text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Perhaps this movie is a little too long, but it still has some charm 45 years later. The main roles seem more appropriate for Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. I could care less about Gary Cooper, but Ingrid Bergman is fine, particularly in dark hair. The movie is worth seeing for the supporting cast: Flora Robson is terrific as a mulatto servant. She is a white woman in blackface, and can have an expression of evil or of a voodoo mistress. Jerry Austin as a servant dwarf has a delightful role, that keeps you chuckling despite some overlong scenes. Speaking of scenes, Florence Bates steals most of the ones she is in as a dowager social lady. I didn't understand the outcome of the railroad fight at the end of the movie, and the last scene was pure Hollywood dreck. It's an odd feeling when you realize the film title refers to a railroad rather than a piece of luggage!
| 1 |
positive
|
An on screen caption informs us that it is 'the Caribbean Sea, May 1891'. A small lifeboat drifts aimlessly at sea containing six convicts from a shipwrecked prison ship, and the ship's Doctor a Lt. Claude De Ross (Claudio Cassinelli). It's night, a strange current takes the boat towards a strange, unnamed and uncharted island. The boat hits some rocks and is torn apart. One of the prisoners is killed by what appears to be a slimy mutant fish-man creature. The next morning morning Claude wakes up to find himself washed upon a beach. He finds a pool of white bubbling water and one of the prisoners dead beside it. Claude warns another surviving prisoner Jose (Franco Iavarone) not to drink the water as it will kill him. They both eventually meet up with the other surviving prisoners, Peter (Roberto Posse), Francois (Francesco Mazzeri) and Skip (Giuseppe Castellano). Francois wanders off on his own to try and catch an animal for food, he finds and kills a large water bird. But in turn he is killed himself by one of the fish-men. Claude, Jose, Peter and Skip continue to explore the island as they put Francois's death down to an animal attack of some sort. Soon after Skip is killed when he is impaled on a spike at the bottom of a pit. Now only Claude, Jose and Peter are left. They stumble across a cemetery with lots of empty graves and signs of recent black magic rituals. Claude spots a snake on a nearby rock, suddenly a shot is heard and the snakes head explodes. A woman on horseback named Amanda Marvin (Barbara Bach) is revealed to be Claudes saviour. She tells them to leave the island immediately as it is owned by a Edmund Rackham (Richard Johnson) and he doesn't like visitors. Claude, Jose and Peter decide to carry on regardless, eventually finding Rackham's large house in which they are invited to stay. That night Peter goes after Amanda and tries to rape her in a swamp, Peter quickly becomes food for the fish-men. And a Voodoo priestess called Shakira (Beryl Cunningham), who lives with Rackham, performs a black magic ritual involving slitting the throat of a chicken at the cemetery. The next day Claude and Jose decide they should leave the island as they feel very uneasy about Rackham and think he is lying to them. Jose rides off on horseback and is lost. Claude is saved from one of the fish-men by Amanda and is again told to leave. Claude wants to confront Rackham again. Rackham reveals that he has a scientist, and Amanda's father, named Professor Ernest Marvin (Joseph Cotten) who he needs to be kept alive. Rackham says that the longer Ernest stays alive the chances of his own survival will dramatically increase. Rackham tells Claude his plan. Rackham has found the lost city of Atlantis at a depth of over 2,000 feet. He is using the fish-men as a means of getting at the lost treasures of Atlantis, and needs Amanda and her father to control them. He claims the fish-men are descendants of the original inhabitants of Atlantis. Rackham offers Claude a share of the treasure if he will help him keep Ernest alive. Later Claude remembers the name Ernest Marvin as a scientist who was condemned for experiments transplanting animal organs into human beings. Finding Ernest's secret laboratory he discovers Rackham had lied to him and the fish-men aren't descendants, their actually genetically altered people turned into amphibious creatures by Ernest's grotesque experiments! Rackham has finally had enough of Claude and decides to put an end to his meddling by sticking him in a large tank and slowly filling it with water, as the islands volcano starts to erupt and send lava flying everywhere. Rackham wants to leave the island with his treasures and Amanda, will Claude escape almost certain death to save Amanda and get off the island before the erupting volcano tears it apart? Directed by Sergio Martino I really liked this film that mixes various genres. The script by Sergio Donati is fast paced, interesting and entertaining. The plot is revealed bit by bit, which kept me interested in watching it all the way through. I must say at this point that I've seen the original version and not the one with added scenes inserted for it's US release by Roger Corman. Barbara Bach makes for an extremely attractive leading lady, but I hated the way she was introduced by shooting a snakes head off, I thought it was more than a little distasteful. Richard Johnson makes a great villain and Claudio Cassinelli a likable hero. The fish-men themselves look a little fake when the camera lingers on them too long but their cool looking and I've seen worse. Some of the miniature effects look a little poor too, but overall again I've again seen a lot worse. There's no real gore, violence or nudity in it, but that didn't really bother me actually. The photography by Giancarlo Ferrando and the production design by Massimo Antonello Geleng combine to create a very nice looking film. Period costumes, props and sets like Rackham's house and Ernest's lab with it's old scientific equipment. The lush green jungle settings also add to the visual splendour on show. I really liked this film and I was entertained throughout it's running time. I'm not sure who I'd recommend it too as it mixes various genres, I guess someone who maybe fancies something a little bit different and generally well made. If you can find a copy give it a go, I'm glad I did.
| 1 |
positive
|
There is only one reason this movie is watchable. Till Schweiger. He is such a good actor the movie isn't completely terrible. Uwe Boll please take up another career. The special effects and action are acceptable. All other aspects were very disappointing. All I can say is that Kevin Smith (An evening with...) talked about Tim Burton not ever reading the Batman comics and it showed. Uwe Boll must not have ever played the video games that he keeps making movies about. If you two ever want to know how it is done go see Andrzej Bartkowiak. Doom was one of the best video games to film adaptations ever. Some people may disagree, but if you watch the movie you can see that the guys at ID had a lot to do with Doom. It doesn't seem like anyone at UBIsoft was even near this production.
| 0 |
negative
|
No pun intended. I'm not going to spoil anything about the story, but it's safe to assume that you already know, what kind of character the main actor portrays. And of course being a priest while being "naughty" exaggerates all that. Plus this is the most erotic movie from Park Chan Wook yet.<br /><br />If you have seen Wook's previous works/movies you know he is very visual (in a good way) and it shows again here. While it strays away from the vengeance theme of his prior movies on the surface, it still has quite some heat hidden underneath. And when that boils, quite a few bad things start to happen. But through all that dark, there also moments of light (fun) to be had too. A very stylistic and though provoking movie, that lives outside the mainstream and does a very good job ...
| 1 |
positive
|
You can see that if the flick ain't directed by his brother, this is the best he can do. And sad to say, his best just doesn't cut it. "Ice Cream Man" is a very bizarre horror film, that's a real blast to watch if you're in the right mood. In the wrong mood, it has been known to cause people to lash out violently at loved ones, so please, watch with caution.<br /><br />Clint Howard stars (Does anything really star Clint Howard though?) as the "evil" "psychotic" "bizarre" (Yes all in quotes, he's not quite any of these, but he's getting close) ice cream man, who tortures the local children with bomb pops that are really melty and ice cream that has chopped up humans and dogs in them. Ick.<br /><br />Anyway, the plot's really just an excuse to show of the...well, the...um, well it's a plot. Oh wait, I know! It's an excuse to show off all the loser actor cameos! There's Jan Michael Vincent and Lee Majors II (The sequel?) as cops tracking the elusive man o' ice cream. And even Doug Lleyweln appears as a supermarket clerk.<br /><br />Even better than that, are some of the bizarre goofs in the film. I really like the fact that for some reason, instead of hiring a fat actor to play the unhappy "fat" kid of the group, they just make this one kid wearing padding under his clothes. And the entire premise that anyone would by scoops of ice cream from a ice cream man. Who buys ice cream scoops from the ice cream man? Then there's the entire psychiatric ward scene, in which Jan Michael Vincent's acting ranges from mildly interested, to bored beyond the state of consciousness. These are the cops who also scour the Ice Cream Man's place for clues but manage to complete gloss over the ice cream truck (where, of course, the various bodies and such are kept). Oh well, better luck next time troops.<br /><br />Howard himself overacts like he's making sure people two towns over can see and hear him. It's all just plain dumb. And fairly fun to laugh at in the fine tradition of The Pumaman or Gymkata. You'll have a GOOD laugh with the right sense of HUMOR. I love that one.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
I tuned in to this movie because there was nothing else to watch. I was immediately sucked in by the characters.<br /><br />Robin Tunney is nothing less than spectacular in this film. Her portrayal of a mentally ill woman is both moving and 100% believable. Really, this sort of thing is not easy to do. She pulls it off fantastically.<br /><br />We know early on this film is going to end tragically, but you cannot take your eyes off of it. The characters do stupid things, but unlike most Hollywood movies where people do stupid things because the plot demands it, these people do stupid things because the are not right in the head - and the things they do are completely consistent with their characters.<br /><br />This is just a great example of film making IMHO. Great writing, great acting, great directing. A film for people who think film can be more than mindless entertainment.
| 1 |
positive
|
Charlie (George "Norm" Wendt) and Rhonda ("Just Say" Julie Brown) are a pair of cheerful, murderous aliens who become stranded on Earth and stumble upon a tiny western town. They become deputy sheriffs and dish out a deadly form of justice to speeders, murderers and others, while getting on the bad side of some of locals (led by Wayne Grace). Meanwhile, their sexy alien daughter (Anastasia Sakelaris) arrives in a skimpy/shiny outfit with her black human husband (Christopher M. Brown) to find them and TV reporters and government agents turn up to fill up time.<br /><br />From what I can tell, this is a deliberate attempt to cover every possible genre (comedy, sci-fi, horror, western...) in one movie, and what a stupid, unfunny mess it is, despite energetic acting from the two stars. The script is downright atrocious.
| 0 |
negative
|
Back in the day, I was one of the RN's in the Emergency Rooms, these skaters would occasionally land in. They were not treated well, and some of it was brought on by their asocial personalities- but we all knew they were a talented bunch of "wonderkids" even then. They deserved better care than they received, I'm afraid. They had "attitude" in spades.<br /><br />I'm so glad I caught this documentary on IFC tonight- it will be on again at 1 am and I'll be watching again!<br /><br />Little attention was given to them until the rich dying kid was able to talk his parents into draining the pool- and the film really highlights that as the taking off point....it was an amazing time, and deserved to be recorded. Stacy Peralta is due all the praise heaped on him, and long may those Z-Boys enjoy their memories and contribution to the real sport of skateboarding. As for the few "sour grape" reviews contained herein, there always were and there always will be "wannabees" and hangers-on who never do more than dream...the Z-boys lived it, breathed it, were it.<br /><br />Nice to see the vintage films and even the lone girl, "Peggy" who was so talked about as being the only female to win their respect.<br /><br />Thanks to IFC I get to really take the occasional drug-free head trip of my youth and relive the heart pounding excitement again.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am a huge Randolph Scott fan, so I was surprised and disappointed to find he is barely in this film! The movie really belongs to Robert Ryan, who is the hero in the jam, and the one embroiled in the love triangle. Good grief, Gabby Hayes gets more screen time than Mr. Scott in this movie!! For many viewers, that is not a problem, but I am from the Walter Brennan school of sidekicks, not Gabby Hayes...although I will say that his lines were a bit more humorous than annoying in this film than in many of his films with Randolph Scott and John Wayne.<br /><br />Personally, I found the movie very slow going, with a convoluted plot that was muddied even more by the unnecessary romance subplot. By convoluted, I don't mean impossible to understand or figure out, I just mean too messy for its own good.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired, and the two main bad guys have the most unsatisfying come-uppance at the end. The whole movie comes across as fake, unrealistic, and poorly filmed.<br /><br />Just so you don't think I can't find anything good here...<br /><br />On the plus side, Anne Jeffreys is very sexy in her all-too-brief parts of this film. Not sure if it is actually her singing, or someone else, but whoever it was had a very pretty voice. Ms. Jeffreys also had a couple of nice acting moments. The script needed either a lot more of her, or to remove her character altogether. As it was, her nice few moments weren't enough to help the film.<br /><br />Lastly, there is Mr. Scott. He looks fantastic in this film and is the no-nonsense lawman out to set things right. Some folks complain that his characters prior to 1950 were too goody-goody perfect, but that's never bothered me at all. I'll take him goody-goody pre-1950, or gritty and violent post-1950...either way, Randolph Scott was a real Western hero.<br /><br />It saddens me to have to say it, but I would have to recommend passing this film by, unless you are a die-hard fan...there are so many better Scott films out there that this one won't be missed.
