text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
What a drawn out painful experience.<br /><br />That's over two hours of my life I will never get back.<br /><br />This Film Festival Director's delight - is awash with overuse of the long slow shot....however - that's not the only thing that makes a script.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs.
| 0 |
negative
|
... because this is yet another dead one. Lifeless voice acting, second-rate animation, contrived and un-funny songs (although the bit sung by the Devil would have been worthy of Tim Curry), and a weaker plot than Land Before Time 99: Fossils On Parade.<br /><br />I have to admit, I haven't seen the first film. I'm not a big fan of movies involving Heaven or dogs, especially not in combination. Still, I hope to see the first one soon, as there HAD to be a reason someone would create such a God-awful sequel.<br /><br />If I didn't get this movie for free, I wouldn't have it at all. For a 'heaven' flick, the only good thing in this was the Devil. 2/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Foolish hikers go camping in the Utah mountains only to run into a murderous, disfigured gypsy. <br /><br />The Prey is a pretty run of the mill slasher film, that mostly suffers from a lack of imagination. The victim characters are all-too-familiar idiot teens which means one doesn't really care about them, we just wonder when they will die! Not to mention it has one too many cheesy moments and is padded with endless, unnecessary nature footage. However it does have a few moments of interest to slasher fans, the occasional touch of spooky atmosphere, and a decent music score by Don Peake. Still, it's business as usual for dead-camper movies.<br /><br />There are much better films in this vein, but over all The Prey may be watchable enough for die-hard slasher fans. Although one might be more rewarded to watch Just Before Dawn (1981), Wrong Turn (2003), or even The Final Terror (1983) again.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****
| 0 |
negative
|
Life was going great for New York City advertising artist Ted Kramer. He had a great job and a loving wife. No, actually, his wife wasn't so loving, for when Ted returned home late from work that night his wife, Joanna, had a suit case packed and was heading out the door. He tried to stop her, but she just got into the elevator and out of Ted's life. Well, now in addition to his job he's now got to mind the house as well as their 6-year-old son, Billy; Ted assured his boss that his wife's leaving would not affect his job performance in any way. It did however affect his performance as a father. He blew up when Billy spilled punch on his client artwork! Well, some time later Ted and Billy receive a letter from Joanna, and it was obvious from her letter that she wasn't coming back. Ted was distraught. Well, he was late coming home from work on Billy's birthday, which made Billy sore at him. <br /><br />Ted was late to work one day and his boss yelled at him because he had missed a very important client meeting. When he got home, he yelled at Billy for sneaking ice cream during dinner. Then later he truthfully told Billy that the break-up between he and Joanna may have been his fault, not Billy's; Ted invited a good friend, Phyllis Bernard over that night, and well, Billy got his first look at a naked woman. When Ted took Billy to the park the following day, he fell off the jungle gym and landed face-first onto his toy plane. Ted literally ran him to the hospital where they had to administer stitches. After that, life began taking a downward spiral for Ted. Then one day out of the blue he received a phone call from none other than Joanna! They met in a corner café. At first they have a pleasant conversation but then Joanna informs him that she has returned to collect her son and take him with her. Ted would have none of it and stormed out. Well life got even worse for Ted when his boss, Jim O'Connor, took him out to lunch and abruptly fired him. Not only that but Joanna was choosing to sue for custody of Billy, and without a job, Ted didn't stand a chance in hell for winning. He hired himself a lawyer, John Shaunessy, who charged a pretty penny: $15,000 exact change. And that's IF they win. <br /><br />Ted was also able to find a new job. It was actually a step down from what he used to do with a considerable cut in salary but he accepted with great determination. Finally the court date, January 9, 1980, arrived. Judge Atkins presiding. Joanna took the stand and Shaunessy proceeded to question her about why she left Ted and about her other relationships and how they were failures. The next day, Ted took the stand and Joanna's lawyer really grilled him like a cheeseburger. Ted's good friend Margaret took the stand as well and she really didn't help matters. Well, the judge took some time to think it over and sure enough, one day Shaunessy informs Ted that he lost. Joanna got sole custody of Billy. How typical! Always ruling in favor of the mother. Well, Ted and Billy were just devastated about parting ways. They had a tearful goodbye when suddenly Joanna stopped by. She and Ted have a little talk and well, rather than just give away the ending, let me assure everybody that everything turns out alright for everybody!<br /><br />This was a very good movie. Dustin Hoffman was very good. He earned that Academy Award. I've also seen him in Hook, Meet the Fockers and Rain Man, which he also won an Oscar for. Meryl Streep was good. She also got an Oscar. Justin Henry was good too, so where was his nomination? I guess the Academy had a rule against giving Oscars to children, but the rule was lifted when Haley Joel Osment came along. This movie has great drama, light comedy, and is very subtle. It does a good job of holding your attention. I was watching Rain Man on TCM the other night then this came on after and I just couldn't help but watch. And that's what you should do. If you like Dustin Hoffman or Meryl Streep or movies of this genre, then I recommend Kramer vs. Kramer! A gripping film about the pangs of two divorced parents fighting over their child. I liked Ted's little speech about ruling in favor of mothers all the time. What was it about sex that makes a good parents? Actually, that's how they have the child. But seriously, he's right. Why always rule in favor of the mother because she's a woman? Also in the cast, George Coe, Howard Duff, who passed away in 1990, and Howland Chamberlain who passed away in 1984. Watch for an up-and-coming JoBeth Williams in the nudity in the hallway scene. Anyway, see Kramer vs. Kramer today!!! Good movie!!<br /><br />-
| 1 |
positive
|
This is probably the only female Ninja movie ever made. It's great as a B film and the action sequences are a lot of fun to watch. This movie is just so deliciously 80's. You'll never see another film like it. Check it out for some 80's retro fun.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a superb TV series, it's sympathetic and for once realistic! portrayal of lesbian women is delicately handled and well done. On top of that the directing is wonderful and the settings sumptuous and rich, a real treat. If you missed the first one I advise you watch next weeks, 9PM, BBC 2
| 1 |
positive
|
Imaginary Heroes, the remarkable work of the then 24 year-old Dan Harris, is tag-lined "People are never who they seem to be". Perhaps this is wisely chosen as a stratagem of marketing; yet, I rented this movie in spite of the tag-line, rather than because of it. And, I'm glad I did. I found the move an insightful examination of tragedy. I personally found it to be a movie about coping with dreams: particularly those which are lost. In the case of one son, "loss" requires deep examination of what he had, and didn't have, in his life. Yet, the central tragedy of the movie, while posing enticing questions in its own right, acts primarily as the backdrop against which different coping styles are set into relief. I believe the film inquires into an important question: how do we cope with our dreams, particularly where heroes become imaginary?
| 1 |
positive
|
Aaah...The Thing.<br /><br />To see a horror film in which not only is every character over the age of thirty, but distinctly UNattractive, makes a refreshing change, and reminds me of those distant times when actors were chosen because of their talent and their ability to play realistic characters, rather than because of their teen appeal on a magazine cover. And Carpenter chooses a production designer and a cinematographer who can actually create realistic environments rather than over-styled parodies. And there's no gimmicky 'twist' ending, or cameo celebrity appearance, or lame pseudo-romantic subplot.<br /><br />And I REALLY miss on-set physical effects; with all those 20 year old kids trying out crazy new ideas with vats of blood and latex and early animatronics. In the 5 years between 1979 and 1984 we saw Alien, The Elephant Man, Poltergeist, The Howling, An American Werewolf in London, The Thing, The Company of Wolves, A Nightmare on Elm Street...what an era for horror effects! And don't get me started on the death of matte painting. The matte work in this movie is beautiful and seamless.<br /><br />What do we have now? Third rate CGI, former music video directors and professional stylists, that makes even 'gritty' horror movies look like glossy MTV videos.<br /><br />Now I'm going to go Netflix 'The Howling'.
| 1 |
positive
|
George Sanders playing the Saint for the penultimate time does a good job out of a good script - with the usual good RKO cast around. It's a non-Charteris story too, bristling with murders and good clean fun.<br /><br />Thread 1: In New York, Police Inspector Fernack, Templar's friend is framed in a corruption scandal and disgraced - ST comes over from London to try to put things right. Nice and simple so far - but is there really more than $90,000 in the world? Thread 2: Another tale of a woman taking revenge on the people who murdered her brother, Wendy Barrie does well in bumping off some nasty men and having the Saint fall in love with her to boot. Including a baddie who was under their direct protection and in Fernack's cellar - there's a creepy shot of him (dead and staring) and them in a car when they're taking him back to where they'd got him. Paul Guilfoyle as Pearly Gates must have supposed to have been homosexual in this - witness the dressing gown at the beginning, and the later beguiling comment by ST that he was thinking of keeping him as a pet - and did too for "Palm Springs"! Fernack was played by Jonathan Hale as usual but this time with such a beaten deflated attitude that what he really needed was a good slapping from Templar to liven him up.<br /><br />The Hays Office also made sure you got the picture right, all threads are tied up with no straggly bits. Well worth watching for all of us who like this kind of thing, but if Val Kilmer's version is your yardstick then don't bother.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is "realism"? If Rivette was seeking to give us a ground-level study of a woman in a certain place and time and how she was able to influence (and was influenced by) the world around her, he has failed miserably. Most prominently because we never get a clue as to why thousands of men would have followed her into battle. There is certainly not enough exposition of the cultural/historical context to define the country's need for such a savior and, god knows, there is nothing particularly charismatic about Joan as she is presented here. Unless Bonnaire's wooden posturing and flat line readings are supposed to indicate transcendent faith and determination. The use of landscape is particularly uninspired - we never lose the feeling we are watching twentieth century actors wandering in a supposedly medieval landscape. And as for the battle scenes (which, in contrast to some commentors claims, do take up a good 15% of screentime)- they look like look like some some History Club from your local high school recreating a medieval siege, although the kids would no doubt put more passion into it. I will give Rivette credit, however, for picturing a side of Joan left out by other movies: that of a petulant, naive, and narcissistic adolescent (played by a woman all too clearly at least twice the age of the character she is supposed to portray) obviously unable to understand her place within the movement she is helping to create or the world existing outside her own passions. Joan's outrage at her own soldiers swearing and astonishment at the enemy for their lack of respect and obedience to her are jarringly spontaneous and believable notes (you suddenly realize such moments must naturally have occurred)in an otherwise uninvolving historical "representation". Unfortunately they also serve to point out precisely what is not addressed on screen -what made Joan SPECIAL? I must say I also continued to be puzzled and frustrated by certain foreign film lovers who equate tedium and lack of dramatic involvement with "artistry" and "seriousness". Does this film really increase our understanding or involvement with the subject? Or with anything for that matter? 4/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
This comment discusses "North and South Book I" dealing with 1842-1861 period<br /><br />The 19th century history of the USA is mostly identified by people with the Civil War (1861-1865). This is a reasonable opinion because that was Civil War which put the Union under the severe test; that was the Civil War which made Americans realize how precious it is to live in peace; finally, that was this period which at last brought the end to the shameful system of slavery. <br /><br />From the birth of motion pictures, there were people who adapted that time onto screen. D.W. Griffith, in the early 1900s, made his unforgettable BIRTH OF A NATION. Yet, the most famous film about the north-south clash is still, I suppose, GONE WITH THE WIND (1938). Unfortunately, fewer people know the magnificent TV series based on John Jakes' novel, "North and South." It is the very best TV series ever made and the time spent on watching it is really precious. I taped it on my video from Polish TV many years ago and have come back to it with great pleasure many times since then. Why? <br /><br />Firstly, the entire story is deeply rooted in historical reality. The two families, the Maines from South Carolina and the Hazards from Pennsylvania, represent two entirely different ways of life. In spite of that, friendship unites them. Yet, what they experience is the struggle all people do: friendship attacked by "truth" of "political correctness", love attacked by hatred of "legal spouses", gentleness by strength of "social heroes". Orry Maine (Patrick Swayze) is my beloved character - someone who finds love and who is quickly deprived of her; someone who cares for friends but political fanatics step in the way and ruin much. Finally, he is someone who can see the tragic future for his land but there is nothing he can do about the south's inescapable fate. His friend, George Hazard, is similar in most aspects but sometimes he appears to have a stronger character. It is him who shows Orry that although there are tragedies, he must get up from despair and live since life is the most precious thing we have. Although they represent two different lifestyles, their friendship occurs to be stronger than any prejudice, politics or conflicts.<br /><br />Other characters are also particularly well developed. There are villains, like Justin LaMotte or Salem Jones who are really wicked but most of the people are ambiguous as the nature of humanity has always been. Charles Maine is, at first, full of rebellion, prone to fighting, later, however, he learns to be a true southern gentleman for whom southern pride is not courageous words but foremost courageous deeds. Virgilia Hazard represents the most fanatical side of abolitionist movement striving to condemn slavery and punish the owners of "black breeding farms." Her marriage with Grady appears to be a symbol of equality but also a symbol of saying "NO" to the politics of the south. Two interesting characters are Orry's sisters, Brett and Ashton - sisters in whose veins runs entirely opposite blood. Brett, in her gentleness but also naiveness, believes in absolute fidelity. She marries Billy, even though he is a northerner, because she truly loves him. Brett is the representation of all that is precious in any young woman. Ashton, however, is a vamp, a tigress, a woman who does not hesitate to do the most wicked things. The clear picture of their world views clash is their chat about men and family...unforgettable moment and how universal! Most characters head for their values...yet, war breaks out and they'll have to put aside a lot...<br /><br />Secondly, the performances... someone said that not all people act naturally. I wouldn't say that. I'd rather say that all cast do very good jobs in their parts from the main characters who are portrayed by younger staff to the guests that consist of famous stars, including Liz Taylor, Robert Mitchum and others. Patrick Swayze as Orry does a great job. I consider this role one of his best ones. Lesley Anne Down as Madeleine is also very memorable. Her part, perhaps, entails too much suffering but she manages to express all sorts of feelings really well. Kirstie Alley is very appealing and truly memorable as the abolitionist Virgilia Hazard. Phillip Casnoff is worth consideration as horribly ambitious Elkanah Bent as well as David Carradine as a monster husband, disgusting Justin LaMotte. And, in contrast to him, a mention must be made of Jean Simmons who is truly excellent as Orry's mother whose heart beats for the glory of family life and concord of union. <br /><br />Thirdly, memorable moments of "North and South" leave an unfading trace in one's mind. Who can forget the first meeting of Orry and Madeleine - what charm, what gentleness there is in this scene! Or is it possible to skip the moment when Madeleine's father dies? I found it really powerful, there is a real drama in this moment, a drama of a woman being left by someone who really loved her. I also liked Churubusco sequence and George Hazard so worried about the life of his dearest friend, Orry. Then his meetings with Constance are terrific. Virgilia's speech in Philadelphia is a masterpiece of performance. And the final moment of the first part: although North and South may separate, their friendship will never die. Orry and George symbolically join hands as the train moves on. Simply, there are so many beautiful and powerful scenes that it's impossible to mention even half of them here. And these gorgeous tunes by Bill Conti and shot in brilliant landscapes. The music in "North and South" is very touching and memorable.<br /><br />What to say in the end? "North and South" is a real must have on DVD, simply an amazing TV series about the victory of all that is precious in us: love, friendship, loyalty, honor, truthfulness, absolute fidelity. 9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
An hulking alien beastie crash-lands on Earth and soon wrecks havoc upon the populace first using his laser ray gun to dissolve into dust almost every human he catches sight off (that is when his aim isn't terribly off) and later his bare claws with which he likes to rip out and eat human spleen! <br /><br />All in all, it's pretty silly stuff. I do have to give it some points for being somewhat fun at times. I actually enjoyed the mindless ray gun battle at the beginning and some of the later over the top gore effects. However it doesn't help when the monster provides the movie's only truly entertaining moments and he isn't on screen for a large portion of the film's running time. The acting throughout this is just plain awful and amateurish and our lead hero Sheriff Cinder is much too unattractive to be bagging the film's hottest chick. I also have to take off points for blatantly copying THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951) on several occasions. When the monster isn't on a rampage, NIGHTBEAST is far too dull and eventually his attacks become so repetitive and predictable even they become less fun. Watch this one back to back with the 1951 THING and see the difference characterization, attention to plot and detail and creating suspense makes to a monster on the loose movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.<br /><br />Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.<br /><br />Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!<br /><br />Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for?
