text
stringlengths 49
9.95k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
<br /><br />I understand that people have different expectations of low-budget, arthouse movies. I also know that John Sayles has a sort of glow about him, that earthy, intellectual anti-hollywood vibe, a la Tim Robbins, the Coen brothers and Atom Egoyan, that makes him a darling with the critics from the get-go.<br /><br />But this is not a good movie. I'm sorry, it just isn't.<br /><br />It meanders. It has too many characters. Its tone is uneven, its point of view is muddled, the acting is all over the board, from naturalistic to over the top. It lingers for long moments with minor characters we don't care about and cuts away from tense scenes just when things are getting good.<br /><br />It misses the mark.<br /><br />The worst flaw in the movie is that the two closest things to a protagonist, Edie Falco's Marly and Angela Bassett's Desiree, are straight-jacketed in characters that have no drive. Marly is an apathetic drunk, steeped in her life's own inertia. Desiree is a woman trapped in her own repressed pain. When your two main characters' world-views can be summed up with the phrases "I don't care" and "I want to leave here," why should the audience give a rat's patootie?<br /><br />I'll be plain: Sayles writes funny dialogue. He's very adept at crafting a scene. The problem is, these scenes don't go anywhere. There's no spine to the movie. No drive. The movie doesn't create rooting interest in any of the characters. In my opinion, he's also too preachy about big bad corporate America gobbling up the little guy. <br /><br />If you want to see a quality "small" movie, see David Lynch's "Straight Story." Pass this one up. | 0 | negative |
I watched the 1st scarecrow movie and didn't bag out that one, though i knew it was b grade it actually had some decent gore and the guy playing the scarecrow was an awesome acrobat and had some good skills going. The effects were better and the costume looked heaps better then this movie.<br /><br />I borrowed this one with an open mind, i am also a fan of ken shamrock (former ufc superfight champ) and was hoping it was a decent movie.<br /><br />Boy was i wrong, the movie sucked, the monster was pathetic in both appearance and in actually being scary, the storyline was SO predictable it was like watching the movie in preview mode, as i already would guess what will happen, the music was so bad, with a horrible lip sync song that made me wanna punch the screen.<br /><br />Overall avoid this crappy movie.<br /><br />Save some money. | 0 | negative |
I really enjoyed this movie and I usually don't like animated pictures. But I thought the cats were appealing and the story line was charming. There is a good song called "Everybody wants to be a cat," that is a lot of fun. It has some comic moments and is an interesting adventure. I think it helps to be an avid cat lover to enjoy this film. | 1 | positive |
What can i say about Tromeo and Juliet, other than if you like twisted Troma machinations, then you MUST see this movie! This is my absolute favorite Troma flick, and i have seen almost all of them! Penis monsters, cecsarian births to live rats and popcorn, lesbianism, steamy sex scenes in plexiglass boxes, incest, nipple piercing, dismemberment, shameless Troma plugs, and computer masturbation...How can one go wrong? It amazingly follows the original story very closely. YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE!!!! OH, and speaking of shameless plugs...Check out Jane Jensen's "Comic Book Whore" CD on Interscope records. It is awesome! | 1 | positive |
as a former TV editor, I can say this is as authentic as it gets. It even led to Letterman's producer (thought to be a source) resigning (eventually) in real life. Letterman was outraged (OK, so one goofy thing is it has him throwing softballs at a tire swing on his estate; total fabrication) but the main information is hilariously true, from the silly bidding war for Letterman once he decided to leave NBC to Leno's problems with an agent who was not ready for big time, but who he let run the show (almost to a disastrous exit) out of his famed loyalty. If any of you kids don't grasp the idea of why Letterman is jealous to this day, see this tape. | 1 | positive |
This documentary about the life and comedy of Bill Hicks features bits from Hicks' "Revelations" and other stand-up gigs. It also features interviews with fellow comedians and people in the industry who knew him, as well as reporters and journalists who talk about how his political commentary was raw and brutal.<br /><br />I enjoyed it very much. I had already seen "Revelations" but the comedy clips were still refreshing. It's a nice balance of comedy and documentary that will explain Hicks' popularity to non-fans and please those who are already familiar with him.<br /><br />I rated it a ten. | 1 | positive |
I am appalled and dismayed that the Network has canceled Talk Show with Spike Feresten !!<br /><br />What is wrong with The Fox Television Network, Canceling Talk Show With Spike Feresten and replacing it with Wanda Sikes? For those at the Network with a short attention span, Wanda At Large was canceled because the audience grew tired of her nasty insults that would make the audience cringe, and Wanda Sykes spewing out her very own brand of vindictive mud slinging jokes is not humor, it is nasty and repulsive.<br /><br />Apparently The Fox Television Network has rewarded Wanda Sikes because she has garnered a self important appearance front of President Barak Obama. There is no doubt that Wanda's recent ill tempered in front of the President of The United States are not funny and the audience laughter was only to patronize and please Barak Obama.<br /><br />Talk Show with Spike Feresten has a genuine sense of humor and has never deliberately or vindictively insulted any guest or performer. Spike's well rounded personality always gleefully, poked fun of life and himself.and his Filed Pieces during the first two seasons with AFTRA Actress Mary Mae Atwill, as the Mae West of the 21st Century were absolutely hysterical with Spike Feresten's skits:Judge Joe Brown, Trading Spouses and Last Season's James Kyson Lee Episode where Spike chats with Erica via the Internet on the show. <br /><br />Despite the Network's budget constraints for elaborate field pieces and the Second Season's WGA Strike, Spike Feresten did not waiver his sense of humor or show integrity. Talk Show with Spike Feresten always had up in coming new talent and his Comedy for Stoners spoofs of Nanny 911 and Idiot Paparazzi were considered cutting edge and had excellent production value. <br /><br />On a professional level, Spike Feresten, was the best Executive Producers, and Set Producer, Brett Webster along with his fabulous production crew were one of the best production teams that I have worked for in my AFTRA Career .It would really be very foolish and sad shame to cancel Talk Show with Spike Feresten. <br /><br />Unfortunately, its success could conceivably be taken to Comedy Central or another Network and Financially speaking, that would become a valuable revenue loss for FOX Television..<br /><br />On behalf of the late night Saturday Fox Television audience, supporters of Talk Show with Spike Feresten, including all cast and crew, we beseech the Network to retain the Talk Show With Spike Feresten Franchise and give the crew a second opportunity to become a successful Fox Show. | 1 | positive |
I can't remember when was the last time I have been so terribly disappointed by any movie. Probably I expected too much happening (in a way you can expect action in dogma style movies of course). But there is just nothing going on in here. Luckily I was watching it at home and could switch channels whenever the silence and dumb/numb faces started to kill me. And that was very often! It really isn't too much of a pleasure watching ugly people who don't talk and move slowly, stroke pigs and french kiss men, not to mention ugly bodies having explicit sex. If only it made any sense... the whole murder situation is ridiculous; seems like it was only created to show one more vagina since zero characters are capable of actually solving the crime. Having only four pseudo developed characters and a movie going nowhere it is pretty soon obvious whom the director picked as a killer. And that makes no sence either. Despite all the boredom and suffering I must admit that it somehow touched me in an unexplainable way. Maybe you should check it out yourself though I don't recommend it. | 0 | negative |
For the first fifteen minutes the story of NAKED FAME is interesting: two late thirties male porn stars in a seemingly healthy relationship decide to leave the Porn industry and try for the world of singing and acting. The two very buff and preening men are Colton Ford and Blake Harper. With the aid of Kevin Aviance and Marc Berkely, Colton makes a dance track that is then marketed in New York with the hopes that Colton Ford will become an instant star - a unique disco singer touting his background as a Porn Star for PR.<br /><br />The remainder of the film is grumbling and in-fighting and commentary by Porn Producer ChiChi LaRue and the film slowly sinks into repetition and doldrums. Not a bad idea for a film if there were a bit more depth revealed in each character's drive to move away form a successful career (though one greatly influenced by the youth both characters have lost) into an alternative one. It is just that a one-note song wears thin quickly. Grady Harp, November 05 | 0 | negative |
I'd have little to add to bowlofsoul23's bull's-eye comment here. But as the first Brazilian (born, raised and living in Rio de Janeiro, in a neighborhood just a few miles away from the favela of Vigário Geral, depicted in the film) to comment on U.S.-financed "Favela Rising" here on IMDb, I get mixed feelings: on the one hand, it's good that the dire situation of Brazilian favelas are getting more attention from filmmakers and the media, both from Brazil and abroad, since local governments seem to have given up a long time ago. One the other hand, it's incredibly frustrating that "Favela Rising" turns out to be such a missed opportunity for enlightening Non-Brazilian audiences on the issue, because first-time directors Jeff Zimbalist and Matt Mochary (who are from the U.S. and, understandably, neophytes on the matter) turn the biography of AfroReggae group leader Anderson Sá into a glamorous canonization in this superficial, one-sided, under-researched and misleading documentary. Good intentions, muddled results. "Favela Rising" looks like a TV-ad, is shallow as a prime-time TV interview, and biased as a promotional video.<br /><br />"Favela Rising" feels uncomfortably phony for a Brazilian viewer, and not only because of its hype visual treatment of a bleak reality, and its misplaced feel-good happy- ending. "City of God" is an obvious reference here, with COG actors Leandro Firmino and Jonathan Haagensen cameoing for no apparent reason other than "hype". "Favela Rising" is, allegedly, a documentary about the AfroReggae group and its leader Anderson Sá, but beware: when you see the scenes shot in favelas overlooking the beautiful Rio shore line, you might as well be warned that Vigário Geral (the home of AfroReggae and Anderson) is located in an area of Rio far away from ANY beach. Strange choice of location, to say the least.<br /><br />"Favela Rising" is probably confusing for non-Brazilians, who won't know many of the interviewees (and the film won't tell them either) and will have to wait for the closing credits to find out that many of the songs on the soundtrack are NOT by the AfroReggae Band (though you'll get suspicious when you start to hear Pink Martini, of all people!). They won't know either that important issues were simply left unmentioned: why does the film push the notion that AfroReggae is a one-man project? Why not acknowledge the many partners who supply it with substantial financial and logistic support, like Rio's City Council, private Brazilian corporations, multinational recording companies and international NGOs, without which AfroReggae might not even subsist? Why not state clearly that Vigário Geral is still plagued by violent drug wars, and that its dwellers still live in constant fear of attacks by traffickers and cops? Why not state clearly that many of the archive footage clips showing police violence and corruption did NOT take place in Vigário Geral? HOW and WHY did the kid Richard Murilo finally join AfroReggae? WHY on freaking earth wasn't he interviewed once again at the end of the film?<br /><br />As for Anderson himself, the film leaves a lot of loose ends for the viewer: what's the story about Anderson having "two" mothers? Is the baby he holds in his arms his son? Why is he inspired by Shiva? Is he a Buddhist? Why does a Candomblé woman appear on the beach when the films mentions Anderson's "miraculous" recovery from the accident? Is he a Candomblé follower? Why not let him explain the contradiction of starting a group that fights drugs and simultaneously praises Bob Marley? If AfroReggae is also a pride-building movement for black people from favelas, why are the girls in the AfroReggae band limited to booty-bouncing routines? No, you won't get any answers to these questions either.<br /><br />Instead, the filmmakers are interested in turning Anderson Sá into a composite mix of pop-star, Malcolm X, Gandhi and Christ (check out that last image of the statue of Christ the Redeemer atop Corcovado hill, immediately after showing Anderson "miraculously" walking after his surgery). And that's the WORST thing the filmmakers could do to Anderson and his cause: turn him into a special CHOSEN one (by the time they show his surgery scar, you're ready to believe it's a mark from God). <br /><br />Because what's remarkable about Anderson -- who's the most ordinary guy you could ever meet -- is that he helped change his environment NOT by being "special" but by copying and adapting winning projects (like the Olodum movement in Bahia, among others) to his own community, with strong support by friends, artists, intellectuals, politicians, businessmen and the media. If you're not fluent in Portuguese you probably won't notice that Anderson isn't particularly bright or articulate (unlike his sharply witty partner José Junior), as much as he isn't particularly talented as a singer, lyricist or musician. Yet his "ordinariness" might have been the film's true "inspirational" core: to show that ANYONE with idealism, perseverance and steady support can in fact contribute significantly to his or her community, no need to be Jesus incarnate. Because what really matters is the movement -- AfroReggae -- not the guy, see? Haven't we had enough of personality cult? <br /><br />By the end of "Favela Rising", you probably won't know much more about Rio's favelas than you did when you walked in -- you'll just have SEEN what some of them look like. | 0 | negative |