| 0 |
negative
|
There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short.<br /><br />"The Grinch" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his "Waynes World" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and "the Cat In The Hat" has just finished me off. <br /><br />This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was "Mom". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.<br /><br />I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!<br /><br />On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.<br /><br />Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!<br /><br />1/10
| 0 |
negative
|
I found this movie immensely interesting yet a little jaded, it talks of violence and what there doing, I still don't see the point in becoming terrorists in order to stop the terrorists. We have similar people in the United States and other countries justifying the use of violence and war tactics because they think they are right. Think of the Puritans,and the Christian crusades against the Islamic people during the Medieval times. Lots of blood and death far exceeding the violence of today, the western world has had a negative impact on the religion. I do not justify their actions but western culture in the past has had a very negative effect on some. But still do remember the majority of the Islamic people are PEACEFUL! People of any nation feel some sort of patriotism but to start a war on the fact that I'm right and your wrong needs to be rethought. Again I repeat you cannot stop terrorists by becoming like them.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Soap is an interesting movie and very brilliant at parts. You must watch it for its strong characterisation and the risks the plot about two troubled individuals falling in love takes. You must know the story through various other reviews, so lets speak about what is brilliant about this movie.<br /><br />Firstly, the two protagonists are so real and such intriguing personalities. The first being a woman who has opted out of a four year relationship and is angry enough to sleep with anyone coming her way. The second being a man who has always wanted to be a woman, whose pain and loneliness is shown with so much sensitivity and brilliance. You hate the former and your heart bleeds for the latter.<br /><br />The second thing about this movie is the entire concept of loving one for who one is, irrespective of gender. So, would you still love your partner if he/she were to change his/her sex? The movie explores that idea and it is a beautiful one.<br /><br />But there is one point where the movie fails. I wish the relationship between the protagonists had developed in a better way. That what they feel is love doesn't come across till the end. But watch it, and post your thoughts on it here.......
| 1 |
positive
|
alright this movie might have been good if there was a plot behind it. the title didn't even fit the it after the first ten minutes. the wind didn't have a whole lot to do with the rest of the movie. the acting was sub-par and the writing reminded me of something you would read in a children's book of scary stories. <br /><br />as far as horror movies go this shouldn't even be classified as one. this was a disgrace to horror and thriller fans everywhere. I hate to be so harsh but I felt I want the time I spent watching this movie back. hopefully there will not be a follow up to this. this movie should be locked in a vault and never released to the public for viewing.
| 0 |
negative
|
L'Homme Blesse is not for an impatient, adventure-seeking audience. There are no explosions nor is the drama straightforward. Like the films of Lynne Ramsey, the director is working more deeply with mood than with storytelling in a manner that is effective and incredibly moving. Because it does not rely on gratuitous nudity, or superficial pop-cult. story lines, this is quite frankly one of the best gay foreign film I have seen (also, see Francois Ozon, Pedro Almodovar). Nicolas Roeg's "Don't Look Now" gets a lot of bad press because it is sold as a horror film. That film, like L'Homme, is more than what the box might lead you to believe. If you are in the mood to sit back and be absorbed by the subtle, transformed powers of cinema, you'll love this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
George Sluizer's remake of his own - superior - film is a complete waste of time. Why was it even attempted? Kiefer Sutherland plays Jeff Harriman, whose girlfriend (Sandra Bullock, who only has a small amount of screen time)is abducted at a service station by Barney Cousins (Jeff Bridges). Now, Barney is portrayed as the kind of guy that no one would trust in a month of Sundays - he lopes about like Frankenstein's Monster but without the sympathy, and Bridges' acting is totally awful. Sutherland comes across a little better when his character turns detective with the help of new love interest Rita Baker (Nancy Travis).<br /><br />A major problem with this version of 'The Vanishing' is its obvious need to cater to Hollywood audiences by avoiding the bleak ending of the original film. Here the ending is happy which seems forced and unbelievable, and completely wrecks the story. However by this time the damage has been done as Jeff Bridges turns the bad guy into a huge laugh.
| 0 |
negative
|
It doesn't take balls to make-fun of retarded people. Having to listen to Mencia insist that he is brave to make "retard" jokes is intolerable. Also, it doesn't take balls to bite off of the chapelle show. The racial game-shows, the racial olympics, it seems like a lot of the skits are merely reworked Chapelle Show skits, that are just way less funny. <br /><br />But the most irksome thing in the show is his insistence that he is just marching to the beat of his own drum, when he is actually marching to the beat of many over-worked, over-done drums that have been drummed many times.<br /><br />I hate this show. I hate that it presents itself as a voice for Latin America.<br /><br />And no Carlos, I am not trying to censore you. If people like it, then keep it on. But I personally think that it's a bad show.
| 0 |
negative
|
A very interesting documentary - certainly a lot more than Sideways, a pseudo wino drama - where the capitalist conspiracy is revealed in all its greed. According to the documentary - and confirmed by the recent publication of a biography on Parker - only two men dictate the nature of wines in the world: Robert Parker of Massachussets and Michel Rolland, a French wine industry expert based in Bordeaux and also known as a "flying winemaker". The director is clever enough to insert interviews of local wine producers from many different regions of France, from Sicily to Argentina and interviews of the biggest players in the industry such as the Mondavi family to uncover the wraps on the globalization of wine making and marketing. A must see for anyone interested in the dark side of the industry. Drinking a glass of wine will not be the same political and commercial act after watching this well made documentray.
| 1 |
positive
|
I found the film Don't Look In The Basement to be very good, with some great characters in it. It is about a young psychiatric nurse called Nurse Charlotte Beale(Rosie Holotik),who is going to start work at a isolated mental asylum. Whilst there, she meets various sorts of different characters including Dr. Geraldine Masters who becomes in charge of the asylum after the the owner of the hospital Dr. Stephens gets killed by one of the patients by hitting him with an axe.<br /><br />My favourite characters in the film are Mrs Challingham(Reah MacAdams), a very funny little old lady, Allison who is a nymphomaniac, and Sam(Bill McGhee) a young black guy who goes around all Day seeming to be in a world of his own all of the time. The film was a very low budget film but was still a really great film. I know that it was on the 'Video Nasties' list back in the 80's but a did not think that it had a lot of gore in it, Alothough it did have some disturbing senses in it GREAT FILM RECOMMENDED!!!.
| 1 |
positive
|
Howard (Kevin Kline) teaches English at the high school in a small Indiana city. He is finally getting married to Emily (Joan Cusack), much to his parents delight. The town is abuzz, too, because one of its own, Cameron (Matt Dillon) has been nominated for an acting Oscar. Everyone, including Howard and Emily, is watching the Academy Awards on television as Cameron is declared the winner! In his acceptance speech, Cameron announces that he was able to fulfill his role as a gay military man, in part, because of lessons he learned from a gay teacher he had in high school. You guessed it, its Howard! But, Howard has never "come out"; in fact, he believes he is straight! With the whole town, and members of the media, waiting and observing the happenings, will Howard and Emily go ahead and get married? Or, is Howard truly gay and realize he can not go through with the ceremony? This is a wonderful, funny, and humane film about a gay man and his situation. As the man-who-did-not-realize-he-was-gay, Kline is excellent and touching. The rest of the cast is equally fine, with Cusack a stitch as the mixed-up fiancé and Dillon, Bob Newhart, Debbie Reynolds, Tom Selleck, and others on hand to delight the audience as well. The costumes are very nice and the setting in the lovely Indiana heartland is beautiful. Then, too, the script, the direction, and the production are very, very nice. But, the insightful, humorous, and the thoughtful look at the gay population is the film's best asset, no doubt. For those who would be offended by a gay-themed film, yes, just skip over this one. But, for everyone who wants to laugh heartily, and gain a better understanding of the gay situation at the same time, this is definitely the best film out there.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was an amazing tribute to whoever has gone through this type of pain and suffering. The acting wasn't the greatest, I'll admit that, but it was passionate about it's message, sending people into prisons without so much as an attorney or some type of trial is cruel and unusual. They even had a damn trial for Saddam, so why doesn't every suspected terrorist have some type of fair and justified trial or hearing as to why they were tagged in the first place? I'm getting off the movie, but I think it's worthy to note about this sick, twisted idea the government has. The movie's way of telling the story and the backstory was a great mystery. The whole movie, I was trying to connect the daughter with the plot and it's made very obvious in the end. There's no doubt that the directing was incredible, but the one thing I didn't care for was that there wasn't as much emphasis on Reese Witherspoon's character's interest and fight in the ideal she held, a lot of skipping. Otherwise it was actually quite entertaining, and most of all it kept my attention and interest for the two hours it played.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is full of pseudo deep thoughtfulness and it's cloying in its writerly-ness, that includes a canned ham voice-over and some unbelievable dialogue. Dialogue that is tinny and tone deaf the way Spike sometimes (not always) is when writing "certain" characters. For those that like nonsense films like Pieces of April and One Hour Photo, this is another one for you.<br /><br />That said, this comment is nothing against Ryan Gosling who has shown his awesome chops in The Believer. A film that proves that movies are a director's medium, and when a movie is rotten it's fair to say the fault lies there and not in the actors.
| 0 |
negative
|
This should have been a moody, gritty, movie which lingered in the memory as an exposition of relationship where the dominant personality only survives because the personality being dominated sees no hope of change.<br /><br />The acting was intense and skillful, the dialogue worked but the movie was irritatingly ineffective: too many distance shots that suggested lack of focus rather than a broader picture. Poor flow. The first 5 minutes could have been missed out altogether.<br /><br />I suspect that, with a different edit, this movie could have been compelling.<br /><br />In its current form it is flat, formless and tremendously disappointing.
| 0 |
negative
|
I don't know about the English version of this movie, but the Norwegian translation is the funniest movie I've seen in many years. The characters say so many funny things and make so many weird references to current events that I'm amazed they kept having more options, like the architect who can never say the name of the wizard Miraculix correctly. It becomes things like Malcom(i)X and "utenriks", which is Norwegian for foreign affairs.<br /><br />Like the word "utenriks", many of the translations does not give any meaning in English, and probably not in French either, so the translators must have made up their own jokes, and done so very well. Of course, they have a very good base to build on, with a film that's simply comical from beginning to end!<br /><br />Recommended in all languages with a good translation!
| 1 |
positive
|
L'Auberge Espagnole is less funny and less interesting than any episode of Dobie Gillis. Where is their Bob Denver? Do they even have a Dwayne Hickman? A French man moves to Barcelona to attend classes. He moves in with some other students who are no more interesting than himself, and they do and say uninteresting things. This movie is unbelievably bland. The only bright spot was a pretty French girl who played a Belgian lesbian. She places her hands behind her head and reveals shaven underarms, not the usual tufts of dark, smelly hair. But bare armpits does not a good movie make. L'Emmerdeur was funny, so was La Cage aux Folles. L'Auberge Espagnole and Le Placard makes you wonder what is going wrong with French comedy.
| 0 |
negative
|
Someone should teach the people who made this movie that there is a difference between "presenting multiple twists" and "screwing the audience over". They even use hypnosis as a tool to cover up the plot holes; whenever they can't find their way into or out of a scene, they just say "she is regressing to her past now" or "she's snapping out of it now", and they think that explains everything. This movie is a dishonest cheat and in the last 20 minutes becomes a full-blown fiasco. (*1/2)
| 0 |
negative
|
It's true that this is not realistic story, but romantic comedy is not a genre that I look to for realism. What counts is that the characters are likeable and, as needed, sexy. Shalom is beautiful and relaxed and Jake Weber is handsome in an offhand kind of way. They have enough chemistry to make the story believable in the area that counts, sexual attraction. I would love to see either of them in another movie. And yes, the clown is pretty cute too.
| 1 |
positive
|
My first question, is NOT about the horrible acting, NOT about the horrendous writing, it is the directing. The choices that were made about the cinematography are some of this worst decisions I have ever seen. Why does EVERY single bad guy have to die in slow motion? I was about to beat myself with a rubber hose. The camera shots make it so that you can't see whats going on. I was JUST about to turn the movie off because of Jalal Merhi's accent, when it made it to the sex scene, so I thought it might get better, well it did not. If you rate special effects on an A,B,C rating scale, I would have to put it around a W or so, and did I mention the acting? Wow, was it bad!!! And the WORST part of the entire "Expect to DIE" experience, is the blatant misuse of the phrase on the cover, which is: "THE MATRIX JUST GOT DEADLIER". comparing this movie to the Matrix is easily the WORST comparison I have EVER seen. If you haven't seen this movie, Don't, unless you are looking for a good reason to beat your head against the wall.
