Sentence
stringlengths 52
10.4k
| class
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I first saw this movie back in the early '90's when it was first released. Room With a View was also newly out. Enchanted April had so much more to offer! I found it much more real and earthy, the characters more believable for being 'normal'. By the end of the film I felt the same as I did when I first saw the BBC production of Pride and Prejudice, I was yearning for the characters to find what they were looking for whether it was isolation, peace, liberty or love. You get a sense throughout that Italy is so far removed from everything they have ever known, that they are so decadent for taking a risk and leaving behind all that is humdrum and constricting. But in the heat of the spring in April, everyone's lives loosen and unravel (in line with the Victorian corsets) and are slowly rebuilt to everyone's satisfaction. What a little gem of a film! How come it isn't more well known? | positive |
Richard Pryor's early 80s running down the street on fire incident must have affected him somehow. In his stand up,he jokes about it getting great laughs. It seemed to have done something involving the projects he chose. The Toy is about the lamest he ever chose,aside from I guess Another You.<br /><br />A movie where a white man buys his son a black man? Nice little bit of underlying political incorrectness before thee was such a thing. It's seeing Richard getting all sentimental that made me finally walk out before the end. I wanted to see Pryor get even with this brat,instead it becomes the misunderstood kid nauseum! At least Gleason had his moments. Ignore this and watch Pryor with Gene Wilder or any of his '70s stuff. This is a waste of any movie watcher's time! | negative |
Ah yez, the Sci Fi Channel produces Yeti another abominable movie. I was particularly taken by the scenes immediately following the crash where, as the survivors desperately searched for matches, at least a half dozen fires burned with no apparent reason at various points of the wreckage. Fire seemed to be a predominate theme throughout. They searched corpses for lighters and matches, and finally finding a box built a fire every day for, apparently, 12, but no one ever gathered wood. Then when the vegan (hah) burned the bodies, what did she use for an accelerant? I mean these guys were frozen well maybe not. Despite the apparent low temperature everything the yeti ate, bled. Maybe it's just me, but even in a totally unbelievable tale (none of the survivors had ever heard of a yeti, or an abominable snowman, until the very end), if you take care of the little things the bigger deals become more acceptable. Oh, what did the prologue (1972) have to do with the remainder of the movie? And the revolver, warm enough to hold in his hand, froze up and wouldn't fire. Gimme a break. Well, at least we have Carly Pope, another eminently lovely Canadian lass. And, with little irony, Ed Marinaro as the coach.<br /><br />Well I might as well add, the rabbit they ate (despite it looking like chicken) is not a rodent, but a lagomorph. Now if it had been a squirrel (or a rat) it would have been a rodent, but it still looked like chicken. And the writers missed a real chance to have someone note "It tastes just like..." | negative |
In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old. | negative |
Does exactly what you expect, and then some. The first movie, was a step up from the TV show with sicker stunts airing uncensored and a gnarly factor that had increased. Surprisingly, Jackass Number Two is even more twisted.<br /><br />The stunts have become more dangerous and spectacular, with some mind blowing painful antics sprinkled with good fun skits to keep that smile turning into a curl of disgust.<br /><br />Knoxville, like always, dominates the proceedings, but this time he has reason to take centre stage as he volunteers for the most dangerous and idiotic of all the stunts, with Bam Magera also proving himself as wild as ever, despite having had his image toned down in 'Viva La Bam'. Surprisingly, the infamous Wild Boys (Steve O and Chris Pontius) seem to take part in fewer of the skits, despite being focal in the previous outings.<br /><br />If you like Jackass or Dirty Sanchez then you will definitely enjoy this film, and will laugh your guts out for the 100 minutes of its duration, if you see it as childish, disgusting or a sad snapshot of the youth culture of today, you will find it as offencive as ever. So f**k off. | positive |
Time does extraordinary things. It's the ultimate judge. Time has granted "Married To The Mob" an extra doses of freshness. There aren't any dead moments or cheap shots. It's more of a delight now than it ever was. Michelle Pfeiffer creates a mafia widow that it's as far away from a caricature as anything she's ever done. A true original creation touching or hinting at the stereotype just to guide us through but her Angela is quite unique. The legendary Dean Stockwell presents us with a a mafia boss that it's just as menacingly real as he is hilarious. And Matthew Modine? Why did I think back then that he didn't have any chemistry with Pfeiffer? I was wrong. They are wonderful together. They reminded me, this time, to the Barbara Stanwyck, Fred MacMurray of "Remember The Night" I'm writing this comment now to entice you to visit or revisit this Jonathan Demme gem. | positive |
Jonathan Demme is such a character-oriented director that, to see him pulling a Brian De Palma (which is to say, aping Hitchcock), it is nearly predictable when he fails to work up much suspense within this tepid mystery. Working from a screenplay by David Shaber, from Murray Teigh Bloom's novel, Demme attempts to strike a chord somewhere between Alan J. Pakula's paranoia dramas and Hitchcock's dangling-participle thrillers. Roy Scheider stars as a retired Secret Agent mourning the murder of his wife who is now busy dodging bad guys who are out to kill him. Takes off right away, but the script is full of flimsy threads and any excitement dies out quickly. There's a visually impressive climax at Niagra Falls, but Demme gets little out of his cast, and even less out of this bummer of a story. ** from **** | negative |
Pierce Brosnan the newest but no longer James Bond, is an assassin. He is very very good at what he does, but he's getting old and tired. Greg Kinnair is really good as the straight and narrow business man. Now when the story opens the movie shows these two people in their separate lives. Then one night they are having drinks in a bar, and they begin to talk. Then all of a sudden you find these two people getting drawn together during a series of events. The story is excellent, the acting is top notch, and the humor is hilarious I never thought that Pierce Brosnan would be this funny, but he really is and I must say this movie is a must see. | positive |
A terrible storyline (Amis at his worst), pointless and self-conscious 'decadence', obvious shock tactics and patchy acting make this film (rather like "Rancid Aluminium") embody everything that went wrong with the much-vaunted British film revival. The humour is, at best, limp, and the pretentiousness of the whole set-up (including some kind of "internet terrorist group" - ooh, how contemporary) really begins to grate.<br /><br />Final summary - a half-baked attempt to be 'edgy' that does no-one any favours. Still, it's always a pleasure to see Katy Carmichael on screen...<br /><br /> | negative |
I remember seeing this movie for the first time with a friend while on vacation in Anaheim, California in October, 1976. While driving the tourist laden city streets , we saw a movie marquee advertising "ALICE IN WONDERLAND XXX." So before even checking out Disneyland's version of the Lewis Carroll classic a half mile away, our curiosity won out and we ventured into this cinematic threshold. I remember even before the movie began how surprised I was to see this kind of film appearing in staid, ultra-conservative Orange County.<br /><br />Thirty two years later, I came across ALICE IN WONDERLAND at a local video store. I wondered to myself if this was the same film until I looked at the back of the jacket and saw a picture of lovely Kristine DeBell in the starring role and decided to rekindle some fond memories. Subversive Video, to their credit, has released two versions, X and XXX in the same package. As it turns out, the version my friend and I saw in Anaheim was rated X in spite of the original XXX advertising at the there. Seeing it the second time around makes me realize what a delightful romp director Bud Townsend brought to the screen. As an example of this man's scope behind the camera, in his salad days he directed two episodes of TV's DEATH VALLEY DAYS.<br /><br />Miss DeBell, appearing in the April, 1976 cover of Playboy is ideal as Alice. She brings a fresh all American innocence to the role as a librarian in her early twenties yearning for a better life. When her boyfriend is rebuffed from taking their relationship to the next level, Alice reaches her turning point. This is a 'musical comedy' yet the melodies are quite catchy with appropriate strings and brass to offset the generally suggestive lyrics. Miss DeBell has a pleasant singing voice as she trills about wanting to be free. That's when the magic begins. The pacing of this movie is surprisingly fluid, given the genre and the supporting cast of Wonderland are there to enable Alice as she blossoms into womanhood. Special mention goes to TV veteran Larry Gelman as the White Rabbit who seems to be the only character not obsessed with sex as he is always running late for an appointment
.or something.<br /><br />Special features include comments from noted feminist advocate Lena Ramone who imparts how viewing this movie while attending college influenced her in choosing a career as an adult film actress after graduation.<br /><br />What makes ALICE IN WONDERLAND such a delightful jaunt is its garden like setting. Partly filmed in the lush, natural splendor of Vancouver B.C.'s Stanley Park, the movie belies its pornographic roots. You don't come away feeling you've watched a sleazy skin flick. At this writing, I haven't viewed the triple XXX version. The extra sex footage tacked on afterward would, in all probability, disrupt the overall flow and remove the light, breezy atmosphere evident throughout.<br /><br />Naturally, the Lewis Carroll version is the best way to curl up and explore Alice's adventures in Wonderland. However, for a time capsule representing 1970s' adult film archives, ALICE IN WONDERLAND is worth following that white rabbit for a ribald ride full of mirthful mayhem. | positive |
Part II or formerly known as GUERILLA, is also a great achievement but not quite as entertaining as PART I because this is where we begin to witness what might have caused the fall and death of Che Guevara. Once again, I'm impressed by the cause-and-effect that both parts have in their interconnecting stories. We're reminded again and again that the lead character, Che Guevara is an Argentine. Some of the men in Fidel's army chose not to take orders from a Foreigner and now that Che has chosen to leave the comfort of victory to continue the revolutionary in Bolivia, he doesn't get much respect from his new army and the natives either, only because he's a foreigner.<br /><br />As far as technical goes, I think Part II would've been more helpful if before everything else, right after the display of the map, it would show some highlights from the previous installment just to refresh memory about his characters and what he's set himself on doing, to make the audience understand why his methods was successful in Cuba but they don't work in Bolivia. It is clear now in this segment, that Che is not as charismatic as Fidel Castro. In Bolivia, he's dealing with a bunch of soldiers whose hearts are not fully in it. It's said that the ingredient for revolutionary is love.. well, they don't give a damn that much about their country so it's a tough sell. It's excruciatingly painful and difficult for Che to get the others to buy into his vision.<br /><br />I like one particular scene that illustrates Che's deteriorating condition, a scene in which his horse would not go no matter how badly Che tries to direct it, and then his temper took the better of him and for a moment there, he forgets he's a doctor, and he becomes this desperate soldier who's stabs his own horse. His army is like a horse that doesn't want to be led. But at the same time, the film drags, it relies on small cameos from familiar faces that you'll recognize just for the sake of brief entertainment and for the most part, you get pounded left and right by one obstacle after another, but maybe that is the intention of Part II, if so.. then it definitely works. Standing ovation to the cinematography that gives us a first person view at the moment of Che's last breath. This movie may not answer the questions of why Che Guevara was so stubborn, why he was so determined he could pull it off even wen the odds were against him and why he deeply wants South America to have the same fate as Cuba but the movie CHE is a story worth telling. | positive |
This film is really terrible. terrible as in it is a waste of 84 minutes of your life. Special effects are so terrible. The acting wasn't convincing.<br /><br />Its about a crocodile that attack a view tourists as they are filming a documentary about "blood surfing". Blood surfing is when they surf around sharks but it turns terrible wrong when a 31 foot crocodile interrupts there holiday. The sharks don't look real. The crocodile is even worse, and it gets even more pathetic when they are running away form the creature, but the crocodile gets stuck and 2 females flash it. The deaths are fake and the pirates are just to fill in time.<br /><br />A pointless, terrible film thats not worth seeing!! | negative |
Farley and Spade's best work ever. It's one of the all-around funniest movies I've ever seen. Watch it once and you'll be hooked and soon have all the lines memorized. No sleepy for Tommy Boy! | positive |
Marco Poloni (Costas Mandylor) was born into a baking family in the Bronx. Although the Polonis have been well known for their confections over the decades, the business has fallen on hard times. Meanwhile, Grace Carpenter (Lauren Holly) is a most talented dessert maker in Manhattan but, she can not seem to land a prime confectionery position because of the glass ceiling. An accidental meeting between Marco and Grace results in a conversation about a possible solution for them both. There is a high profile bake-off, The Golden Whisk, taking place in the near future and Marco wants Grace to partner with him. There is a hefty amount of "dough", haha, at stake for the winners, enough to set Grace up in her own business and save the Polonis eatery, too. Reluctantly, Grace agrees. But, there are complications. Some of the judges and fellow contestants may have past issues with both Grace and Marco. Then, too, although Marco and Grace both feel some sort of attraction for the other, Grace has a long standing, very rich boyfriend. Can Marco and Grace win the contest? This is a lovely film for the romantic at heart. First, there is the nice cast. Holly has always been a lovely actress with a notable husky voice that furthers her attractions. In this film, she is perfectly cast as the determined but beautiful Grace. Mandylor, a newcomer, delights, too as the good-looking rival baker. The rest of the actors, including the wonderful Brenda Vaccaro as Marco's mother, is quite nice. As a Hallmark movie, the costumes, sets, and production amenities are beyond reproach and the script still manages to seem fresh and funny, despite some familiar themes. Treat yourself, romcom lovers, to a most sweet confection by securing a viewing of this film. It is definitely the movie equivalent of a big box of quality chocolates. | positive |
