text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
If you pack all the clichés about city firefighters into 105 minutes; you have Ladder 49.<br /><br />It has a story but is highly clouded by all the clichés. It turns it into movie that with every event; becomes so predictable it's not worth watching. There is no depth to the story and even the acting seems superficial.<br /><br />It looked like it wanted to be a tribute to firefighters but ended up being boring and pretentious. The parallel between Jack Morrison being fatally trapped beneath an inaccessible part of a building and firefighters being trapped beneath the rubble of the Twin Towers was all too obvious.<br /><br />It doesn't compare to movies like Backdraft and certainly does not set an example for future movies about fire personnel.
| 0 |
negative
|
Four Friends is one of those films that you go to without any expectations, only to find yourself knocked for a loop. You sort of file it away, but then you hear the song "Georgia On My Mind" by Ray Charles, and images and vague feelings begin to flicker on the edge of your consciousness, and then you remember this crazy film which made you laugh and cry, almost at the same time.<br /><br />Why is this film so memorable? First, at least for people who lived through it all, because it captures so well the tenor of the times - its dashed hopes, its successes, its sincerity and above all the emotional roller-coaster ride that leads to a poignant nostalgia. And then, the acting is just so amazing. Danilow, all angst and passion, Georgia, as difficult to grasp as a will 'o the wisp... but enchanting, nevertheless, and Louis, the handicapped room-mate with charm to spare who attacks life with gusto and takes each moment with a wry smile, because he knows only too well that it just might be his last.<br /><br />How long has it been since you saw a film that made you really care about the people in the story? Even if they were far from perfect? The film presents you with people whose choices are not necessarily commendable, but the film never moralizes, it just allows us to appreciate the human condition in all its variety... even the minor characters have a well-defined personality and a history, which is why this film seems so real even when some of the actions and reactions might seem over the top... because that's the way life is, when you think about it. And why this film engages you with a complexity that is defined by character. Truly an amazing and satisfying experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film has got so much in it. Prehistoric society, adventure, romance, true brotherhood, violence, sex, religion; all depicted abundantly..without a single word uttered!!! And how come it sucks so bad? This film will make you rethink the origin of humanity. If this were the product of anthropology, you would rather defy Darwinian theory and Hegelian synthesis all together. You cannot bear to watch this even with your brain shut down. And now you are thinking, "I've got to see this." I warned you. I take no responsibility whatsoever should you regret spending over an hour staring at this piece of art. Well, I did warn you. This should be forgotten and buried for ever.
| 0 |
negative
|
Purported documentary that tries to examine sci-fi films of the 1950s and how they affected (and REflected) America. Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ridley Scott and James Cameron are interviewed and Mark Hamill narrates.<br /><br />Pretty terrible. The "insights" that are given are nothing new--for instance--the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war affected a whole generation of children. Well-duh! They try to cover all of the different sub genres of sci-fi films of the 1950s--the big bug movies, invaders from space movies etc etc. That's good but they choose the most obvious films and they've been over analyzed to death already. It was cool seeing clips from "Rocketship X-M", "Destination Moon", "Forbidden Planet", "The Thing" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" but everything the directors said was so incredibly obvious to any viewer that it's insulting. Even though it's under an hour I was thoroughly bored 30 minutes in. This gets a 2 for some of the clips but nothing else.
| 0 |
negative
|
I've read the positive comments on this movie. I assume people who were in this movie must've come to this site to give it some good press because this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I always watch the whole film despite the quality or lack there of which explains why I watched this whole movie, but I don't think I laughed even once during the duration of this film. The jokes were mostly very bad, but when the jokes had some promise, the delivery was off. If you liked it, maybe you should lay off the buds because you need to preserve the 5 or 6 brain cells you have left. This movie had a poor script, bad acting, poor directing, weak plot... nothing of virtue and was not entertaining. If you haven't seen this movie, don't.
| 0 |
negative
|
(Warning: spoilers! -- although it's hard to spoil this film by telling story details.)<br /><br />Eisenstein's black and white propaganda film is not for everyone. It's very old and it's, er, clumsy. What makes it great for me is the soundtrack, not the original but the updated soundtrack. Better still, the orchestral version Prokofiev created (my favorite performance is by Fritz Reiner and the Chicago Symphony).<br /><br />The film is actually funny in places. It's reminiscent of the old "Midsummer Night's Dream". Some of the outdoor scenes are quite magnificent. Some of the actors are also quite magnificent. (The actor who played Nevsky could have been a superstar today. Ditto for the warrior chick, Vasilisa -- definitely a rocker.) <br /><br />This may be the world's best collection, on film, of pithy Russian sayings (there are tons of them -- they make up the bulk of the spoken lines).<br /><br />The battle scenes actually look much more realistic than most high-budget Hollywood flix. These guys are as clumsy with their fighting as real peasants would be. The weapons look nasty, so the actors were probably trying to avoid actually wounding one another.<br /><br />The actor playing the German "grand marshall" is trying *really* hard to look scary early in the film, but he looks like he was really a pussycat. After he's captured he looks *so* pathetic. (Speaks volumes about the intended audience, da?)<br /><br />A really humorous touch is that the German army brings an *organ* with it, played by a character in a black robe. Watch the Russians bring this guy down *while* he's playing.<br /><br />After the battle is over and almost all of the Germans are dead comes the best part of the film (and the music), the song sung to the dead soldiers who've died defending the motherland. This part is so sad it's almost an anti-war statement.<br /><br />Ten times as many men as ladies have rated this film. Wonder why?<br /><br />Warning: Joseph Stalin liked this film. Ironic -- he killed more Russians than anybody. "Those who come to Russia carrying a sword will die by the sword".
| 1 |
positive
|
It is not surprising that this film was made by I'm Kwon Taek at the time it was. He examined the early beauty and tragedy of Chosun Dynasty life in Seopyonje and delightfully explored a well-known Korean folk tale in Chunhyang, and these comprised his last two films. What is most surprising is that Chi Hwa Seon, his 2002 offering, is not presented in the pansori style of those previous two films.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the experienced hand of I'm comes through. We explore together the life of a real person: a late nineteenth century Chosun Dynasty painter who rides on the edge of modernity but who is not a noble and who, because of that, causes a stir in contemporary Korean society with his fame and his public and artistic expressions of disdain for the old Korean noble class and his contempt for would-be Japanese ruling colonials alike. The painter, Chang Seung Up, known popularly as Oh Won (performed magnificently by Choi Min Sik, the famous star of Park Chan Wook's already legendary "OldBoy") becomes more and more influential and therefore more dangerous throughout the film. Contemporary Korean audiences will back a hero like this despite the fact, or maybe because of the fact, that he was so ostracized in his time. I'm's sense of simultaneous beauty and tragedy in history remains intact. I'm is a master at capturing his country's past idiosyncrasies, and in this film he almost outdoes himself. As expected in an I'm film, the cinematography is breathtaking, the editing is precise and the story is central.<br /><br />Plots are set against Seung Up, family ties are tested and broken, scandalous behavior is alleged (and is sometimes real), all to bring down the man who "painted fire." But against all the intricacies of I'm's detailed but sometimes convoluted account of Seung Up's life, Seung Up himself somehow manages to survive. He becomes legendary because of his ability to perfectly copy famous Chinese paintings after only one look. Art dealers and agents then besiege him and try to make money off "Oh Won." In other words, lines of people, who wish to take advantage of the real Seung Up, an artistic star, begin to form. But he refuses to be manipulated. His cleverness in staving off both the massive hordes and the imperial lackeys impresses the audience, if not the cast. <br /><br />What does Seung Up think? He possesses powerful emotions and opinions about painting, such as the aesthetic belief that paintings are living things and are never truly finished. He despises those who would try to turn art into profit. And he cares not for politicians who use their might to bring artistic beauty around them and then cast off the artist as traitorous. But he also thinks that painting plays a role in the coming upheavals. Horrid scenes involving foreign invaders from France and Japan are presented. I'm's signature historical epic motif, and his influence in the realm, remains on prominent display in this multi-million dollar epic. <br /><br />The protagonist causes greater grief for himself and those who care for him when he refuses to paint. This is when the story takes on a whole new meaning, one that is not just political, but social in nature. I'm takes on the issues in laudable realist fashion. <br /><br />He, Oh Won, becomes a Jesus figure. The people believe him capable of artistic miracles and the government feels it needs his artistic support, but the protagonist remains fiercely independent and contemptuous of what others want him to do or be. Eventually, both government and people come down upon Seung Up in a manner taken straight out of the Bible. His holiness becomes human; his humanity is not accepted; he dies for (or escapes from) the sins of the commoners, the art critics, the politicians, who hound him. <br /><br />But does he die? As with most of I'm's films, a question remains. In this case, does Seung Up really become an immortal hermit? The film does not tackle that question; it merely presents a possible end for the real man of Chang Seung Up, or Oh Won. No death is depicted because no death is known. <br /><br />It is difficult to find fault with this film, but I'm has become so good at presenting various historical absurdities in his culture that when he does, it hardly surprises anymore. As usual for I'm's films, the cinematography, the editing and the writing are all first rate. It's a well-crafted film imbued with I'm's uncanny story-telling ability. Granted, he may be best at doing this through the ancient Korean musical art of pansori. Still, the film contains stretches of this admirable art form, and by the end, viewers feel as if they have become privy to a great, untold story. And they have, because that, precisely, is I'm's gift.
| 1 |
positive
|
I did not know what to expect when I decided to watch this documentary. I knew it was about an ex-Viet Nam POW in Laos who escaped, but I didn't know much else. In reality, I wasn't expecting too much. Oh what a surprise! The story of this man's life is very interesting in itself, but what sets this film apart from other biography-type docs is that Dieter himself tells most of the story himself. Dieter is very comfortable in front of the camera. His personality really shines. He tells his story about his life growing up in Germany during WWII and the hardships. We are there with him in that same small town as he describes his family, inspirations, and struggles. We follow him to America and his path to fulfilling his dream to be a pilot. Then later Dieter describes his story of capture, escape, and survival in the Laotian jungle. We are again with him in that very jungle as he describes and re-enacts his imprisonment and path to freedom with great detail. We see the same primitive huts, villagers, and forms of detainment he dealt with that really hasn't changed for 30 years. We see the thick jungle, mountain terrain, and rivers Dieter faced during his escape. It helps us to understand his emotions, pain, and plight. I enjoyed the man, the story, and the style. Job well done!
| 1 |
positive
|
How many English 101 student's versions of 1984 must America endure? "Gosh, this is a great book, but kind of a downer. I know, I'll write one just like it where everything works out okay. I'll also replace Orwell's old, used up political insights from the thirties with my own insightful, informed opinions form the 1970s. Think, think, political insight... Evil Politicians, I'm a genius! And there will be clones that they make of themselves for some diabolical reason... I'll work on that. It'll work." No it won't, Bob Sullivan, writer of this story. This really is all you're fault. You could have stopped them early and said, "Guys, with our budget and acting abilities, I was thinking more
romantic comedy, or we could move away form taking ourselves so seriously and make a campy spoof this tired, familiar genre of movies." Did you do that though bob? No you didn't, and you've had 28 years to think about it. <br /><br />I don't mean to be so spiteful. I'm sorry I yelled at you Bob. You've obviously had to live with this mistake a lot longer then I have. Some blame really should go to Ron Smith, who helped you adapt the screenplay. He could have stopped you at any time. You were young and naive, and he took advantage of you. Now he wrights the plots for video games and you, bob, well who knows what you do. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh Bob, but that's the way it is. You were sold upriver by the Hollywood hotshots. As if Ron wasn't enough, Michael bay also saw your movie, and without even asking for rights or anything, added some explosions to your concept and turned it into "The Island." That I think is the most disgusting part of all, that with a little eye candy, your script could of easily been good enough for a major Hollywood production, which I'd of hated just as much as this movie and not felt sorry for you at all. <br /><br />I'm sorry things worked this way for you bob. Ron and Michael walked all over you, leaving you a withered shell of a man, who's height of movie writing greatness will be a joke on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Don't focus on that though Bob, because Karma works in mysterious ways, and one day, they'll pay for what they did to poor little Bob Sullivan.
| 0 |
negative
|
After seeing this film I felt sick to my stomach and if I had seen one more minute I would have had to rush to the bathroom and vomit til dawn. A sick film that was NOT funny and was NOT worth the money, any money at all. If anybody ever wants to see this movie don't! Your kids will never forgive you and will claim sickness for a week. So if you value your child's education and want to stimulate your child's mind please don't see this movie. I beg of you, DON'T!
