text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Not the best plot in the world, but the comedy in this movie rules. Kelsey Grammar is wonderful in this movie. Another funny guy is Rob Schneider who will make you crack up with his segments with Ken Hudson Campbell who plays Buckman. Lauren Holly plays probably the more serious character in the cast as Lt. Lake. Bruce Dern is a great actor in this movie, playing probably the most serious character in the movie. The actor i liked the most was Toby Huss as Nitro, all the electric shots his character takes in the movie is hilarious.<br /><br />Plot is a little uneven, about Lt. Commander Tom Dodge, who for years has wanted to Command his own sub. When he finally gets the chance, instead of a brand new sub, he gets a rusty WWII Diesel Sub, the Stingray. His crew isn't any better, misfits of the U.S. Navy. He is then put in a series of War Games, that shows how an old Diesel Engine can handle itself against the current Nuclear Navy. Things still don't get any better when he finds out his dive officer is actually a female officer, to see how Women do on actual Subs. To get the commander position he wants, he has to win the War Games, and blow up a Dummy Ship.<br /><br />The movie fairs quite well, in fact i laughed non-stop when i saw this movie in theaters. I loved when they were in silence and Buckman farts, and everyones reaction to the smell is hilarious.<br /><br />Overall, 9 out of 10, this movie is just plain fun to watch, it nice to have a movie like this, i hate movies that try to be 100% serious.
| 1 |
positive
|
Rainy day with not much to do. We were surfing the movie network channels and found this one just starting, so we gave it a chance.<br /><br />The more we watched, the more we became engrossed in the story. Its the old story of working class underdog trying to make it in a sport which at the time (1913 I think) was usually played by the wealthy upper class but this movie was every bit as interesting as Seabiscuit and this is also based on a true story.<br /><br />The acting is believable and the casting is brilliant. AND . . . . we are NOT golfers, so please don't miss this one just because its about golf. Any individual sport would serve the plot, because it's about the people. Golf works well for this story because of the class distinction and snobbery that seem to involve some who play the game.<br /><br />Bottom line . . . . Its a feel good movie. It's well put together and isn't it always fun to see those who think they are better than others get taken down a peg or two.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was just horrendous. How could anybody like this movie, and for the ones who liked it because of the jokes, they should really take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if stereotypes are not bad. Ignoring the face of the racial stereotypes, this was just awful. It never had its moments, if it paid homage to 1980's, "Airplane!", it needs to pay some more. Awful acting, terrible script writing, even for a movie with Mo'Nique or Tom Arnold. This movie was bad from the beginning, but people might have seen the whole thing, by the thought that the plane would crash. One of the worse movies ever, stay away.
| 0 |
negative
|
I liked the first The Grudge. It really creeped me out and it had something to it that made me want to see it twice. That something was missing from this sequel. There was no creativity, nothing new or original, nothing that really sticks to your mind. It's people dying because a scary ghost comes out of the shadows and says boo. And most of the time, it wasn't even all that scary.<br /><br />Plot-wise this movie is a dead end. Amber Tamblyn is a good actress, but she was given nothing to do, and Karen's death seemed really unsatisfactory because it came so quickly. I was also disappointed in the Kayako's mother subplot. I was thinking that she might provide some way to fight the Grudge, but she dies in the hands - hair? - of Kayako. That was such a stupid twist. All in all, it's difficult to feel for characters that you know from minute one are going to die. All in the same way. And there's nothing they can do. It doesn't feel like a cruel destiny awaiting them. It's just boring, because you know what's going to happen. If they had anything to fight it with, that would have added suspense, even if they failed. If there was any hope, it would make the scares more justified. Now you're just waiting for them to die.<br /><br />Kayako was really scary in the first movie, but this time we saw her too many times and that took away some of it. I was still scared during some scenes, but I actually got used to the huge eye and blue face. The makers obviously realized this would happen as they added other scary ghosts. Yes, I was scared at the school psychologist scene - even if I knew where it was going as soon as she said "I've been to the house". A nice touch. Toshio, however, was not scary at all in this movie. I was much more creeped out by the non-blue Toshio with black eyes and a blank stare that sometimes appeared in the first movie. A blue boy sitting in the corner does nothing for me.<br /><br />Some of the characters seemed really unnecessary - the notorious milk-scene with the girl whose name I can't even remember comes to mind. I wasn't scared, it was just "Huh?" I'm not sure if the schoolgirls were even really needed. Karen could have brought the grudge to the US with her. It could have killed people related to her life, everyone at the funeral, or something like that. Even so, it would have been dull to watch them all die, but being introduced to so many unrelated people really felt annoying. Hated the "I won't call you mother" scene. Aubrey's mother issues were equally dull. The little boy was a touching character, though.<br /><br />The Ju-On sequel was much scarier than this one. It had some new twists - dreams and reality blurring much more, for instance - and even if it left me feeling quite down, I was also somehow satisfied. I got to think a bit and be left wondering. This movie only provided cheap scares.
| 0 |
negative
|
Did this gem go direct to video? Fabulous art direction. Mood that never misses a beat. The Truman Show meets Metropolis. An excellent cast. I've never seen Laura Dern better, and Bill Macy is always fabulous. Same said for David Paymer, and Meat Loaf. This is just an incredible film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Contrary to the comment posted directly below, The Big Trail (1930) was not filmed in a three-camera process "much like the later Cinerama." That was the finale to Napoleon (1927), a different film entirely! The Big Trail was simultaneously shot in both 35mm and 70mm (Grandeur) versions, and both versions are shown on Fox Movie Channel from time to time, so it's easy to compare one with the other. The Grandeur version (broadcast in letterbox @ approximately its original 2-1 ratio) is more impressive cinematically with its wide angle panoramas, but suffers from the same problem that beset early CinemaScopes, a lack of close-ups forced upon director Raoul Walsh because of focus problems. Scenes involving individuals rather than crowds or long shots are much more effective in the standard version because the camera can move closer to the players thereby achieving a greater sense of involvement for the viewer. Watching the two versions simultaneously, one gets an accurate idea of which shots Walsh chose to shoot close-up, in the standard version, but could not, in the Grandeur version. There are also a couple sequences involving El Brendel: a shell game with Ian Keith, and some business with his wife & a jackass, which are in the Grandeur version, but missing from the standard version.<br /><br />For the record, The Big Trail is the only one of three Fox Grandeur films which has survived in its original wide screen format. (The other two are Fox Movietone Follies of 1929, completely lost, and Happy Days, which survives only in standard format.) Other studios also experimented with wide film at this time, but the only other one still known to exist in both formats is The Bat Whispers, filmed in both 65mm and 35mm, and released by United Artists. Other wide films were MGM's Billy the Kid (1930) and The Great Meadow (1931), RKO's Danger Lights (1930), and WB's The Lash (1930), all of which can be seen in their standard format versions on Turner Classic Movies. WB's Kismet (1930) was also filmed both wide and standard, but seems to have completely disappeared; it is rumored to be lost.<br /><br />Why did wide film fail in 1930? Theaters were reeling (pun intended) under the impact of the stock market crash of October 1929, and the spiraling costs of installing sound equipment, and so were adverse to taking on the added expense of installing additional new projection equipment and new wider screens to accommodate just a handful of films, photographed in a variety of different systems that were not even always compatible with each other. It would not be until 1953 when Fox, now Twentieth Century-Fox, would try again, and this time succeed, with the introduction of wide screen CinemaScope.
| 1 |
positive
|
The episode begins with scenes of a dead woman bather washed up on the shore, a forlorn Jim strolling along the beach lost in reverie and a night ride home that ends in murder and mystery. Yep,this is an atmospheric little number with a super twist at the end. Jim does well to unravel what is, a priori, an inexplicable case of a woman going missing 20 seconds after she enters her home. To be sure, the eventual explanation is a little far-fetched. Why, for example, go to the lengths of substituting a woman midway thru a car journey when simply rubbing her AND her companions out would've been as easy and left less of a trail. However, these niggles aside, it's a memorable TRF episode full of invention, even if YET AGAIN Jim gets put in the frame by an ever suspicious Police Dept. I mean to say, have the ungrateful so-and-so's ever sat down and counted just how many of THEIR files have been solved by dear ol' Jimbo?
| 1 |
positive
|
You know I only watched 15 minutes of this film, so I can't really describe how great it is. I mean the concept alone is so original and intriguing it just did not let me go. Then there is the mass of academy award winning people involved here plus the academy award nominated director. YOU JUST CAN'T miss. I mean imagine it is the middle of the night and you're not sleepy yet. This film comes on. You watch it and are shocked. It is so brilliant, so original it is so GREAT. It will feel to you that half an hour later you've turned off the screen, but as you go to your bed you see it's only 15 minutes after midnight. ENJOY!!!<br /><br />3 out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was so incredibly boring, Michael J. Fox could've done so much better. Sorry, but it's true for all you people who liked the movie
| 0 |
negative
|
Jim Carrey is a particular brand of humour and I personally think he's a great actor (Eternal Sunshine, for example).<br /><br />However, this movie is presumably intended to be nothing more than a Jim Carrey vehicle, so be aware straight off that if you don't think his style of comedy is funny, you will sit stony-faced throughout this film, as it has NOTHING else to recommend it.<br /><br />Even if you do like Carrey's comedy, I am not sure you will find this film amusing. I went to see it on a Saturday night at 10:30pm and the audience was definitely ready to laugh. They giggled throughout the trailers, which weren't particularly funny, but when it came to the film, stony silence. I think it raised about five genuine laughs.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is it doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't make up its mind whether it's going for slapstick or serious. If it were stupid throughout it could be forgiven but (I'm guessing) it's also trying to make a point about the relationship between the two central characters.<br /><br />The strong point of the film is the hold-ups, and there was plenty of potential here. But these didn't start until about halfway through and remained largely undeveloped. Meanwhile, you have to sit through the first excruciating 40 minutes as the couple's life deteriorates.<br /><br />Four separate groups walked out of this film while I was there, and if my flatmate hadn't asked me to keep away from the house (his girlfriend having just returned from a month-long vacation!), I would have done the same. And in my entire 25 years of movie going, I have done that just once before.
| 0 |
negative
|
I like Wes Studi & especially Adam Beach, but whoa is this movie a load of pretentiousness. Ponderously slow. Overly cryptic to the point of obfuscation, not because the plot warrants it but because there is almost no plot. Even less in the way of characterization. This is almost like one of those creaky old Charlie Chan mysteries (the cheaper Monogram studio versions) with lots of red herrings & oddball characters (like the old ex-senator with the checkered past who is now a recluse) & loads of people getting killed over objets d'art that you wouldn't look twice at in the mall. Great scenery, though. Pretty hair on the redhead, too, although I never did figure out what she was doing in this at all. Neither could my wife. Sheesh, at least the old B-movies had the decency to be short.
| 0 |
negative
|
Butter Battle is an entertaining story about two fictional cities and their arms race. It is also as misguided allegory about the Cold-War and arms races in general. Yes, it is a children's book, but like so many of Theodor Seuss Geisel's works it hits people over the head with its moral.<br /><br />And that moral is what, exactly? Sure it is laudable to encourage us to concentrate more on what unites us than what divides us. It is even a good thing to encourage international cooperation. But to equate the differences between the Warsaw Pact nations and the Nato west to a difference in butter application is just plain wrong. To point out the obvious, many Warsaw Pact nations enjoyed intermittent periods of shortages of butter and bread -- they would have been happy to eat it butter sideways if it were available. On a less literal level, and whatever your political inclination, Soviet socialism versus Western (particularly Anglo-American) democracy is not a mere question of preference and custom.<br /><br />To make the point even clearer, nuclear weapons were not developed in a Cold War with the Soviets, but in a hot war with the Axis powers. There is no doubt that Germany was developing nuclear capability during the war. Should the US have refrained from nuclear weapons research putting their trust in their (less than inevitable) victory in the conventional war? Once the weapons were developed they were used against the enemy who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. What does a nation do at this point when the genie is out of the bottle? Furthermore, hindsight is 20-20, which is to say that there was no way of assuring another half crazed dictator wouldn't crop up with his eyes on developing nuclear weapons. The second Gulf War has shown the incredible difficulty in ascertaining credible threats and neutralizing them.<br /><br />In any event, the cartoon is little more than simplistic propaganda which does little to explore the nuances of the ethical questions behind nuclear armament and instead tries to inculcate fear of weapons technology into children.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is really good. Original ideas in the film and a great terrorist action film. Only second to die hard and die hard with a vengeance, this film has suspense and a good plot. I would recommend it to anyone with a taste in films like mine; Action, terrorism and gangster/mafia.
