Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Stranded in Space (1972) MST3K version - a very not good TV movie pilot, for a never to be made series, in which an astronaut finds himself trapped on Earth's evil twin. Having a planet of identical size and mass orbiting in the same plane as the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun, is a well worn SF chestnut - the idea is over 2,000 years old, having been invented by the Ancient Greeks. In this version the Counter World is run as an Orwellian 'perfect' society. Where, for totally inexplicable reasons, everyone speaks English and drives late model American cars. After escaping from his prisonlike hospital, the disruptive Earthian is chased around Not Southern California by TV and bad movie stalwart Cameron Mitchell who, like his minions, wears double breasted suits and black polo neck jumpers - a stylishly evil combination which I fully intend to adopt if ever I become a totalitarian overlord. Our hero escapes several times before ending up gazing at the alien world's three moons and wondering aloud if he will ever get home - thus setting up one of those Man Alone in a Hostile World Making a new Friend Each Week but Moving on at the End of Every Episode shows so beloved of the industry in the 70s and 80s ('The Fugitive', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'The Littlest Hobo' etc.) The curiously weirdest bit though was the title sequence. Somewhere between 'Stranded in Space' first airing (under the title 'The Stranger') in 1972 and the MST3K version in 1991 it somehow acquired some footage from the 1983 movie 'Prisoners of the Lost Universe'. So in 1991 the opening credits for 'Stranded in Space' run under a few shots of three people falling into a matter transmitter and vanishing. It's a sequence that has nothing to do - even thematically - with anything that is going to follow.<br /><br />Just to add to the nerdy B movie confusion, one of the actors in this nailed on footage, Kay Lenz, later appeared in a 1994 movie called 'Trapped in Space'. Knowing this fact could never save your life but it might score you very big points and admiring looks from fellow trash movie enthusiasts - if you could ever work out a way of manoeuvring the conversation round to the point where you could casually slip it in without looking like a total idiot... | negative |
- After their sons are sentenced to life in prison, Adelle (Debbie Reynolds) and Helen (Shirley Winters) begin receiving threatening phone calls because someone fells their sons got off easy. The pair decides to move to California to escape the publicity of the trial and to start a new life. They start a dance school that is soon very successful. One of the students has a rich unmarried father with whom Adelle quickly falls in love. In the meantime, Helen is busy raising rabbits and becoming a little too infatuated with an evangelist on the radio. It's only a mater of time before everything falls apart and the women enter a world of madness and murder.<br /><br />- I can't help but compare What's the Matter with Helen? to Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?, also starring Shelly Winters. Where that movie seemed almost restrained in its presentation of Auntie Roo's madness, there's nothing holding Helen back in this movie. It may take a good deal of the movie's running time, but once she snaps, Helen is one Bad Mad Mutha. You don't want to mess with her. Winters is so delightfully demented that it was impossible for me not to enjoy her performance. I'm not going to spoil the movie, but the things Helen is capable of are totally over-the-top.<br /><br />- As good as Winters is, Reynolds is totally ridiculous in her role as the gold-digging tap dancer. I got the impression that she thought she was in a movie that would get her nominated for some award. This ain't Citizen Kane! Quit acting so serious. Hey, Debbie, don't you realize that you're main purpose is to be a victim of Winters' insanity.<br /><br />- I just love these former-female-stars-in-the-twilight-of-their-career horror movies. What's the Matter with Helen? is as fun as any. | positive |
I love playing football and I thought this movie was great because it contained a lot of football in it. This was a good Hollywood/bollywood film and I am glad it won 17 awards. Parminder Nagra and Kiera Knightley were good and so was Archie Punjabi. Jonathon Rheyes Meyers was great at playing the coach. Jazz (Parminder Nagra) loves playing football but her parents want her to learn how to cook an want her to get married. When Jazz starts playing for a football team secretly she meets Juliet (Kiera Knightlety) and Joe (Jonathon Rhyes Meyers) who is her coach. When her parents find out trouble strikes but her dad lets her play the big match on her sisters Pinky (Archie Punjabi's) wedding. At the end her parents realise how much she loves football and let her go abroad to play. | positive |
This Showtime cable film features a talented cast and weaves together several storylines involving the darker side of New York... from the naive and innocent tourists' nightmarish adventure to a pair of undercover cops on the streets... to an old friend's betrayal, it has it all.<br /><br />Well worth a look, as is its sequel. | positive |
This is a film i decided to go and see because I'm a huge fan of adult animation. I quite often find that when a film doesn't evolve around a famous actor or actress but rather a story or style, it allows the film to be viewed as a piece of art rather than a showcase of the actors ability to differ his styles.<br /><br />This film is certainly more about style than story. While i found the story interesting (a thriller that borrows story and atmosphere from films such as Blade Runner and many anime films), it was a bit hard to follow at times, and didn't feel like it all came together as well as it could have. It definitely had a mixed sense of French Animation and Japanese Anime coming together. Whether thats a good thing or not is up to the viewer. Visually this film is a treat for the eyes, and in that sense a work of art.<br /><br />If you like adult animation, or would like to see a film that is different from most films out at the moment. I would recommend it. All i can say is that i enjoyed the experience of the film but did come away slightly disappointed because it could have been better | positive |
I happened to catch this supposed "horror" flick late one Friday night, I wish I'd gone to bed! Tell me.. Is a 3 ft tall raincoat-clad twerp on a gurly bike supposed to convey some sort of fear? Not here, yet Mi-low is still able to beat the crap out of the janitor (Antonio Fargas) who is three times his size(?) uh-huh. And the ending is so pitiful... it just leaves you hanging with nothing to go on what-so-ever! I found myself asking, "Is that it???"<br /><br />Acting is about as good as it'll get in a low budget film. The aforementioned Fargas delivers a decent performance; but it is my conclusion that Jennifer Jostyn maybe one of the worse actresses to ever strut into Tinsel Town! Sure, cute face, but bad acting.<br /><br />Rating: 1 | negative |
This movie is my all time favorite!!! You really have to see Michael Jackson in this wonderful film!! I'm always over the moon, watching it!! This is a film, that you really have to see, also if you aren't a MJ Fan, cause this film writes, like Captain EO, E.T. and Ghosts, a bit of Film and music History!! This wonderful film, out of Michael's feather, is a must have!! And: Smooth Criminal, is really the most wonderful, exciting and amazing song I've ever heard in my life!! Thank you Michael for this film and I love you!!! MJ's the best musician to hit this planet, he's a fine man and he always brings sparkles in your eyes, when you listen to his music!! Please, if you don't know this film, watch it and don't miss it, because would be too bad for yourself if you'd miss it!! -Highly Recommanded film, for every movie lover- | positive |
waste of 1h45 this nasty little film is one to avoid, its like a cheap badly plotted cross between saw and a few other recent films about kidnap, why the writer wrote this is obvious..he has no soul and did it to try and me some money. The twists were obvious, when those in peril could escape they did the obvious and didn't etc.. only good thing about it is I've discovered 1 new actress worth watching..peyton list, don't watch shuttle though, there are too many better nicer films to watch rather than this that will make you miserable and think less of the world. Spend your time more wisely watch good films, do some exercise, cook a nice meal..anything but waste your time on rubbish like this | negative |
I simply can't get over how brilliant the pairing of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon is. It's like the movie doesn't even need additional characters because you can never get tired of the dialog between these two.<br /><br />Lemmon had already been in several well-known films like Mr. Roberts and The Apartment and Matthau was fresh off his Oscar win for The Fortune Cookie (another Billy Wilder film also with Lemmon). That particular movie wasn't as great as this one because the story couldn't sustain such a long running time (I think it was almost 2 hours). However, this goes by at a brisk hour and a half, even though the introduction of the events leading up to Lemmon ending up at Matthau's apartment is a tad long (so was this sentence). That's a minor quibble though and for the rest of the running time you have a marvelous time.<br /><br />I have already written a comment about how the follow-up to this film sucked and I won't go deeper into that. The reason why this is such a joy is probably that the movie was made just as the innocence of American movies was beginning to fade fast into oblivion. There are some sexual references but they are dealt with in such an innocent way that you couldn't even get a "Well, I never..." out of the most prudish person out there. It is kind of fun to see a movie from a long lost era and that was probably why the sequel didn't work because you had Matthau and Lemmon say quite a few f-words and that just doesn't fit them.<br /><br />Of course, now they are both gone and you can just be happy that you still can enjoy them in a marvelous film like this. I think the only male actor in this film who is still alive is John Fiedler. Edelman died recently. So there you have it. Simply one of the best comedies and films ever.<br /><br />Add: I have just learned recently that John Fiedler has died so to all the fans of him I am deeply sorry. I didn't mean any disrespect and I will try to be more careful of what I am blah blah blahing next time. | positive |
Stuck in a hotel in Kuwait, I happily switched to the channel showing this at the very beginning. First Pachelbel's Canon brought a lump to my throat, then the sight of a Tiger Moth (which my grandfather, my father and I have all flown) produced a slight dampness around the eyes and then Crowe's name hooked me completely. I was entranced by this film, Crowe's performance (again), the subject matter (and yes, what a debt we owe), how various matters were addressed and dealt with, the flying sequences (my father flew Avro Ansons, too), the story - and, as another contributor pointed out, Crowe's recitation of High Flight. I won't spoil the film for anyone, but, separated from my wife by 4,000-odd miles, as an ex-army officer who was deployed in a couple of wars and as private pilot, I admit to crying heartily a couple of times. Buy it, rent it, download it, beg, borrow or steal it - but watch it.<br /><br />PS Did I spy a Bristol Blenheim (in yellow training colours)on the ground? Looked like a twin-engine aircraft with a twin-.303 Brownings in a dorsal turret. | positive |
Warning: This could spoil your movie. Watch it, see if you agree.<br /><br /> To think that we as humans can not learn from the past. The futuristic society portrayed glamorized what Hitler believed, obliterate a race of people (in this case men) for the benefit of society. It made me sick to my stomach. Also the plausibility of a Y bomb is insane. Even in war our instinct for self-preservation will prevent the extinction of humanity. We made mistakes in the past ie: Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 but because of that we avoided a bigger mistake in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis | negative |
Some of the background details of this story are based, very, very loosely, on real events of the era in which this was placed. The story combines some of the details of the famous Leopold and Loeb case along with a bit of Aimee Semple McPherson.<br /><br />The story begins with two mothers (Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds) being hounded as they leave a courtroom. The crowd seems most intent on doing them bodily harm as their sons were just convicted of a heinous thrill crime. One person in the crowd apparently slashes Winters' hand as they make their way to a waiting car.<br /><br />Soon after they arrive home, they begin getting threatening phone calls, so Reynolds suggests they both move to the West Coast together and open a dance school. The dance school is s success and they cater to incredibly obnoxious parents who think their child is the next Shirley Temple. One of the parents of these spoiled kids is a multimillionaire who is quite smitten with Reynolds and they begin dating. Life appears very good. But, when the threatening phone calls begin again, Winters responds by flipping out--behaving like she's nearing a psychotic break and she retreats further and further into religion--listening on the radio to 'Sister Alma' almost constantly. Again and again, you see Winters on edge and it ultimately culminates in very bad things!! I won't say more, as it might spoil this suspenseful and interesting film.<br /><br />In many ways, this film is a lot like the Bette Davis and Joan Crawford horror films of the 1960s like "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Straight-Jacket" and "The Nanny". While none of these are exactly intellectual fare, on a kitsch level they are immensely entertaining and fun. The writing is very good and there are some nice twists near the end that make it all very exciting. Winters is great as a fragile and demented lady and Reynolds plays one of the sexiest 39 year-olds I've ever seen--plus she can really, really dance.<br /><br />My only concern about all this is that some might find Winters' hyper-religiosity in the film a bit tacky--like a cheap attack on Christianity. At first I felt that way, but when you meet Sister Alma, she seems sincere and is not mocked, so I took Winters' religious zeal as just a sign of craziness--which, I assume, is all that was intended.<br /><br />By the way, this film is packaged along with "Whoever Slew Auntie Roo?"--another Shelley Winters horror film from 1971. Both are great fun...and quite over-the-top! | positive |