| 0 |
negative
|
"Scarecrow Gone Wild: He's the Death of the Party!" Need I say more? Scarecrow gone wild got four out of ten stars from me for one simple reason: aside from the terrible acting, plot holes, cheap special effects, and anti-climactic whistling, it was cinematic gold! I think that this movie could have actually been really good, had the scarecrow turned out to be the baseball coach (as portrayed by the ever-so-brilliant Ken Shamrock). But then again, they would have had to cut those AWESOME "Return of the Jedi" electricity special effects.<br /><br />While watching this movie, my friends and I were convinced that it was in fact written by one of our friends, a stereotypical teen-aged boy. This movie has topless women, miserably fake gore, and dialog that could not have talked its way out of a paper bag, or in this case, a cornfield.<br /><br />If I could ask the filmmaker one thing, it would be this; "How much did you have to pay the teenager that wrote this for you?"
| 0 |
negative
|
DO not take this film seriously, rent it with some folks who want to play Mystery Science 3000, and you will probably laugh your butts off. The evil guys are so not scary, it's funny, it's like some dude from 7th grade with a sickle in a scarecrow get up. The acting is hilarious. I love the occasional self torture with a poor horror film and this really had me giggling. I recommend it on that basis. Of course recreational drugs will enhance the experience. Oh, there is a naked group swimming scene, that will allow for some star dust on the 5 star system. The token black male gets injured badly, but continues his joking as well as using the injured body part quite readily throughout. Enjoy this complete and utter disgrace to films.
| 0 |
negative
|
I read most of the comments here were everybody saw only the flaws of the movie. I agree, the director it's not Kuprik, the actors are not Oscar winners, but it has something everyone could relate to. I don't want to spoil but telling more then the plot - the finishing of school and the trip to a big party, or if you like to see beyond the metaphor, is choosing the way trough life. Remember that days of youth? the days when you or our friend acted like the characters? Or do you think you should acted like one of them and now you regret you didn't? if you can go back in to that time and if you can ask yourself any of this questions maybe the movie wasn't so bad.
| 1 |
positive
|
I think Purvis starts out to do a gay "Gone With The Wind" If so, sorry, Tag, it didn't happen. It also didn't happen as a gay "sexploitation" flick. I guess I'm confused; what are we trying to do here? Much as I'd like to, I simply can't get to where I care even a little about these characters. This movie is effective in capturing a taste of the decadence that lives in the South; it does nothing to explain, enlighten or advance my understanding of a gay relationship, or the conflict the protagonist seems to be grappling with.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a quirky heist/caper film, one that seems predictable at first then keeps surprising until the last scene. The protagonist is a grifter who goes to work in a little carnival, where he's paid to kill the manager's belly dancer wife Divana then ends up falling for her himself. She's alluring, tricky and deadly and she keeps disappearing and popping up again like some sort of magician's trick. The film's other props include her duplicitous husband/employer (played by the talented Armand Assante), some nasty Dominican mobsters and most important to the plot, a suitcase full of money. Just like the old "shell game," the one where you have to guess which one the pea's under, you'll be guessing who's got the money, and like the victims of the hucksters who run such games, you'll probably guess wrong. Dagma Dominczyk, as lovely Divana, is a talented performer and an eyeful, whether she's dancing with the huge snake around her shoulders or working her grift on all the unfortunate men in her orbit. Norman Reedus is fine as the young con who is flummoxed by the elusive beauty he was paid to kill. Don't count him out, however, for he turns out to be smarter than anyone gave him credit for. This oddball film is worth a look.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Satanic horror movies and, in fact, I seem to like them less and less every time I see a new one, and that isn't really surprising when I end up watching films like Brotherhood of Satan! Despite its low rating on IMDb, I was surprised to hear some good things about this film and my expectations went up. This turned out to be a big mistake as this is exactly the film that its rating suggests it is: namely, a very bad one! The plot is your basic bunch of Satanists causing trouble, and we focus on a small town where people have been murdered and kidnapped and it's not really clear why. Naturally, Satanists are behind it and this is bad news for a mother, father and daughter on a road trip who become trapped in the mysterious town. I had a feeling that this film might be along the same lines as the crappy Satanist flick 'The Devil's Rain', and while it's not quite as silly as Robert Fuest's later film, it's not much better either. The plot seems to be fairly down to Earth, but it's also rather boring and I can't say that I enjoyed myself at all during this movie. Brotherhood of Satan obviously has its fans, but I'm not one of them; this is a film that I see no reason to recommend...
| 0 |
negative
|
For a movie I was really looking forward to, I was very disappointed. I had no expectations of this being another Amadeus, but did expect a more significant portrayal of Beethovens last years.<br /><br />The performance by Ed Harris was superb, but the story line was so weak that the film simply moved from one dreary scene to the next with no continuity.<br /><br />The only enjoyable part of the film for me was the performance of the 9th, and from that point on I could quite happily have walked out without finishing.<br /><br />I left feeling very dissatisfied and still have the feeling that something important was missed.
| 0 |
negative
|
In the groovy mid 70's a scruffy bunch of brash young Venice, California adolescents from broken homes and the bad side of town known as the Z-Boys turned the previously staid world of professional skateboarding on its ear with their fierce punk attitude, radical unconventional riding style, and unbridled spirit of pure in-your-face aggression, revolutionizing the sport in the process and paving the way for the many extreme variations on sports that popped up in their influential wake. Director Stacy Peralta, who's one of the legendary Z-Boys himself, relates the incredible exploits of this amazing ragtag crew in a ferociously punchy and visceral manner that's both informative and wildly entertaining: the snappy rapid-fire editing, ceaseless speedy pace, and raw, gritty photography deliver one hell of an infectiously kinetic buzz, projecting a sense of sheer joy and full-on bustling energy that's a total pleasure to behold. Better still, this documentary neither sanitizes nor romanticizes its subjects: These rough'n'scrappy lads were so fiercely competitive and out for themselves that they all went their separate ways when the lure of fame and fortune manifested in their lives. The ultimate fates of certain guys is poignant and heartbreaking, with gifted and spontaneous ace skateboard rat Jay Adams rating as the saddest and most tragic: He blew his chance at the big time and wound up doing time in jail. The other dudes are very colorful and personable as well; charismatic ball of cocky and defiant fire Tony Alva in particular comes across as one arrogant, yet impressive piece of furiously assertive work. Marvelously narrated with delightfully easy'n'breezy nasal nonchalance by Sean Penn. The terrific rock soundtrack likewise seriously smokes. But what really makes this documentary such a winner is its refreshing complete dearth of pretense: It's every bit as dynamic, exuberant and larger-than-life extraordinary as the gloriously outrageous Z-Boys themselves.
| 1 |
positive
|
MR. BASEBALL is a film of paradoxes. Written and filmed as a "light, sports comedy" it truly has a heartwarming core as human and universal as some of Capra's finest. At the plot level, you have the paradox of baseball, a fine old American game, as it is played in Japan - turned around, with American values cast off and Japanese values imprinted upon the game. (Some of the superficial "sports comedy" results from Jack's uncomprehending disbelief at how "basa-boru" is played in Japan.) You also have a lead character who's presented as an over-the-hill, aging baseball star, but who is actually quite immature - pro ball allowed him to postpone growing up. And you have a lead character who is rudely resistant to the changes in his life that are being forced upon him, refusing to accept the curveball that life has given him, in the midst of a new country, a new manager, a new team, and a new girlfriend, who have all welcomed him and try to accept him. Sound like heavy stuff? Not really. It's a charming "clash of cultures" comedy that takes place on the national, sports, romantic, and professional levels. But if you watch it sensitively enough, you will also find a great story about a man who has to abandon his immaturity and grow up way too late in life (causing some amount of personal pain), and finds success in places he never expected it. I love the story, but I also have great respect for Selleck's performance; he bares his tush (literally) to portray an ugly American, insulting people and throwing tantrums in public, then lets us inside this character to understand his dismay. It also doesn't hurt if you're a big fan of Takakura Ken like I am. MR. BASEBALL is a surprising "loss of innocence" tale.
| 1 |
positive
|
Sometimes Full Moon makes entertaining movies. This isn't one of them. Full Moon is like a low-key Troma. Their movies aren't as violent or off the wall, but they're usually just as devoid of talent. The acting in this movie isn't terrible but the script is pretty bad, and overall it's pretty boring and it doesn't even contain any nudity (like many Full Moon movies) to somewhat redeem it. Skip this one, and go rent "Head of the Family".
| 0 |
negative
|
In post civil war America the President, (Van Johnson), travels to Dallas and is assassinated by corrupt officials and businessman interested in installing the vice President whom they can blackmail due to incriminating documents. A gunman (Guiliano Gemma) convinced that his black friend is wrongly accused of the assassination aims to uncover the truth. Tonino Valeri directed this fascinating, if flawed film which obviously is an allegory for the Kennedy assassination. The film may wrongly present blacks as slaves working on plantations in Texas but the film is nonetheless enjoyable and presents an interesting interpretation - that Kennedy's death was the result of a coup de tat- which many Americans could not accept at the time. Oswald's murder is replayed here as the black accused of the assassination is murdered by the men responsible, on route to Fort Worth prison. This moment in the film is more melodramatic than Oswald's death with his various escorts shot down before his over the top death scene. Nonetheless this is definitely one of the more interesting and worthwhile spaghetti westerns. Worth a look!
| 1 |
positive
|
When I first got wind of this picture, it was just called "Shepherd" and was supposed to be the film that would put JCVD back into chances of doing theatrical shtuff. I was very well excited about the whole piece.<br /><br />By the time it was titled "The Shepherd: Border Patrol," I was tap-dancing in excitement for this flick. With Isaac Fluorentine at the helm of directing, and JJ Perry pulling stunt coordination, I almost peed me pants in anticipation. Pics were released of JCVD kicking 8 different kinds of arse as well as Scott Adkins playing what I thought was the villain, and I was mind-blown in excitement. I thought it was going to be another epic martial arts situation like Lone Wolf McQuade.<br /><br />Then it came out. I ordered it off Blockbuster online for $20 and was ready for anything. The reviews from vandammefan.net kinda had my ideas alittle altered, but I braced myself. The mail came on day 4 and I ripped open the package. My initial plan was to rush upstairs, rip the face off the cardboard packaging, then smash the case in the proper dynamics so the disc would land in my DVD player. However, I stared at the case for 10 minutes then placed the disc in my player and watched the film.<br /><br />By the time it was over, I was cool as a fool in the pool. The Shepherd is certainly one of my all-time favorite direct-to-video films ever and makes Derailed look like even more of the toilet mess that it is. Sure, some of the fights ran a twee bit short, but they were still VERY awesome. The shootouts were superb, as was Scott Adkins, who SHOULD have been the villain, unlike the forgettable Steven Lord.<br /><br />I highly recommend this flick. Seriously.
| 1 |
positive
|
...Our the grandpa's hour.<br /><br />More than the gangsters ,it's a detailed depiction of an American family circa 1930:the father,proud of his job who worries about his son who's given up high school,the mum everyone would like to have ,the daughter who forgets dinner time in his squeeze's arms,and the twins who are absolutely lovable ("Don't go to sleep first ,please!").<br /><br />And there's the grandfather ,playing the Yankee doodle on his flute .Have you noticed that this tune plays the same role as Doris Day's "Que Sera Sera" in Hitchcock's "The man who knew too much" (1956)?And there's this grandpa who is finally the most courageous person of the family .So old he does not even tell you his age ,but proud of his country and resisting to the gangster's hateful blackmail.<br /><br />A good film by Wellman.
| 1 |
positive
|
Poor Diane Arbus (whoever she was). Not only was she (according to this movie) a spoiled-but-sweet-acting upper East Side brat, she was a bad wife, bad mother, awful business partner; plus there is no evidence in this picture that she was any kind of an artist -- except in the bold statement in the prologue.<br /><br />Nicole Kidman, who incredibly is more attractive today than 25 years ago and actually looks younger, indeed gives an excellent performance; but what can an actress do with a wife and mom who seeks out and falls for an incredibly weird werewolf-looking guy living in the apartment upstairs? Set in the early 1970's, Manhattan was a virtual magnet for freaks and weirdo's of all sizes and shapes, most not looking like human hairballs; so why is this affair worthy of a 122 minute movie?<br /><br />Robert Downey Jr used to be one of my favorites, but I'd say his well known and prolonged use of drugs has taken its toll. One might think he'd be disinclined to be in a movie that treats drug use as casually as it does smoking cigarettes. <br /><br />FUR has already taken a beating at the box office, but in view of those who input a score of 10 for this misbegotten slice of trash, I'd like to say, 'taint so, McGee.