| 1 |
positive
|
Story of an ex-Navy Seal who is now a combat medical officer assigned to a state of the art Russian sub with a nurse. This is to answer a call for help set off by a dying member of the original crew. The sub has been overtaken by terrorists who are bent on destruction. So we see the duo try and gain control back. And this happens with the fear of the US Naval Forces is about to unleashing everything it has got on the terrorist sub to prevent it from launching its arsenal. Be careful of the early explicit sexual scene in the first quarter of the movie. A couple of unexplained scenes towards the end. Watch it when you have the time. Nothing to miss out even if you let the show run while you go get yourself a cup of coffee: slow moving.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a truly great film, with excellent direction. The core plot element, the painting of mila's ass is captivating. I really can't express in words just how much I enjoyed watching Mila getting her ass painted repeatedly.<br /><br />Connor
| 1 |
positive
|
Following the advice of a friend, I got myself this movie. I'm very fond of computers in general - hence why a 1995 film about identity theft on the Internet could not be left unseen. I had some bad echoes about it, but in the end, I wasn't so disappointed : the story, though classical, is kind of interesting and must have been really new back in the days when it was released in theatres. I was gladly surprised when I figured out that contrary to what we usually see, computer-performed actions are somehow realistic, as they use Windows 3.x and normal computers. The storytelling is median and not bothering the viewer. The end is typically American. The actors' performance is globally OK, Sandra Bullock usually annoys me with her "oh my god why me" way to behave, but this time she seems to have controlled herself. I'd recommend that movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
am a hardcore horror/thriller fan...when i was searchin for good horror flick to scare me on my weekend night..grabbed HATCHET..with impressing BLOOD STAINED HATCHET movie poster added to average ratings in IMDb..but i was wrong after watchin this crap...no characterisation..sick dialogues,with sexy babes bared boobs. i got the feel of watchin porno certainly..and the substory which so called main theme or suspense of the story SUCKS big time....and here comes the CLOWN wearin funny mask to scare..THINK users rated this movie went nuts ..it deserves 1 out of 10 i give 2 for bare boobs babes n soundtrack it has...
| 0 |
negative
|
I just saw this movie tonight(5th Nov. 2005)for the first time. I wanted to watch it cause I saw the basketball diaries(Leonardo Di Caprio) and loved that but this was far more heavy going. I think it had a good depiction of drugs to an extent. I empathize mostly with Nick Stahls character, probably because if I someone I was crazy about was on that stuff I'd want to help them get off it. A promising student and athlete who spends all his time training and studying-well it's understandable that he'd want to try teenage life(the crazy side of it) and in his efforts as what begins is helping his friend he ends up addicted because he wanted to see what it is all about and because of his horrendous family situation which results in his most tragic death. A truly sad film but one flaw i noticed is that you don't get a good enough insight into the damage it does to families but apart from that, excellent performances on a truly heartbreaking movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, don't bother. This film looks so tired, the acting is so old-fashioned, and the plot and characters so drab, that it should be studied instead of watched. It is really a horrible waste of film; Stereotypes, clichés, nonsense, and amateurish film-making. I watched it in unbelievable awe with my mouth wide open. How could such a film be made, and more interestingly, how could anyone find it funny or watchable? Old, tired, sloppy... a junior-high skit, at best. There is nothing watchable there, except for a study of very ancient film. Not good film, just ancient. This is not Abbott and Costello or Laurel and Hardy. This is nonsense. The acting is so bad that maybe it is worth it to watch just for the laugh. Some films are so bad that they are good. But, this one goes all the way around the corner and back to bad again.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie changes its way a third of the way in.its totally pointless boring and stupid.i hated this movie so much that i will never watch it again.some bad films can be really funny. this is just a British art house picture that should never of been made.1 out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
HUNT FOR JUSTICE is a Canadian television drama that has made it to DVD and that is reason for gratitude for those who hunger for educational dramas that inform us about facts of current history that somehow get buried in the media. The film is not a Hollywood production, it relies heavily on footage from court files, but it also introduces to many of us the act of heroism of Louise Arbour in bringing about the trial of Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic.<br /><br />Louise Arbour (veteran Canadian actor Wendy Crewson) is a Canadian judge appointed by NATO as the Chief War Crimes Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. The film begins in 1996 when Arbour travels to The Hague to face the political obstacles that are preventing the Tribunal to bringing to justice the war criminals in the war Yugoslavia has been waging in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia, a war that has gross evidence of crimes against humanity in the form of genocide, extermination camps, and other heinous abuses. The progress toward bringing the criminals to justice is hampered by generals (including one played by William Hurt) who fear a major World War if precautions against same are infringed upon. Arbour, with the keen help of her translator Pasko Odsak (Stipe Erceg), her staff including Keller (Heino Ferch) and the unexpected assistance from British Capt. John Tanner (John Corbett), forges ahead, focusing the impossible task of bringing all responsible parties to justice on three specific events. Two of the three top suspects are captured but during their trials each meets his end. This leaves only Slobodan Milosevic himself, and Arbour and her colleagues are successful in bringing the war criminal to justice in 1999.<br /><br />There are several touching side plots employed in the telling of this well-documented tale, stories that make the point in history more personal. Some may find the film footage of corpses and prisoners and death camps too strong to watch, but they are necessary to bring home the purpose of the film. Wendy Crewson carries the power to drive the message home - the message that war crimes must never go unpunished. There is much current history to be learned from this film: writers Ian Adams, Riley Adams and M.A. Lovretta have condensed the information and made it dramatic as well. Director Charles Binamé balances the docudrama with the story progress, never forgetting that he has a tale of intrigue to tell as well. HUNT FOR JUSTICE is worth watching! Grady Harp
| 1 |
positive
|
So many people loved this movie, yet there are a few of us IMDb reviewers who found Mirrormask excruciatingly uncomfortable to watch and arse-clenchingly boring. I fall into the latter of these two camps, and I will try to explain what it was that made my toenails curl so unpleasantly.<br /><br />Firstly, to set the record straight - I like Neil Gaiman's books. I sometimes find his knowing, sarcastic, 'wry asides' humour a little geeky, and I actually prefer his work when he is playing it straight and leaving the jokes alone - but, even with his occasional lapses into crap 'dad' gags, I find his creativity and imagination to be something a bit special.<br /><br />Interestingly, one of Gaiman's strongest works is Coraline, a Gothic fairy story for kids that is very low on jokes and high on tension and creepiness. His latest novel (Anansi Boys) overdoes the funnies, and tends to read at times like Terry Pratchett does the Sisters of Mercy (not the nuns but the band). Mirrormask inhabits similar territory to Coraline, and when I saw the stunning visuals in the trailer, I got a bit excited that somebody had managed to transfer Gaiman's spectacular vision and imagination to the screen.<br /><br />In praise of the film, some sequences do look stunning. However, the visual effects are occasionally ruined by CGI animation that looks like a Media Studies student project. Backgrounds and scenery are often incredible, but some of the character animation looks clumsy, amateur and cheap. In an early dream sequence, the spider is animated beautifully, but the book-eating cat-beast looks poorly rendered and very 'computer generated'. Compared with the standard of animation found in productions such as 'The Corpse Bride', Mirrormask occasionally looks very amateur indeed. However, in Mirrormask's defence, the budget was tiny for such a grand vision, and a few creaks in the effects can be understood and forgiven.<br /><br />What cannot be forgiven is the stilted, stagy, cringeworthy and pretentious dialogue. The actors struggle desperately with the dialogue - and there is so much of it that they are constantly hampered and stumbling over it. Conversation is rendered completely unnatural, the jokes fall flat time and time again, and the turgid speeches appear to be the writer's only method of plot exposition. Combined with the fact that the actors are working against a blue screen (which always adds an element of 'Phantom Menace') - this renders the film almost unwatchable. In such an unreal setting the actors need to work twice as hard to be believed, and in the main they fail terribly. The girl who plays the lead role puts in a valiant struggle against the impossible stage-school dialogue, and occasionally shows real promise, but it is never enough. The god-awful cod-'Oirish' of the Valentine character (with whom she is forced to spend an inordinate amount of screen time) puts paid to any chance of this young actress rising above the material. It appears to be Valentine's job to explain the plot to younger viewers, and to add a bit of light relief. Personally, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my 15 year old daughter.<br /><br />What else is wrong with this film? Answer....Rob Brydon. What's annoying (for us Brits, anyway) is we know Rob Brydon can act! We've seen him hold the screen for half-an-hour on his own (doing those 'Marion & Geoff' monologues), and in the first 'real world' bit of the film he is fine. However, stick him in front of a blue screen and he loses all sense of character and turns into the worst am-dram-ham I've seen in years. A real shame.<br /><br />What else is wrong? Answer... the wanky slap-bassing, sub-Courtney Pine saxing and unlistenable, too-high-in-the-mix soundtrack that never shuts up. God, the music is incessant, loud, distracting, irrelevant and, if that isn't enough, has wanky slap bass wanking all over it. It makes the dialogue very hard to hear, but that could be a blessing in disguise.<br /><br />What else is wrong with it? Answer.... The whistling mime artist. In modern society there should be no place for mime, apart from certain secret places in France. Every moment the camera lingers on the gurning, whistling, moss-juggling, yogurt-weaving idiot, I understand why the Edinburgh locals get a bit anxious and fractious when Festival time comes round again.<br /><br />My final criticism is that the film is pretty dull. Surrealism often is dull it either requires its audience to slip into a dreamlike, Zen, accepting state, or for the audience be constantly wowed by bigger and grander surprises. A story with a bit of pace involving characters that we could believe in and care about would have gone a long way to giving this film the emotional centre that it sadly lacked, whilst stopping the eyelids from drooping.<br /><br />Finally, apologies to all those who found depth, meaning and wonder in this film. You have managed to suspend your disbelief, you have seen past the creaky CGI, ignored the crappy dialogue and the abysmal performances that resulted, and understood the maker's grand, imaginative vision. I wanted to, but I couldn't see past the real-world failings that dragged it down.<br /><br />I hope Neil Gaiman gets it right next time, if he gets (or even wants) the opportunity.
| 0 |
negative
|
Roy Thinnes and Joan Hackett are superb in this 1970 melodrama. The lush settings, the haunting music, and plot twists make it a truly interesting film. I had seen it when it first came out on TV. Once more it aired when I had a VCR, but I did not have a chance to tape it. Would love it on VHS if someone has a copy. Apart from the suspense (which is worked in beautifully) I feel the story is unique, and is pretty much true to the book, MRS. MAITLAND'S AFFAIR by Margaret Lynn. I would say that it was one of the greatly overlooked best films of the 1970's out of movies made for TV. I have given the film a number #10 rating, because it is done with so much originality. There is a true pathos and air of romance which has the viewer sympathizing with the culprit.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is what movies should aspire to. Funny without being totally stupid, a little sexy without having every female in the cast show her boobs, biting without resorting to 'f-bombs' every line. I've been seeing Justin Long pop up in a lot of films over the past few years, I figured with the right role he could break out. (Mac commercials not withstanding.) This film just might put him on a fast track to the A list. The rest of the cast also did their jobs perfectly, this is an excellent little film with a nice message. (But you don't need to buy the message to have a good time.) Lewis Black is, as usual, hilarious, and Blake Lively is a fresh faced beauty. <br /><br />Take a couple hours and see this film, they will not have been wasted.
