text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
So many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.<br /><br />Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.<br /><br />What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.<br /><br />Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH.
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this movie only because I didn't want to leave my 9 yo and her friend in the theater by themselves. Honestly, I went in expecting to enjoy a good nap -- but found myself entranced by the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who asks! Roy's mom was on one of my all-time favorite TV shows years ago, playing a mermaid (Maximum Bob). She was really cute in this movie. The three main characters were all excellent young actors. Also enjoyed seeing and hearing Jimmy Buffet. The movie itself was quite beautiful - showcasing some of what makes Florida so great. I'm glad I ended up going to this movie. And to think, I was disappointed that I couldn't take them to see "Stick It" -- I think this was MUCH better!
| 1 |
positive
|
During the Clete Roberts preface, I was beginning to think this was an Ed Wood production, however, what rolls out here is some pretty hard hitting stuff. The story of crime and corruption in a Southern town is told using a cast culled from Hollywood's Poverty Row, and this makes the movie all the more realistic. There are no punches pulled here, and at times the film is reminiscent of "The Well"(1951). The Black and White texture gives a newsreel-like quality. For certain, younger viewers will be reminded of "The Blair Witch Project" but this one IS based on REAL events!
| 1 |
positive
|
Black Scorpion is Roger Cormen's Batman. Which is cool and there is a lot of cool stuff in this movie. Like the Breathtaker being a cross between Doctor Doom and Darth Vader, that's kind of cool. The mind control gas in the inhalers was worthy of the Mad Hatter. The Cormen B-movie style is all over this puppy which is not always a good thing. There are plenty of stunts and hot babes to make any action fan happy. This movie, the good out weighs the bad. But if you aren't one for comic book movies, then I would advise not watching Black Scorpion, however if you like comic book like movies and don't care if it was ever a comic before. Then check out BLACK SCORPION, as for me I give it 8 STARS.
| 1 |
positive
|
After a good start, it turned out to be the worst piece of holier than thou propaganda i've ever seen. This movie is an open insult designed to make you feel bad about not reading the "holy bible".<br /><br />To resume the...OK let's call it a plot... Basically alien don't abduct people (that we already know..). No, in fact its demonic forces abducting people which are in new age stuff or witchcraft, or read porno magazine (as one protagonist does).<br /><br />It's complete with the little emotional piano music when the lead character realize he must blindly follow Christ to be saved.<br /><br />a quote sums it all , imagine a subtle piano music in the background : "You can't let others, even those you love, stop you from following the Lord.."<br /><br />and we are supposed to live in an enlightened age...still work to do. Boycott this piece of crap
| 0 |
negative
|
This show makes absolutely no sense. Every week, two ladies go to an estate to do some gardening, and every week without fail, they somehow stumble upon a murder. Because everyone who owns a big house with a large garden is involved in a murder, right? But even if they did somehow happen to stumble upon murder after murder, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to tell the police? You know, the people who can actually do something about it... But every week, these two fools go around, polluting evidence, committing crimes of their own, and, in some cases, causing more murders. Once they do miraculously solve the murders, there is no way the murderer could ever be convicted. All the evidence has been sabotaged. And you'd think people who are covering up murders would think not to hire these two, wouldn't you? Yay! We've solved the murder! Now like every other week, let's go and confront the murderer ourselves and, with no back-up, tell them that we know about it. There is no way we could get ourselves into any danger, is there? Rosemary and Thyme is one of the worst shows on television, and certainly the most ridiculous.
| 0 |
negative
|
Wow, I've sure seen quite a bit of Kelli McCarty this summer. I didn't know this woman made so many softcore flicks in the past three years. It's like seeing a future softcore star blossom in front of me, much like Michelle Hall did a couple of years ago.<br /><br />"Passion's Peak" is the third quality softcore flick I've seen Kelli McCarty in, with "Girl for Girl" and "House of Love" being the others. "Desire and Deception" was okay, but it wasn't spectacular. There's spoilers in this review, so read only if you want to.<br /><br />The story begins with Christina (Kelli McCarty) heading out of the big city and to the mountains. She has inherited a house from her dear departed grandmother and plans to turn it into a mountain lodge. Before she can even set her things down, some woman named Kim (uncredited in this film, but quite the aggressive one) begins booking guests to stay there. Now she has to get the house into shape quickly--in comes Chip (Bobby Johnston), a childhood friend, to the rescue. Chip helps her get the house in workable condition. She hires two local slackers to work in her lodge--Chip's sister Bait (Samantha McConnell) and her sex buddy Hank.<br /><br />Now the guests start coming. The first to arrive are Eric and Linda (Flower), two stereotypical money-first lawyers. Linda and Eric get into a huge argument during a dinner party halfway through the film which leads to their breakup; sad stuff there. Next, there's romance novelist Sophia, played by B-movie goddess Monique Parent. She's using that silly alias Scarlet Johansing again, and she's got a very professional look this time--with blonde hair, of course. It wouldn't be Monique if she didn't have at least one scene where she plays with herself--and she obliges, during one of Eric and Linda's sex scenes.<br /><br />James and Shene (Devinn Lane--yes, the porn star Devinn Lane) show up for a little weekend getaway as well. Unbeknownst to Shene, James and Christina have quite a history. James and Christina used to date, but Christina broke it off to head to this mountain lodge. James comes up to the lodge to get Christina back, but his plan backfires. Christina spills the beans to Shene, which causes Shene to walk out on him and down to the local bar to strip for the locals. Shene ends up in the sleeping bag of the now-single Eric, and they leave together. Bait realizes she wants something more than just sex with Hank, and Christine finds true love with Chip, with Sophia soaking it all in and writing it into her next romance novel. <br /><br />In fact....if you ask me, this whole movie played out like a romance novel. I don't know if the screenwriter was going for that effect, but I sure got that impression. Sophia had some of the best lines in this film, playing up the idea that this is a live-action romance novel. She seems to enjoy all the fighting and backstabbing going on.<br /><br />Now to the sex. There was a fair amount of it, and it was the usual bump-and grind stuff. Monique did her fair share of moaning in her two sex scenes. This film was tapeworthy, and the story will actually keep the audience somewhat interested in between the sex scenes.<br /><br />Women: A- (Monique was simply Monique. Out of all the softcore actresses I've seen over the years, she's the best at acting, in my opinion. She can really act and be sexy, which is why she's holding on to the #1 position in my Skinemax Top 10. Kelli McCarty is better at doing softcore films than she is on the soap opera "Passions"; I don't know why she's not doing more of these. Flower was merely background scenery for the most part in a limited role. Samantha McConnell continues to impress me, and Devinn Lane is yet another hardcore actress crossing over into the softcore realm and doing a halfway decent job at it.)<br /><br />Sex: B (It was good, but not awe-inspiring spectacular. Plenty of moaning. Don't watch the R-rated version, trust me....most of the good stuff is taken out. My grade is for the uncut version.)<br /><br />Story: B (A solid storyline which throws in a contrived "Ooh, the building inspector's gonna shut us down" subplot toward the end which messes up things. The underlying story between Christina and James was nice, and Sophia's dialogue, full of the metaphors and imagery usually found in romance novels, was a nice touch.)<br /><br />Overall: B+ (I found this movie to be quite entertaining. It's not a surefire Softcore Hall-Of-Famer like "Girl for Girl" is, but it's a respectable addition to the Skinemax collection.)
| 1 |
positive
|
You're Dead is an indescribably awful attempt at a British gangster film. It has not got a single original idea in it, being an atrocious copy of various elements of Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. The acting and dialogue are absolutely excruciating, the plot is ludicrous and utterly predictable despite constant attempts at plot twists, and contains nothing but one dimensional stock characters and clichés. It has some good actors in it, but they are off-form, and unable to do anything much with the dreadful material they are working with. It is absolute torture to sit through this drivel.
| 0 |
negative
|
Director John Madden, of Shakespeare in Love fame, gives us another pretty bad film in Ethan Frome. The plot centers around a new reverend coming into the town of Starkfield where he learns the story of the local crippled man Ethan Frome's sick wife and one-time romantic tryst with the maid. Adapted by Richard Nelson from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edith Wharton's novel, this film isn't interesting in the least thanks to an abysmally weak script and poor direction that turns scenes that are supposed to be poignant into laughable schmaltz. Still, there are other aspects apart of the film that work - the cinematography is well done, Rachel Portman contributes a lovely score, and while no one is at their best, Liam Neeson, Joan Allen, Patricia Arquette, and Tate Donovan work well in their roles. But overall, Ethan Frome is only marginally worthwhile and is easily forgotten.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is another of Hollywood's anti-communist polemics of the golden 1950s. Stalwart American Gene Barry, lovely Englishwoman Valerie French, and three others are kidnapped by an alien and given clamshells containing fantastic--and fantastically vague--power. What will the Earthlings do with such power? Toss it in the sea or use it to wipe out all of mankind? Anybody who knows American cinema circa 1957 knows the answer to what the commies will do, but the story gets ripe when the Americans actually test the things in the middle of the Pacific. Then one scientist, alone with the ultimate power in the universe, comes up with his own theory and uses it! His smarmy attitude afterward is nauseating, and the cheery disposition of everyone else is appalling.<br /><br />Here's the spoiler for this dog: the capsules inside the clamshells have a mathematical code that tells the prof that they kill only "confirmed enemies of freedom"! That's right--don't worry about the ethical conundrum of killing everyone that an alien pill decides is an enemy of freedom; just do it! Hurray! No commies! Silly female--and you threw yours into the sea! Ha ha! Kiss me, baby!
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this movie in Santa Monica on Aug. 23 and it has stayed with me. I want to thank the filmmakers for digging into the details of Harry's enigmatic, eccentric, life. And also for showing the flaws and failings of Nilsson the man. Thanks for showing the good and bad, the ups and downs, and for uncovering that amazing BBC footage. The film is also a great showcase of a vast amount of Nilsson's music, really well placed throughout the film. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes good documentaries, especially if you are interested in Harry Nilsson or the music scene of the early 70's. Some reviewer at the Ain't It Cool website wrote that this was the best movie movie they saw at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, and I believe it. The film is informative, funny, sad, touching, and full of awesome music. It succeeds on all levels. Really, really good.
| 1 |
positive
|
Usually, any movie with Steve Railsback in the lead is a good movie. However, this movie does not conform to that opinion. Lifeforce is a below average movie that is extremely confusing in the beginning (reminds me of Star Trek: TMP), but is able to pick things up a bit towards the end when London becomes Zombie City. A horror/sci-fi mess that is very hard to sit through, although the naked spacegirl/vampire is very easy to look at. This movie deserves a rating of 4 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is absolutely beyond question the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so bad in fact that I plan on renting it again as soon as I can find it. This movie makes 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' look like an Oscar contender. Just LOOKING at the actors makes me want to laugh out loud. I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. It's awfulness aproaches perfection.<br /><br />The plot is based on a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon in San Francisco (I think). That's as far as I can go ... I am laughing too hard. I know it shouldn't be funny but ..... *LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL*<br /><br />MOVE OVER ED WOOD !!!<br /><br />Regard's *DATo*
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a Laurel & Hardy comedy short with some great and funny moments but overall the movie relies a bit too much on just one comical premise.<br /><br />The comical premise this movie mostly relies on is very simple; Stan Laurel not wearing any pants. Laurel plays a Scottish naive young person who arrives in America in full kilt. For some reason he gets the center of attention because of this and his uncle played by Oliver Hardy thinks because of this that its time to put some pants on Philip.<br /><br />Its humor is well executed but the main premise also gets a bit tiresome after a while. Although the movie definitely still has its comical great moments, it at the same time is also far from the best of the many Laurel & Hardy comedy shorts that are still around. The movie is simply too simple to be considered one of the greatest, although it definitely is most fine executed all, for most part.<br /><br />Great good clean fun, just nothing too remarkable or memorable all.<br /><br />7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Everyone who has ever wondered how to make a film on no budget should see this documentary. The determination of everybody portrayed in this project was very moving to me, and should connect to those of us who have ever ventured into any part of show business, be it film, music, or writing. I think the film makers could have done a better job with foreshadowing the events that led up to this film becoming a documentary, perhaps by use of a narrator; other than that, the film comes off as a real example of how show business isn't about "the show", but rather "the business".<br /><br />I hope that the actual intended project, "Repo Man II", gets to see the light of day. I think the film makers did a fine job on it with what little they had to work with, and all that they had to overcome to complete it.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Bon Voyage" has the fast pace that in some ways reminds me of the Indiana Jones/Star Wars films -- it's as if you're on a fast train or roller coaster.<br /><br />It's billed as a romance, mystery, thriller, and farce; it's all of that and more including candid observations on the reactions of French society during the Nazi invasion at the start of WWII. And it's also an exhibition of juggling that involves 7 main characters. The scenes all seemed historically accurate (to my eyes) and gave an excellent feeling for the period.<br /><br />All of the actors were well cast and gave great performances but IMO the most superb was that by Isabelle Adjani who played the role of an opportunistic, self-centered French movie star; not only did she quite convincingly play the role of a young actress perhaps half her age but she also played her amorous wiles convincingly yet in such a way that the audience sees she's only half serious and more complex as a person than just a gold digger. Her character and energy propel the film through from beginning to end. It wasn't until I read Roger Ebert's review that I discovered she was 48 years old at the time of the film. What beauty!!<br /><br />I appreciated the ending -- it's satisfying but lets you write your own conclusion as to what happens to the main characters. <br /><br />As another User Commenter observed -- do NOT arrive late; you need to be there from the opening scene. Good advice.<br /><br />I gave it 9 of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Why is this one no good when the first one rocked? Try the fact that they attempted to replace Rodney Dangerfield with Jackie Mason! Please! That's like replacing the Beatles with Wierd Al. Randy Quaid is the only one that saves this movie from a zero.<br /><br />However, don't let this stop you from watching the first movie which was outstanding.