| 0 |
negative
|
Charles "Chic" Sales is absolutely terrific as the sole member of the Leeds family willing to testify against a gangster they saw murder a policeman and an informant. He fought at Bull Run in the Civil War and his patriotism runs high, even after his son-in-law is beaten and one of his grandson's is kidnapped by the gang, intimidating all the other members. Fear of his grandson's death is no excuse, he says. He wouldn't want his grandson living in a country run by gangsters anyway. The conflict between civic duty and personal safety is driven home sharply in this Oscar-nominated story. Walter Huston is also a standout as the hard driving district attorney threatening the family with perjury if they don't back up their identification of the killer in court. The rest of the cast, including the sleazy killer, Ralph Ince, are all excellent, and the film is snappily directed by William A. Wellman. There's also good suspense, as Sales disappears just as the trial is about to begin.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie basically is a very well made production and gives a good impression of a war situation and its effects on those involved. It's always interesting to see the story from the 'other' side for a change. This movie concentrates on a group of German soldiers who after fighting in the North Africa campaign are send to Stalingrad, Russia, where one of the most notorious and bloodiest battles of WW II is being fought.<br /><br />It's interesting to see the other side of this battle, since we mainly just always see the Germans simply as the 'villains'. In this movie those 'villains' are given an humane face and voice and it sort of makes you realize that the only true enemy in war is war itself and not necessarily those who you're fighting against. At first it's kind of hard to concentrate on the movie because you always just have in the back of your mind that the German's are the evil villains. But of course you get accustomed to it quickly and you soon adapt the Germans as the main characters of the movie and you even start to care -and be interested in them.<br /><br />The way this story is told isn't however the best. It's hard to keep track of the story at times, as it jumps from the one sequence and location to the other. The movie isn't always logic in its storytelling and features a bit too many sequences that remain too vague. It also is most of the time pretty hard to keep the characters apart and see who is who. It doesn't always makes this movie an easy on to watch but than again on the other hand, there are plenty enough sequences and moments present in this movie to make it worthwhile and an interesting one, just not the most coherent one around. In that regard Hollywood movies are always better than European movies.<br /><br />The production values are high and features some good looking sets and locations, though the movie wasn't even shot in Russia itself. It helps to create a good war time situation atmosphere.<br /><br />The character are mostly interesting although perhaps a tad bit formulaic. But I don't know, for some reason formulaic characters always work out fine in war movies and strenghtens the drama and realism. It also helps that they're being played by well cast actors. All of the actors aren't the best known actors around (Thomas Kretschmann was also at the time still a fairly unknown actor) but each of them fit their role well and gives its characters an unique face and personality.<br /><br />All in all not the best or most consistent WW II drama around but definitely worth a look, due to its original approach of the German side of the battle of Stalingrad and its good production values.<br /><br />7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
There are no flaws in this production. Perfectly entertaining, fun, and worthy of respect.<br /><br />This is what theatre is all about. Definitely not for the very young, but slightly older kids will get a great kick out of seeing it and can be introduced to theatre this way.<br /><br />Astounding and amazing.
| 1 |
positive
|
Do not miss this picture that defies ages. With no hesitation, a masterpiece. Not only the script and the music but also choregraphy, casting,<br /><br />cut : everything contributes to the perfect achievement. Now nearly 25 years ago and still amazing of maturity, art and<br /><br />sensitivity. Available now in DVD, do not miss either. The transfert is perfect<br /><br />and the sound re-boosted. One mystery remains about this superb work : why the actors did<br /><br />not succeed better after this flashing start ?
| 1 |
positive
|
Steven Seagal is back! Here with his third film released this year. Of course as a one time fan who has become increasingly disgruntled I can say it comes as no surprise that this is pretty lame. Firstly the film made headlines because of apparent problems in production due to Seagal. He would turn up late on set, change the script, crew etc and generally cause problems for the director, Don E Faun Leroy (his lack of talent his trouble enough!). This also happens in their second collaboration the upcoming Mercenary which promises to be just as bad as this garbage. This also marks a big turning point in Seagal's career because this film is the first of his to really dig out the stock footage. There was a little in Ticker but this film takes the biscuit. They borrow bits from, The Order (A Van Damme movie, Seagals biggest rival in DTV movies!) No Code Of Conduct, Undisputed, and also an entire action sequence from the little known Peter Weller starring vehicle Top Of The World. Interestingly the car chase stolen from Weller's epic, made almost 10 years ago and ironically probably cheaper than this garbage, is actually by far the best action scene of the film. I was shocked enough when Dolph Lundgren had a brief stint in the stock action video world, which thankfully he has escaped from. Seagal though is the leader of the DTV action market currently, with Van Damme and Snipes his main rivals. Seagal still manages to sell movies and for the life of me I don't know how. Surely the fans must be getting bored of this awfulness, longing for a return to the likes of Above The Law. The story here is totally lame. In fact the film has so many plot holes it doesn't bare thinking about. For example at the end of a film there's a little girl that Seagal apparently knows at an orphanage who he gives a necklace to. Why I don't know but we never see her at all in the rest of the movie, or hear her mentioned. Seagal has a girlfriend in this movie who at the beginning of the film is with a psychic and she becomes haunted by visions, which by the end of the film are never explained and mean nothing. The film is so ridiculously glued together by a series of meaningless pap that it becomes headache inducing.. This is by far Seagal's dumbest movie! Seagal himself is as wooden as ever, however to his credit he doesn't get dubbed in this one as far as I could tell. Seagal does however feel the need to talk like he is a gangsta rapper, making me long for the days he would don his Brooklyn/Italian-American accent, in his classic early films. He also has a painfully unfunny double act with Treach, who I assume is a rapper. It is funny how producers seem to think that the combo of Seagal, plus hip-hop star seems to work, because his team up with DMX in Exit Wounds was his most successful film since Under Siege. Clearly though if no one has heard of the rapper, it won't work. This is an action film though and so the action itself must be judged. Unfortunately the action that didn't come form the NU Image back catalogue is strictly routine. There are a few small fight scenes with some classic Seagal aikido but when 90% is performed by his stunt double, who really does have a rigorous work out in this film, it really doesn't impress much. There are also some standard gun fights which really only have some nice violent and bloody squibbage going for them. All in all this is a painfully boring experience and once again I'm left giving the same verdict: Seagal has lost it! I keep asking the years old question now, "why do people still watch his movies?" That is all very well and good as a question but the sad bastard that I am continues to watch his films in the deluded hope he may do something good once again. Chances are slim, unlike Seagal's ever expanding waistline. *1/2
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the most difficult movie I have ever seen...the emotional content is horrific, yet unforgetable. A woman who is accused of being a political activist is brought in for questioning. The whole movie revolves around her interrogation. Alan Rickman and Madeline Stowe have intense and powerful roles for which they deserve Oscars for their performances.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was amazing. Never before have I seen such a film that brought me to the harsh reality of drug use quite like this one. There is no glamorizing, sugar coating, or glorifying heroine. This movie shows the true struggles, pain, and loss people go through when dealing with this drug. Good film, decent emotionally packed acting, and a great storyline. A much watch!<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I have used this movie in my college Ethics courses for over 10 years (also Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors"--another terrific, multi-leveled ethical study). <br /><br />It's fiction. I don't focus too much on the unrealistic features of "Strangers" because all fictional films are obviously false on many levels. I love the film as gallows comedy, tautly told, with many ironic twists and visual pleasures--even if it's "unbelievable." The story is told so well that I don't even think of criticizing its plausibility (although I must confess that the tennis match seems the weakest part to me--too much Hollywood fluff and not enough real tennis competition).<br /><br />Some problems presented in the film that hold promise for realistic moral education and ethical discussion:<br /><br />1. Ethical Passivity: some weaknesses of the Guy character are intended by Hitchcock. A primary ethical insight of the film is the danger of inability to articulate one's moral positions. Guy is unable to effectively block Bruno's crazy proposals at the start. An interesting question is why and how does Guy behave so passively, ineffectively? A possible answer is his depression because of his intense and complicated divorce process. <br /><br />2. Miscommunication: Guy commits another failure at the start: on the train, to get away quickly, he agrees that Bruno's ideas are all good. But Guy's literal meaning is opposite to his inflected, sarcastic meaning. Bruno takes the literal meaning as an agreement for the criss-cross murders. Guy takes the sarcastic meaning as an escape from any murder agreement. To some extent, near the beginning, Bruno may be partially pretending that an agreement has been struck, to draw Guy further into a web of complicity. Bruno is manipulating Guy; Guy's linguistic ambiguity on the train gives Bruno a chance to put an ethical "stranglehold" on Guy. Bruno manipulating Guy may also take on other meanings . . . .<br /><br />3. Secrecy: Some have speculated about a sexual relationship between Guy and Bruno. It seems at first ridiculous, especially since Guy appears obviously heterosexual in his relationships with Miriam and Anne. However, remember that Guy is also ineffective with both women. Guy appears (stereotypically--it's 1951 remember) effeminate, especially in relationship to Bruno. Guy, the strong athlete, is weak on the inside. Bruno is also conflicted (playing "against himself"), appearing facially and physically strong at first but then displaying some "effeminate" traits (Bruno's fashion and footwork; his gushing emotionally to Guy in different situations; his receiving a manicure from his doting mother; Bruno kissing and desperately fondling his mother's hand; other more subtle gay stereotypes that hold cryptic meaning from Hitchcock's point of view). I wish I could hear Hitchcock clarify his intended meanings here.<br /><br />4. Dishonesty and Distrust: Guy makes some colossal blunders in hiding truths about Bruno from family and from police. Guy fails to fully comprehend that admitting fault quickly may be better than a cover-up or a delay in confession. Again Guy is driven by passivity, insecurity, fear--and perhaps a self-hate that is closer to Bruno's own self-loathing than we care to see or to admit. Both Guy and Bruno act out their own parables of impotence.<br /><br />5. Lack of Evidence: Guy feels a problem mustering the evidence to acquit himself. While quickly going to the police would solve a huge problem, Guy traps himself with his own doubts and insecurities: the absence of desired alibis; the inability of the alcoholic professor to testify on Guy's behalf; the obsessive need to appear politically pristine; and other personality factors that cause Guy to feel defenseless. He is as dysfunctional as Bruno--just not as dangerous (yet one could partially blame Guy for Miriam's murder).<br /><br />6. Disease and Mental Disorder: an interesting question is how legally responsible is Bruno for the murders? The more ethically incompetent Bruno is as a sick sociopath, the more guilty Guy may be as someone healthy who failed to stand up and morally act to prevent the crimes. Guy's failure is like a man who fails to call the police when a sick friend threatens suicide, and death ensues. One could argue that more than one crime is committed and that Guy is an emotionally hobbled accomplice.<br /><br />These and many other features of the film make "Strangers on a Train" a gem of a morality play, a diamond for philosophical and cinematic reflections.
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow, "The Curse of Michael Myers" what a great film. Suspenseful, entertaining, creative and a clever plot which I love. Many hate the 'Thorn' concept, I love it. I think that it gives the Halloween series some plot. Marianne Hagan is a wonderful actress and turns in a excellent performance, especially for her first film and Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasence are great also. My only complaint is that why wasn't Danielle Harris in this film as Jamie? She wanted to return, but the producers said no. I thought J.C Brandy was great, but I love Danielle Harris. Still, I love Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. I think The Shape's mask looks the best in this film and George P. Wilbur is the best Michael Myers ever. Incredibly creepy and suspenseful, Halloween 6 rules! <br /><br />I adore this very violent, but immensely enjoyable film. The Halloween horror series - by far the best in the Genre.<br /><br />10 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Persuaded by the 7.0 points in IMDb, which is pretty good, i decided to watch this movie. However, i found this movie quiet boring (about 2 hours) and full of clichés, A little girl getting multiple personalities after a childhood trauma etc. Tamer KAradagli is quiet funny in this movie, dialogs motions etc, you will have to see it, he is kinda the tough cop you see on American movies, perhaps copied too much. I would describe this movie as ordinary American thriller with a little bit of Turkish touch, Unfortunately yet again I'm convinced that comedies and dramas are the only genres worth watching in Turkish cinema Anyways i gave this movie a 4, its too boring and full of clichés
| 0 |
negative
|
What starts out as a passable movie degenerates into one of the most incoherent, UNscary, incompetently made, stupid attempted horror films of recent years.<br /><br />Absolutely terrible. It's such a derivative mess ripping off every decent fright flick you can think of without successfully producing a single scare. Whether it's copying the recent trend with creepy kids or ghosts walking past the camera or the old school horror of Fulci's Gates of Hell.<br /><br />The worst thing is there's not even a cat jumping out of a cupboard to make you jump. To be avoided.
| 0 |
negative
|
An unbelievable plot, laughable characters, and obvious errors (in one scene where several grass huts are supposed to be burning, a gas torch can be seen repeatedly trying to ignite one of the huts), this film is a real dog.
| 0 |
negative
|
This three-hour Chinese epic, set in 220 B.C., may ultimately amount to a familiar theme of an Emperor's idealistic dream of peace through unification mutating into corrupted isolation, and there's nothing inherently challenging about the film, but it's a compelling narrative, crammed with intrigue and passion and betrayal and epic events told in vivid strokes. Even for those not drawn to such historical spectacles for their own sake, it's an astonishing feast for the eyes: the scene depicting the coup attempt of the Marquis is one of the most staggering evocations of physical space and grandeur in memory, and the battle scenes are memorable both in their scope and their immediacy. The title sums up the film's use of compelling contrasts - huge plainland vistas set against intimate horrors; the noblest of motives set against the most degraded; hope turning to dust. If you've never seen a three-hour Chinese epic, this wouldn't be a bad place to start.
