text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
this film is basically a poor take on the old urban legend of the babysitter who gets crank calls telling her to check the children, she calls the police who trace the calls and find there coming from inside the house. when a killer calls has a story so simplistic a little kid could have written it. not much suspense, it becomes clear who the killer is halfway through the film. at the beginning, when the first victim is killed it looks like a bondage fetish scene from a porn site or something. whats up with that? the film is oh so typical slasher fare with a plot about as original as a Beatles concert. even by low budget slasher standards its cheesy. don't waste your time with this. nuff said
| 0 |
negative
|
This show is absolutely fantastic. It provides all the great drama and romance of teen shows like The OC and Dawsons, but it's a whole lot funnier. It's a show with morals and values, without everything being sugar coated and sanitised (ala 7th Heaven.) We don't have sororities or fraternities in Australia, and our university system is completely different, so I have no idea how accurately Greek life is portrayed. But I don't care! Because this show is my new favourite! Any writer that can make me love a racist, homophobe confederate flag-waving Bible basher must be genius.<br /><br />And Cappie is my new Pacey. Sorry Josh Jackson, you've been dethroned!
| 1 |
positive
|
I really enjoyed this movie - I like prison movies in general (I'm not sure why -- I'm sure some shrink could make something out of it!) I spent one night in jail more than 20 years ago, and I knew then I would never go back - I got the individual version of "scared straight"! (I did get locked up in an isolation cell on Alcatraz for a couple of hours, compliments of a park ranger, but that's another story!) Anyway, the genre really interests me. The soundtrack, specifically "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Rolling Stones, was the perfect backdrop for the film. To this day, I think of "The Jericho Mile" every time I hear the song.
| 1 |
positive
|
Hubie -- like Stanely the troll from Bluth's A Troll in Central Park -- lacks the spark of personality to be the main character that carries an entire movie. We're supposed to like him because he's nice, but that's about all he is.<br /><br />His character design is unappealing. The top of his head is a sort of dome that is narrower than the pudgy bottom half of his head.<br /><br />And penguins should not have teeth. I know that Iago the parrot in Aladdin had teeth, but maybe that worked because it made him look more like his voice actor, Gilbert Gottfried. Hubie, with his weenie little voice (provided by Martin Short), looks funny with that big set of chompers in his beak.<br /><br />Tim Curry, who is usually delightful at being evil, does some sort of dippy surfer dude accent as the villain (might have been a good voice for a comic relief accomplice, not the supposedly menacing main villain).<br /><br />The entire plot revolves around the hero and villain's love for female penguin Marina, who is just as dull as both of her suitors.<br /><br />Worst of all is the pacing. We keep cutting back to the villain to watch him threaten Marina some more - this time in dialogue, this time in song...<br /><br />Barry Manilow may be a great songwriter, but in animated films like this and Thumbelina, his songs feel limp and listless - especially the ballads. The only song I liked was the 1930's-ish "Good Ship Misery" song.<br /><br />I read that the distributor made some cuts in this film against the filmmaker's wishes, and that could have caused some of the problems - though I suspect the real problem is that they didn't cut the rest of it ;).
| 0 |
negative
|
This cheapo remake of the terrific Five Star Final suffers from terrible acting. Humphrey Bogart stars as the manager of a sleazoid radio station that is desperate to boost sagging ratings. The owner decides to have a series of morality plays written about a famous murder case from 20 years ago. So they hire the fake preacher (Harry Hayden) to track down the murderess, who was acquitted and has been living quietly under a fake name. The preacher arrive on the daughter's wedding day, but the ruthless radio station refuses to back off exposing the mother and ruining their lives.<br /><br />Bogart is always good. Hayden is good the the slimy preacher, and Henry O'Neill is good as the father. Everyone else is just awful. Helen McKeller wins no sympathy (crucial for the role), Linda Perry is a lousy actress, Beverly Roberts is OK but always looks old, Claire Dodd and Hobart Cavanagh have no parts, Carlyle Moore is a dud as the boy friend, Virginia Brissac is miscast as the society mother, Robert Middlemas overacts as the station owner.<br /><br />This one comes in under an hour but is a pale copy of the original which boasted dynamic performances by Edward G. Robinson, Aline MacMahon, Frances Starr, and Boris Karloff. But it's always worth watching Boagrt.
