pos
stringlengths 70
13.7k
| neg
stringlengths 52
8.75k
| __index_level_0__
int64 0
20k
|
|---|---|---|
Yes, this is an ultra-low budget movie. So the acting isn't award winning material and at times the action is slow-paced because the filmmakers are shooting longer sequences and not a million instants that then get edited into a movie. This film makes up for that with an outstanding script that takes vampirism seriously, explains it and develops a full plot out of it. Aside from the vampire story, we get detailed genetics info, legal and law enforcement, martial arts action, philosophical musings, and some good metal music. Kudos go to Dylan O'Leary, the director/writer/main actor. It is beyond me how this man could have fulfilled all these roles and do them so well. I think to appreciate this movie, you have to be well-versed in all sorts of themes to see that the writer did a lot of research and knows about all these things. There are some great camera work, too, interesting camera angles and one underwater vampire attack- something I haven't seen before, but which pays homage to the underwater zombie attack in Fulci's Zombi. The casting is good, in so far as the sexy female is sexy indeed. The main vampire also looks perfect for the role. The female victim looks vulnerable. My only complaint is that for a low budget horror flick, there should have been more nudity. If you want to see an original vampire movie with a great story, this flick is for you. I'm looking forward to seeing future projects by Mr. O'Leary. | I seriously can't believe Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov, two people I LOVE, signed on to produce this crap. Tim Burton is a brilliant director, but to be honest I've been losing interest in him for a while since his last few movies were either remakes or adaptations. He did produce the brilliant "Nightmare Before Christmas", which is one I've watched multiple times, and directed movies like "Beetlejuice" and "Sleepy Hollow", which are awesome films. Bekmambetov directed 3 films that I LOVE: Night Watch, Day Watch, and Wanted. I've only seen those three of his, but they prove he's an awesome director.<br /><br />Those two people producing one of the many reasons I was excited to see 9. So today I went to go see it at the theatre. I was so excited to finally have seen it. I had waited 7 months for the movie to come out.<br /><br />This movie is the first time I've walked out of a Tim Burton-related movie and said "I enjoyed almost NONE of that". I felt heartbroken to even have felt that way. I mean, with him and Bekmambetov at the production helm you'd have expected this movie to be a good watch. Right now I still can't get over how let down I was by this movie. I hadn't even heard of the original short film before seeing it but now, I can successfully say that this movie should have remained a short movie. Hell, Neil Blomkamp made an AWESOME full length remake of Alive in Joburg entitled District 9, what was so hard to get right about 9??? I really wanted to think this movie was awesome. I really did. But no, it failed on so many levels.<br /><br />The plot was extremely confusing and disjointed. I had no idea what was going on, let alone what it was about. Basically it's about a bunch of rag doll robots trying to save the earth. Well, OK, that's what I got from it. But the writing here is extremely poor. The whole film jumps around like a 6 year old with A.D.D. telling a story. There's this big, giant clanky monster robot that 9 awakens, causing destruction and stuff. That's the main villain. However, what else is wrong with this movie is that EVERYTHING COMES OUT OF NOWHERE. There were too many monster robots, most of which have no logical explanation behind them. They have 0 development whatsoever. I mean, that flying pterodactyl like monster just rips out of nowhere, we have no idea where it comes out of and Acker just expects us to know what it is. What was even more retarded was that snake-like creature with the strobing eyes that hypnotize. I dare you to give that description to someone else out loud and expect them not to laugh. All of the 3 people I told about it burst out laughing. Oh and it wraps victims up and sews them inside it. I'M. NOT. KIDDING.<br /><br />The twist in Act III is the most retarded aspect of the whole movie. So basically 9 goes back to the room he woke up in, finds this box with a hologram from the scientist in it for 9, and he tells him that the big scary machine robot was designed to bring robot life to earth, but then evil humans use it for war, and it was supposed to help protect the earth, but then the scientist gave his life to 9 so that it could help protect the world with it. And HE ONLY MENTIONS GIVING HIS LIFE TO 9. But what about the other robots? WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES TO THEM???????? This is the perfect example of poor, rushed writing. There's only one of the life taking device thingy that exists so how did the other 8 get life given to them??????? The characters are not likable at all either. They risk their lives for no reason at all. The only good character is 7. 6 annoyed me with his "GO BACK TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!" ramblings, 1 is an overpowering idiot, 2 we don't know ANYTHING about, 5 kept annoying me with his "Are you sure..." or "Can I stay here instead...?" questions. And that ending? UGH. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the ending was a huge WTF moment.<br /><br />There's nothing redeeming about this turd except for its beautiful animation. Everything looks realistic and beautiful, I love the gloomy and depressing look of everything. However, beauty can't save a good movie.<br /><br />While it's true that this movie is very pretty looking, pretty is as pretty does, and 9 does squat. I'm sure Burton fans will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie without a doubt, in fact with his and Bekmambetov's names being thrown around the promos, people will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie. I know I may be making a big deal out of nothing, but watching this movie made me realize how much I hate movies with unlikeable characters, nonexistent plot and just pure style over content. And this movie is one of those movies. | 200 |
This is one of Joan Crawford's best Talkies. It was the first Gable-Crawford pairing, and made it evident to MGM and to audiences that they were a sizzling team, leading the studio to make seven more films with them as co-stars.<br /><br />The film convincingly depicts the downward slide of a brother and sister who, after their father loses everything in the stock market crash, must fend for themselves and work for a living. Life is hard in the Depression, and soon even their attempts at finding legitimate work prove futile, and they resort to underworld activity. <br /><br />Joan Crawford is excellent as the socialite-turned-moll. She's smart, complex, and believable. She even tempers the theatrical stiffness of the other actors' early Talkie acting style. Clark Gable is a diamond-in-the rough, masculine and gruff as the no-nonsense gangster who becomes involved with Crawford's character. The same year he would play a similar and even more successful role opposite Norma Shearer in "A Free Soul", securing his position as top male sex symbol at MGM.<br /><br />If you like Crawford in this type of role, don't miss "Paid", which she did a year earlier, which is also among her best early Talkie performances.<br /><br /> | On the back burner for years (so it was reported) this television reunion of two of the most beloved characters in sitcom history started off badly - and went straight downhill from there. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore) and her best friend Rhoda Morgenstern (Valerie Harper) meet in New York after a long estrangement and catch up on each other's lives. What a novel concept! But, sad to relate, nothing worth talking about (let alone making a movie about) has happened to either of them in the intervening years. So, instead, the script contents itself with throwing out one hoary old plot device after another (most having to do with older women in the workplace), while completely missing the quirky charm and sophistication that made the original show a winner. The supporting cast is instantly forgettable, the humor is nonexistent, and the chemistry which Moore and Harper once had together is gone. Moore allegedly stalled this project for years, waiting for "just the right script" before committing herself. If this was the one she considered "right", what on earth were the ones she turned down like? It's not the age of the characters that does this in (for time inevitably marches on), but the almost complete lack of imagination coupled with a blatant disregard for the elements that made the series work. At one time this was intended as a pilot but, all to obviously, it failed to generate any interest among potential sponsors. Or for that matter, among potential audiences. Quickly and mercifully forgotten, the film is a travesty and an insult to a classic. | 201 |
Certainly one of the finest movies I have seen for quite some time. Exquisite direction and flawless acting make this a very entertaining and often moving film. Denzel Washington plays one of his most engaging and emotional roles to date, and the rest of the cast perform beautifully. Christopher Walken is of course superb in his part although he did not appear as often as I would have liked. A story of ultimate greed that backfires is offset against a childs innocence and love. This is also a film for action movie lovers as it has its fair share of bullets, rockets and revenge. The location of Mexico City adds a feel of seediness and corruption which in itself is an eye opener. All in all, a truly gripping film from beginning to end. Highly recommended! | I seems in the beginning a interesting film, a Spanish thriller in a interesting nowadays Madrid, but it isn`t none of that, is actually a film only interesting for future films directors learning about what not to do making a film, it can`t be worse in others words, even the presence of a oscar winner ( Mira Sorvino ) isn`t enough to justify the $ 3.00 dollars expended to see this film , the acting is horrendous and it seems the actors were just waiting to finish the daily shots to go home, it lead to nowhere and is boring, weak and bad, don`t expend time or money on this film. | 202 |
This film is the best film Jim Carrey has ever made. Carrey did not have his usual face making stuff in this film. He was both funny and sad. Carrey played a reporter named Bruce Nolan. Nolan blames God(Morgan Freeman) for everything that goes wrong in his life. Then, God comes down from heaven and gives Bruce his powers. As I said before, Carrey did an excellent job. I also thought that Morgan Freeman and Jennifer Aniston were great as supporting actor/actress. The plot was good because it had many subpoints in the main point. This movie can be funny(Bruce's dog) as well as sad(the "break-up"). The script worked well, too. I am glad they made a sequel to this film. I rate this film a 9/10. | Saving Grace is surely one of the leading contenders for the 'How to Ruin an Adequate Film in the Final Few Minutes' award. Naturally if you mix a quaint Cornish village - largely populated by retired genteel ladies - with a liberal dose of marijuana, a certain amount of silliness will ensue. However, the last seven minutes of the film descend into the totally ludicrous and is not even redeemed by being particularly funny. It is a real shame, because this comedy has the potential to be every bit as good as 1998's Waking Ned Devine, which also portrayed a picturesque small village and its oddball inhabitants trying to extract themselves from a tricky situation.<br /><br />The protagonist of Saving Grace is middle-aged, recently widowed Grace Trevethyn, whose husband's legacy of bad debts has forced her into an unconventional way of earning money. Helped by her gardener, Matthew, she turns her horticultural expertise to the lucrative cultivation of marijuana. Unfortunately, this leads her into confrontation with the local police, her husband's creditors and a French drug baron. . . . . . . . . . whom all turn up at her greenhouse simultaneously. The relationship and rapport between Grace and Matthew is well-portrayed, and Brenda Blethyn gets the viewer emotionally involved with her likeable character - you can really feel what she is going through.<br /><br />The casting of the minor roles is excellent, even if some of them are rather outlandishly eccentric. However, the transformation of Jacques the drug lord into Grace's romantic interest is highly implausible and does not fit the tone of the movie at all. And surely hydroponics is not such a revolution in the world of cannabis growing? Sadly the film swaps gentle humour for slapstick and ends up being as fake as the marijuana plants. | 203 |
When I was little, my parents got this movie for me to watch. I really liked it, and I watched it over and over again. Even when I was in 3rd grade I still watched it from time to time. Recently, I watched it again, just for the sake of nostalgia, and though the show was not aimed for my age group (I'm in my late teens), I still found it entertaining and educational. This show teaches good lessons about imagination and getting along well with others. Some parts I found quite entertaining. Also, this show does not have any bad content, so you can leave kids alone with this show and not worry about them picking up any bad language or whatnot. I would recommend this. | This movie is worth watching if you enjoy marvelling over special effects. There are some interesting visuals.<br /><br />Aside from that, it's typical nineties/aughties hollywood fare of dazzle without substance. True to the title.<br /><br />It's not worth picking apart the story. That's like performing brain surgery on a dinosaur. There's not much there to begin with. It's nothing original and not very special. So don't go in for the story at all. Just look at the effects.<br /><br />As has been mentioned, it got a little flashy at the end, diluting the purity of great FX treatment of an invisible (and at times half invisible) man. However if you ignore the "standard" pyrotechnics, it's a sight to behold (or not to behold).<br /><br />All in all, it's a decent FX film worth seeing for that purpose and that alone. | 204 |
As with most Rosalind Russell movies, this one is very entertaining -- it's fun all the way through. It's definitely one of the last of this genre of film -- just good wholesome entertainment. Give it a try - I don't think you will be disappointed. | When I was a teen-ager seeing this film for the first time, I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. Of course, the reason for that is Bo Derek and her various states of undress in this film. However, now that I'm older, I can honestly say that this film is awful. Mind you, Bo Derek is absolutely incredibly beautiful, and she and husband-director John Derek make sure you see plenty of her. But when you take that aspect out of the film, it becomes one big dull ride. And Tarzan, well, he's all muscular like you think he should be, but when he sees Jane (that's Bo, of course) for the first time, he doesn't know what to think. This despite the fact that Bo is wearing a wet see-thru shirt, with her breast prominently displayed. Tarzan would be the only primitive man on the planet who would have that problem. If you are looking for a movie to slobber over a beautiful naked body, then this might fill the ticket. If you are looking for a thoughtful, entertaining and worth-while film, go elsewhere...almost anywhere else at that!!! | 205 |
I really enjoyed this episode, which was a great surprise given the bad reputation it seems to have acquired. From a pure writing perspective, 'The 16mm shrine' is an absolute treat, with fantastic dialogue and character analysis, typical of Sterling. In particular I really enjoyed the philosophical indulgences of the episode, tackling themes of existence and reality, whilst balancing it with more psychological topics such as denial, pride, and desire. 'The sixteen-millimeter shrine' is an episode about how these ideas based around an unwillingness to accept change can seemingly alienate a person from the rest of the ever-changing world. It is also a fantastic example of cerebral Twilight Zone; one that explores the mind rather than the world outside it. These elements all come together very nicely to create a thought provoking and incredibly interesting 25 minutes.<br /><br />The episode is not without its faults however, which mainly lay in Lupino and Leisen shoes. Ironically, I felt Lupino was unconvincing throughout, with only a few scenes that could count as memorable. This of course being an absolute shame considering how well Sterling had written her character. Furthermore Leisen didn't seem to know what to do with most of his characters, sometimes having them stand around on set doing next to nothing -which probably explains why accepted the poor performances from Lupino half the time-. Thankfully Balsam does a good job of covering up a lot of weak spots, helping redeem the show from an acting perspective at least.<br /><br />As I said previously however, if you're a fan of classic film and cerebral science fiction, this shouldn't be as bad as it's sometimes made out to be. In addition to the writing that I mentioned above, the episode also features some fantastic photography (it still amazes me that the show looks this good nearly fifty years later!) and decent enough set-design. Overall 'The sixteen-millimeter shrine" is a great episode and above all is certainly one to make you think. | Watching It Lives By Night makes you wonder, just who in the world greenlit this crap. A newlywed couple go spelunking on their honeymoon, get attacked by bats and the husband starts to run around in his pajamas attacking various people. And where exactly are they? They're in the desert, then they're skiing, then they're in a small town that looks like it has mountains nearby. The town is run by a sheriff who likes to watch and has a personal vendetta against whiny doctor boy. The ski hospital is run by a really groovy guy with a nice thick mustache and the wife looks like Mary Tyler Moore or Marilyn Quayle. There's no dramatic tension and the ending will leave you filled with anger. Special effects and makeup guru Stan Winston did the effects for this movie. I guess you have to start somewhere. | 206 |
Very funny, well-crafted, well-acted, meticulous attention to detail. A real window into a specific time and place in history. Could almost believe this was a true story in a parallel universe. Interesting how Passport to Pimlico anticipates the Berlin airlift. A definite 10. | The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.<br /><br />While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it! | 207 |
I'm really suprised this movie didn't get a higher rating on IMDB. It's one of those movies that could easily get by someone, but for romantic comedy "Moonstruck" is really in a class by itself. It's setting and ethnic charm are things people seem to take for granted. The casting alone makes it a nearly perfect movie. Few movies in the 1980's were as good as "Moonstruck"and it's funny too. **** out of ***** | I really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen here. | 208 |
As many people know, Mexican cinema was very poor after the so-called Golden Age of the Mexican Cinema, fortunately, during the late 90's, and early 21st century, great movies like La Ley de Herodes, Bajo California, Amores Perros, Y Tu Mamá También and, of course, El Coronel No Tiene Quien le Escriba, appeared. El Coronel..., is a wonderful movie, that retells the classic story by Gabriel García Márquez, by eliminating the magic realism elements, and replacing them with the crude reality lived in Mexico, not only by people like the Colonel, who wait for their pensions, but by more than the half of the Mexican population, who live in complete poverty. The film's characters, satirically represent classic characters found in Mexican society, such as the nationalist Colonel, the cold and even ambitious priest, the hypocrite, but at the same time loyal compadre, the tolerant and patient wife, the hidden homosexual, etc. This movie, is a must-see if you want to know more about Mexican society, and specially, if you want to watch a gorgeous movie, by one of Mexico's finest directors | I can't believe that in the 34 prior comments, nobody mentioned that this film is a blatant rip-off of Born Yesterday. A man is hired to bring an ostensibly dumb blonde up to the requirements of a gangster. Hired gun and blonde fall in love and live happily ever after. Gangster is left in the lurch. But Born Yesterday was an intelligent treatment whereas this is just so much fluff. Technicolor transfer to DVD is deplorable. Natalie Kalmus would be rolling over in her grave. Check out the paperboy. Recognize him? But, it's historically interesting to see the roots of Rock 'n Roll. Also interesting is Ewell's introduction to CinemaScope, a new format at the time. | 209 |
I don't have much to add to what has been said before, but it's very much a film of it's time, and the first (and likely only) time that the studio hung the film totally on the Dead End Kids.<br /><br />The Warner's gave the boys plenty of help, from director Ray Enright and an 'A' budget, to an almost magical cast of supporting actors. At every turn, we get one of those gem performances from real pros. They are too many to list, but it seems like just about everybody on the Warner's lot (Sans the very biggest stars) walk through this picture. (See if you can spot John Ridgely)<br /><br />The only over the top performance is from the always reliable Eduardo Cianelli as a mob boss with a messianistic complex. He plays this character almost exactly like that of the Thuggie leader in "Gunga Din". He's something to watch! And Marjorie Main is excellent and gets her best role since "Dead End".<br /><br />My bid for this one is a second feature on a double bill with something like "City for Conquest".<br /><br />Hooray for Warners! | Sorry, gave it a 1, which is the rating I give to movies on which I walk out or fall asleep. In this case I fell asleep 10 minutes from the end, really, really bored and not caring at all about what happened next. | 210 |
I just realised I've been using IMDb for years now and I've never reviewed my favourite film. By favourite I don't mean something I like for now, I mean this film is so supernaturally perfect that there is never another animated experience going to touch it. This is obvious because I am never going to be a child again; I saw this film on ITV in the early nineties. I was 12 which is the age group this film is directed at, I'm also male, the gender that this film is intended for (the overwhelming majority of Miyazaki's protagonists are female). Consequently this film indelibly inspired my childhood psychology and I am forever indebted to Carl Macek (sp?) for producing the English dub of this film which is far superior to the Di$ney production which is not even funny - I've never even been able to watch that one - of course subtitled is the only way ultimately however the Macek version is SO good (the voices almost exactly corresponding to the original Japanese actors) that this version is available on the Japanese DVD! It's not available on any distribution in an English-speaking country. Go figure.<br /><br />There are hundreds of competent reviews so I'm going to put some trivia here, not that I'm the definitive archive of information for this film.<br /><br />First up I'd like to agree with the reviewer who stated that you need 20 out of 10 to review Miyazaki's films - they are so in their own league that they make almost the whole catalogue on IMDb combined pale into insignificance.<br /><br />The fascinating story with this film is that Miyazaki based the countryside around Slag's Ravine (Pazu's town area) on the Welsh mining communities. He visited Wales for a few months in the early 80s (might be late 70s) just after one of the great mining strikes. Being an avid supporter of the student socialist movements in the sixties he felt their plight. The fight between the townsfolk and the pirates at the beginning serves to illustrate this empathy with the working man. The countryside and the clouds especially in this film remind me of where I grew up as his film depicts a fantasised version of the rolling hills of the midwest British Isles.<br /><br />The island is of course from Swift's genius satirical novel of the eighteenth century - the story in Swift's book is, deliberately, ridiculous. In Castle in The Sky, Miyazaki weaves together myths such as Atlantis and the Tower of Babel - I think the architecture in addition is based on Peruvian ruins though I'm not sure, someone told me that.<br /><br />Anyone who gets round to reading this review and who likes this film REALLY will want to check out Miyazaki's epic series Mirai Shounen Conan - Future Boy Conan - based on the short sci fi novel 'The Incredible Tide' by Alexander key (novel is available online). Conan is basically a prototype for Laputa's Pazu and Shita. In addition you may not be familiar with his earlier work for Masterpiece Theatre - some of his key frame animation. He also did key frame for Sherlock Hound - this has some of the finest backgrounds I've ever seen too. Also check out Miyazaki and Takahata's first feature film Horus Prince of the Sun (1968) - amazing by today's standards in fact. What else... Gauche the Cellist and The Flying Ghost Ship - though they're pretty rare.<br /><br />This film is such a gift, I don't know what we'd do without it with all this other crap storytelling around, this is like an oasis. Arigatou Miyazaki-sensei! | A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Lost Reality", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.<br /><br />My Grade: D | 211 |
The Legend of Zu, as I saw it, was a very interesting story. I think many of the people who didn't like it were not seeing the underlying mythology behind the film. They were expecting something akin to Star Wars, and it was not that. Joseph Campbell, I believe, would have liked this film. There were a number of metaphors and hidden meanings that an average viewer might have overlooked. We all have a mountain of swords within us. We all have to go into our own cave of blood sometime in our lives. We all have to face our own insomnia someday. Granted some of the narration was a bit confusing, and some of the action got a little hokey at times, but I think other points of the film easily made up for it. I'd watch it again. <br /><br />I don't know if there's a difference between The Legend of Zu (which I saw in Mandarin with English subtitles) and Zu Warriors (The dubbed USA version.) It might have been dumbed down for American audiences, which really would have detracted from this film. | By far the worst movie of all time. Even Yaphet Kotto could not save this turkey. I have heard that the movie was originally supposed to be titled "The Treasure" but was changed to "Sharks' Treasure" in order to take advantage of the excitement created by "Jaws". I think sharks were in one scene of this movie; the fact that they happened to be included in this "thriller" was supposed to sell tickets. Didn't work. Anytime something "good" happens in the movie, the ship's crew toasts each other with a certain brand of beer that had just been introduced at the time the movie was made. Gee, do ya think that beer might have been a sponsor? Could they have made it any more obvious? The only time anyone should break out the beer is if they make it through this thing. That's cause enough for celebration. | 212 |
Ever wanted to know just how much Hollywood could get away with before the Hayes Code was officially put into effect? Well, unfortunately "Convention City" is lost, so well just have to watch "Tarzan and His Mate" to find out. For 1934, there is a remarkable amount of sexual innuendo and even exposed flesh. Just look at Jane's nude swim. While Tarzan is often thought of as b-adventure films made for young boys and no one else, this picture proves that the series was originally very adult. Over seventy years later, it is still as sexy as it was when it came out.<br /><br />In addition to the envelope pushing taboo nature, it is a superb and exciting adventure story. I've always enjoyed the jungle films that Hollywood churned out in the 30s and the 40s, but there are few from the genre I'd call great films. "Tarzan and His Mate" is by far the best film from this long gone subgenre. The sequences of the attacks on the safari by either apes or natives still manage to create tension today. Also, the animals are all too cool (espescially the apes throwing boulders). The acting won't win any major awards soon, but is certainly more than adequate for this type of picture. The film is once again stolen by Cheetah, the smartest monkey in the jungle. One of the most entertaining examples of pre-code Hollywood out there. | Written by Stephen King, but this treatment is not as solid as most of his stories on film. A mother and son move into a small Indiana town with a secret. They are Sleepwalkers, feline type creatures that feed on young virgins. This little story has its share of gore and special effects; plus hints of incest.<br /><br />Alice Krige is outstanding as the mother. Others appearing are Madchen Amick, Brian Krause and Cindy Pickett. Look for very small roles for John Landis and Clive Barker. Stephen King cameos as the caretaker of the cemetery. | 213 |
With Oliver Hardy bedeviled by the sound of horns, bells, phones and trombones, his doctor Finlayson advises peace and quiet and a diet of goat milk. Partner Stan Laurel comes up with a great solution, living on a docked boat so the salt sea air can help Ollie get all the rest he needs. It's a great premise for all the mad cap hijinks to ensue, as the boat is set adrift by the hungry goat, and an escaped convict (Richard Cramer) stows along for the ride.<br /><br />I got a kick out of all the gags in the film, starting with that sign in the horn testing factory - 'Silence While Men Are Working'. The early story at the boys' apartment features a number of mixed up plumbing and appliance mishaps, with Stan doing a banana within a banana bit. Laurel has a couple of great lines in the picture, like "We must have been dis-unconnected", but the one that had me rolling was his response to the criminal on board ship - "Self preservation is the last law of averages" - precisely!<br /><br />I'm not as great a student of Laurel and Hardy's films as many on this board, all I know is I enjoyed them as a kid and find them to be as entertaining today as they were back in my youth. On that count, "Saps At Sea" provides a decent hour of hornophobic fun, well on it's way to hornomania. | My first question after seeing this film was, "Why is the title LIAM?" If the intent was to tell a story from the boy's perspective, it was not carried out well. Of course there was the formulaic use of camera angles in the boy's scenes, but much of the crucial action took place outside of his field of view. Having a "main" character unable to speak (obviously suggesting the mute, powerless position of a child) makes it difficult to give that character much depth.<br /><br />Melodrama is defined as: "dramatic or other literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict" LIAM fits this definition to a T. The viewer is hit over the head with the typical stereotypes of the fire and brimstone Catholic Church in the stern school marm and the well-fed priest squeezing money from parishioners. (A stereotype which is becoming very tiresome.) What's more--the Jewish characters are money lenders and factory owners!<br /><br />Much of the film was predictable...Who didn't think that we'd see Theresa scrubbing the toilet after her mother had told her "No daughter of mine will scrub another woman's toilet!" I'm a fan of British realism if it's done well. In my opinion, LIAM is not.<br /><br /> | 214 |