| 1 |
positive
|
I had heard that this film was stylish and intriguing, but I just found it annoying. It's been a while since I've seen it (and hopefully I won't find out all my memories are wrong and I'm unjustly condemning this movie), but my memory is that the filmmakers tried to portray Leopold and Loeb as victimized by an anti-gay society, and that this somehow caused their horrible crime. I totally disagree with this point of view, and think it's unfair both to homosexuals and to Bobby Franks, the real victim of the story. I can't imagine why anyone would want to claim those two as martyrs. I also thought L&L were portrayed as a bit more sophisticated than they actually were--after all, they were teenagers who lived at home. The film places them in a kind of fantasy world that seems like it should be scored by Morrissey.<br /><br />I just read an interview with one of the filmmakers that implied the film's anachronisms, such as the push-button phones that characters used, were meant "to add Brechtian distance". They certainly do that, but I happened to find it highly irksome.<br /><br />Apparently a number of people found this movie interesting, but I would have preferred a less "stylish" and more realistic examination of the part homosexuality may have played in the Leopold & Loeb case.
| 0 |
negative
|
It is unfortunate that between this film, In the Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and Home of the Brave seem to all be based upon common stereotypes about veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The boozing, the fighting, the short-fuses, the broken marriages, guys freaking out and digging a foxhole in their front yard when they're drunk, etc etc etc.<br /><br />Does it happen - yes, but not as often as one would think after having watched any of these movies. I think that it is unfortunate that these directors/producers/writers choose to grind their axe against the political establishment by portraying soldiers in such an atypical way. In this particular film, Kimberly Peirce didn't even throw us a bone, like showing the new children that were born while a family member was deployed, or the kid who grew up in some ghetto who can now afford college thanks to the GI Bill, or the couple who can afford a house, or start a new business, earn their citizenship, etc etc etc. Instead, we are treated to the stereotypes because the people who made this film only want to show you the bad side.<br /><br />A couple of issues with the film itself: 1) somebody screwed up by putting Phillippe in for a Bronze Star with V after he led his squad down a tight alleyway after having been baited by a gunman in a taxi. Pretty stupid, but yes, it happens. 2) the humvees didn't have any turret armor, so we are supposed to believe it is a near the beginning of the war, yet every soldier and their brother has an ACOG and every possible attachment for their M4? sorry, don't think so 3) Timothy Olyphant as a Lieutenant Colonel? It's hard to believe, but I just checked an he turned 40 in May, so the timing isn't too off. 4) He strikes two soldiers to escape being sent to jail after saying that he wouldn't return to Iraq (upon having learned that he had been stop-lossed). So he's a fugitive. Then, when he finally turns himself in at the end, and they take him back, he keeps his rank and deploys with the same unit? Sorry don't think so.<br /><br />I can only describe it as one giant stereotype of the Army and the Infantry. Do some of the events portrayed in this movie happen to some soldiers, yes. However, in this film you get practically every stereotype in the space of about 100 minutes, and really things just aren't like that for most soldiers returning. I wish the director had made a point of doing a little better research instead of starting off with her agenda and then making a film.<br /><br />Of the movies I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the best one is probably Lions for Lambs, which is more a commentary on the sad state of Generation Y+ than it is about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Bush Administration. If you really want to see this film wait for cable or Netflix it, don't pay cash directly to rent it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Good old Jess Franco! The always-reliable choice of director in case you're looking for undemanding sleaze, shameless exploitation and 200% gratuitousness. Jess once again really surpassed himself with this utterly trashy piece of jungle "adventure". Let's face it, this film is basically just an excuse to have the ravishingly hot (and underage
) actress Katja Bienert parade around topless. It's actually a rather disturbing thought that an innocent 16-year-old girl had to walk around a film set naked in front of a whole crew and particularly before the gazing eyes of pervert Franco! And it wasn't even the first time, since the duo previously already made "Linda" together. Anyways, just in case you wondered: YES, "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" does have a plot, albeit a very imbecilic one. During the opening sequences a plane, carrying aboard a wealthy Scottish guy and a girl child, crash amidst an African tribe of vegetarian cannibals. I say vegetarian because they never at one point in the film so much even attempt to consume human flesh. The obnoxious Scot declares himself the Great White Leader and the girl grows up to become the beautiful and scarcely dressed White Goddess. Several years later an expedition reaches the middle of the jungle to get the girl back to civilization and even more importantly - to steal some of the tribe's legendary diamonds. This could have been a compelling and action-packed adventure movie, but Jess Franco obviously couldn't be bothered. Why shoot jungle chase sequences or bloody cannibalistic rites when you can just as easily aim your camera at a hot young chick sitting naked in a tree? Most of the jungle settings simply appear to be filmed in someone's garden and there's a massive amount of clumsily edited National Geographic wildlife footage in order to fill up the gaps in continuity. The back of the DVD describes "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" as an ingenious, feminist and adult orientated version of Tarzan. Yeah right, they just put that sentence there because Katja Bienert's character swings from one tree to another using a a couple of times.
| 0 |
negative
|
An stunning look at the ocean and the life in it.<br /><br />The Good:<br /><br />The camera work was absolutely phenomenal. Every shot is done beautifully.<br /><br />It was interesting seeing all the different animals that I could have never even imagined.<br /><br />David Attenborough has the perfect narrator's voice. No one could have done any better.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />There were one or two different times where there was a reference to the Earth being 1 million years old ( I hold a different belief). <br /><br />Overall a TV series anyone can enjoy. I highly recommend buying it. 10/10 stars.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw FAREWELL TO HARRY at the Plaza Theatre while in New York city and was quite taken. The performance of William Hall Jr. is tremendous. This is a movie for the classic movie goer. Garrett Bennett's direction reminds me of early Barry Levinson and Robert Redford's work. The movie seems to transcend the typical independent film. It has a soul and a visual power that is quite unique. I saw this with a small audience (400) who were captivated from the moment of the first credit to the last and although I wasn't out and out crying (like the lady next to me) I do have to admit I had a little watering in the eyes...<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I have no idea what the budget on this movie was, but whatever it was they made it work! I have seen movies that spend 100x the amount (Pearl Harbor anyone?) and sucked 200x worse. This movie has everything. David "Makin' It" Naughton in the lead role as Adam, an average college student who gets wrapped up in a game called the Great AllNighter" run by Leon! This guy rocks! A "genius" with nothing better to do than come up with an elaborate game for a bunch of people to play. But he doesn't just pick his friends. He has a team of Jocks, nerds, fatties, average kids and of course, Flounder's team who are the "bad guys". But this movie has no black and white. There are many shades of gray. Adam is not the altruistic hero with no faults. He treats Alex P. like crap. AND Flounder is the way he is because of pressures from his Dad and a cranky stomach. The jocks play dirty, but so does everyone else! This movie rocks! The scene at the PBR factory? Classic! "Johnny's Obese Male Child?" Can you write a better clue? This stuff is gold Jerry! GOLD! Maybe I am from a different generation, but I love movies that seem far-fetched but still have roots in reality. This never happened...but it could. Eeeee-Gypt.... EEEE....Easter Bunny....Easter Parade! Oh and watch for a young Paul Rubens still working on that Pee wee character. PS That Devra Clinger WAS/is HOT! She must have been one bad actress not to work in Hollywood anymore. SEE THIS MOVIE!
| 1 |
positive
|
How important is the director, anyway? In this film, made in the politically tumultuous times of the late 60s where questions of social organization were prime conflicts, asks that question by making a movie that turns the camera away from the action and only begs to reveal the director, William Greaves. It is an important work, as it shows like no other movie shows the difficulties in blocking, organizing, and setting the scene; it reveals the role of the crew, something most directors frankly would like to disappear completely and that the invisibility of is essential for suspending disbelief; and it also puts into consideration the role of performance and scripting and how they match/don't match reality and what that has to say about how the director ultimately influences reality (if at all).<br /><br />The documentary, or pseudo-documentary, or fictional narrative (whichever you prefer, via your interpretations of the themes) has its brain in the over-educated, over-intellectual crew, its guts in the lost performers struggling to understand the vague and ambiguous directions, and its heart in the director, who stands in as the desire to portray, to represent, to express without any idea how to do any of those things or why he wants to do it. It's a film that purposefully repeats banalities just to see if they can become more than banalities. It's a film that sometimes shows the multiple shots simultaneously, just to leave the editing to the audience and also reveal how disturbingly different shots change perspective.<br /><br />It's an important work, and something that everyone interested in the industry and process of film-making should watch and understand. It, like many experimental films, has no real mass-audience appeal--it's not for them. It's for the industry, and its for the 60s, asking what to do with a group-effort medium that still relies on a single "voice" and "author".<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
| 1 |
positive
|
Don't get me wrong, I love the TV series of League Of Gentlemen. It was funny, twisted and completely inspired. I was looking forward to the movie, the premise was interesting and I looked forward to see what they had done with the characters and where the bizarre storyline would take them.<br /><br />It was a total disappointment, for starters the three weakest characters in the series were the leads and it only contained bit parts for the other characters (why not pick mickey & Pauline, papa Lazaro or tubs and Edward for the main parts!?). It was unfunny throughout, half baked gags and poor slapstick humour.<br /><br />The real clincher was the plain ridiculous period drama / comedy (and i will use the word comedy loosely). It distracted from the main storyline and felt awkward, not to mention painfully unfunny. The direction of the movie is appalling, and often feels that the lines were delivered by the characters within one take. Very rushed.<br /><br />Then - the three headed Plasticine-esquire monster. What the hell was all that about? plain ridiculous, it felt like the League of gentlemen tagged it on at the end.<br /><br />All in all I found myself looking at my watch and sighing with disappointment throughout my experience of the film. What was once an amazing Television series has been tainted by a terribly unfunny film. <br /><br />If i could give it 0 out of 10 i would. Do not waste your money seeing this.
| 0 |
negative
|
A milestone in cinematic history, 'Bronenosets Potyomkin' is one of the handful of great films out there that richly deserves to be called a classic. It was the picture that made Sergei M. Eisenstein a figurehead of film-making at the time. And today, it is still remembered as the wonderful piece of cinema it always has been.<br /><br />'Potyomkin' is a film that NEEDS to be seen as one entity, not to be picked at. Don't just watch those clip shows where they only present the 'Odessa steps' sequence and then move on to 'Citizen Kane' or 'The Godfather', see it all in it's glorious 75-minute running time to really understand and enjoy it. Don't expect every infinitesimal detail to be perfect though, I mean the acting of the '20s silent era makes 'Scooby Doo' look like a master of understated realism, certain plot points may seem illogical and some of the battle sequences look dated, but it is still an immensely enjoyable movie.<br /><br />The most memorable moments in the film are the mutiny on the battleship, Vakulinchuk's body falling off the ship, the sailor under the tent at the end of the pier, the mother holding her dead child, the baby carriage on the Odessa steps and the lion rising up to roar as further carnage ensues. For each new pair of eyes that look upon it, 'The Battleship Potemkin' comes alive once again.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film could cure sleep disorders, thats how bad it is. The story dragged, and the bad guy is not that scary. You will not even see this one on TBS reruns. This film made me wonder about Chuck film choices. He work on a real dog with this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
One of the greatest movies to come out of the 80's, Dirty Dancing was a low-budget film with high-budget returns. With a soundtrack that makes you want to get up and dance, to a love story that all of us wish we could live (at least if you're female), this is a movie that you will want to watch over and over again.<br /><br />The music, which is what drives the movie, is upbeat and flows well with the emotions which are drawn from the viewer. From classic '60's hits like "Love Man" by Otis Redding and "Big Girls Don't Cry" by Frankie Valli to pure '80's hits like Eric Carmen's "Hungry Eyes" and Frank Zappacosta's "Overload", Dirty Dancing is a mix of fun and sensual, showing the transformation of a young girl from shy teenager into a blossoming womanhood, all against the beautiful backdrop of a summer romance that we all hope and wish turned into more.<br /><br />The dancing in "Dirty Dancing" is not to be forgotten. Cynthia Rhodes shines in her role as Penny, a dancer who could challenge even the most fluid and lithe gymnasts. Patrick Swayze does more than a fantastic job and shows off more and more of his skills, not just as an actor, but dancer and singer as well. And Jennifer Grey shines as Baby, while her transformation in dancing portrays her transformation in status as well.<br /><br />All in all, Dirty Dancing is one of the best movies of all time, and well worth watching at least once. It's doubtful that the first beats of the Ronette's "Be My Baby" in the opening title won't snare your attention and draw you in to a magical world of sensual dance and musical enchantment.
| 1 |
positive
|
Humour is a very individual thing and the audience at the sneak preview of The Wog Boy seemed to enjoy it more than I did. I found it an anachronistic affair, more representative of the old fashioned racial humour of the Australian cinema of the 1960s and 1970s. The boy meets girl plot never takes off because of a lack of chemistry between Lucy Bell and Nick Giannopoulos while I found laughs thin on the ground. If you want to spend your money on this, wait until it's on video.
| 0 |
negative
|
This show is sheer entertainment and doesn't try to be a Greek drama. It certainly contains elements of one what with all the plot twists, but it's immensely engaging and fun. Las Vegas is the perfect setting for a show and they will certainly never have a lack of material to work with! Anything and Everything DOES happen there! The actors in this show are extremely personable and you really do want to see what they are up to and into each week. The show is also very funny. The humor arises from the characters and situations. Not just thrown in gratuitously. It's a well-crafted show in that regard. It certainly makes me look forward to Friday nights and I'm glad I now own the first two seasons on DVD!