| 1 |
positive
|
Poorly acted and poorly directed, "Congo" unsuccessfully tries to recreate the feeling of "Jurassic Park". But the truth is, the book wasn't all that great either. Still, the movie's first problem is that Tim Curry's character was added; the second problem is that the talking arm was added; the main problem, though, is that the cast members don't create realistic characters. I guarantee that this movie will not make you think that there are killer gorillas anywhere on earth. Also starring Laura Linney (happy birthday, Laura!), Dylan Walsh, Ernie Hudson, Grant Heslov, Joe Don Baker, James Karen and Bruce Campbell; I'm guessing that they don't wish to emphasize this movie in their resumes.
| 0 |
negative
|
Just had the misfortune to see this truly awful film.<br /><br />Think of that scene in Magnolia at the end with the slow pan in on that woman. Now, remove the pan, add breathing and unshaven men to the mix, and you have what the entire 2 and a half hours of Humanity was<br /><br />The Inspector is a true dolt, not even a dolt, just a dim witted, slow moving simpleton. How they ever solved a crime is beyond me.<br /><br />Obligatory sex scenes are awful, and gratitious.<br /><br />Eventual villain of the piece (he raped and killed an 11 year old girl) is signposted very early and no surprise unless your are similarly dimwitted.<br /><br />Uninspiring camera work.<br /><br />The director was there saying that it is up to the audience to provide their own interpretation on the proceedings. I assume he also meant provide their own dialogue (there is bugger all - adding to its boredom level), inventive camera work (just static shots, totally stripping away the obvious beauty of the landscape the film is being shot in) and plot!<br /><br />Truly awful.<br /><br />0 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
I remember when I first saw this movie. I was babysitting for a friend of my mums, and one of the kids suggested we watch it. Thinking it was the frankly laughable 'Prince of Thieves' they were slipping into the video recorder, I was prepared for a few hours of boredom, What I got came as a shock, a pleasant one I'll admit, but still a shock.<br /><br />Now, you all know the Robin Hood legend don't you? I shall explain a little. Robin Hood was a Saxon criminal, nicking money here and there and giving it to people who needed it, all the while seducing the beautiful Maid Marion, and vexing the Sheriff of Nottingham and prince john. That's the basics! Now, on with the review.<br /><br />This movie was released in 1993, and is a take off of the whole Robin Hood legend and a p--- take of Prince of Thieves in particular.<br /><br />Loosely following the legend, Robin of Loxley is first encountered in an Arabic prison during the third century crusades, and together with a 'Moor' as they were called in those days, he executes a cunning escape with a cellmate, Asneeze.<br /><br />After escaping, Asneeze beseeches Robin to find his son Atchoo, a foreign exchange student in England and look out for him. This Robin vows to do! Robin swims back to England.<br /><br />He returns to his home, Loxley castle to find it being wheeled away on the back of the cart by Bailiffs, and goes through he sorrowful revelation that his father, dog, cat, and even the goldfish are all dead. Desperate for a familiar face, he finds the family's loyal blind servant Blinkin sitting on the toilet with a Jazz mag in Braille. The hilarity continues throughout the movie.<br /><br />As with all Robin Hood stories, Robin must thwart the evil plans of Prince John and the sheriff of Rottingham, who are wreaking havoc and charging exorbitant taxes on King Richards's kingdom while he's away.<br /><br />Those familiar with the movies Mel Brooks has previously directed will have some small idea of what to expect. After all, this is the man responsible for Dracula-dead and loving it and young Frankenstein. All the jokes, which range from visual gags to wonderful witty comments are in exactly the right places throughout the movie, with never more than a minute between laughs.<br /><br />Cary Elwes (incidentally the only English man to play Robin Hood in a movie), who many of you will know from Princess Bride brings his cheeky grinning twinkle eyed presence to this movie, and does a wonderful job. From outlandish heroic posturing, to a wickedly sexy glance, he really is amazingly funny. And the man looks better in tights than I do!<br /><br />Richard Lewis is hilarious as the whiny, arrogant Prince John with the ever-changing mole. He gets the sissy-boy behaviour down to a tee, and his whinging American vocalisations are great. All the way through the movie, a mole on his face constantly changes position: it starts on his left cheek, then over to his right cheek, then his chin, then his forehead, before going back to it's original place. This is a subtle joke based on the mole on Alan Rickman when he played the sheriff in Prince Of Thieves<br /><br />Roger Rees as the sleazy sheriff of Rottingham is marvellously slimy and nasty, and has some great lines throughout the film.<br /><br />There are some faces here you'll be familiar with from other Brooks films. For instance Robert Ridgely, playing the hangman in this film also played the hangman in Blazing Saddles, another film directed by Brooks. He likes to add subtle references to his earlier films too; with several in this film that die-hard Brooks fans will easily spot. Those who watched History of the World part 1 will recognise the music to the song 'Men in Tights'. Also, when Patrick Stewart arrives and snogs Marion, Mel himself (playing Rabbi Tuckman) utters the line 'it's good to be a king', one of his lines in History of the world.<br /><br />The whole cast is wonderfully comedic, even those with only a few lines bring a great depth of warmth and humour to them<br /><br />What makes this film so wonderfully warm and funny in my own opinion are all the improvised scenes. Although there was a script of sorts, some scenes were completely improvised by the actors themselves, such as the scene where Latrine (Tracey Ullman) prays for Rottingham in her bed, and he falls through the ceiling, landing right where she wanted him, which was totally devised and thought out by the two actors.<br /><br />There are few special effects, and those that are there are small but fun moments of computerised camera trickery.<br /><br />The soundtrack is memorable, with some very funny songs, and a couple of cheesy love songs. You'll be singing 'Men in tights' or at least humming it to yourself, for weeks.<br /><br />The rating is Pg, to which I say BAH HUMBUG. There is no bad language in the film, except in the use of double entendre, and one utterance of sh!t, and violence is minimal. In fact I'd go as far as to say non-existent, apart from a few comedy fight scenes.<br /><br />A great fun film that adults and children alike will enjoy!
| 1 |
positive
|
Let me start off by saying that I loved the original Grudge. It was bar none one of the scariest, most hair-rising experiences I've ever had in a filled movie theatre. I'm not kidding. Being a self-declared japanophile also made the flick look better in my eyes (if the setting had been changed to some American suburb I probably would've ended up hating the film).<br /><br />That said... this movie is a complete mess! I won't say it sucks, because A) the movie does have some good points, B) "it sucks" is the lamest put-down in the history of lame put-downs. So what does the movie have going for it? Well, for starters it has a pretty cool look: through filters and the use of bleak, washed-out colours, Takashi Shimizu almost recreates the downbeat, angst-ridden atmosphere of the original. A few scenes are genuinely shocking and unpredictable. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is just plain bad. Period.<br /><br />The story is all over the place, needlessly told Tarantino style, i.e. the scenes are out of chronological order. This technique is pointless in the case of this movie and it merely makes things more confusing. Frankly, a straightforward plot would've worked better. The original was also lacking plot-wise, but it did make sense and the film more than made up for its thin plot with lots of scares and a genuinely tense atmosphere. Grudge 2 has none of these elements and is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Let's not forget the TV-show acting skills which make the cast of the original Grudge look like Emily Watson and Katherine Hepburn. Simply put, the movie doesn't work. It's too slow, too dull, and just not scary enough to make up for the confusing plot (which adds nothing new to the story, by the way, so not even Grudge fans will be pleased).<br /><br />Oh, and what is it with the old man playing Japanese peek-a-boo on the bus?? Is this supposed to be comic relief? Artistic statement? Or what?
| 0 |
negative
|
I have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in "The Undiscovered Country" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a "buddy movie" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole "Sha-Ka-Ree" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of "Star Trek III" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.
| 0 |
negative
|
As I've hopped from film to film at the SXSW Film Festival, this film from the opening night has stayed with me. Curious, because it is a dark comedy with quite an absurdist premise.<br /><br />A family of hyper-stressed fundamentalists in a small community of like minds is changed by an auto accident. Three of the four have the same near-death experience in which they are fully opened, as each receives a reversal of the concept of original sin (I won't spoil this scene with the specifics). The fourth, a middle school cheerleader, is not just the only one physically hurt, but also is unchanged and is now witness to what has become her crazy, apparently spiritually bankrupt, family. Every new moment brings a new outrageousness as they have become innocently naked and frank in every way, horrifying her and then the community.<br /><br />Forgiving the Franklins has the most beautiful sexual awaking scene between a husband and wife that I have ever seen, to the Sarah Brightman song "Deliver Me," a song that can now bring tears to my eyes.<br /><br />The cast is terrific. Robertson Dean as the dad, Vince Pavia as the son and Aviva as the cheerleader daughter are excellent, Mari Blackwell plays Peggy, the mom's questioning neighbor and best friend perfectly, a much more nuanced, fleshed out, real character than what might have been (everyone in middle America knows a Peggy). And Theresa Willis positively glows as Betty, the mom. There are lots of risks taken by the actors playing the three changed characters, and these risks pay off.<br /><br />I hope this film gets a wide release - if so, I plan to see it again.<br /><br />Very accurate review at: http://www.fosteronfilm.com/phil/forgiving.htm
| 1 |
positive
|
I really wanted to like this movie, but the pacing was just way too slow.<br /><br />It was a nice story, but it was really like watching a slug race.<br /><br />The movie would have been better served, if it had some more action. I don't mean anything grand, but at least something in the background.<br /><br />It could have also been helped by songs that set the tone/mood of the more lengthy periods that were absent of dialogue.<br /><br />It's been about 10 years since I've seen it, so I may have to give it another chance.<br /><br />3/10 or *1/2(out of four)
| 0 |
negative
|
You can tell that this is the first offering by the Director (who also wrote it), but you can also see the potential this guy has. This is an obviously low budget film in the spirit of Boondock Saints. Of course, Boondock Saints came out a few years after this, so you could look at this as a diamond in need of some polish. The acting was good - if you're looking for DeNiro or Michael Madsen in a crime drama, remember that these are young guys, playing young guys trying to be criminals. They're not going to be "supercool" (tm) like some of the veterans. I would have love to have seen Justin Pagel (Joe - the main character) go on to make more movies - he was great in this. Good movie - 3 stars out of 5.
| 1 |
positive
|
Aaliyah blows all the female cast members out of the water, including the official love interest Marguerite Moreau.<br /><br />I would have loved to see this movie play out as Akasha's power trip. Aaliyah is simply electrifying whenever she is on the screen. She does sensual, beautiful and menacing to the power of 10. Watching her take on a bar full of vampires is a sight to behold.<br /><br />Lena Olin is cast in the ungrateful role of "the older woman", which is hugely unjustified. She looks fantastic and at 46 (according to the IMDb) still looks stunning.<br /><br />The story unfortunately is very limited plot wise, we've seen it all before, etc.<br /><br />The most heart wrenching is Akasha's death scene, especially keeping in mind what happened to Aaliyah after filming.<br /><br />All in all, a remarkable vampire movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
This has got to be one of absolute worst movies I've ever seen in my life. The writing and acting are just pathetic. It ranks right up there with Uncle Sam on the all time worst movies ever made. However, when I see crap like this able to make it to video, it really inspires me to pursue my wild dreams of making films because I know I could do a better job than what the makers of Killers did.
| 0 |
negative
|
Diane Keaton is a pathetic actress. She is so boring and phony. She is the same on and off screen. I saw her in an interview with Ellen Degeneres and she behaves exactly the same as she does in movies. Her foolish facial expressions make me want to change channels. She has been in a couple of good movies, but they would have been better had someone else been picked for the part. Steve Martin doesn't add much to the movie either. He over acts as well and also ruins an old favorite. The ridiculous part Martin Short plays only adds more idiocies to the movie. I've tried to watch the movie twice but both times had to turn it off.
| 0 |
negative
|
I've seen just about all of the Coen brothers' films now, and I have to say this is one of their better films. I wouldn't dare say it's better than "The Big Lebowski", but it was very good in it's own right.<br /><br />I thought the story was very interesting and hilarious at times. I loved all the characters, especially Tim Blake Nelson (Delmar) and John Turturro's (Pete).<br /><br />There really isn't anything bad I can say about this movie, but this movie isn't for everyone. It might be safe to say that if you liked the other Coen brothers' films, then you'll hopefully like this one too. And if you liked what you saw in the trailer, I think you'll like the film, but don't hold me to it.<br /><br />Anyhow, I hope that you like(d) the film as much as I do. Thanks for reading,<br /><br />-Chris
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a cult film for many reasons. First because of the phenomenal success as a musical both in Broadway and London, then as a musical film. The film is close to the play and some of the provocation of the play is no longer provocative twelve years later. The discourse against the Vietnam war is no longer a protest song against the war itself, but a strong song demonstrating how the young people of these late 60s managed to bring the political establishment down. Milos Forman play with some situations at the end of the 70s like the narrow minded justice, the self-centered umbilical righteousness of the rich or of the little ones who have just one rank of power more than the powerless. He also heavily plays with the racial element and the sexual ambiguity he builds all the time. The film remains pleasant and thoughtful. And of course it is a tremendous thrill to remember these years when we have had the privilege, and that was not a chance, to live them. November 11, 1969, Nixon ordering mass celebration for the 1918 armistice, which became the order for teachers at all levels to take their students to the celebration and the march, supporting thus the invasion of Cambodia that was in full swing. And some dare give lessons in democracy to foreign countries. I also remember the long campaign for the impeachment of Nixon in 1973-1974 that will eventually lead to his resignation and the swearing in of Gerald Ford, the first Vice President, and eventually President, of the US who had not been elected, since he was appointed Vice President by the Senate after Spiro Agnew had to resign to face trial, conviction and sentence for embezzlement. Of course that makes us think of today when in 2000 a president of the US was not elected by the people but by the Supreme Court, or of a war that was rejected by millions world wide from the very start, and even before the start, and was started against the better judgment of the United Nations and of three permanent members of the Security Council. And some speak of a new world order based on the respect of others. Modern Western man seems to have some problems understanding that the world is changing and has already widely and wisely changed. Modern Western man seems to be kind of out of sync and to need special evening classes to learn that democracy wants the majority in the world to be the majority, and the West is far from that majority, and that if the Soviet block had been able to understand that market economy is not capitalism but that market economy can be either socialist or capitalist the Berlin Wall would have fallen, but the other way round, and that China has learned that lesson marvelously well and is at the foot of the wall they have to climb over to learn that their socialist market economy has to lead to political democracy, but they will, just like Vietnam was able to reconstruct itself after thirty years of vicious war aggression and damage. In other words, Hair is a perfect food for thought.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
| 1 |
positive
|
I was lucky to see this sequel before the original because i'm not sure i would have gone out of my way to see it if the contrary had been true. I found "Mission Cléopâtre" better than it's predecessor for different reasons, but the major one is this : it was almost word for word an adaptation of one book not an amalgam like the first movie. The physical resemblance of some characters to their animated self were very funny especially the bad guy (who's name is escaping me, but he's the other architect). I don't know how this movie played in English; my first language is french so i didn't have that problem... I imagine some of the jokes weren't that easy to translate. I've learned something with years it's better to watch a movie with the subtitles than with the dubbing maybe you wont understand what is said, but you wont lose the rhythm and i think that's important too. I would recommend this movie to anyone who really loves "Astérix et Obélix".