| 1 |
positive
|
I experienced Nightbreed for the first time on television a year ago and i was pleasantly surprised with the results.<br /><br />Clive Barker is said to have revitalised horror with Hellraiser but this is a film that effectively stalled his cinema career somewhat. What an unfortunate thing to happen because, like the inhabitants of Midian, this film seems to be misunderstood.<br /><br />Barker has created a cross-breed of genre staples in this story - it begins as a traditional horror film but soon becomes a fable regarding mans inhumanity to man. Evoking sympathy for the devil is tough at the best of times but when the characters are as visually demonic as they are in this film it becomes nigh on impossible (cue the child!). The practically Klan-like human insurgence (pitchforks and holy wrath!) at the films conclusion becomes doubly upsetting in the face of what has gone before. As a parable of ethnic tension and white supremacy this film can be quite evocative.<br /><br />I pity those who will not see the film from this angle and think of it as Barker's fantastical indulgence gone too far. We have a genuine forgotten gem here and the sooner the studio and Mr Barker make nice and devote some time to it - the better.
| 1 |
positive
|
Also titled--> The Magical Castle--> This one is a stretch. Why bother? Why create another rockbart and then add another story line that has nearly nothing to do with the play nor swan lake. Only some girlfriend of rockbart, the stolen book of forbidden arts and the original characters (not voices remain). Stripped to to its bares this is a continuation by a thread. Next thing you know some bird will have memorized the "forbidden arts" and Swan Princess 4: the magical bird will be born. Thankfully though the chapters are supposedly closed and this will beginning but bad ended trilogy will come to a close.
| 0 |
negative
|
Although this series and the mini film in particular were very important at the time of release, I feel that the series as a whole was actually fairly poorly written with a weak cast. The issues at heart are extremely well portrayed yet it is difficult to relate and understand the problems within the film when the acting and script isn't convincing enough (especially when looking at the mini film).<br /><br />I also don't believe that this mini film or series has stood the test of time as now many of the scenes are quite laughable. The issues are still crucial but Boys From The Blackstuff cannot fully aid the cause of understanding the problems in Britain in the 1980s.
| 0 |
negative
|
Finally a true horror movie. This is the first time in years that I had to cover my eyes. I am a horror buff and I recommend this movie but it is quite gory. I am not a big wrestling fan but Kane really pulled the whole monster thing off. I have to admit that I didn't want to see this movie, my 17 year old dragged me to it, but am very glad I did. During and after the movie I was looking over my shoulder. I have to agree with others about the whole remake horror movies enough is enough. I think that is why this movie is getting some good reviews. It is a refreshing change and takes you back to The Texas Chainsaw ( first one), Michael Myers, and Jason. And no CGI crap.
| 1 |
positive
|
I knew nothing about this film until I watched it... my brother in fact suggested I take a look. Normally, his suggestions aren't much cop however, but I was stuck for something to watch so I watched it.<br /><br />Well, to cut a long story short, I give it 10/10.<br /><br />The film centers around two people, that meet whilst lodging at the same place. One is initially very dependant upon the institution around him, the other is a rebel. One does what he likes, the other as he's told.<br /><br />From the first moments of the film we quickly see the friendship between the two building, and see how they rub off a little on each other. It's a remarkable piece of work, that manages to tell a good story without twist upon twist, people leaping out of bath tubs, or superheros coming to save the day.<br /><br />There's a fair amount of grit and reality in there, not everything can ever go just right - not all gulfs can ever be spanned - and this film delightfully shows the lot.<br /><br />If you watch this film, and are not impressed..... I'd suggest that you don't watch anything again.
| 1 |
positive
|
Cops Logan Alexander and Debbie Rochon escort five black juvenile delinquents cross country and end up stranded out in the sticks when their van breaks down. After a deadly run-in with a racist, white trash bitch with a shotgun (played by the director), the survivors take refuge in the house of a blind voodoo priestess. One of the teens senselessly uses a spell to call up Killjoy, who finally shows up about midway through this bore in a subpar make-up job and bigger, greasier 'fro that looks like it could slide off his head at any moment. He then proceeds to kill off the stupid characters while spouting some of the worst one-liners heard since Hee Haw was canceled.<br /><br />The acting from the "teens" is terrible, the dialogue even worse, the FX stink and it looks a lot cheaper than the first film. Although I enjoyed him in his earlier Troma films, Trent Haaga (trying to imitate Jim Carrey here) is awful and no match for the hyperactive overemoting of Angel Vargas in KILLJOY 1 (which at least had a few dumb laughs).<br /><br />Yet another nail in the coffin for Full Moon studios, whose reputation as a fun direct-to-vid franchise has completely vanished since the TRANCERS/PUPPET MASTER days.