| 1 |
positive
|
HBO created this show for purposes of making us see the most realistic view of prison possible and they did a hell of a job. Oz was created by the creators of Homicide who wanted to show a raw version of prison. This show is what launched the idea of every other HBO Original Program such as The Sopranos, Sex and the City, The Wire, Arliss, Deadwood, and Six Feet Under amongst others. Oz is the nickname for the Oswald State Penetentiary, a fictional prison in some US state which is never stated (Though with the accents, crime scenes, and racial distribution NY is assumed). The main prison unit looked at on the show is Emerald City, a seemingly ideal prison unit with more privlages than others thought out by a liberal unit manager named Tim McManus. Overall this show shows us what it is really like if one wishes to survive in prison.<br /><br />There are about 10 gangs shown on Oz. First we have the Muslims, a group of blacks who wish to destroy the injustices of the criminal justice system and help improve living conditions for blacks everywhere. They are led by Kareem Said a black militant minister who wishes to destroy everything racist about the judicial system. As a group they are not so much anti-white but rather anti-injustice. Our second group of blacks is the Homeboys who are essentially the street blacks who wish to keep all the bad ghetto behaviors up and run the drug trade. Their leadership varies mainly because they are always losing members due to violence. In this group, one character who is acted terrifically is Simon Adebisi. Adebisi is an African inmate who is essentially the most frighteningly evil character alive. This gang as a whole gets side help from the Irish at times and is always in conflict with the Latinos and Sicilians for drug distribution purposes. Being that Oz is mostly black, the Homeboys have the most soldiers of any gang inside.<br /><br />The Latinos and Sicilians, like the Homeboys have varying leadership due to violent deaths that occur throughout the show. The Sicilians pretty much have the most substantial say in how any illegal activity gets conducted in Oz. The Latinos make their presence known so that they can at least be coasting well if they are not in control. Unlike the Homeboys however, these gangs do not have as much internal battle for power and are usually more stable when it comes to drug usage. The Irish who are mentioned above are a smaller gang led by a manipulative and snakelike Ryan O'Reily. O'Reily always manages to stay in good graces with all the drug powers and manages to manipulate things in his way whenever he wants. They are in no illegal control but they are at least on good terms with all those who are.<br /><br />Amongst the whiter inmates, we have the Bikers and Aryans. The Bikers are merely a bunch of tattooed drug users who help the Aryans out most of the time. The Aryans are the most hated and hateful gang to most any viewer of Oz. They are led by Vern Schillinger who is amongst the most racist, sickest, and sadistic characters one will ever see. Both gangs control nothing illegal, they just merely let the darker skinned inmates see that they are a substantial threat to anyone who thinks all white inmates are soft. We also have the Others. The Others is a gang of outsider prisoners who are not necessarily a problem to any other inmate. In this group we see Tobias Beecher, a lawyer who accidentally killed a young girl whose life is forever altered by prison. We also see Augustus Hill, a black man bound to a wheelchair for killing a police officer who narrates the show and introduces the audience to every inmate. The character's crimes are shown as they are introduced and Augustus lets us know how long they will be in prison. Finally amongst gangs, there are the Christians and Gays. The Christians merely stay religious to keep from going mental and the Gays are a bunch of cross-dressers who are often raped by other inmates.<br /><br />This show gets in depth on a lot of issues dealing with the criminal justice system and is more explicit than any movie about prison. Since language is unedited, we here more racial epithets and cuss words than we would on any other TV show. Augustus Hill's commentary provides a good way for us to truly understand each and every issue involved with Oz. This show as good as it is is not at all for the light to medium hearted. It explicitly shows drug use and distribution by any means possible, prison rape, murders, fatal stabbings, and general gore than anything anyone else has seen. In my opinion it is the most influential and greatest show ever created but I can see at the same time why other people would be disturbed by this show. If you are at all interested by shows and movies about prison, Oz is a must see.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a great Valentine's Day gift. A gorgeous guy and a pretty girl fall in love while trying to beat the competition at a baking contest. Very romantic. I'm a real fan of Costas Mandylor since his days at Picket Fences and he hasn't lost his appeal. Lauren Holly is still lovely and adorable and the two still have great chemistry together. The supporting cast was good as well. Seeing all those wonderful desserts being made was a delicious sight in itself. I loved that Costas and Lauren teamed up to win in the baking competition and in love. This is the kind of film that satifies all palates, romantic and otherwise. Hallmark always shows excellence in their programming and this is no exception. The whole family can view this film. Also shows that sometimes love triumphs over any adversity. I found myself sighing and wishing for more for this film and also yearning for those wonderful desserts. I recommend this film highly for all ages. A great treat for all.
| 1 |
positive
|
What some Hollywood-movies try and practically never succeed, creating somehow metaphysical connections between persons (without becoming unrealistic), manages this beautiful movie perfectly well (resembling in that way a little to the wonderful 'La Double Vie de Veronique' of the same director and with the same beautiful actress). This is a REAL movie, that changes perspective of life a little bit - intelligent and beautiful story, masterfully directed, excellent main actors, masterful cinematography. I've just seen the movie the 3rd or 4th time, and I still think it's one of the best I've ever seen. And if you should be unhappy with the ending of 'White' - 'Red' puts an happy end to the whole trilogy.
| 1 |
positive
|
Having read the book prior to watching this adaptation you would think that it would have lost some of its thrill. However, the story is so clever I could never tire of it. <br /><br />Sally and Elaine really put their hearts into their roles and brought out so much of the characters. I fell in love with the story and the women all over again.<br /><br />Beautiful to watch thanks to direction, settings and costumery. Despite the plot speed of television, I don't feel that anything important was lost in transit. It had me on the edge of my seat throughout with lots of wonderful stomach-trembling moments. Enjoyed it thoroughly. This is the kind of television I have been waiting for.
| 1 |
positive
|
2005 will go down in 'Dr.Who' history as its most incredible year. Everything seemed to click; a first-rate new Doctor and companion, big audiences ( 10 million for the first episode and Christmas special ), major awards, critical acclaim and those idiots who spent years giggling at the Daleks' seeming inability to negotiate stairs were well and truly silenced. But then Christopher Eccleston dropped a bombshell, quitting after just one series. It looked like the honeymoon was over. Luckily, the public appears to have embraced his successor, the excellent David Tennant. On top of this the show boasts fine S.F.X., like the spaceship crashing into 'Big Ben' in 'Aliens Of London' and superb story lines such as 'Tooth & Claw', 'Army Of Ghosts/Doomsday'. The new 'Dr.Who' is basically the same as the old, only updated for the 21st century. Some fans have accused Russell T.Davies of 'ruining' the show. They need to remember that there was no show for sixteen years until he came along.
| 1 |
positive
|
I cannot believe it has been 25 yrs since I first watched this story on TV. I remembered to have been very much touched by it and was lucky to get the VHS tape several years ago. I did not watch it again until just recently. I have been watched it over and over ever since. I must have watched it 10 times in the past 2 wks.<br /><br />The acting is superb, the story is compelling, and I am embarrassed to say that I did not appreciate actor Bryan Brown's talent until now. The playful facial expressions shown in the first half - when he gave Jean the stolen medicine in Malaya is such a contrast to his very reserved and nervous body languages shown in the second half: in their first drink together in Caines and the touring of the homestead. We have to wait until the wedding reception, especially the final dance scene to see his open display of affection for Jean. The same dancing eyes that first revealed his admiration in Malaya. Who wouldn't want to be his Mrs. Boong ? <br /><br />While Joe changed from a cocky, almost bigger than life figure in the Malaya jungle to a somewhat self-conscious average Joe in his own backyard, Jean took the opposite road; her wartime experience seems to have given her new confidence. She wasted no time and went after what she wanted. She took steps to take what she could get - exactly as Joe had told her to once upon a time.<br /><br />For me, all these transformations helps to show this is more than just a love story - this is a story about growth, courage and fragility in life. The solicitor -Noel is both a sweet and sad figure. He too gave much to Jean - he gave his last hope for love. At the end, he did what true love requires -- he put her happiness ahead of his own.<br /><br />I happened to like the fight between Joe & Jean that was not in the book. I thought it's an appropriate and necessary addition for it helped to surface the inner struggles they both had to deal with in order to make their life together possible.<br /><br />Now, I am older, maybe I understand life, love and loss a little better. This story touches me even deeper. <br /><br />I am, however, surprised to see B. Brown has blue eyes in the promo photo shown on this site. He most definitely did not in "A Town like Alice." Well, 25 yrs is a long time !
| 1 |
positive
|
This is an Emperor's New Clothes situation. Someone needs to say "That's not a funny and original, (etc., etc.) film; that is an inferior film. Don't waste your money on it." The film is trashy, and the people in it are embarrassingly inferior trailer trash. They are all-too-realistically only themselves. They have no lines, they don't act. The American Dream is not to create shoddy no-quality films or anything else shoddy and of no-quality; it is to achieve something of quality and, thereby, success. Only people who are desperate to praise any film not made in Hollywood (it can't have been made in Hollywood, can it?) would try to impute any kind of quality to this film. It's worse than "Ed Woods," another film about a film-maker without standards. These films shouldn't have been made, and you shouldn't go see "American Movie."
| 0 |
negative
|
I was extraordinarily impressed by this film. It's one of the best sports films I've every seen. The visuals in this film are outstanding. I love the sequences in which the camera tracks the ball as it flies through the air or into the cup. The film moves well, offering both excitement and drama. The cinematography was fantastic. <br /><br />The acting performances are great. I was surprised by young Shia LaBeouf.He does well in this role. Stephen Dillane is also good as the brooding Harry Vardon. Peter Firth, Justin Ashforth, and Elias Koteas offer able support. The film is gripping and entertaining and for the first time in my life actually made me want to watch a golf tournament.
| 1 |
positive
|
Lou Gossett, Jr. is an excellent and captivating actor, but to have him take the role of a "president" and then have him act like he's James Bond, running around carrying a Gun and entering a warehouse to uncover a plot to kill Christians, and then being able to Escape the supposedly High Security Facility to live another day, does Not do him Justice - this movie has so many Unresolved Issues<br /><br />I will attempt to list just a few: <br /><br />1 - what was the purpose of "stockpiling" a Vaccine if no one is Vaccinated? - for example, the preacher could have been Vaccinated if the "tribulation force" already had Vaccine on hand - later, buck Williams' wife goes to be with the sick preacher and she herself becomes sick; so, was the Virus, therefore, Contagious? - IF it was Contagious, then why did Ray and his wife go into the church without Proper Protection? - why didn't they become Sick too? - and when Chloe drank the wine and was "cured", how did she suddenly know the wine was the "antidote"? - was it California wine, ordinary Red Table Wine? - could Red Grape Juice been adequate - and,if the preacher had received "communion" at least every time he preached, maybe he would have had anti-dote flowing through his body already? - buck and Chloe got a "heavy" box of vaccine that was never used - what mysterious message should we see in that? <br /><br />2 - the presentation of "evil" forces who are working with the Anti-Christ Nicolai to destroy the world, as being Russian, Chinese, etc., is really a Relic of the 1950's and the early James Bond era, and shows an Ignorance of Modern Society and of Humanity - are we to believe that Russians and Chinese are perpetually trying to destroy this Planet? - and for what Purpose, mere Destruction? - this was such a Narrow-Minded view of this world and was so Cliché as to be Laughable<br /><br />3 - the main purpose of this movie was the scene near the very end where Kirk Cameron and Lou Gossett, Jr. are proselytizing the non-believers in the audience (by showing Kirk proselytizing Lou) - it was a movie with no meaningful storyline, too many disconnects with reality, and a completely inappropriate plot for a great actor<br /><br />I, therefore, rank this as a 1, since Zero is not available
| 0 |
negative
|
The TV ads for this movie showed the warlocks hitting a truck head-on, then getting smashed to bits and reforming on the other side of the truck. I thought the special effects were good, but the general style of the movie was wimpy. This is the "Charmed" TV series with three boys instead of three girls.<br /><br />The big surprise for the three teens who are about to become adults is that there is an unknown fourth member of the clan who is out to get them and consolidate all their power. Besides driving into trucks, these kids can fly up the sides of houses, climb out of windows, push each other into stacks of garbage, and make the veins in their necks pop out. But if they use their powers too often, they become prematurely old and feeble. The father of one of the boys is evidence of this, as he sits in an attic made up to look like a mummy but he is only 45 years old.<br /><br />The three good warlocks are each filthy rich in his own right, completely spoiled, obnoxious, and annoying. In any public school, these kids would be beaten up every day. Their glares and facial ticks would not cut any mustard with the boys from the hood. Unfortunately for all good people, these Charmed boys were sent to Hogwart's Reform School for the warlocks that couldn't get into Harry Potter's class.<br /><br />So what was the movie all about? Three teenagers acting out with each other and their girlfriends. One other teenager who envies their power and money and happens to be a lost relative. After a few scenes where the Charmed boys show off their powers and have sex with their girlfriends; the movie gets around to the unknown warlock teen's revenge plot. The predictable stuff happens. The bad warlock ambushes various friends of the other warlocks, and eventually starts attacking them too. The final confrontation happens, and that is about it.<br /><br />The special effects are not bad, but nothing special. If you like to see fireballs, spiders, and blue veins, then this is a good movie to watch.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Last Dinosaur is a film that is meant to be fun and exciting. It succeeds at doing both.<br /><br />Maston is a big game hunter who hunts big game(go figure). Owning a company he is planning on going on an expedition with a group of people including a photographer named frankie, a Japanese scientist, a guy who works for his company named Chuck, and an African guy who has aided him on many safari's named Bun Ta. The point is to study what is believed to be Tyrannosaurus Rex, dinosaur that killed the last expedition to the area. They will be getting to this prehistoric area taking a drilling vehicle that travels underwater called the Polar Borer. After getting to the area they soon find the Tyrannosaurus, which Maston tries to shoot but his gun gets jammed. Chuck immediately senses that Maston wanted to hunt the dinosaur all along to add it to his collection of "Stuffed Animals". WHile they were away, Tyrannosaurus invades their camp and takes the Polar Borer away from their camp. Upon returning the group realizes that they may be in the area longer than they expected and Maston states that he will kill the Tyrannosaurus.<br /><br />THe story is great for a science fiction film. Drilling to a prehistoric area is something that seems could really happen. The scenery is beautiful and it looks like a place where dinosaurs could still reside.<br /><br />Also I liked the characters in this film. Maston is the typical big time hunter who wants to get anything that could be a trophy kill. Also great was Bun Ta, played by Luther Rackley formerly of the NBA, who really looks and acts like an African tracker. Jackie is the typical female who causes problems for the group and seems to not belong in the wilderness. Chuck is the former employee of Maston who has his view of his boss change when he is in the wild with him.<br /><br />The Tyrannosaurus in this film is one of the best in a film. It stands a little too up-right like Godzilla does and it drags its tail, so it is a guy in a suit. But the suit looks good, especially the head and the tail, and the Tyrannosaurus looks good and very scary. I have seen plenty of other films where dinosaur suits look way worse. Tyrannosaurus in this film sometimes emits a roar sounding like Godzilla's and other times roars like King Kong from "King Kong Escapes" and "King Kong vs Godzilla". SO a great Tyrannosaurus.<br /><br />There is plenty of action in The Last Dinosaur. Of particular note is a great fight between Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops. Also a great scene where Bun Ta tries to spear the Tyrannosaurus. There are other great parts that I wont give away. You have to see for yourself.<br /><br />I recommend this film to everyone. Watch it and you will not be disappointed.