When i found out there was a Christmas Vacation 2, I couldn't wait to buy the DVD. I sent off my money and watched it as soon as it came through the letter box. I love all the national lampoons films with Chevy chase in it, and I bet he was glad he wasn't in this one!. I couldn't believe how bad this was, you would think it was impossible not to laugh at a national lampoons film, but believe me it is! . This film probably looked like a good idea on paper having cousin Eddie as the main character, he started to get on my nerves from early on in the film, and became totally unfunny by the middle of the film, and by the end of the film i had gone brain dead and couldn't remember what had happened! . | negative |
There were so many reasons why this movie could have been great. I'll give you three.<br /><br />1. Sienna Guillory. She is extremely hot in this movie and was the reason I chose to watch it in the first place.<br /><br />2. Tim Curry. Amazing bad guy and I always get excited seeing him in movies (even Home Alone 2).<br /><br />3. Jason Donovan. For all you Aussies and Poms out there, this is a rare treat. Former Neighbours star 80's heart-throb dressed in drag selling drugs.<br /><br />However none of these things nor the fact that the movie is about the drug/rave culture managed to make this movie even remotely interesting. The script was dull, the performances ordinary and despite the scenes with J.D and any scene with Sienna I found everything about this movie pretty passe.<br /><br />3 out of 10. | negative |
Peter O'Toole is a treat to watch in roles where the lines he speaks are good and offer a chance for him to swagger in drunken stupor. The lovely Susannah York provides a good foil for O'Toole's dramatic presence.<br /><br />The film alludes to incest--without a single explicit scene--but it is able to entertain the viewer in its raucous social commentary. Though this is not major film by any reckoning, it will be remembered for its entertaining performances. <br /><br />Even York, signing the papers at the end, is a treat to watch, exuding tragedy silently. The possible weakness here is Thompson's laid-back direction. But the film floats because of the actors and the script.<br /><br />I saw the film twice over a period of 20 years--on both occasions with the name "Brotherly love". "Country dance" is a rather farcical and inappropriate title for this movie, wherever it was released as such. | positive |
Chris Ricci sleepwalks her way through most of this, but then quickly takes on an air of boredom and disdain - much as I did when watching it. Without her this would be no more than a cheap kids' movie, but at least she does add an air of quality. There are few, if any, more visually striking and charismatic young actresses in the business.<br /><br />There's not much wrong with it as long as you accept it for what it is - a cheap Disney re-make aimed at very undemanding children. I could watch Ricci all day so I'm probably oblivious to many of the movie's shortcomings, but unless you too are a Ricci fan, a cat-lover, or very small child, I doubt you will find this very entertaining. | negative |
I think Micheal Ironsides acting career must be over, if he has to star in this sort of low budge crap. Surely he could do better than waste his time in this rubbish.<br /><br />This movie could be far better, if it had a good budget, but it shows repeatedly through-out the movie. There is one scene at a outpost, which looks like, its outside the front of a railway station, and i bet it was.<br /><br />There is one scene which made give this movie a 3, and it shows the space craft landing and taking off over a lake, surrounded by forests. This was well done, but the rest of the movie, forget it.<br /><br />There is another scene, which looks like a engineering plant, which i bet it, and does not look like a space outpost as the character say it is.<br /><br />This movie is stupid, has a serious low budget, makes no sense and God Help Micheal Ironsides. | negative |
"The Thomas Crown Affair" is a terrible remake of a not-very-good movie, redeemable only for the topless shots of former supermodel Renee Russo.<br /><br />That's it. The plot is negligible, Pierce Brosnan phoned in his part, and Dennis Leary (as usual) plays an annoying Irish cop, but I couldn't take my eyes off the beautiful Ms. Russo. There's an okay love-making scene on a stairway, a terrifically sexy ballroom dance, a topless beach scene, and a roll in the sack. Oh, and there's a painting stolen from a museum and a catamaran gets sunk.<br /><br />But let's hope other directors recognize Ms. Russo's perky attributes and cast her in more, highly-visible roles. | negative |
Racing enthusiast Fabian (as Tommy Callahan) smokes, drinks, and suffers blackouts while juggling feelings for alluring brunette Annette Funicello (as Francie Madsen) and blonde mainstay Diane McBain (as Annie Blaine). Complicating matters are Ms. Funicello's boozy race car boyfriend Warren Berlinger (as Eddie Sands), and her father Jan Murray (as Pete Madsen), who encourages the reckless drivers. Funicello's cow-eyed performance is sometimes enjoyable; however, her drunken driving scene is unnerving. "Thunder Alley" provides marginally more NASCAR excitement than its predecessor, "Fireball 500" (1966) *; be warned, it isn't much. A wild party scene, featuring some mild strip tease, is the film's low highlight. | negative |
One of THE comedies of the 1970's. Also has the best signature tune of any comedy show. The story is about three people sharing a flat living above their landlords George and Mildred. The comedy rests on the mix of the people sharing. A man and two women. Richard O' Sullivan is besotted with Paula Wilcox. Its played in a gentle and not a leering way which is why this show was such a success.<br /><br />The scripts and the stars were always giving the best performances and Richard's frustrated love life was shown with a relaxed charm. The end titles contained visual jokes which went unnoticed in the early 1970's but concerned the flat sharers living arrangements. | positive |
Michael Williams, who works for BBC, finds a somehow impressive Italian picture which gets mixed in the material of his ongoing task titled DIABOLICAL ART: A DOCUMENTARY. But since his wife's mysterious death her daughter, Emily, has been emotionally disturbed, so he goes Spoleto, where the problematic picture is, with her and her nanny, Jill. And there is a Countess, who is also a psychic, and she informs him that the picture was somehow made at the night that a young witch named Emilia was executed. Michael doesn't believe her story, but after that Emily has hysterical spasm and Jill is killed... This Italian film is, of course, almost innocently influenced by THE EXORCIST, but this one is much cheaper, much simpler,and in a sense, much dirtier. First of all, it should be said this film is full of confusion. For instance, the story shows Emily is a reincarnation of Emilia. But when Emily sees her in the flashbacks, she perceives her exclusively from a third-person's point of view. But if she is the reincarnation of Emilia, she should and must see the past from nothing but Emilia's point of view. Confusions of this kind, which the film has many, are almost exclusively based upon a problematic fact that the film is too cowardly, rather than ambivalent, to specify its own quasi-Freudian theme, namely, pre-adolescent girl's one-way incestuous wish. To make matters worse, this film also has characteristic problem (if not confusion); every character is too naive and helpless to be realistic and/or believable living human. Regarding Emily (or Emilia), she is after all a child, and one can say it is difficult to blame her mainly for her naiveness and helplessness. (And according to the Freudian theory, every girl wants to have her father's child(ren) in her own way. In this sense, Emily is not exclusively pathological; only her way of excluding other women from her father's love is problematically pathological. But, as I already mentioned, this film per se is too cowardly to be Freudian.) The problem is that adult characters are as childish and naive and helpless as Emily is. And because of this characteristic weakness even the psychic who can see almost everything cannot do anything down-to-earth, and because of the same weakness the very story of the film is ended in a badly escapist way. In addition, special effects of this film are incredibly cheap and laughable. Although Stelvio Cipriani's music is noteworthily beautiful (indeed this one is so good that it seems to be worth having it alone), the film as a whole is nothing but a cheap B-film which can disappoint even the 1970s'-Italian- horror-film-lovers. | negative |
I have seen this movie last week during the Berlin Film Festival and had medium-high expectations. - The director is Bertrand Tavernier and I was familiar with some of his previous work in French cinema. I actually enjoyed some of his earlier movies. -The cast: Tommy Lee Jones, John Goodman, Peter Sarsgard, Mary Steenburgen... I was looking forward to see all this talent on screen. -I wasn't familiar with the book it's based upon and I hadn't read anything about the movie beforehand but I was told that it was an investigation movie set in the Deep South (we've seen a lot of those in the past, maybe this one's gonna be as good as the others...)<br /><br />2 hours later, the end titles appear: THANK GOD IT WAS OVER!!!! - The plot is beyond comprehension. If you've read the book, you have a significant advantage. There were too many minor characters and there were a lot of useless plot arcs. We didn't understand a thing! - The accents. My God! Tommy Lee Jones' accent is decent but I still have nightmares from Mary Steenburgen's Cajun-French singing... - Poor casting in my opinion. I can't believe old man Tommy Lee Jones can beat the crap out of a linebacker-built goon... And I'm not afraid of John Goodman. - Who were these people?!? We barely understand who all these characters are and what they do. There's a bait shop? Tommy Lee Jones has a girl from Guatemala? Blörg! - The comedic attempts were pathetic. The funniest thing about the movie was probably its "action" and "suspense" scenes. They were horrible. No thrills. Bad acting (Can Tommy Lee Jones make different faces or is he like Derek Zoolander?)... - And then there's the sci-fi stuff. No spoilers but it gets ridiculously and annoyingly weird.<br /><br />I usually don't write any comments on IMDb but I thought the movie was so bad and disappointing that I felt compelled to share my opinion. But that's just me... | negative |
A film that can make you shed tears of sadness and tears of joy would be considered quite a step in the career of a common filmmaker. The fact is, Steven Spielberg, probably our greatest story-teller, has been doing this in various movie formats for years. THE COLOR PURPLE, at the time, was considered risky, especially after action classics like JAWS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. In hindsight, this film should have come as no surprise, for Spielberg had made us cry tears of joy and sadness in E.T. Critics called COLOR PURPLE his entrance into intellectual fare. It is quite an entrance. No special effects, no swashbuckling, just brilliant story-telling based on a literary classic by Alice Walker. One surprise is how Spielberg could present such a moving film about African-Americans in the deep south. Slavery is gone, but in the south depicted here, it seems as though blacks are using other blacks as slaves. <br /><br />Spielberg is always put down for sentimentalizing his pictures or adding an element of childishness to please the audience. This is really the first of overlooked films from his career that you cannot make these observations. It is the first in a line of films people either didn't see or wouldn't see because there are no aliens. EMPIRE OF THE SUN, ALWAYS, SCHINDLER'S LIST, etc.. His awesome talent is obvious with this specific picture because A) he uses mostly untrained, first-time actors, B) he tackles a subject most felt was unadaptable to the screen, and C) it is pure drama with no strings pulled where characters grow and change over the passage of roughly 30 years. It is almost epic-like in look and scope and the fact that it did not garner a single Academy Award from 11 nominations is a travesty and an insult.<br /><br />Whoopi Goldberg is fabulous as the tortured Celie, an unattractive woman given away by her incestuous father to an abusive Danny Glover, who she only knows as "Mister". The film follows a path of occasional beatings and mental torture she goes through while with "Mister". The PG-13 rated film is pretty open to the sexual issues raised by the Walker novel. This is not "The Burning Bed" in Georgia by any means. There is no blatant revenge taken as might be expected. It happens gracefully. Goldberg perfectly plays a human being, someone in need of love and someone who deserves it. The films' most poignant and heartbreaking moment comes when Goldberg and her sister, Nettie (played by Akosua Busia) are separated, maybe forever. (Possibly foreshadowing Holocaust separation of child and parent?) You may have to check for a pulse if you are not moved by this sequence.<br /><br />The color purple stands for the beauty of the fields and flowers surrounding these poor people. There really is something to live for, but love triumphs over all. Spielberg bashers take note: the guy can make an unforgettable classic without any cute aliens.<br /><br />RATING: 10 of 10 | positive |
This has got to be one of the weakest plots in a movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />However, that is not all that this movie is lacking. This movie has the worst acting, writing, directing, special effects, you name it--it's the worst ever.<br /><br />I highly advise you to spend your time on worthwhile movies and not waste your time on this garbage.<br /><br />I do agree with an earlier post that the "women" were definitely men dressed up in drag, and that did give me a laugh, I keep trying to figure out if they were being obvious about it or if they were actually trying to be sexy women.<br /><br />Anyway, there is not much else in this movie that is worth watching!<br /><br />To sum it up: horrible acting, horrible script, horrible idea for a movie. An hour and a half of my life I want back RIGHT NOW!! | negative |
Portrays the day to day stark reality of survival on a ranch in the old west. Outstanding acting by both principal actors. This doesn't even feel like a movie...you feel like you're there. Animal activists should beware...many scenes are obviously not just realistic...they are real. | positive |
