text
stringlengths 32
13k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I cant put it any simpler than that, this is a terrible film. I've worked in the industry and made several (short) films myself, so okay my standard is pretty high but seriously, i absolutely hate this film. I haven't made a comment on IMDb before but i hated this film so much i literally had to come and warn others. It is a piece of sh*t. The writer/director is an idiot who just has no idea how to make/write a good film and has the writing skills of an adolescent teenager. The characters are unrealistic (The lead woman doesn't think of taking the policeman's pistol yet is resourceful enough to improvise a Molotov cocktail? please...) and not even likable, hell i hated her and cheered when she died. I don't understand what the director was trying to do with his demon redneck idea, but it just looked like sloppy writing and convenient bullsh*t with no real thought behind it to me. This is officially the worst movie I've seen ALL YEAR. Congratulations Shiban, you now rank up there with such greats as Micheal Bay in the prestigious "shouldnt be allowed to waste millions of dollars on making a film" club. I hope you read this, i really do. And to the 163 idiots that rated this film 10 out of 10 BWAHHAHAHAHAh oh my god I hope a redneck demon appears conveniently behind you and tortures you. | 0 | negative |
Quite simply a well-made, well-written and wonderfully acted movie. Eastwood is classic as grizzled Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan and Rene Russo<br /><br />holds her own as partner (and love interest) Lilly Raines. But the movie's<br /><br />greatness rests on the shoulders of John Malkovich as "Booth". He captures<br /><br />this character's rage and hatred, as well as his humanity oddly enough. <br /><br />Personally I think this was his best performance and should have received an<br /><br />Oscar for it (But I loved Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive as well that year). Overall a great movie to see you want to peek into an assassin's mind and be<br /><br />on the edge of your seat the whole way through. Enjoy!! | 1 | positive |
By-the-numbers, Oscar-hungry biopic about the late, great singer Ray Charles. There is one -- exactly one -- great scene in *Ray*. It occurs during a flashback to Charles' youth, after the boy become completely blind. Running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother, he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. He cries out for his mother; she, in keeping with her philosophy that a person should "stand on their own two feet", observes silently and pensively from the kitchen, waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. The boy proves to be up to the challenge, using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove, a nearby fire-pit, the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window, the scuttling of a cricket across the plank-board floor.<br /><br />The movie pauses, here; it expands; it breathes -- even if for only 40 seconds. The scene is a much-needed respite from Taylor Hackford's otherwise noisy film. By "noisy" I'm not referring to the music, which is, of course, excellent. I AM referring to the sound effects (big BOOMS! preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog ("I'm speaking to you as a FRIEND, Ray," etc.). On the visual side, Hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy: sepia-colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks; whirling-dervish 360s from the camera-crane, etc. etc. All the modern amenities. What a horrible cinematic style is displayed in *Ray*! -- a style all-too-common in wanna-be "important" movies from the past decade or so (Scorsese's *Aviator* is stylistically very similar to this movie). These gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the cliché-ridden screenplay. Some of us won't be fooled.<br /><br />Some of us also are not quite prepared to accept Jamie Foxx's performance as anything more than superb mimicry. Granted, Foxx eerily resembles Ray Charles: he walks like Charles, talks like Charles, and even twitches like Charles. Foxx's imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. I'm not begrudging Mr. Foxx his Oscar; he deserved it. (It was a pretty weak field this year, anyway.) But one wonders if Foxx really UNDERSTANDS Charles. The actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band-mates are shooting up: he registers, if only for a brief moment, a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. The movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within Charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin, with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. But the damn movie just won't take the time: it bounces along from triumph to triumph, never really pausing for any insight into the man. One has to STRETCH to find the dramatic tension; one must supply the drama FOR the movie. One must, in other words, imagine a better movie than this one.<br /><br />In its rush toward a glorious conclusion, *Ray* introduces, then dodges, several excellent ideas for a movie: his early days on the "Chitlin Circuit"; his bold musical innovations for the Atlantic label; the problem of his addiction to heroin; the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success; the man's importance to the Civil Rights struggle (touched on in the movie for, oh, about 3 minutes of screen-time), and much more. The filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. Two-and-a-half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good, but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. This sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film's subject -- and shouldn't insight be the real goal of a movie like this? If I had wanted a laundry-list of Ray Charles' accomplishments, I'd have simply Googled him.<br /><br />3 stars out of 10 -- the extra 2 stars strictly for the music. | 0 | negative |
SPOILERS Edgar Rice Burroughs's famous character was adapted thousand of times for the screen til one's thirst is quenched, notably during the thirties and the forties by Hollywood. Its productors made Tarzan one of the most successful cinema characters. Several years later, Hugh Hudson decided to make a more ambitious version of the monkey-man and it's a more natural, more wild and more down-to-earth Tarzan that he gives away here. Hudson skilfully avoids the clichés that you usually grant to Tarzan such as his famous scream or his friendly pet, Cheetah. Not only, are we far from the designed and invented character made by Hollwood but we are also far from the film set used to make his stories. The movie was partly made in Africa (more precisely in Cameroon). The movie introduces two obvious parts: the first one which takes place in the jungle where Tarzan lives among his adoptive friends, the apes and considers himself as their lord. But he ignores his real origins. The second one in England where Tarzan discovers the English society. Ian Holm epitomizes the link between the two parts and Hudson avoids all that could make the movie falls into the ridiculous thanks to a clever screenplay. Indeed, Holm teaches Lambert basic rules of manners so as to behave correctly in the English society and the result works. Moreover, in the second part, no-one ever laughs at Tarzan and he's even really appreciated. As far as the end is concerned well it's a both bitter and happy end. Happy because Tarzan comes back to the jungle and meets again his adoptive close relatives. But bitter too, because this homecoming means that the Greystoke line won't be ensured and is condemned to disappear... Christophe Lambert finds here, his first (and last?) great role. Sadly, he'll never equal the achievement of his performance in this movie and he'll play in poor and insipide action movies. Nevertheless, as I said previously, a clever screenplay, a performance of a rare quality, some impressive natural sceneries (both the jungle and the English country and we get a gorgeous movie. It's also an excellent rereading from a popular novel. So why is it only rated barely (6/10)? | 1 | positive |
I am a Shakespeare lover since childhood. I am also a Jew. Merchant of Venice is anti-semitic through and through no matter how hard scholars and literature lovers try to re-interpret it.<br /><br />In the play, Shylock is portrayed as demonic and cold-hearted and has no forgiveness, no warmth, no love except for money and cruel revenge, whereas the Christians are kind, moral people. His motives in the play revolve around money (he plots revenge from the start based on damage caused to his business as well as blind racial hate), not noble ideals or hurt racial pride as this movie wants you to believe. And this characterization is given to him by Shakespeare himself, not by the other characters. As final proof, the happy ending is where the Jew loses his money and is forced to convert to Christianity.<br /><br />I acknowledge this and move on. It is part of history and I enjoy Shakepeare despite this fact. Therefore I expect a movie based on this play to play it straight. I would much rather see the work adapted for its rich language and storytelling without any whitewashing.<br /><br />But many of the the bard's artful subtleties and playful characters are lost in this movie. For example, in the last scene where the men discover Portia's undercover work as a man who also took away their rings, instead of the playful game of words and misunderstandings as the truth reveals itself, it becomes a mean-spirited game where two bitchy women play cruelly with their soon-to-be husbands.<br /><br />So instead, we are only left with lovely detailed sets, fragments of the rich language with poor reinterpretation, poor casting, one intense courtroom scene, and a controversy.<br /><br />The truth is, I think it would be much easier to identify the anti-semitism in the story and move on if it were left as is. Despite all the whitewashing the makers of this movie pulled out of their hats, there is plenty of hatred left, only now people can make excuses and pretend the portrayal of Jews isn't so bad anymore.<br /><br />And finally, another problem is with most of the actors being miscast. Pacino is way out of his league and is very uncomfortable with the language, not to mention the horribly fake accent. Fiennes as Bassanio is charmless and awkward with the language. Irons is dependable as always but doesn't do much with his role. Portia is somewhat OK but unlikeable, and covered in bad makeup, just like the movie. | 0 | negative |
The mere presence of Sam Waterston as an Indian, is enough to put this movie in the must-see category. He is both beautiful and very subtle, with no lines whatsoever. He is tender with his kidnappee, and yet we can see he is among the proudest of all young Indian Men. Martin Sheen is just a dumb cluck who decides to challenge Waterston (White Bull) for a gorgeous white horse. Other sub-plots are really unnecessary. I don't understand the part played by Caroline Langrishe, as the poor girl who White Bull kidnaps...I don't know how she keeps her hands off this beautiful Indian man! It's a lot of fun, though; especially if you're a Waterston fan. Man, he looks GOOD in this one!!! Harvey Keitel's role isn't even worth mentioning, to tell the truth! But, rent it and enjoy! Actually, I do believe that if the music score was better, it would've been a more dramatic film...the music is so bad, it's distracting. Still - there's Mr. Waterston! | 1 | positive |
Every once in a while a film comes along with characters we all know and love. A film where you see people you know portrayed on screen. It's cinema very at its best.<br /><br />Lackawanna Blues is that film. Set in 1960s upstate New York, the story surrounds a rock- solid woman, who is the foundation for her community. This, based on a true story film, is told from a child she accepted as her own. This child, Ruben Santiago-Hudson wrote the screenplay.<br /><br />*Emmy winner, S. Epatha Merkerson stars as Nanny, a woman who has wit, drive and determination for helping others in her boarding home. She does this as she wrestles with infidelity from her young lover, Bill Crosby, played by the **Oscar nominated Terrence Howard. <br /><br />But make no mistake; see this film for the amazing performance of Merkerson, who is brilliant in this role. She encompasses a person we have all known, and perhaps love.<br /><br />Lackawanna Blues is already on DVD; be sure to pick it up at your local video story today.<br /><br />*Merkerson has already won an Emmy, Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild for this role.<br /><br />**Howard has an Oscar nomination for his role in Hustle & Flow. | 1 | positive |
I happened to catch about the last 45 minutes of the movie,late night about 8 years ago. What a wild and funny 45 minutes.I was absolutely knocked out by chase-shoot-out at the end that takes place at night ,inside an old hotel that's being torn down with a wrecking ball....Incredible. I vaguely remember Stacy Keach ,stealing a cop car, faking being a cop and strong arming some winos....Wino to Keach"Hey,why Ya hasslin us?...Keach"It's my job".You're correct. They don't make them like that anymore.Great movie. The golden70's...Hopefully it will see the light of day as a DVD along with other lost treasures...Hickey and Boggs being one such. | 1 | positive |
Danny Lee's performance as a wisecracking cop is the only spot of interest in this film, even though it has an excellent cast including Chow Yun-Fat, Carina Lau, Andy Lau, Shing Fui-On and Alex Man. CYF plays a triad boss who wants to settle down to a life of peace and plenty but Alex Man, a total psycho who has a big grudge against CYF, won't let him. CYF tries to escape to Malacca but to no avail. After his family is blown to bits, his cronies dead or turncoat, wounded and broke, CYF returns to Hong Kong to get into some serious revenge.<br /><br />It sounds a lot better than it is. CYF is well-dressed and handsome, looks pained, grimaces and cries on cue, but somehow or another you just don't care. Andy Lau looks great, but that's about it. Carina Lau has a tiny, tiny little part which was nice, but she gets a bullet in the head early on so that ends that. Alex Man is a cartoon villain he's so over-the-top which at times can be intriguing but the writing here is so flat that he just comes across as a garden-variety nut.<br /><br />Danny Lee is great though - too bad he's only a small blip on the screen of this dark (literally) and essentially boring movie.<br /><br />Rent it, don't buy it. Or just skip it altogether.<br /><br />This is the sequel to "Rich And Famous", even though it apparently was filmed simultaneously; it was released first because of CYF's boxoffice power. | 0 | negative |
A sweeping and deeply moving love story featuring powerful performances from Ralph Fiennes,Willem Defoe and Juliette Binoche.<br /><br />It tells the story of a badly burned man(Ralph Fiennes) who gets pulled out of a plane wreak during World War Two and tells his nurse(Juliette Binoche)his story.<br /><br />Just before the war he fell in love with the beautiful Katherine Clifton(Kristen Scott Thomas)however she is married to Jeffery Clifton(Colin Firth)and the two begin a passionate and forbidden affair.<br /><br />A very haunting and tragic story of love and desire set against some absolutely gorgeous locations in the desert.A must see especially if your a fan of Anthony Minghellas work but be prepared to shed a lot of tears its very moving especially at the end. | 1 | positive |
