text
stringlengths 127
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Sandra Bernhard's Without You I'm Nothing, the movie released in 1990, followed on the heels of her 1988 off-Broadway stage production ... what she and others refer to in the movie as her "smash-hit one-woman show."<br /><br />There were several changes in monologues and one-liners, and the movie version visually re-vamps the story, taking Sandra from a fabulous existence as a successful stage performer in New York, during what she calls her "superstar summer," to an illusory, almost desperate existence back in her home in Los Angeles - her fictional manager in the film refers to it as getting Sandra back "to her roots, to ... upscale supper clubs like the Parisian Room."<br /><br />There's a point to be made here. Sandra tries to appeal her liberal worldview and her sometimes harsh critique of American pop culture to an audience that doesn't completely see it. In L.A. she's playing to a predominantly black audience, trying to relate her ideas when all these people seem to want is "Shashonna," a Madonna-look-alike stripper. And even then, with Shashonna dancing to drum beats that resemble those from "Like a Virgin," there's not much to be said for the audience's enjoyment of the show. The scene in the club throughout the movie is dryer than a bone. A funny scene to catch is of a rotund man from the audience helping Shashonna out of her pants.<br /><br />But, if she's going down, Sandra's doing so with style and force, conveying everything from foul confidence to punctured vulnerability ... right to the point at which she's naked (literally), pleading for acceptance and yet somehow still swimming in the pool of her own transparent stardom. Her depictions of interactions with the likes of Calvin Klein, Jerry Lewis, Bianca Jagger, Ralph Lauren and (what we're lead to believe is) Warren Beatty are fictional and hilarious.<br /><br />Sandra begins her show in her most awkward moment, performing a quiet but mystifying rendition of Nina Simone's song "Four Women" while dressed in a mufti and other African garb, singing lines such as "my skin is black," "my hair is wooly," and "they call me Sweet Thing."<br /><br />She resurrects and celebrates the ghosts of underworld art in a tremendously funny description of the frenzied estate auction for Andy Warhol: "Leave it to Andy to have the wisdom and sensitivity into the hours and hours of toil and labor that went into the Indian product ... that they've been so lucky to cash in on this whole Santa Fe thing happening."<br /><br />She expounds on the excessiveness of Hollywood, consoling a distraught friend then admonishing him, saying "Mister, if this is about Ishtar, I'm getting up right now and walking out of your life forever because that's too self-indulgent even for me!"<br /><br />Sandra illustrates the expectations of women in the age of feminism. Dressed as a Cosmo girl, Sandra retells her young-girl fantasy to become an executive secretary and marry her boss. She eventually concludes in relief, "I'll never be a statistic, not me. I'm under 35, and I'm going to be married!"<br /><br />Sandra extols the opening of sexuality in society: "When he touches you in the night, does it feel all right, or does it feel real? I say it feels real... MIGHTY real."<br /><br />Finally, she cries for change in progressive American society by channeling disco greats Patrick Cowley and Sylvester and proclaiming, "Eventually everyone will funk!"<br /><br />All this comes in the form of glitzy, schmaltzy but wonderful cabaret performances of songs written and originated by Billy Paul, Burt Bacharach, Hank Williams and Laura Nyro, to name a few. At the same time, the idealized, fictional incarnation of Sandra -- her self-generated mirror image -- floats around town, a beautiful black model with flowing gowns and tight bustiers reading the Kabala, studying chemistry and listening to NWA rap music.<br /><br />In Without You I'm Nothing, Sandra Bernhard explores emotions and existences that, up until then, she'd only toyed with as a regular guest on Late Night With David Letterman. Her almost child-like enthusiasm for shock, exhibited throughout the '80s, is thrown aside in the face of a subtler allure, and her confidence in the face of materialism and American celebrity proves refreshing. This approach to comedy would change Sandra's direction forever and mark the more mature, more personable entertainer to come.<br /><br />If you like subtle humor to the point of engaging in inside jokes about glamour, celebrity, sex, loneliness, despair and shallow expressions of love and kinship, this movie will keep you in stitches. It may not be meant to be funny across the board. Perhaps it's a bit unsettling or even maudlin for some. But consider the emptiness of the world Sandra paints for you, and you'll understand just how funny and brilliant she really is.<br /><br />But see Without You I'm Nothing with a friend "in the know" because it's definitely funnier that way. Before you know it, the two of you will be trading Sandra barbs and confusing the hell out of everyone else. | 1pos
|
I really wanted to like this, but in the end it's a poorly made film with too few laughs.<br /><br />The politics are spot on, it's gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that's what it's designed to do. That alone gives me reason to chuckle.<br /><br />The problem is, it looks like it was made in a REAL hurry (like about a week). And it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer, which seems to be completely off topic.<br /><br />Turiqistan is obviously Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other number of countries the US has f**ked with since the 50s. The humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by Tamerlane corporation) but it IS on the mark, especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction ("democracy lite"!) <br /><br />However like a lot of satire criticising the US, it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. I guess it's running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. Who knows. I prefer more of a nudge, wink approach - a bit of subtlety. But that's just me.<br /><br />Anyway I might watch it again, perhaps I missed something.<br /><br />I'm hoping "W" is more on the mark. | 0neg
|
The progression of the plot is enough to "rope one in" and create curiosity about the outcome. However, ultimately, the feeling that remains is that the producers of the movie forgot to end it. If the intention was to create a perpetual circle (occasionally done in the Twilight Zone), it was too sloppy to view as a positive effort. | 0neg
|
I won't try to speculate as to what Brando was attempting. At his best he turns in such oddball performances, insinuating so many things at once, that it doesn't seem he does anything so much as play by unfailing instinct. Often it seems he is calling attention to some favored aspect of his character over all others, a concentration which, if followed, turns out something of a red herring, as he turns out subtler, craftier than at first appeared. This is a mastery of artifice, not naturalism, as might be associated with the Method. The role of Sky Masterson, as Mankiewicz so wonderfully realized, seems tailored for him, which is to begin with odd, and odd still at the end, because whatever it is Brando has done, he has managed a grace maybe all his own, but a consummate grace nonetheless -- again, odd, coming from an actor with limited musical ability, not ever before or after associated with the musical comedy. Jean Simmons, also oddly cast, is not quite as impressive, but certainly above just-adequate, really delightful in the Havana sequence, and never less than enjoyable throughout. <br /><br />And yet...perhaps because actors are both so concentrated on what it is they are doing, and characters on what it is they intend of each other, there doesn't seem to be the lovers' "chemistry" brought up so insistently more than once. Brando/Sky Masterson and Simmons/Sister Sarah respectively feed off one another well enough, but I for one don't see more beyond that. In a movie this outrightly dazzling and entertaining (and most everything about it, craft-wise, is just that -- dazzling), that lack would seem something tactfully and easily overlooked, but so much would depend upon true chemistry! An, at least partial, transformation of the characters through such chemistry, would lend something positively moving to the final scene. As it is, one leaves this film certainly delighted, but not really moved, except in a way as to negate the trueness of the union. Note Sister Sarah marries in her missionary's uniform, Sky Masterson in his same natty man-about-town duds rather than wedding tux. And they have changed back to those from their previous scene!<br /><br />Funnily enough (that is, insightfully), the most touching, and most serious, scene is, I think, between Brando and Vivian Blaine, as Sinatra/Nathan Detroit's doll, Adelaide, the only scene where these two are exclusively together, not least because there is just no hint of flirtation between them even though it takes place in Adelaide's dressing-room while Adelaide is about to change. Though one may submit there is no place for that, Sky really is the type to "check out" Adelaide in this sort of circumstance. He is even there to tell Adelaide Nathan will not be meeting her to elope. Adelaide and Sky are both true in their respective ways to Nathan, even piteous of him, as is demonstrated through a tone in their exchange. Adelaide is of course also frustrated and disappointed, but her anger is mitigated by her deeper feeling for Nathan, as Sky is admonishing her that she can't love a man and then wish him to be someone else.<br /><br />Guys and Dolls is another turn at the battle of the sexes, around the themes of gambling and salvation. Since both the compulsive gambler and the salvation seeker are more or less unconsciously courting despair, there just may be a dark secret deliberately behind Brando's and Simmons' lack of chemistry. After all, that lack may well denote an excess of narcissistic preoccupation (echoed by the Sinatra/Blaine pairing, though with considerably less self-deception involved), which might explain Brando's and Simmons' odd, rather provoking, interpretations of Sky Masterson and Sister Sarah. I realize Simmons may be mostly depicting coldness and skepticism, but Brando, though playing to confront her, isn't exactly heated and eager, and is more than keeping his distance -- he's also assimilating it, keeping his balance through it. His boldness consists in merely playing against her -- the trip to Cuba, a kiss, whatever it takes -- but he is not actually set on winning through seducing her so much as beating her then in her own turf. This may be shrewd, as playing to zeal may be the only way to get to the missionary, and through. But it makes Sky's transition from merely trying to win a bet to actually wanting Sarah Brown a little less than persuasive. Yet why does he want her? What does falling in love mean to Sky? I find the only way to get around this is by indeed accepting his humanity has kicked in, and that he does not want to end up a mere cad toward Sister Sarah, so he does, as he's promised her, need to deliver the sinners to her prayer meeting, make good by his "marker," as he puts it, as a way of winning her back when it seems he had already won only to lose her. But this still denotes self-concern more than anything. However, it also allows for Sarah Brown's own self-concern, as Sky will placate the missionary in her in order to get back the lover. Neither, at least it seems, will change much by their union, except perhaps in the acceptance of the other. Yet that would seem an all but fatally uneasy proposition: acceptance of is still quite a cry away from achieving happiness in the other, let alone the transcendence they each seem to imply by "chemistry." And behind all this, I suspect is Mankiewicz's full knowing.<br /><br />For all those who might say, in defense of Guys and Dolls yet, that not much can be expected from musicals by way of depth, I need only remind them Cabaret, The Three-penny Opera, Carousel, A Star is Born, even The Sound of Music, which I don't care for as much (and one can keep adding to this list without even reaching forward toward post-Cabaret musicals), all wrap gorgeous music and dance around dire anxieties. | 1pos
|
Lars Von Triers Europa is an extremely good film. How's that? Von Trier has a very stylized way to tell a story, at least he did have with Europa. To me the whole film was like an experience even if I did see it on a small television screen. Even with all the tricks, in my opinion, this film is the most complete, REAL and moving piece of cinema then most of the films on the top 250 list. I also think it is perhaps the scariest, the most gothic and complete film around. All right there are other good ones too, but this one is my favorite. The final scene is one of the most harrowing scenes ever. | 1pos
|
Deathtrap is not a whodunit. It's a who gonna do it to who first. It's so hard to describe this movie without giving anything away so I won't mention anything more about the plot. As far as acting goes it is Cris Reeves greatest role as Clifford, a young playwrite. You really see the range in his acting abilities in this movie from "exhaling cheeseburgers" to downright frightening. Clifford is such a hard role to play and in the stage production of this I have never seen Clifford played well on both ends of the spectrum. The actor plays him as a little puppy or a homicidal maniac. Reeves is the only person I have seen who has the character right all the way through. As for Michael Caine he's.....well he's Michael Caine. One of the best actors of the last 50 years and in this film as good as he has ever been. | 1pos
|
So when i was little i got this movie as a present and my sister and i loved it. we would watch it all the time. when our friends came over we would have sleepovers and we'd watch big rock candy mountain and grandpa's magical toys. I'm 21 now and i still love this movie, some old friends and i recently got together and watched it, we knew all the songs and we danced and talked about how much we hated Profster when we were little. One friend actually bought this movie and grandpa's magical toys for her 2 year old daughter because she wants to pass on our love of this movie. This really is a movie you can let your kids watch and feel safe, no violence, no bad language, just lots of great songs and important lessons. | 1pos
|
