frodo Baggins who lives in a peace-loving community known as The Shire. Frodo learns from a wizard named Gandalf that his ring is in fact The One Ring, the very same that was forged by Sauron all those centuries ago, and that its master is once again searching for it in order to restore his dark power over the entire land. Frodo embarks on a perilous journey to protect the ring with three other hobbit companions, but every step of the way they are hunted by Sauron's ring-wraiths, the Black Riders. There follow many adventures, during which a company of nine adventurers is formed to guide the ring to the only place where it can be "unmade" Mount Doom, in the land of Mordor. The film concludes with Frodo and his best friend Sam on the borders of Mordor, closing ever nearer to their horrifying destination. Meanwhile Gandalf and the other members of the company fight off a huge army of orcs at the legendary fortress of Helm's Deep.<br /><br />This version covers just over half of the original book. A second instalment was planned to bring the story to an end, but was sadly never completed. While the ending feels abrupt, it does at least end at a sensible point in the story. One has to feel a little frustration and regret that no sequel exists in which we might follow these animated heroes to their eventual goal. The animation is passable, with a nice variety of locales and characters presented in interesting detail. The music by Leonard Rosenman is suitably stirring and fits in appropriately with the epic narrative. The voice-overs are decent, too, especially John Hurt as Aragorn and Peter Woodthorpe as Gollum. On the other hand, Michael Scholes - who provides the voice for Sam - is rather campy and goofy, which is not well suited to the character. The Lord Of The Rings is a commendable attempt to visualise the staggering book on which it is based. | positive |
One of the more lucid statements against the death penalty ever filmed, quite a frontal attack against the most disgusting way of doing justice. The final sequence, with that parallel between the crimes that the convicted Poncelet committed and his own execution are just superb.<br /><br />No, what about the work of Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon? It leaves you breathless, they're two giants and their performances achieve the highest levels of emotion.<br /><br />Tim Robbins put clear that he's not only a good actor, he's a nice director as well.<br /><br />*My rate: 9/10 | positive |
This is a silly movie with much singing and dancing. Acting is average, but writing leaves something to be desired. There are rememberable performances by Buddy Epsen, with a short but outstanding performance by Gypsy Rose as the bitter wife of a rich playboy. A totally unbelievable portrayal of college life which ends with a superb ice skating exibition of Alice in Wonderland. Many parts are worth watching, but do not be afraid to fast forward through parts of the movie | negative |
A country-boy Aussie-Rules player (Mat) goes to the city the night before an all-important AFL trial match, where he is to be picked up by his cousin. And then things go wrong.<br /><br />His no-hoper cousin has become mixed up in a drug deal involving local loan-shark / drug-dealer Tiny (who looks like any gangster anywhere but is definitively Australian). Needless to say, Mat becomes enmeshed in the chaos, and it isn't long before thoughts of tomorrow's match are shunted to the back of his mind as the night's frantic events unravel.<br /><br />Accomplished Western Australian professional Shakespearean actor Toby Malone puts in a sterling performance as young naive country-boy Mat, and successfully plays a part well below his age. Best support comes from John Batchelor as Tiny, and an entertaining role by David Ngoombujarra as one of the cops following the events. Roll is fast-paced, often funny, and a very worthwhile use of an hour. | positive |