| 1 |
positive
|
I first saw this film about 15 years ago, and I have been enchanted by it ever since. It is such a feel-good experience, that I could happily watch it at any time of the year. However, to me, it is the ultimate Christmas movie.<br /><br />The fact that it is in B&W is irrelevant - although I often wonder what it would be like in colour. You can just get that warm, glowing feeling watching the Christmas events unfold. <br /><br />Stanwyck and Morgan are perfect together, and Greenstreet is the antithesis of his usual character, Sakall is a blustering joy to watch.<br /><br />It is light relief and certainly does not tax the brain, but leaves you feeling glad that you saw it.<br /><br />I can't wait for it to become available on DVD in the UK. I shall certainly be at the front of the queue to buy it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.
| 0 |
negative
|
imagination must of slipped Jim Wynorski mind when he wrote the script to this one. i don't mind when the animals scenes are almost identical but when the actors repeat lines from other movies is going a little too far. I did enjoy seeing Jay Richardson and Glori Ann Gilbert get eaten. Gloria brings nothing to a movie but her tits (my husbands sentiments). Jerri Manthey should of stayed on survival island her acting is stiff, unbelievable and she just a plain boor. liked the scene where the cobra comes out of the ocean eats the guy then for added flavor destroys the dingy. At least we know the next plot giant snake man slays komodo before becoming daddy to a nest of eggs. Jerri would be great as the mother cobra. sit back with a 6 pact or a couple of joints. it will ease the pain.
| 0 |
negative
|
My wife and I endorse all the positive comments below, made by other IMDB members. While this is no box office smash hit it has a special charm all of its own. Genuine and heart-warming.<br /><br />We saw this on video, at the end of a long day. We were very tired, and in bed. Normally in a situation like this my wife drops off to sleep within minutes, that is, unless it is an exceptional movie and this one kept us both entertained right to the very end.<br /><br />Perhaps younger viewers in their teens and twenties would not like this, but for the rest of us it is a true gem! See it!
| 1 |
positive
|
I think this is the worst movie I have seen since "Mortal Kombat 2". The action (including the effects) is like in a cheap Glen A. Larson TV show, the acting is terrible and the dialogs are even more stupid than in MK2. Avoid at all cost.
| 0 |
negative
|
Having recently seen Grindhouse, I was browsing in Video USA looking for some movies that might have played in real grindhouse theatres in downtown areas during the '70s. The Hong Kong action flick Five Fingers of Death seemed just such a picture. The cartoon-like sound effects and the quick jump cuts seemed a little distracting at first but after a while I was so involved in the story and the characters I didn't care. Parts of the music score sounded like the "Ironside" TV theme song that was subsequently used in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill movies. Some scenes involving the hero's fiancé seemed to border on parody but they were so brief that they didn't ruin the film. The most exciting parts involve the tournament and some revenge segments after that. Well worth seeing for kung fu fans!
| 1 |
positive
|
I was a guest at the Sept. 30th screening of Eddie Monroe and was pleasantly surprised with the story, the great acting and the talented directing. I found it hard to believe that all this talent can be found in an independent film. Powerful performances by Vario, (Uncle Benny), Sara, (Jessica Tsunis), and Morris, (Eddie Monroe). The supporting cast was chock full of colorful and amusing characters. This film reminds me of one of those movies that you will look back on in 20 years and discover that it launched many actors into stardom. Much like "The Outsiders" where Tom Cruise, Emilio Estavez, Patrick Swazey, Ralph Macchio, and others can be found. Look out Hollywood, there are new stars out on the horizon and they can be discovered in a little Long Island, independent film called, "Eddie Monroe." Great job!
| 1 |
positive
|
Negative numbers are not available to convey how bad this movie is! Wooden acting coupled with a story line that has been rehashed dozens of times. Everyone in this movie should attend Overactors Anonymous. You would think an original story could evolve from the general concept. Young men at a prep school are tying to come to grips with the Pearl Harbor bombing. It does raise interesting questions, but the manner in which they are conveyed make it more of a joke. The typical characters were present including the zealous jock and nerd (glasses included). I could not have been more uninterested in the wooden dialog and cliché characters. Upon the completion of the movie, I had to throw the DVD in the trash. Stay far away from this dud! You won't get the 90 minutes of your life back!
| 0 |
negative
|
Although I brought this film by accident (I thought it was the original Halloween(stupid eh!)) I was surprised by how good it was, many sequels just continue the events of the previous films, this however tried and succeeded in explaining the events of the prequels, why does Michael Myers kill people and how come he seems to have supernatural abilities. I thought this was a top horror film full of action, suspense and surprises, I'm very glad I brought it. I've given it 9 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Ali G show was really something amazing - he was so stupid wannabe rapper, but no one he interviewed noticed that he was just pretending. Sasha Cohen is actually very intelligent guy, who pretends to be stupid, so he could get really honest answers from people... And it is very funny. So I didn't expect movie to be good, cause it was all acted - no real people or interviews. So the basic point of all show was lost. But I was wrong - I laughed all the time, it was one of the funniest films I ever saw. Sure it was stupid, but who cares if you can't actually brake in to safe with a car battery, like someone said? It wasn't supposed to be a realistic documentary... And it isn't like the show, it goes in totally different way, but that doesn't mean it is bad. When I finished watching I was totally impressed, but now when some time passed I realized that it was not that special anyway, But it still deserves a nine - well at least for what it is supposed to be.
| 1 |
positive
|
I first saw this film as a teenager (I'm now in my 40's), and have long considered it to be my favorite movie. The story is enormously moving, without being sentimental. The acting, especially by March and Loy, is dead-on. And the fact that Dana Andrews is too old for his role doesn't take away from the believability of his romance with Theresa Wright (whom I believe is the only major character in the film still living). This could have turned out to be another post-war melodrama, but the script and cast are simply too good for that to happen.
| 1 |
positive
|
Körkarlen (1921), a classic film with cult status amongst the silent movies, directed by Victor Sjöstrøm, who also plays the male main role, is based on a story by Swedish novelist Selma Lagerlöf. The film tells the story of brutal drinker David Holm, who beats up his wife, neglects his children, seduces his brother to drinking and is blind for the love of nurse Edit (Astrid Holm). David sits toward the end of the year together with his boozing buddies in the city-park and tells the story of the Phantom Chariot (Körkarlen): Who dies in the New Year's Eve night as the last one before dawn, has to serve one year long as driver of Death and release the dying souls from their bodies. But David gets into a fight with his buddies, suffers a hemorrhage and sinks dead on the soil. Meanwhile, the Phantom Carriage is approaching. The driver is nobody else than David's late friend Georges who seduced him into alcohol and died one year before. Since David refuses to get on the carriage, Georges forces him. Together, they drive to the stations where people live who suffered from David. They visit the nurse Edit whose love to David he was unable to recognize and whom he infected with tuberculosis so that she is dying now. But her unconditioned love to David will save his soul. Fulfilled with her spirit, they get to David's wife and children. David is able to prevent his wife from killing herself and her children, because she does not see a way out of the misery in which David has thrown her. They also visit David's brother, who has committed a murder after having been seduced into drinking by David. David asks Georges to go back into his body, because he finally sees that his way was wrong. Since it was Georges who had seduced him once into drinking, David's wish is granted, he gets a second chance, and Georges has to be one more year the driver of the Phantom Carriage in order to pay for his own sins. This movie belongs probably to the strongest and most impressive films ever made. Deplorably, it is still not available on international DVD.
| 1 |
positive
|
I bought this film from my local blockbuster for 99p an it's been sitting in my video bookcase for at least a year now. Then tonight I decided to see it, the film was quite different to what I had expected and I didn't find any humour in it all I saw was that it was a bleak look at people dealing with love relationships and sexual orientation and I didn't really see the psycho killer plot really having a point except to add tension to the end of the film. I felt that the person playing the lesbian woman did a great job. I was following her emotions and what happened around her. Some people would probably have seen some of the stuff that she does as funny but I could really put myself in her place, loving someone but them rejecting you at every turn no matter how hard you try. I thought it was a very moving film and dealt with all the different sexualities well. I was expecting something like Bound & Gagged : A love story, but this is a very different film. Not for bigots.
| 1 |
positive
|
I haven't laughed this much in a long time - or seen a film so ineptly made! Talk about so bad it made me laugh!<br /><br />Firstly, I estimate that for about 40 percent of the film's length, I couldn't tell what was happening, or indeed even what I was seeing. I can only describe the camera work as frenetic meets LSD. There are whole segments, minutes long, where all you can see are blurred flashes and fragments of cave wall, people and various other unidentifiable stuff. I spent half the film asking my teenage daughters what was happening, but they couldn't follow it any better than me.<br /><br />Then there are the "black" moments, when in an effort to scare us (woooooooo) everyone's lights go out and the screen turns pitch black - and I don't just mean for a few seconds. I think the longest lasted almost two minutes. I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...<br /><br />I suspect the "director" had recently read a book on all the "must-do's" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.<br /><br />There are three good things about this film: 1/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them). 3/ There was one genuinely good scene - when the group are looking up the shaft they came down, after discovering their rope fallen to the bottom (saw THAT coming), a large boulder is pushed across the opening, sealing them in. I WASN'T expecting that, and it was genuinely chilling.<br /><br />And what's with the early campfire scenes with the shot, after shot, after shot panning from behind the camp lights. I swear the director used almost the same shot about 20 times in 5 minutes.<br /><br />And I'm positive that after the first kill, the EXACT same footage of blood on the cave floor is used twice in about 90 seconds.<br /><br />All in all, a CRAP piece of film making. I'll watch almost anything, but this is close to where I'd draw the line.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is funny and sad enough I think that it is kinda true. If you love Office Space then you will love this movie because it is another Mike Judge hit, but it is nothing like Office Space. I told every one to see this movie. I only wish that it would have been in more theaters so it would have gotten the recognition it deserved. I love this movie and would love to see more from Mike Judge. Luke Wilson is also what makes this movie what it is. I am so glad that I will not be alive in the year 2505, because if this movie turns out to be true we are all in for a lot of trouble. I just hope more people see this movie because I know that they will fall in love with it too.
| 1 |
positive
|
Some users are confused about the identity of the armed men walking down the steps in the "Odessa staircase" sequence. These men are not Cossacks but regular army troops.<br /><br />The Cossacks arrive at the scene a little later and they are the men on horses slashing at the crowd with their sabers.<br /><br />To experts on Russian history: Correct me on this if I'm wrong.<br /><br />But there are a couple of lines in the movie that apparently no one has commented on. After the takeover of the Potemkin, someone in the crowd on shore says, "Kill the Jews!" This is on screen for only a couple of seconds but it is there.<br /><br />How cruelly typical of history, not just in Russia but in so many other countries, to immediately, unthinkingly and instinctively blame Jews for any domestic trouble!<br /><br />Perhaps other parts of the movie are not historically factual but the outcry against the Jews is all too real. Comments, anyone?<br /><br />Also, why can't speakers of English learn to pronounce the name as "Potyomkin" instead of as "Potemkin"? There's a need in Russian to distinguish the two possible pronunciations of "e": as either "ye" or as "yo." Sometimes two dots are used to distinguish these two pronunciations but usually the difference simply has to be memorized.
| 1 |
positive
|
While Boris(Aleksey Batalov)is off to fight in war against the Germans for his Mother Russia, his beloved Veronika(Tatyana Samojlova)marries his conniving cousin Mark(Aleksandr Shvorin)in a moment of weakness shortly after her parents were killed in an air raid over Moscow. Through various trials and betrayals, Veronika will await word or letter from Boris no matter how long it takes, holding hope that he will return to her.<br /><br />Powerful piece of film-making boasts simply incredible photographic work by cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky. Some of the many magnificently framed, moving shots include the scene where the camera follows Veronika through a crowd of loved ones saying goodbye to each other as she rushes through the mob of bodies to say goodbye to Boris..and doesn't quite reach him even as we watch Boris looking impatiently into the swarm without luck. The sequence after the air raid where Veronika walks up the standing stairs circulating up the destroyed building she once called home and the scene where Mark makes his lustful move on Veronika as another air raid continues just outside the building as wind rustles the curtains and flashes of light emanate inside are just two of MANY examples where Sergei Urusevsky shows his genius at framing images that will last forever on film. But, without the power and tragedy of the story regarding how war can forever shape the destiny of a couple who dearly, deeply love each other, this film couldn't hold up with the beauty of the visual alone. Together, however, we're left with an amazing film..simply a haunting masterpiece from the Soviet Union after Stalin breathed his last breath. I feel honored just have beheld such a great film.