This film tells the true story of escaped black slaves who found their own mountain-top commune as free men in 17th-century Brazil. The story is interesting and edifying. However, this film -- as a film -- is terrible.<br /><br />The soundtrack is not period music or tribal music. It is Afro-Brazilian pop music from the early 1980s. Battle scenes are fought to the sounds of cheesy pop rhythms best left to the disco or bad cops dramas. Admittedly, the lyrics are folk-ish tales of the slaves' heroism. The special effects are absurd. Rather than invoke the mysticism of African religion and atavistic beliefs, they merely make the film look cheap. They are completely unbelievable, and I don't mean merely in a sense of verisimilitude.<br /><br />Life within the commune of Palmares could not have been the way it is portrayed in the film. For this society, as shown in the film, is one-part kibbutz, one-part Afro-pop festival. Moreover, it is almost embarrassing to watch the director play upon the clichés of blacks as talented singers and dancers who simply want to be happy. He portrays daily life as a series of dance parties in which the freed slaves paint themselves bright colors and whirl around to the strains of '80s pop music. On the other hand, they have an abundance of beautiful food, but the viewer hardly sees any work being done. The king inveighs against private property in a hackneyed and clichéd way. When a man complains that people are taking the vegetables that he has grown over many months, the king says, "What comes from the earth belongs to everyone, as the earth belongs to no one. If they need food, they have a right to take yours."<br /><br />I am glad that I learned about this episode in history, but I am relieved that a film with such low production values and that trades upon such worn stereotypes would likely not be made today. | 0 | negative |
This is a film that left me breathless........ wanting to learn more of the Afghan history and traditions. With todays "evil doer" mantra clouding reality, it was inspirational to experience the beauty of the people and their beliefs.<br /><br />Casting was impeccable, the scenery simply marvelous. The acting was first rate and the fact that the Academy overlooked this (except it's music) is unforgivable.<br /><br />The script is wonderful and such and emotional journey. Provoking an "ugly cry" from this watcher.<br /><br />A film worth watching a second and third time. | 1 | positive |
As bad as this movie is, I really like it. The poor acting, dialogue and action made it so funny. I loved John Travis from Omega Cop and stayed up all night working out how the Death Machines checked in at the airport if they can't speak, probably had to shake/nod at the security questions. Actually why can't they speak!? It fails to adhere to any sort of movie making convention which makes it strangely interesting to watch- just lots of people getting killed around a very loose plot surrounding hired killers - no "machines" as such and those weird face/mountain things on the front cover and the trailer do not appear! I love the fact that there is no good guy in this film until about half way through and I love the numerous pointless scenes of that aeroplane landing - lots of people get killed who have nothing to do with the "plot" and no explanation is given about anything - DO NOT expect to understand this film. Instead admire how the main good guy can't even handle a random old guy in the bar - who is presented as the bad guy yet speaks out against the barman's decision to hire a scantily clad woman to dance badly in the corner for "entertainment" - all the good guys seem to enjoy this! Why did old guy get to beat up our hero - and why did the random bloke decide to help old guy in the fight?! Why did the hero collapse under one punch from old guy onto the bar where a stream of water jets out in the background so it looks like it's coming from his mouth? Definite Top 20 B-Movie, must check for a part 2. | 0 | negative |
This movie was well acted and kept my interest in the main character for the entire movie. Stu Unger lived an extraordinary life. Imagine if Stu were alive today! This movie paints a picture of what Stu Unger's life might have felt like. It was interesting to see how connected was growing up. I would have liked to seen more detail on Stu's partying, his gamesmanship and his relationship to Bob Stupak. But all in all, this movie was well done, well acted and the story touched on many facets of a life that was full of many events that were larger than life.<br /><br />This movie is worth renting. | 1 | positive |
From the acting, direction, scriptwriting and art direction this film is just entirely ill conceived and the money would have been better spent on shoes for land mine victims. When did we get so sad that they have to fill a a children's movie with sexual innuendo to keep the parents attention.<br /><br />Dr Suess is rolling in his grave right now, what with the "dirty ho" "S.H.I.T" and fake erection scenes etc etc etc. Its shameful how they trade on the name of Suess to get the parents to bring their kids, throw in the profanities to try for the teens and a few sad parents who won't watch a a film with their child if there is no T & A. Greed greed and more greed.<br /><br />Compare this to the classic children's films and we can get a disturbing view of world is turning into. These guys should stick to making MTV videos. How on earth this movie got >400 votes as a perfect 10 is beyond me. (unless its the directors family) | 0 | negative |
I have no read the novel on which "The Kite Runner" is based. My wife and daughter, who did, thought the movie fell a long way short of the book, and I'm prepared to take their word for it. But, on its own, the movie is good -- not great but good. How accurately does it portray the havoc created by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? How convincingly does it show the intolerant Taliban regime that followed? I'd rate it C+ on the first and B+ on the second. The human story, the Afghan-American who returned to the country to rescue the son of his childhood playmate, is well done but it is on this count particularly that I'm told the book was far more convincing than the movie. The most exciting part of the film, however -- the kite contests in Kabul and, later, a mini-contest in California -- cannot have been equaled by the book. I'd wager money on that. | 1 | positive |
This episode was boring and was not even in the realm of horror, so far this season Masters of Horror has produced one really good episode...The Damned Thing...it is still early, I have faith that the episodes will get better. I admit that the vampire episode was okay but lacked a solid storyline. The episode about the couple catching the serial killer started out boring, but the last fifteen minutes was really good. Though, I am just plain out disappointed with the lack of originality and horror that the first season's episodes possessed. Please, save this season John Carpenter! I have faith that Pro-Life will redeem the entire lackluster season so far.<br /><br />"You're an angry little elf!" | 0 | negative |
Having been a Marine, I can tell you that the D.I. is as accurate a portrayal to date depicting Marine Corp boot camp and how boys are turned into men. Jack Webb is excellent as Sgt.Jim Moore, a tough, but fair drill instructor in Paris Island North Carolina. The film centers on one recruit who doesn't seem to "get with the program." A more recent film, Full Metal Jacket, also shows life in basic training and is well worth viewing. | 1 | positive |
this attempt at a "thriller" would have no substance at all! Some may state that this movie "has it all?" Autism, arson, robbery, lost love, a bag of money, cut throats, murder, blood, a snub nosed revolver, clenched teeth groaning, boobs (various definitions can be used), large flashlights, tribal people, a brother duo attempting to out-portray "dumb and dumber," white wolves, fight scenes that resemble "happy slapping," snow mobile(s), a large tracked vehicle, and a motel under renovation? All this, with an "Enyanesque" melody toward the end ...<br /><br />Perhaps my rating is a bit harsh, but one viewing will certainly be enough for the sane cinemaphile with nothing else to do. <br /><br />Yeowza! | 0 | negative |
This is one of the best thrillers I've seen. It's intelligently made and brilliantly filmed, and is one of the few thrillers that creates complex, interesting characters and makes the movie about them, not the action. I would recommend it to just about anyone, especially people who like movies with both style and substance. | 1 | positive |
One way or the other, you can't get away from the basic message. The strong survive. Those who are psychically or emotionally sensitive, leave. They leave a hole behind in the lives of those who love them. A hole that is seen in it's finality as selfish. That's what Phoebe realizes in the end. Just prior to helping Wolf heal from his self-blame. She can accept closure to the missing ...of her sister. Beautiful European scenery. A lot of truth in it about idealism and addiction to the next big moment. For a moment, I thought of the Baader-Meinhoff gang who was around in the early 70s. I liked this movie as it reflected a time when I came of age myself. | 1 | positive |
I would give this television series a 10 plus if i could. The writers were "smack on" and I think the best actors and actresses were a bonus to the show.These characters were so real. One could tell that from the two main actresses Ms. Toussaint & Ms. Potts that their relationship on & off camera was genuine It didn't just end when you hear those familiar words "Cut" at the end of a "Take". The show has thought me a lot about life for e.g. Historical struggles, tragedies and triumphs,relationships,every day situations, every household have same situations no matter who the members are, it really came down to just being a wonderful family show that at the end of every episode, you can just sit on your living room couch and say to yourself "now what did i learn from this particular episode".<br /><br />I must say I have taped most of the episodes and i find myself watching them over and over again.<br /><br />Now you know why I gave it a 10+!! | 1 | positive |
Great artists, always suffered while they were young. I could mention Mozart and Beethoven, but that is not the point. <br /><br />This movie was made by H-G Clouzot whose family wanted him to succeed in the Law professions.<br /><br />Its main star is Louis Jouvet who studied and practiced as as pharmacist before becoming "The Greatest Actor" and also director of France's Theater before and after WWII.<br /><br />They both had health problems. Clouzot had TB while young, Jouvet had cardiac problems and died on a theater..<br /><br />Such events shape the character of men (and women, of course). One might even say that today's Artists are so poor, because they had never suffered and fought for their lives.<br /><br />To me, this is the greatest of Clouzot's movies. "Wages of Fear" is greater in "suspense", "Diabolique" also has more "suspense" and a better plot and is more about "female evil".<br /><br />Quai des Orfèvres is more human. Clouzot was falsely accused by De Gaulle's entourage (mostly communists and Jews) of collaboration with the Nazis and banned from making films until until De Gaulle left France's Government in early 1946. De Gaulle came back in 1958, as President.<br /><br />The main characters are all good souls: Jenny L'Amour may perform as a "putain" on stage, but she is not a "whore" (dictionaires make synonyms of those words, but they are not the same), loves her husband, and refuses the slight "advances from her (presumably Lesbian) friend Dora, the photographer.<br /><br />Maurice the husband is jealous and timid, but runs away from the scene of the crime. He is a coward because he fell in love with a woman and traded an eventually more upscale career for love..<br /><br />Antoine, the detective (interpreted by the great Louis Jouvet, basically a stage actor, performs in this French "Gray" not Noir, as well as E.G. Robinson in "Double Indemnity") shows flair for pseudo criminals, tenderness for a Negro son(?), and compassion for the true author of the crime, because he remembers that is father cleaned the latrines at some nobleman's château!!<br /><br />Clouzot was capable of slapping an actor's face in order to put him in the right frame of mind, but deep inside he was very human. <br /><br />I have his horoscope in front of me. He had Venus in Sagittarius which means open-heartedness, devotion, charity and altruism. For those who do not believe in Astrology, my most sincere apologies... | 1 | positive |
One of eastwood's best movies after he had separated himself from the westerns. which in themselves were good whenever I had a chance to see any of clint's earlier work I would sit in front of the set and watch whatever was on. | 1 | positive |
Possibly one of the best, most horrible b movies ever, as in it's so bad and random,it's kinda hilarious and i don't know how to feel about it..reminds me of Cabin Fever..there's just something about that kid jumping off the porch doing karate and yelling 'pancakes' that's intriguing. Since a lot of people have already outlined the plot and everything all i'm going to do is sum up the quality of the movie with one quote: "I'm the park ranger who's going to f*ck you up". yeah, enough said?. If you're looking for quality or a really scary movie, i don't recommend it. but if you like these sorts of films then I guess you would enjoy it..I don't know how, but I guess some people would. | 0 | negative |
Let's not kid ourselves, this atrocity is not Plan Nine or Cat Women. It is bad, period! The performances vary from drama school theatrics (Marla English) to a 'couldn't care less' walk through (Tom Conway). The photography (even in a good print) is so murky it is occasionally hard to see what is happening. The real problem, however, is the aimless, pointless, nearly plot less story and the leaden, paceless direction. At a brisk 77 minutes it still feels endless.<br /><br />The screenplay is especially inept. There are two story lines that only intersect at the very end of the picture. Tom Conway is trying to create a super race, using voodoo and modern science (although there is little science in evidence) which he can control telepathically. He is keeping his wife prisoner (for no discernible reason). Meanwhile a couple of petty crooks and a white hunter type guide are trying to find the village in which he is working, in the expectation of gold and jewels. When they finally arrive, Tom Conway decides that one of them, the woman, is the perfect subject for his experiments. She is turned into a monster, kills Conway (natch!) and then reverts to normal. She sees a gold statue half drowned in a boiling pool, tries to retrieve it and falls in the water and apparently drowns. The white hunter rescues the wife. In the final shot we see the supposedly drowned woman emerge as the monster again; threatening a sequel (now that really is a scary thought!).<br /><br />The AIP producer, Samuel Z Arkoff, in a lecture included on the DVD, prides himself on spotting the teenage niche market and satisfying it with ingenious low budget movies. However, it is difficult to see how anyone could think this rancid concoction would satisfy any sort of audience. What appeal do they think it could possibly have? The monster appears so rarely that it could hardly be called a horror film. The jungle action is tepid and tedious. There are no teenagers in it and no characters that teenagers could be expected to identify with.<br /><br />The producers exposed 77 minutes of film, but they didn't make a movie. This is a con trick and Arkoff should be ashamed of his association with it. | 0 | negative |
To quote Clark Griswold (in the original Christmas Vacation): "WORSE? How could things get any worse? Take a look around here, Ellen. We're at the threshold of hell." Little did Chevy Chase know that he was describing the "sequel" to one of his best films. Christmas Vacation II sets a new high (or maybe it should be LOW) in bad movies. My wife bought this DVD thinking it would actually be a sequel to the original, but we were severely disappointed. This film is LAME. It bears no resemblance to the original, is an absolute waste of film, and an embarrassment to the otherwise good actors who had the misfortune to be part of it. It must have set a record on IMDb for the most bad reviews. I really think we have a good case to win a class action lawsuit to recover the money we consumers wasted on this movie. | 0 | negative |