THE FALCON AND THE SNOWMAN is a superb example of an anti-80s film. While many other films of the decade in general lacked substance, this film is pure substance. There's nothing stylish or fake or superfluous about it. It boasts two superb performances: Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn as lifelong friends Christopher Boyce and Daulton Lee, respectively. Hutton, Penn, and Tom Cruise were a triumvirate of early 80s actors who all looked headed to much bigger and better things (all 3 starred in TAPS). While Penn and Cruise's popularity soared, Hutton has been largely forgotten about, and that's a shame. Actually, Hutton is the first of the 3 to win an Oscar for supporting role in ORDINARY PEOPLE in 1980, but I think his performance in this movie is even more outstanding.<br /><br />Hutton really captures the post-Vietnam war rebelliousness in his character Chris Boyce. A failed seminary school student, Chris has a love-hate relationship with his father, well played by the great character actor Pat Hingle. The scene where Chris quotes the poem his father thought he'd long forgotten is a particularly powerful one.<br /><br />Chris gets job at Dept. of Defense and uses his hatred of U.S. gov't and its foreign policy to sell seemingly useless plans of old projects to the Soviets. He gets his buddy Daulton, a hyper drug-dealing self-server, in on it to be the courier of the project plans on microfilm. While Chris is doing it based on his beliefs, Daulton is doing it strictly for the money. The Soviet liaison is excellently played by David Suchet. Penn and Suchet have a real quirky chemistry and it's a kind of funny set of exchanges between them. But, make no mistake, this film is anything but that. It is a serious character study about pessimism, malaise, paranoia and mistrust.<br /><br />Again, the leads make this film. Hutton delivers a brilliantly understated performance as Chris, a rather smart young man who had so much potential. Penn, as usual, does a tremendous characterization as Daulton, a pathetic loser who acts before he thinks, and most of the time doesn't think at all. The ending of this fact-based film is very saddening on several levels. A truly powerful character study. | 1 | positive |
It is such a shame that so many people "love" Family Guy, because it is easily one of the worst shows on TV, there are many points to address here. <br /><br />The Flashbacks: Now, in Season 1 and 2, which I think was exceptional, the flashbacks were quite frequent, and actually somewhat tied into what the plot was about and was even funny. Now season 4 and on, the flashback s are even more occurring, and has NOTHING to do with the plot, aren't funny, and really long, boring, and meaningless. Family Guy thinks that long drag scene which go nowhere are funny, when really it is poor writing.<br /><br />Stewie: Wow, a baby that sounds British. How funny can that be? It's not. His character is so unstable it's unbelievable. Remember in the early season's when Stewie was all about world domination and killing Lois. Well now he just has scene's that are awkwardly gay with Brian. From wanting world domination to being gay = bad writing.<br /><br />References: How do they manage to keep making poor references to 80's TV shows or events? Well they just re-use the same old garbage. You know, in 20 years, hopefully Family Guy will be canceled by then, if they are still doing jokes about shows from the 80's, it will be even more irrelevant than it was before. Because will have forgotten. This still keeps me wondering why they can't just writ good episodes with quality jokes.<br /><br />Voice Acting: My God, the voices in this show is so poor. Seth McFarlene should just focus on his crappy episode writing and stop doing voices. All the extras in the already bad Family Guy episodes all sound the same. The Simpsons get 6 or 7 people to do ALL the voices. A few of them are voicing about 15-20 characters...all sounding very different. But why can't Family Guy do that? Oh right, it's a crappy show.<br /><br />The Stuttering: Usually done by peter, Stewie, Brian and any extras, whenever they talk or are offended by something, they have to stutter out their sentence's just to try get a cheap laugh. I can't believe that Family Guy can't even speak normally to get people to laugh at their "jokes".<br /><br />Offensiveness: OK, short and simple, Family Guy tries to break the barrier and be cutting edge, but really they fall flat every time. Go watch South park...<br /><br />Terrible Plots: The plots and story lines are just utter trash. The Simpsons have started their 20th seasons are STILL have better plots than Family Guy. About a total of 8 or 9 minutes is flashbacks and drag scenes which have no relevance. <br /><br />Popularity Lots of little kids have Stewie shirts and think hes so funny, when really they don't even get the terribly written sex jokes. They just say, "oh, ha ha, stewie!" when they don't even get it. Family Guy has gotten canceled twice, and brought back by DVD sales, how sad is that. They got canceled the first time I think after the 2nd or 3rd season, and I honestly believe, that shoulda been it. those episodes back then were superb, they shoulda left on a high note.<br /><br />Drag Scenes and Falling There are scenes that go on way too long. One that just aired this last Sunday, Peter went to an executive bathroom, in which about 2 minutes was spent imitating the intro to Jurassic park, and the plot of that episode is stolen from a Seinfeld episode as well. Also a scene when Chris is working at a store and hes talking with the employee for about 5 minutes about a movie, which also features the stuttering. THE CHICKEN FIGHTS ARE SO STUPID, 3 of them, each one longer then the last. useless, unfunny writing, thinking that people enjoy long scenes of rerun fighting, between a CHICKEN, yeah a chicken. now, every time someone falls down, and by the way, NO FAMILY GUY FAN CAN DENY THIS, that every time they fall down, its under a split second, and they ALWAYS land with their arm over their back to make them look funny i guess, its been used at least 30 times.<br /><br />Herman Oh jeez, everyone thinks the old pedophile is so funny when its just a really bad running gag. they've even gone to lengths of giving him singing scenes (which are very poor) and basing ENTIRE episodes around him, they've done the same thing with other characters, like the doctor, who I know has had an episode based around him.<br /><br />The Simpsons Well, not much explanation needed here. There is so much evidence of Family guy stealing Simpson's jokes. How family guy is just a poor mans Simpsons.<br /><br />so Im sure I've forgotten some key points somewhere, but Im sure this is enough to prove that family guy is really a terrible horribly written TV show that everyone seems to love, when really they should go watch Simpson's, Seinfeld, and Frasier. | 0 | negative |
A story about love and hate, tragedy and happiness, and most of all, friendship set in the very interesting time of the American Civil War.<br /><br />Gets you interested in history, gets you emotionally involved and makes you feverishly wait for the next episode.<br /><br />Moreover, the casting was splendid. Many superstars appear in short cameos, the leading roles are played by a big array of talented mimes - Kirstie Alley and Terri Garber should be mentioned here - this is simply a superb example for a TV production as it should be.<br /><br />Not to forget the sheer loveliness of Wendy Kilbourne portraying Constance :-) | 1 | positive |
(Spoilers more than likely... nothing really important you couldn't have figured out yourselves) Yeah, it's really weird. I rented it at a Blockbuster for the reason it had absolutely NO description of the movie on the back of the box, only a list of the bands that had songs in it. But after that, I had a dikens of a time finding it, even here on IMDB. I kept confusing it with "Night of the Demons," but, you know, they're basically the same thing. <br /><br />The parts I loved most about this movie was the whole thing in the garage. That black gym guy was hilarious the way he screamed ALL the time. Even when screaming wasn't really necessary, he'd let out a "LISTEN UP NOW!! BLOCK THE DOOR WITH CARS!!!!" and so, they'd run cars head on into other cars. But, then he got balls and shafted by a zombie with a broom stick I believe it was. The other part that kinda caught my attention was the part with the crash outside the building with the guys that they girl didn't want to come over... To what significant aspect of the movie did that give us? What was it? Why was it there? Why did the movie end with a guy breaking the TV's in a studio? I saw that there was a zombie running towards the screen, but he was kinda far away. I mean, he could have just turned the TV off. Yes, this movie was shot on a whim and yes, I hated it. Good day... | 0 | negative |
Obviously, this one doesn't aim for the brain : the so-called "humour" is based on farting and every cliché about any ethnic genre you can imagine, gays included of course, as long as they are not WASP. And a latino cowrote this ? Besides, John Leguizamo does have talent and charisma, but in such a self-indulgent movie it is a definite waste. What the point in trying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey himself ? "The Pest" of the title could then be this movie, almost as funny as Bergman's finest. Prepare to be annoyed, not amused | 0 | negative |
In the early 00's, production companies had a short-lived craze for supernatural genre movies in France after "The Crimson Rivers" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf" turned out to be hits, so several movies were green-lit or saved from their "direct-to-video" fate. However, France, as opposed to the US, UK or Italy, has little tradition of fantasy B-movies and it turned out quickly that "Samouraïs", "Bloody Mallory" or the "Crimson Rivers" sequel were ill-advised attempts at recreating a kind of magic that had never existed in French cinema in the first place. As they flopped, producers have gone back to their usual fare: derivative farces or the umpteenth self-referential tribute to French New Wave by a former critic from "Les Cahiers du cinéma".<br /><br />"Brocéliande" could only have been green-lit during this short window, as it serves no other discernible purpose. It's your by-the-book slasher movie mixed with vague mythological element and horror references and you'll find bimboesque female characters, a French University looking like a US campus and plot twists so lazy you don't even care because you had guessed it by yourself an hour before, even before the movie started.<br /><br />These elements make all the fun of a 70's or a 80's B-movie and you expect them in a 70's or 80's movie. However, we're not in the 80's anymore and nobody warned director Doug Headline, as this tribute to the slasher movie genre is nothing more than a derivative slasher movie. Headline himself is no rookie and has been writing as a critic about this kind of pictures since the early 80's but as a first time director he shows a lack of skill and ambition that makes "Brocéliande" a bore.<br /><br />When you put together clichés from a movie subcategory and hand them to a skilled and inventive director such as Wes Craven or Quentin Tarantino, you get a "Scream" or a "Death Proof", movies that are imitations from old guilty pleasures but also magnify these clichés and add a great deal to them. That's called "talent" and that's why you can't confuse these recent movies with their original inspirations shot decades ago.<br /><br />"Brocéliande" takes the lazy path and only reproduces the worst elements from past movies (unfortunately for the male viewer, the gratuitous nudity is mostly missing). There are very strong similarities (presumably unintentional) between the plot of "Brocéliande" and the reviled "Halloween 3: Season Of The Witch", as both deal with supernatural Druidic evil rituals and some silly attempt at taking over the world on Halloween night. As even the plot of "Halloween 3" makes more sense than this one, it means that something seriously wrong went with "Brocéliande". | 0 | negative |
I loved this movie 10 years ago when I was about 16 years old. My biggest mistake was to watch it again, 10 years later. It's not the worst "I-wanna-be-a-pilot" movies ever, but it has so many flaws in it that you can hardly overlook them.<br /><br />Queen's "One Vision" (along with the rest of the soundtrack) makes this film better than the average patriotic nonsense you usually get to see ;)<br /><br />[****------] | 0 | negative |
Or if you've seen the "Evil Dead" trilogy and/or "Bubba Ho-Tep", then you should know that his movies are total farces. With "Man with the Screaming Brain", he goes all out again. In this case, he plays smarmy American businessman William Cole visiting Bulgaria - when do we ever get to see that country? - when a woman kills him. So, strange scientist Ivan Ivanov (Stacy Keach) replaces half of Cole's brain with the brain of a former KGB agent, leaving him acting sort of like Steve Martin in "All of Me".<br /><br />Yes, the whole movie is pretty much an excuse for pure nonsense. Much of the real humor comes from "Evil Dead" director Sam Raimi's brother Ted as Ivanov's nearly brain-dead assistant Pavel. The two men have a relationship more like Laurel and Hardy or Gilligan and the Skipper.<br /><br />So just understand that this is a totally silly movie, and you won't be a bit disappointed. I liked it, anyway. | 1 | positive |
It would be something to try and tell someone what Fata Morgana is very simply about. Or, maybe it isn't: Herzog goes to the Sahara desert and nearby villages to film assorted landscapes and the locals. But this is just the broadest stroke. It's a feat that you either surrender yourself to, or you don't. He gets into the form of the world around him entirely, without a story, bound only to certain aspects of written poetry, as his camera (shooting on supposedly discarded film stock) wanders like in a pure travelogue. One might even jump to that easy conclusion, as he puts up these immense landscapes, then moving to more rough civilized culture (though not the actual 'normal' culture itself), and to a point levels too abstract to be able to convey properly here. Sometimes it takes a while to get along, close to a purity through the "creation" section, but a purity in how parts are manipulated either by nature or by broken-down machines. Soon the narration, readings from the Popol Vuh (who, by the way, does the music for most of his films), with the gradual procession of actually highly stylized shots adds a whole different level to it. It's a hybrid film, and it's not easy, but the rewards are what best comes closest to Herzog's idea of "ecstatic truth", images he's been out for his whole career.<br /><br />One wonders if the images end up, by the time the second section, Paradise, leading along the words spoken, or if it's the other way around. You're eyes are moving along with the stills and pans, and the wording is close to being religious writing, but there's also the music choices, how the bizarrely spare singing and low-key classical music goes together with Leonard Cohen and Blind Faith. I think each side ends up complimenting the other, and it's something that still *seems* like it shouldn't work. Perhaps that's the draw to it, the chances taken in going through desolate wastelands and the smallest run sections of any kind of civilized life (in this case the shacks of the desert), that make it so fascinating. If only for the cinematographic sense it's a marvel, too indescribable for the casual photography fan because of molds of technique, and some of the strangest images of any Herzog film. There's pans, there's long-shots, there's hand-held while driving by the towns, there's a bus dozens of miles away that via mirage seems only a couple, there's full-on close-ups of fire and a man holding a reptile and talking about its radar (truly classic gonzo comedy), there's people holding still in fake poses, and a man and woman playing inane music. But, most importantly, it ends up feeling, at least for me, natural for the personal nature of the approach.<br /><br />I'm sure only Herzog would know for certain why he made this film, as opposed to the simple 'how'; he was already filming Even Dwarfs Started Small, and he ended up going through many perils to finish it. Yet this is what makes Fata Morgana such an amazing feat- it will appeal to one depending on what someone brings to it in actually watching it. It's definitely unsettling, but there's the temptation to want to see it again very soon after, just to experience all of the ideas and realities turned abstracted strange vibes (yes, the word 'vibes' applies here). It's one of the truly spectacular "art-films" ever made. | 1 | positive |