I'd heard of Eddie Izzard, but had never seen him in action. I knew he was a transvestite, and when I saw he was on HBO one night last summer, I put it on, not knowing how my husband would react. Well, he blew us away. He's better than Robin Williams ever was. He has total control of the audience; when he does the 'Englebert is dead - no he's not', routine, the audience doesn't know what to think by the end. God as James Mason is also an inspired touch, and his version of the Python Spanish Inquisition as carried out by the Church of England - 'Cake or Death?' is priceless. My jaws were aching from laughter by the end of the show. We scoured the TV listings for months after that to be able to see him again, and were lucky enough to tape him the next time he came on. If you get the chance to see this show, cancel everything and tape it, you won't be disappointed. | 1pos
|
I saw this movie a million years (5 years to be exact) ago for the first the time. In the light of recent events with the Australian woman Schapelle Corby being imprisoned in Indonesia for so called smuggling pot, I decided to watch this movie again. I excepted to cry my heart out, 'cause I'm sucker for hot girls in need (just read my review of 'the stalking of Laurie Show'). Some moist escaped my eyes, but it were hardly buckets filled with tears. Why? Not because the two heroines weren't utterly adoring and helpless, not because the movie wasn't heartbreaking at the sight of these two kids in the prime of their live locked up in almost inhuman conditions. Why then? Why did I not cry? I wanted to cry! When I rent a movie like this, I except to be moved, to sob like there's no tomorrow, to feel miserable and like it. This movie was simply too short to do this. It was just like the script was reduced to the main plot elements, and while doing this the psychological aspect was thrown aside. Clare Danes and Kate Beckinsale did an excellent job portraying the emotions of the two friends, but this movie just screamed for more footage of these girls in their depressing (and oppressing) surroundings. The mental journey is missing here for some reason. You only get to see the key moments of it (which are very touching, I admit), probably because of bad editing. Sometimes I felt these girls were walking around in a postcard. The relationship with the family members could also have used a bit more attention. What's up with the relationships between the girls and the parents (especially between Alice and her dad)? You catch a glimpse of it, but the film doesn't quite offer the whole picture, sadly enough.<br /><br />Nonetheless this was a great movie, and at the end I even had to bite my lip a bit. But I guess this has more to do with the acting skills (and the looks) of the actresses (and the music) then with the merit of the director. To be honest, I hardly knew who Kate Beckinsale was before I watched this movie (again). Now, I am a fan! Great movie, as long as you don't expect it to be classic cinema. | 1pos
|
I cannot accept the negative comments of other reviewers. They are too critical, perhaps because they are stuck in the past. I would like to see a comment from someone who had never seen Basic Instinct 1, perhaps someone very young ? I left the cinema feeling glad that I had not been swayed by the IMDb reviewers. 14 hours later I am still trying to find flaws in the plot but I cannot think of anything serious. My advice to everyone is see it for yourself and make up your own mind.<br /><br />It follows a similar pattern to Basic Instinct 1 but the plot is less confused. It still left me wondering at the end but in a more satisfactory way. Sharon Stone is as sexy and evil as before and wears her 48 years extremely well; this remains her defining role. David Morrisey was satisfactory even though he is no Michael Douglas. Of the supporting cast I particularly liked David Thewlis as the police detective. | 1pos
|
I only rented this because i loved the first movie. However, calling it John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos is just a con trick to get you to rent it. He is in fact executive producer and clearly had nothing to do with the making of this film (Jeepers Creepers Anyone?)<br /><br />A tragic storyline, terrible special effects and Jon Bon Jovi as the least convincing Vampire Hunter of all time. It's not even comically bad.<br /><br />What we end up with is a dull, uninvolving film with a terrible script and indefinsibly bad and clichéd acting. It just reeks of low budget.<br /><br />Avoid like the Bubonic plague. | 0neg
|
Annie's wig does not look good. she is not cute and pretty enough to play Annie. Annie sticks out in the movie, as her outfits look like Halloween costumes. terrible acting and terrible plots. This movie is such a change from the 1982 version. I think that a younger and smaller girl should have had the lead role. Ashley Johnson portrays a very boyish Annie. Not appealing at all. At least the casting director got it right with Daddy Warbucks. Ms. Hannigan was also miscast. Camilla Belle played Molly alright. "Warning" this movie might insult your IQ so you might just want to only show it to very young children. 8 and younger. Some of the plots are too fictional and could hardly take place in the real world. | 0neg
|
Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the "plot" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews I have seen "user reviews" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that "praise" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it. | 0neg
|
After a cold sex scene, between Andy and Gina, in South America, we know that Andy is a payroll manager who finds himself in a hard economic situation where he badly needs some extra money
We also discover that he has been stealing from his job and using the money to his drug habits
He's also attempting to keep up with his wife, who just might be having an affair
<br /><br />To solve all their problems, he persuades his brothera likable loserto join him in a plan to steal their own parent's small store
Their parents are happily married and proprietors of a jewelry store situated in New York's Westchester County
Sixty thousand dollars is all they'll need to get their life out of desperation
<br /><br />Three main characters are important in this movie
<br /><br />First the two brothers
Each of them is a complex individual, threatened with multiple motivations, and sunk into doubts and disappointments
The two are desperate characters, financially and emotionally
<br /><br />Andy is selfish
He feels that he has never had the love of his father
He is the corrupting influence, turning his brother into an assailant, and his beautiful woman into an adulteress
<br /><br />Hank is a puppet too weak to resist his brother's wishes
His ex-wife is one of the reasons he needs money as he owes her hundreds in child support
. He longs to regain the confidence he once had with his father
<br /><br />The third character is their weary and deplorable father Charles Hanson (Albert Finney), especially in the haunting climactic scenes
<br /><br />Telling you more about the details could lessen the impact of the film, and therefore the entertainment...<br /><br />Tomei's performance conveys great depth and emotion even with her look, her touch, her particular move
<br /><br />Lumet's direction is firm, fresh and brutal. | 1pos
|
but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any. | 0neg
|
An interesting look at Japan prior to opening to the West. John Wayne as America's first consul to Japan arrives in accordance with agreements resulting from Perry's gunboat diplomacy. He is not welcome. Wayne eventually wins his meeting with the Shogun after bring a cholera epidemic, introduced by an American ship, under control. There follows a colorful procession to the capital bearing gifts for the Shogun, including a bottle of Old Tanglefoot. The meeting with the Shogun, the debates among the Japanese nobles and an assassination during an archery exhibit present an interesting look at the politics of the period. Altogether a rather enjoyable movie and besides how often do you get to see the Duke lose a fight to a guy half his size. | 1pos
|
My favorite Jackie Chan movie will always be "Drunken Master" (1978), followed by this film from 1985, "Police Story." In it, Chan plays a Hong Kong super-cop who busts a notorious crime lord and his gang, and is then assigned to protect the man's girlfriend (Brigitte Lin) so that she can turn state's evidence. As the story goes on, the gangster sends his goons to dispatch Lin, but Chan takes matters into his own fists and feet, while keeping girlfriend Maggie Cheung at bay. Like "Drunken Master," "Police Story" has many of the signature stunts and over-the-top martial arts/action choreography that Chan has become famous for, climaxing in a battle royal at a crowded shopping mall. In his role as director, Chan exceeds in excellence, giving a charismatic and funny performance that accentuates the action. While light on the overall slapstick humor of "Drunken Master," at heart "Police Story" is just that, a police story, a gritty cop-thriller that would be oft-copied over the years to come.<br /><br />10/10 | 1pos
|
If ever anyone queries whether cinema is an art form, you can do worse than pointing them at this movie.<br /><br />Quite simply it is the perfect combination of story, script, actors and cinematography ever committed to celluloid.<br /><br />The story of a doomed bomber pilot who is missed by his heavenly conductor in the English fog during the second world war, and his subsequent brushes with the celestial authorities (or is it in his head) is played with panache by David Niven and Kim Hunter and is incredibly touching - especially in the opening scenes when the doomed pilot (Niven) describes his plight to the ground radio operator (Hunter).<br /><br />The sense of otherworldliness is heightened by Jack Cardiff's photography and the incredible production designs.<br /><br />The supreme touches extend to the heaven shots appearing in black and white and earthbound scenes presented in Technicolour - this is even mentioned by the celestial conductor (a fantastic Marius Goring).<br /><br />Not only a highpoint in British cinema, but a highpoint in cinema, period. | 1pos
|
Atlantis: The Lost Empire is a better movie than I thought. I never thought this movie would lead to my expectations. True, this movie started slow, but as the movie wore on it became more to my liking. The story takes place in 1914 and is about a guy named Milo. Milo believes in the fabled Atlantis. Along with friends of his grandfather, he embarks on an amazing adventure of his own. Along the way, he must endear friendship, betrayal, trust, and more. The voice cast is great. They surely know how to carry movies with only their voice talent. The music is nothing special but likable anyway. The animation is not the best, but it is still good enough. Overall, this is a good family movie for all ages. I rate this movie 9/10. | 1pos
|
"the day time ended" is an incredible picture. in some ways, it's better than "close encounters of the third kind." (i prefer cheesy independent flicks to big budget spectaculars.) the special effects ARE cheesy, but that's a big part of the fun. jim davis gives an excellent performance in this film. it's probably one of the best roles he ever had in a feature. the musical score is very good. the story DOESN'T make sense. BUT THAT ONLY MAKES IT ALL THE MORE INTRIGUING. like many of the best works of art, "the day time ended" isn't afraid to be subtle and ambiguous. "the day time ended" may be a low budget indie film, but it isn't too much of a stretch to compare it with the "existential" European films of the fifties and sixties. (many of which were low budget independent productions themselves.) | 1pos
|
This weekend just passed I watched "28 Weeks Later" which was very good. After that I watched this film. <br /><br />I have tell you it is one of the most boring so called horror you could ever watch. The scenes were unrealistic, there was no script and no plot. The alien creature was unreal. And the fight scenes mild compared to a school yard fight. And to make it worse the guy named Cody had an uncontrollable loose filthy tongue which distracts attention from the main film.<br /><br />Forget about this movie; rather go and watch 28 Weeks Later.<br /><br />Cheers, Mesake C. | 0neg
|
I would have liked to give this movie a zero but that wasn't an option!! This movie sucks!!! The women cannot act. i should have known it was gonna suck when i saw Bobby Brown. Nobody in my house could believe i hadn't changed the channel after the first 15 minutes. the idea of black females as gunslingers in the western days is ridiculous. it's not just a race thing, it's also a gender. the combination of the two things is ridiculous.i am sorry because some of the people in the movie aren't bad actors/actresses but the movie itself was awful. it was not credible as a movie. it might be 'entertaining' to a certain group of people but i am not in that group. lol. and using a great line from a great, great movie..."that's all I have to say about that." | 0neg
|
I completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.<br /><br />It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).<br /><br />It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.<br /><br />Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.<br /><br />avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN. | 0neg
|
This has the funnist jokes out of all the Cheech & Chong flicks. It's the first one I saw with these guys. I found it to be really good. My dad actually recommended me to get it. WHAT A GREAT ROLE MODEL, and my GRANDMA actually bought it for me, knowing what it was like. What a family I have. Well this movie is pretty good and great to rent when you want to see a good classic. I must warn you though, this isn't gut-busting funny. It has its moments but not as funny as There's Something About Mary. Check it out anyway. I'm sure you'll laugh. Unless your an anti-drug activist or something. | 1pos
|
... and I actually gave it a ZERO on my personal 1-10 scale. I have been attending movies since 1952 and have seen well over 1000 in the theater (I don't rate movies that I see only on TV). This is the ONLY movie I have ever rated ZERO.<br /><br />My wife and I took our four children (then aged 15, 11, 8 and 6) and even the kids thought it was terrible. In fact, it was my daughter (now 26) who alerted me to this site (amazed that the movie was getting an overall rating of 4+).<br /><br />The animation of the dinosaurs looked amateurish at the time (and is even worse in retrospect), the acting (particularly by Sean Young) is atrocious and the story line is simply silly.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