| 1 |
positive
|
Although Flatliners is 15 years old, tonight was my first time ever seeing it. I had heard about the movie Flatliners, but there was never a buzz about it to make me go out and rent it or make a point to see it period. Well, I caught it on one of the premium channels and I must say that it was very good.<br /><br />This movie was about some brilliant young medical students deciding to explore death. They have figured out a way to cause a person to die briefly and bring him/her back to life. Besides the all-star cast, this movie had some serious bite to it. Just the very thought of exploring death is riveting enough, but I really thought the writer & director did an excellent job in giving a different yet hair raising view. This was no generic attempt to thrill, frighten, and make one's mind race... this was the real deal.<br /><br />Instead of making it an empty, superficial, star-studded thriller, this movie had substance. A nail-biter, white knuckle, edge-of-the-seat, hard nose thriller. I give it an 8/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you're looking for an accurate portrayal of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary who helped aid Fidel Castro in his bid for power, you'd better read up on Cuban history or even type in his name on a search engine (you ARE on the Internet, after all).<br /><br />But whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH "CHE!". <br /><br />Unless, of course, you just want a good laugh.<br /><br />All the reviewers of the time (and moviegoers) gave "Che!" their vote for worst film of the decade. And no wonder; have you seen this travesty? Its facts are tenuous at best, Sharif is even unconvincing as a corpse and as for Palance's Fidel Catsro imitation.... <br /><br />Like I said, if you want a good laugh.<br /><br />It's like watching a co-production between The Learning Channel and Mad Magazine.<br /><br />One star. <br /><br />I wonder if Palance can do W. C. Fields, too?
| 0 |
negative
|
At one point in this waste of celluloid, Charles Dance as some sort of meant-to-be-funny, cyborg bad guy says "If I had an anus, I'd soil myself."<br /><br />Quite.
| 0 |
negative
|
A terrific B-feature. A virtual two-hander and set over the course of a day, (you can see it's stage origins and even how it must have worked as a radio play), and although only 77 minutes long, played out in sequences akin to something like real time. Robert Ryan is the psychopath who keeps Ida Lupino trapped in her own home. Both are superb, especially the under-rated Lupino whose initial independence and self-control soon crumble before Ryan's unhinged intruder. Today, of course, it would be all guts and gore but the restraint shown by director Harry Horner, (much better known as an Art Director), only adds to the suspense which at times is worthy of Hitchcock.
| 1 |
positive
|
I do not want to go into a criticism of the movie which I think is - for a big budget movie - quite exceptional and daring.<br /><br />I just wanted to remark that I am really fed up with the studios policies and the laws of different states which treat their viewers like children. In the database we find at least 4 different versions of the movie according to running time. But, of course, it is likely that there are much more different cuts.<br /><br />The result is complete confusion and you can never be sure to talk about the same movie (unless you live in Argentina where the movie runs 115 minutes which sounds quite complete).<br /><br />Later on DVD and Video, the studios try to rob us further by selling us a presumable director's cut (in Germany, there is already such a version around, running approx. 110 minutes).<br /><br />It would be nice, if the studios would not only think of the cash they make with their movies but also think of their products as a work of art, even at the risk of an unfavourable rating, so that I as a viewer don't have to feel cheated and am taken seriously, not only as a resource of money.
| 1 |
positive
|
It is a story as old as man. The jealousy for another man's wife and possessions. There are even commandments against it.<br /><br />In this story, Raymond Burr ("Perry Mason", "Ironside") is the manager of a runner plantation who lusts after the owners wife and feels that he isn't treated with respect. The wife, the starlet Barbara Payton, who was trying to make a comeback after a string of sordid affairs, was lusting after Burr, who killed her husband, Paul Cavanagh.<br /><br />But, lurking about was a strange woman, the housekeeper (Gisela Werbisek) who sees everything, and who was capable of some voodoo to avenge the wronged, which also included another young woman (Carol Varga) to whom Burr also professed love.<br /><br />Burr is poisoned and becomes , or thinks he becomes, a gorilla. Payton will have to mate with Kong if she ever wants her marriage consummated, as he goes into the jungle every night.<br /><br />The end is predictable. But, the stirring question of this film is why Payton would ever be afraid. With those sharply pointed missiles jutting out from her chest, no animal could get near her to do harm.
| 0 |
negative
|
One of the Message Boards threads at IMDb had two women talking about Colin Firth, how they watched the movie only because of him. Obviously these were two young women; but what struck me is how little this movie has been appreciated by audiences generally. The brilliant, and I mean brilliant, performances by Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange were hardly noticed, not only by audiences, but by the Academy and by most of the critics.<br /><br />I think I know why. First, the plot--or actually just the setup--is a kind of bastardization of Shakespeare's King Lear with the dying, crazy patriarch and the three scheming daughters who will inherit. Their names even begin with the same letters, Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia--Rose, Ginny, and Caroline. And I guess "Larry" (Jason Robards) works for "Lear." The apparent idea envisioned by Jane Smiley in her Pulitzer Prize winning novel was to tell a Lear-like story from the point of view of the daughters, and to tell it a sort of late twentieth century realistic way not considered by the Bard. The problem is, in Smiley and Moorhouse's story, the two older daughters are very human with strengths and weaknesses while the father is a most despicable character without much in the way of redeeming qualities. His only strength was his ability to make a financial success of the farm; however, we can even discount that since his father and grandfather before him built the farm and he inherited it.<br /><br />The second problem--and this is one I cannot personally attest to, not having read Smiley's novel--is that the movie is only a limited and partial interpretation of that novel. Still, it is almost always the case that an excellent novel, especially a long and ambitious one with many psychological nuances, cannot be faithfully transferred to the screen. The vision and audio demands of film drown out the subtleties of a narration while the time constraints don't allow for the full development of character and motivation achieved by the novelist. Given five or six hours, perhaps Moorhouse could have made a movie more in keeping with Smiley's novel.<br /><br />A third problem is one that is perhaps Moorhouse's alone. She began her directing career with the very well done Aussie film Proof (1991) starring Russell Crowe. She follow it up with How to Make an American Quilt (1995) which celebrated women, especially women of a certain age. However it was a bit heavy-handed and clearly and determinedly a chick flick. In a sense A Thousand Acres takes off from there, showing us not only the point of view of women, but does so in a way that may seem politically motivated to some. Larry Cook is clearly a bad, bad daddy. He beat his daughters and he had carnal knowledge of them. He ran the household with an iron fist. Jess (Colin Firth's character) seduces the inexperienced Ginny and breaks her heart for nothing more than a bit of fun it would appear. And then he goes to Rose, who clearly is going to be the power behind the new ownership, and hooks up with her, while incidentally inducing her husband to end his life in a drunken accident. The rest of the men are one-dimensional characters without nuance, the way they often appear in romance novels. I think most audiences were put off by the heavy-handed incest, adultery and sexual betrayal that was woven into the story.<br /><br />Having said all this, I think the critics and the public are wrong. I think the direction was biased against men, but in this story it needed to be. I think Moorhouse did a fine job of making an emotional and engaging film about family dynamics that were none too pretty. And the acting by Pfeiffer and Lange was nothing short of sensational. They seemed to feed off of one another in a way that I found absolutely authentic and deeply moving. In particular Pfeiffer was riveting as she projected her bent-up anger and hatred. The way Moorhouse allowed her character to be revealed to us gradually is a tribute to her ability as a director as well as to Pfeiffer's outstanding performance. And the skill with which Moorhouse guided the change in Ginny's character as she went from a "ninny," as she called herself, to someone with self-awareness and some understandable bitterness, was also excellent. The fact that she left her husband was as much out of shame as anything else. He needed to go get her and forgive her and bring her back. And Robards in his intensity and madness was also very good.<br /><br />I predict that this film, which bombed in theaters, will be better appreciated in the years to come as people see it on DVD. My question is, whatever happened to Moorhouse? Her talent is obvious, but she has yet to director her fourth feature film. When she does I hope she remembers to go with what she believes but to be fair as well. I think, actually she was fair to the two lead character in this film, but didn't pay enough attention to the others. In addition to the unnuanced father, Jennifer Jason Leigh's Caroline was unfinished, leaving us to wonder about why she did some of the things she did. And the husbands needed to be something more than mannequins. They needed to be engaged and involved.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a movie about the music that is currently being played in Istanbul. Istanbul was the center of the two Old World superpowers, the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Today, it is a megalopolis of almost 10 million. So it is to no ones surprise that a lot of music is being played in Istanbul, with a great variety of voices, styles, and influences from everywhere on the globe. It is Turkish music, of course, and I was fascinated by Turkish music ever since I bought my first record long time ago. The movie features different singers, instrumentalists and bands. Spoken comments from the musicians nicely illustrate the music being played, and the social context in modern Turkey. For my perspective, the most interesting comments were from Orhan Gencebay. Furthermore, the movies shows urban scenery mainly from Istanbul which is very pleasant to watch.<br /><br />"Crossing the Bridge" is listed as a documentary and it includes music from minorities, e.g. Kurds and Roma. Other important topics are omitted such as Turkish jazz music, or music of the Armenians and Greeks.<br /><br />This movie is strongly recommended for lovers of the music and culture of Turkey, the Balkans, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle East. It may also be worthwhile for those with a keen interest in the global effects of musical styles such as Rock and Roll or Hip Hop.
| 1 |
positive
|
The film is about the battle of Stalingrad. For those of you who don't know anything about it, it was the worst battle in the Second World War. Over 1 million people died in the course of the battle. This is the only film that I've seen that seems to have actually captured how bad things were in the war between Russia and Germany. What I really liked about it is that the two ideologies (Nazism and Communism) were nowhere in the film. Unlike most American films, the Germans are not seen as blood thirsty murderers, but what the average German foot soldier was, a person.<br /><br />The film revolves around four soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. They were transferred there to try and take the city. The film follows these men from August of 1942 to early 1943. During this time, they learn about the horrors of war and try to find a way out of the battle.<br /><br />Through the entire film, one feels the desperation of the entire battle. Unlike "Enemy at the Gates" the film makers didn't try to put some sappy love story or dress up factual occurrences of the battle. This film may be fiction, but it conveys what happened in the bloodiest battle in World War II.
| 1 |
positive
|
Towards the end of his career Jack Arnold, a very efficient director who gave us such classic 50's creature features as "It Came from Outer Space," "The Creature from the Black Lagoon," and "Tarantula," teamed up with former football star turned top 70's blaxploitation film headliner Fred "the Hammer" Williamson for a pair of movies, producing the amiable, if unremarkable Western "The Black Bounty Hunter" and this refreshingly breezy, clever and highly entertaining 70's black action variant on your standard 40's film noir down-at-the-heels private detective yarn.<br /><br />Williamson displays a charming combination of dry, self-deprecating humor and relaxed, easygoing self-confidence as Shep Stone, a cheap, affable, and forever in debt erstwhile Los Angeles cop turned private investigator. Stone's so hard-up for cash that he uses a bar as his business office and just barely makes ends meet doing penny-ante low-paying minor cases that the police don't want to bother with. While pounding the pavement for one of these deceptively simple gigs (Stone's trying to find some guy's runaway teenage daughter who's hiding somewhere in Hollywood), Stone finds himself elbow deep in a complex, dangerous, seemingly bottomless criminal plot which includes a flipped-out Jesus freak religious cult, assorted deadhead hippie dopers, a sordid porno ring, a priceless missing gold-tipped cane that belonged to a legendary silent movie star, a nefarious underground drug smuggling operation, and an ever-growing number of fresh corpses.<br /><br />While lacking the wickedly playful, mischievous ingenuity of Robert Altman's masterful "The Long Goodbye" or the haunting, unremitting pessimism of Arthur Penn's beautifully bleak "Night Moves," "Black Eye" nonetheless still makes the grade as a highly successful hip'n'flip 70's spin on 40's mystery suspense thrillers. Arnold's capable direction keeps the pace moving at a nice, steady clip, punctuated with sporadic exciting mano-a-mano bare knuckle fight scenes and excellent use of various colorfully seedy L.A. locations (the rundown abandoned amusement park at the film's conclusion is especially effective). The script by Mark Haggard and Jim Martin supplies a goodly amount of fairly complicated and often genuinely surprising plot twists. And the expected array of quirky, rough-around-the-edges secondary characters are an interesting oddball bunch, with particularly notable turns by Rosemary Forsyth as an alluring, powerful lesbian model agency owner (Forsyth has the picture's best line, boasting to Stone when she first meets him, "I'm a whole lot of woman"), Teresa Graves of "Get Christie Love" TV show fame as Stone's loyal bisexual girlfriend (the film's casual, nonjudgmental depiction of both Foryth's unconventional femme fatale and Graves' equally atypical gal Friday is one of its strongest assets), and Bret Morrison, who did the voice of radio's "The Shadow" in the 40's, as a smugly sleazy porno filmmaker. All in all, it's a modest, yet surefire winner.