| 0 |
negative
|
I registered at IMDb solely for the purpose of warning others about this movie. Hwo does anyone ever get funding for projects like this? That's the mystery. Farewell to Harry might be the worst movie ever, except that I tried to erase the others that rival this blathering idiocy. Bad plot, not-credible logic runs throughout. I can't spoil this movie for you by revealing anything that would make your experience less enjoyable. There is nothing enjoyable about this movie. I have the CD and will send it to you for free, it is that bad. First come, only served. If I know you, this offer is void, because I wouldn't inflict this movie on anyone, not on purpose. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's hard to tell if this ham-brained B-movie adventure is a spoof, a homage or just plain bungled, but it doesn't work whichever way you look at it. Based on Michael Crichton's so-so novel, it's a nutty mixture of lost cities, giant hippos, monster monkeys, naff visual effects and corny dialogue. The first thing that scuppers this tosh is the gorilla that can communicate in sign language, and needless to say the film doesn't get any better from that point on. Making all this old rope somewhat worthwhile are Tim Curry, turning in a feverish slice of ham and sporting a bizarre accent that defies identification, and Ernie Hudson, who also seems to know that this is all a load of old rubbish.
| 0 |
negative
|
80's comedies (especially ones with John Cusak) are awesome. Almost all are hillarious and instant classics and this film is no exception. Plenty of nods to other films (i.e. Godzilla and Jaws) through out the movie that are so hillarious you'll be laughing for hours. Some may complain that the movie is a little corny at times but hey it was the 80's and things were always a little cheesy. Throw in a young Demi Moore and an even louder Bob Cat and you have a laughfest on your fans. If you haven't seen this, you better soon!!!!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
"Un Gatto nel Cervello"/"Cat in the Brain" is one of the goriest horror movies ever made.There is a lot of blood and gore,including chainsaw butchery,bloody stabbings and numerous decapitations.The film is also interesting as "self parody" of Fulci,but the gore and violence is the key element in it.Some of the gore FX were taken from own Fulci's movies "Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio" and "I Fantasmi di Sodoma"(both 1988),plus gore FX taken from Fulci-supervised "The Snake House" aka "Bloody Psycho" by Leandro Lucchetti,"Massacre" by Andrea Bianchi,"Non Avere Paura Della Zia Marta" by Mario Bianchi,"Non Si Sevizia i Bambini" by Giovanni Simonelli and "Luna di Sangue" aka "Fuga dalla Morte" by Enzo Milioni(all 1989).The scene where Brett Halsey beats the woman's face to pulp is from "Quando Alice Ruppe lo Specchio",a film Fulci had made for Italian TV in 1988.The chainsawing of the female corpse at the beginning is taken from the same film,as is the head in the microwave and the guy that gets driven over and over again.Highly recommended,especially if you like extreme cinema!
| 1 |
positive
|
"Five Characters in Search of an Exit" has to be one of the most boring "Zones" ever made. It was on Sci-Fi this morning, and, as usual, I changed the channel. I put it in my Top Five list of the worst "Zones" ever produced. Dull and predictable, and not worth watching. Serling worked this theme to death (earthlings in the hands of aliens, who often were giants), and in this particular version, it just doesn't work. Anyone who hasn't seen it before, will quickly figure it out. This is another Serling philosophical mood piece, perhaps paralleling the plight of those in prisoner of war or concentration camps, where the imprisoned may lose interest in finding out where they are or fighting their captors. William Windom, as the soldier who is the last to "drop in" is the only one curious to make the effort, and it doesn't take long to figure the outcome.
| 0 |
negative
|
The price of a dream - and some dreams can be "too" expensive.<br /><br />Only having viewed the English-translated version, it is perhaps the reason for a low rating from this viewer.<br /><br />It made the overall film poorer than the story material hinted at...<br /><br />...and other comments seem to suggest the subtitled version would be better.<br /><br />But some plot elements remained unexplained, leaving an unfinished feel.<br /><br />It also leaves the thought "is there a series to follow?".<br /><br />A pity there was no more (at this stage at least, anyway).
| 0 |
negative
|
"The Love Letter" is a somewhat pleasant, very very low-key romantic comedy in which the use of just the right few words in a mysterious love letter unlocks the secret passions and longings of a sleepy sea-side town's inhabitants.<br /><br />It's not for all audiences. "The Love Letter", I feel, benefits from it's simple and quiet tone. Never intentionally wacky and phony like most romantic comedies it's quaint, picturesque, and comfy. However, for these exact same reasons, many viewers will be bored and disinterested.<br /><br />The cast is nice. It's great to see Tom Selleck again, and is such an underplayed role. And it's hard to believe this is the same Kate Capshaw we met 15 years ago in "Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom". She's quite naturally good here; improving in every role I've seen her in since grating on Indy's nerves. And is it possible Capshaw is just getting lovelier and lovelier with age ? ( What is it about that Spielberg!?)<br /><br />It doesn't amount to much; but after another noisy summer movie season I'll probably look back with brief fondness for this light-as-a-feather romance.
| 1 |
positive
|
In an era where nearly every great horror film of the 60s and 70s is being remade for audiences weaned on horror flicks of today that are not too terribly good, it is instructive to look back at John Carpenter's 1982 opus THE THING, which itself is a remake--of a childhood favorite of the director's, Howard Hawks' 1951 sci-fi/horror classic THE THING FROM OUTER SPACE. Although Carpenter's film was not initially that big a box office hit when released in mid-1982, it has since garnered a very large following.<br /><br />In fact, Carpenter's film is less of a remake of Hawks' film than it is a reworking, as he goes back to the original idea posited by the source material, namely the John W. Campbell story "Who Goes There?", in which a US scientific crew in Antarctica is menaced by a shape-changing alien thawed out from the ice after 100,000 years. Kurt Russell, who had starred for Carpenter in the director's 1979 TV movie ELVIS and the 1981 film ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, heads a cast of stalwart character actors, including Keith David, Donald Moffat, Richard Dysart, and Richard Masur, in this tension-filled exploration of paranoia, as the shape-changing "thing", which first comes to their camp in the form of a guide dog a Norwegian team is trying to kill, takes over each of them one by one. It isn't long before everybody in the camp begins to mistrust his fellow man. The ending of the film, in which Russell and David are the only ones left, has a disturbing and chilling ambiguity akin to the similar codas to both THE BIRDS and STRAW DOGS.<br /><br />Almost universally, when the subject of THE THING is bought up, the emphasis is on the extremely gory special effects make-up and alien designs created by Rob Bottin, who had worked with Carpenter on the 1980 horror classic THE FOG, and on Joe Dante's 1981 werewolf film THE HOWLING. These effects are indeed quite spectacular and graphic, and even today, they can also be quite stomach-turning. But all of this would make Carpenter's film nothing more than a high-end splatter epic if the direction, the story, and the acting weren't up to snuff; and thankfully, each of them are. When he's not concentrating on the enormously gruesome transformation sequences, Carpenter builds suspense in the same Hitchcock-influenced way that informed his previous films HALLOWEEN and THE FOG, with cinematographer Dean Cundey's prowling camera-work, particularly through the corridors of the station, a significant help. The acting enhances an already-fine screenplay adaptation by Bill Lancaster; and we are also given a taut score by Ennio Morricone, whose work on director Sergio Leone's classic 1960s Italian spaghetti westerns is well known to all, including of course Carpenter himself. THE THING also features additional fine visual effects from Albert Whitlock (who worked on many Hitchcock films, including THE BIRDS), and Roy Arbogast, who worked on CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and JAWS 2.<br /><br />Carpenter's film was not the success it could have been because Universal chose to release this graphic shocker a mere two weeks after it had released Steven Spielberg's far more family-friendly E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (not surprisingly, critics and audiences at the time favored Spielberg's excellent film over Carpenter's equally excellent but exceedingly different one). Also, most of the horror film box office business in 1982 was going to another Spielberg-produced film, POLTERGEIST. As a result, at a cost of $15 million, THE THING suffered from lack of attention in its time.<br /><br />Over time, however, many have come to see Carpenter's film for what it is--an extremely gory but extremely intelligent combination of science fiction and horror, done with a great deal of flair and a true understanding of the psychological paranoia at the heart of its story. Though it is still quite gruesome, THE THING should be as much remembered for the skill by which the story is put together as it is for the gory alien designs and make-up effects; for it is the storytelling skill and the suspense that make it so memorable in the final analysis.
| 1 |
positive
|
It is really a shame that IMDb doesn't let you give negative votes. This is the most hideously awful show ever foisted on the American public by our usually-likable neighbors to the north. The parents are a troglodyte and a neurotic hag. He is as charming as a well-used fire hydrant, with the same hygiene standards. She is a wax museum mannequin programmed with more neuroses than the entire cast of THE VIEW. The kids are non-entities if female and repulsive beyond belief if male, especially the title character. The boy is a serious contender for most insanely smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, and vain male character on Disney, which is saying something. This show was obviously conceived as the anti-BRADY BUNCH, but it comes off as the anti-Christ. And why is the photography so dark?
| 0 |
negative
|
Thank goodness not all Dutch people are that ruthless. I think Jason is being judged like that by most people, simply because he has a famous father. Maybe he's not as great as some of those actors, but he's definitely not as bad as suggested. <br /><br />I watched the movie some years ago, and I actually loved it. I knew Jason from other movies and of course Robin of Sherwood. But I must say I really liked his acting from this movie on. It was really good!<br /><br />During the movie, I actually forgot he was the son of. Sean.. who?<br /><br />And if you're a Shakespeare lover, I can recommend this movie. I'm sure you'll enjoy it!
| 1 |
positive
|
...dislike this movie and everyone would understand why. The plot is poor, so is the acting. But in my opinion it is better than Halloween 5, although even this does not give many surprising moments. A few scenes are really well directed. But these few moments do not deliver the reason to rent it. I do not despise violence in movies, but H6 features extraordinary strong and bloody scenes which do not fit to the tradition of the Halloween-Movies. The most sucking aspect about H6 is the lack of tension. No comparison to the first masterpiece.<br /><br />Halloween 6 only gets 4 out of 10 stars from me. If you want, rent it. But don't expect a great horror-experience....<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie made me think....of how I could write something about it without personally dissing the director and all the actors, who, as an Australian, I am proud of for actually getting out there and making a film.<br /><br />But the movie itself? Let me tell you a story....<br /><br />Found this DVD in my local rental shop yesterday and had vague recollections of the reviews at the time of cinema release here, so I thought I would give it a go.<br /><br />For some reason, I decided to watch the 'special features' before I watched the actual movie, not something that I usually do. Turned the 'making of' off halfway through, as I'd had enough cringing at the 'aren't we so wonderful for putting together such a hard hitting film with such a raw script' attitude.<br /><br />The movie? Ugh. Full of clichés and pathetic character development. The actors? Well done guys, you are Aussies and I applaud you. And, just like a footy team is only as good as the coach that directs them, you unfortunately did NOT have a great script to work with.<br /><br />I felt that the movie actually trivialised so many of the subjects that it seemed to want to cover. I have seen many reviews here that refer to it as nothing more than a soap. Agreed.<br /><br />Finally (and forgive me if I don't phrase this correctly), I was extremely disappointed that there were no optimistic overtones at all. Yes, we all know that life is full of hard stuff, and yes we know that things such as incest DO occur, but I really find it hard to applaud a movie that has not one piece of joy in it. I believe that a director has a responsibility to put it in there SOMEWHERE. Otherwise, the movie is all about THEM and THEIR feelings, they have created it for themselves, not for an audience.<br /><br />Which I think is the basis of why this movie isn't so great. The special features mention that the director wrote the screenplay in a 36 hour sitting, the day after he himself tried to end his own life. Well, it may have been cathartic for him to do this, however the movie reeks of self-indulgence when you know the story behind why it was written. "I feel horrid, I'm going to write a movie about feeling horrid". (Note: I have read the interview with Andrew Urban, and understand WHY Thalluri needed to write something to help him through his own issues, but I believe there is a line in film that cannot be crossed - the line of making a movie purely for your own emotional needs, and I feel that this is what has unintentionally happened here)<br /><br />By his own admission, the director had no technical experience at all, and sadly, this makes the movie come off looking like nothing more than a year twelve media project.<br /><br />As for any recommendations that this movie should be studied at school, or that all teenagers should watch it - not sure there either. Because there is a VERY dangerous line at the end. I too have been in a place where I have thought that someone who no longer has to 'face life' is 'lucky', but as an adult, I do worry that this line could be influential on a young viewer that was in a vulnerable frame of mind. Might be in there to promote discussion, but again, it reflects no possibility of redemption or joy in this story as a whole. In fact, it almost indicates that there is more sadness to come.<br /><br />I haven't seen Elephant, but I just might go find it, given all the comparisons here.<br /><br />Nothing personal here guys, I do hope you can make another movie someday, and we all have to start out somewhere, so forgive me if I've been too harsh. I am glad that you are proud of what you created, which in the end is what life is all about. It's not a movie I would recommend though.<br /><br />Oh, I DID like the way the time-frames often collided, thought that was an interesting way to film. <br /><br />But the whole "Its the quiet ones you have to watch" - we already know that.