| 1 |
positive
|
Bette Midler is the best thing about this movie. It is a POOR second to the original from 1962 with Natalie Wood as Gypsy. The songs were done much better in the original and the costumes were better. Bette's voice was great and she looked better in most of the costumes compared to Cynthia Gibb. Only someone who has not seen the original would think this a good movie.<br /><br />There was not enough of a change between ugly duckling to beautiful girl. When Natalie Wood was Gypsy she only was seen as beautiful when she got into the dress with her gloves for the first time to perform in the burlesque show. When she has her hair down and then magically it is all done up beautifully and she looks so elegant, it is an important aspect to the movie because it is also the first time Gypsy sees herself as something special and that she might actually be a star, not just a poor substitute to her sister. And the scenes where she slowly becomes more famous were rushed through. It was an important part of the movie and they butchered it. It is critical to show her becoming more comfortable with her future as a stripper and the costumes are amazing in these scenes in the original. It was a huge let down to watch it unfold in this movie. I was completely disappointed and had it not been for Bette Midler I would have shut the movie off.
| 0 |
negative
|
The story line of a man's love for an innocent baby he finds with a malformed face and on the opposite side of the world a shallow self centered "valley girl" who shares a birth date with her and ends up making a big difference in both of there lives. What a great and worthy story line. But in this telling the screen writing and/or directing and/or editing is so poor as to take most of the joy out of the story. Linda Hamilton's character goes from understanding mom to wicked witch and back faster than a speeding bullet, and for what purpose? Conflict, conflict, conflict, at the drop of a hat. Katie (The California Girl) and her boyfriend, Katie's Mom and everybody, including the poor lady at the airport check-in counter, Lin's adopted father, who is the nicest, most considerate man alive, and his wife and biological son, all in constant conflict. I really wanted to enjoy a heartwarming story, but the only thing that made me SMILE was when all the hate and fighting were over. There were too many unexplained or illogical events, many of which don't add to the story. My wife and I kept looking at each other and asking ourselves how such a good cast and what should be a great story, could be crapped up so badly.
| 0 |
negative
|
In the 60's Cleveland television audiences could watch a episode of "Flash Gordon" as part of the Ghoulardi Show (11:30PM Friday). This was the best mockfest material any of us in junior high had ever seen. We would have regular "sleepovers" (although we did not call them that) just to get in on the fun of watching this stuff with a group of friends. Then the next week we would quote our favorite cornball lines from the latest episode.<br /><br />Watching it today provokes much the same reaction. But if you can stop laughing at the dialogue, the lame creatures, the silly costumes, and the horrible spaceships long enough, there are some good things I did not appreciate the first time through. The production designers built some excellent sets, both the rooms and the laboratory devices. Charles Middleton's "Ming the Merciless" character was the all-time best screen villain, certainly up to that time and arguable better than anyone since. Jean Rogers is staggeringly beautiful.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
| 1 |
positive
|
I think we are supposed to think what wonderful salt-of-the-earth characters. Unfortunately, this is lame and laboured.<br /><br />As always with any production set in Newcastle, there are numerous shots of the Tyne Bridge and frequent attempts to show what great 'characters' Geordies are. The viewer is never allowed to forget where the film is set, as though the rest of the world cared about Newcastle and its inhabitants.<br /><br />If you like well observed, literate and original work stay well clear.
| 0 |
negative
|
This video has audio that is meant for someone to hear during their sleep. And the same can be said for the video.<br /><br />Morgan and his wife pretending to rough it at minimum wage jobs? With a camera rolling? And his little wifey-poo complaining? Give me a break. They are both rich. They are sitting in their fake $350/month apartment filming this with their $1,000/month each video crew of 12.<br /><br />I used to respect Morgan, but now his "30 days" experience is nothing more than trying to fool any volunteer viewers who are willing to be fooled.<br /><br />C'mon Morgan, you are being filmed doing a $6.00 an hour job and you are being paid by naive employers who don't see those big cameras filming the whole thing?? And we aren't to think they aren't paying you under the table?
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the best comedy period. It is so underrated! Clever witty humor, Great casting! Jerry Stiller is the jewel in the show, he is so incredibly funny and quirky, simply a comical genius! Doug and Carrie have great chemistry! I so do not see what the hype is about when it comes to Everybody loves Raymond it is SO overrated with lame jokes mostly forced humor and just not the witty show, I can't remember laughing in more than 1 episode. King of Queens is a rare comedy that has all the right ingredients to give you serious belly laughs which is normally caused by Arthur Spooner, I think its about time this comedy gets the hype it deserves and not the lame Raymond & CO.
| 1 |
positive
|
When the circus comes to town and places the lion's cage directly over Bugs Bunny's home, Bugs ends up somewhere in the range right between freaked out and intrepid. Despite the title "Acrobatty Bunny", it's only at the end when Bugs and the lion perform acrobatics. But even leading up to that, it's quite funny what Bugs does to escape getting eaten; somehow, he always manages to use the other character's weakness against him, and then pull any convenient object out of thin air! Bugs later ended up in the circus in "Big Top Bunny". I liked this one better, as the latter got drug down a little bit by giving the antagonist an Eastern European accent (I know that it was during the Cold War, but still). I recommend this one.<br /><br />And with the end, we can affirm that it'll never be Aloha Oe for this cartoon.
| 1 |
positive
|
The film is a remake of a 1956 BBC serial called'My Friend Charles',& as such gallops thru the material in a relatively short time.I found it fast moving,enjoyable & unpretentious.Did anyone else notice the scenes,towards the end,where John Mills was being gassed?-the producers obviously decided to omit the scenes-maybe censorship?,but notice when he's sat by the window of the flat,deep breathing closely followed by similar scenes with the car window open. The Francis Durbridge serials all seemed to inhabit the same universe,that of unexplained happenings,people being not what they seem & the villain being someone close to the hero/victim.A predictable universe in some ways,but one with its own rules & regulations.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this film for the first time last night. I have been thinking about it all night and this morning. I cannot say that it was my favorite film, at least not yet. I need to see it again. <br /><br />The cinematography is stunning. Each shot has a lyricism that one would expect in a film that has Wim Wenders's name attached to it.<br /><br />It is always tempting to see de Chirico in any picture of rows of orders vanishing into the gloom, but in this case the analogy fits. In many ways the figure of Malkovich walking through the fog and wind of Ferarra echoes the shadow of the off-canvas statue that haunts Milan in the major works of the Italo-Greek painter. He is slightly menacing, a presence who watches and, in his capacity as a film director, exerts influence on the entire story. <br /><br />The dedicated Wenders fan cannot help but think a little bit of Damiel and Cassiel wandering through the streets of Berlin, watching all but not directly interacting with the inhabitants. And, following the Himmel Uber Berlin metaphor, the angel (or in this case Malkovich the Director) gets to interact with one of the stories. <br /><br />At this point I have to bow out of taking this line of criticism too far. I need to see the movie again. I am fairly sure that this is the thread that will bring Malkovich's monologue together. <br /><br />Perhaps his musings and pontifications are pretentious, empty dialog that sound good but cannot possibly be parsed into real communication. Maybe that is the whole point of it. No one can make that judgment with any degree of certainty or authority until having done his homework.<br /><br />We must be careful when throwing around the word "pretentious." It is easy to write off anything that smacks of the intellect as pretension, but that leads to a terrifying mental state, one in which the only conversation seen as genuine, earthy or authentic is the most banal. When we shun all discussions of philosophy, God, existence, meaning and all that brain candy, we are setting our culture up to die a slow, stupid and ugly death. Perhaps this is the warning that Wenders and Antonioni are giving us. It certainly is not the only theme of the film, but I think that it cannot be ignored.<br /><br />The other (and most obvious) leitmotif is that of satisfaction. There is a lot here on that, and a thorough review of all the subtleties and consequences of the development of this leitmotif would well exceed the 1000 word limit for this review.<br /><br />My advice is to see the film. But I offer a caveat: it is not an autonomous film (at least I don't think so yet). Some films interact with the intellectual and artistic thinking of their times so much that the viewer needs to have a background in the Zeitgeist before approaching the film. Par-dela les nuages is one of those films.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is an interesting movie. I think it's very humorous, although the humor is very black. Fulci is good and funny acting himself, it's a really funny and truly crazy "self-portrait" of an artist ("I make horror films. If I would make love films, no-one would buy tickets..."). And it's really SEXY movie also: Almost all the time there is some "action" or tension going on; and many sexy girls/women... Maybe it goes to the core of why anyone starts to do movies/art in the first place... It's a real psychedelic trip, maybe best seen a little drunk or some similar state of mind. There is some really nasty gore scenes also, of course, because it's Lucio Fulci. As a matter of fact some of those scenes are quite disgusting. Anyway it's one of the three best and most complete Fulci films I've seen (the others are House By The Cemetery & Zombi.Haven't seen The Beyond). Actually, the script is overally, to my opinion, quite ingenious. You could see this movie as a portrait of an extreme neurotic, or a person who suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder (fashionable words): The character has a compulsive need to confess "crimes" or bad thoughts; Especially crimes he hasn't even DONE. And he questions himself all the time: What if I HAVE done it? What if I want to do it? Have I done it? Do I want to do it? He overreacts and exaggerates his thoughts. I'm sure Fulci has been interested of psychology, and maybe even read something of the area; in his "House By The Cemetery"-movie for example there is a character named Freudstein. This is maybe the most concentrated and straightly personal movie Fulci did. I also like the simplicity of the photography/pictures in this film. Only thing that disturbs me a little bit is the sadism, especially towards women; I don't quite understand why? Is it entertainment? Is it art? Is it horror? Anyways and overall, this is really interesting and well made movie, definitely recommended classic film at least for fans or anyone interested of this genre. For the others it may be too much.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a truly awful film. Lou Diamond Phillips simply calls this one in. The use of miniature models of the train are laughable. The plot seems to develop on the run (there is an alien on board; oh, and an eco-terrorist is on board too; oh, and the conductor is dead and the train is out of control; oh, and the train is going to run into another train one hour ahead; oh, and that train has nuclear waste on it...). I mean, come on really! The alien monsters are not scary (although there are a lot of them), and the acting is abysmal. Check out the guy playing the "next President" - do you really think he could be President? For goodness sake, he has spent his whole acting career playing bad guys!
| 0 |
negative
|
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />The premise goes like this : A store gets burnt down and assistant Sergio is asked by the father of the man who started the fire to take the wrap to which Sergio agrees .<br /><br />So far so good , but there`s a fair lapse of logic involved Sergio agrees to do this for the sum of 25,000 dollars but why ? Come on guys if you were a good looking white boy would you run the risk of getting a long spell in a tough jail ( A very real possibilty for arson ) for the sake of 25 grand ? I know I wouldn`t , and seeing as you`d have a criminal record no employer would want to touch you with a barge pole so is $25,000 dollars all that much for a life of workfare and welfare cheques ? There`s also something else that seems to have gone without notice from the premise , since Mister Lumpke has told Sergio that his son did the fire he seems unware of the possibility that he may know too much . Wouldn`t alarm bells be ringing in your mind about someone wanting to keep you quite if they told you something ? <br /><br />I guess we`re not suppossed to think about such details since A PYROMANIAC`S LOVE STORY isn`t suppossed to be an intelligent thriller , it`s a light hearted romantic comedy/ chick flick that`s probably best apprieciated as a girls night in . Looking through this comments page it is obvious that the movie has its defenders but as a cynical male I wasn`t too impressed and William Baldwin does go way over the top
| 0 |
negative
|
This is easily one of the worst movies I've seen in a long long time (and I've recently seen Starship Troopers 2!!!). I could find nothing to redeem this film. The acting, which is probably the best aspect of the film, is fair at best. Michael Madsen hams it up in his standard character persona. Denis Hopper doesn't seem to know what he's supposed to be. Vinnie Jones accent is bizarre. One positive thing is that Leonor Valera looks fantastic. Her acting is pretty poor but I doubt that's why shes there.<br /><br />The dialogue is truly appalling. It is quite simply rubbish. I don't know who signed off on this but they really need to get professional help next time round.<br /><br />This film is the reason IMDBs rating system should be able to include zero stars out of ten. Avoid at all costs.
