Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Oh dear god. This was horrible. There is bad, then there was this. This movie makes no sense at all. It runs all over the map and isn't clear about what its saying at all. The music seemed like it was trying to be like Batman. The fact that 'Edison' isn't a real city, takes away. Since I live in Vancouver, watching this movie and recognizing all these places made it unbearable. Why didn't they make it a real city? The only writing that was decent was'Tilman' in which John Heard did a fantastic job. He was the only actor who played his role realistically and not over the top and campy. It was actually a shame to see John Heard play such a great bad guy with a lot of screen time, and the movie be a washout. Too bad. Hopefully someone important will see it, and at least give John Heard credit where credit is due, and hire him as lead bad guy again, which is where he should be. on the A List. | negative |
Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.<br /><br />Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.<br /><br />First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...<br /><br />They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...<br /><br />Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.<br /><br />Terrible, skip this one please. | negative |
I don't think that many films (especially comedies) have added memorable, quotable dialog like MOONSTRUCK. I won't illustrate it - you can see a remarkably long list of quotes on this thread - but any film that can make subjects like the defense of using expensive copper piping rather than brass for plumbing purposes into memorable dialog is amazing to me. It is not the only line that pops up and makes an imprint on our memory. How about a restaurant waiter who regrets a planned marriage proposal because it will mean the loss of an old bachelor client? Or a nice, elderly dog fancier encouraging his pack to howl at he moon? Or Perry (John Mahoney's) description of a female student's youthful promise as "moonlight in a martini" (my favorite line).<br /><br />MOONSTRUCK is a wonderful example of brilliant script, first rate direction, and a good ensemble cast that fits perfectly. There are other examples (the drama THE OX-BOW INCIDENT is another example, but a grimmer one). Cher, Olympia Dukakis, Vincent Gardenia, Nicholas Cage, John Mahoney, and Danny Aiello are all involved in plots and cross purposes that examine the nature of love, and how to handle it. Is it a good thing to be totally in love? Cher and Cage, at the end, seem to think so, but Dukakis knows that real love drives the individual crazy (and Cage gets a glimmer of realization of this too, when he and Cher argue outside his home after they return from the opera La Boheme). Is infidelity by men a way of avoiding thoughts of death. Dukakis believes so, and (oddly enough - although he is not totally convinced) Aiello. Chance reveals infidelity - Dukakis realizes early that Gardenia's odd behavior is tied to unfaithfulness, and Cher literally stumbles onto Gardenia and his girlfriend at the opera (but Gardenia also stumbles onto Cher's similar unfaithfulness to Aiello). But chance also causes misunderstandings: Fyodor Chaliapin stumbles on Dukakis walking with John Mahoney and thinks that she is having an affair.<br /><br />There are lovely little moments in the film too. Cher's observation about flowers leading to receiving one. Her hearing the argument in the liquor shop and it's resolution. But best is the sequence of Louis Guss and Julie Bovasso as Cher's uncle and aunt Raymond and Rita Cappomaggi and Rita's charming and kind comment to Raymond about the effect of the moonlight on him. It is the sweetest moment of the entire film.<br /><br />It is close to a flawless film. After seeing it over a dozen times in as many years I can only find two points that do not seem as smooth as they should be. When Cher is at Cage's bakery, his assistant Chrissy (Nada Despotovich) mentions how she is secretly in love with Cage, but has been afraid to tell him. Earlier she was slightly snippy towards Cher, who put her in her place quickly. Yet nothing seems done with this potential rivalry. At the same time, the fact that Cher forgets to deposit her uncle and aunt's daily business profits is brought in momentarily in the concluding seven minutes of the film - but just as quickly dropped. Was there supposed to be some plot lines that were dropped, besides one about Cher and Vincent Gardenia working at a homeless man's shelter as penance? It is a small annoyance, but I think it is just based on a desire to see more of this film because it is so very good. | positive |
One has to wonder if at any point in the production of this film a<br /><br />script existed that made any sense. Was the rough cut 3 hours<br /><br />long and was it trimmed into the incoherent mess that survives? <br /><br />Why would anyone finance this mess? I will say that Tom<br /><br />Wlaschiha is a good looking young man and he does what he can<br /><br />with the dialogue and dramatic (?) situations he is given. But<br /><br />characters come and go for no apparent reason, continuity is<br /><br />non-existent, and the acting, cinematography, and direction are (to<br /><br />put it politely) amateurish. Not One Sleeps is an unfortunate<br /><br />choice of title as it will probably prove untrue should anyone<br /><br />actually attempt to actually watch this film. | negative |
This time around, Blackadder is no longer royal(or even particularly close to being any such thing)... instead, rather a butler to the Prince Regent, portrayed by Hugh Laurie(who replaces Tim McInnerny, who presence is sorely missed, and that hole is never filled... his character had an innocent charm... while he was a bumbling and complete moron, we can't help but care for him, which isn't at all true of his replacement) as being intolerably daft(which he apparently was, according to the Trivia page), not to mention loud-mouthed and utterly non-threatening. Edmund can now do just about what he pleases, and does so. Why is he so frustrated and angry(honestly, it gets depressing at times)? Yes, his master is a buffoon, they always are. He doesn't seem to lack money, nor is he in any danger. In the second series, the Queen was mischievous and childish, and would cut off someone's head - or marry them - on a whim. Here there is simply never enough at stake for any of the conflict to be exciting and interesting. There is still commentary and even a little satire. Too often, it seems as if they thought that the history was funny enough on its own, so they merely restate it, not bothering to actually turn the facts into jokes or gags. And I can't tell you how many of them I figured out before they were done, literally more than a minute away. It's not usually a positive when you know the punchline before it is delivered. Baldrick doesn't change from last season... he's still rather pathetic and stupid, leading to "silly" humor. Frankly, the amount goes through the roof. Don't get me started on the gross-out stuff. The sarcastic, verbal wit can still be great, though much less of it is than before. I'd say about half of the episodes were rather amusing and downright funny, while the other three didn't really get me into them at all. I was disappointed in how predictable some of the plots and developments thereof were... I could see many of such coming a mile away. Some of the material tries way too hard to be funny and winds up coming across as incredibly forced. This continues with the tradition started by "II" of letting the plans work out occasionally. The theme is the worst of the bunch, the credits sequences the least creative. All in all, this is, by far, my least favorite of the four. I recommend it to fans of the franchise and of British comedy in general. 7/10 | positive |
An awful B movie at best with video quality similar to Dead Alive. I challenge anyone who is a "Aliens (James Cameron 1986)" Movie fan to count how many times either lines or almost entire sequences were ripped off from the first two Alien movies to make this classic piece of garbage.<br /><br />Cast members such as R. Lee Ermey and Ray Wise were the only two actors with any talent and the lead "Jack Scalia" was really absolutely horrible. I think they cast him for his massive cleft chin. I was also annoyed with the stereotyping of the only black male on the set John Toles-Bey who must look at this movie and just wonder. Look him up sometime as he has done a lot of interesting movies.<br /><br />But on this movie: The script as I said earlier was a rip-off of Aliens tweaked and turned into a submarine "thriller". It included such lines as "I got a bad feeling about this" and "Kill me" as one crew member is infected by one of the mutants and his belly starts doing the "alien hop" just before it pops out of his stomach. There is also a rip-off of the classic "get some!" via Bill Paxton. We also have a bunch of navy grunts running through caves with creepy crawlies popping out of walls. Even the explosions of the mutated creatures is very similar to the popping of aliens as they charge marines in the movie "Aliens". And the kicker is that some of the mutants spit acid (as opposed to having acid for blood). There are many more major examples. So if you want to see this script done well watch the first two classics Alien and Aliens (With Sigourney Weaver). You'll have a more enjoyable time.<br /><br />The plot could have been interesting and done better if not for confusing sequences in the start of the movie and generally poor editing. Camera shots were pretty dull and honestly it wasn't very hard to stop watching it and walk around the room to get a snack or check email. Many of the interactions between characters made little or no sense and went nowhere more often than not. The whole command structure between crew and Capt. was poorly done. I'm not even sure if there are Captains in the military that have full control over nuclear subs. In general this just shows that there was little research done for background information to make the movie seem at least a little respectable and there are many other similar examples (like dive depth etc..).<br /><br />If you like horrible movies or are a big fan of Alien and Aliens and want something to just laugh and shake your head at then this movie may be for you. As for me this one is going back on the shelf...permanently. | negative |
Now this is what I'd call a good horror. With occult/supernatural undertones, this nice low-budget French movie caught my attention from the very first scene. This proves you don't need wild FX or lots of gore to make an effective horror movie.<br /><br />The plot revolves around 4 cellmates in a prison, and each of these characters (and their motives) become gradually more interesting, as the movie builds up tension to the finale. Most of the action we see through the eyes of Carrere, who has just entered prison and has to get used to living with these 3 other inmates.<br /><br />I won't say much because this movie really deserves to be more widely seen. There a few flaws though: the FX are not that good, but they're used effectively; the plot leaves some mysteries open; and things get very confusing towards the end, but Malefique redeems itself by the time it's over.<br /><br />I thought his was a very good movie, 8/10 | positive |
This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see "what happened next" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.<br /><br />There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as "being effeminate in his pleasures" in the annals).<br /><br />The interiors are rather meager and rely on clichés upon clichés. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.<br /><br />The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the "eternal flame" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).<br /><br />Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.<br /><br />There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend. | negative |
This review is dedicated to the late Keith Moon and John Entwistle.<br /><br />The Original Drum and Bass.<br /><br />There seems to be very little early Who footage around these days, if there is more then lets be 'aving it, now-a-days it tends to be of a very different kind of Who altogether, a parody, a shadow of their (much) better years. To be fair, not one of them has to prove anything to anyone anymore, they've earned their respect and with overtime.<br /><br />This concert footage for me is one of their best. To command an audience of around a 400,000 plus strong crowed takes skill, charisma, wit and a whole lot of bloody good music.<br /><br />We all know of the other acts on the bill, The Doors (their last ever show weeks before Jim Morrison died), Moody Blues, Hendrix, Taste, Free and many more. The point being that whoever were there it was The Who that the majority had come to see. This show was one year after the Great Hippie Fest of the 1960's; Woodstock. The film and record had come out and so had The Who's greatest work to date, Tommy. The ever hungry crowd wanted a taste, to be able to experience their own unique event, to be able to "Grove and Love" in the knowledge that this gig was their own. To do this you needed the best of what Rock 'n Roll had to throw at the hungrily baited crowd.<br /><br />At two 'o clock in the morning in late August 1970 the M.C. announces, "Ladies and Gentlemen, a small Rock 'n Roll band from Shepherds Bush London, the 'OO".<br /><br />John Entwistle's body suit is of black leather, on the front is the out line of a human skeleton from neck to toe, Roger dressed in his traditional stage outfit of long tassel's and long flowing hair, Keith in a white t-shirt and jeans, as Pete had his white boiler suit and Doc Martins that he'd preferred to wear.<br /><br />The Who never stopped their onslaught of High Energy Rock for over two hours, performing theirs and other artists' greatest tracks such as Young Man Blues, Shaking' all Over, and then as on queue, Keith baiting the crowed to "Shut up, it's a bleeding Opera" with Tommy, the Rock Opera. The crowed went wild. This is what they had come to hear, and the Who didn't disappoint, straight into Overture and never coming up for air until the final note of "Tommy can you Hear me?" Amazing.<br /><br />To capture a show of this magnitude of a band of this stature at their peak at a Festival that was to be the last of its kind anywhere in the World was a fantastic piece of Cinematic History.<br /><br />The English DVD only comes in a soundtrack of English/Linear PCM Stereo, were as in the States, I think, you can get it with 5.1 at least, "Check local press for details
" on that, okay.<br /><br />The duration of the DVD is 85 minutes with no extras, which is a disappointment. Yes, for a slice of Rock and Festival History this DVD would send you in a nostalgia trip down memory lane the moment you press play, for some of the best Who concert footage as it was meant to be, Live, Raw and in your Face!<br /><br />I would have given this DVD ten if it wasn't for the lack of 5.1, and some extras would have been nice.<br /><br />Thanks Roger, Pete, John and Keith. | positive |
This film has some pretty gorey parts like a boob getting bit off and a other big bites. Castle Freak himself is a good monster. I would be scared to pieces if he was coming after me. However, the movie had some dumb parts about it.<br /><br />A husband goes drunk driving and kills his 3 year old son and blinds his teenage daughter. I suppose death is a greater damage than blindness, but you'd never know that the parents actually feel bad about their daughter being blind. All they care about is that "J.J.'s dead!" While their teenage daughter walks around running into things and talking about how she'll never be able to drive a car. The parents are like - "honey, stop walking around without a guide, you know better than that," and then they cry and don't ever stop being depressed because JJ's dead. Sounds like favortism to me.<br /><br /> The lines of dialogue are not very realistic or well done. For example, when a giant crash is heard in the castle, everybody runs down into the basement to see what it was. It was a huge mirror that crashed to the ground and shattered. The husband runs to the broken mirror in horror and plainly says, "The mirror broke." I don't know, I would say a little more than that if a giant mirror mysteriously crashed to the ground in my castle.<br /><br /> The husband and wife have some major relationship problems and it's funny to watch how dumb they are with each other. No one ever believes the blind girl. Advice: If a blind girl says she hears things, believe her and don't tell her to shut up. I think this is the moral of the story. Listen to people when they tell you things or else you might end up killing yourself to prove your point.<br /><br /> Lastly, I thought the best character was the main police officer. He was the best actor and character. Everyone else (besides Castle Freak) was pretty run of the mill. 3/10 | negative |