Spoilers!<br /><br />From the very moment I saw a local film critic trash this movie in a review on the 10:00 news, I wanted to see it. I don't remember who it was, or which local Omaha newscast carried the review, but the critic was very insistent that this film was way too sleazy for the average church-going Nebraskan. They showed a snippet from the scene where John Glover is about to kidnap Ann-Margret when she's swimming in the pool. Glover's character is commending her on how nice her body is and so forth, using many words that the local station felt necessary to edit out. I was hooked. There was one problem, though. I was only 13 years old at the time, and I had to wait a year until it came out on cable. Let's just say, it was worth the wait!<br /><br />If ever there was a guilty pleasure of mine, this movie is it. To call this film sleazy would be a huge understatement. The film centers around a successful businessman who is blackmailed by three small time scumbags after an affair with a young woman. Roy Scheider, who is as effective as ever, plays the poor guy who just wanted a little fling and now finds himself at the mercy of three terrific villains. John Glover's character is one of the most memorable scumbags of all time. He's sleazy, funny at times, and always on the brink of doing something crazy. Then there's Robert Trebor's (nice name, by the way!) character Leo who is clearly in over his head with this blackmail scheme. He is a whimpering, sweating, coward who runs a peep show place with live nude models. Then, you have Clarence Williams III as Bobby Shy, a brooding sociopath who everyone is afraid of with good reason. Who could forget the wake-up call he gives Vanity with the giant teddy bear?<br /><br />After dealing with the initial shock of realizing what he's up against, Scheider turns the tables on these creeps and takes control of the situation, that is until Glover goes after his wife! The conflict is played out brutally, with virtually the entire cast getting shot, raped, or blown up. <br /><br />I don't know why I love this movie so much. It really should creep me out, but it doesn't. Maybe it's because these characters are all interesting, and the story takes plenty of chances that most films today would never try. It's scary to think that the adult film industry probably has more than a few characters like Glover's running around out in L.A. looking for trouble. Just thinking about his voice is enough to make me chuckle. "Hey sport, have a nice day!"<br /><br />This film has plenty of shootouts, cool cars, great dialog (like the line in my opening statement), and decent acting. Plenty of cameos by real life porno stars. Look for Ron Jeremy frolicking around in a hot tub with two chicks in a party scene at Glover's place. <br /><br />Another thing I must add: How hot are the women in this film??? Wow! Travolta did right by marrying Kelly Preston. Yum! We also see Vanity get nude in a time before she became a born again Christian. And Ann-Margret. What else could you say about her except that she is the quintessential American Beauty. <br /><br />9 of 10 stars.<br /><br />So sayeth the Hound.<br /><br />Added Feb 14, 2008: RIP Roy Scheider! | I have to admit that Over Her Dead Body actually wasn't as bad as I was expecting, my mom wanted to see it, so I rented it. I figured just to go ahead and see the horror before my eyes, but actually this wasn't too bad. I was just expecting this horrific movie, but it seems like the writers meant no harm, but the casting of Eva Longoria(Parker, sorry), she seems a little off set for the movie. I think I may have found it to be a little better without her, just she does annoy me. But Paul Rudd and Lake Bell had a decent chemistry that made the film somewhat likable. But you have to admit, there was no point to this movie, it was one of those quick paychecks for the actor type of thing. The movie could've been funnier if someone had really paid attention to it and had a better cast.<br /><br />Henry just lost his bride to be, Kate, who was killed by an ice sculpture on their wedding day. But when his sister takes him to a psychic, Ashley, Henry falls for her, but Kate is haunting her from beyond the grave. Kate is jealous and doesn't want Henry to move on so quickly and she will make sure that Ashley doesn't get him by torturing her day and night with her rambles, believe me, with Kate's voice, that's scary.<br /><br />Over Her Dead Body is an alright movie, not sure if it's worth the money, but I'd give it a rental for you if you want to see it or are curious. Eva Longoria just doesn't have enough star power to make the film work, no offense to those who love her, she just belongs on the small screen over the silver screen. Not to mention the character of Ashley, she seems still not too likable with everything she pulls, or her "gay" friend, Dan, just again, not really likable. Just with some re-writing and proper attention, this film could have been better, but instead we get the average predictable romantic comedy that will leave with with an empty feeling.<br /><br />4/10 | 215 |
I have screened this movie several times here at college, and every time I show it, the number of people watching with me grows exponentially... in addition to the virgins, anyone I've already shown it to NEEDS to see it again! It takes a little while to get into it, but by the end the whole room is screaming, shouting, yelling, rewinding scenes repeatedly, repeating dialogue, and just totally and completely engrossed in the moviegoing experience that is Pia Zadora in "The Lonely Lady"! Scene after scene after scene of the most ineptly filmed, poorly written, horribly acted TRASH is thrown at you in an all-out assault that ranks as the campiest thing I own (no small statement, friends). For me nothing compares 2 U, Pia... and I don't suppose I'm the only one who's ever felt this way! | Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)<br /><br />One saving grace was a song performed at the "talent show" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called "I'm A Heat Seeking Missile". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a "so bad it's good" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear. <br /><br />Rating: 1 out of 10 | 216 |
I work at a movie store, and as such, I am always on the look-out for an excellent movie. I decided to check out Nothing as it sat in our Canadian section, and I've been trying to support my country's movie industry. I was in for a surprise. The film features David Hewlett and Andrew Miller in a highly entertaining story that seems to delve into so much of our minds and relationships...without working that hard. It is consistently comedic through the interaction of the two characters, as well as some funny exchanges ("We can't be dead, we have cable!"). What more can I say without noting that it is worth a shot, even if you abandon it within the first half an hour. | A confused mess from start to finish. Like they used to say about the Beatles'songs, there was a secret message if you played the LP backward. If one had the patience to watch this films scenes from finish to start, you'd come away with the same degree of disappointment.<br /><br />Apart from all of this psychedelic hodge podge of flashbacks and false starts, the clearest characters were the movie backers, out for revenge if the movie didn't get sorted. There was nothing to like about these two either. Overacting, shouting and threats were delivered in comic book fashion. I think one dimensional was an overstatement.<br /><br />Okay, so maybe the artsy types are rolling their eyes reveling in the fact that unlike them, we plebeians just didn't get it. Well I'm afraid there was nothing to get. And the two cardinal sins of any bad movie carried from start to finish. A non-existent and pathetic story line if you want to call it that, and by far the worst, not a single character you cared about in the least. | 217 |
WHITE FIRE was recommended to me by a guy who owns it on two separate DVD releases and on VHS. He claimed it's one of the funniest and coolest low budget actioners ever made. I generally don't watch movies knowing that they're going to be bad, but I made an exception for this one... and I was very glad that I did.<br /><br />It's filled to the brim with action (much of it surprisingly, graphically gory), sleaze (isolated to nudity with a key female character, but there's so much of it in one scene that it becomes hilarious) and outrageously awkward dialogue, all of which adds to the laughter-inducing tone of the film.<br /><br />Ginty, the unusual looking star of THE EXTERMINATOR (and countless other low budget action turds) is amusing in the lead, giving the best performance he could muster. Williamson is better than usual, clearly hamming it up with unparalleled glee (and he doesn't come in until midway through). The rest of the cast is also fun to watch, particularly the villains, one of whom is a sadistic sexpot who speaks with an accent that appears to be a mish-mash of Spanish and Italian. She's priceless.<br /><br />Again, I can't stress enough how gory it was. It's not so bloody that it's nauseating, but it's uncommonly violent in parts with some meaty squibs going off in the shootouts and it has a grueling torture sequence that no man will soon forget. Also, when Ginty is being swarmed by a pack of bad guys, he conveniently gets a hold of a chainsaw and the splatter moments that follow will have any and all action fans cheering and spilling their beers.<br /><br />Don't miss WHITE FIRE. It's a rollicking - if mind-numbingly stupid - action classic. | I saw this film at SXSW with the director in attendance. Quite a few people walked out, and the audience could barely muster even polite applause at the end. Of the 60 or 70 films I've seen at this festival, Frownland is among the worst.<br /><br />At 106 minutes, it is at least 95 minutes too long. You get to watch the main character's failed and drawn out attempts to communicate, in extended real time. The same grimaces, hand over mouth motions, kinetic and frantically repeated words and syllables over and over and over again - WE GET THE POINT.<br /><br />One site actually compares this work to early Mike Leigh. What drugs would you have to be on to make that statement? Given that Frownland is a Captain Beefheart song, maybe you'd have to be able to enjoy Trout Mask Replica on heavy rotation to appreciate this film. Unbelievably, this won a jury award at the festival. You can bet it did not win an audience award. | 218 |
SYNOPSIS The future as seen from 1939 England. As war loomed over Europe, the salvation of mankind will not be found in the politics of the past. It is up to the brave new world of science to overcome man's past mistakes.<br /><br />CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Beware your leaders and what you are told. Thinking outside the box can lead to a brighter tomorrow. There will always be descent and fear, and learning to overcome it is our only hope.<br /><br />PROS AND CONS I had seen this film long ago and recently downloaded it off of the internet (it is in the public domain). This is a fascinating work on numerous levels. Since it is a story about the future as seen from 1939, it has obvious flaws. This vision of the future is both terrifying and whimsical. This film was cutting edge for its day. The special effects are very good as is the story line. The acting suffers a bit in the British theatrical sense, in that it can lean a bit toward Shakespeare.<br /><br />One of the underlying themes of the film is that science and technology can solve all our problems, which we now know is not always true. The films other plot line is that charismatic leaders are a curse of human existence and will probably always be with us.<br /><br />The underpinnings of almost all later science fiction movies can be seen in this film. The set design and wardrobe of "Forbidden Planet", the failings of technology in "2001: A Space Odessy", even the lush landscapes / cityscapes of "Star Wars" owe some amount of inspiration to this film.<br /><br />The ending of the film leaves the viewer a bit perplexed. While it is optimistic in its ending sequence of reaching for the stars, we are left to wonder if mankind will ever be able to make it. Even as we reach, there are those that are trying to hold us back. This films vision of the future while interesting is also a bit humorous by todays standards. Huge flying machines and guns that could shoot people into space never materialized in the real world, but in 1939 they were considered the next logical step.<br /><br />Many great British actors are in this film as young men. Cedric Hardwicke and Ralph Richardson are the most recognized and their oratory skills are evident here. Raymond Massey is a curious choice to play the lead character, Cabel. His character almost comes across as the new Christ sent to save the world from its own destruction with the new religion of science.<br /><br />This is a good piece of cinema history whose themes are still relevant today even if its vision of the future missed the mark. | Hallam Foe tells us the story about a boy who lost his mother and experiences some sort of Oedepus complex afterward.<br /><br />It is something like 95 minutes long but would be better in ten. There's like an hour in the middle where he is doing climbing practice on rooftops, and habits in a church tower like Quasimodo (only he is much less sympathetic).<br /><br />There's a strange love story involved which doesn't have anything to do with anything. She happens to look like his mother, yes so what? We know he misses his mother, that's what the first ten minutes were about. They should just have put the beginning and ending together and it would have been a O.K. short film. Now it's a portrait of a character who doesn't change. He is a guy that stuff happens to. The only active choice he has in the whole middle of the movie is to apply for a job.<br /><br />There's this whole Oedepus thing going on which is supposed to make us analyze his character. He paints his face, dresses in women's clothing and wears a dead Badger on his head. A Badger! You've got to see the ending! He returns to his home with the badger on his head (and it is shot like a tacky Horror film) to kill his dad's new wife (which he had sex with in the beginning). And somehow they thought this wouldn't be entertaining enough so they put some indie punk music in the background. I've got to admit though, I'm kind of allergic to films that want to write a psychological complex on your nose. It feels like this MacKenzie director/guy/whatever is trying to show us that he also has been studying psychology in school. You are so smart! Thank you for bringing all these forgotten theories back into our memories! You really dug! What a Wallraff! Okay so now I realized this film is based on some random book, but anyway..<br /><br />Photowise it is boring. A lot of talking heads. Plus the editor has changed the colors from scene to scene, you know cold and warm etc.. why? maybe "Hallam Foe" is both a feature and a test film for color blind people. Or maybe they just thought that the drama wouldn't be enough to tell us that he feels lonely, so they increased blue so that we really get it.<br /><br />I'm not even gonna comment on the cliché indie-oh-how-how-how-cute drawings they have made in the presentation. And all the "cute" sex stuff going on. This whole film is an independent cliché. But I do recommend it. I laughed more than a few times. Though it is really annoying to be a film student and to see how crap like this gets through the machine. | 219 |
This is one of those movies that's difficult to review without giving away the plot. Suffice to say there are weird things and unexpected twists going on, beyond the initial superficial "Tom Cruise screws around with multiple women" plot.<br /><br />The quality cast elevate this movie above the norm, and all the cast are well suited to their parts: Cruise as the irritatingly smug playboy who has it all - and then loses it all, Diaz as the attractive but slightly deranged jilted lover, Cruz as the exotic new girl on the scene and Russell as the fatherly psychologist. The story involves elements of romance, morality, murder-mystery, suspense and sci-fi and is generally an entertaining trip.<br /><br />I should add that the photography is also uniformly excellent and the insertion of various visual metaphors is beautiful once you realize what's going on.<br /><br />If you enjoy well-acted movies with twists and suspense, and are prepared to accept a slightly fantastic Philip K Dick style resolution, then this is a must-see. <br /><br />9/10 | The one reason I remember this is that it was shown the week after Nigel Kneale`s brilliant QUATERMASS serial was broadcast . The trailers made heavy emphasis that the main character had a mutilated arm which had me hoping he`d be like Victor Caroon from THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT stalking the streets of London .<br /><br />No such luck because THE RACING GAME is just a rather drab thriller with the gimmick of having a hero with a physical disability trying to get to the bottom of investigations of corrupt horse racing . I suppose if you`re a fan of Dick Francis you might enjoy it but setting it in the context of the late 70s when THE SWEENEY had just finished and THE PROFESSIONALS was still being produced , there`s something lacking about THE RACING GAME . One trailer featured a car over taking another on a motor way , if it`d been a trailer for THE SWEENEY you`d see Jack Regan over taking a car and beating a confession out of the slags who`d done a blag while THE PROFESSIONALS would have over taken a car and blown away the terrorists inside . I think that sums up what`s wrong with this series | 220 |
This is probably the fastest-paced and most action-packed of the German Edgar Wallace "krimi" series, a cross between the Dr. Mabuse films of yore and 60's pop thrillers like Batman and the Man from UNCLE. It reintroduces the outrageous villain from an earlier film who dons a stylish monk's habit and breaks the necks of victims with the curl of a deadly whip. Set at a posh girls' school filled with lecherous middle-aged professors, and with the cops fondling their hot-to-trot secretaries at every opportunity, it certainly is a throwback to those wonderfully politically-incorrect times. There's a definite link to a later Wallace-based film, the excellent giallo "Whatever Happened to Solange?", which also concerns female students being corrupted by (and corrupting?) their elders. Quite appropriate to the monk theme, the master-mind villain uses booby-trapped bibles here to deal some of the death blows, and also maintains a reptile-replete dungeon to amuse his captive audiences. <br /><br />Alfred Vohrer was always the most playful and visually flamboyant of the series directors, and here the lurid colour cinematography is the real star of the show. The Monk appears in a raving scarlet cowl and robe, tastefully setting off the lustrous white whip, while appearing against purplish-night backgrounds. There's also a voyeur-friendly turquoise swimming pool which looks great both as a glowing milieu for the nubile students and as a shadowy backdrop for one of the murder scenes. The trademark "kicker" of hiding the "Ende" card somewhere in the set of the last scene is also quite memorable here. And there's a fine brassy and twangy score for retro-music fans.<br /><br />Fans of the series will definitely miss the flippant Eddie Arent character in these later films. Instead, the chief inspector Sir John takes on the role of buffoon, convinced that he has mastered criminal psychology after taking a few night courses. Unfortunately, Klaus Kinski had also gone on to bigger and better things. The krimis had lost some of their offbeat subversive charm by this point, and now worked on a much more blatant pop-culture level, which will make this one quite accessible to uninitiated viewers. | For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.<br /><br />For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.<br /><br />Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.<br /><br />For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer. | 221 |
Loved this film. Real people, great acting, humour, unpredictable. The characters were believable and you really connected with them. If you're looking for a film about slightly offbeat characters outside the mainstream of society and how they help each other, this would be a good choice. | Jill Dunne (played by Mitzi Kapture), is an attractive, nice woman, over-whelmed by a smart-mouthed teenage daughter, Liv (Martha MacIsaac) and a petty, two-timing husband, Sean (Rick Roberts), both of which were tediously self-centered, and obnoxious.<br /><br />This was advertised as a troubled family stalked by a crazed killer during a relentless storm.<br /><br />The storm doesn't even happen until about the last 5 minutes of the film, and then it isn't anything to send anybody running to the storm cellar.<br /><br />The stalking, likewise doesn't get intense until almost the end of the film.<br /><br />Most of the film we spend listening to Jill and her insufferable daughter, Liv, argue until I just wanted to back slap the daughter into next week.<br /><br />Jill's problem with Liv is that she has taken up with Zack, a boy of questionable character, and they are constantly making out--in fact Jill comes home to find the two of them on Liv's bed.<br /><br />The rest of the time we spend listening to Jill's husband Sean either whine at Jill or criticize her.<br /><br />Sean was not at all appealing--since his face is so covered in freckles you could play connect the dots.<br /><br />The story begins with Jill being notified of an out-standing bill on their credit card for a hotel she has never been to, and that she thought Sean had never been to either.<br /><br />Jill goes to the hotel where she meets the owner & manager, Richard Grant (Nick Mancuso), a very nice, older, divorced man, who is sympathetic to her. In fact, when he spots her husband there again, he phones Jill and tips her off.<br /><br />Jill returns to the hotel, sees Sean with another woman. She is upset, leaves without Sean seeing her, and does absolutely nothing. In fact, she doesn't even say anything to Sean when he arrives home. This made no sense to me.<br /><br />Jill has given Richard her business card, and so he calls her and she is apparently in real estate. She shows him a condo. Afterwards they have a drink, and things get cozy between them.<br /><br />Richard and Jill are getting it on, hot and heavy. In fact, he seems a bit more aggressive than necessary, when Jill suddenly decides to cut out.<br /><br />Jill and Sean have a confrontation about his cheating. Sean whines about how Jill has been letting him down since her father died. Apparently his lack of any morals is all her fault. Eventually Jill confesses her own lack of morals and near adultery to Sean--and of course that's all her fault too, as far as Sean is concerned.<br /><br />The little family decides to go on a camping trip--which means more whining and grousing among them, especially from the spoiled daughter.<br /><br />I was so rooting for the stalker to get everybody, but Jill.<br /><br />3 stars | 222 |
Many reviews I've read reveals that most people tend to like Part One better than Part Two. I feel exactly the opposite. Part One played around a bit much with trying to find different ways of showing Che Guevara's personality through different types of film stock, different locations, and cutting back and forth between an interview and the Cuban revolution. For the most part it was structured finely but somewhat distracting. In Part Two, Che enters Bolivia, and along with changing geographical location, the rules and the structure changes. Gone are the spacial jumps and switching between stocks, the "documentary realism" and the treatises. Instead, now we are literally trapped with Che in a desaturated, depopulated landscape where the only people who exist are burdened too far with their lives for anything but survival to be an option. I posit that it's the dark turn of Che's life that is the real reason why most people prefer Part One to Part Two.<br /><br />The change in geographic location also signifies, for me at least, that Che: Part One and Che: Part Two are, in fact, the second two acts of a three act structure begun by Motorcycle Diaries. Motorcycle Diaries is Che's coming-of-age (or more appropriately, coming-of-ideals) in Argentina, Che: Part One is his military leadership in Cuba, and Che: Part Two is his downfall in Bolivia. These movies do not completely illustrate his life (we're missing his experiences in Guatamala and, more importantly in my opinion, his post-Cuban revolution executions), but they create a very detailed exploration into the controversial aspects of his character and nature as worldwide symbol. He both symbolizes the idealism and need for armed resistance to oppression, and revolutionary failings in the post-World War II third world countries and their hindering by such activities as, um, the CIAs meddling.<br /><br />But, yet again, all of that is projected on-screen in this case not through long scenes of dialog and speeches, but through a much more intimate, suffering portrayal of Che at the end of his thread and his life. Again, the rules have changed, and in this case it's hard to tell if there was any chance of success at all. The number of times the camera shows people literally trapped between a rock and a hard place and the desaturated, shaky long takes involves the audience into the narrative of people imprisoned in a hostile landscape, an existential hell, where revolutionary beliefs ultimately end up taking second tier to the desperation of hunted people starving to death. It's just not that easy of a movie to watch, but it's very effective.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | This is waaaaay to much.. so frustrating to watch.. I was waiting for the whole damn movie to end and to finally get some ANSWERS!!.. and what I've had in the end was nothing but a HUUUGE neon-sign question mark above my head!!!!! I haven't seen such a bad acting and such a nonsense movie in a long long time.. and what's bothering me is.. how come someone (an actor) read the script of such a bull!?#@ movie and say: OK, I'M IN!!! LET'S FILM THIS! This is horrible!!! THIS MOVIE SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS!!!!!! I just can't believe I've spent an hour and a half of my life on something like this!!! | 223 |
I first saw this film when i was about 13. It blew me away then and in many respects it still does now. But i am less inclined to see it as an accurate historical piece now. There is precious little effort made to examine and interact with the racism - and thus fails to recognise that the most potent anti racism weapon is to understand it at its very core in those who commit it. What we get instead is a dichotomy - on the one side, beko and woods in 3D panoramic rainbow vision - on the other, two dimensional characters are portrayed as unapologetic unthinking evil.<br /><br />This all makes for a great film story, but it worries me that people see the portrayal as 'accurate'. | This movie is just plain terrible!!!! Slow acting, slow at getting to the point and wooden characters that just shouldn't have been on there. The best part was the showing of Iron Maiden singing in some video at a theater and thats it. the ending was worth watching and waiting up for but that was it!! The characters in this movie put me to sleep almost. Avoid it!!! | 224 |
I just saw Hot Millions on TCM and I had completely forgotten this gem. Ustinov creates a clever and divisive plot that has him cleverly going from two bit con man to ingenious... Well you'll see. Maggie Smith is perfect as the bumbling secretary/neighbor who has a tough time holding a job but has a warm and vibrant personality that beams through in this picture. She creates a fine portrayal of a warm, witty and real person who in the long run...well...<br /><br />Molden and Newhart as top executives take on the challenge of making what could be banal roles and make them come out into a comic life of their own. <br /><br />Robert Morley and Ceasar Romero are just a pleasure to see and I know at least in Romero's case Ustinov is extending a helping hand of work. <br /><br />This film is meant to be a shot back at the rising computer age and it's problems for the average con man or man for that matter but in fact the characters are so involving and so much fun to watch that the computer sub plot is almost lost...I say almost.<br /><br />Let down your usual expectations of modern comedy and look for the great performances and friendly, forgiving and deeply involving plot in this picture. | I like a movie that has at least a vestige of a story. This doesn't occur in this movie. It's a series of vignettes with no cohesion.<br /><br />There are scenes of a person collecting pineapple cans. A woman with a blond wig never removes her sun glasses. This woman shoots at other people at the beginning of the movie and we never find out why. She disappears completely after about 30 minutes. There is another coquettish woman who endlessly cleans a man's apartment. There are endless scenes at a fast food joint where the Mamas & Papas 'California Dreaming' is vastly overplayed (I used to like the song). The dialogue is mostly concerned with food (pineapples, chef's salad and ordering drinks
). I assume most of the actors gained weight during this movie because a lot of fast food was consumed.<br /><br />There is no passion in this movie because there is no story. This is purportedly a romance - it is no such thing. I just wonder why I didn't hit the Fast-forward. I kept waiting for something significant to happen it doesn't. Maybe that's the only consolation to this movie - scenes shifted so rapidly that it tricked you into assuming that there was going to be a revelation to all the nonsense. | 225 |
This is not a profound movie; most of the plot aspects are pretty predictable and "tried and true" but it was well-acted and made some interesting points about what we might regret (our "mistakes" as the movie calls them) as we look back over our lives. I had not read the book, so didn't know much other than it was the story of a dying woman who has strong memories from long ago that she hasn't really shared with anyone. Thankfully they got a top-notch cast....Meryl<br /><br />Streep's daughter, Mamie Gummer, plays the young Lila, and then Meryl shows up at the end of the film as the old Lila...in addition to an amazing resemblance (duh!) the younger actress did a great job (perhaps not quite up to her mom's caliber, but who is?) All others in this film were fine, although I wish there had been more of Glen Close and thought the Buddy character was alittle too dramatic. <br /><br />This is more of a girls' movie than for the guys, but a good one to see with your mom, or your daughter, and maybe start some dialog going. How hard it is to really know a parent as a "person"! | I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine "Englebert Sings Hendrix".<br /><br />Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.<br /><br />If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.<br /><br />I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result. | 226 |
Honestly, this is the best reality show anyone has ever come up with. In order to win the money you have to actually be INTELLIGENT. Not only that you've got to be brave, athletic, cunning, etc. It actually requires skill. Not like some lame-ass shows that are on these days. And yet, they only have two seasons of it! Bull..they need to bring this show back!! <br /><br />Although, they'll have a hard time pulling Anderson Cooper away from CNN. He was great.<br /><br />But seriously, it was an amazing show. You never knew who would be going when. And it was so much fun trying to figure out the mole yourself! It was a show you could actually play yourself if you wanted to!<br /><br />BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! | This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).<br /><br />I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY. <br /><br />The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.<br /><br />Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff. | 227 |