We've all been there, sitting with some friends watching a bad movie, laughing at how terribly it was made and how poor the acting was; eventually the credits roll and everyone looks around and says "how is it possible such a movie was made? who paid money to have this script made into a feature film?" Well Jigsaw is not that kind of film, instead of asking how this garbage was budgeted you wonder why the makers were shot out of a cannon into the sun. Yes, Jigsaw is quite possibly the worst movie ever made or conceived, this coming from a guy who has seen Campfire Stories and Fever Lake. The film starts out in some kind of college class, what kind of class I am unsure, but it is imagined to be an art class. Now these dorks have been given a final project by their idiot teacher, five of them are given pieces of a mannequin and told to design it in any way they see fit, and since there are only five pieces the other students in the class receive and automatic A, oddly enough there are only six students in this entire class so the one goth chic gets a free A, good for her! A week passes and the five students, plus teacher, plus one hillbilly husband meet in a bar to discuss their and complete their project, they put the pieces together, head, arms, legs and inform the others why they chose their specifics designs, now these creative geniuses used the week to their full advantage, one puts a saw blade in the left hand, the other gets a sawed off shotgun, the right leg gets a bunch of broken ceramic glued to it and the left some magazine clippings, the head is the worst getting a camera in the eye, ala Hellraiser 3, with some bottle rockets for a stylish mo-hawk. After they have all spilled their guts about their specifics designs the now drunk teacher says they are to burn the mannequin, now aptly named Jigsaw. Now up to this point it has been standard horrible movie fair, bad acting, dialog and everything else, but has still been pretty plausible, yet after Jigsaw catches fire things take a turn for the worst...Jigsaw comes alive.. How you ask? I have no idea, he just does because the writers couldn't think of a realistic way for two pounds worth of molded plastic to become alive (Come on guys, a bolt of lighting, a traveling voodoo priest, anything could have worked.) So once Jigsaw comes to life he uses his new abilities of walking very slow and stilted with the use of his molded fingers to wreak havoc. First he kills the cool guy with some barb wire, this guy who was about to get it on with a hot chic decides drinking ground beer off in the distance is more important than what is in front of him. With him gone Jigsaw shoots the sexy girl in the face and then gives an old man a heart attack with a slight twist of his head, he then saws up a nasty looking southern woman and then her hillbilly husband; Jigsaw then kills the nerdy guy with some headless deception. Did I mention Jigsaw was taking body parts off his victims to make a human version of himself? No! Well its not important they don't even show his macabre creation, they don't even show him steal away a torso from his poor creators (Maybe he was trying to create the head detective from In Living Color). So after these five have been killed the teacher and the nerdy girl are all who is left, the teacher figures out that Jigsaw only needs a head to finish his masterpiece, since he is still uninterested in that torso thing. So being the coward he is the teacher ties up the girl as a sacrifice to Jigsaw who comes in only to go for the teacher with his electric buzz saw which isn't even plugged in. That is where the freaking movie ends, we don't even get to see the teacher get killed or what happens to the girl, let alone an explanation why Jigsaw came to life or how he cleaned himself off after being burned. This movie is so shameful it has too be seen, it is only 71 minutes so it is a small part of your day; For the memories of a lifetime, Jigsaw, Jigsaw, Jigsaw. Thank you Total Recall! The Judge has ruled, watch Jigsaw only if your plans of severing off your genitals seems played out. | negative |
Stephen King was raised on flicks like this. -Flicks NOT films.<br /><br />Movies like this and 'Jeepers Creepers' are "throwbacks" to the good 'ol day drive-in horror flicks. They are meant to be fun, cheaply made and hopefully: a few good scares.<br /><br />Anyone looking for a theory on the human condition should pass on this creature feature because that's all this is... all it ever will be.<br /><br />Stop trashing what has already deemed itself as trash. -Good, fun, trash!<br /><br />If you enjoyed this I recommend: 'Jeepers Creepers' 'Jeepers Creepers 2' '30 Days of Night' 'Scarecrows'('88) 'They Live' 'Planet Terror' 'Death Proof' and 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' | positive |
Great softcore sex, revealing and sexy, and plenty of it. Ignore the ignoramus who doesn't realize that raunchy IS sexy if done the right way. If you "erotic," go watch that Red Shoes Diary junk. If you want hot and exciting softcore done properly, this is the movie to watch. If you like the more explicit Skinemax films, you'll like this one. Great softcore sex, revealing and sexy, and plenty of it. Ignore the ignoramus who doesn't realize that raunchy IS sexy if done the right way. If you "erotic," go watch that Red Shoes Diary junk. If you want hot and exciting softcore done properly, this is the movie to watch. If you like the more explicit Skinemax films, you'll like this one. | positive |
First off, I'm a huge fan of 80s movies, and of Jennifer Conelly as well. So yesterday, I wandered into a local used book/movie store and found a VHS copy. I read the back and it sounded good and for $3.99, it was a good deal. So I took it home and popped it in the VCR. What a sweet movie! At my age now, I relate more to movies like About Last Night or St. Elmo's Fire, but still I remember what it was like to be 15/16 and in love with an older guy, etc. We all have those little crushes when we're younger. And if it doesn't work out, we're heartbroken and we think that we'll never get over it. But of course we do. Many times. It's that sort of sweet quality that I really got from this movie. The feeling of "Oooh! I remember when something like that happened to me..." is all through it. The characters are interesting and well-developed. I recommend it to anyone who likes 80s movies, teen films in particular, or to anyone who just wants to go back and remember a simpler time in their lives. | positive |
This is an EXCELLENT example of early Bette Davis talent. The production is above average for 1936 timeframe. I cannot understand why the owners of the rights to this film have not put it on DVD. Owners, PLEASE PLEASE release it. I would buy it immediately. I have not seen it in more than thirty years, on television, but remember it well. | positive |
The title tells it all -- Ed Gein, the butcher of Plainfield.<br /><br />It's not a zappy action-filled slasher movie made for teens high on energy drinks. That would fit it into a well-established genre, the kind that some people find entertaining, something along the lines of "Halloween" or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre".<br /><br />This is dark, slow, filled with chopped-up corpses, and quietly evil. There are few shock cuts, no monster's point-of-view shots, no loud electronic score. I don't know who it's aimed at -- ghouls, maybe.<br /><br />Beneath the credits we already see still photos of skulls, carcasses hung up, skins draped across the backs of chairs, that sort of thing. And they're sufficiently revolting that I couldn't help thinking this movie had better be pretty good to make up for this Grand Guignol opening.<br /><br />Alas, it's not. The acting is uniformly terrible, as in a high school play. The script does its best to sink below vulgarity. Ed Gein, who killed only two middle-aged women and maybe his brother, chases a screaming, bloody young woman through the Woodland of Weir, and she's wearing only a modern bra and bikini, rather than period underwear. Gein also decapitates a night watchman, which he never did in any historical sense.<br /><br />The direction? You could do a better job. In the first few minutes, law officers discover an abandoned car with blood spattered all over the windshield. There is no body. The handsome young deputy sheriff turns to his boss and suggests they search for the victim, who may still be in the vicinity and living. The sheriff, lacking any motivation, shouts at him, "Now you just FORGET that! I don't want you going off HALF COCKED on anything!" It should be no more than a business-like exchange of views. Why does the director have the sheriff so angry? Characters of diverse sorts listen to radio programs or records that play old jazzy pop songs -- Louis Armstrong's "Ain't Misbehaving," for instance. This is -- what -- rural WISCONSIN in the 1950s? And the characters insist on music that would appeal to customers of the Cotton Club in Harlem in the 30s, or New York intellectuals like Woody Allen. Nope. The radio would be playing Kitty Kallen's "Wheel of Fortune" or Theresa Brewer or, equally likely, Lefty Frizell. Not that the dysfunction between the music and the events adds anything to our understanding of what's going on beneath the images. Someone involved in the production just liked old jazzy pop songs, that's all.<br /><br />Of course there's only so much you can do with a low budget, but it can be light years ahead of this butchery. See "Ed Gein," with Steven Railsback for an example of a much more sophisticated way of dealing with this lunatic and his penchant for dead bodies, and on a budget that couldn't have exceeded this one by much.<br /><br />These comments are all based on the first twenty minutes of the movie. That's about as far as I could get. If anyone finds this tale to be well-executed and fascinating in any way, he should try to find some insight into his tastes. It's beneath mine -- and I consider myself pretty warped. | negative |
I watched the first 10 minutes and it bored me to death. So, I fast forward all the way through the end. This movie must be the worst of all in the low budget sci-fi movies category so far. Bad acting, cast, directions, Lara Craft custom imitation, story, plot, everything! Through out the entire movie, I think that there maybe only 6 to 7 people in the entire cast, but ONLY two of them started in the entire movie. I was expecting something like the Starship Trooper, but it was nothing close to it. I was fooled by the movie title and the picture on the DVD cover. Don't waste your time watching this boring and bad movie. Come to think of it, I wonder why did they even bother to put out bad movies like this one? | negative |
i bought this rental return for $1.99 at hollywood and overpaid. i didn't expect much, but thought it would be something to fall asleep by at least. i quickly noted the very weak storyline, the gross overacting by everyone (no one talks like that except in cartoons), and the seemingly let's-make-it-up-as-we-go-along direction. i know that the participants in this mess must be very embarrassed by it, and i feel certain that it did not help any careers. as for this movie buff of 35 years, it has now provided a ready answer for the worst-film-you've-ever-seen question.<br /><br /> | negative |
Anyone who could find redeeming value in this piece of crap ought to have their head examined. We have the submissive, heroin-addicted, part-time hooker wife with lacerations all over her body, lacerations received from repeated beatings by an abusive son. Now, she is squirting breast milk all over the kitchen floor, the release so gained somehow akin to Helen Keller placing her hands in running water. We have the husband who starts out by patronizing a prostitute who just happens to be his daughter (she's upset with him because he came too quickly)and ends by murdering his female colleague, having sex with her corpse, and then chopping her up. We have the kid who is relentlessly bullied by his classmates and who comes home and beats his mom. You see, it's all circular. Deep, huh? The only decent moment in this horrendous pile of tripe is when the dad murders his son's tormentors. It's a good thing this turkey was shot on video because otherwise what a waste of expensive film it would be. If that guy who thinks artists ought to be interested in this slop is really serious, no wonder most people think artists are insane. We saw this lousy movie, then put on "Zero Woman, The Accused." Oh my God, it was a tossup as to which one was worse. What is going on in Japan these days? Sick, sick, sick. | negative |
Having been a Godzilla fan for many years, Gamera was to me a cheap knockoff to capitalize on the success of Toho's #1 kaiju star. ATTACK OF THE MONSTERS was for me at the time (1975) an almost painful viewing experience.<br /><br />Last weekend, I attended the annual Godzilla fest, known as G-FEST, where Carl Craig, one of the stars of GAMERA vs. VIRAS, made an appearance. Of course, they featured this movie. It was one of the most hilarious bad movies ever made. Of course, you have to be in the right frame of mind to watch it. In one scene, for example, the boy scouts held prisoner on board the alien space craft manage to escape by distracting the not-too-bright aliens. When they realize they"ve been duped, one of them says, "That's funny...I think those kids lied to us." Not even PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE can boast that kind of dialog.<br /><br />This may not be GODZILLA or even GAMERA 3, but this one is a decent enough time waster, if you watch it in the right frame of mind.<br /><br />However, if you want top quality kaiju entertainment, check out the recently released GAMERA 3.<br /><br />Rating: **1/2 out of ***** | negative |
In 2054 Paris, Avalon, a computer generated system, controls the city and when a young woman is kidnapped, detective Karas (Craig) must go against Avalon to find her.<br /><br />Renaissance is a splendid blend of film making mixed with a conceptual futuristic narrative that lights up the screen in a shocking manor with a noir themed ideology and conceptual montages that should delight many.<br /><br />Pixar are the animation masters. Their numerous Oscar winning films are endless from the charming Toy Story to the mystifying Wall-E and so any company or director has a real challenge to knock them of their perch. Renaissance isn't a film aimed for the young audience though, and like 2007's Persepolis, brings a strong and mature approach to the genre of animation to make an older and more challenging film to its targeted older generation.<br /><br />In 2005 Robert Rodriguez released a shockingly brilliant noir Sin City that shook up the whole usage of green screen with a splendid balance of filming in black and white with the odd spurts of colour and a year later, Christian Volckman took up a similar approach with this equally visually masterful stroke of film making.<br /><br />Volckman's picture however is a full on animation but it doesn't half look realistic for the majority of it's strong 1 hour and 40 minutes of running time. The faces of the character's are well portrayed and in particular, this film has got to be the finest ever for the usage of shadow. The fact we never know if its night or day is irrelevant when simply gazing into the stony faces as the shadows blend across their expressions. It is almost a clever use of pathetic fallacy, and is finely directed also.<br /><br />For anyone who has seen Persepolis you will have come to the conclusion it is one of the finest directed animations ever screened for the simple but highly conceptual artistic style by Marjane Satrapi<br /><br />Renaissance is equally on terms with that picture and in many instances rivals it with stronger graphics and a darker tone to reflect the mood. One scene in particular when Karas appears out of darkness is beautifully shot.<br /><br />The narrative revolves around a stubborn and nosey political government who keeps tabs on every citizen. The running of Paris is down to the mysterious Avalon which we don't see nearly enough to get an essence of its true dominance. Renaissance is controlling the narrative around a tired cop's attempts to rescue the mysterious woman, and then we see Craig's tired and boring cop attempt a rescue whilst battling with other elements. There are many things wrong with the scripting, not to mention the tired exasperated cop routine is now old, but there is plenty of dashing adrenaline and springy banter between characters to keep it alive right till a wonderfully shot shocking last couple of stages. | positive |