This film offers you a fascinating trip through one of the most exiting cities of today - Istanbul - and its musicians. Do not expect a compilation of Turkish folklore or anything like that. Alexander Hacke, a German musician and member of the cult band "Einstürzende Neubauten" travels to Istanbul to get to know the music scene. His sparse voice overs of what he experiences are a guiding line through the film. But mainly German-Turkish director Faith Akin lets various artists from Istanbul do the talking - and of course their music. <br /><br />You meet a variety of personalities, big stars and street musicians, young and old, people playing many different musical styles. But this movie does not only introduce you to the sound of Istanbul. It also draws a compelling picture of Istanbul today and how Turkey has forged ahead in the last decade. The film characterises its protagonists with subtle humour, but never without respect. All of them share a passion for music and the belief in its power. <br /><br />Akin again shows his talent to portray diversity lightheartedly when he brings you close to completely different musical scenes. After his award winning feature film "Gegen die Wand" (Head on) Faith Akin proves with "Crossing the Bridge" that he is equally able to touch, entertain and guide his audience in a documentary. If you have never been in Istanbul, you will want to go there after having seen the film. | 1 | positive |
Am glad that i am not the only one to find this series very good. This is the best series for young ladies! I have so strange taste on comedies and i find so hard one to please my intelligence, and i am so happy that their humor is exactly what i need. Love the gang of actors! If anyone knows a series or just a movie similar to this one, i say pretty please write back because i miss the series.<br /><br />And kindly ask the writers and the producers to CONTINUE it, even if the actors are now all grown up, i guess!<br /><br />Have a nice morning/day/evening/night! (because i do not know the exact time you will be reading this post) | 1 | positive |
Three words: What a pile..... Two words: Don't bother! One word: Sucked! There are zero reasons to see this movie. Even those Seagal groupies should shy away from this movie. The martial arts, the typical Aikido, are horrible. The martial arts moves themselves are fine but the cinematography is pathetic. The movie actually goes into slow motion whenever Seagal give his "kill move" to his victims. Worse yet, is shows the same move three times in rapid succession from three slightly different angles. How stupid. Seagal's acting was plain stupid, but I still give this movie a "6" for acting because of the supporting cast whose "villain" roles were actually quite entertaining.<br /><br />The plot is just dumb. Seagal plays a Federal Express agent with a license to kill. His character also has that dedicated work ethic which means all of his packages get delivered to the correct people on time - at no extra charge - and nothing stands in his way. Not assassins, political leaders, explosions, or even death.<br /><br />I expect a certain level of violence in a martial arts film, but there are several scenes in this movie of random and horrible acts of violence that lend itself in no way to the advancement of the movie or its story. There is a reason this movie went directly to video and there are tons of reasons to avoid it. No one should bother with this tripe.<br /><br /> | 0 | negative |
After all these years, I am puzzled as to why Julie Brown (West Coast) isn't a household name or a hugely famous comedic star. She is one of the funniest females on the planet. In this spoof, she takes on Madonna who is one of her favorite targets. She is Medusa, a hugely successful singer, like Madonna who also happened to have documentary "Truth or Dare." Julie Brown spoofs Madonna as Medusa who came from Wisconsin, the land of dairy and beer. I remember the segment where she went to Wisconsin to visit her family and a grave. I don't remember if it was a parent or her pet. I remember somebody saying that Medusa did nothing original. She was just copying others. I have to say that I hope this spoof documentary is available on DVD somewhere. Julie Brown was at her best mocking and spoofing others. | 1 | positive |
I wasn't expecting much because of the harsh reviews, and proceeded to enjoy the movie a great deal as a result. Softer colors and less stunning compositions of the shots than some of his previous films, in my opinion, allowed the narrative to take the focus. Though the religious conflict in a vampire flick was commonplace, I felt like many of the other things were not. For example:<br /><br />how his powers were often revealed through interaction with her.<br /><br />the very strong and well acted love scenes.<br /><br />the symbolism of the man they killed to get closer to each other actually separating them even more.<br /><br />Their strong differences of what it means to be 'vampire' created by their prior life experiences.<br /><br />the lack of scores of other vampires appearing or being created through the movie.<br /><br />I've heard and read several things about 'tricks used in other films'. Of course. However, i feel that tricks are used to emphasize what is happening in the scene and I feel that he does this well. I don't need a director to use new tricks. I prefer that the tricks that are used are used well and appropriately, which i feel is the case with this film. <br /><br />I recommend it. | 1 | positive |
As I sat watching this episode I kept glancing at the clock waiting for something to happen. As the hour wound down I thought they were really going to give us a big pop at the end, and then - nothing. The whole family is huddled around the Christmas tree like something from the Hallmark Channel then, fade to black.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the poorest season finales I've ever seen. Nothing at all to drum up any excitement for next season. The only thing thrown out as any sort of incentive to watch the next season was the ambiguous nugget offered up by Agent Harris while pawing a sub sandwich that the guys in New York were looking to get one of the guys in New Jersey. Wow, really? I would never expect something like that from mobsters, I'm on the edge of my seat.<br /><br />It almost seems like they're trying to get everyone to lose interest. They start more plot lines that end up just disappearing than any show I've ever seen. They tease and hint but rarely deliver any more.<br /><br />What's with the Arabs that hang out at the Bing? They keep throwing them in front of us and magically, nothing happens.<br /><br />Paulie knee caps some kid after Tony promised his mother that nothing would happen to her son and, poof, gone in the wind.<br /><br />And how many more meandering drug montages with Christopher are we going to have to endure? Please, have him get arrested or overdose or something interesting.<br /><br />This was one of the few shows that I used to looked forward to watching but now, forgetta-bout it. | 0 | negative |
This is a family comedy -- in the very best senses of the term. Uncomplicatedly about faith and family, Ann Blyth, with the help of everybody's favorite Grandpa, Edmund Gwenn, gets divine help in lifting the O'Moyne's above the would-be vengeance schemes of Goldtooth McCarthy (John McIntire). Pure fun. | 1 | positive |
Rarely does one find a movie so bad that it achieves the often-sought paradigm of having so little redeeming value that that alone makes it worth watching. "Cyclone," I am happy to report, is such a film.<br /><br />I knew I was in for something good as soon as I found the videotape. I am at least its fourth owner: It has a "Used Movie Sale! $9.95" sticker on the front, and a yard-sale sticker for one dollar. I picked it up at a thrift store for fifty cents.<br /><br />The Used Movie Sale! sticker covers much of the front cover artwork, meaning that what I see is a truly odd blended still of the front of the Cyclone super bike, a car flipping over on fire, and Heather Thomas, wearing Flouncy Eighties Hair with her mouth open in an expression that says, "I 'ave a 'ooth ache." I saw that and thought, "All RIGHT." The case, honestly, was enough ("with nowhere to turn and no one to trust, Teri is plunged headlong into a maze of danger and deceit"), but I surprised myself by actually getting around to watching it. I always make time for the really bad films. That "Fight Club" tape can wait.<br /><br />Meet Teri. Teri is a stunningly well-crafted character, as we can tell from her introduction, in which she and her friend do exercises that highlight her breasts and, later, her legwarmers. Then Teri goes off to hook up with her boyfriend for the evening that goes horribly wrong. Before she knows it, Teri is driven "straight into a web of deadly double-crosses in CYCLONE." The VHS box tells it like it is.<br /><br />Left out of the box summary - perhaps out of some faint hope that actual copies of this film would be sold - is how awful the acting is. It might have been just me, but I kept thinking I could read the characters' thoughts through their eyes. "This is dumb," thinks Heather Thomas. "I know," thinks Bad Guy with Too-Wide Mouth.<br /><br />A driving force (no pun intended) for the second half of this epic picture are the car chases. Those were actually pretty good, although I'm inclined that gasoline doesn't need coaching on how to explode. What really impressed me is that, in all the chases, the streets were pretty much empty. It's like there are only twenty people in this huge city.<br /><br />I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Gee Wilikers! I have to see this movie!" The sad thing, though, is that you can't find it. Oh no. "Cyclone" is a film that finds YOU. Just wait. Some day - perhaps during lunch, perhaps late in the evening, perhaps "when military scientist Jeffery Combs ('Re-Animator')is murdered by hired assassins" - you will hear the rustle of legwarmers, and know that it is time. | 0 | negative |
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau have got to be one of the best buddies ever to work together. They have made lots of movies together, i think they are both fantastic when they do work together in a movie. Out to sea is a fantastic comedy movie i think to watch. I give the movie 10 out of 10. Jack lemmon and Walter Matthau will be remembered when the movies they did together will be on tv. They will be sadly missed. God bless you both. | 1 | positive |
When i saw the first octopus movie it was a laugh see the cheesy acting and appalling effects. This film seemed to make up for the acting, but not the special effects. After Jaws and Piranha, sure, why not make a film about a killer octopus? The octopus invades the New York waters, where 2 police investigators try stopping the rampaging beast before the 4th of July.<br /><br />A pretty clean plot and descent happenings but the octopus was pretty much appalling, its nice to see they actually made it this time but it looked like a piece of plastic... Better on a big budget really, this film could have been a good watch. There's a continuous amount of errors where it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't research the way octopus live...<br /><br />Watch this if you like cheap DVD sequels, otherwise your better watching Jaws. | 0 | negative |
Irrespective of the accuracy of facts, Bandit Queen is a true story, its true because the themes it deals with hold as much truth today as they did way back in 1994. This movie is violent, powerful and thought provoking.The protagonist is a woman of flesh and blood, whose adversity brought out the best(or worst) out of her. Keeping the subjectivity aside, there is no doubt that Phoolan's character from a young girl of 8, who is married off by her father to clear a debt(pun intended), to a gang leader who goes on to become a leader of the lower caste, has evolved into a champion in her own right. Her portrayal is so powerful that the viewer is even willing to forgive her for a massacre.<br /><br />I can understand if the western audience is not able to appreciate this masterpiece, Bandit Queen needs to be 'studied' in the Indian context, and not just checked out in stereotypes. I may not be able to sell it on its universal appeal but its certainly a must watch for the Indian audience, its a shame that the movie had a delayed, overtly censored release in India.<br /><br />Bandit Queen is the story of a woman who fought against two odds in India, being a woman and that too a lower caste, her rebellious nature and inability to just give in caused her the most horrible experiences in life, which only went on to strengthen her into a self proclaimed goddess. She responded to violence with violence and dint become the submissive woman society wanted her to be. Call it divine justice or judiciary failure, had she killed a single person she would have been hanged, she killed 24 and got revered, respected and glorified.<br /><br />P.S # Whoever found her character "psychotic", needs to be sodomized at 8, gangraped by 10 men at a go and paraded naked. Then they should be asked- How normal do they feel? | 1 | positive |
I must admit, I liked this movie, and didnt find it all misogynist. It could be subtitled, three ways of looking at LiV Tyler. Three different men become obsessed with the same woman,and tell their stories to very different characters;One man(John Goodman) tells his story to a priest(the very funny Richard Jenkins).For Goodmans charcter, the Liv Tyler character is an idealized saint, the second coming of his sainted wife,Theresa.For Paul Riesers character(who tellls story to a shrink(a fine, understated performance by the great Reba Mcintire),the Liv Tyler character is simplyan object of (kinky)sexual fantasy.Finally Matt Dillons rather dimwitted charcter tells HIS side of the story to a sleazy hit man, played by Micheal Douglas.All three of these narratives of obsession are told simultaneously,and all are amusing. Finaly the film ends in a bizarrely funny climax, that I wont give away. | 1 | positive |
Maybe this wowed them in the 50's, but this is one of those flicks that doesn't age well. It's got that preachy, earnest, downtrodden working man vibe of a 2nd rate Rod Serling live TV "Playhouse" broadcast. The "plot" is by the book, the Cassevetes character's troubled background seems tacked-on, and the love interest is unconvincing and half-hearted.<br /><br />Sidney Portier gives an OK performance, but man he sure was an annoying, haughty snot. If I had to work with this guy in a warehouse I'd probably want to hit him with a grappling hook too. Jack Warden is good, because as usual, he plays Jack Warden.<br /><br />Like 90% of the films rated on IMDb (whether they are classics, mediocre or crapola) somehow this one gets rated with 7-point-some-stars. It is in no way deserving of that. Save your time | 0 | negative |
Man were do I start,everything about this Cartoon from the Episodes,to the Stories,Script, an Animation is to me the Stupidest,Dummest and Most Annoying Cartoon that Walt Disney Television Animation ever CREATED and MADE ,Im so glad that Both Toon Disney (2006) and Disney Channel to Stop Airing it in the U.S. as Of This May 2008.<br /><br />Believe me it's A wise choice to skip this out cast and black cloud of A cartoon,if you watch it don't say I did not alert an warn you.<br /><br />Your in for A Boring and Down right Dull and Confusing Time,I wish and pray I never even saw 1 Episode of this Cartoon Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command. If I could I would have the Part of my Brain removed that Remembers watching it,yes it is and was that Bad. | 0 | negative |
"Beyond the Clouds" is an over-the-top artsy group of four vignettes each a offering a glimpse into a man-woman relationship from the tenuous to the turbulent. Although the film offers superb cinematography, some exquisite visual beauty, and a cast of fine performers, there's little meat on the bones of this fragmented work. A taste of a relationship cannot impart the fullness of it and synergism suggests that much more can be accomplished with one story in 2 hours than with four. Nonetheless, "Beyond the Clouds" will be fodder for dilettantes and a visual feast for the all albeit superficial, stilted, and lacking in substance. | 1 | positive |
This is a truly hilarious film and one that I have seen many times. Drew Barrymore is brilliant as Josie Geller, as is David Arquette as her brother. You cringe with embarrassment at the thought of her returning to high school as the film is a reminder of what high school was really like! Her outfits are wacky and weird, and it brings back memories of those who dressed a bit differently! The gorgeous Michael Vartan was adorable as the teacher (wish there had been teachers like that when I was at high school!) and Josie's boss is fantastic. This is a film you could watch again and again, with a fabulous sound track! One for all those at school in the 90's to watch! | 1 | positive |