| 1 |
positive
|
The concept for this movie was quite good. But somehow the execution failed on many parts. There aren't many horror movies that I can think of that used dolls that looked so realistic. Especially when these dolls start blinking their eyes or moving hands. So much could have been done with this premise. There were a lot of scenes where there was room for tension and suspense. And I really was expecting creepy things to happen. But never did the movie managed to be scary. One of the main reasons is that the story is too minimal and predictable. I actually thought that they did this on purpose in order to surprise us with some wonderful twist. Sadly this doesn't happen. Well at least not in the way that I hoped for. The cast also failed to make it all believable. It would have been nice if more background was given on the characters. In the beginning when we get introduced to the main character. It seems that she and other characters are invited by some sort of artist. But it also is apparent that they don't have an idea themselves what they are invited for. Of course this is part of the mystery. But it does seem unlikely. If I got an invitation without having a clue what the deal is I simply would not go. Furthermore most characters aren't real likable with the end result that you never actually care for them. Another flaw is that the director deviates from the basic premise which is scary enough and brings up new elements that never get explained and aren't even relevant to the "Doll Master mystery". Overall this movie has been a big disappointment to me. If you want to see a good horror movie involving dolls go see "Dead Silence"!
| 0 |
negative
|
The Daily Mail's Christopher Tookey had some choice things to say about this film, among them "watch it all the way through its 82 miserable minutes, and I guarantee you'll be shaking your head and asking: 'Have we really descended to this?' Yes, we have, for if ever a movie testified to the utter cynicism, tastelessness and moral corruption of those who commission and make British movies, it is this abomination". Tookey continues "aimed squarely at oafs with unwashed underwear, filthy minds and knuckles that graze the pavement when they walk, this sex comedy is so sordid, unfunny and malodorous that it is enough to put you off sex, and indeed films, for life", before concluding "Sex Lives of the Potato Men is not merely a truly vile film, it is symptomatic of a new national culture of instant self-gratification, yobbishness and sadism that is now being celebrated on screen". Normally I don't listen too closely to the critics, but in this case, Tookey was bang on the money. This film goes beyond bad, indeed, it goes beyond being merely unfunny and enters some bizarre parallel universe where every painful minute drags on for an hour and where the definition of 'hilarious' seems to be 'saying tw*t in a Brummie accent'. It's depressing to anyone with half a brain who grew up with the Goodies, Monty Python, Spitting Image, Not the Nine O'Clock News and Fawlty Towers.<br /><br />Ideally, Sex Lives Of the Potato Men would have quietly vanished after its cinema release and joined the equally dire Vix spin-off The Fat Slags (2004) and the ill-starred All Saints vehicle Honest (2000) in the celluloid graveyard, but as it seems destined for endless late night schedule-filling screenings and misguided "best film EVER!" raves from people who should know better, so I must apologise in advance for trying to right a wrong that the British film industry, in all its wisdom, has inflicted onto an undeserving world. Yes, I really am sorry to bring this one back from the celluloid dead, but I actually remember thinking "It can't be as bad as the critics said it was"...but, as God is my witness, it was WORSE.<br /><br />Acting - dire from start to finish, special mention to Mackenzie 'Albert Steptoe's legs on a young man's body' Crook.<br /><br />Soundtrack - cut and paste 'ladrock', mostly ska-based lager-lout-friendly pub jukebox piffle which brought back horrible memories of seeing those chirpy cockernee doin' the Lambeth Walk to a watered-down imitation of the Specials knob-shiners Madness on every single comedy / variety programme in the eighties...and 'Ace Of Spades' by Motorhead as the title music? What the hell...trying to evoke memories of one of the most genuinely exciting scenes ever offered by The Young Ones, indeed, ever offered by ANY comedy show?! Cheap shot, way below the belt.<br /><br />Script - written by a 12 year old who's just read every single back issue of Smut and Zit in one long Red Bull-fuelled session...SURELY? C'mon, no real, proper, worldly, grown-up person could possibly set this kind of retarded hogwash on paper? And Mark Gatiss was in it...Mark Gatiss...the least annoying member of the League of Gentlemen and Goodies fan taking part in such a towering heap of fly-blown cinematic excrement? 'One of the brightest British comedy stars'? Not any more he's not! On the subject of League Of Gentlemen, somebody give me a pair of lead-lined diver's boots and Steve 'face like a collapsed rectum' Pemberton and a long weekend in a soundproofed room before I die...PLEASE...<br /><br />Cinema, British or otherwise, just doesn't come much worse than this. Kent Bateman's The Headless Eyes (1971) is a new-wave masterpiece compared to this repugnant smut.
| 0 |
negative
|
Barney and Friends is probably the worst kids show that I have ever seen. It teaches kids nothing, the songs are corny, it is not educational and the characters are just plain agitating. I am not one to disagree with those who hate the show. Honestly, I have seen more negative than positive reviews for this show. 75% of the reviews are negative and there are some really mature people. This show contains no educational value or age-appropriate educational material whatsoever. More reasons why I dislike this show is because of the crappy plots, cheesy dialogue, horrid special effects and the abysmal story lines. Besides, it says that you should eat junk food if you are sad and that strangers are your friends. Saying that is a "model of what preschool television should be",as expressed by Yale researchers Dorothy and Jerome Singer, is a load of crap. They don't know what they're talking about. I would never recommend Barney to anyone. Te reason why some kids keep crying for or get addicted to junk is because of this show poisoning the minds of children everywhere. For people(parents/children) who seek real preschool mater, switch over to Nick Jr. and watch "Super Why!" instead. It's far more better than this turd and Five TV once had the nerve to put it on "milkshake" but thankfully took it off. I highly advise everyone to keep far away from this show as possible. Parents, I highly advise you to keep your kids as far away from this show as possible. They'll thank you later.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Don't Bother Wasting Your Valuable Time With This Stupid Show. It's Utter Garbage. -10000000000000/10. Grade: Z. Avoid Like The Plague!<br /><br />Thanks for reading.
| 0 |
negative
|
Sam O'Steen, the film editor on the superlative suspense flick "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968, here directs a quickie TV-made sequel, one in which Rosemary Woodhouse (Patty Duke Astin, in for Mia Farrow) is shunted off early--and inexplicably--presumably to help flesh out the more ghoulish aspects of this flaccid story about Satan's son on Earth. Most interesting is the return of Ruth Gordon to her Oscar-winning role as Minnie Castevet (with Ray Milland well-cast as her husband, Roman), but she isn't given much to do--and looks terribly uncomfortable at being involved anyway. This script is strictly low-rent goods, and must have shamed original author Ira Levin (who went on to write his own sequel). Fairly dim and pallid, with poor photography and no suspense or scares whatsoever.
| 0 |
negative
|
Hey, I know Angel isn't the kind of show that gives people a happy ending, and I know they couldn't just make everything perfect, but I couldn't believe the ending to Angel. I absolutely love the show, it's possibly the best show ever. However, I really hated this ending, as well as the whole way the 2nd half of Angel season 5 went (similar to Buffy season 7). My favorite characters deaths were pretty much pointless and did nothing for the plot. Cordelia was one of the best characters on the show, and once she and Angel were finally going to get together she turned all evil and into a demon. I wanted so badly to have her back, don't get me wrong the episode where Cordelia comes back is fantastic, but I was still really mad she was gone. Then on earth was up with Fred dying, right after she finally got with Wesley? There was no sacrifice, it was pointless, it did nothing whatsoever for the plot, and blue haired demon girl is an awful, useless character. They spent way too much of the end centered around her. Another big problem is they didn't connect the elements well enough. I know those dudes in that black thorn wanted to bring about the apocalypse, but there wasn't even a date set for when it was supposed to happen. The apocalypse should have been carried out and discovered throughout the entire season, rather than just mentioning there are some evil dudes an hour before the season ends. One of the biggest problems is every character who the audience cares about is either dead or has nothing to live for. My three favorite characters died, and Angel, Spike, and Gunn (who I'm not sure even survives) have no office, aren't even back to their helping the helpless, are in the middle of a huge battle, and have lost everyone they care about. Angel and Spike are never redeemed, they lose the girl they care about, and just about everyone's dead, and they still have to fight this weird evil army. I get the whole you never stop fighting, but it was stupid to end it right in the middle. Couldn't there have been some redemption, with knowledge that there would always be many more battles to come. I don't get why this episode is so highly rated, because I think the Buffy ending was 10 times better, and I wasn't even a giant fan of that one. Why did they have to slip at the end, season 3 and 4 and 1st half of five were so amazing, then they went and messed up the show.
| 0 |
negative
|
I've just been at the cinema in down town Prague watching this film. <br /><br />Not due to the poster I found very Holywood old-fashioned heroic<br /><br />style. Not due to the high level starring which remind me that most<br /><br />of those high starring French films are usually pathetic. But just<br /><br />because there are not so many films in my French mother tongue in a<br /><br />city like Prague. And because I love Adjani, Depardieu and Rappenau's<br /><br />Cyrano. Then I decided to write up this small comment because I think<br /><br />I really don't agree with the comment main stream on this film on imdb.<br /><br />I was not disappointed. The film just look like the poster. The<br /><br />characters are just as stupid as they look like. For a while I<br /><br />thought Adjani would be like a caricature -- just a funny character<br /><br />you can laugh at. No she is not! For example when she decides to tell<br /><br />Depardieu she is the one who murdered the fat one she killed at the<br /><br />beginning of the film then come the violins in a big fat pathetic<br /><br />music which should make you cry and realize Adajani's character is a<br /><br />deeper person as she looks like. Maybe this was humor at the 10th<br /><br />level but I am sorry my sense of humor is not that high! If I want to<br /><br />see some funny French film on the WWII I watch once again La Grande<br /><br />Vadrouille! It is definitively more fun! I have also read on imdb<br /><br />that Lemoine is making a great performance in this film. I have to<br /><br />say I have never seen a so bad acting! (Well I have never seen any Ed<br /><br />Wood's film). Nevertheless the film is good filmed with a lot of good<br /><br />(very costly) scenes like the one with the Pantheon in the morning<br /><br />when the German army arrives at Paris or when the refugees settle down<br /><br />on a bridge in Bordeaux. I think Rappeneau is a good filmmaker but<br /><br />that he does better with a good script. It was easy with Cyrano. He<br /><br />had not to write the dialogs!<br /><br />I give 1/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Perhaps I was just in a really good mood when I watched this film. but, for whatever reason, I really liked this film. Was it terribly original? No. Was it a bit predictable? Yes. And so what? It was still a really nice movie. I've always liked Bruce Willis (well, almost always, there was Hudson Hawk and The Fifth Element, after all), and he portrayed a selfish, sarcastic b***ard perfectly. Maybe this movie isn't Academy Award material, but it sure is feel good material. Go rent it.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is my favourite kung fu movie. It has a very authentic flavour, seasoned by an eerie music score (of tradition chinese instruments, I think), and some wonderfully over-acted melodramatic moments contrasted by heavily affected comedy. Indeed, while attempting to create their own "Western" (i.e. Cowboy film) genre, the Chinese concocted a whole new animal, marked by kung fu fighting and its associated sound effects.<br /><br />The story of Five Fingers of death is simple, a story of revenge (for killing a loved one) and the pursuit of the main character to master the "iron-fist-technique" that will enable him to wreak holy vengeance on his enemies. There is even a love interest, though the awkward, polite kind (found in most Chinese films of the period). The end result however is great and much more authentic than any Bruce Lee movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't believe that anyone would green light this let alone voluntarily star in it. I will never be able to get that 90 mins of my life back.<br /><br />This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Some films are so bad they're good. This has gone so far round again that's somehow it's so bad it's terrible. I was not exactly expecting much, it being a low budget, bandwagon jumping, rehash of a B Movie, but it still came in way under my expectation levels. Even TV movies have higher production values.<br /><br />There were (very) poor special effects, shocking dialogue, terrible acting and a completely unexplained plot. Who cursed her and why, why did the 6 inch snakes turn into 15 foot snakes, has anyone ever heard of highly venomous garter snakes or pythons? 100 passengers? 3,000 snakes? So many promises, none delivered. <br /><br />Some comments would have you believe that this film is worth watching for the last five minutes. It's not even worth a rental. Stay in and watch a low budget TV movie, you'll enjoy it a lot more. <br /><br />Why was this made? Oh yes, to shamelessly cash in on the internet phenomenon that is SOAP. Shame on you Mallachi Brothers, shame on you
| 0 |
negative
|
WOW! What a horrible, hideous waste of time this celluloid atrocity turned out to be. I remember seeing it years ago and thinking it was fun but now...it's just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that it is a blatant rip-off of "The Exorcist" to the point where it was re-released at one point under the title "The Sex-orcist". The only real difference is that the producers have the gall to further discredit themselves by slapping on the claim that the events in the film are REAL! Who in their right mind would actually believe such a bold faced lie? To make matters even worse, there was a video release in circulation with cover art that blatantly tried to cash in on the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" by throwing a pair of lips on the cover! How low could one possibly sink? Do not be fooled by the false claims, blatant lies or title rip-off because you will be SORELY disappointed if you do!