| 0 |
negative
|
Pumpkinhead was in itself a decent 80s horror flick. No classic by any means, but an enjoyable piece of fluff. Why then, have we now been treated to a fourth film in this franchise is beyond me. As in previous sequels, there's nothing here to really connect the films except for the monster, the witch and Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen). This time out we follow the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. Part of the film is a Romeo And Juliet romance as a young McCoy boy and his Hatfield lover decide to run away to be together. Soon, however, they are torn apart and the boy's sister is killed. The boy escapes to the woods and gets the witch to resurrect Pumpkinhead for some vengeance. The acting is passable at best, amateurish at the worst. The titular demon doesn't even really show up for almost forty minutes and when it does its a pale comparison between it and the original design. Overall, Blood Feud fails to impress. It may be worth a watch once, but certainly not an addition to the collection.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was, unfortunately, terrible.<br /><br />Clichéd, hackneyed, stilted dialogue and acting make it almost unwatchable.<br /><br />The feel-good finale is laughably lame.<br /><br />There is a reason Judge Reinhold's career has vanished.<br /><br />If you don't live in New York, and aren't Jewish, several of the jokes will be inscrutable.<br /><br />I, too, found the need to have the unacknowledged lesbian daughter go straight at the end quite insulting.<br /><br />I simply cannot fathom how this film was so popular at film fests.<br /><br />It is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I have seen in quite some time.
| 0 |
negative
|
I hardly know where to begin.<br /><br />Huge continuity issues, bad acting, etc. For example, Sam is supposed to be far from any people yet you can see the ski slopes cut into the mountain next to his head.<br /><br />But the most fundamental problem is that the essence of the book, Sam's adventurousness paving the way to improve the lot of his entire family, is not even touched upon. Instead, in the movie, he gets ticked off at his family and leaves his wealthy parents to be by himself and, when he gets tired of it, he goes home. Where is his development? Where is the arc?<br /><br />If you have never read the book and can get through the hokey 60isms (double/triple/quadruple visions of the falcon) and terrible production quality (crackling, ahem, fire, winter winds stopping their howling for the dialog and then restarting, etc.) I guess it *might* be OK for an 8 year old. <br /><br />But compared to the sophistication of the book it is a terrible disappointment. <br /><br />Read the book instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
This Columbo episode is one of the better and perhaps one of my personal favorites. The cast includes Rosemary's Baby John Cassavetes as the maestro, his wife played by Blythe Danner (Gwyneth Paltrow's mom) and his mother-in-law played by Myrna Loy (one of America's greatest leading actresses in film of our time). Anyway I disagree with anybody who criticizes against this film. This episode is one of my favorites because you have an excellent cast who do a superb job in performing. I love watching Columbo with his beloved dog who he never names in the series. This time, the episode focuses in on classical music at the Hollywood Bowl, one of L.A.'s attractions. Of course, Columbo becomes as interested in classical music as he does anything else involving a crime.
| 1 |
positive
|
Otto Preminger's "The Man with the Golden Arm" is a reference to heroin addiction - something that must have been rather risky to film back in 1955, fifty years ago (the censors today STILL have a problem with drug content in films!).<br /><br />The lead role was originally offered to Marlon Brando, then snatched by Frank Sinatra before Brando could respond. Sinatra convincingly portrays a pro card dealer and ex-heroin addict who returns home to the city only to find himself battling the demons of temptation.<br /><br />Preminger is one of my favorite directors (his "Anatomy of a Murder" starring James Stewart is a brilliant and revolutionary courtroom drama). Preminger pretty much helped change the face of cinema back in the '50s - "Anatomy of a Murder" was extremely controversial when it came out due to both its plot and content (references to rape, women's "panties," seduction, etc.) and "The Man with the Golden Arm" deals with a topic that is equally volatile.<br /><br />However, Preminger pulls it off without becoming exploitative. This is like a forerunner to "The Panic in Needle Park" (1971) and bears more than a few similarities in terms of general motifs to the classic Billy Wilder movie "Lost Weekend," starring Ray Milland. These three films in particular are probably the best movies about alcoholism predating the 1980s and still remain relevant today.
| 1 |
positive
|
A fairly enjoyable kidnapping caper set in New Orleans, but its main downfall in my opinion is that it packs way too much political intrigue and double-crossing, and not enough of the sexy young actors, scenes of vibrant colour, original cinematographical style and biting humour. These aspects combine to give refreshingly daring cinema, which makes a whole bunch of recent stuff look unbearably dull. Let's hope Sébastian Gutierrez continues with such flair - he looks like a talent to watch out for. The mismatched bunch of small-time crooks in the film are outshadowed by the investigative partnership of Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, the humour of whose scenes is much needed in making the movie what it is. The pair pull off their obligatory southern drawls just as well as the Yanks, and it's a delight to hear these two stalwarts of British cinema yapping away to each other with Lethal-Weapon-style fluidity...just a pity that the only scenes they have the opportunity to steal are exclusively theirs. Anyway, with a bit less politics and authoritarianism (!), the film would be near-perfect, so I'll give it a healthy 8/10 and hope that a few people remember it a bit better than the box-office did.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie awhile back and can't seem to track it down. Does anyone know where I can get a hold of it? I feel it is worth seeing again.<br /><br />I'm sorry to say I had never heard of Chloe Nicholle until this film. Yes she can act. When I first began to track this movie down I mistook it for another one of her movies, Sex Spa. The plot seems similar to me but the roles are reversed.<br /><br />This is the first film I've seen Dru Berrymore. I looked up some of her other films and I feel she looks better as a blonde. <br /><br />I agree this is a good introductory movie. Not too soft. Not too hard. You got to start somewhere.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this originally on Channel 4 (UK) and it was a fantastic film that left a great impression on me. However I saw it on Irish TV recently and there was an added narration by Roy Scheider ("we're going to need a bigger boat!"). This ruined the film for me. His droning monologue adds absolutely nothing to the film, and if anything takes from the films brilliance. I wonder at the new DVD version that has no Roy (due to legal reasons?) would stop people from buying it. Well believe me, the film is much better for it!<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Damian
| 1 |
positive
|
To be frank, this is probably the best version in my book as a sound movie version of the Jazz Singer. The 1927 version is really a silent movie despite its build-up as the first talkie.<br /><br />Danny Thomas is a great comedian, and he sings very well. He does the Jewish stuff with feeling. Peggy Lee is great and any film that has her is always entertaining. Allan Joslyn is not too entertaining and we could have done without him. One question: since when do Cantors live in such luxurious houses???
| 1 |
positive
|
A wonderful film ahead of its time,<br /><br />I think so, In the eighty's it was all about winning, Greed is Good ? Remember that one ? I have seen this film more that 20 times, To me this is a real desert island film, I keep watching because there is always something more to learn about these flawed characters that I just love, Jessica Tandy, and Hume Cronin, are simply wonderful,Also Beverly D'angelo, Beau Bridges come in at a close second, don't get me wrong there are many more great performance's in this film, and it is also the way it is written that made it for me, and I hope you, a film that you will want to see over and over, I think TV shows like "Northen Exposure", and now "Earl" owe a lot to this film. but remember it is not a Tom Cruise film.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is my first "awful" rating ever on IMDb and I couldn't think of a more deserving film to honor it with. I hoped for entertaining trash and found trash of the saddest, dullest kind. I found a film which no one can possibly have cared a bit about, including its creator.<br /><br />"Hell Ride", directed, written by and starring Larry "Friend of QT" Bishop, has a simple plot about a hidden treasure and a trio of keys, two bands of bikers and a gruesome murder in 1976 which has yet to be avenged. Larry seems fiercely determined not to tell this story, focusing instead of putting his swaying, strangely grimacing main character into situations where he can fondle women who pretend to like it. He also has a dialog containing enough horrible fire puns/metaphors to put one off the word "fire" for life.<br /><br />Dennis Hopper escapes complete humiliation, others are not so lucky. Sometimes they hit the road on their bikes, making one feel even more sorry for Michael Madsen, since his high handles seems to add insult to the injury of having to appear in this film. There is plenty of silicon-enhanced nudity, but fairly little action and no humor whatsoever, making one wonder just what kind of an audience they had in mind.<br /><br />My guess is that most people who watch this film, including fans of trashy 60s biker movies, will feel cheated. Do yourself a favor and revisit the real stuff instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
At the heart of almost every truly great crime thriller is a carefully considered, methodically planned-out high stakes super-crime, which 9 times out of 10 is committed by a bunch of likable, grey-scale morality underdogs for who life isn't fair, for whom getting back at the man is, well, something worth cheering for. First-time screenwriter James V. Simpson's script for Armored gets this half right. He made extra-double-sure that we've got nothing but sympathy for the recently orphaned, Iraq war veteran Ty Hackett (Stomp the Yard's Columbus Short), who's about to have his house taken away by an evil bank (brother, I've been there). And he gave Ty a good family friend in Mike (Matt Dillon) who is super nice and gets him a job at the armored car company that he works at with Baines (Lawrence Fishbourne) and some weird French dude (Jean Reno). These guys like to have fun and play pranks, but they are also serious armored car guys too, so that means they carry guns and are tough.<br /><br />After a short while, as one theoretically watches Armored, one might start to think as I did, that maybe - just maybe - this is going to be some kind of awesome, tongue-in-cheek, cornball heist movie with some on-the-nose characterizations that move the story along its natural course, cranking up the personal stakes of all involved in hopes of unveiling a really, really clever plan with lots of potential 'holy sh*t' moments. I mean, the music alone is textbook heist-movie - gritty, edgy beats working overtime as we're treated to close-ups of characters who say things like "As a matter of fact I do," and "Are you crazy??" For 45 minutes or so, the movie had some serious genre-flick potential.<br /><br />Then things start to really stink. These dudes, these idiots, have no plan. There's no "Ok, here's what we're gonna do..." scene, no blueprints, no explosives, no black van or ski-masks (despite their 'test-run', as can be seen in a trailer). No, these guys are going to steal $42 million dollars from their own trucks (which are only being tracked by HOURLY contact over the radio, despite being equipped with some fancy, big-deal 'GPS technology'), and they aren't even going to sit down and discuss it. Hell, Mike only tells Ty about the plan the night before, which is completely ridiculous. But of course, Ty's got his house to think about so as long as Mike promises that 'no one will get hurt,' he's on board. Guess what, though. Somebody gets hurt. Why? Because, besides driving the trucks into an abandoned factory to hide the money, they have no plan. That was it. That was how far they thought things out. So, naturally, things start to unravel. These cats deserve everything they get for being so unprepared.<br /><br />This script, frankly, feels like it's like the product of some bad improv game: "Armored Car, robbed by its own guards...GO!" Despite some half-decent buildup that could have maybe taken the film in a few interesting directions, the story just completely falls apart, and pretty soon, NOTHING makes sense, or is even remotely plausible.<br /><br />When filmmakers don't have a cool "hook" for their heist, their characters seem stupid, and bungling. And when characters are stupid, and bungling, it's hard for an audience to invest in them, and their story. And when that happens, any suspense drains out the bottom of the movie, leaving a laughable, hollow husk.<br /><br />Skip it. 3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
There is nothing I hate more in a movie than pretentiousness, and this is one of the most pretentious films ever made. It's self-consciousness is obvious in every frame: "see what a profound, sophisticated film we are making," the director and screenwriters seem to be saying to us, and to themselves they say, "lets's see how we can bore and confuse the audience even more." I would rather watch the worst film by Ed Wood or Edgar G. Ulmer than something like this. At least they were giving us honest trash, and at least their films, in their own atrocious way, were entertaining. This film is about as entertaining as a root canal without anesthesia, and thus is tantamount to torture.<br /><br />Have these screenwriters ever heard the word 'story?' It doesn't appear so. They have a concept, they are able to create an atmosphere, and they were able to assemble an excellent cast and elicit good performances from them. And for what? To bore us for an hour and 45 minutes? Nothing really happens in this film. The only exciting part, and this lasts only about two minutes, occurs when one of the soon-to-be-evicted homeowners starts shooting at the state employees who come to tell him he has to leave. But nothing comes of it. Too bad he didn't keep shooting until he hit the screenwriters. The only redeeming features of this film are the acting and some beautifully photographed scenery toward the end. 3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