I just got this video used and I was watching it last night. The acting started out extremely bad (hey------hey------twister) but got very good soon after wards. The tornadoes looked extremely fake, and many of the CGI effects were very dodgy, but the scene with the house cracking apart and the contents inside being blown around and sucked out were extremely well done, and just about on par with movies like Twister. The scenes of devastation were also extremely well done too. The story was very well written, and it's refreshing to see a movie like this stray away from the same old "disaster formulas" movies of this genre seems to have been stuck in for 30 years.<br /><br />While this movie had a very weird mix of FX and acting quality, this merits an A in my book. | This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong. | 228 |
As a another reviewer states Hanna's War is an outstanding film about an outstanding person, Hanna "Anniko" Senesh, who would become the Jewish Joan Of Arc. Unfortunately I diverge in opinion not agreeing that Miss Detmers as the lead is too beautiful to be taken seriously as a resistance fighter. In truth for me her performance is not held back by her beauty but makes it all the more stark in the terror of the sadistic brutality as a resistor she faces. Maruschka Detmers performance is brave, poignant, heartfelt or understood, and totally believable. In other words for me "In the zone." from the opening credits. If you would like to learn about the suffering of someone else for something they believe in and be impressively entertained give Hanna's War with Maruschka Detmers a try. My hat is off also to Ellen Burstyn as Hanna's mother a much well known and famous actress who could have made effort to walk off with the film. In that it is a team effort perhaps of two actress' but not an All About Eve situation. | I watched this film for 45 minutes and counted 9 mullets. That's a mullet every 5 minutes. Seriously though, this film is living proof that formula works. If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin. A streetwise-yet-vulnerable heroine, a hardened ex-cop martial arts master with a heart of gold and a serial killer with 'issues'. Pure magic. | 229 |
What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure. | I'm so confused. I've been a huge Seagal fan for 25 years. I've seen all of his films, and many of those dozens of times. I can only describe this film as "bizarre." Steven Seagal shares screenplay writing and producing credits on this film, but I have a really tough time believing he would choose to dub over his own voice for so many of his lines, with a thin, whiny imposter's voice no less. What I also don't get is, if they had to dub SOME of his lines, why does his own voice appear on the rest of them? I expect Seagal to age like the rest of us. But the Seagal in this movie barely exudes a fraction of the same swagger, confidence, bravado, charm, and sex-appeal he so easily showed us in ALL of his previous movies. What I found myself missing most of all was his cocky, self-assured attitude and his bad-ass sneer that so easily shifts into that adorable grin. Where is that in-your-face attitude and charm that made him such a huge star??? I hope that this film is not an indication of what Seagal has left to offer us - if so, his lifelong fans will have to concede that the Seagal we all knew and loved is gone. | 230 |
Evidently, not many people have seen this movie, because no one is posting any more comments. This is not a movie to be missed. After all, it has won the George Peabody award as well as the Humanitas award. Paul Winfield should have won an award for his awesome performance in this movie. Eugene Logan who was a co-writer on this made for TV movie also was part of another movie on humanity, or loss of it, by being a technical adviser to Truman Capote's movie the Glass House. This movie is now available on DVD. If anyone is interested, I will post another letter telling how it was that Eugene Logan came to be the technical adviser to a movie of such an amazing person as Truman Capote. Thanks for reading this and I hope you will find a way to view these two movies. | I received this movie as a gift, I knew from the DVD cover, this movie are going to be bad.After not watching it for more than a year I finally watched it. what a pathetic movie
.<br /><br />I almost didn't finish watching this bad movie,but it will be unfair of me to write a review without watching the complete movie.<br /><br />Trust me when I say " this movie sucks" I am truly shocked that some bad filmmaker wane bee got even financed to make this pathetic movie, But it couldn't have cost more than $20 000 to produce this movie. all you need are a cheap camcorder or a cell phone camera .about 15 people with no acting skills, a scrip that were written by a couple of drunk people.<br /><br />In the fist part of this ultra bad move a reporter (Tara Woodley )run a suppose to be drunk man over on her way to report on a hunted town. He are completely unharmed. They went to a supposed to be abandon house ,but luckily for the it almost complete furnished and a bottle of liquor on the door step happens to be there. just for the supposed to be drunk man but all is not what it seems.<br /><br />Then the supposed drunk man start telling Tara ghost/zombies stories.<br /><br />The fist of his stupid lame stories must be the worst in history.<br /><br />his story<br /><br />Sgt. Ben Draper let one of his soldiers die of complete exhaustion (I think this is what happens)after letting the poor soldier private Wilson do sit ups he let him dig a grave and then the soldier collapse ,Ben Draper<br /><br />buries him in a shallow grave.<br /><br />But Sgt. Ben Draper are in for n big surprise. his wife/girl fiend knows about this and she and her lover kills Sgt. Ben Draper to take revenge on private Wilson.(next to the grave of the soldier he sort off murdered) The soldier wakes up from his grave in the form of zombie and kill them for taking revenge on his behalf.<br /><br />The twist ending were so lame.<br /><br />Even if you like B HORROR movies, don't watch this movie | 231 |
As this movie is completely in Swiss dialect, it's probably hard for most German speakers to really follow this movie. I'm not from Switzerland, but I worked there for some years, so I had the chance to understand this great spoof of the Lord of the Rings. I've seen a lot of movies of this kind (eg. Scary Movie, loads of Scifi spoofs etc.) but this one is the best one of that kind, I've seen so far. I give a 9 of 10. The only reason I can't give a 10 is, because there are some little details which could have been done better and because they supplied no subtitles in any language on the DVD, so there's almost no chance for non-Swiss to understand. | I really hate this retarded show, it SUCKS! big time, and personally I think it is insulting to fairy kind (if you believe in fairies that is); I mean the people who had come up with such crap 'ought to have their heads examine huh? and also there is a LOT of craziness (the evil school teacher, which I think is getting really old) and also stupidity (the boy's parents and fairy godfather) in this show - two of the things that I dispised and loathe in the WHOLE world (especially stupidity).<br /><br />Overall, I say that this show is so f*****' annoying and should not be seen by prying eyes at ALL (it would make'em bleed to death)! | 232 |
All films made before 1912 really need to be viewed with a sense of time and place.<br /><br />In 1894, the Lumiere-family men [father: Antoine (1840-1911), sons: Auguste and Louis] owned and managed a factory that manufactured photographic plates and paper. Not a small enterprise; the factory had more than 200 employees who received pension and social security benefits - innovative for that time. It was located at Montplaisir in the suburbs of Lyon, France. What caused Louis Lumiere to become interested in building a Cinematagraph, in 1894, remains open for speculation. My suggestion is that the appearance of the Edison organization's Kinetoscope (peep-show machine), in Paris during the fall of 1894, provided the catalyst.<br /><br />W.K.L. Dickson, of Edison's staff, invented a motion-picture camera about the size of an upright piano that was patented in February 1893. It was electrically operated (using power from from heavy storage batteries. This massive machine pumped celluloid film strip (newly developed by the Eastman company) past a lens at about 40 frames-per-second (fps). It was ensconced, as an almost immovable object, in the "Black Maria" (essentially the first movie studio.) The Kinetescope machines showed staged presentations (less than one-minute long)that were filmed in this studio.<br /><br />During 1894, Louis Lumiere applied himself to the task of inventing a moving-picture camera. He had determined that, even at 16 fps on celluloid film, the persistence-of-vision of the human eye/brain would allow for normal motion to be perceived. His camera, dubbed the Cinematograph, was about the size of a large shoe box and was provided with a detachable film magazine that provided storage for enough film to make a shoot last about one minute when it was had cranked past the lens at 16 fps.<br /><br />The size and light weight, of the camera (it could be converted into a printer or a projector by the addition of a light source) made it portable enough that it could be taken to any location to record an event (provided there was enough sunlight available.) In the spring of 1895, Louis filmed: trick-riding by some cavalry men; a house on fire with firemen arriving and dousing the engulfed building with water; and a number of other scenes in and around Lyon. Using a Molteni bulb, he turned the camera into a projector and presented his films to scientists assembled in the reception room of the Revue Generales des Science. The images were projected on a screen five-meters distant from the lens. The screen was stretched in a doorway between two rooms. At a meeting of professional photographers, that same year, Louis photographed the arriving delegates and the same evening showed them motion pictures of their arrival.<br /><br />With accolades from both the scientific and photographic communities, Louis decided to have a public exhibition of his invention by the end of the year. Since each of his films would be about one-minute long, he would need at least a dozen films to make a good presentation. For one of these films he set up his camera at the entrance to his factory, photographing the egress of employees at quitting-time.<br /><br />The public venue chosen by Antoine - who offered himself as the "fairground barker" for the Cinematograph - was the Salon Indien of the Grand Cafe on the boulevard des Capucines in Paris. It was a wintry Saturday night on 28 December, 1895. As the first audience sat, they were presented with a projected view of the exterior of the Lumiere factory (with closed gates.) Some were chagrined that they were just going to see a routine slide show of Lumiere photographs. But then the crank on the camera/projector was turned and movement began. Louis had an innate sense for motion picture taking. This film has a beginning, a middle and an end. In the beginning, the doors are opened and people begin to leave their workplace; during the middle, the people stream out - with many trying to ignore the camera, and the cameraman, as they seem to be happy to leave a day of labor behind them. At the end, the gates to the factory are being closed.<br /><br />And this was the first film projected for the entertainment of the general public. | I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0) | 233 |
I remember that i was a child when i first saw this movie, it was my first horror movie (maybe that's the reason why i can still remember some parts of it). I don't remember much about acting, nude scenes or other things but i do remember a male has head blown up with a grenade, a male dismembered over a tree and a male run down by truck and shot in head :) (Todd Schaefer, Kenny Johnson and Kevin McParland). I also remember the last scene when Jennifer McAllister riped of the killer stomach to get the keys of the truck. It's a movie that gives you the creep and it's worth a look. But where do i find it? How can i download it? | I very nearly walked out, but I'd paid my money, and my nearly-as-disgusted friend wanted to hold out. After the endearing, wide-eyed innocence of "A New Hope" and the thrilling sophistication of "The Empire Strikes Back," I remember awaiting "Return of the Jedi" with almost aching anticipation. But from the opening scene of this insultingly commercial sewage, I was bitterly disappointed, and enraged at Lucas. He should have been ashamed of himself, but this abomination undeniably proves that he doesn't have subatomic particle of shame in his cold, greedy heart. Episode I would go on to reinforce this fact -- your honor, I call Jarjar Binks (but please issue barf bags to the members of the jury first).<br /><br />From the initial raising of the gate at Jabba's lair, this "film" was nothing more than a two-plus-hour commercial for as many licensable, profit-making action figures as Lucas could cram into it -- the pig-like guards, the hokey flesh-pigtailed flunky, that vile muppet-pet of Jabba's, the new and recycled cabaret figures, the monsters, etc., etc., ad vomitum. Then there were the detestably cute and marketable Ewoks. Pile on top of that all of the rebel alliance aliens. Fifteen seconds each on-screen (or less) and the kiddies just GOTTA have one for their collection. The blatant, exploitative financial baiting of children is nauseating.<br /><br />Lucas didn't even bother to come up with a new plot -- he just exhumed the Death Star from "A New Hope" and heaved in a boatload of cheap sentiment. What an appalling slap in the face to his fans. I can't shake the notion that Lucas took a perverse pleasure in inflicting this dreck on his fans: "I've got these lemmings hooked so bad that I can crank out the worst piece of stinking, putrid garbage that I could dream up, and they'll flock to the theaters to scarf it up. Plus, all the kiddies will whine and torture their parents until they buy the brats a complete collection of action figures of every single incidental undeveloped, cartoonish caricature that I stuffed in, and I get a cut from every single one. It'll make me even more obscenely rich."<br /><br />There may have been a paltry, partial handful of redeeming moments in this miserable rip-off. I seem to recall that Harrison Ford managed to just barely keep his nose above the surface of this cesspool. But whatever tiny few bright spots there may be are massively obliterated by the offensive commercialism that Lucas so avariciously embraced in this total, absolute sell-out to profit. | 234 |
9/10- 30 minutes of pure holiday terror. Okay, so it's not that scary. But it sure is fun.<br /><br />The Crypt Keeper (John Kassir) tales a tale of holiday FEAR, giving us all Christmas Goose... GosseBUMPS That is. Bwahahahahha. You should really be careful what you AXE Santa for. Have a Scary Christmas and a Happy New Fear. Okay I'll stop.<br /><br />Okay, so in the story, a greedy wife (Best screamer in the world, Mary Ellen Trainor) kills her husband (Marshall Bell, the coach who gets towel whipped to death in ANOES 2) for the money. BUT, her plan is ruined when a crazy killer dressed in a Santa suit (Larry "Dr. Giggles" Drake) comes her way.<br /><br />If you look it up on YouTube, you can watch it for free, but most of you have already seen this (my third viewing). But if you haven't seen it, I suggest you do. | Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a "Napoleon Dynamite" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.<br /><br />The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.<br /><br />Thank gosh I didn't pay for it. | 235 |
I loved this movie. In fact I loved being an actress in this movie. Iwas featured as a pregnant teenager in the second half of the movie. You may remember me more clearly in the classroom scene when the werewolf was exposing himself on film. I was the female in the front row with my hands planted on my face in reaction to what we were watching on the movie projector. In fact they double took me a few times so it's hard to miss that mistake. Thumbs up to Full Moon High. Wish it come to cable soon. Cheryl Lockett Alexander Leesville, Louisiana I loved this movie. In fact I loved being an actress in this movie. Iwas featured as a pregnant teenager in the second half of the movie. You may remember me more clearly in the classroom scene when the werewolf was exposing himself on film. I was the female in the front row with my hands planted on my face in reaction to what we were watching on the movie projector. In fact they double took me a few times so it's hard to miss that mistake. Thumbs up to Full Moon High. Wish it come to cable soon. Cheryl Lockett Alexander<br /><br />Leesville, Louisiana | One can only assume that Robert Osborne is contractually obligated to express delight at even the least appealing films in the TCM library as this would explain him extolling the 'virtues' of this "charming" film during his introduction when I saw this on cable TV. Seeing as any old film on IMDb receives 'classic' status from a number of fawning amateur reviewers, I thought there was a dire need for a more honest review of this film.<br /><br />This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.<br /><br />From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing "I Don't Care" while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.<br /><br />This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.<br /><br />Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth. | 236 |
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. | I expected a comedy like the "Big Mama" movies. Instead, the movie was a bizarre mix of comedy, drama and a love story.<br /><br />This movie has three plots: The first involves Madea and her taking in a foster child. The second involves a woman who is engaged to a rich man who is abusing her. The third involves a relationship between a single mother with 2 children and a single father.<br /><br />There is actually very little comedy in the movie. There are also a number of very twisted messages in the movie. For example, Madea beats the foster child with a belt (in a comedic manner), to convince the child to straighten out. The child does, in fact, turn herself around. Apparently, it pays to beat children.<br /><br />There are plots dealing with child rape (with the consent of the mother). There are scenes with old men ogling young girls who are related to them. (The ogling takes place at a family reunion.) The movie jumps from plot to plot such that you are always off-balance. Is this a comedy, a love story, or a drama? It is, in fact, nothing ... except a waste of time and money. | 237 |
"In Cold Blood", adapted by director Richard Brooks from Truman Capote's famous novel, deals with the brutal and senseless murder of a family of four by a pair of hapless criminals. The film excels as a character study of the killers, particularly trigger-man Perry Smith (Robert Blake).<br /><br />The cast includes few recognizable names but they nevertheless bring the story to life with ease. Robert Blake and Scott Wilson are excellent together as two criminals with disparate personalities. They play off of each other effortlessly while Blake also gets plenty of opportunities to explore his character's idiosyncrasies. The rest of the cast is merely average and isn't worth remarking on.<br /><br />Richard Brooks received Oscar nominations for both his script and his direction. In my opinion, both were excellent, though the script does miscalculate with some ill-advised narration in the late stages. The Oscar-nominated cinematography by Conrad Hall is also top-notch, as is the editing. Also worthy of note is the jazzy score by Quincy Jones which secured the last of the film's four Oscar nominations.<br /><br />Unlike so many other crime films, this one doesn't glamorize violence. Brooks turns the killers into pitiable characters rather than flatly condemning them. Whether or not you agree with that sentiment the film does present an interesting alternative to the usual Hollywood approach. I recommend the film for this reason and also for the expertise with which the technical aspects are handled. | SPLIT SECOND might have been a good movie. A story about a "road rage" homicide, has a very young Clive Owen giving a pretty good performance; BUT...but....<br /><br />Unfortunately, the filmmakers undercut their own movie with idiotic camera-work and truly awful editing. The camera jumps all over creation in an unsuccessful attempt (I suppose) to reflect Owen's stress from business, family, and traffic. What this actually does is to give the viewer a headache.<br /><br />Since the filmmakers cared nothing about making a good movie, but only to impress each other with their idiotic photography, one ought not waste time on this travesty. | 238 |
Hold Your Man finds Jean Harlow, working class girl from Brooklyn falling for con man Clark Gable and getting in all kinds of trouble. The film starts out as his film, but by the time it's over the emphasis definitely switches to her character.<br /><br />The film opens with Gable pulling a street con game with partner, Garry Owen and the mark yelling for the cops. As he's being chased Gable ducks into Harlow's apartment and being he's such a charming fellow, she shields him.<br /><br />Before long she's involved with him and unfortunately with his rackets. Gable, Harlow, and Owen try pulling a badger game on a drunken Paul Hurst, but then Gable won't go through with it. Of course when Hurst realizes it was a con, he's still sore and gets belligerent and Gable has to punch him out. But then he winds up dead outside Harlow's apartment and that platinum blond hair makes her easy to identify. She goes up on an accomplice to manslaughter.<br /><br />The rest of the film is her's and her adjustment to prison life. Her interaction with the other female prisoners give her some very good scenes. I think some of the material was later used for the MGM classic Caged.<br /><br />Harlow also gets to do the title song and it's done as torch style ballad, very popular back in those days. She talk/sings it in the manner of Sophie Tucker and quite well. <br /><br />Gable is well cast as the con man who develops a conscience, a part he'd play often, most notably in my favorite Gable film, Honky Tonk.<br /><br />Still it's Harlow who gets to shine in this film. I think it's one of the best she did at MGM, her fans should not miss it. | The title says it all. "Tail Gunner Joe" was a tag given to the Senator which relied upon the ignorance of the public about World War II aircraft. The rear facing moving guns relied upon a latch that would prevent the rear gunner from shooting off the tail of the airplane by preventing the gun from firing when it pointed at the tail. When the Senator was practicing on the ground one day, he succeeded in shooting off the tail of the airplane. He couldn't have done that if the gun had been properly aligned. The gunnery officer responsible for that admitted, in public, before a camera, that he was responsible -- he had made the error, not the Senator. The fact that the film did not report that fact, shows how one-sided it is. This film was designed to do one thing, destroy the reputation of a complex person.<br /><br />A much better program was the PBS special done on him. He was a hard working, intelligent, ambitious politician who overcame extraordinary disadvantages to rise to extraordinary heights. He made some mistakes, some serious mistakes, but shooting the tail off an airplane was not one of them.<br /><br />The popularity of this film is due to the fact that the public likes simple stories, one=sided stories, so that they don't have to think. | 239 |
This movie was highly entertaining. The soundtrack (Bian Adams) is simply beautiful and inspiring. Even more impressive is Brian Adams doing all the songs in French as well. The score is also uplifting and dramatic.<br /><br />The movie is made from a mix of traditional animation, combined with computer generated images. The result is truly stunning. I watch this film at least once a week with my kids and we never tire of it. The story is compelling and well narrated.<br /><br />I don't understand anyone who would rank this movie less than a 7. Definately a keeper in my household. | I was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10 minutes, but was forced through the whole thing. This must be, hands down, the most gruesome pretense of a movie ever...<br /><br />There were great script moments, such as:<br /><br />Sammy - "If she gets over here right away, she gets a bonus" Madam - "A boner?" Sammy - "No, a bonus"<br /><br />To summarize: Horrible script, terrible acting and incredibly illogical. | 240 |
Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Père Noël..., re-see.<br /><br />A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Véronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' "un maximum d'"). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Léaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Léaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Léaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Léaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson. | I am a big fan of Ludlum's work, and of the Covert-one books, and I had often thought how incredible they would be made into a film. Imagine my excitement, then, on learning that such a movie actually existed! The 'Hades Factor' being the first in the series seemed an obvious place to start.<br /><br />From the outset the film was disappointing. Simple elements from the film such as Griffin's first meeting with Smith are needlessly different from the book, and much less exhilarating. Several characters are poorly cast, too. For starters Dorff is woeful as Smith. Not a bad actor, just an incredibly bad choice as he is far too soft, and fails to exhibit many of the features that are definitive of John Smith.<br /><br />Re-naming, re-assignment and even omission of certain characters further degrades this film. For example the removal of Victor Tremont and the entire back-story of the virus, including the involvement of VAXHAM makes the entire point to the film somewhat hazy. Marty Zellerbach is a very large part of the book, and in the seat he takes vary much a back seat (not to mention that the film character shares nothing in common with the character in the book) is another big mistake.<br /><br />Rachel Russel is presumably supposed to be Randi Russel from the book. Not only is she supposed to be the sister of Sophie Amsden (should be called Sophia Russel) but she is also supposed to work from the CIA, NOT "Covert-one". Which brings me to my final point, and I think one of the most important. COVERT-ONE doesn't even exist at this point! Not until the second book of the series is Covert-One devised by the president as a preventative measure against further biological terrorism.<br /><br />To be honest I could go on all day. In short - if you like the books and want to see a good adaptation, I'm afraid you'll be bitterly disappointed. Even as an action movie it is thoroughly average, mainly due to very lack-luster editing and poor effects. The bumbled story line and dull-as-ditch-water script are the final nails in the very cheap coffin of this film. | 241 |
Spoiler This is a great film about a conure. He goes through quite the ordeal trying to get back to his little girl owner. He learns a lot through his journey and meets up with a lot of other beautiful birds. If you love birds like my wife does, this film is for you. This film also has some sad parts that make the tears run. In the end it all works out for Paulie and his Russian friend. Rent this for the whole family, everyone will enjoy this. | Four years after making his directorial debut with the art-house snoozer "Welcome To L.A.", Alan Rudolph shows us what he really wanted from Hollywood was to be one of the guys. "Roadie" is a frat-boy fracas complete with barroom brawls, horny harpies, Art Carney in a souped-up wheelchair...and Meat Loaf at the wheel. Meat Loaf (playing Travis W. Redfish!) is actually a rather charming presence on the screen, and perhaps in a smaller role (in a better movie) he might indeed be ingratiating, but Zalman King's script is full of stereotypical redneck humor and helpless Meat Loaf is kept wide-eyed and moronic. Alice Cooper, Roy Orbison, Hank Williams, Jr., and Blondie all make appearances--and all look embarrassed. They certainly should, "Roadie" is one bad trip. NO STARS from **** | 242 |
Financially strapped Paramount pulled out all the stops for this '34 stage adaptation entry: big budget, large cast, extravagant production and Mitch Leisen tagged as the director. What happened? Two things: Busby Berkeley didn't work for the out-of focus rock and a murder mystery script that didn't deserve to be in the same trash can as the worst Charlie Chan first draft down the street. I have to believe that the cutting was out of Leisen's hands since the great Duke Ellington's number is savagely chopped, but that doesn't mean that it ain't worth a look: the 'Sweet Marihuana' number featuring topless chorus girls is a mind blower, considering the looming production code and it also has the ravishing Toby Wing (whose unfortunately fed horrible lines and playing the prototype dumb blonde) as a chorion hot for an otherwise preoccupied Jack Oakie. Carl Brisson's acting is bland as Melba Toast but he's a competent singer. MacLaglen reaches for new plateaus as a stereotypical dumb detective. And try to spot Lucy in the chorus. This rates a 7.0 as a curiosity. Feb 2010 re-think: I recently gave the film another look and now feel I was wrong to berate the lack of Busby Berkeley production numbers. I can understand Leisen's argument for more realistic production numbers within the context of the plot. I still have enormous issues with the editing however. Paramount, the raciest major studio in town, faced huge issues with the Production Code at the worst possible time in it's history, financially speaking, and pulled out all the stops on this one (also check out 1934's Search for Beauty). A must see for pre-code buffs. | That is the only question I am left with. Why did this movie suck so much when it had such a great cast? Why was the writing so bad, it left the audience completely unconnected with the characters? Why did it not make any sense at all? Why did the studio take a perfectly good premise and "Hollywood" the hell out of it when all it needed was good, smart story telling? Why? I never understand why movies that start out good turn into a pile of crap by the time they're released. I hope for the sake of Freeman an Spacey, who are Oscar WINNERS, that this never is released to the big screens in America.<br /><br />As someone that holds a Bachelors Degree in Journalism, the whole story is just utterly laughable. I just...think the script had potential, but the execution turned it into a cliché, and an awful one at that. Just. No. | 243 |