Now i have seen two movies by the director Chen Kaige, a very good one (Farewell my concubine), and this bad one, The Assassin. Both movies depict crucial events in chinese history, FMC in the 20th century and TA the first unification of the whole chinese nation in the 3rd century bc. FMC succeds with memorable characters, gorgeous cinematography, convincing sets, good acting and an interesting story. The Assassin fails on nearly every level (okay, the sets are great, the cinematography is good, and the few battle scenes are quite exciting). But...the pathos. Call me a cynic, but too much is too much. If you felt that Saving Private Ryan was too pathetic, be aware, this here will make you sick. The dialogue is lifeless, many lines seem like political statements, subtle or entertaining is this pic not. The film is overpowered by its own pompousness. I am really surprised that The Assassin gets such high votes here on imdb. 4/10 | 0 | negative |
Eisenstein describes his collaboration with Prokeviev as an equal partnership, where they worked together to match image and music, scene by scene. Unfortunately, the sound recording was a disaster, so for once the devotion to authenticity in Criterion DVD's backfires. Fortunately, there is at least one restored version of the film on VHS (BMG Classics) with an excellent re-recording of the music (by the St. Petersburg Philharmonic Orchestra and Chorus).<br /><br />It is interesting to compare this film with contemporary propaganda films in England, Germany, and the United States. Eisenstein's film was made in 1938, in response to the fear of a German invasion; and Olivier's in 1943, when a German invasion of England was still expected. Both films are stagey, but in different ways. Olivier begins by showing a staged performance of the play in the Globe Theater by Shakespeare's own company, then takes us out of the theater to a more cinematic (though still stylized) setting. Eisenstein's film is cinematic from the beginning, but the dialog and speeches are still influenced by the melodramatic acting conventions of the old Russian theater. This works very well for Cerkassov's speeches as Alexander, because part of his job as a prince and military leader was to play a role in public.<br /><br />In Nazi Germany, the first major propaganda film was Leni Riefenstahl's tedious Triumph of the Will, which recorded a huge political spectacle - massed crowds cheering Hitler's ranting speeches. The propaganda in her masterpiece, the film of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, is much subtler, with its worship of the athletic male body carrying disturbing undertones of the Aryan superiority myth. But wartime German propaganda films could also be subtle. Karl Ritter's Urlaub auf Ehrenwort (Furlough on Word of Honor) is typical. It shows a young lieutenant letting the men in his company go on a 24-hour leave before returning to the WWI trenches (and almost certain death). Against the advice of veterans, he accepts their word of honor to return, though he will be courtmartialed and shot if they don't. Naturally, they all return, (though some of them berate themselves for it), presumably inspiring the audiences to similar displays of duty to their country.<br /><br />In the United States, one of the better WWII propaganda films was Howard Hawks' Air Force. In it, we follow the mismatched crew of a bomber as they bond to each other with the experience of battle, and overcome obstacles to continue their part in the war. Typically for Hawks' films, however, their real loyalty is more to each other than to their country.<br /><br />Eisenstein has to reach far back in history to find any Russian military triumphs. Ironically, Alexander (like the other Russian princes) is descended from the Vikings who sailed up the Russian rivers to conquer and rule their own fiefdoms. So he is a conquerer repelling another would-be conquerer. Physically, they are not that different (though the actors portraying the German princes were obviously chosen for their ugliness and smirking stupidity). But the real contrast is between the common soldiers. The Russian peasants are as tall and strong as the nobles; whereas the German peasants who scuttle out of the shield wall to kill wounded Russians are a foot shorter than their masters. There is some historical truth in this contrast. Russian serfs in the Middle Ages were much better off than their European counterparts, because they could always escape into the wilderness and clear their own land.<br /><br />Eisenstein's film also cleverly gives us our first sight of Alexander as a fisherman. In the battle with the Germans, he uses his fisherman's knowledge of the ice as well as his knowledge of their military tactics to defeat them. When Gavrilo breaks the shield wall, they are forced to regroup and mass on the West side of the lake, where the ice is thinner.<br /><br />One of the other pleasures of Eisenstein's film (which most audiences miss) is the historically accurate way that he portrays the politics of medieval Russia. Cities like Pskov and Novgorod owed their growing wealth and prominence largely to trade, which put the merchants into power, and sidelined the princes until their military expertise and feudal levies were needed to repel invaders. In the film, Alexander is shown not only as a military leader, but also as a master politician, who knows how to wait for his time, and how to make the most of his popularity after the victory. | 1 | positive |
Worthless movie. A complete waste of time and nothing what I expected it to be. The packaging makes it seem as if it is of the American Pie genre (it isn't). rather it is a ridiculous stringing together of coincidences that makes the movie seem more like a writing exercise (let's try to see how many mix ups we can write in to make what should have been a bad SNL skit into a full length feature presentation). What is remarkable is that the director's (based on their commentary on the DVD) take themselves completely seriously. I have been a huge fan of the movies that National Lampoon lends its name to, up to and including Van Wilder. With this one, I feel completely cheated. In fact, I FEEL DUPED. I was expecting a Van Wilder like farce to relive my college days but instead was served an hour and a half of garbage. What lead to my ultimately unmet expectations? Well, for starters, the fact that the cast all appear naked (with an enormous sausage covering what must be covered) on the COVER of the DVD. Add to that the imagery on the back of the case as well as the description and you mislead people into thinking this is a movie that it is not. To make matters worse, the movie starts off as one might expect it too with half-naked drunk college students feebly trying a photo stunt, but ultimately this has nothing whatsoever to do with the movie. In fact, I didn't even realize that the people in that opening sequence where supposed to be the characters in the movie until I was told so by the directors in the commentary. Don't get me wrong, I love plot twists and being surprised by movies, but I hate the fact that this movie tries to pawn itself off as something it is not. Ultimately, it does itself a huge disservice (artistically, though most likely not financially) because it sets its audience up for confusion and disappointment simply because it neglects to deliver what it advertises. <br /><br />In short, do not rent this movie based on what you see on the case. It is not your usual National Lampoon movie. The only thing funny about it is the fact that many of the actors have appeared in other movies and TV shows that make their involvement here entertaining. | 0 | negative |
Uncle Frank is everyone's uncle. This documentary covered all aspects of aging in America, the lonliness, the humor, the irony. Uncle Frank and Aunt Tillie were supremely generous in sharing their life experiences with the audience. The director did an unbelieveable job of capturing the small and large pieces that made up their lives. Thanks to everyone who helped in making this film! | 1 | positive |
If you decide to watch Wild Rebels, don't expect anything deep and meaningful. If you're looking for a film that explores the relationships and structure of a motorcycle gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for an expose on the breakdown of the American educational system and the problem of juvenile delinquency, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for a movie that examines how undermanned rural police departments are when facing a well-financed, well-organized gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. But if you're looking for an absurd movie filled with scene after scene of unintentional humor, horrendous acting, a paper-thin plot, and community theater style production values, Wild Rebels is the right movie.<br /><br />Wild Rebels is the story of a down-on-his-luck stock-car driver named Rod Tillman (Steve Alaimo). After a fiery crash (which Rod walks away from completely unscathed despite having only a cotton pants and a London Fog style jacket for protection), Rod decides to give it up. With no plan for his future other than to wander aimless through the back-roads of the South, he stumbles on the Satan's Angels motorcycle gang (a gang being three of the stupidest guys to ever zip up a leather jacket and a woman they seem to share). This group of hoodlums spends their time terrorizing a rural town in Florida by committing such atrocities as stealing a newspaper from a neighbor's mailbox. These bumbling idiots need someone to act as their driver during some larger crimes they have planned. Apparently, these three Einsteins can only drive vehicles with two tires, not four. So they recruit Rod to perform feats of daring that only an experienced stunt driver would be capable of like keeping the car in the middle of a gravel road during a low-speed chase. Eventually, they hold-up a bank, get into the aforementioned low-speed chase, and have the lamest gun battle with the police ever put on film. I could go on forever, but you get the idea.<br /><br />I hate the term "so bad it's good", but that seems to aptly describe Wild Rebels. | 0 | negative |
Why oh why did they have to try and make a sequel to one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time. The movie is a train wreck on every level and should have never been made. Randy Quaid's portrayal of cousin Eddie is an over the top caricature of his previous outings as cousin Eddie. Also, the Eddie character is not interesting enough to carry an entire movie. Even "eye candy" Sung Hi Lee could not redeem this hunk of holiday crap. Please do not waste your time on this move, just watch the original again. | 0 | negative |
I agree with the guy above, It is so funny I understand it all, but my friends just don't get it. Go to Japan and you will see a different movie after being there. When I met my girlfriends dad, at his home in Kanagawa. I swear I felt the same as Jack,. scared, but by the end of the day it was all good, so I give this movie a 10 out 10.<br /><br />I have watched it at least 30 times, taking it with me to watch on the plane flying to Japan next month. One thing that is real good is the ball game scenes. Makes me feel like I am there again. This is a must see if you have any interest in Japan and Baseball. Too bad they don't make a sequel. Does anyone know where the temple scenes were filmed and the argument with hirko in the walkway with a roof on it???? need to know so I can win an argumrnt with me Japanese ex-wife. thanks | 1 | positive |
As a Bruce Campbell fan for nearly two decades, I was thrilled to have an opportunity to see his latest film on the big screen with the man himself in attendance. Unfortunately, "Man with the Screaming Brain" was itself a disappointment.<br /><br />Set in Bulgaria--where the Sci-Fi Channel makes its Saturday night original films--"Man with the Screaming Brain" is a curious mix of '50s B-movie horror, body-switching comedy, violent revenge flick, and overdone slapstick with a touch of romantic reconciliation. If that doesn't make sense, well, neither does "Man with the Screaming Brain." Campbell plays a pharmaceutical company CEO who visits Bulgaria with his estranged wife in an inexplicable attempt to invest in the former Communist country's half-finished subway system. The two fall in with a former KGB agent turned cab driver, and all three ultimately meet their demise at the hands of a vengeful gypsy woman.<br /><br />A local scientist (Stacy Keach) and his goofy assistant (Ted Raimi), who have developed a technique to allow tissue transplants without the possibility of rejection, steal the bodies and place a portion of the cab driver's brain into Campbell's damaged skull. Also, they put his wife's brain into a robotic body they just happen to have at hand.<br /><br />Campbell escapes, and with a hastily-restitched skull and the voice of the cab driver--whose transplanted brain tissue controls the left side of his body--echoing in his head, sets off to find and kill the gypsy. (His robot wife does the same.) <br /><br />But first, there's an attempt to emulate Steve Martin/Lily Tomlin's "All of Me" when Campbell's two personalities battle for dominance over a restaurant dinner. Just as he was playing his own evil hand in "Evil Dead II," Campbell is adept at making his body appear to be inhabited by more than one mind.<br /><br />At times, "Screaming" comes closest to another Steve Martin film, "The Man with Two Brains," as it also takes a silly approach to '50s sci-fi clichés. However, it tries too hard for too little result, and that goes double for Ted Raimi's semi-comprehensible Bulgarian oaf, who gets entirely too much screen time. (Nothing against Raimi, it's just that he's better in smaller doses.) <br /><br />In the end, it's neither outrageous (or funny) enough to satisfy as a spoof, nor is it serious enough to enjoy as a B-movie pastiche. I was glad that Campbell had already left the screening by the time it ground to a halt, as I feared having to say, "Gee, Bruce, that was really...something."<br /><br />Perhaps the best praise I can give it as a film is that at least the images stuck to the emulsion. And it was twice as good as "Alien Apocalypse." | 0 | negative |
This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament "poor Richard" serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is "taken up lifeless!", is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line "Is there nobody to help me?" might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.<br /><br />This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her. <br /><br />The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)<br /><br />This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out "reconciliation" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.<br /><br />If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting. | 0 | negative |
