text
stringlengths 49
9.95k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
From a perspective that it is possible to make movies that are not offensive to people with strong moral values, this one is definitely worthwhile. This is the second Bruce Willis film in a row that manages to tell its story with no nudity, off-color humor, profanity, or gratuitous violence. (I refer of course to The Sixth Sense.) Both movies are engaging on more than one level. This one is appropriate for children as well, although as others have pointed out, it isn't a flick FOR kids. <br /><br />I was bothered that the time travel device that drives this plot is never explained, except that we know Russell himself initiates it as a 70 year old. Also, why does his dying mother have to come to school to get him when he wins the fight; why, if as his older self says, he has to fight that kid again and again for the next few years does his mother not have to come and get him every time, and why he doesn't learn to kick butt in the process. I also found the score rather annoying and not always appropriate to the action on stage. <br /><br />Good use of the red plane as metaphor, however. | 1 | positive |
I first saw Robin Hood: Men in Tights back in 1994 in the cinema. I went to see it because I always liked Robin Hood and I saw the trailer of this movie and thought it was hilarious. After I saw the movie I must say it was even better than I thought. Not only is it very funny, it's also a very well made movie with beautiful sets and costumes and a very beautiful score by Hummie Mann. The acting in the movie is also good, Cary Elwes is funny as Robin Hood and also Tracey Ullman, Richard Lewis, Mark Blankfield, David Chapelle, Amy Yasbeck, Megan Cavanagh, Eric Allan Kramer, Matthew Porretta and Mel Brooks himself are funny. But the best part in the movie is played by Roger Rees as the evil Sheriff of Rottingham. He has the best scenes in the movie and also the best dialogue ("King illegal forest to pig wild kill in it a is", which stands for "It is illegal to kill a wild pig in the king's forest").He somehow mixes up all the words and speaks out a sentence that nobody understands. Robin Hood: Men in Tights is in my book one of the best Mel Brooks films to date and I can't say that I have laughed as much about a film as this one. It's just non-stop laughing. | 1 | positive |
Terrible. There's no way to get around it. A script at the level of one from some Mexican soap opera, a choice and use of the places of shooting that make the movie labyrinthine and at the same time, repetitive and monotonous, with disastrous performances of almost the entire cast. The references to Tarantino's work, so poorly made, are more an insult than anything else. I suspect that was not for the shameless and plot-unrelated exploitation of Matadinho's generous curves , nobody would take the effort to go watch this film to any theater.<br /><br />These are the kind of films that make me have no desire to watch Portuguese cinema. | 0 | negative |
This movie must be exported to the rest of the world! An absolute masterpiece, with a both bizarre and grim film about four different stories from four different locations in Sweden. The one with the newly renovated hotel with the improper wooden figure of an old finance minister is absolutely the best of the four, odd story about love or career. I would love to see all four as a film on their own they can be so much more extended. <br /><br />Also the unique pause in the middle is something I've never seen before.<br /><br />Can't wait for the series (if they're doing one) or the extended DVD. Apparently they had cut out a lot to fit it in to just 3,5 hours. | 1 | positive |
I rented this film courtesy of Netflix, thinking I would receive the 1972 version. I sat clueless, watching this new version, thinking: Gee, the production values were spectacular! I was convinced the soundtrack had a slightly 70s' sound to it. I was even more convinced that this was a 70s film when it occurred to me (almost every five seconds) that the one thing that was missing between Gene and Finney was an intense hug, a loaded stare, a passionate kiss.<br /><br />I'm sorry, although John Knowles himself has indicated that this was not a homosexual relationship, it is painfully obvious that yes, that's exactly what it was. When people (usually adolescents) of the same sex have "intense" friendships, it means that those longings for love, togetherness, the desire to express oneself sexually, are all spilling over. These boys needed to connect, but they were never allowed to.<br /><br />Also, despite a spirited performance by Toby Moore, I never felt any of the emotions were real. I never connected to either of the boys, for the very reason their relationship was not truly honest.<br /><br />People want to live in a fantasy and think that because this took place in the 1940s that these boys couldn't have had these sexual feelings for each other. But I say they did -- at least in the book they did, and in this movie, Finney had them, almost painfully, for Gene. The "intensity" that John Knowles suggests existed between them was a closet homosexuality, a hero worship, an idolatry -- that would, under normal circumstances, be expressed in a sexual way. Even if these boys were repressing it, it should have been crystal clear, but this movie doesn't even really hint at it. <br /><br />Lastly, there is an unbelievably bizarre moment when Finney, who has broken his leg, is playfully jumped on by all the other boys during a ball game. Unless they were just a bunch of nincompoops, they would know they could not possibly throw their bodies against him. Obviously this bone-shattering moment was lost on both the director and the producer. | 0 | negative |
Sam Firstenberg's "Ninja 3:The Domination" mixes martial arts with "The Exorcist" like horror.The horror elements thrown on screen are simply laughable,but the film works as a mindless action/martial arts flick.The fight scenes are well-choreographed and exciting,and the film is never boring.So forget stupid dialogue,lame acting and annoying soundtrack-grab some beer and check this one out!Highly recommended! | 1 | positive |
Having watched the show for about four weeks, which is enough to get a feel for the show, I think it shows potential. Whilst much is borrowed from other shows (what sci-fi doesn't these days), and the characters are stereotyped, I like what they are doing with the stories. There is some continuity with plot development and character interaction/relationship building, despite the essentially modular nature of each episode. There have been some science related topics explored as well as character secret/weakness revelations. These have also added some comedy to the show, something I would gladly see more of in "serious" sci-fi. In all, this makes for good balance, such that can appeal to larger groups of people, unlike the Star Trek vs Babylon 5 debates I've been numerous participant and witness to. The visual aspects of the show are more than adequate, and well budgeted for a first season. The acting is acceptable, and I am curious to see how well the actors manage to grow their characters out of their scripted stereotypes. I see enough positives and potential to remain interested in seeing where the show wants to go... | 1 | positive |
With awful movies like this one being even considered let alone being made, it's very easy to see why Hollywood is in such serious trouble with bad plots and worse remakes all the time.<br /><br />I guess the viewer is supposed to be laughing their rear ends off over the 'black' in-jokes, the 'pimped up' look and the 'Bling'. It's so incredible 'over the top' and so bad that is even past the 'So bad it's funny again' mark and have plummeted right into 'totally embarrassing for anyone involved'.<br /><br />I'm very, very sorry for every single minute I wasted on this one. I want my time back !<br /><br />Save yourself the agony, do NOT watch this. The only reason for me to give even 1 point in the rating is that 0 wasn't an option. | 0 | negative |
the movie touches the soul of the audience very much,some scene in the movie is ultimate and tears comes out automatically,i'm surprised by seeing this movie that any director can direct this type of movie in the year 1925.as a student of cinema i can say this movie helps a lot to understand use of montage.first time when our teacher told us about this movie means genre of this movie we thought nothing could be there in this movie to understand but finally when sir explained it then we came to know how great this movie is.lastly i can say it helps a lot understanding films.and being a cinema student i can the viewers that they can see this movie. | 1 | positive |
Thursday June 9, 9:15pm Egyptian Theater Saturday June 11, 2:00pm Uptown Theater<br /><br />Being loved and belonging is essential for most children. Those born to Vietnamese mothers and GI fathers often found neither. The Beautiful Country is the story of one such child, Binh, rejected by his rural village then struggling to find his American father. The film begins with green and wild country but descends into grimy sweaty ugliness and boredom. The considerable talents of Tim Roth and Temuera Morrison are wasted in pointless and ill conceived roles aboard the rusting freighter carrying Binh and is dying brother across the ocean with what appear to be stock shots of stormy seas. New York City offers slave labor and cliché characters. While very uneven from it's start the great curiosity of this film is the final segment. Nick Nolte is given top billing among the cast. I jokingly suggested he would probably be in the final scene only and was not far from the truth. As the journey brings Binh to Texas and his father the film takes on a serene and austere simplicity. A tenuous cohabitation knits these two men together into a family of father and son. The ninety odd minutes of garbage we have just watched is rewarded by a profound and subtle performance from Nolte as they slowly interact. The credits rolled and I was surprised to see the names of Badlands executive producer Edward Pressman and West Texas native Terrence Malick. | 0 | negative |
I put this film in the queue on a whim after a recent trip to NYC, and I couldn't believe I'd never heard of it anywhere! It has all the makings of a cult classic, starting with the characters. They are archetypal roles we recognize from every stretch of daily life, but were so nuanced and fully realized by the actors playing them (Peter Stormare and Bai Ling's performances were particularly strong). Their interactions are poignant and grounded while at the same time brimming with a subtle, quirky humor that is (sadly) all too rare in American films these days. Writer/director Ramin Niami does a beautiful job of weaving these scenes together into a funny and moving portrait of a city of the past. Highly recommended! | 1 | positive |
This movie is such a total waste of time. I can't understand anyone sitting through this piece of trash. Oh, I would have loved it when I was seven years old. I think a seven year old child may have written and directed it.<br /><br />There's no script, no acting, just rubbish. The best acting is that by the fighting roosters. I think I could whip these ninjas and I am not someone you'd consider tough. Totally unconvincing and did not spark the least bit of interest. I was yawning, and laughing, by the end of the first ten minutes of the film. This is one that would turn people away from martial art movies. Great comedy, bad action flick. | 0 | negative |
Silly Disney film about a college student who accidentally discovers a potion that makes things invisible. Not a bad idea and some of the special effects are pretty good. Still, the script is VERY bad...all the jokes flop and the acting is lousy. Everybody's trying to be funny and they're not. A real boring, stupid Disney film. But it was fun seeing Kurt Russell so young. | 0 | negative |
John Huston was seriously ill when he made his final achievement,and it's thoroughly his testament:uncompromising,difficult ,a thousand miles away from crazes and fashions,it will stand as the best "last film" you can ever dream of.A very austere screenplay,no action,no real hero,but a group of people coping with the vanity of life,the fleeting years and death.The party doesn't delude people for long.Admittedly,warmth and affection emanate from the songs and the meal,complete with turkey and pudding.But the passage of time has partly ruined Julia's voice,first crack in the mirror.Then the camera leaves the room where the guests are gathered and searches the old lady's bedroom.For sure,hers seems to have been a happy life,but it's a life inexorably coming to an end-A shot shows towards the end of the movie Julia on her future deathbed-.Maybe an unfulfilled life,because she remained a spinster,with no children to carry on .Only some poor things,yellowish photographs,bibelots and trinklets.... But are a human being's hopes and dreams all fulfilled?Look at Gretta.She 's a married woman ,about thirty-five,she's still beautiful and healthy but she knows something is broken.What Julia is today,she will be tomorrow,that's why,in her stream of consciousness,she goes back to her past,only to find out how harrowing her memories are: a young man committed suicide for her,a symbol of her youth now waning.The final monologue,if we listen closely to it,involves us all in this eternal tragedy,the doomed to failure human condition,John Huston's masterly lesson. | 1 | positive |
I first saw this film in 1959 at the Hoyts Double Bay cinema in Sydney when fifteen years old. I loved it then and still do. The ensemble cast is great - in those days the actors acted "naturally" and you "felt" for them in the respective roles. A "glossy" film of the period -the relationships therein still relevant to today's world but now the sexes are on the same level, women would not or should not allow the type of treatment displayed in the past. The soundtrack music is wonderful and it is a delight that Film Score Monthly released the CD in January, 2005. Pity scenes were cut prior to release - even at two hours you want more! I have registered with Amazon for the DVD (they do now have a special page). To view this film in CinemaScope after forty six years of pan and scan will be great. Twentieth Century Fox, please look further into your catalogers of fifties CinemaScope productions for DVD - there IS a large market out there. I await arrival from US of March, 2004 Vanity Fair Special article on the film, which is said to be fifteen pages with many photos on set. Cheers. | 1 | positive |
It's a deeply stupid humor... but I loved it. Jean Dujardin is a great actor in this movie. Bérénice Béjo is cute. It makes fun of all the secret agents like James Bond: refreshing!!! It's probably the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. I already saw it three times and I still want to see it again. Buy the DVD as soon as you can. You won't regret it. It's the kind of movie in which you don't need to have a great scenario because it's a parody. The only defect is that OSS 117 is too short. It's a jewel. It's not really frequent to see a french movie get success in the USA but I think that this one has everything to succeed. Trust me!!! | 1 | positive |
Hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that's wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first-time viewing basis. Hannibal is bad, terrible, inept, lame, droll, idiotic, contrived, laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). Minor spoilers follow...<br /><br />This movie has huge logic holes - more than any Bruckheimer/Bay movie - or for that matter - any movie that exemplify the indulgence of Hollywood exaggeration. It's a slick Hollywood production designed to cash in on Hannibal Lector mania, directed by "so-somber-he-takes-this-way-too-seriously" hack director Ridley Scott and produced by a hack Italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is "doesn't matter whether film is s**t, money is good".<br /><br />I can't get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good-novelist-turned-hack-author Thomas Harris. David and Steven - well-known and immensely talented screenwriters - wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. Another factor in the disappointment of this film.<br /><br />There are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e.g. Starling/Pazzi cell-phone in the midst of Lecter pursuit that turns up Inspector Pazzi as the victim. Not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by Tony Hopkins with a smirk and Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. Hopkins gives the true meaning of "scenery-chewing" along with hammy acting by Gary Oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against Lecter.<br /><br />The gore effect is good, but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from Hannibal. The predecessor - Silence of the Lambs - is more believable with tension and suspense. Suspense is what made Silence of the Lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller, not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. The "brain dinner" sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self-parody.<br /><br />The ending is kinda blatant and idiotic - are we supposed to believe that Lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you? Ooh, scary... <br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