I have never known of a film to arouse such debate in my life. Believe me when i say that this film will eventually be remembered as an all-time classic. I was waiting in anticipation for this film as i had previously loved both Lock, Stock.... and Snatch, but after some of the negative reviews i thought i would be very disappointed. I absolutely loved this film and i can't wait to see it again. This film is totally different to both of the aforementioned Ritchie films, and also a lot better. I have my pick of favourite directors but none of them have pulled off a move as great as Guy Ritchie has just done with this movie. I believe he has taken movie-making to another level ( i know most people will be laughing at this comment guaging the reaction to this film, but i believe time will prove me right ). This movie is very confusing and carried on for much longer than the 2hr or so running time as i couldn't stop thinking about it or trying to piece things together. I have now got a pretty good take on everything that happens in this film ( some answers from endless hours of thinking, some answers from reading other people's take on the film )and now cannot wait until Sunday when i will see it again. I just hope people go to the cinema with an open mind and they will hopefully be rewarded as i and many others have been. | I didn't know much about this movie before I watched it, but I heard it had something to do with quantum physics so I was interested. What I didn't know is that this is NOT ACTUALLY A STORY but a bunch of New-Age blowhards who love the sound of their own voice talking about how little they know about basic quantum mechanics. I say it belongs more in the Documentary category than Comedy or Drama.<br /><br />Marlee Matlin is in the movie, in order to give this New Age symposium *some* sort of a storyline. Her portions of the film feel horribly tacked on and are meant to display the speaker's thoughts so we won't die of boredom. Matlin has a real job as a photographer, unlike the New Age hippie that crashes on her couch. We get to listen to nameless people ramble on about what quantum physics all "means" to them. The one bright spot in this movie was the speaker from India (I assume), but I think he showed up for the wrong film.<br /><br />It looks like Barbara Eden really let herself go and she goes on and on about how quantum science has something to do with her crazy New Age beliefs. It looks like Quark from DS9 was running low on cash and he also makes a brief appearance in the film. There is a lot of whizbang CGI we're supposed to be impressed with; cells in the body are shown as dancing jello molds, because the filmmakers have apparently seen Flubber one too many times.<br /><br />People in the movie say that the Arawak people on San Salvador thought Columbus's ship the Pinta was invisible because natives had never seen clipper ships before, as if people today had any way possible way of knowing. Of course they leave out all of that information and just say "Columbus's ships were invisible to the Indians in America." The film takes many such arrogant leaps. Thomas Young did a double-slit experiment around 1805 and found that light can look like a particle some of the time, and a wave some of the time. Of course you'd never *know* this from watching this stupid film because the only reference to it is that "atoms can be particles and waves." And that must mean that people can pass through walls, walk on water, and never grow old if they just wish upon a star!! Then I'm sure Marlee Matlin could stop being deaf if she just *believed* hard enough. I'm being sarcastic, but this film is chock-full of false hope and beliefs that the people espousing them don't really hold.<br /><br />These are New Age kooks who have grabbed onto Quantum Theory as if it reaffirms everything they believe about meditation, zero point energy, crystal healing, etc. If these snake-oil salesmen truly believed the crap they were selling, couldn't they just *wish* their paychecks into existence instead of appearing in this joke of a film? We get to listen to another nameless man, with no credentials that we know of, talk on his couch in front of a fireplace (or TV screen) about how he creates his own life. Every time he was on the screen I wanted someone to rush in and throw a pie in his face. These people take themselves WAY too seriously. Some other balding guy in a suit says that nobody ever *really* touches anything because there's a magnetic force preventing it at the quantum level. If only someone had walked onto the screen and kept punching him in the stomach, screaming "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" A moral relativist in the movie claims that there's really "no such thing as good or bad." So apparently it's OK that Hitler gassed millions of Jews to death? Another person says that there is "no such thing as love." It's just a chemical and that we really don't love people, we're just addicted to the chemical rush we have when we're around them. I suspect this guy is doing this film as community service for being addicted to heroin for so many years.<br /><br />We are witness to a truly pathetic sequence where two young adults walk around a wedding reception, seeing everything like RoboCop. They evaluate if women are cows, dogs, or foxes, and a sexual position pops onto the scree. Marlee Matlin gets drunk at the wedding she's supposed to photograph and the next day decides to love herself and take a bath because she's a beautiful and unique snowflake.<br /><br />I liked when the film said people often find evidence for their pre-conceived notions. Perhaps in this review I'm only seeing what I want to see, but I TRULY wanted to see these people get pies to the face, and it never happened.<br /><br />If you've never heard of any of the ideas presented in the film before, you may find them interesting, but there are better sources for all of the ideas here. If you want to watch a good movie that talks about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, go see The Man Who Wasn't There. If you want to read a good book about Quantum Field Theory, read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. If you want to see a film that talks about different philosophies with imaginative visuals, see Waking Life (although it can feel boring, self-important, and pretentious at times). All in all, you should go and read Quantum Psychology or Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson instead of wasting your time on this movie.<br /><br />I normally have a very hard time giving movies a score from 1 to 10, but this one was a very easy for me: 1/10 Stars.<br /><br />The movie's title is true. The people in this film don't know #$*! Hands down, the worst movie I've ever seen. | 244 |
But the rest of us, who love a good sentimental and emotional story that is a lock to get you crying..enjoy! <br /><br />Tom Hulce is magnificent as Dominick, a mentally slow trashman who loves professional wrestling and his brother, Eugene, played by Ray Liotta, who is a doctor and who works very long hours. <br /><br />Due to Eugene's work schedule, Dominick is alone a lot of the time and tends to make questionable judgment calls. He really just wants to be a good boy, to do the right thing, and to make his brother proud of him. He stops in church to pray at one point and expresses his emotions so openly and so well that the character has you crying before the damn movie even gets really started. <br /><br />Not about to give anything away here, but the movie is extremely involving and sad and heartbreaking. Those unafraid of these things will have a field day with this beautiful story, its loving characters and a great song I cannot quote here, that has nothing to do with the movie at all but is strangely appropriate..but you hear it in a bar.<br /><br />I thought Tom Hulce would be nominated for this movie, since he was for 'Amadeus' I figured that might give him the inside track to actually winning. No such luck. Liotta is just as good but has less of an emotional impact, but then he does later on. All I can say about Jamie Lee Curtis is that she doesn't have much of a part here but it was nice of her to lend her name to a small drama set in Pittsburgh about two brothers who you will never forget. | In a way this is the disaster Fellini has been working towards all his life. The line between absurd masterpiece and free association bullshit is very small, and what category a film will ultimately fit in will often just depend on personal feelings. That said, "Casanova" left me in cold admiration for its sets and little more that cannot be summed up more adequately by Bukowski: <br /><br />"Casanova died too, just an old guy with a big cock and a long tongue and no guts at all. to say that he lived well is true; to say I could spit on his grave without feeling is also true. the ladies usually go for the biggest fool they can find; that is why the human race stands where it does today: we have bred the clever and lasting Casanovas, all hollow inside, like the Easter bunnies we foster upon our poor children." <br /><br />As far as I could make it out, this is the position Fellini takes regarding his subject; granted, with more empathy, but disgusted nonetheless.<br /><br />Casanova's environment is made from decay and incestuous behavior, themes Fellini dealt with more pointedly in "Satyricon". The succession of plot is characteristic of soft porn, just without the coherence; and Donald Sutherland is ugly and slimy to the point of distraction.<br /><br />Yet, there might just be a point in portraying Casanova as an unsightly fool. And I challenge anybody to formulate this point without being obvious; Fellini couldn't. More than ever he seems here like a dirty old man - a maestro, for sure, but one whose impulses satisfy himself more than anybody else. I find it hard imagine an audience who enjoys this film. It was a story not worth telling. | 245 |
Unique movie about confused woman (Lindsay Crouse) who gets involved with sharp con men. Joe Mantegna gives an Oscar-caliber performance as the slickest of the group. Absolutely enchanting first hour, as Mantegna shows Crouse "the ropes" of his con games. Story line unravels a bit later on, but still stands as a unique portrayal of an innocent caught up in a dark world. Definitely worth a shot. | Wow it's ironic since this movie has been out for awhile I think that someone else JUST reviewed it a couple days ago.<br /><br />Anyways, I watched this movie simply because it has Nick Stahl, for the record.<br /><br />The movie was ridiculous. The characters drove me INSANE, they were SO Cliché and STEREOTYPED. This movie had some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. It had way too many plot twists too.<br /><br />There is ONE scene in the movie worth seeing however, the scene: "Warm heart, cold gun" where Nick Stahl kills the obnoxious girl in the shower. (Well, actually they were all obnoxious.) But his acting in that scene was excellent. The look on his face, it reminded my of American Psycho (a good movie). The scene is worth seeing but not worth seeing the rest of the movie for, do yourself a favor and don't watch it. | 246 |
This really is a great movie. Some of the songs have become immortal classics and the dancing by Fred and Ginger is among their best ever. But basically, all of Fred and Ginger's movies are the same. After the singing and dancing is over, it's the other characters in the movie who make the movie work. What really bothers me is why all the negative comments about Randolph Scott? His romance with Harriet Hilliard and the sub plot of the movie is the reason why I watch this over and over again. He adds to this movie, he doesn't detract from it. He has a winning personality and a great smile. Randy is in my top ten all time favorites list. It's great to see him as something other than a cowboy. OK, so he isn't really a great actor, but like so many other stars: Errol Flynn, Alan Ladd, Victor Mature, etc. he was very likable and could rise to the top on certain occasions. All of Fred and Ginger's movies had sub plots that depended on other actors to fill in the space between the musical numbers, otherwise the movie would have to be shortened by about a half hour. I just wish more people would appreciate Randy and I felt a need to stand up for him. | While Bondarchuk was by no means a young man when he was commissioned to work on this project, he was still a novice director with only a single pictures, a successful adaptation of a short WWII story, to his name. Bondarchuk of course had already been an established acting star for a decade but thespian skills mean little behind the camera, and as a director he was woefully unprepared to undertake a production of such scale. And it shows through muddled shot compositions especially apparent in group scenes, often unfortunate camera positions, performances of wildly varying quality for the director was apparently so overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the task actors were apparently left to their own devices, awkward voiceovers that sound like radio broadcast announcements.<br /><br />Vidor's "War and Peace" was probably the main reason that prompted the Soviet government to spare no expense on this production. The USSR release of the Vidor's picture made quite a splash. Certainly, Bondarchuk wanted to emulate the greatest strength of the Hollywood film and find his own Audrey. His final choice, Lyudmila Savelyeva, a big-eyed sprightly dark-haired thing indeed somewhat resembles Hepburn. Unfortunately she was a Kirov ballet dancer without neither acting experience nor talent, so unsurprisingly the most kind word that I can find to describe her performance is "awful".<br /><br />Though it might be expected that Soviet actors, speaking the same language as Tolstoy's characters, would have better understanding of them than foreigners but this War and Peace often proves that not to be the case. The revolutionary upheaval swept away the thin upper layer of Russian cultural soil, that the world of War and Peace grown out of, so a good share of these big name Soviet actors involved in this production often look as clueless as Americans performing Shakespeare ( I don't mean of course that American actors can't possibly play Shakespeare credibly, but you'll know what I mean if you witnessed American members of the cast in Branagh's adaptations). Of the three main characters only Bondarchuk's Pierre is commendable, but even he was too old for the part and feels out of place in the early going. | 247 |
Hold Your Man finds Jean Harlow, working class girl from Brooklyn falling for con man Clark Gable and getting in all kinds of trouble. The film starts out as his film, but by the time it's over the emphasis definitely switches to her character.<br /><br />The film opens with Gable pulling a street con game with partner, Garry Owen and the mark yelling for the cops. As he's being chased Gable ducks into Harlow's apartment and being he's such a charming fellow, she shields him.<br /><br />Before long she's involved with him and unfortunately with his rackets. Gable, Harlow, and Owen try pulling a badger game on a drunken Paul Hurst, but then Gable won't go through with it. Of course when Hurst realizes it was a con, he's still sore and gets belligerent and Gable has to punch him out. But then he winds up dead outside Harlow's apartment and that platinum blond hair makes her easy to identify. She goes up on an accomplice to manslaughter.<br /><br />The rest of the film is her's and her adjustment to prison life. Her interaction with the other female prisoners give her some very good scenes. I think some of the material was later used for the MGM classic Caged.<br /><br />Harlow also gets to do the title song and it's done as torch style ballad, very popular back in those days. She talk/sings it in the manner of Sophie Tucker and quite well. <br /><br />Gable is well cast as the con man who develops a conscience, a part he'd play often, most notably in my favorite Gable film, Honky Tonk.<br /><br />Still it's Harlow who gets to shine in this film. I think it's one of the best she did at MGM, her fans should not miss it. | John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ | 248 |
Really, I liked it. The premise was good, the story fit where both respective series left off, and here's my favorite part. Mary and Valerie aren't bitter! They aren't like others who become synonymous with a certain series and then refuse to talk about it, or do possible reunions (A prime example is Susan Dey, "The Partridge Family"). In fact, Valerie was saying that she'd be thrilled to do another movie, and then Mary said the same thing later, so I would be on the look for another...but if that doesn't quite work out, then they can re-run this one. | This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen without a doubt. The only thing interesting in this film is the cameo appearances from some great genre directors and King himself. The film has a great premise, but falls apart about 15 minutes into the story. I did like Madchen Amick in this film and think she could have a very good career in film. | 249 |
Along with the "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" from the same director, one of the masterpieces of ex-Yugoslavia comedies. If you want to understand Serbian mentality, you must see this movie. And if you want to see several of ex-Yugoslav great actors at the same time, this is a opportunity. | Anna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.<br /><br />(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this date.) | 250 |
With a simplistic story and an engaging heroine, this was the horror movie that started it all. John Carpenter brings to life a nail-biting nightmare on Halloween night, when Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis in her debut, career defining role) and her mischievous friends plan a night of sneaky fun- only to cross paths with a relentless psychopath from hell. <br /><br />Michael Myers has escaped from a nearby insane aslyum...having slaughtered his sister fifteen years earlier, he is now back in Haddonfield, the sleepy Illinois town where his murder took place. Once he sets his eyes on Laurie after she drops off a package to the abandoned house where he lived, he begins to stalk and terrorize her, turning her night of fun into terror as he picks off anyone in his path to get to her.<br /><br />Beautiful cinematography and lighting really make this moody horror flick scary... with the long gloomy shots it constantly feels as if you're being stalked by the maniacal serial killer himself. Myers is hidden well until fully revealed at the exciting conclusion.<br /><br />Although "Halloween" is certainly outdated, it is by no means less chilling. The idea alone is goose bump inducing, and this little shocker is one of the most famous and memorable horror movies ever made to this day... it spawned seven sequels and eventually Rob Zombie's equally scary remake, and it set a new standard for horror that still exists today. | The worst thing about Crush is not that it's acted pretty bad, or that the plot is virtually non-existent, and it's not even that bad that the camerawork could have been better.<br /><br />No, the worst part of this movie is that it has a few absolutely brilliant moments that keep you hoping that there are more to come.<br /><br />But in the end, it's too little, too late. If you are a fan of violin-music and cheap tearjerking scenes of 40+ women crying and hugging and talking about babies and marriage - then by all means, don't miss it.<br /><br />I myself am not exactly thrilled to see the things listed above in a movie, and as a result I had a pretty horrible time. The few absolutely brilliant jokes can not make up for the rest of it.<br /><br />The verdict: 4/10. Guilty of wasting my time.<br /><br /> | 251 |
NB: Spoilers within. This great movie is "about" so many things, all of them successfully: sci-fi time travel, unstable psychologies, dystopian society, the what-is-real syndrome, gradual undermining of belief systems, worldwide bioterrorism, and a nascent love story.<br /><br />The ramifications of the story's twisted time line stir up loads of heated debate - witness the discussions within this site; or, as an extreme, check out the dissertation at www.mjyoung.net/time/monkeys.html. Whew! Such temporal emphasis speaks mostly to the brilliant plot, coming from the magnificent work of writers David and Janet Peoples, not to mention the inspiration of Chris Marker's "La Jetee." Without a doubt, this is one of the most successful, fascinating time-travel movies ever conceived. But there are many other levels speaking here.<br /><br />The movie's real genius is to focus on the nasty side effects of time-travel in the mind of James Cole (Bruce Willis, doing the best work of his career here). His journey progresses from gung-ho vaccine-hunting warrior to gradually unhinged victim and back again. The other broad sweep of the story increasingly emphasizes the personal tale between James and Dr. Kathryn Railly (the wonderful Madeleine Stowe). I love the simultaneous shifting/opposing viewpoints of these two characters. For me it all comes to a head in the fleabag hotel room scene. By this point, James once gripped by an unshakable determination now slumps in utter doubt about his own reality; while Dr. Railly the cool and rational scientist has finally become wildly convinced, after absorbing James's proofs, of his horrific predictions. Her desperation to get through to James and hang on to the mission shows how far she's come.<br /><br />Gilliam makes us care about these characters, especially through the crescendo of tension threading their lives. The balance held between emotional roller-coaster and mounting sci-fi puzzle/thriller is exquisite. And the denouement at the airport is heart-poundingly intense because we see it coming so clearly through James's dreams. It is here, just after James has decided to quit the whole mess and is fighting his insanity more than ever that he steps back up to the plate and does what is necessary for mankind. See Jose and the gun
(Just before this, the references to Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and identity switching/confusion are brilliant.) This is a movie to be hashed out between thinking people; it not only holds up under repeated viewings, it demands them. "Twelve Monkeys" is intelligent, provocative, bizarre, funny, and suspenseful stuff.<br /><br />The supporting cast is excellent, especially Brad Pitt stealing all of his scenes and showing great flexibility as Jeffery Goines, crazed and spoiled, but ever the survivor. And there is David Morse as Dr. Peters (interesting how the movie simply leaves to the viewer his wicked motivation) and Christopher Plummer as Dr. Goines. But the biggest accolades belong to Terry Gilliam, surpassing here - just barely - his outstanding "Brazil." (Lots of parallels, of course, especially the lonely combatant trying to escape his crumbling surroundings: lunacy within, lunacy without.) Every frame of this movie has his unique stamp and tone. The soundtrack is terrific, too.<br /><br />This is one of the great achievements of the 90s, a true favorite of mine, and sure to hold up for a long time to come. | Well, the big money machine has done it again! Disney very shrewdly takes advantage of morons like myself who feel we must own every video (good or bad) stamped with the Disney moniker. Why is it that I continue to look forward to these "sequels" which make Don Bluth on a bad day look like Leonardo DaVinci? Cinderella 2 consists of three storylines (already a poor choice!) Doesn't one of the most endearing Disney creations at least deserve a linear story? Of these three, only the last comes anywhere near the quality of animation and storytelling that I would expect. The music is atrocious and modern (meaning in 2 years it will already be dated) and adds nothing to the story. Why does everything have to be updated? You know, the original cartoon is still popular because of its timelessness, so why not be respectful and true to the original with songs that reflect the same style? Gee, I can't wait for a sequel to Sleeping Beauty. Instead of music based on the themes of Tchaikovsky, we'll get music inspired by Britney Spears!!! So Disney, if you're listening, remember we're not all indiscriminate children out here. How about throwing a bone or two to the fans who've been around long enough to know the difference between craft and crap? | 252 |
I liked this movie because it basically did more with less. It could have been made more interesting if they had kept it confined to the studio even more (though some of the plot elements would have been harder to develop).<br /><br />The guy playing the DJ did a good job of showing someone spooked out and haunted by his memories. I also found his dialog with the callers pretty funny.<br /><br />While parts of the movie you can see coming a mile away, other parts you do not expect to turn out the way they did.<br /><br />I thought it was a pretty minimal ghost story for the most part, concentrating more on the living side of the equation. The last 5-10 minutes were pretty well done as everything is being revealed.<br /><br />While it was a shorter movie, it felt to be just about the right amount of time to tell the story. Any more and it would have started to drag. | This movie is a perfect adaptation of the English Flick Unfaithful. Ashmit plays the role of Richard Gere, Emran that of Olivier and Malikka the perfect cheating wife role of Lane.They have changed the second half of the film to adapt for the Indian masses. <br /><br />Even then the movie has got the full traces of Unfaithful, though it couldn't catch up with the original. It was a cheap soft porn of the Bollywood lovers, where Mallika showed a lot more skin than anyone dared to show. Emran did more roles like this and was even nicknamed the serial killer. In the future if the Indian Directors plan to remake a English movie then they have to look into the feasibility of the plot with the Indian Censors. Though the film bombed at the box office, the actors got the undue recognition. In future the directors should be a little more careful in remaking a Oscar nominated film. <br /><br />All said, this is not a family film, so take the extra caution while watching it at home with family. | 253 |
I enjoyed this film. But I was surprised to see people referring to it as a comedy. It was amusing at times, but really, it wasn't very funny at all. If I'd been expecting it to be a comedy, I might have been disappointed with the film, but, going in with no expectations, I found it to be enjoyable and engaging. Maybe it was because, as an engineer, I identified with the protagonist. I was less concerned with satire of capital or labor, and more into the basic story of a man fighting for his invention. A man who's less interested in monetary gain from his invention than he is in seeing it come to fruition and be put into production. He's absolutely heroic when he refuses to take the big money and the hot woman in return for suppressing his invention. So I find it interesting that people here have compared it to Jurassic Park; me, I compare it to The Fountainhead. | This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good. | 254 |
I voted 8 for this movie because of some minor childish flaws. Other than that, this movie is one of my favorites! It's entertaining to say the least. The shooting scenes are ridiculous though, and I think Gackt (who wrote the book) takes a little bit too much of his "Matrix obsession" into it. It seems like their enemies just stands there...waiting to get shot at. However, this movie is touching and it always makes me cry. It has a lot of GREAT humor in it so it makes me laugh as well. Gackt is a superb actor I must say..he shows so much emotion. This was Hyde's first time acting and he did okay. The role fits him. Wang Lee Hom is absolutely great. The whole cast is what I would say, perfect for this movie. DON'T MISS IT! YOU'LL REGRET IT! | Once again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the "Claw" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the "new" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical "comic relief" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that "children's movie" doesn't imply "total lack of any brain usage". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate this. | 255 |
I first saw this movie when it came out in 1994 and just watched it recently and it is STILL funny. I don't know if you have to understand hiphop in the 90's, but it helps if you do. In the 90's when NWA and Public Enemy were at the top, there were internal strife within the groups and members when their separated ways (Ice Cube, Easy E, etc). Also there were the wanna b's, accessible rappers that start making the scene (Vanilla Ice, Freedom Williams from C&C Music Factory, etc). This movie makes fun of all of that in a way that seems like it's an actually documentary. Kasi Lemmons plays an interviewer that spends a year in the life of a fictitious rap group name N.W.H. The members of the group are Ice Code (Rusty Condieff/director), Tasty Taste (Larry B Scott/Revenge of the Nerds, and Tone Def (Mark Christopher Lawrence). They are an up and coming rap group whose politics makes them controversial. Whats good about this film is that it is so thourough in its portrayal of the hiphop industry of the 80s and they way it pokes fun at it. But, if you know 80's/90's rap, you know how much of this stuff is true. Still, on it's own, without hip hop knowledge, it is still a funny funny movie. And for all of those who ask, yes Spinal Tap came first, but Spinal Tap is not the first spoof movie either. This, in my opinion is equally as funny and in some ways, better than Spinal Tap. As Spinal Tap is to heavy metal, Fear of A Black Planet is to Rap. And the songs are off the hook also. The DVD is chalk full of extras to include music videos of NWH as a group and as solo artists. Brilliant performances by Rusty Condieff and Larry B Scott. | As a youth pastor I heard good things about this movie. Then I watched it. The acting wasn't the best. That's forgivable. It's the message that's not: Give Jesus your life and everything will change - you'll tackle better, make amazing catches, stop fumbling, start making touchdown passes, and even make the playoffs. All because Jesus magically turns horrible undersized weaklings into All-American athletes. I laughed out loud when a coach quoted scripture to explain to the kicker why he was missing field goals. But wait, that's not all. You'll get a brand new truck, a $6000 raise, and you and your wife's struggle with infertility will suddenly end in pregnancy - twice. THEN you'll win the state championship because God helps a weakling kick the winning field goal 12 yards further than he's ever kicked before - and into the wind, no less - all because "God wanted him to make it." Then you'll win the state championship again the next year. None of this good stuff would have happened if the team hadn't chosen to follow Jesus will all their hearts.<br /><br />Here's what I took away from the movie: God can do anything he wants to do whenever he wants to do it - and it's all about making our lives better, easier, and more enjoyable. He chooses his favorite team and helps them win games. Which bible is this story based on? I'll bet Saint Stephen wished he'd known the keys to such a safe life before he was stoned to death. Someone should have made this movie before 10 of the 11 apostles were killed for following Jesus. It would have saved them all a lot of trouble. | 256 |
Uggh! I really wasn't that impressed by this film, though I must admit that it is technically well made. It does get a 7 for very high production values, but as for entertainment values, it is rather poor. In fact, I consider this one of the most overrated films of the 50s. It won the Oscar for Best Picture, but the film is just boring at times with so much dancing and dancing and dancing. That's because unlike some musicals that have a reasonable number of songs along with a strong story and acting (such as MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS), this movie is almost all singing and dancing. In fact, this film has about the longest song and dance number in history and if you aren't into this, the film will quickly bore you. Give me more story! As a result, with overblown production numbers and a weak story, this film is like a steady diet of meringue--it just doesn't satisfy in the long run. <br /><br />To think...this is the film that beat out "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "A Place in the Sun" for Best Picture! And, to make matters worse, "The African Queen" and "Ace in the Hole" weren't even nominated in this category! Even more amazing to me is that "Ace in the Hole" lost for Best Writing, Screenplay to this film--even though "An American in Paris" had hardly any story to speak of and was mostly driven by dance and song. | The movie was completely misleading and the bonus material confirmed my impression that it was a rip-off of Joeseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness ,the River is replaced by a road and the boat becomes a Jeep and Walter Kurtz is Osama.<br /><br />The claims made on the outside of the DVD box was overt fraud to<br /><br />take this fabricated death of a Journalist and present it as factual<br /><br />while some portions have Muslims supporting the 9/11 attacks for the USA's treatment of Muslims around the world .<br /><br />I alerted the Video store that the movie should be removed from their "Documentary" section and be placed in the War-drama area for quasi fictional accounts of actual events. | 257 |