| 0 |
negative
|
Adapting his own novel "Cabal" for the screen, author / screenwriter / director Clive Barker fashioned this marvelous story of outré horror and fantasy. Craig Sheffer plays Boone, a young man who becomes suspected of being a serial killer. The cops gun him down in front of Midian, on the surface a cemetery but which is actually a haven for monsters that have been shunned by society. When they lay claim to Boone and make him one of their own, this causes repercussions for everybody, including Boone's sweet girlfriend (the very cute Anne Bobby) and dubious psychiatrist (a most enjoyable David Cronenberg).<br /><br />"Nightbreed" displays the kind of wild and twisted imagination that I don't see in movies all that often. For one thing, Ralph McQuarrie, an old hand at conceptual art having worked on such films as the initial three "Star Wars" entries, helps Barker to create excellent visuals for "Nightbreed", starting right away with the opening credit sequence. The visual and makeup effects are elaborate, and production design and cinematography quite impressive. Barker and crew do a wonderful job at creating this whole other world with compelling characters. It's colorful and flamboyant entertainment and is a pleasure to take in. And of course there's the strong sense of social commentary regarding intolerance and bigotry, not to mention the heavy consequences that can result from a person's actions.<br /><br />Great supporting performances add to the fun. Cronenberg oozes lots of malevolent intent and is a real gas as the bad doctor, while Charles Haid is a fine love-to-hate-him type of antagonist, a rather nasty police captain. Doug "Pinhead" Bradley once again gets buried under heavy makeup as the weary Lylesberg, and is solid as a rock. Hugh Ross is great fun as Narcisse, as is Catherine Chevalier as Rachel (as an added bonus, she bares her breasts in one sequence). Simon Bamford, who played the "Butterball Cenobite" in the first two "Hellraiser" pictures, turns up here as well. There's even a cool cameo by 50's and 60's sci-fi star John Agar.<br /><br />Danny Elfman supplies another of his fantastic scores, and Barker leads us steadily through the intriguing story towards a terrific apocalyptic showdown.<br /><br />"Nightbreed" is an excellent genre film worth checking out for anybody who hasn't seen it. I give it a hearty recommendation.<br /><br />9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
John Travolta was excellent as "Michael" in the movie by the same name. I don't think a better portrayal could have been done. The movie was funny, yet touching. Michael is a very "human angel" (If their is such). Andie MacDowell is superb in her role as a reporter, as she goes from disbelief to belief. Bill Hurt and Robert Pastorelli are great as fellow reporters, each bent on proving the hoax of the angel on earth. Each of the supporting cast is wonderful, especially the older woman (I do not know her screen name), who plays Michael's mother! One of the cutest movies I have seen in years... I could watch this movie dozens of times!
| 1 |
positive
|
I carefully checked if there's another movie named as this one, and there isn't ! But I really don't think we all saw the same movie ! There's no way ! How can you vote more than "1" for this movie ?! The idea of this movie let's say it's acceptable. Oh, and the acting of Dan Gordon (Chris) is quite good. But those are the only two things acceptable in this project. The others are... awful ? It's a very delicate word to describe the acting of the other actors, the directing, the (so said) "special" effects, even the way that the crew was filming ! I don't even like the way that the camera operators were moving to record the scenes ! This may be the most miserable film I've ever seen. I really don't remember a movie lower than this one... Maybe there is, but... I don't think so... Ehh, what's done, it's done... That's the movie and there's too late for anyone to change anything. I've voted "1", but my realistic vote starts with a "-" (minus) in front....
| 0 |
negative
|
I am very disappointed because I expected a real ride as promised in the many reviews. The script is very bad with lot of holes and the direction too. The director failed completely to develop each violent scene with thrills and suspense. It tries very hard to follow a wannabe thriller. Therefore I had to watch how every bullet was spent without giving any sense to me. I was always asking what kind of movie I am watching. Then I didn't like that she smoked aggressively one cigarette after the other but perhaps the film was supported partly by the tobacco industry. The end is also very disappointing. I cannot understand how Jodie Foster could have been nominated for the Golden Globe in this worst role of her life. Jodie, therefore I liked very much PANIC ROOM or FLIGHT PLAN. This is definitely one of the worst I have ever seen. 4/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
This excruciatingly boring and unfunny movie made me think that Chaplin was the real Hitler, as only someone as evil as him could torture people with this tripe. I saw this movie remastered, which only made the suffering inflicted by this atrocity more severe. This movie is nothing but a pathetic, repetitive movie, which instead of inducing two hours of laughter, it induced two hours of suicidal urges. After the first 10 minutes of this, I began wishing that gas would start seeping from the speakers of the theatre.<br /><br />If I could give it a zero out of ten I would happily do so. Avoid at all costs!
| 0 |
negative
|
The GREAT NEWS is that this film is now AVAILABLE on DVD from http://treasureflix.com for all those who wish to own it as well as on video.This is good news as it is one of my favourite films!<br /><br />I watched this film for the first time in the 80s and it is compulsory holiday viewing. Living in the small market town called Tewkesbury, picturesque and with its own traditions,of reenactments,and traditions we are also a cosy tight community. We are now also faced with large housing developments which threaten to destroy the Community and you can see why I love this film First of all-and most important, there are LASHINGS of snow!!!! Then there is the lovely legend of the Christmas Tree and also the Christian denouement as all the community cough up the money to help the destitute farmer save his farm and stay in the community. The evil developers-only after the money are sent packing as the whole town pledge their money to help protect what they have , which is very special. I love the way the whole community send their message to Santa via the post office which is misunderstood by the hero . He and his daughter have a long journey to make after the death of the wife and mother of the family. (There is a likely candidate for this)-even a sleigh ride and most heartwarming of all is that the taxi driver, whose engine is broken is mysteriously given a new one on Christmas morning and no-one had engineered it! There is a lovely moment where Denver sings a lullaby and an exciting search. Great gentle film for everything Christmas is really about.
| 1 |
positive
|
Man with the Screaming Brain is a story of greed, betrayal and revenge in the a small Bulgarian town. William Cole, wealthy industrialist, winds up with part of his brain replaced by that of a Russian cab driver Yegor. The two couldn't be more different, but they share one thing - both were killed by the same woman. Brought back to life by a mad scientist, William and Yegor form an unlikely partnership to track down their common nemesis.<br /><br />Bruce Campbell returns to the B horror movie genre that gave him his cult status, this time not only in front of the screen, but behind the lens. Unfortunately for this time around, the laughs don't deliver and Campbell has to resort to what he does best to try and fill the gap in this film.<br /><br />As a fan of Campbell, who has the movies, the books and the action figures, I was hoping for another hit to add to my collection. Although, after seeing this film before the purchase, I am glad that I don't have the "pleasure" of adding it.<br /><br />The film first goes wrong in the story, which at first sight, seems like harmless fun but turns out to be boring drawn out dribble. Which is a sad thing to say because it was written by Mr. Campbell himself. The comedy never really hits, it only makes us scratch our heads. It seems that Campbell ran out of things that are funny and resulted in giving the audience what we've already seen...him fighting himself.<br /><br />Ted Raimi, the brother of Evil Dead director Sam Raimi, is undoubtedly the highlight of the film. He brings a freshness to it and an entertaining time when the film really needs it. It helps if you are a fan and have been following these stooges from Evil Dead to Xena, which is why I felt compelled to like this film.<br /><br />Campbell's experience as a director, from directing episodes of the TV series Hercules is apparent. Campbell makes the film work well enough, even with the low-budget. In the end, there aren't as many things going for this as one would hope for, but the fans of Campbell will stick behind it no matter what, unfortunately for this fan...I won't.
| 0 |
negative
|
This has got to be one of the weakest plots in a movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />However, that is not all that this movie is lacking. This movie has the worst acting, writing, directing, special effects, you name it--it's the worst ever.<br /><br />I highly advise you to spend your time on worthwhile movies and not waste your time on this garbage.<br /><br />I do agree with an earlier post that the "women" were definitely men dressed up in drag, and that did give me a laugh, I keep trying to figure out if they were being obvious about it or if they were actually trying to be sexy women.<br /><br />Anyway, there is not much else in this movie that is worth watching!<br /><br />To sum it up: horrible acting, horrible script, horrible idea for a movie. An hour and a half of my life I want back RIGHT NOW!!
| 0 |
negative
|
One can only sit in utter amazement at this mess of a film and be amused at some of the raves people have bestowed upon it. The biggest problem seems to be the director's inability to make up his mind as to whether it's black comedy, farce or a combination of both. It meanders all over the place in search of direction and has some utterly embarrassing performances that might be better suited to bad sitcom. What a shame to see the talented Dianne Wiest's comic talents squandered and the ever annoying Jane Birkin is so over the top she's more bothersome than usual.<br /><br />Perhaps a lot of the positive criticism is due to the "quirky French" nature of the film - therefore, it's labeled "smart" or "genius." It's neither. Instead it's bad tripe that leaves a rather rancid after-taste. Merchant-Ivory should stick to the serious stuff as they certainly have no comprehension of comedy.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an excellent film. No, it's not Mel Gibson in "Braveheart," but then, it's not trying to be. Actually, "The Emperor and the Assassin" probably has (thankfully) more in common with a Shakespearean production than a Hollywood blockbuster.<br /><br />In the third century BC, the King of Qin is attempting to unite (in other words "conquer") the seven kingdoms of China. He has already overthrown the Kingdom of Han. Now he needs an excuse to invade the Kingdom of Yan.<br /><br />This is where the Lady Zhao comes in. She and the King have been friends since childhood. They are obviously very much in love, but cannot marry for political reasons. Together they devise a plot. She will pretend to have fallen into disfavor with the King and escape to Yan. Once there she will convince the Prince of Yan to send an assassin back to kill the King. When the assassination fails, the King will have his excuse to invade Yan.<br /><br />Once in Yan, however, Lady Zhao begins to reconsider. Hearing and seeing more and more examples of her old childhood friend's ruthlessness, she begins to wonder if the King may need to be assassinated for real.<br /><br />One sure sign that you're not watching a Hollywood production is the final encounter between the King and the assassin. Unlike a Hollywood movie where the hero and villain are clearly defined and the final outcome already predetermined, this is a fight that could truly go either way.<br /><br />This is a well crafted and well acted story of a tumultuous time in Chinese history. There is a mixture of both incredible beauty and incredible ugliness. Most beautiful of all, however, is Gong Li as the Lady Zhao. I grow more and more convinced every time I see her that Gong Li is the most beautiful woman in the world.<br /><br />I must say, however, that she does have one unintentionally funny line in this film. Early on Gong Li asks one of her servants "Do I have a beautiful face?"<br /><br />Duh!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
In the 1980's patriotism, and in some cases flat out Jingoism, was pretty high. "Do we get to win this time" a line famous from Rambo: First Blood part II, could almost sum up how many people felt at that time. A longing for the style of films they grew up with, flat out balls to the wall "we're good, your bad...now let's blow something up, and go home" While Rambo, Rocky, and for the most part Top Gun seemed more geared towards attracting an older crowd Iron Eagle went straight for the kids. Canadian writer and director Sidney J. Furie brings out everything that you love and hate about that time period. The kick in the pants rock out 80's anthems (never say die, Road of the Gypsy, etc) to the over the top, and sometimes almost unbelievable action adventure. Iron Eagle succeeded for one reason...it was F.U.N - Fun. It's the type of movie you can turn on and sit back and enjoy every ridiculous totally 80's moment. You don't have to think about if it could really happen, or if the acting is truly believable, it's just fun...and that's all you can really ask for in this type of movie...
| 1 |
positive
|
The movie was excellent, save for some of the scenes with Esposito. I enjoyed how it brought together every detective on the series, and wrapped up some plotlines that were never resolved during the series (thanks to NBC...). It was great to see Pembleton and Bayliss together at their most human, and most basic persons. Braugher and Secor did a great job, but as usual will get overlooked. It hurt to see that this was the end of Homicide. Memories, tapes, and reruns on CourtTV just aren't the same as watching it come on every Friday. But the movie did its job and did it very well, presenting a great depiction of life after Al retired, and the family relationship that existed between the unit. I enjoyed this a lot.
| 1 |
positive
|
Gary Cooper is a cool headed guy. Always liked his easy going level headed characters. As some others have commented, there are some oddities in the script, such as a US Marshall who got his job and can't even hit a barn with a pistol. A rancher with about thirty hands but can't seem to keep his cattle from being run off.<br /><br />But there is plenty of the quick thinking, straight shooting Cooper to keep you entertained.<br /><br />This movie was made in 1950. People in their 20's and 30's have trouble understanding those movies were made for entertainment not Oscars. <br /><br />To expect Oscar material does this film injustice. It is about the good guys finding a way to round up the bad guys.<br /><br />So rent, borrow, or buy this movie, pop some corn and enjoy the Coop one more time.
| 1 |
positive
|
Last year was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of "The Origin of Species", so it's fitting that Jon Amiel's "Creation" got released. The movie focuses on the period of Darwin's (Paul Bettany) life while he was writing his famous work, and the mild strain that it put on his family life.<br /><br />I guess that the movie overplayed Darwin's tension with his religious wife Emma (Jennifer Connelly), and his guilt over his deceased daughter Annie, but I still like the thought of Darwin's theory working like a karate chop on religious dogma. As it was, the US was one of the last countries in which "Creation" found a distributor, due to the creationism-evolution debate (yes, it's still going on).<br /><br />All in all, this isn't a masterpiece, but I recommend it the same way that I recommend "Inherit the Wind". I hope that one day, the creationism-evolution debate won't be an issue. If this film helps put the debate to rest, then more power to everyone in the movie! Also starring Martha West, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you are looking for a cinematic masterpiece, this ain't it. If you are looking for one of those awful movies that are so horrible that they are actually good, then this may be for you. There are so many unintentional laughs in this film, that it could almost be considered a comedy. Let's start with the opening titles, that say "Jack-O", and then add the word "Lantern", as if the viewer wasn't able to figure out the movie was about a pumpkin by the giant pumpkin shown on both the cover and in the opening scene of the movie. After that, the movie goes in about 20 different directions, none of which make much sense. Jack-o is everywhere, he's in people's houses, in the woods, and yet he doesn't ever seem to do much of anything. He does make a few kills, but the long buildup to those killings is so poorly acted and constructed you almost wish Jack-o would take out his rage on you the viewer. Other than that, the plot consists of poor acting, gratuitous nudity, and a ridiculous plot line. The acting in this film is among the worst I've ever seen in my 35 plus years of movie-watching. The boy who is the lead in the film (the director's son) has about as much emotion as a corpse, and just about all of the other actors/actresses are just as bad for numerous reasons (especially the bug-eyed lady with eyes bigger than saucers). But, having said all this, if you take this for what it is, (that is a steaming pile of dung) then you will get a few laughs from this movie. What I also found amusing is that the makers of the DVD saw fit to release a "10th Anniversary Version" of this movie (as if the original wasn't good enough). And someone actually had the idea of making a "behind the scenes" mini film which is also included in the 10th anniversary edition (I'm not sure why).......I'll give this 3 smashed pumpkins out of 10...