From the first scene, I was really excited. "I can tell this is going to be awesome!" I thought. The acting was so good, I felt as though I was eaves-dropping on these peoples' lives. The music too was exquisitely unsettling. The plot started with a sudden event and then drifted forward (one could sense) toward some irrevocable fate. The build was slow, but I personally love that kind of thing, as long as the quiet tension stays on track and doesn't get derailed before it's ready to pay off.<br /><br />So everything's going fine, and then the fireworks begin, and before you know it, the credits are rolling. "WHAT?!!!" was all I and my movie-night companion could say. If you understand the director's intentions, the blunt ending does make sense (for those of you who have seen the movie already, check out the very fascinating and hilarious interview with Larry Fessenden at filmcritic.com), but I can't help saying it was not pulled off quite right.<br /><br />This probably could have been resolved with as little as ten more minutes of material before the climax. In any case, it's too bad. Those ten minutes could have made all the difference in the world. (But for those of you who don't write or make films, you should know that crafting a story arc with the proper timing is a HUGE pain in the butt, and I am certainly not making this critique from any kind of pedestal!)<br /><br />Wendigo feels to me like a masterpiece that was given up on before it was finished. But hay, I'd take a blunted masterpiece any day over an over-produced piece of dog-poo over-compensated with too many digital effects (like most horror movies these days).<br /><br />One other comment. Some of the monster scenes left me confused as to whether I should be scared or laughing. I don't know how to explain it, but there was a distinctively Monty Python feel about this monster in his more blatent "monster" forms. Although this may sound like a terrible criticism for a horror movie--I don't know, it still worked for me in some crooked way. I will never look at deer antlers in the same way again! :) | positive |
What if a platoon of G.I.'s from the Japanese army were to be send back in time 400 years right in the middle of the feudal wars that led to the formation of the Tokugawa Shogunate? Great pitch right? The movie does exactly what it says on the tin.<br /><br />Thankfully the writers didn't bother to explain the, usually ridiculous in sci-fi movies, scientific mumbo jumbo of time transport. No how's or why's. They just did. However the time transport sequence itself is trippy as hell and quite beautiful, if not a bit dated. Not as silly as one would imagine.<br /><br />The rest of the movie follows the premise to a T. But while it loses a bit of steam with the various subplots that follow the G.I.s arrival to medieval Japan, it picks up with a devastating battle sequence. Undoubtedly it's the main order of the day. The whole concept and by extension the movie itself, was probably originated from this simple pitch: what if G.I.'s equipped with the latest in modern warfare were to fight samurais? And boy does it deliver.<br /><br />The main battle sequence that spans more than half an hour is probably one of THE best of its kind in 70's action/war movies. Not only is it relentless and exhausting in pace and length, it's also a terrific mish-mash of styles and techniques that only unique premises like G.I. Samurai can deliver. I mean, where else would you get the chance to feature tanks, ninjas complete with shuriikens, a helicopter and samurais in the same shot? The G.I. platoon led by lieutenant Iba tears literally through hundreds of extras, gunning them down with machine guns, mortars, grenades and tanks.<br /><br />This mish-mash of styles is with one foot firmly rooted in the sprawling jidai-geki epic of Kurosawa's Kagemusha or Hiroshi Inagaki's Samurai Banners, while the other is in western action and war movies. There are stylistic touches (like the wonderful slow-motion shots and bloody violence) that bring Sam Peckinpah or Enzo G. Castellari circa Keoma to mind. Japanese cinema has always been influenced by westerns and other Hollywood works and vice versa, and G.I. Samurai effortlessly turns this east-meets-west melting pot into an exciting film.<br /><br />The film-makers thankfully take the whole thing seriously and the movie benefits immensely from it. Not that tongue-in-cheek mentality is completely absent, it's just that it doesn't try to pander to so-bad-it's-good audiences that enjoy laughing at their movies. The budget was probably hefty, as it is evident in the hundreds of extras, elaborate costumes (very decent for a production that is not a traditional jidai-geki) and special effects. The camera-work and editing are all top notch, almost better than a movie with no higher artistic ambitions deserves.<br /><br />It's not withouts its flaws either of course. There are many "song" scenes, where all sorts of 70's Japanese rock, disco and country songs play over montages (there's a bonding scene, a love-interest scene, a "war is hell" scene etc). The songs themselves are pretty lame and corny and detract from the whole thing. Although it clocks at a whooping 140 minutes, it flies like a bullet for the most part. Still some scenes, flashbacks and subplots in the first half could have been clipped for a tighter effect.<br /><br />The cast also deserves a mention, featuring such prominent names as Sonny Chiba, Isao Natsuyagi (Goyokin, Samurai Wolf), Tsunehiko Watase (The Yakuza Papers) and Hiroyuki Sanada, all of them hitting the right notes. | positive |
Manipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer? <br /><br />The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.<br /><br />It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961. | negative |
This all-but-ignored masterpiece is about the Monkees becoming aware that they are fictional characters in a movie (Head), and that everything they do or say had already been written in an (unseen) script they seem to be following. Head was written by Jack Nicholson, Rafelson, and Peter Tork during a three-day LSD trip in a suite at an expensive Hollywood hotel. The other three Monkees only acted in it.<br /><br />They fight this every way they can by doing things not in the script. They deliberately flub their lines, walk off sets, tear up scenery, punch other actors for no reason; and ultimately, commit suicide by jumping off a bridge. <br /><br />For instance, in the rapid flashes of a psychedelic party scene, if you watch frame-by-frame, you can see Rafelson sitting next to the camera and cameraman, very deliberately shooting into a mirror. He is revealing that the party is actually fake and is being shot in a studio with actors who suddenly drop out of character and walk away in the middle of a conversation when the Director yells "cut!"<br /><br />The Monkees, however, never drop out of character because those characters are also who they really are. That ends up being the core of the Revelation soon to come.<br /><br />At every turn, they realize their increasingly-bizarre actions were exactly what they were supposed to do in the scripted film they can't escape being in. You say they went crazy and walked through the sky (which turns out to be painted on paper and hung from the ceiling as the set's background)? No problem! Hey, hey, they're the Monkees, and those wacky guys just keep monkeying around! <br /><br />In the end, even their deaths did not set them free. That was how the movie was supposed to end, and their motionless, waterlogged bodies are fished out of the river, put in another box, and stacked in a film studio warehouse until the characters are needed again for another studio production.<br /><br />This is made all the more poignant by the fact that the Monkees really ARE fictional characters who forced themselves into the real world. They did it through the power of their music.<br /><br />Ironically, near the end, Peter Tork has what he rightly sees as a hugely profound revelation that solves their problem, but unfortunately, no one listens. <br /><br />Peter realizes: "It doesn't MATTER if we're in the box (the film)". He means that it doesn't matter if will is free or illusory, and that "the only important thing is that you just let the present moment occur and occur... You need to just let 'now' HAPPEN, as it happens", without analyzing or evaluating or judging whether the experience is "valid" by some abstract definition.<br /><br />When you can't even tell the difference, will being free or not doesn't matter--tying to figure out if you are the "real" you is just a pointless waste of time.<br /><br />I saw this film at a very important time in my life. I was trying to figure out how to escape being just "that geeky, creepy nerd girl" by thinking about it intensely instead of just having fun (i.e., sex) like everyone else did. But the revelation in Head broke my self-imposed recursive trap and helped me more than Rafelson or Nicholson or Tork will ever know.<br /><br />For decades, I've watched "Head" and wished I could thank Pete.<br /><br />Was this a good movie?<br /><br />Uhh, how about, like...<br /><br />==< YES >== | positive |
I thought the movie was a poor documentary. Nothing of substance was discussed. It seemed to cheapen the ideas and did not provide anything new. The film lacked wonder or romance or anything that would really drive one to science. Most scientists appeared "stereotyped" and sometimes weird. A woman said that her awards didn't matter a whole lot, only children that were helped. She said that after a 10 minute scene where she explained all her awards. Playing "humble scientist", are we? "I have equations dancing in my head," another said. I don't see how that explains anything to us. It hasn't covered significant effects of science on our culture. Politics of science were barely touched.<br /><br />Not a bad flick for a 10-14 year-olds. Other than that, I felt it was boring and unrevealing.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
This movie is yet another in the long line of no budget, no effort, no talent movies shot on video and given a slick cover to dupe unsuspecting renters at the video store.<br /><br />If you want to know what watching this movie is like, grab a video camera and some red food dye and film yourself and your friends wandering around the neighborhood at night growling and "attacking" people. Congratulations, you've just made "Hood of the Living Dead"! Now see if a distribution company will buy it from you.<br /><br />I have seen some low budget, shot on video films that displayed talent from the filmmakers and actors or at the very least effort, but this has neither. Avoid unless you are a true masochist or are amused by poorly made horror movies. | negative |
Don't bother trying to watch this terrible mini series. It is a six hour bore, an unbelievable love triangle between three people who have absolutely no chemistry for each other. There is no heat in this story, no real passion, no real romance. It is a dry, boring, drawn out, and uninspired as they come. And it doesn't even meet the expected level of technical proficiency. Take those six hours of your life and use them for something more worthwhile. | negative |
There is a bit of a spoiler below, which could ruin the surprise of the ONE unexpected and truly funny scene in this film. There is also information about the first film in this series.<br /><br />I caught this film on DVD, which someone gave as a gift to my roommate. It came as a set together with the first film in the "Blind Dead" series.<br /><br />This movie was certainly much worse than the first, "La Noche del Terror Ciego". In addition, many of the features of the first movie were changed significantly. To boot, the movie was dubbed in English (the first was subtitled), which I tend to find distracting.<br /><br />The concept behind the series is that in the distant past a local branch of the Knights Templar was involved in heinous and secret rituals. Upon discovery of these crimes, the local peasantry put the Templars to death in such a manner that their eyes can no longer be used, thus preventing them from returning from Hell to exact their revenge. We then jump to modern times where because of some event, the Templars arise from the dead to exact their revenge upon the villagers whose ancestors messed them up in the first place. Of course, since the undead knights have no eyes, they can only find their victims when they make some sort of noise.<br /><br />The Templars were a secretive order, from about the 12th century, coming out of the Crusades. They were only around for about 150 years, before they were suppressed in the early 1300s by the Pope and others. Because they were secretive, there were always rumors about their ceremonies, particularly for initiation. Also, because of the way the society was organized, you didn't necessarily have church officials overseeing things, which meant they didn't have an inside man when things heated up. And, because of the nature of their trials, they were tortured into confessions. The order was strongest in France, but did exist in Portugal and Spain, where the movies take place.<br /><br />Where the first movie had a virgin sacrifice and knights drinking the blood directly from the body of the virgin (breast shots here, of course, this is a horror film after all), and then, once the knights come back to life, they attack their victims by eating them alive and sucking their blood; in this sequel, this all disappears. You still have the same scene (redone, not the same footage) of them sacrificing the virgin, but they drain the blood into a bowl and drink it from that. Thus, when they come back, they just hack people up with their swords or claw people to death, which I have to say is a much less effective means of disturbing your audience. There's also a time problem: in the first film the dating is much closer to the Templars, where here they are now saying it is the 500 anniversary of the peasants burning these guys at the stake, which would date it around 1473. And the way that the Templars lose their eyes is much less interesting as well. In the first, they have them pecked out by crows. Now they are simply burned out, and in quite a ridiculous manner.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and maybe it was just me, but there seemed to be a lot of people from the first movie reappearing in this film (despite having died). Not really a problem, since the movie is completely different and not a sequel in the sense of a continuation, but odd none-the-less.<br /><br />The highlight of this movie is the rich fellow who uses a child to distract the undead while he makes a break for the jeep. The child's father had already been suckered by this rich man into making an attempt to get the jeep, so he walks out and tells her to find her father. It comes somewhat out of the blue, and is easily the funniest scene in the film. Of course, why the child doesn't die at this point is beyond me, and disappointed for horror fans.<br /><br />I couldn't possibly recommend this film to anyone. It isn't so bad that it becomes funny, so it just ends up being a mediocre horror film. The bulk of the film has several people holed up in a church, each making various attempts to go it alone in order to escape the blind dead who have them surrounded. When the film ends, you are not surprised at the outcome at all; in fact, quite disappointed. If you are into the novelty of seeing a Spanish horror film, see the first movie, which at least has some innovative ideas and not so expected outcomes. | negative |