Rawhide was a wonderful TV western series. Focusing on a band of trail drovers lead by the trail boss Gil Favor. Most episodes - especially from the first 3 seasons were really character studies of Favor and his men. Guest stars came and went but unlike Wagon Train they seldom dominated the episodes they appeared in. Rawhide was a true, gritty western and Gil Favor stood out as a memorable character never to be forgotten. Thanks to Eric Fleming's performance the show became a massive hit. Of course he was ably supported by a wonderful cast of good actors - Clint Eastwood, Sheb Wooley, Paul Brinegar, Steve Raines, James Murdoch, Rocky Shahan, Robert Cabal. All of these actors left their mark in a piece of television history. Rawhide captured the flavour of that time of the west that no other series has for me, as yet anyhow, managed to do so. Later seasons tended to split the leads and give them individual story lines. For me some of the time this didn't work - the cattle drive and the regulars provided the best stories. However there were still some classic stories and Rawhide remained top drawer affair. The black and white photography added to a bleak, realistic feel that other western series seldom managed to capture. Rustlers, Indians,Commancheroes, beautiful damsels in distress, serial killers, they all showed up to give our heroes problems. The end came for the series quietly when the final season was axed less than half way through. The reason - Eric Fleming had departed and Rawhide was now a head without a body - the gritty realism was gone, Gil Favor commanded respect and exuded authority - he was never infallible and this made him all the more interesting. We shall not see his like again. Watch an episode whenever you can, they seldom disappoint. | I've seen (far too) many flicks from this company - this one is about middle of the pack. One the good side, its a bit more stylized and under control than some of their fare - less of the sophomoric attempts at humor and more adherence to story (for what its worth). Many of their titles, like Sexy Sixth Sense, are buried by baaaad performances and an amateurish sensibility. On the other side, I found the simulated sex scenes not as hot as some of their other flicks (like Vampire Vixens, Gladiator Eroticus, Spiderbabe or Mistress Frankenstein).<br /><br />Misty Mundae is always a 10 on the peter meter, as is Darian Caine. I found Barbara Joyce hot in a school-marm kinda way, and Ruby LaRocca a sexy little hottie.<br /><br />Watch this with the remote firmly in your (free) hand, on a night when you need a break from porn. Don't waste your time wanting to check the story - you've got better things to do w/ your life. It is not a movie, it's pure T&A, but not bad by that standard. | 258 |
Match 1: Tag Team Table Match Bubba Ray and Spike Dudley vs Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit Bubba Ray and Spike Dudley started things off with a Tag Team Table Match against Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit. According to the rules of the match, both opponents have to go through tables in order to get the win. Benoit and Guerrero heated up early on by taking turns hammering first Spike and then Bubba Ray. A German suplex by Benoit to Bubba took the wind out of the Dudley brother. Spike tried to help his brother, but the referee restrained him while Benoit and Guerrero ganged up on him in the corner. With Benoit stomping away on Bubba, Guerrero set up a table outside. Spike dashed into the ring and somersaulted over the top rope onto Guerrero on the outside! After recovering and taking care of Spike, Guerrero slipped a table into the ring and helped the Wolverine set it up. The tandem then set up for a double superplex from the middle rope which would have put Bubba through the table, but Spike knocked the table over right before his brother came crashing down! Guerrero and Benoit propped another table in the corner and tried to Irish Whip Spike through it, but Bubba dashed in and blocked his brother. Bubba caught fire and lifted both opponents into back body drops! Bubba slammed Guerrero and Spike stomped on the Wolverine from off the top rope. Bubba held Benoit at bay for Spike to soar into the Wassup! headbutt! Shortly after, Benoit latched Spike in the Crossface, but the match continued even after Spike tapped out. Bubba came to his brother's rescue and managed to sprawl Benoit on a table. Bubba leapt from the middle rope, but Benoit moved and sent Bubba crashing through the wood! But because his opponents didn't force him through the table, Bubba was allowed to stay in the match. The first man was eliminated shortly after, though, as Spike put Eddie through a table with a Dudley Dawg from the ring apron to the outside! Benoit put Spike through a table moments later to even the score. Within seconds, Bubba nailed a Bubba Bomb that put Benoit through a table and gave the Dudleys the win! Winner: Bubba Ray and Spike Dudley<br /><br />Match 2: Cruiserweight Championship Jamie Noble vs Billy Kidman Billy Kidman challenged Jamie Noble, who brought Nidia with him to the ring, for the Cruiserweight Championship. Noble and Kidman locked up and tumbled over the ring, but raced back inside and grappled some more. When Kidman thwarted all Noble's moves, Noble fled outside the ring where Nidia gave him some encouragement. The fight spread outside the ring and Noble threw his girlfriend into the challenger. Kidman tossed Nidia aside but was taken down with a modified arm bar. Noble continued to attack Kidman's injured arm back in the ring. Kidman's injured harm hampered his offense, but he continued to battle hard. Noble tried to put Kidman away with a powerbomb but the challenger countered into a facebuster. Kidman went to finish things with a Shooting Star Press, but Noble broke up the attempt. Kidman went for the Shooting Star Press again, but this time Noble just rolled out of harm's way. Noble flipped Kidman into a power bomb soon after and got the pin to retain his WWE Cruiserweight Championship! Winner: Jamie Noble<br /><br />Match 3: European Championship William Regal vs Jeff Hardy William Regal took on Jeff Hardy next in an attempt to win back the European Championship. Jeff catapulted Regal over the top rope then took him down with a hurracanrana off the ring apron. Back in the ring, Jeff hit the Whisper in the wind to knock Regal for a loop. Jeff went for the Swanton Bomb, but Regal got his knees up to hit Jeff with a devastating shot. Jeff managed to surprise Regal with a quick rollup though and got the pin to keep the European Championship! Regal started bawling at seeing Hardy celebrate on his way back up the ramp. Winner: Jeff Hardy<br /><br />Match 4: Chris Jericho vs John Cena Chris Jericho had promised to end John Cena's career in their match at Vengeance, which came up next. Jericho tried to teach Cena a lesson as their match began by suplexing him to the mat. Jericho continued to knock Cena around the ring until his cockiness got the better of him. While on the top rope, Jericho began to showboat and allowed Cena to grab him for a superplex! Cena followed with a tilt-a-whirl slam but was taken down with a nasty dropkick to the gut. The rookie recovered and hit a belly to belly suplex but couldn't put Y2J away. Jericho launched into the Lionsault but Cena dodged the move. Jericho nailed a bulldog and then connected on the Lionsault, but did not go for the cover. He goaded Cena to his feet so he could put on the Walls of Jericho. Cena had other ideas, reversing the move into a pin attempt and getting the 1-2-3! Jericho went berserk after the match. Winner: John Cena<br /><br />Match 5: Intercontinental Championship RVD vs Brock Lesnar via disqualification The Next Big Thing and Mr. Pay-Per-View tangled with the Intercontinental Championship on the line. Brock grabbed the title from the ref and draped it over his shoulder momentarily while glaring at RVD. Van Dam 's quickness gave Brock fits early on. The big man rolled out of the ring and kicked the steel steps out of frustration. Brock pulled himself together and began to take charge. With Paul Heyman beaming at ringside, Brock slammed RVD to the hard floor outside the ring. From there, Brock began to overpower RVD, throwing him with ease over the top rope. RVD landed painfully on his back, then had to suffer from having his spine cracked against the steel ring steps. The fight returned to the ring with Brock squeezing RVD around the ribs. RVD broke away and soon after leveled Brock with a kick to the temple. RVD followed with the Rolling Thunder but Brock managed to kick out after a two-count. The fight looked like it might be over soon as RVD went for a Five-Star Frog Splash. Brock, though, hoisted Van Dam onto his shoulder and went for the F-5, but RVD whirled Brock into a DDT and followed with the Frog Splash! He went for the pin, but Heyman pulled the ref from the ring! The ref immediately called for a disqualification and soon traded blows with Heyman! After, RVD leapt onto Brock from the top rope and then threatened to hit the Van Terminator! Heyman grabbed RVD's leg and Brock picked up the champ and this time connected with the F-5 onto a steel chair! Winner: RVD<br /><br />Match 6: Booker T vs the Big Show Booker T faced the Big Show one-on-one next. Show withstood Booker T's kicks and punches and slapped Booker into the corner. After being thrown from the ring, Booker picked up a chair at ringside, but Big Show punched it back into Booker's face. Booker tried to get back into the game by choking Show with a camera cable at ringside. Booker smashed a TV monitor from the Spanish announcers' position into Show's skull, then delivered a scissors kick that put both men through the table! Booker crawled back into the ring and Big Show staggered in moments later. Show grabbed Booker's throat but was met by a low blow and a kick to the face. Booker climbed the top rope and nailed a somersaulting leg drop to get the pin! Winner: Booker T<br /><br />Announcement: Triple H entered the ring to a thunderous ovation as fans hoped to learn where The Game would end up competing. Before he could speak, Eric Bishoff stopped The Game to apologize for getting involved in his personal business. If Triple H signed with RAW, Bischoff promised his personal life would never come into play again. Bischoff said he's spent the past two years networking in Hollywood. He said everyone was looking for the next breakout WWE Superstar, and they were all talking about Triple H. Bischoff guaranteed that if Triple H signed with RAW, he'd be getting top opportunities coming his way. Stephanie McMahon stepped out to issue her own pitch. She said that because of her personal history with Triple H, the two of them know each other very well. She said the two of them were once unstoppable and they can be again. Bischoff cut her off and begged her to stop. Stephanie cited that Triple H once told her how Bischoff said Triple H had no talent and no charisma. Bischoff said he was young at the time and didn't know what he had, but he still has a lot more experience that Stephanie. The two continued to bicker back and forth, until Triple H stepped up with his microphone. The Game said it would be easy to say "screw you" to either one of them. Triple H went to shake Bischoff's hand, but pulled it away. He said he would rather go with the devil he knows, rather than the one he doesn't know. Before he could go any further, though, Shawn Michaels came out to shake things up. HBK said the last thing he wanted to do was cause any trouble. He didn't want to get involved, but he remembered pledging to bring Triple H to the nWo. HBK said there's nobody in the world that Triple H is better friends with. HBK told his friend to imagine the two back together again, making Bischoff's life a living hell. Triple H said that was a tempting offer. He then turned and hugged HBK, making official his switch to RAW! Triple H and HBK left, and Bischoff gloated over his victory. Bischoff said the difference between the two of them is that he's got testicles and she doesn't. Stephanie whacked Bischoff on the side of the head and left!<br /><br />Match 7: Tag Team Championship Match Christian and Lance Storm vs Hollywood Hogan and Edge The match started with loud "USA" chants and with Hogan shoving Christian through the ropes and out of the ring. The Canadians took over from there. But Edge scored a kick to Christian's head and planted a facebuster on Storm to get the tag to Hogan. Hogan began to Hulk up and soon caught Christian with a big boot and a leg drop! Storm broke up the count and Christian tossed Hogan from the ring where Storm superkicked the icon. Edge tagged in soon after and dropped both opponents. He speared both of them into the corner turnbuckles, but missed a spear on Strom and hit the ref hard instead. Edge nailed a DDT, but the ref was down and could not count. Test raced down and took down Hogan then leveled Edge with a boot. Storm tried to get the pin, but Edge kicked out after two. Riksihi sprinted in to fend off Test, allowing Edge to recover and spear Storm. Christian distracted the ref, though, and Y2J dashed in and clocked Edge with the Tag Team Championship! Storm rolled over and got the pinfall to win the title! Winners and New Tag Team Champions: Christian and Lance Storm<br /><br />Match 8: WWE Undisputed Championship Triple Threat Match. The Rock vs Kurt Angle and the Undertaker Three of WWE's most successful superstars lined up against each other in a Triple Threat Match with the Undisputed Championship hanging in the balance. Taker and The Rock got face to face with Kurt Angle begging for some attention off to the side. He got attention in the form of a beat down form the two other men. Soon after, Taker spilled out of the ring and The Rock brawled with Angle. Angle gave a series of suplexes that took down Rock, but the Great One countered with a DDT that managed a two-count. The fight continued outside the ring with Taker coming to life and clotheslining Angle and repeatedly smacking The Rock. Taker and Rock got into it back into the ring, and Taker dropped The Rock with a sidewalk slam to get a two-count. Rock rebounded, grabbed Taker by the throat and chokeslammed him! Angle broke up the pin attempt that likely would have given The Rock the title. The Rock retaliated by latching on the ankle lock to Kurt Angle. Angle reversed the move and Rock Bottomed the People's Champion. Soon after, The Rock disposed of Angle and hit the People's Elbow on the Undertaker. Angle tried to take advantage by disabling the Great One outside the ring and covering Taker, who kicked out after a two count. Outside the ring, Rock took a big swig from a nearby water bottle and spewed the liquid into Taker's face to blind the champion. Taker didn't stay disabled for long, and managed to overpower Rock and turn his attention to Angle. Taker landed a guillotine leg drop onto Angle, laying on the ring apron. The Rock picked himself up just in time to break up a pin attempt on Kurt Angle. Taker nailed Rock with a DDT and set him up for a chokeslam. ANgle tried sneaking up with a steel chair, but Taker caught on to that tomfoolery and smacked it out of his hands. The referee got caught in the ensuing fire and didn't see Angle knock Taker silly with a steel chair. Angle went to cover Taker as The Rock lay prone, but the Dead Man somehow got his shoulder up. Angle tried to pin Rock, but he too kicked out. The Rock got up and landed Angle in the sharpshooter! Angle looked like he was about to tap, but Taker kicked The Rock out of the submission hold. Taker picked Rock up and crashed him with the Last Ride. While the Dead Man covered him for the win, Angle raced in and picked Taker up in the ankle lock! Taker went delirious with pain, but managed to counter. He picked Angle up for the last ride, but Angle put on a triangle choke! It looked like Taker was about to pass out, but The Rock broke Angle's hold only to find himself caught in the ankle lock. Rock got out of the hold and watched Taker chokeslam Angle. Rocky hit the Rock Bottom, but Taker refused to go down and kicked out. Angle whirled Taker up into the Angle Slam but was Rock Bottomed by the Great One and pinned! Winner and New WWE Champion: The Rock<br /><br />~Finally there is a decent PPV! Lately the PPV weren't very good, but this one was a winner. I give this PPV a A-<br /><br /> | I cannot believe that the Indian film industry still puts out such third-rate dross as Waqt. For starters, the storyline is totally implausible spoilt son gets thrown out of family home so as to teach him some self-sufficiency. So what does he do? He promptly goes on to win some national talent contest by doing some star jumps in front of a panel of judges (I honestly am not joking here). In the meantime, his dad is dying of lung cancer, but keeps it a secret from the son, but he survives long enough to see his son become famous, to see his new grandson and also make a new toy giraffe with his own hands.<br /><br />The acting is cringe worthy in its hamminess no effort was made to try and act in any convincing manner by any of the main players in this film. As usual for Indian films, the family lived in a huge mansion and seemed relatively untouched by the concerns of the real world.<br /><br />To be honest, the main losers when such dire films are made are the intelligent viewers who made the mistake of seeing such a film. The actors, such as Amitabh Bachchan and Akshay Kumar, will still be revered as Gods by those people who have nothing but blind faith in Bollywood. | 259 |
I remember seeing this one when I was seven or eight. I must have found the characters round, because they left a impression in my mind that lasted for a long time after the end of the movie. And the ending, now that's sad, well... for a 7-8 year old kid.<br /><br />I had the opportunity of seeing this movie again lately, and found that the plot was too simple, the character, two-dimensional... I guess it's the kind of movie that you can only with the innocence of a young child... Pity...<br /><br />I recommend this one for all you parents with small kids... ( I saw it in its original french version, so I cannot tell you whether the translation is good or not.) | Zombi 3 starts as a group of heavily armed men steal a experimental chemical developed to reanimate the dead, while trying to escape the man is shot at & the metal container holding the chemical is breached. The man gets some of the green chemical on a wound on his hand which soon after turns him into a flesh eating cannibalistic zombie. Within hours the surrounding area is crawling with the flesh easting undead on the look out for fresh victims, Kenny (Deran Sarafian) & his army buddies find themselves in big trouble as they stop to help Patricia (Beatrice Ring) & her friend Lia (Deborah Bergammi) who has been pecked by zombie birds (!). General Morton is in charge of the situation & has to stop the zombie plague from spread throughout the whole world! But will he & his men succeed?<br /><br />This Italian produced film was to be directed by Italian zombie gore film auteur Lucio Fulci but the story goes he suffered a stroke & therefore couldn't finish the film so producer Franco Gaudenzi asked second unit director Bruno Mattei & writer Claudio Fragasso to step in & complete the film. Apparently Mattei & Fragasso did more than just finish it they actually disregarded a lot of the footage Fulci shot & added a lot of their own & Zombi 3 ended up as nearly a straight 50/50 split. The script by Fragasso is an absolute mess, none of it is well thought out & is just as stupid as it gets. The scenes of zombie birds attacking people are not only technically inept but the whole idea is just absurd. The zombies themselves have no consistency whatsoever, look at the scene where Patricia is on the bridge & the zombies are slow as they shuffle along but then look at the scene earlier on where she was attacked by the zombie with the machete because that one runs around like it's on steroids, then for no reasonable explanation about 10 minutes before the film finishes the zombies suddenly develop the ability to speak which also looks daft. There are so many things wrong with Zombi 3, scene after scene of terribly thought out & ineptly directed action, awful character's & really dull broken English dialogue which doesn't make sense half the time. Then there's the embarrassing scene where the zombie head inside the fridge suddenly develops the ability to fly through the air & bite someones neck, the scene when the guy's in white contamination suits at the end are about to kill Kenny & Roger but instead of using their automatic rifles they decide to try & kill them by hand, even when Kenny picks up a gun himself they still refuse to use their rifles & when Kenny starts to shoot them all they still refuse to use their rifles & it's one of the most ineptly handled scenes ever put to film & then there's the end where Kenny takes off in the helicopter but can't rest it down on the ground for literally a few seconds to pick his buddy up & then a load of zombies suddenly spring up from under some piles of grass, what? Since when did zombies hide themselves yet alone under piles of grass? This all may sound 'fun' but believe me it's not, it's a really bad film that is just boring, repetitive & simply doesn't work on any level as a piece of entertainment except for a few unintentional laughs.<br /><br />It's hard to know who was responsible for what exactly but none of the footage is particularly well shot. It has a bland lifeless feel about it & for some reason the makers have tried to bath every scene in mist, the problem is they clearly only had one fog machine & you can see that at one corner of the screen the mist is noticeably thicker as it is coming straight out of the machine & thinning out as it disperses across the scene. Since a lot of it is set during the day it doesn't add any sort of atmosphere whatsoever & when they do get it right & the mist is evenly spread across the screen it just looks like they shot the scene on a foggy day! The direction is poor with no consistency & it just looks & feels bottom of the barrel stuff. Even the blood & gore isn't up to much, there's a gory hand severing at the start, a scene when something rips out of a pregnant woman's stomach, a legless woman (what actually took her legs off in the pool by the way & why didn't it take the legs off the guy who jumped in to save her?) & a few OK looking zombies is as gory as it gets. For anyone hoping to see a gore fest the likes of which Fulci regularly served up during the late 70's & early 80's will be very disappointed, there aren't any decent feeding scenes, no intestines, no stand out 'head shots' & very little gore at all.<br /><br />Technically the film is poor, the special effects are cheap looking, the cinematography is dull, the music is terrible, the locations are bland & it has rock bottom production values. This was actually shot in the Philippines to keep the cost down to a minimum. The entire film is obviously dubbed, the acting still looks awful though & the English version seems to have been written by someone who doesn't understand the language that well.<br /><br />Zombi 3 is not a sequel to Fulci's classic zombie gore fest Zombi 2 (1979), it has nothing to do with it at all apart from the cash-in title. I'm sorry but Zombi 3 is an amateurish mess of a film, it's boring, it makes no sense, it's not funny enough to be entertaining & it lacks any decent gore. One to avoid. | 260 |
'Presque rien' is a story of two young boys falling in love during summer stay by the seaside. I don't want to tell the plot, because it's not what's most important about this film (but you can be sure that it's interesting and original). The best part of this movie is the cinematography. The visual side of 'Presque rien' is so amazing it deserves highest note. It leaves you charmed with its beauty.<br /><br />As for the plot, it is shown in uneven, rather complicated way. There is no simple chronology nor there are answers to all the questions the film brings. But this is what makes 'Presque rien' even more interesting. I recommend this movie to all the people for whom the artistic side of films is very important and they will not be disappointed. | Weak plot, predictable violence, only semi interesting characters. Like the writer (also one of the stars?) was fictionalizing his own screw ups and added an incredulous fantasies of drugs and murder to make it "hot". From the predictable rap and house soundtrack, to the family conflicts, it's poorly acted, stereotypical, and ultimately terribly boring. Even the title has been done before - IMDb lists FIVE movies with the same name released in 2007-2008!! <br /><br />Note: Saw it on Showtime, which listed the synopsis for one of the other movies. Was halfway thru before I realized no one was an undercover cop. Even tho another stereotype, would have made it interesting if it happened. | 261 |
updated January 1st, 2006<br /><br />Parsifal is one of my two favorite Wagner operas or music dramas, to be more accurate, (Meistersinger is the other.) though it's hard to imagine it as the "top of anyone's pops". The libretto, by the composer as usual, is a muddle of religion, paganism, eroticism, and possibly even homo-eroticism, and its length may make it seem to the audience like hearing paint dry.<br /><br />Wagner, being a famous anti-Semite, (Klingsor may be one of his surrogate Jewish villains.) naturally entrusted the premiere to an unconverted (not for want of RW's trying!) Hermann Levi, who was his favorite conductor! (Go figure!) Kundry, a most mixed-up-gal and another likely Jewish surrogate, is both villainous or benevolent, depending on the scene.<br /><br />Considering that many video versions of Parsifal seem on the stodgy side, this film of the opera is, in comparison, a breath of fresh air. Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, the director, has brought considerable imagination to it but it's hard to know why he made some of his choices. For example: the notorious dual Parsifals (of each gender!), the puppets, the death-mask-of-Wagner set and various dolls and symbols such as the Nazi swastika in one of the traveling scenes. (If I remember, the "real" Engelbert Humperdinck wrote the actual music to pad out the scene changes.) Though Wagner himself died much too early to be an actual Nazi, many of his descendants (As well as his second wife Cosima.) were at least fellow-travelers, including their grandson Wolfgang Wagner who still runs the Bayreuth Festival at an advanced age. In fact, Wolfgang's son Gottfried Wagner, in complete opposition to his father, has tried to come to terms honestly with his great-grandfather.<br /><br />Syberberg, too, seems politically ambiguous from what I've read. In 1977, he made a well-known film on Hitler, "Hitler: ein Film aus Deutschland" (Sometimes called "Our Hitler" in English.). Since it lasts all of 8 hours and hasn't been widely distributed, most people have not seen it (including myself.).<br /><br />Armin Jordan, the conductor of the audio CD on which this film is based, plays Amfortas (sung by Wolfgang Schöne) Edith Clever (Yvonne Minton) plays Kundry, Michael Kutter and Karin Krick play the dual Parsifals (Both sung by Reiner Goldberg.!) and Robert Lloyd and Aage Haugland both play and sing Gurnemanz and Klingsor.<br /><br />Though the opera takes place over a long period of time and all (except Kundry?) have been described as having aged considerably between Acts 2 and 3, no one looks a day older by the end of the opera. (The magic of the Grail? In this opera the Grail is the cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper and not Mary Magdalene as in more recent times, an idea I find preposterous!).<br /><br />The conducting and singing are all quite serviceable and the DVD seems to have improved the sound, if not the picture, to a great extent. (Yes, I agree that "Kna's" approach is superior, even on the second, stereo, version but he is probably superior to all recorded versions on the whole.)<br /><br />Not a Parsifal for all Wagnerites but I think it works quite well as a filmed opera. | Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is most<br /><br />famous for "Zombie," and the absolutely unwatchable "The<br /><br />Psychic" and "Manhattan Baby." Well, add this to the unwatchable<br /><br />list.<br /><br />The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a gold<br /><br />mask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbed<br /><br />stud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magic<br /><br />because they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,<br /><br />and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flat<br /><br />action sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but not<br /><br />before taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up with<br /><br />my high school girlfriend.<br /><br />Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen with<br /><br />smoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make you<br /><br />crave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects are<br /><br />laughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo are<br /><br />attacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches on<br /><br />the film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have been<br /><br />spent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurting<br /><br />wounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in a<br /><br />while, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.<br /><br />I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anyway<br /><br />just to see what the heck was happening.<br /><br />There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let me<br /><br />do a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,<br /><br />you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does not<br /><br />appear in the film in any context whatsoever. "Conquest" is a con<br /><br />job. What MST3K could have done with this!<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, female<br /><br />nudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content.<br /><br /> | 262 |
This series adds new information and background to the book and includes personal appearances by the author and by archaeologists and other anthropologists. It brings the book to life and makes even more sense of the author's subsequent opus, *Collapse*.<br /><br />Diamond himself comes off as personable and caring, not just a disinterested or disengaged academic. This series makes it clear that his book was not just a response to a need to "publish or perish," as the saying goes about academe, but a deeply considered answer to a question from someone he respects, "Why you white people got so much cargo, and we have so little?" Because he respected the intelligence of the questioner and his community, Diamond looked for an answer that didn't insult that intelligence or that community. I like to think of his answer in a very simple way, in the same spirit as "South Park's" "Blame Canada": "Blame wheat!" | This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.<br /><br />It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.<br /><br />Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously. | 263 |