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an exceptional picture with so much to recommend it. The acting and writing are terrific and there are lots of great twists and turns in the plot. As a French "Noir" film, its language is certainly a lot earthier than its American counterparts, but to me this just added to the realism. Additionally, I liked how non-glamorous everyone was--particularly the husband and the lieutenant. About the only negative, and the reason the film gets a 9 and not a 10, is because there was a glaring plot hole. Like another famous French film, Drôle de Drame, the confusion between the cops and the accused could easily have been settled in the beginning, but the characters made rather stupid decisions. For this, you just need to suspend disbelief and keep watching--the payoff is well worth the wait.<br /><br />This is simply one of the finest French films I have seen. Period.
| 1 |
positive
|
One would have expected Hitchcock's return to major studio filmmaking to err on the side of chastened caution. Surely few expected his most riotous, unrestrained film, a gleeful melange of vicious black comedy, exciting suspense, mocking manipulation, and astonishing flights of fancy. But that is precisely what they got: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.<br /><br />What is remarkable is how much Bruno's transgression disrupts the world of the film. Much has been made of the masterly crosscutting motif, but its immediate effect is to completely obstruct the straight line of progress Guy is making of his life, and hence the society he represents or is eager to join. Guy is the archetypal American, the working-class boy made good, moving in influential circles, athletic, successful, handsome. Bruno is his destructive opposite, gay, decadent, 'European' (he lives off his father, in a Big House, and just lounges about dreaming of murder). Bruno's life is one of repetition, circularity, whereas Guy moves straight ahead. It is Bruno's achievement to move Guy into his realm (represented by the merry-go-round) and force HIM to transgress (break the law, hope for murder (Bruno's)).<br /><br />Bruno is quite literally fighting patriarchy. All the authority figures in the film are criticised - Bruno's father, a man whose brutality we get a glimpse of, but the true horror of which is constantly alluded to in the film (especially in Aunt Clara's paintings - that incredibly intense negative energy must come from somewhere); Anna's incredibly Machiavellian, self-serving father; the insensitive judge who thinks nothing of lunching after an execution; the tennis commentator whose smugly authorative comments are always mistaken. Far from being the mother-hater of legend, Hitch, as Robin Wood perceived, is deeply hostile to fathers and patriarchy.<br /><br />Bruno's transgression turns the world topsy-turvy. This is Hitch's most surreal film. Whenever Guy is in his plot, he is filmed straight, with conventionally romantic music. But whenever Bruno intrudes, the atmosphere becomes carnivalesque, bizarre, much more fun. This is Hitch's first truly American film, revelling in the primitive detritus of Americana. Grown men puncture little boys' balloons, or try to throw them off merry-go-rounds. Distinguished professors of mathematics sing about goats on trains. Elderly society matrons are strangled at elegant soirees. Washington is filmed like a series of spare lines in a vast desert under a huge sky, like a haunting Dali painting. There is one of the greatest, and funniest, scenes in all cinema when we see a motionless, smiling Bruno in a sea of turning heads at a tennis match, an image worthy of Magritte. Just look at any scene with Bruno in it, and watch it derail into the bizarre.<br /><br />Phalluses abound in the most ridiculous permutations - check all those balloons (Hitch had obviously just seen THE THIRD MAN) - as well as in more staid environs: Washington will never look the same again. STRANGERS is also, VERTIGO notwithstanding, Hitch's most overtly sexual film - as well as the phalluses, there is the sustained homoeroticism, the remarkable play with 'riding' horses; the gobsmacking fellatio joke when Hitch's daughter spills powder over the policeman.<br /><br />And yet Hitch doesn't stint on good old suspense. In the very proper endeavour to show what a great artist he was, critics tend to overlook what made him famous in the first place. Much has been made of Bruno as a prototype of Norman Bates, and Hitch plays merry havoc on audience identification, willing Bruno into murder. There is a hilariously painful sequence where Bruno loses the lighter with which he intends to frame Guy down a drain. The gasps of tension and sighs of relief on the part of the audience I was a part of in support of an insane murderer is inherently funny, slightly disturbing, and highly revealing about our true reactions to conformity and success. And Hitch milks it with callous glee - listen to the mocking music and exagerrated compositions, and kick yourself for taking it all so seriously.<br /><br />STRANGERS is one of Hitch's five best films, and therefore one of the greatest things in cinema. The dialogue is so strange and brilliant, I can't believe it wasn't written by Chandler. Patricia Hitchcock is a wonderful imp, standing in for her cheeky father as she taunts Guy. The fairground finale is a remarkable, dizzying fusion of exciting, tense set-piece, black comedy and symbolic site. If Bruno's final words condemn him to hell (according to the Catholic precepts Hitch is supposed to embody: compare with a similar ending in THE KILLERS), we applaud his integrity, infinitely preferable to Guy's debased serving of self.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's important to check your expectations when you see HATCHET. The *buzz that has been generated on this site far surpasses the real impact of the movie. What may help someone about to see the movie is to realize that it is --not supposed to be scary--. It is pure camp and an attempt at fun. It is not --funny--, just campy. Don't expect something like SHAUN OF THE DEAD; nor something like Friday THE 13TH (Part II through infinity).<br /><br />HATCHET does possess passable actors. The cinematography is straight Ed Wood. Creature effects and make-up are silly - probably on purpose. Gore and blood is something between Romero and DEAD ALIVE. HATCHET is a movie of betweenness. It's between SHAUN OF THE DEAD and LESLIE VERNON. It's between campy and comedy (there's a difference). It's between ultra violent and violent comic book.<br /><br />Instead of "capturing the essence of American Horror," or whatever other silly jargon that has been used to describe the movie, it tries to capture something between seminal --American-- Horror like Friday THE 13TH and new Horror like SHAUN. It thankfully stays away from Torture Horror.<br /><br />In the end HATCHET is between a bad movie and a decent movie.<br /><br />*I think it is happening more and more that people involved in movies are flocking to sites like IMDb to rate and comment on the movies that they are involved with. At very least there is campaigning going on for people associated with the associates to leave positive feedback and ratings. There is no other reason for this movie to have stared out in the high 7s with 600 votes and quickly fall after wide release. This movie is on just better than the HorrorFest releases and should not be so bloated.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the best presentations of the 60's put on film. Arthur Penn, director of Bonnie and Clyde and Little Big Man, saw that Steve Tesich's outstanding script rang with truth, and from these two talents comes solid cinema. Jodi Thelin's Georgia Miles gives male viewers a hit of pained nostalgia for the archetypal beauty who is almost within our grasps, but, always just out of reach. Just see it, or you cinematic education will be incomplete.
| 1 |
positive
|
Eddie Monroe is Hooooot. He is a great actor and I could be his girl anytime. He's so fine. I was so sad at the end. I'm not going to ruin the end but wow. Girls are so vicious. His girl was wrong. If Eddie was my man I would never disrespect. Those Mobsters were spooky. The moral of the story is Trust No One. Your friends will hurt u if they can. Oh and Eddie tell your girlfriend that yo mine, she should move ova! I would suggest seeing the movie. Why? Becasur I said so. It kept my eyes on the screen. My sister loved it also so I am going to see it again because now my friends want to see it and its worth seeing two times. Peace,Happy New Year!
| 1 |
positive
|
Awful, confusing bit of crap from South of the Border. I've now watched it twice and I STILL don't really know what was going on. It had something to do with a stupid looking Aztec mummy, a 'human robot' that's the dumbest looking robot I've ever seen bar none, and a woman who is the reincarnation of some ancient Aztec chick. Most of the story is told in a painfully slow and droning manner by an incredibly dull scientist. This guy is a marvelous sleep aid. His nemesis is a fat slob called The Bat, which is a pretty unimaginative name for an evil scientist.<br /><br />I guess the boring scientist and his wormy assistant dug up the mummy, and what a shocker, the scientist's wife just HAPPENS to be the reincarnation of the mummy's girlfriend. They keep the mummy perpetually in a mausoleum for some reason, I guess so that the overacting bad guy can steal it. It takes him five years to do this, because he's inventing a 'human robot' to steal the mummy, or attack it, or whatever. He's after some treasure that the mummy has, so that he can be rich. But excuse me, if the guy had this huge an intellect and a strong drive to succeed, why didn't he just patent some of his ideas and get rich that way? <br /><br />Oh, well, I suppose that would make too much sense. Instead, there is ridiculous fight between the mummy and the robot, and it's really hard to tell which one is faker looking or more cheesy. To tell you the truth, I watched this because I thought a film with a name like The Robot Vs. the Aztec Mummy just HAD to be fabulously cheesy. Instead it was just dully awful and mind blowingly confusing.
| 0 |
negative
|
Sweeping drama with great sets, costumes and performances though some folks are channeling Rhett, Scarlett, Melanie and even Lady Macbeth. Patrick Swayze and James Read are excellent as two men trying to maintain a friendship despite the ties of family and location. Splendid villains you'll want them all to come to a very bad end. Lots of strong female characters in this one both good and bad. Secondary story lines also are well developed. Several cameos by major stars of past eras. Good representation of history and conflicts for those caught between friendship and politics. <br /><br />Curl up on a rainy day with your DVD or VHS player and drink of choice with this one. A lap rug and a cat would be optional.
| 1 |
positive
|
Hello all--for what it's worth, I'm in a doctoral program on Indonesian politics and returned this semester after about a year's fieldwork, most of it in Jakarta.<br /><br />I'm a big movie fan generally, so I went out as often as I could, and bought tons of local VCDs while I was there. This one I saw in the theater, since it opened while I was there, and, thankfully, closed soon after. <br /><br />Who was the intended audience for this film? The spoiled wives and daughters of the Indonesian super-elite whose antics are weakly and ineffectively parodied? The vast majority of Indonesians who could never afford even a single dish, let alone a full meal, in the film's central restaurant location? Or gay Indonesian males, whose dilemma in the country's Muslim-dominated society is reduced to absurdly simplistic, how-to-respect-yourself preaching. <br /><br />If all this wasn't bad enough, the soundtrack was either recorded or mixed so ineptly that even native-speaking Indonesians couldn't hear many of the lines.<br /><br />In brief, if you're looking for a cutting-edge gay-themed film from a region of the world that seems among the least likely to produce such an animal, forget it. "Westler" from the early '80s, or "My Beautiful Laundrette," from the same era, succeed far better in putting a happier face on dealing with homophobia, and do so by showing not telling through incessant, wordy scenes. <br /><br />Overall, an unfortunate waste of money in a country that still can't educate all of its children nor keep them healthy.
| 0 |
negative
|
Like another poster mentioned Ch. 56 (a local Boston TV station) showed this multiple times over the years on Saturday afternoons. They paired it with the first sequel "Return of the Ginat Majin".<br /><br />Now I haven't seen it since then...but it never left me. Aside from the atrocious dubbing and faded color this was a pretty good fantasy. Technically it isn't horror...until the statue comes to life at the end. It's just about a village ruled over by an evil man. There's a giant stone statue there that the villagers keep praying to to help them...to no avail. But things go too far, the statute comes to life and destroys the bad guys...but then it starts going after the good guys too! Well-done with some cool special effects at the end (LOVED how he got rid of the main bad guy). Also there was an enchanted forest worked in which was kind of interesting too.<br /><br />No masterpiece but an unusual combo fantasy/horror film. Worth catching--but not if it's the dubbed print.
| 1 |
positive
|
<br /><br />This film is a summary of Visconti's obssessions: the decadence of nobility, death, aesthetic search, homosexuality...All mingled with melancholic mastery. Slow-paced just to make you abler to contemplate all its beauty (which is in the music and the images as well as in the story)this is the type of film we are not allowed to enjoy anymore, brave, deeply personal and intelligent. The genuine fruit of a genius like Visconti.
| 1 |
positive
|
As a child growing up in the Sydney of the 1950s, I can readily identify with the content of this fine film. Each week I visited the Wynyard Newsreel cinema on George Street to watch the Cinesound (and usually 3 Stooges) shorts. Never has there been a better blending of B/W and colour in a film. Faultless production values round off a never to be forgotten movie experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am a huge Robert Taylor fan and I have been trying to find all of his films. This is one I did not have, but I watched it recently on Fox Movie Channel, and was very disappointed. I know he was a contract player with little control over his scripts, but the acting was as bad as the script. Victor McLaglen was even bad, and Brian DonLevy was almost unrecognizable. Considering the relations off screen between Taylor and Stanwyck, it was surprising how little chemistry there was on screen between the two of them. But the premise of the film was so ridiculous: that the President of the U.S. would order a Navy Lt to leave the service secretly to hunt down bank robbers, and report only to the President, that it made it hard to appreciate anything else about the film. The death row scenes were entirely unmoving. The only thing worse than Taylor's acting was Stanwyck's singing. She got better later in Ball of Fire-thank heavens.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an outstanding criminal thriller, and with a great cast too. Spanish language cinema's best and most popular actors of the past couple of decades, Victoria Abril and Federico Luppi, team up in one of the better Spanish language crime thrillers of 2004-5.<br /><br />The film begins by focusing on thirty something Ernesto (Ernesto Alterio), an elegant, attractive and slick thief who learned from childhood friend Gitano, and more recently from Manco, an old seasoned swindler. Manco introduces Ernesto to Federico (Federico Luppi), an also elegant, but more astute & experienced methodical thief - the best in his class.<br /><br />Federico's only known weakness is Pilar (Victoria Abril), his former mistress and partner. She suddenly appears and proposes a fabulous rip-off scheme to her former lover, a crime in grand scale, which will eventually require the help of Ernesto, Manco and Gitano, among others.<br /><br />The script is full of twists and surprising reversals, particularly towards the end of the film. One criticism about the film I've heard a lot is that there are too many plot twists towards the end, but I disagree. The film captivates the audience so much that all the unexpected events are not too much to follow. In fact, these are what make the film outstanding. I highly recommend it.