| 0 |
negative
|
Brilliant acting, excellent plot, wonderful special effects! This is what I would say about this movie if I had been watching it with a bag of diarreha on my head for the entire film. Instead, I endured a 2 hour crap-o-rama. Our "brilliant" story begins with some billionare who has nothing better to do than look in volcanoes in a vain attempt to find his lucky charms. Instead, he finds a 5'4" man in a cheesy rubber dinosaur suit and some queer cave-folk.<br /><br />In his infinite wisdom, (along with his infinitely large nose)he decides to go inside this volcano with a team of "special" people. To travel to this underground land, they go by plane? No. Boat? No. They use this giant soup can with a "solid metal" drill on the end that I swear I saw wobble. In summation, this movie was faker than....Oh that's right! This was the fakest movie I've seen! For those of you who haven't seen it and are thinking of sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with this wonderful movie; I warn you! If you watch this movie you should be prepared to cut of any shred of your manhood and give yourself a full frontal lobotomy.<br /><br />ECCCHHH!! The rating system only allows for a minimum of 1/10. I give this a -10/10!
| 0 |
negative
|
There was a time when the Alien series was a success with even the third installment, Alien 3, showing promise under the guild of a fresh and young David Fincher. The first Predator was a box office hit mainly due to its story, "in peak" star Arnold Schwarzenegger and director John McTiernan (Die Hard). The films Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and Predator were all highly successful and created massive followings among general film fans and science fiction fans alike. Arguably Predator 2 and Alien Resurrection should have signaled the end for both franchises, but studios were undeterred and saw the opportunity to pander to the rumours among fans and combine the two. Step in Paul W.S Anderson, Alien Vs Predator, and now the Brothers Strauss (visual effects graduates, not even directors or writers). The problem was that by allowing such profound and revolutionary creations of the Sci-Fi genre to fall into the hands of firstly a mediocre director and now directorial newbie's has led to nothing more than profanity, epitomised by incompetence. Upon witnessing Alien Vs Predator Requiem (AVPR) die-hard fans will feel sick to their stomachs that this series could have got any worse.<br /><br />One example of the cinematic deterioration of this franchise is in the opening scene and is likely to cause nausea among fans. The film begins with an Alien making its way onto the Predator ship, spurting from the predators chest, growing in to a full grown Predalien and bringing down the Predator craft (which now seems to have far less Predators on it than it did at the end of Alien Vs Predator) and all this occurs with the ship still in Earths atmosphere. Once the ship has crashed AVPR quickly resorts to cheap plot methods and basic narrative conventions, it makes no venture at utilizing any of the twists or subversions served up in the two original films. The wearisome plot progresses with tedious pace, punctuated only by the near rousing conflicts of Alien and Predator and when that runs the risk of boring us we are treated to either an alluring blonde in a bikini or rapid gunfire. AVPR is plagued by an endless array of continuity errors and plot holes with little or no narrative elucidation i.e. members of the public outwitting an elite military unit or the Predator not adhering to laws established in previous editions. This is a film that has a complete disregard for its predecessors, it breaks some of the most fundamental rules of a sequel and in doing so one gets the feeling that it is trying to set itself up as a stand alone feature. Independently the film has no heart, no conviction and no soul and with reference to the other films lacks even the most basic continuity. This is exemplified by the over arching narrative of the film as it undermines the basic premise of the first Alien. Because if the species had been encountered before then those in the first Alien film would have been more proficient and not so ill prepared when encountering them.<br /><br />On a cinematic note the film is close to being dire, I felt urged at some points to shine a torch at the screen, the lighting was so bad. Through utilizing such gloomy and dark effects the audience may feel as though they are being cheated out of some the action which is ironically its purpose and also indicates the films lack of budget. As with all science fiction one scene normally surfaces as being the most memorable, in this instance it is probably the hospital impregnation scene as it ever so tenuously draws on the themes of the original Alien by literalizing it. The directing is poor, performances weak and the script rotten. AVPR is the product of a conveyor belt system of film-making in which ideas and techniques are assembled by ineffective people and then the finished product distributed among cinemas. This is personified by the absence of gory death scenes and drawn out blood battles because the certification will not allow it a lower certification achieving a larger target audience. AVPR was purely a business venture and nothing more.
| 0 |
negative
|
I did it too. When i first saw the band, i dismissed them straight away without even listening to the music. Then one day, out of sheer curiosity, i bought the cd and fell in love with it. So i bought the video. hold onto your lunch kids, this isnt going to be pretty! the video was excellent - a great opportunity to hear the music, see some of the promo videos, and meet the band...although i *still* dont know how they can cope with wearing those masks all the time! a must for all fans of the band, and fans of alternative music in general
| 1 |
positive
|
this is the 4th movie in the Karate Kid series.however it has nothing to do with the previous 3.the only character remaining is Mr Myagi.this time around Mr Myagi meets troubled teen Julie pierce(Hliary Swank,before she was famous)Julie having all kinds of Problem including being bullied at school by a guy,belonging to a pseudo military club on campus.Naturally she is trained how to fight.Anyway,through Myagi,Julie learns Karate and becomes a better person spiritually and learns how to respect herself and in the end regains her respect.i like the unique idea of the antagonist being a female and having a male as her enemy.i there are also some fight scenes which are done quite well,very low key and minimal violence.none of the fighting is graphic.the ending is also good and a bit surprising.it is predictable but not a typical ending for this kind of film.the film has echoes of the original obviously,especially the spiritual aspect and the lessons learned.it is not as good as the 1st movie,and certainly not as good as the 2nd.it is however,a giant leap forward compared to the underwhelming 3rd entry.this is a very entertaining under dog movie that is suitable for the whole family. 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
i wrote an essay in 1981, the year i graduated high school called the "last American virgin." i also had a friend named nancy who was the prostitute in this film. apparently her daughter got a hold of my essay one night when she slept over my house. a year later i wake up one morning and see the advertisement for this film. i was 18 years old & based the essay on experiences in my life. the film is a bit different from my essay but definitely taken from it. i did not have any proof of this matter except my English teacher mr.Versace who gave me an A on my essay.i let it go & never did anything about it.i figured what comes around goes around.i still would not take any action against anyone involved in this film. i just needed to get it off my chest, as i really never told anyone about it, except my closest friend & they agreed to keep it a secret.the same year it came out i saw nancy in a market, she actually had the nerve to ask me if i had any good stories or scripts for her to look at. i guess thats what Hollywood is all about, getting stories from wherever you can.it was interesting seeing parts of my life on the big screen though.<br /><br />ghost writer!
| 0 |
negative
|
As is often the case when you attempt to take a 400 plus page book and cram it into a two hour film, a lot is lost. Here director John Madden (Shakespeare in Love) takes on an extremely ambitious project and almost pulls it off. What we get is a charming and emotionally compelling film that seems somehow incomplete.<br /><br />There is much about this film that is wonderful and fantastic. The cinematography by John Toll (Cinematographer for Braveheart and Legends of the Fall, winning Oscars for both) is splendid. Working with Madden, the choices for locations on the Greek island of Kefallonia are superb and the visual images that come from photographing these majestic locations in varying light are lush and beautiful. Madden also uses numerous Greek actors as the townspeople, giving the town an authentic feel. The soundtrack is also terrific and the mandolin passages and vocals by the Italian soldiers are marvelous.<br /><br />Madden does an excellent job of bringing us the Italian occupation and the romance, which take up the greater part of the film. There are numerous sweet and funny moments throughout this segment. However, by the time the serious battle drama is ready to unfold, there isn't much film left in the reel and this component is extremely rushed and abbreviated. While the battle scenes are well done, subsequent to the battle it is obvious that increasingly greater compromises are being made to keep the film from running too long. By the time we reach the post war scenes, the treatment is merely skeletal. Another negative is that the DVD is particularly sparse on features.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage is charming in the romantic lead as the sentimental Captain who seems to have joined the army to sing rather than fight. When fight he must, Cage switches gears seamlessly into a man of fierce principle and resolve and somehow remains believable in both personas.<br /><br />Penelope Cruz, whom the camera loves, gives an uninspired performance as Pelagia. In part this is because Cage so dominates the screen, but Cruz just seems too placid in a part that should be emotionally torrential and dynamic. She allows the character to be objectified as Corelli's love interest rather than establishing her as a powerful character in her own right.<br /><br />John Hurt gives a fantastic performance as the wise old doctor, who knows as much about human nature as medicine. However, Christian Bale seems a bit overwrought and stiff as Pelagia's fiancé.<br /><br />I rated this film an 8/10. Despite some drawbacks, this is a touching film that is well worth seeing. The photography alone is worth the price of admission.
| 1 |
positive
|
My poor Tank Girl, they ignored everything great about you. Why does it have as little to do with the comics as possible? I would have loved a movie that followed the plot, or at least had the characters right.<br /><br />WHY WAS TANK GIRL American? She's Austrailian, dammit! And she's not living in a post apocalyptic war zone either, she lives in the outback with Booga like a savage. She does it because she wants to live that way, not because she has to because Malcolm Mc Dowell is acting the git. And why's she looking after those kids? The only children in the comics end up violently being choked by her, it's terrible that they made her into a lame mother figure.<br /><br />And my poor Jet Girl and Sub Girl! In the comics, Jet is a sarcastic wisecracker and Sub girl is... another sarcastic wisecracker with a weird sense of humour. In the movie Jet is this mousy little thing and Sub is this ditzy middle aged hag. And Booga doesn't look or act anything like what he's meant to be either. Though maybe hot roo/human love was too much for the USA box office? The humour was so lame too. Whatever happened to all the stuff about the Smiths and that brilliant slang they used all the time? What sort of line is "Will this take long? I don't wanna miss Baywatch."? Even programmes for tiny children can come up with better material than that.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is so God-awful that it was literally a chore to watch. I wanted to eject it from my vcr and throw it across the room, but kept thinking (foolishly) that it would eventually get funny and then everything would be all right. "You lose, we win, yay!" This movie should be required viewing for anyone who even once entertained the thought that Jackie Mason was funny. After that, beat them ove the head with this movie until the tape cracks. And if you're even considering renting this turd (or worse yet, have!) I have one thing to ask of you: didn't you even look at the cover? I mean, with crap like this you can tell with just a glance how bad it is! "Oy vey!" This movie sucked.
| 0 |
negative
|
This *should* have been an amazingly funny movie...but it falls flat on its face. (In fact, I stopped watching it halfway through, which is something I rarely do...) -- Bill Murray plays Jack Corcoran, a second-rate motivational speaker who is bequeathed an elephant by his father (whom he had presumed to be dead before he was born) ; he then has one week to get the ponderous pachyderm across the country. His adventures on the way are only mildly amusing at best. Janeane Garofalo's considerable comedic talents go largely untapped. Anita Gillette is impressive in her small role as Jack's mother (who has a lot of explaining to do), and Pat Hingle stands out as a former circus associate of Jack's father. -- Perhaps the second half of the movie was better than the first, but I find that hard to believe...
| 0 |
negative
|
When I read the reviews of Kahin Pyaar Na Ho Jaaye, I thought, "Huh?". It was THAT confusing. To be sure, I went to watch the film and what do you know? It's a remake of "The Wedding Singer". Several scenes have been changed to suit the whole essence of Indianness, but the rest of it is a direct lift from the 1998 Hollywood hit. Bollywood is no stranger to remakes, but this is one so poor that it pains me just to watch it. I groaned so much watching this and I realized I wasn't the only one doing so! One guy actually walked out of the theater and never came back! Salman Khan should seriously stop doing comedy roles. He shrieks and whines too much. Why can't he just take it easy? He doesn't do justice to the role originally acted out by Adam Sandler. He doesn't have Sandler's sense of comic timing. Rani is a wonderful actress and one of my favorites, but she's no Drew Barrymore either. The scene where she stands in front of a mirror practicing to say her new surname ("Hi, I'm Mrs Pugalia") doesn't match up to Barrymore's version ("Hi, I'm Mrs Julia Gulia"). I felt embarrassed watching that scene, even though I had loved the original. The music is not too bad. It's probably the only saving grace of this otherwise horrible film! Avoid this at all cost!