This movie is cold, bare truth. Often we think "oh no, that won't happen to me." But it can. Drug smuggling is big money and often people are unknowingly (or tricked) into doing things for smugglers. The story of these two girls is the story of many young people who like them, only wanted a exotic holiday - which turned into a nightmare. People need to know that these sort of events aren't improbable or exaggerated - this IS a major problem in today's society.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie to mature viewers because of the understanding needed to truly appreciate this movie. It is very emotional and raw. Well worth watching and certainly stays in your memory. | Oh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying them! | 264 |
A woman who hates cats (Alice Krige) and her son (Brian Krause) have moved into a small town, and must deal with a mean teacher (Glenn Shadix), their incestuous relationship, a lovely girl (Mädchen Amick) and one hell of a big secret.<br /><br />Okay, so technically, this is a "bad film". But, who cares? It's so very fun! <br /><br />Impossible things (involving corn) happen, people freak out about kitty cats, there's bad one-liners, there's too much cheese to handle!<br /><br />So, yes. You will enjoy this. A lot. It won't move you, touch you, scare you, or thrill you in any way, but it will keep you entertained and laughing! | this movie is similar to Darkness Falls,and The Boogeyman(2005)but it's also much more graphic than both,and not as good as either.it's also slow and fairly predictable.it's also got shades of Deliverance and the Amityville Horror.plus,we get some new age flavour thrown in the mix and some of those scenes come off as a motivational/inspirational sermon.really,this movie is a hodgepodge of almost everything.even though it is gory,the makeup effects are not very realistic looking.in fact they look kinda cheap.aside from all that,there is some really awful clichéd dialogue.and i won't say when,but there is a point where a couple of the character's actions were not authentic or believable,given the circumstances.nobody in their right mind what would have acted this way.once you watch the movie,you'll know what i mean.there's also some gratuitous nudity for nudity's sake.it just wasn't necessary at all.the good news is that the acting was actually pretty good.better than this movie deserves.so,after carefully weighing the evidence,id say this movie was passable,but not good.my verdict for The Tooth fairy:4/10 | 265 |
This is one of the great movies of the 80s in MY collection that I think about all the time. <br /><br />The Running Man is one of Arnold`s best and most different films even to this day and when I first saw The Running Man I was so excited to see a movie like this. I just adore all of the fights and this is truly a special movie. It also has Jesse Ventura, the legendary Professor Toru Tanaka, Sven-Ole Thorsen, the beautiful Maria Conchita Alonso, Yaphet Kotto, Kurt Fuller, Richard Dawson, and Thomas Rosales Jr. who seems to always like death in his movies because he has been killed in such films as Universal Solder, The Lost World, Robo Cop 2, Predator 2, and among others. All Arnold fans should love this film from the beginning to the end because its action packed, star filled, and its one its one of Arnold`s best to date! | This was the worst acted movie I've ever seen in my life. No, really. I'm not kidding. All the "based on a true story/historical references" aside, there's no excuse for such bad acting. It's a shame, because, as others have posted, the sets & costumes were great.<br /><br />The sound track was typical "asian-style" music, although I couldn't figure out where the "modern" love song came in when Fernando was lying in his bed thinking of Maria. I don't know who wrote & sang that beautiful song, but it was as if suddenly Norah Jones was transported to the 1500s.<br /><br />The Hershey syrup blood in Phycho was more realistic than the ketchup spurted during the Kwik-n-EZ battle scenes.<br /><br />But the acting. Oh, so painfully sad. Lines delivered like a bad junior high play. If Gary Stretch had donned a potato costume for the County 4H Fair he may have been more believable. Towards the end he sounded more like a Little Italy street thug. At times I half expected him to yell out "Adrian!" or even "You wanna piece of me?!".<br /><br />Favourite line: When the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the floor) "I'm going to have a baby." He responds "A child?" I expected her to retort "No, jackass, a chair leg! Duh." | 266 |
I saw 'New York: I Love You' today and loved it! I was really looking forward to seeing this after watching 'Paris je t'aime' and overall I think I liked this one much better... Perhaps I need to watch 'Paris je t'aime' again I don't know... I read few of the reviews here about NY:ILY and yes, the movie is not without its faults. When you're paying tribute to a city like New York - it can get rather overwhelming and nothing seems fair enough to do the city due justice... so without elaborating on any of the film's shortcomings, I'll just write about what I liked.<br /><br />Unlike 'Paris je t'aime' in which each director's short film was properly segmented and titled, NY:ILY isn't and many reviewers over here have found the seamlessness of stories and overlapping of characters here annoying and even confusing. I thought otherwise. I loved how the stories just flowed one after the other and I especially liked the overlapping of characters - it might be gimmicky because it's done so often in films now. But I still liked it because I didn't find it forced. And the idea that we're all connected in the end has a wistful, even whimsical quality to it - which some might find corny but I find beautiful.<br /><br />I liked all the films but the one that touched me the most was the one by Yvan Attal with Robin Wright Penn and Chris Cooper. It was so well-acted and scripted that the reveal in the end - again not unused in the past - brought me to tears and I was crying throughout the segment that followed. I always liked Wright Penn and now I'm also a fan of Chris Cooper. Those precious initial few seconds when he's standing alone outside the restaurant, just before he gets the call - speak volumes about Cooper's ability to convey a character by just being there without saying anything.<br /><br />Most of the stories in this film involve characters who are either meeting each for the first time or have met each other just recently with the exception of 4-5 stories in which the characters have known each other for a long time. It seemed to me (and I might be wrong) that the stories were different but they were all trying to drive home the point, the need even, to just step back and view in a new light the people and the things we've known in our lives for a long time; to see the people and the things around you with the eyes of a stranger and appreciate them just as you did when you met them and saw them for the first time.<br /><br />The other films that I liked were the ones by Shunji Iwai with Orlando Bloom and Christina Ricci, by Natalie Portman with Carlos Acosta and Taylor Geare, by Brett Ratner with Anton Yelchin and Olivia Thirlby, by Shekhar Kapur with Julie Christie, Shia LaBeouf and John Hurt and once again the one by Yvan Attal with Ethan Hawke and Emilie Ohana when they're in the café. I really need to see more work by Yvan Attal as I seem to like him a lot! <br /><br />Overall, watch this movie with an open mind. Don't read the reviews before watching it! It might not live up to your expectations of what a movie on and about love in New York should be and I doubt any movie will really live up to that conception. Just watch this movie for some good music, beautiful landscape cinematography, some slice-of-life comfort and a story or two that might just tug at your heartstrings. | This is one of the most hilariously bad movies I have ever had the privilege to see.<br /><br />I watched this on DVD with a bunch of friends one Friday night and we just couldn't stop laughing from start to finish.<br /><br />The story is simple enough: terrorists hijack a convoy they think is carrying weapons grade uranium, but it's actually carrying a bunch of man-eating dinosaurs. Easy mistake to make. Cue a startlingly incompetent team of Army Special Forces to tackle the prehistoric beasts. They are led by Colonel Rance, played by Scott Valentine; a man who seems to have perfected 'Smell the fart' acting, as advocated by Joey in Friends.<br /><br />There's plenty of gore and an awful lot of shooting, but unfortunately Rance's team seem to have a problem aiming their weapons in the general direction of a horde of giant, lumbering monsters. Also, the lights always seem to flicker and go out whenever a Velociraptor attacks (preumably so we can't see how bad the creature effects are).<br /><br />Having said all that, we all had a great deal of fun betting on who was going to get their head bitten off next.<br /><br />As a Jusassic Park / Aliens style action adventure this movie stinks worse than a dinosaur's crotch, but as ludicrous, tongue-in-cheek entertainment it's a roaring success. | 267 |
Story about four teenage girls growing up in California. Jeanie (Jodie Foster) is the most level-headed of the bunch--but wants to move out of her house where she lives with her divorced mother (Sally Kellerman). Annie (Cherie Currie) is addicted to drugs, alcohol and bad boys and is beaten up by her father. Madge (Marilyn Kagan) has overprotective parents. Deirde (Kandice Stroh) thinks she's more mature than the rest of them.<br /><br />This is nothing new from what we've seen plenty of times before--but this one has one big difference--it's accurate. I graduated from high school in 1980 (when I first saw the film) and I was surprised at how realistic it was. They got the dialogue, clothes and attitudes down completely right. Even the main song of the movie ("On the Radio" by Donna Summer) was a big hit before this came out. This film hit me harder than any other teen film of the time because I could understand and relate to the characters. I knew girls in high school who were just like this! The film is (of course) dated but it captures a time we will never see again.<br /><br />The acting is good on all counts with Foster giving the best performance. The relationship between her and Kellerman (who was excellent) was realistic and well-done. Even Scott Baio (who has a small role as a friend of the girls) more or less realistically played a teen boy.<br /><br />A very good movie--essential viewing if you came of age in 1980. The film has a deserved R rating (plenty of drug use and swearing) but should be seen by all teens. I give it a 8. | This was a better than average movie I thought, for it being on cable. I had expected something along the lines of cheesy melodrama and bad special effects seen in such classics as Christmas Rush or First Daughter/Target/Shot, etc.<br /><br />The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.<br /><br />So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy it. | 268 |
I found 'Still Crazy' to be marvelously entertaining, and not only to those of us who lived through that raucous era of late '60s, early '70s rock. My 15 year old daughter watches it with me every time I drag out the DVD (don't worry, it's only been three times) and she loves it too.<br /><br />It is a truly loving, poignant and hilarious nod to the era, and every actor hits his/her notes with perfection. It was my first introduction to Bill Nighy and I am glad his somewhat similar turn in 'Love Actually' brought him more attention. Bruce Robinson was incredible as Brian, bringing real life to what could have been a caricature of the drug-damaged rocker stereotype. It was interesting to see that Robinson has made quite a name for himself as a writer.<br /><br />I live in Sherman Oaks, California, and after the first time I saw the movie I bumped into Billy Connolly at the local mall (he lived here at the time) and told him it was one of my five favorite films of all time. He invited me to sit down at the food court with him and we discussed the movie for some time. We even talked of the idea of an American-oriented remake before wisely dismissing that. Why mess with the original?<br /><br />My only problem with 'Still Crazy' is that it wasn't hugely popular in theaters and too many people have missed out on a wonderful experience. | I'm basing this on my observations of one episode I saw last night (9/27/06). I don't think I'll be watching again. The acting was totally wooden, the plot completely predictable, the ending totally unrealistic -- I mean who would believe a 30 million dollar judgment for the death of a recovering drug addict with terminal cancer? The lead actor (Victor Garber) seemed so uncomfortable, almost embarrassed in his role -- perhaps he realized how bad the writing was!! I fully realize that the drama offered this season is pretty poor, but they can surely find better writers. Maybe they are outsourcing the writing to India or China!! I'll bet we won't be seeing this one next season! | 269 |
This film was the first British teen movie to actually address the reality of the violent rock and roll society, rather than being a lucid parody of 1950s teenage life. In an attempt to celebrate the work of Liverpool's Junior Liaison Officers the opening title points out that 92% of potential delinquents, who have been dealt with under this scheme, have not committed a second crime. However, this becomes merely a pretext to the following teen-drama until the film's epilogue where we are instructed that we shouldn't feel responsible or sorry for such delinquents however mixed-up they might seem.<br /><br />Stanley Baker plays a tough detective who reluctantly takes on the post of Juvenile Liaison Officer. This hard-boiled character is a role typical of Baker. Having been currently on the trail of a notorious arsonist known as the firefly and does not relish the distraction of the transfer. However, as in all good police dramas he is led back full circle by a remarkable turn of events, back to his original investigation.<br /><br />His first case leads him to the home of two young children, Mary and Patrick Murphy (played by real-life brother and sister duo), who have committed a petty theft. Here he meets Cathie (satisfyingly portrayed by Anne Heywood) their older sister whom he eventually becomes romantically involved with. It quickly becomes obvious that the squalid environment of such inner-city estates is a breeding ground for juvenile delinquency.<br /><br />The elder brother of the Murphy family, Johnny, is the leader of a gang of rock and roll hoodlums. McCallum does an eye-catching turn as the Americanized mixed-up kid, who owes more to the likes of Marlon Brando, than any previous British star. One is reminded of Brando's character Johnny from 'The Wild One' who led a leather-clad gang of rebellious bikers in much the same way as this film's 'Johnny' leads his gang.<br /><br />Thankfully the preachiness of earlier Dearden crime dramas such as 'The Blue Lamp' is not so apparent. Instead we are presented with several well drawn-out characters on both sides of the law as the drama of the delinquents and the romantic interest between Heywood and Baker takes the forefront.<br /><br />The plot, whilst at times predictable, does deliver some memorable scenes. The disruptive influence that rock and roll music was thought to have had is played out in a scene where Johnny abandons himself to the music, leading a menacing advance on the police sergeant. The most grippingly memorable piece of film however is the climatic classroom scene where a bunch of terrified school children, including Mary and Patrick, are held hostage at gunpoint by Johnny. Obviously in the light of the real-life Dumblaine Massacre this scene seems all the horrifying. Understandably because of this the film is seldom aired or available to modern audiences. | Wow, this film was just bloody horrid. SO bad in fact that even though I didn't pay to see it, I still wanted my money back.<br /><br />The film is about nothing intelligible. It's a mish-mash of sci-fi cliche's that were done better by much more skilled film makers. The performances, especially by the leads were over the top in a less endearing Ed Wood sort of way. Speaking of Ed Wood, he'd be proud of the character's dialogue. It's just too taciturn with no hint of irony or sense of humor. On top of that, it doesn't make sense, nor does the plot, or lackthereof.<br /><br />The visual effects are okay, but not enough to go "oh wow, that's cool" and they just seem to be thrown in to "be cool" rather than be a good plot device.<br /><br />The soundtrack was another mishmash of stuff that really never set any sort of mood. Again, it seemed as if the director was just throwing in songs in the film in an effort to "be cool".<br /><br />Which brings me to my final point. Perhaps if the director actually worried more about plot, story and dialogue instead of trying to "be cool", he wouldn't have made such a dorky cliche' of a short film.<br /><br /> | 270 |
I gotta be straight-up - I haven't seen a film as solid as DOG BITE DOG in quite a while. I'm a big fan of the "old-school" late 80s to mid 90s era CATIII films, and I had been hearing that that "style" of films is making a bit of a come-back with films such as this, and Herman Yau's GONG TAU (which as of this writing I have not yet seen...), so I was very interested to give some of these newer-wave CATIII films a shot. Did this film live up to my expectations? Absolutely - but not quite in the fashion that I imagined.<br /><br />The story follows a young, animalistic, resourceful and virtually unstoppable Thai hit-man with a somewhat vague history who comes to Hong Kong to complete a "mission". Due to some bad-luck, he is quickly identified by a roguish copy (who exudes many of the same qualities as our hit-man), and is quickly apprehended and captured. This state of affairs doesn't last long though, as the un-named assassin escapes from his captors and quickly shows the local police that he is not to be taken lightly. The hunt is on, and a cat-and-mouse game between the police and the "mad dog" (as the police refer to him) ensues. Along the way, Mad Dog is inadvertently befriended by a slow-witted young woman, and a bond forms between the two when she helps him out of a sticky situation. The ante keeps getting upped as Mad Dog's only objective is to get out of Hong Kong and back to Thailand by any means necessary, and the cops keep trying to reel him in alive...<br /><br />I could probably write ten paragraphs about this complex and thoroughly layered film, but I don't want to give too much away. I watched DOG BITE DOG knowing nothing about the premise, and I think it's the type of film that is definitely better appreciated that way. As to comparisons to the older-style CATIII films...there are some similarities. DOG BITE DOG has some hyper-violent moments reminiscent of the "good ol' days", but is never quite as sleazy or grimy as old-school classicks like THE UNTOLD STORY or RED TO KILL. Where many of the older CATIII films' main intention was to "shock" - DOG BITE DOG is a far more thought-out and well-rounded production (though that's not to take ANYTHING away from those CATIII films that I hold so dear...). This film is far more "emotional" than it is exploitative, and as we learn more about the characters and their backgrounds, the audience begins to bond and identify with both sides. There really are no clear-cut "good" and "bad" guys, as Mad Dog shows moments of extreme compassion, and the cops stoop to extremely unorthodox methods to try to flesh out the killer. There's also no nudity/sex in this film, which is a typical characteristic of the older CATIII films. Personally, I would compare DOG BITE DOG more to Park's SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE or perhaps the Pang brother's BANGKOK DANGEROUS, as both of those films mixed extremely emotional overtones with strong and unflinching action and violence. Again - there's pretty much nothing that I didn't like about this film. The acting is dead-on, the cinematography is sharp and well done, and the whole film skillfully blends several different elements successfully in a way that isn't seen very often. Is this film (and others like it...) the "rebirth" of the CATIII film - not exactly - but it IS a very solid film that's absolutely worth checking out...9/10 | This documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen "aleopathic" doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- "the doctor said there was no cure," "the doctor said it was cancer" etc. Well, "no cure" doesn't mean "no treatment," and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt. | 271 |
Went to see this as Me and my Lady had little else to do on a sunday afternoon I like films that deal with sleazy,loser characters and this is full of em. After a slow start we get some good turns from the cast but it is the actual 'Bellini' that both makes and lets the film down. The 'Bellini' is one of the funniest scenes I have seen in a film for a long while but is too short and could have made this a masterpiece overall 71/2 out of 10 | I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.<br /><br />The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.<br /><br />Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad. <br /><br />The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.<br /><br />4/10 | 272 |
It's a strange feeling to sit alone in a theater occupied by parents and their rollicking kids. I felt like instead of a movie ticket, I should have been given a NAMBLA membership.<br /><br />Based upon Thomas Rockwell's respected Book, How To Eat Fried Worms starts like any children's story: moving to a new town. The new kid, fifth grader Billy Forrester was once popular, but has to start anew. Making friends is never easy, especially when the only prospect is Poindexter Adam. Or Erica, who at 4 1/2 feet, is a giant.<br /><br />Further complicating things is Joe the bully. His freckled face and sleeveless shirts are daunting. He antagonizes kids with the Death Ring: a Crackerjack ring that is rumored to kill you if you're punched with it. But not immediately. No, the death ring unleashes a poison that kills you in the eight grade.<br /><br />Joe and his axis of evil welcome Billy by smuggling a handful of slimy worms into his thermos. Once discovered, Billy plays it cool, swearing that he eats worms all the time. Then he throws them at Joe's face. Ewww! To win them over, Billy reluctantly bets that he can eat 10 worms. Fried, boiled, marinated in hot sauce, squashed and spread on a peanut butter sandwich. Each meal is dubbed an exotic name like the "Radioactive Slime Delight," in which the kids finally live out their dream of microwaving a living organism.<br /><br />If you've ever met me, you'll know that I have an uncontrollably hearty laugh. I felt like a creep erupting at a toddler whining that his "dilly dick" hurts. But Fried Worms is wonderfully disgusting. Like a G-rated Farrelly brothers film, it is both vomitous and delightful.<br /><br />Writer/director Bob Dolman is also a savvy storyteller. To raise the stakes the worms must be consumed by 7 pm. In addition Billy holds a dark secret: he has an ultra-sensitive stomach.<br /><br />Dolman also has a keen sense of perspective. With such accuracy, he draws on children's insecurities and tendency to exaggerate mundane dilemmas.<br /><br />If you were to hyperbolize this movie the way kids do their quandaries, you will see that it is essentially about war. Freedom-fighter and freedom-hater use pubescent boys as pawns in proxy wars, only to learn a valuable lesson in unity. International leaders can learn a thing or two about global peacekeeping from Fried Worms.<br /><br />At the end of the film, I was comforted when two chaperoning mothers behind me, looked at each other with befuddlement and agreed, "That was a great movie." Great, now I won't have to register myself in any lawful databases. | There are people out there who will greenlight anything! That is the only explanation I can offer as to why the House of the Dead movie exists. And that's only scary part to the whole movie. It's so bad you'll go off movies forever. I seriously wanted to switch this off and turn the TV over to the Paint Drying channel but I was bound by my word to suffer the whole thing. I don't know why I do these bad things to myself.<br /><br />As if it matters, here's the basic jist of the 'story'. A group of twenty-somethings are so desperate to go out to some island in the Pacific Northwest (Canada actually, because it's cheap) for the 'Rave of the Century' (which consists of about 8 people and un-raving music) that they pay some craggy old fisherman $1000 to take them there after they miss the main ferry. That's gotta be some rave to be worth all that dough! The fisherman warns them that the island is also known as the Island of the Dead (hang on-I thought this was HOUSE of the Dead?) and that they are all doomed yadda yadda yadda.<br /><br />First faults here. Why would a tiny little rave (of the Century my foot!) be held on some remote island? Why would anyone willingly pay loads of money to get it? Why pay even more to the craggy old fisherman to take them back when they could just come back with the others?<br /><br />Once they arrive they discover that the rave (which consists of about 2 tents, a small stage and a port-a-john) has been smashed, there's blood everywhere and no one is around. What would any rationally thinking person do? Run for their lives of course. But no, these clueless, obviously blind people decide to go look for them. Soon enough they discover an old ramshackle house that's 50 times as big on the inside as it is on the outside. Another half hour of stumbling around in the forest follows, as an excuse to kill of some of the lesser characters, and after much tedium they arrive back at the house again. The characters, like the movie, go nowhere.<br /><br />Jammed into this ghastly disaster is a superabundance of gibberish dialogue, heinous acting, mumbo-jumbo exposition and zillions of clips from the once-popular arcade game of the same name. Why this was universally accepted as a good idea with the filmmakers I'll never know. The clips have no reference to any of the scenes and only degrade this trash even further, if that is at all possible.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with the game save for some cheap, throwaway line at the end. It makes Resident Evil look like cinematic glory. Hell, even the Double Dragon movie seems multi-Oscar worthy in comparison to this junk. The only one who comes out of this with his dignity still intact is Jurgen Prochnow. He could have just taken his money and ran but he tries his best with the awful script and brings a tiny bit of pathos to his character. The rest of the cast suck I'm afraid. The characters are idiots and deserve to die.<br /><br />Plus, if you cut out the swearing and pointless nudity, I see no reason why this film cannot be shown on Saturday morning TV. It's not frightening in the slightest. Pirates of the Caribbean is more scary than the skeletal bad guys in this film. And where did all those bad guys come from anyway? There were only a few people on the island to begin with. I guess this justifies the reason they chose to reuse footage over and over. I kid you not, you'll see the same zombie die a dozen times.<br /><br />Who's ultimately to blame for that scandalous waste of celluloid? None other than director Uwe Boll. His control over the movie is non-existent. You can clearly the see actors have no idea what they should be doing and that the zombies aren't really taking it all seriously. The actors seem like they're reading off cue cards as they constantly pause in the middle of long sentences and carry on talking as soon as they see the next card. It all feels very unnatural.<br /><br />Plus the film is shot like a two-part mini-series. I have indeed seen better TV productions. And don't get me started on the editing. The film is an incoherent babble with thousands upon thousands of pointless shots and dozens of meaningless camera pans. No real skill or talent was put into making this at all. It truly baffles and boggles the mind how movies this unfathomably bad can get made and George A. Romero can't even get anyone to take his calls. House of the Dead makes some idiotic reference to Romero in a lazy attempt to be 'post-modern' but it only irritates that they think THIS is in the same league as a REAL zombie movie.<br /><br />For what it's worth, the 1.85:1 anamorphic picture looks great and the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is clean but very unimpressive and only serves to pronounce the heavily over-used ADR even more. The DVD comes with extras but why torture yourself. Isn't this review warning enough? Stay away! You are all doomed I tell you! Doomed! Doomed!!! | 273 |
I'm tired of people judging films on their "historical accuracy". IT'S A MOVIE PEOPLE!! The writers and directors are supposed to put their own spin into the story! There are a number of movies out there that aren't entirely accurate with the history....Braveheart, Wyatt Earp, Gangs of New York, Geronimo: An American Legend, The Last of the Mohicans....all fantastic films that are mildly inaccurate historically. If you want to see a few great actors do what they do best, then I suggest you see this film and don't worry about the accuracy of the facts. Just enjoy the quality of the film, the storyline and one of the greatest actors of our time. | Yuck. I thought it odd that their ancient book on curses was made using a common script font instead of hand written. The acting is so apathetic at times and so over-dramatic at other times. Why would a "demonico" kill the two suspiciously quiet doctors who helped make him immortal? Just for the heck of it? And is it really necessary to show Lilith's motorcycle whenever she's out somewhere. We get it! You spent a little bit of money to rent some third rate crotch rocket. It doesn't mean you have to show it all the time! The "Faith's" lair looks like an old school Battlestar Galactica set with some last minute changes. There is a scene where we are introduced to a few people on a talk show for about 30 seconds before they are killed without apparent reason and without importance. Everyone is a throwaway character. Forgettable characters and an even more forgettable plot make this one of the most ill-conceived movies I've seen the SciFi channel come out with. Stay away unless you're into bad movies. | 274 |
A terrorist attempts to steal a top secret biological weapon, and in the process of trying to escape, he is infected when the case containing the deadly agent is compromised. Soldiers are able to retrieve the case, but the terrorist makes his way to a hotel where he attempts to hide out. They eventually make it to where he's hiding, and "cleanse" the hotel and its occupants. Unfortunately they dispose of his body by cremation, and if you've seen Return of the Living Dead, you know what happens next.<br /><br />Zombi 3 has been widely panned by critics and zombie fans alike, as a complete mess of a movie. While that's a fair assessment, it's not without it's high points. For one thing, it has plenty of bloody deaths to keep gore-hounds happy. There's an abundance of zombies that seem to come out from everywhere possible. They're in the water, the rafters of houses, hiding in trees, and for some reason, they like to hide under a bunch of dead brush, only to spring out to attack as the heroes try to escape. There's even a flying zombie head that hides inside a refrigerator. You have to see it to believe it, as that scene alone makes Zombi 3 required viewing IMO. It may have some terrible editing and some very questionable acting, especially from the doctor who has to be one of the worst actors I've seen, but Zombie 3 is still a very entertaining movie. Sometimes it's nice to sit back and watch a movie that doesn't require anything more than your time and an open mind. Zombi 3 fits that bill, and then some. It's even more enjoyable if you pop open a few beers, and watch it with some like minded friends. I give it an 8/10, just because of sheer enjoyment. | Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark. <br /><br />Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.<br /><br />That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any. | 275 |