| 1 |
positive
|
I do not think I am alone when I say that 2005 has not been particularly kind to the horror genre. While "Cursed", "Hide and Seek", "The Ring Two", and "The Amityville Horror" all showed glimpses of interest and potential, there have been more misses than hits. For proof, see: "White Noise", "Boogeyman", "The Jacket", "Mindhunters", and "Alone in the Dark". Imagine my surprise when "House of Wax", tightly written by siblings Chad and Carey Hayes, turned out to be... well, a surprise.<br /><br />Carly Jones (Elisha Cuthbert) is a young woman, traveling with her trouble-making brother, Nick (Chad Michael Murray), and boyfriend, Wade (Jared Padalecki). They are, along with Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri'chard), and Dalton (Jon Abrahams), hoping to score tickets to the final football game of the season. Along the way, they run into some car trouble, and are forced to enter a desolate town where nothing is what it appears to be.<br /><br />Upon hearing of this, a remake of the classic Vincent Price B-movie, I rolled my eyes. I did not even want to think about what disaster freshman director Jaume Serra had cooked up for his audience. In a time when most high-profile horror films are disappointments, latent with bad writing, static direction, and amateur acting, I consider myself lucky that Serra and the Hayes brothers took it upon themselves to make a good, old-fashioned, spook fest. Unlike the disappointments that I named before, this flick pulls no punches, and uses every cinematic trick in the book to give everyone exactly what they came for.<br /><br />I am happy that the Hayes' actually took the time and effort to create likable and believable characters, thus making the events that much more urgent. It also gives the young actors portraying them something grip on. As she did in "The Girl Next Door", Elisha Cuthbert proves to audiences what a skilled actress she really is. In the 2003 remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", Jessica Biel silenced naysayers by delivering a raw and emotional performance, one that put the viewer right there with her. Here, Cuthbert does the same. Chad Michael Murray ("A Cinderella Story"), in one of his first more mature roles, is no slacker as Nick. Murray exudes charisma and a hard edge, as well as some impressive athleticism on top of it. Murray and Cuthbert gel perfectly, and have tangible, familial chemistry.<br /><br />More so than anything else, the press and the American public have made a field day about Paris Hilton's major acting debut. As I expected, Hilton does not embarrass herself. In fact, she is just as good as anyone else in the movie (do with that what you will). Like Cuthbert and Murray, Hilton has screen presence. She is sexy and playful. I cannot think one of reason why she's gotten the worst of the film's harsh reception, other than they are simply picking on her. Jared Padalecki (TV's 'Gilmore Girls') memorably manages to overcome his underwritten role. Robert Ri'chard (TV's 'Cousin Skeeter') and Jon Abrahams ("Meet the Parents") do not have much to work with, but get the job done. With only one scene, Damon Herriman ("Soar") makes an unforgettable impression, and his presence hangs over the rest of the film. Finally, Brian Van Holt ("Basic") is superb and threatening in a dual role.<br /><br />Once more, kudos must go to the screenwriters for avoiding clichés whenever possible. Despite popular opinion, "House of Wax" is quite unpredictable for a majority of its running time. Take this for example: It seems as if the killer is down for the count and Carly bends down to retrieve something from his pockets. What do you expect to happen? See the movie, and you will understand what I mean. It is also refreshing to see a horror film in which the characters show even a modicum of good sense.<br /><br />Unlike most horror scores, John Ottman's exhilarating work never distracts. However, as with Dark Castle's other releases, the visual aspects of "Wax" are award-worthy, and lift the film above its genre trappings. The talents of cinematographer Stephen F. Windon, production designer Graham Walker, art director Nicholas McCallum, and editor Joel Negron highlight the ghoulish imagery. Speaking of imagery, I believe that the gore hounds will be thrilled with the many makeup effects and tricks in store here. Each death scene is more stomach churning than the last. Considering his past in music videos and commercials, it is obvious that Jaume Serra has a great eye for style. His "in-your-face" approach is a great asset to this film's success. Just when you think the camera will turn away, it does not. He is also particularly good a building thick layers of dread and atmosphere. One standout shot is our introduction to the killer, as he slowly emerges from a trap door.<br /><br />In a case like this, I would usually admit when I am in the minority (Shut up, okay? I liked "House of 1000 Corpses"!). In this case, I firmly that the detractors have gotten it wrong. I am not sure why people are so hard on this film, considering it's much better than recent genre entries. Maybe they're afraid to admit that a horror flick starring Paris Hilton could possibly be worth watching... Who knows? This is a horror film, and a commendably stylish and effective one at that. As a lifelong horror fan, all I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed "House of Wax", in all of its lurid and sadistic glory. I safely consider it a great accomplishment in modern horror, as well as (along with "Sin City") the first completely satisfying release of 2005.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a classic continuation to Bleu, the likewise excellent film, with Juliet Binouche as a main star, moreover, she is a cameo appearance here, in Rouge, just for a second at the very end. But this film, truly red and very sweet although very sad, is a real winner. The main heroine, played by ever great Irene Jakob, is a successful photo / fashion model. She leads a full, active life, only darkened by her traumatic relations with her weird friend Mike, who is in England. By some lucky chance, she gets friendly with the old Judge, who spends time listening to the private telephone talks of his neighbors. The story starts to weave even further, and we see him in court, being almost universally condemned for his pastime. She is the only one who feels sympathy for him, for his cute doggy Rita and her pups, and for all the people who surround them. We also witness the break-up of a happy couple of a young lawyer and his lady, and their quarrel is also fueled by that telephone scandal... But the film is not about this, even. It is mostly about the loneliness and deep rifts between people, far and near. When she sails to England on a ferry, with that lawyer as a chance fellow-passenger, as well as that earlier mentioned Binoche who starred in Bleu, the ship sinks and we see the horrified look of The Judge when he watches the news trying to guess if she survived. She did, and still we feel very heavy at heart. Mr. Kislowski managed to draw a grand, subtle story about the solitude, misunderstanding, secrets and pain. Deep, dark personal pain of those who are lost and lonely. Brilliant film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ray is interesting in parts, and technically it's very well made, but Ray is often sluggish, and forgets some important details about Ray's life. All the movie shows us is parts where he's in his prime, and most successful, which is good, it's just I wanted to see some bits about his older life too. Jamie Fox mimics Ray Charles to a t, at times it's absolutely uncanny. I have to say, Jamie is the reason I got through this movie. The 1st half is a lot better then the 2nd. It's more interesting, it has more Oomph, and it's nowhere near as sluggish as the 2nd. I wasn't a big fan of Ray Charles to begin with to be honest, so I really didn't have any expectations for the film, what so ever. Ray's biggest problem had to be the over length. This could've been cut very easily, with more relevant scenes, other then the ones they used. I found the early part of Ray's life when he was just starting to get successful, the most interesting. He was humble back then, and somewhat a gentleman. And while the film may have over exaggerated his actions, he got a bit too full of himself for me to care.<br /><br />Performance. Jamie Fox gives a performance for the ages as Ray. He looks like Ray, talks like Ray, acts like Ray. He even sings like Ray!. This is much more then an impression, I truly believed he WAS, Ray Charles. He was the heart of the film, and without his presence, this film would've been a complete and utter bore.<br /><br />Bottom Line. Ray is interesting at times, dreadfully dull at others. When all was said and done, I was disappointed by how routine it seemed at times. Just because it's a bibliographical film, Doesen't mean it's automatically Oscar worthy. Jamie Fox deserved his Oscar, but the movie is above average at best. Worth a watch, but if I were you, I'd keep my expectations at a rather comfortable level.<br /><br />7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a difficult movie to watch, and would have been even more difficult had I known then that the actor playing the protagonist was in fact killed in his home by police at age 19. Pixote (PeeWee) is a street kid in Sao Paulo who is caught in a roundup triggered by a murder in which he had no involvement. He is committed to a juvenile prison where he witnesses brutality and exploitation that ordinary citizens try very hard to believe doesn't exist. When finally he escapes, he and three comrades survive by the only means they know, which is crime. What makes the film so heart-rending is that both Pixote and the actor portraying him clearly do not wish to be the characters life circumstances have made them. Pixote tries to trust and to love and to bond, but there simply is no room in his world for the gentle side of human nature. One is left at the end wanting desperately to do something for the Pixotes of the world, but what? Building more children's's prisons with higher walls surely is not the answer...
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the kind of film one initially selects to make up the numbers from video rental.....only to discover an under-rated entertaining and enjoyable movie!! The opening sequence of the police arriving at a dark and rainy house wherein the "wife" has committed murder.......or is it??....and the remainder of the film seeks to unravel what really happened....OK...the film is a bit "campy"...but has good editing and dialogue.....professional acting.....often humorous......and the very last scene with the facial expression is one of the best of its' kind......definitely worth watching.....deserving at least a 7 or an 8!
| 1 |
positive
|
Batman Returns is to be considered quality when one speaks of superhero films. Its predecessor, Batman, in my opinion, is by far the greatest and most well thought out of the comic book genre. For one to say that Batman Returns was disappointing, he or she has not fully watched the movie and considered the acting of Danny Devito as the Penguin. Devito and Walken offer some memorable moments. The tale of Batman is suppose to be dark and Tim Burton has fulfilled how the comic portrays Batman. Batman Returns provides comic relief, action, suspense and fantasy; and it should not be viewed as 'crap', although we are all entitled to our own opinions.
| 1 |
positive
|
This lasted several years despite the late hour it was on.<br /><br />Like a lot of 80's crime dramas, it looked cold. Both physically and figuratively. This isn't a bad thing though. And the (obviously) low budget actually worked in it's favor. Gritty during a time when 'slick' was in.<br /><br />Allan Royal's wraparound segments as the news writer gave it a slight edge.<br /><br />The only actors I remembered were Scott Nylands (Earthquake) and Tony Rosato (SCTV). The cast of barely knowns was a good thing because one could see the group as a whole and not as a bunch of people supporting a 'star.' And yes, that's a young Clark Johnson (Homicide) in a recurring spot.<br /><br />I hope a DVD release is in the future. Someone out there wanna get on that?
| 1 |
positive
|
This film has not exactly remained fresh in the minds of film buffs, and it's a crying shame. Its witty screenplay adaptation should have netted Oscar nominations for the great screenwriter I.A.L. Diamond's adaptation, and Ingrid Bergman's flawless performance. It must have been an honor for Goldie Hawn at such a young age to work with Bergman, looking more than a decade younger than her 54 years--fifty four! When she's on the screen, it positively twinkles.<br /><br />This is a film which may appear dated at first, but it actually made me wish I was around during the swingin' 'sixties. Hawn's fashions are as tacky as Bergman's are chic. (That's one minor flaw--isn't her character a little too soignée for a gal who still lives with her sister? But then again, would we have Ingrid any other way?) And who wouldn't want to hang out at a nightclub called The Slipped Disc?<br /><br />The best compliments I can pay to this film is that it somehow made me nostalgic for a decade that I never saw, and that it left me wanting more. Speaking of wanting more, I wonder what ever became of sexy supporting actor Rick Lenz? (He resembles Griffin Dunne in this film.) This was his film debut, and I don't see any other major roles in his filmography. As for Goldie Hawn, she's done so much since then it's easy to not be impressed, but I can't imagine any other actor in the role, either.<br /><br />Since the movie is based on a play, the line delivery may seem a bit stage-y, but it did not inhibit my enjoyment at all. In fact, I am amazed at how funny it still is after over thirty-five years. Because this film represents a bygone era, it has unjustly slipped from the consciousness of film buffs. It is more linked to the era films that came before it than the ones that followed. But don't let that stop you from savoring the delights it has to offer. Grade: A
| 1 |
positive
|
I will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original "day of the living dead". 6. Acting not as good as the "Bold and the beautiful". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.<br /><br />Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish.
| 0 |
negative
|
Tired, garbled dreck. The chemistry between Argento and Madsen was as exciting as a wet doughnut. Their dialogue was dramatically uninteresting. The storyline was a mess. The acting forced. The cinematography lingered on the uninspired. Lazy and pointless. Kim Gordon and her character had no reason to be there. Nor did anyone else for that matter. I couldn't have given two farts for any of the 'characters'. Their emotions skipped and jumped like a junkie who hates his heroin. Empty and dull. Why do I have to write ten lines of text on here to make my point? I think I summed it up in the first three words. But, obviously it's not enough. I think this is the last time I'll bother to waste my time critiquing a film. Anyway, I saw 'Clean' and thought that was quite ineffectual as well. Again, I cared not for the characters, whether they lived or died.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was looking through TV Guide last night and saw a movie starring Heather Grahm on, who I liked in movies like Boogie Nights, and Austin Powers, so I decided to watch it. It started out ok, but you could tell the story was lacking, and at about half way through, it started to deteriorate. I do not remember this movie being in the theaters, and I'm sure if it was, it wasn't there long. The acting was stale and unconvincing, the dialogue was silly and predictable, and the story was confusing and stupid. Definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I like movies like the ones this has been compared to like Fight Club, but this one doesn't come close!! Heather Grahm has done much better things since. I gave it a 2 out of 10 but thats because I clicked on the wrong number, I meant to give it a 1.