I was a little worried about actors and acting in Italy then "Le conseguenze dell'amore" and Toni Servillo came. It was a long time that i didn't see a so charismatic actor on screen. Paolo Sorrentino has written a wonderful story about loneliness and Tony has built one of the most unforgettable characters seen in movies in recent years. The movie is not completely perfect but 'Titta Di Girolamo' will stay with you for a long time after the vision of the movie. Toni please keep on acting in movies, you're for sure the coolest actor around today (and not just in Italy, his performance deserves international acclamation). I rate this movie 9/10. | 1 | positive |
Hi, today i looked this film because of the medium (5,6) IMDb rating. I thought it would worth viewing. Also the comments here were quiet good but after start watching this movie i quick realize that this movie isn't anyway near a 5,6 ! Its just boring. You can describe the movie with some words also its just the standard horror movie story with all the standard horror movie scenes. I don't know why people still like those films or why they vote such films better then a 1-3 in IMDb. Just some examples <br /><br />Bunch of people arriving from somewhere or going / driving to anywhere. They meet somehow on their journey strange people but hey maybe they are just nice so hang out with them. Then a very important scene for every horror movie "Oh my cell phone isn't working oh oh mine too .. is that strange but we don't need them so enjoy our ride ..." uhhhhhh our strange person is a strange psychopath better we all sit back and scream a while till he starts cutting parts from us or killing some of us. After a while the bunch of victims get a weapon or chance to escape ofcorse they never think about running away or even kill the psychopath if they got the chance they just talk about what to do until the psychopath got his weapon back with any of the handful of standard tricks they got in those films and all running back as usual ... screaming ... some more to kill ... oh and in the end it gets really exiting sometimes the bad guy wins sometimes some of the victim can escape wow great movies. ... OK if i never ever saw a movie of that kind i would say it is a movie which can be watched but if anyone ever saw any movie of its kind it should be just a boring waste of time because nearly everything in the movie you know before you even watched it because it every time runs like the standard horror movie shematic. .... mmm maybe there is a windows program out there? Horrormoviemaker 2.0 ? You can just pull some adjustment buttons and get the new Shuttle, Saw45674, Jeepers Creepers kind of movie. | 0 | negative |
If you've not seen this then look out for it. It is available on DVD. It is a channel 4 (uk) production, possibly, in conjunction with German and danish TV. If you've seen the film it is basically the same plot. Several interleaved stories are connected through the drugs trade. The story jumps between the housewife (played by the excellent Lyndsay Duncan) trying to complete a deal on behalf of her husband, who to her surprise is an international drugs dealer (and generally dangerous man).<br /><br />A minister, who is embedded in his job to the detriment of his family, is investigating the whole state of affairs with international drugs trafficking. He gets a few eye openers to the reality of heroin when his daughter turns out to have a 'problem'. He then visit Pakistan, officially, where he seems to be taught that the abuse (not simply the drug or its casual use) is the problem and also gets to sample some produce (an excellent scene where he simultaneously realises what the attraction is and why it is and why it is such a problem). In Pakistan we get to see the other side. The desperation of farmers who can barely survive turning to opium production and crime lords. The pointless attempts at subsidy resulting in the system getting rich. And a country so drenched in drugs yet only a relative fraction of the abuse we have in the west. Around all this a customs official/interpol agent tries to catch the 'dutch' connection in heroin smuggling. Seeking justice for his murdered partner. This really is a masterpiece. Super, understated performances from all the main actors in a way only European cinema can really do.<br /><br />A must see. Especially if you have seen the film, they compliment each other abd present some subtly different opinions/attitudes from both sides of the pond. | 1 | positive |
'Flood' is a prime example of how throwing good actors and cgi at a film will do little to compensate for a rubbish script. The basic premise is fine: what if a freak storm threatened to send the sea straight over the Thames flood barriers and engulf London so fast that most of the inhabitants would probably never get out in time? It's basically the New York segment of 'The Day After Tomorrow', but that shouldn't make it any less of a film. However, the script just isn't there. It's merely functional, flat, and lacking in depth. Great British talents like Robert Carlysle and David Suchet to name but two do their level best with what they've got, but their characters are two-dimensional cyphers, like something out of an old Marvel comic. and it'd be frankly easier to turn back the tide. Not that every actor gets let off the hook - Tom Courtenay seemed capable of only one emotion throughout the film, but then he wasn't given much of a challenge.<br /><br />I applaud any opportunity to see some non-Hollywood disaster flicks for a change, and I don't expect zillions of dollars spent on rendering ultra- realistic graphics. However there's no excuse for shonky writing - especially from a country that has produced some of the best science- fiction ever made on next to no budget at all. This is the kind of half- hearted B-grade fluff the Sci-Fi channel produces, and that's hardly a target to aim for. If like me you are such a fan of disaster films you're still tempted, do yourself a favour and watch it with some friends. Better still; don't bother. | 0 | negative |
Just got into viewing program for the first time recently - the 2-hour "kidnapping" program. Don't know why I didn't sooner?? James Caan is outstanding and wholly-believable in the role as the chief honcho at the featured 5* Vegas complex.<br /><br />So often, programs like this have one or more in the ensemble who are either outright annoying, or seem to have been picked because they must be related to the producer or director.<br /><br />That is certainly not the case with this program. Along with Caan, all of the primary and supporting cast are engaging attractive, and believable. The guest actors are well-chosen. <br /><br />The stories I've seen are interesting, and the show presents a good view of the city as well.<br /><br />This is an entertaining program, and one I hope will remain. I don't know how I managed to miss it for so long, but plan to TIVO it from now on. | 1 | positive |
While credited as a Tom and Jerry cartoon, this is not the cat-and-mouse team but an earlier Mutt-and-Jeff rip-off featuring them going to Africa and disguising themselves in the stereotypical burnt cork makeup to try to blend in. While the dialect humor is mostly lame, there is a brief musical sequence involving "black skeletons" that was entertaining. I have to ask however, how could Tom and Jerry still have their makeup stay on even after being dumped in the water a couple of times? One of many entries produced by the Van Beuren Corporation for distribution by RKO Radio Pictures before RKO made a deal with Disney. Only worth seeing if you're an animation buff or is interested in how certain ethnicities were stereotyped as entertainment way back when. | 0 | negative |
Vadim changed Brigitte's image and way of life from that of the young society beauty he had married to that of a rebellious and challenging teenager of the 1950s
<br /><br />"Une Parisienne" succeeded in launching her ravishing figure as the teenage goddess, the casual sexuality, the provocative gaiety in confrontation with men
<br /><br />Charles Boyer as Prince Charles was the perfect, ideal choice of those magically romantic moments
His deep and vibrant voice spoke a promise of new adventures in love
His deep, wondering eyes bespoke a worldly knowledge untarnished by cynicism
He had the boudoir grace of Valentino without the hysteria or the sometime effeminacy of the great lover
Under Michel Boisrond's direction, Boyer was an old-style romantic without the grand manner
| 1 | positive |
Before seeing the sneak preview today of Angels & Demons, I cleared my mind of any uncertainties that might hold me back from enjoying it; the enormous amount of hatred towards Dan Brown, the fact that it was written by Dan Brown, and because Dan Brown's name is slapped on all of the posters. I went in with an open mind, and expected the worse, but instead what I got was a 2 and a half hour Roman cat and mouse game with Forrest Gump, and that is by all means good entertainment value.<br /><br />The movie hangs loosely on the actual novel itself. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) jets off to Rome after the Pope's sudden death and the re-election through Papal Conclave. Arranging all of this is the carmelengo, Patrick McKenna (McGregor). However, he soon learns of a new threat, one that involves a secret brotherhood making its presence known, an anti-matter time bomb that Vatican City is now targeted with and the kidnapping of four cardinals. Langdon, using his intellects (and trust me, you'll be hearing a LOT from it) is given the task of finding and rescuing them using the mysterious Path of Illumination. Aiding him on the quest is CERN scientist Vittoria Vetra (Zurer), who is also the co-creator of the anti-matter. <br /><br />The movie itself runs at an uneven pace. One minute Langdon and the Swiss Guard are speeding to save a branded cardinal, the next minute he bores you with pointless information about every random object he passes, evidently slowing the book's much anticipated action/thriller sequences down. It makes for an interesting read on paper, but on screen it can go either way. <br /><br />The character's are decently written onto the big screen. Ewan McGregor does a convincing performance as the quiet but knowledgeable Patrick McKenna, famous accent included. Tom Hanks is slightly more agile, intellectually and physically, since his last performance in the mediocre Da Vinci Code. Stellen Skarsgard plays Commander Richter, the straight-faced leader of the Swiss Guard. Unfortunately, neither his nor Ayelet Zurer's performance are worthwhile ones, and instead of playing a part in the story, they are just kicked aside as assets. <br /><br />However, Angels & Demons accomplishes what DVC could never; a thrilling fast-paced movie filled with satisfying explosions, beautiful recreations of St. Peter's Square and Basilica (including many of the churches) and a pulsing bomb counting down the midnight hour. Ron Howard does a decent job at directing this second Langdon adventure, this time taking in much criticism and almost completely exchanging the boring dialogue for tense chases (almost). <br /><br />While newcomers might call it a "National Treasure 3" with a much larger threat, there is still enough contagious suspense/thriller eye-candy and brilliant still shots of Rome to breathe in. Fans of the book might feel differently towards the movies drastic changes, but considering the amount of blasphemy and inaccuracy it generates, A&D does exceedingly well at keeping the viewer locked on to the screen this time rather than on their sleepy shoulder. <br /><br />A good book-to-movie adaption that will both appeal and entertain.<br /><br />7.4/10 | 1 | positive |
This movie is painful. That's probably the best way to describe it. It's 93 minutes of your life that you will never be able to get back. Well, actually it's more like 86 minutes because there is no way anyone would want to sit through the credits in this stinking pile of dog feces. Immediately you can tell the movie is from the producer of "Mortal Kombat", due to it's thumping and annoying techno soundtrack. This drains the few laughably enjoyable moments this movie can give you. The rest is drained by the completely uninteresting and annoying characters, the "Freddie Prinze, Jr. School of Acting" acting abilities of all involved (including the miscast Christopher Lambert), and the non-existant directing. Did I leave anything out? Of course I did. Let's not forget about the suicide-inducing script, with it's unitentionally (??) funny dialogue. Oh, yes, and let us also talk about how they shamed the original poem with this sad and useless futuristic/medieval translation. The costumes and weapons (were those giant pizza cutters I kept seeing?!?!) are just plain stupid, that's the best way I can describe them. And the last culprit of the night is the always awful CGI. When will filmmakers learn that CGI sucks? When will we see the wonderful effects used in the 80's? Probably never, but films like this and "Star Wars, Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" make us wish that they would bring them back. In closing, avoid this movie like the newest Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie. Then again if you like Freddie Prinze, Jr. movies then you deserve to sit through this horrid excuse for filmmaking. | 0 | negative |
The producer, Matt Mochary, stumbled upon the film's subject, Anderson Sa (leader of the AfroReggae music movement), when on a Hewlett Foundation trip to Rio de Janeiro. Mochary was so moved by Sa's story that he called his friend, NYC filmmaker Jim Zimbalist, who quit his job and joined Mochary in Brazil to work on a documentary on Sa, Rio's favelas, and the culture of violence.<br /><br />The first part of the film shows you the culture of violence in Rio's favelas (shantytowns where the poor live) via footage of police raids and assaults on the residents. The footage is graphic and shocking.<br /><br />Rising from the negativity of the favelas is the charismatic Anderson Sa, who overcame a possible career in drug dealing to start the AfroReggae movement, which combines elements of Afro-Brazilian culture, Reggae, ska, and other elements into a fast-paced, percussion heavy style of music which has since spread to other parts of the world. You can't help but be carried away by the music, especially when you see the local children get involved in Sa's school, which he founded to keep kids out of drug gangs. The rest of the film follows Sa's meteoric rise and his positivity changes many of the children's lives to seek a life beyond drug running. SPOILER: Just when the filmmakers thought they had wrapped filming, an unbelievable life changing event occurs of which the resolution has to be seen to be believed. The film then continues and you are gripped in your seat until the end.<br /><br />This film is a response to "City of God," and a worthy one at that. The bleak situation portrayed in that movie is countered by a real example of how favela dwellers can overcome the dire situation they are in and use their resources to constructive ends. You can't help not liking and rooting for Anderson Sa to succeed.<br /><br />This film is terrifically shot, fast-paced, and is quite absorbing. Judging by the overwhelming response of the audience at last night's SilverDocs screening, the film should get domestic distribution in the US and the thumping soundtrack should be released as well. Keep an eye for this superlative documentary--it is excellent! | 1 | positive |
One night I was listening to talk radio and they had Leslie Nielsen on the program. He went on to explain why there were only 6 shows. '<br /><br />With TV shows like MASH you could go to the fridge to get a beer and as long as you heard what was going on you didn't miss anything. But with Police Squad, you HAD to watch the show, with the sight gags you missed a whole lot if you didn't see them. Who could forget "... the part of town known as "Little Italy"..." with the coliseum in the background.<br /><br />Even the movies relied heavily on the sight gags, but then again being in the theater you were a captive audience.<br /><br />Leslie also said the one reason the show, movies and other movies like Airplane were funny is because they didn't attempt to tell what was funny. It was up to the viewer to get the jokes.<br /><br />Well that's just my 2 cents. | 1 | positive |
Savage Guns (video title) is a dirt cheap, bottom of the barrel spaghetti western in which the survivor of a massacre hunts the bandits who killed his brother and left him for dead, catching up with them in a town controlled by their crooked boss.<br /><br />Despite plenty of violence, this manages to be both dull and colorless with bad characterizations and almost no imagination or humor.<br /><br />Lead actor Robert Woods lives up to his name with a wooden and uncharismatic performance that fails to generate any warmth or sympathy whatsoever. In other words, the viewer never really roots for him despite the fact that he's the protagonist.<br /><br />The worst scene (in my opinion) is the annoying dance hall scene where a woman sings in a heavy and terribly unsexy German accent. It was the worst scene in Blazing Saddles and the worst one here! | 0 | negative |
Joan Crawford is convincingly disfigured as our story starts, and of course she get fixed up. But she's a bad egg, exploiting one guy, while living out another guy's anti-social philosophy. All of this takes place in Sweden, which is truly bizarre. It causes anything and everything memorable in the visuals, which are freed from having to depict Anytown USA, but it makes a viewer wonder why every remake since is burdened and rendered unspecific by the need to Americanize everything. There is plot, plot, plot so chatty that you could drown in it, and making matters worse is a framing device that adds zilch to the movie. The photography is occasionally nice, with odd angles and miniatures incorporated quite well. But it's overwrought without ever once drawing you in. | 0 | negative |
If I had to pick the most depressing movie, try to be suspenseful I've seen it'd be this one. I know about how good the original is supposed to be, it had better be better then this one. The movie's so dark and depressing but it isn't interesting to watch either-I've seen depressing "thriler" type movies that were saved because of the suspense to counteratc and balence the dark quality. Vanishing didn't have that, This was so disturbing to watch to begin with and there was nothing positive to make this a classic type movie. I think another IMDb poster got it right in saying this genre has just seen thrillers done in a far superior way. I completely agree-I would recommend skipping this one-maybe I'll watch the original some day but I doubt it. I give this a 2 out of 10. | 0 | negative |
in a time of predictable movies, in which abound violence, cheap romance and melodrama, it is delightfully surprising to find such a strange movie. the plot itself is compelling, and the actors are excellent, especially Alan Rickman. If you want to watch a movie that does not provide all the answers before asking the questions, a movie that will surprise you (in good or bad), Dark Harbor's for you. And if you're not convinced, believe me that Alan Rickman's performance is well worth it... especially at the end, ladies.... | 1 | positive |
I saw this at my in-laws' house one night when it popped up on TV and my mother-in-law said it was one of her favorite movies. Well, she can have it.<br /><br />Look, I can enjoy a chick flick now and then, as long as it's good. But this one's extra-sappy, unrealistic, and just plain predictable, despite some decent performances from Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman. It's uncanny how quickly a woman can accept having her eyesight taken away from her. Oh well, they say love is blind...<br /><br />The neat and tidy happy little ending nearly made me gag, too. And how often did we need Otto Kruger repeating the title? It happened not once, not twice, but THREE times! | 0 | negative |
This showed up on a DVD a buddy of mine bought for me. They had it listed as "The Savage Guns" which was an entirely different movie. Obviously the folks who packaged the DVD never bothered to look at what they were burning on the disk.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie is about as bad as they come. The sound track is a combination TV Batman/Early James Bond/Spaghetti western. Lots of galloping around to this music. It appears that the guy has to gallop between scenes to burn up some time and give the sound track folks something to do.<br /><br />English is dubbed over the Italian and it really shows. I wish it had been just a little bit worse and then it would have had some of the campy feel of the Ed Wood films. AS it is, it is just plain awful. | 0 | negative |
When I went to the video rental store, back in the days when DVD was yet next to unknown to me, I had seen all the movies at the store that I was interested in. Or so I thought! The man behind the counter told me he had something for me that I definitely would like. He gave me "Plunkett and MacLeane". At first, I doubted it to be any good, but I trusted his advise and... man, I sure am happy I did take this jewel along! This is one of the best adventure movies in years, if you ask me! Of course, with Robert Carlyle as a major part, how bad can a movie get? Surely, Liv Tyler does once more what she's good at and nothing much more: being pretty. But still, you can very clearly sense that the cast apparently had a lot of fun, making this movie. | 1 | positive |
When I was 10 (currently 14), I vowed to never see a movie that I knew would not have a happy ending. And until a few weeks ago I had done pretty well, except for Shakespere for English class...etc...I was still only watching things that ended happy. But then I saw Ramola Garai in Havanah Nights, which was cute, not good but entertaining enough to watch. After seeing this a few times over the two or so years since I first saw it, I grew to like it, especially the music. So I did a search on her and found IMDb...I saw "Inside I'm Dancing" and assumed she had done another dancing movie, and over looked it. It was later on an image search(of Rory, looking for Gilmore Girls poster for locker) I picked up an image from this movie...I then searched for a trailer, I found the trailer and when I saw the hospital and heard Rory say "You've got the future" I remembered my vow and realized this would not be a good movie for me. But it just stayed in the back of my mind until we were at the video store and there it was for $5 used, so I went ahead and bought it. After seeing it I just wanted it out of my head because it was so sad. I still wouldn't go near it until I had cerebral palsy as a vocab word. Then I just had to see it again and this time all I did was laugh, even at the saddest parts I no longer felt depressed because I realized that over all this movie was happy and uplifting...I love it and it is now one of my favorites, I;m sure this is the worst comment you have ever read. But watch the movie it's worth it. | 1 | positive |
When I saw this movie for the first time I didn't believe my own eyes. In front of me there was a great -and well done- parody of Valentino... see Stan Laurel bullfight that way is like to see an excellent fencer in action! It's a very good parody, rich of ideas, with a clever and charming Stan... old and good like whiskey. (or the booze-up after that) | 1 | positive |
I have always wanted to see the movie because I loved the novel, but was warned away because I'd heard that the movie was a stinker. It is. Fowles wrote the script and I could follow it fine, despite the fact that I read the novel over thirty years ago.<br /><br />The soundtrack is execrable--jarring, jangling, and utterly inappropriate--breaking any attempt at mystery or mood in the movie. I suspect that the director must take a lot of the blame as even Michael Caine is terrible in it and he was already doing excellent work in ALFIE a couple of years earlier.<br /><br />The "Mysteries" evoked by the book are not well-translated onto the screen. I'd love to see someone remake this one. | 0 | negative |
I quite this Anne Rice book adaption. While most of the film is filmed here in Australia it offers a great amount of scenery and a fantastic area to shoot in. Lestat (Stuart Townsend) has recently woke up from a long period time of sleep and has decided to betray his vampire oath by revealing himself to a band. When he becomes a popular movie icon his fellow vampires, understadebly, go mad and plot his death. Meanwhile Jesse (Marguerite Moreau) a orphaned member of the supernatural studies, who has an ancient vampire family tree, has become deeply obsessed with Lestat. Her boss David (Paul McGann) understands her obsession and revaeals his obsession with the vampire Marius, (Vincent Perez)who is an ancient vampire and the man who made Lestat a vampire too. Jesse is given Lestats diary and reads of his first killing and an encounter with the Queen of the Damned- Akasha (Aaliyah). When Lestat holds a concert in Death Valley he receives news that not only will angry vampires be there Akasha may come as well. Meanwhile Akasha has other plans. She goes to a vampire coven, a bar, and kills everyone in her path. With Lestat tempted with royality and loving care by Akasha the ancient vampires consisting of Marius and Jesses Aunt Maharet (Lena Olin) plot against them. Join Her Or Die?<br /><br />I thought the film was fantastic, it had great fight scenes, great music and great locations. Aaliyah sadly passed away in a plane crash shortly before the films premiere, but she looked stunning on the set and off the sets.<br /><br />I gave this film 10/10 because it was a fantastic film and I urge you to see it! | 1 | positive |
There seems to be a whole sub genre of cheap, tired old sex "comedies" out there, that say the same old things about middle class couples. Sort of like Friends, but with more soft porn and no wit. This film is no exception- it had situations so familiar I died from deja vu. People sat on couches, spinning out clichés about sex and relationships? Check. Monogamy versus cheating with some woman/man who would never look twice in reality at some other woman/man? Check. PORN The BADDIES!!!!111? Check. Some guy/girl in it who happens to be the only reason you're watching this rubbish? Check. The lesson seems to be- when it doubt, make a tired old sex "comedy" about people no one cares anything about, in order to make some statement that everybody has already heard three thousand times before. That'll get your film made. It'll even attract some sitcom nobody in a bad wig! | 0 | negative |
17/02/09 "More" (1969) Dir: Barbet Schroeder <br /><br />For a film that most viewers have agreed is pretty average, I'm impressed by quite how many differing interpretations have been offered of it. I've only scoured the web quite briefly and I've already been informed that "More" is: a 19th Century-style romance, an allusion to the story of Icarus, a plain film full of dull people, and of interest only to Pink Floyd completists. It's fair to say, then, that critical reception is mixed. I would argue that these wildly disparate readings of Barbet Schroeder's 1969 directorial debut are proof enough that "More" is anything but a pretty average film.<br /><br />Neither is it a masterpiece, of course. I approached "More" as I did "Easy Rider" and Antonioni's "Blowup" - as a 'time-capsule' film, a snapshot of an era - despite the differences in pace, style and content between these movies. They all have similar flaws - either vague or downright unlikeable characters, acting that seems slightly adrift from reality, relaxed editing, and abrupt endings that have left viewers indignant. These movies never try to be persuasive or meet the audience half way - they are what they are, man. This in itself is not a problem as long as we are left with a souvenir of the experience. Thankfully, "More" offers several truly memorable images, sounds and suggestions to the viewer, and this is what saves it.<br /><br />Stefan is a young man who arrives in Paris fresh from his studies in Germany. The first part of the film follows him as he falls in with a group of French hipsters, accompanies them to devastatingly cool and self-conscious parties and bars before meeting Estelle. The two characters become sexually and romantically involved and he promises to follow her to Ibiza, against the advice of his friend Charlie. This is where the Icarus thing comes into play - she is the Sun, he is pursuing her. You may now be able to guess how this all ends.<br /><br />Ibiza is an idyll so far away from the bustling urgency of the over-populated Paris that the naive Stefan knows he must be on to a good thing. Estelle remains elusive and erratic, and the island has a less desirable underbelly. Up until now I had cared little for either of these characters and their unfocused pursuit of somewhere to be really free, but once the action is pared down to just these two the film becomes poignant quite suddenly. During just one single wistful exchange of dialogue in the remote villa they inhabit, the place where their volatile love crystallises, I went from watching with a fading optimism to being utterly enraptured. I can't think of many other films that have done this.<br /><br />The relationship between Stefan and Estelle is real and human in that we can see it go from life-defining intimacy to disillusionment and cruel coldness. They take a lot of drugs and cavort naked on the terraces, the rocks and beaches. Their lives revolve around nothing but each other and the beautiful Mediterranean surroundings. For a while, their situation is the very essence of freedom, emotional openness and experience for its own sake. But Stefan is not in control, and this is the downfall of more than just his future on Ibiza.<br /><br />Pink Floyd's score is a perfect fit for the exoticism, the intimacy, and the foreboding of "More". It is one of the most memorable inclusions, along with the mosquito netting around Estelle's bed, and their hallucinogenic exuberance around the windmill (which appears on the soundtrack album's front cover). A scene in which they take acid to escape from heroin withdrawal is illustrative of the fundamental flaws of the couple - they cannot 'land' without a crash. Maybe they've come too close to what they wanted.<br /><br />Stefan never makes contact with any family or friends from before his arrival in Paris. We are left to presume they have no idea where he is. While other 1960s Counterculture movies dwell on debauchery, excess, the media and voyeurism, Schroeder has instead presented us with a story focused upon one man, who backs himself into a little corner somewhere in the world and quietly disappears. | 1 | positive |
It was on a day in 1891 when Scottish inventor William K.L. Dickson surprised his boss, Thomas Alva Edison with his remarkable work in the development of motion pictures. After many experiments, Dickson was now able to capture scenes of real life with his camera, and reproduce them through his invention, the Kinetoscope, as if a fragment of time were preserved in celluloid. Soon, Dickson's Kinetoscope would become an enormous success as a new way of entertainment, with many people eager to pay the nickel that was charged to be able to watch people dancing, or acrobats performing stunts through the "peepshow" of the Kinetoscope. However, the invention wasn't complete, in order for it to capture on film the real life as we know it, sound was needed on the movies. So Dickson kept experimenting and this short experiment, Kinetophone's first film, was the result.<br /><br />In this experiment, codenamed simply as "Dickson Experimental Sound Film", director William K.L. Dickson stands in front of a recording cone for a wax cylinder (earliest method of recording sound), with his violin on hands, playing a song named "Song of the Cabin Boy". The idea was to record the song into the cylinder at the same time that the camera was recording his movements. In order to show that this was a motion picture, two of Edison's "Black Maria" laboratory decided to do a little dance in front of the camera. Unlike what author Vito Russo claimed in his book, "The Celluloid Closet", this little dance had nothing to do with homosexuality as it obviously is a reference to the environment of loneliness of the lab, akin to the lonely sailors to whom the "Song of the Cabin Boy" was dedicated to (the title Russo suggests, "The Gay Brothers", is actually anachronistic as "gay" had no homosexual connotation in the late 1890s).<br /><br />Sadly, Dickson was unable to achieve the desired effect, and the Kinetophone never could really produce the synchronized audio with images. While he had the cylinder with the sound and the celluloid with the images, the synchronization of the two elements was not exactly effective, and the sudden appearance of Auguste and Louis Lumière's Cinématographe prompted Edison's team to focus on projecting systems and eventually Dickson left the company. Fortunately, in 1998 Dickson's cylinder with the movie's sound was rebuilt and film editor Walter Murch made a restoration of the experiment as it was intended. Finally, "Dickson Experimental Sound Film" could be heard with synchronized sound, just as its creative inventor had intended. While it was not a successful attempt, this outstanding film is a testament of the enormous genius of the father of Kinetoscope. 8/10 | 1 | positive |
Greetings again from the darkness. Director Alejandro Amenabar creates life against all odds in this based on a true story version of one man's struggle to control his destiny. The great Javier Bardem is fascinating to watch in his role as Ramon. His eyes and head movements leave little doubt what is going on in his mind. The dream and fantasy sequences are not overused so prove very effective in explaining why he wants what he wants. Rather than force us to answer the euthanasia question, the real question posed is , What is Love? At every turn we see people in love, looking for love or dying to be loved. The script is tight and keeps the film moving despite being filmed mostly in one room. The supporting cast is wonderful and we truly feel their pain and how each family member deals with Ramon's decision. This is a gem and deserves to be seen. | 1 | positive |
Some of the films produced by Roger Corman's New World film company in the 1970s represent the best kind of B-movie, where the limitations of the genre actually act as a kind of freeing influence on the writers and directors such classic drive-in films as "Deathrace 2000", "Hollywood Boulevard", "Grand Theft Auto" and "Caged Heat" emerged from this environment. Unfortunately, his former confederates at American International Pictures were running out of steam in the 1970s, particularly in the absence of Jim Nicholson, and they often produced second rate imitations of Corman's films, sometimes featuring his self-made stars. "Black Mama, White Mama" is one of those films. It's basically a cheaper imitation of "The Big Doll House with some of the same stars doing a lot of the same things. Yes, this is a John Ashley co-production (yes, the same John Ashley who was the hilarious Elvis wanna-be in "How to Make a Monster" and paired up with Debbie Walley in "Beach Blanket Bingo") with all the signature marks of his productions women's prisons where everyone except maybe 2 or 3 lead characters including the inmates and the guards are Filipino actors in mostly non-speaking roles, where we see supermodel-type women taking on the roles of revolutionary militants, and where the primary joy of the film is derived through rudimentary S&M exploitation.<br /><br />The print I saw most recently was horribly light-damaged (good ole Will Viharo described it as "Yellow Mama, Yellow Mama"), but I think even in the best conditions the photography and directing are extremely routine. There's also very little visual value here
Corman must not have had very much to do with the film itself because he was always canny enough to at least give his films some extra production value by filming in free public spaces that would make the film look more impressive. This film doesn't look impressive, it doesn't have an impressive soundtrack, and you just feel embarrassed for anyone who shows a shred of talent. The only remotely interesting performances come from Pam Grier as a feisty whore out to escape the life, Filipino actor Dindo Fernando as her grotesquely self-indulgent pimp, and Sid Haig as a cowboy styled mercenary. The story places Grier and co-star Margaret Markov in a low budget female version of "The Defiant Ones", but does very little with the melodramatic possibilities afforded by that premise. It's basically just an excuse to ensure that the two protagonists can still stop for a good mud wrestling match while they're trying to escape the prison together. This is all in the spirit of good fun, but the film ultimately fails even as exploitation because there's a certain edge and rawness that should be present in such scenes that is instead replaced under this director's hand with a kind of yawning predictability.<br /><br />So the film will have little value for fans of hard-core exploitation value at least in the version I saw it's no more explicit than "Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!" from over a decade earlier, and far less interesting visually and thematically. For those who just enjoy getting a laugh out of "so bad it's good" films, this one might provide some fun but it's not in the upper tier. People would be more advised to seek out "Caged Heat" or some of the others that revel in their own brutality to the point that it becomes camp; this one is more similar to less ambitious efforts like Cirio Santiago's "The Muthers". Sadly, the best thing about this particular film is the title and the presence of Pam Grier, who was better in other films around the same time (particularly Jack Hill's "Coffy"). This film perhaps illustrates a midway point in Miss Grier's journey from Corman secretary to B-movie Queen-For-A-Day, but other than its historical "significance" as such it will have little value even to Grier's big fans because she is given very little to work with here.<br /><br />Worth skipping, unless of course you get to see it in a movie theater with a lot of friends and a lot of beer like I did. And even then its value is questionable. | 0 | negative |
The critics were like "a movie that will break your heart" etc. So a friend of mine and I had great expectations when we decided to watch this movie.<br /><br />I'll make it short and leave it up to others to write about its content. This movie tries to touch you, to reach your heart. But it fails. At least for me. And for my friend, too.<br /><br />Everything that happened happened only on the screen. It was always THERE, not HERE, where I am. I thought most of the time "hmm, something's happening on the screen, but it's only on the screen. It's not real."<br /><br />Movies which succeeded MUCH better in touching me: East of Eden (1955), Terms of Endearment (1983), Jerry Maguire (1996), Babe (1995), Mies vailla menneisyyttä (2002) | 0 | negative |
This one features an interesting way of handling a camera,<br /><br />espercially for a DTV movie - the version I saw was full-screen<br /><br />- but it falls short on the scenario department. First you get<br /><br />around 20mn of talk, talk, talk in a would-be-hip, post-"Trainspotting" way, then it's slasher city. And then comes<br /><br />the most dishonest cheat ending I've seen, much worse than<br /><br />"April Fool's Day" - where at least it made sense. So, all in<br /><br />all, it's the old song and dance : interesting director tries<br /><br />hard, but deserves better movie. Funny : usually, it is the actors which are in desperate need of<br /><br />something better
Skip it anyway, for your time | 0 | negative |
THE GOLDEN DOOR (NUOVOMONDO) is for this viewer the finest film of the year to date. It is a masterpiece of concept, writing, directing, acting and cinematography. More importantly, this radiantly beautiful film is a much needed reflective mirror for us to view the history of immigration of 'foreigners' into America at a time when the very mention of the word 'borders' is a political fuse. Writer/director Emanuele Crialese has given us not only a deeply moving story, he has also provided a touchstone for viewers to re-visit the history of each of our origins: with the exception of the Native Americans, we all entered America as 'foreigners' at some point in our histories, and it is humbling to view this film with that fact in mind.<br /><br />The film opens in turn of the century Sicily as poverty stricken widower Salvatore Mancuso (Vincenzo Amato) and his brother Angelo (Francesco Casisa) climb a rocky hill to present their tokens to the cross to ask for a sign as to whether they should continue to struggle for existence on the island or go to America, the land of dreams. Mancuso's deaf mute son Pietro (Filippo Pucillo) runs to the top of the hill with postcards he has found with images of America (money growing on trees, fruits and vegetables larger than people, etc), and Salvatore accepts this as the sign that he should move his family to America. After convincing his reluctant mother Fortunata (Aurora Quattrocchi) and his sisters Rita (Federica De Cola) and Rosa (Isabella Ragonese) to make the trip, he sells his only possessions (two donkeys, goats, and rabbits) and the man with the boat arranges their trip, giving the family shoes, appropriate clothing, and instructions to board an ocean liner as third class passengers. As the Mancuso family prepares to board they are asked for a photograph, and as they pose behind a painted set, an Englishwoman Lucy/Luce (Charlotte Gainsbourg) walks into the photo as though she were part of this peasant family. Lucy cannot board the boat for America without male escort.<br /><br />The voyage begins and Luce in her gentle way identifies with the Mancuso family, finally solidifying her safe passage by proposing to Salvatore to marry her 'for convenience, not for love' when they arrive in America. Through a violent storm and living conditions that are appalling poor, the multitude of third class passengers survive, bond, and eventually arrive at Ellis Island, believing their dream of America has been fulfilled. But everyone must pass harsh physical tests, de-lousing, and even intelligence testing to determine if they can enter America: the officials let them know that America does not want genetically inferior people entering the new world! Each woman must be selected by a man to marry on Ellis Island before they are allowed admission. The manner in which the Mancuso family remains united until a somewhat surprising ending is the closing of the tale.<br /><br />Few of us understand the strict rules and harsh treatment immigrants face (or at least faced at the turn of the century) on Ellis Island, and if we do we have elected to submerge that information. THE GOLDEN DOOR presents the case for immigrants' struggles in a manner that not only touches our hearts but also challenges our acceptance of current immigration legislation. But all political issues aside, THE GOLDEN DOOR is first and foremost a film of enormous beauty, exquisite photography, deeply felt performances by a huge cast, and a very sensitively written and directed story. The is a film that deserves wide distribution, a movie that is a must see for everyone. Highly recommended. Grady Harp | 1 | positive |
I liked this show from the first episode I saw, which was the "Rhapsody in Blue" episode (for those that don't know what that is, the Zan going insane and becoming pau lvl 10 ep). Best visuals and special effects I've seen on a television series, nothing like it anywhere. | 1 | positive |
The essence of this film falls on judgments by police officers who, fortunately ethical and moral men, act on situations within situations in a city with a super-abundance of violence and killing. Good compound interacting story lines and above-average characterizations. | 1 | positive |
The movie was pretty bad. It's not so much a script problem. It's just that the movie is really boring in terms of pacing. The movie just seems to plod along at a slow, agonizing rate. The story in San Franpsycho is that there's a serial killer on the loose who is killing morally corrupt individuals (maybe I read too much into it, but hey, it's my nature apparently) after The San Franpsycho kills a pair of people under the Golden Gate Bridge we're introduced to one of the main characters of the film: Joe Estevez (brother of Martin Sheen) as a curmudgeony cop named Bill Culp. Bill is currently trying to hunt down the killer (seriously he doesn't have a name, he's just The Killer), and he is trying to coerce a local news reporter named Rita to help him with his investigation, Bill is the stereotypical hard-edged cop and he threatens Rita to throw her in jail for obstruction of justice. Anyway a few scenes pass by and suddenly Rita finds a letter left by the psychopath (He's a cold blooded psychopath!) and she has a change of heart and tells Bill and his partner Joe about it and help them with the investigation.<br /><br />The movie tries to be a taut murder-thriller, but sort of just fails at that. It's much like the movie The Black Dahlia it tries to be tense but it just is unbelievable in terms of that. The movie tries to be serious throughout, but it has scenes like where The Killer masturbates (obviously a fan of gore porn what with lines like: "ooh blood on her" or something to that effect) and Joe Estevez hitting the table going: "He's a cold blooded murderer!" I admit to chuckling more than once at the movie, even though I'm sure it was intended to be a deadly serious movie.<br /><br />One of the only positive points the movie has going for it is the fact that I didn't pay money to see it (huzzah netflix). And it's sad because I could see some good in their movies after watching The Damned. Sure the movie had its fair share of flaws, but it was enjoyable. Sadly though San Franpsycho has nothing going for it. Granted it has an okay script it's nothing too grand, but it could've been interesting. Instead what you get is a murder thriller that fails to thrill or have even vaguely enjoyable deaths. Also the other reviews claim that the movie has "a great twist ending that's shocking" apparently I was watching a different movie because by about the one hour mark I sort of figured out what was going to happen. The ending didn't shock me in the least bit. I would go on insulting this wreck of a movie but I don't think I will. Long story short this movie is a boring uninspired thriller (I use that term loosely) that fails to have the "Hitchcockian thrills" that another reviewer claims to have a predictable ending, bland deaths, acting with all of the emotion of a plank of wood, and a decent soundtrack.<br /><br />I'm sure others will try to defend this with the usual: It was a low budget movie, they did the best they could with such a low budget, and all that other nonsense. But when you get right down to it there was very little that they could've really spent that budget on, there was very little special effects work, the soundtrack sounds like it might've been recycled from Hood of the Living Dead or The Damned, and it's the same damn crew from those two films. This movie really reminds me a lot of another low budget flick that was no good, and it was called Mr. Jingles, the two are about the same quality, they fail to deliver anything close to enjoyment and should fade quickly into obscurity. | 0 | negative |
In 1937 Darryl Zanuck, who had recently moved from head of production at Warner Brothers, was trying to get his newly created company, 20th Century Fox off the ground and on a level playing field with his old bosses at Warners and the glitter palace at MGM. "This Is My Affair" was an attempt to cash in on the current success of historical films set around the turn of the century ("San Francisco" "In Old Chicago")and in retrospect he succeeded quite mightily. The plot is fascinating. A trouble maker but heroic naval officer (Robert Taylor) is given a secret assignment by President McKinley to uncover a ring of bank robbers that are paralyzing American finance. He finds the gang but falls in love with their female mascot (Barbara Stanwyck) and must decide between love and duty.<br /><br />Not everything about this vintage film works well, but overall it is a good slice of studio film-making. The plot gimmick would be borrowed by Kurt Vonnegut for "Mother Night" (the lead role of that film of the book was played brilliantly by Nick Nolte) and seems quite believable, at least within the confides of studio make believe. As a fan of old movies I am always thrilled when I stumble upon one that I have never seen and "This is my Affair" was no exception. | 1 | positive |
Leland follows the story of Leland P. Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling), a disaffected teenager who has apparently murdered a severely retarded peer, the brother of a girl he was dating. The issue is not whether he did it or not Leland admits to it, straight away but rather, why. Interestingly, rather than a crime drama, Leland becomes a character story, examining why people do what they do not necessarily the easiest ground to till.<br /><br />And Leland features the required indie group of screwed-up people. Aside from the title character, there's also Pearl (Don Cheadle), who is his teacher at the juvenile correctional facility and who sees straight off that Leland is different. We meet Leland's distant and egotistical father (Kevin Spacey in an extended cameo), who never seems emotionally stirred in any way by what his son did. But the real flavorings come out when we immerse ourselves in the Pollards, the family of the retarded child. First, there's Leland's girlfriend Becky (Jena Malone), a drug addict who can't keep herself clean; her sister Julie (Michelle Williams), perhaps the most normal person in the film, who merely seeks to get away from it all; and Allen Harris (Chris Klein), a young man who lives with the Pollards and is Julie's boyfriend. Lastly, there's Ryan (Michael Welch), whom all the others call goofball, who cannot communicate and seems barely aware of his surroundings.<br /><br />Leland focuses primarily on its eponymous protagonist, but the movie slowly occasionally too slowly burrows into everyone's lives, asking the chief question, why do people do what they do? While Leland discusses it openly in a journal Pearl allows him to keep, examining notions of good and bad and personal responsibility, all the characters at some point in the film face a moment where they must make the fundamental choice of their own happiness or another's, perhaps the most basic choice any human can make. And the movie takes a good look at what goes into those choices, and the consequences of them.<br /><br />In the beginning of the film, you're simply struck by the depth of the cast. Spacey. Cheadle. Gosling. Michelle Williams. Even Chris Klein these are people who for the most part tend to elevate any film they are in, and putting them all together makes for a heady brew. For a space in the middle the film seems to stall, sputtering along as it unfolds; it looks for a while as if it will be content merely to ask questions and not supply any answers. But when we arrive at the home stretch and the movie starts to hit its stride and come together, Leland becomes a quietly powerful piece of film-making. Leland's explanation of the world and his actions, in the end, bring every story into focus, and all the investment you've made in the film pays off.<br /><br />Saying Ryan Gosling is excellent is like saying a sunny day is nice. At this point in his career it's redundant this is one of the finest young actors working today, and it is a pleasure to watch him craft what could have been an unlikable character into a thought-provoking protagonist. Gosling employs such subtlety here that it hardly seems like acting; he has to face off most of the film opposite Don Cheadle, whom we know has the goods, and he not only holds his own, he elevates Cheadle's game as well. Cheadle himself is in top notch form, imbuing Pearl with a fully-rounded humanity for good and bad. Spacey is kind of one-note, but that's the character, and he handles it excellently. I was surprised by Chris Klein; with this level of acting, I thought he would be buried in the mix, but he gives probably the turn of his career so far. Terrific work all around.<br /><br />Leland is a bit of a downer, and again, it's draggy in spots. But it finishes strongly and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer (on this one, anyway). There's also a subtle commentary on racism in the film (in Leland's first day in juvenile hall class, he's the only white person in the room) that, like much of the movie, is very effectively handled. I wouldn't go so far as to call this required viewing some might find it too slow or too odd but I thought it was one of the better films I've seen in a while, far stronger and more satisfying than most fare out there. I'd recommend it with the above caveats if for no other reason than to watch Gosling further perfect his craft. | 1 | positive |
Ordinarily, I love these "Stranger Within" thrillers. Some good examples are "Fatal Attraction," "Single White Female," and "Audition." Done well, they can be a lot of fun, and worth an hour or two of solid shocks and scares. Of course, the opposite can be true: done poorly, they can be tedious and stupid. "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" is one of the latter.<br /><br />The Bartels, Claire (Annabella Sciorra) and Michael (Matt McCoy) are welcoming another member to their family. But busy Claire is persuaded by Michael to hire a nanny. One day, a woman named Peyton Flanders (Rebecca DeMornay) shows up, and because she seems perfect, the Bartels hire her. Of course, once she shows up, their idyllic life is slowly unraveling...<br /><br />This film suffers from a plethora of problems, but the biggest one is the handling of the villain. Peyton is never believable. Part of this has to do with how she's written, and how she's acted. The things that she does that are supposed to put us on edge are so contrived that they're laughable. De Mornay doesn't help much. She portrays Peyton as two different people. While it's true she's supposed to be the perfect nanny while hiding her psychotic tendencies, De Mornay's performance creates a divide between the two facets of her character.<br /><br />The other actors are good, however. Annabella Sciorrra is terrific as the asthmatic Claire. Sciorra is very natural in the role, but unfortunately, the script lets her down. Matt McCoy is almost invisible. However, Julianne Moore is delightful as Claire's friend Marlene. Moore is a firecracker, but unfortunately she's only on screen for a total of five minutes.<br /><br />Curtis Hanson is a good director, but you wouldn't know it from watching this dud. The film has a few decent shocks, but it's poorly paced, and the climax, while generating some tension, is actually kind of laughable. That being said, he's working with a script that at best, could charitably be called pathetic.<br /><br />Trust me, when it comes to nannies, stick with Fran Drescher. This one should have gone to the direct-to-video bin. | 0 | negative |
I know a lot of people have said don't bother with this movie because its not a good fighting flick and hard with the subtitles. That is a really lazy way to think of a movie. If you want to focus on that part of the movie you should go find something else, and also learn to to respect cinema as a form of art, this being a masterful piece of work. If you want to watch this, its not about the fighting really. There are good fight scenes sometimes that are filmed rather well with good camera work, but the story itself is what holds the story together and is the important part. This is not the basic Kung-fu movie. The story is really the central focus and not the fights, and the combination of the two make an excellent movie thats well worth watching, and is even better in the original language with subtitles. | 1 | positive |
A great gangster flick, with brilliant performances by well-known actors with great action scenes? Well, not this one.<br /><br />It's rather amazing to see such a wide cast of well-known actors, that have many good movies in their filmographies in such a movie, without doubt this may be one of the worst they could possibly appear in.<br /><br />First of all, the plot is as you'd expect it from your average gangster biography, nothing new, nothing fancy in it. The way it is told makes the movie look a LOT longer than it is (when i thought the two hours should be almost over, i was quite surprised that only 45 minutes had passed).<br /><br />The action scenes look a lot like those from 80ies TV series - the A-Team, for example. It's just that in the 80ies (esp. with the A-Team) those scenes were far more sophisticated than those in "El Padrino". It's especially fun to see the guys point their guns in the air and still hit something (not to talk about people that take cover behind car doors which later look like they've been shot through).<br /><br />The acting fits quite nicely to the action. Either you get the same reaction to everything that happens (Dolph Lundgren style), or it's so overacted that you may think it's a parody (but unfortunately it's not).<br /><br />My advise is to stay away from this movie, any other gangster movie is better than this one. | 0 | negative |
The intertwined points-of-view can come up as a good idea in some movies. Here it is a total mess.<br /><br />But the total mess begin with the story: a video-clip bummy wants to shoot a light comedy with a pernicious noir-like female character. She is gorgeous and no men could resist to dive and crawl and suck her toes. She is all the more materialist, looking as if butter wouldn't melt in her mouth.<br /><br />The movie does melt away in its own pretentiousness: being smart/funny/good-looking. Phalocretinism at his best. White trash only, please. | 0 | negative |
I rated this one better than awful because I liked seeing Jonathon from Buffy in something again -- even if it was the same role.<br /><br />First, the concept is kind of cute for a short, but not an entire movie. The writing was forced and contrived. I have the feeling that the movie suffered the most during editing.<br /><br />Second, Amanda Bynes always looks like her eyes are crossed -- even when she's not trying to do it. She's just not funny. She always plays some sort of misfit girl who triumphs by being herself -- ironic, considering Amanda seems to always be a caricature. I would actually like to see her in something serious. I really want to give her a chance, but she is always cast in these trite roles where she wiggles and makes faces and somehow that's a good thing?<br /><br />Finally, the whole "I'm a Dork" segment was ripped off from Revenge of the Nerds. There was nothing in this movie that was unpredictable.<br /><br />Shame, shame, shame. | 0 | negative |
John Carpenter's The Thing is hands down the best horror film ever made. Not only that, but it is also on of my personal favorite films of all time. What makes the movie so great? It's hard to put my finger on it. Everything just seems to work in The Thing, it's one of the rare occasions where everything just seems to fall in place. The film is even superior to Alien in creating a type of moody atmospheric hell. The fact that it's not only about the gore (which is wonderful btw), but it is able to create a paranoia that is unmatched in films. A truly wonderful film that is worshiped by all horror buffs, and anyone who has good taste in films. | 1 | positive |
This is, without a doubt, the most hilarious movie I've ever seen. Seriously, if the makers of this movie are ever discovered, they'll put guys like Jim Carrey out of a job. Rent "Jack-O" tonight! Believe me, you won't regret it! | 0 | negative |
Unlike most reviewers here, I hated this movie, simply because the writer/director's bloated ego was in the way of an otherwise potentially interesting topic. Too many film fans equate 'EXTREME self-indulgence' to 'film GENIUS!', but I don't buy into that cult of personality. A film should be about its subject, not its director (unless it's a Woody Allen film, of course). *SPOILER* (which is just as well, save your time...) There is nothing brilliant about of showing you the foot-long porn-star's you-know-what in the last frame- that's actually called a tacky maneuver that SCREAMS film-school hackism. <br /><br />The poseur flick has achieved 'great film' status based on its indulgence and pandering to the audience which, first and foremost, is the writer/director. But the rest of the audience should look down on the surly, brutal nature of the porn biz, too. The flick had an aloof angle to the porn industry, looking down on each and every player it could bash. No matter, just love your writer/director. Love those four-minute steadicam segments, which are supposed to show the energy of the moment, but somehow had all the verve of an off switch. Love the story- no matter how dull it is- about the gee-whiz rise and sordid fall of a porn star. But look down on it, too, of course. While the subject has the potential to be fascinating innocence, money, degradation, beauty- your worshipful writer/director somehow managed to make it all look, again, DULL. Partly because of its run time. Here is something your auteur hero DIDN'T try: Giving the characters dimension. Or soul. Anything AT ALL to give a hoot about, aside from Genius That Paul Is, of course. But I'm not buying. I don't buy into indulgent hacks with astounding hype. <br /><br />Another overlong auteurist hack piece, with fifty times more hype than quality. I know some of you agree. The rest will see likely see this indulgent flick again. Not my problem. | 0 | negative |
Bone Eater is set in a small desert town in Alabama where property developer Dick Krantz (Jim Storm) is financing the building of a huge resort. Late one night three of his workers Riley (Timothy Starks), Hansen (Adrian Alvarado) & Miller (Paul Rae) are digging foundations in the desert when they unearth what looks like a tomahawk axe, unfortunately for them an ancient Native American demon called the bone eater comes along & kills them. Local Sheriff Steve Evans (Bruce Boxleitner) soon has Krantz breathing down his neck as the construction of his resort grinds to a halt, Sheriff Evans also has to deal with the bone eater demon as it kills anyone it comes across...<br /><br />You know I consider myself a fairly big fan of the horror & sci-fi genre, I certainly don't think my opinion is worth more than anyone else's (unlike many here on the IMDb...) but please believe me when I say that Bone Eater is the worst Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' I have ever seen & it's up against some damned strong competition. As a horror & sci-fi fan there are two names that when involved with a film send shudders down my spine in anticipation of how bad it will turn out, those names are Jesus 'I have no talent' Franco who had nothing to do with Bone Eater & Jim Wynorski who directed the absolute disaster that is Bone Eater. In fact Bone Eater is so bad Wynorski hid under the pseudonym Bob Robertson, when a director as bad as Wynorski hides under a pseudonym you know the film must be bad. Where do I even start? Bone Eater is quite simply the worst film I have seen this year & is so bad it's untrue, the story is awful, the script is sloppy (at one point Sheriff Evans tells Kia to meet him at the hospital but when they meet there later he acts surprised & says 'what are you doing here?', at one point Sheriff Evans triumphantly claims that we are in the twentieth century & that ancient Native American demons are nonsense although actually we are in the twenty first century now, there's a part when a woman tells in flashback the story where three men awaken the Bone Eater & it kills them but since it killed all three of them how did anyone else know about it for it to be passed down in legend?) & at times it gets more than a little bit embarrassing. The character's are horrible clichés, the small town Sheriff who saves the day, his daughter becomes involved which adds some personal motivation & as for the Native Americans there's an old wise man, a young hot head who hates 'white man' & a young woman who is the voice of reason between the two who have names like Storm Cloud & Black Hawk. The film is as boring as hell, nothing happens, the story is awful, it's full of plot holes & lapses in any sort of logic, the set-pieces are terrible, there's no horror or gore or suspense or mystery & Bone Eater is just the sort of film that makes you lose the will to live.<br /><br />Bone Eater has some of the worst CGI computer effects I've seen in a while, from the daft looking stiff moving bone eater creature itself which is just a selection of bones magically held together to a motorbike jumping a large gap to an awful CGI truck crashing over the edge of a cliff to a van being tossed to one side by the bone eater. Whenever the bone eater needs to get some speed up he causes a large horse to form from the sand & dust & rides it! In principal this is actually quite a neat idea but it looks awful & the scenes even have cheesy cowboy music on the soundtrack! There is one pointless scene at the end when Sheriff Evans cuts his own arm (why?) & it bleeds but apart from that there isn't a single drop of blood in the thing, whenever the bone eater kills someone they usually just disappear in a cloud of dust, boring. The hilariously goofy climatic showdown between Sheriff Evans & the bone eater has to be seen to be believed, Sheriff Evans goes native on horseback complete with tribal war paint on his face while the bone eater also rides his dust horse & they have a sort of jousting contest which is just to bad to describe properly.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $700,000 Bone Eater is filmed in a very bland, forgettable & flat way, there's no sense of style here at all. The majority of the film takes place in bright sunlight & if you watch it on a decent telly then the desert scenery is quite nice on occasion. There are several veteran 'known' actors really slumming it here, Boxleitner plays exactly the same role as in the similarly themed but much better 'Creature Feature' Snakehead Terror (2004), William Katt will obviously put his name to any crap as long as he gets paid while ex Star Trek man Walter Koenig must be really desperate to agree to appear in this.<br /><br />Bone Eater is a truly atrocious 'Creature Feature', there's really not much more you can say about it other than to steer well clear of it. The worst film ever to appear on the Sci-Fi Channel & that's saying something, isn't it? | 0 | negative |
And again, I find myself in the minority.<br /><br />I didn't like this one. This is the ONLY Varney work I haven't embraced, including Knowhutimean. Slam Dunk Ernest rates the credit for being the worst of the line, but this is a clear competitor for that dubious title.<br /><br />This work is too rough, and too base to be lovable. Lovability was one of Ernest's key components, and this element was completely lost herein. Unfortunately, most think this is the best of the line, but if you loved the essence of what made Ernest, Ernest, you will realize to what I refer about fifteen minutes into this work. It was too blatantly base to be fun.<br /><br />It rates a 3.5/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 0 | negative |
I was very curious to see this Wajda-Depardieu outing, plus the time period is definitely fascinating. Being a Wajda fan, I was disappointed, and that may be an understatement. The film never really took cinematic flight -- there's no foundation for the animosity between Danton and Robespierre, etc.<br /><br />Basically, the script was weak (adapted from "The Danton Affair"). And yet, the direction was masterful...it's Wajda, afterall! Also, there were some amazing actors BUT they never really grab the audience's attention like they should. Depardieu comes off as a quasi-goofy, nonchalant Danton...not exactly the image we have in mind. Woijech Pzsoniak is incredible, as usual, but again the script puts up limits even actors of great talent can't break down. Andrzej Seweryn and Bogoslaw Linda pop up ... as Bourdon and Saint-Just...and if you're familiar with Wajda, then you'd know them.<br /><br />Overall, I was disappointed with this much-lauded film. Great cast, great director, but no quality foundation. Bad, undynamic script. We need to get in Danton (Walesa) and Robespierre's (General J) mindsets... what are their motivations? Eh...who knows? One likes women, the other powders himself? Riiight. Ok, so if you're looking for a great French Revolution movie I HIGHLY recommend "La Revolution Francaise"...it's in two parts and oh-so-great! Excellent performances, in-depth script, juicy tid bits...definitely a satisfying experience!! Klaus-Maria Brandauer is a much better Danton than Depardieu...the wonderful Andrzej Seweryn apparently took some notes from "Danton" and is BRILLIANT as Robespierre. SEE IT! NOW! As for Wajda fans -- you're better off with "Man of Iron/Marble", "Promised Land", and the like. Cheers!! | 1 | positive |
This is a student film and it's a piece of crap. I would use much stronger language to describe it but then the review wouldn't be posted and the world needs to know- beyond any possible reasonable doubt- this movie REALLY SUCKS.<br /><br />There seems to be a different ruler used when measuring an already famous director's early work. Like somehow it was genius that we were just too stupid to comprehend since he finally got it right now today. I'm not buying it. The early movie "Bad taste" made by the LOTR Peter Jackson's sucks and this "early work" from another famous director really sucks the same way too. These "early works" are representative of crappy everything, from budget to scripts to actors etc.. it all is bottom of the bucket trash. Don't be fooled by the big name.<br /><br />If you like watching a handful of male 70's hippie burnouts pretend they could ever command a ship with the worst special effects you have ever seen- this is your movie.<br /><br />I can't f*37449ing believe this thing won a golden scroll award for best special effects. That is a joke right? Or a joke award?<br /><br />If you want to watch what this movie WISHES it was rent a season or three of Red Dwarf you smeghead. | 0 | negative |
First, This movie was made in 1978. So that tells you that the movie is going to be bad anyway.But I am not saying that all old movies are bad . Second, The special effects we're terrible for even that time. Finally, The acting was so bad, Bozo The Clown could have done it better. It makes you wonder how people get the money to make movies this pathetic. This movie sucks! | 0 | negative |
The acting was flat (at least none of the actors sounded like they'd just got the script that morning) and the film and sound quality made me think of the 70s movie of the week bombs. The only thing that told me that it was indeed not a 70s movie of the week was the reference to DNA testing. But for me, being Eastern Orthodox, the most egregious thing about this....film.....was the total Romishness of the religion. Romania is 88% Orthodox but you'd never know that from this movie: Father Soren is Irish. And I'd have known this even if I hadn't seen the actor play the Irish pub keep, Michael Sullivan in Star Trek: Voyager's "Fairhaven" episodes. The Bishop was wearing Roman vestments (and for the record not even Orthodox bishops wear their vestments unless they're saying the liturgy, especially if they live in a monastery). About the only non-Romish paraphernalia I saw was the 3-bar cross on the door of the church, and even then I had to squint to see it. The first reviewer said the producers had done their research. Well, if that's true they messed up on the religious aspect of the film. | 0 | negative |
Talk about false advertising! I wasted an hour and twenty five minutes watching this piece of crap and there was not one leisure suit, not one platform shoe, no pointy-finger dancing, and not a single disco ball. I watched it on a Saturday night, and ended up with an awful fever, but it had nothing to do with the music.<br /><br />Seriously, with or without John Travolta, this movie sucked.<br /><br />From the opening scene, you will be asking yourself the question, "Where did that rope come from, and will it please hang me, too?" From its unabashed bias against the driving abilities of the Pennsylvania Dutch, to the shameless promotion of the apparently everlasting capacities of Alienware laptop batteries, to the cheap horror effects lifted directly from Japanese cinema, this is the worst film to hit theaters since The Grudge. | 0 | negative |
A female friend invited me to see this in the theaters.<br /><br />After half an hour we walked out, and went into the next multiplex (yeah, we broke the rules) in time to catch the beginning of Against All Odds.<br /><br />I remember too many apes dancing around saying, "oog, oog." Very little about the characters or introduction to the story captured either one of us or was even memorable. It just dragged to the point of being painfully boring (and believe me, any excuse was good enough to spend time with this particular friend).<br /><br />The production values were excellent, good photography and lighting, but this was a major studio release, and we came to see a movie, not an art gallery. It seemed like Ralph Richardson and Andie McDowell were going to be wasted in such a poorly written film.<br /><br />Perhaps if you make into the second hour, there is something worth seeing. I do not have so much patience with my time. 4 out of 10. | 0 | negative |
I started watching this expecting the worst, i was happy to find that the film turned out to be enjoyable, slightly confusing in parts, like when they all justs started singing. It gave me a chance to see Daniel Wu in action for the first time, he is a better actor than i thought, at times he seemed a bit out of place. I thought purple storm deserves its Hong kong legends release, as it is different to most other HK films, it is about a mans emotional struggles when confronted with memory loss, it may sound corny but when he eventually pieces out what and who he actually is it really makes the film a lot more interesting. Once you get into the film you will find it keeps you gripped to it, as if you miss one bit then a lot of the film wil make sense, for example i missed a bit at the start and i recommend to anyone that watches this that they do not miss any of it. So i can say that this film was worth watching and a grateful surprise for me, that i enjoyed it. | 1 | positive |
Early 1950s Sci-Fi directed by Lesley Selander. Special effects of course are very primitive, but pretty good in comparison to what else was out there then. Drive-in Movie double feature fare; still interesting enough to watch. Two leading men, Arthur Franz the brilliant young scientist Dr. Jim Barker and straight talking and earthy newspaper reporter Steve Abbot(Cameron Mitchell)are joined on a manned flight to Mars by Carol Stafford(Virgina Huston)another scientist and two other space experts(Richard Gaines and John Litel). Upon landing on the Red Planet, the space travelers encounter inhabitants that appear friendly and mentally advanced. In actuality, the Martians are led by Ikron(Morris Ankrum), who has the idea of conquering Earth to vitalize their civilization. There is a beautiful Martian(Maruerite Chapman)that Dr. Barker intends to take back on the return trip. She is the movie's redeemable element. | 0 | negative |
House of Dracula works from the same basic premise as House of Frankenstein from the year before; namely that Universal's three most famous monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man are appearing in the movie together. Naturally, the film is rather messy therefore, but the fact that all three monsters are there is usually enough to ensure that the film's sixty seven minutes don't become boring. It's obvious that the idea of making another monster mash came into the writer's head before an actual plot did, as the yarn we're given isn't exactly without holes. The plot sees Count Dracula arrive at Dr. Edelman's home asking for a cure for his vampirism. Then, what can only be described as a coincidence, sees Lawrence Talbot, a.k.a. The Wolf Man turn up asking for a cure for his affliction! It turns out that Dracula is on the prowl for Edelman's daughter, but Talbot really is serious. When it turns out that he can't be stopped from turning into a wolf, The Wolf Man throws himself into the sea...where he ends up finding Frankenstein's Monster.<br /><br />Overall, this film isn't as good as the earlier House of Frankenstein. The 1944 film put its plot together better than this entry in the series does, as the plot here doesn't give equal time to each Universal monster. Dracula's plot is the biggest at first, but soon fizzles out only to resurface at the end. The Wolf Man is the star of the show, but his story never really develops, and is essentially just another version of the plot he always finds himself in. Frankenstein's Monster is given the coldest hand, as he appears in the movie merely as an afterthought, and an obvious excuse to ensure that all three monsters appear in the movie. The story of the doctor who binds all three together is the most interesting, but this is a little disappointing as he isn't the reason why people will see this film. The acting is good enough, with John Carradine showing his sinister side and Lon Chaney Jr once again making sure that his character is bathed in tragedy. Glenn Strange is given nothing to do, and Onslow Stevens proves the real highlight as Dr Edelman. Overall, this film won't do much for anyone that isn't a fan of Universal horror; but as silly monster movies go, House of Dracula is worth seeing. | 1 | positive |
This is definitely the biggest surprise of the festival so far and without a doubt the best the festival has had to offer. I went into this film with little to no expectations after learning that the director was responsible for the awful vampire flick The Forsaken. and I left pleasantly surprised. The film stars Lori heuring of In Crowd fame as a young mother whose husband has just passed. She moves into an old family home in the mountains with her two daughters next to a mine that is a gravesite to overworked children back in the day. Unlucky for them the children return with a vengeance killing and eating everyone in their path. The film works on many levels. It's well done, suspenseful, it has spots of good cinematography and capable performances by Compton especially. The atmosphere is spooky yet slightly underwhelming, the score is decent and the makeup effects are gruesome and simplistic. The film keeps up a creepy and unsettling tone and the kids themselves with pale skin, torn up lips and hollow eyes are pretty scary and unrelenting. The film is original and inventive without being to artsy or complicated. I can't see this film making it into a wide release without some trimming and slight fine tuning. But they definitely have a good product on there hands and should pursue some type of theatrical distribution. However the theatre in which i saw it in was horrible. The sound was dreadfully messed up which i felt took away from the film majorly and it stopped in the middle because they couldn't center it on the screen which killed the mood a bit. All in all though it was the most satisfying of horrorfests entries maybe because it had the least expectations but nonetheless was a welcome addition to genre films. | 1 | positive |
When I first viewed this movie, I didn't know the title of it. I realized it had Chevy Chase in it with the same name he had in Caddyshack so I had an idea this was Caddyshack 2. At the end of the movie when I did find out it was Caddyshack 2 I was disappointed. They could have done better. Dan Akroyd I thought was bad. The whole story was bad. Call this movie by another title, but don't call it Caddyshack 2. You give that great movie a bad name. Jackie Mason's daughter when I first saw her looked like his wife. How old is this girl? Geez. How about making this movie a little believable. I thought Chevy Chase was good. | 0 | negative |
The story in this movie is fairly implausible B grade stuff, but the script called for a creepy guy to play the lead, and in 1940, that meant Peter Lorre. And Peter is at his creepiest in this one as island owner Stephen Danel, who gets prisoners paroled to his custody to work at his island diamond mine. Upon arrival the parolees discover that they are slave mine workers that can be beaten or killed at the whim of Danel.<br /><br />Only two things seem to have it worse off than the slaves; Danel's wife, and monkeys. Monkeys tick him off so much that his violence towards them probably leads to the only meat the slaves get.<br /><br />Lorre is perfect in his role here, and creeps up the screen in industrial-strength fashion. Although the script is not Casablanca caliber, the editing is very tight and there are no wasted scenes. This is a very watchable story, but I'm not sure what niche this movie filled. Too long for a short subject, and too short for a feature length film, I'm not sure how this was marketed to theaters.<br /><br />I just caught this for the first time on a late night/early morning TCM showing. Lorre fans will not want to miss this one if they haven't seen it. | 1 | positive |
Fado is a sad almost bluesy style of Portuguese Gypsy music that is heard repeatedly trough the movie. As explained by one of the main characters (Igor) it also means fate.<br /><br />Indeed it's fate that bring the two main characters Paco and Alex together and triggers the problems that ensue.<br /><br />On the whole I enjoyed it quite a bit. It starts out as an 'on the down and outs' drama/road movie an builds into a suspenseful thriller / road movie.<br /><br />There were two things that I found unrealistic that kept me from giving it a higher rating (I gave it an 8). The first is the major point of why did Alex give the stuff away. She was so desperate for cash that she sold her passport for a paltry sum and then she gives away things worth thousands to a stranger? Her explanation was unconvincing. Also how did they get through the gate, where were the cops? | 1 | positive |
Something I think some people miss about great science fiction is that it predicts some part of the future. No other theatrical movie that I can recall predicted that when the space shuttle went to study Halley's Comet that a disaster would occur! Some differences were: the "Churchill" (the shuttle in the movie) actually went to the comet, the "Challenger" was only in low earth orbit; The "Churchill" was merely burned out inside, whereas the "Challenger" exploded--hey the vampires had to get back to earth. One great similarity (and this is always bad luck!) both had mixed male/female crews--the legend of Halley's comet and disaster continues!<br /><br />Other than this there is not much more to be said about this movie that hasn't been said before. As a outer space/science fiction/horror/sex film individually it provided nothing really new, but as in all great dishes it is the combination that counts. And taken together, this was a highly original and satisfying combination.<br /><br />I just wish Mathilda May would drain her victims through another part of the body! | 1 | positive |
The theme is controversial and the depiction of the hypocritical and sexually starved india is excellent.Nothing more to this film.There is a lack of good dialogues(why was the movie in english??). There was lack of continuity and lack of passion/emotion in the acting. | 1 | positive |
When I was engaged, my fiance and I would frequent the adult bookstores. He would look for his favorite mags, and on occasion a video that caught the eye. As much as I enjoyed the one-on-one with him that the media caused, there was never a video that I really enjoyed. I had seen only one other movie way back when there was a satellite channel called XXX (it dealt with a private eye unraveling a case) that actually had a proper plot and was enjoyable. All the others were grunting and puffing and blowing and whatnot. There's only so many times you can watch a blonde bimbo faking 'it'.<br /><br />This movie caught my eye, and I migrated to it, allowing him to wander the shop. He noticed (how hard was it not too? grins. I was actually interested in something, lol(!) in the video section!) and came over, buying the slightly used copy for me. We took it home and I loved it. Here was a "Porno" with a plot. I wasn't sure it even classified as porno, but I use the word loosely.<br /><br />The librarian was a character I could identify with. Alice rejected her boyfriend's advances. She was not comfortable with her own sexuality and prudish in her comments. Bill went away, and she continued to check in books. The White Rabbit ran through the library (one book, if you notice closely, I believe (it's been ten years since I saw the movie) was by Lewis C.) and Alice, for that same reason that propels teenagers to run into the woods when a chainsaw wielding maniac is behind them rather than towards populated areas, follows. It's the best way to get the plot forward. Alice finds herself in Wonderland.<br /><br />I barely recall all the details, but I do remember clearly the swim in the lake, and how she was "dried" off. I liked how they got Humpty Dumpty Up again, the Mad Hatter's size of member being on his hat to wear it proudly, and the brother sister team of Dum and Dee (which did disturb me slightly--then again, they could have been husband wife, but I never could tell no matter how many times I watched it). The woman on the knight who told Alice go away and find your own Knight (What's a A Nice Girl Like You Doing on a Knight Like This?).<br /><br />The part that really caught my attention when I watched it about a year or so later was one of the cards (3 of hearts, I think) who resembled my ex's current wife exactly! We couldn't help but tease her about being in the movie! The King of Hearts was interesting, and the Queen was even more so. Due to the openness of the forum, I can't go into details, just say it was "orgy" based and we'll leave it at that!<br /><br />When we split up, I was allowed to take the video--he knew I liked it--but in the time since it's been lost in borrowing. Someday I'll find another copy.<br /><br />Btw, if anyone could tell me offlist what scene was cut from the Amazon version, I'd really appreciate it.<br /><br />I heartily recommend this movie for the over 18 crowd. It was soft, sweet, and really 70's, but I liked it immensely.<br /><br />***** out of 5. D. | 1 | positive |
This movie plays out like an English version of an ABC after school special, with nudity. It makes you wonder who the target audience was supposed to be. It's not as though the writers were too preoccupied with selling a plausible plot either. While it does possess a certain watchability, Virtual Sexuality is fluffier than dandelion meringue. It's a good movie to watch if you're snowed in, the cable's out, and it's the only tape you've got. | 0 | negative |
I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, except cinema-goers who like to laugh at a film, not with it.<br /><br />Quite a promising premise and set of actors get progressively worse over a film which ends with perhaps the worst ending ever seen in a film. I won't spoil it, but basically the most over-used set of movie cliches get done badly and half heartedly for the most disappointing last five minutes to any film, ever.<br /><br />The movie also includes the most cringe inducing scene ever, the attempt at on-screen chemistry between the two lead roles when we're presented with a close up of Angela Jolie stroking Denzel Washington's finger lovingly. It may be the only thing he could move, but quite why the viewer is treated to a zoom of Washington's finger getting stroked amidst the kind of dimmed lights and music appropriate for a sex scene is beyond me. I laughed out loud and shook my head.<br /><br />The direction of the storyline borrows heavily from Se7en, but here it is executed far more simplistically, and far too obviously. To call it a poor-mans Se7en would be an understatement, this really is nothing more than a made for TV movie and even Jolie and Washington's best efforts can't convince that this is a box office film. | 0 | negative |
This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)<br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
When a friend once lambasted me for my first movie (a pretty bad videotaped affair), I argued that I could grow; Orson Welles' first movie, indeed, was even worse. He challenged me that it couldn't be, so I pulled out the Criterion laserdisc of (I think) CITIZEN KANE and played HEARTS OF AGE. My friend lasted just a few minutes before conceding the point.<br /><br />There is a little humor in this short, but it's basically as pretentious as (and perhaps a collegiate answer to) BLOOD OF A POET and other avant garde films of the time. It is what it is: a succession of images with a vague theme, and unless you really enjoy any footage of Welles (in heavy makeup, to boot), this isn't really even worth tracking down. | 0 | negative |
I have absolutely no idea why I watched Ali G Indahouse except for the fact that Salon seemed to think a crime was committed by not nominating Sacha Baron Cohen for a Emmy for his work on Da Ali G Show. It is a sure bet that I will never watch that show as there was absolutely nothing funny about the movie. Comedy? Torture was more like it. It was just about the stupidest thing I every watched. I will admit that I was captivated by Rhona Mitra. I had not seen her in anything. She wasn't on The Practice during the time I was watching, so I guess I will have to check out Boston Legal one of these evenings to see how she does in something that may be worth watching. | 0 | negative |
I can never fathom why people take time to review movies that they have not understood fully. I know people will read scathing reviews on these pages of this film, and it will keep them from seeking copies of this quite forgotten, late '20s style but 1932 movie, which should probably be referred to as "Indecent," as that is the name on the main titles.<br /><br />Myrna Loy, best known as a comic actress in countless genteel roles, shows herself to be miscast in all of them. She was a true dramatic actress, something that I did not know before watching this film, which predates all of her famous roles. She is exciting and moving here, two things she never was opposite the graceful and refined William Powell. I'm still rather in shock over how good she was.<br /><br />Becky Sharp (1935), the first three-strip Technicolor feature, is more familiar but this one is far better artistically and an adaptation. It is also very poignant as an expression of a film style that was about to die. You cannot take my word for it, you must see it. | 1 | positive |
One of my favorite movies. Great cast, lead by Jonathan Silverman and Blythe Danner. Serious drama situations with brilliant comedic punches. An exact mixture of character and story. Real people with real problems, and everyone has a different relationship with each family member. Sensitively moves from slightly-sad to hilariously-funny. Read the quotes. This is the best adaptation of a Neil Simon play.<br /><br />If you wanna see more of Eugene check Biloxi Blues (starring Matthew Broderick who played in both stage versions) is OK, a bit on a darker side. Get away from the made-for-TV Broadway Bound. | 1 | positive |
Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood) is a secret service agent plagued with guilt over the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, while he was on duty. Thirty years later and the current president is entering a re-election campaign, but he is receiving death threats; and Horrigan has been called in to assist in what should be a routine research operation. John Malkovich plays the professional assassin and master of disguise who is tracking the president, and using the past he begins to torture Horrigan in a psychological duel of cat and mouse.<br /><br />Malkovich, Eastwood and Rene Russo all give wonderful performances in this top notch thriller. The direction is excellent and the entire picture is charged with tension and intrigue throughout.<br /><br />A must see for thriller fans 8/10 | 1 | positive |
This movie was horrid and at the end made me wonder why someone went to the trouble to make it. Now it was not all bad, I have studied film and this film was put together very nicely and had very good cinematic everything with interesting angles to very nice lighting and excellent camera work. I wish I could have seen it back in school because it would have made a good film to write a paper on. BUT........ Since I have graduated and lost most of my film pretentiousness I have realized that a film should be entertaining above all, this movie was long and boring and I'm not sure when it finally got to the point that it was worth my time.<br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
What is it with studios like Paramount that have a proven hit film series on their hands, and figure it can screw around with the budget and formula? Paramount spent less on this film than they did on TMP, which doesn't sound bad until you realize that there's a 10 gap between when the films were made. The $40 TMP cost to make would be equivalent to about $75 million in 1989. This film is the reason that Shatner has never been given a fair chance to direct other films, as well. Every time he turned around, the studio was slashing the budget and making demands regarding the storyline. The fact that this was the one storyline that Roddenberry and Shatner could agree upon for the most part made the freshman directorial task tough enough, but after all the machinations were done, all anyone ended up with was an uneven story and a load of badly executed special effects not worthy of the original series, much less a major motion picture. The most glaring examples: - All of the Phaser effects were severely ashed out and fake-looking. - The shot of the Enterprise going into the great barrier was so obviously a still-frame shot being zoomed away from. At least the popsicle stick that held the Enterprise cut out up was successfully matted out. - God "chasing" Kirk up the mountain... Egads, they may as well have just cut in shots of Godzilla climbing the volcano at the end of "Godzilla 1985," and used thumbtacks to scratch the emulsion off of the film to make electric bolts come out of his eyes at the imperiled Captain Kirk.... Yes, friends, I have a real problem with the look of that last scene, especially.<br /><br />Thank goodness Star Trek VI was such a redeemer of a film... | 0 | negative |
Meltdown opens on a scene of scientists preparing to conduct an important test on a missile system developed to deflect asteroids should they be on a collision course with earth. Nathan (Vincent Gale) mentions some misgivings to his, but the test appears to be an unqualified success. Then the asteroid breaks apart, and the largest piece is pushed into a direct collision path with earth. Fortunately, the huge rock skips off of earth's outer atmosphere and ricochets into space. Unfortunately, the glancing blow is just enough to alter earth's orbit, and the planet begins to spiral closer to the sun.<br /><br />While all of this is going on above their heads, Los Angeles cops Tom (Casper Van Dien) and Mick (Greg Anderson) are on a stake-out. They're supposed to collect evidence against a suspected drug dealer, but the deal they're watching quickly devolves into a shooting match. Afterward, Tom takes a few minutes to be interviewed by a local television reporter who also happens to be his girlfriend, Carly (Stefanie von Pfetten).<br /><br />At a nearby hospital where Mick is treated for a minor injury, Tom has a brief chat with his ex-girlfriend Bonnie (Venus Terzo), who is a nurse. He tells her he's concerned about the fact that their 17 year-old daughter Kimberly (Amanda Crew) is dating a man named CJ (Ryan McDonell). Once Tom explains to Bonnie that he's discovered CJ has a criminal record, she's a little worried herself.<br /><br />It's not long, however, before everybody has something else to worry about. The temperature is rapidly rising all around the world. Carly is one of the first non-scientists to learn what's really happening. Nathan, who is her brother, calls her to say he may have a way that they can survive. Carly calls Tom; he, of course, promptly contacts Bonnie.<br /><br />In relatively short order, the motley group is on the road. Before they can reach their ultimate goal, however, they've got to make their way through bands of looters, deal with a catastrophic water shortage, and manage to travel in temperatures that are high enough to kill.<br /><br />Casper Van Dien is a good looking guy, and I actually enjoyed him in Starship Troopers. That may be because he's good in action scenes. It might also be because he didn't talk much in that movie. In Meltdown, he's unfortunately given just enough lines in situations that are just dramatic enough to showcase his entirely average acting abilities. Amanda Crew is also okay, and Ryan McDonell isn't bad, either. Vincent Gale and Stefanie von Pfetten are also both reasonably good, but Venus Terzo is sadly on a par with Van Dien.<br /><br />What really makes or breaks a movie, though, is the story and the script. While the story here is okay and actually has some real potential, the script is just awful. The science part of the science fiction is non-existent starting with the asteroid pushing the earth out of orbit and escalating with the notion that the "gravitational balance of the solar system" might "pull the earth back" into its usual orbit "over time." When the temperature in LA hits 120 degrees, cars start blowing up.<br /><br />You know what's even worse than the bad science? The bad continuity. Okay, really hot. Why are people in the movie not only wearing long sleeved shirts, but jackets, too? Why are people mugging each other for bottled water instead of turning on the taps at home? Why are the streets completely empty, but the freeways completely full? And why are the freeways full of unexploded? It's almost superfluous to note that the sets, costumes, and production values were good, especially when that only forces me to say that the edits were not.<br /><br />So basically, you take a pretty good story idea and combine it with mostly mediocre acting, a terrible script, low-end special effects, utterly irrational plot twists, and poor edits, and what do you have? A movie that's even less than the sum of its inconsiderable parts. I'm sorry to say that I can't recommend Meltdown: Days of Destruction to anyone.<br /><br />POLITICAL NOTES: There is mention here that Congress finally loosened the purse strings enough to fund the tests that start the movie rolling. While the tests here were wholly irresponsible (targeting an asteroid with a nuke and not knowing the composition of the big rock is, in fact, well beyond irresponsible and approaching the insane), the fact is that such scenarios are a very real danger to the planet. Unfortunately, we've tracked nowhere near all of the near earth asteroids that could be worrisome in some orbit some day; and our ability to spot something on a collision course with us is limited at best.<br /><br />Once we do discover we're going to be hit, we quite literally have no system in place to deal with it. There are no nuclear-tipped space missiles we can launch; the space shuttle is completely incapable of going beyond earth orbit, and if it were, we couldn't launch enough of them or launch them quickly enough for it to matter. I'm not big on the government doing anything beyond its constitutional mandates, but I certainly think protecting the planet from destruction coming at us from outer space could be construed as defending the country, don't you? FAMILY SUITABILITY: Meltdown: Days of Destruction is rated R for "some violence." I frankly didn't find the violence here anything beyond a fairly typical T-rated video game. If your teens are keen on seeing Meltdown and you can't talk them out of it, the R-rating shouldn't dissuade you from letting them see it. It's not, however, a good idea to leave the younger kids in the room with their elder siblings. While the shootings aren't too graphic in the main, some of the dead bodies are. | 0 | negative |
Gave it two stars because the DVD cover was good enough to make me buy this piece of horse manure. I paid a dollar for it at the local DVD exchange and I want my money back. I have a couple of good movies(at least I think they're good) that have never seen the inside of a video store. After seeing this, I'm really insulted by that. Light years worse than anything I've ever seen, I can't even recommend this as a campy joke movie. It is so bad, instead of making you laugh it makes you angry. How did this awful film find any kind of distro? I can only believe it was self distributed as the amateurish DVD authoring would suggest. To the producers of this "movie" get out of the business, it's obvious you have no talent for it. | 0 | negative |
The whole town of Blackstone is afraid, because they lynched Bret Dixon's brother - and he is coming back for revenge! At least that's what they think.<br /><br />A great Johnny Hallyday and a very interesting, early Mario Adorf star in this Italo-Western, obviously filmed in the Alps.<br /><br />Bret Dixon is coming back to Blackstone to investigate why his brother was lynched. He is a loner and gunslinger par excellance, everybody is afraid of him - the Mexican bandits (fighting the Gringos that took their land!) as well as the "decent" citizens that lynched Bret's brother. They lynched him, because they thought he stole their money instead of bringing it to Dallas to the safety of the bank there. But this is is only half the truth, as we find out in the course of this psychologically interesting western.<br /><br />But beware, it's kind of a depressing movie as everybody turns out to be guilty somehow and definitely everybody is bad to the bone...<br /><br />Still, I enjoyed it very much and gave it an 8/10. Strange, that only less than 5 people voted for this movie as of January 12th 2002.... | 1 | positive |
Finally got to see this movie last weekend. What a disappointment..it barely reaches "made for TV" level. Given the list of actors, I would have expected something substantially more sophisticated. The movie lacks a good story, well, actually any story for that matter. It has no credibility, instead lots of predictability. Save yourself the money and the time. | 0 | negative |
I like a lot of Myrna Loy movies. This film was produced before her character actor personality was developed. It would be an okay short film but seems to go on forever in it's complete form.<br /><br />Myrna Loy it seems is told what to do with her acting and does the job. That is about all you can say about her.<br /><br />Her gypsy character is shoddy and the film has many flaws, such as the jewelry shop scene.<br /><br />This film will probably be interesting to Myrna Loy fans but even as such is something of a disappointment. | 0 | negative |
Nostalgia isn't always the best reason to watch a movie. More often than not, the movies you loved as a kid will disappoint you as an adult. While there are exceptions to this rule, it's hard to justify owning a DVD of Krull, regardless of how many insightful the director's commentary may be. But stay sharp Gen X/Y'ers, because the dozens of disappointments dominating your trip down memory lane, might stop you from stumbling across one worth revisiting.<br /><br />One surprise film worth another look is Joel Schumacher's Flatliners, the supernatural thriller starring 80's popcorn heavyweights Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts and Billy Baldwin. You would think that a stew comprised of this cast, the flamboyant flair of Schumacher and the über slick eye of cinematographer Jan De Bont would result in something sickeningly stodgy, but calories aside... Flatliners ain't half bad. Even though it's production design is inexplicably over-the-top and the photography is achingly over- stylized (replete with neon soaked streets spewing endless billows of steam), Flatliners still manages to be an effectively dark and compelling thriller. If there's an explanation why Flatliners was forgotten, it might be because 1990 saw the release of another, far superior, supernatural thriller: Jacob's Ladder.<br /><br />Had Flatliners been released a year or two after Jacob's Ladder, it's likely Schumacher's flashy thriller would have been dismissed as a toned down, commercialized rip-off of Adrian Lyne's nightmarish masterpiece. But with these films being released in the same year, Flatliners enjoyed a different fate, tripling JL's take at the box office despite being a watered down version of a similar premise. The passage of time hasn't been as kind to Flatliners, it has been lost atop a dated heap of throwaway 80's Brat Pack dreck, while JL has cemented its reputation as a timeless classic. Fates aside, JL is seamlessly terrifying and it manages to keep audiences guessing right up until the last frame, whereas Flatliners falls victim to over- simplification and Hollywood conveniences that drag down the final act into a predictably tidy denouement. Comparisons between the two movies is unfair, and ultimately overlooks Flatliners ability to represent the 80's at its quintessential best. Released at the end of a decade of shallow excess, Flatliners will always be dated by its hairstyles and clothing styles, but in fairness, it should also be remembered as a well executed movie at (or at least near) the top of its particular heap of dreck. For intents and purposes, it's an entertaining walk down memory lane. | 1 | positive |
Can they possibly get any worse than this? Probably. But after all Steven Seagal gets to do what he does. Well kind of; this time instead of mortally wounding the bad guys he just wounds them. By reputation of being a bad ass agent Seagal is hired to deliver a special package from France to America. But it is not an easy task with so many people trying to intercept and foul up the mission. The fights just don't have enough bite and the big bangs are just big and that's all. Anna-Louis Plowman seems to be the only cast member not to appear wooden. Also in the cast are: Jeffery Pierce, Max Ryan and Harry Van Gorkum. Don't put all the blame on Seagal for this clunker. | 0 | negative |
Frankie Muniz plays Jason who is a high school student. His biggest problem is his life is built on small or big lies that puts him into trouble most times. However, he cannot escape from his teacher and he finishes his creative writing homework just before its deadline. While he is biking fast to hand his homework to the teacher, he crushes into a car. As he explains the situation to grumpy man(Giamatti) in the car, he gives him a lift to his school. But the problem is Jason leaves his homework in the car, the other way of saying this is Marty Wolf(Giamatti) steals it.<br /><br />After a few months Jason goes to a movie and sees a trailer that takes him aback. Because the story of the movie is based on his homework. He tells that to his parents but of course they don't believe him. Especially his father uses words which insults him. Jason decides to go to LA and find Wolf to tell his father that Jason is not a liar. When Wolf refuses it, Jason takes action and ruins his life.<br /><br />This is the short story of the Big Fat Liar. Well, as a kids movie it might be a light hearted one but there are some errors that even could would ask if that is possible. Such as, having such a small amount of money and going to LA with a friend to sort the problem out, having access to this cinema producer's highly protected house and office, setting up a telecommunications system overnight.Does it seem believable? It does not. Well this is a kids movie but kids are not that gullible.<br /><br />Big Fat Liar offers some little pleasure to its target audience. Unfortunately, I am not a big fat liar to say that this is a good movie. ** out of ***** | 0 | negative |
Wow... this is the kind of movie that makes you wonder who's idea this was and what soup kitchen are they eating at now. To say this was bad is an insult to the bad movies we all know and love.<br /><br />When I saw Guttenberg's name in the TV guide I figured it would be a spoof... maybe it should have been. Could have made for a better movie.<br /><br />Look for the scene where they are in an airplane in mid flight with the door open and there is no wind what so ever. They could have sprung for a fan at least.<br /><br />Look for several Canadian & c-list actors in the movie. This is the kind of movie that litters the b-rate cable stations you never watch except on a rainy Sunday. | 0 | negative |
The greatest compliments to the other commentator here at IMDb who asked himself why this series didn't "get stuck" in its time to last a lot longer like many other series in the 80s did.<br /><br />It is not true the series would have gotten worse if further continued.<br /><br />I will at the end of this my comment post some thoughts about the other movie realizations, rather: attempts of the Robin Hood legend.<br /><br />First of All, Robert Addie (Gisburne), you are among us all, you live forever.<br /><br />Nothing is as fun as the entire two, if one wants, three seasons of this absolutely unique series. And at the same time absolutely agreeing with the mostly new and revolutionary findings of Terry Jones' history documentations about Egypt, Greece, Rome, Konstantinopel, the Goths and Barbarians, and the middle ages and crusades (...yes, THE Monthy Python-Terry Jones):<br /><br />If you have seen those brilliant and funny Jones-Docs you will better, much better understand all the historical background stuff Carpenter, the writer of the Robin of Sherwood-series (which happens to be the brother of John Carpenter, who made "The Thing", their third brother makes music), intended to tell us.<br /><br />The writer of "Dick Turpin", "Catweazle" and the first two seasons of "Robin of Sherwood", called "Kip" Carpenter, is my movie overlord. He's better than all those others who criticize his "sword-and-sorcery" element or "defectiveness" (taken from the Robin of Sherwood Webring) of this series (that I can not see) or have other non-fundamented criticism of which there existed a lot back then and still now.<br /><br />That's why, when you get to know this "Robin of Sherwood" better, you'll be severe. You will at first loathe the third season. Not only that: I did myself go thru this, and on top of it, I have only taken up the first two seasons into my deepest heart - DESPITE the fact that Praed, the actor of Robin, left this series, because after the series had enormous success, he was offered a probably better paid role in an absolutely ridiculous Canadian series called "The new Adeventures of Jules Verne" - already the title reveals the emptiness of the whole project. Praed went for money, and not for fame, he didn't stick with his gang and kin, I mean: as actors.<br /><br />Actors who personally represent the afterwards "really", in our present time famous and legendary faces and characters of the Robin-Legend. The potential of this series could and should have been let blossomed a lot more without any degrading niveau of content and historical message and rebellious accuracy regarding current political issues.<br /><br />Again, obligatory to say: A change of the main role was forced by Praed's stupid decision of leaving Robin of Sherwood for a silly remake-series of the Verne-tales and brilliantly woven into the filming of the story. Still it is in some aspects a catastrophe.<br /><br />Anyway: If one is informed about this, and that Connery was maybe really advertised by his father, but that the young Connery DID NOT AT ALL "chase Praed away", how I prejudicially thought in the first place, then one can absolutely enjoy the 3rd season. Sad here is that the script was not anymore written by Superman Kip Carpenter, so we don't have anymore that critical and free-thinking historical background like i.e. in "The Witch of Elsdon", or in "The King's Fool", two episodes of the first series that is A) funny, B) historically educating and C) brilliantly acted. ===<br /><br />"Don't trust the Lion!"<br /><br />Unlike many other characters that wished him dead for the sake of their own gain of power, Richard Lionheart, as shown in RoS and as in real history, was a greater authority than John or others, but used it only for his wicked idea of the crusade and the war against Normandie in France. He slaughtered and had slaughtered much more than tens of thousands of Christians, Muslims and Jews in the "wholy" crusades, and his soldiers even devoured the children they slayed out of hunger or poverty. On top of that, after his capture by the Saracens (muslims) in the crusades, Britain was squeezed out for his ransom, 100.000 marks (at that time, 11th century, comparable to approx. 30 Billion - 30'000'000'000.- Dollars of current value), to get him safely back, and then he just visited England for a month to return to Normandie (in France, where the Norman Invaders went first) for the crusades (one learns that in the episode "The King's Fool"). For this new crusade, possibly kind of a revenge for his capture, Richard Lionheart again "drains the country of money" (cited out of Clive Mantle's mouth, when he lectures Robin in being critical with even the King). Robin criticizes this warfare unsocial ruling of Richard's, he addresses Richard himself, telling him "The poor gave everything to set you free, how CAN you ask more of them?" - Richard: "...Give me your courage and strength, not your words!" ...Later, in private, Richard orders the assassination of Robin...<br /><br />So, the crusaders were the real "barbarians".<br /><br />P.S: Already when I watched Kostner in 91, I got upset, because after-wards, I found out in history course in school that Richard was not that good just man as displayed by Sean Connery in his appearance at the end of "Prince of the Thieves". Well, as Terry Jones would put it: It is a lie, a treacherous lie!" Sean plays humorist and charismatic, and his son does a better job than expected in the third season of "Robin of Sherwood".<br /><br />Again: Praed is, according to my info up to now, the one who left Sherwood for a stupid Verne-series nobody with brains will EVER remember or want to remember. | 1 | positive |
Dirty War is absolutely one of the best political, government, and well written T.V. Drama's in the 25 years.<br /><br />The acting is superb, the writing is spectacular.<br /><br />Diry War reveals the true side of why we are not ready to respond to a Nuclear, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attack here on American soil.<br /><br />Dirty War should be made into a major motion picture - It's that good! I highly recommend this great drama to everyone who desire to know the truth.<br /><br />This T.V. drama reveals how British Intelligence (MI5 & MI6) attempt to expose a terrorist plot and conspiracy to destroy innocent victims -because of England's involvement in the Iraq War.<br /><br />The scenes of different parts of London, England are also spectacular.<br /><br />Dirty War is a must see!!! | 1 | positive |
This is a great horror film for people who don't want all that vomit-retching gore and sensationalism. This movie has equal amounts of horror, suspense, humor, and even a little light nudity, but nothing big. Linnea Quigley isn't over the top as she was in "Return of the Living Dead" where she danced naked on a crypt, but she is still essentially the same slutty character. Cathy Podewell is a virginal and chaste character before going on to "Dallas," and we are also introduced to Amelia [soon Mimi] Kinkade,the sexy and sinister would-be dark matron of the house. As she and Linnea are possessed and take over the house, they reanimate the bodies of their dead friends to scare the limits out of the survivors. I've heard a lot of people compare this movie to "The Evil Dead," but if anything, this movie is a rival to that one the same way Freddie rivaled Jason.This movie series though is far superior to that one ! | 1 | positive |