| 0 |
negative
|
Did you ever watch a really bad movie and get mad about it? Even a movie you didn't have high expectations for? Well I just rented the movie "Dead Line". This is the US video title for "Interferencia". Now I have seen a lot of bad movies, and watched a lot of "B" titles, but this is in another league all its own. It was put out on "The Asylum" label, and anyone that rents a lot of direct to video horror films knows this label. When you rent one of there's you know what your getting. A lot of marginal acting low budget horror, but usually still pretty good. Not this one. The acting by the three leads was beyond bad. Even fast forwarding couldn't help. The tag line on the front of the box says"..in the tradition of DePalma's Body Double. The nerve to compare this to that classic movie. The only true comment is "The screams you will hear are real". Yea you will be the one screaming if you rent this.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm sure the film contains certain gaps in logic, but I was so enthralled by it that I really didn't care. The movie plays out like a fun, lighthearted teen romp combined with a Schwarzenegger-type action flick. It's packed with action, packed with excitement and has some humorous moments as well. Sean Astin is fun to watch, and I haven't seen Louis Gossett, Jr. since I saw "Diggstown" in theaters. He is a fine, underrated actor and I love watching him on screen. I just wonder what he's doing now. Unfortunately, he might be starring in a lot of those direct-to-video flicks. Hopefully, my assumption is wrong. Anyway, this is a fun, edge-of-your-seat thriller and I definitely suggest you check it out. <br /><br />My score: 7 (out of 10)
| 1 |
positive
|
Hynkel, dictator of Tomania, is a spoiled child who becomes angry when he cannot gets what he really wants... And what he simply wants is nothing less than the world...<br /><br />In one of the extraordinary scenes of Chaplin art, Hynkel performs a ballet with the 'world' which bursts when he thinks he has it in his grasp...<br /><br />Chaplin also has some biting words on war and war films... In a scene at the beginning of the movie, which takes place during World War I, the Tomanian messenger crashes the plane and thinks... He is about to die... In a state of delirium, he begins to say ridiculous words... The empty double-talk continue ascending into a brilliant take off on all the heroic death scenes of War films...<br /><br />In another scene when he becomes a fugitive in the Jewish ghetto and assumes command of the resistance fomenting rebellion among the old men, he plans to kill the dictator... One of the group must kill the ruthless conqueror of Austerlich... Whoever is chosen will naturally die, but his heroic death will be rewarded and his name will shine like a star in Tomanian history...<br /><br />The sequence in which he and four other characters eat cream cakes containing coins to determine which shall sacrifice his life to murder the dictator is a bitter hilarity filled with great fear...<br /><br />For all its disappointing shortcomings, "The Great Dictator" is still a significant movie for the ironic tones of the film adding something that neither Chaplin nor anymore else could have given it: the irony of history... The necessity to murder Hynkel presages the assassination attempt against Hitler by his generals... The force of the original satire is only surpassed by history's imitation of art...<br /><br />With a splendid sequence like the duck-shooting accident which leads to the dictator being mistaken for the humbly Jewish barber and vice versa, "The Great Dictator" is Chaplin's first talking movie... This time 'Charles' and not 'Charlie,' wanting to say more through his movie and not through an amusing comedy, the last in which he uses his celebrated 'Tramp Character.'