| 0 |
negative
|
Lucio Fulci's Cat in the Brain is an inventive and somewhat egotistical tale of a director's decent into madness. The director in question is Fulci himself, who stars in the film. Fulci has become known to horror fans everywhere as 'the godfather of gore', and for good reason, as he has provided us with some of the nastiest and most gruesome films ever to grace the silver screen; from the eyeball violence in films like 'Zombi 2', to a man been hacked to death with chains in 'The Beyond', all the way to the full on gore fest known as 'The New York Ripper'; if you want gore (and let's face it, who doesn't), Fulci is your man. However, all this catering for gorehounds like you and I has taken its toll on Fulci's mental state, and he's quickly delving into madness, brought about by what he films. Fulci's problems don't end at his mental state either, as his psychiatrist that he has gone to see about his problem has took it upon himself to take up murder as a hobby, using Fulci's films as blueprints for the murders!<br /><br />I've got to say, the acting in this film is absolutely atrocious. There is one scene in particular that involves a hooker, and it's only fit to be laughed at, for both it's acting and it's stupidity. Fulci takes the lead role of the film (obviously). He's not an actor, and it shows, but his performance is actually the best in the film. It's even safe to say that one the whole, the acting is bad for an Italian horror film. Of course, nobody goes into an Italian horror expecting good acting, so it's somewhat forgivable, but I do think that Fulci could have hired some better ones. Bad dubbing doesn't exactly help either. However, something that does help is the fact that the terrible acting is counterbalanced by lots of gore, and it's extreme to say the least! People get their heads cut off, a woman is slain in the shower (and unlike Psycho, here we REALLY see it), people are hacked up, fed to pigs and there's lots and lots of cinema's finest melee weapon - the chainsaw on display, which delighted me no end. The amount of gore is massively over the top a lot of the time, which gives the film something of a 'spoof' feel, but Cat in the Brain is obviously a tongue in cheek film anyway.<br /><br />It would be hard to make a film about yourself and not come across as being a bit of a big head, and Fulci does indeed come across as a bit of a big head in this movie. His name is mentioned often, and he's on screen nearly all the time; it's not too much unlike 'New Nightmare' in the ego stakes, but it's obvious he had a good time making this, and I for one had fun watching it, so we can forgive him a little egotism. The film's ending lets it down - I saw it coming a mile off, but then didn't seriously think that the movie would take that route, but I was wrong; it did, unfortunately. The ending left me cold, and the film is a better watch if you turn it off just before the final two minutes. However, despite it's ending and terrible acting, Cat in the Brain is a lot of fun and will please Fulci enthusiasts no end, and it is therefore recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is just another waste of time. The plot is ridiculous, forced USA drama. The characters were all really weak, especially the uncharismatic Goya and the bad interpretation of Bardem, who only was alright in his classic interpretation, when acting as french ally.<br /><br />Just another chance lost of have spent the money in a good film. I guess it was no a low budget film. Definitely not recommended. Maybe the director's should think a bit whether the film has sense or not before wasting so that money. Maybe they do not bother as they have profits before launching them in the cinema.<br /><br />No more hope in cinema...
| 0 |
negative
|
A review I have put off for far too long....<br /><br />Bluntly, 2001 is one of the best science-fiction films made to date, if not the very best. Stanley Kubrick was a genius of a film maker and this is one of his very best works. And although it is misunderstood by many, and respectively underrated, it is considered one of the best films of all time and I'll have to agree. Back in 1968, no one had done anything like this before, and no one has since. It was a marvel of a special effects breakthrough back then, and seeing how the effects hold up today, it is no wonder as to why. The film still looks marvelous after almost forty years! Take note CGI people. Through the use of large miniatures and realistic lighting, Kubrick created some of the best special effects ever put on celluloid. This aspect alone almost single-handedly created the chilling void of the space atmosphere which is also attributed to the music and realistic sound effects. I can't think of another film where you can't here anything in space, like it is in reality. Not only is the absence of sound effects in space realistic, it is used cleverly as a tool to establish mood, and it works flawlessly.<br /><br />Aside from the magnificent display of ingenious special effects, there are other factors that play a part in establishing the feel of the film. The music played, all classical, compliment what the eyes are seeing and make you feel the significance of man's journey through his evolution from ape to space traveler.<br /><br />The story, while seemingly simple, is profound. Sequentially, several mysterious black monoliths are discovered and basically trigger certain events integral to the film. What are they? Where did they come from? What do they do? These are all questions one asks oneself while watching the story develop and is asked to find his own way. While most come away with a general idea of what took place in the story, each individual will have to decide what it means to them. Any way one decides to answer these question results in profound solutions. It's not left entirely up to interpretation, but in some aspects it is. Experience it for more clarification. The end result is quite chilling, no matter your personal solution.<br /><br />While it is a long film, and sometimes slows down, it has to be in order to accurately portray the journey of man. It's not a subject that would have faired well in a shorter film, faster paced feature. Those with short attention spans need not apply.<br /><br />Last but not least, is the epitome of a remorseless antagonist, HAL 9000, the computer. Never has a machine held such a chilling screen presence. Which reminds me, for a film with such profound ambition and execution, there is surprisingly little dialogue. Another sign of Kubrick's genius.<br /><br />All in all, one of the best films made to date and one of the very best science fiction films made. A personal favorite. Everyone must see this film at least once.<br /><br />Very highly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was "turned on" to this movie by my flight instructor and now I wonder how the heck it was out there for nearly five years before I finally discovered it. If you have any love of flying at all, especially an attachment to the planes of WWII, this is an absolute must see, vastly superior to the pathetic "Pearl Harbor" and up there in rivalry with the famed "Battle of Britain" filmed more than thirty years ago. There are moments when you feel as if you are flying wingman, literally dodging the shell casings of your leader as you roll in on a Me 109 or He 111. <br /><br />As an historian this film deeply touched me as well for it is about the plight endured by tens of thousands of gallant Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks and Czechs who in 1939-1940 fled their homelands, made it to England, fought with utmost bravery for the survival of western civilization, and then were so callously abandoned by "us" after the war when they were arrested by the communists upon their return to their native lands. I have stood atop Monte Cassino in Italy and was moved to tears by the cemetery for the Polish troops that stormed that mountain that British and Americans could not take. I have traveled as well to Prague (the most beautiful of cities) and studied their history. Their story of abandonment, I believe, should be a lesson to us even today about obligations to gallant allies. <br /><br />But back to the film. If you love flying, see this. If you are interested in the aircraft of WWII most definitely see it. Without doubt the most brutal, direct, and frightfully swift air combat scenes ever replicated for film. And yes, if you even are seeking a touching romance, there is that as well in heartbreaking detail.<br /><br />Bill Forstchen Professor of History Co-owner of a WWII replica "warbird" P-51 Mustang "Gloria Ann"
| 1 |
positive
|
Robert Lansing plays a scientist experimenting with passing objects through solid matter, but he goes too far one night and unintentionally makes himself four-dimensional! Atomic-age fantasy is rather charming in a very cheesy way. Perhaps it was considered a thoughtful sci-fi in its time (with psychological overtones), yet seen today the film is mildly overbaked and naive; it's a camp-fest tailor-made for TV's late-late show. Wooden performances by Lansing and Lee Meriwether barely rate as one-dimensional, though Patty Duke (playing a cute brat pre-"Miracle Worker") gets a colorful, memorable exit. <br /><br />** from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
I remember seeing this movie 34 years ago and it was full of suspense and twists. It grabs you at the beginning and keeps you guessing throughout the whole movie. I have thought about this movie for the past several years and have checked in video stores to see if it's available, but was never able to find it or anyone who had even heard of it. I think this type of movie is timeless, and I know it would be enjoyed by a whole new generation of movie watchers. I hope this gets on video soon as it would be fun to see if it has the same impact on me as it did back in the early 70's.<br /><br />It's very rare that a TV movie can make that much of an impression, but this was did and still does after so many years.
| 1 |
positive
|
All I can say about this movie, is it is absolutely boring. The intro to the movie is quite possibly the worst intro to a horror film I have ever seen, I mean a angry chick hitting a guy in the head with a frying pan isn't at all frightening which is what I assume the director was aiming for, but in fact it was "mildly" funny. <br /><br />The acting in this picture was beyond pathetic; a note to directors, if your making a horror film, please hire some good actors, not some popular teen soap star who has no idea how to act.<br /><br />The death scenes in this movie were beyond boring... no gore, and i'm sorry but horror movies without gore, or good suspense are just cheesy. I mean this girl gets killed by hair wrapped all around her in the middle of Tokyo, and not one person sees it happen, they just declare her as "missing", wow thats awesome!<br /><br />In conclusion if you and your friends want to see this movie, make sure u bring some sleeping pills, because I guarantee you won't make it to the end.. Me and my friend walked out cause we didn't even care what happened at the end.<br /><br />Cheers
| 0 |
negative
|
Is this a bad movie?<br /><br />Of course, what were you expecting from a movie called "BEACH BABES FROM BEYOND"?<br /><br />It is a "BABES in BIKINI" movie and has no pretensions of being otherwise. Given, this is not "A ROOM WITH A VIEW" or "SCHINDLER'S LIST." If you wanted a film like "A Room With a View" then you would not be looking at Beach Babes from Beyond. But if you are looking for a good Babes in Bikini movie with almost no plot, this is the one for you. This flick delivers on what it promises and then some. It is pure 100% adolescent fun.<br /><br />There were lots of BABES in and out of bikinis. The movie was quite funny and great to watch. These were some of the most beautiful women I have ever seen on home video.<br /><br />Every high school kid should watch at least one bad movie like this. This is actually one of the most memorable movies I have ever seen. So unashamedly, I say again...If you are going to watch only one "Babes in Bikini" movie, this is it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ken Burns' "Baseball" is a decent documentary... it presents a clear origin of the game, a great depiction of baseball's early years and heroes. There's plenty in this movie for any baseball fan... that said, the film has several glaring flaws.<br /><br />18 hours is simply too long for the human attention span. It's clear that Burns stretched his film out to fit his "nine inning" concept. It's not even a tight 18 hours... the pace on every segment is slow, almost morose... the music always nostalgic and wistful. Isn't baseball ever exciting and fun? Why is every player and their accomplishments presented in the form of a tragedy? Talking head after talking head turn every pitch into an emotional heartbreak, yakking about baseball as a metaphor, baseball as Americana, the psychology and theology of baseball... enough! This is syrupy, mawkish drivel. Billy Crystal is here to sell us all the Yankee hokum he's sold us before. Ken Burns uses the National Anthem as the series' theme song, and manages to play "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" so many times you might vomit. We get it, dude.<br /><br />Clearly Burns is a neo-Hollywood faux-liberal, so he spends probably a third of the film on the Negro leagues... these segments are spent chastising whites of yesterday for not being as open-minded as Kenny is today. For shame! He chides baseball for being segregated in the thirties and forties but fails to realize that America was segregated in those times! Burns falls head over heels in love with Buck O'Neil, a former negro-league player, and drools over every piece of footage in which the elderly O'Neil waxes poetic about his playing days. Nonsense...<br /><br />Burns would have been better off with an adult to help him edit his creation down. "Baseball" winds up as mushy, gushy, civil-rights propaganda disguised as Americana. Its clear that Burns is not a baseball fan... otherwise he would know we watch games laughing and cheering, not weeping and reciting soliloquies... are you listening, Mr. Burns? There's no crying in baseball.
| 0 |
negative
|
I happened to leave HBO on last night following Six Feet Under. What ran next has left me speechless. What an incredible piece of work. I don't just recommend this, I MANDATE that you see this. It's better than anything Hollywood could ever ruin. I just hope they never get their hands on it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Oh God. Why is it that Nickelodeon has such a hard time producing even a half-decent movie? I mean, this movie might have been good, but it was:<br /><br />A. Too short B. Rather superficial, stereotypical, and insulting to some C. Ultimately pointless<br /><br />First of all, the "dress up the nerd to look cool" thing was VERY consumerist, VERY superficial, VERY pointless, and VERY insulting. It has the stereotypical nerds-stupid faces, glasses, never kissed, vacations with his mom, etc. Well maybe the reason that guy has never kissed a girl is because he's gay! Does that mean that all gays are nerds? And what's wrong with being friends with your mother?<br /><br />The worst part, by far, was the ending. The whole drama of the movie revolved around Zoey finding out Chase loved her, and blah blah blah, and then, when Chase finally decided to tell her, <br /><br />A. he didn't tell her in person because right as he was about to the typical distraction came along B. he tried to text message her, but her PDA fell into a fountain and died before she got the message.<br /><br />The End.<br /><br />HOW LAME IS THAT????? I mean, why is it that cartoonists just can't change anything in the series? So many of us would like to see these two get together. Why can't we see it? I mean, are the producers really that uncreative, that they can't think up new problems to go with changes in the series? So they have to stick with the same plot and outlines, and make as many episodes as they can just using those? After a while, it gets dull and frustrating.<br /><br />I WANTED TO SEE SOME ACTUAL ROMANCE IN HERE, DARN IT!<br /><br />Okay. I'm done with my rant.
| 0 |
negative
|
While walking to buy cigarettes, the professional dancer Daniel (Tom Long) is abducted and forced to have kinky sex along many days by three hooded women. When he is released, the director of his company Isabel (Greta Scacchi) has already replaced him in the play and his girlfriend gives a cold reception to him. The disturbed and humiliated Daniel leaves the dance company and travels obsessed to seek out the abductors. Daniel has sex with many women that he suspects that might be the kidnappers. <br /><br />"The Book of Revelation" is a weird movie with a promising beginning that loses the initial power and becomes a sort of too long erotic soap- opera or soft-porn chic. The production is classy, the cover of the DVD is awesome but the characters are not well-developed and the trauma of Daniel seems to be excessive since most of the men would fantasize with the dream-situation that he was submitted to become sexual object of three sexy women. The melodramatic development with the illness of Isabel does not add any value to the plot; the open conclusion is very disappointing and there are no explanations for the motive of the women or the title. It is very clear that the screenplay about a man's feelings was written by a woman. It was good to see the still beautiful Greta Scacchi again and her make-up in the end is impressive. There is a saying in Portuguese that could be translated to English as follows: "If the rape is inevitable, relax and come." Daniel should have done this and spared me of watching almost two hours of a pointless story. My vote is four. <br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Livro das Revelações" ("The Book of Revelations")
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm going to make this short and sweet. It's not surprising that you had no use for this film. This is a story about the power, beauty and possibilities inherent in a meaningful education. Based on your pathetically composed comments I can see that your own education has been woefully neglected... or worse... completely wasted. Your comments are those of a truly ignorant person. I would advise you to do something about this condition... but in your case I feel it's probably too late. My hope is that you yourself don't intend to go into the teaching profession ( especially in Film Studies) because you could only do damage. Oh... one last bit of advice. In the future, if you intend to write more opinion pieces, you should really proofread your work. It will make people take you more seriously.