An old vaudeville team of Willy Clark (Walter Matthau) and Al Lewis (George Burns) were one of the best known but they broke up hating each other. Over 20 years later they agree to get together for a TV special...but find out they STILL hate each other. Willy's nephew/agent (Richard Benjamin) tries to get them to work together.<br /><br />A big hit in its day and it won George Burns an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. I (somewhat) liked it. It was written by Neil Simon so its non-stop one-liners. Some of it was funny but making jokes of Willy and Al's senility was NOT. Also I never liked Matthau. I never thought he was a good actor and something about him just rubbed me the wrong way. Also his character here is so caustic you get sick of him quickly. All that aside this was fun. Burns is just great tossing off one-liners with ease and even Matthau was good matching him. Their verbal battles are the best sequences in the movie. Also Benjamin is very good as Willy's nephew trying to get the two of them to work with each other. For me it's worth seeing for Burns alone. This jump started his career in a big way and two years later he had ANOTHER hit with "Oh God". So, this is good. Just good--not great. Matthau's character really makes this hard to love. I give it a 7. | 1pos
|
I had several problems with the movie: <br /><br />(1) The screenplay -- specifically, Kim Basinger's voice over: Movies are not books; they should *show* the action rather than have a voice over *tell* us what's happening. Occasionally I find a movie with a voice over that works, but here it seemed more of a lazy way of writing the script. In fact, it sounded to me as if she was practically reading excerpts from the novel in her voice over.<br /><br />(2) I felt no emotion in the relationship between Jessie and Brother Thomas and also felt that Alex Carter's acting was pretty bad. That's a significant failure for me in defining Jessie's and Thomas' characters -- with no connection between them, it seemed to me as if she just wanted a stud and that for him it was a matter of being sex-deprived. If it had been properly done, the relationship between them would have given much more context to the story.<br /><br />(3) With the book, I understood Jessie's mid-life crisis. In the movie, it seemed more like just plain boredom.<br /><br />On the plus side, I didn't think the movie was so bad as for me to turn off the TV . . . though that thought did occur to me. | 0neg
|
Truly shows that hype is not everything. Shows by and by what a crappy actor abhishek is and is only getting movies because of his dad and his wife. Amitabh as always is solid. Ajay Devgan as always is shitty and useless and the new guy is a joke. The leading lady is such a waste of an actor. Such pathetic movie from such a revered director and from such a big industry. With movies as such I have decreased the amount of bollywood movies I watch.<br /><br />RGV has been making very crappy movies for a while now. Time to get different actors. Hrithek anyone? Bollywood needs Madhuri and Kajol back. Every other leading lady is a half-naked wanna be. Pffffft. | 0neg
|
I've tried to watch this so-called comedy, but it's very hard to bear. This is a bad, narrow-minded, cliché-ridden movie. Definitively not funny, but very much boring and annoying, indeed. Bad script, bad acting. It's a complete waste of time - and there remains nothing more to say, I'm afraid.<br /><br />1 out of 10 points. | 0neg
|
At what point exactly does a good movie go bad? When does a movie go from "watchable" to "where's that &^@_+#!* OFF switch"? Thank goodness for DVDs, like this one, that can be borrowed from the library - for free! Likewise, thank goodness for the "fast forward" switch on the DVD player. I feel sorry for those people who were duped at the box office.<br /><br />At one point (I've forgotten exactly when because now it's all just a blur), our "hero," Luke Wilson starts running through traffic; I think he was looking for a cab. It was at that point when I gave up, realizing I couldn't care whether he found his ride or got run over by a garbage truck.<br /><br />The last time the movie was interesting was when Luke Wilson climbs out of the dumpster, hair dryer in hand, and first meets the "heroine," Uma Thurman. That scene ended with the purse-snatching criminal dangling helplessly from the fire escape far, far above the departing Luke and Uma. That was the last time the movie was funny, and when was that scene? Ten minutes into the flick?<br /><br />Every time the movie tried to become "funny," it couldn't. Every time the movie approached "excitement," it fizzled out, heading in the opposite direction. When a musical score might have helped squeeze life out of this dullard, the sound track stayed empty and silent.<br /><br />The sex scenes were not needed and were beyond lame; the damage to sets and props unnecessary and childish. When Uma turns into the crazy ex-girlfriend, I felt like I was watching "The 40 Year Old Virgin Meets Pulp Fiction"; that's when I realized that there was no turning back because I thoroughly disliked "The 40 Year Old Virgin" and "Pulp Fiction."<br /><br />Luke Wilson's sidekick, Rainn Wilson (also seen in the dreary "The Last Mimzy") adds nothing but insult to injury in this awful movie. Rainn Wilson, the King of Television Boredom, should stay with that equally awful medium. Hey, Rainn Wilson! Leave full-length motion pictures alone! Every time Uma's rival, Anna Faris, came on screen, I expected Jason or Freddy or some fright flick monster to jump out from behind the scenery; once you see Anna Faris in "Scary Movie," that's all you ever see, no matter the movie, no matter the medium. The character played by Wanda Sykes was just plain awful and was so out of place in this flick. | 0neg
|
This was one of the best movies I have seen. The movie relates to real life and how drugs CAN play a major part. Although this movie appears to be produced from a low budget, I found it to be exhilarating to watch.<br /><br />Some may not like the story and say the script is lacking direction. However, when a person gets as deep into drugs as these characters, there is no direction is life. I feel this movie is an accurate representation of what might happen to a person if they are faced with extreme temptations.<br /><br />Most of the cast are newcomers to the industry. However, they all pulled it off very well. Everyone seemed to do their job well and get into character appropriately.<br /><br />I think this movie might be a good tool to use when dealing with a person or loved one that is involved in drugs and appears to be spiraling out of control. This movie might just scare them enough to change their ways. | 1pos
|
I should have known when I looked at the box in the video store and saw Lisa Raye - to me, she's the female Ernie Hudson A.K.A. "Le Kiss of Death" for *ANY* movie. Its almost *guaranteed* the movie will be bad (e.g. Congo)if Hudson is in it (with the exception of the Ghostbusters films, which were intentionally campy and bad). Despite my instincts, and the fact that I just saw Civil Brand, yet another cinematic "tour de force" starring Lisa Raye, I rented it anyway. After all, I ignored my "Hudson instinct" on OZ and ended up watching a very quality series so I figured I'd give this movie a chance.<br /><br />If you are a lover of bad movies, this is a definite must see! This has got to be the most unintentionally funny movie I've seen in a loooong time. The plot is fairly straightforward: Racheal's (Monica Calhoun) sister is killed by a band of brigands (Led by Bobby Brown!) and, like many an action movie before this, she straps on her guns ONE LAST TIME and vows to avenge her sisters death. To do this, she reassembles the titular Gang of Roses (supposedly based on a true story of a female gang) and they go out and exact revenge and, along the way, there's some subplot or something or other about some gold that might be buried in the town. One nice thing I will say about this movie is that from what I could tell, the stars did their own riding and they looked GREAT galloping.<br /><br />The funniest (albiet unintentionally funny) scenes? Look for when they introduce Stacy Dash's character or when Calhoun's character rescinds her vow not to strap on her guns (replete with a clenched fisted cry to the heavens) or Lil' Kim's character joking with Lisa Raye's character or Stacy Dash's character being killed or Lil' Kim's character convincing Lisa Raye's character to rejoin the gang or the Asian Chick or Macy Grey's character talking bout "The debt is paid", etc. With the exception of Calhoun's Racheal and Bobby Brown's Left-Eye, I can't even remember the names of the other characters cuz I was laughing so hard when they were introduced.<br /><br />If the director had gone for parody and broad comedy this would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, he tries to take it seriously seemingly without first taking exposition, sound design (in his defense, Hip-Hop is notoriously difficult to work into a period piece), set design, script writing nor period historical research (was it me,or were these the cleanest people with the whitest teeth in the old west?) seriously. Usually when I see a movie that's not so good, I ask myself "Could you have done any better?" This is the first time in a long time where the answer is an unequivocal "YES!" | 0neg
|
It says that a girl named Susan Montford both wrote and directed this "movie." No wonder she has no other credits to her name for writing or directing. She made a severe vocational error in choosing this as her career. This is one of the worst human creations of this millennium.<br /><br />The fundamental thing wrong with this movie other than its ridiculous story of a woman running away from four weak thugs, is the blatant and complete lack of LOGIC.<br /><br />**After she leaves the mall, she gets approached by four thugs as they surround her. Tell me, what woman would aggressively SHOVE a potential attacker while being surrounded, and insult them verbally? I don't mean after an attack had already started, because then of course it's completely normal for someone to fight back. But she shoved that guy and pretty much escalated it to the next level. No woman would do that unless she 1) had a weapon, 2) has the confidence of knowing that backup is very close, and so is relatively safe from harm, or 3) the attackers are so young, and weak looking that she's pretty sure she can take them. None of that applied in this situation, so she was just acting like someone that's asking to get raped or mugged. And by the way, when the security guard approached, as SOON as he came within viewing distance of Kim Basinger, why wouldn't she immediately either run towards him for help, or scream?? <br /><br />**When she drives off after the security guard gets shot in the head, she drives into a deserted part of town, and crashes. She had a good three minute lead on the pursuers, instead of simply running off on foot in a diagonal direction behind houses and climbing fences and continuing, she gets out her Red Toolbox and starts messing around under her hood. I understand she was trying to fix her car, but she should've ran.<br /><br />(I didn't even mean this to be a chronological summary of the movie, because I loathe people who do that in their reviews, but it just so happens that every main sequence of this movie has something so blatantly stupid that I have to comment on it).<br /><br />**Why would she carry a loud, Red Toolbox as she's trying to sneak away in the dark? When she does get caught, one of the jokers demands for her to open the toolbox. First she resists, then eventually opens it. And takes out a wrench. This scene here is so rich in subtle overtones of the complete failure of dramatic effect I have to break it down, it's one of the dumbest scenes in the entire movie. When asked to open the box, she's resisting at first as if it were her plan to somehow get one of the thugs to open it themselves out of anger after she didn't open it, in the same way that someone in some action movie might have some device that an enemy demands that person to touch/push/open/manipulate, and once that hero refuses to open it, the enemy grabs that device, only to have that device automatically dispense a chemical/shoot him in the face/render him unconscious, which was the hero's plan all along. It feels like that's what they tried to do with Kim Basinger here, as she opens the toolbox dramatically and quickly takes out a WRENCH and dispatches one of the thugs, and somehow GETS AWAY from him and the three other thugs.<br /><br />**Throughout the rest of the movie, basically what you see is this suburban house wife, sneaking around the woods as she carries her Red Toolbox, taking out various tools used as weapons to KILL HER ATTACKERS.<br /><br />**When she was running away, how did she end up moving BACK to where the thugs were? I think it was the scene where they had that radio playing loudly in tribute to the dead dude. She somehow crept up on them when I thought she was moving AWAY from them.<br /><br />**Finally, this whole premise is so weak because the whole reason she's being chased in the first place is because from the thugs' perspective, she was a witness to a murder they committed against the security officer earlier, and so they felt they had to kill her. How ridiculous. As one of the thugs even said, they could've just left town and returned back to whatever city they drove from, no one but her had seen them anyway, and she probably didn't get the license plate. Even if these possibilities wouldn't work in their favor, how is raising hell and hunting down someone to kill them improving your chances to get away with the original murder? | 0neg
|
This movie is finally out on DVD in Italy (completely restored). I have seen this movie so many times and I find it even actual these days (2003) when Italy suffers again from a sort of brainwashing dictatorship (or the US for that matter). I am glad there are outcasts as the one played by Mastroianni in this movie who can sing out of tune; maybe they can teach the Sophia Lorens of this world how to be strong and fight to be recognised as human beings.<br /><br />Back to the movie: as most people here already mentioned the acting is wonderful but the audio background is astonishing. I must assume that unfortunately something is lost if you don't understand the Italian language but I can assure you that the show-off of machism, the distortion of reality in that ever-present radio-chronicle of the Hitler visit to Rome can really make you shiver!<br /><br />A masterpiece!<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
I don't know the stars, or modern Chinese teenage music - but I do know a thoroughly entertaining movie when I see one.<br /><br />Kung Fu Dunk is pure Hollywood in its values - it's played for laughs, for love, and is a great blend of Kung Fu and basketball.<br /><br />Everybody looks like they had a lot of fun making this - the production values are excellent - and modern China looks glossier than Los Angeles here.<br /><br />The plot of the abandoned orphan who grows up in a kung fu school only to be kicked out and then discover superstardom as a basketball play (and love and more etc;) is great - this is fresh, fun, and immensely entertaining.<br /><br />With great action and good dialogue this is one simply to enjoy - for all ages - and for our money was one of the best family movies we're seen in a long time.<br /><br />Please ignore the negative reviews and give Dunk a chance - we were really glad we did - a GOOD sports comedy movie. | 1pos