This was one of my favorite movies from childhood. I watched it so many times,eventually my tape wore out. I was a huge fan of this show and still am.The thing I love most about this movie is that it appeals to so many people, both young and old. I watch this movie now and laugh just as hard as I did the first time I saw it. I am now able to appreciate all the adult jokes that I never got as a child. My favorite characters are Elmyra and Foulmouth. Almost fifteen years later, my dad (a huge fan of the movie as well) and I are still quoting lines from this movie. I love the part where Foulmouth and Shirley go to the movies. "You save the seats, Shirl and I'll snag the dadgum snacks." I also loved the storyline of Plucky and Hampton and his family going to Happy World Land. Wade Pig reminded me a lot of my dad. I love the part when they finally get to Happy World Land and all they do is ride on the monorail. This movie is hilarious and appeals to children and kids. The animation, jokes and everything about it are top notch. If you have not seen it, rent it. You won't be sorry. | 1 | positive |
A moderately interesting start, some pretty scenes in sixteenth-century Japan, and a promising idea. But the execution? The comparison that springs to mind after about fifteen minutes is "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death." Really. A specialist in "Oriental history" who doesn't speak any Japanese, walks on tatami without removing her shoes, and is generally dumb as celery? Please. This looks like a student film: the sets are risible, the acting (except, perhaps, for the title character) close to wooden, the plot utterly arbitrary. At least "Cannibal Women" was funny! This is best watched with someone who knows something about Japan, just to watch disbelief repeatedly crawl across their face. | 0 | negative |
Man, I think people have forgotten how to watch a movie. Everyone thinks they're a critic. They comment on things that the average movie goer doesn't even know or think about.<br /><br />I enjoyed the film. It was what I was expecting therefore was not disappointed. Steven gets a bad rap for putting his views into his films but that's also a reason to watch. What's even more funny is the people that complain about his films, say he's the worst and that we shouldn't watch his films, yet watch his movies anyway. All so they can comment on how bad they are. Who's the dummy? If you don't like his work, don't watch it. Then you won't have to subject yourself to this supposedly painful event.<br /><br />Stop comparing movies to other movies and watch a movie on an individual basis and you may begin to enjoy films again. | 1 | positive |
Possible Spoilers As Peter Jackson has so brilliantly shown in his `Lord of the Rings' trilogy, it is quite possible to make good films, even great ones, within the heroic fantasy genre. The genre has distinguished literary antecedents, dating back to the mediaeval chivalric romances, particularly the Arthurian legends, upon which Tolkien and other authors have drawn. `Lord of the Rings' apart, however, it is difficult to think of any other sword-and-sorcery films which are any good. I would agree with the reviewer who said that the best of a bad bunch was Ron Howard's `Willow', and even that achieved little distinction other than that of being a merely mediocre film as opposed to a positively bad one. `Red Sonja', however, cannot achieve the even more modest distinction of being simply a bad film as opposed to an appalling one.<br /><br />As with `Willow', many of the plot-elements in `Red Sonja' are derived from `The Lord of the Rings'. An evil ruler seeks to gain control of an artefact with supernatural powers in order to achieve an ambition of world domination, but is thwarted by an assorted group of heroes. The film, set in the Hyborian Age, a barbaric era in the earth's remote past, starts with the villain of the piece, the wicked Queen Gedren, making unwelcome sexual advances to the heroine Sonja. When these are rebuffed, Gedren (not a woman to take no for an answer) reacts by murdering Sonja's parents and brother. (In 1985 it was presumably still considered politically correct not only to make the chief villain a woman but also to make one of the main motives for her villainy frustrated lesbian lust).<br /><br />Gedren's next move is to capture the Talisman, a sort of fluorescent green soccer ball with magical powers, by slaughtering the whole of the scantily-dressed female priesthood charged with protecting it, just as they are about to destroy it because they feel its powers have become too dangerous. Among the dead is Sonja's sister, her sole surviving relative. Sonja herself, however, has not been idle, but has enrolled in a martial arts academy from which she graduates summa cum laude, and sets out to avenge herself. Along the way she teams up with Kalidor, a heroic wandering swordsman-king resembling Tolkien's Aragorn, Prince Tarn, the spoilt child-ruler of a kingdom that has fallen to Gedren's powers, and Falkon, Tarn's loyal servant. The rest of the film is fairly predictable, as Sonja and her allies try to overthrow Gedren and prevent the destruction of the world threatened by the out-of-control Talisman.<br /><br />Just what is it that makes this film so bad? Well, the acting, for a start. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Kalidor gives the sort of typical wooden, poker-faced performance that became his trademark, at least in the early part of his career, complete with heavy foreign accent. Compared with Brigitte Nielsen as the heroine, however, he looks like Laurence Olivier. Miss Nielsen seems to have had even worse language difficulties, delivering every line in the mechanical, toneless voice of someone who has just completed lesson three of a `teach-yourself-English-by-correspondence' course. One wonders if she was hired for the role just to make Arnie look good by comparison. The other characters, while not conducting their own private struggles against the English language, are simply cartoonish caricatures, especially Prince Tarn who must be one of the most obnoxious screen youngsters ever.<br /><br />An even worse fault than the bad acting, however, is the film's almost complete lack of imagination. This is a particularly glaring fault in a fantasy film, as films of this genre need to rely on their imaginative power in order to persuade the audience to suspend the natural feelings of disbelief that would be provoked by a fantastic plot. When we watch Peter Jackson's masterpiece we can persuade ourselves, at least for the next three hours, that we are in Middle-Earth, that elves, wizards and hobbits do exist, and that the fate of the world really does depend upon the destruction of a magic ring. When we watch `Red Sonja' we are persuaded of nothing except that we are watching a bunch of actors with bad accents fighting one another on a hillside for possession of a lime-green football.<br /><br />This lack of imagination even starts with the film's title. The British science-fiction author Brian Aldiss, when challenged about the exotic names given to his characters, replied that there was little point in creating a fictional alien society with its own distinctive culture if you were going to spoil the effect by calling the hero Joe. (Admittedly, Tolkien was able<br /><br />to get away with giving the name Sam to one of his main characters, but that was because Hobbits were supposed to be reassuringly familiar, the Middle-Earth equivalent of tweedy, pipe-smoking Englishmen). Similarly, giving the heroine of a tale ostensibly set in a long-gone barbaric age a common girls' name like `Sonia' (which is how the name `Sonja' is pronounced) is about as appropriate as calling her `Betty' or `Mary-Jane'.<br /><br />The film seems to have been made on a very small budget, which makes me wonder why they bothered at all. Fantasy needs to be done convincingly, or not at all. It was obviously shot in a remote mountain area, with little or no attempt to suggest a distinctive culture. The few buildings we see, such as the temple of the Talisman or Gedren's palace, are obviously cheap sets. We learn that Tarn's capital city has been destroyed by Gedren using the power of the Talisman, but we do not actually see this event; all we see is what might be a thunderstorm taking place on the other side of a hill. At first you wonder how Sonja intends to overthrow an entire kingdom with only a few allies, but when you see how small an army Gedren has at her disposal it becomes more understandable. When an earthquake threatens to destroy the palace, you wonder if this is the Talisman at work or merely a crew member inadvertently leaning against the set. If we can enjoy this film for nothing else, we can at least enjoy it for its inadvertent humour; a fine example of the so-bad-it's-funny school of filmmaking. Ed Wood would have been proud of this one. If it had been shown on Californian television the night before the recall election, Gray Davis would still be governor. 2/10. | 0 | negative |
Naked City: JWAB does a pretty good job of balancing its two A - B stories, eventhough I'm not all that fond of multiple plot movies. And Scott Glen and Courtney B. Vance make a great on screen dual. However, I'm not sure what kind of message a movie sends when two flat-foot country girls can get off scott free with murder, grand theft, and to top it off, win a free flight home (in first class no less--at least from the looks of their attire anyway). Gee, I guess that blue wall of silence is still rather think!<br /><br />Rating: 8 | 1 | positive |
I'm not a movie maker but I do know it is hard to tell a story in seven minutes and draw your audience into the character. Horses on Mars does this and more. When you are watching a good movie you don't want it to end. This is how I felt watching this film. It is visually expansive and the microbe takes on such human qualities that you feel you are on the journey with him.<br /><br />Really looking forward to see what exciting adventures Mr. Anderson takes us on in the future. Well done. | 1 | positive |
I don't understand why this show didn't go on there could've been various ways to continue on the line of Darwin and Farik after season 2, obviously Darwin couldn't have been the UC agent infiltrating cells and sabotageing them from the inside, but still they should've given this show at least another season.<br /><br />The show is well casted, believable, and views the Islamic religion from both the normal and the extremist point of view. It touches controversial subjects in detail and it has a dramatic meaning that can be said of very few shows nowdays. I'm actually sad that i didn't know about this show until late 2007. | 1 | positive |
I don't see the point. It's ponderous. The animated people are creepy (look up uncanny valley). Scenes go on and on and on for very little purpose. The plot is skeletal and must be padded out with lots of meaningless dramatic, screaming roller coaster rides, as if Disney or Spielberg were planning an amusement park ride based on the movie. Most of the characters are annoying and unlikeable. Some of them keep showing up as if they will have something important to add to a climactic scene. They don't. They just vanish with no lasting impact. Somebody summed it up as "if you don't believe in Santa Claus, you'll be kidnapped on a train on Christmas eve." That pretty much sums it up. | 0 | negative |
This film tops the previous incarnation by a mile, taking everything to the next level. As always the JackAss guys are purely unbelievable, and I personally laughed harder in that theatre than I have in a long time. Like the first JackAss, this isn't so much a movie as an eighty minute long string of stunts and pranks. It is pure circus entertainment taken to the highest level. Essentially these guys are clowns, debasing themselves for the amusement of others. And its great. The shenanigans are so low, outrageous, and often disgusting that they transcend into a higher form of entertainment.<br /><br />You can't rate this along other movies, its in a class of its own. And it shines. Go and enjoy it for the pure spectacle that it is. | 1 | positive |
This show can most accurately be described as TV Bubble-Gum: It's chewing, it has a good taste to it, and it lasts a long time. But, like Bubble-Gum, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth after a few too many chews.<br /><br />This show features very simple questions that take the form of simply games, like Hangman, guessing a simple phrase or guessing items on a short list. Callers are the contestants, and anybody can play.<br /><br />The questions, though, are terribly easy. There's some techno music pumped into the background that's fashioned into a continuous loop. It never seems to get old, but it never adds much to the show anyway. The hostess, however, regardless of which one that it, is extremely personable, pleasant enough to watch and can make some very amusing facial expressions. I rather enjoy that British woman.<br /><br />But there's nothing to this show. It's simplistic and uncompelling, although it can be entertaining if absolutely nothing else is on. | 0 | negative |
It's rare that I get the opportunity to review a film for IMDb that relates to my own life in such a close way. However, as someone living with cerebral palsy (albeit less severe than Michael, one of the main characters in the film) I don't wish to give this film a 'free pass' just because it tackles a subject that's rarely approached; and when it is, is normally treated with po-faced seriousness. There WERE minor problems I had with the film; and I'd like to address those first, so that people are clear that it isn't my situation which has clouded my judgement of this overall excellent film! <br /><br />* Parts of it I felt were unashamedly crowd-pleasing, at the expense of realism. If I had a pound for every time a well-meaning member of the public has mentioned electric-wheelchair racing to me, I'd be much the richer man; but speaking personally, that fits more into the public perception of how we deal with our disadvantages, rather than the reality of what actually goes on. Same thing with spending time watching disabled people go to the pub - it's not a big deal to those of us who actually do it, as much as it might be admirable for outsiders looking in. I appreciate that this is from the previously sheltered perspective of Michael; but I still think he'd be concentrating more on enjoying the experience, rather than reflecting on what a big deal it was that he was actually there, in the first place. As such, the amount of time we spend seeing them have fun felt like a bit too much.<br /><br />* I felt that the terminal nature of Rory's illness was brought to our attention far too late; meaning that it was just used as a cheap sentimental device to come between the pair, rather than something everybody knew all along was going to have to be dealt with.<br /><br />To balance those criticisms, I have to dish out a heap of praise, as well. Although I thought some scenes showing them getting to grips with normal life were a touch overdone; the script also ventured into some tricky places I wouldn't have expected, and comes out with a lot of credit for doing so. For instance raising the issue of love and relationships; and showing the daily apparatus often used to aid and assist the lives of non able-bodied people. Also, despite the blunt emotional shock tactic of death being sprung upon us, the movie as a whole is far less sappy than anyone has a right to expect these type of films to be.<br /><br />Brenda Fricker can and has been performing variations of her role capably on autopilot for what seems like years; but Robertson and McAvoy share a special interaction that must be noted. Inside, I'm doing cartwheels that a group of people somewhere have finally made a film doing justice to the lust for life of many disabled persons. | 1 | positive |