| 1 |
positive
|
Blake Edwards' legendary fiasco, begins to seem pointless after just 10 minutes. A combination of The Eagle Has Landed, Star!, Oh! What a Lovely War!, and Edwards' Pink Panther films, Darling Lili never engages the viewer; the aerial sequences, the musical numbers, the romance, the comedy, and the espionage are all ho hum. At what point is the viewer supposed to give a damn? This disaster wavers in tone, never decides what it wants to be, and apparently thinks it's a spoof, but it's pathetically and grindingly square. Old fashioned in the worst sense, audiences understandably stayed away in droves. It's awful. James Garner would have been a vast improvement over Hudson who is just cardboard, and he doesn't connect with Andrews and vice versa. And both Andrews and Hudson don't seem to have been let in on the joke and perform with a miscalculated earnestness. Blake Edwards' SOB isn't much more than OK, but it's the only good that ever came out of Darling Lili. The expensive and professional look of much of Darling Lili, only make what it's all lavished on even more difficult to bear. To quote Paramount chief Robert Evans, "24 million dollars worth of film and no picture".
| 0 |
negative
|
So many literary adaptations are disappointments. There are many reasons for that, but usually it is the need to cut down a complex novel to the size of a screenplay. The Dead is unusual - it had to be 'padded', as the short story itself is a tiny, relatively short gem. It may in fact be the finest short story in the English language. In beautifully spare language it tells of the realization of Gabriel Conroy that his life, and the lives of so many around him are controlled by memories of the dead. Even his own wife of many years loved a man now dead more than him.<br /><br />To bring such a short story to the cinema was always going to be tricky. John Huston did a magnificent job. He never gave in to temptation to play it up or use fancy technique to expand on the story. It is simple and true, with outstanding acting. The only slight miss-step is the use of music to accompany the devastating final soliloquy.<br /><br />Its rare indeed for a movie version of a literary masterpiece to be itself a masterpiece, but I think its fair to use this term for this movie. Its not a bravura piece of film making, but it is simple and pure - I always think of Ozu's movies when i think of The Dead, its at that level of purity and simplicity and deep wisdom.
| 1 |
positive
|
I bought this a while back, during a massive martial arts movie phase. Although this certainly ain't the best, I do love this kind of film making, and there was a lot to keep me entertained in this one. Leung Kar Yan is one of my favorite martial arts stars, I always appreciate the fact that, whilst he lacked formal martial arts training, he usually gave a more than capable fighting performance. He also has a good beard. This movie has him in a good, heroic role and although he doesn't kick as much ass as in some of his other movies, he still acquits himself well. Early appearances from Cherie Chung and Chow Yun Fat are also nice too see, especially for the fact that Chow Yun Fat takes on the bad guys without his trademark gun play. He may not be a great fighter but he does OK. Eddy Ko is as great a bad guy as ever, he performs the same villainry as in many of his other films and does it great, as per usual. The fellow who plays Bu is good too, I don't recall his name, but he's in Magnificent Butcher too. Although the fighting isn't as good as other movies of the era, The postman fights back makes up for it with a lot of imagination, quality cinematography and a nicely quirky ambiance. There are some very nifty scenes, good characters and a good eclectic mixture of Hong Kong talents all coming together to decent effect. All in all, I would recommend this to kung fu and general Hong Kong action fans. It may not be a stylised classic like the Shaw Brothers films, or as crowd pleasing as Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee, but it is rock solid entertainment.
| 1 |
positive
|
At the 2005 Phoenix Film Festival, it was no secret which film ranked at the top of everyone's viewing list. Checking Out (2004)brought crowds of film lovers to Scottsdale's Harkins Cine-capri. Festival attendees who waited in line for hours, were turned away at the door, despite the two-theater screening capacity.<br /><br />Checking Out (2004) is a beautifully-made moving picture; an inspiring comedy for a wide-range of audiences to enjoy. The director, Jeff Hare, blends traditional film technique with a new twist of creativity, capturing Peter Falk at his greatest and most sentimental moments (usually shown in intimate close-up shots) on the silver screen.<br /><br />With its uplifting mix of witty humor and narrative plot development, Checking Out (2004) is a landmark independent film, well-deserving of your attention.
| 1 |
positive
|
Well its ten year's on since this film was released and the sands of time have not improved it one bit, again like the other comments made the Aussie film makers should have a little more drama rather than middle class aussies riding around beautiful places on there bikes with not much in the was of dialog. middle class is not funny nor is rich. there is also a mish mash of cast. why is a young woman going to marry a man old enough to be her father, it escapes me. It's such a shame about this film, looks like a wonderful place to holiday thou. Anyway its an hour and thirty mins of my life i will never be able to get back. lifes to short to watch this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Tim Burton is in essence an expressionist film-maker, disinterested in dimensions of character and obsessed with Gothic scope, opting for style over substance incessantly throughout his career. However, with his style being so poignantly endearing, I, like many moviegoers, forgive all the countless flaws that can be found in many of his movies and become engrossed in what are essentially, one hundred million dollar art films.<br /><br />It's almost embarrassing for me to see a poetic, emotionally involving spirit within the second installment of a mediocre franchise, especially when that franchises target audience are half-witted 15 year old boys. Batman Returns should have been every bit as commercial as its predecessor, ensuring box office draw and cheap (in actual fact, very expensive) thrills, being entertaining without ever truly involving its audience. Had this been the result, then Tim Burton would have surely been required to direct a third installment. Instead, Burton delivers something that can only truly be defined by the phrase, 'out there'.<br /><br />From the melancholy opening in which a high society couple throw a prison-like bassinette containing their newly born deformed baby into a river, it is clear that Batman Returns, ain't no picnic at Buckingham Palace. Cut to thirty three years later, during a political speech made by bad guy business tycoon Max Shreck (sinisterly portrayed by Christopher Walken), the Red Triangle Circus Gang attack Gotham City. Batman (Michael Keaton returning to the role) makes his first appearance sporting a new logo, eventually saving the day. Shreck is soon kidnapped by the circus gang and black-mailed into endorsing the political return of the baby, now a fully grown Penguin man (Danny DeVito in hideously perfect make-up), whose motives for return are suspicious only to Batman.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Shreck attempts to off his nosey and awkward assistant Selina Kyle (played perfectly by Michelle Pfeiffer who quite frankly deserved more recognition for her performance) who transforms into the deliciously sexy and psychotic Catwoman, out for revenge and harbours, for some unexplained reason, a deadly vendetta against the Dark Knight.<br /><br />Batman Returns is bleak. The production design is breathtaking, delivering a cold haunting Gotham City with an even more apocalyptic feel than its predecessor. Danny Elfman's score supports the film brilliantly, ranging from invigorating to tragic. The tone and direction of the whole film itself is intensely brooding, shot like a sad nightmare, Burton's direction overshadows what is in fairness a diabolical screenplay with an almost totally irrelevant plot and yet at the same time perfect for Burton's visual style of film-making. And whilst Burton's action sequences struggle for exhilaration, the real excitement lies in the directional choices displaying the fall of each of its main characters, the Penguins demise, the Catwoman's mental state and Bruce Wayne's lonely destiny.<br /><br />Warner Brothers hated it whilst critical and audience reaction was mixed. After all, they wanted a Batman sequel, not a weird, somewhat ghastly horror movie, in which a deformed psychopathic orphan attempts to kidnap and drown a batch of babies, all-the-while vomiting what can only be described as green mucus. The production company wanted an audience friendly feature, something for the McDonald's clan to promote their happy meals with, not a movie of dire irredeemable characters, including a sexually repressed secretary who is pushed from a skyscraper and revived by a gang of cats awakening her from unconsciousness by chewing on her bloodied ice cold fingers.<br /><br />It's easy to understand the mass disappointment that followed the release of Batman Returns. The film never felt like a Batman blockbuster. It is questionable if Burton really knew who Batman actually was or even if he cared about the character as much as he cared about the film fitting in with his usual themes of beautifully haunting art direction and misinterpreted, lonely characters who rarely conform with societies standards and expectations. This is why Burton failed to create a great Batman film. He did however; create a nostalgic and stunning, ballsy piece of cinema that remains a personal and nostalgic favourite of mine.<br /><br />This may not be a great Batman movie. But it is a great Tim Burton film.
| 1 |
positive
|
I mean really, really, REALLY high and this movie has a shot at entertainment. I don't mean regular high, i mean the high where reading the phonebook would have you in stitches. otherwise save the time out of your life and go do something more constructive with it, like hitting your head on a brick wall and insulting your own intelligence. A complete waste of talent in some cases (Bernie Mac, John C. McGinley, Tom Kenny, and the master of hams Shatner) and exactly the kind of crap they deserve to make (the myriad of rappers who insist on making movies). Not without it's laughs (again chemical aid is crucial) and certainly not without offending the politically over-sensitive (which I'm always in favor of) but ultimately not worth the time out of your life.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's important to keep in mind the real meaning of the phrase "Inspired by a true story" when watching Pride. It's sort of like "You could save up to 50%," which can quite literally be translated to "You can't save more than 50%." It all sounds great until you realize that the lower part of "up to" is "zero." Similarly, "inspired by a true story" means that someone heard a story and it made them think of this one. The only certainty is that the real story and the one you're about to see are not the same thing.<br /><br />There is a real Jim Ellis that began coaching the swim team at the Philadelphia Department of Recreation in the early 1970s, but I have a feeling that the real Jim Ellis must not have been able to conceal some feelings of disappointment at the way the movie turned out. Clearly, it takes wild liberties with the story of his life, and I just picture him responding to the strange looks of his friends who wonder why the movie is so much different than the man they know.<br /><br />At any rate, one thing that he will surely be proud of is that he is portrayed by Terrence Howard, one of our finest actors, who starred alongside Bernie Mac who, despite the lack of an original and powerful story, still gives a heartfelt and moving performance. <br /><br />The movie takes place in 1970s Philadelphia, a time and place where racism was the norm, not the exception, and the educated and professional Jim Ellis, who is also an accomplished swimmer, is having trouble finding a worthwhile teaching position, until finally relegated to a falling apart recreation center, which he is assigned the task of cleaning up before its demolition. We can certainly understand his feeling of belittlement. <br /><br />When we first meet Elston, the maintenance man (Bernie Mac), he is a disillusioned grump who sits in his office surrounded by piles of junk that touch the ceiling and watching daytime TV on an old, dusty television set. Needless to say, when Jim shows up to start cleaning the place up and clearing it out, Elston is not exactly friendly with him. He knew his rec center was being closed, and all his anger about that transferred quite smoothly onto Jim. <br /><br />Given his past as a college swimmer, Jim takes a special interest in the pool, which he cleans and fills and brings to top shape. A group of black teenagers who play basketball just outside the rec center take interest in the pool when their basketball rim is taken away and the heat remains stifling, and soon the group have a developing swim team on their hands, which they enter into a citywide swim meet. To call them underdogs, of course, would be something of an understatement. They're unorganized, unprofessional, insufficiently trained, and have no idea how to behave at a swim meet. <br /><br />That doesn't matter, of course. The movie is your standard underdog sports story, so the first athletic outing is totally unimportant as anything other than a learning experience, a catalyst to drive their much harder and much more focused training that will lead up to the final athletic outing, the one that matters. By now, the only thing a sports movie has going for it is that the protagonist(s) do not have to win at the film's climax, we only have to understand the meaning and significance of their effort. <br /><br />Sadly, the movie has all of the character development of an old Seagal movie. The good guys are the good guys because they're just supposed to be, and the bad guys are the nasty white swimmers who laugh and jeer and make racist jokes at our team. Oh, and there's one scene where one of the white guys kicks one of the black guys underwater while in the middle of a race. I didn't know it was really possible to kick someone underwater like that, but you get the idea of how deep the character development is.<br /><br />We understand that this is the group of kids that Jim Ellis turned from kids hanging out on the streets doing nothing with their lives and into an organized and competitive team of swimmers, but other than that we don't really get to know anything about who they are.<br /><br />But the biggest problem is that the only real statements that the movie makes are that effort and organization lead to success and racism is bad. Both of these are so obvious that when a movie is made with them alone it ends up feeling empty and unnecessary. Racism was so much more powerful in America in the 1970s that it feels like an enormous loss that the movie dealt directly with that issue but didn't really say anything about it. It's sort of a feel- good movie, but when it's over and you realize how much it should have said is much bigger than what it said, the feel-good sensation turns into a sad disappointment.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is great - well written and very entertaining. David Duchovny shows, once again, that he is much more than Fox Mulder, and the performances by the old men are funny as can be. Old married folks (like me) will appreciate the connection between two hearts.
| 1 |
positive
|
What Fox's fascination with dysfunctional families, made up of mean, obnoxious, spoiled kids, and parents who are determined to be cool, as opposed to being a parent?? I'm sorry, I don't get it. The one episode that I was barely able to stomach watching involved one of the kids demanding a Bar Mitzvah, with the intention of getting thousands of dollars in gift money. Of course, the idiot mother decides that her precious little junior has to have the biggest and bes-test party of all, and has no problem dropping 20 grand on the big event. The ditzy, brain dead, boy crazy teenage daughter bounces back and forth between wanting to be Jewish and then Catholic, when she see's the "cute" religious tutors.<br /><br />The one borderline "heartwarming" moment in the entire episode, was when the putz of a father, who has been convinced the entire time that the Bar Mitzvah is solely a money making scheme, see's the son studying his Hebrew lessons, and is momentarily duped into thinking that perhaps, his conniving offspring is being sincere about the right of passage into manhood. This warm, fuzzy feeling is immediately ripped out of his chest when he informs junior that since he has not yet had a bris, a certain "procedure" needs to be performed. The Bar Mitzvah is called off, and the mother is out several thousands of dollars when the kid refuses to comply.<br /><br />This show is garbage, and I am saddened that I shall never get back the 23 minutes of my life I wasted watching this piece of crap, because nothing else was on TV ...