|
LOVE AT THE TOP--the utterly wrongheaded American title for the superb French film "Le Mouton Enrage" (which means, I think, The Rabid Sheep)-- is such an original movie, the fact that it dates back to 1974 seems all the more astounding. This film was far ahead of its time; even by today's highest standards, it accomplishes things that seem rich and new. Filmed by the hugely underrated director Michel Deville, it rather defies description in the way it combines social critique, comedy, mystery, love, sex and satire into one wholly original mix--leaving for the end a major but subtle surprise to render all that has gone before suddenly sad and more understandable. The cast is splendid, ditto the writing and theme. But it's Deville's delicious tone, keeping you constantly off-balance but enrapt, that pushes this "lost" film to a very high level indeed. (The written interview with the director on the "Special Features" section of the DVD is definitely worth reading if you have the time.) | 1pos
|
This was awful. Andie Macdowell is a terrible actress. So wooden she makes a rocking horse look like it could do a better job. But then remember that turn in Four Weddings, equally as excruciating. Another film that portrays England as full of Chocolate box cottages, and village greens. I mean that school, how many schools apart from maybe Hogwarts look like that? The twee police station looked like the set from Heartbeat ( a nauseating British series set in the 60s).This film just couldn't make its mind up what it wanted to be- a comedy or a serious examination of the undercurrents in women's friendships. If it had stuck to the former then the graveyard sex scenes and the highly stupid storming of the wedding might just have worked( i say just). But those scenes just didn't work with the tragedy in the second half. I also find it implausible that Kate would ever speak to Molly again after her terrible behaviour. A final note- what is a decent actress like Staunton doing in this pile of poo? Not to mention Anna Chancellor. Macdowell should stick to advertising wrinkle cream. | 0neg
|
Great battle finale and nice sets help keep this often-slow movie enjoyable. At times it had me checking my watch, although there were enough memorable moments to make the film stand out in my mind days after watching it. The ending should surprise even those familiar with the Nibelungen story line. | 1pos
|
A series of random, seemingly insignificant thefts at her sister's boarding house has Miss Lemon quite agitated. A ring, light bulbs, a rucksack, a lighter, a stethoscope, a shoe there seems to be no rhyme or reason to any of it. Miss Lemon asks her employer, the great Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, to look into the matter. But what Poirot sees is something far more sinister than Miss Lemon could have imagined. And Poirot's fears are confirmed when one of the students living in the boarding house if found murdered. It's up to Poirot to bring a killer to justice.<br /><br />Hickory Dickory Dock is a solid, but not spectacular, entry in the long running Poirot series. I appreciate how faithful the script is to Agatha Christie's original story. I realize that certain liberties had to be taken, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless. The major points of the mystery are all there the petty thefts, the boarding house, the students, the ripped rucksack, and, of course, Poirot's ability to see something sinister going on before it actually happens. With a few exceptions, the cast of students is almost as I pictured them. Damian Lewis and Jessica Lloyd standout among the group. As mush as I always enjoy David Suchet's Poirot, I get a real kick out of the episodes with Phillip Jackson's Inspector Japp and Pauline Moran's Miss Lemon. This episode is a real treat as Miss Lemon gets more screen time than usual. Finally, I enjoyed the use of the ever present mouse as an observer of the activities in the hostel. It's a fun little play on the Hickory Dickory Dock title.<br /><br />I realized while re-watching Hickory Dickory Dock just what a tremendous influence Agatha Christie's work was on the highly stylized Italian mystery films, or Gialli, of the 60s and 70s. Take the murder of Mrs. Nicoletis as an example. If you were to bump up the graphic nature of the scene, you would have something straight out of an early 70s Giallo. In fact, the entire plot of Hickory Dickory Dock could have been used in a Giallo. It's just convoluted and interesting enough to have worked. | 1pos
|
There are exactly 2 good things to be said about "Fantasies" (both mentioned by a previous reviewer as well): <br /><br />a) Bo Derek's extraordinary, poetry-inspiring beauty. She has shots in this movie where she gives even Catherine Zeta-Jones a run for her money, and that's a high compliment indeed. Her nudity is brief and discreet, but just looking at her face is enough.<br /><br />b) The Greek island setting, with its sun and crystal-clear blue waters.<br /><br />Other than that, there is no story, the dialogue is abysmal and at times unintentionally funny ("He touched you where you're a woman!"), and Peter Hooten's character is a slimy jerk. Bo overplays the naivete of her character, but then again when you have to work with dialogue this bad it's unfair to blame the actors (the fact that she kept saying the name "Damir" in almost every sentence is a major irritation). Oh, and although the film is set on a Greek island, there is hardly a Greek word to be heard - apparently everyone there, from kids to old people, speaks English the whole time. (*) | 0neg
|
I looked at this movie with my child eyes, and I wasn't disappointed. The story is well-known, some abandoned orphan has to be brought to his parents by an improbable trio (mamooth - sabertooth tiger and a lazy animal)... And I don't want to forget to mention the incredible small fury animal with his hazenut. This one really made me laugh a lot during the whole picture.<br /><br />Briefly : it works, it is funny and it is a "must-see" with your children (they'll like it). | 1pos
|
I've seen the original non-dubbed German version and I was surprised how bad this movie actually is. Thinking I had seen my share of bad movies like Ghoulies 2, Rabid Grannies, Zombie Lake and such, nothing could've prepared me for this! It really was a pain to sit through this flick, as there's no plot, no good acting and even the special effects aren't convincing, especially the so-called zombies, wearing nothing more than white make-up and their old clothes, so their good set wouldn't be ruined by ketchup and marmalade stains. <br /><br />If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then watch it, for all the others, don't do it, because you WILL regret it! | 0neg
|
This was one of the funniest and greatest sitcom to hit national television. Its unfortunate that the show is not placed amongst great sitcoms where it truly belongs. The actors did a superb job and seasons one thru six were the show at its peak point. Although season seven was not as great when compared to the previous six, it was still funny. Season 8 was the real problem kicked in. Without Topher grace or Ashton Kutcher the show simply fell apart. Not too say, the other actors weren't great if any of 2 main characters had left such as Danny Masterson, Wilder Valderamma Kurtwood Smith, Debra Jo Rupp, Mila Kunis and Laura Prepon ( Don Starks and tommy Chong are great too) left the show it would have the same affect. And the inclusion of Randy ( Josh Meyers) didn't help either because he was not well received by the shows fans. I believe if the show ended a year ago it would have certainly gone down in history as one of the sitcom greats. Season 8 was a little dull but the finale was excellent. I am going to miss the show, i just hope i wake up one day to find out the show is back as That 80's show with the same cast because i am going to miss the hell out of it. | 1pos
|
It's very sad that Lucian Pintilie does not stop making movies. They get worse every time. Niki and Flo (2003) is a depressing stab at the camera. It's unfortunate that from the many movies that are made yearly in Romania , the worst of them get to be sent abroad ( e.g. Chicago International Film Festival). This movie without a plot , acting or script is a waste of time and money. Score: 0.02 out of 10. | 0neg
|
Elizabeth Rohm was the weakest actress of all the Law and Order ADA's and her acting is even worse here. Her attempts at a Texas accent are amateurish and unrealistic. Nor can she adequately summon the intense emotions needed to play the mother of a kidnapped child; at times while her daughter is missing she manages to sound only vaguely annoyed, as if she can't remember where she left her keys.<br /><br />This is an important true story, so it's too bad that the awful acting of the lead actress distracts so much from the message. The rest of the cast is talented enough, but they just can't overcome Rohm's tendency to simply lay on a particularly thick imitation of a Southern drawl whenever actual acting is required. | 0neg
|
"GI Samurai" sees Sonny Chiba and some other guys get transported back to civil war stricken feudal Japan for no particular reason, and much carnage ensues. It's a rather over the top essay of sword vs. machine gun that ultimately yields some interesting results.<br /><br />The plot essentially runs along the rails that you might expect from the title; initial fish-out-the-water antics ("what is this flying metal box?" etc etc), "aren't we better off here" discussions and ultimately a huge battle. The latter is proof that the film doesn't take itself seriously at all, the carnage taking up most of the second half as samurai army battles Chiba's platoon; a face off one would fully expect from the title but it still manages to overwhelm with its inventiveness and extravagance. It's certainly one of the most unique battle sequences of its time and doesn't drag despite its extended length.<br /><br />Chiba gives a gruff performance as Iba, initially a good leader but someone who finally finds himself questioning his own morals as the situation slowly has an effect on him. This is certainly one of his better vehicles from his terrific CV. By the final act the two worlds have had such an effect on each other you have to wonder if it was a bit of nihilism on the part of the writers, as they seem to be asking "weren't we better off back then?'. But this is maybe reading a bit much into was can generally be described as a hugely entertaining two hours of (almost) non stop action. | 1pos
|
Just saw this at the 2003 Vancouver International Film Festival and it was funny as hell and a bit surreal. Takes place in Toronto, where these two losers live in this run-down house in the middle of a freeway system. David Hewlett (PIN, CUBE, CYPHER) and Andrew Miller (CUBE) are just great as the two losers who wish the world would just go away. The acting, dialogue and writing are very good, and the whole film looks great for such a low-budget flick. Director/Writer Vincenzo Natali was in attendance at this screening, and he seemed so intelligent and down-to-earth. This guy is so inventive with these great stories that work so well within small budgets, it puts big budget Hollywood crap to shame! | 1pos
|
I don't know what else to say about this horrible movie that hasn't already been said. Honestly I have only myself to be angry with. I should have know better when I saw the title of this movie that it would be a horrible piece of crap, but I loved War Games so I indulged my whim. I will live to regret that decision the rest of my life. From the very start when the government people explained that their super computer could determine who a terrorist was just by how well they played a video game I knew I was in for a ride though the land-that-good-writing-forgot. The list of very, very, very bad plot lines, dialog, and acting is so long I would crash IMDb if I tried to post it. To those people who said that they have seen worst movies than this one please tell me. I am actually curious to see something that could top this steaming pile of horse dung. | 0neg
|
This film is unusual and bizarre, and it is nearly unusual and bizarre in a very good way. I give this short a 7 just because it is so unique and off-the-wall, but much of the time it seems as though it is being bizarre just for the sake of being bizarre. If the film had managed to integrate its more bizarre moments into some semblance of a plot then it would have been really fantastic.<br /><br />The main problem here is that it looks as though the creators just jumbled together a bunch of crap about spatulas, then threw in a whole bunch more crap that sounded as though it would sound funny coming from the mouth of a spatula.<br /><br />This is definitely worth checking out, but it is not top rate by any stretch of the creators wild imaginations. | 1pos
|
Don't believe all of the negative reviews this movie receives. Yes, it is cheaply made. Yes, the gore is laughable. And, yes, the acting is sub-par. However, this is a textbook example of an early slasher flick, and if that is your "thing" (its mine!) then you will enjoy this one. There are enough good aspects to this movie to more than compensate for the drawbacks. For one, the score by a then unknown Christopher Young is very creepy and accents the violence perfectly. The ending is a welcomed break from the predictable upbeat endings of most movies. And last, but not least, the setting is what made the film for me. The makers of this film could have done a much better job "dressing" the set to make it more believable as a college dorm. However, if you can overlook this flaw, the setting is great. Four collegiates all alone in a huge, abandoned, condemned building just waiting to be torn down.... it reaks of possibility. When watching, allow your imagination to do some of the work and you may enjoy this film as much as I did. | 1pos
|
I can catogoricaly and unequivocally say that in all my 51 years on this planet that is the worse (supposibly children's) film i have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />I took my three grand children to see it and even they were struggling to raise a smile during the all tortuous 90 mins. The sexual indendoes i will leave for another day but they were as tasteless as the film. They should pay YOU to watch it not you pay them. It's truly truly awful, there is no other way to describe it. The people that made this film should be brought to task for taking money under false pretences.<br /><br />Aplogise for my spelling mistakes but i am so upset that it spoilt the time i had with my grandchildren Regards, Stephen | 0neg