| 0 |
negative
|
I do not like Himesh Reshamiya. I do not like his singing too. But his songs are a craze in India, especially among commoners. Now when he ventured to become an actor that was a big joke! What guts he has to reap as much as he can in his prime time. I did never want to see this movie. But one thing changed it. The movie becoming a super-duper hit! After 2 weeks, Aap Ka Saroor has raked box office collection of 14 crores compared to Apne that has collected 7 crores in the same 2 weeks. If I can sit through Apne and Rajnikant's absurd Sivaji I should give this movie also a try to understand what stuff this movie has got that made it such a big hit? The story is about the real life singer Himesh Reshamiya (HR) who has gone to Germany for a concert and falls in love with Riya (Hansika Motwani). A German lawyer Ruby (Mallika Sherawat) loves Himesh. Now Himesh is arrested for a murder. The mission of Himesh (in last 40 minutes) after he runs away from jail is to prove himself innocent and find the real murderer.<br /><br />Let me say that Himesh has nothing in him to become a hero. He tries hard but fails miserably. He is pathetic. I was thinking what could have made the movie click so much? Let me find something positive.<br /><br />First, the saving grace of the movie is the script till the point Himesh runs away from the jail. (But after that the movie nose dives into unbearable stupid limits) Second, the songs of the movie are good, catchy, crowd puller numbers. Third, Mallika Sherawat she looks gorgeous and acts well too, as the second lady. I can imagine fans of Mallika coming to see the movie just for her. Fourth, the cinematography of the movie is pleasing especially the German locales, are a treat to watch for the eye. Fifth, the major portion of the story is a love story between Himesh and Riya with clichéd dialogues that would probably connect to young crowd. Sixth, the Director Prashant Chadha has done a decent job in covering the pathetic acting skills of Himesh as much as possible with shots that don't need Himesh to act much.<br /><br />The heroine Hansika Motwani looks like a small budget film heroine. Raj Babbar is wasted in a small role. Overall the movie is a below average.<br /><br />I was thinking throughout the movie what if the same movie script was done with Salmaan as the main lead. I think it would have had been a much better affair. May be then I would have given the movie 6 out of 10. But now
(Stars 4.5 out of 10)
| 0 |
negative
|
Friday the 13th meets the Matrix. As with all of these stupid horror movies, everyone knows who has been killed and who will be killed next, but do nothing to prevent anything, all with the added CGI action effects from the Matrix. Hasn't the world seen enough Matrix reproductions?
| 0 |
negative
|
A truly masterful piece of filmmaking. It managed to put me to sleep and to boggle my mind. So boring that it induces sleep and yet so ludicrous that it made me wonder how stuff like this gets made. Avoid at all costs. That is, unless you like taking invisible cranial punishment, in which case I highly recommend it.
| 0 |
negative
|
I really don't know much about the Marquis de Sade, not having read any of his book, but I never imagined him as a flaming queen. Carson Kressley of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, or Jack from Will and Grace would have fit easily into the role that Nick Mancuso gave us.<br /><br />The movie itself was rather thin and seemed more of a parody - or an excuse to show the Paris whorehouse several times with men and women having a good time on the couches in the parlor. What? They can't afford a room? I did find it cute that the Madame (Irina Malysheva) felt she was doing her patriotic duty taking care of the soldier's needs.<br /><br />The movie was just an excuse to show a lot of breasts - and I mean a lot! Fans of Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) might be interested in seeing him in a different role as Inspector Marais.
| 0 |
negative
|
I couldn't help but laugh when I saw what the public could be made to think was email back in 1996. Apparently email is an interactive discussion (similar to a chat) with lame voice synthesis reading every comment out loud. And some of the other "tech" aspects are also laugh-out-loud funny. I'd swear the "high tech" communications centre she has actually has a few Commodore 64 monitors in it. Almost like watching the movie Hackers nowadays, I guess.<br /><br />Despite the fact that for most of the movie the lead actress carries off the illusion of being disabled, the final part of the movie has an unexplained use of her legs which somehow I can't ignore. I mean, why include something so stupid? <br /><br />Anyway, to sum up: the plot is pretty predictable, the acting bad, the killer quite guessable. But it can be amusing in a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 kind of way I guess.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this movie on TV and loved it! I am a real disaster film fan, and this one was great. The cast was made of some really interesting people. Connie Selleca is always great. And William Devane is in a league of his own. He can play both comedy and thriller in the same movie like few others can. The story line is great too. The thought of being able to follow a time line of what will happen, and to use this time line to prevent a global disaster is an interesting idea. And this movie brings it out in such a way that is almost totally believable.
| 1 |
positive
|
See Dick work.<br /><br />See Jane work.<br /><br />Dick and Jane are married.<br /><br />They are successful.<br /><br />They have a son. <br /><br />They have a nice house.<br /><br />They have a Latino housekeeper.<br /><br />The housekeeper teaches Spanish to the son.<br /><br />The son speaks Spanish.<br /><br />Ha-ha.<br /><br />See Dick get promoted.<br /><br />The pompous CEO is a crook.<br /><br />See Dick take the fall for the pompous CEO.<br /><br />Jane quits her job.<br /><br />Oops.<br /><br />See Dick and Jane out of work.<br /><br />Dick & Jane turn to crime.<br /><br />As a plot device, they decide to rob the CEO.<br /><br />See the robbery get botched.<br /><br />See Dick & Jane fund the company's pension plan with the money from the robbery.<br /><br />Yay. See the end credits.<br /><br />Okay, so you've got the plot. Beyond that, Dick and Jane careens from one scene to the next. One barely connecting with the last one or the next one. The whole thing is terribly episodic in nature. <br /><br />Jim Carrey didn't bother to bring his "A" material, he just seems bored and slightly ashamed of the whole thing. But heck, when you're getting paid $20 million plus, why bother. Tea Leoni is frantic. I guess I would be frantic not to get blamed for this flop.<br /><br />There's just something sort of off about Dick & Jane. Carrey and Leoni aren't funny and have little chemistry. The script isn't funny. And it's not well-plotted.<br /><br />But it may be bigger than that. The reality of Dick and Jane is, perhaps, a little too real. Maybe it's just not funny for people to lose their jobs in an Enron-like situation, when real-life still lacks a happy ending.
| 0 |
negative
|
Serendipity. I thought I was off to a bad start, bringing home the wrong dvd in the case of "The Intruder". Rental stores' staff! So I did not want to see this film but I am glad I did. In all probablility my chosen movie would not have been as superb a slice film as this delectable and delicate taste of what independants in both US and Europe can do together. Seven years apart, two heroine sisters embark on fantastic journeys through early 1970's post-student demo / Baader-Meinhof Europe. Sumptuously shot in the Algarve, Portugal; and in Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam (reminiscent of the feel of the exterior shots in Paul Verhoeven's early masterpiece, "The Fourth Man"), it's touchingly acted by Brewster , Diaz and especially Christopher Ecclestone.The story unveils itself along an abstracted plot, capturing the ephemeral emotions of these characters as they confront their relationships and see idealised images of each other and themselves shattered. A movie with great refinement and taste. Not for Arnie Commando fans, which is probably why the reviewer upstairs is so wide of the mark in 'his' claims that this is a girly film. Daft criteria. Wrong too. Well worth experimenting with.
| 1 |
positive
|
Just Before Dawn really surprised me when I saw it by being far less of a gruesome horror adventure than I expected. Instead the director Jeff Lieberman conjures up a wonderfully evocative and disquieting atmosphere for great stretches of the movie, building the suspense constantly until I was really unsure about what was going to happen but wound up tight as a spring waiting for it. The lack of action in many parts gave it a very Deliverance mixed with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre kinda ambiance, and when the action really kicks in, its truly shocking and dramatic, without ever even really needing to be gory. The characters are about par for this kind of movie, though more sympathetic than some, and the bad guy memorably freaky. The photography and suspense are the real winners in this movie and they keep it from ever being dull (as has been suggested). I firmly recommend this one to serious horror fans. Don't expect gore, do expect a creepy backwoods tale with several awesome moments and a great dreamlike ambiance.
| 1 |
positive
|
Hollywood will stop at nothing to make money on a film even if they have to keep dragging out stereotypes and putting them in the most impossible and stupid situations. This effort is a clear example of that and I really do believe in my heart that a film like this is racially irresponsible. Story is about a divorced lawyer named Peter Sanderson (Steve Martin) who has been chatting with a lady on his computer and when he finally meets her she turns out to be the opposite of what he was expecting. Charlene Morton (Queen Latifah) is a stocky black woman who has no intentions of dating Peter but instead wants him to look at her case where she was convicted of robbery. He wants her to leave for good but she keeps popping up at inappropriate times and to save his job he reluctantly agrees to look at the facts involving her case.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />Peter has his kids staying with him and Charlene turns out to be helpful in raising them but suddenly a news bulletin announces that an escaped convict named Charlene Morton has broken out of prison. Peter tells her to leave when the FBI comes snooping around but he figures out that she is in fact innocent when her old boyfriend shows up and threatens him.<br /><br />This film is directed by Adam Shankman who keeps things moving at a nice pace and it is a good looking film technically speaking but the script is just so improbable and every character is a stereotype to the point that a 1970 film called "The Landlord" is clearly more in tune with race relations than this mess. I have always been a big fan of Martin and I think he's one of the most talented persons around but he loves to work constantly and at times just seems to pick any script handed to him. On the other hand, I've always had a problem with Latifah and the way she barges into the life of Martin is so over the top that she instantly becomes ingratiating. Basic premise that Hollywood loves to use is the hip black person showing uptight whitey to loosen up and then pass on some street logic that will help them with their lives. That's basically what the story is here but of course they have to let Martin dress black and overact like a retarded Eminem because Hollywood knows that this is what viewers want. Well, I was pretty much insulted by everything in this film and it's not because I don't have a sense of humor but unfortunately (For Hollywood, anyway) I use logic and common sense when I watch a film. Yes, I enjoyed Eugene Levy's talking jive but are we really suppose to believe that he would be instantly attracted to Latifah? I guess weirder things have happened and how many times does a main actor get shot only to be saved by something in their pocket? Wouldn't a cell phone shatter if struck by a bullet? Even if your the most die hard Martin and Latifah fan I wouldn't recommend this. I know I've said this before but this isn't an attempt to make a good film, it's an excuse to try and make money!
| 0 |
negative
|
First of all I have to say that I'm a huge Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento fan. Although I have not seen absolutely all of their movies, I really enjoyed almost every one I did see. I really like giallos and I thought Argento was the master of this genre, after seeing films like "Tenebre" and "Phenomena". But after I saw "New York Ripper" by Fulci, I found out that he could do pretty good giallos besides his graphic zombie movies and even outdo Argento, on a certain level.<br /><br />I love Fulci's style, and yes I love gore, but this film I think, although it has a more developed plot and characters than his other films, is not his best one. What I don't like is that it can be confusing at times, especially at the end. And the fact that we go from one suspect, to another, and then another until we even suspect the retarded little girl for a moment, I think it goes too far. I know giallos are supposed to keep you guessing until the end, and the killer should be very hard to find, but this film plays a little too much with our minds. However I did like the scene when the witch is killed, I think it is very well done and gave me the chills. The acting is also pretty good and the photography is great.<br /><br />Although this is not a bad film, I think Lucio Fulci has made better films than this, and I think his best one is "The Beyond", a very different movie but a more atmospheric and visual experience.<br /><br />I give "Don't torture a duckling" a 7 out of 10.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I am really amazed how little fame this film had. i think it has to do with distribution companies and etc.<br /><br />Don't be idiots - if you are looking for a good fun take this movie - this is very nice movie to pass few hours with and the music is GREAT.<br /><br />It's about ..... well girls and boys and whats between them with not too much story but not all movies should be PULP FICTION should they?? it's nice and cute and gives good time . The girls are also very good looking and this makes the whole movie even more enjoyable.<br /><br />Why i gave it only a 9? well the story could be little more convincing from the middle and on. in some point you start to see events that are little less reliable. SMALL SPOILER: The baby is crying and the father goes in and tries to relax him. now i am not talking about some small cry but- no - hysteric cry and 30 sec after that the father goes out and "baby is sleeping"- excuse me , when and how exactly did you make him calm and sleep and be able to leave his room in 20-30 seconds. but ignore this kind of small picking because the film itself is not Docudrama - it's fun and this should be overlooked.
| 1 |
positive
|
I suspect this board will soon be full of comments from over-emotional people praising "Dear John" as a "pearl" and a "rollercoaster ride" and all the other vacuous words this film's target audience typically employs.<br /><br />I am most definitely not this film's target audience, but I do not dislike romantic dramas either, as long as they are well made, so here is my objective take on the flick.<br /><br />It is not good.<br /><br />It's not a bad movie either. But the plot meanders, development stagnates where it should've been moving forward (right around the middle, to be precise), and as for the ending...it almost felt as if they had run out of ideas so they suddenly said, "Hey, let's just film a last scene real quick, put some sentimental string soundtrack over it, and end it that way." Even Amanda Seyfried's beauty could not save this. Channing Tatum too gave a good performance, but you can only do so much with a flawed script.<br /><br />Speaking of the music, it is unbearably predictably and kitchy. From the smokey voiced, irritatingly high-pitched female folk singer schtick (surely chosen to appeal to the majority of college-age girls that will go see this movie) to the overused "shimmering strings and piano" combo, it only annoys anyone paying more attention to the film as a whole rather than to his own "feelings." The film has a good beginning and the major conflict that launches us into the second act were all promising. So was part of the second act itself, as the story unfolded. Then the film just dropped the ball. Beyond that, I'd have to give spoilers.<br /><br />"Dear John" is not a bad movie, but it doesn't work as it should either. If you want to see a truly moving film about prolonged love waiting to be reunited, go watch "Notebook," which was truly superb.