| 0 |
negative
|
Face it, folks-- "DK3" is more challenging, innovative, and clever than its predecessor. Challenging-- its levels are ridiculously difficult for a considerable amount of time. One especially difficult level is called "Lightning Lookout," in which you may be struck by lightning at any given time. Innovative-- it opened a lot of doors. Too bad the SNES died out not long after this title. And clever-- the level names range from trademark plays-on-words ("Lake Orangatanga") to witty references that the game's targeted audience won't get for many years to come ("Bleak's House").<br /><br />What irks me about most people's criticism of this game mainly comes down to two words: Kiddy Kong. He is a worthy "little-buddy" successor to Diddy Kong, and certainly does not deserve to be referred to as "that retarded monkey." "DK3" will remain a classic until the end of time.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the first porn I've ever tried to review. It demands a different approach than usual, since the allegory will not reward dissection. "I'm American. I'm a prudish virgin." "We are European. We are cultured and sex-mad." "It is nice when we all screw each other." Lots to talk about! Well, there kind of is in fact, relative to your average 60s topless volleyball number anyway. And the enervating patina of 'class' at least delivers clean, detailed compositions. But what the hell kind of thing is that to say about a porn? OK then: the only scene I really (rhetorically) got off on was the first time Brigitte Maier steps in. There are efforts to toss in a nice variety of race and age while letting no two men anywhere near each other; the one black guy suffers a premature bout of editorial coitus interruptus. And multiple takes or not, one perhaps undescribable-on-IMDb act does look like it was partially simulated by a surgical hose. Still, I stayed awake, and it was eight in the morning...but what does the last shot mean?!
| 0 |
negative
|
In a world where humans can live forever you spend the entire movie wishing they would die. First off if you insist on watching this movie do two things first put it on mute, don't worry you miss a plot, hell they don't even talk for the first 70 min of an 87 min movie, after putting on mute you must now hit fast forward till the main chick dies don't worry even if your paying attention you won't know why or how she died. Once you get to the "good part" take it of mute. Oh, how will you know the good part, wait for an elevator scene with two morons in space suits with WWII weapons. These weapons won't seem like much till you realize that the first protagonist had a laser tag pistol and a bandoleer of CO2 cartridges. The only remnants of a plot take place between a glowing ball and a semi hot chick who looks like she was attacked by Wolverine. After listening to the "plot", you will wish they went back to not talking. Of the four people that are in this movie none of them can remotely act, not even a little bit, you will have better luck witnessing acting at a kindergarten theater.<br /><br />To comment on the special on the special effects, let me just say "Wow", no really you will spend the entire movie saying to your self "Where did this movie's 1.8 million dollar budget go!" Seriously it will leave you in aw of the magnitude of ineptness. The best "sets" are basically windows wallpaper backgrounds. The Ships are basically flying wrenches, Wait some are barges that kinda look like whales . I have never heard so many made up words in my whole life. They have buttons on their wrist(large pedometers) that can put them in "fight mode" and super runing mode (makes them super blurry). This will seriously drain their power reserves but they find bits of wires to chew on to regain their strength. The explosions were less impressive than my fourth of July, I only had sparklers.<br /><br />So the plot as far as I can figure goes something like this "mother" is a space ship captain and goes to the desert for a while rides a rocket dies. Then her daughter 6000 years in the future ( no I am not exaggerating) recalls her mother's memories through some sort of capsule. Anyways they jabber on for another 10 min and then the cause a big bang. Yes the Same "Big Bang" that started our solar system. It's explained how she goes back in time or something, it does not really matter it happened i guess. Roll Credits Seriously the whole script was mercifully on one sheet of paper, unless that actually detailed any of the dreadfully fight scenes.<br /><br />After watching the credits I have now laughed more than I did the entire movie, the jobs the created like catering supervisor "galactius sarcophagus" and then the special thanks to George Lucas was just the best.<br /><br />I really wasn't expecting that much for a movie I paid 99 cents for but seriously some body owes me for this. Most frequent comment heard after the movie "I want my life back". You have to admire that some but put time and effort in to this movie but seriously, why ?
| 0 |
negative
|
Obviously, someone was looking at catching onto the "Blair Witch" wave.<br /><br />This movie was set up like all the "reality" haunted shows that are popping up on TV lately (and I must admit, I get a kick out of these), but this movie is MUCH cheesier! Probably the first three-quarters of the movie is filled with the "participants" going through the house, WHINING. Give me a break! Spending 10 minutes whining about going up into the attic is not my idea of a good time. Any paranormal happenings are blatant setups. No strings, but too perfectly caught on camera to be real. The "participants" were not very likeable either. Two goofy guys who don't take it seriously, one girl who scares at the drop of a hat, and the quintessential over-played "paranormal" person. Is this becoming the clichéd-"formula" for a ghost movie?<br /><br />I have to admit, the last 15 minutes or so were pure tension. They took every ounce of tension in the movie and stuck it in those 15 minutes. I admit, I spent that time pacing in the kitchen. I really wouldn't recommend this movie to younger viewers, even if it is PG13.<br /><br />If you're looking for some entertainment, if you don't take it seriously, you will get a kick out of this movie. There's tons of situations to make cracks about! If you're looking for an great story-line.. look elsewhere ;)
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the worst pieces of cinema I have seen in some time. This is also my first review so you can tell I must hate this film at lot.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I like my serious films. I don't like Hollywood too much, I tend to like French, Italian, offbeat US or anything that tries to communicate something sensible.<br /><br />But this was awful. Why? 1. The plot (such as it was) was entirely unbelievable, even though the director seems to be hinging everything on a feeling of realism.<br /><br />2. The main character has nothing to recommend him. Does he smoke for coolness or to show us his angst? For goodness sake this guy is meant to be an ex-dodgy mafia lawyer. Are we meant to care more because that he is also one of the meanest unfriendly people you could ever meet? And he smokes...so he must have deep personal issues. Pop psychology at it's best. In the final moments, I almost cheered as he gets buried in the cement. Best place for him. And I thought that was about the only good scene. Or maybe that was because it was so close the final credits.<br /><br />3. The entirely tired and unbelievable interest in the main character from the beautiful girl. She was there simply because beautiful girls always have odd sexual relationships with old, old men with a deep and meaningful personality (as demonstrated by smoking). Happens all the time. In really bad films that is.<br /><br />4. The pace was so leaden. I like slow, I like careful. But this was just deathly.<br /><br />5-50 a bunch of other stuff that I really can't be bothered to write.<br /><br />Awful.
| 0 |
negative
|
An absorbing exploration of virtual reality, although it is not yet clear how much the director himself intended. This film deliberately takes you through several layers of artificial reality, leaving only subtle clues about which layer of virtual reality you are in, positing an ontological confusion for the viewer to ponder. <br /><br />Also can be seen as a satire of video games-- the whole movie though may fall into the fallacy of imitative form here. It seems unable to escape from the video game genre which it imitates; thus the satire becomes problematic. <br /><br />A number of interesting ideas crisscross throughout though: the biological mutant is one; the interface of technology and biology, the cyborg urge to transcend reality-- and philosophical allusions such as the title's to Heidegger, along with existential questions: i.e., the game characters are partly scripted or determined and yet partly free to alter their fate, and they wonder at how strange that feels in the game. One character then notes that this existential confusion is just like real life, thereby erasing again the distinction between the virtual and the real. Likewise with the observation that it is unpleasant to stumble around in a world where you don't know what will happen next and you're not sure how to play since you have to stumble around just to find out the goal and the unknown rules. A virtual game within the game is titled "TranscendenZ". Also a critique of how virtual violence makes us unable to feel the effects of real violence. Even the heroes at every level of ontological existence find themselves confused about violence. They don't like it but it is thrilling and part of the "game", which then they fear is real. <br /><br />The game creator, the god of the system, is assassinated in the end; yet that very scenario is played out in direct parallel to a video game we've just witnessed-- and the onlookers believe that it is still just part of the virtual reality. In the end, the film does not resolve the doubt about whether or not this is "real" but the point is clear (to me anyway). Existenz means Da-sein: You are there. You are thrown into a set of rules and mysteries at every level. Ontologically, virtual reality recapitulates reality. And its common game motifs express, like a royal road to the unconscious, our own fascination with violence.<br /><br />Nevertheless, while Cronenberg affirms these philosophical allusions in an interview about the film, he claims that he is very much against the "Reality ... {underground name of terrorist group} portrayed in the film both in the game and in the 'real' level." Seems that Cronenberg himself did not put that much thought into the film, though his impressive education comes through. The interview in Cineaste gives the impression of a middle brow intellectual who's trying to be avant-garde by inclination. Cronenberg is simply on the side of free imagination -- the clichéd bourgeois modernist credo-- despite the acknowledged ambivalence there. (My impression here might be due to one limited interview.) Still, Cronenburg seems to miss the point that his film betrays the fallacy of imitative form (here imitating computer games while doing a satirical critique of them, but a critique that is unable to "transcend" the same form) probably because he actually thinks that it is "imaginative" and radical. Yet the film's imaginative world is less bearable, and more jejune, than our own all-too-real world. It remains trapped in the computer game worldview.
| 1 |
positive
|
Into a happy household comes the gypsy girl, played by Myrna Loy. With her amazingly wild hair and voice that sounds very high-pitched and weird, it's hard to believe this is Loy!! She bears no similarity whatsoever to the refined and funny character Nora Charles who she played in the Thin Man movies. Instead, she overacts so badly that you'd almost expect her to be in an Ed Wood movie. What a huge difference a few years made in the quality films she got as well as her acting ability!! On top of the horrendously silly character, the film also fails because it just isn't interesting or exciting--just very, very stagy and stupid. The only thing good about it is the Vitaphone sound system--making the sound quality of this turkey about the best I have heard from 1929. Heck, it was even better than most 1930 films, so the sound technician at least has something to be proud of--all others, forget it.<br /><br />This is a movie that even the host of Turner Classic Movies referred to as a "guilty pleasure" because the movie is so bad! And, after having seen it I disagree...slightly. The movie is simply bad.
| 0 |
negative
|
Back in August, '81 there was a country-ish buzz to movies, big hits like "Urban Cowboy", "Every Which Way But Loose", "Smokey and the Bandit" were all the rage. For that reason I suspect the producers of this movie chose "Honky Tonk Freeway" as the title hoping it would help the movie's box office receipts by drawing in that same "Urban Cowboy" crowd. Instead "Honky Tonk Freeway" bombed at the theaters and I suspect it do so in part by being burdened with a poorly chosen title. Thats same problem burdens it now on video and thats too bad because its a pretty good movie and in a comedy style ahead of it's time. No matter what, probably anybody who can remember 1981 will enjoy it.<br /><br />Its too bad this movie bombed. But I think it would have anyway even if it hadn't been saddled with a poor title. Its a movie ahead of its time. One could look at this movie now and see that its clearly a father or *great-uncle anyway) to the kinds of comedy made today. For its day "Honky Tonk Freeway" was pretty full of innuendo and a kind of frankness about life that didn't get popular in comedy till much later on. While clearly its a child of "Airplane", its more mature, and while its certainly no "Knocked Up" it clearly points in that direction. The characters are more "comedy-mature" in that they are low-key and don't ever think anything they do is anything other than serious. The jokes are in the choices of what to emphasize and the camera views and the way the view themselves and their situations.<br /><br />But, more than that, "Honky Tonk Freeway" is a real time capsule. A great look back at the exceedingly early 80's. The people in this movie are dressed and act as everyday people of 1981 did. It was clearly meant to reflect the times and be a sly comedic comment on everyday life around them.<br /><br />I don't know if my review is helping you, but this is really a good, sometimes kind of excellent, movie thats worth renting if you want to see how a lot of faces that are familiar today looked when they were 30 years younger. Beverly D'Angelo is so young its hard to realize its her sometimes. So are Beau Bridges and Terri Garr. Terry Garr was just about to become the toast of Hollywood as her next movie after this one was "Tootsie" which finally made her a star. Howard Hessmann was arguably the biggest "current" star of the the day when this movie was made. Back in 1981 Howard Hessmann was the star of the big hit TV show "WKRP in Cinncinatti". He played its lead character, the rascally night DJ. Daniel Stern was just about to break out as a star as the grown-up narrator voice of the lead child character in the popular 80's sitcom "The Wonder Years" There are also several faces that are no longer with us these days, its nice to see Hume Crowyn and Jessica Tandy as a an old married couple on a journey. Jessica Tandy would finally pick up her Oscar ten years after this for "Driving Miss Daisy". There is also the great Geraldine Page in one of her final movie appearances. Though she'd had a brilliant career she didn't get her Oscar till four years after this in 1985's "Trip to Bountiful", for which she richly deserved it, and she died very soon after getting that award.<br /><br />Plus, there are lots of other faces in this movie, actors who aren't big stars but who have done tons of supporting work. Many are familiar even if you can't think of their name.<br /><br />This movie is a pleasant little diversion. A bunch of people with a variety of problems set out from various locations each for their own individual unrelated reasons who all, in a vaguely Altman-esk way, end up heading towards Florida and unbeknownst to them a rendevoux in the little town of Ticlaw, Florida, which happens to be reeling from the effects of being bypassed by the recently constructed interstate nearby which did not construct an exit to Ticlaw which effectively takes the town off the map.<br /><br />And thats also what this movie is about, fascination with the whole idea of the interstate system, which had only recently been "completed". It had taken a generation to build, from when it was authorized by congress around 1960, through many years as different parts were built and then "went live" and by 1980 most of the system had finally been built and all connected together and first the first time the promise of what the interstate system would be had turned into what is. And people were enchanted by it. Everybody by 1980 was pretty much an "interstate freeway veteran" in the sense that by then everybody had used parts of it and knew how it worked and how it was different from other roads in that it had no red lights or stop signs, only on and off ramps, and that it went to places that were formerly less accessible. By 1980 anyone could drive anywhere in comfort and without having to stop for anything except to eat and sleep and a bathroom. And this was all new then. <br /><br />The ending is anti-climatic and isn't that satisfying albeit its one spectacular moment. What makes it great is it's the journey not the destination that makes Honky Tonk Freeway timeless in spite of it being such a product of its day. Forget its title; instead let it take you down memory lane.