For me, the Tempest and its characters (by which I mean the admirable ones) are like old friends. Ever since I first began to experience the play through acting classes (I played Ferdinand) I found myself immediately caught up in the fantastic world that Shakespeare created. I can distinctly remember one student deciding not to play Ferdinand after all, and so I took the stage and had the honor of playing opposite an excellent Miranda.<br /><br />One of the virtues that a great friend has is that you can never fully know them - there is always something you can discover about their character. A film production of the Tempest of quality is thus like a visit to an old friend, dear to one's heart: each visit presents one with new perspective on the memory we had of the work. With Prospero's Books, the ritual and the elegance of the play was emphasized, the exuberant celebration of art within the art. Here, we see a vision as esoteric mysticism, with lovingly crafted interiors full of candles and chalk diagrams on floors, more Aleister Crowley than Naples nobleman. It also made me reconsider - why was it that Prospero was cast out of Naples? His magical power is so palpable in this production that it makes one wonder whether it was just politics that doomed Prospero to exile, but rather the fact of his difference from his peers. So, in the real world, he suffered. Was cast out, powerless to change the wrong to the right. All of the villains in this play, whether they realize it or not, act in accordance to creating a more pain-filled, hell of a world - it is always in the interest of the oppressor to make life on Earth closer to hell. But Prospero manages to bring these terrestrial villains into his island, the realm where he has (absolute) dominion.<br /><br />Shakespeare brings his audience to the theater, the realm where Shakespeare dictates the events, the words, the outcomes. Shakespeare is, of course, Prospero - but what this film adaptation does that really honors the text is to make Prospero so sympathetic such a figure of reason, despite the fact that he is surrounded by what society calls irrational (astrological texts, alchemical symbols, magical diagrams, etc.). Is it more rational to be a man of the cloth and murder, or to be a heretic and work towards the righting of wrongs? Prospero IS a heretic, for the reason he abandons his magic is not because the books will lose their value in Naples, but because they are not necessary anymore - the world itself - has become the magic of the books.<br /><br />In Hamlet, Hamlet presents a play to his peers. The play accuses his fellows of conspiring against others for their own advancement. The reaction of the audience varies: while Ophelia is puzzled, Claudius reacts with stunned shock. This happens within the play, and then Shakespeare has this play performed for the men of his time. Did Shakespeare watch for their reactions? In the tempest, Prospero lives the play he is constructing, and we live it with him. How do we react? Do you react with simple delight at the happy ending? Are you upset and shocked by the strangeness of this production, which is entirely fitting given the source material? Do you feel sad at the fact that this little life, the play, is rounded with a sleep, as transient as it is eternal? The tragedy is that Shakespeare creates a paradise of reason and hope for mankind's life on Earth but man is weak, and unwilling to realize it in favor of petty power struggles. We have Claudiuses.<br /><br />Like a good friend, this film is not without its flaws. I disagree with the choice to paint some scenes entirely in blue. The dance of the mariners is rather tangential. But at the heart this is truly The Tempest, and one of its many faces. | 1 | positive |
"Tart" is a good illustration of old the Yogi Berra saying: "If you don't know where you are going, you will probably end up someplace else". Writer/Director Christina Waye (in her first feature) has managed to make a $3 Million movie that ends up someplace else. "Tart" is either a coming of age story devoid of characters that a rational person can connect with, a black comedy without any humor, or a sexploitation movie without anything that is particularly sexy.<br /><br />Unlike the standard Swain film, "Tart" actually employed a competent and experienced production designer. Good enough to provide two extremely nice shots: the scene of Swain and Barton taking a bubble bath together and the scene of Swain in the park-featuring a nice montage of the "Alice in Wonderland" sculpture. The symbolism incorporated into these elements supports the possibility that Waye (despite the absence of a linear logic or unity of tone) actually has some visionary talent and aspirations for making a quality film. <br /><br />It is even possible that Waye was trying for a fusion of the somewhat expressionistic "Metropolitan" and the camp classic "Cruel Intentions" which also deal with the Manhattan upper class. There are many camera shots framed by windows and doors yet few tight shots of faces and eyes. The former technique hinting at symbolism and the latter at intentional distancing from the characters and their motivations. "Tart" seemed on the verge of veering into camp territory at least twice and would have been well advised to keep going in that direction. First there was the scene where they try to dump the seemingly deceased Swain into the garbage chute. Then there is the whole bit about her father being Jewish (played to the same extreme as Joel Grey dancing with the Jewish guerrilla in "Cabaret"). <br /><br />In her other films Swain's acting technique is to overwhelm each scene in which she appears (insert scenery chewing here) but in "Tart" she actually shows an ability to restrain herself. This is the best performance of her career. It also provides some clues about her physical deterioration from willowy super cute in "Girl" to hulking lumpy-faced in "Pumpkin". This transformation was about half-complete by the time she made "Tart"; so go the ravages of time. <br /><br />Mischa Barton ("Sixth Sense's" I feel better girl) and Lacey Chabet are excellent in supporting roles. The rest of the cast is simply horrible, although some of the blame for this should go to Waye's script and direction. | 0 | negative |
I rate movies on this site all the time, but I don't normally write comments. However, in this case, I felt compelled to WARN OTHERS! This movie is bad! It's probably one of only a dozen movies I have scored as '1 (awful).' I know people say this all the time, but this truly was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's easily on the bottom ten, anyway.<br /><br />When it comes to horror movies, I have very low standards. I'll overlook all sorts of shoddy film-making for a good scare. But this movie is embarrassingly bad. It looks someone bought a video camera at Sears and decided to make a movie with his buddies. (The fact that every single crew member's name appears in the cast list proves this theory, I think.) This movie has lower production standards than your average high school play. It's actually a little shocking to see a movie that looks this bad released on DVD. The special effects are somewhat effective at times, but are still amateurish at best. The best thing that can be said about the actors is that at least they remember no to look into the camera, most of the time. I can't say for certain if they struggling to remember their lines or making them up as they went along. Any and all attempts at humor are lame. This movie is such a colossal waste of time. | 0 | negative |
I have seen "Chasing the Dragon" several times and have enjoyed it each time. The acting was superb. This movie really makes you realize how one bad choice at a weak moment can change your life. | 1 | positive |
Margaret Colin stars as the principal figure in this story; as I watched it, I remembered her bit part in Adrian Lynes's "Ünfaithful" as Diane Lane's neighbor in a tony NY neighborhood.<br /><br />This movie was surprisingly good, and Diane Stillman deserves credit for an accurate portrayal of class, crimes, and misdemeanors, which actually occur in upscale neighborhoods (perish the thought!!!).It is real but not over-dramatized; the audience lives through her accident, the pain it has caused;denial; and the ultimate resolution.<br /><br />It is more than just a question of "what is a good person" as Colin speaks to her husband....is a person's character defined by one single act; and should they be condemned forever because of their action?? The questions are pertinent; It is also amusing to see several cinematic references to Martha Stewart (i.e. the fussy, bothersome mother);Colin is reputed by her sometime friends to be a "perfect hostess, with perfect genes"....(gag); and a scene wherein Colin is confronted by police;(the "friends" also betray her, later)....<br /><br />The denial and facades of American society are addressed; (Oh, murder doesn't occur here; similar to the theme in "Ä Season in Purgatory", by author Dominick Dunne, about the true murder of Martha Moxley; in Greenwich, Connecticut); Colin is aware of her crime; but consciously finds herself perpetuating the facade, until she finally breaks down;rent or buy this film; she is an underrated actress who does quite well in these roles. | 1 | positive |
After viewing this movie, lets say, around 8 times, the story line has never bored me. Each character has their own distinct personality and their own views of "love". This movie has timeless, almost realistic, love lessons. Filled with philosophies on love, a jazzy soundtrack, and great actors is why I would call it a classic. | 1 | positive |
Don't be fooled by the other reviewers. Although this film contains an impressive array of talent, the material they present leaves a great deal to be desired. Nat King Cole's 3 numbers are pretty lame and not even close to his later efforts, though he does impress with his piano playing. 'Moms' Mabley is not a bit funny, though I remember her as a very entertaining talk show guest from my youth. Actually, the best performances are from a couple of fat guys who impress with a lively tap dance and a Four Tops takeoff, and the jazz band itself, especially in the number featuring the bass player. The print itself is pretty poor quality, and the wonderful Butterfly McQueen is totally wasted in the wraparound plot. | 0 | negative |
i just saw this movie on TNT and let me tell you, this movie was downright corny and cheezy. But after a certain point, I began to laugh my socks off and to tell you the truth, they should classify this movie as comedy rather than action/adventure. The absolutely most hilarious scene comes when the Delon and Kennedy are making loop the loop 360's to avoid the French missiles that Wagner ordered to destroy the Concorde. Our fearless leader, Kennedy, decides to shoot flares out the window to stop the heat seeking missiles????? Dumb yet funny---the kicker comes here though---after one shot, the flare gun malfunctions and Kennedy tries to fix it in the cockpit and well...if you want to know what happens get a hold of this movie. The dumb parts of this movie include the total lack of plot----yeah lets have some action for 25 minutes than land in Paris and go ONE HOUR with love scenes with prostitutes and flight attendants. Now lets switch to the saboteur for ten minutes then a wasted rest of the movie and a plane that is visually breaking apart and the PASSENGERS DON"T EVEN SEE IT???? ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!!-----final rating for this move--- (1/10) out of 4 stars if it were action 2 out of 4 stars if it were a comedy | 0 | negative |
I like this movie cause it has a good approach of Buddhism, for example, the way Buddhist use to care all kind of living things, combining some fancy and real situations; in some parts the photography is very good and a lot of messages about freedom, as the hawk episode, staying always focused in every moment, even in tough situations.. It has also funny situations as Swank's birthday and, talking this two times academy awards, her acting show us how the people who use to live in this kind of culture is trying to have a resistance behavior when Miyagi is taking her to a Buddhist temple, and how she, slowly, is changing her mind. And, of course, Pat Morita has been always great | 1 | positive |
So funny is the perfect way to describe this 12 minutes spoof of the original Star Wars. Hardware Wars is incredibly funny. It is presented as the trailer of the space epic Hardware Wars. The joke is this: imagine Star Wars played by bad actors and incredibly bad special effects. The characters include the "intergalactic boy-wonder" Fluke Starbucker, the "ace mercenary and intergalactic wise guy" Ham Salad, Darph Nader, "villain" and a host of other fantastic characters. It is impossible not to laugh as you watch this 12 minutes treasure. It's stupid but it's fun. You will laugh from the start to the end, and you will feel the need to watch it again, and again, and again, and again... And you will laugh every time you see it!!!<br /><br />10 out of 10. The funniest 12 minutes ever made. You will believe it lasted a minute! | 1 | positive |
Nice to see a comedy for grown ups. Masterfully structured by Aaron Sorkin via Mike Nichols's own mastery. Mr Nichol's mastery is to present characters in all their shocking truth, from the sad and riveting Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf" to the sad and riveting Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Jude Law and Natalie Portman in "Closer". In "Charlie Wilson's War" the shocking truth is outside the characters and the sad and riveting Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams are at the service of something else, it's personal only to a point. Hanks has to bury his brilliance in single malts and Julia Roberts throws parties and introduces characters with blatant straightforwardness. Amy Adams witnesses and exist as a character, witnessing. An insurmountable task that Miss Adams manages to surmount, beautifully. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman's Gus with a t, however, that monopolized my attention. His character may not be a first but it is a first the way that Hoffman presented him to us. Someone who survives the disregard with which he's treated by the absolute conviction that he's smarter than all of them put together. Hoffman is superb. The pacing of the tale helps enormously not to fall in a myriad of useless questions. A sharp, short, smart, sad comedy and when was the last time I was able to say that? | 1 | positive |