This is a pleasant film, even if the premise is silly. It was sort of a guilty pleasure to watch. Meg Ryan seems to be able to pull off roles in this kind of film (another example is Joe vs. the Volcano). That's what makes her a star, in part. Walter Matthau, of course, had that ability, too, and he really puts himself into the role, making an amusing, good-hearted Einstein. I suppose you could say they're both good at portraying loveable characters, though loveable in different ways (loveable young women vs. loveable curmudgeon). | positive |
Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.<br /><br />A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.<br /><br />So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.<br /><br />Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.<br /><br />There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased. | negative |
There must have been some interesting conversations on the set of Eagle's Wing, with Martin Sheen straight off Apocalypse Now co-starred with the actor he replaced on Coppola's film, Harvey Keitel. A real unloved child of a movie, dating back to the last major batch of Westerns in 1979-80, it was much reviled at the time for being made by a British studio and director (conveniently ignoring the fact that many of the classic American westerns were directed by European émigrés), which seems a bit of an over-reaction.<br /><br />The plot is simplicity itself, as Martin Sheen's inexperienced trapper finds himself fighting with Sam Waterston's nonosyllabic Kiowa warrior over the possession of a beautiful white horse, the Eagle's Wing, across a harsh and primitive landscape in a time "before the legends began." Aside from Caroline Langrishe's captive Irish governess, the supporting cast have little to do (Stephane Audran never even gets to open her mouth) and it is a little slow, but Anthony Harvey's film does boast terrific Scope photography from Billy Williams and a good score from Marc Wilkinson. | positive |
I got stuck in traffic (I live in Sicily) on the way to the theater (at a military base) to see Superman Returns, was 15 minutes late, and the only other movie playing was "See No Evil", there was no poster up for it, and just a short description of the movie on the schedule...but my girlfriend and I decided to check it out...As soon as I saw it was produced by WWE I just knew it was gonna be awful. The few people in the theater were laughing most of the time, and it was the first movie that I honestly considered walking out on, and I've seen "The Ringer"...okay, I would have walked out of that one, but I was too busy sleeping. The death of the bad guy at the end was pretty good, but other than that, it was just stupid. | negative |
I've been trying to find out about this series for ages! Thank you, IMDb! I saw this as a child and have never quite been able to get it out of my mind. As a 6-year old, of course, I was particularly struck by the episode of the cyclops, which was absolutely chilling (I talked about it so much that my older brother made me a cyclops out of a plastic cave man figurine, which I still have) What I also remember, though, was the atmosphere, which was unusual right from the beginning - mysterious, austere, and extremely authentic. When I read the original many years later I experienced that same sensation. It's a very hard thing to capture - and probably impossible in Hollywood. Every 'Odyssey' I've seen since has been an enormous let-down. The characters in this series seemed genuine, real people - ancient Greek people - and not some Hollywood stars in costumes. This is a real masterpiece! But - Why is it not better known? And why isn't it available on VHS or DVD? I would just love to have the chance to see this again! | positive |
I don't know if this type of movie was as cliché then as it seems to be now.<br /><br />Considering how many "Bad News Bears" films had already been released by 1980, however, I think that this sort of movie was already a tired idea.<br /><br />A former football player is partially paralyzed in Vietnam and is confined to a wheelchair. The Chicago Bears offer him a PR job but he wants to coach. At the same time, his underage nephew is picked up for armed robbery. We are told that he has already been arrested over a dozen times before and he must now serve some hard time...which turns out to be less than a year! <br /><br />Of course, the kid is actually a good kid who only needs a tough male role model in his life. The same goes for all of the kids in the detention facility. Yes...even the one locked up for attempted murder! I'm sure you already know what happens so I'll try and keep the rest of this brief.<br /><br />Our protagonist becomes the coach of the kids' football team. He overcomes the delinquents' cynicism and earns their respect. His team faces off against a local high school team (yeah right!) and they get their butts kicked. Now determined more than ever to prove himself a worthy coach, he demands a rematch. Will these underprivileged, scrappy kids with hearts of gold be able to improve enough to win the rematch? Awful execution of the football sequences ruins any possibility of excitement in this film. "Coach Of The Year" should get penalized for roughing my brain. 1/10 | negative |
I went to see this film out of curiosity, and to settle an argument. The film is now best known from the suite of music Sergei Prokofiev extracted from his incidental music to the film, the Troika movement even turning up in pop arrangements. The general outline of the plot is well known from the sleeve notes on various recordings. A clerk accidentally generates a non-existent Lieutenant Kizhe in a list to be presented to the tsar. The tsar is interested in this person, and rather than tell him he doesn't exist, the courtiers and officers maintain the pretence that he is real. Kizhe is exiled to Siberia, recalled, promoted, married, promoted again, dies, is given a state funeral, revealed as an embezzler and posthumously demoted to the ranks.<br /><br />I had heard conflicting stories about how the clerk invented Kizhe, involving ink blots and sneezes, but I'd heard the film was lost, so there was no way to find out what happens. Then the film turned up at the Barbican in London as part of their Prokofiev festival. For the record, it turned out that all that happens is that the clerk confuses two words whilst writing an order and turns Kuzhe into Kizhe. As the tsar is in a hurry to see the order, there's no time to correct the mistake.<br /><br />Having gone expecting an historical curiosity, I was pleasantly surprised. The film is very funny, and the audience, myself included, laughed continuously. Although most of it is filmed straight, set mostly in the palace, there are a few "trick" shots where multiple images appear on the screen. For instance, the tsar's army is represented by a small group, repeated across the screen. Four identical guards perform perfect drill in perfect unison. Two identical servants scrub the floor.<br /><br />One slight drawback was it was very difficult to work out who everyone was. There were two women who might have been the tsar's daughters, or a daughter and a servant or something else. And very few people were named. But all in all, an enjoyable film and I'm surprised it's not seen more often. | positive |
Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...<br /><br />This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.<br /><br />Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.<br /><br />Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.<br /><br />Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend. | negative |
I saw this DVD on sale and bought it without a second thought, despite not even having known it was out since this is one of my favorite books of all time. As soon as I got home I raced to watch it only to find myself utterly disappointed. While it is true that this film is somewhat based on the book, the similarities end there. The characters are changed (ie Finny seems more a pompous jerk than anything else whereas Gene seems to be somewhat of a hillbilly), scenes are misplaced or altogether changed (ie. Lepper), many characters are missing and famous lines/thought are missing. The movie does attempt to portray some feeling that the previous one lacked but it is done in a lackluster way that makes for a flat boring movie. It is the depth of character and feeling that makes the book such a classic and this movie takes those things and utterly destroys them in its rewriting. | negative |
I don't know much about Tobe Hooper, or why he gets his name in the title, but maybe he shouldn't have bothered. As another commenter mentioned, there isn't really enough horror or erotica to bring in fans of either genre. The plot is incoherent, the Sade sequences are gratuitous, and most of the acting is so-so. Englund was doing his best with weak material, and Zoe Trilling has a really great bottom, but neither is enough to carry this film. This one's a tape-over. Grade: F | negative |
Watching John Cassavetes film, Opening Night, I was reminded of something that Quentin Tarantino said once in an interview about personal experience in being a creator of art or acting. He referred to an example of, say, if he ran over a dog while on his way to act in a play that it wouldn't be the end of his life but that it would affect him, and that, without a doubt, he would have to bring that experience with him on stage even if it was a light comedy. "Otherwise," as he said, "what am I doing?" I couldn't help but think of his words when watching Gena Rowland's character, Myrtle Gordon, who for almost a whole week or so goes through a very similar scenario. There is more to this in Cassavetes' film, of course, since it's about how the theater works around a star actress, what emotion and human nature mean when looking at playing a character, and how one lives when all one has (like Myrtle Gordon) is the theater.<br /><br />Near the beginning of the film, after exiting a performance, Myrtle is signing autographs and one such fan named Nancy comes up to her favorite star and pours her heart out to Myrtle. It's a touching little moment, but it doesn't last as she has to get in the car (pouring rain and all). She then watches in horror as the girl, who stood right next to the car as it drove off, gets hit by another car in an auto accident. She's not sure really what happened, but then finds out the next day that in fact the girl did die from the hit. From then on she's sort of stunned by this even after she thinks it's out of her system. At first this shows in small ways, like when she rehearses a scene with her fellow actor (played by Cassavetes) and can't seem to stand being hit - she blames it on the lack of depth in the character (the writer: "What do you think the play lacks?" "Hope," says Myrtle)- but then Nancy starts to show up to her, an apparition that to Myrtle is all to real, until she's suddenly gone.<br /><br />Cassavetes, as in the past films, is after a search for what it means to have emotion, to really feel about something and feel it, or the lack thereof, and how it affects others around the person. This isn't exactly new ground for Rowlands, who previously played a woman on the edge of herself in Woman Under the Influence (in that case because of alcohol), nor would it be alien territory for costar Ben Gazzara, who just came off starring in Killing of a Chinese Bookie. But the actors express everything essential to their characters in every scene; Cassavetes doesn't tell them how to get from A to B in a scene, and he doesn't need to. There's a mood in a Cassavetes film that trumps the sometimes grungy camera-work. You know Myrtle, for example, should be content somehow, even if it isn't with the plot. But she's haunted, and is unsatisfied with her character's lack of depth and the tone of the play ("Aging, who goes to see that?" she asks the playwright), and it starts to affect those around her too.<br /><br />The question soon becomes though not what is the usual. A conventional dramatist would make the conflict 'Will she be able to go on stage, will the show go on?' This isn't important for Cassavetes, even if it's there, as is the question 'Will she be alright?' Perhaps going through such a grueling play as "The Second Woman" could help her work out her personal demons and her losing her grip on reality (seeing Sara and attacking her in front of total strangers, who wonder what the hell is going on)? Or will the play's lack of hope strain everything else wrong with her? The depths Rowlands makes with her character are intense and harrowing, and that it's expected doesn't mean it's any duller than Woman Under the Influence- if anything, it's just as good as that film at being honest about a person in this profession, and consequently the other performances are just as true, from Gazarra to Nancy played by a subtle Laura Johnson. Cassavetes answers to his own posed questions aren't easy.<br /><br />One of the real thrills of Opening Night, along with seeing great actors performing an amazing script, is to see Cassavetes take on the theater the way he does. We see the play performed- and it's apparently a real play- and we only know slightly what it's about. When we see the actors on the stage performing it, we wax and wane between being involved in what melodrama is going on (relationship scuffling and affairs and the occasional slap and domestic violence) and the improvisation of the actors. I wondered watching how much really was improvised, how much Cassavetes allowed for the other actors to do in the scenes where Myrtle starts to go loopy or, in the climax, is completely smashed. He's on the stage, too, so it must have been something for them to work it out beforehand and let what would happen happen.<br /><br />It's funny, startling, chilling, and edge-of-your-seat stuff, some of the best theater-on-film scenes ever put in a movie, and we see the lines between actor on stage, actor on film, actor with actor, blur together wonderfully. Opening Night is a potent drama that is full of frank talk about death and madness, reality and fiction, where the love is between people, and really, finally, what does 'acting' mean? | positive |
A teen-aged girl gets the horse of her dreams and is trained by an ex-Jockey to participate in London's Grand National Steeplechase. A fine adaptation of the classic children's book, with an excellent, start-making performance by Taylor as the energetic but polite youngster. Rooney is OK as her trainer, although he has some overly melodramatic moments. Crisp and Revere are quite good as Taylor's loving parents. Filmed in Technicolor, it looks beautiful. The problems are that there are corny elements, nothing very interesting happens, and it drags on a bit too long. The race is exciting but could have been much more so. | positive |
I liked the understated character that Laura Linney played in 'Love Actually', and she is very good in 'Man of the Year'.<br /><br />But wow. Robin Williams doesn't give that much of a performance, with a couple of minor exceptions this was weak. Laura Linney may not have been miscast, but either the editing raped her character, or this was just a sad performance by director Barry Levinson.<br /><br />And I think it was Barry Levinson that got old. So many weak performances, such uneven results have to be the fault of management.<br /><br />Christopher Walken and Jeff Goldblum are great in supporting roles. Goldblum plays a sinister side with relish, and Walken's combination of entertainer's manager and commentator for the film is wonderful.<br /><br />But the story is cliché, the presentation looks like it could have (should have) been a very good picture, and too many actions are half-hearted. The pacing, story, and direction all come up weak, compared to, say 'Head Office' (spoof of 'Secret of My Success'). | negative |
This film is probably the worst movie I have watched in a very long time. The acting is so wooden a door could have done a better job. The plot is laughable and shallow and the actual "rugby" shown is a far cry from reality. I still don't get the "haka" as portrayed in this poor excuse for entertainment. I am not a Kiwi but I do know that the Haka can only be performed by someone of Maori origin and not by an all-American white boy.<br /><br />I am assuming that this was made for the American audience so the shallowness and "Disney end'" is excusable but there was hardly any attempt to point out the basic rules of the game apart from the prison side where the main character suddenly takes charge of an American Football game and gets everyone playing rugby instead. The only thing good about this film were the end credits. It would be less painful to spend ninety minutes inserting toothpicks into your eyeballs. | negative |
This is the kind of film one watches in gape-jawed, horrified silence, and yet continues to watch, mesmerized, as if watching a train wreck in slow motion. And yet, in the back of your mind, thoughts are churning: "Who on EARTH green-lighted this garbage?"<br /><br />Some of the preceding user comments say things like, "A good way to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy" -- an insult to children everywhere. That children would need some sort of training plan to learn to love slapstick comedy shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of children the world over. Others have commented on the faithfulness of the two stars' characterizations of Laurel and Hardy to which I would respond: so WHAT? One would think that the rash of movie BOMBS based on beloved series (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Avengers, Flipper, Mod Squad, ad nauseam) would have taught Hollywood that there are some things that simply can't be recreated. The films of Laurel and Hardy are readily available on video: why bother with this?<br /><br />As for F. Murray Abraham, a fine actor of stage and screen... well, all I can say is, he must have been in trouble with the IRS.<br /><br />Run, don't walk, away from the television if this trash comes on! | negative |
Sorry I couldn't disagree more ,with the last comments . frankly I thought this was worse than Carry on Columbus , enough said . Last film for THE usually brilliant Charles Hartrey who looked out of place as the humour had move on to the Highly witty level of on the buses, films of which were being made at the same time ,were frankly funnier .Barbara Windsor was embarrassing,a character like one of your mums flirty friends who still thinks she's eighteen , on holiday with some non entity of a Scotsman , Rab c Nesbit he ain't. The series miraculously trundled on with duffers like Carry on Behind ,and Carry on England . Carry on Dick wasn't bad , but really with this film the end of the series was nigh , a pity because up to this film I cant think of bad film before this? | negative |
Next to the slasher films of the 1970s and 80s, ones about the walking dead were probably the second most popular horror sub-genre. While slasher films had 'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' to get the whole thing going, zombie flicks had George Romero's 'Dead' films. And unsurprisingly soon after the success of his first two in the series, other directors wanted to cash in. A lot of Italian directors were especially interested, such as Lucio Fulci who brought us 'Zombie' a year after Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', known as 'Zombi' in Italy and some other countries, and it was there that Fulci's film was known as 'Zombi 2'. Apart from the walking dead it has no relation to Romero's film, but is a good film in it's own right. It was a big success in Europe and 9 years later a sequel was born.<br /><br />Pros: Lots of beautiful, lush scenery. Awesome score. The acting isn't exactly good, but the cast is game and seem to be enjoying the experience. After kind of a slow start, the pace moves along like that of an action flick. Plenty cheese and unintentional hilarity for bad film lovers. Good job on the make-up effects. Lots of blood and some decent gore.<br /><br />Cons: Virtually plot less. Nothing you haven't already seen before. Blatantly rips off some things from the first couple of 'Return of the Living Dead' films. Cardboard characters. Hasn't aged too well due to the bad 1980s rock music(Not that I'm saying all rock music of that period is bad), clothing, and overall feel of the movie.<br /><br />Final thoughts: First of all, this is not a true sequel to Fulci's cult classic. In fact, I don't know if it was ever meant to pick up where that film left off. For those that don't know, Fulci was ill during production and ended up leaving and was replaced with Bruno Mattei. Mattei's films are pretty laughable, but like this film many are good campy fun. And that's all this film really is, just something to watch for fun.<br /><br />My rating: 3.5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 2/5 (Serious rating) | negative |
This is the first Guinea Pig film from Japan and this is the sickest, in my opinion. A bunch of guys torture a girl for several days before finally killing her. And at this point, I will say that these films are NOT real! They are faked horror films which try to be as realistic as possible.<br /><br />The scenes are sickening but also unrealistic in many cases. For example, when they kick the girl in the floor, we can clearly see how they kick and stump the floor near the girl! And how stupid this looks! The sound effects are also unrealistic and don't make sense. Other scenes include animal intestines thrown on the girl, the girl exposed to loud noises for many hours, the ripping off of fingernails, worms placed on the wounds in the girl's body, the eye pierced and mutilated in horrific detail and stuff like that. Very sick and mean spirited film and has absolutely nothing valuable or cinematically significant. This first entry is the sickest and most amateurish Guinea Pig, although it is not as bloody as the next part, Flowers of Flesh and Blood, which tries to be as shocking as possible.<br /><br />Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest thing I've seen and the closest thing to snuff there is. This is still (of course) faked s(n/t)uff, the only difference to genuine "snuff film" is that no one dies or hurts for real in this film. I cannot recommend this to anyone since thi s is so s****y and repulsive. They who consider this is a great horror film understand nothing about cinema and the real meaning of it. I watched this as a curiosity (as the other parts in the series) and now I know how insignificant trash these are. They work only in shock level and that's not too valuable cinematic achievement. Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest film I've seen and Mermaid in a Manhole (Guinea Pig 4) is perhaps the most disgusting film I've seen. So these are pretty extreme in my book, but that's all they are. | negative |
Although there is melodrama at the center or rather at the bottom of this film, the story is told beautifully and subtly and the acting is superb.<br /><br />Yaara, studying at Princeton, returns to her native Israel for the funeral of her oldest and dearest friend, Talia. Because Yaara practically lived with her friend's parents after the death of her own mother, she has lost her adoptive sister. And because Yaara, blind from birth, has been guided and guarded by Talia, her friend's suicide is as unbearable as it is inexplicable.<br /><br />Inevitably, the blind girl is the one who determines to solve the mystery of this death. Though without sight, she has insight. Though she cannot see, she is able to find what is out of sight than the "normal" people around her. The film thus becomes an absorbing mystery as Yaara scours for clues in memories of her relationship with Talia, in her adoptive family's house, in tapes, diaries, and people in Talia's past and present.<br /><br />Told from Yara's point of view, the film is also seen from her point of view, as she visualizes what she hears, believes, and imagines. The solution to the mystery is rather conventional, but the search is conducted with such subtle care and the answer rendered so beautifully and without fanfare, that the pat moment is easily forgiven. The truths emerge gradually yet inexorably, clarifying not only Talia's life, but also her relationship with Yaara. Tali Sharon, as Yaara, uses her mobile face and voice effectively, and is utterly believable as both the adult and teenage girl. We accept fully her ability by the film's end to find her place in the world more confidently.<br /><br />Noteworthy is the precision by which places and actions are repeated with small but significant variations that never become tedious, the dead-on acting by the minor characters, and the interesting decision to represent Talia only as a teenager. I will quibble with Yaara's final declaration as stands with Gadi, Talia's last boyfriend, at a cliff's edge, but that trip to the edge is so fascinating that the image will remain in sight longer than her words will be recalled. | positive |
"True" story of a late monster that appears when an American industrial plant begins polluting the waters. Amusing, though not really good, monster film has lots of people trying to get the monster and find out whats going on but not in a completely involving way. Give it points for giving us a giant monster that they clearly built to scale for some scenes but take some away in that it looks like a non threatening puppy. An amusing exploitation film thats enjoyably silly in the right frame of mind. (My one complaint is that the print used on the Elvira release is so poor that it looks like a well worn video tape copy that was past its prime 20 years ago.) | negative |
Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right. | negative |
I first saw this film over 25 years ago on British TV and have only just caught up with it again last week on a DVD copy bought off ebay. I had remembered the musical sequences, the colour and the gorgeous fashion plate poses and clothes but the plot is weaker than the earlier Anna Neagle/Michael Wilding film Spring in Park Lane and Maytime doesn't stand up so well to the passage of the years. But Michael Wilding is a joy in the film, charming, funny, debonair, appears to be having great fun and on top of his form. Worth watching for him alone. Anna Neagle appears a little matronly beside him, and a little too old for the part she plays but by the end of the 1940's their film partnership was well established with the cinema going public. Spring in Park Lane had been a top hit for 1947 and a big money maker. In his autobiography Wilding wrote at length of his great regard for Herbert Wilcox the director and instigator of this London series of films. | positive |
I saw the MST3K version of "Deathstalker III" and loved the movie so much -- even "unmystied" -- that I decided to watch the entire series of "Deathstalker" films. I bought I and II and settled down for a laugh.<br /><br />Nothing about "Deathstalker I" was funny on any level and when the credits rolled I was embarrassed and regretful that I had bought it! Too much ugliness and nudity. I guess either "DS 3" was a much cleaner production or MST3K really edited a lot because I expected something similar, i.e. stupid and carefree and simple. I was wrong. Even at $6.99 it seemed a waste of money. I didn't even open "DS 2" as I will return it tomorrow. Now I'll probably just throw away this DVD as I can't return it and no one wants it -- including myself! So really, don't bother with this one. Even the nudity (lots of it, btw) is uninspiring and icky. | negative |
I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.<br /><br />At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.<br /><br />This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit. | negative |
Ich will danke Herr Hacke für den Filme. Mein Deutsch ist nicht gut. Enschuldigen Sie.<br /><br />First of all, i didn't know how diverse the sound of Istanbul, inspite i live in Turkey.Faith Akin and Alexander Hacke have made a different approach for Turkish music.Narrating, performing, seeing Istanbul and Istanbul Music from a foreigner aspect had given the real meaning of the music itself.<br /><br />In this movie I had found out how different our(Turkish) culture is, how interesting our performers are, and how much respect they deserve. Unfortunately no one have been able to serve this kind of documentary before. | positive |
I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.<br /><br />I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.<br /><br />Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.<br /><br />Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it "it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem".<br /><br />Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called "The machine that changed the world" by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also. | positive |
Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.<br /><br />If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.<br /><br />Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.<br /><br />As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.<br /><br />The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- "Saint Crispin's Day" and all that.<br /><br />Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. "I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither." That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.<br /><br />You'll just love it. | negative |
This is, without a doubt, one of my favorite Columbo episodes ever. The acting is very well done, the music is very catchy, the script is ingenious, and the direction is fabulous.<br /><br />Peter Falk, who acts brilliantly in every Columbo episodes, acts particularly well in this episode.<br /><br />Also, great performances from Stephen Caffrey, Gary Hershberger, Alan Fudge and Robert Culp.<br /><br />The ending is absolutely brilliant and I love the way Columbo describes it.<br /><br />This is a Columbo movie that WON'T, go amiss. | positive |
Another wonderful Patterson book made into an incredibly awful movie. If the big budget movies don't work then why make a low budget made for t.v. movie that's 10 times worse! I am desperate for a good movie that will do ONE of his books justice! | negative |
I like Wes Studi & especially Adam Beach, but whoa is this movie a load of pretentiousness. Ponderously slow. Overly cryptic to the point of obfuscation, not because the plot warrants it but because there is almost no plot. Even less in the way of characterization. This is almost like one of those creaky old Charlie Chan mysteries (the cheaper Monogram studio versions) with lots of red herrings & oddball characters (like the old ex-senator with the checkered past who is now a recluse) & loads of people getting killed over objets d'art that you wouldn't look twice at in the mall. Great scenery, though. Pretty hair on the redhead, too, although I never did figure out what she was doing in this at all. Neither could my wife. Sheesh, at least the old B-movies had the decency to be short. | negative |
Olivier Assayas' film stars Asia Argento as a woman who had a relationship with Michael Madsen. Madsen is a business man who's in financial trouble. In desperation he is going to sell his share of a business to a company called Golden Eagle, a company from the Far East. As Madsen begins his moves away from his company Asia Argento returns to his life. The pair had a torrid love affair that included her doing business favors for Madsen (with said Golden Eagle). Once Argento enters the film the film follows her as we see the tangled web she's woven and how the complications spin dangerously and violently out of control.<br /><br />I'm not a fan. Actually I was quite bored as the film seems to go from pillar to post for much of the first hour during which I kept wondering what the point was other than to provide a meaty role for Argento. Argento, daughter of director Dario Argento and a director in her own right, is a unique actress. At times stunningly good, she is more often then not going to give you a quirky off beat portrayal of a damaged human being. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think it completely works here mostly because the script is too "complicated" to support it. I didn't care what was going on so her wounded girl just rubbed me the wrong way(she seemed more nut job than anything else). I'm not blaming the actors but writer/director Assayas who has once again constructed a complicated tale with the sort of parts actors love to tackle, but which leave audiences scratching their heads because they they don't really work. <br /><br />If you must try it on cable | negative |
Is there a movement more intolerant and more judgmental than the environmentalist movement? To a budding young socialist joining the circus must seem as intimidating as joining a real circus. Even though such people normally outsource their brain to Hollywood for these important issues, the teachings of Hollywood can often seem fragmented and confusing. Fortunately Ed is here to teach neo-hippies in the art of envirojudgementalism.<br /><br />Here you'll learn the art of wagging your finger in the face of anyone without losing your trademark smirk. You'll learn how to shrug off logic and science with powerful arguments of fear. You'll learn how to stop any human activity that does not interest you by labeling it as the gateway to planetary Armageddon.<br /><br />In addition to learning how to lie with a straight face you'll also learn how to shrug off accusations that are deflected your way no matter how much of a hypocrite you are. You'll be able to use as much energy as Al Gore yet while having people treat you as if you were Amish.<br /><br />In the second season was even more useful as we were able to visit other Hollywood Gods, holy be thy names, and audit - i.e. judge - their lifestyles. NOTE: This is the only time it's appropriate for an envirofascist to judge another because it allows the victim the chance to buy up all sorts of expensive and trendy eco-toys so that they can wag their finger in other people's faces.<br /><br />What does Ed have in store for us in season three? Maybe he'll teach us how to be judgmental while sleeping! | negative |
Leland follows the story of Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling), a disaffected teenager who has apparently murdered a severely retarded peer, the brother of a girl he was dating. The issue is not whether he did it or not Leland admits to it, straight away but rather, why. Interestingly, rather than a crime drama, Leland becomes a character story, examining why people do what they do not necessarily the easiest ground to till.<br /><br />And Leland features the required indie group of screwed-up people. Aside from the title character, there's also Pearl (Don Cheadle), who is his teacher at the juvenile correctional facility and who sees straight off that Leland is different. We meet Leland's distant and egotistical father (Kevin Spacey in an extended cameo), who never seems emotionally stirred in any way by what his son did. But the real flavorings come out when we immerse ourselves in the Pollards, the family of the retarded child. First, there's Leland's girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone), a drug addict who can't keep herself clean; her sister Julie (Michelle Williams), perhaps the most normal person in the film, who merely seeks to get away from it all; and Allen Harris (Chris Klein), a young man who lives with the Pollards and is Julie's boyfriend. Lastly, there's Ryan (Michael Welch), whom all the others call goofball, who cannot communicate and seems barely aware of his surroundings.<br /><br />Leland focuses primarily on its eponymous protagonist, but the movie slowly occasionally too slowly burrows into everyone's lives, asking the chief question, why do people do what they do? While Leland discusses it openly in a journal Pearl allows him to keep, examining notions of good and bad and personal responsibility, all the characters at some point in the film face a moment where they must make the fundamental choice of their own happiness or another's, perhaps the most basic choice any human can make. And the movie takes a good look at what goes into those choices, and the consequences of them.<br /><br />In the beginning of the film, you're simply struck by the depth of the cast. Spacey. Cheadle. Gosling. Michelle Williams. Even Chris Klein these are people who for the most part tend to elevate any film they are in, and putting them all together makes for a heady brew. For a space in the middle the film seems to stall, sputtering along as it unfolds; it looks for a while as if it will be content merely to ask questions and not supply any answers. But when we arrive at the home stretch and the movie starts to hit its stride and come together, Leland becomes a quietly powerful piece of film-making. Leland's explanation of the world and his actions, in the end, bring every story into focus, and all the investment you've made in the film pays off.<br /><br />Saying Ryan Gosling is excellent is like saying a sunny day is nice. At this point in his career it's redundant this is one of the finest young actors working today, and it is a pleasure to watch him craft what could have been an unlikable character into a thought-provoking protagonist. Gosling employs such subtlety here that it hardly seems like acting; he has to face off most of the film opposite Don Cheadle, whom we know has the goods, and he not only holds his own, he elevates Cheadle's game as well. Cheadle himself is in top notch form, imbuing Pearl with a fully-rounded humanity for good and bad. Spacey is kind of one-note, but that's the character, and he handles it excellently. I was surprised by Chris Klein; with this level of acting, I thought he would be buried in the mix, but he gives probably the turn of his career so far. Terrific work all around.<br /><br />Leland is a bit of a downer, and again, it's draggy in spots. But it finishes strongly and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer (on this one, anyway). There's also a subtle commentary on racism in the film (in Leland's first day in juvenile hall class, he's the only white person in the room) that, like much of the movie, is very effectively handled. I wouldn't go so far as to call this required viewing some might find it too slow or too odd but I thought it was one of the better films I've seen in a while, far stronger and more satisfying than most fare out there. I'd recommend it with the above caveats if for no other reason than to watch Gosling further perfect his craft. | positive |
then the second half of this movie is hard to follow. I got the first part with the Spanish Inquistion, but the film skipped many years forward with the French ruling Spain. The movie does little to fill you in on what happened, and I don't remember much about it. So, the movie gets confusing then. The movie begins when Ines, daughter of a rich merchant, is accused of Judiasm by the church, specifically Father Lorenzo. She is put to the Question and forced to confess. Even her family's wealth can not buy her out of prison. Her father forces Lorenzo to sign a confession saying he is the offspring of a chimp, in hopes of getting Ines released. All it does is give a reason for the church to condemn Lorenzo, who runs off to France.<br /><br />Then, the movie skips many years, and the French Revolution is in full force. Ines is released from prison. It was very good make up work to make Natalie Portman look that tore up. She finds her family dead and seeks Goya for her help. She tells him she had a child in prison. Goya sets up a meeting between her and Lorenzo, whom is now with the French and in power. He is the father. Goya sees the daughter and tells Lorenzo, whom decides it's best to send her off to America, so no one will find out. But before his plans get carried out, the British join the Spainish, and Spain reclaims power and he is now the persecuted. That part is not well told in the film. It's like the film shows this to happen in a day.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: The movie is good until it skips many years in time after the Inquistion, then the movie expects you to understand what is going on. It just got too confusing to me then. | negative |
VHS - I have watched this over and over and LOVED every minute of it so much so I have now ordered the DVD I only wished the film could have lasted longer. I never worry about what other people think I prefer to make my own mind up and entirely disagree with the negative comments and will not let others spoil my enjoyment of the film whatsoever. Make up your own mind and don't let others put you off! I have all Jane Austen's BBC series but this is my FAVOURITE. I see there is to be a NEW Northanger Abbey released in 2007 which I will buy when it comes out but it will not stop me watching Northanger Abbey released in the 80's. | positive |
This awful effort just goes to show what happens when you not only use computers to generate the effects, but also let them devise the plot and write the script. Someone somewhere has obviously come up with a new bit of software that asks a few questions then churns out four hours of loosely connected clichés, lousy dialogue and a collection of stock characters that you end up wishing had all drowned in the first five minutes.<br /><br />Tom Courtney took the prize for worst performance. Saying that he was wooden would be an insult to trees. It's hard to fault Robert Carlyle in almost anything he does, but the odds were stacked against even him in this one, especially since he was for some unaccountable reason required to adopt a gor' blimey London accent.<br /><br />A complete washout. | negative |
I have always loved The Muppets. Though most children's entertainment then wasn't that likable, The Muppet's was. The Muppet's are very, very funny. They are probably the most likable children's characters ever. <br /><br />Not only did The Muppets have their own show. They also have starred in many films. from The Muppet's Christmas carol to The Muppet's treasure Island. The first Muppet's movie, The Muppet movie, was also, like the show and the other films, excellent.<br /><br />The Muppet movie is about how they all got started. Kermit the frog used to live in a swamp. Until one day a movie executive tells him that there are auditions for frogs in Hollywood. So Kermit takes off for Hollywood. Along the way he runs into lots of people such as Fozzie Bear, Gonzo the great, and Miss Piggy. Also, an evil man is trying to capture Kermit.<br /><br />All of the Muppet films are highly enjoyable. I mean they are all very funny. This film has many film appearances. Such as Steve Martin, Mel Brooks, Elliot Gould, Carol Kane, Richard Pryor, and Orson Welles. The Muppet films are all very enjoyable. I hear that Jason Segel is going to star in one soon. I can't wait to see it. | positive |
Stan Laurel regarded PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP as the first true' L&H film. THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS was the first 'official' L&H film, but this was the one where Stan completely resigned himself not only to performing (he had signed on with the Hal Roach Studios as a director and 'gag-man', before certain situations - among them Oliver Hardy's accident with a leg of lamb leading to Stan having to replace him; and the extra money that performing would provide for himself and his new wife, Lois - brought about his historic return to performing, as well as writing, directing, editing and involvement in other areas of production), but also realised the fact that he was part of a team that worked well together. This, therefore, is an historic and very important film in the history of comedy.<br /><br />It is also a surprisingly funny little silent film; rather different from what Laurel & Hardy would become known for and from what they are more immediately associated with today. The characters of 'Stan & Ollie do not appear - Scottish Stan Laurel plays the nephew of Oliver Hardy, a respectable man about town who is reluctant to be seen with this strange-looking fellow with a kilt and the habit of chasing pretty girls. There are some very funny moments in this well-made, charming little movie, and the performances of these two Kings of Comedy are spot-on - watch Stan's little 'scissor-kick' and smile that says, "Well waddaya know?" when he sees girls, or the hair-ruffling scene at the airport, for instance. Hilarious.<br /><br />Watch this film if you can, with backing music from The Beau Hunks Orchestra (available on the VVL video releases) which enhances the 1920s feel and is very, very pleasant to listen to. It's a brilliant and underrated little film, which is why I said it was 'surprisingly' funny. | positive |
Well - when the cameo appearance of Jason Miller (looking even more eroded than he did in Exorcist IV) is the high point of a picture, what've you got?<br /><br />It's a little bit country, a little bit rock n' roll: mix two drunks with money who drag their kid all over the place with a bog-dried mummy (have you figured that one out yet - DRIED in a bog?) in the basement, Christopher Walken with a bad dye job, and a little girl who might have been an interesting character if they'd developed her.<br /><br />I understand - sort of - that they're going back to visit her relatives. After that....<br /><br />Problem: There are several interesting flashbacks to what I must assume is her mother being killed in a car bombing (I think). This is never connected to anything. <br /><br />Problem: What do we need the grandmother for? Now, the grandmother could be interesting. She speaks Gaelic, or Celtic, or something. Maybe you can make something of her. The best they can do is that she 's got a tobacco habit. That's all.<br /><br />Problem: They cast a real shifty character as the husband. Is he type-cast (will he sell his wife to the devil? Maybe he can look forward to the trust fund he manages for her)or is he cast against type (after all, he has a good haircut and nice clothes)? He drinks, he hesitates. He's not a bad guy. Not a good one. But dislikable. Why didn't they DO something with him?<br /><br />No problem: an old boyfriend shows up. The husband knocks him down. He comes back to knock down the husband. (It gets pretty stupid, but at least THAT character has motivation.) <br /><br />NOW - she's an alcoholic, he's an alcoholic; he might only have married her for her money. The grandmother is locked in the bedroom. The blind uncle takes our heroine to the basement to show her the mummy of a witch (are you following this?) who may come to life. In fact, you KNOW she'll come to life, the music swells. A little girl lives in the house, takes tea to the grandmother (unlocks the door to do so) and provides granny with cigarettes. Periodically, granny gets out. But nothing happens. <br /><br />Husband and wife lose the kid in the house, subsequently lose their bedroom. Uncle gets his throat cut in the basement. The leading lady has nose-bleeds. The husband drinks. They both drink. In the face of all of this, the awful truth alluded to in the first over-voice is - omigod - an abortion when the leading lady was twelve years old.<br /><br />In spite of all these dangling-thread ingredients, nobody managed to get a story on the screen. No bridge between situations, no graduation from mild disturbance to awful horror, just long slow scenes that go nowhere.;nbody, really, to care about - and they had places to go with that aspect - the innocent kid in the charge of drunks,the grandmother who might be locked up because she's a monster, but no, her worst fault is smoking. She's got great hair, good makeup. <br /><br />In short, no plot. Just a little random (predictable)violence in a dark library, with the rain gushing in, and the sound track cuing us in. You need more than a few drunks and Christopher Walken to make a movie.<br /><br />The production values were good. Oh. Nice scenery, good wardrobe. The cameraman, at least, knew what he was doing.<br /><br />I bought it. Poor me. | negative |
I'm not great at writing reviews, so I'll just spout my opinions...<br /><br />I loved this series at first. The adventure, the action, the comedy, the drama... I thought it was all brilliant. Anderson, Tapping, Shanks, Judge, Davis... I loved them all. Davis, it seemed, was the fifth-most important person in the cast. Not a big deal. But when his character (General Hammond) left at the end of the seventh season, and Anderson's character (Colonel O'Neill) moved from the field to the office, the quality of the series suddenly fell off a cliff. I don't know whether it's because Hammond was more important that I realized or what, but for some reason, after the seventh season, the series turned to ****.<br /><br />The first seven seasons, though, were awesome. The movie Stargate seemed mediocre the first time I saw it, but it turned out to be, even if this wasn't the original intention, a brilliant setup to the series. I recommend that you watch the movie first, then watch the first season of the TV series, then watch the movie again (you'll have a whole new appreciation of it the second time around, believe me), and then watch the rest of the TV series.<br /><br />The last three seasons of the series aren't nearly as good as the first seven, but that doesn't mean they aren't good. It just means they're a letdown if you've gotten spoiled by the first seven seasons.<br /><br />After you have finished this series, be sure to watch the spin off series, Stargate: Atlantis. It is a worthy successor to this brilliant series.<br /><br />EDIT on 7-18-08: I just found out that Don S. Davis died a few weeks ago. It is a great loss. | positive |
OK, anyone who could honestly say that this movie was Great or even Good is either delusional or knows the Director, Writer and Producers and is trying to boost the buzz on this film. I watched the movie because a friend of mine worked on it and it was Horrible. I'm an actress and have worked in the industry for a while now on big films and even independents and this movie bored me to tears. The reason I'm being so harsh is because this film was clearly a different take on "Of Mice and Men" and they should sue because it is such a horrible rip-off of the story. In an industry where Hollywood seems to be creatively bankrupt...for someone to take a classic book and film "Of Mice and Men" and destroy it with a new spin bugs me so much. The actors, the accents, the dialog and the direction were amateurish and the writing was dismal. I mean if your going to take a new spin on an existing story make sure its just as good or better than the original to make the new spin justified. Did not like this movie at all. | negative |
Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see! | negative |
I loved Long Way Round and wasn't even aware of Race to Dakar until i saw it on the shelves of my local supermarket. I bought it and after a slightly 'hmm will this be as good' first episode i decided that it was. Charlie Boorman was great as were the other members of the crew. Great to see him with Ewan again. There was a fair bit of swearing in it but that didn't bother me. As for their being no mention of it on the package. Thats more to do with the silly Excempt from Classification certificate that the BBFC have. They should have given it a 15 just for the language alone.<br /><br />Highly recommended series, i want more!! | positive |
It couldn't.<br /><br />From the cutting dialogue to the super special effects this film was a joy to behold throughout. The immediate feel for the bitterness of the antarctic, the affinity for the characters that is built up at the base level before the real action heats up and the cunning finale combine to make this one of the most memorable and enjoyable films around.<br /><br />Up against a long list of films that have attempted to exploit the theme of visitors from another planet, The Thing comes out on top and laughing. Who can forget the perfectly timed dialogue and the chilling special effects? Special effects that are a lot more impressive than the computer generated images that we get to see today. I for one found some of the most enjoyable aspects of the film to be the way that we were introduced slowly to each member of the crew, and the way that they all had some distinctive character traits. This wasn't just a senseless bloodbath-come-slasher-horror flick. This film had feeling. Emotion.<br /><br />I truly can't recommend this film highly enough. I have yet to see anything in it's class that comes anywhere near to matching, let alone bettering, the near perfect acting and timing utilised in this cunning polymesmeric feat of cinema. | positive |
On the heels of the well received and beloved coming of age film classic ,concerning the lives of teenagers as they headed into adulthood, George Lucas' American Graffiti, we have Cooley High. An adaptation of sorts by one Eric Monte, co creator of the popular 1970's CBS sitcom Good Times.<br /><br />Cooley High was, and is, viewed as a black version of American Graffiti.Instead of central California ,as in American Graffiti, we have the black slum of Chicago's Cabrini Green as the backdrop for the story here. Instead of America in 1962 Cooley High is situated in 1964.The movie stars Welcome Back Kotter's ,Lawrence Hilton Jacobs and Glynn Turman as the movie main protagonists and its' main characters. It has Garrett Morris playing the principal who tries to keep Jacobs' and Turman's characters,named Coceise and Preach, out of trouble a great deal of the time.<br /><br />You know, I would like to say that Cooley High is a worthy comparison piece to American Graffiti or that it is a great film on its' own but I can't. The problem lies with the fact that the producers of the film couldn't or wouldn't hide the sad underside of black life in America.Having the film in the Cabrini Green part of Chicago doesn't help things.<br /><br />Neither does the crass gross attempts at humor here. When Coceise is looking for a letter of intent from a college he finds his little brother has thrown down a toilet. When the gang visits the Chicago Zoo, one of the gang named Pooter, has manure thrown on him by an ape. When the Turman's character,Preach, is being chased by two hoodlums in the school hangout(A dirty and depressing place to eat food in much less meet people at), he opens the door of the girls' bathroom while a girl is relieving herself as he escapes through the window of the same bathroom! The high school, the homes of the characters, the bathrooms, just about everywhere in the film displays the unfortunate look of urban decay and poverty.<br /><br />If that wasn't enough there was the rough display of humor in the film. The use of violence and profanity in the film. Cooley High may be an coming of age film ,but it is a hard and rough coming of age film with little or none of the wit and liking of the use of nostalgia that made people like and appreciate American Graffiti so much.<br /><br />Motown Records had a hand in making the film. The company's music was part of the film's soundtrack. But even here you get a sense of same old same old as one has heard these songs before a million times over. Not that they weren't great songs within themselves but black music,of that time period was more than just Motown.Especially in Chicago. The song nearing the end of the movie, by the Spinners' G.C. Cameron, was not all that impressive. There have been better Motown ballads that have been done, by better Motown artists than Cameron without question.<br /><br />The last part of the film showing where the characters went to pay homage to the film Cooley High aimed to be ,American Graffiti. It shows that Preach,an intelligent but underachieving student went to Hollywood and became a successful television writer. Eric Monte may have patterned himself as Turman's character. The last shot of film show's Preach running away from Coceise's funeral ,held on a dark rainy afternoon, and all the bleakness that Cooley High came to represent. Eric Monte ,through Preach and that final scene, had one little lesson for all of us when watching Cooley High and for the love of the past. Don't look back. | negative |
Wow. The only people reviewing this positively are the Carpenter apologists. I know a lot of those. The guys that'll watch John Carpenter squat on celluloid and pinch out a movie and proclaim it a masterwork of horror. This "movie" is utter crap. It looks and sounds like a porno (good lord, the soundtrack is awful...), and has sub-par porn acting, which is shocking, because normally Ron Perlman is really a very good actor. I honestly have no idea what Carpenter was thinking when making this. Most likely "Beans, beans, beans.." until somebody fed him and rolled him up into a blanket for the day... They say nothing about the abortion debate whatsoever, when they could have had a very interesting central theme (how do religious zealot anti-abortionists feel when it's the devil's baby?) but instead they chose to have Ron Perlman and his terribly acted kids kill a bunch of people and have the horribly cast doctors try to calm the hysterically bad pregnant girl. Not a single person from this episode or what have you should come away unscathed. It's just awful. Like, Plan 9 From Outerspace awful. Like, good god please would somebody turn it off before I soil myself awful. Try watching this and The Thing in the same day and your mind will implode. | negative |
Van damme has done some great films over the years and this one hits a big ten in my books. From the setting of Mexico to the five star fight scenes, this movie was amazing. The film is all about border patrol officers protecting there territory which is the border of Mexico. Ex navy seals are smuggling drugs out of Mexico into the united states of America (USA), Van damme and Scott Atkins give stunning performances as the cop and the villain. Although this film wasn't as good as until death but it still gave the action,acting and the film a five star look. I always look forward to these b grade action films and they keep getting better. keep them coming van damme.<br /><br />Watch this film if you enjoyed films like - Until death, The hard corps and second in command. | positive |
I've been looking forward to seeing this film ever since I first caught the trailer, and I'm so glad now that I have. It's truly a wonderful film. The actors are superb, the writing is fresh and real, the whole thing was just spot-on. I love James McAvoy in this, and I can't wait to see him in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" movie this December. Romola Garai is wonderful too. Be sure to check her out in "I Capture the Castle" or "Nicholas Nickleby," two of my favorite films. Overall, I think I liked this movie because it didn't chicken out. It's a difficult subject matter to tell a story about, in that you're very likely to offend a lot of people or mess up and make it into some overly-sentimental-sugary-sweet love fest. But they avoided doing that completely, and instead made a film that's real, honest, and touching, yes, but never over-the-top. Very well done. Amazingly well done. Go out and see it, and you'll know exactly what I mean. | positive |
A River Runs Through It is based on the true story of two fly fishing brothers, Norman and Paul, (Brad Pitt and Craig Sheffer) whose Reverend father (Tom Skerritt) is a strict man whose two passions are his faith and fly fishing, - and, for him and his sons, there is a fine line between the two. This story describes the slow progression of the brothers' lives and how their lives separate on two different paths. It is a touching movie narrated by the director, Robert Redford, playing the elderly Norman and reflecting on times long gone and people long dead.<br /><br />Certain themes recur in the movie, such as memory, death, eternity, and dreams. Most of these themes revolve around the almost tragic hero of Paul. He is a capable, charming, and brave man, but has his fatal flaws.<br /><br />The closing lines sum up the "point" of the movie: "Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise. Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of those rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters." | positive |
4 out of 10.<br /><br />This film was neither funny as a whole nor was it even worthing investing any kind of emotion into the characters. Eugene Levy is probably the most funny.... The rest of the cast do their jobs, but the story never really gets very deep and there are a lot of holes in the plot that never get filled. This just wasn't very much fun, despite being funny at times.<br /><br /> | negative |
What a shame that a really competent director like Andre de Toth who specialized in slippery, shifting alliances didn't get hold of this concept first. He could have helped bring out the real potential, especially with the interesting character played by William Bishop. As the movie stands, it's pretty much of a mess (as asserted by reviewer Chipe). The main problems are with the direction, cheap budget, and poor script. The strength lies in an excellent cast and an interesting general concept-- characters pulled in different directions by conflicting forces. What was needed was someone with vision enough to pull together the positive elements by reworking the script into some kind of coherent whole, instead of the sprawling, awkward mess that it is, (try to figure out the motivations and interplay if you can). Also, a bigger budget could have matched up contrasting location and studio shots, and gotten the locations out of the all-too-obvious LA outskirts. The real shame lies in a waste of an excellent cast-- Hayden, Taylor (before his teeth were capped), Dehner, Reeves, along with James Millican and William Bishop shortly before their untimely deaths. Few films illustrate the importance of an auteur-with-vision more than this lowly obscure Western, which, in the right hands, could have been so much more. | negative |
But I doubt many were running to see this movie. Or "Some Came Running Out Of The Cinema". Okay, that's a bit harsh.<br /><br />The film starts in an unintentionally comical way: Frankie-boy comes back to his hometown after many years (this already smells of clichés) and the whole town is shaken by his arrival: he is talked about, everyone wants to talk to him, and every woman he meets flirts with him like there's no tomorrow - even his niece hints that she would gladly have dropped her date to chat with Frankie-boy a little longer! Even his pretty niece wants a piece of him! Sounds like one of those laughable "Mike Hammer" episodes where EVERY single female wants Stacey Keach. And, like Stacey Keach, Frankie-boy is anything but a good-looking woman's wet dream. In real life, someone like Sinatra (without the fame) wouldn't get within 100 m of someone as beautiful as MacLaine. But in this Hollywood movie it's the other way around: MacLaine is absolutely nuts about Frankie-boy, but HE couldn't care less! Sinatra plays his "cool" shtick much too often in his movies, and it is rarely credible. Dean Martin is kind of miscast; he isn't miscast as a card-player, but rather because of the accent which simply doesn't suit him. MacLaine is charming as ever, but she plays a caricature - and this reliance on caricatures is one of the basic problems with the film. The main characters are all some sort of stereotypes out of bad or seen-it-all-before movies and cheap novels; Frankie is the "cool cat" who comes back to town to get all the women, and he couldn't care less about his writing (which, predictably, eventually garners recognition); Martin is a sleazy but friendly card-player; MacLaine is the dumb, but very likable bimbo; Frankie's blond love-interest is a snotty literary expert; Frankie's brother is the successful guy who married into his wife's business and has a lousy marriage; and so on. Clichés.<br /><br />The story contains a couple of coincidences which are a little too far-fetched for my taste: Frankie just happens to bump into his niece in a locale; his niece just happens to be meters away from her daddy when the latter kisses his secretary for the FIRST time; and then there is the awful, stupid ending.<br /><br />In it, a drunk guy bent on killing Frankie-boy somehow manages to find him in a carnival of all places! The place is utterly crowded, with the typical noise and chaos - plus it's happening in the evening - and yet the guy somehow finds Frankie (in spite of being drunk as a doorknob) and shoots at him. But guess who he kills? MacLaine. She jumps in front of the bullet to save Frankie: a cliché which comic-book writers might cringe at. This utterly pathetic, over-dramatic, and annoying ending certainly cannot please any, even semi-intelligent, viewer. And this happens on the same day that MacLaine and Sinatra got married! The writer of this nonsense seems to have read crappy dime novels his whole life - how else is the writing of this movie to be explained? There is even a card game in which a brawl ensues with Frankie & Martin vs. some cliché caricatures out of the writer's "vivid" imagination. (It was like a damn Western suddenly.) Another dumb thing is the way Sinatra was crazy about the boring snotty-nosed bimbo and pretty much ignored MacLaine. As the movie progresses we find out that Sinatra finds MacLaine to be too dumb for him, just as the blond bimbo finds Sinatra to be too low-class for her. There is a certain snobbism and disdain to be detected in the script regarding MacLaine. MacLaine is treated as worthless by everyone, while the blond bimbo is treated as a princess and an intellectual; the ironic truth is that the latter's character comes off as rather dumb and not at all as intellectual; her behaviour, comments, and opinions are mostly clichéd, silly, confused, pretentious, and primitive. At least MacLaine's character KNOWS that she (MacLaine) is dumb. There is another irony that I didn't fail to notice: Sinatra had trouble finding an ending for his latest story - much like the writer of this movie, and that's why he came up with the corny, crappy finale.<br /><br />The film basically has a solid cast, and the photography is nice, but the script, though sometimes okay, relies to heavily on silly nonsense instead of on reality-based characters and events.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Shirley MacLaine and other Hollywood intellectuals, contact me by e-mail. | negative |
This show was Fabulous. It was intricate and well written and all the characters where likable with out being horribly sweet. Even Jonathan Cake the philandering boyfriend was likable. Since our airwaves are filled with crap like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, it was nice to see a drama that was not too soap opera like. It was always intriguing to see how each character would be connected to the next circumstance. It really is annoying that we finally get a show that makes you think a little bit and have it thrown out because of some mysterious number that most of us don't even pay attention to. Some of us are not sheep. This show will be missed maybe not by a lot of people but by some pretty loyal fans. | positive |
I heard tell that Madonna was briefly considered for the Catherine Tremell role. Compared to Sharon Stone, Madonna is too coarse and BAUERISCH. She's not even close. <br /><br />EVIL INCARNATE: Sharon Stone is a bit long in the tooth, the ameliorative effects of modern chemistry and surgery notwithstanding. However, she artfully treats us to a frightening personification of evil beyond redemption. In the obligatory sex scene, she projects pure, crystalline lust. Especially her hooded, luminous eyes and a face flat with pleasure. Thanks to brilliant use of lighting and other stage techniques, the harsh lines of age are only occasionally manifest. Rather, she seems to have a slight golden glow (YES, YEATS). <br /><br />The locations gave us a view of London that is a welcome departure from the usual Londonscapes .The Catherine character is so powerful and menacing that I thank my lucky stars that our paths never crossed. I wouldn't have had a chance.<br /><br />THE ORIGINAL BASIC INSTINCT; ATTEMPTS AT CENSORSHIP: I must briefly comment on the original 1992 film, set in San Francisco, a beautiful city worthy of this film. It is outstanding, from the music to the locations to the sets, and so on. Paul Verhoven pulled striking performances out of the cast and crew. <br /><br />That the main Baddie was a woman did not escape the scrutiny of Bay Area Gay and Lesbian activist groups. Attempts at censorship were vehemently denied. SWELL. These philosophical pygmies demanded editorial control over the script, insisting on re-writes that would promote their political and psychiatrically driven agendas. Example: Sanctimoniously alleging sexism and misogyny, they demanded that the lead role be switched from BAD GIRL to BAD GUY. <br /><br />On locations in San Francisco, the gentle, tolerant activists did their best to sabotage filming of the scenes with noise, flashing lights and other tactics. The Executive Producers, Mario Kassar and Andrew Vajna, vowed to fight any efforts to restrict the artistic freedom guaranteed in our democracy and obtained restraining orders against the disruptive tactics. <br /><br />BLOWBACK: Thanks to the fulminating activists, the film got huge national press coverage - millions of dollars worth of free advertising. Their calls for viewers to boycott the film resulted in a backlash that had customers waiting in long lines wherever the film was launched. It also received widespread critical acclaim. It was, in the words of the reptilian Hackett in NETWORK, "A BIG- TITTED HIT!" Sorry, Gentle Reader; I just couldn't resist that one. Yes, it's a gibe.<br /><br />In conclusion, I believe that both BASIC INSTINCT 1 AND 2, with their brilliant musical scores, aesthetics and acting, are works of art <br /><br />that deserve protection under our Constitution. | positive |
The plot was very thin, although the idea of naked, sexy, man eating sirens is a good one.<br /><br />The film just seemed to meander from one meaningless scene to another with far too few nuddie/splatter/lesbian mouth licking shots in between.<br /><br />The characters were wooden and one dimensional.<br /><br />The ending made no sense.<br /><br />Considering it had Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson in it, you would have expected a decent plot and decent special effects. Some of the effects were quite good but there were just too few of them.<br /><br />Brownie points go for occasional flashes of tits and bush, naturally, and of course the lesbian moments. I also thought that the scene with the sirens bathing in the pool under the waterfall could be viewed as an innovative take on the 'shower scene'<br /><br />The film had many of the elements that go into making a first rate horror film but they were poorly executed or used too sparsely.<br /><br />If I had been watching this alone and aged 15, i would have really enjoyed it for about 10 minutes (with 1 hand of the remote control), then lost interest suddenly and needed a pizza... | negative |
Many times the description "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" is used and is right on target. Unfortunately "Code 46" lacks both sound and fury. A bit of fury would have been greatly appreciated. Tim Robbins character (William) is so lacking in passion that the idea of his falling instantly in love with Maria (Samantha Morton) seems almost absurd. These folks are so passionless that one begins to wonder if perhaps the water supply of this future world has been dosed with thorazine. There is a "Brave New World" sort of atmosphere to the film that is helped along by every scene being shot about 2-3 stops overexposed. Unfortunately this technique gets tedious and rather hard on the eyes. The cutesy mishmash of languages also grows tedious when there seems to be no apparent reason for its existence. Many futuristic, scifi films are criticized for being all flash and no substance. This film has neither flash nor substance. Its a code 6 all the way. | negative |
Having watched all of the Star Trek TV series episodes many times each since the 1960s, most being quite good to superb, and only very few being mediocre, my opinion is that this one is the worst of all.<br /><br />In fact, I think it's so poorly executed as to be an embarrassment to the series. It's not that the story is so bad, although it's not particularly outstanding in any way, but the acting is just abysmal on the part of the two lead characters, meaning those other than the regulars in this case. Barbara Anderson gives her weakest performance ever as the daughter of a mass killer, and who is on a mission of a sort. She practically calls in the role from a phone, and shows no real emotive abilities here. Although usually she's never used as more than a pretty face in most of her film/TV roles,usually small parts, she has done much better.<br /><br />Arnold Moss as her father gives new meaning to the term 'Ham' and is the only actor ever on a 1960s Star Trek episode that outdid William Shatner in this area, and actually makes Shatner look superb by comparison. And he gets to play a Shakespearian actor no less, which gives him more impetus to overact, and he does so.<br /><br />Other than these two leads being so weak, the story is such that anybody with any sense at all can tell who the killer is within the first 15 minutes. I say this because I told my brother the whole plot ending at the first commercial break when we were watching the original 1966 broadcast as pre-teens. His reply was, Yeah, you're right.<br /><br />Skip this one and watch the much superior Menagerie episodes which were originally televised right before. | negative |