| 1 |
positive
|
Renting this direct-to-video film, I was not expecting an amazing piece of cinematography. (Not to say just because a film is in cinema it will.) Only very loosely following the story retold in the epic poem, this film provides a unique take on the tale of monsters and super humans. The general photography can be summarized as conflicted, with its mixture of mediaeval and post-apocalyptic (reminiscent of Mad Max). With a rock and techno soundtrack to boot, one comes away feeling a bit off. The fight scenes, though unbelievable, are entertaining, and Christopher Lambert possesses some of the most interesting weapon combinations I have ever seen on film, though often a tad unfathomably inefficient. The special effects used for the monster Grendel are surprisingly effective and are one of the few highlights.<br /><br />Christopher Lambert delivers an average performance as Beowulf. It will be nowhere near as memorable as Highlander, but at least it wasn't as poor as Fortress. The supporting cast is rather neutral.<br /><br />If you're looking for a good action-adventure story with a complex and engaging plot, I would not suggest this film. However, if you want a flick that is of little substance, full of campy battle scenes, and a somewhat predictable plot, find a copy of this.
| 0 |
negative
|
The film shows relations of the dying mother, and the son, who is very attached to her, and definitely loves her. What does it show? It shows their living in very poor conditions. It shows how tenderly they "walk" (really he is bringing her). But what do we see further? After their promenade he walks alone at the same places, where they walked together. It is not possible. A person, who love and care about another dying one, would do everything to make the life of this one better. He would not have a free minute to ponder, to be alone with oneself, and if he finds a few minutes a month for that, he would run away from the places where he has usually to be. Another thing. The author devoted this film to Andrey Tarkovsky. We see he learned many Tarkovsky's visual effects. But in Sokurov's film they are only effects, they do not support any senses or mood. Someone has compared this film with "Mirror" ("Zerkalo"). There is nothing common except these visual effects. "Mirror" is a great film and this one is just poor imitation.
| 0 |
negative
|
R.I.C.C.O. is the STUPIDEST film ever made. I can't believe my father bought this crap. This film should da never got made. If this film was wide known, trust me it will be on the #1 spot for IMDB's worst.The acting is horrible it's scary,which it is why it's horror. This piece of s*** had no horror in at at all. It's an urban action,which is funny, because I could of swore it was a comedy. When people got shot I couldn't help but laugh. I am the only person who reviewed this and I hope that I am the last. With this vote only I hope it make it to the #1 spot at the worst!!!!!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
I was subjected to this terrible excuse for a made for TV movie. I only watched it because I don't have cable and my only other choices were Golf, College Basketball, or local news. The plot is very generic and has no substance that I could see, not to mention it had a major flaw in my eyes. The main character, Dr. Sorensen, is a washed up astronomer who believes that an asteroid named "Nemesis" will strike Earth, causing all life to cease. He bases his belief on his discovery of cave paintings by an Aboriginee (I'm sure I spelled that one wrong). The paintings show an apparent timeline, showing significant events throughout history, such as the building of the Great Wall of China. All of the events are shown in perfect chronological order, and the very last picture on the timeline is Earth being destroyed. Now to me, if the painting showed things that had indeed happened, why would the great Doctor believe that he could somehow change what was going to happen? All that aside, the movie moved along with extreme formulaic precision. There was nothing in the movie that surprised me at all. The actors were not very good, and on a few occasions I just felt that they didn't even take the movie seriously to put forth enough effort to try to convince me that the characters were worth caring about. The whole movie was cliche ridden and a downright waste of time and money. I'd recommend Armageddon over this piece of crap any day. At least Armageddon has some good acting (compared to this), not to mention the eye candy that is Liv Tyler. Now that I think about it, Golf isn't that bad.......
| 0 |
negative
|
I can't believe I missed this one. Made in 1970 with a budget that would probably allow you to make one indifferent episode of a TV soap, this is 90 minutes of sustained, sharp as a knife film making. You will find the outline, plot etc elsewhere on this site.Consider though that the whole thing was shot using a single, hand- held,16mm camera... all the dialogue is improvised... none of the 'actors' had appeared in front of a camera before... It sounds like a recipe for disaster. Instead what we get is hippies v cops running around in the California desert in what evolves into a 'that's not fair.. i'm on that person's side'scenario. The only problem is, the director keeps making you shift your allegiance and at the end of 90 minutes we're still not sure who has one. Brilliant... Quite brilliant.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film looks great, and that's about where my praise ends. "Love Is a Many Splendored Thing" came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955, when candy-coloured nonsense like this co-existed with trail-blazing artistic fair like "Kiss Me Deadly." As a trend toward smaller, socially conscious films like "On the Waterfront" and "Marty" established itself in the mid-50's, other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging, pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade, and "Love" is one of the latter.<br /><br />This is the kind of 50's movie where the Technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high-key; even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. I never want to hear the theme song again, as it's played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime, and I certainly don't want to hear it sung by the shrill, ear-piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. Jennifer Jones and William Holden are passable, but really anybody could have played these parts. Jones' role is horribly written--her character is incredibly inconsistent, and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something, the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be.<br /><br />People will undoubtedly tell me I'm taking this film too seriously, that I'm unromantic, etc. But I loved "All That Heaven Allows," released the same year and just as cornball in its own way, except that Douglas Sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form, whereas Henry King (director of "Love") is not.<br /><br />I'm usually able to enjoy bad melodrama, but in this case I was just bored.<br /><br />Grade: D+
| 0 |
negative
|
I can admit right away that this is one of the worst movies i have seen in my life. And that is not saying a little, because i consider myself to be somewhat of an aficionado when it comes to crappy film. But this is beyond bad. This movie is so awful that there is no fun left in it, it's just bad.<br /><br />Reviewing this is almost impossible. There are no strong points and nothing positive to say. I'll just ramble about a few of the points that sucked. First off, the CGI has to be one of the worst i've seen. I can't believe this movie was made in 2005, the CGI reminds me of something i might have seen in Babylon 5 way back when CGI was new and fresh. It's poor beyond belief. Second, the actors all seem like they belong in the worst kind of daytime soaps. And looking at their resumes i see that i'm correct... Thirdly, being able to breed enormous reptiles is no match to the other technology they invented in this movie: the recoilless pistol with infinite ammo! Seriously, Michael Paré fires 100-200 times without reloading in every other scene... As if that was not enough there are also shape-shifting planes! At first they are regular F-16 fighters, in the next scene they are something else completely, and in the third scene they are F-16 again! If you're buying stock footage, please don't mix it like this! <br /><br />Honestly, there is loads more to say, but i think i'll stop. You all understand what i'm saying. Honestly i didn't think this kind of movie was made any more. It's like something Ed Wood would do. Completely ignorant of quality, not caring how anything looks... It's almost amazing in all it's awfulness. If i could give it 0/10 i would, but 1/10 is the lowest grade. So that's it.
| 0 |
negative
|
I caught this on Cinemax very late at night...nothing else was on so I pretty much had no choice. Bottom line, terrible plot, slow, waste of good film and actors' time. To make it short, don't even bother with this one. It's too bad we can't give zeros as a rating; this one really is not worth even a consideration!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
If someone had nudged me about 15 minutes into 'Ray' and asked what I thought of Jamie Foxx in the title role, it would have been time for a blank stare. After all, what is this (fictitious) person talking' about? That wasn't Jamie Foxx up on the big screen. That was Ray Charles. This is one of the best performances by anybody in recent years. Like the soundtrack, Jamie as Ray is flat-out brilliant.<br /><br />The blind Genius of Soul (who took a revolutionary step of mixing gospel with R&B) died during production. The movie about his troubled life is good, not great. Taylor Hackford's direction and James L. White's script follow the well-worn biopic outline. Super-talented youngster battles adversity, achieves greatness while also self-destructing, then picks himself up out of the gutter for a happy ending. The film shows Charles' flaws (heroin abuse, chronic womanizing, persistent bastard-fathering) even as it sucks you in with his beautiful music.<br /><br />Kerry Washington and Regina King play the main women in Ray's life, one his long-suffering wife and the other his longtime mistress. Both actresses match Foxx stride for stride. What takes him to a different level, though, is his deep understanding and uncanny impersonation of the great musician. The entire cast is effective, especially Sharon Warren as his headstrong mother and Curtis Armstrong as a music exec. Hackford's stars are likely to be rewarded with trophies and---better yet---more starring roles.<br /><br />I was not a Ray Charles aficionado before 'Ray'. Apparently, the film has left out a lot (as do all biopics), but this picture functions as both an old-fashioned crowd pleaser AND a dark investigation of a brilliant/troubled man. For those who whine that Foxx doesn't actually sing (as if that somehow diminishes his performance), take a hike. No mere actor can sing like Mr. Charles anyway. You can't have everything. What the talented star does in this picture is about as close to "everything" as we'll probably see for a while.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have always been a fan of Bottom, grabbing as many videos as I could find of the series here in the states. The chemistry between Rik and Ade is always genius, and the combination of smart writing and utterly stupid humor seems to work without fail. I thus sat down to watch this movie with great eagerness... and was utterly disappointed by the end.<br /><br />The first 3/4 of the movie can best be described as uninspired and poorly directed (sorry, Ade!), but with some utterly brilliant moments. Unfortunately, these laugh-out-loud moments make you realize how less-than-brilliant the rest of the movie is. The slapstick starts off funny but eventually becomes a bit boring, with only the perverted sex jokes to keep things humorous.<br /><br />The end of the movie (the 'green' scenes, for those of you who've seen it) was... perhaps the worst ending I've seen in the past decade. Honestly. It was one joke repeated about thirty times, followed by an abrupt ending that made no sense (which didn't bother me) and wasn't funny (which did).<br /><br />To sum up, I was sorely disappointed by this movie. I shall cling to the few brilliant moments in it, to retain the fondest memories that I can... but I have to warn you, if you're about to overpay for your NTSC conversion tape from the local importer, don't. There are far better things to spend your money on.
| 0 |
negative
|
i enjoyed this film immensely, due to pungent scenes (humorous as well as ironic, some even "tragical"), believable performances, witty dialogue and a heartfelt rendering of what it´s like or rather c a n be like to be hetero- and/or homosexual & on the lookout for fulfilment of your desires. i´m aware of the paradox here: homo- a n d hetereosexual.... this is something the film tackles on end, but never uses for caricature. if you´re as open-minded as the people seem to have been who made that film, in the end it won´t matter to you if those who lie in each others arms are of the same sex or not.<br /><br />"mr. smith" from the matrix gives an admirable turn as a gay houses-salesman with "strange" appetites here, but that´s not the only thing to marvel at. enjoy.....
| 1 |
positive
|
I never read the book. Now I don't really want to. I had no clue what this movie was about when I walked into the theatre. I still don't really know what point it was supposed to get across, but I do know that a good two hours was wasted from my life. Two precious hours I can never get back.<br /><br />The storyline was so predictable, it's laughable. Werewolves...or something...a very Romeo and Juliet type plot. I predicted the endig within five minutes into the movie. And I was correct.<br /><br />The acting isn't horrible. The only two cool characters in the movie were the British cousin guy and the Rambo-graphic-novel duder. The other characters are too...the dialogue is very bland and predictable.<br /><br />The absolute WORST part of the movie is the transformations between the "humans" and the "wolves." If you wanted something kick-ass like Van Helsings, you're gonna be really upset. Imagine ballerina's, a bright light, then a wolf. Yep...that's about it.<br /><br />Just avoid this movie. Period. Especially if you've read the book, because you'll just wanna punch babies.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a true "feel-good" movie, full of genuine sweetness and admirable people. Although the premise requires a significant suspension of disbelief, it is worth the trouble to do so. The director, writers, and actors truly convey what it feels like to be in love.
| 1 |
positive
|
Yes, absolutely dreadful, And this coming from someone who loves bad movies - but there's a limit. I enjoy all sorts of horror/suspense films, and have seen some wonderful work from European film makers. Broceliande is sadly not among those those wonderful pieces of film-making. The camera work is worse than amateurish. Not the fashionable, shaky MTV "cameraman needs Ritalin" type of camera work so many film-makers use to camouflage their lack of talent. This is simply bad frame composition and terrible image composition. The acting is farcical when it is not entirely two-dimensional. The dialogues are stilted and unnatural - even more so than your usual run-of-the-mill horror/suspense film delving into pseudo-mysticism. I think that what put me off the most was the horribly choreographed fight scenes at the end of the film. These were bad to the point of being ludicrous. I've seen what a small budget can do, and it can do wonders. This was just bad film-making. Very, very sad.
| 0 |
negative
|
I bought this DVD from Walmart for cheap, thinking it would be a typical, crap straight-to-video monster junk, but it turned out much better than expected. There isn't really any criticism to say about it... it's obviously low budget, but that just adds to the cheesy old fashioned fun. It's very cool and entertaining.<br /><br />There's everything: horror, sex, a great plane crash and good characters. And I'd say it's pretty original, cuz it really doesn't come off as any other movie I've seen. It has it's own unique look, which I liked very much, that's why this film deserves credit. I look forward to seeing more of these awesome movies from "The Scare Master", Brett Piper, whom I've never heard before this one.<br /><br />The DVD menu is really creative with groovy music playing over it, so it's perfect just to keep it on when you're not yet ready to sit down and watch it. It also includes some special features, which are really interesting. But we never get to see the director or hear him in the commentary, must be shy. This comes out of Edgewood Studios in Vermont, USA. I highly recommend it to all horror buffs, you'll love it!