| 0 |
negative
|
Dr. Chopper starts shortly after teenager Nicholas' (Robert Adamson) mum has died, he is still cut up about it but every cloud has a silver lining & in this case it appears that his mum owns a log cabin at Lake Tatonka the self proclaimed 'friendly place for happy people' that she didn't tell him about. So Nicholas together with his girlfriend Jessica (Chelsey Crisp) & three friends, Jimmy (Butch Hansen), Reese (Chase Hoyt) & Tamara (Ashley McCarthy) head out there for a fun weekend. Unfortunately things don't go according to plan, the cabin turns out to be little more than a run down shed & their neighbours turn out to be Dr. Chopper (Ed Brigadier) & his two nurses who go around killing anyone they meet to use them in horrible experiments...<br /><br />Going straight-to-video/DVD Dr. Chopper was edited & directed by Lewis Schoenburn & this film seems to be having a hard time here on the IMDb with some pretty harsh reviews, while I think Dr. Chopper as a horror film is pretty worthless I don't think some of the criticism I've read is entirely justified. The script which takes itself very seriously is credited to Ian Holt (whether he likes it or not...) who has a role in the film as Detective Crocker according to the IMDb cast list although I can't remember any character of that name, maybe he was one of the cops at the start? Anyway, the basic story is alright I suppose although it's a tad dull & lasts for too long, it's typical slasher fare with some sort of evil character running around bumping off our annoying American teen cast, you know the drill by now. Besides some brief & undeveloped nonsense about Dr. Chopper using body parts to replenish his own deteriorating body there's not much story here & the script seems to exist solely to invent situations for girls to take their tops off, there's the inevitable sex scenes, there's a sequence where some girls have to complete a sorority house initiation topless & there's even a couple of lesbians here as well one of whom is seen without her full compliment of clothing. Oh, & when I say topless I mean they aren't wearing any tops but they all keep their bras on so you may want to bear in mind there isn't any actual full frontal nudity in Dr. Chopper at all. So there you have it really, it's an average story that has a mildly surprising twist at the end which is wasted, is populated with poor clichéd dumb character's that exist only to showcase some cheap gore scenes & girls in bras. To be honest I expect a little bit more from my films but then again maybe I'm just being picky.<br /><br />Director Schoenburn does OK actually, this is by no means the worst looking film I've seen although it still looks cheap. There's no style here, I didn't think it was scary & there's no atmosphere either. The gore is restrained & restricted to some dead bodies & severed limbs, there's nothing new here or any particularly convincing special effects. Dr. Chopper is also one of those films where character decisions & motivations are ridiculous.<br /><br />Technically this is a little rough around the edges but is reasonably well made on what was probably a really low budget, the forest locations are suitably isolated although the cops office looks like someones front room & the two nurses outfits at the start look like stripper outfits. The acting is alright, it could have better but I've certainly seen worse.<br /><br />Dr. Chopper indeed features a doctor who rides around on a chopper motorbike but unfortunately that just isn't enough to satisfy me, despite it being a reasonably competent production the lack of any real gore, nudity or a decent plot sinks it without trace.
| 0 |
negative
|
I absolutely hate the idea of made for television films . For me TVMs usually involve Jane Seymour or Jaclyn Smith as the mother of a sick child who is dying of a difficult to treat disease all done in such a sugary manner that the audience doesn`t need tissues it needs insulin . So when DEADLY VOYAGE a made for TV film by the BBC and HBO based on a true story I vaguely remembered from a couple of years previously turned up on the TV schedules I sat down waiting to be bored senseless . I was surprised.<br /><br />No strike that last sentence , I wasn`t surprised I was shocked . Here is a TVM that grips you tighter than a great white shark , in fact DEADLY VOYAGE doesn`t deserve to be relegated to the TV schedules it should have been made and distributed by a top Hollywood film company due its absolutely terrifying premise and what`s more it`s - unlike PAPILLON and SLEEPERS - completely true <br /><br />For those who don`t know the story !!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILERS AS TO PLOT !!!!! sometime in the early 90s a bunch of Africans stowed away on an Ukrainian freight ship bound for France in order to work there. Of course it was an attempt at illegal immigration but the crew of the freighter had already been fined for allowing illegal immigrants onto their ship from a previous journey and not wanting to get into anymore trouble with maritime and immigration authorities the crew murder the Africans after discovering them hiding in the hold. All except one African , Kingsley Ofusu , who manages to escape from the firing squad but who must try and survive aboard the ship , but the problem is the crew are hunting him and France is still several days voyage away .<br /><br />Just typing the above paragraph reminds of how good DEADLY VOYAGE is . What a remarkable story , and once again it is - unlike many stories that claim to be - totally true . It`s very well written , directed and acted , especially by Sean Pertwee ( Why isn`t that guy a big name star ? ) , and most of all it`s a tense claustrophobic disturbing thriller that I can still remember vividly six years after seeing it for the one and only time . I look forward to seeing again .<br /><br />But you`ve got to ask yourself how can a TVM be better than most of the Hollywood action blockbusters that came out round about the same time ? Oh hold on , I`ve just had a disturbing thought about Jerry Bruickhiemer doing a remake with Tony Scott directing and with Denzil Washington playing Kingsley , Brad Pitt playing Pertwee`s role , massive artistic licence taken with events etc. Let`s keep DEADLY VOYAGE a superlative TVM rather than a poor blockbuster
| 1 |
positive
|
Hoot is a nice young person's film about a group of middle school kids that try and keep a pancake house chain from bulldozing a plot of land that is home to some endangered burrowing owls. The acting is pretty good and the fresh faces are nice to see. Many well known comedians are in this film and keep the humor going almost nonstop. It is a film for the young crowd, perhaps 5 to 11 years of age. I thought it was a nice change of pace from the adult films that pervade the screen these days. There is no realism here or accuracy about life in general for adults or kids. It's just a bunch of fun with a constant message about saving the beautiful places in this country from becoming over developed. If you can remember back to the day when you weren't fight for a buck you may remember that money isn't everything. Not many people over 12 are going to enjoy it unless they really have a soft spot for the old after school special series.
| 1 |
positive
|
An intense thriller about a mute movie make-up artist who witnesses a snuff film being made when she is working late in the studio one night. After she tries to get away from the murder scene, she realizes she is in for more than she bargained for when the entire mafia is out to kill her for being a witness. This movie leaves you on the edge of your seat.
| 1 |
positive
|
Pretty dreadful movie about several unbalanced young people in a car starts off reasonably well but becomes more bizarre and hard to swallow as it progresses. Rachel Leigh Cook is the sole highlight in a tender and sexy performance, but I would recommend this film only to die-hard fans of the actress.
| 0 |
negative
|
Super Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think.
| 0 |
negative
|
I don't know about the rest of the viewers of this movie but personally I'm dead sick and tired of Steven Seagal films. When Above the Law came out, it was a great action film. Wahoo. Now in the Patriot, Steven Seagal plays Steven Seagal from Above the Law. I get tired of seeing no character changes. It's the same character, time after time, after time. He needs change. This movie was probably one of the worst action films I have ever seen. Calling it an action movie is giving it almost too much credit because there's too few action scenes and they're spread far apart throughout the film. I guess they wanted to go for some drama but it was a meaningless try as the film portrays nothing but the regular squinty-eyed-Steven-Seagal we've seen thousands of times over. Get a new look and lose the pony tail is all I have to say, I definitely do not recommend viewing this film in any form, go out to eat, heck, rent Barney goes to Vegas but do not under any circumstances rent this movie under the precept that Seagal will make a great performance.
| 0 |
negative
|
I really enjoyed watching this movie! Only a few parts were slow, but it was only setting the mood and building up to the action. I thought this movie was very educational, it taught me more about my Croatian heritage. I also learned more about Louise Arbour, and I can say she has a very great influence on me. Time magazine named Louise Arbour one of the world's 100 most influential people in April of 2004. I recommend this movie to people that like historical movies (obviously). This movie was very dramatic, but still told the truth of events in the former Yugoslavia. Louise Arbour is a brave hero, and I'm glad they made a movie honouring her. If you see the movie, I hope you'll like it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Trey's favourite from the first run of Season 10 and also one of my personal favourites, Manbearpig features the adventure of Al Gore before going on global warming and before the movie, it was similar a adventure certainly, Al Gore was also trying to aware the world about something that can change the Earth, something really dangerous, this time about something that is half man half bear and half pig, Al Gore had only one thing in mind: to aware everyone of Manbearpig and to kill it! Al Gore here is more than hilarious, everyone who sees him feel sorry for him and yes he can childish, doing tantrums since nobody believes him but he is just a f****** demented bastard. Basically four kids are trapped in a cave because of Al Gore but certainly he don't have that in his mind, there's not space for any other subject, is just Manbearpig what concerns Al Gore. Those four kids are Cartman, Kenny, Kyle and Stan, basically Stan felt sorry for AL Gore and the four boys were just playing in Al Gore's game never imaging that Gore could almost kill them while he was trying to kill Manbearpig (hilarious scene- "they are just children, damned Manbearpig"). So at this part we have on one hand all the stuff with the rescue team who also feel sorry for Al Gore and on the other hand we have a little yet extremely hilarious Cartman episode and there are not surprises of the attitude of Cartman after he finds a treasure inside the cave, certainly the whole stuff with this treasure is fantastic and is great because you will see a sick Cartman in both senses, he is really sick for the boys and really sick for us. And in the end Al Gore does killed Manbearpig! This character is a fantastic one and I'm cereal! Terrific fun in this episode, a highly re-watchable one. 10 out of 10
| 1 |
positive
|
When Jim Wynorski first announced he would be doing a new sequel for my favorite series of all time, the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, I was ecstatic. I had been waiting for a new installment for literally years. So, production began and very small bits and pieces on the shoot and the actors involved were released until the shoot wrapped. Then, the announcement of a title change. No longer would this new sequel be titled "Slumber Party Massacre IV," but "Cheerleader Massacre" instead. I was a bit disappointed, but having a different title would be a very small price to pay for a film I had waited so long to happen. I was still extremely intrigued and on the edge of my seat to see it.<br /><br />Maybe a month ago, some very advanced copies of the film were released to some extremely lucky viewers, who got to see the film months before its release date. A few reviews leaked on the net and judging by them, I began to become apprehensive on Jim Wynorski's "Cheerleader Massacre."<br /><br />Tonight, I got to see the film for the first time in full length and I am still scratching my head. As I read in another review, "Cheerleader Massacre" is definitely NOT a new installment in the "Slumber Party Massacre" series, but a slasher flick all on its own. And a bad one at that.<br /><br />Before I get into the specifics of the film, let me first state what an enormous fan of Jim Wynorski's films I am. I always thought him to be a true camp genius, with a winner almost every time. Yes, his movies are made on shoestring budgets and don't contain the most top-notch acting around, but they're fun nonetheless. They are what they are: campy movies you watch when you want to have a good time. From "Sorority House Massacre II," to "Hard to Die," to "Chopping Mall," Jim has produced the goods on more than one occasion. One of the reasons why I was excited that this film would be his latest project.<br /><br />"Cheerleader Massacre" does not (in my opinion) reflect any of the films I had seen this director/writer create in the past. Firstly, the production was extremely inexpensive and the film was actually shot on videotape, something I had never seen Jim do before. The actors were mediocre, to say the least, and the story is almost laughable. The killer is also extremely stupid and reminds you more of your cuddly old grandpa, rather than an escaped lunatic.<br /><br />Of course, the film is littered with female nudity. This is a Jim Wynorski movie we're talking about, folks. But some of the boob-shots seen here almost seem like they were done for time. There is an extremely long shower scene, containing the cheerleading coach, that seems to go on forever and it greatly reflects a shower scene in Jim's "Sorority House Massacre II." The girl even bathes herself almost in the exact same way.<br /><br />"Cheerleader Massacre" is also extremely cliched, to say the least. The opening scene is literally something we've all seen in HUNDREDS of past slasher flicks. A guy and a girl making out, on the verge of consummating their relationship when...you guessed it. They're hacked to pieces.<br /><br />Brinke Stevens, who I've never really considered to be a tremendous actress in the first place, also gives one of her stiffest and forced performances in her small cameo. We're talkin' possible cue cards here. She recalls some incidents her character endured by the killer seen here twenty years ago to the police, while footage of the original "Slumber Party Massacre" plays. Why was footage from the original film used if it was definitely not a new "SPM"? I have no idea. There is also two explosions seen in this movie that I am almost certain were recycled from other films.<br /><br />Not only does this film recycle FOOTAGE from past films, but it also recycles the scores from other films as well. Some of the music used in "Humanoids from the Deep" (which was also recycled prior for "The Coroner") can be heard throughout the entire film. There are at least two more as well that I cannot identify, but am certain have been used before.<br /><br />After sitting through this film's horrendous acting, ridiculous story, non-existent gore/special effects, and camcorder-like quality, I am having some serious concerns toward Mister Wynorski's career. Has the man who delighted audiences with films in the past finally lost his niche? Only time will tell. Oh, and let's not forget his newest film. A new installment in the "Sorority House Massacre" films, now titled "Final Exam." I think I'm seeing a pattern here...
| 0 |
negative
|
You, the Living (2007)<br /><br />Mordant. I've never written that word before but it comes to mind here. Let me look it up. Well, it's part of it--corrosive, but also funny as heck. So corrosively funny. This is a dour film, for sure, with so much dry dry dry wit and quirky humor it's impossible not to like it on some level. Filmed in a very spare style, often with a static camera and really balanced, stable compositions, like theater stages, we see a short enactment occur.<br /><br />But that makes it seem ordinary--which it is not. Ordinary life is shown to be frumpy, ironic, delightful, coy, and depressing. And impossible. We, the living, must live, and since we're alive, we may as well take note. Something like that. I think it was Ebert who said you find yourself laughing and don't know why. Exactly. And the promo material somewhere said it was a cross between Bergman and Monty Python, and what they mean is it has the dry, silent, probing look of Ingmar Berman's famous Swedish films, but it has the zany, somehow touching elements of the British comedians. <br /><br />I'd say, definitely, definitely watch at least half an hour of this. There is part of me that thought I was through by then--the rest continues in a similar assemblage of little skits and moments, and they do gradually evolve, but there is no great plot to follow or climax of the usual kind. There are some great moments later, even just the attention to the thunderstorm, which takes us out of the mundane human events nicely. <br /><br />The filming is gorgeous in its classical control, almost like a series of Gregory Crewdson scenes (and outdoing the photographer, actually). And the acting, with all its very ordinary, non-glam folksiness, is right on. A startling, beautiful, odd experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.