Although I'm a girl, thankfully I have a sense of humor and realize that this really IS a funny anime! Watching it does give you an overwhelming feeling that it's definitely a guy show but that doesn't take away from the fact that its hilarious! 10/10 | positive |
I remember watching this film a while ago and after seeing 3000 miles to Graceland, it all came flooding back. Why this hasn't had a Video or DVD release yet? It's sacrilegious that this majesty of movie making has never been released while other rubbish has been. In fact this is the one John Carpenter film that hasn't been released. In fact i haven't seen it on the TV either since the day i watched it. Kurt Russell was the perfect choice for the role of Elvis. This is definitely a role he was born to play. John carpenter's break from horror brought this gem that i'd love the TV to play again. It is well acted and well performed as far as the singing goes. Belting out most of Elvis's greatest hits with gusto. I think this also was the film that formed the partnership with Russell and Carpenter which made them go on to make a number of great movies (Escape from New York, The Thing, Big trouble in little china, and Escape from L.A. Someone has got to release this before someone does a remake or their own version of his life, which i feel would not only tarnish the king but also ruin the magic that this one has. If this doesn't get released then we are gonna be in Heartbreak Hotel. | positive |
To be honest, I did never read one of the comics and cannot remember part 2 and 3 at all. I can compare to the first part (Werner - Beinhart) and this one here is really disappointing, compared to part1 as well as compared to most other movies I watched the last weeks. The first minutes seam to be just a needless clone of the first movie intro and then it is becoming even worse. There are a few good (funny) scenes, but in total it is just another boring second-rate try of German film industry that cannot succeed (nearly as usual). One good thing: The movie is quite short (75 min.) The bad thing: It only contains story and jokes for 45 Minutes ;) -> Don't watch it | negative |
I dug this out and watched it tonight. I honestly think it must be 20 years since the last time I saw it. I remember it being a seriously flawed film. I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!!!<br /><br />I am absolutely aghast that a project with this much potential should have been mistreated so reprehensibly. Who am I to blame for this? The 2 guys who wrote (and I use that word loosely) the script? The casting directors who so terribly miscast at least 3 major characters in the story? (Only 2 of them are among "the amazing 5".) The director, who clearly refused to take it seriously, and kept shoving awful music on top of bad writing & bad acting everywhere? (I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?<br /><br />It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation. The first 15-20 minutes of the film more-or-less (really, LESS) parallel the first issue of the comic. As I watched it tonight, I kept wondering-- why was ALMOST every single detail changed? Doc showing up, then using his wrist-watch remote-control to open the safe, and the sniper's bullet missing him by 5 inches because the refractive glass, were just about the only things left the same. I mean, if you're gonna do an "adaptation", WHY in God's name change EVERYTHING???<br /><br />Once they leave Doc's HQ, virtually NOTHING is as it was in the comic (which, given Roy Thomas, I figure probably follows the book). I read somewhere they actually combined elements of 2 different novels into one movie. Again-- WHY? I've heard it was changed because they weren't able to secure the kind of budget they wanted. I look at the film, and think... LACK OF MONEY in NO WAY explains what I saw on the screen!!<br /><br />You know, when people complain about Joel Schumacher, they should really take a look at this thing. The best thing I can say is, I think it would make a great double-feature with the 1966 BATMAN feature-- and probably a great triple-bill with that and the 1980 FLASH GORDON. All 3 films are "silly". Maybe we can "blame" the 1966 film (and TV series) for this. Some fans have complained over the years that Adam West's BATMAN ruined the image of comic-books in the minds of generations of non-comics fans. I think the same could be said for Hollywood. I'm reminded of how many really, really BAD films based on "classic" characters have been made over the years, especially (it seems to me) in the late 70's & early 80's. Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Lone Ranger-- all "murdered" by Hollywood types who think, "OH, comic-books! So you know it's supposed to be STUPID!" More like they're the "stupid" ones. What a waste of potential.<br /><br />Let me say some good things... Despite the script and the directing, Ron Ely is GREAT. When I read a DOC SAVAGE story, I don't think of the James Bama paintings, I think of Ely. Bill Lucking (who later was a regular on THE A-TEAM) is terrific. Eldon Quick (who I've seen somewhere else, but can't recall where) is terrific. Paul Gleason-- who I absolutely HATED with a passion and a vengeance in THE BREAKFAST CLUB ("teachers" like the one he played should be banned from ever teaching anywhere), may be the best of the "amazing 5" in the film. Pamela Hensley-- though her part was almost unrecognizable from the original story-- is terrific. Before she let her hair down, I also realized she looked a HELL of a lot like "Ardala Valmar" from those awful John Calkins BUCK ROGERS strips I just read the other day. She's got a big nose like Ardala-- only not quite as pronounced. The comics Ardala actually looked more like the 1936 movie Princess Aura-- or Cher. Or maybe Streisand. Take yer pick. (Ardala actually got plastic surgery in the George Tuska strips-- after, she was stunning!)<br /><br />Paul Wexler, funny enough, I saw just last week in a GET SMART episode. I wonder if he was anything like the character he was supposed to be playing? I don't know, because that character sure wasn't in the movie the film takes its title from. | negative |
This movie is a piece of the time in which it was made..... Realistic. Movies were not candy coated during the late 60s and early 70s. The producers did not try to create some happy ending that didn't exist. The lack of a happy ending would create agitation in the audience that, hopefully would spur them on to action. At least that's how it seemed at the time. In today's movie world this movie would probably not be done. There would, definitely, not be this ending, however realistic. The sad fact is that the movie depicted a situation which could not be improved upon without action from the improvement of the relationship between the white southern traditional thinking and the progressive movements of that time. | positive |
this film has its good points: hot chicks people die<br /><br />the problem... the hot Chicks barley get nude and you don't get to see many of the people dieing, mostly just lots of fast movements and screaming though there were two good kill scenes.<br /><br />also for those of you watching this for JENNA JAMESON she is just a side chearator with a very small role and Minor nude scenes.<br /><br />What this film needed.. script and story would be nice but I will not complain about that.. simply put it needs more nudity and better kill scenes cuz lets face it that is why we watch these flicks...<br /><br />I wouldn't waste my money on it...and if you must, wait until it's on the OLD shelves at your local video store | negative |
I think it's two years ago since I have seen the movie and till this day it's the worst film I have ever seen. The only thing I thought after seeing this movie was that it was made for some tax reason. So after all this time I finally spilled my gut ;) And now IMDb says I have to fill 10 lines with comments:<br /><br />"Sorry, you must provide at least 10 lines in your comment. Please return to the edit window (or use the BACK option if this isn't a new window)."<br /><br />Please there is nothing to say anymore...<br /><br />Sorry for some bad English. | negative |
Pierce Brosnan has sipped his last Martini and returns, in an outrageous self-parody, as the aging foul-mouthed boozy assassin Julian Noble, who has a particular fondness for teenage girls, bullfights and tacky clothes. During a job in Mexico City he meets Danny (Greg Kinnear), a straight-faced Denver suburban business-man, who's in town to make his deal of-a-life-time, in a hotel bar. Despite their completely different personalities and Julian's crude and insensible remarks, they become friends. <br /><br />Largely carried by the performances of Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear, director Richard Shepard revealed that he didn't write the film with Pierce Brosnan in mind , but I can hardly imagine this without him. He proves to have a real talent for comedy and can be more than just James Bond or cold-war spies. The scene in which the two meet at a glossy hotel bar (stunning sets and beautifully photographed) really is a bravura piece of acting skills. The scene lasts almost fifteen minutes, and although it was probably carefully scripted, the two actors are largely improvising, but they succeed wonderfully! It almost feels like a new standard in screen acting. Think of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel in MEAN STEETS improvising and add one of the most subtle underpinnings of many genre clichés and the actors' own typecasting (Brosnan's James Bond in particular), and you got one of the most delightful pairings in recent Hollywood. <br /><br />Sadly, the story wears thin after a while. After an hour, the film just runs out of steam. Nevertheless, and I can't put my finger on it exactly, I did enjoy this very much. It just feels very fresh and original, with some imaginative use of sets and lighting, and some hints to Seijun Suzuki and Jean-Pierre Melville. The other characters aren't given much to do, but this film does offer something new, in that respect it almost effortlessly succeeds in blending all conventional genres into quite an entertaining spoof. Very amusing.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 7/10 | positive |
This is probably the only female Ninja movie ever made. It's great as a B film and the action sequences are a lot of fun to watch. This movie is just so deliciously 80's. You'll never see another film like it. Check it out for some 80's retro fun. | positive |
I loved October Sky. The thing I loved most had to be the music. It worked two ways: in the first hour of the film, it gives the viewer a time-frame. This is done by playing songs from the late Fifties. In the second hour, an instrumental score takes over. The music now fits the mood of the film perfectly.<br /><br />I did not only enjoy the music, I also quite enjoyed the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Homer Hickam was especially a surprise for me. He gave off a first-class performance, as did Chris Owen (Quentin) and Chris Cooper (John Hickam).<br /><br />I've seen this movie about escaping the life already laid out for you twice now, and both times I thoroughly enjoyed myself. | positive |
I first saw this one when it was first shown, so I'm not too objective about it. It really managed to scare me, partly because it was so late at night, but partly because of that whole feeling from a videotaped suspense story (the same thing that helped Dark Shadows itself). And the casting was so right. I hardly know Shane Briant from anything else, so it might not be so right to call HIM "well-cast," but to me, he IS Dorian Gray. And as far as the other male actors, the one who fit his part so well was Nigel Davenport (who's so good at "larger than life" characters) as Sir Henry. And John Karlen, a sort of Dan Curtis "repertory player" at the time, because of Dark Shadows. As one poster points out, this version manages to include the involvements with men, in a fairly subtle way. The scene where Dorian recites a list of men's names to John Karlen's character, as a way of blackmailing him, and the look on Karlen's face, were very well-done. (If that scene were done now, it would probably be done in a TOO OBVIOUS way, and be bad by comparison.) I saw it when "Dorian Gray" was barely a name to me, let alone more, so even more than the famous 1945 version (which is rightly famous), this is THE version to me. | positive |
Latter Days is a very, VERY independent movie. And compared to many of today's more modern films, it's lacking on many parts. The shooting seems at times quite amateurish, the dialogues can be a bit chopped up and the characters are not impressively complex. So, don't have too high hopes for this movie, because as I've said, it's very independent. But whatever it lacks in the concrete aspects of the film can be overlooked because of the story's charm! I cannot claim that the plot is outstandingly original, but the story is still beautiful and heart-warming in many ways! It's not about being gay versus being straight, it's about faith, and how you decide to run your own life! It's a silly story, that makes you want to both cry and smile at the same time! So to be honest, Latter Days is far from perfect, but I truly loved the movie and I highly recommend it! It's very critical towards the religious aspects of our society, and there is homosexuality involved - but approach it with an open mind, and I'm pretty sure that most people will enjoy it as much as myself! | positive |
I first saw this mini-series as a child and though I am a child no longer, I still love it!!! Professional copies are hard to find, however, when it's on DVD, it's MINE!!! =]<br /><br />Great casting, marvellous plots, and plenty of action, romance, and even quite a bit of well-placed comedy. I'm not a historian by nature, but I love this masterpiece of historical fiction! | positive |
This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2) | negative |
1st watched 6/21/2001 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Emmanuel Itier): Pretty much worthless supposed thriller that spends more time drawing us into sexual encounters with and without the star 'Amber Smith.' It tries to wrap a story around the sex scenes but as usual with these types of movies it is not done very well. I was so bored with this movie that I actually fast-forwarded thru the ending to get it over with. The video version I watched was called 'Tell Me No Lies.' | negative |