Moon Child was one of the more symbolic movies I've seen. What I really liked about it was the illustration on immorality/mortality,and the obstacles and guidances through life. The movie depicts a great deal of vampire Kei having the power of immorality and the advantages to it. Whether if it is having supernatural abilities or everlasting life, these are what humans usually wish for. Moon Child shows the pain and disadvantages of being immortal, since the feelings towards loss impacts almost all the characters especially to the main characters Sho and Kei. The meaning of the title 'Moon Child' reveals as the film comes close to the end where it clearly shows that everyone is a moon which shines other people's way, giving guidance. I personality quite like that moral the movie depicted on. The weaknesses of the film lies in some parts of the acting and special effects since it made the film less authentic. The scene where character Toshi dies could have been more powerful and realistic if more authentic emotions in the acting were put into it. Some scenes with special effects like the gun shots also could have been more authentic without making it seem too much like an action video game. The sparks that came out of the guns appeared too fake and I think that could have been eliminated or fixed. Nevertheless, I think Moon Child should be a movie everyone should consider watching. The symbolic ideas and images the movie brings out would be easily accepted by everyone and may interest many viewers. It is quite a thoughtful film and also entertaining to watch. | Why? Because for one reason, there has never been a more adorable scene in any film than Ann Margret singing "Bye Bye Birdie" at the opening. She reprises it again at the ending, too (in a different mood!). Both wonderful. Rent it and see. Even if that's all of it that you watch. You'll agree, I'm sure.<br /><br />Everything about the original was so excellent it just didn't need a remake, sorry! Jason and Vanessa gave commendable performances, as well as Tyne and Chynna. In fact, all the actors and singers in this new version were giving their 'all,' but it's like trying to improve on "Casablanca" -- it just can't be done! It's even annoying finding yourself comparing the two mentally as you try to appreciate the remake, and it just falls short, through no fault of the actors. | 276 |
Since I first saw this in the theater it has been my favorite. Since then I've seen it countless times and I never get tired of it. The setting has a lot to do with it (the Colorado I know would be jealous), but the storyline is original and I liked how it used small town mountain folk as the heroes. There has not been a movie I can compare this too. John Lithgow plays a smart villain, but I love how he is completely out of his element--he has to follow Tucker around and that's what keeps it interesting. This is an action movie at it's BEST. I don't think I'll see another that is so entertaining.<br /><br />You don't need 50,000 rounds fired to qualify as an action movie. It just has to keep you captivated, not shell-shocked. | This movie, supposedly a thriller, had about five sub-plots that developed simultaneously to climax at the end, but it ended up more as a yawn.<br /><br />The writing was trite, the pace was slow and disjointed and the characters were boring. George Clooney looks like he needs to get into a gym, Matt Damon hammed it up and the others seemed to read their lines from a teleprompter.<br /><br />The worst part of this movie was that it was carefully crafted to be politically correct and so it ended up saying nothing at all about big business, oil and the Middle-East. I have seen documentaries provide more excitement. Watch it only if there's absolutely nothing else to do. | 277 |
Paris is the place to be to enjoy beautiful art and music, and to fall madly in love - as is the case in this film. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, but something stands in their way of eternal happiness, the classic story.<br /><br />The wonderful music of George Gerschwin complements the great dancing by Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. "An American in Paris" is a humorous, light-hearted, loving film well worth watching.<br /><br />8/10<br /><br /> | I wanted to like this movie, but many elements ruined it for me. The use of a fisheye lens throughout and choppy editing did not give me a sense of being in the world of the meth head, but it did make me think I was watching MTV for a few short moments. The movie never did seem to go anywhere and the acting was truly an excellent example of over acting. I love movies that give us a glimpse into the seedy underworld, but this film couldn't decide if it was a bad horror film or an even worse serious commentary on the horrors of addiction. | 278 |
I saw this at a screening last night too. I was totally blown away at how much better this movie was than what I expected. Not many movies can combine dark comedy and current event drama and not have it fall apart in the conclusion.<br /><br />I won't bother rehashing the plot too much because I think the less you know about this movie going into it makes it that much better. But I will say that Adam Sandler's performance was really refreshing and real. He was funny, and much funnier than most of his most recent comedies. Don Cheadle was believable as always.<br /><br />This movie isn't funny like Borat or Billy Madison but it has a good pace about it. I'd say 90% of the audience laughed for most of the film. Midway through the movie slows down to address the drama end of things and does a really nice job of tying it all together.<br /><br />I also thought it was really cool how instead of playing up the whole black friend/white friend thing they chose to just ignore it and focus on the relationships themselves. | Good performances can't save this terrible script, larded with every cliche in the chick-flick book. Both main characters are deeply unsympathetic, and the scene where Laura Linney's character reminisces about sex with her dead husband in front of her teenage son -- which I think is supposed to be poignant -- is just horrifying. | 279 |
Only once in a while do we get an R-rated comedy that gets everyone's time and attention. It's an even rarer case when the critics will like it. I just came back from The 40 Year-Old Virgin and I can honestly say, it was one of the biggest laughs of my life. I went to a 10:35 showing and every row was filled. Not only that, everyone laughed their ass off the whole time through. It's two hours of non-stop laughing. I dare you to see this film and to not laugh.<br /><br />The plot is simple. A man is forty years old and he is a virgin. Yet, behind this simple, five second joke, we are given a deep, complex story that is not only one of the funniest you'll ever witness, but has genuine lessons behind it. Steve Carell stars as Andy Stitzer, The 40 Year-Old Virgin. We have known Steve Carell, as, in my opinion, one of the best scene thieves of all time. Stealing hilarious scenes from Bruce Almighty and especially Anchorman, Steve Carell has come a long way, as finally, and proudly, is given his moment to shine as the star. No one will forget his name once they witness this pervasively funny, gut-busting, roll-in-the-aisle hilarious comedy.<br /><br />The beauty about the film is it isn't 100% stupid. The brilliant writing of Judd Apatow and Steve Carell genuinely has purpose and it's not just one hell of a story to tell. Behind the crudeness and vulgar non-stop ride of the film comes an important lesson to be learned. Although not presented in the best way possible, the film gives us more than a purely enjoyable time. Its gut-busting attitude will have you laughing the whole time through, while we simultaneously see the real life struggles of people like Andy and his fellow co-workers. The end couldn't have been better. Not only does it deliver what we are promised but it gives one of the most memorable finishing numbers a comedy has ever seen. It would have been perfect if there was Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson in there cameoing somehow, but you can't win 'em all, now can you.<br /><br />Finally, I think as Roger Ebert put it, Catherine Keener gives an unexplainable perfect performance as Trish, the one woman Andy has his heart truly for. Not only does she also give us laughs but it is crazy to see how brightly she fuels the story. She was cast perfected in the role and her and Carell have terrific, not to mention, hilarious chemistry on screen.<br /><br />Canadian ratings-wise, once again, Ontario slips away with a 14A, while British Columbia, Alberta, and Manitoba all slapped The 40 Year-Old Virgin with an 18A. The same thing happened with Four Brothers, in my opinion, the second best film of the year, and I can honestly say that I love Ontario more and more so for that. To all you fellow teenagers out there in the States: Good luck sneaking in! <br /><br />Overall, Steve Carell gives one of the funniest performances I've ever seen and just about everyone in the cast distributes to the non-stop laughter. Everyone will love the 40 Year-Old Virgin this summer and I encourage everyone to see it as fast as humanly possible. It is the best comedy of the year, hands down. It beats all over The Longest Yard, The Wedding Crashers, and of course Apatow and Carell's last memorable comedy, Anchorman.<br /><br />It is a comic masterpiece and deserves the remarkable amount of praise from the critics who have been loving it. Every single one of my favourite critics loved it and it deserves a spot on the IMDb Top 250 right away. Steve Carell is a huge star. Watch one of the brightest ones of the summer right now.<br /><br />My Rating: 9/10 <br /><br />Objectively 9/10 <br /><br />Subjectively 10/10 <br /><br />Eliason A. | Seeing a photo of a man being attacked by zombies gave me hope that Lucio "Zombi" Fulci might be up to his old tricks. Unfortunately, other than the close ups of a rotting corpse, there's little to recommend in this story of the murder of a wealthy man and his daughter's quest to figure out who killed him. None of the characters are appealing and by the time you find out how they did it (that twist, at least, was cool), you stop caring. The only good thing I can say is that it made more sense than Nightmare Concert! | 280 |
Halloween is the story of a boy who was misunderstood as a child. He takes out his problems on his older sister, whom he murders at the beginning of the film. This is just the start of things to come from Michael Myers.<br /><br />Donald Pleasance plays the doctor who's been studying Myers for years. He knows that something is different about him, something mysteriously evil. This evil will not be contained, and it cannot be stopped.<br /><br />After an escape from an institution, Myers tracks down his younger sister. If he kills her, there may be an end to the troubles of this misunderstood boy. But he seems to have problems in finishing his sister off as other people get in the way. He manages to take them out while still looking for that one girl he needs.<br /><br />There have been a lot of those horror movies involving teenagers getting hacked to pieces by a masked or gruesome killer. But this one started it all, sort of. If you think about it, most of those horror movies we all remember are the ones that have Freddy Kruger or Jason chasing around half naked girls. Well, if it wasn't for Halloween, those characters wouldn't have haunted our dreams when we were children.<br /><br />Halloween's director, John Carpenter, got a lot out of the horror movies of the '50s and combined everything he knew into one film that scared the hell out of a lot of people back in the late '70s. This films solidified him as a director to watch and also jump started the career of Jamie Lee Curtis, who plays the girl being stalked by the masked killer.<br /><br />This film may seem cliché today, but back then there wasn't much out there like this. It's been copied from and ripped off of, but Halloween will always remain the quintessential teenage horror movie. It still gives you chills listening to Carpenter's thrilling music while we see another victim get chased by that shadowy Michael Myers. | If you want to see a movie about two utterly unsympathetic characters, this is the one. The acting is superb, both from John Cassavetes as the insane paranoid whom, as the saying goes, they REALLY ARE out to get, and from Peter Falk as his lifelong best friend to whom he turns for rescue. Big mistake, but since they're both amoral mobsters, and misogynistic bastards to boot, it's hard to decide whom to root for LESS. Only writer/director Elaine May could have gotten away with this one. I thought it interesting that in a lengthy interview with producer Michael Hausman included on the DVD, he disclosed that the two stars had "very different ideas" about the script, that the director was nearly impossible to work with, that the director of photography had impossible demands made of him, that the crew was constantly angry about being made to sit around waiting, and so on. This mood of one big VERY dysfunctional family comes across clearly on the screen. | 281 |
Depardieu's most notorious film is this (1974)groundbreaker from Bertrand Blier. It features many highly sexual scenes verging on an X-rating, including one of Jeanne Moreau doing a hot 1970s version of her Jules and Jim menage a trois with the two hairy French hippies (Depardieu and Deware). There is no such thing as a sacred territory in this film; everything is fair game.<br /><br />It's very odd that Americans tend to not like this film very much while many French people I've met consider it a classic. Something about it goes against what Americans have been programmed to 'like.'<br /><br />Gerard and the late Patrick Deware are two bitch-slapping, hippy drifters with many sexual insecurities, going around molesting women and committing petty crimes. They're out for kicks and anti-capitalist, Euro-commie, slacker 'freedom.' Blier satirizes the hell out of these two guys while at the same time making bourgeois society itself look ultimately much more ridiculous. Best of all though, is the way the wonderful Stephane Grappelli score conveys the restless soul of the drifters, the deeper subconscious awareness or 'higher ideal' that motivates all the follies they engage in. | The Wayward Cloud is a frustrating film to watch. Infuriatingly enigmatic, it treats each shot like a work of art. You get the impression that the composition of each shot has been designed and prepared with a degree of exquisite care that borders on obsession; Expressing how far cinema has progressed since the very first films were cranked out in the nineteenth century and mimicking their construction, the camera here hardly ever moves apart from during the camp and colourful musical numbers. Ambient noise is kept to a minimum and barely a word is spoken. This curious but effective device forces the audience to focus their attention on visual stimuli alone so that, even as the story progresses at a snail-like pace we feel ourselves becoming immersed. Unfortunately, for me at least, this immersion begins to unravel somewhere around the hour mark. I began to feel as if the film was challenging me to keep watching while becoming more difficult as the minutes dragged so that the mere act of watching became a battle of wills.<br /><br />Had the content of this film not been as sexual as it is it would no doubt been even more obscure to Western audiences. As it is, there's an abundance of female nudity and an act of sexual abuse on an unconscious (or possibly dead) woman that is so repugnant that, while it may speak volumes about the degradation to which pornography subjects both men and women (the users and the used) it is so over-zealous in the manner in which it chooses to make its point as to effectively render it ineffective. Of course the worst and most enthusiastic participants of the explosion in available pornographic content will seek this film out for all the wrong reasons and watch it with their sticky finger on the fast-forward button of the remote.<br /><br />For all its problems, the film is definitely a stayer, and the more you think about it the more sense certain aspects of it seem to make. Ironically, for a film in which so little happens, the viewer would probably be proportionately rewarded by watching a second or even third time. For me, however, once was enough
| 282 |
<br /><br />Human Body --- WoW.<br /><br />There are about 27,000 Sunrises in human life....<br /><br />Hardly one thousand Sunrises will be watched by 90% of Humans on this planet....<br /><br />Our days are limited...<br /><br />Excellent movie for all women.... makers of human body...<br /><br />Thanks and Regards.<br /><br /> | Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".<br /><br />The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.<br /><br />This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.<br /><br />Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.<br /><br />As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser. | 283 |
I saw this movie when I was a child. It blew me away. This was before the days of television, so a movie of this magnitude, could send a young kid into orbit. It so impressed me, that I went to see this movie for twelve consecutive days. The special effects used at this time were far ahead of its' time. Sabu was a real delight, as was Rex Ingram as the Genie. I found myself singing "I want to be a sailor" for months after the film left town. I would recommend this movie to any and everyone. I forgot to mention Conrad Veidt, who was as villainous a character as you'd ever want to meet. Also, June Duprez was never lovelier than she was in this picture. The color was outstanding. Give this movie an AAA! | I registered just to make this comment (which pretty much echos some of the ones here already) The acting is worse than subpar, it expounds on commonly held stereotypes, has some of the worst displays of tasteless female objectification (all bod no brain), and has some of the cheesiest lines known to man.<br /><br />including but not limited to "allright lets see what these guys can do" I should also mention that when they show the crashes involving innocent civilians, you end up feeling bad for the innocent people and start to hate the characters themselves. Eddie Griffin's character is also one of the most stereotypical black guy personas that just rubs people the wrong way. He may or may not be a good actor but this movie doesn't allow for that kind of character exploration. You want a movie that leaves the audience on the side of the bad guys? Oceans 11. This movie just makes you hate the bad guys instead of capturing the audience.<br /><br />Even the cars can't make up for this fluke of a movie. That Enzo that Griffin wrecked sums up this movie perfectly. It just sucks. | 284 |
The Unseen is done in a style more like old Hollywood mysteries than a horror show. The film is somewhat slow but lots of bizarre imagery keeps it the film alive and watchable. The basic idea of young girls stalked by something in the basement is old, but good acting and production make the movie worth watching. The movie is notable for its emotional impact and certainly not for any explicit action or special effects. I rated it an 8 out of 10. | Darcy and her young daughter Pamela are heading out to the country where her mum's boyfriend Peter left his doctor's position in the city to become a writer and fix up a bed and breakfast inn. Although this inn has a terrible past and Pamela learns from one the girl's who lives in the town that a deformed witch once reside in that house. They called her the 'Tooth Fairy' as she would kill kids after getting their last baby tooth. This work on the inn, has awoken the 'Tooth Fairy'. Now she has her sights on Pamela and her last baby tooth, but if any gets in the way they face the same fate that awaits Pamela.<br /><br />This flick's old folk myth of the 'Tooth Fairy' doesn't paint her in a very generous way, as you would believe when you were a child. Don't they just love turning happy childhood memories into nightmares! Another one which did fall into the same category was "Darkness Falls (2003)". I can't compare how similar they are in the premises, because I haven't seen the latter, but I mostly read they have basically share the same idea. For a little straight to DVD film, this DTV effort looks good and has some promising images surrounding the senseless and traditionally by the book plot device. Low expectations are needed, as I wouldn't class it as an success, but I found it be to marginally entertaining.<br /><br />Cory Strode and Cookie Rae Brown's story or background for this 'Tooth Fairy' character is completely bare with it leaning more towards a slasher vehicle than anything really supernatural. Silly is a good way to describe what's happening in this poorly scripted story, but it never really feels like a fairytale horror. The dialogues can seem rather redundant and morally hounded. While the acting is simply sub-par with the bland characters they have to work off, but director Chuck Bowman offers up some inventive blood splatter and terribly nasty jolts. This kinda makes up for the lack of suspense, the zero scares and generic tone. His direction is reasonably earnest and visually able, where he gets some atmospheric lighting contrasting well with its slick photography. The promising opening scene is creepily effective. His pacing can slow up in parts and there's the odd and unnecessary slow-motion scene put in, but nonetheless it never gets too stodgy with something active occurring which made sure that I wasn't bored.<br /><br />The make-up special effects provided the goods, as there's enough repulsive gruel and the Tooth Fairy's appearance is especially gooey. The figure of the tooth Fairy can look threatening in its black robe, bubbling make-up and swift movements. Being on location helps carve out a more natural feel and can get atmospherically rich in its sense of eeriness. Child actors can be incredibly annoying, but Nicole Muñoz was decent in her part. Lochlyn Munro and Chandra West are somewhat solid, but can be a little too causal in their performances as Peter and Darcey. The radiantly gorgeous Carrie Anne Fleming is one of their lodgers. P.J Soles shows up in small part as a superstitious neighbour who tries to warn them about the evil that lurks at the inn.<br /><br />I thought it was a okay time-waster that has a sound concept, which just isn't fleshed out enough and the execution is pretty textbook stuff. Watchable nonsense, but at the same time extremely forgettable. | 285 |
I rented this movie and watched it 20 times before I took it back to the store. Bill Paxton hired some first rate talent to make a good thriller with some interesting twists. The story is original and well written. Powers Booth and Paxton both deliver good performances. The story is told in an interesting manner with both flashbacks 20 years back, then spots in the present, alternating back and forth. This style of storytelling makes for a good thriller that can't get dull. Bill Paxton, please make more horror movies, you have the talent for it! | Watching this last night it amazed me that Fox spent so much money on it and got so little back on their investment. It's the kind of disaster that has to be seen to be believed.<br /><br />I'm sure that the first morning of filming Raquel Welch dusted off the shelf over her fireplace to prepare a spot for the Academy Award she would surely win for this daringly original movie. Oops. That's not what happened.<br /><br />The infighting on the set was detailed in print by Rex Reed and this helped the movie attain a reputation before it was even released. When it was finally released there wasn't the usual three ring circus of publicity. If I remember correctly, in Houston it opened at drive-ins and neighborhood theatres and never played any of the big venues.<br /><br />I lay most of the blame on director Michael Sarne, who was hot after having directed (the not all that good) JOANNA, a film with music about young people in swinging mod London.<br /><br />If I recall correctly, Fox wound up firing him and piecing the film together the best they could. That's why scenes play out in no particular sequence and characters appear and then vanish. An impressive supporting cast (Kathleen Freeman, Jim Backus, John Carradine, Andy Devine and others) is wasted with nothing to do.<br /><br />To expand it to feature length there are numerous clips from Fox movies featuring stars like Carmen Miranda (in amazing footage from THE GANG'S ALL HERE) andLaurel and Hardy, who never dreamed they'd be playing in an X rated movie.<br /><br />The X rating is due to occasional language numerous sexual perversions; however, none of the characters seem to be having any fun. Maybe somebody involved with the film had a warped Puritan sensibility and figured that if they could make these things unappealing it wasn't bad to exploit them.<br /><br />This was one of the "youth" pictures that nearly bankrupted Hollywood in the 1970's. One writer joked that EASY RIDER (which was made for pocket change) was the most expensive movie ever made because so many films followed which tried and failed in the worst way to duplicate its success. Sixtyish, once honored directors like Stanley Kramer and Otto Preminger made movies like RPM and SKIDOO in an effort to attract a young audience. White directors and writers attempted to make films to attract a Black audience. Those movies are locked somewhere in a vault and the two named and many others from that genre have never, as best I know, been out on home video or cable. They're the studios' deep dark secret.<br /><br />Raquel Welch's performance in this is, all things considered, very good. With the right direction and script she could played the type of sassy liberated women Rosiland Russel and Barbara Stanwyck specialized in. She looks great and has awesome costumes. Mae West is the liveliest seventy-something actress I've ever seen. On the one hand it's kind of heartbreaking to watch her attempt to capture her glory from years gone by, but I'm sure she needed the money.<br /><br />If you want to see a big budget X-rated movie from this era check out BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (also from Fox) because it doesn't take itself seriously. It's crazy kids playing with the equipment at a major studio. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE tries to Say Something. There just wasn't anyone who wanted to listen. | 286 |
As a kid, I loved computer animation although it was EXTREMELY limited and the tools were almost nonexistent. This movie, as I sat in awe and watched the amazing images and almost-hypnotic music, shaped the desire in me to create moving things in the computer. This is a whole-package deal, between the music and the video, that really packs a one-two punch. If you know any child that wants to get involved in computer animation, this is a MUST HAVE. <br /><br />I still, almost 20 years later, rate this movie as one of my top 3 favorites. The originality, I think, is still unsurpassed by most of today's McMovies that Hollywood spits out. I am currently wanting to see if I can re-make it on my own; if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then this movie deserves a TON of imitation =) | Given the title and outlandish box art, I was ready for just about anything. Perhaps my expectation were forced just a bit to high, because I was left a little dry.<br /><br />A film crew working on a soft-core sex movie end up at a strange house when they get lost in the fog and decide the best way to spend the evening is to have sex. Where hasn't this set up been used before? The difference here is the uber-perverse nature of the sex. Not allowed to show all the goods (groin shots were illegal in Japan for a long time, what is shown is fogged out) the movie tries as hard as it can to show the viewer just how unnatural sex can be.<br /><br />Amidst all the kinky goings on, a mud monster (whose origin I can't fathom) shows up and begins murdering the men and raping the women...then murdering them too. Some of the sights are a bit much, most notably a woman having her intestines pulled out through her vagina or another woman spitting out a mouthful of...stuff, but otherwise the gore is pretty standard fare.<br /><br />Ultimately the film is pulled down by it's own designs; it's too over-sexed to be a strait horror picture and too gruesome to work as a sex flick. The mediums can work, but there need to be a balance.<br /><br />4/10 | 287 |
There are two distinct ways to enjoy this snappily written, seminal TV show (the "godfather" to X-Files and Buffy, etc.); as a monster show (it scared the hell out of me when I was a kid!), or as a well-written/acted gumshoe/film-noir. It works on both levels. The scariness may have been diluted over the years (it WAS made in the mid-70s), but I was pleasantly surprised upon rediscovering the show (via DVD) that I actually enjoy it MORE now for the latter reasons. The late Darren McGavin IS Karl Kolchak, an eccentric, tenacious, rumpled newsman/monster-hunter who, in pursuit of a story, always finds a supernatural angle; much to the pain of Kolchak's over-stressed, put-upon boss Tony Vincenzo(played with tremendous world-weariness by the also late, great Simon Oakland; you can practically feel the pain of his budding ulcers!). The interplay between these characters is crackling and witty (much like STAR TREK's Spock and McCoy, only more acidic!). Over the course of two pilot TV movies and a one-season series, Kolchack fought vampires, robots, werewolves, witches, zombies, government conspiracies, aliens, and ancient legends (sounds like the entire 9 yr. run of the X-Files! In ONE season!). And Kolchak did it first! And as for composer Gil Melle's cool, partly-whistled main title music... well, X-Files creator Chris Carter calls Mike Snow's (very similar) X-Files main title theme an 'homage.' Both themes work well; leave it at that. And unlike many modern horror/sci-fi shows, most of KOLCHAK's monsters are shown in shadow, and in quick cuts(effectively, and sometimes thankfully; as some of them do not hold up to modern scrutiny; but some still DO). Modern horror shows take note: Less IS more! One of the few flaws of the show (and it's a small one) is the over-use of sunny, California locales passing for windy city Chicago. NIGHT GALLERY had the same issue; unavoidable for a modest-budget, L.A. based show. And some of the supporting characters seem to fall into what are (now) viewed as clichés (the effeminate reporter, Ron Updike, always used for comic relief; sweet, old lady/advice columnist Emily). But, they all DO have their moments to shine (UNLIKE many supporting TV characters since, cliché or not!). KOLCHAK is a timeless show, that serves as a template for many that followed. And Carl Kolchak is one of the richest characters ever written for a horror genre TV show (agent Mulder's REAL dad). And as a footnote, I tried watching a few episodes of the new, "re-imagining" of the show. It's an X-Files clone (a copy of a copy?). And a bad one, at that. Carl Kolchak is now a model-pretty, angsty 30-something (played dismally by a boring Stuart Townsend). And giving him a Scully-type partner is also a lame idea; it undermines Kolchak as a lone, Don Quixote crusader! And Kolchak and Vincenzo GETTING ALONG? Where's the tension? The interplay? That they chose to hang the KOLCHAK name on this regurgitated bit o' crap is a prime example of how NOT to do a remake: Take a beloved cult series, scrape off everything unique about it, drain it of all character and color (but keep the name! Need that cult cred!), and voilà! Instant re-hash! It gets an 'F' in 'Re-Imaginings 101'! This new version DESERVED the axe! Stick with the short-lived, but classic original. It truly gets better with age. | NOTE TO ALL DIRECTORS: Long is not necessarily good. This movie is incredibly long. However not good. The scenes were drawn out way, way, way, way, way too long. The sex scenes were unnecessary, and often too long. The movie edited down to 2 hours and 10 minutes or so would have been exceptional, but alas it became so boringly long that I can only give it a 2 of 10. It is way below average.<br /><br />Some other problems also exist in this marathon. <br /><br />1) Ralph Fiennes plays a whole family tree. The guy who played the Great-grandfather looks nothing like him, but the Grandfather, Father and the son (who gives us constant unneeded voice over) are all Ralph Fiennes with different facial hair and the same basic bull-headed personality. No one seems to notice that each of these children look like a clone of the last, even though photos of them are being snapped at every turn. This one is minor, but if the movie hadn't been 3 weeks long it wouldn't have been so annoying.<br /><br />2) The fact that no news from Germany was even whispered for the longest time about Jews being rounded up and sent off is ridiculous. Some word would have gotten to them and the thought of trying to run off would probably have been discussed. The uncle in France would surely have sent warning to try and get them to leave.<br /><br />3) The love stories in this movie are totally wrong. You are spending forever telling us this thing and the development of relationships between main characters is extremely short. Suddenly... people are in love and almost instantly... married. Then having children. Then we draw things out for 6 centuries and forget about developing relationships. This again would not have stuck out so much in a 2 hour movie, but with time spent nothing was given to us.<br /><br />4) The ending was just bad. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but you won't like it either...unless you are sadistic.<br /><br />The director/writer should be tortured with having to watch this bloated garbage on a weekly basis, I mean endless loop, oops they are the same thing. <br /><br />I wonder if Robert Redford did anything for this movie, I mean I think Istvan Szabo must be modeling his directing career after him. Long drawn out movie which totally ruins any substance in the movie. A short description of 'The Horse Whisperer', and Sunshine.<br /><br />Sunshine, perfect title. If you start watching while the sun is shining it will quite possibly be well after dark when you leave. | 288 |