This movie has got to be the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced with a film. The acting is horrific, the suspense build up minimal, and the plot overall is ridiculous. I found myself rooting for the victim to just hurry up and become a victim, because she obviously needed to be put out of her misery. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of how the world works will immediately be disgusted at the leaps we're asked to make in logic, and the so-called suspenseful buildup would be lucky to get a 3 year old to be mildly worried. I'm dismayed that a sequel is planned, because it means they'll be asking us to once again swallow a sub par plot line. If this is an example of Raw Feed's work, I think I'll be avoiding any and all future films by them. | 0 | negative |
I am surprised people, after such lousy movies getting to be in the top 250 or just being in the 7.0's, I thought more people would get a kick out of "Throw Momma from the Train". This was a great comedy by two terrific comedic actors, Billy Crystal and Danny DeVito. Together they made a great duo of insanity and obsession. Billy is a man who just lost his million dollar story to his ex wife and repeatedly wishes her dead, Danny has an insane and senile old mother who just abuses him. When Billy gives some "misunderstood" advice to Danny, Danny offers a proposition to Billy, if he kills his ex wife, Billy has to kill his mother. This is a crazy and funny story that can always get a good laugh. Please, sit back and enjoy this movie, people! It's a good one!<br /><br />7/10 | 1 | positive |
A quick resumé: Almost nonexistent, badly chosen musical soundtrack, steady-cam filming done without the steady but with lots of coffee and a hyperactive cameraman, NO plot, and nothing ever really happens. The film goes from one dialog into another, sounding hollow, never achieving depth, never creating the illusion that you really are inside a cobweb of conspiracy, and the everybody-has-an-affair-with-everybody is just a boring excuse to show the main actress in nice underwear. (which, combined with her rusty voice certainly is nice, but nothing to base a movie on) The high point for me is the opening scene, and the film just degraded from there to a point where I just wanted to quit the film about 45 minutes into the story. I regret sitting it out. | 0 | negative |
Denis Leary can indeed be funny and clever at times and is always likable, but this takes the cake! This show showed Leary's genius.<br /><br />The Job is set in New York. Leary plays Mike McNeil, a hard-nosed detective who is married, has a occasional drug problem, and has a girlfriend. McNeil has serious attitude. So much he's dripping in it. The precinct is filled with funny, interesting and likable characters besides McNeil. An excellent cast too. All of the episodes in this show are really funny and are addictive. The one liners in this show are everywhere. You'll be in stitches after hearing them and still laugh about them a few minutes after and then some. The cases the precinct deals with are something else to stripper nuns, a bathroom hostage situation, and more are over the top. This show was too good. Could have grown legs to last many more seasons. <br /><br />The Last Word: A great, fantastic show. I miss this show dearly. All episodes of this show are great. You get even belly-laughs...a lot. ABC made a huge mistake by giving this the ax. Too bad Leary did not revive the show for cable TV. Still, I give this show one of my highest of recommendations. Truly a one of a kind show. | 1 | positive |
Musical bios are all cut of the same cloth. Hopeful struggles, succeeds and finally wins the girl, but this one - a life of Irish tenor, Chauncey Olcott/Jack Chancellor - has more going for it than the usual trappings. It has great charm and great sincerity and is played beautifully by all concerned. Dennis Morgan is fine in the lead as is Arlene Dahl as his love interest. Andrea King's supporting performance as Lillian Russell is far better than Alice Faye's leading bio performance in the film dedicated to her career. William Frawley is touching as the aging tenor champion, William Scanlon, and Sara Allgood is lovely as Olcott's mother. George Tobias, Ben Blue and Alan Hale lend good support. There are over 25 songs (a true treasure chest): Come Down My Evening Star; My Nellie's Blue Eyes; You Tell Me Your Dream; Wait Till The Sun Shines, Nellie; Will You Love Me In December?; By The Light Of The Silvery Moon; Minstrel Days; Polly Wolly Doodle; The Natchez and the Robert E. Lee; Miss Lindy Lou; If I'm Dreaming; Wee Rose of Killarney; Shake Hands; One Little Girl; A Little Bit of Heaven; Mary; Sweet Innescarren; Tiddely Um; When Irish Eyes Are Smiling; Mother Machree; The Kerey Fair; Room In My Heart; My Wild Irish Rose.<br /><br />Although the film only earned one Oscar nom -for Scoring - and deservedly, it also deserved nods for Art Direction and Costume Design - sumptuous and lovely in Technicolor.<br /><br />Reasons why this is not on video may be due to the large chunk of time spent within the Minstrel Show atmosphere -at least a quarter of the film - with a great deal of material quite politically INCORRECT for today's audiences. It's historically accurate, however.<br /><br />This is a true gem and very worth seeking out. It leaves one with a warm glow. | 1 | positive |
<br /><br />Man, I just cant believe this movie. I have watched it entirely (believe me, I have done this !) and the best part was the traillers on the beginning (and I hate traillers!!!!).<br /><br />No plot, no acting, no nothing. I was watching the movie and thinking, "When this is going to start" ? It never started. How people can spend money and time to make such a crap ?<br /><br />The "plot": A Dog gets bitten by a bat and get rabies - Okay, until now no problem, nothing special but OK. Now the rest of the movie will be - the Dog will chase people!!! thats it, nothing else!!! Now add to this some of the worse actings/actors I have ever seem, some completely irrealistic scenes (and some others really idiotic, like the child cant breath and the mother gives him a big and strong hug to see if he gets better), and a very lame ending, thats it, here you have CRAP... ops!.... CUJO.<br /><br />Do your self a favor and make something more worthy, like hiting your head against the wall or play chess with yourself.<br /><br />ZERO out of 10.<br /><br />Gabriel. | 0 | negative |
Well to do American divorcée with more money than brains buys a rundown villa in Tuscany. (Much more money; whilst having to dicker over the price, she subsequently manages to cook sumptuous buffets for her workmen and wander around Italy indefinitely with no job or apparent means of support.) Interminable boredom and the inevitable Italian lover ensue; this is a chick flick in the most pejorative sense of the term. Lane acts like an unskilled clueless teenage ingénue throughout - which dynamically clashes with her seriously fading looks - along the way smashing into a variety of (mostly Italian) cardboard stereotypes, dykes, divas, senile contessas and gigolos among them. Bloated with unnecessary scenes, the most ridiculous being a clumsily inserted and pointless recreation of the fountain scene in 'La Dolce Vita'. (A similar conceit was used in an effective and appropriate narrative context in 'Only You', Norman Jewison's vastly superior ode to Italy and romance). 'Tuscan Sun' may be the most vacant piece of cinema of the last decade, despite its admittedly well-lensed panoramas of Italy. Bonus negative point for the extraneous lover parachuted in at the last minute to provide requisite Hollywood ending for its targeted audience of Oprah-brainwashed housewives. Avoid at all costs, unless, of course, you view Oprah and Dr. Phil as pinnacles of intelligent discourse. | 0 | negative |
Clyde Bruckman borrows the premise of this short from Buster Keaton's "Seven Chances," recently tepidly remade as "The Bachelor." In the original, Buster has 24-hours to get married in order to inherit a large sum of money. In this version, musical teacher Prof. Shemp has only 7 hours (After all, it is a short!). This is one of the better Stooges shorts due to the storyline and wonderful routines (Including the telephone booth scene with Moe & Shemp, reminiscent of Laurel & Hardy's "Berth Marks" and the Marx Brothers famous stateroom scene in "Night At The Opera - here the boys hold their own in their variation of this routine). I'm not a huge Stooges fan, but this one should be noted by any student of comedy as one of their very best since the early 30s shorts. | 1 | positive |
Seriously, I can't imagine how anyone could find a single flattering thing to say about this movie, much less find it in themselves to write the glowing compliments contained in this comment section. How many methamphetamines was Bogdonovitch on during the filming of this movie? Was he giving a bonus to the actor that spat his lines out with the most speed and least inflection or thought? The dialogue is bad, the plot atrocious, even for a "screwball" comedy, and claims that the movie is an homage to classic film comedy is about the most inane thing I've ever heard. The cinematography is below the quality and innovation of that exhibited by the worst made-for-TV movies, the acting is awful (although I get the feeling that the fault for that lies squarely in the lap of the director), and speaking of which, did I mention the direction is so haphazard and inscrutable that it defies the definition of the word? The whole thing is a terribly unfunny (even in the much-beleaguered world of so-bad-it's-funny clunkers), soul-sucking, waste of two hours of your life that you'll never get back. Be afraid, be very afraid... | 0 | negative |
In this film, there is a loose plot of a man (Bardem) who wishes to obtain financing for his construction business, and marries a woman he does not love (the wide-eyed Maria de Medieros) in the process. He maintains his passionate relationship with his first and true love, and ultimately gets entangled in his own romantic web. He never gives up his juggling act, until the three main characters come face to face. The film results boring, with lots of free sex (well, both girls are really good), all the reactions in the film are absurd, incoherent and of course, too much stupid. None of the characters are believable, which makes the movie a little annoying. Anyway, the acting is surprisingly good for such a bad directed film, which makes it a little interesting, but, if you can, watch another film please! | 0 | negative |
This movie features roaches as super flesh eating killers. This may have been the first movie where roaches were the primary killers, though not the first movie where roaches are killers. "Damnation Alley" featured a scene with killer cockroaches and "Creepshow" had a story that had them. In this one they are the star. Not as good as it could have been this one doesn't have all that many kills in them. I could be wrong on that point, however, because I have not seen this one in quite some time. The roaches have gone killer and this very strange research lady is in town to study them. Yes, she is quite strange as at one point she has her hand in a box on the killer roaches and she is like "They are biting my hand", and she says this in almost a state of ecstasy. There is also one super big roach near the end of this one, like in so many insect films. Not a great movie, but worth checking out on a night you are bored out of your mind. | 0 | negative |
After spending five years in prison, Dr. Thomas Reed, played by the incomparable Vincent Ventresca, exiles himself to Purgatory Flats and winds up tending bar. He soon meets the luscious, angel-faced Sunny (Alexandra Holden). "You are wicked." he tells her. "You have no idea." she replies as she sips her Slo Comfortable Screw and languidly drags on her cig. Reed finds himself entwined in the violent troubles of her family and the femme fatale story unfolds set against the desolation and desperation of the oil-drained western town.<br /><br />Canny direction. Great performances. Superb entourage work. And some lust scenes that sizzle like the sun in Purgatory. | 1 | positive |
I can't believe the amount of reviewers who praise this as realistic. I'm a million miles from being an expert, and I'm never going to climb a mountain; but even the very basic knowledge attained from reading Into Thin Air, and watching Everest Beyond The Limit and a few other Everest docs meant that this film just got more and more ridiculous as it went on. There is some good climbing footage at the start; and when the billionaire mission leader asks early in the film "How much experience above 8000 metres do you have?", I was encouraged to hope that this might be a gritty and accurate man-vs-nature odyssey. Instead you have a bunch of climbers zooming up a mountain with no acclimatisation; climbing with goggles off in full sun, and they are barely ever out of breath performing miraculous feats of endurance. Only near the summit is a little fatigue suggested, to dramatically accentuate the physical feat of climbing such a monstrous peak, almost as an afterthought. If you have no knowledge of mountaineering, give it a look: be prepared for some clichéd heroics (although no more clichéd than a hundred other passably diverting flicks), and a clichéd outcome. I've been developing a minor fascination with high mountains and was looking forward to watching K2; but other than some amazingly beautiful scenery, it was a let down because it was so far removed from reality. I can imagine some experts being employed in the making of this movie, but then being conveniently ignored in the pursuit of the heroic, and sadly fantastical storyline. Also, you would sound like a bit of a tit if you said "welcome to the death zone" at 200000 feet. | 0 | negative |
Completely overlooking the whole movie adaptation of a video game, this is another terrible movie by Mr. Boll. How he continues to be hired to make movies is a constant surprise to me and obviously most of the movie going community.<br /><br />As a whole I will say that this attempt was fractionally better than so many of his previous attempts. Some of the dialog was even half way decent in Far Cry though he still misuses some phrases and in some cases he doesn't even use the phrases correctly.<br /><br />Now besides the fact that Jack Carver is supposed to be American and not German, Til was still entertaining in this role. One exception is the laughably lame lines he uses to get in bed with the girl. And we are supposed to believe that she is ready to have sex with him so casually after such minimal dialog? Emile? Simply there for comic relief I am sure and still lame. Jack's character looks old and tired yet is still capable of the extreme acrobatics needed to avoid one of the altered super soldiers in the lab.<br /><br />Don't watch this one for the Far Cry adaptation. But you might just waste an hour and a half watching it if you have nothing better to do. | 0 | negative |
Not finding the right words is everybody's problem in this vaudeville-type urban comedy. They don't know what to say, and they don't know how to say it, which is why they embark on the potentially humiliating enterprise of pre-arranged speed dating. Unfortunately, they all come across as cardboard characters rather than real people. The story follows a conventional three-act structure: getting to know the sizable cast in their sorry single lives, the actual dating circuit, and a final stretch of romantic fallout, showcasing some of the new-found couples' follies. Because it's all so predictable, I'd say that as a narrative, "Shoppen" is a failure. As a comedy, most of the time it's too goofy to be really funny. Thumbs up to Kathrin von Steinburg. She stands out from the soap opera crowd as the aloof, independently wealthy Miriam. Great makeup on her too (Verena Weißert): Heavy eye shadow meets skin-tone lip gloss, creating a brooding and bohemian, yet girlish effect. Thumbs up also to Stefan Zinner as the Bavarian love machine and Tanja Schleiff as the hot nutritionist. They bypass the communication challenge by way of the timeless body language of copulation. | 0 | negative |