|
When watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not. <br /><br />The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.<br /><br />"But its a comedy " some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ? <br /><br />"Its not about the plot , its about the laughs" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more. <br /><br />If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man. | 0neg
|
This is a nice piece of work. Very sexy and engaging enough plot to keep my interest throughout. Its main disadvantage is that it seems like it was made-for-TV: Full screen, and though there were several sex scenes, there was absolutely no nudity (but boy did it come close!). Strange, too, since Netflix shows that it was rated R.<br /><br />Nonetheless, very titillating, and I wish Alicia Silverstone made more movies like this.<br /><br />One Netflix reviewer stated that it was part of a series, but I have been unable to find out what series that is. I'd like to find out, though, because this movie was THAT good.<br /><br />Walt D in LV. 8/23/2005 | 1pos
|
i watched this series when it first came out in the 70s.i was 14 years old and i watched it at my best friends house as my dad didn't want to watch it.it became a weekly ritual every Sunday, and as anyone will tell you for two fourteen year olds to watch a documentary in almost reverential silence must mean that this was something special.<br /><br />the broad sweep of the events of world war 2 makes for a difficult subject to document.so the makers broke it down into what they considered to be the most significant key happenings and devoted one episode to each.some episodes covered long periods such as 'wolf pack' which covered nearly all six years of the battle of the Atlantic.while the battle of Stalingrad had one episode to itself.<br /><br />this documentary could not be made today quite simply because most of those interviewed are dead.the list of significant players appearing gives an amazing insight into the thinking at the time.Anthony eden the foreign secretary,Carl donnitz,head of the u-boats,Albert speer,pet architect confident and later armament minister for Hitler.in one of the later episodes we see traudl junge, Hitler's secretary,who was with him in the bunker and it was to her that he dictated his last will and testament-she left the bunker after Hitler's suicide and escaped through the Russian lines.these and many others play a major role in the realism of the events portrayed.<br /><br />if i have any criticism of the series it is that the code-breakers of bletchly park are not included but the revelations of their part in the war only emerged after the series had been made so i cannot blame the programme makers.<br /><br />the opening titles and music are magnificent,and Lawrence Olivier's narration lends a natural gravity to the script.<br /><br />the best documentary series ever made? without doubt.unmissable | 1pos
|
A lot of people hated this movie, but that I blame on two facts - 1 - They want it to be too much like the first couple of American Pie movies. and 2 - they are trying to take it too seriously.<br /><br />This one I found was the best one out of all six, and I absolutely love Dwight. The plot is predictable, I'll say that, but then what teen comedy ISN'T? Road Trip, Dirty Deeds etc etc, they are all incredibly predictable, but still goddamn funny! I say this is worth watching, I love it, I find it hilarious. Just don't watch it while comparing it to the first ones because it's nothing alike.<br /><br />After watching Naked Mile and this one, it became obvious that all the American Pie movies were about, and only about, the Stiflers. Which is FINE by me.<br /><br />Watch. Enjoy. Love. xD | 1pos
|
I didn't feel that this film was quite as clever as it seemed to think it was but enjoyed it nevertheless. <br /><br />It is original, although reminded me a little of two other French films, Vidocq and City of Lost Children, mostly for the colouring but also for the edgy quality of the close ups of the characters.<br /><br />Set in a prison cell but do not let this put you off, this film seemingly goes further than many a multi locationed blockbuster.<br /><br />Always interesting, with the perennial 'Black Arts' well to the fore and very good characterisation making some only too believable! <br /><br />Scary with some gore this is well worth a viewing. | 1pos
|
"Crush" examines female friendship, for the most part avoiding the saccharine quality which spoils so many films with the same theme (e. g., "Steel Magnolias"). At the same time, it reveals the power of a sudden passion to overwhelm and surprise. The events depicted were highly improbable, but the underlying emotional truth seemed very genuine to me. Not a film for the speeding-vehicle-and-explosion crowd, but grown-up women are certain to respond with both laughter and tears. | 1pos
|
The movie starts out with some scrolling text which takes nearly five minutes. It gives the basic summary of what is going on. This could have easily been done with acting but instead you get a scrolling text effect. Soon after you are bombarded with characters that you learn a little about, keep in mind this is ALL you will learn about them. The plot starts to get off the ground and then crashes through the entire movie. Not only does the plot change, but you might even ask yourself if your watching the same movie. I have never played the video game, but know people who have. From my understanding whether you've played the game or not this movie does not get any better. Save your money unless you like to sleep at the theaters. | 0neg
|
When childhood memory tells you this was a scary movie; it's touch and go whether you should revisit it. Anyway, I remembered a scary scene involving a homeless person and a cool villain played by Jeff Kober.<br /><br />"The First Power" is not a very good movie, sad to say. It's chock full of those cop clichés and a very poor script with holes a truck could drive through (along with countless convenient "twists" that help the story run along). Lou Diamond Phillips is the over-confident bad ass cop who sends baddie serial killer Kober to the gas chamber only to find out he was a minion of Satan himself and now has the power of resurrection along with the power of possessing every weak minded person who he comes across. Through in the mix a very poorly realized psychic who helps with the case.<br /><br />Ahhh, this is trash. But enjoyable as such, especially if you have fond memories of it. It scared me as a kid and that scene with the homeless person is still pretty good. As for any kind of logic here; forget it, just about every scenario is thrown in for good measure and you end up with a cross between a Steven Segal action flick and a 70's demonic flick. And who on earth thought it was a good idea to cast Lou Diamond Phillips in the lead here? Needless to say he's not convincing at all but he tries his best and I've never had the problem with the guy so many reviewers here seem to have. As for Tracy Griffith as the psychic, the less said the better. But Kober is pretty good as the killer; always liked that actor.<br /><br />"The First Power" may be just what the doctor ordered after a hard day's work and a "brain switch-off" is needed. Beer will most likely enhance the viewing experience and I'll definitely have loads of it the next time I give this movie a spin. All in all; not a good flick but a somewhat guilty pleasure for nostalgic fans who were easily scared as kids. "See you around, buddy boy"! | 0neg
|
Spider-Man is in my opinion the best superhero ever, and this game is the best superhero game ever. While it may be somewhat easy, you have to play it several times to get all the costumes and comic book covers, which makes up for how easy it is to get through the game. It may seem hard to control at first, but once you get the hang of it, you will be web-slinging like Spider-Man himself.<br /><br />The bosses, while like the levels are somewhat easy, are fun. The first boss, Scorpion, is incredibly easy to beat, which shouldn't be so because as fans of the comic books know, Scorpion is one of Spider-Man's most deadly villains. The second boss, Rhino, is also very easy. The 3rd boss is Venom, who is in my opinion the easiest boss in the game, which definately shouldn't be. The 4th boss is Venom again. This time, he is a little bit more difficult to beat but still easy. The 5th boss is Mysterio, who I think is the funnest boss to battle in the game. He is also one of the harder bosses, but once again, still fairly easy. Next boss is Carnage, who is, you guessed it, easy to beat. But Carnage is actually kind of fun to fight. 7th boss is Doctor Octopus, who is like all the other bosses easy, but not as easy as the other ones because he has a shield. The 8th and final boss is exclusive to the game, never in a comic book or cartoon. I won't spoil it for you for those of you who haven't played the game, but the boss is the only boss in the game that isn't too easy. Took me 4 or 5 tries to beat while the others I beat on the first or second tries.<br /><br />All in all, a very good game. I gave it an 8 out of 10. The reasons why I didn't give it a 9 or 10 are that once you get all the costumes and comic book covers it gets kind of boring (getting all that stuff will take a while though), it is not very accurate according to the comic books or cartoon show, the bosses are too easy, and they should have used Hobgoblin and/or Green Goblin as a boss, I think it would be fun to battle someone flying around in the air! They didn't use them in the sequel to this game either! Well the Green Goblin is the villain in the upcoming Spider-Man movie, so hopefully they will make a video game based on the movie. | 1pos
|
The Three Stooges has always been some of the many actors that I have loved. I love just about every one of the shorts that they have made. I love all six of the Stooges (Curly, Shemp, Moe, Larry, Joe, and Curly Joe)! All of the shorts are hilarious and also star many other great actors and actresses which a lot of them was in many of the shorts! In My opinion The Three Stooges is some of the greatest actors ever and is the all time funniest comedy team! <br /><br />This is a good Three Stooges short. It funny and its cast includes Christine McIntyre,Symona Boniface, Gino Corrado, Fred Kelsey, Sam Flint, Chester Conklin, Theodore Lorch, Lynton Brent, Judy Malcolm, Vernon Dent, John Tyrrell, Heinie Conklin, and Bess Flowers. The Stooges performed very well in this short! I recommend this one! | 1pos
|
Some wonder why there weren't anymore Mrs. Murphy movies after this one. Will it's because this movie totally blew snot. Disney was not the right studio to run this film. MAYBE Touchstone (well, they're owned by Disney, but it'd be more adult). The film is too kid-ish, as the book series is not. The casting is all wrong for the characters. The characters don't even act the way they do in the books. And why was Tucker changed to a guy? He's a girl in the frigging books! Was this done to make the film appeal to boys? Sheesh. And where was Pewter, the gray cat? One of the funniest characters from the book is absent from this filth. Rita Mae Brown is a good writer, but letting Disney blow her work was wrong. An animated feature film, perhaps in the vane of Don Bluth's artwork would suit a better Mrs. Murphy film. Overall, I give this a 2, because at least Disney made a film from an under-appreciated book series. But, I wish they did better. Either way, I still have my books to entertain me. | 0neg
|
This is a really interesting movie. It is an action movie with comedy mixed in. Foxx teams up with comedian Epps in this movie to give it a comedic spin. It will keep you wondering whats going to happen to Foxx next. It was a well shot movie, the director used the right colors in this movie(dark blue colors) to give it the right kind of feel. Kimberly Elise also starred in this movie and it is always a pleasure to see her on the big screen. She plays her role well. Even Jamie Kennedy is in this movie. It's worth seeing it you haven't seen it. It's definitely worth having if you are a Jamie Foxx fan. It deserves more credit than it is actually given. | 1pos
|
Let me give a quick summery of the film: A rotten, rude kid named Max stumbles upon a radio that contains Kazaam: a rapping genie. Like all genies, he grants 3 wishes but, being good natured, also helps Max with his personal life, as he has to deal with bullies and a father mixed up in organized crime. During all this, Kazaam raps from time to time, (also showcasing Shaq's dismal rap skills).<br /><br />This movie proves what we all know: Athletes need to stick to sports. I admit that it never looked like an Oscar-worthy movie, but EVERYTHING about this waste of film is horrible. The characters are either unlikable or stupid, the plot is not even worth mentioning, the dialog is a joke, and Shaq is only a quarter of the problem. Hell, even if Denzel Washington played Kazaam this movie would still be a joke. I know that the movie only drew ANYBODY was because Shaq was so big (no pun intended) at the time. I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing to say about this waste of time. Shaq should have put the time had used to make this movie toward practicing free throws. | 0neg
|
you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />The movie starts out as an ordinary comic-hero-movie. It´s about the boy who is picked on, has no parents and is madly in love with the schools #1 girl. Nothing surprises in the movie, there is nothing that you can´t guess coming in the movie. Toby Mcguire shows us that either he is no good actor or that no actor in the world can save a script like this one. Maybe kids around the age of ten can enjoy the film but it is a bit violent for the youngest. You can´t get away from thinking of movies like X-men, Batman and Spawn. All of those titles are better. I almost walked out the last 20 minutes! One thing that could have been good though was the computeranimation, BUT not even that is anything to put in the christmas-tree! So my recomendation: Don´t see this film even if you get paid for it! | 0neg
|