This was one of the most boring "horror" movies that I have ever seen. A college kid has an epidemic of nightmares involving roaming spirits at Alcatraz. Trying to deliver a mix of "Nightmare on Elm Street" and standard vampire fare in the form of a bad 80s music video, this movie is jammed full of bad acting and an exhaustively slow moving story. Although, being such a bad, and often laughable movie (dig those mullets and the terrible dialog), it would be good material to spoof on for an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Don't be fooled by the proud mention of the film being the 1987 winner of the Silver Scroll Award by the Academy of Sicence Fiction, Fanatasy, and Horror, or that Devo contributes to the soundtrack, or that Tony Basil has a part in the film. It is a giant disaster, though one with a small cult following (see the other IMDb comments for this film). | negative |
The only reason I even watched this was because I found it at my local library (and will berate them mercilessly for having wasted public monies on it), and despite the plethora of tits and ass, it didn't take long to realize that the fast-forward button was my friend. Terrible direction, pedestrian camera work, sporadically bad-to-nearly-passable acting, chintzy effects, and one of the worst screenplays I've had the displeasure of seeing brought to life (such as it was, horribly crippled and mutilated) in a long, long time. Best laughs actually come from the "Making of..." featurette, in which the poor saps involved with this HDV mess attempt to justify their lame efforts as if they had been working on something special, instead of something that won't be utterly forgotten next week. Wait! Except for the fact that somehow someone lured Tippi "The Birds" Hedren, of all people, into doing a bit part, along with Kane "Friday the 13th" Hodder! How this came to pass, I'll never know, and to be honest, I don't really care. Watch at your own risk, and don't say you haven't been warned. This is film-making at its pretentious, craven worst. It only gets a 2 from me for having some good-looking naked women, and even then, just barely. | negative |
Just saw this film and I must say that although there was shown in the beginning some effort to produce a decent film, this was absolutely horrible -- but not in the sense that was intended I'm sure.<br /><br />It was like a child was directing this insult to intelligence with the belief that all would-be viewers are morons OR extremely hard up for entertainment OR both.... Thank God for fast forward! I can't imagine the type of viewer the producer had in mind when making this film. I mean, you have actors trying to be serious, albeit barely, and a script that cries for a total rewrite,.... I just can't say anymore. If Harlequin Romance decided to do horror films, this would be a good effort.<br /><br />If you found this movie to be entertaining, then I strongly suggest that you seek out some guidance as to the purpose of movies. There is MUCH BETTER fare out there. Join a club, READ REVIEWS, but above all, avoid crap like this. | negative |
A famous show master enters the elevator with his girlfriend. Suddenly, she kills him and runs away while an old lady gets a heart attack. The name of the female assassin is Sawa. She is still going to school and works for an vicious criminal, Akai, who is sleeping with her. One day Sawa finds out he killed her parents..<br /><br />------- <br /><br />Even the biggest anime fans will have to admit that this vicious action thriller is an disappointing gore fest. "Kite" has style, but it is still trash. The weird plot about a teenage girl that kills people as an assassin tried to be scary and touching at the same time, only causing the story to fall flat on it's face. One of the highlights is an action sequence in which the good/bad heroine Sawa is falling together with a bodyguard from a building, yet the dramatic structure isn't nearly as good orchestrated and the director Yasoumi Umetsu's weird and grotesque animation of the character's faces is awful. Not only that, the intercourse sequences are just simply creepy.<br /><br />Grade: 3/10 | negative |
I saw this film a while back and it's still at the top of my 'favorite movies' list. It is amazingly put together and what really makes the film are the detailed tid bits (such as the 'Cafe Bustelo' coffee crate being reused as a cup to wash her grandsons hair) that people aren't seeing because YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU ARE HISPANIC. This is just one of those films that is very culturally specific and particular. Please do not bash this film if you have no prior knowledge of what foundation it's being built upon. I completely see what the writer/director was going for, and he hit the target perfectly! This film is highly deserving of a better rating. | positive |
I missed the full four hour version when it was originally released in theaters because it played one week. I had to settle for seeing the shorter two and a half hour version a year or so later and was left stunned by what I saw. I left the theater thinking I had witnessed a masterpiece and wondering what the full version was like.<br /><br />The full version is mostly good but it has sequences that are so incredibly dull that the whole movie is pulled down and almost sinks beneath the waves.<br /><br />The problem is entirely in the editing which should be labeled as the final word on excess. There are times when things go on and on and on and nothing happens. Shots of people in a city that go on much too long with no purpose in the narrative. We get beautiful vistas and visions of such beauty that they bring tears to your eyes but they are used too frequently as a place holder instead of as punctuation or to set a place. Much of the longer version seems to be on screen simply because it looked good.<br /><br />I've attempted to actually sit down and watch Heavens Gate with out resorting to the Fast Forward button but somewhere along the way I find I can't stand it any more.<br /><br />I wish MGM would take pity on us and release the shorter version to DVD as well as the huge dinosaur. Perhaps as a two pack so that we could see which is the better version, and whether Cimino was mad or not.<br /><br />And while they were at it why not include the once rumored Johnson County War edit that ran 90 minutes. Supposedly United Artists tinkered with a further cut in the hopes of getting some of their money back. Whether it was ever done or still exists is up in the air, but it would be interesting to see. | positive |
Four lovely young nurses in their last year of nursing school experience all kinds of turmoil and excitement in their lives: sweet Susan (winsome brunette Elaine Giftos) tries to comfort the bitter, terminally ill Greg (a moving performance by Darrell Larson), eager, but neurotic Phred (lovely blonde Karen Carlson) romances handsome gynecologist Jim Caspar (affable Lawrence Casey), free-spirited hippie Priscilla (the stunningly gorgeous Barbara Leigh) gets impregnated by laid-back drug dealer Les (the solid Richard Rust), and compassionate Lynn (nicely played by Brioni Farrell) helps out angry Mexican revolutionary Victor Charlie (the excellent Reni Santoni). Despite the fact that this film was made for Roger Corman's legendary exploitation outfit New World Pictures, it's anything but your standard mindless piece of leering soft-core schlock. Instead, it's a very pleasant, charming and even often thoughtful time capsule of the social and political upheavals of the groovy early 70's (the subplot involving Lynn and the revolutionaries is especially potent and provocative). Special kudos are in order for director Stephanie Rothman, who brings a welcome and refreshing intelligence and sensitivity to the material. Moreover, the four attractive and appealing female leads all turn in sound and praiseworthy work. Scottie MacGregor likewise impresses as wise supervisor Ms. Boswell and ubiquitous 70's trailer voice guy Ronald Gans supplies the off-screen voice of a psychiatrist. Stevan Larner's polished cinematography, the fantastic rock soundtrack, and the flavorsome folksy'n'funky score by Clancy B. Grass III are all up to speed. A real sleeper. | positive |
1993 was the year. This was long before Phillip Seymour Thomas had won an Oscar. Who knew I would be an extra in a movie with him? I was actually a paid extra in "My Boyfriend's Back," which was shot in a suburb of Austin called Georgetown, TX. The original title was "Johnny Zombie" (thank God the producers had a change of heart!) I was in the theater scene. I rushed out to watch the movie the day it was released in theaters. It is more of a comedy than a horror movie. But... for a good laugh, you might want to check it out. Nothing that is even close to "Dawn of the Dead" or even "Shaun of the Dead" quality, but the cheese factor is good enough. ciao | negative |
Deanna Durbin, then 14 and just under contract to MGM, made a short feature in 1936 which paired her with Judy Garland, a year younger, in the first film for both of them. Louis B. Mayer then decided he didn't need two competing young singers, placed his bet on Garland and let Durbin go. Universal immediately signed Durbin, rushed her into Three Smart Girls and rewrote the screenplay to pump up her part. She's billed last, but with the typographic equivalent of neon lights around her name. Universal was convinced Durbin would be a smash, and they were right. Three Smart Girls is less a musical and more a screwball comedy, and Durbin, 15 when the movie was released, carries it with aplomb. She's Penny Craig, and she and her older sisters, Joan and Kay, are determined to save their father, who had divorced their mother, from the clutches of an elegant gold digger with a fierce mother. They talk their way from Switzerland, where they live, to New York City, where their father lives. They plan not just to break up their father's wedding but to reunite their father with their mother, who after ten years apart still loves the guy. Is there any doubt that Durbin will sing a song or two in her warm, luscious soprano? Nope. Is there any doubt the girls will succeed...with Kay and Joan finding love and matrimonial material along the way? Nope, again. Years later Durbin was quoted as saying that she couldn't keep playing little Miss Fixit forever. She was right, of course, but in Three Smart Girls, her first feature movie, she has little Miss Fixit down pat. Durbin is funny, determined, resourceful, energetic and, of all things, natural. Her personality is so genuine that it makes this comedy -- a mix of farce, confusion, good intentions and cheerful avarice -- downright endearing. <br /><br />Durbin carries the movie with ease. It's a lot of fun watching her hold her own against the likes of Binnie Barnes as Donna Lyon, the woman with her hooks in Penny's rich father, played by Charles Winninger, who was no slouch at stealing scenes, either. Alice Brady, who played the dithering matron in My Man Godfrey, plays Donna Lyons' mother, who is even more of a gold digger than her daughter. The last of the accomplished farceurs is Ray Milland as Lord Michael Stuart, who through a contrived and amusing mix-up is mistaken for Mischa Auer. <br /><br />Three Smart Girls holds up well as a light-weight and amusing comedy of manners and mix- ups. So does Deanna Durbin as a brand-new star, who with her huge success saved Universal's bacon. | positive |
On their way to a country house to hear a new play being read a theatrical producer, his secretary, and the playwright end up stuck in the mud. They make their way to a nearby house, only to end up at the home of the playwright's fiance. If you can't guess that murder and mayhem are about to take place then you haven't been paying attention.<br /><br />This is a a good entry in the old dark house genre. Not only does it have a good mystery, you also have some very funny one liners wandering through it. The cast is across the board excellent and they're more than willing to have a good time with what is good material.<br /><br />I would love to say that this is one of the best of the genre, it should have been, but for me something happened on the way that made me down grade the rating to only seven out of ten. I can't tell you what it is, not for certain anyway. Perhaps its the sense that I knew where it was going almost from the outset, or perhaps its something else, I'm not sure what, but there was something that I couldn't shake that made me like this film despite wanting to love it. It just missed being great and somehow fell short.<br /><br />That said I DO SUGGEST YOU SEE IT. It is after all a very witty film, that entertains fully, despite just missing being great. | positive |
This is just typical Bruce Willis, action movie schtick. Watch it with some popcorn and your buddies. Rent it, to save money.<br /><br />None of it is realistic. The battles aren't realistic. The soldiers aren't realistic. The victims aren't realistic. And why was Tom Skerritt's character talking to Willis from the DECK OF THE CARRIER? What's up with that? He can't do that from inside the ship?<br /><br />Of course, Bruce W. gets a machete wound. There's a bunch of average explosions.<br /><br />If this movie accurately represents the Navy SEALS, then don't get stuck in Africa expecting them to come rescue you!<br /><br />The noble attack on the village bothered me the most. "Front row seats to an ethnic cleansing"...as Bruce looks at the slaughter going on in town. So what does he do? He crawls into town on his belly. Yep. How many died while they were putzing around? Oh well...a body count was needed, I guess.<br /><br />And if that one African guy was so important, why didn't he get on the chopper with the elderly and children? Can he say "Duh?" <br /><br />Finally, the movie was very dark. Not just in plot, but so much happens at night it was difficult to make out what was going on.<br /><br />Rent it. | negative |
I do love B- horror films. I however, am generally not a huge fan of "so stupid it's funny" films. I HAD to rate this so highly simply because Death Bed: the bed that eats, is so one of a kind, and so original. there are plenty of question marks, plenty of plot holes, and the WTF factor is cranked up to 11, but i was really not bored for a second. I really couldn't call it creepy at any point, Every minute i was saying to myself "what the hell is this bed/film going to do next!" I watched this with a friend that is in no way a fan of horror or B- movies, and even she was pretty into it. the effects were actually very inventive and the colors, and atmosphere were quite good. it keeps a very consistent and even tone throughout most of the film, (albeit an incredibly ludicrous consistency) and the acting wasn't TERRIBLE. I can see from the point that there are certain inconsistencies in the actions of the bed that make the suspension of belief damn near impossible, but the film itself was such a unique and bizarre concept, that that fact didn't really bother me. seriously, for me, this film hit that realm of one i will not only never forget, but i guarantee i will find myself thinking back on certain scenes in the future. does anyone else know of any other films in the inanimate objects that eat people genre? totally fantastic. | positive |
I will repeat - what a stupid scenario.<br /><br />Is there anything new inside? I don't know who have wrote this. But i believe this guy have watch all Hollywood -children -family -teens movies ever made... all scenes and dilouges u can see in everywhere. Why do u people making this movies? children's like an adults? they like money gold cars... and they are positives? they have lucky... and emotions of course... without it can be done. o the young Actors - wow :-). I do like when is camera concentrated on their nice faces? what a crap... there is 90% better children movies that this one! This is not creative or funny movie. This is simply nothing.<br /><br />D. | negative |
Certainly not a great show, but better than most other sitcoms out there at the moment. It reminds of shows like Married With Children and Roseanne as they go to places not traditionally dealt with in sitcoms. It's sometimes funny even if you ignore the laugh tracks, but not rip-roaring hilarious.<br /><br />Some of the characters are pretty funny (the gay friend) and some of the other drop-ins. This is also one of the few shows where the characters soliloquy (sorry for the butchered spelling) actually is effective and funny.<br /><br />Is this an All in the Family or Seinfeld type show? Absolutely not. However, it is certainly better than a show like 'Til Deat (probably the worst TV show of any type out at the moment).<br /><br />Oh and the mom is not too bad looking and the Hilary character is a little hottie. | positive |
i still can't belive that starevich made this film back in 1934. animation is simply perfect, and what is amazing about it, with all the advanced technology we have nowadays there are few animation studios that are capable of producing a little gem like this one. it has everything: a great story, beautiful chracters (although this is a morbid kind of beauty in some cases), special effects... well, it is definitely not a kid's movie,but it's a must-see for anyone seriously interested in animation. | positive |
Ohhh man! Now this is what I'm talking about! As far as bad/cheesy horror flicks go this movie was truly in a class of its own. A real gem!<br /><br />First off, the film wasn't originally in English. That's okay because the voice dubbing was truly exceptional! Here is my favorite excerpt from the dialog (and there is plenty more where this came from)
"I'm feeling a little better. I'm just thirsty
FOR YOUR BLOOD!"<br /><br />And what drama! Here is a play by play recap of the interaction between the military and scientists
<br /><br />Scene 1
Scientist: "You can't do that
It'll be a disaster!" -- Military Officer: "That's just science fiction" (he then proceeds to cause a complete disaster just like the scientist predicted).<br /><br />Scene 2
Scientist: "If you do that many people will die!!!" -- Military Officer: "you don't know what you're talking about." (he does it and many people die).<br /><br />Scene 3
Scientist: "Don't do that
It'll kill everyone!" -- Military Officer: "That's nonsense" (he then proceeds to kill everyone)<br /><br />Scene 4, 5, 6, 7
(you get the idea).<br /><br />If that wasn't enough
there were a few scenes that really stood out as instant classics! In one scene, the military has literally 10 guys pointing guns at two unarmed men. The leader yells, "Go get 'em!" and all 10 army guys, one at a time, drop their guns and fist fight the two adversaries! Instant classic!<br /><br />And don't worry. No attention to detail was left out! This movie even had a hip/upbeat '80's keyboard/synth soundtrack to set the mood!<br /><br />And trust me
I realize this review might contain some spoilers, but there are so many goodies in this epic I really only scratched the surface. A movie of this caliber only comes out once a decade! A true movie watching experience! A masterpiece! Wow! | negative |
With an opening segment that imitates the music and cinematography of Todd Haynes's Safe (1995), David Lynch uses dream, myth and warped notions of reality to tell the fractured story of a failed bit-part Hollywood actress/waitress, Diane Selwyn, let down by fame and her own demons and obsessed with Camilla Rhodes, who is engaged to hotshot director Adam Kesher.<br /><br />The film effectively takes place in Diane's drug-fueled head; we are witness to her crazy distortions, her wish-fulfillments, regrets, obsessions and fears. Using the dream narrative as a way of presenting two notions of reality in conflict, Lynch does not simplify the opposition between reality and fantasy but actively entangles them. The last 45 minutes are as dream-like as what came before; and the troublesome air of detached, otherworldly ambiguity still pervades, fracturing the seemingly secure distinction between reality and dream we expect to see in films about nightmares and dreams.<br /><br />Lynch's film borrows from many films, old and new, but ultimately is a film unlike any other with the exception of the director's own Lost Highway and Blue Velvet. It constantly challenges the viewer to interpret what is seen, not only intuitively but intellectually. Yet it is not as pretentious as one would have imagined because Lynch makes us sympathize with the protagonist despite her murderous deeds - an element that was missing in all of his other films except the Straight Story. He does this by presenting Diane's dream alter-ego, Betty, as a wholesome Canadian farm girl destined for fame. Lynch also presents us with an intriguing story that affirms and negates in equal measure. Are Camilla and Diane really lovers or just friends? Who is the blue-lady? What does she signify? Who is the bum behind Winkies? What is the significance of the rotting corpse at Sierra Bonita? Does Aunt Ruth really exist? Is silencio an abstraction of hell or perhaps a self-referential take on the film's status as fiction? Lynch isn't prepared to answer any question he poses, choosing instead to present his "love story in the city of dreams" as a set of interconnected abstractions and motifs.<br /><br />The acting is top rate, especially Naomi Watts as Diane Selwyn/Betty, who is yet to eclipse this performance. Laura Harring has the requisite Hayworthesque allure as Camilla/Rita, while Adam Theroux as Adam brings an freewheeling arrogance and sublimated paranoid aggression to his role. It was staggering and a grave injustice that not one of them was even nominated for an Academy Award.<br /><br />This is a film that demands to be seen and analyzed closely. The mystery at the heart of the film remains in Lynch's hands but half the fun is finding consistent ideas from the maze of seeming incongruities that he presents. Upon closer inspection there is a definite sense of a puzzle, perhaps an incomplete jigsaw that teases us with closure but denies the imaginary plenitude of narrative coherence. Ultimately, this is Lynch's key film. | positive |
This film has all the size and grandeur of many of the great biblical epics of the 1950's and '60's. But it is also perhaps the first that really humanizes the biblical characters themselves. The best thing about it is that it does not diminish them in the eyes of the viewer. This is a unique and compelling balance that helps us to realize that even great people like David are flawed people who find their faith and greatness in facing their flaws.<br /><br />The actors are all first rate in the film from Gilbert Barnett as David's second son Absolom through to the wonderful Susan Hayward as Bathsheba. Hayward is at her best in this film. Her own truthful but larger than life style of acting is quite at home here. She is ever the seductress, but she plays the role in such a way that you sympathize with her.<br /><br />Raymond Massey does a great job as Nathan the prophet. As a child when I first saw the film, Massey seemed like he truly had just conversed with the Lord himself and was an awesome sight. No doubt helped also by the great music composed by the always amazing Alfred Newman who also had great successes in other biblical epics like "The Robe" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" along with perhaps 100 other films too! The cinema photography by Leon Shamroy is well done and adds to the size but also the intimacy of the film. Henry King, a truly underrated film director who like William Wyler never really pigeon-holed himself into any one genre, pulls together a larger than life production that never loses sight of the love story between David and Bathsheba and David's own deep struggle with his faith in God. The path tread in this film could have been very hokey, but King keeps it real and interesting all the way. Plus we never lose the sense of mystery about trying to understand the will of God, just as David himself is struggling with the same. From the first scene where a soldier dies trying to save the ark from destruction. David is not satisfied with Nathan's answer, (to paraphrase)that no one can understand the will of God. This is the journey we embark on right through to the powerful ending where David is finally confronted with himself.<br /><br />Finally this film belongs to Gregory Peck who wonderful as King David. His David is a man you can believe could rule a country ruthlessly but was at one time a faithful singer of psalms. This is one of his best performances.<br /><br />I don't see this movie on television much anymore, but when I do I never fail to watch it. I think it still holds up very well today. | positive |
To those of you who've made comments on this film earlier and hoped to see it again, I hope you did. It was broadcast today (Nov. 28th,'04) on Lifetime movie network. I subscribe to Dish.<br /><br />Karen Arthur directed William Petersen and Barbara Hershey in this southwestern Gothic-like tale, expertly. The lighting, editing and dialog contributed greatly to the film and Hershey and Peterson were perfectly cast for the roles, both playing sensitive, bold and intuitive characters. The screen play was excellent, as well the supporting cast.<br /><br />Not having known ahead-of-time, I guessed correctly the story was based on truth, and now that I know it I must make the sojourn, as Santa Fe is a hop, skip and a jump from Tucson.<br /><br />As an engineer, I was fascinated with the theme of the unique construction of the staircase and the man who designed and built it (who was he? an angel?). But the storyline, and it's several plots, of how it came to be is what most captivates you. You certainly get a strong sense that God in His heaven was in every detail of this entire drama in history. For you who have seen the film, you know what I'm talking about. For those of you who haven't, I won't spoil a minute of it...<br /><br />Bon holiday,<br /><br />Bob Shank Jr, Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ | positive |
...there was "Broadcast News," and what a good thing it was. This one just plain stands up and sounds its barbaric yawp in a manner that resonates two decades later.<br /><br />There are moments -- especially with respect to the cutesy score -- when this film becomes a bit too eighties, or a bit too "Sleepless in Seattle." Fortunately, they're few and far between.<br /><br />One-third social satire, one-third romantic comedy, one-third drama, with three flawed but endearing people at its core, it's smart and moving and almost impossibly funny. Holly Hunter in particular may never have been more fun to watch in a comedic role. (And yes, I'm including "Raising Arizona," her other star turn from that era, in this assessment.)<br /><br />A legitimate classic. | positive |
The movie is not as funny as the director's preceding (and only other) movie, Shanghai Noon. Showtime did have its moments, but it did not satisfy me. Why it needed to be so foulmouthed, I don't know, but I give Showtime **/**** | negative |
Maaan, where do i start with this god awful movie. Bad bad bad story telling. I do not know what the director was thinking when he made this movie. Namaste London was quite an enjoyable movie to be honest..even the soundtrack was good. But in this one..oh my good..for a movie which is supposed to be a musical one..the songs are soooo bad. AR Rahman should have been the music director. <br /><br />Given two great actors a much better job should have been done by the director. Even though the first half sucks, the last 30 mins of the movie are OK. Performances from Salman and Ajay save the movie from being a total disaster.<br /><br />Watch it if you have nothing better to do. The last good movie from Bollywood i watched ( and i do watch a load of them) is Dev D and Wake Up Sid. | negative |
I really didn't like this film~!!!! it was boring and didn't interest me that much at all.. i'm more of an action girl, and it had NONE. i went and rented this movie because of the other comment that was left.. but was totally mislead! don't get this movie unless you like the dessert and plenty of boredom. i just really didn't like the movie. it wasn't my style, but it could be yours.. you would just have to watch the previews or something but it's my recommendation if you're a girl.. don't get this movie! This Scandinavian production draws on some of the observational strategies of Godfrey Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi, allowing us to reflect on patterns and phenomena of human and natural existence from both intimate and sweeping viewpoints. this just isn't for me! | negative |
I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armature production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although he physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas. <br /><br />Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters. <br /><br />It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.<br /><br />The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point. | negative |
It would be great if a discussion on this medium length film is initiated with a brief tale about hypocrisy of Hollywood people.It was in 1988 that Chuck Norris saw this film at Cannes International Film Festival.He made a silly remark by uttering that the senseless killing depicted in Dekalog 5 is far more effective than killings which have been filmed in his Hollywood films with him as a potent action star.He was speaking about an innocent taxi driver whose face is brutally disfigured in Kieslowski's film by a reckless psychopath who hits him cruelly with a big stone.There should be absolutely no justification for violence and its perpetrators in a dignified human society.This is the reason why Chuck Norris' statement appears as a cruel joke which defends violent means in a society which is increasing becoming restless.An honest reviewer would not be making a mistake if he/she states that Kieslowski's film "Dekalog: Dekalog,Piec (#1.5)" has universal connotations.This is because the events depicted in Dekalog 5 can happen in any part of world.The best lesson which Kielowski gives to us concerns levels of violence which are acceptable in a just society.This is the reason why the brutal slaying of an innocent cab driver is capable of causing a feeling of repugnance in us.We would not feel the same hatred for homicide when it appears in films featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger,Chuck Norris and Jean Claude Van Damme as they appear much too artificial.One can easily grasp that special effects and modern studio techniques can charm only toddlers but make no sense to serious film enthusiasts.Kieslowski also champions helplessness of human beings in rescuing fellow humans beings from the clutches of death and misery.This is particularly interesting as time and again it has been proved that strict laws and capital punishments have not been able to prevent homicide. | positive |
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose. | negative |