Well, since it's called Porno Holocaust and directed by Joe D'Amato, I went into this film expecting sleaze...and while I somewhat got it, Porno Holocaust was a massive disappointment as it's just so damned BORING. The title suggests that the film will feature porn, and that's not wrong - Porno Holocaust is pretty much just porn, and most of it is just the same stuff over and over again, I was fast forwarding before the end. The first sex scene is between two women and it got my hopes up, but after that it just degenerates into normal porn, and the rest of the film (for the first hour!) is made up of talking, and you can imagine how much fun that is to sit through! The plot focuses on a deserted island where, believe it or not, something strange is going on. Naturally, it's not long before a group of people - made up of a few men and some scientists, who all happen to be sexy women, land on the island. They have sex a few times and some strange things happen, then over an hour later they're attacked by a mutant zombie creature with an eye for the ladies...<br /><br />This must have seemed like a good idea for an original porno - a zombie who likes to get it on, but unsurprisingly it doesn't work well at all. The film clocks in at just ten minutes short of the two hour mark, and that is far too long for a film like this. I have no idea why Porno Holocaust is as long as it is; if they'd just snipped one minute out of every sex scene, the film would have been under ninety minutes, and that would have made it much more tolerable! The zombie takes what seems like an eternity to appear (it's quite a long time before there's a sex break long enough for them to actually travel to the island in the first place), and when it does finally appear, it's a huge disappointment! I realise that this is low budget B-movie trash, but D'Amato surely could have tried a bit harder and come up with something better than this! I'm not even going to bother mentioning the acting, atmosphere etc, there's no point. Porno Holocaust is basically just your average dull porn flick with a slight sprinkling of horror, and I can't recommend it! | 0 | negative |
This film is completely underrated.<br /><br />It's a film similar to Will Keenan and Patrick Hasson's Waiting, as well as Adrien Brody's Restaurant and the classic film Breaking Away, which are all about young adults who are stuck and know they're stuck, with little or no chance of breaking free.<br /><br />Death By Pizza (Delivered) is about an intelligent, free-thinking, artistic young adult (Will, played by David Strictland) who is stuck and waiting, bitter at the world's hypocrisy and bitter at his own lack of direction and desire. Will meets his nemesis, Reed (Ron Eldard), another intelligent young adult who's so bitter, he's chosen the path of crime. Both end up helping each other to free themselves of their bitterness, which enables them to get unstuck.<br /><br />For these young adults, getting unstuck, or, breaking free, can mean both forging ahead into life, and plunging downward into death.<br /><br />Will's life is filled with the trademarks of a young "stuck" adult: a soul-sucking, sweaty, under-paying job, crude customers, an ex-girlfriend who left him because he was unmotivated, a partial college education with no degree, a house filled with self-made art, and of course the new friend whose ungodly choices help him to save himself. | 1 | positive |
Niñas Mal is not a movie is a bad episode of a cheesy badly conceived soap opera. <br /><br />The acting is not a bit better of that in soap operas, I guess the writer and director has seen too many Mexican soap operas and can't conceive anything remotely different. <br /><br />Give it up, go back to your soap operas so that you have an audience to please. <br /><br />Stop waisting our time and money and giving a bad name to the once respectable Mexican film industry. <br /><br />It is NOT an OK or good movie, it's a mediocre soap opera! | 0 | negative |
Today You Die was the 4th Seagal movie in a mini marathon I just held. Wow, I don't know where to start. He seems to mumble his lines more and more as time goes on, and the scenes between Seagal and Treach where they seem to improv are embarrassing. And what did his girlfriend's dreams have to do with anything else in the plot? I can't recommend this to anyone but the most die hard Seagal fan, and even then you are better off with his earlier work. Of the 4 films in my marathon (Submerged, Into the Sun, Foreigner and Today You Die) Today was the worst. A previous reviewer mentioned this but the usage of stock footage was quite obvious. | 0 | negative |
It starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is. | 0 | negative |
After huge budget disaster films set in America like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, it was refreshing to see something on a smaller scale like Flood.<br /><br />Using mainly unknown actors and actresses and actually focusing on England it was a welcome change of pace to seeing The Empire State Building being demolished.<br /><br />However, this is not a strong film on any basis. Whilst being fairly shocking seeing all your favourite London landmarks being demolished by a very fake CGI storm surge, Flood doesn't really deliver on anything else.<br /><br />The performances are bland, being saved from the pit of hell by David Suchet and his refreshingly calm performance as the Deputy Priminister. He is perhaps a little too calm for what is going on in the film, all that fake water gushing around London must have made him pretty annoyed.<br /><br />It is understandable that the effects weren't going to be as good as TDAT and DI, but the CGI was at best, average.<br /><br />Bland, disappointing and sometimes even tiresome. Watch it if you must, but watch something else straight afterwards. | 0 | negative |
Clint Eastwood plays a wounded Union soldier found by a girl from a Confederate boarding school and he's taken in and nursed back to health instead of turned over to Confederate soldiers. Seems that the women-folk at this place have ulterior motives. Geraldine Paige, the headmistress, justifies not turning him into the Confederacy and even passes him off as her cousin. Of course when the man gets to feeling better he becomes quite the lady's man and is pretty much making the rounds, but when he gets busted he REALLY gets busted, in fact so badly he gets his leg cut off, but it's for his own good, of course, not out of retribution. Things get carried a bit further though when certain women don't get what they want. I haven't seen this for years and it still has a certain creepiness to it that by today's standards is still pretty strange. Not typical Eastwood at all. If you haven't seen this one it's worth seeing. 8 out of 10. | 1 | positive |
Flawlessly directed, written, performed, and filmed, this quiet and unpretentious Danish film is an example of cinema at its best, and if a person exists who can watch BABETTE'S FEAST without being touched at a very fundamental level, they are a person I do not care to know.<br /><br />The story is quite simple. In the 1800s, two elderly maiden ladies (Birgitte Federspiel and Bodil Kjer) reside in remote Jutland, where they have sacrificed their lives, romantic possibilities, and personal happiness in order to continue their long-dead father's religious ministry to the small flock he served. One of the women's youthful admirers sends to them a Frenchwoman, Babette (Stéphane Audran), whose husband and son have been killed in France and who has fled her homeland lest she meet the same fate. Although they do not really require her services, the sisters engage her as maid and cook--and as the years pass her cleverness and tireless efforts on their behalf enables the aging congregation to remain together and the sisters to live in more comfort than they had imagined; indeed, the entire village admires and depends upon her.<br /><br />One day, however, Babette receives a letter: she has won a lottery and is now, by village standards, a wealthy woman. Knowing that her new wealth will mean her return to France, the sisters grant her wish that she be allowed to prepare a truly French meal for them and the members of their tiny congregation. The meal and the evening it is served is indeed a night to remember--but not for reasons that might be expected, for Babette's feast proves to be food for both body and soul, and is ultimately her gift of love to the women who took her in and the villagers who have been so kind to her.<br /><br />The film is extraordinary in every way, meticulous in detail yet not overpowering in its presentation of them. As the film progresses, we come to love the characters in both their simple devotion to God and their all-too-human frailties, and the scenes in which Babette prepares her feast and in which the meal is consumed are powerful, beautiful, and incredibly memorable. There have been several films that have used food as a metaphor for love, but none approach the simple artistry and beauty of BABETTE'S FEAST, which reminds us of all the good things about humanity and which proves food for both body and soul. Highly, highly recommended.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 1 | positive |
The only reason I bought the DVD was to satisfy my curiosity about the scene when Liz (Kim Basinger) strips to the music of Joe Cocker: You Can Leave Your Hat On! That was the best part of the whole film. Not because the scene was any good; only the song. I am not saying it was a terribly bad film just not that good. Disappointingly so!<br /><br />Especially when the exploration of male and female sexuality could have been expanded upon. Instead of expanding on the dangerous side of lust, obsession and infatuation and where it can lead to it drags its heels obscurely from one idea to the other. For example when John (played by Rourke) is able to leave her on the top of the Big Wheel, Liz (Kim Basinger) is unconvincingly rattled at the bizarre experience courtesy of John's sense of humor but less rattled at his sexual exploits involving the ever willing Liz; and like one reader mentioned, that for a woman to enjoy sex she has to experience the dangerous side is unconvincing. This "dangerous" side is not exploited enough in the film and one gets a sense of anti-climax from the view point that it all could go horribly wrong. The theme of bondage makes an appearance often but only just takes one to the brink of danger and then all goes well.Is the film sending the message out that this kind of "foreplay" is FINE! If the film was making a point about the pitfalls of bondage and by extension the ugly ramifications of sad-masochism then maybe it would make a good moral point. Instead the film awkwardly jumps from one "sizzling" scene of Rourke feeding Basinger and blindfolding her to another. In a film that could have been good it falls flat on its face because it does not expand and extend the themes the film is MAYBE trying to relate; thus for me it doesn't have a plot nor a theme just a mixture of ideas. | 0 | negative |
How good is this film? Apparently, good enough that they plan to remake it in 2011. Jean-Pierre Melville, who gave us Le doulos and The Good Thief, wrote and directed this film.<br /><br />The film is almost a silent. These are men of few words, preferring to let their actions speak for them. They live by a code that governs their every move.<br /><br />There are some great actors in this film - Alain Delon (The Leopard), Yves Montand (Jean de Florette, Let's Make Love), and Gian Maria Volonte (El Indio from A Fistful of Dollars & A Few Dollars More). The film does not shine on them; they are along for the ride that Melville has for them. Melville makes the film; they make it better.<br /><br />You see Melville's work in the Ocean films, but they just get the idea. The can't make it work like he did. A great loss in the seventies, but his work remains for our pleasure. | 1 | positive |
Sorry folks, I love Ray Bolger's work but the one thing he ain't is a leading man. Maybe if you pretend he's the last man on earth, this romantic plot might work but come'on now !<br /><br />Here's a movie that exists simply to showcase the title song which was a big hit for the Basie Band the year before (1951). And some pretty nifty singing and dancing save it from being a total disaster. <br /><br />However, the story line is pathetic, even by 1952 musical comedy standards. And the other songs are equally as forgettable as Evening In Paris cologne. The dialogue embarrasses the stars, Day & Bolger. Only Claude Dauphin's Boyeresque charms keep his character three dimensional.<br /><br />So, how to enjoy this movie on video ? <br /><br />A.) Fast forward through all the dialogue...<br /><br />B.) Surrender yourself to Doris Day's vocals and Ray Bolger's loose-limbed footwork. And don't miss Dauphin's hilarious take on a rain-soaked, windswept reprise of "April In Paris"...<br /><br />C.) Finally, keep a couple of bottles of Cabernet chilled and handy.<br /><br />Bob Raymond | 0 | negative |
I was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered ¾ (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia
Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk more. | 0 | negative |
Meatballs has been a main staple in my family for over 26 years! We saw this movie when it first came out and have seen it dozens of times since. Bill Murray is at his best and is most touching in the scenes where he reaches out to a lonely pre-teen boy and befriends him, while leading his CIT's into once mischievous scheme after another! The cast of characters are fun and zany and you really come to care about them and the relationships they have with each other. This is not another sleazy, dumb, teen sex-fest. It is funny and sweet and just all-around fun. Anyone who sees this will enjoy themselves. It is a must-see. Watch out for Spaz - he is by far the best character! (Especially during the camp social - while Bill Murray hams it up for the camera - just watch Spaz behind him dancing with the poor girl he picks to dance with!) By far, one of my very favorite comedies of all time! | 1 | positive |
Im a huge M Lillard fan that's why I ended up watching this movie. Honestly I doubt that if he wasn't in the movie i would of enjoyed it as much or even watched it but once I did watch it realize the story was pretty decent. A bad ending I must say but I did see it coming. It's a low budget movie and some of the actors weren't really good but all in all I rated this movie 7/10.<br /><br />The suspense of wondering what Lillard was actually up to was what really keeped me interested in this movie.<br /><br />Its a good rental!<br /><br />7/10 | 1 | positive |
One of the greatest lessons I ever had in how to watch a movie happened this way: <br /><br />I was working in Roger Corman's offices, like so many other wanabees before and since, I was interning and trying to figure out how it all worked and how to make myself indispensable (hah!). One afternoon Julie Corman, Roger Corman's wife and a producer in her own right, asked me to load up a tape. I'm not sure why she wanted to watch it. I got the impression it was a student film or a show reel, something like that, some sort of calling card. Whatever the reasons she had to see it, the only free video machine in the offices at the time happened to be in the room I was working in, and I was the nearest person to the machine. I started the tape.<br /><br />Fade in: On screen a figure sat at a desk facing the camera. Behind him, screen left, was a door that opened into the room. Against the far wall was a coat rack. A second character entered through the door and started talking. The first character, the guy at the desk, turned round to reply, (this is all one take, static camera, there are no cuts pans or dolly shots. Just one locked off camera). The second character turned to hang his coat on the coat rack and delivered his next line. Julie Corman said "I've seen enough." and left the room.<br /><br />What she had seen in the ten seconds of footage she had watched was that the director was an idiot. Opening with two characters who immediately turned their backs to the camera delivering lines? Nope, sorry. Next! That's how long you've got. Ten seconds. Cock it up in the opening shot and you are dead.<br /><br />I was reminded of that moment while I watched the opening of this piece of crap. After an interminably long travelogue of jungle we see several monkeys apparently throwing themselves into cages. A man carrying a gun laughs. A jet liner lands and we see it taxi the whole way to the terminal. God this is boring! Cut to the interior of the Airport. Two men meet. Aha! Something is happening! They shake hands. Cut to a different angle of the two men -<br /><br />- and the director crosses the line.<br /><br />The first two shots of the movie that have any kind of spatial relationship with each other and the guy has cocked up. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those basic rules of movie grammar that keeps the characters from jumping about from side to side on the screen and confusing the audience. Audiences don't like to be confused. Mystified? Baffled? Puzzled and intrigued? Yes. Audiences love all of those. Confused? No. You loose them. They walk out. 'Not Crossing The line' is one of those things they pound into you at film school, or should. It's basic stuff. It's not an inviolable rule (there are no inviolable rules) directors break it all the time - but not on the first real cut of the movie.<br /><br />I thought, "I've seen enough". And switched off. | 0 | negative |