| 0 |
negative
|
I happened to see this film on a flight from Paris to Boston and it reminded me of the food on the plane: generic, tasteless and obscure. The French cinema seems to have lost its footing these days and this is a good example of how a motley script can waste brilliant actors. While some may find the 'playfulness' of the script to be in line with the dictates of Euro post modernism, the whole project seems more like a post-mortem on the death of Euro-cinema's golden years and truly fabulous talents --- one is vaguely reminded here of Bunuel but without the charm or wit.
| 0 |
negative
|
Why did I buy this movie on DVD?, Well the short answer would be: I really don't know. As for the longer version, it pretty much comes down to the fact that I genuinely like Tatyana Ali and she plays Alicia in this.<br /><br />Now does Tatyana Ali give a genuinely good effort in this movie? I must say that it is one of the better, and she is shaping up to be a rather decent actress. I am very much looking forward to see her in action, when better material will be available.<br /><br />This being said, this movie was terrible - and my score is given based on this: 1 star for not being the worst movie I've seen, 1 star for the performance of Tatyana Ali, and 1 star for not thinking that it only deserves 2 stars, there are worse movies for that.<br /><br />Ja Rule should stick to rapping, not my favourite rapper to say the least, but some seem to like him - and if he is contained there, I would be delighted not to see him contaminate the acting scene.<br /><br />Ving Rhames: Ah man, Marcellus Wallace what are you doing here - you used to be cool man. Just because Michael Caine is a fiercely brilliant actor, who has been in so many terrible flicks as well as good, you don't have to copy him Ving.<br /><br />The rest of the semi big names in the cast: It's OK, there are bills to be paid, and we all have to do things we're not proud of time to time.<br /><br />The movie itself. It so massively flawed, it's pretty difficult to know where to start. It's more like a bunch of scenes thrown in together, as were the director to say "we need to tell this, and we need to tell that". There is a story, unfortunately there is nothing surprising about or within it. To say the least, the plot changes in the story were overly obvious and it was therefore predictable what was going to happen all the time.<br /><br />To sum up in one word: Reallynotgood
| 0 |
negative
|
Barney and friends...the Dora the explorer of the 1990s.<br /><br />OK, i'll admit it. as a kid, barney was my ultimate hero. i had my barney plush toy and i used to watch the same barney episodes over and over on videotape. maybe cause it was so sugar coated and mind-numbing.<br /><br />However, by the time i turned 7, i started to hate barney. everyone at school would Dis barney, and i went along with it (mainly because it was funny) and it's what little boys do. but a few years later, I discovered something else about barney that i will never forget.<br /><br />a person known on the IMDb as Angel_meiru did an Essay for school, explaining the dangers of watching barney, and he or she posted it in the message boards. a lot of those dangers made sense.<br /><br />Barney is a dinosaur who can magically come to life during a day at school. he is supposedly educational, or so Sheryl Leach (Barney's Creator) says, but really, all i can remember him teaching me, is that magic can solve anything, which is not true.<br /><br />to end off this comment, I'd like to tell you a little story. There was once a young boy who watched a particular episode of barney. one day, he was alone, when a stranger lured him into his car and drove away with him. i don't know the outcome (but it's safe to assume the child died) but why was he abducted in the first place? because he watched the Barney and friends episode titled "A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet." <br /><br />0/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Pola X is a beautiful adaption of Herman Melville's 'Pierre; or, the Ambiguities'. The comments on here surprise me, it makes me wonder what has led to the overwhelmingly negative reaction. <br /><br />The shock value is the least appealing thing about this film - a minor detail that has been blown out of proportion. The story is of Pierre's downfall - and the subsequent destruction of those around him - which is overtly demonstrated in his features, demeanour and idiolect. The dialogue and soundtrack set this film apart from any other I have seen, and turn a fundamentally traditional storyline with controversial twists into an unforgettably emotional epic.<br /><br />I can't stress enough the importance of disregarding everything you have heard about this film and watching, as I did, with an open mind. You will, I hope, be rewarded in the same way that I was. I felt on edge and nervous from around the half-hour mark, however the film is far from scary in any traditional sense. It will leave you with 1,000 thoughts, each of them at once troublesome and thrilling. I know I'm gushing here, but I feel the need to make up for the negative perception of this film. It's the best I've seen all year.
| 1 |
positive
|
Film noir at its best. Set in the immediate aftermath of WWII ( 1946), "Crossfire" depicts the good, bad and ugly of that time. Monty Montgomery kills Sam because Sam's a Jew and therefore, automatically perceived through Monty's narrow lens, to have been a slacker who got out of fighting the war. Monty doesn't like people like that. The truth is that Sam was a soldier too, but the truth is something which disappears when you're feeling right about the ideologies of hate you've been immersed in and the world is full of dirty this and thats, badly in need of your brand of "cleansing".<br /><br />Monty is a sadist in winning soldier's clothing. The losers of WWII had more than their share as well hate filled, prejudiced leaders and soldiers as well. Some of them were hung for war crimes, like starting a "war of aggression".<br /><br />This movie got its makers in trouble when that other sadistic cleanser of America, Joe McCarthy got his hearings going in the early 1950s.<br /><br />See "Crossfire", just to see how good an actor Robert Ryan was. The real Robert Ryan was no Monty. He WAS a great, if underestimated, under used actor.<br /><br />See "Crossfire" and get a taste of the dark side of post-WWII America. See it to get a taste of the good side of late 40s America as well. Robert Mitchim and Robert Young also play leading roles. Mitchim could have played Ryan's role, in fact, he did when he played the psychopath in "Cape Fear".
| 1 |
positive
|
OK, if I was in the rental store and someone asked me if the movie was worth the three bucks for the rental, I'd have to say no. The plot was implausible. I've come to the conclusion that Keanu Reeves can not act. He can, at times, be painful to watch (though my wife thinks he's cute). Dan Aykroyd (who is usually great) was even a little disappointing as the crooked cop. On the plus side, the plot (because it is far-fetched) is unpredictable. Cameron Diaz was good.
| 0 |
negative
|
Maybe it's just that it was made in 1997, or maybe whoever managed to get this up to a 7 has a soft spot for kids with AIDS. But really people, the maniacal laughter & mayhem during the withdrawal scene? Did you not see that coming? I'm surprised there was no baby crawling across the ceiling and sickboy addressing the camera. The acting was fine, sure. But to me this is just one example of a movie from a time when situations and subject matter could pass for cinematic language. Things happen, but that's it. There's no glue or motive that can be detected on screen, allowing the subject matter to use pre-existing emotional connections to furthur the plot, without the script doing it like it's supposed to.
| 0 |
negative
|
Functioning as a sort of midpoint between "Waiting for Guffman" and "A Mighty Wind", "Best in Show" portrays a dog show and the various people who bring their canine friends to participate. Some are weird, some crazy, and otherwise, but they all make the movie good. Director Christopher Guest is particularly funny as gay Harlan Pepper, very much trying to promote his dog. Eugene Levy, Parker Posey, Michael McKean, Catherine O'Hara, and Bob Balaban also do great jobs (I can't imagine them not doing great jobs, at least not in a Christopher Guest movie). As someone who's never attended a dog show, this movie is my main exposure to them. They sure look neat.
| 1 |
positive
|
I do not write reviews here often but I can not stand by and let other people suffer through this movie without a least trying to warn them. This movie is horrible and it is not because "I do not know what the director was trying to convey" or "I am too stupid to understand the plot"; this movie is horrible because of poor direction, screen writing and acting. This is the "trifecta" of bad move making and the reason the film was direct to video. It tries to be something like "High Tension", "Hostel" and "TCSM" with the lifting of some of those ideas but it just does not work. I did not have high expectations or even medium ones going into the film but was still very disappointed. It had potential to be very good with a nice setting and good idea for a film but it was wasted.
| 0 |
negative
|
Jacqueline Hyde is a good quality film and does manage to be likable because of what it is. Everyone out there will like it! Sandwiched between the amount of breast shots, the times Jacqueline rubs herself, the various times Jackie spends chatting to herself and the times spent heaving in the Magdelena Mountains, this could create one hell of a dishwasher if your career were to end.<br /><br />Unlike most horror movies that take place in space or in some restless tranquility with ripe green apples, this one takes awhile to guzzle. The performing is good. Other than great acting by Dan the pizza delivery guy (must see), there are no standouts, but no notably bad outcroppings from my recent dinner either (and I do mean recent). Excellent acting overall because there are no typically dreadful actors which you'd find in movies of the four "Skin" related data fields or in the biological skimmer's found in any IBM shop. In addition if you see a female in this movie, the likelihood is that she will be butt naked by the next scene! Now that I think about it, there is quite a bit of action in this movie. Between the first and the second electro yank obtained from a hot chick and the time you observe her "buckets naked", keeps em' speculating. I loved it!
| 1 |
positive
|
When I first watched Zoey101 with my sister we thought it was a piece of garbage. No one is that rich and lives at a dorm off the pacific coast. In the show, Zoey is a mega popular rich girl that everyone always go to her for advice. Zoey is always the one with the good idea and everyone agrees with her no matter how stupid her idea is. She is always perfect at everything including her perfect figure. And she is such a dietetic freak she talks about carbs like she knows what they are. When she sees that her friends are eating chocolate she confiscates it. And another thing that ticks me off is that she is always chewing a piece of spearmint every time you look at her. And everyone wants something do with her, for example in one episode that Logan guy bid $4,000 to have her and her friends cheer for everything he does in his pathetic life. And her friend Nicole is an overly perky freak that screams a lot.And Lola dresses like a hoochie Houdini lady. 80s called they want there bushy hair back.Might as well shave off the hair chase. This show sends a bad message to kids everywhere to make them think that if they don't have the latest I-Pods and designer clothes they will hate themselves. <br /><br />This show is a big thumbs down. <br /><br />We hate you Jamie Lynn, <br /><br />Best wishes Ryan, and Kara L
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is simply appalling, how the talent involved made this is beyond human belief.Iguess they must have been boozing when they thought of this idea,I feel as if 2 hours of my life have been taken from me.Harvey Kietel will try and distance himself from this rubbish, it should have been a great crime movie but it develops into a gory mess of vampires.I would recommend this film to people who like to sleep through movies ,you wont miss a thing.The humour is set to appeal to the lowest common dominate, movies can uplift us and remind us that life is worth living, this film just depresses you.As DeNiro said in one movie the saddest thing in life is wasted talent this film is a perfect example of this statement.
| 0 |
negative
|
Elderbush Gilch was a big disappointment for me. I'd heared how great it was, how important it was. It just didn't strike me. It had a dim-witted story line, plus some moronic and sadistic Native American characters that are thurroughly offensive by today's standards. While most of D.W. Griffith's films have depth and intelegence, this one feels more like a formula-baised programme picture.<br /><br />I loved seeing Lillian Gish and Mae Marsh in pre-Birth of a Nation roles, plus some of the staging of the battle scenes were pretty good. Acording to future Griffith cameraman Karl Brown, audiences were standing on their seats and cheering once the cavalry comes riding in at the end. I felt nothing. And beleave me, I lve watching Griffith's early work at Biograph. This film just isn't what it used to be.<br /><br />The best thing about this film it that, for all of it's flaws, it has many of Griffith's touches to it. He handles his principal actors pretty well, plus the scene where the indians are encircling the cabin it reminiscent to the climax of Birth of a Nation, a far superior film that would send shock waves across America a little over a year later.
| 0 |
negative
|
And also a wonderful beginning, a real quick start. It keeps you yearning and waiting for is about to come. Unfortunately the high adrenaline dries off quickly, but most certainly after half the movie is over.<br /><br />And it's a shame, because this movie has really good ideas and explores many of them thoroughly. But that is also one of it's faults. By exploring too many things, it get's mixed up into to many things, so in the end you're too confused to follow any plot or characters. It's very dark and moody, but that doesn't help much, if it's also genre hopping just to try to fit any- and everything in it's story!
| 0 |
negative
|
Okay, first of all, I missed like the first 15 minutes of the movie, so I missed credits and stuff. SO when I finally got to it, I was like "Who the hell is this dude?". I found out it was Flex like hours after watching the movie. <br /><br />Flex didn't look like Michael Jackson. Not one bit. He couldn't dance like him, or move like him, the only thing he almost had was the voice. People commented on Elizabeth Taylor, but I can't really comment on that because I don't know much about her. <br /><br />The whole movie was like just plain wack. The dialogue sucked. The cinematography-if it can be called that-sucked. The soundtrack sucked. The acting sucked. Yes even Flex...I'm so upset about it though. I didn't want it to suck. I'm so sad that Flex got told he can get away with it. But the whole thing looked like dress-up. You know? It's like, nobody looked like they were supposed to except for Joseph Jackson. <br /><br />The concert sequences just sucked. I'm sorry, but Flex just can't dance like Michael. I mean, like what the hell was VH1 thinking? The makeup didn't even match like the time of whatever Michael was going through. For example, in the movie he was still dark when Neverland got raided the first time around. In real life, MJ was white as hell. There was some sort of stupid delay in his skin discoloring. <br /><br />The movie wasn't boring, well for me it wasn't. It wasn't really anything. I was just so upset about everything that was wrong with it. I wanted to see how it turned out and if Flex could redeem himself. He didn't, really. The only part I found like a bit interesting was the whole Lisa Marie thing. When they fell in love. That was nice. But I had to turn my face away when they kissed. Heh. And only two parts made me collapse with laughter. The first time was when they cut from Michael with short hair, you know the Thriller era, to Michael with long flowing hair from the Dangerous era AND HE WAS STILL BLACK! That was funny. The second time I laughed was when they showed all of the posters and memorabilia of Michael but they had Flex's face instead! It was so funny. <br /><br />Overall, this movie was cheap trash. It was simply two hours of dress-up and could have been so much better. But no, VH1 is cheap. Watch if you want. But this movie is not funny, considering the ridiculousness of it. I came out of it feeling angry. And when I found out it was Flex, I just started to feel so bad. So...watch if you want.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is unique in films of Hitchcock's that I've seen, in that I didn't really enjoy it.<br /><br />In fact, I actually found this quite predictable and annoying.<br /><br />Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine are a newly married couple. He's the kind of "lovable rogue" character that you've seen in many films, without ever being lovable as far as I am concerned!<br /><br />In fact, it was a barely believable relationship at best, and at times seemed particularly false and implausible.<br /><br />Unable to hold down a job and trying to live an opulent lifestyle, Grant is led to borrow money that he cannot pay back.<br /><br />Fontaine is convinced that he is trying to kill her in order to get the money she is insured for; and presumably what her late father was worth.<br /><br />Average and rather uninteresting all round actually, but as usual you can see the influence on films that have come at a later date.