This movie is sort of a Carrie meets Heavy Metal. It's about a highschool guy who gets picked on alot and he totally gets revenge with the help of a Heavy Metal ghost. it is such a classic. The soundtrack is A++++. You've got living legends of Metal in it. And Marc Price was great in this film. This is a must have for metal fans. | After sitting through this pile of dung, my husband and I wondered whether it was actually the product of an experiment to see whether a computer program could produce a movie. It was that listless and formulaic. But the U.S. propaganda thrown in your face throughout the film proves--disappointingly--that it's the work of humans. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but quotes like, "We have to steal the Declaration of Independence to protect it" seem like ways to justify actions like the invasion of Iraq, etc. The fact that Nicholas Cage spews lines like, "I would never use the Declaration of Independence as a bargaining chip" with a straight face made me and my husband wonder whether the entire cast took Valium before shooting each scene. The "reasoning" behind each plot turn and new "clue" is truly ridiculous and impossible to follow. And there's also a bonus side plot of misogyny, with Dr. Whatever-Her-Name-Was being chided by all involved for "never shutting up." She's clearly in the movie only for looks, but they felt the need to slap a "Dr." title on her character to give her some gravity. At one point, Cage's character says, "Don't you ever shut up?" and the camera pans to her looking poutily down at her hands, like she's a child. Truly grotesque. The only benefit to this movie was that it's so astonishingly bad, you do get a few laughs out of it. The really scary thing is that a majority of the people watching the movie with us seemed to enjoy it. Creepy.... | 289 |
I must admit, out of the EROS MOVIE COLLECTION, this has to be the one that I love the most as well as one other that I have also reviewed. The story is something that really keeps you watching. A lot of the EROS films have a plot that looks like a hammer broke it in pieces before production when you watch it. All centering around sex, and who can get with how many different people come the end of the film. And oh dear god, never watch one of these films when someone pulls out a gun. It does not work that it is almost laughable, but you do not want to waste the energy to do so.<br /><br />"Losing Control" is exactly as its name comes on. The protagonist, the leading character (the wonderfully talented and beautiful Kira Reed). The control is the control a person has over their senses, their body and feelings. And one man changes everything for her, makes her a different woman almost. But the mirror is shattered at the same time. This makes for a great film that I wish I had come up with first!!<br /><br />10/10 | I foolishly read the back of the DVD cover of this movie in Best Buy about a year ago, and said to myself, "Seems funny, plus it has Michael Clarke Duncan, how can I lose!" I proceeded to pay $15.99 plus tax for it. I took it over to a friends house and we both stood aghast at how poorly it was written and acted. Wooden performances abound. All the "hilarious" and "outstanding" performances promised never seemed to arrive. After 90 minutes I hung my head in shame, knowing that I could never get that 90 minutes or $15.99 back. I literally almost cried as well, because if that was what could be considered "comedy" I didn't want to believe in movies anymore. My friend and I constantly informed a friend of ours of the horror of this movie to the point that he needed to see it just to understand how bad it was. Over the holiday season this year I watched it with him because he didn't want to watch it alone. This was my next horrible mistake, because as I watched I just became angry. I began to yell at the movie, and I'm not one to talk to movies period. Everyone I know that has even glimpsed this movie has agreed its the worst they've ever seen. My sense of humor is sick and twisted and often offends my friends, but that could not save this movie even. The fact that this movie is not on the bottom 100 list on IMDb is astounding. The fact that its rating (at the time of this writing) is 3.6 is a crime against humanity. | 290 |
gone in 60 seconds is a very good action comedy film that made over $100 million but got blasted by most critics. I personally thought this was a great film. The story was believable and has probobly the greatest cast ever for this type of movie including 3 academy award winners nicolas cage, robert duvall and the very hot anjolina jolie. other than the lame stunt at the end this is a perfect blend of action comedy and drama. my score is **** (out of ****) | In 1979 Lucio Fulci released his film Zombi. However, due to the earlier import of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, which had gone by that name for its Italian release, it was retitled to Zombi 2. (Which also had the bonus of letting the audience think this was a sequel to the second Romero movie). Continuing this theme, the second Zombi film, which would have been called Zombi 2, was then consequently titled Zombi 3. In the UK, the original Zombi film (that is, Zombi 2) was titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters". To continue THIS theme, the second Zombi film (Zombi 3) was then titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2" for its UK release. (Are you following all this?) So if Zombie Flesh Eaters was Fulci's Dawn, then is 2 his Day of the Dead? While this is only a flippant observation, this tale of military compounds, helicopters and a plodding narrative certainly does bear a vague thematic resemblance.<br /><br />Some of Fulci's European direction compels in a film like this, but the acting, dubbing and exposition-heavy script are absolutely horrendous. Its ecological message is so forced and overstated it can no longer be considered a subtext, while there's an (unintentionally) hilarious Birds homage. Combining this last element with MOR 80s rock is not a good idea. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of Time of the Apes (q.v.) the whole time I was watching this. This is obviously not a good thing.<br /><br />While there's nothing here to rival topless scuba-diving, shark wrestling zombies and eyeballs on a splinter, Fulci's misogynistic leanings do get a work out with a hotel cleaner's mouth being ground into a mirror until it gushes blood. His fannish gore predilections also see a hand severing. Both themes are combined when a woman's face is ripped off, first by one zombie, then a zombie foetus that tears out of a pregnant woman's stomach.<br /><br />Production-wise, this is obviously a step up from Zombi, coming five years later. (Nine years in worldwide release terms). But without the original's low-key charm it struggles, while Stefano Mainetti's music is inappropriate and uninspired. Fabio Frizzi's score was one of the best things about the '79 movie. Here zombie attacks are played out to what sounds unnervingly like Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out For A Hero". In the middle of this carnage we get an irksome love interest, and Roger and Kenny, two bland macho types who do everything with acrobatic urgency and constantly state the obvious. ("We're out of ammunition" to a stalling gun is a particular standout). But where it also falls down is in the zombies themselves. Low key or not, Fulci's original had truly magnificent, rotting zombies. Skull faces, worms in eye sockets... they really were something to behold. By contrast, this dull follow-up opts for the more traditional "men with a bit of paint on their faces" option. <br /><br />The climax rips off too many Romero movies to even be funny, while the use of the DJ is a crass and cheap narrative device. Not containing the same elements of outrage and gratuitous nudity of the first, this is unlikely to have the same cult appeal. <br /><br />It turns out that Fulci actually walked out on the project after reportedly directing just fifteen minutes, the rest filmed by Bruno Mattei. I'm fairly sure that even Fulci would have balked at the ludicrous "flying zombie head" scene, and so credit to the director for having the good sense to leave. Unfortunately, however, it's his name that's above the film title on releases, so the majority of people will be left with the impression that this is a Fulci film through and through. On that scale then it's a major setback for him, for this movie commits what you imagine Fulci would regard as the worst crime of all: that of being boring. | 291 |
"The Matador" is a dark comedy starring Pierce Brosnan as an aging hit man who befriends a straight-arrow, happily-married American businessman (Greg Kinnear) in Mexico. Although the sardonic Julian (ironically surnamed "Noble") appears to be a "tough guy" on the surface, underneath he is really just a mass of neuroses and insecurities, a man who realizes that his chosen profession has left him virtually alone in the world and friendless. Thus on his birthday, he reaches out to Danny, a man who has lived his life playing by the rules and who becomes strangely intrigued by Julian's "unconventional" lifestyle. In fact, both men find in each other the person they could never be but wish they could become in their quieter, franker moments of self-evaluation.<br /><br />Although the film is a bit too reminiscent of "Analyze This" and "Midnight Run" to feel entirely fresh and original, "The Matador," nevertheless, earns points for the complexity of its characters and the quality of its acting. Brosnan, looking aged and almost used up, sinks his teeth into the role of Julian in a way he never has before. Playing a man who seems constitutionally unable to make a serious connection with another human being, Brosnan is flip and cavalier one moment, then genuine and sympathetic the next. He always keeps us off balance so that the humor never becomes crass or stale. Kinnear is also excellent as the Regular Joe businessman who finds himself pulled ever more to the Dark Side as his relationship with Julian deepens. Hope Davis does a fine job as "Bean," Danny's loyal and loving wife who, like her husband, finds herself intrigued by this mysterious and "dangerous" figure from a world far different from the one she knows.<br /><br />At times, we find ourselves feeling that "The Matador" is holding something back from us, not quite plumbing the depths of its situation and premise. At the end it feels a little too light, a little too insubstantial to register the impact it should. This could be because this is the feature film debut for writer/director Richard Shephard, and he hasn't quite gotten his movie pacing down yet. Still, one appreciates the fact that he doesn't always go for the obvious and that he keeps tightly focused on the two main figures in the piece, rarely settling for the trite setup or the easy laugh.<br /><br />'The Matador" is a flawed but generally entertaining little comedy that will, hopefully, signal a new phase in Brosnan's acting career. | For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word. | 292 |
I first read Pearl S Buck's splendid novel in my ninth grade history class, and I enjoyed every thrilling page of it. It was almost inevitable that Hollywood would get hold of it, and considering that it was made in 1937, the results are excellent.<br /><br />Certain things have to be accepted: in 1937 there was no question of casting Asian actors in a major Hollywood film. In a way this renders the end product rather more interesting than if they had been able to use a more authentic-looking cast.<br /><br />With that obstacle to overcome, executive producer Irving Thalberg and director Sidney Franklin (among others) took the trouble to hand-pick a splendid and stellar cast. Paul Muni plays Wang Lung. Muni was at the peak of his powers as an actor during this period, and could very nearly play anything he put his mind to. Once you get past the makeup (it's good, but no one is going to really mistake him for a Chinese man), his performance has all the verisimilitude of his best work.<br /><br />Then there is Luise Rainer. Coming off an Oscar win the previous year for her performance in THE GREAT ZIEGFELD, the Viennese actress's star was on the rise and she was given the plum role of O-lan despite her lack of experience in Hollywood. Her performance won her a second consecutive Oscar, the first time in history that happened.<br /><br />Much criticism has been leveled at Rainer's performance, and her Oscar win here. She has been called wooden and one-note. There is a small grain of truth in that. HOWEVER, that being said, all you need to do is go back to the book. For Rainer, though not Chinese, played O-lan pretty much as Buck wrote her; it is in fact a splendid performance, and one of the best transfers from book to screen I have ever witnessed.<br /><br />As for the rest of the cast, well this was MGM. They had the biggest roster of stars and character actors in Hollywood at the time, and a big budget to pay for the best, and in the end they got the best.<br /><br />The film softens Wang Lung's marriage to O-lan somewhat. In the novel, with wealth come the lusts of the flesh and he takes on a concubine, a move which devastates his wife but her feelings as a mere woman do not concern him. In the film, a contrite Wang Lung returns to his wife on her deathbed the two pearls he had taken from her years before, realizing too late that she was his true love.<br /><br />Corny, yes. But that's Hollywood. Considering the obstacles they were up against, the film might well have opened to screams of laughter. But despite the noticeable dearth of real Asians in the cast, this film has worn surprisingly well with the passage of seventy-three years. In fact the most amazing thing about this film is how good it is, when it might so easily have been a disaster. | I rented this movie on the merits of what the trailer showed, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins.<br /><br />If Jackson Pollack teamed up with David Lynch, and Timothy Leary to make a movie, this would be the end result. I don't think I've seen a movie like it that made an LSD trip look like an episode of Sesame Street.<br /><br />It's a bunch of set pieces where the characters flash in and out of reality, or various realities, and the film doesn't culminate into anything until the last 5 minutes, where all of a sudden it makes sense. I wrote a scathing review on my movie review blog that essentially gives everything away, and I won't do that here. It's a well acted piece of cinema, and the soundtrack was written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and let me say this, if there's one redeeming feature to this film, it's the music. It fits perfectly. Some of the dialogue is unbelievably good, and unbelievably bad all at the same time.<br /><br />I enjoyed parts of this movie, I truly did, and once you get to the end of it, you'll actually figure out what's truly going on. It's unfortunate that you have to wade through 2 hours of crazy to get to a salient point, which minimizes the effect of the entire movie.<br /><br />I give it a 3 out of 10 for the simple fact that the real problem with this film isn't the acting, it's everything. | 293 |
I first saw this film about 11 years ago when my former college Accounting professor recommended it to me. I was amazed that a movie from 1968 could so coherently and hilariously portray computer crime. Maggie Smith is delightful and Ustinov plays the "retro hacker" perfectly. "O Nolo Mio"!!!!! | Not that I tinkle myself with glee at the sight of realistic blood shed, but when I put a DVD in expecting a bloodbath, and what I get is one bloody scene (the eyeball) at the tail end of asinine fake slapping, and spinning in a desk chair, I end up thinking "well that's 43 minutes of my life gone forever." I wouldn't considers this or Flower of Flesh and Blood "movies" so much as an exercise of will; to see if you can sit through them. Flower of Flesh and Blood had a few tough spots to watch. The Devil's Experiment did not. It was at best, stupid, and at worst...well...really stupid. Perhaps my expectation were too high. I put the DVD thinking "oh man, this is gonna be sick." After watching them fake slap the girl about a thousand times, I was watching it in fast forward.<br /><br />Two kinds of people would be interested in this film. 1) People who seek out F'd up films just to see how F'd up it really is, or 2) horror completest. I sought this and the other Guinea Pig films for the latter reason, but even if I fell into the category of the former, this film wouldn't float my boat. As a matter of fact, I could imagine this film increasing one's blood lust...as in "WOULD YOU JUST KILL THE B*TCH ALREADY!!" So in conclusion, the only reason to own this film is for collection purposes. If you want carnage that traditional horror doesn't provide, get Traces of Death. Sure, that sucks too, but at least you'll get the blood and guts you expect.<br /><br />The only reason I can see for anyone praising this crap is because they feel they're supposed to. No artistic merit that I can comprehend, no reason for it's notoriety, no nothing. Just a lame attempt to be shocking. | 294 |
In this "critically acclaimed psychological thriller based on true events, Gabriel (Robin Williams), a celebrated writer and late-night talk show host, becomes captivated by the harrowing story of a young listener and his adoptive mother (Toni Collette). When troubling questions arise about this boy's (story), however, Gabriel finds himself drawn into a widening mystery that hides a deadly secret
" according to film's official synopsis.<br /><br />You really should STOP reading these comments, and watch the film NOW...<br /><br />The "How did he lose his leg?" ending, with Ms. Collette planning her new life, should be chopped off, and sent to "deleted scenes" land. It's overkill. The true nature of her physical and mental ailments should be obvious, by the time Mr. Williams returns to New York. Possibly, her blindness could be in question - but a revelation could have be made certain in either the "highway" or "video tape" scenes. The film would benefit from a re-editing - how about a "director's cut"? <br /><br />Williams and Bobby Cannavale (as Jess) don't seem, initially, believable as a couple. A scene or two establishing their relationship might have helped set the stage. Otherwise, the cast is exemplary. Williams offers an exceptionally strong characterization, and not a "gay impersonation". Sandra Oh (as Anna), Joe Morton (as Ashe), and Rory Culkin (Pete Logand) are all perfect.<br /><br />Best of all, Collette's "Donna" belongs in the creepy hall of fame. Ms. Oh is correct in saying Collette might be, "you know, like that guy from 'Psycho'." There have been several years when organizations giving acting awards seemed to reach for women, due to a slighter dispersion of roles; certainly, they could have noticed Collette with some award consideration. She is that good. And, director Patrick Stettner definitely evokes Hitchcock - he even makes getting a sandwich from a vending machine suspenseful.<br /><br />Finally, writers Stettner, Armistead Maupin, and Terry Anderson deserve gratitude from flight attendants everywhere.<br /><br />******* The Night Listener (1/21/06) Patrick Stettner ~ Robin Williams, Toni Collette, Sandra Oh, Rory Culkin | This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever. | 295 |
I saw this film in a London cinema in 1975 and have not seen it since. I found it hilarious. I loved it's originality. It's rare that someone MAKES a movie like this - and it's sad too.<br /><br />What I mean is, I once read a book called "The Black Hotel" - and as a film-fan, I always "picture" books as films. Kinda "adapt" them, you know? But as I read it, I thought, well, this would make a great movie - but of course it would have to be "adapted" - to the point where it would bear little relationship to the book.<br /><br />But then I thought, well WHY? Sure, it could never be shown on Sunday afternoon TV, but provided it were shown in cinemas to ADULTS, who knew what it contained, where's the HARM? Dammit, my civil liberties were being crushed here. A director SHOULD be able to make a literal film adaptation of "The Black Hotel".<br /><br />In an ideal World, censorship of films for adults should not EXIST. But sadly, whilst I accept that with INTELLIGENT adults, such freedom might be harmless, there would always be those who would lack the rationality to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and who might be spurred on to commit foul deeds.<br /><br />However, it's hard to see how "La Bete" falls into that category.<br /><br />On it's appearance in England, the British censor dismissed it out of hand. Despite the '69 relaxation on nudity, given the film's theoretical theme of bestiality, had the censor passed ANY of it, he'd have been looking for a new job on Monday.<br /><br />BUT... in those days, there was an alternative. The G.L.C. This was a local town council with a department who had the power to pass a film just for London, where it was deemed audiences were more "sopisticated" than those who lived out in the sticks.<br /><br />The film was duly submitted and PASSED. However, it later emerged that the "board" consisted of just four people - three who voted, plus a "chairman". And on the day, one of the voters was off sick. Thus the remaining two voters and the chairman sat down to view "La Bete".<br /><br />One of said voters thought, like me, that the film was hilarious and hardly likely to encourage foul deeds by ANYONE. The other lacked imagination and simply thought the piece disgusting. And the chairman didn't understand it, so decided to err on the side of FREEDOM.<br /><br />When the missing voter finally saw the film, they too thought it disgusting, but it was TOO LATE! The film had received its "X-London" certificate and opened to mixed reaction. The G.L.C. film censorship board was disbanded soon after! Thus "La Bete" only opened in London by what could best be termed a FLUKE! But I'm glad it was. It's GREAT! If you haven't seen it, DO so. It's a FANTASY, and as such, it's far less disturbing than most things you see on the news these days... | I had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.<br /><br />During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.<br /><br />The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison. | 296 |
This is one of those movies that, after watching it, you will keep thinking about and coming back to even months after viewing. The acting is spectacular for starring two children (I usually hate movies with whiny kid acting). Bill Paxton is awesome, his directorial debut is even better than what I expected of an actor whose most memorable line is "Game over, man! Game over!" (from the movie "Aliens").<br /><br />The best part about the movie is the dichotomy between those scenes where the actors play a family, and when they are doing their "work." It really makes the movie believable and memorable.<br /><br />Keep it up, Bill. I'll be waiting for more movies I"m sure to love! | I just wondering what is the purpose of making movies like this? the profit? and to whom they are referring what intelligence must use your brain to watch something like this crap? This movie is watchable by under 3 years old children if you are adults don't try to watch it. Thats the reason i think Hollywood started to use cartoons in movies with actors like this you must forget the art of cinema , be sure that you ll have tons of pop corn to consume for time to pass till this movie ends also get many cola's hamburgers your laptop your cellphone this movie can be used easily in a restaurant but for sure not in a theater , my dog who is always next to my family when watching a movie left the building.The sure thing is that this movie is referring to people with no demands from the cinema art.The only thing that this movie can be used is for watching it when making the supermarket shopping list.I am giving 2 stars for supporting the India's cinema efforts but for nothing more or less.. | 297 |
I saw this film a few years ago and I got to say that I really love it.Jason Patric was perfect for this weird role that he played.The director?I don't too many things about him...and I don't care.The screenplay is good,that's for sure.In just a few words I have to say about this movie that is weird,strange,even dark,but it's a good one.I saw it a few years ago and never saw it since then.I want to see it again and again.I know that I'm not gonna get sick of watching it.The scenes,the atmosphere,the actors,the story...everything is good.The movie should have lasted longer.I think 120 minutes should have been perfect.I was hoping for a part 2 for this movie.Too bad it din't happened.Jason Patric:you're the man ! very good movie. the end. :-) | 'Anita and Me' is a drama about growing up in multi-ethnic Britain, rather like 'Bend it Like Beckham', or more closely, 'East is East', with which it shares a 1970s setting. The tone is resolutely chirpy (in spite of the dour Black Country accents), but the film lacks 'East is East's vigour and the result seems rather thin and trite. Moreover, the portrayal of the film's central relationship, between an Asian girl and her white friend, is insufficiently deep to justify the way that the movie is structured around it. I have also grown tired of films where the hero years to be a writer, this is naturally often something that real writers have experienced, but hardly a fresh element in a fictional story. 'East is East' was fun and sharp; 'Anita and Me' seems obvious and dull in comparison. | 298 |
A Chinese Ghost Story stars the late, great Leslie Cheung as Ling Choi Sin, a penniless tax collector who decides to spend the night at a deserted temple, where he meets and falls for a beautiful woman called Tsing (Joey Wang). When Ling discovers that Tsing is actually a ghost who has been forced to seduce victims for an evil tree spirit who feeds on 'chi' (life force), he decides to try and free the girl by giving her remains a proper burial. Enlisting the help of Swordsman Yin (Wu ma), a crazy Taoist monk, Ling successfully defeats the tree spirit, but must also do battle in hell against the evil Lord Black, to whom Tsing is due to be wed.<br /><br />The first Hong Kong film that I saw which wasn't purely martial arts action, A Chinese Ghost Story opened my eyes to the incredible world of Asian fantasy horror, a magical realm inhabited by beautiful female ghosts, bumbling innocent heroes, sword wielding Taoist monks, monstrous spirits, and dark lords of the underworld; I instantly fell in love with the film's exuberance, energy, humour, inventiveness and visual excellence.<br /><br />Two decades later, and this amazing movie still remains one of the finest examples of its genre that I have seena sumptuous, breathtaking masterpiece that brilliantly blends horror, comedy, fantasy and romance. With superb direction from Siu-Tung Ching, excellent editing from David Wu, stunning cinematography, and a whole slew of imaginative special effects (including a humongous killer tongue, a many tentacled monster, and multiple flying heads!), A Chinese Ghost Story is a completely unforgettable and thoroughly enjoyable experience from start to finish. | This film was bad because there was nothing interesting about it. It was sort of a remake but then again, not really. I was very disappointed considering the tools that Tim Burton has at his disposal. He had great make up and CGI available and lots of money ($100 million) but can you honestly say that what we got was as good as the original film that was made for less than $6 million? Heck no. So in that regard, the film fails.<br /><br />At least in the original film, the statue of liberty scene was shocking but there was nothing shocking in this film even the end scene because you could kind of see it coming. And, by the way, if you give it some thought, and I did, you can figure out how the ending could come about. I just wish I had back the time that I wasted thinking about it.<br /><br />This film would have been brilliant and fun if it stayed along the lines of the first film and adopted part of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes". Here's how I would have written it:<br /><br />An astronaut (it really should have been more than Marky Mark because he's not good enough to care a film all by himself so I would have put in three guys) that would land on what they would think would be another planet, encounter humans (not mutes), a city ruled by apes, were hunted, made friends with some good apes, discover that they're on earth via finding some destroyed ruins, end up running into crazy mutant humans living beneath the earth, a war breaks out between the mutant humans and the apes, and then....well, let your imagination run wild on how you want to end it.<br /><br />But my point is that there could have been so much more to this film. Sadly, Tim Burton really knows how to wreck a good thing. Consider what he did with the Batman series. He's a rotten director inspite what of people think. He's trendy so he must be good goes the thinking. Sorry, but no. If anyone else had done this film, it would have turned out far better and would have been far more satisfying. | 299 |
Subsets and Splits