An MTV-style film crew consisting of American T.V. programme producer Zack Zardine (Matt Borlenghi) his camerawoman, the Australian Cecily (Kate Fisher) and two surfer 'dudes' named Bog Hall (Dax Miller) and Jeremy (Joel West) arrive on some nice looking island somewhere, it's not actually revealed where. The crew plan to shoot an expose on 'bloodsurfing' which is apparently the latest craze in extreme sports. Surfers throw bait into the sea and cut themselves to attract sharks, just to see if they can out-surf them without being eaten. Once there they are greeted by Sonny Lofranco (Cris Vertido) and his wife Melba (Susan Africa). Their search for the perfect location leads them to the shark infested waters of Lilo-Cay. Sonny, Melba and their daughter Lemmya (Maureen Larrazabal) take them in their boat. Soon after arriving and having already shot some 'bloodsurfing' footage Sonny, Melba and Lemmya are all killed by a 30 foot saltwater crocodile that some say 'owns' the island. The boat is sunk. Zack, Cecily, Bog and Jeremy appear stuck on the island until such time a rescue party arrives. However, after a run in with some, erm well I don't really know what they are. Pirates? Drug smugglers? Revolutionairies? Fat ugly people who just don't like being with other people? Who knows? And more importantly who cares? Not me that's for sure. Anyway, after escaping from these guys who look like pirates, they are picked up just off the coast of the island by Captain John Dirks (Duncan Regehr) and his girl Arty (Taryn Reif as Tara Reif). The film crew believe they have been saved. Little do they know that the crocodile and Captain Dirks go way back and he has a score to settle and four members of a film crew aren't going to stop him. Captain Dirks heads back to Lilo-Cay for a final showdown with the giant man-eating crocodile.<br /><br />Directed by James D.R. Hickox this is one awful film, but it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers Crocodile (2000). Everything about this film sucks. The script by Sam Bernard and Robert L.Levy is terrible, extremely slow as the crocodile isn't even seen or mentioned before the 30 minute mark and by that time I was seriously bored and annoyed with the hideously unlikeable characters thought up by Bernard and Levy. The whole film is also frustratingly predictable as well, within the first 10 minutes anyone familiar with horror film stereotypes and stock characters will be able to guess who dies and who will survive. The crocodile effects are awful and seem to be repeated over and over, there is a small puppet head that obviously has someones arm stuck inside it controlling it's movements as the water splashes become huge! The CGI shots of the crocodile are just plain embarrassing to watch. There is no gore apart from when a character is bitten in half which is achieved using CGI to digitally remove the actors legs, again it looks terrible. There is also a brief scene when someone is impaled on wooden spikes when they set a trap off. There is a reasonable amount of nudity and sex, plus the female actresses are nice and easy on the eye. There are basic continuity and logical errors in the film too, in one sequence Cecily is filming Bog and Jeremy 'bloodsurfing' but from the angle and distance she is at it would be physically impossible to obtain footage of both the sharks and surfers at the same time, and surely that is the whole point of her shot? When Dirks manages to harpoon the crocodile the angle of the wire changes dramatically between shots, in one shot the angle of the line looks like it's coming from the sky, in the shot straight after the angle is completely different and it seems as if the line is coming from below the surface of the water when in actual fact the harpoon is attached to the back of the boat and the line should be almost level with the surface. I could carry on, like why does the crocodile jump off the edge of a cliff if it's so smart as this film tries to make out? But I would probably exceed the 1000 word limit if I listed everything that was wrong with this film, so I won't. I hated this film, but rather scarily it's still not as bad as Tobe Hoopers effort at a giant crocodile film. Definitely one to avoid. | negative |
I didn't give this movie a perfect score in order to be honest in comparing to great classics like "Citizen Kane" and "Seven Samaurai." However, this movie is so all-around wonderful, it's a real shame it scores so poorly for the general IMDb voter. However, the IMDb voter leans to the geeky, and "Paulie" doesn't qualify for that.<br /><br />The only acting criticism I might suggest is that Hallie Kate Eisenberg didn't portray the perfect stuttering child. I'm sorry, but asking a 6 year-old child to out-do Dustin Hoffman as the Rainman is asking for the impossible in film-making.<br /><br />Moving past that minor complaint, the movie has the best of many films: buddy road-trip, con-games, hero as friendly party-animal (party-bird?), Disney-like humor for young and old, etc. What's not to like? Tony Shaloub wears his role like a pair of comfortable jeans. That's normal for him, it seems. ("I'm Russian... I LIKE long stories.) I don't like mangoes, but he almost makes me want to go out and buy one. Watch the movie and that will make sense.<br /><br />Buddy Hackett and Cheech Marin make very appropriate appearances in the film. Roles that are quite fitting to what we all know about them. I have always found Jay Mohr to be a bit slimy, and his on-screen role fits that as well. The only surprise to me was finding that Jay was also Paulie's voice. In the end, even that works well; put Parrot and anti-Parrot together as a team and it creates a magic of its own.<br /><br />If you are trying to find a film for you and the kids that is neither insulting nor boring for either, "Paulie" is a perfect candidate. I will, however, admit that a happy moment colors my review of "Paulie." I was on a road-trip during a major heat-wave. The car's air-conditioning died, half the restaurants had dead cooling (as did our hotel) and I said, "let's watch a movie where there is working air-conditioning." So we did. So for 100 minutes we were cooled, amused, and given a heart-warming experience. When I saw it recently on VCR under less emotional circumstances, I realized just how well this movie was made.<br /><br />It's a sleeper film you won't regret watching. | positive |
i love watching the Jericho mile. i mean watching peter Strauss run the mile is like watching usain bolt sprint the 100 meter. i think peter Strauss is a excellent actor and should do another running movie. he is lightning fast has great energy and can run a mile in under 4 minutes and that my friend is amazing. no man alive can out race rain Murphy i mean the man runs 80 mile a week no one does that but him. i've watched the Jericho mile 100's of times and will watch it 100's more. great movies get watched more than movies that are not. i thank the makers of this film for giving years of there lives to make it.they are great people and i bless them all.thank you for letting me get my word out again thank you all. | positive |
Critics claim that this film is one of the worst films ever. Watchers also claim the same. But there is a flip side to that coin. They are wrong, very wrong. It's the most clever film I've seen in ages...<br /><br />From beginning till end you see a story thats unrealistic. A story that reflexes the real world. This film is like a mirror. You see yourself in another way that people see you. To really understand the directors point of view, you have to see it another time...<br /><br />When you see this film...Try to understand the story (and watch the background)...Listen to the lyrics of the music...And smell the industrial complexes...<br /><br />This film is one of a kind. You'll hate it(most people do), or you'll love it(and understand it completely)<br /><br />Ernest Hemmingway once said:'the world is a fine place, and worth fighting for'. I agree with the second part. | positive |
My mistake for thinking this was a serious war-is-hell movie prior to seeing it. That all ended seconds into the film when the "MTV" logo appeared. It might as well been called "National Lampoon's Sexy-N-Loose." And it did play to the "MTV" crowd; the movie that followed those comical first few seconds played like the music videos they used to play 40+ years ago. At least Disney was smart enough to ship its Rated R stuff over to Touchtone and allowed us to take it seriously. Okay, I'm being harsh; it wasn't that bad of a film. However, it definitely has its share of overacting and the film is extremely biased/one-sided. Admittedly, I'm not a war movie buff. I can't watch 'Platoon,' 'Full Metal Jacket' or 'Saving Private Ryan' more than once. Sure they were good movies, but they're not my forte and they all seem to blend in after awhile to where I wouldn't be able to distinguish one from the next. Following a tour in Iraq, Phillippe plans life after the war but is drawn back in due to a clause in his contract. Or, at least, that's the military's plan until he goes AWOL and the characters speed cross-country on a few bucks amazingly never caught. No, I haven't been in any war, nor to Iraq, nor do I agree with it. I also don't have all the knowledge when it comes to recruitment or signing their contracts. I can say this: though I am sorry they're drawn back into this conflict, I can't feel too much for someone so dumb not to read the fine print. It's like someone on their deathbed leaning over to finally read the Surgeon General's warning on their box of cigarettes and say, "Oh, they're what? Deadly? I'll sue them!" | negative |
This was a truly insipid film. The performances are third rate, and the dialogue is so stilted that at times it seemed to have just rolled over and died. My reason for renting this was simple: Find a movie with scriptwriting. I needed a visual aid for my presentation, so I figured why not use a clip? Boy was I wrong. After searching my local video store, I came upon this, where it was suspiciously titled "Starstruck". I thought, "What the hey", and decided to give it a try. Well, I was very unhappy with my results. There was maybe one scene I could use, and meanwhile, I was practically falling asleep because of the sheer banality of the flick. So.....I took this back and picked up Ed Wood. There's a movie I can use as an example. Then again, anything would be presentable compared to the drivel that is "Starfucker". | negative |
This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong. | negative |
Between 1937 and 1939, Twentieth Century-Fox made a ton of Mr. Moto films. However, towards the end of the series, it was obvious that the studio had "jumped the shark", so to speak. This phrase indicates that a TV show has passed its prime and the executives in charge decided to invigorate the show by fundamentally changing the formula. For example, with "The Brady Bunch" they introduced the annoying 'Cousin Oliver' and with "Family Ties" they introduced a freak baby who grew up six years in only one season! With the Moto films, they'd jumped the shark by introducing comic relief because they thought that these intelligent films needed to be re-tooled. In the previous film, Warren Hymer played an annoying wrestler. And, in this film the character Archibald Featherstone appears. Featherstone might just be one of the most annoying examples of comic relief ever, as you kept hoping someone (preferably Moto) would kill him just to shut him up!! Although he's supposed to work for the famed Scotland Yard, he shows all the intelligence and acumen of a brain damaged turnip. Again and again, his scenes were boorish and unnecessary and Peter Lorre just looks pained as he stands there and watches this buffoon "act". It's so bad that it truly destroys what COULD have been one of the better Moto films due to its clever plot.<br /><br />As for the plot, the crown of the Queen of Sheba is discovered in the opening scene. Moto, now more of an international policeman than the amoral character he originally was, is on hand to protect the precious item from being stolen. In a great twist, several thieves all try to steal the crown independently of each other.<br /><br />Overall, the film is watchable but is also ample evidence that the Moto series should have ended here. With WWII approaching, the films couldn't have survived much longer anyway, as having a sympathetic Japanese leading character simply wouldn't have been accepted in the US or in allied countries. | negative |
Saw a trailer for this on another video, and decided to rent when it came out. Boy, was I disappointed! The story is extremely boring, the acting (aside from Christopher Walken) is bad, and I couldn't care less about the characters, aside from really wanting to see Nora's husband get thrashed. Christopher Walken's role is such a throw-away, what a tease! | negative |
Wow-this one sucks. I'm gonna sum it up as quickly as possible. <br /><br />A count invites 4 naive sluts back to his castle. A bunch of nothing happens for a long time. Some lame and un-erotic soft-core sex scenes happen. Some girls get their heads cut off (off-screen)-The End.<br /><br />The only things going for this one are the decent looking sets and costumes, some bad dubbing which leads to some unintentionally funny dialogue, and a few brief nudie shots. And believe me-those things are not enough to redeem the 90-minutes of tedium that this film is. In fact-the best part is the tacked on beginning from the distributor that features some slutty goth chicks covered in blood and showing their tits-and again-this is definitely not worth the price of admission for this garbage. As everyone else has noted- the title of the film is completely nonsensical-as there's absolutely no bloodsucking, nor dancing of any sort in the film at all. It may as well have been called 'The Goat-Raper Leads the Circle-Jerk'-and at least then it would have had a better title that also pertains to nothing in the film. An accurate title would have been '90 Minutes of Torture'-another alluring title that would have at least been truthful...for the viewer. Honestly-the trailer that's on the disc shows all the best parts (and i use the term 'best' extremely loosely...) so I highly suggest watching that instead if you're still curious. I can't imagine anyone liking this wreck of a film-please take my advice and leave this one on the shelf. 2/10 | negative |
The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show. | negative |
The original with Barbara Stanwyk is saved only by Stanwyk's performance. The story and the other performances are too sickeningly sweet and the film itself is too dated to be really enjoyed today. Bette Midler's version is much more interesting. She is Stella Claire, an independent, free-spirited single woman who gets pregnant and refuses help from her boyfriend (Stephen Collins) or her friend (John Goodman in an underrated performance). She raises her daughter Jenny played so sweetly by Trini Alvarado and then comes to the conclusion that Jenny's father can do better for her and ultimately makes a life-altering decision. Through out the film, there are plenty of laughs, tears and memorable moments mostly between Midler and Alvarado. Marsha Mason co-stars as Jenny's would-be stepmother, who though wealthy turns out to be a very good influence on her. If you like Midler, Goodman or just good films with plenty of emotion you'll enjoy Bette Midler's version of STELLA. | positive |
I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.<br /><br />It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...<br /><br />Simply... don't bother...<br /><br />And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ?????????? | negative |
Like I said at the top, four stars just aren't enough. It's one of the best films I've ever seen in my almost 17 years of life. For the people that don't really like it or understand it, you must not have a real appreciation for art or you might have a short attention span.<br /><br />Even if I haven't seen all his films yet, I'd have to say that this is Spielberg at his peak. It's pretty sad to see that movies as great as "The Color Purple" don't come along too often 'cause I think all of us are in desperate need of first-class motion picture entertainment in these hard times.<br /><br />Movies like this are more than just movies; they're pieces of art that need to be appreciated more.<br /><br />The idea that it was nominated for 11 Oscars (even Best Picture of the Year) and didn't get one trophy is a sign of how blind and stupid Hollywood can be sometimes. Spielberg wasn't even nominated for Best Director! It should have swept the Oscars that year.<br /><br />The film clearly shows you how unfair life is for some people.<br /><br />If only movies were still this good.... | positive |