| 1 |
positive
|
My comment is mainly a comment on the first commentator (the extra on the film) and his unhappy assessment of the film. I think his perspective indicates why an extra is an extra and a director is a director. The film was sweet, the acting sufficient, the experience of watching it a nice diversion from a busy work week. It wasn't "The Hours" (acting), or "The Matrix" (Special Effects), or even "The Color Purple" (Direction). Most movies won't be. But it also wasn't the crap fest that "vinny..." would lead you to believe. Sorry guy, just my 2 cents.<br /><br />As to the movie itself, it was in the end very gay affirming (+ #1). It showed a world full of diverse and less than perfect people--you know, just like ours (+ #2)! It opened a door on one culture without excluding other cultures (+ #3). And I liked the music (+ #4).
| 1 |
positive
|
Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).<br /><br />Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.<br /><br />Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.<br /><br />For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm sorry guys, all who thought this film could be something great, I'm afraid you would be disappointed.<br /><br />The standard, the movie wanted to set is completely ruined by some very simple plot. So simple, that the movie is not evolving until the end. I asked myself if the plot wasn't about the action but about the main character (played by Mickey Rourke), but I found that the character was inconsistent - either he is a professional killer or some guilt haunted brother. But both don't go together, because the kid he tries to guide poses him in dangerous situations where no professional killer would put himself. Now, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is a good looking actor, but he played his character a little unnatural. I didn't believe his acting, it looked like the director tried to pull out of him some personality he couldn't provide. And he didn't have to, because his less crazy behavior was creepy enough. The only one whose acting was great, was Diane Lane. If not her, i would give this movie 1 star.<br /><br />In conclusion, I expected to see some well played movie and some interesting plot. And I completely blew it with my high expectations.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was supremely disappointed with this one. Having just read the wonderful Oscar Wilde story, I had hoped for at least a little of the magic to translate onto the screen. Well, there was none. This version played like a condensed, dumbed down Reader's Digest movie. Not only did it feel rushed, it was cheapened and needlessly re written. Major characters and plot points were either changed or completely removed. I appreciate the difficulties in trying to bring a novel to the screen, especially on what may very well have been a limited (TV) budget, but there is no excuse for mangling a great story in this way. I thoroughly recommend reading Wilde's tale of the depravity that exists under even the most beautiful exteriors. But I cannot advise anyone to rent this travesty.
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, if you are a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and love to mock movies, then you will have a lot of fun with this. Otherwise, it may really be TOO painful to see.<br /><br />Plot: Obsessed cryptozoologist sneaks a huge crate containing a Chupacabra onto a cruise ship (apparently not having to declare it at customs, or even mention that he's bringing aboard a live animal -"no really, it's research equipment, the air holes are just an accident"). Some dipsticks he hired to lade it open the crate, figuring he paid bunches of money, maybe there's something to steal. Once the WOOD CRATE is open, the Chupacabra breaks through the STEEL BARS inside and goes on a killing rampage.<br /><br />Yeah, whatever.<br /><br />By a stroke of sheer coincidence, a Marshall (I assume a U.S. Marshall, since he was in the gulf war, not just some guy named Marshall) is on board, investigating some money that went missing from the ship's safe. He's posing as an insurance salesman ("Lady, I'm the best insurance you've got..."). Other scintillating characters include the captain (John Rhys-Davies, and sadly his dignity is the first victim of the film), his tae-bo instructor daughter (snicker - Tae-bo), an annoying old stuck-up lady with a tiny dog which should be fed to a cat (guess WHAT eats it...?) and an incredibly unpleasant gigolo who might have been believable in a movie made in 1964, not in anything more recent. Much of the acting was really bad, and the characters were just there so that you can laugh hysterically when they died.<br /><br />Overall - SCREAMINGLY bad. Bad on many levels. BAD BAD BAD. What??? Bullets don't even make Chupacabra flinch, but the Tae-bo bimbo can punch him and scare him away???? Hey Sci-fi Channel, you desperate for scripts or what?
| 0 |
negative
|
SPOILERS: The original Road House is one of those movies that I know is clichéd and unoriginal, yet it's done so well, I'm embarrassed to admit I really like it. Turns out many of my friends, whose movie opinions I respect, think the same way. So when they attempt to make a sequel to it and it's as if it was written by some high school kids who were given the rights to do a sequel, it's just bad; really, really bad.<br /><br />Oddly, Johnathon Schaech is listed as one of the writers and I can only hope his WGA membership is revoked. The writing was just bad and all the writers of this film should retire for complete lack of originality and some of the worst dialog in this millennium. Schaech already appearing to be the king of the straight-to-DVD sequel (8mm 2, Poison Ivy 2) and now after seeing this and 8mm 2, I'm thinking his acting ability is non-existent. He was awful, just awful.<br /><br />And it's not the terrible fighting scenes that make this movie terrible, but take it from me, they're bad. Every fight scene is a slowly delivered punch (yet still making the "wiff" sound in the air) that is then blocked by the opponent, who returns a punch that sends the first guy to the ground. This is repeated throughout the film, worse than any bad 1970s cop show. Or the fact that many of the people involved in the fights seem to have a mouth full of cherry kool-aid for some reason. And we're supposed to believe Will Patton is a fighting machine; his fight scenes look so amazingly fake I was honestly embarrassed watching. <br /><br />It's the complete lapses of logic in this ridiculous movie that make it terrible. For instance: Johnathon Schaech's character is in town for a day and already tells some girl he barely knows who he has no idea what side she's on, "I'm with the Feds, but don't tell anyone." The female villain, who fights the good girl in one fight scene with acrobatics that rival any super hero, yet is easily held down by the Will Patton, "old guy," in another scene by simply holding both her hands while he utters some ridiculous line ("stab me once, shame on you, stab me twice, ain't gonna happen" whew, that's bad) and then head-butts her. Jake Busey's villain shoots at the feds while caught in the middle of a drug deal, yet no DEA agents or anyone simply go to his place and pick him up after, in fact, he's simply let go because "this is the sheriff's territory." Busey wants the bar because it's "in a great location" for drug deals, yet his own house appears to be just as good apparently offering all the perks the bar is supposed to have. Johnathon Schaech's character is supposed to be the son of Patrick Swayze's character in the original, yet Swayze's character's last name is Dalton and Schaech's isn't (nor is the supposed brother of Swayze's character). And Johnathon Schaech looks about 50 in this movie. I looked it up, he's 17 years younger than Swayze, but he looks awful.<br /><br />But my favorite absolutely stupid scene in this movie was the most stock fight scene ending in movies: the villain is knocked through a window on a second floor and as they pan down I'm thinking "please don't tell me he's impaled on something..." and sure enough, my worst fears were realized.<br /><br />Actually, I could go on for another half hour about the things I hated about this movie. Suffice to say, let's put an end to these ridiculous straight-to-DVD sequels to theatrical movies, at least the ones with Johnathon Schaech.
| 0 |
negative
|
LATTER DAYS <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Trouble flares when an LA party boy (Wes Ramsey) falls in love with a handsome Mormon missionary (Steve Sandvoss).<br /><br />A huge hit on the festival circuit and on limited theatrical release, this likable movie - the feature debut of screenwriter C. Jay Cox (SWEET HOME ALABAMA) - is an exercise in 'opposites attract', in which Ramsey's shallow-minded character is changed forever after falling hard for vulnerable beauty Sandvoss, who is constrained by the dictates of his religious convictions. Here, the path of true love is paved with hardship, not least of which is the reaction of Sandvoss' fellow Mormons to his newfound sexuality, which results in his excommunication from the church and the wrath of his indignant parents (Mary Kay Place has a small but devastating cameo as the boy's outraged mother). But Cox's script focuses chiefly on Ramsey's path to redemption, as his hedonistic lifestyle is thrown into disarray by Sandvoss' influence, and by the responsibilities which emerge as a consequence of his developing maturity: He volunteers as an outreach participant, delivering food to AIDS patients living at home, leading to an unexpected friendship with former party boy Erik Palladino (TV's "er"), whose illness provides Ramsey with a much-needed wake-up call.<br /><br />Cox's script is laced with juicy one-liners and various pearls of wisdom (on Mormonism: "Your church doesn't like alcohol or homosexuals? Well, I'm definitely not joining - I can't imagine heaven without both!"), and the characters are surprisingly complex and well-drawn. Ramsey has the showier, sexier role (he's first seen doing something rude to a willing participant!), but it's Sandvoss who has become something of a gay icon, with his sensitive portrayal of a sweet-natured innocent whose journey from Darkness into Light leads to a startling revelation about his place in the world around him. He and Ramsey are well-matched, and their inevitable sex scene (brief but memorable) is followed by a compelling sequence in which Ramsey describes a childhood trauma which has defined his life to date.<br /><br />Filmed on hi-def video and transferred to 35mm for theatrical exhibition, the movie's meager budget places limitations on the scope and grandeur of Cox's ambitions, though the characters and situations are strong enough to survive this minor drawback. Jacqueline Bisset shines as a worldly-wise restaurateur at the diner where Ramsey waits tables for a living, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("Third Rock from the Sun") steals everyone's thunder as Sandvoss' fellow Mormon, opposed to his friend's relationship with Ramsey on religious principle... but ONLY on principle. Though a little stilted in places, the movie aches with romantic longing, and deserves plaudits for its honesty and compassion. Best seen with a crowd of like-minded viewers, preferably with a loved one by your side.
| 1 |
positive
|
Soderbergh is a fabulous director, but nothing he could conjure could beat the amazing cast he gathered for this zenith of sequels. Clearly, he knew this from the get-go. The term "star-vehicle" has traditionally been used to refer to a movie that builds itself around one star. What this film does is net a whole herd of Hollywood hot shots and make them shine even brighter than before. The last scene says it all--all the stars sitting around with NOTHING happening and NOTHING being said. We just get to see them socialize as though it were a scene from a reality show where George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and Don Cheadle are just hanging out, being themselves. So the story's not important at all--at least, that's not where the films' greatest pleasures come from. If you want a clever heist movie, better stick with 11. But if star-gazing turns you on, this will make your day.
| 1 |
positive
|
Fritz Lang directed two great westerns: "Western Union" and "The Return of Frank James". The Frank James movie equals "Jesse James". "Western Union" is one of Randolph Scott's great westerns. I have never seen Robert Young in a western before; he is terrific as the telegraph employee. This is the only movie I can think of that is about the telegraph company opening up in the west. It is a high-geared story about the telegraph in the west, a triangle love story, and about loyalty. <br /><br />The supporting cast is superb. Dean Jagger, who made a few westerns, plays the telegraph manager. Virginia Gilmore, who plays Mr. Jagger's sister, is the love interest in the movie. Ms. Gilmore had a short career in movies. She quit films in 1952 and became a drama coach. She is primarily known as the first Mrs. Yul Brynner. It is great to see Slim Summerville in a movie with Mr. Scott again. They were in two other great movies: "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" and "Jesse James".
| 1 |
positive
|
this is one of the stupidest movies ever, not THE stupidest mind you but one of the stupidest. This is 96 1/2 minutes of sleep inducing material. Probably Jim Varney's worst movie ever. The last 30 seconds of the film is the best and funniest part but hardly worth sitting through the whole movie for. On the other hand, if you are a die hard Jim Varney/Ernest fan, then like me, you must add this film to your collection. It does have brief, rare moments of humor, although they are few and far between. The mere fact that this movie is so hard to find makes it a collectors item and a must have for your ernest collection. I was lucky to find this film online at a dirt cheap price a couple years ago. I believe I paid 1.99 plus shipping for it. And it was the only copy I could find anywhere. Even though this is a truly all around horrible movie, it is still a must have if you are a Jim Varney fan and an Ernest movie collector such as I. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give this movie a 2 but thats only because I've never seen a 1 before ;)
| 0 |
negative
|
As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.<br /><br />Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques.
| 0 |
negative
|
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.
| 0 |
negative
|
There is a lot wrong with this film. I will not lie. I will say that most of the problems feel like they stem from a budget that was chopped out from underneath the flick, and some bad hack job editing.<br /><br />This is not Office Space. Do not go in expecting Office Space levels of comedy. It is very funny though. It is a mess, but very funny at the same time. A funny mess of a film. In the way that Caddyshack is funny. A mess of unrelated funny scenes filled with some very annoying unfunny scenes.<br /><br />It works as a whole though, and it certainly deserves a wide release. This is the best commentary on the Wal Mart/ Starbucks/ MTV nation you could hope for. The very fact that a film is exploring the idea that dumb people are breeding at an alarming rate while the intelligent people are not, is great in my book. Not very politically correct but worth at least some debate.
| 1 |
positive
|
this is a great movie for all Corey Feldman fans. This movie has a great cast of young actors. a group of teens decide to rob a bank to get some quick cash, but all goes wrong when a security gaurd gets shot and they take hostages
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm so glad he wasn't alive to see this. This movie is a debauchery of his work. I agree with the other commenter-- this movie was a terrible disappointment. I'd give it a zero, but am forced to give it a 1.<br /><br />The story was weak, and it reminded me of the days when I was a young teenager trying to write a movie, then looking back on it and realizing how horrible it was. Bad actors, family and friends, and someone stupid enough to fund it was how it was made. It's really amazing how strings can be pulled to get anything done. If this movie was able to make it out to the general public it puts high hopes on other indie film makers who have talent worth a damn who're struggling! This movie made me laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. By all accounts this was seriously not meant to be a comedy. Scary movie is a better play on a horror genre-- this movie just sucks.