Spirit and Chaos is an artistic biopic of Miyazawa Kenji, a Japanese poet and writer who was active in the early 20th century. The film captures and interprets his artistic method ('sketching' poems), his inspiration (the spirit of nature and its fantastic beauty) and his struggles to accept a harsh reality in the face of his idealist imagination.<br /><br />The film integrated excerpts of Miyazawa's poems into the plot beautifully. His relationships with his students was powerful, especially in one scene where he offers everything he has to a student who has just been caught stealing materials from the classroom. Miyazawa's selfless compassion for the farmers in his village, his sister and other unfortunate people can serve as a lesson to us all. Furthermore, Miyazawa's devotion to science was also nicely portrayed. In a time when Western ideas were still met with skepticism, especially in provincial towns like the one where Miyazawa grew up, he understands its usefulness in helping his fellow villagers and is inspired by its elegance. The way the film presented moments of artistic passion and disappointment in the writer were truly intense and well interpreted.<br /><br />I felt that the CGI integrated into the film, while groundbreaking an innovative, clashed with the more organic animation. It could be argued that this was intentional to represent conflict within the main character, but I found it rather unaesthetic. I also wish that the film had discussed Miyazawa's Buddhist influence, but it worked fine without it. <br /><br />I though this film was very well done. I give it a 9/10, with the one point being deducted for the CGI. Otherwise the animation, plot and dialog were all wonderful and heartfelt. I haven't seen any other films by Kawamori Shoji, but after seeing this one I will be sure to give them a chance. | positive |
Wow...<br /><br />Reading through these comments, I see a remarkable socio-cultural clash theme emerging between the US and ... the Dutch! The US P.o.V. appears to be that this is quite a good little movie, Parker being a likable hero, the story a light-hearted rendition of what could be a glorified form of reality.<br /><br />All three Dutch reviewers view the world through a totally different pair of glasses it seems. They categorically and in surprisingly similar terms agree the movie is a disaster.<br /><br />Far be it from me to take sides in what appears to be a dispute between cultures, on this item as wide apart as the ocean that separates them geographically. Still, based on factual observation - I saw the movie with my very own eyes - I suspect the Dutch are not too far off the mark: <br /><br />"Parker Kane" is poorly made, utterly boring, and really not worth the celluloid that was no doubt wasted in its creation. | negative |
River Queen attempts to pack a complicated, sweeping, historical narrative into just under two hours. There are some breathtaking battle scenes and the Wanganui scenery is beautifully captured. However, the film did suffer from some poor leads - Samantha Morton (Sarah) especially came across as unconvincing. There seemed to be an indecisiveness about how the role should be played - as a helpless waif tossed by fate or as a strong, determined character with a clear view of her destiny. Kiefer Sutherland's character - Private Doyle - seemed to be pointless and for the most part - unintelligible. Keifer's Irish brogue needs a little polishing. On the other hand, Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison and Rawiri Pene (as Sarah's son "Boy") were well rounded and believable.<br /><br />The last 20 minutes of River Queen came across as particularly compressed and rushed. It seemed as if they decided they had to tie up all the loose ends before 120 minutes were up. E.g. How on earth did Wiremu know how to find Sarah and Doyle? No explanation and very unsatisfying.<br /><br />I did go to this movie with an open mind. I hadn't read or heard anything much apart from its troubled production. What I experienced was a mish mash of New Zealand history, beautifully photographed but ultimately disappointing. | negative |
most of the bad reviews on this website blame "Hood of the Living Dead" for one (or more) of the following reasons: 1) it is a low-budget movie with virtually no acting; 2) it was so bad it made me laugh 3) it is something I could do myself. I won't even discuss the first point because it is a very subjective matter whether you like low-budget and independent stuff or not. I must say, however, that I still fail to understand people renting such a movie as "Hood of the Living Dead" and then looking surprised when they realize it is not as polished and cute as a romantic comedy with Lindsay Lohan or Matthew Mc Conaughey. As for the second point, I really don't see what's so wrong with laughing. I personally like to laugh, and love movies that make me to, be they comedies or horror flicks. When in "Hammerhead" I saw this girl stepping into a PUDDLE and the shark-man came out of it to eat her, I just cracked up. And I was grateful that the director made such a stupid scene and gave me ten seconds of pure fun. Honestly, laughing just makes me feel good, while it seems that many people writing reviews see it as a bad bad thing. If you only want to feel sad and scared while watching a movie, "Hood of the Living Dead" and low-budget flicks are definitely not for you. But please don't come and tell us that you find them laughable. We already know it. This is most probably why we decided to watch the movie in first place. However, it is the third point that leaves totally baffled. Just several years ago people were lining up out of theaters to see "Blair Witch Project", which is a way more rudimentary, boring, plot-less and bad-acted movie than "Hood of the Living Dead" (and takes itself way too seriously too). Moreover, half a million people go on YouTube every day to see the short films of "Lonelygirl15", which is certainly something everyone with a cute girlfriend, a room and a webcam could do! Not to talk about all of the even more amateurish videos you can find there. Why don't people blame those clips for bad acting and non-existing plot? I think it is one of the best things of our times that everyone, with affordable technology and a bunch of friends, can make their own movies and share them with people that have similar interests. And I feel a certain admiration for people who spend their weekends with their friends making a honestly bad (yet refreshing) piece of trash like this rather than shopping at the mall or playing video games alone. Leave aside your biases and your desire to sound like a smart film critic by attacking b-movies, and you'll see that "Hood of the Living Dead" can bring you almost as much fun as it did to its makers! If you have a taste for refreshing and enjoyable home-made horror movies, I recommend "Zombiez", "The Ghosts of Edendale", "The Killer Eye", "Monster Man", "Don't Look in the Basement", "The Worst Horror Movie Ever Made", "Redneck Zombies", "Jesus Christ Vampyre-Slayer" and "Habit". | positive |
This was a great anime. True the animation is old but its still worth watching and has a better plot than Ninja Scroll, the problem that it was kinda long.<br /><br />Japanese movie star Hiroyuki Sanada who played Ujio from Last Samurai played the main character Jiro and it was directed by Rintaro who did Galaxy Express 999 and Metropolis.<br /><br />The anime has some good animation for an old anime, interesting characters like the main villain Tenkai and Ando Shouzan and of course lets not forget the beautiful musical scores in the film.<br /><br />All in all this movie is worth watching for fans of anime, animation in general, action, and Samurai/Ninja flicks. Despite the lows in the film that didn't the film from being a great film to watch.<br /><br />Don't miss this film. | positive |
This movie deals with the European ERASMUS exchange program but more generally about the European youth. It is so true , that I don't know Klapisch did to reach such a masterpiece... Definitely one of my top 5 movies. It reminds me of the famous song "This is my life, my life, life is life..." 10/10 | positive |
This movie is nothing short of a dark, gritty masterpiece. I may be bias, as the Apartheid era is an area I've always felt for. But I'd say it ranks right up with Cry Freedom and Cry the Beloved Country. Sadly up until a few days ago I'd never even heard of this movie. Inside is one of the most underrated films of all time, probably because it was a small film company, I'd never even heard of it before. Eric Stoltz, one of my favorite actors anyway, is believable and dramatic, Nigel Hawthorne plays his dastardly role well. Do not look for humor in this film, there is none. It is real, savage and gritty to the last, and to the sensitive I'd say bring a box of tissues. But movies as great as this make you wonder, why is it that the greatest films are often never heard of? | positive |
Movie about two Australian girls--Debbie (Nell Schofield) and Sue (Sue Knight)--and what happens when they become girlfriends of two surfer guys.<br /><br />I caught this at an art cinema here in America in 1981. Technically I was still a teenager (I was 19) so I was interested in seeing how Australian teens acted. Script wise there's nothing new here. It shows the usual teenage adventures dealing with dating, sex, suicide etc etc. I always knew what was going to happen before it did but I was never bored. What I found interesting was, despite the accent and a few changes in clothes and hair, these teenagers aren't much different than American teens. They had many of the same difficulties and hang-ups. Also this was based on a book from a real surfer girl and her true life adventures and (I heard) it was a faithful adaptation of it. The acting was just OK but the actors were attractive and this was well-made and pretty interesting. So this is no unsung masterpiece but a pretty accurate portrayal of what it's like being a teenager and trying to be with the popular kids. I give it a 7. | positive |
As a French, i found it very pleasant to be able to laugh at the old stereotype which is made of French like that, at some defaults of Westerners, at Spy movies etc...and at a lot of other things too, en route... I already saw it 3 times and each time i discovered new things and laughed to tears... Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Béjo, Aure Atika the director and all the cast, all the crew did a fantastic job. This movie is funny but is although much more than that : it's got plenty of levels to it. You laugh because of simple gags, because of some critics made with wit (the movie's courageous enough to be critical), because of physical comedy, because you believe in the characters etc... Esthetically and musically, it's a success too. Go see it if you can. | positive |
This is a fine musical with a timeless score by one of my favorite composers (Gershwin) and a nice 'Parisien' atmosphere which gives the movie a lot of charm, but in terms of a story.. well it's not really there. Or at least, not very well worked out. The acting is also not so smooth by Caron. But I liked some of the dialogues, I liked the scene at the Seine, I liked the character played by Levant, the colors; and the dancing of course, which is quite magnificent.<br /><br />A 7.5 - 8 seems on the dot to me. | positive |
As kids movie it is great. For the family it just sucks. I was truly hoping for something like the Goonies which is a great film for all ages. This movie was just geared too much to the kids with the silly script and characters calling each other little names like booger breath. ??? Alan Cummings was however a delight. And why do people compare Willy Wonka to this movie...just because there is a theme song closely resembling the Willy Wonka song doesnt make this film anything like Willy Wonka. | negative |
Okay. Here's the thing. I've read through the comments of other viewers --- some trashing the film and some saying it's the funniest, darkest, blackest comedy ever made. Whiffs of Tarantino, etc. Well, not exactly. But, guess what? It's still an enjoyable and, ultimately, funny film. Not brilliant, not trash. Liv Tyler gives a great performance and you absolutely cannot take your eyes off her. She's a woman with very strong decorating ideas...Matt Dillon, a greatly underrated and under-used actor, is wonderful, as ever. He always manages to stride that delicate line between scruff and soul, and he pulls off the comedy beautifully. Ditto John Goodman (though the religious overtones, probably funny in the script, really don't work). Paul Reiser is very good --- definitely better than he was on TV.<br /><br />The usually unbearable Michael Douglas is actually great in this role. As for his coif, well, see the film. Between this and "Wonder Boys," you're actually reminded of the fact that Douglas can act. The movie will make you laugh in parts. Okay, not exactly belly-laughing, but definitely in the I'm-amused-I'm-very-amused category. If you're renting this expecting to see another "Pulp Fiction," forget it. But if want something kinda hip and kinda fun, this is a damned good choice. | positive |
Well I don't know much about anything, but I sure liked this film. In short, it was creative, humorous, simple, and heartwarming. In other words, it was everything it set out to be.<br /><br />The story is set around a girl's first love, (as the title suggests) and I certainly should warn you: expect nothing challenging or provocative in terms of the subject matter here. I mean, it is a children's cartoon. It's really just a simple story, but it's told well, and it holds your attention well.<br /><br />In the end: it's short, it's funny, it's cute, it's simple, it's good. | positive |
If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing. | negative |
After watching this movie, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between it and another film called America 3000. Both were very bad mid 1980's post apocalypse disasters on celluloid. Obviously fake sets, wooden acting and stupid monsters are found in both films. About the only difference between the two is that the lead villainess here (played by Angelika Jager) has a very thick accent. Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version. Joel and the bots barely salvage this turkey. | negative |
I'd even say some shades of Hitchcock...this is clearly better than MMM, which is seen as a guilty pleasure by some if not most Woody fans. By the way, did you know that Annie Hall was first conceived as a murder mystery? Anyhow, Woody reclaims some relevance in film comedy with this one. The plot turns are nice and tight. I will say that in the first 20 minutes or so, some of the actors are a little too hasty at delivering their lines, but stick around. Scarlett Johansson proves well-cast in the Diane Keaton-type role, and at no time is there any uncomfortable moments between her and the much older Woody. No one could imagine a more perfect actor for the role of Peter Lyman than Jackman. | positive |