"Fate" leads Walter Sparrow to come in possession of a mysterious novel that has eerie similarities and connections to his life, all based around the number 23. As the story unfolds in real life and fiction, Sparrow must figure out his connection to the book and how the story will eventually end.<br /><br />The Number 23 offers an intriguing premise that is undone by a weak execution. The film just failed on many different levels which is pretty disappointing because it held so much potential. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was filled with silly sequences and laughable dialog that just killed the mood of the movie. It seemed like the screenwriter had a good idea, he just didn't know how to develop it to stretch over a ninety minute running time. The second half of the film was running low on ideas, the twist was pretty obvious and the ending was awful.<br /><br />Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst movies ever and he did redeem himself a little with Phone Booth and a few other films but The Number 23 reminds me that he's still capable of making a stinker. He has the movie drenched in style but he just can't get a good focus. He moves the film at a clunky and slow pace. He switches from reality to what's actually happening in the book which quickly got annoying. The actual book in the film that's titled "The Number 23" is an awful detective story and the audience gets stuck listening to Carrey narrate it which just bored me to tears. When Carrey is finally done with book, we get stuck watching him run around trying to solve the mystery. At this point, the audience has lost interest and there is no real tension. We impatiently wait for the movie to reach it's horrible ending and unconvincing explanation before celebrating that film has finally finished.<br /><br />The acting was mostly average and pretty forgettable. Jim Carrey was clearly just sleepwalking through his performance and he didn't even seem to be trying. He was either completely over the top in some scenes or just very wooden. His narration was a complete bore to listen to and he put no life inside his character. Virginia Madsen did the best she could with a limited role but she needs to pick better scripts. Logan Lerman was pretty bland as was Danny Huston. Overall, The Number 23 was an awful thriller that offered more laughs than suspense or thrills. Rating 3/10 | 0 | negative |
A grumpy old baronet, happily unmarried, decides to send for his three grown-up illegitimate children and provide them a home at his manor. To his surprise, he finds himself bonding with his uninhibited American daughter. Can he find satisfaction in his new role as THE BACHELOR FATHER?<br /><br />This 1931 film, in which he gives a robust performance, marked the arrival at MGM of elderly Sir C. Aubrey Smith, very soon to be one of Hollywood's most valuable character actors. With his great hooked nose & beetling brows, Sir Aubrey looked every inch the part of the duke or general or statesman he would play so often. The acknowledged leader of the British community in Hollywood, Sir Aubrey would also champion the game of criquet in Southern California. He would remain very much in demand in studios all over town, right up to his death in 1948.<br /><br />The film's top-billed star is Marion Davies. Best remembered today as the mistress of media mogul William Randolph Hearst & the chatelaine of Hearst Castle, the most fabulous residence on the West Coast, she was actually a very talented & pretty comedienne. For a few years, Hearst attempted to make her the queen of MGM (with her own production company & a huge bungalow-dressing room) but the studio already had several other queens - Dressler, Garbo, Shearer, Crawford - and he eventually moved her to Warner Bros. Here Miss Davies gets a chance to joke & clown and her scenes with Sir Aubrey are entertaining.<br /><br />Her love interest is played by Ralph Forbes, a handsome young British actor who was just starting to find good films (THE TRAIL OF 98) as the silent days ended. He had all the qualities for major stardom, but sadly it was not to be. Celebrity would come to Ray Milland, here making one of his first screen appearances. Halliwell Hobbes & Doris Lloyd also appear to advantage. | 1 | positive |
I didn't understand what that line meant... I do now. I didn't really want to see Dirty Dancing either. I'd rented it out but never watched it - and today I did. And I thought it was a really fun, great movie that makes you want to get up and dance. Alright, it was cheesy at times... but it's still a great movie. I can't believe Jennifer Grey was 27 in this movie - my friend and I thought she looked about 18 or 19 - 20 at the most. I guess this is attributed to her acting talent. And she did really look awkward at times. Patrick Swayze is also very good, but you can tell he is in his thirties and seems a bit old. Nevertheless, still very good. I love 80s songs so it really struck a chord with me, and the love story (yes, I'm a romantic) was so wonderfully done. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Exceeded my expectations! | 1 | positive |
Unconditional Love is one of the best movies I've seen in a while. It's an emotional roller-coaster. One of my favorite scenes is the pub scene. When Dirk tells Grace that he didn't want to go to the pub because the villagers don't like him, you expect the worst. When the old woman holds her glass up and says 'To the Memory of Victor Fox and the whole pub follows suit, I wanted to cry. The funeral scene is hysterical! Julie does it in her typical Julie Andrews style. Johnathan Pryce is excellent as Victor. Grace is one of Kathy Bates' best roles. Meredith Eaton steals just about every scene that she is in. Rupert Everett does some of his finest work in Unconditional as Dirk. The Kiss between Rupert and Meredith took me to another bout of hysterics. In this day and age of Gay rights being questioned, I think this movie should be seen by all. As a gay Man in my late 40's I have seen people lose everything when a loved one dies. So kudo's to all involved in the making of this film. | 1 | positive |
This is a very moving movie about life itself. The challenges a handicapped person must face in a land that expects perfection is brought to the forefront for all to see and hopefully understand. It should teach the bigots of society that we are all humans, and while some of us are gifted with a mind, heart and sound body, there are decent human beings that exist in the world that are not as lucky, or maybe, we're the unlucky ones. We don't always see the beauty in the world because we're wrapped up in our 'blind' ambitions, and see it only in one light "what can this world do for me!!!". Maybe we all wish we were like Radio, a loving happy individual...who loves everyone. | 1 | positive |
Normally BBC productions of Jane Austen are pretty good but Northanger Abbey is just odd. What were they thinking? This film has little of Austen's charm and ironically mimics the Gothic novels that Austen so wonderfully mocked. Not only that, the "gothic" sequences are tacky, over-the-top, and frankly silly. The actress playing Miss Morland is poorly cast with no obvious appeal to attract the attentions of an eligible bachelor, and though I rather liked the creepy Peter Firth as Mr. Tilney, he is not a bit like the novel, even when delivering dialog straight out of the book. Robert Hardy as General Tilney turned in one of his few terribly "ham" performances. This film was so bizarre and strange that I actually watched it again just to savor how freakishly wrong it was. | 0 | negative |
"Capt. Corelli's Mandolin" is an old fashioned Hollywood war romance but with sex and nudity, and supposedly no Americans. The story takes place on a Greek island during WW2. The Italians arrive to take over the island, but with German supervision. There is a romantic triangle made up of a Greek couple and the Italian captain. Nice performances by all the actors; Penelope Cruz's best work yet. | 1 | positive |
Burt Reynolds directed this action movie and (surprise!) he is actually a pretty good director. This movie starts off well as Burt's attempted bust of a drug dealer is botched, and he is demoted down to the vice squad. The ensemble cast has some pretty funny scenes as Brian Kieth is always eating something, Bernie Casey has more class than all of his co-workers combined, and Charles Durning loses control of his squad.<br /><br />The vice cops stumble on a high-priced call-girl ring that may have something to do with a series of murders. Sharkey spends days staking out Dominoe's (Rachel Ward) apartment, and starts to really adore her from afar.<br /><br />Just when they are getting close to the crime leader, Dominoe is murdered. I won't give away any of the surprises in the plot, but the first hour of this film is great.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the screenplay gets very clichéd and unbelievable after that.<br /><br />Why would Burt Reynolds confront the crime boss with his big secret? Sure it makes the guy sweat, but it causes many more cops to be killed. And it is not believable that Dominoe and Sharkey would make love after they have know each other for one day, much less while their lives are in danger. And at the end, what happened to all the police that run into the building with our heroes? Isn't there a SWAT team? Also, the film never actually tells you how all of the bad guys are connected, and why they have to kill so many people.<br /><br />There is a very effective torture scene on a boat near the end of the film, which is probably the only really nail-biting scene of the film. It is a shame that the climax is a typical shoot-em-up. Still, this film is certainly entertaining if you like crime and action movies. Don't think about the plot holes, and you will have a good time. | 1 | positive |
This is the best movie ever, but that is my opinion. Some say it's cheesy but I think it is truly a beautiful film. The chemistry between Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze it's like no other I have ever seen, and that is what makes the film so perfect. I always wonder what would have been of this film if these two actors never existed, because not just one them did it for me, they both did. If you have never seen this film, when you do you will understand what I mean. Dirty Dancing looks like it was done from the heart and it feels so real for some reason, like magic- and the soundtrack LOVE IT. Besides the 2 lead actors the soundtrack makes the film the beauty that it is. As you can tell I am in love with this film, and I know you will be too. | 1 | positive |
In today's world of advertising and teenage horror and sensationalism it is very rare that one gets to see a movie and no nothing about it. Movies like Psycho and Blair Witch, while being great in suspense (both with great build ups) are spoiled by the fact that we know all about the best scenes and at least the plot before we see them. With Mute Witness, a rare treat, I stumbled upon this film and watched it, scared witless, in the middle of the night. I was scared by the menacing Russian ambience, the 'snuff' theme and the claustrophobic plight of the mute and the fact that the (amusing, which always leads to likeable) characters could meet the end at any second. Since this is a low budget and rare film we watch it without any expectations. It also has Fay Ripley in a rare movie role, watch and prepare to be excited, scared and thrilled in totally unexpected ways. | 1 | positive |
There is a complete copy now available at the Internet Archive - watch it or download it today!<br /><br />http://www.archive.org/details/The_Mascot_Complete<br /><br />One of the greatest animated shorts ever made. Starewicz is endlessly inventive and his techniques still astound animation fans 70 years later. We may have computer-generated techniques now, but all he had in 1934 was an imagination that wouldn't take "no" for an answer. Whatever he wanted to see on the screen, he created. <br /><br />And he wanted to see some truly bizarre stuff - every imaginable piece of scrap is called up for service: old shoes, chicken bones, utensils, broken glasses, dolls, monkeys, rats....seems like there was nothing that was off limits.<br /><br />A truly eerie, even unsettling film that should be seen by anyone with even a passing interest in animation. This film must be seen to be believed! | 1 | positive |
with what they had. John and Carolyn were very private so the writers had to put together what they could. I really liked Portia de Rossi as Carolyn, but Jacqueline Bisset's voice grated on my nerves. She should have used her regular voice. I would have preferred that the whole movie focus on John and Carolyn instead of rehashing stuff we already know about John. | 1 | positive |
This coming from an adult who happened to come across the first one expecting a movie aimed towards children and was surprised at the adult humor that was in Emperors New Groove. The character i liked most of all was Kronk, so i was thrilled when i heard of the sequel (sp) featuring non other than "Kronk".<br /><br />I just watched Kronk's New groove, it took me two days because i had to shut it off, i was so bored halfway through it. I finally watched the rest of it the next day and unfortunately the 2nd half was every bit as lame as the first.<br /><br />Being a Disney film, i was expecting to have some musical scenes, however this one was filled with them and they were not amusing. The great thing i found about Emperors New Groove was that it could be appreciated by a wide audience, from toddlers to adults. Kronks New Groove in all honesty did nothing for me nor my girlfriend and we both loved the first. It is really aimed towards young children, the comedy is pretty childish, the musical scenes are not very well done and the plot itself is extremely corny.<br /><br />Save yourself some money and rent this movie if possible because its definitely not worthy of a second viewing. I was extremely disappointed and shocked at how thrown together this film was. They actually managed to make a character(Kronk)not funny in this film, that is amazing in itself.<br /><br />Obviously every ones opinion differs but i am very easily amused, i usually enjoy sequels (sp) even when others discredit them, mostly because i loved the first so much i needed more of the characters and no matter how bad the plot was i would enjoy the film. I cannot say the same for this one, i never would have thought i would be turning it off half way through due to pure boredom.<br /><br />Buy at Own Risk. | 0 | negative |
To summarize, my group of friends and I spent about 45 minutes outside the theater sharing our favorites gaffes, plot inconsistencies, untied loose ends, and other ridiculous aspects of this movie. I found the story trite to the point of inconsequential and the plot lines as underdeveloped as the dino embryos still locked in the shaving cream canister from Jurassic Park 1. The editing was poor and none of the characters engendered any sort of sympathy or feeling. In short, this movie lacked any of the suspense and thrill that the first movie provided from a story standpoint<br /><br />Even the new dinosaurs were few and far between (although I really enjoyed the pterodactyls.) We got several brief shots of the new species and only 2 really were involved in the action.<br /><br />As a scientist and former childhood paleontologist, the lack of any real scientific content (not that it had to be realistic, but logically formed i.e. how they built the dinos in #1 and malcom's chaos ramblings) was disappointing as well.<br /><br />In short, the movie seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to trot dinos back on the scene to make some money. I hope that movie-goers don't fall for this trap again (although I did apparently) | 0 | negative |
If there's one cartoon that helped to put UPA on the map more than any other, It's Gerald McBoing-Boing. This tale of a little boy who only speaks in sound effects has kept its charm for the last 57 years. Besides the effects, loved the music, the abstract animation and backgrounds, the narration by Marvin Miller, pretty much everything. And it won the Oscar for Best Animated Short of 1950. Glad to have seen it on YouTube after reading about this Dr. Seuss story for so many years. And Rocky and Bullwinkle creator Bill Scott also contributed, how awesome! Hope to see the subsequent shorts made in the series, if not on YouTube, then maybe in a DVD collection. Now I guess I'll watch another UPA short there... | 1 | positive |