| 0 |
negative
|
Sayles had a very interesting film on his hands with Silver City, however it somehow became very muddied as it progressed from beginning to end. Chris Cooper did an exceptional job embodying the essence of his character, a Dubya of sorts, but he wasn't nearly given enough screen time. Instead, we find ourselves on a rampage with a character that felt less personal, less developed, and overall too confusing. The path that this Danny Huston leads us on inevitably becomes the downfall of the film. Too many characters are introduced to us in such a short time. These characters randomly were involved with the progression of the plot, which became too convoluted with each passing minute. Sayles knew what he was creating, I just feel as if it wasn't being translated well to the silver screen.<br /><br />Sayles is a master of his trade. His films continue to inspire and evoke thought even if they are not commercial successes. The trouble with Silver City is that I think he found himself going too deep with not enough money or time to explain it all. At the beginning of the film, I had an idea of what was happening, but as more and more characters were introduced, as more and more plot twists tried to occur I lost the sense of the film by the ending. While the ending was very clever and very dark, I needed more explanation. I think some of the reason that I lost my train of thought with this film was due to the casting of Danny Huston as our guide. He was pathetic. I didn't seem him as very exciting person to lead us on this adventure. He seemed to go through the motions, but not really accomplish much at all. This was the first downfall of Sayles' important film.<br /><br />While I will admit that the characters played by Richard Dreyfuss, Miguel Ferrer, James Gammon, and Daryl Hannah were interesting, I just needed a better guide to help me understand their roles in this political scandal. Danny Huston just did not cut it for me. Outside of the characters, Sayles needed a stronger script. I sometimes felt that unless I was deeply rooted in the political world, some of the references were well over my head. The entire reasoning for Silver City to be built and the corruption behind it eluded me. I am a simpleton that loves advanced films, but this one just didn't make much sense to me. There were several times that I found myself asking, "Why" instead of seeing the whole picture. I felt as if the individual stories were as clear as glass, yet the whole picture was dusty and murky at the same time. Sayles needed to concentrate more on the bigger picture instead of these smaller issues, which ultimately fogged this film.<br /><br />Perhaps I went into this film with the wrong idea. I was expecting to see another version of Primary Colors, but instead witnessed something less heartfelt and more technical. Without giving the ending away, I thought that the final scene was one of the most beautiful moments in political cinema history. The brilliant symbolism has stayed in my mind for the past two days after watching this film, while the rest of the movie quickly shuffled away from my mind. Maybe a second viewing would do better for me, but for some odd reason Silver City just didn't click with me. There seemed to be too many loopholes that were never explained or accounted for. An ensemble piece is always good with me, but when the characters are introduced without explanation, it just looses steam. This was one of those rare occasions.<br /><br />Overall, I was very upset with this film. Being very Democrat, I wanted to see a side of politics that I wasn't aware of and another side that would make you chuckle. I wanted to be engulfed with the world of corporate money and the dufus' that are elected. I wanted intelligent humor framed by the words of George W., but instead all I found was a very confusing story aimed at a certain audience of which I will never be a part. Sad, this picture had so much wasted promise.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
| 0 |
negative
|
... with a 500$ budget and a bottle of ketchup.<br /><br />If you are a fan of C movies with no talented actors whatsoever, a ridiculous story, cheap effects and lousy camera-work, this film delivers.<br /><br />All others be warned. You could probably make a similar movie with a couple of friends in your backyard and a home camcorder.<br /><br />The film is good for some laughs though. Watch it with some friends and discuss how NOT to make a movie.<br /><br />2/10 for unintentional comedy.<br /><br />Why the hell do you have to write 10 lines? I have seen comments with less lines and writing this is just a lame filler.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is not a good film by an standards. It is very poorly written and the acting is just a little above par (some performances are well below par, but Swayze and Grey do a very good job with little to work with).<br /><br />What was good:<br /><br />The dance sequences were choreographed very well and, as stated above, Swayze and Grey were high points.<br /><br />What was bad:<br /><br />The script. The "bad" guys were simply too evil to be believable. The best villains are the ones who aren't so obviously evil. These guys (the owner's nephew, the waiter who impregnates the girl) do and say NOTHING that would leave me to believe they could be real people (perhaps there are guys like them, but I sure don't want to see a movie about it).<br /><br />Another scene, the first where Grey and Swayze meet when the employees at the resort are "dancing". Swayze and Grey dance together and seem to enjoy themselves. The next time they meet, Swayze is hostile towards her. Why? What happened in between to make him dislike her so when they danced well together?<br /><br />And some of those lines, I mean COME ON (I cringed at the end when Swayze muttered the line "Nobody puts baby in the corner". How did he EVER do that with a straight face.)<br /><br />Another thing wrong, the setting of the 1960's. Everyone looked and dressed like the 1980's! Who was in charge of the costumes and hairstyles?<br /><br />The music (original music for the film) was laughable (with the exception of "I Had the Time of My Life" which was a good song).<br /><br />Not the worst film I've ever seen, but DEFINITELY the most over-rated
| 0 |
negative
|
I was 19 years old when I saw first saw this film, in the theater. I have a vivid memory of a different ending. Not completely different but significantly. I just watched the movie last night and I was wrong, so I guess the following can't be called a spoiler, since it never happened. The ending I remember was that the boy was hiding in the house completely naked, Frances Austen found him quite easily and after she confronted him, she slowly sank to her knees and went down on him off camera. Only his face was in the frame and it was pretty obvious he was letting it happen, albeit against his will. But nothing like this showed up in the movie. Sandy Dennis was 32 years old when she made this movie, Michael Burns was 22. In the movie, he complains to his sister that Frances makes too big a deal about sex. Yeah? Well, then, so go to bed with her dude, and get it over with. WTF?
| 1 |
positive
|
Everything Is Illuminated A young Jewish American searches for the woman that helped his grandfather escape Nazi persecution while embarking on a cross-European tour with some unlikely associates.<br /><br />Liev Schreiber makes his directorial debut with a playful angst usually associated with his acting ethos. When successful actors decide to sit in the director's chair, we usually get a biographical glimpse at the souls beneath the acting mask- Check. We usually get a mishmash of genres- Check. But what we normally do not get is an insightful original film which is credible, intelligent and moving.<br /><br />Elijah Wood plays Jonathan, an inquisitive young boy who collects pieces of life as he goes. He is on a mission to find a woman in a photograph. The sepia picture bears his grandfather (an uncanny resemblance to him) and the woman. To aid his journey he enlists the help of travel guides that comprise of a Hip-Hop loving break-dancer, Alex (Eugene Hutz), his apathetic and perma-vexed grandfather (Boris Leskin) and his dog- Sammy Davis Junior Jr! What ensues is essentially a comedy. There is an un-patronisingly simple introduction with voice-overs. Alex's is especially funny as he educates his younger brother on the year 1969, proving how popular he is with the chicks and break-dancing thus setting him up as Jonathan's antithesis.<br /><br />Schreiber begins to break down the characters as they progress and the comedy acts as an intentional veil to what is a story about three people linked to the holocaust who do not really know themselves. All three hold the film with tenderness and authenticity something Schreiber was unlikely to get wrong and as enchanting and fantastical as the film is, the horrors that are allowed to crack through, i.e. the past are presented in an almost palatable tone (incidental music, cinematography) which make them all the more unsettling.<br /><br />As the unlikely group finally find the town they seek they learn of the true atrocities that occurred and find out a lot about who they really are.<br /><br />Elijah wood is as authentic as usual, bringing his usual innocence and strength to the screen. Formally a resident good in Lord of the Rings and a resident evil in Sin City he plays Jonathan with aplomb as he is bombarded with culture shocks and a quest for truth. Boris Leskin as the grandfather also delivers his angst and frustration at the youths with great humour and conviction as his own past is unravelled. However, it is Eugene Hutz as Alex that makes the show. The director using that old trade of translation misunderstandings to create and maintain a humour that is actually funny and not gimmicky.<br /><br />Schreiber has delivered an enchanting debut that has both heart and soul. The continuous score and beautiful photography creates a fairy tale haze around a story about identity, truth and family. If there was a complaint, it would be the speed at which the film changes direction; though this could have been intentional it may not sit well with all. Nevertheless this is a sterling effort that delivers great comedy and bonding between an unlikely group while dissecting another aspect of the horrors of World War 2 in a completely fresh fashion.<br /><br />-Chi&Ojo
| 1 |
positive
|
Being a fan of ZaSu Pitts comedies, I thought this one looked like it was worth a try. I was quite disappointed.<br /><br />(The version I saw was on TCM, but consisted only of the Niagara Falls movie; the Miss Polly movie was absent.) The talents of the actors, who give fine performances, is wasted on one of the stupidest stories I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through.<br /><br />Tom Brown (Tom Wilson) surprised me by being the strongest actor in the show, but the spotlight is hogged by Slim Summerville (Sam Sawyer), who, if he has any talent, didn't demonstrate it here.<br /><br />ZaSu Pitts (Elly Sawyer) is great, but doesn't have near big enough a part. The biggest laugh in the movie is when she ends up under Sam under a table.<br /><br />The only one in the movie who has any sense at all is Tom Wilson. Margie (Marjorie Woodworth) is unreasonable in general. While she is physically quite attractive, her personality and attitudes make her completely undesirable. Elly, Sam, and the hotel desk clerk are just complete fools.<br /><br />Sam and Elly give up their honeymoon suite in the crowded hotel for Tom and Margie. But then they take it back. Sam ends up imprisoning Tom and Margie in their room. Most of the movie is them trying to break out, but Sam, using a rifle, always puts them back again.<br /><br />Towards the end comes the worst part. Tom, who is finally about to make good his escape, runs into a minister on a lower floor of the hotel. Now the guy, who, as I said, is the only one in the whole movie who has a head on his shoulders, suddenly, for absolutely no reason at all, decides he has to marry Margie!<br /><br />He drags the minister up to the room he has just escaped from, but Margie doesn't want to marry him. He gives her a kiss, and now, after one kiss, she feels compelled to marry him.<br /><br />Finally, Sam has the nerve to say to Tom, "You deceived me," when practically the only line Tom had to Sam earlier was, "We're not married," to which Sam replied, "You think I'd believe that?" <br /><br />Idiotic.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie comes down like a square peg in a square hole. A poorly made peg. A peg so cheap it couldn't even be produced in a sweatshop assembly line in Chinatown, Mexico. In fact, when you try to press the peg into the hole for which it is obviously designed, it crumbles into sticky, disgusting pieces that smell like rotting fruit and won't wash off. Quigly is such a peg.<br /><br />This movie is so mind-bendingly awful, it couldn't have even been created. A movie like this must have been the result of some accident of nature; some freakish entity that congealed in the corner of a dank office somewhere and festered and grew until it was too big and terrifying to look at. Only science would be interested in such a thing; anyone not bent on studying it would exhume it from this world.<br /><br />What it comes down to is this: if you're the kind to enjoy first year violin recitals, racism, or Coke Zero, it might just be your birthday.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have noticed that a lot of films that have been featured on "Mystery Science Theater" have received a tons of low ratings on IMDb. However, a few of the films featured on the films weren't that bad and it's not fair to rate a film that's been given the "MST" treatment--with the hosts making funny comments during the film. Now I am NOT saying that "The Girl in Lover's Lane" is a great film, but it's not nearly bad enough to merit its current IMDb score of 2.1.<br /><br />The film begins with Bix and Danny meeting. Bix is a veteran drifter and Danny a younger guy who seems to have no particular reason to be wandering about the country. Once they blow into a small town, Bix needs to rescue Danny again and again because Danny is quite naive--a nice way of saying he has the intellect of a tomato.<br /><br />Along the way, something happens to the self-assured Bix--he finds a nice young lady and finds the lure of staying put pulling at him. And, in an odd subplot, Jack Elam plays a super-creepy sicko who wanders the town scaring the crap out of everyone--yet oddly, the police don't seem to take much notice nor does anyone on their own do anything about him. Ultimately, however, when Elam puts the moves on a girl who Bix is falling for, things come to a full boil.<br /><br />Overall, while not at all a great film, there were many interesting plot elements in this film--enough to merit a score higher than 2.1. The biggest negatives are a simplistic conclusion to the mystery that occurs near the end as well as the total stupidity of Danny one time too often. Considering the minuscule budget, however, it's a watchable little film.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have read reviews of this film that found it 'disappointing' and 'confused'. I am at a loss to understand why this should be so. From the beginning I found it a remarkable experience and a complete joy to watch.<br /><br />Spoiler: The opening titles overlay a beautiful visual of the evolutionary process, and this introduces the story with a serene and sweeping style. The film isn't about the process itself though, it concerns Charles Darwin's struggle with his conscience, his love for his wife, his deceased daughter and his search for truth.<br /><br />The appearances of his daughter are the manifestations of a tormented mind that knows it has "killed God". The daughter is an adult, making adult comments about his work and torturing Darwin with personal doubts. Was he in some way responsible for her death? Husband and wife in real life Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly give truly wonderful performances as Charles and Emma Darwin, as does Martha West as Annie. Bettany's size and awkward gait give Darwin's character a genuine sense of reality, whilst Connelly seems very comfortable with her English accent and occasionally somewhat severe persona.<br /><br />It's easy to misunderstand the times in which this film resides. The grip that religion had on society and the inner struggles that a man like Darwin must have endured to seek the truth in what he witnessed. Science and religion have always been awkward bedfellows and although it didn't cost him his life, as it did with so many earlier men and women, science put a barrier between husband and wife, fact and faith. This film portrays that barrier supremely well.<br /><br />I give Creation ten stars, because I think it's beautiful, profound, superbly well acted and a genuine, no-extraneous-frills-required look at one of the world's true geniuses.<br /><br />What seems obvious to everyone today (well, almost everyone... see Bill Maher's wonderful "Religulous") was hidden for millennia. The truth, once it was discovered, was undoubtedly painful for many. Creation examines that pain, and the realisation that we are all that we possess.<br /><br />A wonderful cinematic experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you don't like Italian horror, you won't like this film. On that note...<br /><br />"Overall... it was a terrible experience... Many things happened. Vanessa Redgrave was scheduled to be in the film, and she pulled out. One of the actors was crushed by a car. I was engaged to be married, but by the end of the picture that was finished. My father died during the shooting... all kinds of things." -Dario Argento on the making of "Opera"<br /><br />I was truly impressed with Argento and the film he made here-- especially against such harrowing circumstances. The whole mystique of "Macbeth" and its curse on those who attempt to stage the play adds untold volumes to "Opera."<br /><br />Throughout the film, Argento imploys some of his most clever (and audience directed) tricks. A young opera singer, Christina, is stalked by a violent psychopath who forces her to watch a series of brutal murders. By taping several sharp blades to Christina's eyelids the killer makes it impossible for her to close her eyes, "Take a good look. If you try to close your eyes, you'll tear them apart. So you'll just have to watch everything!"<br /><br />It is clear that Argento put great care into constructing the faux "Macbeth" opera on-screen, and his hard work pays off. Add to this several unforgettably brutal murders, an incredibly tense chase sequence, and the genius use of POV to portray a certain character (the role Vanessa Redgrave pulled out on, thank god) and you've got one of the best Italian horror films ever created.<br /><br />That said-- it's still Italian horror. Why Christina never seems to tell anyone about this brutal murders is beyond anyone's comprehension. Some scenes might be difficult for certain viewers to stomach, but personally I felt more tension towards Christina and her eyes than any of the brutal slayings in the film. The finale to "Tenebrae" had my stomach churning more than anything in "Opera," but that's probably just me.<br /><br />And the last five minutes... Argento wanted it, he filmed it, and he's fought to keep it in the film. Absolutely no one likes it, myself included, but it's not enough to ruin the rest of the film for me. It remains one of Argento's best films to date.<br /><br />9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought it was an excellent movie. Gary Cole played the role of a military man who feels trapped and unhappy with his wife who fakes his death fabulously! Over all, I thought the movie was great, definitely not a boring plot line! It's sad to say, but I think lots of men might feel this way. I think he should have just gotten a divorce and asked to be transferred instead of the extreme he went to, but he felt there was no other way out so he faked his death. I thought it was neat that Cole's real-life wife played the wife he was unhappy with in the movie. I think what the guy did was alittle extreme, but the movie was great nonetheless! Definitely recommend it!