I saw the movie while I was in a class a few years back in high school. I thought it was a thought provoking movie that made you want to look into the power behind riddles. I think the type of people that wouldn't like this movie would be those who don't like solving things, or those who get frustrated when they can't solve riddles. its a good movie, based on a true story that happened in my home town of Toronto, Ontario. so if u want a real record of the things that happen in the alleys there, watch this movie. And for those who only watch movies to point out plot holes and character flaws, realize that in real life, this same stuff does happen. but thats all I want to say on that. The riddles are good, some are hard, some are not. But the movie also leaves you wanting more, more riddles, more explanation, just plainly, more. Something more I want to add, is that the ideas within this movie, the underground riddle world, does exist, but there is a lot more to it. To find it, you can not look for it. To never look for it, would be no way to find it. Leave your mark, and it will find you. | 1 | positive |
During an eight-year stretch of the 1980s when Charles Bronson made nine films, only one was released by a company other than the Cannon Group: 'The Evil That Men Do,' a TriStar Films pickup from Sir Lew Grade's ITC Entertainment firm. Bronson was already in the thick of his collaborations with director J. Lee Thompson, which ran through numerous actioners until 'Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects' in 1989.<br /><br />Expectations should run pretty high with Bronson and Thompson working for a better-funded outfit like ITC, but 'The Evil That Man Do' is a great disappointment on many levels. While still from the low budget, B-movie mold of the 1980s, 'Evil' has tantalizing potential for a great film. Everyone in the production department, however, took an easy way out and sold hack work undeserving of Bronson's imprint. 'The Evil That Men Do' had a concept and technical resources that could have been used to make one of Bronson and Thompson's best films, but instead will go down as one of their most average.<br /><br />This 1984 political thriller/actioner opens in brutal fashion with Clement Molloch (Joseph Maher), a British doctor, holding his special training class for political leaders in Surinam. The gray-haired, passive Molloch is an expert on torture methods who is employed by numerous political regimes. In the opening seven minutes, we witness Molloch using electrical current to inflict unbearable pain on Jorge Hidalgo (Jorge Humberto Robles), a dissident journalist. As you may expect, the scene is awful to watch and was cut from the original VHS release.<br /><br />Hidalgo was none other than a friend of Holland (Bronson), a retired assassin who is enjoying life in the Cayman Islands. Holland was approached by the journalist years before to rid humanity of Molloch, but turned the offer down. A Mexican professor named Hector Lomelin (José Ferrer) visits shortly after Hidalgo's death to talk Holland into finishing the job, bringing videotapes of testimony from The Doctor's victims. While in denial at first, Holland eventually agrees to the dirty work, targeting Molloch and his doting sister Claire (Antoinette Bower) in Guatemala.<br /><br />Holland enters Guatemala City with help from an adviser, Max Ortiz (René Enríquez); he poses as a tourist with Hidalgo's widow Rhiana (Theresa Saldana) and young daughter Sarah (Amanda Nicole Thomas) in tow. As with most of Bronson's later output, his character knocks off Molloch's henchmen one by one, crossing paths with a sleazy American diplomat (John Glover) and his supporting hit-man (Roger Cudney) along the way. A brutal ending takes place in the crevices of an opal mine, where The Doctor gets just deserts from several of his victims.<br /><br />'The Evil That Men Do' is based on a forgotten novel by R. Lance Hill and jumps at American political dealings in Latin America during the 1980s. Indeed, 'Evil' is hard-boiled in every sense of the term, as it uses sensationalism and doses of brutality to cover up huge weaknesses in plot and character development. For every plus this film has, there are three or four minuses, resulting from shod craftsmanship.<br /><br />While 'The Evil That Men Do' has a great concept, the film is never truly more than an excuse for Bronson to wipe out foreign-based scum. In the style of bad pulp fiction, 'Evil' is filled with cardboard characters that we never get to know or understand. Holland, despite being played strongly by Bronson, never talks about his inner feelings or explains what motivated him into becoming a killer for hire. Rhiana, a terribly weak part for Theresa Saldana, is disgusted by Holland for much of the way but later feels an affection for him. Where does her love come from, especially after watching Holland kill several people and wanting to go home just a few scenes before?<br /><br />The most interesting characters are actually Molloch and his sister Claire, because so many questions can be asked of them. Naturally, we never find out what has brought them so close together, how and where their torture dealings started, what Claire's exact role in their business is
These plot holes can go on forever, especially with the paint-by-numbers storyline that seems to make things up as it goes along. Why is Hidalgo's daughter brought into such a dangerous situation, other than for her to be conveniently taken hostage by Molloch? If Molloch's bodyguard Randolph (Raymond St. Jacques) clearly saw Holland and Rhiana in the cockfight arena, why is he so friendly with them in a bar afterwords? Is his memory that short? And what really was the purpose, other than cheap theatrics, of Holland throwing Molloch's chauffeur Cillero (Jorge Luke) off a window ledge when the murder could have been handled more discreetly in Claire's apartment?<br /><br />The overall acting is decent and somehow Bronson gives one of his strongest performances. J. Lee Thompson's direction is lacking at points, but may have been compromised by limited time on site. Besides Evil's filming in Mexico, the presence of ITC is clear through better production values, cinematography, and music. Rural locations are well-used to convey the hot and dusty atmosphere of Latin America and cinematographer Xavier Cruz provides rich color and clarity. The orchestral score by Ken Thorne ('Murphy's War') is refreshing in an era of synthesized junk. Oddly enough, these positives only add to the frustration of a good movie that is screaming to come out. Peter Lee Thompson's editing is better than usual, although with more laughable continuity errors.<br /><br />'The Evil Than Men Do' was perfect grindhouse material for the early 80s and I find it hard to recommend for 21st century action fans. The DVD from Columbia TriStar Entertainment is an okay presentation, offering widescreen and standard format with four-language subtitles. While the video quality is well above average, 'Evil' was originally recorded in plain mono audio. The theatrical trailer is offered and actually has a grindhouse feel, with eroded color and fuzzy sound quality.<br /><br />** out of 4 | 0 | negative |
I was very disappointed when this show was canceled. Although i can not vote. I live on the island of Aruba. I sat down to see the show on tuesday. And was very surprised that it didn't aired. The next day i read on the internet that it was canceled.<br /><br />It's true not every one was as much talented as the other. But there were very talented people singing.<br /><br />I find it very sad for them.<br /><br />That they worked so hard and there dreams came tumbling down.<br /><br />Its a pity<br /><br />Ariette Croes | 1 | positive |
Despite its many faults, Hallmark's 1995 version of Gulliver's Travels is still the finest adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical classic - largely because it not only includes ALL of Gulliver's many travels but also includes the satire that's often overlooked. Unfortunately the twin problems of the book's highly episodic structure and a television budget (even a fairly lavish one) remain. The book is a somewhat rambling collection of traveller's tales moving simply from one surreal landscape to another, but Simon Moore's adaptation tries to impose some order on the chaos by providing a parallel plot that sees Gulliver returned to England clearly deeply traumatised and trying to prove his way out of the insane asylum where the rival for his wife's affections has had him committed. The England scenes at once mirror and comment on the travels, elements of which occasionally spill over into the real world. The trouble is that for the first hour or so it acts more as a distraction, constantly pulling you away from the story just as it starts to get interesting. The Lilliput scenes suffer worse here, with the feeling that the home scenes are too often designed to save them from filming the more expensive setpieces - this has to be the only version where we don't see Gulliver pulling the Blefescu fleet behind him.<br /><br />Yet once Gulliver makes his escape, the tone becomes more consistent as he finds his situation reversed and himself the pet of the giants of the Utopians of Brobdingnag, a guest of the wise men of the floating island of Laputa who are so engrossed in science that they have no common sense left, the guest/prisoner of a historian who leans history directly from the source, offered immortality with all it's terrible consequences before finally finding a world he wants to belong if only he can convince the sublime talking horses the Houynhnhms that he's not an uncivilized Yahoo, each new destination convincing him of what an absurd and petty species humanity is. For the most part it's a darker set of Travels than expected, with only Gulliver's curiosity and commonsense and disappointment keeping it from plunging into irretrievable bleakness - and even this is offset by the scenes in the asylum where it becomes more obvious that even if he is telling the truth it may well have driven him genuinely insane. It's in these latter scenes that Ted Danson's Gulliver really shines, never more so than in an extraordinary speech where he turns his trial into a disappointed judgment on the whole human race.<br /><br />Being made for television, the Yahoos are rather less literally scatological here than on the page, but for the most part this is a more adult treatment than you might expect with no real dumbing down. The star cast is certainly impressive, and for the most part well-used (if somewhat briefly in a few cases) - Mary Steenburgen, James Fox, Peter O'Toole, Edward Woodward, Omar Sharif, Shashi Kapoor, Edward Fox, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, Kristin Scott Thomas and Isabelle Huppert among them. It's hard to imagine the upcoming Jack Black version even coming close to being a fraction as impressive as this. | 1 | positive |
The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.<br /><br />The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very "choppy", in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book. <br /><br />I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book. | 0 | negative |
I just watched this movie for the first time after finishing the book last week. What's the problem here? Folks admit that the performances are great--I mean, Lange is stellar!--and that the film is good-looking, but it's got less than a '6'! I don't get it. Come on! The writing's not that bad!<br /><br />Having read a lot of Pulitzer-winning novels, and having seen a lot of the films based on them, I think a better-than-decent job was done in bringing the screenplay together. I thought the paring down of all the dialogue in the novel was executed almost perfectly. This story had a pretty hefty amount of dialogue in it, and the story really came through on the screen despite the fact that only a portion of it was used.<br /><br />**BOOK SPOILER PART** I was, however, a little disappointed in the Ginny-tries-to-kill-Rose subplot's being omitted. I thought that was one of the more emotionally jarring parts of the book, but it was probably a good bet to leave it out. Avid movie-goers, more than avid readers, I think, tend to be less forgiving of protagonists pulling antagonistic stuff. It's apt to confuse Johnny Lunchpail and Joe Sixpack.<br /><br />If you loved the book, you will like the movie. If you hated the book, you will likely hate the movie.<br /><br />********<br /><br />Rog | 1 | positive |
if you are dating a girl that is into wicca!<br /><br />many parts of this movie were killer and the feeling you get from this movie while watching it and immediately after is enough alone to sit through it all but some things really bothered me about this film that i cant really put my finger on...<br /><br />i definitely think that this movie is one that any art student or photography student should see b/c of the camera style and graininess that ive never seen but that is just it...it looks like an art student made it and the plot if there is any is so jumpy that you really need to be on a lot of drugs to get just what is going on | 1 | positive |
I tried to watch this adaptation, but it was just so awful I couldn't torture myself like that. The performances were quite sub-par, with the exception of Ariel. Fonda was way over the top in a role that should be handled with some subtlety. I have studied Shakespeare and seen many adaptations, and this is, by far, the worst one I have ever seen. I have to wonder why on Earth someone made this film. Shakespeare can, and has been, beautifully adapted in many cases. This is not one of them. If you must watch this film, may I suggest a drinking game? Take a drink every time they go off book from the original idea and two drinks every time Fonda overacts. You should be quite drunk in a very short time. | 0 | negative |
This 1988 movie was shown recently on a cable channel. We wanted to see another film, which supposedly was starting, but because a mix up, Rent-a-Cop, was shown in that time slot. Never having seen it when it was commercially released, we took a chance at it. Bad decision.<br /><br />One wonders what possessed the people behind the picture to go ahead with "Rent-a-Cop", or how they sold it to the studio behind the distribution. It appears this movie misfired big time. This film doesn't add anything new to its genre. It's totally predictable, as once the basic premise is shown, we know how it will end.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds plays a wooden Church. This actor can do better, but who knows what was going on behind the scenes, or perhaps the direction given to him by Jerry London, had the opposite effect. Mr. Reynolds has one expression throughout the movie. He just doesn't register any emotion at all.<br /><br />Lisa Minnelli, as the hooker who witnessed the original slaughter at the Chicago hotel, makes no sense at all. The romance between her Della and Church seems phony from the beginning. She and Mr. Reynolds play one dimensional characters.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this turkey. | 0 | negative |
First of all - I hardly ever watch Swedish movies, and this is actually the second time in my life I watch a Swedish movie on cinema! Therefor, I believe it's one of the best Swedish movies ever! The combination of thrill and humour is OUTSTANDING, and sometimes you don't even know if you should be terrified or just laugh! The plot is about this man, a writer who wants to go to Germany after World War II and help the Germans to start over. On the way to Germany, he is trying to help his friends on the train, which is however a bad idea. What a clumsy jerk! And poor Robert Gustafsson - the wounded soldier - always get in the way ... OUCH!!! But he still got his great mood. A positive guy. Robert Gustafsson have done some less great movies the last years or so, and this is really a relief. He is great in this movie. After all - this is one of the best Swedish movies ever, and Peter Dalle has made an excellent job! Congratulations! | 1 | positive |
My God, the things that passed for entertainment in this country...<br /><br />This is *not* the "Tom and Jerry" you may have enjoyed on Saturday Mornings, featuring a hapless cat and a clever mouse. This is a much earlier animation series, featuring a pair of Mutt-and-Jeff clones who get themselves into various scrapes that result in any of the then-typical dancing-skeleton-type gags that made up so much of early animation.<br /><br />This particularly vile outing, apparently originally intended as a vehicle for a pair of actual black stage comedians of the time, has the pair crashing in the ocean while flying to Africa, necessitating black-face make-up, exaggerated "negro" dialect and "Feets, don't fail me now" situations.<br /><br />It only shows that in the 70 years between emancipation and this film, the American view of Africans hadn't progressed much. Then again, at least one of them apparently had a pilot's license. | 0 | negative |
Eh oui, impossible n'est pas gaulois.<br /><br />Well paced, highly entertaining film. Pretty good command of the French language and knowledge of modern France (and history) are recommended. I don't think this film really works in any other language. The film is incredibly much better than the previous one (In search of...). Apart from great actors and savvy camera handling it's the wit and firework of allusions, word plays etc. that make for a really great movie. The cartoon vorlage is recognizable but the film is very emancipated. The cost of the film is put to good use. Indeed, all the special effects fit 'naturally' into the movie, you never feel choked by them.<br /><br />Bref, oui, les 2CVs, ça traîne un peu mais à part cela, Imhotep!<br /><br />-A neighbour from the other side of the Rhine | 1 | positive |
Yahoo Serious is like a $3 bottle of wine - had no substance to begin with and just gets worse with age. This film proves he is completely toxic. We can only hope that this is his final film and that its serious lack of success will diminish his chances of obtaining finance for any future ventures. It is right up there with "Lightning Jack" and "Les Patterson Saves the World" as the most abysmal example of Australian comedy imaginable. How tragic it is that with so many infinitely superior comedic talents in Australia Yahoo is given such vehicles to express his brand of puerile school yard comedy. And to think - he had 7 years to come up with the script. True genius! | 0 | negative |
Spoiler Alert I worked as an extra on this Lifetime TV movie (filmed in Seattle). It's really interesting when you take part in the production of a movie, because usually, they are still in the process of either still writing parts (as was the case here) or making editing cuts and major changes from the final parts.<br /><br />My husband and I both worked as extras in this movie, and I recall them discussing on the set how it was yet to be determined whether or not the little girl dies in the end. Frankly, I never thought Margaret Colin's character really got adequate punishment for her crime of hit and run, lying to police, covering up, etc. Could you imagine how the ending would have had to change if she had ended up killing the hit and run victim instead of her ending up coming out of her coma okay? Just something to think about.<br /><br />By the way, I play a police detective you can see for a split second and my husband plays another detective you can see quite often (we've counted four times). Margaret Colin was great to work with and very down to earth, although Lisa Vidal (now a Lifetime regular) was aloof.<br /><br />Overall, the movie turned out to be about a 7/10, but like another poster commented, is still a real tear-jerker and makes a great Saturday afternoon cable flick. | 1 | positive |
Despite this being one of John Cusack and Demi Moore's early films, it is one even hardcore fans can miss, unless they absolutely have to complete the collection. I have rare moments, where I can handle Better Off Dead, but this movie is ultimately worse. I am just not a Savage Steve Holland fan, and he did both movies. So if you don't like the cheesy, random comedy and amateur animation, steer clear of this one. FYI even for the Demi Moore fans: she can't sing and the 80s synthesizers did not save her. There are too many predictable twists and too-easy jokes. I suppose if you want mindless entertainment or something you can leave on in the background and ignore while you do something productive, then go for it. Otherwise, don't watch this movie. If John Cusack (or Demi Moore) couldn't save it, you know it's got to be bad. They are the only reason I didn't give this movie a 1. | 0 | negative |
Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask. The Mask helped bring Jim Carrey to the forefront of comedy and reached a very popular status for its originality and just pure fun. Everyone knew how to spell party. P-A-R-T-Y. Why? Cuz I gotta! Now, eleven years later, it seems to me that the same philosophy has been applied to the new movie "Son of the Mask." Someone asked director Lawrence Guterman why are you making this? And he responds "Cuz I gotta!" Unfortunately, that answer doesn't cover it because after seeing Son of the Mask I still left the theatre thinking, "Good Lord, Why?" Guterman and the rest of the people involved in the blasphemous film need to realize that the response given to why are you making this film should not be as simple as the answer to the debate on whether or not to party.<br /><br />The Son of the Mask begins with Otis the dog finding the infamous mask and bringing it back to his owner Tim Avery, a clear homage to legendary Loony Toons creator Tex Avery. Tim, played by Jamie Kennedy, is a struggling animator who is stuck working as a turtle tour guide for the animation company he aspires to one-day draw for. On the night of the company Halloween party, Tim puts on the mask and transforms into the mischievous, insane character that we all expect. After the party Tim goes home, mask still on and conceives a child with his wife. Nine months later mayhem ensues as the baby born of the mask has remarkable cartoonish powers. Otis the dog, jealous of the baby's attention, puts on the mask and partakes in Tom and Jerry type mayhem to out the baby. Meanwhile, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is in search for his mask at the orders of his father, Odin.<br /><br />First off, ill admit that I do respect the fact that this film pays so much homage to the classic cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons, with its Wile E. Coyote type contraptions and the infamous dancing frog type plot. However, this reverence cannot save the film and makes it less respectful and more of a waste of time.<br /><br />The premise of the movie becomes increasingly silly. Silly is not always a bad thing, but in this movie, the silliness gets to the point of just plain annoying. The characters are not fun to watch, and what's worse, they're not funny. The dullness of the characters can also be attributed to the fact that so much CGI was used. One of the greatest things about the original is that while, obviously computer animation was used, so much relied on Jim Carrey and his exuberant style of just being. Jim Carrey, we were convinced, was an actual cartoon. Jamie Kennedy just doesn't have that kind of ability, a fact that is clear when you watch him wear the mask and his facial features rarely shift. The baby and dog were mostly completely animated which became increasingly distracting throughout the movie. The side story of Loki searching for the mask just became more and more stupefying.<br /><br />The son of the Mask is a sad sad state of affairs. What I suggest is you go rent or buy the original the Mask and thank the Norse gods, or whoever, for bringing it to us. And will consider seeing the sequel my sacrifice as I continue to ask the infamous question "WHY?" The son of the Mask gets one star, although that star should be divvied up between the classic creators of Loony Toons and Jim Carrey, who will always be, in my book, the mask. | 0 | negative |
Bridges's drama about a reporter who discovers some flaws in the safety precautions taken at a nuclear powerplant is directed well and a pretty interesting film from the late 70s. Its not amazing, but its solid, the acting is pretty good especially Jack lemmon, but Douglas and Fonda were good too. It was a pretty good screenplay and Bridges's direction was solid and suitable. This is definitely not one of the best films of the 70s, but its one of the better ones. A good early Michael Douglas film and Lemmon in his prime.--- IMDb Rating: 7.2, my rating:, so in simple words, solid but not amazing... thats what this film is, solid but not amazing 8/10 | 1 | positive |
This so called movie is horrible! The actors cannot act. There is no plot. I believe they need to start from scratch and film again. I hope that they can correct the acting flaws in this movie. I would like to see the trailer after they shoot it again. Maybe there is hope for it. I am not out to hurt feelings but I believe high school kids can do a better job. The wardrobe could have been much better. Sorry, but this just did not do it for me. I normally enjoy the trailers from this site but... this one i cannot find entertaining. I hope they take criticism well because i believe they will get much much more from others in regards to this film. | 0 | negative |
I really liked this movie, it totally reminds me of my high school days. The soundtrack is awesome. I am a huge nic cage fan and this is my favorite movie that he is in. I love the storyline, it is a total love story, against the odds kind of thing. I think anyone who graduated in the early eighties (1980-1984) should see the movie. It totally brought back memories of high school for me. | 1 | positive |
Although the movie was only so so the closed captioning was by far the best I have ever seen! Most of the time the spelling is terrible and the captioning out of sync. I use the closed captioning even though I can hear well but find a lot of actors mumble. Also many times the sound track overrides the dialogue. Thanks! | 0 | negative |
This is one of the few movies - maybe the only - that truly haunted me for years. It was the first I had ever seen people tortured, so much that blood was flowing of their mouths from gritting their teeth and screaming, etc. It was brutal; the worst thing I had ever seen on film.<br /><br />Dr. Clement Molloch, played by Joseph Mayer, is still one of the most evil characters I've ever seen on film, and I've viewed thousands. He was so sadistic that I would never watch this movie again, nor would I recommend it. He makes Hannibal Lecter look like Mr. Rogers. If seeing people tortured is not your idea of fun, then stay away from this film.<br /><br />I know there are a lot of sick people out there, many of them professional film critics, who probably enjoyed this sordid, sick story. It's a "B" movie, anyway, with stupid dialog and some wooden acting by Charles Bronson. This is not one of his better efforts. Even if it was, there so many horrendous scenes in here you wouldn't want to watch. Trust me on this one. | 0 | negative |
Yet again, director J. Lee Thompson unites with actor Charles Bronson for a violent and uncompromising action flick. In fact, this is probably Bronson's most brutal film (quite a feat for a man who appeared in Death Wish, Ten To Midnight and Chato's Land). However, brutality doesn't on its own make for a good film, and The Evil That Men Do is ultimately a disappointment. If you were to take away its brutality the film would have precious little else of interest.<br /><br /> The story is about a retired hitman (Bronson) who lives a cosy life on a Caribbean island. He is persuaded to come out of retirement to track down and eliminate a sadistic torture doctor who has been plying his vile trade around various South American hell-holes. Throughout the film, especially at the beginning, we are treated to some graphic torture scenes to show us just what a nasty piece of work he is.<br /><br /> These themes are actually quite serious. Torture does go on in suppressive Latin American dictatorships, and everyday folk are made to suffer some despicably painful experiences simply for voicing an unpopular viewpoint. But The Evil That Men Do - for all its worthy posturing - isn't really bothered about the plight of these poor people. It is bothered purely with giving Charles Bronson an excuse to blow away some unpleasant scum-bags. It's just an exploitative actioner which hangs its coat on genuine issues. The torture sequences make you, the viewer, feel like a dirty, sick-in-the-head voyeur, rather like someone who gains pleasure from viewing "snuff" movies. The script is full of horrid dialogue, including some excessive descriptions of acts of torture. The Evil That Men Do fails to explore its disturbing ideas... its serves them up as entertainment and asks us to enjoy them. Sorry, but that's just wrong. | 0 | negative |
This movie basically uses spousal rape as one of its main comedic devices. Now I turned it off at the point when he literally ties her to the bed and rapes her, but I cannot really imagine how that was eventually turned around into something endearing and funny. This movie not only squandered a wonderful cast and was consistently unfunny, it actually managed to be rather brutally disturbing and misogynistic. How so many people seem to find it a sweet family flick is beyond me. "I sure enjoyed canning those apricots last night" is not a funny joke when you know it refers to forcing an unwilling virgin to have sex with you in the hopes she will eventually learn to like it. Watching a peeping tom jerk off is not family fun. I honestly feel worse off for having watched half of this creepy "comedy" and am totally baffled by these positive reviews. | 0 | negative |
Terrible action movie in which lead Franco Nero exchanges his cowboy hat, gun belt and the coffin he dragged around in DJANGO (1966) for an all-white Ninja outfit with all the snazzy paraphernalia that goes with it! Despite virtually non-stop action, the film is utterly clichéd and unintentionally funny - with a campy villain, to boot, in Christopher George. Susan George (no relation) is the attractive woman with a washed-up husband, Nero's wartime companion, whom the villains are trying to push off her oil-rich land - but the latter haven't counted upon Nero's martial-arts (and stunt-heavy) gymnastics. The solution to their problems is to hire a similarly-skilled Ninja for themselves who, as it happens, turns out to be Nero's deadly enemy (played by Sho Kosugi, who appeared in two more sequels and is currently engaged in another!). The climax takes place inside an arena where one-man army Nero 'eliminates' George and what has remained of his gang from previous confrontations; the subtle way in which he despatches his nemesis, however, is effectively done. | 0 | negative |
It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.<br /><br />Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.<br /><br />I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.<br /><br />Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.<br /><br />That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.<br /><br />And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth. | 0 | negative |