| 1 |
positive
|
I really wanted to like this film as I have admiration for Italian rip-off cinema (especially Jaws rip-offs!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Monster Shark isn't very good. All the signs of this being a great piece of trash are there; we've got one of the kings of trashy cult cinema, Lamberto Bava, in the director's chair - one of the best ridiculous cult actors, Michael Sopkiw, taking the lead role, and a central creature stupid enough to give even the best that this sort of film has to offer a run for it's money, yet somehow the film still manages to be rather stale. The fact that the 'monster shark' doesn't feature too often is probably a good thing given the creature design, but there's never enough elsewhere to pull the film through without it. The plot focuses on a resort off the south coast of Florida (or rather, somewhere in Italy) where several local people have turned up in the water with arms and legs missing. It's not long before the local authorities decide that this creature has never been seen before, and it's up to a motley crew of various sea experts to catch it alive! <br /><br />The main problem with this film is that it always feels very pointless, and since there is little in the way of characters or plot development, even the least demanding of viewers are likely to start getting bored before long. This sort of film is hardly famous for being brilliant, although the fun element of films such as 'The Last Shark' and 'Killer Fish' is unfortunately absent for most of the running time. The thing I love about lead actor Michael Sopkiw is that he always seems like he's taking himself seriously no matter what film he's in (although he only ever made four). This is certainly the case here, although Bava never really allows him to completely dive in, and often he feels as much like a spare wheel as the rest of the film. Much of the runtime is spent watching the various characters sup American lager, and it's not very fascinating; although Bava does manage to come good by the end with an entertaining flurry of action as the central monster finally gets to wreak havoc upon its would-be captors. Overall, there really isn't much to recommend this film for. As mentioned, I really like this sort of stuff and even I found myself bored on numerous occasions. For hardcore Italian horror fans only!
| 0 |
negative
|
They say David Duchovny took six days to write the script for this movie. That sounds about right.<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen Gigli. It's not as bad as Gigli, but that's like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Adolf Hitler.<br /><br />Tom Warshaw has been living in France with his French wife and 13-year old son. He has been pretending to be French all this time. He reveals to his wife that he is actually American. For some reason, this comes as an earth-shattering reveal for her, despite the fact that she always commented on her husband's American accent. Also, their son - remember, he was born in France and never knew his father was American - speaks perfect American English without a hint of French accent. That's just one of several huge plot holes in this movie.<br /><br />The main bulk of the movie is a flashback to Tommy's youth in New York City during the 1970's, as he explains to his wife why he has been hiding in France. His best friend as a boy was Pappas, a retarded adult played terribly by Robin Williams. I assume Duchovny thinks that "retarded" is someone who is just sort of dumb, because Pappas comes off only mildly slow at times, while other times he comes off as just Robin Williams. Yes, Williams actually fits in his tired improv schtick although he is supposed to play a person who is mentally slow.<br /><br />Tommy's mother, played by Duchovny's wife Tea Leoni, is a pill-popping nurse who is distraught over the recent death of her husband. Leoni does a good job, but she mainly just smokes a lot and yells at Tommy for things that don't seem to be too important. The script didn't give her much to work with. Tommy also befriends a lady (whom he calls "Lady") who is in prison and offers him advice through her jail window (this house of detention is called "House of D" for short, thus the title). Tommy has no qualms yelling his personal problems out loud on a city street so this incarcerated felon can offer him advice, and he does so many times without care.<br /><br />I don't want to bore you with the entire summary of the movie, but plot holes are abound in this film that tries way too hard to be touching but comes off as, well, bad. Real bad. Real real bad. Near the end of this train wreck, the script gets cornier and cornier and ends with a laughably crappy ending.<br /><br />Critics tore "House of D" apart and rightfully so. I can't believe some people actually like this movie. It is a painful film to sit through and I felt weak afterwards - not from emotion, but from how terrible it was.
| 0 |
negative
|
Not just because of that theme in the movie. Which was one of the lame excuses for something reminiscent of plot. No.<br /><br />I watched this, knowing I would not like it. I HATE numerology. Whenever someone starts going off about patterns with numbers I feel the urge to slap them. My own brain starts hurting out of empathy. And fully aware this is a movie just about that topic, I couldn't resist the urge to watch it and maybe get a good laugh. But it wasn't funny. Just exactly the dumb sort of "Isn't this totally scary and yet amazingly cool?! I can turn any crap into 23!" dialog I was afraid of. As soon as the son started to chime in, I knew this movie is a turd, no matter what happens. But I hardly ever stop watching a movie I started. I sat through it. I enjoy the pain.<br /><br />The movie pretends to mock numerology under the disguise of showing how obsession can end badly. But it rides that wave as much as it's supposed to crush it. I don't see that message. I only see characters raving about a stupid number with little plot to justify. <br /><br />Top that off with the usual "surprises" - trying to put another twist to throw you off, that makes no sense, and you almost believe it due to the quality of the narration up to there - and you get one hollow piece of movie-making. That just happens to be centered around the topic I despise. If only it did not try to be serious and rather had been some hilarious movie with actors I don't give a damn about. But I was starting to like Carrey...while it's not his fault, he is trying. It's not even good for watching with a bunch of friends and mst3k the hell out of it.<br /><br />My expectations were low enough for someone to trip on them, but this movie managed to live up to be one of the worst I've ever seen.
| 0 |
negative
|
Last night I got to see an early preview screener of Prozac Nation. Because I love everything that Christina Ricci does I was very excited at first, but as the movie continued I started to wonder where it was going. Based on a true story, it is simply about Christina Ricci's character and her struggle with depression, drugs, friends and family as you can probably tell from the title. In my opinion this movie moved too fast, and it was way too dramatic. I would say there was a dramatic moment every five minutes, and the movie moved through her life extremely fast, and this left no room for us to connect with Christina Ricci's character. Christina Ricci's performance was fantastic as always but Jessica Lange stood out throughout the whole movie, and I believe this movie's success will be all because of her and Christina Ricci. I would rate this 4 out of 10 and I would suggest you rent this one or read the books by Elizabeth Wurtzel they are good and definitely worth checking out.
| 0 |
negative
|
Very good 1939 film where John Garfield plays another boxer who becomes a victim when everyone thinks he has committed a murder. Trouble is that the killer and Garfield's girl, Ann Sheridan, in a brief but good performance, get killed while trying to elude the police.<br /><br />A crooked attorney persuades Garfield to flee N.Y. He lands in Arizona and meets up with the Dead End Kids.. They've been sent there by a funding program to keep them out of further trouble.<br /><br />Of course, Garfield finds a new love interest but must conceal his identity as everyone thinks he was not only the killer but was the victim in the car crash.<br /><br />May Robson is fabulous as the grandma type running the place for the wayward youth. Claude Rains is also effective in the role of the detective who suspects that Garfield is still alive and pursues him when a picture is snapped of him in Arizona.<br /><br />The film really deals with Garfield's relation to the boys. While the ending is good, you want to see Garfield go back to N.Y. to proclaim his innocence.
| 1 |
positive
|
If I could give this excuse for a film a 0 or negative rating I would. I was stupid enough to pick this DVD up in the shop, read the blurb and think, that sounds quite good, I'll spend £10 and buy it. all I got at the end of it was a £10 coaster. Absolutely awful, I don't even know where to begin. I have no idea why anyone has given this more than 2 stars because I can't think of one good thing to say about it. <br /><br />The plot is basically, 7 people go into an unexplored cave, one of them is a reporter. no-one else knows they are there. When they get in the cave, they can't get out and they get killed off one by one by a monster. There turns out to be no reason for the reporter. One of the characters has some past demons where his ex girlfriend drowns in a cave 2 years ago... there seems to be no relevance or reason for that either, just a rubbish attempt at character building I assume? Anyway, The monster turns out to be a guy that wandered into the cave as a normal little kid and has lived in there all his life. This for no reason makes him superhuman, able to glow, see in the dark, take bullets, breathe underwater, be in 2 places at once and have insane strength (able to move boulders, carry grown men as dead weight, etc). <br /><br />In the end scene there are 2 women left alive, they wake up naked, just covered in some bit of rug or something. They then find a picture of a kid. The Monster then bursts in the door, wrapped in a carpet with some sort of animal skull over his head (says in the directors commentary it was a crow's skull, if so that would be the frekin biggest crow I have seen in my life) and quite literally goes "Raaahhh" like a kiddie on Halloween. I was watching it with my boyfriend and at that point he literally burst out laughing. The guy then sees a picture of himself as a kid and has a flashback to him sitting under a tree with his face all burnt and then getting up and wandering into the cave. That is the extent of the back story to why he mutilates people and it leaves you feeling a bit cheated for a story. The monster then kills one of the women and brutally rapes the other one, cut to end credits. I know the rape scene was designed to be shocking, but as a woman it just made me feel quite ill and was the thing that affected me the most in the whole film. He could have killed her and cut her into pieces and ate her and it would have been less horrific than the rape scene.<br /><br />There are so many things that are left unanswered at the end. Aside from all this, the scenes where there was minutes at a time of just black and nothing else was annoying and the constant nauseating camera angles where it's all upside down and you can't see what's going on wound me up so much at one point I almost turned it off. An absolutely terrible film. You might as well get the money you were going to spend on it and set fire to it, it would be money better spent, as like some clever person posting above me said, once you've watched it, you can't un watch it.
| 0 |
negative
|
David Dhawan copied HITCH and such an unofficial copy The film isn't even 1/2 as funny or amusing as the original it's boring with forced stories like the Lara track of having a child and no hubby Plus there is an unwanted stupid Chota DON and David tries to choke drama too but the film looks disjointed, boring<br /><br />Songs just pop in, so does romance and everything barring some funny Govinda scenes, the dance before interval nothing else is worth mentioning The last few scenes are quite funny but there tend to get too long<br /><br />David's direction is as bad as MAINE PYAAR KYUN KIYAA, he needs to change his style or attempt something good Music is saving grace, some songs are good but the situations seem forced<br /><br />Govinda looks overweight and seems too loud and screams his lines in initial reels but he gets into the groove and gives his best in the office and the scene with Salman in his cabin and towards the end<br /><br />Salman just plays himself and his nasal tone plus his fake style of acting is a headache<br /><br />Lara is avoidable, Katrina is fake as usual<br /><br />The kid overacts
| 0 |
negative
|
I own this movie. And it is terribly hard to find. It is a unique low budget little gore flick about a doctor seeking the perfect companion. It has the really humourous low budget feel to it, and the gore is suprisingly good for what appears to be a $500 budget. The director is claimed to be the master of gore. I wouldn't go that far, but maybe in his time he was. Overall 6/10 on the gore chart.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie definitely made me laugh but that doesn't mean it was exactly funny. Well, then again, me and my friends had a lot of fun watching it.<br /><br />I doubt there is anything about this movie that hasn't been done at least twice before, just like the plot itself. All of the characters are overused movie cliché cardboard-box roles that don't even require acting skills; accordingly, such skills are not delivered. We have the corrupt cop, a ruthless killer who claims to care about his men and their families whilst caring nothing about people he shoots in the forehead at so close a range as to have blood spat on his face. We have the "worn-out cop on the edge" so nicely pointed at in the discussion boards of this movie; we have the old one-day-away-from-retirement-cop who just about everyone must have immediately identified as the most likely man on the inside, since he had most to gain and he didn't utter a trustworthy word throughout the movie. About as see-through as a glass house on a sunny day. The big black gangster king was a copy of all previous big black gangster kings in movie history (they could've just called him Marcellus Wallace), but just slightly tougher and more ruthless, because something has to emphasize that we also know Laurence Fishburne from actually good movies. Then we finally have the HIGHLY EDUCATED doctor who can't think of anything reasonable to do as soon as the situation differs from her ordinary life and who spends the majority of the movie sitting in a corner helplessly trying to figure out how to hold on to the weapon she was given. NOT USING IT.<br /><br />The whole siege story is not interesting, not original (having been used twice before), and this movie manages to add absolutely nothing interesting to it. There is the initial probe, then the laying of the siege, then the assault, then the escape attempts. Meanwhile a bunch of strained, stressed, freaked out cops and thugs manage to hold off a Police assault team with high-tech equipment and the quite important advantage of VISION. Then again, in deep night, with the power cut and with a snow storm raging overhead, there is definitely a lot of light coming in, so who really cares about night vision.<br /><br />But the best part comes right at the end. In the first scenes showing Precinct 13, we see it is situated in an outskirt of an industrial city; factories and office buildings surround it on all sides. From this point, the besieged walk maybe a hundred meters in a sewer and where do they end up? Some alley ending right in the middle of a forest! A FOREST! Where did that forest come from? Who decided to lay a pine forest in the middle of an industrial area? How is this forest, in the last scene, suddenly on a hill over the city in question, while in the scenes inside the forest it looked deceptively FLAT?? <br /><br />From here I leave the judgment to you, and to your common sense. Go and see this movie if you're looking for an unintended good laugh, I can really recommend it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the "freaks" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a "freak", the discussion of superficialities between the "freak" and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams "martial-arts coordinator") I just don't know. The character named "Steve" irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did "Splatter", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1.