| 1 |
positive
|
Anthony Quinn was a legend of 20th century in cinema by his great roles obtained this movie about a policeman innovated a false guilt for Toni to rape his beauty wife (Lisi) but he failed in this trap because he faced the strength of Lisi but he succeeded in his trap which was prepared by him for Toni that he put his name in the list of Jewish people in Romania and he transported from country to another in east Europe.<br /><br />This movie was directed in 1967 at the time of Arab -Isreeli war in 1967 (Six days war) as an evidence of harmful works from Jewish people which were caused by Jewish people not only in Europe but also in the rest continents.<br /><br />Jewish people were a great cause of French revolution in 1789 , the Pelchfik revolution in Russia 1917, the Turmoil of different countries in any time.<br /><br />Pearl Buck wrote a novel (Peony) in 1948 at the time of occupied Palasteine in 1948 about Chinese Jewish people and their problems they faced in China because of their bad instruments they used in these countries as keys of crisis.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw the Mogul Video VHS of this. That's another one of those old 1980s distributors whose catalog I wish I had!<br /><br />This movie was pretty poor. Though retitled "Don't Look in the Attic," the main admonition that is repeated in this is "Don't go to the villa." Just getting on the grounds of the villa is a bad idea. A character doesn't go into the attic until an hour into the movie, and actually should have done it earlier because of what is learned there.<br /><br />The movie starts in Turin, Italy in the 1950s. Two men are fighting, and a woman is telling them the villa is making them do it. One man kills the other, then regrets it, and the woman pulls out the knife and stabs him with it. She flees the villa, and after she's left a chair moves by itself (what's the point of that?), but when in the garden a hand comes up through the ground and drags he into the earth.<br /><br />From there, it's the present day, thirty years later. There's a séance that appears suddenly and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the movie. The children of the woman from the prologue are inheriting the house. The main daughter is played by the same actress who played her mother. At least one of the two men from the prologue seems to reoccur as another character too. She's haunted by some warnings not to go to the villa, but they all do, since if they do not use it, they forfeit it. People die. A lawyer who has won all his cases tries to investigate a little. The ending is pretty poor. Why was the family cursed? An unfortunately boring movie.<br /><br />There's an amusing small-print disclaimer on the back of the video box that reads "The scenes depicted on this packaging may be an artist's impression and may not necessarily represent actual scenes from the film." In this case, the cover of the box is an illustration that does more or less accurately depict the aforementioned woman dragged underground scene, although there are two hands, and the woman is different. It's true, sometimes the cover art has nothing to do with the movie. I also recall seeing a reviewer who had a bad movie predictor scale, in which movies with illustrations on the cover instead of photos got at least one point for that.
| 0 |
negative
|
We all know that special effects cost money, but it seems as if they could have used the money they saved writing the script to get some better shots. The train is obviously a model in most moving shots, the helicopter is obviously computer generated, the alien looks like the one from the end of Spaceballs, except it's a decade later and Spaceballs had an excuse.<br /><br />The only smart thing they did was blur all of the special effects to make them harder to see.<br /><br />Not even the actors could compensate for such a poorly written script and it's pretty obvious they didn't really try either.<br /><br />Please, don't waste your time. Please.
| 0 |
negative
|
My only reason registering to this site was for the opportunity to write a comment to this movie. I felt that I had to get rid of some of my anger by writing it off me. <br /><br />The movie "Babas bilar" must be just about the worst film I ever seen. I really do believe that the script may have seen to been able to become a pretty good movie or at least OK, but somewhere on the line something happened. What makes it even more odd is the fact that the cast appears to be quite alright on paper. Put to practice both script and the cast fails to deliver. There are to much action, it happens to much things and you can't help wonder why it happens. And then the cast, the actors make such a poor effort that you almost start to cry. <br /><br />If you have to much time at hand I would say you can see it. If not - don't.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was a riveting film, one that really drew me in. I'm a big fan of William H. Macy, and he puts in a wonderful performance. His great likeability, coupled with the way his character breaks the fourth wall, really gave me a sense of complicity in his actions. I found myself waiting tensely for the whole house of cards to come collapsing down around him (and by extension myself, as his confidante and silent witness). It took several minutes for me to relax once the film had ended, I was so wrapped up in it. <br /><br />Good performances all around, too, not just with Macy. Arkin was quite good, as was Cromwell (he was surprisingly fierce). In short, I highly recommend this film to any fans of Macy and/or the murder mystery. But you may want to prepare to feel a little guilty.
| 1 |
positive
|
Just watched this today on TCM, where the other reviewers here saw it.<br /><br />Sorry that I was the only one to find Davies a weak actress, with a truly awful attempt at an Irish (Irish-American or otherwise) accent. As she's the star, it was sort of hard for me to get past that -- especially as the other reviewers have said that this was her finest performance.<br /><br />Another particularly terrible Davies performance was in "Marianne" (1929), which I also watched today. In this film, given a 9 of 10 rating here, her accent switches from that of a (correct) French woman to an odd combination of Italian and Swiss.<br /><br />Interestingly, in TCM's one-hour bio of Davies -- "Captured on Film: The True Story of Marion Davies" (2001) -- film historian Jeanine Basinger claims that "one of the things that you note about Marion Davies in her sound work is how good she is at doing accents." Of course this bio also includes commentary by fans (make of that what you will).<br /><br />Davies was a very attractive young woman, and by all accounts a terrific comedienne in real life.<br /><br />And because a part of her anatomy added immeasurably to the real-life answer to Joseph Cotten's character's search for the meaning behind Kane's final word in the opening scene of the great "Citizen Kane," she's earned her spot among the great stories if Hollywood's history.<br /><br />But I think Welles & Mankiewicz got it right for the most part with the "Susan Alexander" facsimile of the real article.<br /><br />Don't bother voting as to whether you agree or disagree with this post as I really couldn't care less.
| 0 |
negative
|
There are many mysteries in life. For example: Why did any of the people other than Carrot Top agree to appear in this movie? Why did anyone distribute this movie? Why did anyone pay money to see it? I guess none of these questions will ever be answered, but one thing I know for sure, this movie is one of the worst ever made with a budget this big. It would already be bad, but the addition of Carrot Top's "humor" makes it even worse. The only entertainment one could possibly get from this movie is to burn it, smash it, or otherwise destroy it in an amusing fashion. If you were to rank it against every movie ever made, it would be right between "Problem Child" and "Biodome". Nuff said.
| 0 |
negative
|
I love movies in this genre. Beautiful girls, toilet humor, gratuitous nudity. So why didn't I like this movie? No movie like this should add even the slightest confusion to the plot. Who's who, where is the money, it's not SE7EN, just make me laugh. Maybe it's me, but i never felt this frustrated watching American Pie movies or any other more modern National Lampoon's movies. This movie has no flow that keeps me smiling, waiting for what's next. Instead, I find myself stopping to think, "Why did they keep that scene?" I do not recommend this movie. If you are expecting Van Wilder, think again. The only fun I had watching this movie was guessing what movies the actors were in when they were kids. 2/10 generously.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie beats everything out there. Well, depends on what you are looking for... it could be a 10 or a 1 on the scale. This movie is in a complete league of its own.. I don't think any movie could possibly come close to it. I am not sure what the director intended to make it as.. a thriller or a comedy. If he did think he was making a thriller, then he has by a stroke of luck, created one of the best bollywood comedies of all time. You have to see it to believe it.. a matrix + terminator + a host of other movies rolled into one, along with a storyline dating back to 1980's Hindi movies, with a icchadhari naag (a mythical snake which can turn into a human).<br /><br />Its an ideal movie if you are sitting with a bunch of friends with alcohol on the side, planning to laugh at the movie! I am not sure whether to give it a 1 or a 10.. On the basis of flipping a coin, I have decided to give it a 1!
| 0 |
negative
|
Cybrog 2:Glass Shadow stars Elias Koteas as Colton Hicks (Rhymes with kicks!) a karate instructor who helps a Cash (Jolie) escape from Pinwheel, her creators who look to detonate her and destroy a rival company. Along the way Billy Drago and Karen Shepherd show up to displace the duo, while Jack Palance is there to deliver guidance to the duo on the run. One of the things that is quite shocking about the Cyborg franchise, is how the series has managed to have quite prolific and off beat actors in the cast. The original had Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dayle Haddon (Don't know her? Well she was in a bunch of 70's pornos) this one has Jack Palance, Elias Koteas,Billy Drago and Angelina Jolie. The third one has William Katt, Zach Galligan and Malcom McDowell. (Okay so, Cyborg 3's cast isn't that impressive.) I've never seen Cyborg 3, but I did see this on Sci-Fi channel and must admit I wasn't impressed. Actually strike that, Cyborg 2 is an often lovely looking movie, it's shot with excellent style and the visual detail make this easy on the eye. However Cyborg 1 was the same way, indeed the movie was directed with a certain amount of style, slow motion and music that made it all easy on the eye. Unfortunately like the first, this one doesn't have any new ideas or anything resembling a plot or texture. Most of the ideas are taken from Blade Runner and Max Headroom, so for various reasons the movie doesn't have much to offer beyond it's look. Another aspect is the terrible acting. Karen Shepherd and Billy Drago are absolutely terrible and Angelina Jolie isn't much better. Elias Koteas and Jack Palance come off fine but seriously Palance is playing a cyborg warrior and Koteas is a karate instructor. I guess on the positive side you can't accuse Michael Schroeder of not being ambitious with casting. Still the movie is dull and I for one lost interest in the story fifteen minutes in. Also why did they tie it in with Cyborg anyway? It has nothing to do with it's predecessor, which this manages to be worse than.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
| 0 |
negative
|
I would just like to say that The Cure was a fabulious movie to help inform how people who are HIV positive have to function in life. Expecially a young boy who cant go to school because he could contaminate someone. and the ignorance of the boys who called them FAGGOTS. that just shows how much children are not educated about aids.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.