"The Danish Bladerunner" is boldly stated on the box. Are you kidding me?! This film is a complete drag. When I'm thirsty and go for a soda in the kitchen, I usually pause the vcr, so I won't miss anything. Not this time. I actually found myself looking long and hard in the fridge, just so I wouldn't have to go back. Why the hell is there not ONE sciencefiction-scriptwriter out there who has the vaguest clue about how computers work? It's mindboggling. One of the premises of film, is that our hero (who's a hacker), has a little computerassistant to help him (the Microsoft Office paperclip finally caught on in the future). When he loses the assistant in the movie, he's helpless and can't get into any computers. HE'S A HACKER! It's like saying, that you can't drive your car, if you don't have your lucky "driving-cap" on. I won't even go into the lightning-effect when he recieves electroshock... | 0 | negative |
I've never expected too much from a film by trashy B-movie director Jim Wynorski: a silly premise, some cheapo effects and a bit of nudity from some busty babes, and I'm usually fairly happy.<br /><br />Well, Cheerleader Massacre delivers on the former and definitely the latter, but unfortunately is a tad light when it comes to the splatter. And when a film has the word 'massacre' in the title, and scrimps on the gore, then Houston, we have a problem.<br /><br />Wynorski's movie centres on a group of cheerleaders who, along with their teacher, mini-bus driver and a couple of guys, become stranded in the mountains during a snowstorm. They make their way on foot to a deserted mountain retreat, where they find food and shelter. And a crazy killer who wants them all dead! From the outset, good old Jim ensures that his film features plenty of scenes loaded with T&A, and includes the obligatory shower scene, along with numerous other moments in which tasty women get nekkid (including a spot of raunchy softcore sex and a very gratuitous three-babes-in-a-hot-tub scene). None of the women look young enough to be cheerleaders (and are never even seen in their outfits), but who cares about such details when they're all too willing to strip off in the name of art?<br /><br />I do care, however, about the movie's numerous lacklustre deaths. With such an extremely lurid title, I had been hoping for some inventive bloodletting to go with all of the bums, bush, and boobs; instead, practically all of the killings occur off-screen or feature next to no gore. Only a silly post-decapitation scene (achieved with cheap-as-chips CGI) comes anywhere near to delivering the goods.<br /><br />Still, if you're feeling in the mood for some titillation, or a bit of slasher silliness minus the grue, then, at 82 minutes, at least Cheerleader Massacre won't be too much of a waste of your time. | 0 | negative |
A stupid movie, with a stupid plot. Feels like they threw every imaginable cliché in a blender. I especially "Liked" the part, where two teenage girls gets the french president to clean the water. Because we all know how dedicated America is to conservation of the environment. Kyoto, anyone?? And the french chef, who has apparently never seen or tasted a hamburger... This is why people think Americans have no culture. That, and the fact that we meet your kids when they come to Europe to "see the world" (i.e. eat at McDonalds in foreign capitals) They are not as dumb as the two ditsy preteens in this movie, but they have just about the same amount of cultural enlightenment and good manners. | 0 | negative |
For a long time I did not know weather I liked this film or not. This is surprising, because I usually do know, but because the film did not go anywhere, I was a bit confused.<br /><br />Two people move into a somewhat communal household setting. Finding their spouses constantly working or away on business trips, their attention, out of sheer loneliness, wanders to each other. After a platonic love affair, the male lead played by Tony Leung Chiu discloses that he has a mistress on the side. Su Li-Zehn, played by Maggie Cheung is hurt, even though their love affair has not been physically consummated. Chiu leaves the country, only to come back years later, when everything has changed.<br /><br />For the cynic's part, the film is correct. By never actively or actually touching the part of love, but only approaching it, the film, admittedly says more than so many others have on the subject. It is also true, I think, that nothing good could have come if they did go on to have the affair. At least that's the feeling I get.<br /><br />If we are to believe it, however, when Garica Marquez writes that "...love is a state of grace; not the means to anything but the alpha and the omega, an end in itself," then this film falls miserably short of this, as do all others. Or, if you are inclined to entirely incomplete minimalism, hits it right on the mark. What films in history have achieved, approached, or sustained this phrase, if for only a short while? My honest feeling in memory is that about two. When Harry Met Sally suggests effectively this romantic perfection; and the getting is all in just getting there. It is interesting that in When Harry Met Sally, this is done in the course of wooing, rather than in its attainment. Can't anyone say anything good about love after it has been achieved by two individuals? Nicholas Spark's recent film The Notebook comes closer to this perhaps than any other film; are we to believe that once love is achieved it flies of the radar only to exist in perfection in some other dimension, or, more true perhaps, becomes latent vehicle for other ends? <br /><br />In the Mood for Love is an honest film,with gorgeous and generous cinematography worthy in all respects of the best that Almodovar has to offer, yet all it manages to say in the end is that "Life is sometimes like this." Now this is by no means a diffident thing to say, especially if said well, but the problem really comes at the end of the last act when Kar Wai Wong tries to round out the film by relating, only for the second time, a broader historical theme that plays in the background of the relationship which has just taken place. This is a worthy effort, and the variation on the musical motif played throughout the film is rather brilliant, but the theme's relatively spare indictment plays too little to have much more than a superficial effect on the holistically inclined audience, leaving the viewer to split the difference, a mistake in any film. A director should know where he is going, and how to get there. But in all honesty, it is only one wrong turn. However, as anyone knows, all it takes is one notable imperfection to spoil the perfect barrel of honey.<br /><br />The effort, though, is definitely worth while; trying to let a historical theme broaden and round out the film and raise it beyond the micro-meaning of the couple, but without any real foreshadowing, it is the crucial mistake. In a word, and unfortunately, it is too little too late. It is also, I think, too much of a challenge for the non-Asian viewer not familiar enough with China's history to appreciate completely this sweeping stroke. | 1 | positive |
I'm a big fan of Naruto, even though I haven't watched every episode or read every manga.<br /><br />I really liked the first Naruto movie, and to tell you the truth I was a little nervous that this one wouldn't be as good (or action packed) as the first (mainly because this one in Australia only had a PG instead of an M, which is a PG-13 US or 12 UK). But I was wrong (thankfully)! The animation was more improved (although some drawings of the characters at points looked rushed) and was very good especially in the fight scenes.<br /><br />Speaking of that, let's talk about the fight scenes! The animation and action in the fight scenes was spectacular and very entertaining! I especially enjoyed the genjutsu battle with kankuro and the fight with Gaara fighting the shape shifting female warriors! All the characters you want are here! Naruto, Sakura, Gaara, Kankuro and Shikamaru! If only Temari was in the movie, Shikamaru could save her from the female warriors in dramatic fashion! And maybe they could have a PASSIONATE KISS! In my summary at the top I say that this qualify's more as a piece of Cinema than just an extended episode. And it does! The action is very cinematic and the animation quality looks very fancy especially during the fighting! Overall, this is a excellent anime Film that is a must-see for any Naruto fan! 5/5! 10/10! 50/50! 100/100! Alright I'll stop! | 1 | positive |
An updated version of a theme which has been done before. While that in and of itself is not bad, this movie doesn't reach the ring like the other "inherent and pure" evil ones do. <br /><br />Predictable, ambitious attempt that falls short of the mark. Not worth sitting through for the tired contrived ending. | 0 | negative |
I saw this movie at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival.<br /><br />Based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, Everything Is Illuminated is the directorial debut of actor Liev Schreiber. Schreiber also wrote the screenplay. In the movie, Jonathan (Elijah Wood) obsessively collects items from his family, from toothbrushes to retainers to scraps of paper which he then seals in ziploc bags and pins to a wall in his house to record his family history. But the space for his grandfather is conspicuously bare. All Jonathan really has of him is a piece of jewelry and an old photo of him with a woman who hid him from the Nazis during the Second World War. Jonathan decides to undertake a quest to Ukraine to find the woman, thank her, and learn more about his grandfather.<br /><br />His quest is aided there by a couple of characters who run a tourist company for Jewish people, including a young man obsessed with western culture (Eugene Hutz), his grandfather (Boris Leskin), who thinks he is blind and who may have memories and demons of his own from the war, and his grandfather's temperamental seeing eye dog.<br /><br />The screenplay effectively combines both humour and drama as the three characters travel through the countryside looking for Jonathan's grandfather's town, driving deeper and deeper into the memories of the past. The best performance probably comes from Eugene Hutz, playing Alex Jr., who starts the movie as a tracksuit-wearing, break dancing slacker just out to have fun but evolves into something more as not only Jonathan, but all the characters gain their own illumination.<br /><br />Liev Schreiber, Elijah Wood, and Eugene Hutz attended the screening and did a very humorous Q&A after the film: <br /><br />- Schreiber was very close to his grandfather, who was a Ukranian immigrant, and who died in 1993. This caused him to start to write to get his memories down on paper. Meanwhile, he was asked to do a reading of Foer's short story, The Very Rigid Search, which was an excerpt from the still unpublished novel. Schreiber was blown away by the quality of the writing, saying that Foer had done in 15 pages what Schreiber tried to do in 107. Schreiber approached Foer and they talked about their grandfathers, culture, movies, and the nature of short-term memory in America; in the end, Foer agreed to let Schreiber adapt the book.<br /><br />- Schreiber's own project was intended to be a road movie, but the book has parallel narrative that is an imagined chronological history of the town of Trochenbrod that spans 500 years; given his budget and limitations as a filmmaker, he said he'd leave that to Milos Forman and take the road trip instead. This imagined chronology was what moved him to make the movie in the first place, the idea that "a past lovingly imagined was as valuable as a past accurately recalled".<br /><br />- Schreiber said the movie was a series of happy accidents. After searching unsuccessfully in Ukraine for an actor, he was walking through the Lower East Side in New York, when he saw a poster of a woman centaur, topless from the waist up, with an insane cossack sitting astride her. Under the poster said the name Gogol Bordello Ukranian Punk Gypsy Band.<br /><br />Eugene Hutz then took over the story. He had never pursued acting as music was his first passion. One day, a friend gave him the book, and he thought it was written in a manner similar to how he writes music; screw sentences/syntax, language is my own.<br /><br />Later, they got a call from a production company, looking for eastern European music that was medieval but modern. Hutz met with Schreiber, and he soon found the movie was based on the book he just happened to be reading. Not long after that came up, Schreiber asked Hutz what he thought about Alex and whether he could do the character by any chance.<br /><br />- Foer and Schreiber talked about the film in the fall of 2001, shortly after the events of September 11. Both were in Europe at the time and they talked about the derogatory comments they were hearing about Americans, which led Schreiber to want to try to find an articulate American who would defy the stereotype that Europeans have of Americans. Someone who was awkward, vulnerable, flawed, innocent, and looking for history beyond the borders of his own country. Schreiber started thinking about who that was, and Elijah came up.<br /><br />One of Schreiber's inspirations as a filmmaker is Emir Kusturica (I think that's who he said, who also directed a segment in another festival movie, All the Invisible Children) who said "you don't look for the actors, you look for the people." Schreiber said there is something about who Elijah is that he has a generosity of spirit and a sincere goodness as a human being, that came across on film. Schreiber said that the eyes are important when trying to articulate a character who is an observer, and that if "eyes are the doors to the soul, Elijah's are garage doors." <br /><br />- Elijah Wood had fun with a question about the similarities between his character Kevin in Sin City and Jonathan in this movie as both are sort of a blank slate on which emotions are projected. Wood replied that Jonathan may seem still and seemingly emotionless, but it is all about his observations, about his experiences with other characters and the environment he was in.<br /><br />- On the differences between directing and writing: Schreiber said he likes writing a lot more and jokingly described directing as "hell". After his grandfather died, Schreiber started to think about how to preserve some sense of history and himself; is he content driven or not, or just good at interpreting other people's work? He said he loved the exercise of figuring out what is emotional to you, important to you. | 1 | positive |
I am shocked and amazed to find reviews short of miserable for this horrible film. I rented this "movie" or feces, whatever you wish to call it, with several friends and after thirty minutes we had to stop watching. Just listening to the dialog left a horrible taste of sour milk in my mouth. This film was about as intelligent as an ass pimple.I hope I never see that bra-less, raggedy Anne look alike (Julianne Nicholson) again.It was like watching the most putrid pilot for a sitcom that will never make it to television, but instead of being a quick but painful 30 minutes( all I could bare)this was an excruciating 90 minutes. | 0 | negative |
"Tank Girl" was, I suppose, meant to be the "Buckaroo Banzai" of the 90's and was marketed as such. The comparison is, admittedly, appropriate; both movies have so many things going on in any given frame of film that, as impossible as the story is to sort out, it certainly isn't boring.<br /><br />"Tank Girl" is a fun enough ride if you turn your brain off before the movie starts. Otherwise you'll end up with a skull-cracking headache like me. | 0 | negative |
People need to give this show a chance. The people who write bad reviews (there are very few of them) are clearly people who haven't seen many episodes. One needs to really sit down and pay attention to this show to appreciate it. All of the characters are realistic because they have so many flaws. They make mistakes, but they are REALISTIC mistakes, which is an uncommon thing to see on television today. Also, for the most part the acting is superb. Lauren Graham has been snubbed of an Emmy for six years now. Someone needs to give this woman the credit she deserves. Same goes for Kelly Bishop who plays Emily Gilmore so perfectly. Also, it's nice to see a show that can have a young girl at the center of it, and not be filled with teen angst. Rory is a smart girl, which is also not seen a lot on television today. If only other shows could capture the wholeness of this show... | 1 | positive |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
README.md exists but content is empty.
Use the Edit dataset card button to edit it.
- Downloads last month
- 31