A young theater actress reluctantly accepts her first major part in a staged play as Lady Macbeth thanks to the mishap of the production's diva falling in front of a moving car. A success winning her accolades, Betty(Christina Marsillach)finds instead horror as the one responsible for getting her to this point terrorizes her in cruel ways.<br /><br />First her stage manager boyfriend, Stefano(William McNamara)is viciously stabbed with a knife while she has to watch, rope-tied to a pillar in his uncle's vast mansion, keeping her eyes from closing thanks to needles scotch-taped under her eyes, with pricking a result if she blinks. Allowing her to escape, Betty again finds herself in this unfortunate position, when a specific gold chain is found on her Lady Macbeth wardrobe that had been torn to shreds by the madman after killing a series of crows which escaped from their cage in the equipment room, by the clothing designer who is first knocked to the floor by an iron and subsequently stabbed heinously by a pair of scissors(..to cap off this nasty scene, the chain falls into her throat with the killer having to cut open her throat to find it; while not specifically elaborating this act, Dario uses the ripping sound of the scissors for optimum effect with the camera often retreating back to the victim's dead face). Having nowhere to turn, Inspector Alan Santini(Urbano Barberini, playing him cold and bland at Dario's request)promises to catch the psycho as Betty relies on her few remaining friends for comfort, the theater director Marco(Ian Charleson, of GHANDI & CHARIOTS OF FIRE who would later die of AIDS;A sad footnote, Dario revealed in an interview that Charleson informed him at the end of the shoot that he was HIV positive)attempting the stage after a successful horror movie career despite being rejected by critics, and pal Mira(Daria Nicolodi, Dario's former squeeze), her agent and confident. But, the serial killer is quite driven and a showdown between them will, of course, occur in the theater as Marco has added an interesting change to the production using the crows at his disposal.<br /><br />I think this is Dario at his most savage & nihilistic. Although he has certainly made later gruesome films(..such as his Masters of Horror entries and SLEEPLESS would suggest), this film really ups the ante in pure violence towards the victims of the psychopath. His method of forcing Betty to watch was admittedly a gag by Dario regarding the type of audience who like to look away from the more horrific parts of horror movies. I found myself rubbing my eyes every time she just has to blink(..brilliantly, Dario shoots the pricking from point-of-view achieving a tormenting effect from our perspective as if we were the ones with the scotch taped needles holding our eyes open). I like how Dario will show the widened eyes of Betty, horrified at what she's being forced into watching, as little blood tears down the needles when she has no choice but blink. The photographic work of Ronnie Taylor is impeccable, such as the crow's point-of-view shot in the theater at the end as it searches for the killer. Or, when the camera "travels" through rooms in the theater following the killer who wishes to see his muse from a box seat. Or, the dream sequence where we are taken into Betty's memory of an event regarding her mother's death by a certain killer, donning the same mask and gloves as the one causing her trauma at present. The highlight, in my opinion, is the peephole bullet-fire sequence, masterly staged by all involved as the camera follows a bullet which shoots through the eye of a victim, exploding from the back of her head, going through a telephone Betty planned to use to call for help. We even get a crow pecking the eyeball from the killer(..to add to this vicious scene, the crow is shown with the eyeball rolling around in it's beak). Only aspect I didn't care for, often pointed out by naysayers of the film, is the "final" ending which I personally felt was a bit unnecessary, but I guess Dario wanted to point out that Betty was indeed not like her mother, a woman with sadomasochistic tendencies which, in a twist, relate to why the killer torments our heroine. The rock music used during the violent scenes didn't bother me, because I felt that those moments of wicked graphic attacks needed a jarring thud which heavy metal can often provide.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a plot driven movie and extremely entertaining. Nothing startling or original within the plot, but crucially, it moves along at a great pace and therefore keeps your attention. I didn't really notice the acting which I guess is a good thing. John Mills was fine but did seem to take everything in his stride somewhat considering how his life was falling apart around him. He would be clumped on the head, stand up 20 seconds later, dust himself down and carry on as if nothing had happened. A minor quibble in a film with a strong story, authentic locations and a plot that continually keeps you guessing right up to its conclusion.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was really the worst movie I've ever seen. Anyone who has seen it will know what I'm talking about. I saw it on Starz, so thank goodness I didn't waste my money. Please everyone, don't waste your time. I'm really suprised this wasn't straight to video.
| 0 |
negative
|
OhMyGAWD!!! THE MAGIC GARDEN is perhaps one of my most vivid '70s childhood memories. Two hippie chicks with ponytails, Carole and Paula would swing on swings, tell jokes they picked off the chuckle patch, dress up with costumes they found in a giant chest called The Storybox, and argue with a pesky pink squirrel named Sherlock that lived in one of their trees. They also could strum a mean acoustic guitar and sing a pretty melody. This was a great childhood show. Very 70s feeling. But that's the problem: They don't MAKE shows like this anymore. Pity that. You could tell these two girls really had hearts of gold and loved kids, they were really sweet. MAGIC GARDEN is one of those shows that if they came out with a box set people WOULD buy it, because its such a MELLOW walk down Memory Lane.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was very disappointed in this film. The director has shown some talent in his other endeavors, but this just seemed to be filler. There may have been a deep meaning behind it, but it seems to me to be nothing but a director who has access to some toys.<br /><br />I would highly recommend his other works to people, but certainly not this one. As I watched it, I kept on thinking it would pick up after an initial slow period, but it never did. At the end of the movie I was neither entertained nor moved nor thought of things in a new way. I could only say to myself, "What was that?"<br /><br />There were a few really striking parts of the film, but not enough to warrant sitting through it again.
| 0 |
negative
|
Wow...not in a good way.<br /><br />I can't believe people dig this trash. Most of the shows on television are pretty bad, and this has been a running trend for a while now - they just keep getting worse, but Las Vegas definitely takes it home. What a terrible show...<br /><br />The actors are a bunch of has-been C+ losers that never went anywhere (except James Caan...who knows what he was thinking when he signed on to this pos) so its not their fault that this show sucks. They just can't help it. Blame the producers and the writers. I can't believe they shot this and were actually proud enough of their work to air it.
| 0 |
negative
|
I just thought I would add another observation, here. While there are a couple of visual sub-references, in this episode, to the possibility of unexpressed feelings between Jim Kirk and Yeoman Janice Rand; there is a special, physically tender, moment, toward the end. When the Enterprise is reversing at emergency warp speed in an attempt to outrun a possibly fatal Romulan plasma ball, Janice, perhaps fearing that their life is about to come to a dramatic end, seeks comfort by placing her head on Jim's sympathetic shoulder as they observe the aproaching instrument of their impending doom on the main viewer. I thought it was sweet (and Janice, of course, is gorgeous!).<br /><br />(P.S. Goof:- Several times, while supposedly firing phasors, the film shows photon torpedoes being launched)
| 1 |
positive
|
Critters 3 starts on the open road as Clifford (John Calvin) his teenage daughter Annie (Aimee Brooks) & his young son Johnny (the IMDb list two actor's Christian & Josephh Cousins, identical twins perhaps?) are heading back home from a vacation. Suddenly the tyre on their van blows & they have to stop at a public rest area to fix it. While there Annie & Johnny meet a kid named Josh (Leonardo DiCaprio, yes that one) who in turn all run into Charlie McFadden (the films co-producer Don Keith Opper) from the previous two Critter films. Charlie tells them the story of the Critters & the town of Grovers Bend but they don't believe him. Meanwhile back at the van a Critter lays some eggs on it's underside, out of sight from everyone. Once Clifford has fixed the tyre the trio set off for their home, a run down urban tenement block in Los Angeles somewhere complete with Critter eggs along for the ride. Upon arrival the eggs hatch & the Critters head straight inside the tenement block quickly disposing of Frank (Geoffrey Blake), the caretaker. As the night draws on the few remaining residents, a fat woman named Rosalie (Diana Bellamy), a telephone repair woman Marsha (Katherine Cortez), an elderly couple Mr. (Bill Zuckert) & Mrs. Menges (Frances Bay) must come together with Clifford & his kids to fight the Critters. Josh also makes an appearance as his Stepfather (William Dennis Hunt) owns the building. But will the group be able to defeat the Critters & prevent themselves from becoming dinner?<br /><br />Directed Kristine Peterson I thought Critters 3 was an incredibly undistinguished film, but at least she can say she made a film staring Leonardo DiCaprio & not many people can say that! The budget for Critters 3 probably wasn't exactly a fortune as the whole production looks cheap throughout, there are very few characters, very few Critters & I think only 3 ever appear in the same shot at once & it does away with any sort of space angle so there are no expensive spaceship or distant alien planet special effects to pay for. The script by David J. Schow is strictly by-the-numbers & very predictable. A group of humans are stuck in an isolated situation with Critters & have no means of contacting the outside world for help, that plot scenario sounds very familiar right? Well it's same as the previous Critters (1986) & Critters 2: The Main Course (1988) & many other horror films so it should. Critters 3 does nothing with the premise, it never even tries to add anything to an already old, tired & well used storyline. Critters 3 is also very tame for a horror film with only two people actually being killed, the comedy elements are seriously lacking as well with the best joke Critters 3 can mange being a Critter eating some beans & then farting, very funny if your about 5 years old. The characters are mostly standard horror film clichés & quickly became annoying. There is virtually no blood or gore in Critters 3 at all, just a few splashes of blood & disappointingly Critters 3 in fact seems to go out of it's way not to show any violence. The special effects on the Critters are OK but they still look like static, simplistic hand-puppets that have very little movement. The acting isn't that good & Critters 3 happens to be a certain Leonardo DiCaprio's very first feature film, to be fair to the kid he's alright & I wonder if any of the other cast or crew had an idea what he go on to become. Why on Earth does that Charlie guy have to keep popping up in these Critter films? To give Critters 3 some credit it moves along at a good pace & isn't boring, it's generally well made with nice enough production values & it's a bit of harmless fun if your in the right sort of mood & thankfully it only lasts for about 80 odd minutes. Overall Critters 3 is an OK time waster but don't expect anything deep or meaningful. There's nothing really wrong with it as cheap horror film but I couldn't help feeling that I'd seen it all before. An average time-waster that isn't as good as either of the previous two Critter films. Critters 3 ends with a 'to be continued...' as this was filmed back to back with Critters 4 (1991) which unsurprisingly went straight to video, probably to save even more money. Critters 3 is a decent enough way to waste 80 odd minutes if you can watch it on T.V. for free otherwise don't bother.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is very good in term of acting and plot. The events and the setting (i.e. how Chris gets the job, Chris's work environment, the face-to-face between the two sides, etc) thereof, on the other hand, are found to be less than realistic.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is Engaging and Complex while maintaining simple beauty .Our two characters come together sharing the base of curiosity and loneliness, but it is a springboard for learning these people, they 're life styles and pasts which support this.<br /><br />The two lead actors (Bohl, Brundruge) were in the moment as any two actors I have ever seen. %100 believable, they transport the audience seemingly effortlessly, into their world. The actors' seamless acting teamed with Bechard's Beautiful, realistic dialog and his truthful direction drives the story forward into a striking and moving finale.This film is visual treat- soft ,increasing the intensity of The story. The soundtrack serenades the viewer, soothing yet drawing out the emotional content of the film. I find this project to be nothing short of a masterpiece. intriguing.intense.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was so poorly acted. What was with Jeff Bridges accent, horrible and unbelievable. Was it supposed to be French, Scandinavian?The script was lame. To have the heroine trip over the grave of her boyfriend while running from the Jeff Bridges character...are you kidding me? How convenient that Jeff brings his dirty shovel in the house after he disposes of bodies in his lawn. Do these people just not believe in calling the cops? Okay...I'll get into the car with you, why not? DUH! Why was Bridge's daughter obsessed with making her dad have an affair, is her mother that evil or just plain dull? I did not see the original, it would be hard to make myself after seeing this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Whenever I see a video like this, I have to ask myself how it was financed. HBO or Showtime or whatever must pay for the production company to go through the motions -- to hire someone who may or may not actually speak English to get high and hammer out something approaching a plot, to pay strippers with terrifying boob jobs to bounce up and down on grossly waxed dudes' torsos, to find people to design and light sets, to purchase the rights to cheesy techno music, etc. But I have to imagine this has to be a vanity project for whoever's serving as executive producer... He had to have nailed all of those girls, right? And bro's not wrong about the "Spanish looking" girl, but to call the cops "stunning" is awfully generous. In fact, I'd go so far as to call them something much closer to "hideous," or "fugly." Watching these women writhe around -- sometimes *clearly* high on pain killers -- was so far from erotic that my testicles actually ascended inside of my body. Gross.<br /><br />Why waste time with this when there's so much freely available hardcore porn on the internet? I wonder whether the popularization of internet video will slowly kill the softcore video industry... One can only hope, right?
| 0 |
negative
|
I was attracted to this film by its offbeat, low-key, 'real life' story line. That is, a twenty-something guy flops in the Big Apple and comes back home to live with his parents and even more floppy brother. It just might have worked but there's a problem. And that problem's name is Casey Affleck. <br /><br />Casey Affleck is nearly catatonic in this film. His acting mantra must be "exert as little effort as possible at all times". Or "why speak when you can mutter?" Or maybe "put yourself into a coma as soon as the camera rolls". Lips moving when speaking? Barely. Facial expressions? None. Muscles in face? Atrophied. Something? Nothing. ANYthing? Zip.
| 0 |
negative
|
If there's one cartoon that helped to put UPA on the map more than any other, It's Gerald McBoing-Boing. This tale of a little boy who only speaks in sound effects has kept its charm for the last 57 years. Besides the effects, loved the music, the abstract animation and backgrounds, the narration by Marvin Miller, pretty much everything. And it won the Oscar for Best Animated Short of 1950. Glad to have seen it on YouTube after reading about this Dr. Seuss story for so many years. And Rocky and Bullwinkle creator Bill Scott also contributed, how awesome! Hope to see the subsequent shorts made in the series, if not on YouTube, then maybe in a DVD collection. Now I guess I'll watch another UPA short there...
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not a fan of this brand of comedy - stereotyped characters over-acting their way through a cops and robbers farce. But there are enough likable characters to sustain interest. Michelle Pfeiffer is adorable, but the person really carrying the film is Dean Stockwell, who steals every scene as the head mobster (named Tony, no less). <br /><br />Stockwell's performance is the reason I'm writing this review (and the only reason I'd recommend it), in fact. You'll be tickled by his screen time. He's plays the mob boss perfectly, with comedic touches in the right places, managing to avoid becoming an overbearing cliche. In fact, Stockwell's a complete delight to watch - a master of the 'double take,' and a real 'looker' in those classy suits and fedoras. <br /><br />Meesa Says: A good film to watch while folding laundry or eating leftovers.
| 1 |
positive
|
Sadly, this movie did have potential with such a willing cast, but everything was so poorly thought out and poorly executed. I don't think I've ever seen any film where every scene just falls flat with a loud thud, as it did here. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a "stoner" sex comedy that didn't provide at least one laugh, but this vortex of pain provided nothing but groans and misery. The last time I was this stunned at how un-funny a comedy can be was with the awful "Big Momma's House." Scene after scene, these movies will turn your brain into jelly. Silly and stupid can sometimes be funny, but here, silly and stupid are used as a torture device against the viewer. An absolute, rock-bottom dud.
| 0 |
negative
|
The bottom line is: if you come looking for a sci-fi thriller/horror film, The Matrix is what you'll like. If, like me, you long for the rare true science fiction film involving characters with depth and provocative thought about where science will take us, then you need to see eXistenZ.
| 1 |
positive
|
Sigh. I'm baffled when I see a short like this get attention and assignments and whatnot. I saw this film at a festival before the filmmaker got any attention and forgot about it immediately afterwards. It was mildly annoying to see it swiping the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heart gag along with the narration, the set design seen many times before, the whole weak Tim Burton-ish style, and the story that goes nowhere. And we got the "joke" about shooting the crows with the 45 the first time, alright?<br /><br />But I guess what's really unacceptable is that it even swipes its basic concept from a comic book circa 1999 called LENORE, THE CUTE LITTLE DEAD GIRL by Roman Dirge! As any quick internet search will reveal. I mean, what is this? This is what they base a Hollywood contract on and opens doors in Canada for a filmmaker? "Give your head a shake" as Don Cherry might say.
| 0 |
negative
|
Annie Rooney lives with her officer father and brother Tim in the slums of New York, where she is constantly getting involved in many fights with the other neighborhood kids. Annie secretly has a crush on Joe Kelly (whose little brother Mickey is head of the gang that Annie constantly battles), who is in a gang that is headed for trouble, says Officer Rooney. Kelly sponsors a dance, where Tony plans to shoot Kelly in order to get even with him for making him look like a fool in front of his girl, but Officer Kelly gets fatally wounded instead. Tim (part of Kelly's gang) is told by Tony, and friend Spider, that Kelly shot his father, so he goes after him in vengeance. Annie learns of this and goes to stop her brother, if she is in time. Very good mix of humor and heart in this film, even though the plot doesn't start until the 40 minute mark of the film. Pickford is enjoyable (even though she was 33 playing a girl no more than 12-13) and really gets into her character. Haines doesn't play Kelly as tough as he should, but is able make the audience feel for him on an emotional level. The scenes where the officer tells Annie of her father's death and the ending really put a lump in your throat. The mix of all sorts of kids throughout the film are fun to watch. Rating, 8.
| 1 |
positive
|
When this film gets it right it really gets it right. And when it goes wrong... I'd say that a full 3/4s of the film is great. I can even isolate the bad bit. It's everything that has to do with the romance. Everything that you need to know about it is said in the first five minutes but it drags on for about 30. I'd recommend skipping that section if you can. It does nothing except explain his exile. It should have been a minor plot point quickly thrust aside. Fortunately, the period from about 0-30 and 1:00-2:19 (The End) is excellent.<br /><br />There are a number of excellent performances in this film, and an equal number of terrible ones. Just like everything else in this movie the acting is either perfect or terrible. Peter Ustinov as the slimy one-eyed slave Kaptah is perfect. It is one of his best performances, up there with his role in Spartacus. Victor Mature as the ambitious Horemheb is also perfect. Again, one of his best roles. Jean Simmons is wasted as Merit, the perfect girl in love with our hero John Carradine gives a nice supporting role as a philosophical grave robber; and Michael Wilding is excellent as Akhnaton, the idealistic pharaoh who tries to bring peace and monotheism to Egypt only to see it fall apart due to his unwillingness to fight. Now for the bad. Edmund Purdom as Sinuhe is sadly miscast. This is doubly unfortunate as he is the main character. The entire film revolves around him. He actually does rather good as the disillusioned exile and the wise old man. This is because of his sorely limited range. He doesn't seem able to put any passion into his words. This is especially apparent during the love scenes which are beyond awkward. He spends the last half of the film as an old man, a performance at which he is decent enough at. He does have the perfect voice for the character. The less said about Bella Darvi as Nefer, the treacherous Babylonian woman, the better.<br /><br />The costuming and sets are magnificent. This is the only film that I know of that attempts to depict life in Egypt that isn't overshadowed by Jews or Romans. The film takes place in the 14th Century B.C. which is before even Exodus. The only monotheists are the pharaoh Akhenaten and his followers. There is the same strong element of religious zeal that can be found in most epics, but it is done differently and it only shows up at the very end. An interesting note: by having Akhenaten followed by Horemheb as pharaoh, the film completely skips over the most famous pharaoh of all: Tutankhamen. Seems kind of a strange thing to do when using that name could increase awareness of the film.<br /><br />Be warned: this is a 1950s epic film. If you don't like that type of thing then don't expect this one to be different. It is different, but it is still an epic. I appreciate this film, and I appreciate what it did and what it tried to do. This is a film that should be better remembered than it is.
| 1 |
positive
|
I really enjoyed this movie. It challenged my emotions and beliefs, making it a true piece of artwork in my book. The acting was unsurpassed. I would never watch this movie with anyone I could not cry around, I don't think I cry harder to any movies, maybe because it makes me look at myself, I dunno. It is a must see.
| 1 |
positive
|
In the early 00's, production companies had a short-lived craze for supernatural genre movies in France after "The Crimson Rivers" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf" turned out to be hits, so several movies were green-lit or saved from their "direct-to-video" fate. However, France, as opposed to the US, UK or Italy, has little tradition of fantasy B-movies and it turned out quickly that "Samouraïs", "Bloody Mallory" or the "Crimson Rivers" sequel were ill-advised attempts at recreating a kind of magic that had never existed in French cinema in the first place. As they flopped, producers have gone back to their usual fare: derivative farces or the umpteenth self-referential tribute to French New Wave by a former critic from "Les Cahiers du cinéma".<br /><br />"Brocéliande" could only have been green-lit during this short window, as it serves no other discernible purpose. It's your by-the-book slasher movie mixed with vague mythological element and horror references and you'll find bimboesque female characters, a French University looking like a US campus and plot twists so lazy you don't even care because you had guessed it by yourself an hour before, even before the movie started.<br /><br />These elements make all the fun of a 70's or a 80's B-movie and you expect them in a 70's or 80's movie. However, we're not in the 80's anymore and nobody warned director Doug Headline, as this tribute to the slasher movie genre is nothing more than a derivative slasher movie. Headline himself is no rookie and has been writing as a critic about this kind of pictures since the early 80's but as a first time director he shows a lack of skill and ambition that makes "Brocéliande" a bore.<br /><br />When you put together clichés from a movie subcategory and hand them to a skilled and inventive director such as Wes Craven or Quentin Tarantino, you get a "Scream" or a "Death Proof", movies that are imitations from old guilty pleasures but also magnify these clichés and add a great deal to them. That's called "talent" and that's why you can't confuse these recent movies with their original inspirations shot decades ago.<br /><br />"Brocéliande" takes the lazy path and only reproduces the worst elements from past movies (unfortunately for the male viewer, the gratuitous nudity is mostly missing). There are very strong similarities (presumably unintentional) between the plot of "Brocéliande" and the reviled "Halloween 3: Season Of The Witch", as both deal with supernatural Druidic evil rituals and some silly attempt at taking over the world on Halloween night. As even the plot of "Halloween 3" makes more sense than this one, it means that something seriously wrong went with "Brocéliande".
| 0 |
negative
|
Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.<br /><br /> I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....
| 0 |
negative
|
I was lucky enough to see this film at a festival last year and had half expected it to get a release. The fact that it was shot on a digital camcorder has surely inhibited its success, but as i understand it was never the intention of the film maker to make it LOOK LIKE FILM in the first place, it was more about the story the characters and their relationships. Is that not what films are supposed to be about!? But it did have a quality in the texture of its visual appearance that suggests May Thomas is onto something we should pay attention to. For independent film makers and producers alike who have a the talent and lacking the money and drive, a lot can be learned from watching this film, technically it has everything going for it, the use of light, music etc by far outweigh that of any other digital feature film i have ever seen and therefore it is worthy of much praise. The actors performances are believable to a point, if not slightly under played, i felt there was much more in there, more depth, in particular from the male lead John Paul Clarke. But one thing that really does bother me, as a film maker myself, is the film being in black and white a need to cover up a multitude of sins than if it was colour? Do we have more to learn in the progression of digital technology? Or is this the future of wonderful, affordable film making?
| 1 |
positive
|
Key West, for too short a time was "appointment TV" for my family. I'd stop by Red Lobster and pick up a Party Tray for the night it was on. The irony of the situation was that I was working for a Fox Affiliate at the time, and every one at the station was incensed at them not renewing the show. Everyone in that cast was excellent. Fisher Stevens... perfect. Who couldn't fail to identify with an "everyman" who dreams of being a writer in Key West? Jennifer Tilly was always remarkable (and she is one HECK of a Texas Hold'em Player). You can still find the pilot episode on YouTube. Wish they'd post the Hurricane one. That episode alone, should have won an Emmy, as well as the rest of the cast.
| 1 |
positive
|
It takes a rare movie to get better each time you see it. O Brother does that and then some. The first time I saw it, I have to admit I had never seen anything like it. Then I wanted to see it again, and now I'm up to double digits with this great movie, the Coen brothers' finest movie they've ever done, with Fargo and Hudsucker Proxy coming in a tight second and third for me.<br /><br />George Clooney gives the performance of his career playing Ulysses Everett McGee, a fast-talking know-it-all escaped convict who really doesn't know that much at all. Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro are the perfect sidekicks for Clooney, particularly Nelson and his portrayal of Delmar, a loyal albeit uneducated fellow escapee. John Goodman is my favorite bit character as Big Dan, perfect. It reminds me of his part in Raising Arizona, he's just a perfect actor for this role. Coen brothers' favorites Holly Hunter and Charles Durning also provide memorable performances. <br /><br />Joel and Ethan Coen are masters of their trade. It's not like they try to win Academy Awards every time they make a film, they just try and tell a story that they want to tell, and it's entertaining. It's a loose adaptation of the Odyssey, and I mean loose for all of you Homer fanatics. It's just great.<br /><br />The most amazing part of this movie though is the coloring. I've watched how they got the dusty feel to the movie and I am still in awe just thinking about it. The coloring does become an important part of the movie. Great great movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched the world premiere of this on the Starz Action channel. They call it Vampires: The Turning. The plot was a little confusing. There is a voice-over in the introduction about an 800 year war, and I didn't quite understand. The movie is about a young couple somewhere in Asia (maybe in China, I don't think the movie specifies). The couple has an argument and Meredith Monroe runs off and is kidnapped by a biker gang of Vampires. The boyfriend finds a group of vampires that don't kill humans, and enters into a battle with the bikers. A human group of slayers somehow get involved, and the final fight sequence takes place during a solar eclipse. This movie is not related to either Vampires or Vampires: Los Muertos. Confusing, but decent action. Four out of 10 stars.
| 0 |
negative
|
Based on the memoirs of Gypsy Rose Lee, who painted a much more affectionate picture of their mother than did her sister, actress "Baby" June Havoc, in her autobiography, "Early Havoc" on which "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" was loosely based. I saw Ethyl Merman in the original Broadway production of Gypsy, and she was great as "Mama Rose" but certainly more "Merman" than Rose. I was disappointed with Rosalind Russell's portrayal in the 1962 movie version. An otherwise excellent actress, Russell was a very wooden substitute for Merman. Bette Midler, by contrast, was better and more believable than Merman and I'd recommend her performance as the definitive one.
| 1 |
positive
|
I cannot believe I enjoyed this as much as I did. The anthology stories were better than par, but the linking story and its surprise ending hooked me. Alot of familiar faces will keep you asking yourself "where I have I seen them before?" Forget the running time listed on New Line's tape, this ain't no 103 minutes, according to my VCR timer and IMDB. Space Maggot douses the campfire in his own special way and hikes this an 8.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of those movies I watched, and wondered, why did I watch it? What did I find so interesting about it? Being a truck driver myself, I didn't find it very realistic. No, I've never used a 'lot lizard', nor have I ever seen, nor heard about one traveling around the country in a brand new seventy thousand dollar RV, either.<br /><br />Same thing about a pimp whom has never sampled the lady in question (until the end of the movie, and well, he still really didn't...), and only getting 50 bucks 'a cut', when the prostitute gets $200.00 (well, $150.00 after his cut, yeah...).<br /><br />I still laugh at the lot lizard comment Ivey made (them's Lot Lizards, they'll screw anything with 20 bucks, and some are men dressed as woman... or something equally as weird), meaning, we're better then them, as we may still be prostitutes, but we get paid BETTER.<br /><br />Other then that, it's just a story of a young woman whom wanted something more from life then a dead end job while living at home (she's 18, remember?) and embarrassed by her mother basically doing the same thing (dead end job). At least she had a roof over her head and a job. She turned FIVE tricks on the road... I wonder if the $750.00 she made was worth it? I'd guess not.
| 0 |
negative
|
Although at first glance this movie looks like the story of your parent's high school life (and many people will try to tell you that this movie is WAY outdated)... and I admit that that was MY first impression.... but honestly,the 'lessons' that are learned by the heroes/heroines are def. NOT outdated. Who doesn't want to be famous? And who doesn't want do be accepted my their peers? And the homosexual guy-isn't there a whole controversy today about gay marriage, blah, blah? This movie, though released in the 80's still addresses some of the biggest issues in today's world. This movie does have a little too much profanity and nudity for my taste, though. (thus the 8/10 rating)
| 1 |
positive
|
Intense, funny, witty, and more than anything, social comedy on the ways of adult dating and it's results-be it good or bad. Mohr and Nicholson are engaged couple two months away from a wedding date, when a bizarre event at their engagement party forces Nicholson to re-think the relationship and start to date other people so she won't feel so pristine when it comes to sexual experience. This leads to a disaster of events following Mohr, Nicholson, and their cohorts. Very intelligent and needed in this time of clumsy, condescending comedy, while containing your usual variety of comedic, sexual, and frustrated characters(especially Charles as a sexually frustrated sex fiend...very annoying) who even they seem to get the right feel to this heart felt commentary.<br /><br />The film goes the way films should go these days, showing that guys are sensitive at heart and have morals. Most of the male characters are the moralistic, straight forward eyes, while the woman are the fresh faced street prowlers who will stop at nothing to get pleasure. Guys will be appreciative of the message made for guys with self respect, however it is easy to assume that most males who DO see this film will use it's message of male sensitivity cover up any flaw or trait that a female might find offending. Still, the writing formula uses this as a tool to pave the way for it's male leads, particularly those of Mohr, Richter, and finding the director in a cameo as a sales man!<br /><br />The females are by far the most promiscuous as they speak of nothing but pleasure and what it would be like to... with someone else. They have amicable traits though, even though they are covered by the image of sex driven kittens. Very funny stuff.<br /><br />On another level, the film follows some of it's ensemble into different relationship work. Richter meets up with a stressed divorcée(a VERY remarkable and noteworthy performance by the always reliable Helen Slater) named Penelope who is divorced with a son who hates her for splitting with his father. As the two go deeper into a relationship, human interest is revealed and both the comedy and tragedy of divorce and starting anew are studied. <br /><br />By the end of the film, Mohr and Nicholson have become way to deep over the heads to see what's coming next, and it is up to what they have learned about each other and themselves to decide what will come next. It becomes appropriate and dramatic at just the right time.<br /><br />Wallodorski's direction is emulated very well when the characters learn to face each other after all that has happened...with the right ending.<br /><br />All in all, this film should have been released nationwide, and I should hope that it is up for some Academy Awards...maybe Helen Slater can finally get the recognition she deserves. Anywho, this film is a no hits miss, give it all you got romantic sex farce, displayed very maturely and aesthetically.<br /><br />Great film!
| 1 |
positive
|
La Petit Tourette is a pretty funny South Park episode.Cartman is at the toy store one day and here's a kid swearing out loud but not getting in trouble for it.His mother then tells everyone that the kid has "tourette syndrome".Cartman loves the fact that he can swear without getting into trouble so he tells everybody that he has tourette syndrome.Kyle, however finds out that Cartman is lying and tries to tell people, but they think he is insensitive and is put in a "Tourette sensitivity training" type place.Cartman's tourette's eventually land him a spot on a talk show, however he finds that he cannot control his tourettes and starts saying embarrassing things that happen to him.Meanwhile, Kyle tries to sabotage the show in an interesting way.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a very dark movie, somewhat better than the average Asylum film. It was a lot better than I thought it would be, is a combination of a psychological thriller and a horror film. <br /><br />The voice on the telephone is really creepy - this voice without a face, this unknown and threatening voice works really well in the film, since we never see the killer face is left to the imagination of the spectator.<br /><br />The action and suspense never decay and after the first half of the film, it becomes vertiginous; there is not much gore in this film, just enough to serve the story and also the director does a good job at holding your attention. <br /><br />I gave this movie a 8/10 because some clichés.
| 1 |
positive
|
It has been widely agreed that Hayao Miyazaki is a master at his craft when it comes to combining rich animation with thoughtful story lines and similarly imaginative characters. His movies, from NAUSICAA, TOTORO, KIKI, LAPUTA, and MONONOKE to the recent HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE are all not only gorgeously rendered in terms of art, but in terms of movie-making as well. Can this man do no wrong? Not really, but it is impossible to expect everyone of his movies to always be five star marvels. His newest film, PONYO, an unashamedly family-friendly tale of a "goldfish out of water", is as lushly animated and alive with interesting characters as you would expect... and yet this is the first film of his which treads into "lesser" territory. Don't get me wrong, PONYO is not a bad movie by any means. As mentioned, it is a sight for the eyes and is as charming and adorable as TOTORO and KIKI. The problem is that the story doesn't stay afloat to satisfy anyone eager for another engrossing, in-depth plot.<br /><br />For its opening hour, PONYO is Miyazaki storytelling at its finest, in which a rowdy and overeager young goldfish (who later becomes named Ponyo) makes a forbidden trip to the human world where she is subsequently adopted by a boy her own age named Sosuke (modeled, interestingly, after the director's own son). This does not please Ponyo's father, a mysterious wizard named Fujimoto, who is very angry at the humans for their destruction of the sea (this environmentalist theme is not much different from Miyazaki's other films)... a problem he very much intends to rectify by creating jellyfish from the prow of his submarine. He separates the pair and tries to talk Ponyo into staying underwater with him. The goldfish, however, has already tasted both Sosuke's blood (healing a cut on his finger) AND some of the human food (ham, which she becomes inexplicably addicted to), and of course steals into her father's forbidden potions, transforming into a hyperactive young girl (who is the spitting image of Mei from MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO). This triggers a dangerous tsunami which threatens to engulf the entire world with water. Conspiring with his wife, Gran Mamare, a diaphanous sea goddess who alternatingly shifts from super-sized titan to human-size form, Fujimoto decides to test the two youngsters' love for each other. They do this by elevating the sea to the level of Sosuke's house, prompting the youngsters to set out across their now ocean-infested world in an over-sized toy-boat (made possible by Ponyo's own magical powers).<br /><br />It is at this point where PONYO begins to run out of steam. Although Ponyo and Sosuke are adorable and the scenes involving them are funny and cute, they slow down the film. Where the film really takes on water, unfortunately, is at the climax in which Sosuke must prove his love to Ponyo, presented in a way which is strangely anticlimactic and rushed, bringing an otherwise charming tale to an abrupt halt. This will likely underwhelm viewers expecting another instant masterpiece from the man who has delivered far more interesting finales for many of his other movies. Remember the destruction of Laputa? Satsuki's search for little Mei? Kiki's rescue of Tombo? Porco Rosso's fight with Curtis? The rescue of the Forest Spirit's head? Or even the test between Chihiro and Yubaba? All those resolutions were far more satisfying and felt more complete than this one.<br /><br />On a technical level, PONYO cannot be faulted. The animation is absolutely gorgeous to look at, produced entirely without a single shot of computer-generated-imagery, and naturally Joe Hisaishi provides us with yet another breathtaking musical score; the best moments being the rousing sequences underwater, accompanied by a chorus and a soprano voice. And the backgrounds are lovingly painted and detailed as any other Ghibli movies.<br /><br />Having proved themselves worthy on translating and dubbing Ghibli's previous movies into English with top-quality results, Disney Studios and Pixar once again provide an English dub complete with a mostly capable cast of actors. Frankie Jonas is surprisingly good as Sosuke, sounding very natural and believable throughout. Noah Cyrus as Ponyo, on the other hand, sometimes goes overboard in shouting her lines before eventually settling down toward the end. Leads aside, the rest of the cast includes Liam Neeson as the overprotective Fujimoto (who manages himself unsurprisingly well in the character), Cate Blanchett as Gran Mamare (in an omnipresent tone which is not much different from her Galadriel in LORD OF THE RINGS), Matt Damon as Sosuke's constantly seafaring father Koichi (who is good but nothing to write home about), and Tina Fey as Lisa. Of them, Fey is the best voice in the entire cast, imbuing the character with just the right amount of spirit and personality. Her scenes with Sosuke show real chemistry. On the other hand, Cloris Leachman, who was spectacular as Dola in CASTLE IN THE SKY, is disappointingly wasted as one of three handicapped elderly women (she barely has ANY lines!), who are also voiced by Betty White and Lily Tomlin. Of them, only Tomlin's character, a cantankerous woman named Toki, shows any real personality, but if I were casting the movie, I'd switch Tomlin with Leachman. Probably the only really jarring drawback of the dub is a blasty techno-remix of the film's catchy (but ridiculously repetitive) title song, which thankfully doesn't occur until midway through the closing credits.<br /><br />On the whole, PONYO is a good film; a fine piece of animated work which is perfect for youngsters and family audiences. Due to the loss of momentum toward the end, though, it falls far short of classic status. Since Miyazaki at his least is still better than a majority of other animated films, though, I'll be generous and give PONYO a full star recommendation, because any feature of his is still very much worth watching, particularly on the big screen. (Be sure to catch it in the theaters while you can.)
| 1 |
positive
|
There is nothing mean spirited or evil about this movie. It's just terribly dull. Dull is the photography--- the film stock appears old and faded and washed-out. Maybe it was even 16mm blown up to 35mm, dunno. Dull is the script, which is tedious and 'Jules Pfeiffer'-ish. That is, kind of 1960s bossa-nova cocktail party cool. Like our beatnik grandparents might have spoken if they were trying to appear really straight. The 'slice-of-life' characters were mostly annoying. True, they were real to life, but hey, if I wanted to see truly ordinary people doing really mundane and ordinary things, I'd just watch myself. I wouldn't trapse all the way down to a cinema and blow five quid, and an evening, watching someone else do it.<br /><br />I expected a funny, bright rom-com. What I got was more like what two intelligent and moderately talented 19 or 20 year-olds might have produced on their first day with a new video camera.<br /><br />I gave this a 4 out 10, because it appears that someone tried, at least.
| 0 |
negative
|
Any horror film that casts Robert Englund (Freddie Kruger!) then kills him in the opening 5 minutes before the opening credits have even run should be instantly viewed with nothing but suspicion.<br /><br />Tony Todd (Candyman!) as a swamp tour guide (his James Earl Jones voice impression is hysterical by the way, I don't know or care if he was trying to be funny but I was laughing at it). Sadly his role was all of 5 minutes long as well. More reasons for suspicion and quite rightly so.<br /><br />Mercedes McNab (AKA Harmony from Buffy & Angel, I had to look her up to see what I remembered her from but she gets semi-naked!), Marcus the token black guy (Not Another Teen Movie) is filling a comedy role that really isn't required in a horror movie unless it's intended as a spoof.<br /><br />Joel Murray (Bill Murray's brother & Pete from Dharma & Greg) plays Shapiro, the guy shooting the gonzo video with the 2 cute girls. As they take a "Spooky Swap Ghost Tour" the 2 lead male characters meet up with some other folks and get run aground on rocks and have to leave the boat. So their now all isolated in the swamp at night in the rain.<br /><br />Once the real story of Victor Crowley has been told (his make-up looked like Sloth from The Goonies) we have established he is dead (well you aren't coming back from being hit in the skull by an Axe!) Once the old guy is attacked, despite pulling her gun and having a very clear shot it takes Marybeth more than 30 seconds to actually start firing at a guy who is hacking an old man apart with a hatchet. Is she stupid? Thats 29 second too long! In terms of plot there really isn't one (I don't class undead psycho as a plot, sorry) and the pacing is really bad as well. You have a killing, some running away, some light relief then some slow dialogue before beginning the cycle again.<br /><br />After an extremely long scene investigating a wobbly bush with a raccoon in it Victor appears again (with some sort of power tool) and kills the dark haired porno girl, he also manages to slice the tour guide in half with a Shovel? Once Misty is left on her own to keep lookout for Ben I felt it was pretty obvious she was going to be the next to die (I was right but you don't get to see it).<br /><br />Film makers? Rain will NOT extinguish burning gasoline, OK? Idiots! Obviously after the 2 near misses in the cemetery Marcus was next to die and Ben was hurt in the foot with the spike but they managed to find a boat after impaling Victor on the spike.<br /><br />She's pulled into the water by something unseen, he's trying to save her then she's suddenly pulled into the boat by Victor and is screaming and the movie abruptly ends.<br /><br />Yeah, just like that. No clue if Ben was dead (he seemed to be missing an arm) and no clue if Marybeth was going to survive and what happened with Victor.<br /><br />It's an awful ending and no doubt my verbal attack at the film makers got the last review deleted. So much for free speech, eh?
| 0 |
negative
|
Although normally my preference is not for romantic dramas, seeing this film left me a little short.<br /><br />It had promise, the characters and relationships could have been explored much deeper than they did, yet the story seemed not to understand the direction it wanted to take.<br /><br />The comparisions and parallels within the story, especially the three generations of women in the family, had a lot of potential, but somehow didn't fully extend itself. It could have made the film much easier to relate to and attach to which is the aim of any film about lost-love and life regained.<br /><br />IMHO, I think the film suffered from a lack of direction in the writing, although Harry Connick Jnr and Sandra Bullock did try desperatly to breath a little life into otherwise flat character outlines.<br /><br />It's not that this is a bad film, some parts leave you understanding the reasons for various plot developments, its just that this film is underdone, and a little flat overall.
| 0 |
negative
|
What a bloody nuisance! You can't get on subjects like these with TV budgets and some smartass director who can't tell the difference between a Lanc I, II and III. All the silly clichés are well in place; on the character and human level the story is so schmaltzy and unbelievable it hurts. And all those responsible get carried away with joy for the brilliant ratings. Tech details: rubbish. Lancs flying that close would have kicked each other out of the sky by the dozen. Single engined night fighters attacking line astern: ridiculous. As I said: made up by a director who I bet never even heard the name Lancaster before that project and some kid 3D guys who turned Lancs into waddling ducks. But these are minor things compared to the overall mediocrity of this film. Although it might be too harsh I dare say this hurts the memory of those who died on both sides. TV crap, entertaining the dumb masses who don't care anyway. Shame on those responsible. Use your brains next time. And enjoy the profit you made from it.
| 0 |
negative
|
I didn't see this movie until it appeared on television because I was doubtful about comic flicks. Ever since the "Batman" series, "Spawn," "Judge Dredd," and many other pitiful p.g.-13 bombs, I dodged everything at all cost. I would question in my mind, "why can't someone make a movie that is rated R and stays true to the story, how difficult is that?" And finally my prayers have been answered with Blade. This movie pops right out of the pages onto the screen with sheer violence, blood, martial arts, weapons, fire, the good against evil, etc. Yeah sure a lot of action flicks contain all these goodies, and most of them have bombed. But not Blade, the movie was filmed just right, not going overboard, delivering a good length and never a dull moment. Blade II is cool, but not as cool as the first. Blade is indeed one of the best real comic flicks I've seen in a long time.
| 1 |
positive
|
Isabelle Huppert is a wonderful actor. The director of "La Pianiste" understands this, providing the viewer with long takes of Huppert's face, and these are a pleasure to see. Huppert is not an animated actor--she registers emotion with the smallest lift of an eyebrow or flicker of a smile.<br /><br />Other than the enjoyment of watching an experienced actor excel in her profession, there is nothing in this movie that makes me want to recommend it. (Well, if you enjoy self-mutilation, sado-masochism, and bizarre behavior, "La Pianiste" might work for you. Other than these attributes, I could not find any redeeming value in it.)<br /><br />Buried in all this strange material there is a kernel of truth. People who compete at the very highest level--musically, athletically, whatever--begin as strange people, and are shaped into stranger people by the competitive environment.<br /><br />Not worth a trip to a movie theater to relearn this life lesson. <br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
Why, oh why, is this trash considered a classic? I've seen higher body counts on episodes of The Simpsons. Virtually nothing happens in this film and much of it's running time is filled with nearly unbearable melodrama straight out of a low-rent soap opera.<br /><br />The Trenton family are going through tough times and when dad is away mommy and little boy go to get the car fixed. But when they get to the ranch they discover that the guard dog has gone mad. The rest of the film is just them sitting in the car while the slobbering St. Bernard circles them over and over.<br /><br />Regarding the kid, I have never, ever seen a more annoying child in a film in my life. And obviously he's completely Aryan since blonde-haired and blue-eyed kids, such as the one prominently featured on packets of Kinder chocolate, are apparently more sympathetic than people with brown eyes and dark hair, like me. All he does is cry and whine. Same goes for mommy. She gets out the car, she gets in the car, she gets out the car, she gets in the car.<br /><br />I know this was made in 1983 but I just sick to death of horror films where the characters make stupid, illogical decisions. If mommy just used some common sense she'd be able to get away from the icky dog.<br /><br />It's very poorly written and there's zero tension. If you want to see a good "bad dog" movie then check out John Lafia's Man's Best Friend. It's funny, inventive, has a better dog, a higher body count and a more involving story. Leave this garbage be.
| 0 |
negative
|
Even Mel Gibson couldnt save this slop of a movie. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Why would mel Gibson make a movie that Im sure he couldnt sit and watch? what was this? A total goofball on some heavy drugs stalking a schizophrinic lady, who was also on some heavy ilicit street drugs. For all the moviegoers out there on heavy drugs; you will love this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
The best part of this DVD is the cover. It goes down hill from there. There was no chemistry between the leads, the kisses looked like something I traded with my grandmother.<br /><br />The sound was so bad that at least I was spared some of the dialoge.
| 0 |
negative
|
I really enjoyed North and South very much. I think it is one of the best and most lavish television series I have ever seen. The calibre of the cast is amazing, you have actors from "the golden age of cinema", people like James Stewart, Gene Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor, Robert Mitchum and Jean Simmons with other actors who were the new faces of the 80's like Patrick Swayze, James Read, Jonathan Frakes, Genie Francis, Philip Casnoff and Lesley-Anne Down.<br /><br />At the heart of the story is the friendship of two completely different men,there is Orry Main (Patrick Swayze) who is from the south and George Hazard (James Read) who is from the North. Throughout the series, their friendship is continually threatened with the differences in their backgrounds, particularly about the treatment of slaves in the South (especially at Orry's plantation) but when each needs the other, they will forget the arguments and go and help their friend. I really liked the chemistry between the two men and was really interested to see if their friendship could survive the war.<br /><br />I liked how the series showed what life was like before the war so the audience could see what were the factors that lead up to the war, what was going on at the time, then the devastation of a nation that was being torn apart and then the nation having to rebuild the country again. The war scenes were very well choreographed and very realistic to me.<br /><br />I think what is great about it, is it has so many elements running through it, romance, history, battles that would interest most of the audience, there is something for everyone. I particularly enjoyed the romance between Brett (Genie Francis) and Billy (Parker Stevenson/John Stockwell) especially when she stood up to her sister Ashton for the first time. The other romances were interesting as there were not all the same, each had something different to the others which kept me watching particularly the Madeline and Orry story strand to see if they would be together in the end.<br /><br />It is one of the best American mini series that I have watched, the story had the right balance of romance and the more serious history side that was happening in the country at the time but it is paced just right. The characters are very watchable and the locations are beautiful and the music particularly at the start and end of the episode is so toe-tapping good and works with the mood of the story.
| 1 |
positive
|
Closet Land. The title itself conjures up thoughts of secrets. And that is really what's at the heart of this Amnesty International film. Government secrets, personal secrets, both are integral pieces of this story.<br /><br />By far the greatest acting seen in too long a time, both Alan Rickman and Madeleine Stowe were phenomenal in their portrayal of a Government Interrogator and Victim respectively. With only the two actors in this unusual standard length film, it is instantly clear that both actors were dedicated and talented enough to pull the viewer into this tiny bubble of a world and shut the door.<br /><br />A WORD OF CAUTION...<br /><br />What isn't mentioned on the description of this movie is that there is a subplot that deals with childhood sexual abuse. While there is no graphic detail about the abuse, the nature of it may be difficult for some viewers to watch - especially given the intensity of the film on whole.<br /><br />I'm not a big fan of Amnesty International films, but this movie drew me in because the acting was so exceptional, and I can't help but make this movie one of my personal favorites.
| 1 |
positive
|
There are many so-called anti-war/anti-govt. policy films around now which start off as a mea culpa and end with 'our poor boys are getting hell out there so let the world sympathise with them, it's not their fault' - kind of stuff. I was half afraid that this would be another in that style even if it treated another subject/aspect of the same subject. I nearly didn't go and see it; for that matter, I almost did not write this review. What did we get here? An Egyptian gets taken off to a secret off-shore torture centre, on U.S. orders, but it is another Egyptian who has to do the torturing, not an American: 'see, we Americans have clean hands,' and the Egyptians are a bad lot anyway so let them harm their own. Oh, and the goody had to be an American with a conscience: indeed many Americans have them, but here the concept was misplaced. Yes, we all know it is called Extraordinary Rendition and it began in Clinton's time and it is now used for reasons well beyond control. Otherwise it was very hackneyed and nervous about really condemning the U.S. for being party to torture; as if the makers were afraid to go the whole way for fear of being slanged as unpatriotic or whatever (take a look at the message board! Anyone apologising gets a faceful of heavy verbal artillery). Torture is a terrible thing, whether one is guilty or not; in the 18th Century, FrederickII, King of Prussia, abolished it for convicted murderers - though I must say, a life sentence for a child molester is far less than what I want to see. All right, what about torture? This film did not really bring out its horror and hopelessness enough. When you are under torture,(now come the capitals for emphasis, I am not shouting) YOU WILL SAY ANYTHING, EVEN IF IT IS NOT TRUE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE THING YOU ARE ACCUSED OF, IN THE VAIN HOPE THAT IF YOU SAY AMEN TO WHATEVER THEY ARE PEDDLING, IT WILL STOP. IT DOES NOT, BUT YOU NEVER LEARN AND YOU KEEP ON SAYING THAT YOU DID WHATEVER IT IS THEY SAY YOU DID, THO' YOU DID'NT. Another thing the film did not bring out enough was that TORTURE IS EXCEEDINGLY, INDESCRIBABLY HUMILIATING, AND THAT FEELING STAYS WITH YOU YOUR WHOLE LIFE. It somehow changes people inside. How do I know all that? Don't ask.<br /><br />Re-edit: two things: the Arabic that was used in the film was not the Egyptian dialect. It's sort of worse than setting a film in New Zealand with locals as the characters and everyone has American accents. Also, the dreadful little preacher who was inciting his ignorant audience to violence was telling them things unknown to that religion, which should have been brought out. Nor was it anywhere explained that any nincompoop can become a mullah/imam; he doesn't need any special qualifications, and that is a hiatus which needs to be put right: many are acceptable because of their fundamentalist views and tne U.S.A.'s great ally, Saudi Arabia, finances so many of them. Many thanks for this space.
| 0 |
negative
|
This story takes place in Wisconsin. I was half heartedly watching my tape when I heard the name Appleton. I wasn't sure where it was taking place until I heard them say Green Bay & then I figured it was Wisconsin. Watching further confirmed it.<br /><br />Anxiously awaiting the outcome I could really feel Corrine's frustration. I did not know it was based on fact until the end. It left me glad but sad and wanting to know more.
| 1 |
positive
|
Flipping through the channels I was lucky enough to stumble upon the beginning of this movie. I must admit that it grabbed my attention almost immediately. I love older films and this is or should be considered a classic! One of the most wonderful rarities of this movie is that the main character was not only female but she was also a bad girl. I highly recommend this movie!
| 1 |
positive
|
i was flipping through the channels and had to stop and laugh when i came across this movie. It was so clearly about teens in the early 80s, and i called my mom "hahaha, turn to channel such and such, the kid totally looks like if dad were a kid".<br /><br />Um. Yeah. Turns out this movie is about my dad & his friends.<br /><br />Even without it being about loosely based on my dad's childhood, i'd say watch this movie! <br /><br />It is just.....bizarre to say the least, the apathy instilled in teens even back then. This is a good "human interest" and showcases some strange sides of the psyche.
| 1 |
positive
|
My friends and I have just finished seeing a preview of this new Australian film. Everyone who was in the cinema agreed, what was the point of this film? There was no good story to follow, the characters were undeveloped, and the plot seemed unmotivated. I find it bizarre that this film, that probably cost in the high millions, got funded and made. It serves no purpose to the drama community, its adds nothing to the palette of Australian cinema. It really was a waste of time creating this droll unemotional piece of work and more time really should be spent work-shopping scripts and creating good stories, not creating a mess like this. Hugo Weaving and Rose Byrne were OK but severely hampered by a bad script. Pia Miranda's character was unnecessary and abstract from the plot, and her lines were average at best. A true waste of talent. The saving grace was Geoffrey Simpson ACS' cinematography, which like most Aussie films, was superb. <br /><br />Come on guys, think about it next time please.<br /><br />4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Dramatic ? Yes......Historically accurate ? Not Quite !.... This movie twists the Bibles details of the deluge by placing Lot meeting Noah during the building of the Ark. Fascinating time travel for Lot made in part by NBC !....being Lot had not been born until 2136 BCE, 234 years AFTER the floodwater's (2370BCE)....Thats like having George Bush meet with William Shakepeare ! And whats with this guy floating around selling items & nicknack's to Noah ? <br /><br />You can make a movie based on historical facts dramatic, but don't twist it around placing people where they weren't....especially when it comes to Gods Word.
| 0 |
negative
|
I would not be giving away too much of the film to tell you that there are many, many, many, MANY scenes of Lucas (the young protagonist) walking and looking at things! Yep. And you'll be happy to know that the first third of the movie is pointless, meaningless, and pretty much ignored for the rest of the film!<br /><br />This movie is populated by dull people who do dull things, and the dullest person of them all is young Lucas, who is going blind and needs an operation. You see, he has delusions, terrible delusions! He thinks a killer is preying on blind women! He walks around a lot and acts like an insufferable jerk!<br /><br />Patience does NOT pay off with this film. By the end, the plot and events are just as confusing and lethargic, and it is very hard to care one way or the other about what any of the nightmarish images meant. Nothing is made clear, the film moves at a snail's pace, and it left me with the same effects of a hangover.<br /><br />Judging from "Afraid of the Dark," the British don't make stupid thrillers like the Americans do; they make boring ones.
| 0 |
negative
|
The very first time I saw this I recoiled in HORROR at what was being presented as modern, liberated women.<br /><br />Sorry, but I cannot relate to whining idiots whose lives revolve around loveless sex and the acquisition of Gucci, Prada and Louis Vuitton labels. The troubling thing is that some may actually think this is how career women live in NYC. It's definitely not. These women are incredibly shallow and materialistic and as another reviewer said, they act like gold-digging hooches.<br /><br />This is not liberated womanhood and I'm glad it's gone. 0 stars and just plain AWFUL
| 0 |
negative
|
From all the rave reviews, we couldn't wait to see this show. We love wacky humor and creative material, especially from Australia and New Zealand.<br /><br />I admit this may not be a fair review since we only saw the first 15 minutes. But we just couldn't bear any more misery - it was definitely the most boring and painful 15 minutes we've ever experienced watching a TV show - it felt like 15 hours. The songs may be (mildly) interesting by themselves, but inserted for an interminable 3 minutes each in the middle of a story scene just doesn't work.<br /><br />We're trying hard now to erase the memory. If you want some wonderful down-under humor in a delightful and engaging film, see "The Dish" instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
I rented this one by accident. I lifted the video up and looked at the back and thought "shameless Blair Witch rip-off". Then, in a moment of carelessness, I grabbed 'The Francisville Experiment' thinking it was something else. My horror upon arriving home and realizing my mistake was far more terrifying than anything this film had to offer. Boring Characters, bad acting, and a feeling of 'we saw the Blair Witch Project and could do the same' permeate the action to the point where watching on fast forward will lead you straight to the credits. I'm not one to fault film makers for being lazy or desperate, but after this yawn-fest I felt the need to warn everyone: don't waste your time, you have a life.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.<br /><br />(Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her "love" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.<br /><br />(Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.<br /><br />One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the "bitch's dance". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Alfred Hitchcock's remake of "The Man Who Who Knew Too Much," is usually not considered to be as good as the original, but for me it is one of the best films ever. I prefer it over "Vertigo" and "Rear Window."<br /><br />Like "North By Northwest," it is the story of an average man who is unwillingly thrown into the world of international intrigue. James Stewart plays the father of a son who is kidnapped because he is mistaken for an international spy. He will do anything to make sure he gets his son back and protect his family.<br /><br />While the original was good for it's time, it is hard to watch by today's standards. The remake has excellent production quality, an endearing Doris Day, and a really creepy villain. <br /><br />Don't bother to rent this one because you will want to see it over and over.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is an incredibly self-indulgent character piece that assumes that the mere impression of a story is as good as an actual story. It was utterly painful to watch and had I not been suckered in to buy the DVD because of John Travolta and the positive buzz, I would not have finished watching it.<br /><br />This film lacks anything resembling an interesting premise and seems to rely on weighty (and frankly, heavy-handed) characterization. There is one altercation scene between Purslane and Bobby Long in which a TV is destroyed that, when played out, is incredibly flaccid and ill-timed.<br /><br />I found myself caring less and less about the characters as I watched it. It was probably very fun, film-school-wise, to make it. But it is just awfully boring to watch. A indulgent and pretentious film school project you should not waste money on.
| 0 |
negative
|
A truly accurate and unglamourous look into modern day life. It could be set in any town in the UK. <br /><br />I live in a housing estate in Glasgow and can relate to this film very well.<br /><br />Sadly the situations and characters are all too realistic but not predictable.<br /><br />The actors are scarily believable, I felt as if I was spying on my neighbours. It was an intimate dip into the lives of fragile and hopeless people. I was very moved by a few scenes.<br /><br />I loved the way this film was shot.<br /><br />Overall this film IS a must see.
| 1 |
positive
|
This early film from future goremeister Lucio Fulci is a very good addition to the giallo sub-genre. Set in rural Italy, there is a serial killer of children at large. Add to the mix an array of characters familiar to fans of giallo cinema a madwoman, a newspaper reporter, ineffectual police, a sexy siren, a priest, a mute girl, a mentally-retarded loner etc. This is one of the best Italian thrillers of the early 70's.<br /><br />Unusually for a giallo, the victims in this case are young boys, which makes a change from the more typical women in peril angle. The fact that it is kids who are the target of the maniac only serves to make things a little more uncomfortable. Fulci is pushing the envelope a bit here and he goes even further in a gloriously outrageous unPC scene where a young boy is subjected to the somewhat inappropriate attention of a sexy naked young woman (Barbara Bouchet) who he is tasked with delivering a drink to. She displays herself openly and actively invites the youngster to ogle her; ultimately asking him if he wants to go to bed with her. Although she is clearly playing around with him, it's still quite an unusual scene. Admittedly there are one or two unintentionally funny bits of dialogue here but it's very nicely photographed and Barbara Bouchet exudes high levels of confident sex-appeal. A standout scene. Even if you might feel slightly wrong watching it!<br /><br />Along with Barbara Bouchet, the other standout performance is from Florinda Bolkan, who plays a madwoman who is accused of murdering the children. She is not directly responsible but it is left to the viewer to decide whether her black magic may or may not have kicked off the subsequent killing spree. Irrespective, she is hunted down by a lynch mob and chain-whipped while a car radio blasts out rock music. This scene is very strong and unpleasant. Its viciousness indicates the path Fulci's career would subsequently go.<br /><br />Despite the visceral impact of the above murder it's maybe a little surprising that the other killings are either bloodless or committed off-screen. The only other death scene comparable with the lynch-mob is the demise of the killer at the end of the movie, although this sequence is kind of silly. The plot is convoluted and awash with red herrings, although personally, I found the identity of the killer a little predictable. This weakness is less problematic on subsequent viewings though like most gialli, Don't Torture A Duckling is eminently re-watchable.<br /><br />Technically, the film is well made with impressive camera-work, solid acting and effective music from Riz Ortolani particularly good is a recurring unaccompanied female vocal that sounds like it's coming from a distant hill. Fulci obviously went on to make more graphically violent horror movies but here he shows a talent for slightly more restrained material. It's still wild stuff though and is highly recommended to fans of giallo cinema.
| 1 |
positive
|
There isn't much about "Reckless" that feels right, beginning with the off-putting title (thanks to screenwriter Craig Lucas, who adapted his own play, bringing the title along with him) and continuing with the casting (Mia Farrow playing wife to Tony Goldwyn, who's young enough to be her son). The couple live in an idyllic winter world that appears to be the inside of a snow-globe, but Farrow gets a startling dose of reality after he admits he's hired a man to kill her. She flees into the night, taking refuge with a very strange couple who want to help her rebuild her life. The production design and art direction of "Reckless" are fine, but they are services rendered for a completely inane, often alienating screenplay. It's supposed to be a dark holiday comedy, though the cast is at a loss with this unfunny, occasionally offensive material. *1/2 from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
Let's face it.<br /><br />This movie is incredibly cliché, as Korean romance dramas and movies go. First of all, there's a pair of long-lost siblings, one of which falls in love with the other. Second, there's a not-so-popular girl and two gorgeous, popular guys who fall for and fight over her. Third, one of the characters suffers from a tragic disease, which, eventually, takes his life.<br /><br />Still, I like this movie.<br /><br />Without the right actors, this movie would probably have disappointed fans of the novel. But because the actors fit the roles perfectly, the movie is engrossing--I honestly couldn't stop watching. Kang Dong Won, despite his pretty face, gives an awesome, heartrending performance, not to mention Lee Chung Ah and Jo Han Sun, plus all the supporting actors.<br /><br />I'd definitely recommend this movie to everyone.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.