Travis and Sandy(Ben Johnson and Harry Carey, Jr.)are horse traders coerced into selling their animals to a Mormon group and guiding them across the frontier to a settlement. What they do not expect is to encounter the notorious Clegg murderers, with their wounded leader Uncle Shiloh(Charles Kemper). Ward Bond portrays Elder Wiggs, the main voice for the Mormon group moving the wagon train to the Lord's destination. Along the way, they also encounter "Doctor" A Locksley Hall and his "Hoochey Koochey Wagon" and lend them help.<br /><br />Lovingly directed by Ford who pays close attention to detail with realistic problems any group would encounter during a rugged wagon trail. The film has a wonderful cast made up of character actors with nary a true star in the film which is actually a blessing to see, if just not for a change of pace. Young Johnson and Carey, Jr. come off real well, but this is Bond's film to shine as he has the best lines. Johnson is the one who seems to understand ruffians and brutes like Shiloh and will certainly come in handy when certain conflict might develop as the Clegg boys ride along side them a piece.<br /><br />I'd have to say this is one of his best and most least appreciated westerns and seems to flow very well. | 1 | positive |
I though that it was hard, if not impossible, to watch, and not because of the horrors it depicts but by the way they were depicted. Imagine what Costa Gavras could have done with this true horror story. What I object to is the idea the need to denounce, which I subscribe to, is enough. What about showing it to us with the power of powerful cinema. I feel that the eagerness of the filmmaker, maybe even the justifiable anger, didn't allow him to see it clearly from a cinematic point of view. Or, if this was a cinematic point of view, I mean, a choice, then, I didn't like it at all. I was more disturbed by the way the movie was shot than by the movie itself. Well intentioned I'm sure, but, unfortunately, that's not nearly enough. | 0 | negative |
First love. Teenage love. We all have experienced it even if it was not as sweet as the one the protagonists share. "Friends" could be considered an adaptation of the classic "The Blue Lagoon", originally from 1949, and its remakes from 1980 (the most popular one, with Brooke Shields) and 1999 (with a young Milla Jovovich). While "The Blue Lagoon" puts the two young lovers in a desert island, with no contact with civilization, "Friends" goes the opposite route and it is sure to ring much more true and be a more difficult movie with contemporary audiences. Paul and Michelle who, for different reasons, turn their backs on family and the adult world to end up living together in a small cottage in Southern France. Having only each other and their childhood innocence, their friendship slowly develops into much more as they struggle to sustain themselves, in this sweet coming of age story. This film even to this day is controversial since the actors are teenagers and they certainly look the ages that are stated in the movie (15 and 14 1/2). The movie does contains a hint of child molesting, nudity, depictions of teenage sex and teenage pregnancy. But the real controversy is not the subject matter but the fact that Paul and Michelle's love is presented as a natural and healthy relationship. While this worked fine for stranded lovers in another time and in a desert island, having them in a modern setting presents some very difficult moral issues. Laws prohibiting consenting sex between minors are in effect in almost all countries and lack of sexual education in teenagers is seen as one of the causes for the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions. Is a movie like this one just child pornography or a slap in the face to make us face our own hypocrisy, regarding a modern society that does not cater to teenage parents and laws that clearly go against human nature and hormonal development but that are needed to prevent child abuse? Is hormonal development parallel to emotional growth? These are not easy questions and most of us will feel uncomfortable with them. As an artistic piece, this movie is really a forgotten and rough gem. The script progresses with extreme simplicity, albeit some sappiness, but never pulling any punches to state its message, although by today standards, it is somewhat slow. The photography is beautiful and it has scenes of great beauty. The acting of the two protagonists varies from really awful in some scenes to marvelously innocent and credible in others. Pop music, unlike most productions nowadays, is used tastefully and sometimes the lyrics speak the thoughts of the protagonists. Overall, this is a delightful piece, even if the moral values are not in concordance with your own. | 1 | positive |
Try as I might, I just simply couldn't get into this one. Perhaps it was the washed out tones; perhaps it was the drawn-out approach--I'm not really sure, but though this was by no means a "bad" movie, I didn't really find it to be very much of an "effective" movie (words that I understand are so much more arbitrary than their common uses).<br /><br />So, basically, the deal here is that a series of adolescent boys' deaths sets off an investigation and anxiety in a small provincial town, triggering a witch hunt. What do the boys' death have to do with the mysterious, sexy woman who has appeared in town? Is the crazy hermit woman involved? Is it voodoo? The story is a mixture of crime drama and horror as the various townspeople are all suspect and corpses keep appearing while bloody violence ensues.<br /><br />Good enough, but to me, most of it fell a little flat. Oh, it had it's moments... the one boy walking in on a beautiful naked seductress was pretty good, and the scene where the fathers beat the hermit was a bitter commentary (even if the effects themselves failed, considering her skin seemed to peel off as if they were whipping her with red-hot irons).<br /><br />My biggest issue was the ending. I've already put spoiler tags on this review, but BE WARNED, HERE'S THE BIG SPOILER: I don't believe it. I don't believe that a priest could convince himself to kill young boys for becoming sexually aware without some hint of that psychosis appearing earlier, with other boys, with a history, or some other personal affect. The movie didn't really earn its ending. END SPOILERS.<br /><br />Nonetheless, Fulci is a big name and I'm more than certain there's an audience out there for this. I definitely need to check out more that he's done, because this may have been a poor introduction. Most Italian giallo is hit-or-miss anyway, so I'm waiting to see what else this guy can do before writing him off.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 0 | negative |
Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) begins this story in disguise, helping to smuggle famous physicist "Dr. Franz Tobel" (William Post) out of Switzeralnad and under the watchful eye of the Nazis, who want his bomb sight plans. The Allies obviously want it, too, and Sherlock is there to help. Dr. Tobel has invented an instrument which greatly aids in the accuracy of aerial bombardment. <br /><br />Holmes and Dr. Tobel arrive safely back at Baker Street but the scientist would rather be alone, for some mysterious reason, although he had promised the English to help them, not the Germans. He stays true to that promise but there are some desperate moments for Holmes and the English along the way.<br /><br />It's an entertaining film and one in which our famous detective uses not one but three different disguises. He needs all the help he can get when he goes up against his arch-rival, "Professor Moriarity." One complaint: if Moriarity was that evil, he would have dispensed with Holmes without batting an eyelash, instead of giving him openings to escape. It's pretty sad, too, when the usual dim-witted Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) has to rescue his boss from certain death a couple of times!<br /><br />Yes, there are some credibility issues in this story but if you can put your brain on hold a few times, it's a fun film to watch....and it looks beautiful, thanks to the great restoration job done on this DVD. It makes the old print come alive with some wonderful visuals, particularly the night-time shots.<br /><br />One other note: whoever did the English subtitles in here misspelled or misinterpreted at least a half dozen words. It's very sloppy work, and not the first time I've encountered this watching the entire series on the restored DVD set. | 1 | positive |
Friz Freleng's 'Snafuperman' is one of the lesser Private Snafu shorts. A warning of the importance of studying your field manual, 'Snafuperman' makes it point rather clumsily. The story, in which Technical Fairy, First Class makes Snafu into a superhuman in order to help him see the error of his ways, is predictable and unfunny. Freleng's earlier Snafu short 'Rumours' had been bursting with ideas and laughs but here the director is lumbered with a rather boring topic and he struggles to make an entertaining short from it. Even at around three minutes long, 'Snafuperman' seems to drag and, unlike the best cartoons in the series, it feels like an instructional film first and entertainment second. Though they were knocked out more quickly than the usual Warner cartoons, the Snafu shorts largely maintained a surprisingly high standard. 'Snafuperman' is a reflection of the sort of quality you'd more reasonably expect from a less talent bunch of creative minds. | 0 | negative |
This is one of those movies which get better with each viewing. I watched it three times and actually registered on IMDb because I wanted to comment on it. Movies "about food" have been done before, some of them are really good - as, for instance, a certain Japanese comedy which aficionados of Asian cinema will know anyway. But this one really is in its own league. At its core is a protestant Christian parable symbolizing the ideal of kindness but, far from being dogmatic, it also addresses the "good" in each and every of us, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof. There is a pervading understatement and refinement in Babette's Feast but this makes the message of the movie, if anything, stronger, not at all weaker. If you cannot attend the extraordinary physical banquet offered by Babette, you're still welcome to this feast of the soul. Highly recommended!! | 1 | positive |
Topless touch football!! A wet t-shirt contest!! A jockstrap raid!! This "SheAnimal House" has it all. Except a plot and good actors. The film consists of several pranks and catfights between the H.O.T.S. girls and the bitchy PI house. The dialouge is a scream and the soundtrack is sublimely brilliant. Over the past couple of months it's been popping up all over cable, so do yourself a favor and watch out for it. H.O.T.S. is so bad it's good! | 1 | positive |
Those who dislike this film seem to think that a loved one somehow 'belongs' to them and must be discarded if they go off with someone else. Fortunately, human nature is much deeper than that; loving someone deeply inevitably brings suffering - though if we are fortunate only on their death.<br /><br />This film is true in setting, atmosphere and dialogue to Nigel Balchin's original novel ('A Way Through The Wood'), and by pinpointing a seemingly irreconcilable dilemma captures the quiet desperation that lies behind many seemingly idyllic lives (and the depiction of English upper class country life is very accurate).<br /><br />I loved the film and hope it will appear soon as an UK-compatible DVD | 1 | positive |
I have probably watched the movie 4 or 5 times. Every time, i get more and more impressed by how far the wish of a young heart can go, and the strenght of both Kai and Gertha to struggle for what they believe in.<br /><br />And the whole story is presented in such a way, you just get transfered into the plot and before you know it, you are there. you can see... yeah, there's Kai... working hard on the mirror... a little jump.... there's Gertha, fighting for her love..... and there's the Snow Queen...<br /><br />it's just a wonderful mix of love, adventure, tension.<br /><br />it's brilliant 10 out of 10 | 1 | positive |
This short subject is a remake of the Three Stooges' 1942 film "What's the Matador?", about the boys' trip to Mexico and their bullfighting adventures. Although the original short was made during the Stooges' peak period, it isn't that memorable and I believe it is one of the more mediocre films with Curly Howard.<br /><br />Having established that, I believe that "Sappy Bullfighters" is just pathetically awful, like all the other shorts with Joe Besser. Moe and Larry never should have hired Besser, because his whiny, almost feminine character was completely wrong for the violent comedy of the Stooges. His 16 films with Moe and Larry marked the nadir for the team, and those shorts are embarrassing to watch. This short was released in 1959 and was the team's swan song with Columbia. Maybe Besser was a nice guy, but he was all wrong as the third stooge.<br /><br />I won't review any more Besser shorts, because I would just be giving the same scathingly negative review over and over. Do yourself a big favor and don't watch this. Instead, try to catch "In the Sweet Pie and Pie" or "Hoi Polloi". | 0 | negative |
Looking backwards to that year 2002 when "Furia" was made, one can easily recognize the heralding sings of today's New Generation in Romania.<br /><br />The main qualities of "Furia" stand in a very solid script, with a substantial dramatic core and a really professional developing, plus a cast of excellent actors. All four leading roles are admirably performed, both with depth and casualness: Dragos Bucur and Andy Vasluianu confirmed, since then, being two of our best performers today, Dorina Chiriac follows them closely, and Adrian Tuli, a non-professional (in real life, a graveyard manager!) cast as Gabonu, was a genuine revelation! <br /><br />Further, Radu Muntean's directing is skilled and expressive, creating in a very compelling style that feeling of "a fateful night" and inescapable destiny. One can easily pass over the few awkward and even failed moments, since time proved them to be only the uncertainties inherent to a debut, never repeated in his subsequent movies: "Hârtia va fi albasträ" and "Boogie". | 1 | positive |
I've slowly been collecting the films available on DVD of both Catherine Deneuve and Francois Truffaut. Both actress and director have done some stinkers in their time - fortunately Mississipi Mermaid is not one of them.<br /><br />Next to "The Soft Skin", coincidentally staring Deneuve's sister (the late Francoise Dorleac), this would have to be my favourite Truffaut film.<br /><br />As well as directing, Truffaut also wrote the screenplay. Something that always strikes me about Truffaut is his almost childlike innocence when presenting a story -- one could almost call it naivety.<br /><br />There's a scene towards the end of the film where Belmondo returns to the apartment in Lyon with the remains of the loot. He rings the doorbell and Deneuve answers wearing a negligee. In the time it takes Belmondo to reach their room from the street, Deneuve changes into her dress, puts on her best pair of stockings and shoes, then lies on the bed and pretends she is asleep. It's a scene that could almost come from the mind of a child - but that's Truffaut for you.<br /><br />Watching Catherine Deneuve in her films of the late 60's is indeed a sensory pleasure. She is so extraordinarily beautiful it is almost painful for us to watch. Incidentally, for those fans, there are a couple of topless scenes of her in this film - indeed a sinful pleasure.<br /><br />I disagree with previous posters. I see nothing 'Hitchcockian' about the film at all. As for the 'look' of it - i love the look of the older film stock used in the 60's. It certainly gives films of this period a unique look.<br /><br />Highly recommended for both Deneuve and Truffaut fans...... | 1 | positive |