The film had many fundamental values of family and love. It expressed human emotion and was an inspiring story. The script was clear( it was very easy to understand making it perfect for children)and was enjoyable and humorous at times. There were a few charged symbols to look for. The cinematography was acceptable. There was no sense of experimentation that a lot of cinematographers have been doing today(which quiet frankly is getting a little warn out). It was plainly filmed but had a nice soft quality to it. Although editing could have been done better I thought it was a nice movie for a family to enjoy. And the organization of information was just thrown at you which was something I didn't like either but in all it was a good movie. | positive |
An ear-splitting movie, a quasi-old-fashioned screwball romp designed to showcase singing star Madonna's comedic attributes. She does indeed go far out on the proverbial limb here playing a beyond-vivacious parolee attempting to prove she was framed for murder (a body was found in the trunk of her car after she ran a red light...big laughs). After an energetic animated credits sequence--which is much more fun than the rest of the picture--we have nothing to look at but Madonna's black mascara and red lips set off by her platinum hair and pale complexion. What else is there? Griffin Dunne seems defeated playing Maddy's keeper, while the poor-choice supporting cast struggles to get laughs with lousy dialogue. It's an unfortunate set-back to the talents of director James Foley, who unwisely allows his star to run rampant in the spirit of the nutty slapstick films from the 1930s (but even Katharine Hepburn in "Bringing Up Baby" had a human side). Wretched. * from **** | negative |
A Murder investigation goes on back stage while The Vanities, on its opening night, plays on to an unknowing audience. Odd combination of musical and murder mystery is worth a look for its cast, its production numbers, and the sheer novelty of the film.<br /><br />Gertrude Michael has the showy role of a bitchy actress intent on stopping the marriage between the show's stars, Kitty Carlisle and Carl Brisson, as well as starring in the infamous "Sweet Marijuana" number (which was also on a 70s Bette Midler album). So while the chorus girls shuffle around backstage, bumbling detective Victor McLaglen ogles the girls while he tries to solve the backstage murder of an unknown woman.<br /><br />We quickly learn that the maid (Dorothy Stickney) loves Brisson from afar, that the wardrobe lady (Jessie Ralph) is Brisson's mother, and that the stage manager (Jack Oakie) butts into everything. Lots of plots twists among the musical numbers. The show's best-known song is "Cocktails for Two." Kitty Carlisle also sings the haunting "Where Do They Come From?" And there's a weird rhapsody that erupts into a Harlem specialty number featuring Duke Ellington! Quite the cast.<br /><br />Some terrific acting here, especially Gertrude Michael and Dorothy Stickney. Kitty Carlisle is quite good as well. Brisson is a total zero though.<br /><br />Charles Middleton plays Homer, Toby Wing plays Nancy, Donald Meek plays the doctor, and also see if you can spot Ann Sheridan and Lucille Ball among the show girls. | positive |
Daft potboilers don't come much dafter than this, but it's a Douglas Sirk movie which makes everything alright. Except in this case it doesn't. Based on a sanctimonious novel by the sanctimonious Lloyd C Douglas, (he wrote "The Robe"), and already filmed in 1935 with Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor, it's got more uplift than a cantilever bra.<br /><br />Rock Hudson is the arrogant playboy who not only feels responsible for making Jane Wyman a widow but later is directly responsible for the accident in which she loses her sight. To make amends he takes up medicine, becomes a great eye surgeon and restores it. (No, it sin't quite that daft; he had planned to become a doctor before becoming an arrogant playboy). In between times, they fall in love.<br /><br />Try as I might I can't quite find the redeeming social commentary and critique of American mores that are supposed to lie just below the surface of Sirk's films, (this one isn't too deep). On the plus side Rock Hudson isn't half bad, (I think I am rediscovering him), and, of course, it looks great, (in Sirk's films people live in rooms the size of cathedrals). Nothing in this film matches the best of his later work and even in soap-opera terms this is definitely daytime TV. | negative |
If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.<br /><br />Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: <br /><br />* While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.<br /><br />* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.<br /><br />* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.<br /><br />* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.<br /><br />* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.<br /><br />* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.<br /><br />* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.<br /><br />* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.<br /><br />There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story. | negative |
What is this!! its so bad. The animation looks so terrible , it looks like a ps1 type game. The actors are awful, they just cannot act to save their lives. I sat through all of this film an then at the end I was annoyed when I realised I had wasted 3 hours of my life. I've not heard of this film, did it ever actually come out in the cinema or did it go straight to DVD? A girl got shot?! What is up with that, it was just a stupid film. They totally copied 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Its got to be one of the worst films i have ever seen. I would definitely recommend to people to not waste their time with this. You could spend your time watching 'The Day After Tomorrow', its a lot better. Well thats what I think of the film. Actually why have I wasted my time writing about it, ah dam!! Its really annoying me, its wasted 3 hours and 10 minutes now. | negative |
Redundant, but again the case. If you enjoy the former SNL comedian and his antics (in this case, Schneider), then you should go. Basic comedy
.man's life is saved by having various animal organs transplanted into him. Unfortunately, he takes on each animal's characteristics. Former Survivor Colleen looks pretty good here, now that she doesn't have open sores on her legs, and a little makeup on her face! D | negative |
For only doing a few movies with his life the Late Great Chris Farley. Farley died at the end of 1997 and will be missed mostly by his co actor in Tommy Boy, David Spade. From the lame Police Academy 4 Spade really has done good with his career in films. Tommy Boy is a classic and we will always remember Chris Farley when we watch it. From appearing on Saturday NIGHT LIVE to doing Tommy Boy, Black Sheep, Beverley Hills Ninja, Almost Heroes, Billy Madison, and Dirty Work. I think Chris Farley had a short and successful career. Tommy Boy was his best in my case and I would watch over and over again and laugh at the same part each time. Thank you Chris Farley. | positive |
Tashan - the title itself explains the nature of the movie.<br /><br />This type of movies are actually made for flop. What a shame that Yash Raj Films produces such movies those are worthless than C-grade movies. Or even some C-grade movies have better and pleasing story than Tashan. The much hyped and over-confidently promoted Tashan poorly bombed at the box-office which it certainly deserved.<br /><br />In my view, this is the worst movie ever made from honourable Yash Raj Films' banner. How come they handled such a heavy project to new Vijay Krishna Acharya who has no actual sense of making action flick? He tried to imitate Sanjay Gadhvi's ways of making like Dhoom but he suffered at last. The action scenes are more like than comics or cartoon movies made for exhausting the audiences.<br /><br />The story also loses in its meaning and substances to tenderly win the audiences' hearts. In most scenes Anil Kapoor reminds me of southern Tamil star Rajnikant in his body languages and wordly expressions. I am not a fan of neither Saif nor Akshay, but the award of Kareena should have finally gone to Saif''s hand instead of Akshay. Just from the starting point I expected of it, but at the end it displeased me with the climax truth. Saif is the main behind the whole adventure, while Akshay joins in the midst. In any movie, the final should be judged with the whole characters of the entire story and the award or say reward should be given to the one who deserves credit. And Tashan loses in this way, and unexpectedly failed to become a hit.<br /><br />Akshay's has nothing new to show off his comedian talent here but still reminds of his previous movies. He seriously need to form a new image to his fans that would impress them again and again. In between Saif did a great job in Race, and now he returned again in his hilarious nature through this movie. But he has fully developed himself in the acting field. And last but not the least about Kareena. She looks really hot with bikini dress of which some complain as she became too lean. But I myself don't think so, instead she became slim. Yes slim!!! it is a good factor for a female to attract the major people (or say, male). Beside them it is nice that Saif's son Ibrahim appears in the beginning & last as young Saif. I hope now he too will lean forward in target of making acting as his career.<br /><br />Those who like this Tashan they are either mentally immatured or still want to go back to childhood, or say want to be admitted in an asylum. Thumbs down to debutante director Vijay Krishna Acharya who mishandled the project offered by Yash Raj Films. In future he should experiment and study the script minimum of 5 years before going into practical directions.<br /><br />Sorry, I don't like to rate good stars to this type of junk movies. | negative |
I was so happy to learn that Hari Om will finally be theatrically released in 2007. I saw this film three years ago at the Vancouver International film Festival and have been waiting for it's release ever since so I could send everyone I know to see it. It's like taking a trip to India....colorful, magical, thought provoking. Aside from one rather strange Hollywood style auto rickshaw chase scene this movie is very realistic. This is not a Bollywood style song and dance movie but it does have drama and romance and humor. The interactions between the Indian taxi driver and the french tourist are a good reflection on the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western life styles and philosophy. The characters are a little broadly drawn but the acting was very good. Visually this movie is a treat as you really do get a sense of what driving through Rajasthan is like...dreamlike. Sometimes it's hard to believe everything you are seeing and experiencing is real...the movie has that same quality. Great soundtrack too! | positive |
I still can't believe that Wes Craven was responsible for this piece of crap.This movie is worse than "Deadly Friend".The plot is stupid,the acting is mediocre and the film is deadly dull.I don't know why Wes Craven hates his debut "Last House on the Left"-an absolute masterpiece of the genre and likes(probably)this turkey.Don't get me wrong,I really like some of his movies,but it was a real torture sitting and watching this. | negative |
I had my doubts about another love story wherein disabled individuals find meaning and redemption through honest communication. And it's still not at the top of my list. But the performances from Helena Bonham Carter and Kenneth Branagh and exemplary, almost stunning, and rescue this from being just another tear-jerker. Carter's depiction of an ALS victim is strong, perhaps even overdone at times (sometimes her dialog dissolves into undistinguishable mutterings). But the overall effect is commendable and rewarding. Branagh may be the perfect compliment to her performance.<br /><br /> | positive |
I've been a Jennifer Connelly fan since Phenomena, and after I heard about seven minutes in heaven, I saw it as soon as I could. The movie is not only a comedy if you think a lot of these things most of us went through as kids and are currently going through not only was the movie terrific led by the phenomenal jennifer connelly it captivated my attention that this movie was terrifically written directed and acted out it was one good deal I loved it and have watched it again and again and for those of you who enjoy a good laugh or love jennifer connelly you to can not put off seeing this movie!!!! | positive |
Warning: Does contain spoilers.<br /><br />Open Your Eyes<br /><br />If you have not seen this film and plan on doing so, just stop reading here and take my word for it. You have to see this film. I have seen it four times so far and I still haven't made up my mind as to what exactly happened in the film. That is all I am going to say because if you have not seen this film, then stop reading right now.<br /><br />If you are still reading then I am going to pose some questions to you and maybe if anyone has any answers you can email me and let me know what you think.<br /><br />I remember my Grade 11 English teacher quite well. His name was Mr. Krisak. To me, he was wise beyond his years and he always had this circuitous way of teaching you things that perhaps you weren't all too keen on. If we didn't like Shakespeare, then he turned the story into a modern day romance with modern day language so we could understand it. Our class room was never a room, it was a cottage and we were on the lake reading a book at our own leisure time. This was his own indelible way of branding something into our sponge-like minds. <br /><br />I begin this review of Vanilla Sky with a description of this brilliant man because he once gave us an assignment that has been firmly etched in my mind, like the phone number of a long lost best friend, and it finally made some sense to me after watching The Matrix. Now if I didn't know better, I would have thought that the Wachowski brothers were really just an alias for my teacher Mr. Krisak. But giving them the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume it wasn't him. But that was the first time this assignment was anything more than impalpable. <br /><br />He had asked us to prove to him and to ourselves that were real. Show me how you can tell that you are real. This got the class spouting off all of the usual ideas that I'm sure you can imagine. Everything from pain, to sense of touch to sense of loss to sense of hunger were spouted off to our teacher to prove to him that we were real. After every scenario that we gave him, he would come back with the one answer that would leave us speechless.<br /><br />"What if you are nothing but someone else's dream?"<br /><br />What if you were someone else's dream? What a messed up question that is. This was a question/scenario posed to us about 15 years ago, before the astronomical use of the Internet and rapid advancement of computers. How possible could it seem back then? But if you look at today's technology, now ask yourself, what it you were a part of someone else's dream.<br /><br />Another brilliant but surreal film this year, David Lynch's Mulholland Drive explored similar areas. But Vanilla Sky goes deeper than any other film could hope to. In short this is one film that will literally (if you let it) blow your mind from all of the possibilities that surround you.<br /><br />Open your Eyes.<br /><br />Tom Cruise plays David Aames, a young, hot shot, righteous, full of himself publisher and owner of several magazines. He inherited this from his father and although he has talent and business savvy, his board of governers, the Seven Dwarfs, think he is a rich dink born with a silver spoon in his mouth. They feel he has done nothing to deserve the pinnacle of success that each and every one of them believes should go to them. <br /><br />Early in the film we meet one of David's gorgeous toys named Julie Gianni, played with pernicious but bombastic perfection by Cameron Diaz. David and Julie play a good game, both claiming they are just there to use each other and are not the slightest bit interested in a monogamous, committed relationship. This is the type of relationship commensurate with David's other flings he's had in the sexual prime of his life. And although both talk a good game, we can tell that only one is really telling the truth. <br /><br />Next we meet Brian Shelby, played with a stroke of genius by Kevin Smith's good buddy Jason Lee. Brian is writing a book that David is going to publish but they are also very good friends. This is something that David has very little of in his life and you can sense a real caring for one another early on in the film. Brian has one famous line that he keeps telling David over and over again. And that is " the sweet ain't so sweet without the bitter." He goes on to tell him that one day he will find true love and not just this part time lover status that he seems to perpetrate with all of the floozies who inhabit his bed for a night or two.