Uma Thurman plays Sissy, a young woman with a gypsy spirit (and freakishly large thumbs) who hitchhikes cross-country, eventually finding her true place amongst a group of peyote-enlightened cowgirls on a ranch devoted to preserving the Whooping Crane; Rain(bow) Phoenix is their lesbian leader, Bonanza Jellybean, who falls in love with Sissy, thumbs or not. Gus Van Sant directed and adapted Tom Robbins' book, but his satire has no primary target and just skitters all over the map, like Sissy (maybe that was his goal, but it's not involving for an audience). Notorious box-office flop wasn't so much panned as it was ignored, and one can see why: it's a series of sketches in search of a plot, and the performances, directorial touches and cinematography are all variable. Thurman is a stitch posing alongside the highway trying to get a ride, but this pretty much put the kibosh on Phoenix's career. Writer Buck Henry (who didn't write this, but perhaps should have) gives the most assured performance as the doctor who works on one of those thumbs.<br /><br />Two thumbs down. | 0neg
|
I really can say I felt the movie in its right essence where the mind games from dreamy reality enter into the surreal aspect of future faced by Tom Cruise. I didn't cared much about Tom Cruise's acting prowess but I must say that he seems to impress at every point in the movie...not simply due to an engaging storyline but also due to his self being imparted to the lead character....they merge and then speak and its beautiful. However I must say this movie doesn't come under the "average flick of weekend" which you pick at random and watch gleefully; It carries strong sentiments and characters so don't wash this one down with your beer and pop-corns. It certainly needs more than that. | 1pos
|
I was honestly surprised by Alone in the Dark. It was so bad, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There are no characters, just a few stereotypes wandering around and getting killed. The extent of the character development was giving each character a name and an occupation, and that's about it. There was no real plot, and none of the characters seemed to have any motivation. In fact, many action scenes just began on their own, coming from nowhere with a pounding techno track. While I was watching this movie I kept asking "Where is this happening? What's going on?" The acting was high school drama quality, with stiff wooden delivery, as though the actors were reading from cue cards without comprehending their lines. Their trouble delivering lines was made even more obvious by horrible sound design. ADR sounded like it was recorded in an open room. The actors were constantly taking obvious care to hit their marks, looking almost robotic in their movements. So, these listless automatons are whisked through a series of implausible and confusing scenarios, often without even the benefit of transition scenes. They were here, now they're there. This was happening, now that's happening. Random scenes with little rhyme or reason. I had a lot of fun watching it. Definitely not worth nine bucks though. | 0neg
|
This flick reminded me of those lame "erotic thrillers" I used to stay up late and watch on Cinemax when I was 13. I'd label this flick softer-core since there is just no simulated bump and grinder. There is, however, a ton of nudity- the opening scene is in a strip club, we see Kane Hodder's keester (or at least a stunt butt) and then an inexplicable 10 minute lesbian dance scene in the middle of the film and a nude female werewolf who looks like they mugged on of the Munster's for a costume. 13 year old boys rejoice.<br /><br />Other than that the werewolf transformation scenes have the worst CGI I've seen in years. The shots look like FMV's from the video game Resident Evil in terms of quality. The wolf is too bad to be explained and, despite the poor quality of the suit is shown way, way too many times.<br /><br />The plot and acting make no sense. There is some oddball back story about werewolves and hybrid-werewolves- the Darkwolf is the latter but from what I can tell hybrids do the same thing all werewolves do- look human, change to a wolf an kill people. The Darkwolf is trying to find a mate but oddly can't find the mate but can sniff out anyone she touches. Once more, this skills proves less than useful since the Darkwolf winds up killing several folks his target never touched, met or even saw as best I can tell. The mate doesn't know she's a werewolf and she's fighting the transformation or something.<br /><br />You'd think it'd be hard to mess up a simple monster movie s bad as this but, well they did. Want quality low-end werewolf-ism, go rent Dog soldiers want a ton of T&A this is your flick. | 0neg
|
David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes play a young journalist couple who want to go to California, but can't really afford to, so they 'ride share" with another young couple (Brad Pitt and Juliette Lewis) to save on expenses. The idea is for them to stop at various murder sites along the way, sites where serial killers did their thing, since Brian (Duchovny) is a writer and Carrie (Forbes) is his photographer. What they don't know is that Pitt (Earley) and Lewis are serial killer and girlfriend who just goes along with whatever HE says. I don't care for Pitt as a rule but he does justice to psycho roles. The scary thing is that he does them so well; I've actually KNOWN people like him before, no, not killers, but with pretty much the same mindset. Anyway, as the road trip goes along, Carrie guesses that the others are about out of money, but Earley seems to always come up with the cash somehow....never mind that he leaves someone dead here and there to do it though. Lewis does her role well, one that she excels at, a not-too-bright waif that has a good heart but doesn't understand that she doesn't have to put up with being beaten up by Earley when she does something he doesn't like. As things begin to get more unacceptable Carrie insists that the other couple be put out at a gas station, and unfortunately it's at that point where she's inside that she sees a news bulletin that tells her exactly who they've been ride-sharing with, after which things go downhill for them at a rapid clip. This is not the greatest flick in the world, but it's not bad...I watched what was supposed to be the 'unrated' version but I wonder how much was cut out of the rated version, because this seemed fairly tame to me, really...not that this makes it family fare or anything, unless it's maybe the Manson Family. 7 out of 10. | 1pos
|
This film is a Pia Zadora special! When viewing it, I was reminded of the classic cartoon showing a Hollywood starlet; in urgent need of another role but afraid of becoming typecast for 'B' movie or soft porn roles; who says at her casting session "Well of course I do not normally do roles requiring nudity, but if it is artistically necessary for the film...............". This recollection brought up a very naughty image of a similar cartoon showing Pia at such a session saying "Well of course I do not normally take any roles requiring actual acting, but if it will really give me sufficient exposure to enhance my status as a sex symbol..................". This is probably grossly unfair, the rather sordid tale is the fault of Harold Robbins book; considering the nature of the story Pia's exposures certainly do not receive undue attention, and perhaps Pia (who once won an acting award in Butterfly) is deliberately satirising her part rather than attempting to act in an almost unplayable role. Critics usually point first to the actors as the problem whenever a film proves disappointing, but this is grossly unfair; the scriptwriters and director are far more often the guilty parties. The real problem with "The Lonely Lady" is that the screenplay, like the original book, looks for sensation rather than substance, and nothing can help with this. <br /><br /> The screenplay for this film is abysmal, but whether the story could have been filmed more successfully with a better script, tauter directing and really competent acting must remain a matter of personal judgement. As it was released, my viewers rating for it would depend upon whether I am assessing my personal opinion, or assessing to what extent the film succeeds in providing what it aims at doing. My personal rating for it would be two out of ten; but to some extent this film probably provides exactly what its sponsors intended, and judged on this basis a quality rating of four out of ten would be reasonable. Being in a charitable mood, and wanting to make it clear that I am not blaming Pia for my disappointment, I will give an IMDb rating of four. | 0neg
|
Here again is yet another Diane Lane movie where she cheats on her husband. Is this the only role she knows how to play? This time it's set in 1969 and she cheats on her husband with the blouse man. I am so not surprised because that is so very predictable. Then her husband gets mad and throws the milk. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the milkman as well. I wouldn't be surprised if she slept with the ice cream man too because this is a very boring movie. Then after some milk throwing, she says sorry and sees the blouse man again. Duh. Then while she is making it with him, her son gets stung by wasps. My mom always told me not to throw rocks at a wasps nest. This kids mom didn't have time to tell him that, she was too busy with the blouse man. | 0neg
|
If any show in the last ten years deserves a 10, it is this rare gem. It allows us to escape back to a time when things were simpler and more fun. Filled with heart and laughs, this show keeps you laughing through the three decades of difference. The furniture was ugly, the clothes were colorful, and the even the drugs were tolerable. The hair was feathered, the music was accompanied by roller-skates, and in the words of Merle Haggard, "a joint was a bad place to be". Take a trip back to the greatest time in American history. Fall in love with characters and the feel good essence of the small town where people were nicer to each other. This classic is on television as much as "Full House". Don't miss it, and always remember to "Shake your groove thing!!!" | 1pos
|
Terrible movie. Nuff Said.<br /><br />These Lines are Just Filler. The movie was bad. Why I have to expand on that I don't know. This is already a waste of my time. I just wanted to warn others. Avoid this movie. The acting sucks and the writing is just moronic. Bad in every way. The only nice thing about the movie are Deniz Akkaya's breasts. Even that was ruined though by a terrible and unneeded rape scene. The movie is a poorly contrived and totally unbelievable piece of garbage.<br /><br />OK now I am just going to rag on IMDb for this stupid rule of 10 lines of text minimum. First I waste my time watching this offal. Then feeling compelled to warn others I create an account with IMDb only to discover that I have to write a friggen essay on the film just to express how bad I think it is. Totally unnecessary. | 0neg
|
Tiempo de Valientes fits snugly into the buddy action movie genre, but transcends its roots thanks to excellent casting, tremendous rapport between its leads, and outstanding photography. Diego Peretti stars as Dr. Silverstein, a shrink assigned to ride shotgun with detective Diaz (Luis Luque), who's been assigned to investigate the murder of two minor hoods who seem to have been involved in am arms smuggling conspiracy. Diaz has been suspended from duty, but he's the best man for the job and must have professional psychiatric help in order to be reinstated. Silverstein and Diaz soon find themselves enmeshed in a conspiracy involving Argentina's intelligence community and some uranium, and the film separates them at a crucial point that allows Silverstein to develop some impressive sleuthing skills of his own. Peretti and Luque are excellent together and remind me of screen team Terence Hill and Bud Spencer, though Peretti isn't as classically handsome as Hill. Remarkably, even at almost two hours in length Tiempo de Valientes doesn't wear out its welcome, and indeed writer-director Damian Szifron sets up a potential sequel in the film's charming coda. All in all, a wonderful and very entertaining action comedy that neither panders to the lowest common denominator nor insults your intelligence. | 1pos
|
I usually enjoy films like this. It's shot documentary style, but the acting and writing are just awful. The acting is wooden and stiff and the writing is just so cliché, but not at all in a good way. As of typing this, I'm surprised it's at a 5.2/10 on IMDb. I'm certain that most of these votes must have come from relatives of people in the movie. I suppose if that's the case, you might manage a couple of laughs, as it's always funny seeing your relatives/friends make a movie. Well, in a way, I guess this gives hope to all up and coming writers, directors, actors, etc., 'cause if they can do it, you can do it. Although, maybe you shouldn't. | 0neg
|
Great softcore sex, revealing and sexy, and plenty of it. Ignore the ignoramus who doesn't realize that raunchy IS sexy if done the right way. If you "erotic," go watch that Red Shoes Diary junk. If you want hot and exciting softcore done properly, this is the movie to watch. If you like the more explicit Skinemax films, you'll like this one. Great softcore sex, revealing and sexy, and plenty of it. Ignore the ignoramus who doesn't realize that raunchy IS sexy if done the right way. If you "erotic," go watch that Red Shoes Diary junk. If you want hot and exciting softcore done properly, this is the movie to watch. If you like the more explicit Skinemax films, you'll like this one. | 1pos
|
Written by Oliver Stone and directed by Brian De Palma, SCARFACE paints a picture not easily forgotten. Al Pacino turns in a stunning performance as Tony Montana, a Cuban refugee than becomes a powerful player in the drug world as he ruthlessly runs his self made kingdom of crime in Florida. This gangster flick is harsh, violent, loud, gross, unpleasant and must hold the record for uttering the word "f--k" the most number of times. Almost three hours long, and yes it can get repulsive. A stout hearted constitution keeps you in your seat cheering for the demise of a ruthless crime lord.<br /><br />Also playing interesting characters are Michelle Pfeiffer, Steven Bauer, Robert Loggia, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, F. Murray Abraham and Angel Salazar. Pacino proves to be one of the greatest of his generation. He manages to bring reality to his character that leaves a strong impression. This will not be a movie for everyone for you leave thinking you walked away from a disaster. Is that powerful enough for you? Crime does not pay for long! | 1pos
|
Good film. Tells a boyish fantasy story, telling us how trapped we are in social situations and what kind of extreme measures one has to take to behave differently. Or at least the feeling: that you have to break every rule if you are to break one. If you wanted to express love for someone you don't know, how would you do it without creating a pressing social situation? Also it's about the fascism of deciding over others cultural life, of what kind of culture that is jammed down our throats. What gives Disney or FOX or the suicide bomber the right to decide what is our choice. Are one not allowed to drink the morning coffee by one self. Do we have to listen to the NRJ shouting, see the stupid tabloid headlines and the street commercials before we even have had our morning coffee? | 1pos