The Animatrix: A Detective Story is very well planned and has a great storyline to go with it. Carrie-Anne Moss plays Trinity in this animated cartoon. I really like the 'Private Detective' ideas created by the Director. | 1 | positive |
I must say it was a let down. Overall its great to see the way Aparna Sen has handled the issue of schizophrenia, I am not much knowledgeable on this and got whatever it was depicted in A Beautiful Mind, and here too its interesting portrayal.<br /><br />But the thing that caused the let down for me was the artificial dialogues and over use of English. Its true that a new class is being formed/ has been formed in India which talks in English even at home, but I am sure its not as formal as in the movie. Moreover, Waheeda Rehmaan did not seem very comfortable talking everything in English. Charu's dialogue in Bihari tone was seemingly much more realistic and digestible.<br /><br />The second thing, its about the abstract flavor she has tried to give to the movie. I generally like movies with open ending, but here there were many loose ends. Its like cut pieces are joined together to make the movie. Also there seemed no central theme to the movie. Schizophernia for sure was the main line but intermingling sister-sister, mother-daughter, adding doctor-azmi relation, no real use of brother, Bose - Bose's wife relations..... all were not required and made the audience loose track of what actually did she try to depict.<br /><br />On the whole, a watch for people who like off-beat movies, a must avoid for the ones who just see movies as an entertainment tool. | 1 | positive |
To answer the question of a previous reviewer who asked the name of the U.S. official mentioned in "Lumumba", the name of the character is "Mr. Carlucci." Frank Carlucci is reported as having been at that time Second Secretary at the U.S. Embassy in the Congo. Subsequently, among other assignments, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Portugal, Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Secretary of Defense, and is now the Chairman of the Carlyle Group. It's hardly surprising that Carlucci's biographical sketch on his www.carlylegroup.com web site fails to credit his service in the Belgian Congo. If his name was deliberately censored from the HBO version of "Lumumba" it may have been to avoid the possibility of HBO's being sued in U.S. courts. Carlucci's name, however, is clearly mentioned in the theatre version of "Lumumba" that I saw recently. In the event, I expect that he would deny any involvement in Lumumba's murder.<br /><br />Others have commented on the evenhandedness with which the film "Lumumba" treats the parties concerned: Lumumba-supporters, other Congolese, even Belgians. A somewhat more sinister view emerges, I think, from the BBC documentary entitled "Who Killed Lumumba?", based on the book "The Murder of Lumumba" by Belgian historian Ludo de Witte. When examined closely, these films demonstrate that the fate of Lumumba and the history of the Congo is not just a matter of black and white. Only Lumumba's murderers believe that. | 1 | positive |
And now for another point of view: I didn't like it. I didn't finish it in fact. I know that "Unforgiven" is ranked by some as one of the greatest Westerns ever made. I know that it stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood, one of the icons of American cinema. I know that it won a bunch of Oscars. Still, I didn't like it. I don't like Westerns, and that's clearly a matter of taste, but I also don't admire Eastwood's acting. He is not and never has been a leading man. He is no Burt Lancaster, no Paul Newman, no John Wayne. In this film alone he is dwarfed by Richard Harris and Gene Hackman; they are both actors. No, Eastwood is a tall guy with a reedy voice who usually plays tough guys. Here he plays a retired tough guy. When I see him on screen, I see a man laboring at his acting. Then there's the anti-Western Western plot. It is too obviously intended to inject contemporary values -- a respect for the role of women, blacks, native Americans, and single parents; a disrespect for violence and drinking; the wholesomeness that comes with marriage, including interracial marriage, and small adorable children -- into a century in which those values weren't necessarily accepted, at least in these ways. By promoting those values, the movie comes across as mannered, if not preachy. Then there are the hoary movie stereotypes -- prostitutes with hearts of gold, the kid who can't shoot straight, the city slicker new to the wild West, the sage brush shimmering on a summer afternoon with a musical accompaniment in major chords. Finally there is the pacing of Eastwood's direction. I gave up after an hour. Eastwood was still riding north, chatting with Morgan Freeman and the kid who couldn't shoot straight, sixty minutes after the plot driven by the slashing of a prostitute was set in motion. It was way too slow. Somebody had to find these elements uncompelling. I am afraid it was me. | 0 | negative |
This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete. | 1 | positive |
The director, Ramin Niami, delivers the goods with Somewhere in the City. This hilarious farce, I believe, is in the tradition of a Mel Brooks comedy. Niami pokes fun at New York society by creating the believable, eccentric, and tragic characters of one tenement apartment building bringing them to life from the very opening one shots that introduce them. Peter Stormare's performance as a gay Shakespearean actor is absolutely award worthy and the film in general does a good job at showing the hopelessness and laugh-ability of self-centered ambition. Sandra Bernhard is cast perfectly as the straight, self-obsessed therapist. I really enjoyed Sandra's performance immensely especially since I haven't really been a very big fan until now. Bai Ling, Ornella Muti, and Bulle Ogier round out an international ensemble par excellence. I loved the scene with Robert John Burke and his gang of idiot criminals who couldn't plan a robbery if their lives depended on it. With a cameo appearance by Mayor Ed Koch and a solid performance by Paul Anthony Stewart, the revolutionary momma's boy, Somewhere in the City entertains without missing a beat. | 1 | positive |
Im warning you people out there, this is just a waste of your time. I am being honest when I'm saying that this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Its just a move about Christian propaganda! Don't throw away your life, don't see it!<br /><br />I think they made the movie so more people will believe in Jesus or something, but it works in the opposite way. The actors are all newbies, the story is just fuzzy!<br /><br />I think this movie is a work of the devil. <br /><br />This movie is just not worth seeing, so please take my advice and don't! | 0 | negative |
I really like this show. It has drama, romance, and comedy all rolled into one. I am 28 and I am a married mother, so I can identify both with Lorelei's and Rory's experiences in the show. I have been watching mostly the repeats on the Family Channel lately, so I am not up-to-date on what is going on now. I think females would like this show more than males, but I know some men out there would enjoy it! I really like that is an hour long and not a half hour, as th hour seems to fly by when I am watching it! Give it a chance if you have never seen the show! I think Lorelei and Luke are my favorite characters on the show though, mainly because of the way they are with one another. How could you not see something was there (or take that long to see it I guess I should say)? <br /><br />Happy viewing! | 1 | positive |
David Lynch's ninth full length feature film, Mulholland Drive is a deeply touching story about betrayal and jealousy. If anything, it brutally contrasts our ambitions and hopes to the often bitter truth. Every frame of this movie has importance and links to other parts and to themselves at the same time. Nothing is what it first appears to be and you're left with a real puzzle as you end up trying to put the pieces together. It is a movie that does not compromise, nor does it fail to fully handle the challenging form and camera language, as might have been the case earlier with Lost Highway.<br /><br />Although one clearly recognizes classic lynchian motifs and devices, the movie remains highly original, even in the light of it being a Lynch movie. Lost Highway marked a new way of telling a story; bred an unconventional mean of setting emotions on to the screen. With Mulholland Drive, Lynch not only managed to control this technique, but takes it to new levels in making it much more complex and multi dimensional. In doing this, he creates a framework of different layers in time and of the human mind. In a press conference on the Cannes film festival 2001, David Lynch said that striving for perfection at best could give a result where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Talking about synergies like this becomes highly relevant to Mulholland Dr. where the different sequences and many details contribute to the total; dreamscapes and parallels intertwine to create the story. In some art, the beauty of it lies in its simpleness. This is not the case with Mulholland Drive, and has never been with Lynch. It is the complexity that colors and builds the worlds Lynch creates, the same complexity that characterizes the real world.<br /><br />It never gets forced like, in my opinion, for example Memento does, using an original way of communicating with the viewers. Further comparing Mulholland Drive to other movies, I think it proves David Lynch as a master of what he does and bridges art and film making in a way that no one has ever done. Compared to for example Alejandro Jodorowsky or contemporary Matthew Barney, I do believe that Lynch more clearly manages not letting the artist dominate the film maker or, more likely, David Lynch better understands and executes film making as an art form.<br /><br />Understanding the plot is no small feat, but Lynch's way of working with sound, perspective, chronology and form paints a work of art so dark and frightening that it sometimes feels more realistic than real life. The lynchian cinema is often, and most definitely in Mulholland Drive, a surge of human emotions. Working with emotions is a delicate craft that demands understanding and depth. As Lynch puts it: "A little bit too much, and the emotion goes away. A little bit too little, and it doesn't happen." In Mulholland Drive, David Lynch has no problem making this balance. Lynch's portraits span all kinds of dimensions and take different directions, creating incredibly realistic characters and situations. Watching Mulholland Drive is a journey through the subconscious. It is a truthful and naked movie with indisputable artistic value. That is why I love Mulholland Drive and what's taken it to the pinnacle of cinema history. The ultimate movie. | 1 | positive |
My gosh, this movie was nothing more than filmmaking by numbers. Struggling salesman can't make a go of it in New York, mentor with a heart of gold takes him under his wing, struggling salesman moves to California and makes it big, then loses it big, then bounces back with the simple life, then hits rock bottom trying to get back to the top. I don't think I can remember any part of the plot that took more than five seconds to develop. Case in point (spoiler?): When the John Kapelos character calls to say he and his girlfriend were coming to Santa Cruz to visit, and James Woods says there's practically no chance he would come, you knew with 100% certainty they were coming in the next scene or two.<br /><br />On the other hand, Sean Young sure looked good. | 0 | negative |
This movie doesn't have any pretense at being great art, which is good. But it is a well written script with well developed characters and solid acting. I think if I wrote it I could do without the drama surrounding the wife, but it wasn't distracting enough to detract from the main story concerning Minnie Driver's character. I think that all too often Hollywood abandons an attempt at real quality writing to try and inject more visual drama when, with an adult themed movie such as this, the emotional type of drama is all that's really needed - and probably more believable too. Overall, it's a very well done offering and well worth seeing. | 1 | positive |
It seems to be a common thing in the 90's to play with cliches. Some manage to do so with great talent. Hervé Hadmar doesn't. On the paper, the movie looked interesting though: the weak plot could have been saved by great moments of comedy, dark humour, and a very "décalé" style. Director Hadmar, unfortunately, kills his direction with his camera angles and his absolute lack of rhythm. Every joke is embarassing as no one reacts in the theater. The movie is incredibly slow, and the actors seem to be wondering what the hell they're doing in this ridiculous mascarade. What could have been a stylish funny mindless comedy ends up being a cathedral of boredom. | 0 | negative |
I, like so many others on here, bought this movie at my local WM in the "Two for $11.00" cheap-o bin. I love cheesy B horror and sci-fi movies, and this one definitely fits in that category. Pretty much what everyone else on here said is dead on. Yes it was bad, but that was to be expected. The "main" problem I had with this movie is that it was just basically BORING. I mean serious yawn-o-rama. The acting was bad, the costumes (K Mart Skeletor outfit circa 1982) were worse, and the editing was awful. No continuity whatsoever. Mr Skeletor ultimately dies in an explosion of sorts...uh, although he encountered multiple explosion throughout this move. I guess the last one just took its toll on him. Apparently earlier encounters with this "military" group (cough) took its toll on his horse....it would change from red to black throughout this crap fest. Even for a B movie, do yourself a favor and skip it. The only good it serves me now it to add to my DVD collection. Hopefully no one will recognize it when they look through my movie collection. Thumbs down, big time. | 0 | negative |
Superhero Movie (2008) is the most recent in the long line over "parody" movie movies which I despise so much. I wish this movie could be the death of the genre, but I know that it isn't awful enough to put the final nail in the coffin.<br /><br />If Meet the Spartans is considered the bottom of the barrel as far as Hollywood movies go, than Superhero Movie is probably near the top. Unfortunately Meet the Spartans was actually miles below the barrel, and this movie just barely makes it in.<br /><br />Superhero Movie has a decent cast of C-list celebs. It's got Drake Bell (the kid from Disney's Drake and Josh), Leslie Nielson (Airplane!), Tracy Morgan (SNL and 30 Rock), and a few others scattered throughout. Although it has the star power to light a 40-watt bulb, the movie fails to utilize any humor.<br /><br />This movie is about 80 minutes long, most of which is dedicated to following the Spiderman plot, and not one single joke is funny. I didn't laugh or chuckle or smirk the entire time.<br /><br />Don't see this movie. Don't even think about it. For the love of cinema, just skip it and maybe they wont come out with another one.<br /><br />...oh, who am I kidding? They'll probably come out with another one by fall. | 0 | negative |