What a waste of energy and money. What a waste of what talent there was.<br /><br />Emilio Estevez was completely wasted and mostly unused throughout. Jon Lovitz was very mildly amusing but pointless. Harry Dean Stanton - why bother? And was it just me or can Kari Wuhrer barely act in this one.<br /><br />The story was pretty non-existent and really disjointed. One of my biggest problems was the reaction of the characters to the events that transpired. Like the surf "dudes" giving up their lives every time they were threatened in the last half? How about that you NEVER saw them surf once!! The set-up to some scenes took way to long with not enough pay-off to make us give a damn. Nothing in this "movie" felt really true or genuine.<br /><br />The only good things I can say is some (very little) of the scenery was filmed nicely and a few scenes were mildly interesting. Don't see this when there is so many better pointless movies out there. | negative |
1st watched 2/9/2008, 4 out of 10(Dir-J.S. Cardone): Sexual political thriller that doesn't really succeed in any of these areas very well except early on where there are some interesting soft-core scenes. The movie starts off portraying a couple exploring their sexual fantasies amidst their work environments or wherever and whatever suits their fancy. The couple takes an excursion to a retreat and bathhouse where they run into a woman that's willing to be a part of a three-some and fulfill some of their fantasies. At this point, we only know that this couple is well off but we don't know until they return that the fiancé is part of a well-to-do political family. The man hopes to be on the rise to the point of possibly getting a congressional seat after the marriage. They then receive a package in the mail from an anonymous source with explicit pictures of their encounter at the bath house and their qwest begins as to how and why they were filmed, who sent the package, what they want, and how to clear their names before any of this gets out. This qwest becomes an obsession that leads them deeper into seedier worlds and takes a lot of their time, to the point where their friends & family wonder what they're doing all day and why they look rundown all the time. This movie is interesting at times but drifts into ridiculousness as they personally seek out the problem instead of getting the police involved early on because of their pride. This mistake, of course, keeps the movie going. The performances are fine despite the no-name cast but the lunacy of the situation overrides and the movie starts to become ho-hum about ½ the way through. And of course, they throw in a twist at the end that defies and challenges everything that happened prior(as is the norm these days when they don't know what else to do to spice up the movie). This doesn't help this movie one bit, though. | negative |
Running Man isn't a great movie, in fact it's kinda silly. But it delivers what you want in an Arnie movie and that is action and entertainment. I don't see how anyone couldn't enjoy this picture, it's so silly and over the top, that it almost makes fun of itself. By the way, this is probably one of the most quotable Arnie movies out there. | positive |
I saw "Rachel's Attic," thinking that I would be in for an enjoyably visceral, ride. However, it was not to be the case. Visceral, yes, but enjoyable? That would be a big, fat, no! In fact, the only reason that I gave it a "3," is due to the fact that Gunnar Hansen appears (ever so briefly) as one of the film's reprehensible characters. How they ever lured Mr. Hansen into this piece of...work, I'll never know. The story idea is interesting but poorly executed. The direction is pedestrian and the acting is mediocre. The only thing that is worse than that, are the special effects. YIKES!!! I've seen better effects in a grade school play. Give it up, Mr. W, it's time for a career change...I hear they're hiring at Mel's Diner! There are very few, well made, Inde movies coming out of Michigan...and "Rachel's Attic" isn't one of them. | negative |
When I watched this film the first time, it was a taped copy and the title was/is Caged Terror. I still own the tape, and I confess, I've watched it more than once from beginning to end! The film is extremely low budget and the dialogue is often unintentionally amusing! I have gotten a few of my friends to watch this and we've had some great laughs from the terrible script. The film concerns a couple, (remember this is like early 70's so they are just too hip man!) who go on a week-end camping trip in what I believe was supposed to be upstate NY. They have some hilarious dialogue after catching and eating a fish and the girl bemoans the death of the fish and that they ate it! The guy comes back with something goofy about how they ate the fish and now it was a part of them, and he goes; "And that's beautiful man!" Heavy man, really heavy! LOL! Anyway, along come a couple of Vietnam vets, one of who plays the flute, I believe. (At any rate they are musical fellows!) The guys are clearly attracted to the girl and when the couple prove unfriendly, they end up terrorizing them during the night. The guy ends up caged in a chicken coop, and has to watch his girl friend being ravished by the two guys. Actually, by the end of the night, she seems to be pretty into it, and when morning comes, the guys leave and the girl and guy are free to leave. Supposedly the guy has learned a lesson about how to treat people, and the girl has a smile on her face! :) Anyway, I would recommend this film highly to anyone looking for a damn good laugh! It never fails to amuse me anyway! If I could find this on DVD and replace my old tape copy, I'd actually buy it again, it's classic camp! You gotta love this stuff! | positive |
Young Erendira and her tyrranical Grandmother provide for a great fantasy from the new world. This interpretation of Gabriel Garcia Marquez'"La incréible y triste historia da la cándida Eréndira,..." may not rub Marquez purists the right way eventhough The story stays intact and still carries the full force of the work. The strength of this film is in its acting especially Papas as the Grandmother. Marquez fans and Marquez novices alike will enjoy this movie for its real gritty brand of witt. | positive |
These days, you rarely come by a kid's show that does not involve 1) a preteen/teen pop star who is as amusing as watching paint dry 2) involve a plot about finding the perfect date with a different guy/girl every time 3) revolves around erratic yelling and unintelligible humor. About 95% of shows on Disney, Nickelodeon, and Cartoon Network fit the listed criteria. To put in simpler terms, they all lack good acting, originality, and good story telling. It as if producers and writers think kids aren't smart enough to understand character development and plot detail. They couldn't be more unaware. Sure kids enjoy a good laugh and erratic behavior (if it's done to a conservative level and done right), but as they also want to enjoy a story, see drama, and see people being challenged. They don't want to see people living in a flawless world where they get everything they want. They know this world isn't all fun and games, they know it's not perfect. Everyone has problems, and we all must learn to work around them. This show revolves around that kind of stuff. Alex Mack is an average teenage girl who seems to have everything going for her genius sister, Annie. Her Mom works at some office but is sometimes a stay at home parent. Her dad, George, is a top scientist at the Plant, a chemical corporation that employs most of the town they live in, Paradise Valley. Alex is unpopular and picked on by most of her peers. Her only friend is Ray (but she gets more friends as the series goes). On her first day of Jr. High, Alex walks home not too happy about school, but a truck delivering chemicals from the plant crashes into a fire hydrant trying to avoid running her over, dumping a strange chemical known as GC-161, where the chemical mixes with the water, covering Alex in it. Soon after, she starts to develop strange powers such as morphing into a puddle, shooting lasers out of her hand, and moving things with her mind. She also glows constantly when nervous (though we never see much of that later on). Aside from her sister Annie and friend Ray, Alex decides to keep these powers a secret from everyone, even her parents for fear of being kidnapped by the Plant, whose corrupt owner, Danielle Atron has her head of Security, Vince, search for the mysterious GC161 kid. Every episode then deals with Alex trying to live a normal life as kid at the same time learning to live with her strange powers. The series may seem like a girls show, but it's not. As a boy, I liked watching this show because of its awesome effects and drama. The producers successfully add some elements of science fiction with the elements of teen drama. In fact, some episodes were quiet violent and a little eerie. The unfounded plant manager Atron and Vince make good antagonists for the series, for the writers really do establish them as a threat and give you that dreadful feeling every time they come on screen. Also, smart move adding David, driver of the truck that spilled the GC-161, as Vince's bumbling assistant in the hunt for comedic effect but also you get to love him towards the end. It was interesting to watch little Alex try to live as a normal kid but struggles to perfect her powers. At times, you forget that these are kids who are battling a giant Adult run institution, because you are drawn in to the story. The show does a good job of relating to kids by showing Alex that she may have super powers, but she still is a kid, and must be careful. Even some episode you'll find yourself distraught at Alex's calamities. My favorite episode where Alex wishes she was never born truly demonstrates most of these elements. As I said, the producers never hesitated to add in some laughs whether they come from Ray's one liner or George's strange habits or David trying to be a nice guy. Of course you come across corny moments and an entire episode that really has nothing to do with the series plot, but what good series doesn't? All in all great show. 9/10 | positive |
The movie starts with a nice song Looks like a thriller, with Arbaaz Khan walking around in a suspicious way but then suddenly we are forced to a comedy With the routine stupid idiots like GOLMAAL with Tusshar, Sharman, Kunal and Rajpal acting like grown up kids Their scenes are quite funny first and then get boring There is a bored sub plot of Tanushree's brother being killed Towards the end the film tries to get serious with the villain kidnapping our heroes but here it gets even stupid Then a lengthy bashing bashing climax straight out of HERA PHERI and wait, there is also a long chase in Payal's house<br /><br />The film is so boring that it makes you fall asleep<br /><br />Direction by Priyan is very bad music(Pritam) is routine except the first song<br /><br />Cinematography is bad, the film has a cheap look throughout<br /><br />Rajpal Yadav is good in his 1st scene where he goes to pay his rent and i was happy that the actor isn't loud and over the top like other films But No, He becomes his usual self and gets irritating most of the times Tusshar should not speak in a film, his dial delivery is terrible Sharman is the saving grace, He is the sole actor who acts very well in this film Kunal Khemmu tries hard in his first comic film as an adult, But doesn't impress much Tanushree is bad as always Arbaaz Khan gets less scope and is usual Payal is a non actress Murli Sharma is terrible | negative |
"Crush" examines female friendship, for the most part avoiding the saccharine quality which spoils so many films with the same theme (e. g., "Steel Magnolias"). At the same time, it reveals the power of a sudden passion to overwhelm and surprise. The events depicted were highly improbable, but the underlying emotional truth seemed very genuine to me. Not a film for the speeding-vehicle-and-explosion crowd, but grown-up women are certain to respond with both laughter and tears. | positive |
Anthony Minghela's (writer/director) Cold Mountain is a carefully constructed, sensitive, and intelligent drama set in the social context of the confederacy during the civil war, which deals with the politics of the war in a very subtle and realistic manner. While it accurately depicts the brutality and inhumanity of that war, it also does something that many films related to this period to not handle as effectively - Cold Mountain studies the southern context from the inside out, and portrays changes among the non-slave owning common people wrought by the war. And, almost uniquely, Cold Mountain does not over-generalize southerners, northerners or anybody else.<br /><br />The film surfs through genres as needed - never presenting a dull moment. It is a romance, a war story, an action-adventure and historical fiction, all nicely woven into one.<br /><br />The story centers on Inman (Jude Law) and Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman), who are smitten with each other for very simple reasons. As this young romance begins to bud, Inman enlists in the confederate army, taking with him a book Ada has given him and a photograph of her. Ada's character is one of the most brilliant aspects of the film, which is important because the audience experiences this film from a third person perspective, but the story is clearly hers from the beginning to the end. Ada is an intelligent southern belle and daughter of a liberal minister. She begins the film as a daddy's girl skilled in many of the arts that southern women who have been surrounded by servants most of their lives were expected to learn. In other words, as she admits to Ruby Thewes (Renee Zellweger), she is a master of everything useless.<br /><br />Ada's father passes on, and she is left to manage his modest estate by herself. With no experience of this sort, she struggles, and survives by holding the memory of Inman close to her heart. Ruby enters the picture as a tough young woman who has been raised by a drunk and negligent father. Ruby has all the skills and abilities Ada lacks, and as they become inseparable business partners, they grow to love one another as best friends. Inman's experience is radically different, but something of a mirror image. During his participation in the war, he sees many friends killed for causes they don't really believe in, and decides to desert. Nobody he meets comes to his rescue as he begins the thousand mile walk back to Cold Mountain and Ada, and most of those he meets die.<br /><br />The bulk of the film takes place during Inman's long walk, following both of the protagonists as they live, learn, grow and change. An on-going act of will borne of desperation preserves their intense passionate love. For Inman, it is his only source of hope in a world of pure desperation. For Ada, it is very much the same thing, but also a symbol and remnant of the old south - a world which is rapidly passing.<br /><br />The cinematography is powerful and breathtaking. There are beautiful shots of Appalachian landscapes which give the film a strong sense of history. The script and editing are also extremely strong - emphasizing the broad class and educational differences reflected in the ante bellum southern dialects of the middle and lower classes. With the cast of this film, nothing short of perfection should be expected. And the cast, mostly, rises to the occasion. My one criticism, however, relates to the accents adopted by Kidman and Law's characters. An Australian and a Brit probably should not be expected to accurately reproduce southern American speech, but there are a few occasions where these two exceptionally gifted actors produce distracting vocal slips. I admit my oversensitivity to this, and can say with some confidence that it won't bother most people. Zellweger's performance is outstanding and she creates a character I will remember into my senescence.<br /><br />Very highly recommended. | positive |