|
As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power. | 1pos
|
What the hell was all that about? I saw The Matrix and was amazed. It was the most spectacular movie ever made. What ever possesed the Wachowski brothers to do this film is beyond me.<br /><br />There is no plot, you can't argue with that. Basically all this film was was a load of talking, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with talky films, but all the talking in The Matrix Reloaded was a pointless load of drivvle. Then there would be a fight sequence which lasted WAY too long, then more pointless drivvle, then another fight scene that lasts too long and it all builds up to the biggest anti-climax ever. A little bearded bloke talking a load of uncomprehensible bull for 20 minutes.<br /><br />Also, Keanu Reeves gives his worst performance yet. I knew he wasn't a good actor but this was beyond a joke. If you watch his films in the order he was in them it would seem he got gradually worse as they went along. God knows what his performance is like in Something's Gotta Give! Keanu Reeves: The only plank of wood ever to become an actor.<br /><br />After the splendor of the first film this came as a massive dissapointment. If you haven't already seen the first film I suggest you watch it, but don't waste your time with this utter pile of turd.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot gives us one of the best performances ever by an actor. He is brilliant as Christy Brown, a man who has cerebral palsy, who then learned to write and paint with his left foot. A well deserved Oscar for him and Brenda Fricker who plays his loving mother. Hugh O'Conner is terrific as the younger Christy Brown and Ray McAnally is great as the father. Worth watching for the outstanding performances. | 1pos
|
I have to say that there is nothing wrong with low budget films, so that was not my problem with it. My problem with it is that I felt like I was watching my next door neighbor's home movie. IMO everything about it just seemed like a guy wrote out a quick story, grabbed a camera, and started shooting. I understand how hard this must be to do effectively, but when I pay to rent a film, I expect to feel like I am watching some type of professionally made movie.<br /><br />John Schneider has a huge resume, is a great actor, and was fine in this film. The other people in it were not. I understand how it must be fun, and cheaper to use friends, and relatives as the cast, but it doesn't make for convincing acting. It seemed like the way it was shot, he was trying to give many of the scenes a more interesting look, but when the writing, plot, and acting are there to begin with, that type of style isn't necessary, and it is a distraction.<br /><br />Also on a technical level, it had digital artifacts all over the place. In the first scene of all of those fine cars, when they did a slow scan of them, they appeared to jerk back and forth just a little bit. The problem isn't in my viewing equipment, (Benq PE-8700 84" diagonal) but somewhere in the production. I've never seen that kind of artifact in a professionally made film before. Then there was the sound. It sounded like they didn't do any voice-overs, which may be o.k. unless it sounded like the track in this film. It sounded like the built in microphone on the camera. | 0neg
|
I rented this movie simply because Rosario Dawson was in it. I sat down to watch it with my buddy and 6 minutes in we were glued to our seats. Not because of any intensity in those 6 minutes, but because it was a real film. No Hollywood BS, no explosions, no corny one liners; film. It drew you in slowly, reeling you toward a tragically human fate. Some people think they enjoy film but they are sadly mistaken. They like movies; mindless entertainment for entertainment's sake alone. Michael Bay's Transformers and the like were produced for just this audience. No need to think people, just watch and allow ever stereotype we can muster to slowly dissolve your brain. We'll even place advertisements throughout the movie, to keep you buying our products. And don't forget the explosions, we all love explosions. Here we make the distinction, art can be entertaining, but it's also thought provoking and moves you in hidden ways. Entertainment is rarely artful and even then only arbitrarily. Movie are entertainment. Descent is a film. Film is art.<br /><br />If you still house a soul within your walking meat-sack apparatus, this rape scene is every bit as powerful as "Irreversable". The distinction here is that "Irreversable" was a violent rape scene involving two people whose paths have unfortunately crossed at the wrong time and hell ensued. "Descent" is about date rape. No less disgusting. No less depraved. Just different. This is about trust violation, soul desecration and the scars that run deep. Had the character "Maya" been consenting it would have been a hot sex scene. But seeing as she was desperate to escape, the scene is sickening. "Jared" is a sick and manipulative serial rapist, and it's wholly unsettling because it so closely resembles a passionate love affair. How could "Maya" ever be close to anyone again when even in the midst of raping her "Jared's" slick lover boy facade only ever hints at slipping? She is ruined.<br /><br />The film as a whole is beautiful. The camera work and lighting at times removes the surroundings and focuses everything on "Maya" and the silent inner workings of her mind. All this accomplished by Rosario with facial expression and gesture. The soundtrack was excellent, a blend of everything. My particularly favorite scene being a synchronism of all these film aspects working together; "Maya" dancing in a sea of writhing bodies, something inside her awakening, becoming aware, all set to a beautifully sad Jeff Buckley tune.<br /><br />I don't think I've really spoiled anything here but I'm stopping before I do. Bottom line, I think this was the best film of 2007, hands down. Unfortunately it seems that everyone is so jaded these days that if you don't hack and slash, gang rape, or nuke anything then people just can't be bothered. Death isn't the worst thing that can happen to you. It's only the last thing that will happen in this existence. The worst things that happen never leave you. They are always in your thoughts. When you shower; when you brush your teeth; when you buy a Christmas present, when you tie your shoe; they haunt you. They haunt you until that last thing releases you.<br /><br />Treat yourself. Challenge yourself. Watch this film. | 1pos
|
As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.<br /><br />The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill. <br /><br />It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.<br /><br />Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.<br /><br />There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close. | 0neg
|
I didn't have many expectation going into the film, but I thought it was fantastic. Pierce Brosnan is outstanding in a very different role. He has dumped the slick armani suits for a ridiculous look and pays off showing that he is an excellent actor. Pierce and Greg Kinnear play off each other great, and make for one of the better buddy pairings in a long time. The humor is dark, the performances by Brosnan, Kinnear, and Hope Davis are great, mix that with a touching element to the story about friendship, and you have a great film. This is probably one of the better buddy comedies in a long time. This is a film that definitely shows that we can expect great things in the post-Bond era of Brosnan's career. | 1pos
|
As a lesbian, I am always on the lookout for films relating to gays & lesbians. However, with this kind of crap out there--it would be enough to discourage any audience.<br /><br />I kept waiting for something to happen--anything!--a story to develop, or just for it to make some kind of sense. Neither occurred. It was just meaningless scenes, unconnected in any way with anything. The film failed to conveyed any kind of story or depth to the character.<br /><br />After an hour or more of this nonsense, I simply turned it off.<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this absurdity.<br /><br />1 Star - and it doesn't even deserve that. | 0neg
|
Possible Spoilers, Perhaps. I must say that "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" is one of the worst movies ever made. First of all, the movie was made during the height of Disney's sequel rampage. It was created around the same time as "The Little Mermaid II," "The Jungle Book II," and "Peter Pan II," all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (Disney also made "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and "Atlantis II," but I'm going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place.") Let me go ahead and say that I am an avid supporter of good Disney films, and I absolutely adore the original Disney "Cinderella." The sequel to "Cinderella," however, was a waste of time. The character of Cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that I grew up watching. In the original, Cinderella was kind and loving. The new Cinderella had very out-of-character moments with current-era phrasing like, "I'm going to do this banquet my way!" Let me also tell you that new Cinderella (as I have affectionately named her) says, "Ewww!" That is the anti-Cinderella. I try to find the best in people, but in the sequel, Anastasia, one of the stepsisters, is good! What the heck? Why? They made it all out to be like Lady Tremaine and Drizella are just horrible family members for poor little Anastasia. My question to the world: did the people at Disney watch the original "Cinderella" when making this sequel? Well, it surely doesn't seem so. If I remember correctly, Anastasia was just as abusive to Cinderella as Drizella and Lady Tremaine. I am all for redemption and forgiveness, but there was no point of redemption for Anastasia in this movie. In the first one, Anastasia was evil. In the second one, she is good. One just can't leave a story like this. I hope Disney realizes that this movie, among other movies, is shaming Walt Disney's name. Perhaps now that Michael Eisner is gone, things will start shaping up around the House of Mouse. | 0neg
|
*********Ten out of Ten Stars********* <br /><br />It's hard to believe this was a made for television movie. Just the phrase, "made of TV", makes me shudder. The production values for made for TV movies are almost always remarkably lower than production values for professional movie studios. That being said, this version of the "Christmas Carol" should have been released in theaters, because it IS that good. It's my personal favorite of all the "Christmas Carol" movies because every aspect of this production are of the highest quality. Yes, there are some minor on screen glitches with two of the ghosts that visit Scrooge, but there isn't a movie in existence that doesn't have at least a couple of mistakes.<br /><br />Scott turns in a stellar performance as Scrooge, he's a pleasure to watch. In fact, I can't think of one performance in this film that shouldn't be applauded. The costuming, location shooting, and winter backdrop are mesmerizing. The musical score is endearing and heart warming. Add to that, solid directing, flawless cinematography, and faithful scripting; we have here what will one day be considered a holiday classic. It really hasn't been around long enough to be a classic, but mark my words, one day soon it will be. This film has turned into a yearly Christmas tradition in my home because it embodies the true meaning behind Christmas: Love, selflessness, and giving. In as selfish, greedy world, my family and I can lose ourselves in "The Christmas Carol", starring George C. Scott. | 1pos
|
Claustrophobic camera angles that do not help the movie: Too long face only shots where you most of the time get the feeling that the lower half of the film is missing (that the screen is cut off), because there seems to be important actions going on, but you cannot see them. There is anyway already too much confusion in the movie, so these viewing angles make it worse and do not contribute to artful visuals. <br /><br />I like artfully made movies and unconventional camera work. I can handle deep and slow movies. But this one is trying too hard to be something artful and fails in my opinion painfully.<br /><br />Nothing to get attached to, to any of the characters, because they are not worked out well enough. To work out characters more is needed, than just minute long face shots, at least with this set of script+director+actors.<br /><br />I wonder whether some of the not so good acting is due to the script and director or due to the actors. <br /><br />I will stay away from films both written and directed by Le You for sure in the future. <br /><br />What an annoying film even for someone who would be interested in that part of history, and for someone who spent time in Shanghai. | 0neg
|
Within 15 minutes, my whole family was rooting for Goldie Hawn's character to die, or at least for Steve Martin's character to leave her. At 40 minutes, we turned it off. There are only a couple of movies a year we try that turn out so annoying that we can't even stomach it long enough for the story to get established.<br /><br />Normally I like both Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, and I remember enjoying the Neil Simon original. So I blame Marc Lawrence and Sam Weisman. Combine the director of "Whats The Worst That Can Happen" and the writer of "Miss Congeniality 2", and I guess this is what we end up with. | 0neg
|
It's not so much that SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION had little potential. Indeed the under-explored title phenomenon is quite intriguing and, for at least the opening half, this Tobe Hooper effort promises to entertain in a way only cheesy '90s horror can. But somewhere between Brad Dourif's on-again-off-again performance and the overly intricate plot, this would-be thriller loses its way.<br /><br />Dourif, featured here before his built-in horror fan base had accumulated, is average guy Sam. Of course average guys don't stay average for long in horror movies, so after a well-done origin outline, we see Sam's various body parts start to ignite. Soon he's igniting other people, too, much to the consternation of gal pal Lisa, played unmemorably by Cynthia Bain.<br /><br />While the title of the film implies a fire-happy monster on the loose, director Hooper opted to make Sam an unwilling killer. This approach gives the film an added human depth it would otherwise lack, but it also prevents us from truly fearing the human flamethrower. We're left wondering whether this would have worked better as a straight-up villain-versus-everyone effort ala NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.<br /><br />SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION is a pretty nominal effort when all is said and done. It will carry added appeal for Dourif's fans and those who can't get enough 1990s horror, be it good, bad or in between, but only on a slow night. | 0neg