<br /><br />At David's huge birthday bash, (so huge that the likes of Steven Spielberg wish him a happy birthday) Brian enters with his date, Sofia Sorrano, played of course by Penelope Cruz with what has to be the best performance of this year by an actress. This is a bash by invite only and at first David and Sofia seem intrigued with one another. And in typical David fashion, despite his best friend being there, he begins to flirt with Sofia. To complicate things, Julie shows up uninvited and begins spying on David. David then spends the night with Sofia, but they only talk and draw caricatures of one another. There is no hanky panky. The next day, as David is leaving Sofia's apartment, he is greeted by Julie, who offers him a ride and from there.......well, I think we have all seen the commercials.<br /><br />That is all I will really say about the plot, because from here the film teases us with what is reality and what is blurred perception. We are introduced to a character played by Kurt Russel and a few other shady characters that all play a part in this labyrinth like haze. There is a subtext of death and possible panacea-like cure-alls that may or not be able to create the possibility of eternal life. This is just one of the intriguing possibilities the movie offers us, but it doesn't end there.<br /><br />Like many movies seem to thrive on today, this film has a secret. Sixth Sense may have began this craze, but look even further back and you can maybe thank Angel Heart for starting the craze. Regardless of how it originated, Vanilla Sky has one of it's own surreptitious gut busters. And what makes this one so much fun is that the film gives you many obvious clues along the way but not enough to give you an apodictic solution to the gauntlet of truth and lies you have just put yourself through. I have seen this film four times and every time it has been because I want to see if there is something more I can pick up, something more I can understand. To be able to work your mind in the theater, to enable it to open up to new possibilities is something rare in a film. All of the ersatz so called "Best Pictures of the year" have been good but nothing spectacular. They lack substance. A Beautiful Mind was intriguing but flat, The Royal Tenenbaums was interesting but uneven. Vanilla Sky is a rarity because it is a film that leaves you yearning for more yet guarantees your satisfaction because the film and those that made it care about it. I know this film has received mixed reviews but I just think that those who don't like it don't quite understand it. <br /><br />This is what film making is supposed to be like. This is what a film is supposed to do to you. It is supposed to make you feel something. Most of the other films this year have been just empty spaces. This one isn't.<br /><br />10 out of 10 The best film of the year. I would love to see this get nominated for best picture and I would love to see Cruz up for best Actress, Diaz for best supporting, Cruise for best actor and Jason Mewes should be a shoe in for best supporting actor. Cameron Crowe should there as well. None of this may come to pass, and that is a shame. This is one film that should not be missed. <br /><br />And on a final note, I am quite sure Mr. Krisak would like this film and maybe this is the one film that may answer his question. Can you prove you are real? Or are we just a figment of someone's imagination? Are we artificially transplanted for someone else's bemusement? This is a film that spawns more questions than it does answers. And I'm sure that is just fine with him.<br /><br />Open Your Eyes | positive |
I saw this film yesterday.. I rented the DVD from Blockbuster.. In fact, I know one of the actresses from the film.. I won't say who..! (That's kept under wraps..) But I must admit, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.. Tom Savini? Hats down to this guy.. But it's a shame he wasn't in the film for long.. What lacks the film is the idea, the script, sound, etc.. It may look like a good movie.. but it wasn't that entertaining..<br /><br />Well, I'm glad my Sister paid £10 for renting 3 DVD's from Blockbuster.. I chose this one.. and I was disappointed. Anyway, thumbs down for me..! Not my cup of tea! 0 out of 10! | negative |
I would reccomend this film to everyone. Not only to the fans of the rocker Luciano Ligabue, but to all film-buffs. Because it's sincere, moving, funny and true. Because Ligabue is a born storyteller and a film lover, and every frame of his film is made with love and care. Because his characters are loved and ask to be loved. Because most of the Italian debut films are lousy and this one, done by an outsider, is a real joy to watch and to listen at. Because Stefano Accorsi is gorgeous and reminds me of Andrea Pazienza, who was, like Freccia, beautiful and talented and good and lost his life because of the heroin, that Ligabue shows as it is, unglamorous and ugly, without indulging in easy moralisms. Because it's a film that speaks to our heart, our ears, our souls. And because I lived the experience of the FM radios and it was exactly like that. Thanks, Luciano! | positive |
Recognizing the picture of the diner on the cover of the DVD made me realize that this was a local movie. The word Detroit in the title furthered my suspecions and I did some looking up of things and yes, a local movie it was.<br /><br />So I picked it up. Someone I knew actually knew some of the producers/director (dont remember which) and said the producers/directors got people to PAY to be in this movie.<br /><br />Brilliant! What a great idea. The movie makers get some capital to do the movie with, thanks to their cast and crew. Then the investors (cast, crew, others) get some of the profits, I'm imagining.<br /><br />Profits!<br /><br />Um anyways. This film totally underwhelmed me. The special effects were special as in special children who ride the small buses to school. The acting was very amusing, not intentionally however. There's a great line where a guy says "well? this bone aint gonna smoke itself!" as a pickup line. Unfortunately that is the only fun part of the whole film. The story? Well, I sort of followed it about 3/5 of the way in, then everything stopped making sense and as we were sitting there watching it, it suddenly ended. I mean as in,..no resolution of anything..like they ran out of time. "Sorry folks, out of time, goodnight!"<br /><br />We sat there baffled and booing, and threw in another film. Then about 20 minutes later a neighbor of mine showed up..with one of the guys from the movie! We threw it back in and he (the actor) gave us a running commentary, which was awesome because he totally ripped on the movie!<br /><br />What more could you ask for??<br /><br />The most absurd scene for me was a motorbike chase scene were it was so dark that it could have literally been a guy running past with a flashlight and not a motorbike at all. That and the jaw droppingly in your face sudden ending is enough to make you howl. In pain! The zombies looked less like zombies than my coworkers do. And I dont work at the morgue either.<br /><br />So, I recommend seeing this if you can get someone from the movie to come over and give you a running commentary as to all the things that went on behind the scenes and make sure this person hates the movie because that just adds to the fun.<br /><br />Otherwise, give this one a pass. Rent something like Feeders if you want a jaw droppingly bad in a funny way movie... | negative |
One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.<br /><br />If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film? <br /><br />I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called "The Gunfighter" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend. | negative |
Caddyshack II is NOTHING compared to the original Caddyshack. But, there are legitimate reasons for it. (1) Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to be the ace of this film BUT he didn't like the script, wanted to change it, his request was denied, so he didn't do the film. (2) It was low budget, Bill Murray had grown to superstar status. Ted Knight passed away in 1986, and Chevy Chase the "so called ace" of the first movie (although it was Rodney all the way)couldn't't be on more than 5 minutes, because it would cost too much to pay him. BUT you had Dan Aykroyd, Robert Stack, Randy Quaid and Jackie Mason, all serviceable substitutes, who none had their best performances. | negative |
The youthful group in "St. Elmo's Fire" who just graduated from college barely seem able to make it through high school much less four years at any prominent university. For the most part, these kids are irresponsible, selfish, greedy and stupid, yet co-writer and director Joel Schumacher appears to hold them up as touchstones for a generation. With a now-outdated cast of "up and comers", a background score that sounds awfully similar to that of "Terms Of Endearment", and writing which lords the smugness of this circle over us, "Fire" is a paltry blaze, one that gets even more embarrassing as the years pass on. *1/2 from **** | negative |
The plot of The Thinner is decidedly thin. And gross. An obese lawyer drives over the Gypsy woman, and the Gypsy curse causes him to lose and lose weight... to the bone. OK, Gypsy curses should be entertaining, but the weight-losing gone bad? Nope. Except Stephen King thinks so. And Michael McDowell, other horror author and the screenwriter of this abysmal film, does so, too. The lawyer is not only criminally irresponsible, he is fat too, haha! The Thinner is like an immature piece of crap for a person who moans how he/she has never seen anything so disgusting than fatness. Hey, I can only say: Well, look at the mirror. | negative |
American Pie has gone a long distance from the first. At first i believe the actors don't have a clue what their doing and instead it's just a remake of a college party gone nuts. Story sets out as two freshman college guys (featuring the young stifler) setting out the dreams of attending college just to experience the late night parties, sex and of course the booze. The plot is stupid and comes along way away from the original pie. In fact they didn't once again feature an apple pie somewhere in the film.<br /><br />Luckily i work in a video store and can rent for free. But please remember it is a waste of time unless you enjoy brainless sex films with absolute nudity and insane drinking. I'm a teen myself and i believe even Evan almighty would've been a better choice instead. | negative |
The best movie about friendship! Especially between an AIDs infected person and a " normal " person. This is a great movie for everyone to see even though there is strong language used. I have seen it 25 times. | positive |
Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse. | negative |
Hilariously inept - like "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" remade by five-year-olds.<br /><br />Spoilers ahead: Despite its title, and the high bodycount, "Slaughter Trail" is in fact a musical with Injun battles instead of dance numbers.<br /><br />If you ever wondered what Ed Wood might have done with a B-movie budget, this film should answer your question. Some decisions may have been bad only in retrospect, such as filming in the short-lived Cinecolor process, which resulted in faces changing hue within the same shot. But there was definitely some ill-advised skimping on the film's main set, a cavalry fort that seems to be partly a Norman castle.<br /><br />Terry Gilkyson, who later wrote the 'The Bare Necessities' for Disney's "The Jungle Book", supplies a score full of original ditties which would have been wonderful for a cartoon but which fit Western action like a fuzzy slipper stuck in a stirrup. One song tells how "horse hooves pound, and their melody sounds, like the hoofbeat serenade"...during a dead-serious scene of a cavalry patrol. Other songs literally narrate the story shot by shot, introducing characters, describing their moods and gestures - as they happen on screen - and even stop to advertise the Cinecolor process(!) <br /><br />The script sends ferocious Navajos on the warpath to avenge the killing of two of their band by an outlaw trio. By the end of the film, what looks like a hundred Navajos and cavalrymen have bitten the dust (thanks to repeated footage of the same characters dying over and over.) But the chief is satisfied once he sees the trio of badguys have been slain. As the singer helpfully informs those of us who weren't paying attention, the Navajos ride away, their battle called off. The cavalry captain, surrounded by the corpses of his fallen comrades, cheerily waves his appreciation.<br /><br />The direction could most charitably be described as wooden, or more to the point, Wood-en. Navajos are consistently shot off their horses in pairs -- never just one. Virtually every red man on foot dies by throwing his hands in the air and keeling over. The film also employs the most cautious stuntmen in Hollywood, who crouch before dropping off a one-story roof (and still fail to stick the landing) or turn to look behind them as they slide, "dead", down a rocky slope.<br /><br />The star is Brian Donlevy, who surely deserves an Oscar for not blushing. After the endless final battle scene -- "climax" is scarcely the word -- he scans a list of the dozens of his troopers killed, and shrugs, "It could've been a LOT worse." Trooper Andy Devine gets to sing and robber/murderer Gig Young laughs at Andy's antics...which leads a character who had been held up by masked bandits to rat Gig out: "I'd know that laugh anywhere!" <br /><br />And lest anyone forget just what a nasty piece of work Howard Hughes could be, recall that as head of RKO, Hughes was first in line to blacklist original star Howard Da Silva when HUAC denounced him. It would take Hughes another six years to finish running that once-celebrated studio into the ground, but it didn't help things when he insisted on reshooting Da Silva's every scene for this film, substituting Donlevy.<br /><br />It was nearly a decade before Da Silva was able to work in Hollywood again. But all things considered, for getting him out of "Slaughter Trail", he should have sent Hughes a thank-you note. | negative |
Oh man. If you want to give your internal Crow T. Robot a real workout, this is the movie to pop into the ol' VCR. The potential for cut-up lines in this film is just endless.<br /><br />(Minor spoilers ahead. Hey, do you really care if a film of this quality is "spoiled?") Traci is a girl with a problem. Psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite-sex parent. But this girl seems to have one for her same-sex one, and I don't think there's a term for that. It might be because her mother Dana is played by Rosanna Arquette, whose cute overbite, neo-flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. Here Dana is not only clueless to her daughter's conduct; she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the Olympic Indulgent Mother competition. <br /><br />It's possible that Dana misses Traci's murderous streak because truth be told, Traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. It's only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count.<br /><br />A particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of Carmen, a Mexican maid who is described by Dana as around so long she's like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say, "I just fell off the tomato truck from Guadalajara." Carmen is so wise to Traci's scheming, she might also wear a sign saying, "Hey, I'm the Next Victim!" Sure enough, Traci confronts Carmen as Carmen is making her way back from Mass, and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. I rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire. <br /><br />In another sequence, Arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard, under cloudy skies, talking to the owner. Cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies, talking to the owner's brother. Then cut to her wearing the first dress, in the first location, under cloudy skies - but it's supposed to be later. You get the picture. We're talking really bad directing.<br /><br />As for skin, don't expect much, although Traci does own a nice couple of bikinis. <br /><br />For those looking for a trash wallow, 8. For anybody else, 1/2. | negative |
This is an excellent, suspenseful, murder-mystery movie. Not only was the plot full of suspense and intrigue but you get to see gorgeous Ryan Gosling for a couple hours, what's not to love! Also, Sandra Bullock is good in this movie - I've always been a fan of hers, (I just wish she hadn't decided to be in "The Lake House" which was horrible, but that's another story altogether). Obviously since there are thousands of other murder/horror movies out there, there are bound to be similarities between them, no need to bash this movie for having some similarities to at least a few that have already been made. Anyway, this is a great movie for those of you that actually enjoy "scary" movies, it's a little dark and twisted but overall a great movie!!! | positive |
Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.<br /><br />The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough. | negative |
On first watching this film it is hard to know quite what has happened, but on a subsequent viewing it become more clear. I enjoyed this movie. Dean Cain was excellent in the role of Bob. Lexa Doig's character was confusing to understand, at first, she was out to trap Bob but i really believe she landed up loving him although by then she had broken his heart. Dean Cain's performance was an usual excellent. He gets better with every film he does. My only question at the end of the film was what happened to Bob, Camilla and the baby. It was left for the viewer to decide | positive |
The comments already left for this show are way more funny than the show itself and they are all accurate. I feel exactly the same way, that I am very disappointed at how far Rick Mercer has fallen when he used to do some really great things on This Hour Has 22 Minutes but now he is just clowning around, going places and talking to people. He does some bits in the studio about things going on in the news but they are never funny at all, just really sad and predictable jokes about headlines. Most of his show is him going somewhere to talk to people, for example this week he is going to a rodeo and the video pieces are all of him making funny faces and acting scared of the wild horses, etc. He used to be funny but has gotten way less funny since leaving This Hour Has 22 Minutes and that show is also not funny at all any more. Now that Air Farce is off the air (finally thank goodness!) Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes have got to be next in line for the axe, just old tired predictable comedy that almost nobody finds funny any more. It's sad really considering Rick Mercer used to be the funniest man on Canadian TV! | negative |
Wow,this is in my opinion the best sitcom since Friends. If you have had a crap day just sit yourself down with a beer (if you are old enough that is.if not a root beer will have to do.) and watch a couple of episodes,it's the perfect recipe for happiness.<br /><br />The thing I like most is that everybody in the show is very funny and they all have fantastic comedy timing. After a while you become attached to the characters and really care about them. I think the secret to the shows success is that they have an enviable life. Doug is fat but still happy with it,he loves his wife his job and his friends. The father in law is the fly in the ointment but hey nothings perfect. | positive |
"Ah Ritchie's made another gangster film with Statham" thought the average fan, expecting another Snatch/Lock Stock; expecting perhaps a couple of temporal shifts, but none too hard for "me and the lads" to swallow after a few beers.<br /><br />Ah, pay attention, you do need to watch this film. No cups of tea, no extra diet cokes from the counter, no "keep it running" shouts as you nip to the fridge - watch the film! No laughs other than those you may make yourself from the considerable violence (and if that floats your boat, so be it) but sharp solid direction, excellent dialogue, and great performances.<br /><br />My favourite - Big Pussy from The Sopranos, always a reliable hood. | positive |
<br /><br />I saw The Glacier Fox in the theatre when I was nine years old - I bugged my parents to take me back three times. I began looking for it on video about five years ago, finally uncovering a copy on an online auction site, but I would love to see it either picked up by a new distributor and rereleased (I understand the original video run was small), or have the rights purchased by The Family Channel, Disney, etc. and shown regularly. It is a fascinating film that draws you into the story of the life struggle of a family of foxes in northern Japan, narrated by a wise old tree. The excellent soundtrack compliments the film well. It would be a good seller today, better than many of the weak offerings to children's movies today. | positive |
Would you be surprised if I told you this movie deals with a conspiracy? No? How about if I told you the ringleader was a shadow puppet. What? You don't believe me? ... OK. Yes, I made that up. It's too bad, this movie could have used a sense of humor. I understand Charlie Sheen doing this at the time - another movie equaled more money - as for Donald Sutherland and Linda Hamilton ... why? Don't even get me started on Stephen Lang. He was so much fun as the Party Crasher in 'The Hard Way' and now this junk.<br /><br />Ah no matter. Everyone involved should feel ashamed. If you aim to make a bad movie and succeed - it's twisted - but I seriously doubt that was what they were aiming for here. Flat out, the story stinks and we're actually supposed to take this yak seriously. Makes you wonder if this movie even had a glimmer of hope. Seriously, I doubt it and in an industry so tight with the purse strings how this got green lit in the first place is beyond me. Maybe even more scary is how this dog pile made it's way to theaters!?<br /><br />Oh ... Sam Waterson, how great you are in Law & Order. Why are you here? Demoting yourself to the role of the President of the United States who might I add gets to be shot at by a remote control biplane controlled by the gonzo assassin. Then again this is a masterpiece of work from George P. Cosmatos who's "directing" credits include Rambo: First Blood Part II amongst other gems. Hmm.... case in point? | negative |
This film was absolutely...ugh i can't find the word oh wait... crap! I mean when it started i was like yeah this looks good and then after it was so boring. I nearly fell asleep and it had nothing to do with the fact that i caught a late showing because it was utter filth. Ram Gopal Varma has tried his best but the cast could never live up to the cast of the original Sholay i mean what was he thinking doing a remake. What was he trying to do? Be like Sanjay Leeli Bhansani and win all the awards next year like he did for Black? Ajay and that other guy were good especially the other guy who played raj because out of all of them he was the one to look at. What was Amitabh doing? He's destroying his own dignity by doing all these stupid films. First Nishabd then Cheeni Kum then Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and now this i mean hes got to gather a bit of his money and move as far away from Bollywood as possible before he loses all his respect and I'm telling you he's already past half his way. I mean all this is really good for the other actors like Shah Rukh Khan who's getting a really good name now because of the recent downfall of Amitabh. I never really liked him because he thinks he's God and i just knew Abhishek was going to be in that movie. <br /><br />If you want to save your £17.75 and spend it on something good go watch Heyy Babyy because that's just the funniest movie ever and it's number one in the charts! | negative |
French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point? | negative |
In the 2nd of his Historical Martial Arts films, Chiba portrays his real life sensei Mas Oyama. The film even recreates Oyama's incredible feat of killing a raging bull with his bare hands (Oyama did this feat over 50 times in real life). Dynamic fight choreography featuring authentic Kyokushinkai techniques. Ironically this is one of the rare Sonny Chiba films in which he DOESN'T tear out or rip off body parts of opponents. A must see for Sonny Chiba fans definitely one of his top 5 films | positive |
Sure, we all like bad movies at one time or another, and we in fact enjoy them, This however, wasn't even a guilty pleasure, it was just crap. Some guy, vince offer, who is conceited enough to make himself the main character while probably got drunk/high--probably both--and thought it was a great idea to make a movie. He then proceeded to show his script to equally high/drunk individuals. Overall, this movie was so bad, predictable, and unoriginal I couldn't get through 20 minutes of it before I turned it off. It makes You Got Served look like Citizen Kane. Bat Man? WTF...Some guy that walks around with a bat, real original. Almost as good as calling him Fat Man, and having a fat guy walk around in a superhero outfit. | negative |
A comedy that worked surprisingly well was the little British effort "The Divorce Of Lady X (1938)" . It marks the first pairing of Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon, before that little film about uncontrollable passion on the 19th century English moors. And while Olivier and Oberon are not particularly well-suited to screwball comedy, it all flows along nicely. Oberon is Leslie, a young woman who ends up in priggish divorce lawyer Logan's (Olivier) hotel suite by way of a nasty English fog preventing travel. She does everything possible to irritate him--but, in the crazy way films go, he falls for her. And she falls for him. But a serious case of mistaken identity occurs when Oberon's "Lady X" (that's all she leaves Oliver in a note) is thought by Olivier to be a married woman. To make matters worse, and more amusing, Lord Mere (Ralph Richardson) goes to Olivier wanting a divorce from his wife whom dear Larry thinks must be Oberon! There is some nice battle-of-the-sexes dialogue, and fun exploration of sexual politics. You can see that Olivier is not too confident with the comedy, but in true Olivier he's a consummate professional, and delivers. And he handles the screwball twists and turns, maybe not with ease, but with gusto. Oberon was no great shakes as an actress, but she was usually competent enough, and despite their reputed off-screen dislike of her, worked well with Olivier. This was filmed in early Technicolour that looks very primitive today (everyone looks even whiter than Michael Jackson), but perhaps the print needs cleaning up. | positive |
This movie is one of the most provocative Jesus movies I have ever seen. It does not seek to tell the whole story, but only to portray an interpretive expression of the last day of Jesus Christ. It is darkly witty, playful and seriously faithful to elements of the Jewish tradition and to modern scriptural interpretation. Judas is much more ordinary than other portrayals, not the dark and sinister evil that we sometimes imagine, but a grossly mistaken man, horribly misguided in his zeal. Chris Saranden's Jesus is playful and serious, faithful and committed--very human while also divine. The final dialog is thoughtfully done and serves as the kind of small talk that two powerful men might do when they have just committed an atrocity. I would watch this movie again and recommend it to others. | positive |
This is one of the most ridiculous westerns that Hollywood ever made. Gary Cooper plays 'Reb Hollister', a former confederate officer wanted by the law. He meets up with a moron named Weatherby, played by Leif Erickson, who is a U.S. Marshal with no knowledge of firearms. Weatherby is on his way to Dallas to see his fiancee, Tonia Robles, played by Ruth Roman. Senor Robles, Tonia's father, has plenty of men, but they can't seem to be able to keep an eye on his cattle, which are regularly rustled by the Marlow brothers. Will Marlow, played by Raymond Massey, has financed the loan on the Robles estate, making things completely absurd. He even has the power to call for mortgage payments before they're due, simply because he feels like it.<br /><br />Since Weatherby is a Boston boy who can't fight, since he only became a Marshal so he could visit his fiancee, Tonia, (Just another instance of more plot nonsense. Are we to assume that you only have to pass a written test to get this job? Wait a minute, this guy couldn't pass the written test either.) he switches identities with Reb Hollister, who of course is an expert gunman. Reb takes the liberty of greeting Weatherby's girl with a passionate kiss, while Weatherby looks on like an idiot. Gary Cooper, Hollywood's number one stud, is in fine form here as Reb. Before the movie's done, not only does he take Weatherby's job, he steals his fiancee also, and Ruth Roman as Tonia, falls for him so hard and so fast that she gives chump Leif Erickson the brush-off before the films little more than half over.<br /><br />There isn't a shred of plot credibility in the whole film, so despite the good cast and lush photography, the film is a dud. And Cooper's character is a complete heel to boot. The film also stars Barbara Payton as Brant Marlow's girl, a beautiful and talented actress who squandered away her chances, unfortunately, by making too many headlines for the wrong reasons. I strongly suggest you pass this one up. | negative |
This kind of "inspirational" saccharine is enough to make you sick. It telegraphs its sentiments like the biggest semaphore on earth. It removes from the audience its own interpretation and feeling by making the choices for it. The big finish is swimming in weeping orchestration that must supposed to work like jumper cables on a dead car; I guess you'd need such prompting to feel if you're stupid enough to watch a film as simple-minded and sappy as this. Streep glows and you wonder if she really has the depth of feeling on display or if it's just that---a display, switched on and off like a light. Because I can't for the life of me see how she could possibly find life in such a dud of film. Even though it's based on a true story, and an inspirational one at that I'm sure, the set-up, execution and performances play like a third-rate TV movie or half-witted high school drama. | negative |
True Love, I truly enjoyed and LOVED this movie. It was fun, funny and inspirational. I just saw it on DVD. How did I miss this one it's a winner! I mean Flex was "That Guy". I wanted to marry him. This was my 1st time seeing him as a straight leading man and he pulls it off. I thought Tangi Miller was the best ever and I was a Felicity head too. A fearless woman who only fears her Nana. Thank You for giving women of color range in your work and she looks great! Tasha Smith was a Blast! Aloma Wright was priceless as Nana. This cute romantic comedy is "A Must See". Oh and the new comer Marcus Patrick is worth the surprise ladies...True Love. Karen | positive |
I had watched snippets from this as a kid but, while I purchased Blue Underground's set immediately due to its being a Limited Edition, only now did I fit it in my viewing schedule - and that's mainly because Bakshi's American POP (1981) just turned up on late-night Italian TV (see my review of that film below)! <br /><br />Anyway, I found the film to be a quite good sword-and-sorcery animated epic with especially impressive-looking backdrops (the rather awkward rotoscoped characters were, admittedly, less so) with a rousing if derivative score. The plot, again, wasn't exactly original, but proved undeniably engaging on a juvenile level and the leading characters well enough developed - especially interesting is the villainous Ice-lord Nekron and the enigmatic warrior Darkwolf; the hero and heroine, however, are rather bland stereotypes - but one can hardly complain when Bakshi and Frazetta depict the girl as well-endowed (her bra could be torn off any second) and half-naked to boot (her tiny panties are forever disappearing up her ass)! Still, it's clearly an action-oriented piece and it certainly delivers on this front (that involving Darkwolf being particularly savage); the final showdown though brief, is also nicely handled and sees our heroes astride pterodactyls assaulting the villains' lair inside a cave .<br /><br />In the long run, apart from the afore-mentioned Frazetta backdrops, the main appeal of this movie for me now is its nostalgia factor as it transported me back to my childhood days of watching not just films like CONAN THE BARBARIAN (1982) and THE BEASTMASTER (1982) but also animated TV series such as BLACKSTAR (1981-82) and HE-MAN AND THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE (1983-85).<br /><br />As for the accompanying THE MAKING OF "FIRE AND ICE" (TV) (Mark Bakshi, 1982) **1/2:<br /><br />Vintage featurette on the sword-and-sorcery animated film which is only available via the washed-out VHS print owned by Ralph Bakshi himself! It goes into some detail about the rotoscope technique and also shows several instances of live-action 'performances' (in a studio) of segments from the script - which would then be traced, blended in with the backgrounds and filmed. Still, having watched several such behind-the-scenes featurettes on the art of animation (on the Disney Tins and the Looney Tunes sets, for instance), it's doesn't make for a very compelling piece... | positive |
I play final fantasy 7, and this movie is EXCELLENT like the game, all fans of final fantasy will love this movie. <br /><br />The music are fantastic and the history is good, but, the best of this movie is the visual effects, are amazing. The characters are equal to the game and that detail are good for the fans. <br /><br />You don't need play the game to like this movie, all the people can enjoy the film, because the history is some different and is easy to understand. I buy the DVD because is EXCELLENT, IS 100% ADVISABLE, if you don't see this film, what you waiting for? believe me,you will fascinate like me | positive |
If you are under 13 or above 13 and pretty intoxicated, you'll enjoy D-war. If you are a seriously dedicated fan of all kinds of brainless action films, you'll enjoy D-war. Otherwise, don't bother! I saw the movie today with my nephews and 3 of their friends. They really loved it and that made me feel good. After the movie was over, all the kids(my nephews and their friends)could not stop thanking me for taking them to the theater.<br /><br />The CG is good. Acting and directing are horrible. Storyline is extremely simple. But, since the half of the audience was kids, they were screaming, shouting and cheering every time the dragons appeared on the screen. This made the viewing experience far more exciting than it should have been.<br /><br />It's a good movie to take your kids to, but except for the final battle sequence, D-War is disappointing. I give this film 7 out of 10 mainly because the kids loved it so much. | positive |
No wonder Pamela Springsteen gave up acting to become a full-time photographer; it's a much better idea to have her behind a camera than in front of one. While this movie is not without its interesting elements (mullets from hell, etc.), it is outweighed by flaws. For one thing, Angela, the murderous counselor, appears to be about the same age as the campers. Having an older, more threatening camp director would have done a lot for the film. And then you have the murder scenes. The budget was apparently too low to execute most of them properly (no pun intended), although drowning someone in an outhouse toilet is certainly original. But overall, there are a ton of movies out there that are scarier/more fun to spend an hour and a half of your life watching. | negative |
This has to be, by far, the absolute worst movie I have seen in the last 20 years. When I saw that Michael Madsen was in it I figured it couldn't be too bad a movie since he has been in some pretty decent films, and he was a pretty fair actor. WRONG! No one should waste their time on this film. I fast forwarded through 80 percent of it and I don't feel that I missed a thing. | negative |
'Had Ned Kelly been born later he probably would have won a Victoria Cross at Gallipolli'. such was Ned's Bravery.<br /><br />In Australia and especially country Victoria the name Ned Kelly can be said and immediately recognised. In Greta he is still a Hero, the life Blood of the Town of Jerilderie depends on the tourism he created, but in Mansfield they still haven't forgotten that the three policeman that he 'murdered' were from there.<br /><br />Many of the buildings he visited in his life are still standing. From the Old Melbourne Gaol where he was hanged, to the Post office he held up in Jerilderie. A cell he was once held in in Greta is on display in Benella and the site of Ann Jones' Hotel, the station and even the logs where he was captured in Glenrowan can be visited.<br /><br />Evidence of all the events in the movie (except for his love interest) can be found all over Victoria, in police records and even in the Sash that Ned was awarded with for rescuing Dick Shelton from drowning. None of this is wrong, and whats left out would further justify Neds actions. The Horse that Ned 'stole' was actually stolen by Wild Wright (the man who Ned boxes with after getting out of jail). Ned was already in prison when the horse was reported stolen so he couldn't have stolen it.<br /><br />The Jerilderie Letter is more than what has been stated before. It is not self justification it is Ned's biography, an outline of what he stood for and who he was protecting. So go ahead and read it, watch the movie and then make up your mind about what Ned stood for. | positive |
"Feast of All Saints?" Where...? When...?<br /><br />Was the Feast of All Saints storyline and theme edited out? <br /><br />What a waste of a wonderful title! There is never anything in the story that has the remotest connection to the "Feast of All Saints." Nor is there anything in the story about "All Souls Day" which the term is referencing. Why bother to use this title if you never intend to including any kind of storyline or theme about "All Souls Day" or the "Feast of All Saints"? <br /><br />Embarrassly Bad Script & Amateur Writing <br /><br />How did they attract such great talent to this clunker? The writing is so amateur--characters that have known each other all their life go into big long speeches about their life history for the sake of the audience. Not at all the way people talk to each other. <br /><br />What was the Director Thinking?<br /><br />The directing is equally bad! The forced and overly deliberate style feels amateurish. In one scene, a character is yelling "Take your hands off of me" and NO ONE is touching him! The most badly directed scene however, is the incredibly over-the-top battle scene at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />Excessive Gore in a Very Fake, Silly Battle Scene<br /><br />There are so many dead people in the most fake battle scene. It looks like a Saturday Night Live skit!! You can see extras waiting for their cues to walk across camera. Everyone plays their death scene like 4th grade boys--exaggerating every little gasp and twitch. The blood on battle victims is so excessive and carelessly applied it looks like someone used a ketchup dispenser and just squirted straight lines of red on the costumes.<br /><br />This whole battle scene comes off as the spoof of a really cheesy war movie. You almost expect someone like Will Ferrell and Mike Myers to ride up on a horse and deliver the punchline.<br /><br />Who in Real Life Would Ever Behave this Way?! <br /><br />The most ridiculous bit of writing, directing and casting is actually the focus of the scene: <br /><br />A little girl is standing under the dead body of her hanging father--who is terribly mutilated, and literally dripping blood form his gaping wounds. Even a totally idiot would know he is dead! Yet she is--very monotonously--repeating over and over "Daddy, daddy..." while looking at someone off-screen. She delivered it with about as much believability and passion as you could expect from an non-actor kid that had been repeating the line for the cameras all day.<br /><br />Even if the poor kid had any acting skills, the scene is completely unbelievable. The little girl wouldn't even BE in the middle of the battlefield after hours of carnage--surrounded by hundreds of dead bodies, while she calmly stands there!! Natural instincts would had the kid screaming and terrified, running AWAY from the bloody carnage! <br /><br />Are we Suppose to be Horrified or Laugh...?!<br /><br />One particularly goofy detail, that gives the scene an SNL satire tone, is the father hanging, with a huge hook through his mouth and cheek. He looks like a fish on a hook! The unintentionally funny details, make the whole scene come across as fake and silly.<br /><br />In Fantasy La-La-Land, Mothers and Daughters are the Same Age! <br /><br />Another funny detail, is that you see a central character--the little girl's mother--at the end of the scene and in the next scene, that occurs 20+ years later, she looks exactly the same! She is still young and beautiful, and now the same age as her daughter! <br /><br />I almost turned the movie off right there because the direction and writing were obviously awful--but I tried to stick it out because I wanted to see the Louisiana settings and I like all the actors. I don't know what these fine actors were thinking when they accepted these roles!<br /><br />Who was the Targeted Audience?<br /><br />The excessive amount of blood and badly acted violence in the opening scene are weirdly out of place with the soap opera storytelling tone that follows. It is also a strange way to start a movie that, for the rest of the time, seems targeted to romance novel reading females. Weird inconsistency in tone! | negative |
I now that these days, some people wan't see a movie without movie styling, so much Dogma, Lars Von, Watchosky Brothers, are changed what we expect in a movie, perhaps, Casomai is no-one-more-Independent-non-american movie, the movie take all movies resources and language to tell us a simple history about love and marriage, but much more .. Fully of views, lectures and let you thinking ... and I'm sure, you can't fell boried any second of a long 116 minutes. I calculate that don't have a single scene longer that 3 o 2 1/2 minutes. | positive |
Okay. I really tried to tap into the (so called) silly & surreal humor that this film sets out to be. I'm told that the Japanese version of this film is much shorter than the one shipped to America (go figure!), and has less political references. Apart from all that, I found this sexual/political farce just as boring and pointless as standard porn. The central female lead is easy on the eyes, and could actually act. I would love to see her in a non pink film where she could actually flex her acting muscles (and no,not the ones you're thinking of). It's obvious that Japan can (and does)produce just as much crap as other countries. I couldn't recommend this to anyone, with the distant possibility of someone who has a Jones for Asian porn. Go see a real Japanese film. | negative |
Australian Fred Schepisi (A Cry in the Dark) directs this comedy/ romance that is fun, relaxing, and set in the spring. You will laugh while watching this movie. Tim Robbins (Shawshank Redemption, Dead Man Walking) is an auto mechanic, Ed Walters, with a high IQ, which gets higher with the help of Albert Einstein, Walter Matthau (Grumpy Old Men) and his academic friends Nathan, Kurt and Boris. You can tell them by their preppie shoes. Meg Ryan (Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail) is Catherine Boyd, Einstein's niece who is a competent, but not so confident mathematician. Perhaps it is because she is surrounded by all that genius. She thinks that if she marries someone with a high I.Q. her kids will have a high I.Q. as well, but she does not knows what she wants. Between Tim Robbins cute smile and Meg's cuteness this is a refreshing movie. I love sweet stories. People all ages should enjoy this movie. Catherine is engaged to the jerk James Moreland, who works in animal behavior, but is very stuffy. This is a love a first sight type situation, between the mechanic and the mathematician. Witty lines and subliminal lines! The cinematography is nice. Princeton, New Jersey is beautiful in the Spring. With much help from all those brilliant men Catherine falls for Ed, without knowing that he is an automobile mechanic.<br /><br />Favorite Scenes: Ed taking a multiple choice test in front of a crowd with the help of Einstein, Nathan, Kurt, and Boris. Ed and Einstein riding on the motorcycle. Nathan, Kurt and Boris letting all the research animals free!<br /><br />Favorite Quotes: Albert Einstein: "Don't let your brain interfere with your heart". Ed Walters: "When was the last time he said "Wahoo""? Catherine Boyd: "Well I'm sure I don't know". This is a refreshing movie, I recommend it. I have the tape and every once and awhile I will watch it again. | positive |
This one is a great one! Robert De Niro and Cuba Gooding have teamed up to make a powerful and very influential film. This is the true story of the first black US Navy diver and the obstacles he faced in attaining his certification at the hands of a racist Master diver. Along the way, he must also face plain old bigotry from all of his classmates, none of whom want him in their class. They move out of the barracks when he arrives. Ultimately, he becomes certified and goes on to have a great career as a US Navy diver. Watch this one! It's a great tale of courage and honor. As the story unfolds, we get to watch racism slowly dissipate and everyone begins to respect men one at a time. | positive |
I don't really consider myself a conservative, so I wasn't personally offended by this film, but it was pretty clear that the plot and the characterization in this film were secondary to the message. And the message is that all conservatives are either evil or stupid (or both). The characters are one-dimensional -- either good, freedom-loving Americans, or brainless, greedy, evil conservatives. There's nothing clever or creative, just anti-conservative. I don't really mind the political bias itself, but it shouldn't be the only purpose behind the movie. And clearly it is.<br /><br />On the positive side, the cast is wonderful and Chris Cooper's impression of W is funny the first two or three times, but after that it's just the same old joke being told over and over again.<br /><br />So if you really hate the conservatives, you'll probably enjoy this film, but if you're looking for something with realistic characters and a story that's less black-and-white, then you'd be better off watching something else. | negative |
This is really good. Original ideas in the film and a great terrorist action film. Only second to die hard and die hard with a vengeance, this film has suspense and a good plot. I would recommend it to anyone with a taste in films like mine; Action, terrorism and gangster/mafia. | positive |
Rajkumar Santoshi Without Any Doubt Has Directed The Greatest Movies And Biggest Box Office Hits Of Indian Cinema.<br /><br />This Movie Falls Short Of All Expectations As This Movie Stars Two Great Actors Mr. Amitabh Bachchan And Akshay Kumar And When You Have These Two Actors In The Same Movie You Have To Make A Magnum Opus.<br /><br />In The Later Part Of The Movie You Can Make Out That Amitabh Bachchan's Voice Has Been Dubbed By Some Other Person Which Was Due To His Illness.<br /><br />Still The Movie Did'nt Had Proper Character Development Plus Cinematography Was'nt Good Too And One Thing That Bollywood Should Learn Is That They Should Use Visual Effects Only When It Is Needed And When Applied Should Be Done With A High Budget.The Script Had So Many Flaws Which Gives The Viewer Excuses To Attend His Phone Calls Rather Than Watching The Movie.<br /><br />The New Comer Shakes The Leg Well But Could Not Act Well But Where The Movie Loses Big Time Is The Storyline Screenplay And Cinematography.<br /><br />A Talented Actor Like Bhoomika Chawla Has Been Wasted In The Movie As Well As Sushant Singh.<br /><br />But Every Director Once In A While In His Career Makes A Bad Film.<br /><br />So Watch It Only If You Are A Fan Of Multi-Starrer Flop Movies. | negative |
A poetic examination of the human condition performed without dialogue. The anti-hero, The Man builds a contraption to escape a band of marauders, out of the wastland of what was once a civilization, to the ruins of the city to scavenge for his survival. There he crosses pathes with The Brute, brilliantly played by Jean Reno, of "The Professional" and "Mission: Impossible" fame. The Man is rescued by a crazy old genius who lives in a fortress of his own design. By using their wits, The Man and the old genius are able to keep the Brute and his ilk at bay, but they realise it is only a matter of time before their defenses are compromised, so they make a break for it. This is a strongly understated tale of the desparate struggle for life, with excellent action scenes and clever humor. Of all of the movies of its kind, like "Road Warrior", "Omega Man", and even "Ultimate Warrior" (featuring Yul Brenner as a buff knife-fighter), "Le Dernier Combat" is the most artfully crafted. Copies of the video are hard-to-find, I would give my left eye ball for one. If your local art house ever has a revival of this film, I heartily recommend that you break any engagement to able to be able to see it big. | positive |
It's true that you always remember what you were doing at a point when disaster or tragedy strikes. And none more so that September 11, 2001, a date which changed the entire global landscape in its fight against terrorism.<br /><br />No, this documentary didn't set out to be dwelling on the events leading to 9/11. Rather, the filmmakers, brothers Gédéon and Jules Naudet, set out to do a documentary on the trials and tribulations of a rookie New York firefighter. They had gone to the academy and done some shoots of training, and had handpicked their "proby" (probation firefighter) to join them in an NY firehouse, home to Ladder 1 and Engine 7. But their production was to develop and contain at that time, believed to be the only shot of the first plane slamming into the World Trace Center.<br /><br />I was traveling back with a friend on the train from a night of LAN gaming, and received a call at about 850pm local time from my Dad, who informed me of the above. Few minutes later, he told me there was another, and that the WTC was under attack. By the time I arrived home, the upper floors of the twin towers were ablaze and in smoke, and to my horror, they collapsed, under an hour.<br /><br />The filmmakers had two cameras running that day, one who had followed a team out on a routine call, and which immediately raced to the WTC upon hearing and seeing the plane crash into it. We follow what is possible the only filmed sequence of events in the lobby of WTC1 where the first responders of firefighters, paramedics, and police had to make sense of what happened, and to quickly develop a plan of action. The other camera, held by the other brother, was making his way to WTC to look for his sibling, and along the journey, captured the many expressions of New Yorkers, as well as the sense of chaos in and around Manhatten.<br /><br />Peppered throughout the documentary are numerous interviews with the men from Ladder 1 and Engine 7, which miraculously, did not suffer any casualty. But being survivors also brought about its own set of psychological turmoil, as they struggle to come to terms with the event. Through the events that unfold, we learn of the strong camaraderie amongst these men who risk live and limb each day on their jobs, to save lives.<br /><br />We began with what the documentary was supposed to be, before events of the day totally swung in and became the focus, right up to the rescue phase where hopes of finding survivors under the rubble were kept alive by the men who work round the clock in making sense of the collapsed steel structures. It's not a film that is fabricated, and what you see here cannot be recreated in any other documentary (and heavens, not sound stages for Hollywood blockbusters). It's as close as you can get to that day, witnessing the event up close, from safety.<br /><br />Code 1 DVD contains a separate extra hour of 4 sets of interviews with the men of Ladder 1 and Engine 7. | positive |
Oh, my. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.<br /><br />What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. "Oh, s/he died? Huh... Figured they would" was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and "pensive looks". Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.<br /><br />It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director/writer of "Skyggen", American title: "Webmaster") decided to do a low-budget version of "American Psycho" and got kind of distracted along the way.<br /><br />This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.<br /><br />Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.<br /><br />Enough said. | negative |
I was in my mid teens when I saw this movie, and I was struck by the beauty of the young stars as well as the loving cinematography and the simple sweetness of the story. It amazes me to learn that Alvina has recently died, that Bury apparently has not worked in the film business for almost 30 years, and that both would be in their 50s.<br /><br />The Elton John soundtrack is amazingly beautiful and supports the air of protected innocence the characters experience in seclusion. I have seen the movie poster, billing it as "Deux Enfants Quis'Aiment," which apparently means something like "Two Children Who Like Each Other"--the English language distributors were wise to abbreviate the title!<br /><br />Paul, the ignored 15-year-old son of an English businessman living in Paris, meets Michelle, an orphan, at the zoo. The two take what they intend as a day-long holiday to Michelle's late father's rural cottage, but end up staying there for a year, isolated from the outside world. They fall in love, Michelle gets pregnant, and they have the baby alone at home. After the baby's birth, the police come to Paul's work place and take him away.<br /><br />"Blue Lagoon" comes to mind as another film that almost captures the theme of innocence protected in an isolated paradise. So sad that "Friends" has never been released on DVD. | positive |
When Braveheart first came out, I was enthralled, and was admittedly one of the most rabid fans of the film. When Rob Roy came out, I was intrigued, and although I enjoyed the film I did not think it was a great film. However, as time has gone by, my appreciation for Rob Roy has grown, and my enthusiasm for Braveheart has diminished. Braveheart is great entertainment, to be sure, but there are flaws as well. The most significant, in my view, is the unflattering portrayal of Robert the Bruce, who was without a doubt Scotland's greatest king. Another is the historical inaccuracy of the film, which tarnishes the film in proportion to the many historical distortions. I think I am also bothered by the fact that it was in this film, seen only (at least by me) in retrospect, that the beginnings of Mel Gibson's egomania can be seen clearly for the first time. In contrast, Rob Roy has grown on me over the years. Partly because it largely avoids the faults I mind most in Braveheart. But also because Rob Roy is like fine wine, growing more mature and complex with each viewing. | positive |
The French either make pro-Marxist films or anti-Marxist films - with a few in between. "Merci pour le chocolat" is the latter of this genre. From the opening credits telling the viewer what music is going to be played and by whom it was who composed you know that you are going to be swathed in middle class pretension. It is an old man's film with an excess of 40's plus people. It is also directed by an old man along with an old crew who have nothing to say about life to the viewer. The plot is not only banal but preposterous. How many films reveal the plot through dialogue only to repeat the same message via flashback some five minutes later? Maybe the director and actors had a low retentive capacity? In truth their is no tenable plot at all. It is riddle with holes like a good piece of French cheese.<br /><br />Whether intentional or not, it is a film about the bourgeoisie. At least a third of the film focuses on the piano and the pretentious twaddle espoused in each scene. I concede it has some well framed shots though they couldn't have used a steady-cam in this film - it would have woke them all up! Other than it being a nonsense story, the film allows the upper middle class to parade their values and vanity in a very comfortable Swiss location. A telling line of the film is when Rodolphe Pauly tells Anna Mouglalis that she need not lock her car while in the resort! Oh dear me.<br /><br />On the DVD, Miss Huppert makes a comment about shedding a false tear for a scene. Smirking she says: "Like they do in the American Actor's Studio!" I think Miss Huppert and the rest of the cast could learn well from the Actor's Studio.<br /><br />If there is one statement that stand out in my mind it is when Huppert remarks 'we are having friends for the weekend and all the servants are away'. No doubt they had all escaped from the mind numbing set lest they be associated with such an appalling film.<br /><br />Safety Medical Note. In the film they show a hot water scald being covered with ointment and a bandage. This should never be done. Only cold water should be used.<br /><br />Minus 10 marks. | negative |
A gem of a British caper-comedy. Poor American schlub Pinky Green (Richard Jordan, playing another bad guy but this time an adorable one) gets out of a British jail and tries to go straight, but his maintenance man job in a bank is too attractive for his never-reformed criminal friends, headed up by a really nasty Ivan (David Niven in one of his last roles). Pinky resists, but the lure of all that money is just too much for him. Things unravel and reravel and it's all joyous to watch. Jordan must have played 20 bad guys in his career, but he never played the same one twice - this one is just too lovable to hate. Niven never played a slicker bad guy, oil all over. Two fine actors we've lost that I wish we had back. | positive |
How this has not become a cult film I do not know. I think it has been sadly overlooked as a truly ingenious comedy!<br /><br />"Runaway Car" attempts to pass itself off as a fast-paced thriller, but taking the quality of acting (good God it's bad), the storyline, the practicalities of the car's demonic possession and the baby evacuation scene into account there is nothing you can really do but laugh. And laugh you will. Films are made to entertain us, and the degree to which they do this can be an indication of a film's worth. This film is the pinnacle in entertainment, I laughed from beginning to end. At one point I got short of breath and nearly choked, it really is that funny at some points. When the baby was airlifted out of the sunroof in a holdall by a helicopter with a robot pilot who managed to maintain a constant velocity identical to the car and a perfectly flat flight plain that meant the grapple hook didn't rip the car roof to pieces, I was laughing hysterically. But when the baby starting swinging around in the air, nearly hit a bridge and almost got tangled up in a tree, tears were running down my face.<br /><br />It also occurred to me that the black cop was the guy who played Jesus in Madonna's "Like A Prayer" video. He seems to get everywhere. | positive |
Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.<br /><br />An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.<br /><br />This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical
. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless. | negative |
Why is it that in the '50s and '60s, Italians made so of the best movies, and then during the '70s and '80s, made nothing but zombie and cannibal movies? Probably because art films didn't make any money. , The Cannibal Movie, unlike the Zombie Movie, which was created by Americans and `exploited' by Italians, is a purely Italian creation, designed as a mondo exploitation showcase, and to make as much money as possible (no artistic integrity getting in the way here). Eaten Alive came during the Cannibal Movie heyday. The director, Umberto Lenzi, hadn't even hit his stride yet; his genre classic, Cannibal Ferox, was still a year away.<br /><br />In plotting similar to (read: ripped off from) Ruggero Deodato's seminal cannibal classic, Cannibal Holocaust, a woman (Janet Agren) receives word from the police that they've received a 8mm film from her sister. She's gone missing in Africa, and it's suspected that the tribal ritual depicted on the film may have something to do with it. Mel Ferrer, as a Professor of Somethingoranother, tells her that a man named Jonas (Ivan Rassimov) has started a Jonestown-like cult in New Guinea, and that's where the sister is. The woman hires a guide (Robert Kerman) to take her through the jungle to find the cult and her sister. And, wouldn't you know it, the jungle is full of cannibals. <br /><br />One sentence should sum it up: if you've seen on Cannibal Movie, you've seen them all, mostly because these films steal shamelessly from each other (Lenzi copied Cannibal Holocaust to make this film, and retooled this to make Cannibal Ferox; Deodato copied parts of this for Hit and Run). And because they all share the same material, they all feature the same traits: awful photography, boring scenery, terrible dubbing, overacting, and exploitation, exploitation, exploitation. Genre fans will have a ball since everyone in it is a genre veteran. Rassimov and Kerman have a scenery eating contest. Agren exists solely to be naked, raped, or in peril. Plenty o' gore for all the sickos out there. The cannibals, who do actually appear to be native cannibals, eat lunch met disguised as human flesh. And, in the grand tradition of Cannibal Movies, any live animal shown onscreen is usually killed shortly thereafter. Overall, really not a good experience, but I'm sure there are psychopaths out there who find this excrement entertaining. I know I did. | negative |
One of the most magnificent movies ever made. The acting of Charles Buchinski (later known as Bronson) is simply outstanding. This is the crown on the career of director Winner, who himself was often quoted saying this was his masterpiece. The plot has been copied many times, but it's never been topped. Wildey J. Moore, the gun manufacturer, many times claimed his brand's growth since the mid 80s can be fully credited to DW3, and rightly so. This is not just a movie, this is art that many generations will admire and appreciate. Although this movie has never been fully appreciated in the USA, it has found a huge following in Europe and Asia, where the movie is regularly shown at film schools and it is still a popular hit in student cinemas all across Europe. All in all, a true classic. | positive |
I just caught "Wild Rebels" on one of the "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" archive compilations, and this movie was so bad even the MST3K crew couldn't make it entertaining. There are some MST3K "targets" that were films whose concepts were so dippy they couldn't possibly have been good movies (like "The Green Slime"), and others whose basic premises could have been made into genuinely entertaining films if their filmmakers hadn't bobbled them in the execution. "Wild Rebels" is a film whose basic premise DID make a good movie three years earlier, when Don Siegel directed his remake of "The Killers" at Universal. Both films are about a failed racing driver who's seduced by a femme fatale into driving the getaway car in a robbery masterminded by the woman's boyfriend -- only in "The Killers" the driver was John Cassavetes, the woman was Angie Dickinson and the criminal mastermind (cast wildly but successfully against type in what turned out to be his final film) was Ronald Reagan. Steve Alaimo, Bobbie Byers and Willie Pastrano are quite a comedown! But what REALLY makes "Wild Rebels" an awful movie is the direction by William Grefé (note the accent over the final "e," present in his on-screen credit), which has absolutely no sense of pace whatsoever and seems to let every shot run at least half again as long as it needs to to make its dramatic point. It's only a pity that someone didn't do a mocking commentary on this movie now (in 2009); the comparison between Steve Alaimo's hairdo and Rod Blagojevich's would have been irresistible! | negative |