It is difficult to rate a writer/director's first effort. After all, it is one more movie than I have written or directed. James Hunter wrote a story that was interesting, but suffered from an uneven flow.<br /><br />After all, the idea that a man (Ja Rule) has to choose between the thug life and going straight is common, and even falling in love with the daughter (Tatyana Ali) of the man you killed has been done. Doing it again demands something that is original, and originality is lacking in this film.<br /><br />I was drawn by the inclusion of so many favorites: Tia Carrere (Trues Lies, Wayne's World), Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Frank Langella (Dracula, Good Night and Good Luck), and Ving Rhames (Rosewood, Dawn of the Dead). They did not disappoint in their performances, but they had little to work with.<br /><br />Direct to video is becoming more and more common, but that doesn't mean it has to be a waste of time. Maybe the sophomore effort of Hunter will be more enjoyable. | negative |
Pity the poor reviewer who disliked / didn't understand this wonderful film. What a sad life he must lead!<br /><br />This movie has more to say about life and relationships than most I've ever seen, yet it's not dark or preachy like the "ordinary people" type of film. It is mostly humorous, though not technically a comedy.<br /><br />The whole thing feels a little like a fantasy, perhaps Shakespear's "Midsummer Nights' Dream." Beautiful, intelligent women abound, with wonderful cinematography and a non-insulting screenplay that doesn't miss a beat.<br /><br />I look forward to seeing it every time this film is re-run on cable. It's like re-reading a favorite, treasured book. | positive |
Jeff Garlin's film is filled with heart and laughter. As in Curb Your Enthusiasm, his screen persona is hilarious; but in addition we get to see both warmth and a sense of emotional vulnerability that makes the story universal. While the film chronicles his character's dreams of love, performing success, and weight loss, it will appeal to anyone who dreams of a better life. The supporting cast brings the frustrations and joys of his life to the screen in funny and heartbreaking ways. The simple joys of food, friendship, and trying once again once life has disappointed us are all themes. The use of music is creative and adds to the many pleasures of this film. Any fan of Jeff Garlin's TV appearances must see it! | positive |
OK, OK, don't get bent out of round. I was kidding.<br /><br />"Bustin' Out" is actually a better and truer title anyhoo.<br /><br />Racism and crime dramas get the satiric treat meant from our X-rated animator friend Ralphie boy. And he does one of his better jobs here.<br /><br />On the crime front it shows the truth. They build it, defend it, then boredom and stronger rivals cause them to (maybe) lose it. See for yourself to see what goes down.<br /><br />Racist? I don't know. With Scatman (RIP) and the love walrus (also RIP) being black and the main point of view, I saw it as an attack on racism mostly. The fact that Richard Pryor liked it says as much as well. And the younger (pre "Miami Vice") Phil Mike Thomas in there was a nice surprise.<br /><br />It's an animated "Blacksploitation" film. That's a good thing. Done well and well done. It will make some squirm (like the lynching scene) but unfortunately that's based on fact.<br /><br />But Ralphie REALLY should have re-thought that title. | positive |
I've never found Charley Chase very funny, even though his on-screen character sometimes reminds me of John Cleese, whom I find VERY funny. (Charley Chase also reminds me of gowky Hen Broon from Scotland's 'Sunday Post' comics page.) In Chase's best films, I tend to admire his professionalism rather than laughing at him. I'll give Chase credit that his very best films -- such as 'Mighty Like a Moose' and 'His Wooden Wedding' -- have inspired a fandom who are fiercely loyal to him ... but I'm positive that even the most die-hard Chase fan will agree that the very early and very crude 'Married to Order' just isn't funny at all.<br /><br />Chase -- eager, awkward, gormless, naff -- is a young swain hoping to court the fair Rose. Oliver Hardy gives the best performance in this film as her blowhard father, who disdains Chase as a 'mollycoddle'. Leo White, who did more notable work as a foil for Chaplin at Essanay, is on hand here as a rival.<br /><br />There's some action involving an Ingersoll watch. I was intrigued that the brand name is mentioned in the dialogue titles: is this an early example of product-placement? <br /><br />Sadly, a major flaw in 'Married to Order' is the casting of Rosemary Theby as Rose: she's meant to be a standard-issue ingenue, but Theby -- flat-chested, hawk-faced -- is physically wrong for the role. Theby (the wife of Harry Myers) had a successful career as a screen actress, but was never a believable ingenue. Film historian William K Everson dealt with her very dismissively in one of his film books.<br /><br />I'll rate 'Married to Order' just 3 out of 10, and I'm being charitable ... because I keep suspecting that Charley Chase has got something that everyone else gets but I keep missing. | negative |
The "House of Dracula" really has nothing new to offer in the way of chills or thrills or new twists on an already tired storyline. This film was made as a hasty sequel to the fairly better made "House of Frankenstein" from a year earlier. In "House of Dracula" you can see the factory like production values of 1945 taking their toll on an otherwise potentially scary movie. Stock footage from previous films in the series and then the ending from "Ghost of Frankenstein" used as the ending here just makes for an "el cheepo" flick. Therein lies the shame of the studio and the producer considering that they had top notch talent and merely wasted everybody's time and effort on a quick money return scheme. But that seems to have been the trend all throughout Hollywood at the end of WWII. This is what brought on some of those mindless SciFi pics of the 1950's with all their closeups of harmless lizards in order to make them appear as dinosaurs. The days of James Whale and Val Lewton, to mention two, were over as far as creating real mood and atmosphere in this genre. Keep in mind also that the makeup genius, Jack Pierce, who actually did medical research in order to create all of our favorites, was summarily fired right after this particular film was released. A lesser capable makeup man by the name of Bud Westmore was then hired as the head of this department at Universal, soon to be Universal-International. Not to denigrate Mr. Westmore's ability but horror films were just not his forte. OK, to watch or not to watch. Watch this film but only as part of the chronological order of the Frankenstein series and you'll see how this all ended up as comic fodder for Abbott & Costello. | positive |
This is a terrible film. Angie Dickenson is a class act and always does well, but she does not get many roles any more and she must have needed some money to do this film. By the way, she is on screen less than 10 minutes. Oooh, wait, there is one redeeming feature in this film: Meg Foster has a small part in this film. Now, Meg has been on the screen for 35 years and is not particularly great but she has the scariest eyes of any actress I have ever seen. By name, you probably don't know her, but one look at her eyes and you will recognize her. To summarize: the acting is horrid, the story bad, and even the filmography is dreadful. A screen going to black every time the director wants to change scenes is pretty moronic. Watch any thing else but this, even Mr Ed reruns! | negative |
Not as well known as the English, American, German and French cinema, though cinema from Sweden from the '20's was also quite good, interesting and revolutionary.<br /><br />This is a movie that is made great by its story. The story is told in 'A Christmas Carol' kind of way, in which the death himself confronts the deceased with his past, present and what could have been. It's of course a story that concentrates on morals and it does this very well. The message comes across as very powerful and effective. This is of course also definitely due to the effective directing from the father of Swedish cinema; Victor Sjöström.<br /><br />The story is based on the novel by other Swedish author Selma Lagerlöf. The story is adapted by Victor Sjöström himself, who perhaps should had taken out a few more elements, to let the story and movie flow better. It perhaps takes a bit too long before the movie starts to take form and the story gets clear but when the movie does take form and pace it becomes a really wonderful one.<br /><br />The movie does not only have a great story, it also is a good looking one. The movie uses some early and effective effects and uses some different color filters to create the right mood and to indicate what it past, present and 'future'.<br /><br />Sjöström did not only wrote and directed this movie, he also plays the main character. Of course the acting in the movie is over-the-top at times, by todays standards but not as bad as in for instance early German movies was the case. And after all, this movie is more about its story and morals than it is about the acting, so it really doesn't matter much, or distracts.<br /><br />A really great and effective underrated silent-movie classic from Sweden.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
A cannibalistic backwoods killer is on the prowl and two bickering couples might be his next source of protein in this bargain basement Friday the 13th-clone cheapie. There s literally nothing of interest to see in this one, the killings are surprisingly sparse and when they do happen, completely amateurish. It also adds ghosts into the mix for no reason what so ever. I felt drained after watching it as if my brain was liquefying and draining out my nose. And it remains without a doubt Donald Jones' worst movie. If you're thinking of renting it because of Code Red's snazzy new DVD re-release Don't bother<br /><br />My Grade: F | negative |
If you are home on a weekend, very bored and lack the will to move, with absolutely nothing better to do with your life for the next couple of hours you could enjoy making fun of this movie. The acting and script and general movie making of this film isn't actually all that bad, which is why it makes it possible to actually sit through this. This is defitnly a movie they would show in high school health class to teach the dangers of pre-marital sex. Or they could also show it to teach the dangers of very lame music - that 'rock' band Brian Austin Green is in is really terrible, I think thats a much greater threat to society than unwed parents. | negative |
More of a mystery movie with some gratuitous horror elements thrown in; mediocre overall.<br /><br />It starts with a woman having a nightmare in which her sex partner gets out of bed, goes into the room of her crying child, and kills it. She wakes up. Then, that man is dying in a hospital, spitting up blood. His estranged daughter arrives, and he manages to contact her through her dreams (I think), and he wants her to find out who killed him before his body entirely decomposes in its grave.<br /><br />There's not too much mystery about who did it, or even how; most viewers will have figured that out long before it is revealed. I'm not sure the way he was killed would really have worked.<br /><br />Anyway, the horror elements get in through: a gory autopsy, the recurring dream of the man killing the boy, a nightmare in which a plate of eggs turn into eyes which are then cut, and several shots of the decomposing man both in nightmares and actually in his grave.<br /><br />I was a little surprised to see a dedication in the end by Fulci to Clive Barker! Interesting. | negative |
I would like to start by saying I can only hope that the makers of this movie and it's sister film The Intruder (directed by the great unheralded stylist auteur that is Jopi Burnama) know in their hearts just how much pleasure they have brought to me and my friends in the sleepy north eastern town of Jarrow.<br /><br />From the opening pre credit sequence which manages to drag ever so slightly despite containing a man crashing through a window on a motorbike, the pitiless destruction of a silence lab, the introduction of one of the most simultaneously annoying and anaemic bad guys in movie history and costume design that Jean Paul Gautier would find ott and garish. Make no mistake; this is a truly unique experience. Early highlight - an explosion (get used to it, plenty more where that came from!) followed by a close up of our chubby heroine and the most hilarious line reading of the word "dad" in living memory. And then... the theme song...<br /><br />Yeah, this deserves its own paragraph. Sung by AJ, written by people who really should wish to remain anonymous, it makes the songs written for the Rocky films sound like Schubert. This is crap 80's hero motivation narcissism at an all time high, with choice lyrics such as "its only me and you, its come down to the wire" and much talk of having to "cross the line" (it'll make sense in time - our hero cares little for the boundaries of bona fida police work) abounding. Not to mention the Indonesian Supremes cooing the film's title seductively. At this point anyone wishing to switch off officially has no pulse.<br /><br />Our hero is Semitic cop Peter Goldson (essayed brilliantly by Intruder star Peter O'Brien), the "stabilizer" of the title. The man's bull in a china shop approach to crime fighting and particularly his less than inconspicuous undercover work truly leaves much to be desired, but he is without question an entertaining guide through the mean streets of downtown Jakarta, with local sleaze ball connection Captain Johnny in tow, as well as Peter's own waste of space partner in fashion crime Sylvia Nash, who does little. So many highlights, so little time - the "slide please" arrogance of Peter's not all too convincingly argued case against chief baddie Greg Rainmaker (Intruder fans will know hirsute slimy bastard Craig Gavin as the monstrous John White - helluva name eh? No! Oh well...), the x marks the spot location map stupidity, our hero taking horrible advantage of heroine Tina Probost during a moment of weakness on her behalf, the latter turning up at a sting operation dressed like a member of a particularly flamboyant dancing troop. And believe me that barely covers it.<br /><br />There wasn't even time to go into the plot revolving around the hunt for a drug detection system and a kidnapped professor with an alarming but commendable amount of national pride. Or our hero turning up at a funeral dressed as if an extra on Boogie Nights. Or the absolutely hysterical craic between Captain Johnny and Goldson - two guys have never made more heavy weather of buddy buddy shtick than these clowns. The trowel was possibly too subtle me thinks.<br /><br />Ah it tails off people, and you never thought scenes of wanton destruction and general mayhem could be so unbelievably boring, but the character interaction is stupendous, the dialogue truly priceless and the incompetence on show somehow endearing. Oh and the shoes people - watch out for the shoes! | positive |