| 0 |
negative
|
This show is great. Not only is "Haruhai Suzumiya" a very well written anime show, it also reflects things like Philosophy, Science Fiction and a little religion. It's hilarious at some points and "cute" (for lack of a better term) at others. Actually this may be effect to my lack of experience with Japanese anime shows, but it is one of the best of its genre I have seen.<br /><br />I mainly have to give credit to the writers. I haven't seen such brilliant scopes of imagination in a television show since the original Star Trek. I hope the writers continue to add strange new characters and give more insight on the already great characters that have been added.<br /><br />9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Of course, going into it, one would expect it to be a typical, stupid T&A flick, and it is. But it really does have some fairly well thought out humorous moments. Given the era in which it was made, and the obvious exploitation aspect, it is still one of the better B comedies of the time.<br /><br />While watching this movie, you will see quite obviously the inspiration for many of the scenes in "Revenge of The Nerds", and numerous other films of the same genre. Most of the acting is horrible, and WAY over the top, but that's exactly what I expect in a movie like this. What it lacks in the way of acting ability, it more than makes up for with its camp value and complete disregard for anything of merit.<br /><br />The amazing thing about this movie, is that there was obviously some money that went into it. Films like this made today just don't have the same style. If you can turn your brain off, and turn your sense of humor up for an hour and a half, you will enjoy this flick. I dare anyone to not find at least SOMETHING in this movie that they think is funny, if not hilarious.
| 1 |
positive
|
Shah rukh khan plays an obbsessed lover who would go to any lengths to get his lady. Juhi chawla does a wonderful job of making the best of her character and sunny deol plays the hero and action man. this film is very good and i'd reecommend it to anyone.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was really geared up to watch when two of best movie critics tagged this movie as a 'laugh riot'. But the movie turned out be disappointing.<br /><br />You will be advised to watch this movie keeping your brains at home but you simply can't ignore the flaws and the shortcomings.<br /><br />1. The missile scene was total stupidity.<br /><br />2. Katrina Kaif and Govinda pair looked awful. (He's 49 and she's just 24... more than double of her age) 3. Salman's comedy is less of acting and more of overacting.<br /><br />4. Songs are good but interrupts the pace of the movie.<br /><br />5. Some scenes were deliberately attempted by the movie makers to be funny, and 6. Poor and flawed story.<br /><br />However, there are few pluses- 1. Govinda. Great Individual Performance.<br /><br />2. Some scenes are actually quite funny.<br /><br />3. Kattrina Kaif. Looks and Acting keeps on improving with every film.<br /><br />4. Rajpal Yadav's Don sequences. Though under-utilized but hilarious.<br /><br />So 4 good points, 6 bad ones.. this one gets 4/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Who'd a thought suicide could be dealt with in a way that's palpable by everyone? I saw the film at SXSW at it's premier and it turned out to be the best film there by far. Yes, its warped and it's bizarre, but it makes sense in the world the filmmaker (Michael Parness) creates. If you didn't laugh (most everyone did), then you just ain't getting it and thats a darn shame. Particularly of note, Guillermo Diaz as Hector steals a bunch of scenes and the chemistry between Natasha Lyonne and David Krumholtz is intense. The film reminds one of Harold and Maude, but not really, it takes one bizarre spin after another, and they do all make sense in this crazy mixed up world we all live in. I stayed (as did most) for the Q & A afterward and what was great was hearing that the same things I thought in my head as to why things "happened" are the reasons they did. I don't think you can say much bad about the film, unless you didn't get it. I think I got it and it seemed like most everyone else did as well. The film is dubbed a suicidal comedy, but its got a lot of heart, a lot of laughs and offers a lot of hope, yet it doesn't shy away from the horrors of suicide as well. A nice little movie that should get attention when it gets a release, which will hopefully happen sooner rather than later.
| 1 |
positive
|
One cannot help but be impressed with the intelligence and scale of this film, and simultaneously disappointed by the lost opportunities.<br /><br />I found the script to be excellent, and the vocal talent of Edmund Purdom quite impressive. However, as an artifact of its time, the film suffers from too many Hollywood-isms, especially poor casting, too much lushness of the sets, and too much pretentiousness. Edmund Purdom (who plays the title character) is so obviously awkward with physical acting, I suspect he had primarily been in Shakespearean theater before this.<br /><br />So if movie people are reading this, I propose this as an excellent candidate for a remake, especially if you cast real Egyptians as Egyptians!
| 1 |
positive
|
Certainly expected more after seeing the cast list, but WOW!<br /><br />I think a first time director could have done a better job with this project, and the fact that a veteran like John Buechler made it, puzzles me to no end. Somehow, the budget allowed them to secure a bevy of D-List actors, whom they succeeded in embarrassing for an hour and a half. The unknown actors were just plain awful, less Steve Wastell who does a decent job as Axl. The story is so bad, that it really needs no mention. The overall production value seems standard, with some above average camera work, if you can make it through the God-Awful "slo-mo" scenes and the painful "person on fire" sequences. I knew it would be dumb, I just had no idea how dumb, and unfortunately it's time spent that can never be returned to me. I suppose if you enjoy really bad "B" films, this might work for you, but if you value any story at all, this one is simply dreadful... A complete waste of time.
| 0 |
negative
|
I must say that I didn't expect much sitting down to watch "Pitch Black," but I got a lot back, in terms of excitement and pure fun. It's the type of flick where you can just lean back, relax, and have a great time just being entertained. This isn't a deep film by any means. Everything that it offers is either recycled or ripped off of other movies such as "Alien," "Predator" or such. But when I watch a rip-off, I want it to be good, and this rip-off is great. <br /><br />It opens with a galaxy of stars. Some of the greatest films of all time open with this type of scene - "2001," "Star Wars," "Alien," "Predator." A ship is cruising through space when inside the entire cryogenically frozen crew is awoken. The ship has been hit by something. They crash land on a nasty little planet with three suns. Everyone flocks out of the ship when they find that their prisoner transport, Richard Riddick (Vin Diesel), has escaped confinement. They scan the desert planet in search of him and eventually find him, but they have no way of getting their ship to fly again. They search the planet for water and civilization but it seems that everyone suddenly disappeared from the planet not too long ago.<br /><br />Then they find out that every 22 years the planets line up in a solar eclipse and the entire planet turns pitch black. There also happen to be hoards of aliens that thrive in darkness living on the planet - what are the chances? They happen to be on the planet right as the eclipse happens - what are the chances? And Riddick has a rare talent - he can see in the dark - again, what are the chances?<br /><br />There seems to be a lot of coincedence in this movie, but a film like this isn't out to get Oscars for originality or believability. It's there to entertain the audience - it does so with ease. Vin Diesel is a big gorilla of a man with no acting talent whatsoever. But I've got to say if there's anyone who can fit the part of a trashy, homicidal felon it is Diesel. Listen to him mutter, "He did not know who he was fu**ing with." Great stuff.<br /><br />The aliens in this movie are a mix between hammerhead sharks, those from "Alien" and Predators. They've got long, horizontal heads like a hammerhead, the quick-moving agility of the aliens, and the stealth of a Predator. I assume David Twohy (director and writer of the movie) didn't expect audiences to believe his creatures were truly something never seen before. At least I hope not.<br /><br />"Aliens Redux" might be a better name for this movie, but then again, it is better than both the second and third "Alien" films put together. In a time when apparently ended series are getting revived - "Terminator 3," "Alien 5," "Predator 3," "Alien vs. Predator" - "Pitch Black" stands out as a new series altogether. Two more sequels are planned. Let's just hope they don't get carried away. I can just picture it twenty-five years from now: "Aliens vs. Predator vs. Pitch Black Aliens: *The Fight of the Year."<br /><br />*Fight of the Year title may be shared with the upcoming film "Freddy vs. Jason vs. Michael vs. Leatherface vs. Norman Bates vs. Alien vs. Predator vs. Terminator vs. James Cameron vs. Barny the Dinosaur."<br /><br />4/5.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Guidelines state that a comment must contain a minimum of four lines. That is the only reason I am saying anything more about Tomcats. Because after all, my one line summary really says everything there is to say. There is absolutely NOTHING remotely entertaining in this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have a little hobby of finding really cool pics out there that are pretty much unknown -and then letting people know about them This one is on top of my list for getting the word out this summer. This indie film (and I really mean indie--not Miramax, Fox Searchlight indie) might be easy to overlook in the big maze of celluloid, but if you want something completely different--you have to check this one out. <br /><br />Basically, I thought it was totally great. I should have known from the DVD cover, front and back ,that this was going to be something totally different, but, they ALL say that their stuff is different to hook you. Well this one really IS totally different. It's in your face: beautiful and scary and unashamed to tell you to wake up. War, peace, 9/11, poetry, even a eerie sort of music video set to an old time "patriotic" song and a weird guy in an RV. Need I say more? Just see it.
| 1 |
positive
|
This totally UNfunny movie is so over the top and pathetic and unrealistic that throughout the whole 90 minutes of utter torture I probably looked at my watch about 70000 times! Lucy Bell is so much higher than this crap and for her to sink this low is quite depressing. I have to admit that the whole audience I was in was laughing hysterically but the majority were Greek or Italian so I guess that this humour will probably make them laugh but not me. All this movie does is make you sick watching all these slackers make excuses for their stupid actions for 90 minutes. God, and I can never get that 90 minutes back!
| 0 |
negative
|
The best way to have fun in this movie is to count how many clichés it is rehashing. Snarling Chinese gangsters. A female vice-president. A ventilator duct that happens to be big enough to fit a big Caucasian male. Shooting through the wall to kill the bad guy. A Situation where you need to snuff out some innocent people to prevent Armageddon. Independence Day scenes where you snuff out some memorable landmarks in a fireball. The vice president in a nice well lighted room surrounded by subordinates, while the Chinese premier virtually alone in a dark room with just bit of dim light shining, snarling as viciously as the slimy gangsters. A lone hero left alone in a ship (building, airplane, whatever) wreaking havoc on clueless bad guys with big automatic weapons. Etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />The second best way is to count how many zeroes you need to put after the decimal to accurately gauge the probability of the film scenario. I counted up to 45. A president agreeing to a meeting on board a private vessel. The impossibly non-overridable command from the nuke box. The part where the Chinese decided to play shoot 'em up. Etc., etc. Man the earth is more likely fall into the sun than for this film to happen. <br /><br />I admit the film was interesting until the point the evil Taiwanese gangsters kidnapped the President. Then the boredom kicked in. Suspension of disbelief ceased, and I started thinking the fun I'd have torturing this film...
| 0 |
negative
|
It is the best film i have seen in the last 5 years. Surely, it will be in the same row with such masterpieces as The Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Doors, The Dog's Heart (Russian film). Really, the play of the boy and his parents is so good that you can't even say that they "play". No, they LIVE as if it was happening to them. Notice the smile on there faces when the main hero agrees to go for a walk with them. The hate and love in one piece. And the final scene!<br /><br />Really, i'm still under impression of that film. It's very hard, even impossible to combine the humor and the tragedy, but if you succeed (and Frederikson did) the impact would be twice strong.<br /><br />I compared it with "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST". I like this film either (and the novel itself is good, too), but after Frederikson's movie it seems simple. (the same difference I noticed after i watched the film "American history X" and "ROMPER STOMPER" - the latter is deeper). I mean Milos Forman only showed the material point of view of the problem. You watch it, then you say Yes, it's a good film, i like him, i don't like her, and that's it. But "Angels" leave you a wide base to think. There are no bad and good boys in the film. Cause each of them have the right to behave in the way they do. Like the girlfriend of one of the patient. Of course she's young and is pregnant and that is a problem for her that his husband is in the clinic, but the feelings and emotional experience of her exfriend are even stronger (the result is his suicide). Why ask him what have he done? Aren't you insane yourself to ask? Why do not support him, help him, understand him? Finally, it is even funny when those people talk to each other. They say genius things! There are a lot of things I would like to say about this film, but i'm not so good in english. But i'm sure, those of you, who have watched the movie, understand me.<br /><br />Good luck!<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
Bloody awful! There's just no other way to put it. In fact, it's **SO** bad that the only reason I'm wasting words on this is to warn off other reasonable viewers who want to be intelligently entertained. You'll lose I.Q. points watching this. Come to think of it, it's not even suitable for mindless viewing because of the irritation factor. There's no guilty pleasure in watching something this incompetent.<br /><br />Reasons to avoid it:<br /><br />1) Horribly scientifically inaccurate, to the point where this isn't sci-fi anymore, it's just mindnumbingly sloppy, lazy fantasy.<br /><br />2) It sports FX that are cheesy beyond belief. Not even cheesy-kitsch that's a wink and a nod, like vintage Doctor Who, but just cheap and shoddy to the point of being insulting. The FX are so bad they're not even laughable. They spent about a dollar-fifty on this, not more.<br /><br />3) The direction is so weak and mindless that the only way the actors could make it through to the end of shooting without becoming terminally depressed was to sleepwalk through their roles, although Catherine McCormack made some effort anyway, probably on principle and despite the director. Moreover, this isn't Peter Hyams's only bad film: his flubs vastly outnumber any barely salvageable ones, of which Timecop was the last such, and that was 15 years before this writing. he's had nothing halfway decent since (End Of Days was just as slapdash, Arnold was the only draw, and he needed much firmer direction than Hyams provided). Hyams just keeps making it more and more pointless for anyone to consider giving him more work.<br /><br />And finally,<br /><br />4) Ray Bradbury's stories deserve far better treatment than this. Refusing to watch this film sends that message, not that Hollywood is particularly listening.<br /><br />Watch at your own risk. If you do and it turns you off movies altogether, you've only yourself (and Hyams) to blame because you've been more than adequately warned.
| 0 |
negative
|
Darr is an brilliant movie..It is 1 of my favourite films..SRK has done a mind blowing job in the movie....<br /><br />this role couldn't have been played by anyone else because this type of role only suits SRK...<br /><br />SRK plays a mental villain in the film..<br /><br />SRK's performance in this movie is the best performance ever in boll wood...<br /><br />SRK deserves an honour and an encouraging appeal for his fantastic performance...<br /><br />Juhi also delivers an excellent performance..<br /><br />Sunny Deol looked strong and physically fit in the film..
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.