|
Carlos Saura's Carmen is one of the finest achievements in world, let alone Spanish, cinema. It manages to excite interest in flamenco in its wonderful staged adaptations from Bizet with powerful physical force. At the same time we see the impact of the creation and rehearsal of a new interpretation of Carmen on the choreographer/director and the principle dancers. The fine line between life and art is dazzling. | 1pos
|
I can't believe that they took this off the air. Especially, when they only had a few more episodes left. My daughter, sister and a few of my friends loved watching this show. We were so upset when they stopped showing this because of so called ratings. It is not fair to the people who were watching this show since the beginning. We had a right to see the end. I wish they would take an overall vote from all people with a 3 times a year voting system. They could send out papers in the mail and we as viewers could give an overall vote on all programs that we watch or have heard about. This could also help promote a new show. People would see it and wonder what it is. Not only could you see what the viewers are watching, you could also use this as a tool for free advertisement for TV and cable channels. We want to see the other episodes. Bring it back!! | 1pos
|
It is not often I watch a film that is as dreadful as this one. I continued to watch, every minute hoping that this was intended as a joke only to find it was meant to be taken seriously. Well, as seriously as this genre requests.<br /><br />The acting was disgraceful and the situations horribly contrived and clichéd. If a film was made in 1920 (for example) and had the quality of Hide & Seek (Cord) in its direction we would think that cinema back then was naive. As it happens, this film was made in 2000 and I have yet to see a film from the silent era that has as little charm as this one.<br /><br />Definitely not for the serious movie-goer.<br /><br />[Not worth a rating] | 0neg
|
I found this film to funny from the start. John Waters use of characters reminded of some of the down to earth characters from Fellini films. Christina Ricci has once again expanded her abilities in this film. If you are looking for a fun movie without preaching, I recommend this film. | 1pos
|
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: <br /><br />The Gettaway is mostly an action movie. And what action there is to!! Shootouts, chases, dumpsters and much much more. It stars Kim Bassenger and Alec Baldwin as the Mc Coy's.<br /><br />This is a remake and I have not seen the original but really didn't care for this one at all although Bassenger and Baldwin have some nice screen chemistry. But the movie itself didn't do it for me.<br /><br />The Gettaway became really tiresome really quickly. The plot is overshadowed by one fight/chase after another and as the violence keeps piling up, Bassenger and Baldwin retain their great looks no matter what perils they maybe in. In fact, by the end of the movie they almost look BETTER then in the beginning. I don't think Bassenger's eye makeup moves once during the whole picture.<br /><br />This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, certainly not, but it isn't very good and unless one is an action movie purist I can't see really enjoying this movie because there's just not a lot here. The Gettaway isn't terribly original either, and goes every way from unnecessarily brutal to rather dull. It really could have been better I think.<br /><br />Bassenger and Baldwin give OK performances but they don't have a lot to do except get chased and run for their lives. Sometimes less is more, after seeing the same thing over and over again it gets stale. Didn't enjoy this one to much. | 0neg
|
i'm being generous giving this movie 2 stars. the line about "have you even seen the wizard of oz" was the best part for me! with terrible writing and acting like displayed in this movie it's no wonder so many are taken in by worthless tv reality shows. do yourself a favor and get out of the house and hit a royals baseball game, your gonna be glad ya did! | 0neg
|
Titanic directed by James Cameron presents a fictional love story on the historical setting of the Titanic. The plot is simple, noncomplicated, or not for those who love plots that twist and turn and keep you in suspense. The end of the movie can be figured out within minutes of the start of the film, but the love story is an interesting one, however. Kate Winslett is wonderful as Rose, an aristocratic young lady betrothed by Cal (Billy Zane). Early on the voyage Rose meets Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio), a lower class artist on his way to America after winning his ticket aboard Titanic in a poker game. If he wants something, he goes and gets it unlike the upper class who are so concerned with their social worries. The two fall in love and the audience sees the sinking of the Titanic primarily through their eyes.<br /><br />The movie begins in modern times with the exploration of the wreck by a group searching for treasures, that sunk with the Titanic, which has recently occurred. One of the survivors of the Titanic, Rose DeWitt Bukater, who had heard of the exploration of the wreck on television and is flown to the boat where the search is being led from to tell of what she remembers to help the search. She gets to telling her memory of the one and only voyage of the Titanic. With this, the scene shifts to Southhampton, Ireland where the Titanic set sail from on April 10, 1912 as all the passengers are boarding. After another stop on the Irish coast Titanic went out to see on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic bound for New York. Historically the first few days of the voyage went by uneventful, but the fictional plot of the story is developed during this time as Rose sees the hopeless entrapement of an engagement that she is in to the wealthy Cal Hockley and falls in love with third class passenger, Jack Dawson. Captain Smith alledgedly as shown in the movie was urged by the White Star Line Director to increase the speed of the ship so they would make the newspaper headlines and receive extra publicity by arriving in New York on Thursday night and not on Friday morning as planned. Smith then ordered the fateful decision going against his thirty-two years of experience to stretch the Titanic's legs out to full speed. The Titanic had reports that the waters in the Atlantic they were sailing in were full of icebergs, but they ignored these warnings and proceeded at full speed as shown in the movie. On April 15, 1912 at 11:39, an iceberg was sighted. They attempted to shut off the engines and turn the ship out of the path of the iceberg but there was not enough time and the ship hit the iceberg on the starboard side as depicted in the film. The portrayal of the many small holes in the side of the ship and not one large gash along the side is accurate. The crew of Titanic sent out distress calls and set off distress rockets as shown until 2:18 when the lights finally failed. The lights of the California were spotted six miles away but they failed to realize what was going on and did not respond to Titanic's many pleas for help. The California had tried earlier in the day to warn Titanic of the severe ice that had caused them to stop their trip but Titanic had brushed them off causing the California to turn off its radio and leave the Titanic on its own. The first class women and children were the first as depicted to be put into the twenty lifeboats that were on the ship. Overwhelmingly the third class passengers suffered the most amount of deaths of any class and the crew was hit hard in this tragedy too. The word of White Star Line employees and first class passengers was believed over that of second and third class passengers when authorities were trying to gain information of the sinking. Also, the metal that was used to build the Titanic has been found in recent years under conditions of severe cold, which were experienced the night Titanic sank to be extremely brittle. Overall, the basic plot is very accurate in its portayal of the events and the times at which these events took place on the Titanic.<br /><br />Many of the characters in the story were not real and created simply for the purpose of the movie or as composite characters to represent possible characteristics and ideas of people on the ship. The core group of Rose, Jack, Cal, and Rose's mother all were fictional characters added into the story as they represent different groups of people from the time. Yet many characters such as the Unsinkable Molly Brown; Captain Edward Smith; the ship designer, Thomas Andrew; the White Star Line Representative, Bruce Ismay; and all of the Titanic's officers were real. The maiden voyage was going to be Captain Edward Smith's last voyage anyway as he planned to retire afterwards. He had been a part of the White Star Line since 1880 where he worked his way up to his status as the Millionaire's Captain when the Titanic sunk. The portrayals of the officers is accurate as only four survived the tragedy except for the officer who threatened to kill all of the passengers of the ship with his pistol. He is on record as acting heroicly and was misportrayed to the point that James Cameron apologized and evoked a monument in his honor in the officer's former Canadian hometown. As shown in the movie there was a language problem between the crew and many of the lower-class passengers from non-English speaking nations. In addition, Officer Lowe was the only officer who came back in the lifeboat as depicted. The old people shown in their bed as the water came in their room were based on the Strauss'. Not wanting to leave her husband's side Mrs. Strauss refused to get in her lifeboat and died with her husband on the Titanic. Furthermore, Mr. Goggenheim who was shown sipping his brandy and smoking a cigar reportedly did go out like this dressed in his best. The richest man on the ship, John Jacob Astor, who owned most of Manhattan died nonetheless as well, but his much younger wife was saved in a lifeboat. In addition, Molly Brown was saved and later had medals made up for the crew of the Carpethia that picked the survivors of Titanic up from the water. Her ticket on the Titanic had cost over four-thousand dollars and by the end of her life she ended up broke. All of the interiors of the ship were masterfully replacated down to the last pieces of china and silverware. The gymnasium, which is hardly seen is recreated perfectly with all of the machines reproduced to match those seen in old photographs. The wonderful outfits and costuming were an excellent re-creation of the Post-Victorian era of 1912. The rich at this time practically ruled everything, as the women's suffrage movement had not quite gotten moving yet. Women during this time often married for financial security as Rose was considering doing and normally took a back seast status to their husbands as Cal wished for Rose to do. The rich did not take well to `new money' such as Molly Brown as depicted. Everything of the time was very formal. Women had to be escorted to dinner by a male figure as seen with in the dining scenes. Smoking was not very common among women of the time but holders of cigarettes, which were just coming in at the time were used as seen with Rose in the movie. Men of the time generally smoked cigars not cigarettes. Women were constained physically by their corsets and socially by society. Although James Cameron had no background in historical films he brought in experts of Titanic coupled with two years spent cross-referencing the history of the Titanic and few liberties were taken. The beautiful cinematography and special effects also helped to make the film even more breathtaking.<br /><br />A recognizable message can be seen in the movie Titanic as the people on the ship had about three hours to contemplate their demise. The director, James Cameron, shows the various reactions to this time of crisis in people's lives. Everyone reacts differently and he gets you to think of how you might have reacted had you been in that situation on the Titanic on that fateful night. In addition, this film is a reflection of the 1990's when it was produced as it gives a look into the wreck of the Titanic. Only in the past fifteen years has the site of the actual Titanic been found and explored. This movie was able to give us a deeper look into a disaster that many would not have viewed. However, the moral question of whether people today should be taking treasures from the wreck of an underwater graveyard is posed. There have been attempts to stop treasure seeking missions such as the one portrayed in Titanic but all have failed. As it stands today anyone can make a voyage to the Titanic and take whatever valuables they as portrayed in the film showing the general values of our time on this matter.<br /><br />Technically the film is very well done. To get footage of the wreck at the bottom of the ocean it took twelve dives to get all of the footage needed for the movie. In addition, a special camera had to be created to withstand the intense pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Cameron did not plan on using the probe to go as far inside Titanic as anyone has in the 88 years since the ship sunk but it worked out that this provided an unique perspective into the ship. Furthermore, throughout the film fade ins and outs from the wreck of Titanic to the scene of Titanic during its actual voyage. This shift between the modern scene to the past scene during the voyage works as an excellent transition that makes the story easy to follow in aclear manner. At the very beginning of the movie a septune recreation is used to recreate the scene when the actual people left the European coast on Titanic giving it distinction from the rest of the events of the film.<br /><br />Titanic plays almost like a historical biography and is like a work of art, a true epic. Like most history novels, we know the ending, but it doesn't take away from the wonderful treats that can be found in this picture. Certain aspects of this film are Academy Award material including costuming, sound, cintematography, and editing. If you like interesting characters that will give you an insight into the life of characters in the early 1900's and how they face disaster, then this movie definitely is for you.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits