text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I've always liked Sean Connery, but as James Bond I've always favored Roger Moore. Still it was Connery who set the Bond standard and while he had by 1983 established himself as something other than James Bond, the money must have been irresistible for him to make one more appearance as 007 and save the world from the evil designs of Spectre.<br /><br />And what designs they are in Never Say Never Again. SPECTRE with the help of a foolish young Air Force officer who happens to be Kim Bassinger's brother stole two nuclear missiles during a war games exercise and now SPECTRE headed by Blofeld, played here by Max Von Sydow is threatening blackmail of the world.<br /><br />Von Sydow's operations guy is Klaus Maria Brandauer who is also courting Bassinger and is a bit on the crazy side. And he's got a female assassin working for him in Barbara Carrera who makes Angelina Jolie as Nora Croft look like Mrs. Butterworth.<br /><br />But before Sean Connery can even get started he's got to deal with a new 'M' running things at British Intelligence. Edward Fox thinks Connery is old fashioned in his methods and costs the British taxpayers too much money with his violent ways. I really did enjoy Fox's performance, he's like the great grandson of Colonel Blimp.<br /><br />I also enjoyed Carrera, she's something to look at and quite resourceful in her methods. When she's scuba diving with Connery in the Bahamas, note how she puts Mr. Shark on 007's case.<br /><br />Will Connery do James Bond again? He was widely quoted as saying who would they cast him as at this point, Roger Moore's father? But I think Connery would still be formidable in a wheelchair.
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't believe I actually bought this movie! It sucks! ... Where I live Mexican movies Mexican movies are never advertised, or even available ... you can't find them in the regular rental places... so I had to buy it ... I really like Mexican movies! They bring me closer to my roots, and my people, and they are way different that what your normally used to... but this one was soo predictable!!! Your could guess what was going to happen... I'ts not a horrible movie! It just wasn't worth what I paid for it! jaja... but if you have time and are truly bored then yeah u should watch it.. but if you love Mexican movies, and love theater itself then don't watch it it'll be painful! lol
| 0 |
negative
|
Little Vera is the story of a Russian teenager, her family, and her attempts to find meaning and value in a life sliding increasingly into decay. In her search for meaning, she falls in love with a more intellectual and rebellious Sergei, whose hatred for her deeply flawed parents quickly spirals out of control.<br /><br />Little Vera is shocking and disturbing in nearly every way. The drinking of the father, the enabling and lack of understanding of the mother, the casual lies and misdirection of the brother, and Vera herself forgiving them all their flaws are all shocking and slightly disturbing to watch. However, the raw honesty of the film somehow manages to become even more shocking than the plot or characters. Set in cramped spaces and vast urban decay, Little Vera presented a vastly different view of Soviet life than had ever been seen before. In fact, Little Vera is a portrait of the collapse of Soviet society painted in shades of pain, desperation, and rust. It is the implosion of a family set against the implosion of an entire social order.<br /><br />Although painful and desperately unsatisfying, the film itself is definitely worth seeing, if only to understand the feelings and cultures still reshaping Russia today.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ever since `Midnight Cowboy' I have been on the lookout for films with Dustin Hoffman and have mostly not been disappointed. Ever since `Kramer vs Kramer' I have been on the lookout for films with Meryl Streep and have mostly not been disappointed. She gave a superb performance, really one of her best, in `Sophie's Decision' and I lapped her up in `Out of Africa'. That these two actors came together over 20 years ago for `Kramer vs Kramer' was definitely a very good idea: the result is an excellent character drama with a theme which is still very relevant in today's society.<br /><br />On divorcing everyone has a pretty bad time, though the kids seem to suffer most
..Beautifully handled by Robert Benton in some original directing presenting some memorable scenes: even the passageway takes on character and should be included in the cast! And as for the breakfast scene with Billy (Justin Henry), just simply magnificent. Just how do you get an eight-year-old to act? Benton managed it, and of course with Hoffman there seemed to be good electricity: the result is certainly engaging, endearing, and convincing. Justin Henry's performance must rank among the best 5 or 6 kids' performances of all time. The best thing, once again, was the naturalness, there was no going over the top, so frequent these days.<br /><br />This film came up again on the small screen the other night, though I have had it in my video collection for years: it is still worth watching and paying attention to everything. Around 7½ out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Homicide: The Movie proved to be a good wrap-up to a well-written, well-directed, and well-acted series. Loose ends were tied up that weren't properly addressed at the end of the final season. The entire series, and especially the movie, provided a life-like look at life (and death) in Baltimore, a culturally unique city with an extremely high murder rate. My attraction to the series began long before I moved to Baltimore, but once I experienced life here for myself, I realized how realistic it was. And the movie certainly retained that spirit. I will certainly miss new original episodes of the series, but am very grateful to NBC and the producers and cast for giving us one last glimpse at the dark side of Charm City.
| 1 |
positive
|
The marriage of an upscale New York City couple with child falls apart when the wife wants out ("It took a lot of courage for her to walk out that door!" a neighbor tells us); the busy, distracted husband takes on the "motherly" responsibilities and grows closer to his son, but soon the wife returns. Highly manipulative picture doesn't give us a very realistic familial unit (with young Justin Henry certainly not resembling the product of a marriage between Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep!), but the dynamics are intriguing and involving, and director Robert Benton keeps the pace popping with lots of cleverness, marvelous classical music, canny editing and surefire bits of humor. Streep's character is designed to be a cold, self-centered witch, but I was ready to feel a lot more for her than Benton probably wanted. It all has to be painted in terms of black and white, good and bad, with Hoffman learning how hard his wife had it and getting a second chance at being a good parent. The film never falters from its preconceived path, and very fine acting nearly saves it, but I'm not sure where Benton was steering the film in the final act, and the closing scene is awfully abrupt. *** from ****
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this film at a small screening. Even though it had a low budget, the creative direction and intelligence of the cast helped make this a small gem of a movie. It's April 8, 1994, each of the characters are in their "mid 20's" and pursuing some kind of artistic ambition (acting, music, film, writing) when they learn of Nirvana singer Kurt Cobain's suicide. They quickly get inspiration to travel from San Francisco to Seattle and attend the Cobain vigil. It's here where the film really picks up and serves up a series of funny and emotional scenes. Highlights include: a visit to Jimi Hendirx's grave, Kurt Cobain's original childhood home and a campfire sing along. An honest an original piece of work.
| 1 |
positive
|
Oh. Good. Grief.<br /><br />I saw this movie title in the TV schedules and thought "I must watch this movie, ripping off Snakes On A Plane, it will be terrible but hopefully laughable too. Sounds fantastically bad". Well, I was half right.<br /><br />This movie is eye-meltingly bad and, sadly, not even unintentionally hilarious. It's just bad. Even worse, it takes almost an hour to get to anything resembling action. For the first half of the movie we have to endure some mumbled foreign language (Mexican or Spanish, apologies for my ignorance) and terrible acting as some woman vomits up live snakes for reasons we only find out later on. Then we have to endure even more terrible acting, and we find out that those mumbling in the foreign language could speak English anyway, as the snakes finally get loose on the train and things move from the sedate to the ridiculous.<br /><br />Low-budget does not always mean "bad" but, in this case, it does. What we have here is a movie given no thought, a terrible script, a bad cast and not even the sense to capitalise on it's very few strengths. I give two marks for a few decent special effects and a whacky ending but that still feels a bit too generous. Avoid if you can.<br /><br />See this if you like: Stagknight, The Wicker Man remake, terrible CGI.
| 0 |
negative
|
Going into the movie with the right expectations, I somewhat liked this movie. Like most reviewers who have seen this movie, I fully agree that the plot was razor thin, clichéd, and I could predict every plot twist from the very beginning of the movie. But, the dancing sequences were VERY well done, and I really enjoyed the fusion of classical and hip-hop dance (both which I enjoy watching). The music/soundtrack of the movie was also very good, which made the "drama" scenes more bearable. The leads (Jenna Dewan and Channing Tatum) were OK as actors, but their dancing throughout the movie was impressive and mesmerizing.<br /><br />All in all, a movie worth watching if you like to watch good dance sequences, and this movie is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than "You Got Served" in terms of the plot and drama. Then again, that doesn't say much, does it? =P
| 0 |
negative
|
Someone commented that Charlie Sheen's character should be court martialed for doing whatever he wanted. You may be right, but that is how SEAL's truly are. I served for several months with a SEAL team out of Norfolk, VA. Actually, I should say they used our ship to deploy themselves around Europe for a couple of months. I was the postal clerk on board and everyday these guys would try to get their mail. Since only one person was allowed to pick up the mail each day we issued one pass to one person. Each day a different SEAL would come up pretending to be someone else. Well, after the third time I said no to them until I had proof who they were. They went NUTS!!! I thought they were gonna bust through my cage, gag me, and then steal the mail. Luckily I had not only the President on my side (The Navy), but the Federal Government (US Mail). That was the only time I saw the SEALs stopped from having whatever they wanted. They were allowed unlimited shore leave, where we had to be back on ship at a certain time. They killed and tortured a woman in France and the two SEAL's only got a 1 week detention on ship, whereas a Seamen was caught stealing a bottle of wine from a French wine shop and he got a court martial. Is it any wonder why the SEAL's retention rate is over 85%? As a SEAL you are god. So this movie does a pretty accurate job of portraying how a SEAL acts and thinks... unfortunately it is so unbelievable to normal people that it comes off as being fake.
| 0 |
negative
|
Jack Brooks (Trevor Matthews) is a college student with some severe anger issues. His family was brutally murdered when he was a child by a monster, and now he takes out his anger on everything and everyone.<br /><br />So when his professor (Robert Englund) begins to show signs of monsterism, he learns he has to control his rage and use it for good instead of evil, and fight the creatures that have been haunting his nightmares ever since that fateful night.<br /><br />Truly earns its B-rated rating, but what was cool about it was that it didn't focus on crappy B-rated CGI graphics. In fact, 0% of the film was CGI. The monsters were actually decently put together, and although the storyline was lacking, it was somewhat watchable...if for only one time.
| 0 |
negative
|
The monster will look very familiar to you. So will the rest of the film, if you've seen a half-dozen of these teenagers-trapped-in-the-woods movies. Okay, so they're not teenagers, this time, but they may as well be. Three couples decide it might be a good idea to check out a nearly-abandoned ghost town, in hopes of finding the gold that people were killed over a scant century-and-a-half before. You'd think that with a title like "Miner's Massacre" some interesting things might happen. They don't. In fact, only about 1/10 of the film actually takes place in the mine. I had envisioned teams of terrified miners scampering for their lives in the cavernous confines of their workplace, praying that Black Lung Disease would get them before The Grim Reaper exacted his grisly revenge, but instead I got terrestrial twenty-somethings fornicating--and, in one case, defecating--in the woods, a gang of morons with a collective I.Q. that would have difficulty pulling a plastic ring out of a box of Cracker Jacks, much less a buried treasure from an abandoned mine. No suspense, no scares, and plenty of embarrassing performances give this turkey a 3 for nudity.
| 0 |
negative
|
Very literate, intelligent drama about a group of international travelers held virtual prisoners in the Hungary of 1956 by invading Russian Communist regime. Kerr and Robards play lovers, she a British baroness, he a Hungarian freedom fighter trying to do his bit for his country. Other New York theater stars of the period Anne Jackson & E G Marshall play an American couple traveling with their two young sons, including Ronny Howard in his screen debut. Jackson's character is hugely pregnant and not anxious to give birth in a soon-to-be communist country; she gives an impassioned plea in the third act of this film which presages the naturalistic acting styles we've come to know today from Redgrave, Fonda, & Streep. Leading the pack of Soviet wolves is Yul Brynner, magnificent as a commandant and at his sexiest since he played opposite Kerr in "The King and I". He is mean and nasty and terribly conflicted by his attraction to the lovely, patrician, & heroic Kerr. This is one of the great transition films of the latter part of the Golden Era of American film. Do not miss it.
| 1 |
positive
|
A woman who deals in art starts to have a passionate love affair with a man named John. They make love everywhere they go and they play sexual games. The problem I had was that was all they did. There was no plot at all to this movie or I just didn't see it. The hot erotic passion was the best thing about this movie but I wanted something else to happen. Perhaps he could have been a serial killer or she could have had a secret. I just needed something and all that there was was a bunch of love making scenes. Not that's it was bad or anything, I just wanted more things to happen in the movie. Perhaps a coworker was sleeping with him too. Anything! I was greatly upset that this was all that there was. Mickey Rourke was so hot back then. I wonder what happened.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Chairman of the Board" is a ridiculously stupid film from the popular comic Carrot Top (also seen on the 1-800-COLLECT commercials). He plays a surfing inventor who comes upon a man who has a flat tire. Top helps him out and a few days later discovers the guy's died and has given his company to the comedian. Even if someone else was in Carrot Top's role, it still would have been bad. The jokes (which are constantly rigged throughout) are terrible and the idea of a romantic "plot twist" should have been discarded. DO NOT WATCH!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
This is an excellent documentary about Amália Rodrigues. I enjoyed it very much; it's very well put together and very informative. If you want to know who is Amália Rodrigues. I highly recommend you see this film, "The Art Of Amália Rodrigues".<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
Komodo vs. Cobra is not going to set the world on fire. It's not a hallmark of cinema history. What it is is a group of underfunded filmmakers trying to make another movie, make another paycheck, and continue to support themselves and their families. As such I give these efforts a lot of slack. I mean, come on, it has to be hard to be a Russian special effects technician. Not a lot of big budget films getting made there. BUT-- they are a dedicated bunch and more than willing to throw their all into whatever lame American monster flick needs affordable SFX. And I get a kick out of looking for the same locations appear time and again in these flicks. If for some reason you find yourself watching this again, look at the sequence where Pare and company are walking through a "jungle." Look at their feet and you'll see paved walkways. And if you happen to still have a copy of "AI Assault" (shown a week or two earlier also on SciFi), you'll see the folks in there tramping through the same ersatz jungle. Come to think of it, I think the helicopters land in the same clearing in both flicks. I can admire the thriftiness of these films. Every dollar really does show up on the screen! Too bad there just aren't enough dollars......
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is so dull I spent half of it on IMDb while it was open in another tab on Netflix trying to find out if anyone thought it was one of the more boring, ponderous, gimmicky films they've ever seen. A warning: I actually could not finish it, so these are my impressions up to minute 54.<br /><br />Keira Knightly gets loads of screen time. As others have mentioned, her mother penned the script (perhaps during some sort of drug-induced stupor wherein utter inanities and emotionless statements about emotions sounded like interesting dialogue) and it seems that the film is a showcase for Knightly. Oops! Although I agree she is lovely (with her teeth unexposed...her barred teeth cause me anxiety and fear) I found her reactions forced and poorly timed. As in, William or Dylan does something cute...pause...HAHAHA from K with dimples and a playful arm jab. Like a minute too late. What? And she cannot match Cillian Murphy's intensity. He somehow manages to really look at her and look as though he is fascinated by her and falling in love with her whereas she seems totally disconnected, almost like she is interacting with a mirror. That must be torture, acting opposite someone who isn't delivering the same level of energy as you. Know what else is torture? This movie.<br /><br />Knightly does look stunning during her cyclical "I've got 1940s pin curls and a hot dress. Watch me sing!" shots, but what's the point? Is she an altar or an actress? When she talks it's bizarre, "Ooow, Mehster Deelan. Whur eer ya going?" This makes me confused because the accent is so mixed up and unauthentic, yet so thick at times I have no idea what she's saying (or maybe fell asleep). If no one knows who Vera was or cares, or few do, was it so important to give her this supposed Welsh accent? It distracts from all the rest of the action (just kidding there).<br /><br />This movie seems like someone dreamed a movie, maybe after reading a little Dylan Thomas before bed. But instead of adapting to the waking world was like, "Man, that dream was so interesting" and tried to replicate it. Then someone else cautioned, "Your script needs work. Nothing that happens furthers a story or creates necessity" and the writer is all, "But that's the way I dreamed it!" It's like the rambling fantasy of a child, one of those wild and meandering yarns they spin to get your attention. And THEN William went to a war and then Vera had a baby and then some blond chick drank too much and there were so many airplanes and pin curls and everyone had ruby red lips and...<br /><br />As for the Dylan Thomas character (so bland that's all I can call him), why didn't he have any lines in this goofy biopic? All he does is drink beer and smoke cigarettes and roll around with Sienna Miller, who is so wild and artistic she'll do a cartwheel in public! Get outta here, you crazy poets! (I realize she is not a poet, but she and Thomas are like this one nauseating unit of crazy guys havin crazy times, like a lukewarm Sailor and Lula from Wild at Heart.) Someone asks in the message board if they should buy this film. I say do it. Leave it on your shelf and only utilize it as a weapon to narcotize children, the elderly, or lingering house guests.<br /><br />P.S. to Murphy's character...when someone asks if you were "in the sh**" you can say yes, because your war scenes appear to have been shot at a landfill.
| 0 |
negative
|
This version did not move me as deeply as the later, Hollywood version starring Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger. While it was beautifully filmed and superbly acted, the BBC version was more packed with dialog that imparted information which I found fascinating. It gave me a detailed glimpse of the intellectual, theological and moral considerations that motivated C. S. Lewis. It was therefore more interesting and stimulating than the Hollywood version, but not nearly as visually stunning or viscerally affecting. Still, while I did not leave a heaping mound of sodden Kleenex in the theater, I did use one, and at frequent intervals. I enjoyed this film every bit as much as the Hollywood version, and was grateful for the increased understanding I gained.
| 1 |
positive
|
I picked this DVD up for 3.99 at rogers video in order to get enough points to get a better movie for free. I never actually was planning on watching this but it started poking at my curiosity and i finally decided to pop in it the DVD player. The effects in this movie are horrible and cheap. Some of the dialog in this movie sounds like it was written by a swear happy 12 year old boy. The acting is really cheesy in some parts, and the "action" scenes are completely laughable. You'll burst out laughing at some parts which was a positive for me because it kept me mildly entertained. The plot is some girl has a curse on her which causes her to vomit snakes so some shaman has to get her to Los Angeles, there are also two girls trying to smuggle drugs there and a few other people that are unimportant to the plot, not that there really is a plot at all.Don't expect anything from this movie and don't listen to the cover, there are not 100 passengers and 3,000 vipers, there are 10 passengers and 20 random snakes.<br /><br />As for the DVD, there is a trailer which is almost as laughable as the film, a blooper reel which is just one shot over and over of one actor trying to say train, and the deleted scenes are really pointless, if they weren't good enough to stay in this movie they must be pretty bad. There is also a really bad making of featurette which doesn't really show much at all except that the people involved with this movie were kind of idiots. I can't recommend it unless you want a really bad movie that you can laugh at with friends. I give it 2 kitty cats out of 5.
| 0 |
negative
|
In 1990 I saw Kathy Ireland in person - I was at UNT in Denton during the filming of "Necessary Roughness." Strangely enough, the voice she's using in this film isn't too far off from her real speaking voice.<br /><br />Anyway, the plot goes like this: Kathy gets a letter telling her that her father's fallen into a bottomless pit in Africa. She goes and investigates the site of her father's death, only to get sucked into a subterranean world that's part dystopian nightmare, part uninspiring fantasy, and inhabited by rejects from the Plasmatics. This movie really wastes the talent of Linda Kerridge, who, in my opinion, could have been someone had she gotten that one big role that was right for her. Anyway, the main hero of the story, Gus, is a very lame Mark "Jacko" Jackson rip-off. The original is annoying enough to begin with, but this guy really is torture to watch. Eventually the nebbish Wanda comes out of her shell and ends up wearing a bikini top and a sarong at the end. If you're going to have Kathy Ireland in a film in skimpy clothing, it'd better be a bikini. Anyway, the film was just all around bad and rightfully skewered by MST3K.<br /><br />Avoid this one if possible.
| 0 |
negative
|
Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a rich woman discovers her husband is cheating on her with a younger woman (Eva Mendes). She doesn't know what to do and friends Sylvia Fowler (Annette Bening), Edie Cohen (Debra Messing) and Alex Fisher (Jad Pinkett Smith) try to help.<br /><br />OK--there was no reason to redo the 1939 movie. That's a true classic and doesn't need to be updated and redone. Naturally it WAS done. This has gotten some of the worst reviews I've ever seen for a motion picture. I love the original and have seen it MANY times--I was constantly comparing it to that. Now this isn't a classic but it's not that bad.<br /><br />**MINOR SPOILERS!!!** First the bad--the story is old and was (badly) updated. Really--a man cheating on his wife is hardly shocking today. Meg Ryan (a wonderful actress) is pretty terrible here. Her face seems unable to change expression! I couldn't believe how bad some of her scenes came over. Eva Mendes is bad too--but it's not entirely her fault. Her role is badly written and she has to compete with Joan Crawford from the original. Smith's character (a tough lesbian) goes to pieces in an operating room. It IS funny...but it's showing that a strong woman instantly goes to pieces when confronting an emergency. Also the script inserts some clumsy passages where Ryan talks to her daughter about being yourself. In those moments it seems more like a Lifetime movie than anything else.<br /><br />Now the good--this movie retains the originals' decision to NEVER show a man on screen. This movie is about and for women--men aren't needed (BTW--I'm a man). Bening is just great as Fowler--whenever she's on screen the movie makes a great leap. Also Smith is just wonderful--she doesn't overplay (or underplay) her lesbian character too much. Messing is good too but she's not in this much. Bette Midler is just hysterical in a small role and Cloris Leachman pulls off the nothing role of a housekeeper. The direction is good too--especially during a fashion show sequence. I heard director Diane English purportedly had a lot of trouble directing her first full-length movie but it doesn't show in the final product. Also there are some clever references to the original (mostly certain lines) that were inserted with no fuss.<br /><br />I saw this in an audience full of women (there were a few guys but not many) and they loved it. The movie ends on an operating room sequence that had everybody howling. So--this wasn't needed but it's not the disaster people are saying it is. Also--people are saying we don't need a movie with all women. Well--why not? I see plenty of movies with all guys in the cast and no one complains about that! Ignore the complaints and bad reviews and see this. With a better performance by Ryan I might have given this an 8 or 9 but, as it is, I can only give it a 7.
| 1 |
positive
|
By Jove, what an unholy mess! Revenge, incestuous love, mechanical games-like fighting, ceaseless and utterly unnecessary violence, some primitive "music" hammering away at the bewildered victims, big "surprises" (which actually tend to be about as "revelatory" as The National Enquirer's headlines). Add some shoddy camera movements pretending to be stylish and creative and you've already impressed the crowds. This movie's totally undeserved popularity powerfully indicates the very low level pop sub-culture has succeeded not only in achieving in the last decades, but also in imposing as dominant taste on an impotent audience. (For by far deeper insights into human sufferance under mental sickness, without "Oldboy"s vulgar excesses, I recommend an older Dutch/French movie, "The Vanishing".) <br /><br />Well, don't believe there's absolutely nothing good to say about this movie. In fact there is. The (in)famous scene in which the hero (is really a "hero", an abject father who sleeps with his daughter and then attempts to obtain forgetfulness rather than redemption?) eats a live octopus benefits greatly from the vivid presence of the best actor in the entire cast: the octopus itself. Too bad the poor beast, having been eaten, couldn't survive its one and only act in order to obtain yet another worthless diploma, for the "best actor", at the Cannes festival. <br /><br />Which festival, by the way, between Moore's propaganda nonsense and this epitome of worthless if somewhat exotic weirdness, became a festival of the vapid and of the ludicrous.<br /><br />Sic transit gloria mundi!
| 0 |
negative
|
Hoot is the best movie. go and see it if you haven't about these 3 kids that stand up to the right and the wrong. a perfect family film. the characters Mullet Fingers ( Cody Linley) Beatrice Leep (Brie Larson) and Roy Eberhardt ( Logan Lerman) are the three main characters. great movie the best!!!!!!!!!!! i love this movie and you guys should too, its a great movie i mean it a great movie. go and see it if you haven't. i like it because they stand up to the right and wrong, and it has cut owls and the hot Cody Linley.<br /><br />Cody Linley is so HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE HIM SO MUCH!!!!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.
| 0 |
negative
|
I just cant see what everyone sees in this movie. The acting is just awful, the choice of music is, mildly putting it, peculiar, there arent enough fighting scenes, the plot is non-existent and whatever small entertainment one could get from this film is ruined by the annoying way some of the movie is filmed and gives you a splitting headace.
| 0 |
negative
|
Why couldn't the end of the movie have been Sean Connery's men fighting the French instead of the Germans. Ever since the French had occupied Algeria in 1830, the tribes from Morocco and those of Algeria were making raids on the French military and civilian settlements. This movie could have been a continuous of that historical aspect where the French had seize the Rasuadli so his followers would not be raiding Algeria, and then his followers would have attacked the French to free him.<br /><br />The movie is still stereotypical of shootouts between the Germans and the Americans. When the Americans shoot the Germans, their guns (even the pistols) make loud noises, create large bloody bullet wounds, and their enemies are screaming after being shot. When Germans shoot at the Americans, their guns don't make large sounds, do not create bloody wounds, and their enemies make little or no sound after being shot.<br /><br />In real life, the American Krag rifle was the worst rifle America had ever produce until the early version of the M-16 came along. The Krag was hard to maintain, not reliable, and the rifle bolt was always jamming. The German Mauser was one of the world's finest rifles. We were so impress by it during Spanish American war, that we made a copy of it and call it the Springfield rifle.<br /><br />Finally, the people of Morocco must had a word for artillery since the French were using them in their raids against Morocco. I didn't like it when they made the Rasuldai feel stupid that there was no word for artillery in the Moorican vocabulary. Instead, the Rasuadli stated that the Europeans had guns on wheels that make the ground shake.
| 1 |
positive
|
Chip Foose is an absolute genius and the end result of the projects are truly amazing. The co-hosts do a good job. I particularly enjoy watching the "project" come together. The end results are much better than when they came off the assembly line what with the mechanical and cosmetic advances of today. However, I do get annoyed somewhat at the fact the "projects" seem to be the property of the already rich and/or famous. It's too bad the ones getting overhauled can afford the undertaking. Let's see now, Vince Neill of Motley Crew gets a car make over for his buddy. Hello! If he (Neill) were a true friend he would have paid to have his friend's car restored. What a joke! Another episode shows a middle aged seemingly well-to-do gal getting her '56 caddy named Betsy done. The husband of 30+ years was behind it all. The couple looked like money was not in short supply. What a shame. I guess the lunch pail guys like me will have to save for the day that will never come. I happen to own a '53 Ford project Chip. Will somebody pick me?
| 0 |
negative
|
In general, I prefer horror movies that creep me out so much I'm afraid of everything for the next day or so, not the ones where people act stupid and get killed by an indestructible monster. This is one of those movies. The chupacabra of legend is a dog-faced lizard-skin greenish-gray monster that hops like a kangaroo, has fangs and claws, has a row of sharp spines sticking out from its back, and sucks the blood of livestock. As in many horror movies, good and bad, this movie takes liberty with the legend. It not only attacks humans, but it eats their intestines and has a bulletproof, nearly indestructible constitution. So tell me, how can a hypodermic needle penetrate its skin when bullets can't? And why, when the marines figure out that armor-piercing bullets can hurt it, do they split up so the chupacabra can pick them off one by one? John Rhys-Davies gives a performance that rises above the bad movie, and Chelan Simmons and Dylan Neal deserve credit for their performances, too. Otherwise, the rest of the acting was poor to bad, just like the rest of the movie. My rating is based on Rhys-Davies, Simmons and Neal.
| 0 |
negative
|
Monster of Mexico I do agree is the weakest of the modern Scooby Doo movies, mainly because of the weak plot and how predictable it all was. Loch Ness Monster however, is a considerable improvement, with gorgeous animation, honestly Scotland looked beautiful. The music is good, and the plot is well thought out. Plus, there is some great dialogue, and the voice acting was fabulous, with Casey Kasem a consistent delight as Shaggy, and the beautiful Scottish singer Sheena Easten a pleasant surprise in a guest starring role. In fact, my only complaints were some strange accents in one or two members of the voice cast, with the exception of Easten whose accent did sound genuine, and somehow the Loch Ness Monster wasn't as well designed as it had potential to be. Overall, a solid and enjoyable Scooby Doo film. 8/10 Bethany Cox
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, sadly, I can't help but feeling a little bit disappointed after my much, much, MUCH-anticipated viewing of "Just Before Dawn". Jeff Lieberman is a terrific filmmaker and he can undoubtedly do great things with a tiny budget, but I nevertheless expected to see a far more sadistic and gruesome early 80's slasher. But actually I'm beginning to think that Lieberman isn't the one to blame for this, but WE gorehounds are! It's more than obvious that Lieberman intended to make his take on the backwoods-slasher look like "Deliverance" and absolutely NOT like "Friday the 13th", which immensely popularized the sub genre one year earlier. The horror and constant sensation of menace doesn't mainly come from the demented maniacs with their machetes, but from the genuinely ominous and isolated Oregon forests where this movie was shot. In case the film seems slow and uneventful, this is only because Lieberman takes his time to introduce the dark woods and eerie mountains as extra characters in his film. We hardly ever see the killers in person, but there always appears to be someone luring from behind the trees or from underneath the mountain lakes. Bearing this in mind, "Just Before Dawn" becomes a highly admirable horror effort and actually a lot better than its contemporary blood-soaked colleagues. Amidst a nearly endless selection of gory and sickening slashers, Lieberman successfully puts the emphasis back on tension and character development. The plot revolves on five twenty-something friends heading for a camping vacation in the Oregon woods, where one of them owns a small piece of land. The woods are deserted and, naturally, the campers ignore forest ranger Roy's (George Kennedy!) advise to return back to civilization. Shortly after, they brutally encounter an inbred family of which the twin sons have murderous tendencies. All five main characters are surprisingly likable and convincing! No irritating stereotypes for which you don't feel sympathy anyway, like slutty girls or football jocks. As a result of this "natural" character, you automatically cheer for them, even when they eventually almost turn into savages themselves. The sublime camera-work supplies the film with an at times unbearable tension level and Brad Fiedel's chilling electronic score only adds to this effect. "Just Before Dawn" is a fine slice of early 80's horror, as long as you don't desire blood to drip from your TV-set.
| 1 |
positive
|
Trading on the success of the 1975 hit, this film is a cheaply made story of a plantation where Massa gets down with the slave women, and the Missus gets down with the big black stud, and with massa'a son also. In fact, there is so much getting down going on, that I really don't know why anyone bothered to get dressed.<br /><br />So, if you want to see white women rolling their naked bodies all over tied up slaves, or you just like a movie with tits on display every five minutes, then this one is for you.<br /><br />There is a funny/sad story in here, but it only comes at the very end so as to not interfere with all the hot sweaty sex going on on the plantation.
| 0 |
negative
|
Slow-moving ponderous movie with terrible acting on the whole - but lovely locations & clothes to admire, and, of course, Timothy Dalton, who does a compelling job, as always. I wanted to laugh out loud at the voice-overs - so silly!! But Dalton is always worth watching, even in bad movies, a wonderful actor, older now, but still very handsome and masculine. This movie is worth viewing only to see him....and he seems like he wandered into a bad dime romance novel, poor fellow. Your time would be better spent watching Mr. Dalton in 1970's "Wuthering Heights" or the early 1980's BBC version of "Jane Eyre". Poor Sela Ward, so lovely, but so wooden.... surely she's been better in other movies.
| 0 |
negative
|
The untold origin of the Lone Ranger. It shows who he was and how and why he became the Ranger.<br /><br />Legendary bomb. The idea was not a bad one--reinvent and introduce the Lone Ranger for 1980s audiences. Right off the bat though there were problems. The studio ordered Clayton Moore (the original Ranger) to stop appearing anywhere as the Lone Ranger. It led to a nasty little battle that made headlines. I know of people who refused to see the film because of how Moore was treated. Also they hired the awesomely untalented Klinton Spilsbury to play the Ranger. Spilsbury was very handsome and muscular but had absolutely no charisma and just couldn't act. In fact his whole vocal performance was redubbed by another actor! Also his off screen antics (public drunkenness and beating people up) didn't help matters. Acting aside, the script is dull and slow. Also the Ranger himself doesn't show up until an HOUR in! There were some complaints at the time that the movie was too violent for a PG. However I don't think it was that bad.<br /><br />There are a few (very few) things done right here--the photography was truly beautiful; Michael Horse was excellent as Tonto; Christopher Lloyd is lots of fun as the villain and when the Lone Ranger finally shows up (with the William Tell Overture booming from the soundtrack) it's really rousing. But, all in all, this is a boring and terrible attempt to bring back the Lone Ranger. It's easy to see why this bombed. A 4--mostly for the photography.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's a horror story alright. But perhaps not as you know it. The real monsters in this flick are humans. While the monsters, are human and prey. As weird as that may sound I see this as "Monsters Inc" for horror film fans.<br /><br />Sure, the effects are of a std horror film, the monsters are there as in any monster based film, the gore is there as well, there even is a slasher in the shape of Dr Decker (played by David Cronenberg; I see flash of Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane in Batman Begins here - or is it the other way round?). And it is Decker &c who are the bad guys. The monsters want mainly to mind their own business, warding off intrusive humans more or less misguided, wanting to join there society.<br /><br />By the end of the film you actually grow to like the quite little monsters (and the dog) - not perhaps what you had expected from the first few scenes....
| 1 |
positive
|
When I saw Alien vs. Predator a few years ago, I have to say as stupid as a sequel it was, it was still somewhat enjoyable. Now, there are unfortunately a shortage of good movies out in the theater lately, so my boyfriend and I decided to just go ahead and see what AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem was about. So we saw it a couple nights ago and I have to say that there was absolutely nothing thrilling about this horror sequel. It took a completely different turn from the first AVP movie, it's not a bad idea that they took Alien and Predator and put them in the up class suburbs, but from the idea of the first one explaining their reasons for existing, this was just an average and predictable horror sequel. Not to mention a story that keeps introducing new characters every scene where I wasn't sure who to keep in mind on who was the main character and why, so I couldn't really keep up with the story.<br /><br />From what I've gathered, of course the Predator and the Alien are up in space having to deal with the stuff of typical sit com neighbors, they're just beating the lights out of each other and they decide to why not? Go ahead and take it out on some Earthlings. So they crash and Alien is taking over the suburbia utopia. But teenagers, including a troubled couple who look like Ken and Barbie, a female marine and her daughter, among others, are going to make sure to kick some space butt, that is if the predator doesn't get there first. Because he is ticked off at the Alien, I guess for starting the party without him, lol, just kidding, actually for killing some of his friends.<br /><br />AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem isn't the worst movie by any standards, it's still pretty cool with a lot of the visual effects and the fight sequences between Alien and Predator are so cool to watch. Like the first sequel of Alien vs. Predator, the cast is the thing that ruins the film and just seems like they were not well developed, I know it's horror, but the original Alien and Predator films had characters, that you cared about and wanted to win. But it was a semi-decent sequel that I would say is worth a look for some fun, especially for Ken and Barbie's sake.<br /><br />4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
I love the way he experiments. Ab Tak Chappan was a thrill to watch just as much Satya and company was. Jatin the new comer also lived up to his role and Nana Patekar was at his best. Suchak was really irritating but I think he fit the character he was playing - he had really ugly teeth. The story has a great progress and no songs in the movie makes it better. I only wish he signs up Urmila for his other up coming movies. I think they are the best director and actress combination I have seen. I have not seen Naach as yet but I am looking forward for it. I for some reason don't find Antra Maali that exciting to watch on the screen - unlike Urmila.
| 1 |
positive
|
I own this movie. I am actually from the same town as the brother directors. But that doesn't make the film any better. But, if one night you wanna watch something not serious, and don't have and high expectations, I strongly recommend Demon Summer. Yes, the lines are cheesy and the plot is corny. But it contains key elements of a horror/comedy. I just wanna see some small-town kids make a movie full of effects. And I say "bravo" to the Campell brothers. They are now making more movies and continuing a long dream. Demon Summer was one of the movies that are gonna help them start a great career with a great future. Speed Freak Productions and Compound Pictures described in one word: POTENTIAL
| 1 |
positive
|
College students (who are actually in their late 20's) on campus in Boston (which looks strangely like the Isle Of Man) are menaced by a fierce monster (assembled during a Blue Peter episode). The new teacher must save the day (Even though he is really... Oh, who cares?)<br /><br />I'll start with the positives... there is a nice shot of Eastenders new gal Samantha Janus's can in the obligatory campus shower scene with her best mate Katy Lawrence. A bit of side trivia: Katy was hired when she arrived at auditions with her sister, just as moral support to her sibling but ended up landing a part. Oh, joy. Picked from obscurity to... flash her pert buttocks in a meaningless scene added for titillation, then getting killed 30 minutes in for her troubles. Her latest (and only other credited role) is as Probationary Nurse #5 in Atonement. I wonder if she snuck a look at Keira Knightly (if extras and stars are allowed to mix) and wondered: where did it all go wrong?!<br /><br />I'll give a few hints Katy: If all the other British cast members are asked to speak with American accents in a doomed attempt at mass-marketing, and the only person who can manage it is the B-movie veteran USA native Todd Jensen, you know you're in trouble. If you look at your wage slip and it'll only just about cover your lunch and your bus ride home, you ain't starring in a movie with a trillion dollar budget. If the premiere is attended by loads of family members of the fourth assistant director and provokes gales of laughter when the Stickyback tape monster rampages through the sewers, it should dawn on you that this isn't exactly Alien. Or even a Critters IV, come to think of it. So Katy, in your next life (I'm a Buddhist, you see) perhaps you'll be a bit more selective in your choice of debut feature rather than impulsively jumping at the first pile of crap that heads your way. Flashing skin in your first movie does not guarantee long lasting success. Unless you're Sylvester Stallone. And he had the script to Rocky to back him up.<br /><br />To all intents and purposes this is as 0/10 a movie as I've ever seen. However, for sheer unintentional laughs and pure camp value, it gets a 1. Well done ;)
| 0 |
negative
|
Sri Lanka... not a country I've ever given much thought to, I have to admit. I didn't even know it was near India, let alone that there has been a bloody civil war going on there since 1983. It seems that the rebels of the Tamil minority have been in an ongoing conflict with the military regime that runs the country for many years, causing many deaths and widespread suffering on the island.<br /><br />Mani Ratman's latest film, A PECK ON THE CHEEK, tells the story of a young girl named Amudha, who is separated from her Sri Lankan parents by the war and raised by a young Indian couple. Amudha is a bright and mischievous girl, whose life is turned upside down when her parents tell her that she was adopted as a child. Although her adopted parents love her as much as could be, and have raised her without prejudice along with their biological children, Amudha cannot help but want to learn more about her biological family.<br /><br />Mani Ratman is probably best known for his 1998 film DIL SE, which hides a story about terrorism and politics inside a love story (or is it the other way around?). A PECK ON THE CHEEK inhabits similar territory, but is perhaps more ambitious in the ground it covers. The central theme that binds the movie is of love between all the various members of a family, and especially that between a child and her adopted parents. It's a pretty honest and open look at feelings, that can be extremely touching and heartwarming at some times and quite painful at others. It's an emotionally complex film, with characters that are somewhat idealised but still behave in a very human way.<br /><br />The film revolves around 9 year old Amudha, played with charm and vivaciousness by young actress P.S. Keerthana in her first and only acting role. She's a princess and a monster, always getting into trouble but so disarmingly charming nobody can stay mad at her for long. The young actress is perfectly cast for the role, and does a tremendous job in the various and often difficult emotional scenes required of her.<br /><br />A PECK ON THE CHEEK has such an innocent name I was quite unprepared for the intensity of the experience. Never has such a small act come with such an enormous emotional impact, I dare say. The film is a bold and artistic effort to explore issues that are not frequently covered on the silver screen.<br /><br />Mani Ratman's direction is superb, very confident and mature - the most sophisticated work I've seen from this director yet. The film is visually very stylish, with some excellent camerawork and imagery. A.R. Rahman provides the film's soundtrack, which is not as good as his classic DIL SE or BOMBAY music (based on first impressions at least) but still shows his great musical talent.<br /><br />I'm not aware of a DVD release for the film yet - I saw it in Tamil with English subtitles thanks to the San Francisco International Film Festival, of which the film was undoubtedly the highlight. The production is a truly world class effort, and I am sure it will be popular with western audiences as it begins to receive wider exposure.<br /><br />Recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
Just listen to the Broadway cast album and to the voices of Barbara Harris and John Cullum, who do wonders for the wonderful Lerner and Lane score. Then, with that beautiful cast recording fresh in mind, watch the movie, with Streisand as Streisand, and Yves Montand reading his lines with such a heavy French accent that a chain saw couldn't cut through it. The best part (for those who need something to look forward to) is what Montand does to the introductory part of the title song. Listen as he sings/says: Could anyone among us have an inkling or a clue, what magic feats of wizardry and voodoo you can do? (That one part sums up the problem that results from casting "name stars" in movie musicals instead of the appropriate talent for the various roles.) I can just see Rex Harrison entering that scene and suggesting Montand, too, could learn to do justice to the beauty of the English language.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
The Residents are a band known for their strange appearances and odd musical stylings, so obviously, their music videos aren't going to be exactly normal. In fact, these little videos are abnormal, and bizarre, but have a huge artistic value to them. The atmosphere is built with lighting, and thoughtful visuals. It's a great watching experience.<br /><br />Basically, Icky Flix just consists of many Residents music videos made for their songs. The music itself ranges from rock to synthesized music that sounds like it's straight out of an 80s horror film. What doesn't change is the quality of these videos. They're great!<br /><br />Any fan of art films will love these. They're so original with their visuals, and the angles they are filmed at, and the lighting especially make these so interesting. The music is creepy and catchy and highly original and these short films are mini-classics that deserve multiple watchings. This is a near-perfect collection of short videos.<br /><br />My rating: **** out of ****. 56 mins.
| 1 |
positive
|
I won't bore you with story and plot lines, as they have been presented many times already on this page, so
It's been along time coming since I have seen such a film. Beautiful, elegant and restrained, with a narrative pace to match. A film with sensitivity and understated qualities that is rare in these times of clichéd plots. The beautifully subdued photography, saturated in rich luxurious colors, and for lack of better words, each frame is filled with an air of tension. The settings and locations are used repeatedly but the film manages to breath new life into them each time they featured, there always seems to be a key prop, light fixture, or set piece to slightly clue the audience as to where we are in the characters world.<br /><br />The acting reminds me of the "The Bicycle Thief", not the style, but the fact that you forget that you are watching two actors engaged in their craft. There is meaning behind every gesture and almost every movement has assigned significance to explain the inside world of the characters, the relationship, the feelings, and situation of the two lovers. The dialogue is sparse but like the rest of the movie, is imbued with meaning. Speaking of meaning, the soundtrack is infectious. Used here it becomes a story telling device. And although the film is of Chinese origins, even a song sung in Spanish by Nat King Cole imparts the film with subtle meaning. The orchestrated soundtrack is repetitive, but the repetition is what makes it comfortable. It is used in conjunction with the story, and not just a means to put music to action, or to cue the audience to feel a certain way at a certain plot point.<br /><br />I would not recommend this film to anybody, I fear most people would be jaded by the calm flow of the story, but I would recommend it to someone who is looking for an alternative to the romantic schlock that fills the multiplexes on our side of the world. I must say that I was completely taken by this film, and continued to watch it night after night. The story takes time to present itself and bears repeated viewings as very few films in this genre are open to such a broad interpretation. A very beautiful movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
It would seem we should acknowledge Scandinavian cinema for more than merely the Dogma 1995 movement as cooked up by the Danish all those years ago. Den Brysomme Mannen, or The Bothersome Man in English, is a surreal and deeply thought through film yet deeply entertaining and rich in content both on and under the surface. As a film alone, it is a scathing comedy on society and attitudes in the post-modern world we live in; a world that judging by The Bothersome Man has reached the regions of Norway and the like. But along with this black comedy feel to it, it would seem the film delves a little deeper and raises issues, at least to me, of metaphorical religious spaces and our human instinct to want to uncover the truth amongst so much material in our world that perhaps seems alien to us.<br /><br />This was, in truth, a fantastic introduction to contemporary Norwegian cinema for me. The film very much falls into that category of the European art cannon with its deep themes and ambiguity shrouded atmosphere whilst maintaining an open finale and not so much a narrative as a procession of events that may mean one thing or another. So many times we've seen films that use the set up The Bothersome Man adopts and so many times it's turned into a close to predictable routine revolving around a detective story or a chase story or something along those lines but this film allows its setting and situation to act as a mere backdrop for its protagonist, named Andreas (Fausa Aurvaag), to explore who he is; where he is and what the possible mysteries behind this location really are.<br /><br />The set up I'm talking about involves said hero arriving at a location with no prior memory or what happened before this. I'll jump right in and say it's in my opinion he's dead and has been sent to some sort of purgatory, as have all the city's inhabitants. Everybody in the city that Andreas mixes with are of the same age; same mentality and same attitude suggesting to me that most of them are victims of their own suicide and have been sent to a purgatory devoid of any emotion, feeling, colour or most importantly, pain. <br /><br />When we first see Andreas, he gets off a bus which he later discovers is uncanny in its abilities, and approaches a petrol station in the middle of rural nowhere. He is scruffy and has a huge beard but soon he will be the opposite, sporting a suit and tie; clean shaven face and a home of his own complete with new job in which the film makes one of the best transforming shifts between the rural and the urban that I've ever seen. But the new job as well as the new city is uneasy; you can take breaks whenever you like; bosses are unusually kind and there just seems to be no emotion or reaction to anything. These ideas are best put across in a cinema when Andreas, still a relative newbie to the city, is crying and is clearly affected by a film on show but everyone else watches in stone faced style. There is also the initial example when one man has jumped from a window and lies impaled on some spikes but everybody walks on by without fuss.<br /><br />To back up my idea on everyone already being dead and the city acting as a sort of purgatory, death and harm in general is impossible. There is a particularly nasty scene involving an electronic paper guillotine and someone's thumb, but everyone's reaction to the event is stone faced and it grows back within the hour. Similarly, a suicide attempt involving trains later on comes to nothing and instead we get the point of view regarding what it's like to be dragged down tube tracks with invulnerability on your side. The city acts as a barrier, a painless society in which the masochistic need to self-harm oneself is impossible; a place in which sexual relations can occur and break-ups equally so but both under emotion-less and passion-less circumstances; a place in which people can attempt suicide but it is impossible to actually die. The city adopts these powers because the damage has already been done in 'real life' and thus, the film says you cannot kill yourself twice, indeed you cannot feel pain or emotion in an afterlife of purgatory.<br /><br />But the film's best part is the one that sneaks up on you. Judging by the closing five minutes of the film and the side-story that opens up involving some music coming from another man's house, it would seem there is a fine line between the spaces the film dictates as 'heaven' and 'hell'. We get to see these spaces only very, very briefly so briefly that they consist of a single shot. The 'heaven' is a colourful kitchen with music and children playing: it offers life, hope, emotion and happiness whereas the hell is a snowy nowhere which haunts you thanks to its hopeless build up and eerie cut off point. The introduction of these two spaces at the very end of the film suddenly informs you of the reality Andreas and co. faced: purgatory and everything that came with it, the afterlife just was not ready for Andreas and his freethinking, adventurous mind and look where the thinkers end up.
| 1 |
positive
|
(As a note, I'd like to say that I saw this movie at my annual church camp, where the entire youth group laughed at it. I bought it when I saw it on a shelf one year later, if only for the humor I derived from a bad attempt at making an evangelical movie.)<br /><br />Lay it Down falls short of many movie fans' expectations on several different planes. Most of the problems lie within the impersonal acting. Regardless of the nice cars in the film, or the truth in Christ's sacrifice for you, as a movie AND witnessing tool, Lay it Down hardly delivers. <br /><br />Most good opinions of the movies are supported by Christians agreeing with the message. While it's easy for a Christian to agree with the points delivered, the audience hardly ever witnesses life outside a cliché. The fighting scene between Ben and his brother is horribly dubbed. And there are at least three blatant typos in the subtitles.<br /><br />I encourage anyone to watch the movie a second time with the director's commentary on. It really helps you understand just why the movie was written how it was. The director's views on secular society are practically opposite of what would cater to a movie-goer's needs: he shows a pedantic understanding of Nonchristians, as well as some points of religious conflict; most of the editing, he admits, was rushed, but "satisfactory"; he thought the over-used transitions and themes to be effective; and was completely happy with the acting. <br /><br />He also inserted motifs that he was rather proud of: -All (read: most) of the names are significant. Ben Destin = "Been Destined", Gus Pelman = "Gospel Man", Nicky D = Nicodemus. -The car doing donuts is symbolic of the circling nothingness that is a life without Christ. -When Ben leaves on Pete's motorcycle, he crosses his crutches to form a "cross".<br /><br />I'm not making any of those up. He throws around things like this in between saying while street racers and the like "blow their brains out with guns", and how "God is in control when your born and when your die". Yes, that was not a typo. He really says that.<br /><br />I have (little) forgiveness reserved for this movie. The "cool cars" and "good message" don't do jack to make this movie good. However, the movie was made from a group of unprofessional individuals on a budget less than 1/100th of "The Fast and the Furious's", and the time limit was unforgiving. With that in mind, I give it a score of 2/10, instead of the 1/10 I so dearly think it deserves.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is indeed a spectacularly bad film, but it is the rare kind of badness that is endlessly, jaw-droppingly entertaining! I want to add to the other comments on this film.<br /><br />The "rock band" on the plane look like three skinny drunks from casual labor wearing bad wigs.<br /><br />Watch for the severe continuity problem with the kid's stuffed tiger: it turns into a lion, a leopard and back again; it's filthy or clean depending on the shot.<br /><br />*SPOILER! The stuffed tiger turns into a real animal to save the kid (and the writers)!<br /><br />The sight of little Jimmy floating down the Amazon in a coffin, clutching his stuffed tiger and squalling away will stick permanently in your memory. <br /><br />Listen for one of the most inept sound effects ever: late in the story when the priest is setting out to find Jimmy, the guide demands his monk's robes as payment-the priest drops on one knee in a moment of resigned contemplation and there is the sound of a bell, not the deep "BONNNNG" of a church bell, but the "ding" of a bell from a boxing match!<br /><br />This is an absolute hoot to watch.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was -Unlike most of the reviewers- not born in the 80's. I was born on may 14th 1994. Despite this, my life was very much in the style of the 80's. When other kids had playstations, I was playing Zelda on my NES etc. Now, this movie holds a special place in my heart already despite me being only 15 years old at the time of writing this review. I, because of my 80's style early Childhood, watched many TV shows and saw Many movies that other kids didn't see, and this movie was one of those, and one of the greatest too.<br /><br />It starts off in the Los Angeles home of Alvin Seville, Simon Seville, Theodore Seville and David Seville. David, the Chipmunk's adoptive father, is in a rush to get to the airport as he is going on a business trip around Europe. His taxi is almost there and The Chipmunks help him pack. While they are talking, Alvin expresses his will to come with Dave and to see the world (Even though, technically Dave is only going to Europe, so to Alvin, apparently only America and Europe qualify as ''The World''). David is leaving the Chipmunks in the care of Miss Miller, much to the displeasure of the boys. Soon Dave is off to the airport and the Chipmunks are left at home with Miss Miller. Later, at a local Café the Chipmunks are playing a game of ''Around the World in 30 days'' against the Chipettes(Brittany, Jeanette and Eleanore). After losing the game to Brittany after having his Hot air Balloon eaten out of the sky by a crocodile, Alvin get's in an argument with Brittany about who would really win a race around the world. Two diamond smugglers sitting at a nearby table, Klaus and Claudia Furschtien overhear their argument and, needing a safe way of transporting their diamonds over the world, decide to fool the children into delivering them for them. They set up a race around the world, where each team will have to deposit a doll in their own likeness (Secretely filled with diamonds) at drop offs around the world and receive a doll in the opposing team's likeness (secretely filled with the payment for the diamonds) to ''varify that they were there''. The winning team would then receive a 100.000 dollar reward. They do this because they believe that Jamal (An Interpol agent who has been hot on their heels for some times now) would never suspect them because they are just kids (However, this seems to be redundant, because on their travels, the kids do not have to go through any security checks and are never even questioned about the dolls, I suspect that neither would Klaus or Claudia if they had taken the diamonds there personally.) And so begins a great adventure. This film is a classic and I see no reason why anyone would not like it. It features great animation and top-notch voice acting, not to mention the Kick-ass music (Pardon my french :P). My favorite song is without a shred of doubt ''The Girls and Boys of Rock and Roll'' An amazing rock song that cannot be topped. It's also my favorite moment in the film. Other notable songs include ''Getting Lucky''(Kind of Suggestive for a kid's film eh?) and ''My Mother'' as well as ''Wooly Bully'' and ''Off to see the world'' Not to mention the main theme of the movie heard during the opening credits performed by the Royal London Philharmonic Orchestra. The scene with ''My mother'' still brings a tear to my eye. In relation to the song ''Getting Lucky'' I first didn't think anything of it, but when I grew older and learned about life, it became clear that that song was a little bit suggestive. That song, along with the fact that the animators insist on the audience knowing the color of the Chipettes panties. This is especially apparent in the scene in Egypt when the Chipettes are being chased by the Arabian Prince's men, when Eleanor leans over the side of the hot air balloon basket and her skirt defies gravity completely. While this does nothing to draw from the overall quality of the film, it's one of those unexplained things like why nobody in the world seems to mind that there are 4-feet tall Chipmunks walking around and speaking in incredibly high-pitched voices and treat them just like they would any human child. Anyway, A bit after that scene, the Chipettes discover the diamonds in the dolls and decide to go find the Chipmunks and get home. The Direction of Janice Karman perfects this movie as she and her husband, Ross Bagdasarian Jr. know the characters better than anyone. They even do the voices of the Chipmunks and the Chipettes. Ross doing the voices for Alvin and Simon (as well as Dave) and Janice doing the voices for All the Chipettes and Theodore. Speaking of male characters that are voiced by female voice actresses, Nancy Cartwright (The voice of Bart Simpson) makes an appearance in this movie. She plays the part of the Arabian Prince, a very small, but important role. The ending is of course, a happy one. The Crooks have been caught, the loose ends tied and The film ends when the Children, Dave and Miss Miller are driving into the sunset, Alvin complaining about not having gotten his 100.000 dollar reward for winning the race, which annoys Dave until he finally yells ''ALVIN!'' and the screen fades to black<br /><br />Classic ending, by the way. I hope you found my review of this movie useful, and if you haven't seen this flick, give it a watch, It's worth the money. This Nostalgic classic from the 80's gets a solid 10 out of 10. <br /><br />''Headin' for the top, Don't you know! we never stop believing now''
| 1 |
positive
|
WOW, a masterpiece of a movie not to be missed. <br /><br />I had no idea what this movie was when I started watching it late night. I didn't find out it was a Stone film until after the film when I went on IMDb. Watching it, I was mesmerized. The cast, especially Eric Bogosian is just superb. One of the best scripts and camera work ever...The movie drew me in and kept me entranced until the very end...I did not dare blink for fear of missing something...Amazing how a small-budget film can be so engrossing and well made while huge-budget films that feature tons of action and computer generated special effects can be so incredibly boring. Don't miss this film...
| 1 |
positive
|
My sister, a friend and I went to see this film for my birthday on the 24th of September. We had all seen the first "Jackass" movie a while back, and we all enjoyed it. We were really looking forward to Number Two.<br /><br />We were not disappointed.<br /><br />From start to finish I was laughing hysterically. It is equal parts shocking and amusing, however, and is definitely not for those with weak stomaches. It is obscene, but it is also groundbreaking American cinema... well, perhaps that's a bit too much praise for a movie where men intentionally get their scrotum's stuck to ice sculptures, but it IS groundbreaking in that it shows us obscenities whether we like it or not, things that no other "decent" American movie released nation-wide would dare show us.<br /><br />There was only one scene in particular that I felt was unnecessarily obscene, and it involved a horse - I'll not elaborate.<br /><br />I laughed, I nearly gagged, and I came damn-close to crying (out of a physical reaction to viewing a scene involving a leech and an eyeball, not sadness). In my humble opinion, "Jackass: Number Two" is THE film of '06.<br /><br />Does that make me a jackass? Perhaps. But if it does, I could really care less.
| 1 |
positive
|
This picture is an interesting saga of the struggle of pioneers led by Daniel Boone in the wilderness of Cumberland Gap while being threatened by hostile Indians. A treacherous Frenchman is the cause of all the trouble between the settlers and the red men while Boone tries to convince the Indians that the pioneers only want to build homes and live in peace. The film has a certain appeal because it is not a polished production but there are good action scenes, although somewhat violent for its time. The cast is comprised of B actors but they are all good, especially Lon Chaney as the Indian chief. Bruce Bennett is okay as Boone but is a bit too clean cut and soft spoken to be believable as a frontiersman. The dialogue is rather trite but the scenery lends itself to the realism of the Kentucky backwoods.
| 1 |
positive
|
It was a rare treat to see "Checking Out". I was touched by the characters, laughed a lot at the wonderful script, and was deeply moved by the genuine emotions magnificently portrayed by this ensemble cast and especially by Peter Falk. In fact, one of his scenes in the kitchen of his apartment with his children where he tells of his experience of his life, his deep love for his wife and his decisions about his life going forward is so profoundly real that it is at the highest level of the best Academy Award-winning performances. He is a consummate actor who out-did himself in this film. The screenwriter offers a combination of literary knowledge, timing, a gift for dialogue and hilarious situations that had me laughing out loud in the theater. I highly recommend "Checking Out" to everyone wanting to enjoy quality storytelling superbly acted.
| 1 |
positive
|
Most of the films I really like are art-house fare and seldom appear on the box-office top-ten lists. That said, I found "Northfork" utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what it was even about. Writing in the New York Times about a different film, Stephen Holden once observed that some people seem to think they can throw just anything up on the screen and have it work as a fairy tale. I thought of that review several times while watching "Northfork".<br /><br />On a scale of one to ten, I gave it a two.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the best movies I've seen. The acting is good, the plot is solid, and the whole movie is very believable, which adds a lot to the movie. I rate this at least a 9.
| 1 |
positive
|
There is nothing worse than science fiction crafted by folks who don't have a feel for it. Grasping at a concept which wouldn't be so terrible by itself (a future where cloning is common enough that it is necessary to make it a crime for you to breed with someone too close to you genetically) the screenwriter proceeded to allow his ill-suited imagination to run wild.<br /><br />When Tim Robbins' character was able to guess a security guard's computer password simply by getting her to tell him one thing about herself, I knew I was in for trouble. This ability was later revealed to be due to Robbins having taken an "empathy virus", viruses being used to grant instant (or nearly instant) skill upgrades to their users. Robbins' love interest complained about her own experience with such a virus -- a Mandarin Chinese language virus, which allowed her to speak Chinese, but as she complained, "she couldn't understand what she was saying." Okay, first off, empathy, no matter how intense, isn't ESP. Without incorporating some sort of true mind-reading aspect (like an empathy virus which actively releases virions into the vicinity, infects nearby people, picks up bits of their memory, then departs for the original host -- which is, as you can probably tell, a smidgeon on the impractical side) you can't justify being able to determine a specific detail like someone's password just by "listening to the things you didn't say". Nor can you acquire the ability to speak a language without understanding what you're saying -- the virus can't infect your vocal cords and translate for you on the fly, because a virus can't *think*. To give you the power to speak Chinese, such a learning virus would have to modify your brain. It would have to encode the knowledge among neurons, and once it's in there, it's *yours* -- you certainly understand what you're saying, because you have to. To use your own brain to perform a task, you must understand that task (for the most part). Unless, of course, they movie is suggesting that the virus was deliberately designed to put in place some bizarre multiple-personality mental schism where some sub-personae of yours functions as a built-in, one-way translator.<br /><br />The mélange of languages spoken by the characters is decent enough, although nowhere near remarkable enough to warrant all the love other reviewers have given. What's more, all the multicultural insertions in the world can't make up for a simple, frustrating fact: The dialog stinks! It's slow, it's plodding, and it's unnatural. Again, I'm sure adherents have convinced themselves that the dull strangeness is simply the result of an inspired genius creating a truly futuristic (and therefore subjected to linguistic drift) form of speech. I disagree. Good dialog is good dialog in any era -- and the same goes for tripe.<br /><br />Lastly, I'll revisit the central concept of the movie -- the banning of sex with yourself. Widespread cloning is a nice, classic sci-fi topic. So is global warming leading to ecological devastation (which Code 46 also incorporates). Unfortunately, the two don't go together! If you have an ecological disaster cutting down severely on the available living area, you don't run around cloning people! You have population problems enough as it is -- you don't add to them by cranking out re-issues. Regular, old-fashioned sex-and-birth provides all the population you need, and cloning of any sort would be ruthlessly suppressed.<br /><br />To be fair, the movie wasn't all bad. It had some nice cinematography. Perhaps if I had watched it muted, I could've enjoyed it.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was childish in its writing and laughable in its visual effects. Scenes where Father Merrin is tossing in his bed and his glimpses of a gimpy native are signs of bad acting and poor imagination. Nothing seems to fit. The story jumps from scene to scene. The elementary writing leaves no fact to the imagination and leaves no room for suspense. The lady doctor at one point states that she thinks the town is going to "explode soon" from all the crazy happenings. There was, in fact, nothing in the movie to make that line relevant. From the terrible job the movie had done, I would have never known that there were any tensions in the village. If you are into cheesy movies go ahead and rent this, but if you want to see this done right check out Exorcist:The Beginning
| 0 |
negative
|
An airplane transporting some scientists and a prototype of a DNA machine, a powerful and revolutionary invent, fall in a jungle in Pacific. The insurance company sponsors a rescue expedition, commanded by Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), the owner of a huge corporation, which owns the prototype, and father of one of the scientist. There, the group finds the rests of the plane five miles far from the expected location and the machine and the remains of the persons. Further, they realize that a Sasquatch, a kind of Big Foot, is chasing them. This movie is so ridiculous that I do not know what I am doing, spending my time again in this garbage. The direction is awful, the actors and the lines are horrible, copying parts of `The Predator' and even `The Blair Witch Project'. To summarize how bad this movie is, its best scene is when Marla Lawson, the character of Andrea Roth, is wounded, and the guide of the expedition says that she needs to have an injection of tetanus vaccine. Andrea undresses her jeans, and the guide says: 'Nice butts, but the shot needs to be in your arm'. Ridiculous! My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Sasquatch, O Abominável' (`Sasquatch, The Abominable')<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the "Battlefield Earth" of mini series. It has with a few exceptions, all the disastrous ingredients that doomed that movie and will follow it to the grave in the turkey cemetery. They are both adaptations of books with a endless amount of pages who has been turned to a complete mess by a script writer and a director (In this case they are the same person.) who clearly don't know what they are doing, they have both a messiah wannabe that don't really deliver, as a hero (Played in this case by a guy that looks like Mark Hamill but sadly the force is not with him.) and a bunch of stupid bad guys who likes to betray and mess up the life for each other, they are both containing scenes stolen from better productions and they are both cheap productions who tries to look expensive with some (often badly made) computer animation. The exceptions that actually makes the whole thing worse is the terrible work made by the lighting guy who don't even have the skills to turn on the light in his own living room, the camera work that for no reasons at all sometimes are in tilted "Battlefield Earth" mode but for the most of the time are flat as a pancake, the extremely cheap and to small desert set that only contents a pile of sand in the front of a backdrop painted as a desert, that turns very old very fast because it appears in almost every scene, and the bad idea by the costume designer to try to mimic "The fifth element"'s fashion madness with the addition of the silliest hats ever made. Silly moments to remember: 1. Every scene with the guild guys, who looks like MST3K's observer guys but with silly hats. 2. Irulan shows up at the party dressed in her butterfly dress (Why butterflys? -was the one with stuffed parrots in the cleaner?) with matching silly hat, together with a couple of guys with silly balloon hats. 3. Paul the stand-up comedian. 4. Baron Harkonnen in over acting overdrive, screaming "I,m alive". 5. Every Scene with the backdrop, because it newer fits the foreground 6. Every scene with the Fremen's fake religious cermonies, specially the "water of life" cermony. 7. The battle scenes where the same guys gets killed a couple times and the same things explodes over and over again. It is a lot more but it is a 1000 words limit on this so i better stop before i gets carried away.
| 0 |
negative
|
An Epic Story of Hope constrained by budget and limited artistic ambition. Seeing as Terrence Malick produced this, I expected something haunting and lyrical. Instead, we get a typical Norwegian co-production ("Revolution" with Al Pacino, anyone?), where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes. The "me-Tarzan-you-Jane" English dialogue between the non-English-speaking protagonists is particularly cringeworthy one could speculate whether Nick Nolte and Tim Roth ad-libbed their own, as they almost sound like real people. The story is loaded with implausibility: we are expected to believe that Binh can speak a smattering of English after having spent his entire life living as a peasant slave (his vocabulary, but unfortunately not grammatical command, increases impressively in the Malayan refugee camp, without the benefit of night classes). Coincidence is rife; I wonder whether an hour or two has been edited from the first third: he tracks down his mother in Ho Chi Minh City almost immediately - after bumping into his thirty year younger half brother, who nonchalantly recognises him! Mum gives him a gold locket (or something similar of great value) as they part, but this is never referred to again. His relationship with "Me Dead Inside" Ling is supposed to provide the obligatory "love interest", but feels as artificial as Leonardo and Cameron in "Gangs Of New York". <br /><br />The voyage in the rust bucket of a boat does convey a sense of the appalling conditions that human trafficking entails. Indeed, the only time the film is remotely exciting and unpredictable, is the jerky, hand-held footage shot from the bridge during choppy weather conditions. (Incidentally, a boat cruise from Malaysia to New York via The Cape Of Good Hope and the African coast, without stopping for fuel or supplies, is certainly an epic journey). The beautiful shot of the New York skyline echoes Malick's use of magic hour, but I want to know why the Coast Guard didn't show up. Perhaps they were watching the Super Bowl, or something. Of course, Binh manages to track down his blind old Dad on a remote farm in Texas, with the same navigational flair he displayed in Ho Chi Minh City. I was impressed at how Nick Nolte could wander around digging fields and feeding horses on a large ranch without the aid of a guide dog or white stick. For demonstration of how a story about the travails befalling refugees could be structured and shot on a small budget, check out Michael Winterbottom's far superior "In This World".
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a perfect example of the 90's mainstream horror crap.Nothing is scary here and the film is almost bloodless.Yes,there is some violence,but everything is politically correct like in a TV movie.This is not a completely bad picture,I can safely say that I found it quite enjoyable.However a lack of the originality really hurts "Voodoo".All in all if you are a part of the mainstream audience and pseudo-horror movies like "Scream" are your favourite then you'll love "Voodoo",but if you want something very gruesome avoid this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.<br /><br />Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.<br /><br />Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.<br /><br />PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!
| 0 |
negative
|
Sjöströms masterpiece and a movie that captures the swedish soul . It also served as a great inspiration for Bergman; the similarites between Körkarlen and Smultronstället (with Sjöström in the leading role as Isak Borg) from 1957 is not a coincidence. Don't miss it for the world!
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm originally from Brazil... the sad thing about this movie was the exploitation that was done to that boy. They told his life story and he never got one "centavo" (Brazilian cent) of that movie. Fernando is not the first and will not be the last to go through that life style in Brazil. Sad... but that is the world we live in. It's about making money not saving lives. Question is: Where is Fernando today? Most probably... dead. We tend to want to live in this "Disney filled fantasy bubbled life". When someone comes up to the plate to help... along comes the higher power and says: "What do I get from this? Where's my cut?" - I wish people's conscience would speak up!
| 1 |
positive
|
I just re-watched a few episodes of this series on very poor VHS tapes that I recorded the series on. I'm glad I did, though.<br /><br />Ramona is based on the children's books by Beverly Cleary and follows the adventures of the title eight-year-old (Sarah Polley). She has fun with friends and family and gets into trouble much like many eight-year-olds. All ten episodes are pretty good. "Mystery Meal" kind of grosses me out as a vegan, but it's funny seeing the parents trying to get their kids to eat cow's tongue! And any episode that mentions Godzilla Versus The Smog Monster twice can't be all bad. I like "Ramona's Bad Day" even more. Although it's disheartening to see Ramona going through a rough day, she does imagine herself getting revenge on her friend Howie's uncle (a pre-Psi Factor Barclay Hope), who always teases her. "The Perfect Day" is also good.<br /><br />Lori Chodos plays Beezus, Ramona's sister. I swear I've seen her on something else, but IMDb doesn't list anything besides this show. Unfortunately, this series is not on DVD. Why is every crappy show made these days on DVD except something I'd actually like to buy? An injustice if there ever was one!
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a story of a long and awkward love. The daily life of a woman of 50 years old and some people around her is depicted. Her daily life is so ordinary and routine that I doubted who was the real lead character in the beginning. Then the audiences know that the woman and a man who was her high-school class mate had very tiny connection. The woman has been doing the same job - a milk-woman and a supermarket casher - so long. There are so many slopes that delivering milk bottles is a very hard job. The man had married another woman, who is now dying of cancer. He works at the City Hall and devotedly cares her at home. They never look straight nor talk each other, but they never forget each other. <br /><br />The original Japanese title means "At some time the days you read books". But of course when the man said "Now I want to do what I've always wanted to do", it was to hug her and make love with her. She writes to a radio disk jockey that "If God gives us time to talk, we need at least a whole day". Dreaming of that day, she has been sublimating the desire in hard work and book reading. I personally know a woman who has loved a man for long years, even after he married another woman and died for an accident. Therefore the story setting is not that special. Rather, this movie well portrays unspoken romances in many ordinary men and women. Through this movie, you will recall your romance that is lost long ago. This is a movie with lasting effect.
| 1 |
positive
|
The figure of empress Elizabeth of Austria (1837-1898) is, indeed, mostly associated with Romy Schneider and the Sissi trilogy by Ernst Marischka (1950s) where beauty, gentleness, sweetness but also history are ever present. This was the Sissi, perhaps myth for some; however, a powerful portrayal. The spirit of the Habsburgs' grandeur as well as the spirit of the Bavarian simplicity and straightforwardness influenced much those films. Simply, they did have a soul. However, Jean Daniel Verhaeghe's film, though made 50 years later, appears to be a wrong depiction of the empress and her life. It seems to be an attempt to show something different, to reveal some realism as a cure to sweetness; yet, it does not occur to add a lot but rather deprives the whole story of much. Let me analyze that in more details.<br /><br />September 1898, Sissi embarks at the port of Geneva. Accompanied by her court maid, she goes to visit Dr Mayer (Didier Bezace) whom she is going to tell the whole life story in order to find herself in this tragic life. The action consists of flashbacks to important moments in Sissi's life, yet these moments are chaotically presented and, therefore, someone not very knowledgeable of Austrian history may get totally misled or confused. Much attention is drawn on Sissi's bad marriage with the emperor Franz Josef. The scene of her wedding night is a failure. No one treated an empress like that (I mean undressing and payment). The focus on Sissi being misunderstood is right historically, however, the points that her views differ from the rest of the courtiers' are not the true ones. Where is her desire for peace? Where is her love to her nation? Where is her charity? Sissi appears to be rather very elegant, modern, liberal (from the 21st century's point of view). She foremost cares for her looks which is not true historically. Sissi had an inner life which is not showed in the film. "Once women will wear trousers" is a sentence said by her and occurs to be the image of the Sissi presented in the movie. Sissi detests monarchy, which is the film's noticeable criticism towards Austrian empire. Moreover, she partly accepts anarchist movements and, to my very surprise, she blames her husband, emperor Franz Josef, for the death of Rudolph, their son. Where is any mention in history that Sissi was present in Mayerling? Sissi's relation with Sophie, the mother in law, is better shown, however the scene of Sophie's death seems barely authentic and the conversation a bit of cliché.<br /><br />Sorry to criticize so much but another crucial aspect of the movie which I find weak here are performances. Although Arielle Dombasle has her moments as Sissi, she generally does not suit to the role. She looks more like a "femme fa tale" than a tragic empress. Her make up is seriously inaccurate as well as most of her gestures as the empress. Malik Zidi is a bit better as Rudolph and may be regarded as the one raising the value of the performances, in general. Yet, Stephane Audran does no special job as Sophie: you simply don't get the impression of why she detests Sissi. She did despise her for the sake of Sissi's young age while crowned, for the sake of her behavior, lifestyle and her believes. Partly it appears in the movie but definitely that is not enough. But the greatest mistake is, I think, Julien Hans Capua as Andrassi. Andrassi was a count with pride, honor, patriotism...here, he appears to be a sort of libertine thinking only to make love to his queen. And the portrayal is so weak that this performance is very very pale. The accurate choice is Tatyana Ivanova as Catherine Schratt, she really fits to the role with her looks and her gestures. But, unfortunately, her role does not require much time on screen.<br /><br />A good point of this movie are some costumes and pretty authentic locations. The port of Geneva is well presented and the moment of Sissi's death occurs to be a good surprise from the movie. It does not appear to be how it really was; however, the moment is good from the symbolical perspective...the empress walks and knows nothing that this is her final moment. That is how she must have felt about it, that is how one insane man destroyed a part of greatness of the world. Another good moment visually was when Sissi talks to her son Rudolph on Corfu. But these moments are rare.<br /><br />In sum, it's not a good film. It distorts a very eminent historical figure, a significant historical time, it tries to cure the sweetness of Sissi trilogy but appears to offer nothing creative. Charm is gone, grandeur is gone and history is ignored! Not very worth seeking out! 3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Just finished watching this one after getting sick of getting ready for the Michigan Bar Exam. I wanted something that was mindless and that I could just sit back and say, "what the hell were they thinking?" I was not disappointed in this undertaking, but had I been watching this one in a serious mood, I would have been irate. The company that made this thing just spliced CGI footage from the first Octopus and added a little footage with a fake octopus that makes the one used in "Bride of the Monster" look like a masterpiece of special effect footage. Since when does an octopus have fangs? The plot is that an NYPD diver is investigating some murders/disappearances on the Hudson River shortly before the Fourth of July. He and his partner (who is soon to be transferred, or soon to be munched on by a fig bucking octopus) investigate in a rather inept manner (all the while believing that a huge octopus will kill people) and are occasionally accompanied by a female lackey from the Mayor's office. Of course on one believes that an octopus can get that big until the thing attacks the cop and the girl from the mayor's office. Surprisingly, all hell doesn't break loose and only a few cops and a few more civilians are killed.<br /><br />Really lame. Don't bother with it.
| 0 |
negative
|
I had the misfortune to watch this last night on the BBC, I expect I may have been the only viewer. From the beginning there was something quite wrong about the movie, after a few minutes of viewing i managed to work out what it was. THE MOVIE WAS BAD! Not bad in a good way like Wolfpack or a Seagal film just plain old shoddy bad.<br /><br />Why was this made into a movie? I've seen a few episodes of the TV series and thought it was alright but I only saw repeats of that because they made this.<br /><br />I spent most of the film trying to work out what the story was and by the end I was none the wiser. I seem to remember at some point a character, maybe Farina's mentions that the Mod Squad can get in to places regular cops can't. The 'place' turns out to be a 'club', one of the toughest places to get into, maybe it was student night? I lost track of the plot at this point or maybe there was no plot and the movie was just chopped together from various leftovers from other TV series remakes.<br /><br />Was it an action comedy? I don't remember any laughs.<br /><br />Overall this movie lacked the real scene stealing power of someone like Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy. With him Ribisi would have had somebody to bounce off.
| 0 |
negative
|
Viva La Bam was one of those shows that I didn't have high if any expectations for, before seeing it, and I never even knew about it until I saw my friend watching it. I had thought Jackass was pretty funny but the stunts were just that, funny and I never really got into the show. When I watched Viva La Bam for the first time it was the complete opposite effect, I loved it. It had more of a TV Show feel to it, which a lot of the "Reality Shows" have today. I was hooked and I wanted to see what new scheme they were going to cook up for each episode. All the way to the last episode it held my interest and even though some of the ideas seemed rehashed at times, it always had a newer and funnier twist to it. Viva La Bam is one of those shows that get you hooked and I have yet to see another show that is quite like it.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting "Survivor"-ish plot.<br /><br />But it does not work at all.<br /><br />To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's "Short Cuts".<br /><br />Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick "Lear" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of "Lear". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.<br /><br />And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as "Lear" and the rest of the film.<br /><br />"The King Is Alive" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films "Italiensk for begyndere" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is just my all time favorite movie. Nothing special. It's just so incredibly detailed. Makes me cry just thinking about it. Geronimo Bill is the nicest guy I can imagine. Money is not important. Bamboo spears are important. You don't need money to get what you need. If you need something it will just come to you. If people would realize that the world would be a much better place. Whatever you do, don't do it for the money.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie features a pretty decent FX sequence of an earthquake for 1936. The reason you haven't seen it, is because audiences in the 30s were enamored of the "Jeanette MacDonald picture;" in which the eponymous star warbled her way through countless songs, while plots came to a complete standstill. The FX cross time very well. MacDonald's songs do not, and the awkward insertion of said songs to show off her only typical talent is not good. <br /><br />The hoary device of two friends growing up to become a priest and a hoodlum is given another run through the machinery (Manhattan Melodrama, The Departed). At the 30 minute mark, you've already heard the song 'San Francisco' three times. Entertainment in the thirties is generally an accumulation of irritation. Only Grand Hotel from the decade foregoes annoyance to the degree shown in San Francisco, Dinner at 8, Little Caesar, Stagecoach, All Quiet on the Western Front, Les Miserables etc..
| 0 |
negative
|
This small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and heart. Six stars out of five.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you just watched All Dogs Go To Heaven, and learn that there's a sequel, don't watch it. It's horrible. It's absolutely awful. They rush the characters to develop. Sasha, for example, begins singing about how you can count her out for love. And at the end, this seems more like a dramatic romance flick than a comedy-adventure film. They rip Charlie out of his character and replace him with a gushy, soft, but still rebellious version of himself.<br /><br />The humor behind Carface's character is just completely lost. He's a totally different dog. He doesn't have a cool voice anymore, he isn't that villain you love to hate anymore, he's just a wimp voiced by none other than Mermaid Man from Spongebob. Speaking of voice actors..<br /><br />Charlie has a completely different voice. And while it isn't horrible, I don't like it. It's terrible in comparison to the excellent job that Burt Reynolds did for the character in the first film. Dom DeLuise is wonderful as always, as Itchy. That character stays true, and that's why this film gets a 3/10. Purely because Dom DeLuise was still voicing Itchy.<br /><br />Oh, and my last complaint. I know Ann-Marie's movie was done and gone, she has parents now, etc, but did Charlie completely forget about her, or what? No mention at ALL of her in the second film. I mean, even a small mention from Itchy would have been acceptable. (ex. "Charlie, we have to get back. You can't take care of every kid that needs rescuing.) Or something of the sort. I mean, he died living with her, she deserves some kind of mention.<br /><br />Don't watch this if you're looking for a wonderful sequel.
| 0 |
negative
|
Clive Barker of Hellraiser fame has written and produced a fantasy horror film that is funny and exciting.<br /><br />The make-up done by Bob Keen and Geoffrey Portass was fantastic. It took quite an imagination to come up with these mutants that lived underground. It was really a treat to see the quality of work.<br /><br />It wasn't particularly horrible, as the worst creature was actually a human serial killer.<br /><br />I just saw Craig Sheffer in Shadow of Doubt the other day and he did a good job in this film also. Nothing spectacular, but fair. This was only Anne Bobby's third film, and she was good also.<br /><br />The ending was spectacular and the rednecks got their just desserts, as did David Cronenberg. Ha!
| 1 |
positive
|
There's something strange about the antisocial sentiment you can find in some Cheech And Chong material. One of the songs in Up In Smoke, well, I often wish more songs these days began that way. But in this excuse for a video, the stoner duo are showing us the videos for four songs from their album of the moment, also titled Get Out Of My Room. You hear a voice-over during the opening credits in which some anonymous producer describes the record as being a novelty recording that will just take up room on the charts. Unfortunately, this opening voice-over hits the nail right on the head.<br /><br />Most music recordings endorsed by the RIAA seem to keep to a rule of putting the best material early in the album. Often, when one gets past that first song, the discerning listener notices that the recording has little, if anything, to hold their attention. Bands that defied mainstream convention, on the other hand, often saved their best material for last, or at least spread it evenly throughout the disc. In this case, Cheech And Chong appear to have decided to hedge their bets. The opening piece, Get Out Of My Room, is a hilariously-themed song with an incredibly bad video. Many a viewer of a 1980s music video will find the sloppy direction somewhat nostalgic. Cheech's conception of British punk is also incredibly funny.<br /><br />Where it all goes downhill is the second number, I'm Not Home Right Now. Nothing kills interest in a song quite like repetition, and it's tough to get more repetitive than this aural turd. Honestly, one feels the urge to slap Cheech in the face and tell him that we get the idea, he isn't home right now, so please move on. The next song, along the theme of love being a strange thing, is the absolute rock bottom not only for this collection, but for Cheech And Chong in general. It's almost as if this song was made for the sole reason of padding out the album's running time.<br /><br />Fortunately, the stoner duo saved the best for last, but it is also curious to note that Chong is completely absent from this cut. Born In East L.A. is a simple number based upon the old Bruce Springsteen number that mocks Reagan's view of multiculturalism. As one is regaled by Cheech's tale, one has to wonder how many poor schleps who couldn't speak a word of Spanish were deported to Mexico simply because their skin wasn't bedsheet-white. Racism was an integral part of America's culture in 1985, and it remains so today. If anything, it has gotten worse, so one has to wonder what Born In East L.A. would be like if it were written in the current era.<br /><br />Unfortunately, two cuts does not an album make, especially when there is so much boring filler between them. The interviews before Get Out Of My Room, for example, are quite funny. Not side-splitting like much of Up In Smoke, but funny enough to justify their existence. Unfortunately, the two middle songs are reflected in their making-of footage. Boring song makes boring filler. If you cut out the middle half-hour of material from this video, you'd have something substantially better.<br /><br />I gave Get Out Of My Room a three out of ten. They are earned by the first and last video. I'm pretty certain that the stars look at material like this today and wonder what they were thinking.
| 0 |
negative
|
Aside from the gunfight scene, I felt the movie was a waste of celluloid. Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, and Annette Bening could have played those roles in their sleep. The dialog was marginally tolerable (and there was plenty of it--no one sat together quietly in this movie), the plot was all over the map as if they could not decide how many themes to cram into the story, there was no subtlety at all--foreshadowing hit you between the eyes and they led you by the nose through most of the story (I think they added all the dialog to make sure you didn't miss anything), and the editing really needed tightening up (each actor's screen time was more quantity than quality--again, too much dialog).<br /><br />The entire story took place over the course of a few days, but everything that happened took on epic proportions, much like how day-to-day happenings seemed HUGE to you in high school, but in the grand scheme really weren't THAT important. Yes, the bad guys beat up and killed Mose, they beat up Button, they killed the dog--all things which would get Boss and Charley's blood up. But the importance was diluted by all of the "deep, meaningful" conversations which dominated most of the movie. These guys worked together for 10 years and they're just now talking about this stuff? The only time there wasn't much dialog was in the gunfight scene--which is probably why I liked it.<br /><br />Finally, someone give Annette Bening a hairbrush! The wispy strands of hair around her face that were (I suppose) to make her look a bit more romantic actually made her look a little deranged. If she worked outside the home, it would have made more sense. Plus, why WASN'T she married already? There seemed to be several "kind and gentle" (her words) single men in town aside from the marshal and his cronies. In fact, none of the bad guys seemed to want her either (a usual plot device in other movies). She stayed cooped up in the house most of the time and really didn't seem to have much connection to the people in town. Makes you wonder......<br /><br />In all, the movie was entirely too long, too chatty, and too contrived for me. It felt like a star vehicle with lots of screen time for the big stars, but not enough character depth to interest me, despite all of the dialog.
| 0 |
negative
|
at least for me. and rather unexpected -as subject. a movie that makes you question your beliefs, your life, your approach on everything. that helps you see the world you , we live in through a lens - or a multitude of lens...a moving, surprising and haunting movie.<br /><br />and it benefits of one of the best performances ever from Kevin Spacey. seconded very well by Jeff Bridges. there isn't a false note in this tango. it's a perfect dance. perfect 'till the end.<br /><br />what does the ending reveal ? well...everything you want it to...<br /><br />a movie one will want to see again. maybe not right away. maybe after a few days. months. years. but it's something to go - or come - back to.
| 1 |
positive
|
An enjoyable movie, without a doubt, and very evocative of both its era and that very particular stage in any boy's 'rites of passage'. But I have to say that having read the very positive comments here, I was a bit disappointed. The period was captured, but the plot was desperately thin. The whole thing revolves around the most egregious bit of miscasting in the history of school plays. The idea that quack quack would ever be chosen to play not only one of only three star turns, but a philanderer, is risible. And without that, nada. The sub-plots bore no relation that I could see to the main plot - all of them could be removed in their entirety without in any way affecting the main story - which surely suggests a fundamental flaw. When all your sub-plots look like padding, you know a central idea is being stretched beyond its limits. Nevertheless, it's a benign movie with its heart in the right place, there are some fine performances, and you just get the feeling that everyone involved felt deflated at the final 'cut!' That good feeling permeates the film. And that has to count for something. A flawed really quite good movie. 7 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was recommended to me by some academics. From their comments, I had some pretty lofty expectations. But this movie was nothing but disappointing. The aim of the director is obvious--to use an interweaving of speeches/poems as a way to argue against the Bush doctrine. But the director fails miserably at this. Also I seriously question the director's choice of main character. It's a bum who is definitely not worthy of being heard. The rise of corporation power, so what? Most importantly, this movie gets a failing score in its persuasive power; it's clearly intended for those who've already formed their opinions. It's true that the movie's aesthetics are quite pleasing. But pretty much everything else in the movie simply sucks.
| 0 |
negative
|
Robert Aldrich's brutal, quasi-black comedy "The Grissom Gang", a reworking of the 1948 British film "No Orchids For Miss Blandish", has 1920s heiress Kim Darby kidnapped by a pack of clumsy thieves; soon, that gang is dispatched and poor Kim is then transferred into the clutches of another crooked bunch--third-rate gangster brothers with sweaty, pasty faces and a mother who looks like Buddy Ebsen in drag. At first, Darby (not very plucky, and not very smart) attempts to escape this drooling brood, but they're onto her. Eventually she just gives up trying, and therein lies the trouble with the story. Are we in the audience supposed to sympathize with her? Is her growing concern for the family half-wit supposed to be heartwarming? These are disgusting, cretinous characters, and I wanted to see as little of them as possible. But since the side-stories (the progress of the cops on the case and another one involving floozy-singer Connie Stevens) are rather dull, the director has no choice but to keep foisting those sweaty faces on us. Pretty soon, nervous Darby starts sweating too, although her scene up in the hayloft is sensitively performed and Aldrich's climactic moments are thought-provoking, if disorganized. ** from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
Sometimes a movie is so bad it's kind of good. This movie was made in Germany and is dubbed in English, so you have to get past that. The acting also was stilted and forced, other than what was done by the real rats, who IMO did an excellent job of acting the part. Snaps to the rat wrangler. Anyway, the mayor of the city has decided to cut costs and the local garbage collectors go on strike as a result, thus leaving large piles of trash everywhere. This storyline has been used before, not to mention has happened in real life (too often unfortunately) and the audience is not in for any surprises. But this is fine. We know what's going to happen and when, and sometimes an audience needs a movie where a lot of brain cells are not necessary to follow along. We have our hero, down to the chiseled face and body, the semi-hero(s), and of course our heroine, who happens to be the doctor, but only still in training, though it is she who discovers what really is going on when so many people end up sick and dying, and not just from a rat bite. Of course the villain must die (okay, all the villains, meaning the rats), and the ending scene is one of those that reminds the audience that a sequel is in the works. This is one of those movies that you just sit back and enjoy for what it is and what it is not.
| 1 |
positive
|
Thank you The FilmZone for showing this sleazy soft core sex flick at 1 a.m. I truly enjoyed it. To be honest, I expected a lot more from a sexy cast with McKayla, Dru Berrymore, and of course, the talented Chloe Nicholle (as Rebecca Carter).<br /><br />The production values are truly bad mainly because of the low budget but a little more effort wouldn't harm. For example, the cinematography makes it look like a hard core porno movie. There's absolutely no effort in lightning. But let's ignore that fact because let's be honest, we watched "Pleasures of Sin" because of the high amounts of sex.<br /><br />The sex factor is pretty good and offers steamy, explicit scenes. Chole Nicholle delivers the best performance of the female cast.<br /><br />So my advice is , watch this movie if you are in the mood for good explicit sex or just watch it if you are a fan of Mrs. Nicholle.<br /><br />Recommended only for the sex scenes; don't expect anything else.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one awful movie!! Some people told me that it was not that bad actually but I sure disagree! The monster is amazingly cheap (and funny) looking but this is something we all knew I guess. In addition to that, the dialogs are awful and the writing is just plain terrible.<br /><br />As bad as it is, this movie as the quality of being entertaining. Not always for the good reasons but it's a good "so bad that it's fun" flick.<br /><br />By the way, there's no such thing as "La Castagne". According to a secondary character in the film named Pierre (described in the movie as a French Canadian), there's a legend among French Canadians about a giant bird know as "La Castagne". As a French Canadian myself, I can assure you that I never heard of such a legend. It sure made me laugh though... :))
| 0 |
negative
|
It is sad what they are letting into film festivals these days. I had to sit through over twenty minutes of this dreary short that wasn't funny at all to get a good seat for a feature film that I wanted to see at a local film festival. The festival planners paired this horrible short with a great feature. I am just glad the feature was good, otherwise I would have not been a very happy camper!<br /><br />For a comedy short film it got no laughs. The title says it all.
| 0 |
negative
|
University Professor Justin Thorne (Jimmy Smits) has got it made. A good-looking, sophisticated teacher, with a loving wife and two adorable children. He plays the saxophone, owns an expensive car and his students love and respect him. But when temptation calls, in the form of one of his bright, pretty, sexy and willing students, Jennifer Carter (Naomi Watts), he foolishly gives in. The next day, he is being charged with her rape, and his perfect life could be forever ruined.<br /><br />When we see an American actor in Australian film, we know we are not in for a masterpiece. But even viewed with low expectations, "Gross Misconduct" is a huge flop. Based on a play with a rather unimaginative title and then adapted into a reasonably enjoyable book, it fails to engage, convince or even remotely interest its audience on a most fundamental level. The script is awkward and unconvincing; the acting is, for most part, not much better. Watts gives an acceptable performance, demonstrating for one of the first times on screen her emotion rawness, but she is the only good thing about the film, which seems almost like even it can't wait to be over.<br /><br />The direction is not horrible or distracting in anyway, but it is just painfully mediocre. Apart from the afore-mentioned Naomi Watts, who could be forgiven, seeing as this was early in her career, the acting is wooden and gets steadily worse over the course of the movie. The usually reliable Jimmy Smits doesn't seem to have been trying in this one, and who could really blame him? All these small failures, however, only add to the film's ultimate fatal flaw, which is that the focus is entirely in the wrong place. Any empathy for the characters or interest in the outcome is lost in a sea of what is basically soft-core entertainment of an adult kind. By the end, audiences will probably be bored, tired and wishing they'd done something else with their ninety minutes. Unless you just want to see Naomi get naked 4 or 5 times, you could definitely afford to give this nonevent film a miss.
| 0 |
negative
|
Hated it with all my being. Worst movie ever. Mentally- scarred. Help me. It was that bad.TRUST ME!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie was pathetically awful. The sound was terrible, the action was ridiculous and the effects were nauseating. If you have a life don't see this movie, cause you will want to kill yourself. This movie totally rips off Blade (which is undoubtedly a really good movie...or trilogy I should say).<br /><br />I don't care who the actors are, this movie is just horrible. I watched 10 minutes of it and had to come to my computer and comment on how absolutely just bad this movie is. I actually don't know why my family is still watching it...oh wait, yes I do. They are laughing almost non-stop at the stupid action, dialogue and acting.
| 0 |
negative
|
There are certain horror directors for whom I've built up so much respect & admiration over the years, that they can't possibly disappoint me know matter what garbage to decide to put on film. Lucio Fulci is surely one of them, but damned, he's trying to disappoint me with his later efforts! You can easily afford yourself to skip most of the films Fulci directed or produced during the late 80's and simply watch "Cat in the Brain" instead, because that one title gathers and repeats the best and absolute goriest footage of no less than SEVEN other Fulci-flicks, including the sickest murders sequences featuring in "When Alice Broke the Mirror". As a whole, this movie definitely ranks among our director's weakest and most pointless achievements. The script is incoherent as hell, the basic premise is totally implausible and somewhat stupid and there's absolutely no suspense to enjoy. I love the title, but it's actually quite meaningless. There is a character named Alice in the story, but it's only a supportive role and she certainly doesn't break any mirrors. I suppose she could break stuff simply using her voice, as she's an opera singer, but she doesn't. The plot revolves on a middle-aged and gambling-addicted playboy who spends his days seducing wealthy widows and killing them for their money. Lester Parson butchers the ladies (as well as unwelcome witnesses) in gruesome ways, makes steaks out of their juiciest body parts and feeds the remainders to his cat. There's also a silly psychological sub plot in which he thinks his own shadow is responsible for the murders instead of him. The difference between "When Alice Broke the Mirror" and some of Fulci's greatest horror films ("The Beyond", "City of the Living Dead",
") lies in the fact that he totally doesn't bother to create a horrific atmosphere. The characters, Lester included, are colorless and boring and the murders are ordinarily depicted; like it's the most common thing in the world to put a woman's head in a microwave or repeatedly run back and forth over a human body with a car. The lighting is poor, the cinematography super-ugly, the editing clumsy and amateurish and the acting performances are downright miserable. If I didn't know any better, I would think Lucio deliberately made a lousy film in order to protest against all the harsh critics that dislike his repertoire no matter how much spirit and effort he put into it. The obvious element to enjoy here is simply the outrageous gore & bloodshed, because even the attempt to blend in black comedy doesn't work properly. As long as Lester swings around his chainsaw and cuts off women's feet, "When Alice Broke the Mirror" is an undemanding piece of horror entertainment, but other than that, there's isn't a whole lot to recommend.
| 0 |
negative
|
I would not recommend it whatsoever. It was like getting stuck in the middle row of a theater, so I couldn't leave, and watching a part porn movie (except they didn't take their clothes off - it was the body language and definitely the language). I have to say I was embarrassed. Filming was very low budget, no good dialogue. Yuck. Actors stunk except The two best characters who got killed off (?) and they were David Carradine and Dennis Hopper. It did smack of Kill Bill and that old movie with the two guys who ride the dessert on their chopppers. You know what I mean. blablabla. The filming was grainy and just a very low quality. There was nobody in that theater that liked this movie, and the people around me were younger and tattooed.
| 0 |
negative
|
The first two hours of the televised version are full of character and plot exposition -- after an early brief sequence of Las Vegas being hit by tornadoes, the action doesn't really start until the second two hours. Still, some character relationships don't become clear until the second part. The actors turn in competent performances, but nothing special (however, better than those in "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York"). An exception is Randy Quaid, whose character is superfluous and incredibly annoying. The plot is a pretty standard mix of parts of "Independence Day", "Speed", "The Day After Tomorrow", "Earthquake", "The Towering Inferno" and several other films. You can predict what will happen next, and come close to predicting the dialog, word for word. The special effects are unbelievably bad. Despite the effects in "Twister", the tornadoes in this film seem less realistic than the one in "The Wizard of Oz" and other effects were obviously done for less money than such series as "CSI" and "Cold Case" spend on the totality of a single episode. If you have to see a made-for-TV disaster film, see "The Day After", "Asteroid", or "Special Bulletin" instead -- you'll get better plots, acting, and effects.
| 0 |
negative
|
I remember seeing the very first trailer for Underdog back last March, I also remember at the time smiling to myself ever so slightly. Sure it was a cheesy idea, but I genuinely thought at the time the concept might work, hell it couldn't be any worse than the disappointing Cats and Dogs could it? Then by December and I suddenly remembered the film I realised how likely the film was to suck, the fact it had been delayed in the UK made it seem inevitable it would be terrible, but the horrendous reviews just made me realise it was nigh on impossible for the movie to be any good. Still I swallowed my feelings and went to see the film with a friend today, as I entered my screen I was mortified, it was the very first time I'd be seeing a movie with a friend and being the only two in the screen! Little did I know for what I was about to endure. Underdog to put it blunt is horrendous, it really is. Imagine how bad you could think this movie is and then prepare yourself for a movie even worse, that is just how pathetic the movie is. While it aims to entertain kids it just seems an embarrassing mess that seems to insult kids rather than allow them to enjoy the movie. Matters cannot be helped by the fact that the story is beyond lacklustre, the acting is generally poor, and the movie just feels like an over-long, tired and downright boring Saturday cartoon! After a brief five minutes where I thought the movie might be passable the movie just suddenly seems to die and then limp on towards the already sign posted finale. I'm just amazed the movie was actually ever released, it's an embarrassment to Disney, hell half their straight to video sequels are better than this! What's even more terrifying is the fact the ending leaves room for a sequel!<br /><br />So lets get onto the acting (cracks knuckles). Okay let me be honest Jason Lee is decent, his voice suits the canine, and had he have been given a decent script he might have made the performance work. However, with such a dodgy script he just seems to flounder. In many ways it reminded me of Bill Murray in Garfield, Murray did what he could with what he had, but what he had wasn't enough to make it passable. Then we get onto the human actors, and well the majority of atrocious. Alex Neuberger plays the friend of Underdog, Jack. My biggest concern is that anybody would even take him seriously in an audition. The scene where he gets to fly with Underdog is perhaps the most cringe worthy scene in the past few years just because his acting is so poor. Not once did I believe he was a real person, in fact part of me is still convinced he was a robot made specially for the movie! James Belushi seems half dead in the film, he has nothing to work with, no decent lines, he just seems to wander around the set waiting to become relevant to the plot, which the writers try to do towards the end but do it in such a poor way its laughable. Thankfully Peter Dinklage is the one redeeming factor of the movie, he is great as Dr Barsinister and seems to be having a laugh in the role. He steals every scene he is in, although that's hardly difficult when he shares screen time with the extremely annoying Patrick Warburton. The rest of the cast are even worse, especially Taylor Momsen, she just needs to end her acting career right now!<br /><br />Underdog also fails dramatically in terms of delivering anything like a funny scene. When the funniest scene involves Underdog biting a can and causing dog food to explode everywhere you know there is something drastically wrong. This could be easily ignored if the movie had decent action or a good story, alas the movie is even worse in both of these terms. The effects are so ropey that any scene where Underdog flies just seems absurd, and the dog uses his powers to such little effect that you frequently forget he has superpowers. What's the point in making a film about a super dog if the damned dog never appears super? The final fight also verges on embarrassing purely because its ten minutes of nothingness, the dog flies, other stuff happens, some stuff gets chucked about, all of this is irrelevant as this stuff is happening for the sake of stuff happening. The script as well is dodgy at best and downright pain inducingly awful at worst. When someone says "Look its a plane, no its a bird, no its a frog...", yes you read that right, I just wanted to burst into tears there and then. Actually I wanted to walk out by remained compelled to see whether it could get any lower than that point, this happens near the end so it doesn't thankfully.<br /><br />Overall Underdog becomes the worst movie of 2008 at this early period, and is actually just as bad as last years Epic Movie. Luckily for Underdog, Meet the Spartans arrives over here soon and I expect that to be even worse. So in case you didn't get the point of my review, avoid the film at all costs, if you want to see a movie with a dog then watch Cats and Dogs, buy a real dog if necessary, just do not see this!
| 0 |
negative
|
Countenance! Antoine Monot, in a copycat impersonation of Kevin Smith's Silent Bob, keeps asking for it, but writer/director Christian Zübert never listens. Zübert just can't say no to a joke, no matter how cheap. The best thing about this movie is its soundtrack. Of course, Joey Burns of Calexico and the divine Jonathan Richman, understated old-school bard of "There's something about Mary" fame, would grace any small-town dropout story. In visual allure, Stefan (Lukas Gregorowicz) looks cool enough riding his tan six-series BMW two-door, wearing aviator shades, going nowhere. True, he *accidentally* sleeps with his wild-eyed bohemian kid sister (Marie Zielcke), but then, who wouldn't? Thumbs up also to how he goes black-and-white on a liberal dose of that mysterious substance they call zero-zero, but if you're looking for a slightly more serious rendering of what intoxication can do to you, I suggest you check out "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie takes the plot behind the sci-fi flick "Doppelganger" (an astronaut from our Earth crashing on a 'counter-Earth' on the opposite side of the Sun, and the Cold War totalitarian vibes on that world) and tries to turn it into a pilot for a TV series. However, the whole thing sank without a trace, and TV is probably better off for it.<br /><br />Everyone here is perfectly adequate in a 'made for TV' way. Cameron Mitchell turns in his usual solid performance. So does Glenn Corbett (who seems to be a kind of poor man's John Saxon) who plays the rugged individualist whose very existence poses a threat to the foundation of the 'World Order' on counter Earth.<br /><br />But the low budget and low energy and inconsistent script and the lack of any real imagination in the set designs and cinematography keep this Sci-Fi adventure firmly tethered on the launch pad.<br /><br />I'll give one example: in the original template for this pilot, ("Doppleganger"), the astronauts lose control of their landing vehicle in a thunderstorm, and crash their ship in a truly appalling sequence (it was obvious that their ship was never going to fly again). Then the two astronauts stagger helplessly from the smoking remains of their vehicle in the middle of howling rains and winds, only to be smacked down and overcome by faceless men yelling through loudspeakers.<br /><br />In "Stranded in Space", the astronauts are sitting in their seats when buzzers sound, things start shaking, and the camera blurs into a blackout (and as a friend pointed out, it was pretty obvious that the actors were simply shaking themselves on their seats, the director wasn't even shaking the camera or the set). I've seen episodes of "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits" that took more effort to establish mood and setting than this made-for-TV mediocrity.<br /><br />And that, in essence, is what's wrong with "Stranded In Space". No budget, no time, no imagination...just making the token gestures and hoping the sci-fi Fan Boys' imagination and enthusiasm will fill in the rest. Sorry, guys, it didn't work. <br /><br />I'm sure that everyone here just finished their work on this one and walked away, and never thought of it again, except as a listing on their C.V. And that's what you, the viewer will do. You'll remember, if pressed, that you once watched a TV movie called "Stranded In Space", but it made no lasting impression on you, and you can't recall too much about it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Terrible. The only way I could even begin to consider it funny is if it made fun of itself. "Amazing. It's about an ass that fights crime. And he drinks/smokes! How very funny! It's funny because where most people put things in their mouth, he puts them in himself! And now he's getting sexual service from some lady! This show is so great!" That is what I would have to say if I liked the show, though I'm sure you can see the obvious sarcasm. I've noticed some people have been comparing this show to 12 oz. Mouse and Squid Billies. Why would you even try? There's nothing to compare. The other two shows actually have some decent character development. In conclusion, I hate Assy Mcgee. I twinge at the name of it.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Beguiled is one of those under-seen films in the careers of a director &/or actor that ends up playing better than expected. In the same year that Clint Eastwood and Don Siegel collaborated on Dirty Harry they also worked together on this little psycho-sexual drama set in Civil War era Confederacy country. It's almost a 180 from what 'Harry' had for audiences. Here is a film that is under the radar, and with a low-budget to almost no business when compared with what Dirty Harry pulled in. It is also a story where Eastwood is not surrounded in a world full of dangerous men but women who, despite their first appearances, have darker sides to them. And there's even romance in it in between some of the rougher and more complex scenes. But in this kind of framework to make the film, Siegel therefore actually has a little more freedom to do things with the style of the picture that roams into something more European; I'm reminded here and there of Polanski's work in the 60's. It all works though pretty well even with the initial doubt that these two figures of masculine film-making (Eastwood the obvious and Siegel having made his niche in B-noir and low-budget thrillers) can pull off material that could possibly be made for a Lifetime movie.<br /><br />It was also captivating and really darkly comic here and there to see Eastwood's performance working off of these girls. He's doing something a little subversive in his performance by still having the sort of Eastwood machismo- if there is such a thing close to his clichéd movie image- by being a step ahead of this little school for young women at times and not at others. To see Eastwood in a performance like this, as with Play Misty for Me (the other Eastwood work of 1971), shows how cool he can act believably with very good actresses. Particularly here are the four main female characters, each of varying ages and each with varying attractions to their 'Yankee' man. While Siegel's work directing all of the actors has its moments in the first half it's really once the story crosses the half-way mark in the dream sequence (less successful than the director could be capable of) that the real juicy scenes start to pick up. A lot of this is the best that Siegel directed dramatically, pushing the psychological and emotional edges of scenes where not expected.<br /><br />It's a difficult film, all of this praise aside, as it doesn't paint anyone as being too respectable- only the character of Hallie the slave on duty played by Mae Mercer is sort of separated from what transpires between the all-too-curious women and McBurney. Along with this, Eastood here is acting in a role that is and isn't what he's usually seen as during this time of his true formative years in the movies. He's an anti-hero here, which was his trademark of the westerns and other thrillers he was doing at the time. But unlike those films he's not really in a mode where he's 'larger than life', to put it in a way, as he is both deserter and womanizer, deceiver and tricky even in his most charming and affable moments. If it's not one of his best acting jobs, which is hard to really put together considering his catalog, it is one that is worth a look for fans who might want to see another side of him. It's a credit to him, but also to what clicked with his collaborations with Siegel, as they both took chances at this time in Hollywood.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm usually disappointed by what the media dubs "lesbian" movies these days: murderous bisexuals; psychotic murderous lesbians; women who experiment with other women, but end up with men at the end; ridiculously good-looking women who only get w/ each other to turn men on, etc.<br /><br />Thankfully, FINGERSMITH is on a very high pedestal above this garbage. It is a credible love story acted MARVELOUSLY by every cast member, down to the least of the supporting actors. Aside from having a very engaging central conflict, the romance between the heroines is well developed and believable thanks to Cassidy and Hawkins.<br /><br />I have also seen TIPPING THE VELVET, but FINGERSMITH is far superior to the former, both in character/conflict development and the quality of the acting.<br /><br />FINGERSMITH is both satisfying and enjoyable to watch, offering lesbians everywhere a great follow-up act to BOUND.
| 1 |
positive
|
There are no saving graces in this dreadful, stagey, boring snooze-fest, which brings to mind "The Ransom Of Red Chief"! <br /><br />Even though there are some big stars in this film, the acting is almost uniformly terrible. <br /><br />Glenn Ford, normally a laid-back kind of guy, hams it up with forced emotion. <br /><br />Donna Reed is so over-the-top as to prove laughable. <br /><br />Leslie Nielson is woefully miscast and is terrible. <br /><br />The son is such a repulsive little brat, I found myself rooting for the kidnappers. <br /><br />The only decent performance in this mish-mash is the relatively minor role of the butler. <br /><br />Perhaps I'm being too harsh on the actors, after all, all they did were to read the lines given them in the script. Ah, the script, that turgid piece of contrived dreck that would like to tug on your heart strings but merely turns your stomach.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is my fourth review of a Charlie Chan movie in series chronological order on these consecutive days. This is also my first comment of one I've seen previously though it's been about 24 years since then, so I didn't remember much of it. In this one, the Honolulu detective is investigating an espionage ring that was initially tracked by a former Scotland Yard acquaintance who has turned up missing in the Big Apple...This is the best of the Chan entries I've seen so far in current memory with every clue being connected (though, of course, if I look at them at closer examination, there could still be some holes though I can't think of any right now). And "No. 2 Son" Jimmy (Victor Sen Yung) is somewhat of a help when he first identifies the poison that results in some murders early on, though, of course, he blunders a little later. Among the returning supporting cast from the last Chan film-Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum-are blonde Joan Valerie as June Preston and Stanley Blystone, who's brother John G. helmed a lost Chan one called Charlie Chan's Chance, as a fingerprint expert. Nice intrigue especially with an exciting climax aboard a bomber plane. Oh, and watch for a certain Stooge at a police line up...
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, it took them 4 tries, but they finally got it right! In this 4th sequel to the Karate Kid franchise, the producers really hit a home run! Well first of all I applaud them for finally getting rid of Ralph Macchio. I felt he never did service to the role of the Karate Kid. I would have rather have seen Danny 'Ralph Mouth' Most in that role. Macchio turned out what proved to be the best movie in the series, and look where his career is now! Instead they put in a girl! They got Hillary Swank, best known for playing a variety of sheman parts in every movie she is in. I personally don't care for her buck teeth, but thats a personal preference. But still, look how Karate Kid 4 launched her career into orbit! She won a freakin Oscar. Jiminey Christmas! Meanwhile where is Ralphy?? He should put out some amateur porn tape like Screech or something.<br /><br />Anyways, my only disagreement with the movie is that they have a girl doing karate. As a self-proclaimed master of Karate, I have been the proud owner of a white belt for the last 8 5/8 years. The first thing they taught me is that there is no place in any of the martial arts for girls... well except for Judo... but thats kinda gay. So for the purposes of accuracy, I think they should have stuck with another male for this role. I was thinking perhaps Dennis Franz. He would give the role the depth it requires.<br /><br />Perhaps they will listen to my suggestions and make the proper adjustments in Karate Kid 5. Its too Pat Marita is no longer. I was thinking maybe Justin Guarini is the perfect replacement for the lovable Asian fellow Mr. Miyagi. He will give "Wax on wax off" a whole new meaning. HAHAHAHAHAHA funny huh? Anyways, if you are looking for an exciting movie filled with Karate and triumph of the human spirit, Karate Kid 4 is for you. Don't waste your time with 1-3. This is the Karate Kid for you! This is the Karate Kid for r the ages!
| 1 |
positive
|
MONKEY is surely one of the best shows to have ever been shown on TV. I remember when I was a kid, I'd go to my grandma's house every Saturday morning and I'd turn on the TV so I could watch MONKEY. I loved it. It had kickass action scenes, cool special effects, a great story, a fantastic theme song that was guaranteed to never leave your head and hilarious dubbing. But it is kind of weird that it's set in China and the actors are Japanese and filmed in Japan, but that is no stop towards making this TV show lovable.<br /><br />MONKEY is about the adventures of three people: Pigsy (Toshiyuki Nishida), Sandy (Shirô Kishibe) and of course, the unforgettable and most lovable character, Monkey (Masaaki Sakai) who travel from China to India to get a bunch of holy scrolls in order to save the world.<br /><br />MONKEY is great fun and it's magic.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.