Spoilers: This movie has it's problems, but in the end it gets the message across. I liked it because it ends the way things really do. The nice guy tries and tries, gets his heart broken several times, but in the end there is no typical hollywood ending. It ends the way such things always end, or at least always have in my own and friends' experiences. Anyone who thinks that the ending to this isn't how it really happens, as the first comment seemed to, believing that the girl would come around, realize she's dating an asshole who treats her bad because he doesn't care about her at all is either naive or lives in a more perfect world than I. I give it 7/10, extra points simply because it wasn't afraid to end on a down note, give no real resolution, just the main character left heartbroken, confused and alone as so many men of countless generations have been before. | positive |
Thirty per cent of this movie appears to be the prototype for the Map Channel. You see a giant map for about ten minutes, then they unleash the stock footage big time while droning(droning, get it?)on about radar. Apparently there's a lot of radar stations in the far north, protecting North America's borders from attacks by deadly polar bears. The bears never show up, but a giant Mantis does. It was frozen in the ice for over a million years or so, until it was released by an earthquake somewhere else in the world(yeah, right. For my money, it was released by global warming). It is a huge prehistoric insect, and it needs lots of food. Since there aren't any cows in the frozen north, it decides to feast on the most bovine-like creatures it can find up there. I.E., human beings. It starts attacking radar stations, probably because the humming from the radar dishes was getting on its nerves.<br /><br />Enter Col. Joe Parkman, the resident smarmy guy of the film. He's investigating a plane that went down, and is puzzled why there are no bodies in the wreckage. The only thing he finds is one of the claws of the Mantis. Apparently it decided to trim its nails while it was snacking on the plane's crew. Parkman takes the claw tip back with him to be analyzed by a thousand year old scientist.<br /><br />Grandpa scientist can't make heads or tails of the claw, mostly because he's missed his naps so his mind isn't functioning too well. So he calls in a smug paleontologist played by the guy who was the P.I. in Perry Mason. He and his friend, a transvestite photographer, fly north because he's decided that the claw must have come from a Praying Mantis. Just one the size of a commuter train.<br /><br />It's Luke warm love at first sight when Col.Parkman first sets eyes on the she-male photographer. The men at the base, obviously having been deprived for many years, think she's the hottest thing to come along since Granny Clampett. Smug science guy and smarmy soldier guy start working together to track the path of the Mantis, which has devastated some stock footage of an Eskimo village. It comes to the base looking for an after dinner snack, and crushes some cheap sets quite effectively. Then it flies south and disappears.<br /><br />Now comes the tense hours when the civilian ground observer core are called on to sweep the skies looking for anything large flying overhead. I doubt that in reality they would have been told that they were looking for a giant flying mantis that eats human beings, since that would haver caused a panic. Probably they were told to look for a giant 727 that was painted green and hummed because its engine was out of tune.<br /><br />Col. Parkman goes up in a plane to try to shoot the Mantis down, and botches the mission. The Mantis lands in New York City, probably because it wanted to take in a show on Broadway or visit Sex World in Times Square. The army corners it in the Tunnel, and Parkman and his men don stupid suits that they borrowed from the Orkin Man to go in and try to blow the Mantis up. Success! Well, almost, since the Mantis is still twitching enough that it almost kills the mannish Eve Arden photographer lady. There's a tepid love scene at the end, and the paleontologist takes a picture of the dead mantis because Colonel Hair Grease and Ms. Gender Unspecified are busy smooching. So kind of a nauseating ending. | negative |
The Dereks did seem to struggle to find rolls for Bo after "10".<br /><br />I used to work for a marine park in the Florida Keys. One day, the script for "Ghosts Can't Do It" was circulating among the trainers in the "fish house" where food was prepared for the dolphins. There was one scene where a -dolphin- supposedly propositions Bo (or Bo the dolphin), asking to "go make eggs." Reading the script, we -lauuughed-...<br /><br />We did not end up doing any portion of this movie at our facility, although our dolphins -were- in "The Big Blue!"<br /><br />This must have been very close to the end of Anthony Quinn's life. I hope he had fun in this film, as it certainly didn't do anything for his legacy. | negative |
Uncompromising look at a suburb in 21st century Vienna mixing the stories of six groups of characters by former documentary maker U.Seidl is a provocative, minimalistic and intense piece of observation cinema.<br /><br />After the world-wide spread of Big Brother reality shows, Hundstage takes modern voyeurism to an unsettling, profound level. Hard to like but unignorable piece of European art-cinema might seem cruel and seedy, yet manages to convey the nihilistic alienated feeling of modern society in a praiseworthy manner.<br /><br />A must for lovers of world cinema. | positive |
This is not a GREAT movie as tho the cast (especially the kids) admirably help to carry along this very sad yet contrived plot it is filled with cliché upon cliché. Poor family in 50's mid America, dying mother, alcoholic father, 10 children (1 of whom has epilepsy) and an awful decision to be made. Its very easy to watch and some of the kids performances are moving without being sickly or naff. And little Frank and Warrnen steal the show for me with the last scene leaving me bawling no matter how many times I see it. A great rainy afternoon movie i recommend to all. Only those with the hardest of hearts could fail to be moved by it. Not on a par to Sophies Choice but a good TV movie equivalent!!! | positive |
I really hated this movie and it's the first movie written by Stephen King that I didn't finish. I was truly disappointed, it was the worst crap I've ever seen. What were you thinking making three hours out of it? It may have a quite good story, but actors? No. Suspense? No. Romance? No. Horror? No. It didn't have anything.<br /><br />It's got this strange, crazy science man with Einstein-hair, the classic thing. Not real at all. And a man keep getting younger all the time. It seems like they just used the name of Stephen King to make a crappy, too long movie with nothing exciting at all.<br /><br />I give this movie "1 (awful)". If they had like -5, I would probably take that instead. It was a total waste of time. | negative |
This is indeed the film that popularized kung fu in the 1970s. However, if it ever had any kind of excitement or even halfway interesting plot, it doesn't seem to have aged very well.<br /><br />Long story short: extremely drawn out, slow-moving, confusing plot with run-of-the-mill choreography, typically annoying and exaggerated whiplash sounds with every punch and kick, and constant "plot twists" that never come to an end. By the time the film reaches its emotional climax, I had long had all the wind knocked out of me to actually care.<br /><br />Watch it for its historical value as a milestone of Chinese kung fu cinema -- just leave your expectations at the door, or you'll be bitterly disappointed.<br /><br />For hardcore fans only. | negative |
This game is the bomb and this is the 007 game of the year and should be on greatest hits. When I got Agent Under Fire, I thought that was a good game but then Nightfire came around and that was better, but now there is a new type of James Bond game. This time it a 3rd person shooter and there is more than 12 missions, the graphics of the game are out of this house. It even has all of the great actors and actresses in this game like Pierce Bronsan as once again James Bond, William Dafoe as the villain Nikolai Diavolo, and Judi Dench as M (forgive me all if I spell it wrong). This game would be own as the greatest James Bond game around.<br /><br />I give this a 10/10 | positive |
The unflappable William Powell. He is a joy to watch on the screen as he makes his way through situations without a care in the world. He always seems on top of his game and shows little care for anyone who doubts him. The murders are projects, barely human beings. I have noticed this is a staple of the whodunnit. Other than an occasional weeping widow, the victims fulfill the function of being the reason the movie exists. Nothing more. There are enough twists and turns to keep things interesting along the way and Powell is a master at this. There is a lot of political incorrectness, especially as it relates to the Asian performers. This is a little hard to take. The cast is great, and Curtiz's direction is also a consistent asset. | positive |
What we have here is a downright brilliant piece of early 80's incompetence that will render even the biggest connoisseur of trash- cinema completely speechless! "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a very cheap and cheesy fantasy/Sword-and-Sorcery adventure that doesn't have an actual plot but does eagerly & shamelessly borrows elements from other films. Writer Ed Naha and Hector Olivera (who?) watched enough similar type of movies to know that they needed a handful of essential characters, but probably figured that all the rest would follow automatically. In order to make a fantasy-adventure you need: one super- evil villain (preferably with a black cape), one young hero in training, one lone warrior, one amiable type of furry pet, one wise midget living in the woods (optional) and a whole colorful collection of hideous demons, enslaved dwarfs, and winged gargoyles to serve as filler. The story is phenomenal and so original, with Simon the young son of a wizard having to flee from his beloved kingdom after the evil magician Shurka takes over the power and killed the king. Simon wants to go back and save the people, but therefore he needs his powerful ring which he lost during his escape. Simon befriends lone warrior Kor (the usually cool dude Bo Svenson who clearly needed the pay check), who assists Simon during the long and devastating journey full of ordeals, dangerous encounters and magical showdowns. Admittedly it doesn't even sound too bad thus far, but that's merely just because I excluded all the deliciously inept little details. Simon has a best friend named Gulfax, for example. Gulfax is an albino version of Chewbacca and evokes incontrollable chuckles whenever he opens his poodle-snout to yelp something incomprehensible. The obstacles during journey back home are hilariously irrelevant to the "plot" and simply serve as padding footage to cover up the lack of actual content. Simon has nightmarish visions inside the tent of a suspicious forest nymph, Kor settles an old score with the pig-faced nemesis whose sister he refused to marry and there's the supposedly horrible 'suicide cave' where you can only sing your way out of. But the absolute most unequally brilliant sequence not just of this film alone but in the history of cinema involves the resurrection of four zombie warriors. Simon awakes the legendary courageous warriors, hoping they will assist them in their battle, but the rotting corpses only take a few steps, complain about how tired they are and return back to their graves. That's it! So much for the zombie sub plot! Best sequence ever! I could go on listing unintentionally hilarious little details for several more paragraphs, but you get the idea. "Wizards of the Lost Kingdom" is a tremendously messed-up "so-bad-it's-good" film. Word of advice: do not watch this joyful piece of junk alone. Invite friends, preferably the dope-headed types with a wicked sense of humor, and watch it in group. It will be a night to remember
| negative |
This is one of my favourite films, dating back to my childhood. Set in the remote wilderness of Siberia at the turn of the century, a small community is stirred when an extremely cold winter forces two tigers to come down from the mountains in search of food, preying on outlying farms. In this atmosphere we are introduced to Avakum, a hermit fur trapper, who lives out in the wilds, as he comes to the village to sell his annual catch to Boris, his close, and rather only, friend in the village, who runs a store. At Boris' request, Avakum accompanies his friend's arrogant son, Ivan, on the hunt for the menacing tigers. Personalities crash and tempers flare as the older, more experienced Avakum criticises Ivan's amateur methods, an encounter noticed also by the other members of the hunt. On the second day, the hunters sight their prey and give chase. In a thick wood, Ivan wounds one of the tigers, which then attacks the hapless man. Avakum, seeing Ivan tangling with the enraged beast, fires, but accidently hits Ivan. He kills the tiger as it flees. The other hunters arrive on the scene, suspicious.<br /><br />Back in the village, the doctor works to save the wounded Ivan. Avakum attempts to leave the village, but is confronted by Ivan's friends. The trapper brushes them off however, and speeds off with his dog-drawn sled. The young villagers swear after him that they'll come for him if Ivan dies, which he later does, but before dying explains to his father that it was an accident. Old Boris, upon learning of his close friend being run out of the village, straightens out the gathering "lynch mob" and goes out after Avakum, to find him and set things right. And so the main story begins.<br /><br />A simple film, it raises the conflict of man and civilisation versus nature, mainly Avakum's struggle to survive alone out in the wilderness. The winter landscape is very well filmed. Perhaps the strongest element in the film is the soundtrack by Jimmie Haskell. Very sentimental and evocative, the main theme reminiscent of Albinoni's Adagio. Other movements reflect Russian styles, as well as a couple of folk music type tunes.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this film is not available to buy, to my knowledge, which is rather a shame. The copy I own, recorded off TV nearly twenty years ago is slowly deteriorating. This film is a must see for those who can appreciate it, if they can find it. 8/10 | positive |
I have a feeling that the Warners Bros Depression-era musicals are going to become a lot more pertinent in the next couple of years. Yes, we are in the economic doldrums (or have you been living under a rock) and times look bleak. But we always have the movies as a way to escape our troubles. In the 30's, film-going was hugely popular even at the height of economic gloom. "Footlight Parade (1933)" was one such film that audiences flocked to. While this Lloyd Bacon-directed musical doesn't quite capture the social issues of the time as "Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)" does, it's still a wonderful showcase of talent. We have to wait until the end of the film for the three centrepiece Busby Berkely extravaganza numbers, but boy, are they worth waiting for me. Yes, little Ruby Keeler is a terrible singer and actress, and her tapping is so-so, but Busby's magical "By A Waterfall" whisks her, and what seems to be a hundred other chorus girls, into a dizzying water wonderland. Of course Busby's numbers could never really be performed on a stage (they defy limits of gravity, for one thing), and they contrast terrifically with the realism of the tough, wisecracking non-musical scenes. And "Footlight" also has James Cagney in at the one of his all-too-few musicals (really, what couldn't this man do?). He even gets to take over from the leading man, don sailor garb and fawn over sexpot Shanghai Lil (who is really little Ruby in China-girl wig!).He co-stars with Joan Blondell, his adorable, adoring secretary who Cagney somehow overlooks in favour of other women (until the final reel, that is). Apparently Blondell was the only other woman who Cagney loved apart from his wife. And you can see the mutual adoration in every scene. | positive |
This is a novelty in Danish film. The mood is not unlike that of Blinkende Lygter, also by Anders Thomas Jensen, but with a novel touch. One difference is fewer characters, leaving much more room for them to be dwelled into. And what characters?! The two butchers are perfect. Mads Mikkelsen is a dominating, deranged parody and Nikolaj Lie Kaas an indifferent looser with a twin brother more or less an unholy pairing of the two. | positive |