| 0 |
negative
|
One of the most notorious of the banned "Video Nasties" of the 1980s is also one of the most excessively over-hyped. "Make Them Die Slowly" is about what you'd expect from an Umberto Lenzi-directed jungle potboilerinventive (yet poorly rendered) native torture techniques, some ridiculous "social commentary" (yes, even sillier than "Cannibal Holocaust"), and lots of guts being chewed. The film's exploitative violence, though, is often only shown in brief close-up, and never dwelt on for very long, which diminishes its effect (interpret that how you may). The dialog is Lenzi's usual silliness, as our male heroes show their affection for females by calling them "tw@t" and the like. The cast of familiar faces (including Lorraine De Selle, Giovanni Lombardo Radice, Zora Kerowa, and Robert Kerman) does their best in the face of the escalating idiocy (including a completely ludicrous "castration preservation"), but cannot save this overworked, lousy effort.
| 0 |
negative
|
Victor Jory never became a major star. He is better known for later character roles than for his early leads. But he was very handsome and an excellent actor.<br /><br />His love scenes with Loretta Young in this romantic adventure thriller are passionate. Their kisses look very real. And very modern.<br /><br />Vivienne Osborne is a standout here also. She plays a woman with a reputation. But the character has a good heart.<br /><br />The print I saw was not clear. But what a joy that rare movies like this are turning up! And they are, in some sort of watchable condition, still intact. This is nothing truly special. But if one is willing to sift through movies of its era with similarly intriguing titles, one is likely to find some suprtb movies.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Vietnam War era is certainly far before my time, but it has always interested me, and I have seen many films about it. All of the others I'd seen had dealt strictly with the front-line of battle. When I read a description of "The War At Home," I found the concept intriguing. No Vietnam War movie I'd ever heard of talked about what happens to a soldier once the fighting is over with. <br /><br />One night, while flipping through channels, the movie aired on The Sundance Channel. I set down the remote and settled back to watch it. I did not move from my seat during the entire two hours; it's one of those movies that keeps you very interested because there is no way to predict what is going to happen next. <br /><br />This movie made me a huge fan of Emilio Estevez. I had enjoyed him very much as Billy the Kid in the "Young Guns" movies, but I never saw anything he did afterward. Emilio proved to be very talented at writing and directing as well as acting. <br /><br />The pacing of the movie is done extremely well. I am hard-pressed to think of a point where it drags. <br /><br />What amazes me is that it didn't get an Oscar or any real recognition when it came out. It is a dramatic story about parents trying to cope with the fact that their son is not who he used to be and probably will never be as they remembered him again. Definitely worth seeing.
| 1 |
positive
|
What a total lump of poopoo this was! You've got to be kidding people! Any positive reviews of this movie are plants or insiders from the movie makers themselves! yuuck! disgusting movie!, not gross digusting but just plain awful!
| 0 |
negative
|
The opening of "The Jungle" promises us a safari adventure with a science fiction element, but mostly what we get is a travelogue with lots of stock footage and padding (and the odd leopard attack). The movie is leisurely when you want it to be gripping, and tries to inject interest into the proceedings with badly staged matches between various wild animals (I had no idea that lions and wild boars were natural enemies in the wild, did you? I thought the big cats stuck to hunting herbivores, but apparently the producers knew better). <br /><br />As for the actors: Cesar does his usual great job of rocking the mustache, and Marie Windsor is reasonably believable as the progressively thinking rajah's daughter (nice eyebrows, btw!). However, Rod Cameron is barely watchable as the hunter returning as the sole survivor of his expedition. I'm sure he was in demand in his day, but here he comes off as a Rent-A-Center Bogart : rough looking, but with none of Bogey's range or timing. He spends the movie going back and forth from stoic anger to angry stoicism, and any time the screenplay attempts to crank up some romantic sparks between himself and Windsor, you just have to laugh. That crabbed, knobby face isn't a good vehicle for tenderness. <br /><br />The screenplay is not entirely without merit, although it does make some odd choices. Early in the first act, the screenplay makes a point of spending several moments where the heroes decide to bring along the obligatory clever young boy and monkey mascot, but then basically ignore them until ***SPOILER*** the monkey somehow gets hold of a live hand grenade during the mammoth scene and accidentally tosses near Windsor. This is so Cameron can prove his bravery by diving on it and saving her life at the cost of his own.***END SPOILER. It's possible that the Indian version of this movie (which I understand ran better than 2 1/2 hours), might have given the kid and the monkey more to do. <br /><br />Another thing that makes the film show its age **SPOILER**is the issue of the woolly mammoths (the plot device that sets the safari into motion in the first place). When they finally appear, the way the scene is filmed, it's obvious that the "mammoths" (obviously elephants draped in shag carpeting) aren't really "attacking" anyone, or even moving all that fast, and yet Cameron immediately sets to trying to wipe them out with hand grenades. These days, the idea of destroying the last known specimens of a species thought to be extinct would be unthinkable, especially when all they seem to do is roll through the jungle at a nice walking pace.***END OF SPOILER***<br /><br />So IMO, four stars, which is pretty good for a Robert Lippert production (normally Lippert hack jobs rate two or three stars at best). It's not a train wreck of a film, or anything; plus, it seems to mean well,with the rajah's daughter arguing for amelioration of the most repressive aspect of the "traditional ways" and the elements of "mixed race" romance that was pretty progressive in 1952. And there's some nice scenery and exotic spectacle. See it if someone offers to show it to you for free, but don't expect much except an interesting historical chapter of early fantasy cinema.
| 0 |
negative
|
Okay wait let me get this street, there are actually some morons on this site who reckon this is one of the better if not the best Halloween sequel. I even read someone saying it was just as good as the original. Pah what nonsense don't believe them I've watched every Halloween and clearly unlike some people knows what makes at the very least a good horror movie and this shower of S is one of the Worst horror movies i have ever seen in my life. Frankly if i was John Carpenter i would sue the person who wrote this either that or go around to his or her place with a hunting rifle. Seriously Halloween sequels in general are nearly all rubbish, two was crap, three was stupid, four is alright, five is well five, H20 alright, Resurrection painful. Yet, in many ways i find this to be the worst of a very bad bunch of sequels. Why? Well let me just embark on some kind of rant not so much a review but a mindless rant on why Halloween 6 the Cure of Michael Myers is one of the most abysmal movies i have seen in a very long time. OK where should i start, ah yes the plot oh boy the plot. Basically the plot is a heaped together mess containing cults, signs of Thor and some other crap. It's just stupid it really is, the film tries to be flashy and intelligent yet, its heaped together in such a horribly made way. Why does Michael Myers got to have a reason for killing people? Simple enough explanation Micahel likes to kill his relatives that would suffice, but no we have to have a man in black and mysterious cults and signs of Thor and utter crap. God its so bad it made me want to cry it really did, the writers have tried to add to the character of Myers but have actually managed to do the entire opposite. Apart from wearing a mask and a boiler suit < which is a completely different colour by the way, Myers just isn't the same guy from the original or even two, heck maybe even four. Thats another thing why has Myers become a Jason Voorhes parody? I thought it was meant to be the other way round, yet Myers is so similar to Jason, all he does is endlessly kill people in gory ways. In the original he teased his victims took his time and as a result the whole thing was far more suspenseful. In this he just walks around hacking people to death. I mean in the space of Half an Hour we had equalled the amount of kills in the original it was just ridiculous. Oh and Myers in this seems to have a really big head, i mean its huge and hes put on loads of weight. What else is crap, oh yeah the return of Tommy Jarvis thats pretty bad, in fact all the characters in this film are crap bar Dr Loomis of course. I can't stand the little kid, i wish he had got it he's really irritating. Our Heroin is boring and not interesting. And her whole family are a terrible bunch of actors. The mother is rubbish, the brother is bad and the Father i mean was this his first part or something? He was like a cartoon villain for gods sake he was actually more evil than Myers < By the way his death is one of the most abysmal i've ever seen i think even Friday the 13th wouldn't come up with something so entirely laughable. What else is rubbish oh yeah Tommy Jarvis, don't know the name of the guy but he really can't act, he tries his best to be serious and all that but i just wanted to laugh at him. I wish he had died in fact if everyone had died it would have been quite good really. There is Dr Loomis a horribly aged and dieing Donald Pleasence by all account. Despite him being on his last legs Pleasance is still the stand out in the brief amount of time he features. Its such a pity that such a corner stone of this franchise had to say farewell in garbage like this. What else is rubbish, oh yeah the bit where the radio DJ gets it. Firstly how the hell did Michael manage to get in that van when five minutes ago he was in his house? Secondly it was just a pointless kill which may boost the body count but is just another peace of nonsense which adds to the drivel that is this film. Its in fact that death which said it all for me in that it was pointless a lot like this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Spoof films have come so far since Mel Brooks in 'The Producers' (1968) said "Don't be stupid, be a smartie. Come and join the nazi party". It brought us delightful films, such as 'Young Frankenstein', 'Airplane!', and even 'Naked Gun'. But the good die young. Luckily, the genre managed to make it all the way up to the end of the 90's. And then... the Wayan's Brothers unleashed the apocalypse: 'Scary Movie'. Suddenly the word spoof was an innuendo for crude sex jokes. Most movies claiming to be spoofs since then have followed suit, including 'Scary Movie 2', 'Date Movie' and the film to kill the genre 'Epic Movie'. Sure, there have been some reliefs. There was 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz'. Will Ferell has become a vehicle spoofing close to every sport imaginable. Also, the Wayans Brothers quit the 'Scary Movies' and they have been made by the dependable Zucker Brothers. While these films have held some value in the rescue, the genre is tragically doomed to be films only loved by prepubescent males who just discovered what an erection is. People who haven't explored the term 'spoof' and cut and paste movies together for a quick laugh. No heart, no brain, just cheap glue. Sadly, 'The Comebacks' has been added to the list. Dave Koechner (Who starred in 'Anchorman' alongside Ferrell) leads a teams of underdogs to win against a coach (Carl Weathers of 'Happy Gilmore' fame) who got him back into coaching. Koechner has shown promise as a supporting actor, but as a lead in this film, he just sounds scripted. He sounds too much like he's doing a cold read passionately. Also, the jokes about being a washed up coach, who through the course of the movie encourages the team to fail in school and later runs from the police in his underwear, have been done before. Yes, this is a spoof film. But let us remember that even spoofs can have quality. Give the characters dignity and a sort of sophisticated view on modern society. Also, the reliance on stereotypes is not going to get us any more laughs (who knew one movie with jive-talking people could lead to gangster stereotypes (not really, but you see)). While I will admit to laugh at least a few times... it wasn't on par. The football team within itself had a lot of stereotypes, including a Mexican, a cocky jock, a fat guy, the scrawny nerd, and the mentally handicapped aid. Even the only female on the team got reduced to stereotypical female humor, being mostly scantily clad and giving off innuendos. In fact, her character, as well as most of the others, never developed. It's a sad state of affairs for this movie. If only it wasn't so reliant on stupid sex jokes, it could've made something for itself. In fact, this movie will probably be the butt of jokes alongside 'Epic Movie' for time to come. Koechner really deserved better. The script in general was poorly conceived, even naming the championship 'The Toilet Bowl'. So yes. spoof movies are dying. There is a movie called 'Meet the Spartans' (be ahead of the trend, boycott now!) coming out that includes a spoof on Britney Spears' breakdown. So let those kids keep getting erections... but people grow up and lose them. We need sustenance. One day, they will learn to stop spoofing spoofs and restore them. Hopefully, one of the heroes will be 'Get Smart', made by the master Mel Brooks, coming out next year. <br /><br />Rating: 2 out of 5 (Stars)
| 0 |
negative
|
Nice movie and Nicholle Tom does a fantastic job playing the "guy in the girl's body", she really does it well.<br /><br />A sort of teen version of many other movies, but well done.<br /><br />Well casted, from "Matt" to "Matt2".
| 0 |
negative
|
so. i was completely in love with this movie. gaga for it, even with all its plot twists...but the one thing i found really disturbing was the connection between the two best friends in Tim and Kyle. While the writer of the film gave us such a poignant moment between the two, and their sexual experimentation/confusion, he then gives us a plot twist that makes them half brothers?!?! (Although the subject isn't brought up in the film....and left unexplained and unaccounted for) I just thought that it was in bad taste, and the fact that it wasn't even discussed is even worse. (Oops we've created a taboo...now let's not address the situation, because that wouldn't really be P.C.) Otherwise a spectacular film
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.