| 1 |
positive
|
Dreamy young Ashton Kutcher (as Tom Stansfield) wants a date with sexy blonde Tara Reid (as Lisa Taylor). Ms. Reid thinks Mr. Kutcher is gay. Kutcher works for Reid's father, an anal retentive Terence Stamp (as Jack Taylor). Kutcher agrees to "housesit" for the boss, believing it will get him closer to Reid. Mr. Stamp has a pet owl named "O.J.", who becomes a toilet cokehead. <br /><br />This is a film to get your restricted to "G-rated" pre-teens ready for raunchier "R-rated" fare. It will help if they haven't seen the plot before, and especially like moronic potty humor. Remember, people get paid to act like this.<br /><br />** My Boss's Daughter (2003) David Zucker ~ Ashton Kutcher, Tara Reid, Terence Stamp
| 0 |
negative
|
Samuel Fuller knows war, and is one of the only directors in American movie history who could accurately portray the horrific experiences of it in a form like the motion picture. His pessimism and idealism, if that sounds a little odd to mix together, work for him as a storyteller, and at the same time he's always out to tell the truth, however brutal (or put into melodramatic constructs) it can get. Verboten, however, deals with the post-war experience, as we only get in the opening scenes the big boom of WAR- in bold for a point. The opening shot is like one big exclamation point that seems to continue on into the rest of the scenes: a dead soldier on the ground, the camera pans up, we see another soldier shot down in war-torn terrain. Simple, direct language. Then Fuller punctuates the intensity with something interesting: the title song played over the opening credits as both irony and sincerity, and then Beethoven music over a shoot-out between Americans and the Nazis. Sgt David Brent (James Best) is shot, the battle goes on, and then it transitions to him being treated for his wounds.<br /><br />It might lead one to believe that this will be a somewhat conventional WW2 flick (somewhat in that one usually wouldn't find Beethoven and, later on to an extent, Wagner put into these images), but this isn't the case. Instead, Fuller makes this a 'Coming Home' kind of movie, though not at all in the sense that 'this soldier comes home injured and so on and so on'. Instead of really going home, Brent stays on in Germany, as he's fallen head over heels for the woman, Helga (Susan Cummings, pretty good at pulling off the German accent), and wants to work in a smaller capacity in the military so he can marry her. What he doesn't realize is that a) she wants him more for money so she can get food for herself and brother, however this gets complex emotionally at the point of revelation to the slightly naive but heartfelt Brent, and b) there's an underground Hitler youth sect called the Werewolves, who want to pick right up off where Hitler ended- starting small, despite argument within the group- by attacking the very government that's now embedded in Germany to give them, as Brent describes, a "blood transfusion." With this, plus footage from the Nuremburg trials, and (as narrated, I think, by Fuller himself) a quick, no-punches-pulled history of the Nazi war crimes piece by piece, we get a multi-faceted look at a society in the dire straits of an immediate post-war environment. While Rossellini handled it his own way with Germany Year Zero, Fuller tackles it with layers: first there's the love story, or what is the tragic downfall of a man who can't see anything past what he thinks should be reasonable, that it's his wife and a child on the way that he can't leave, until the revelation that he's (partly) been swindled. Baker and Cummings, along with Harold Daye as Helga's young, confused brother, perform at with the utmost detail to emotions; these aren't very easy B-movie parts, though they could've been that. Then another layer is the political one, the struggle of a society to come to grips with being conquered, and a mentality which is made sensationalized, to be sure, by Fuller, in respect to making the Nazi's a total no-gray-area thing: they're evil, particularly when they cancel out reason to meet their ends.<br /><br />And finally there's the layer of style, which is strangely absorbing. This is probably one of Fuller's 'talkiest' films, which isn't a bad thing considering it's one of his best written scripts, as the characters don't talk simply or in too many platitudes (with the exception of a small scene where two characters talk about the Hitler youth as juvenile delinquents, which is actually, according to Fuller's autobiography, probably another layer to consider in the subtext and the 50s period of movies). And Fuller shoots this almost in a real European style, when he's not going for fight scenes or battles, as the editing isn't always very fast, and sometimes a cut won't happen for a full minute, or longer. There's an odd tension that grows out of this, especially when there's something said by a character that gets another one wild-eyed or suspicious; Fuller could easily go for a big close-up, but there's a more sinister, cold quality to not moving away from two people in a conversation without a simple over-the-shoulder deal. But when it requires it, like the big brawl outside the American military office, or the Nuremburg footage spliced into Franz's memories of the Werewolves, Fuller can be as stunning stylist as ever.<br /><br />Very hard to find, but extremely worth it if you'r either a fan of the director's or of WW2 movies set in Germany- or even just a history-buff- Verboten! is an intellectual experience and a strong emotional one, with a cast that is better than expected from a B-movie, and an attitude towards the 'other' that is equally damning and thought provoking.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie has one or two slightly interesting gags but they are NOT worth the wait. After an unexplained argument between two guys picking up litter in a drive-in movie theatre we cut to a family leaving! Hollywood and driving driving driving driving their camper van across the screen again and again as inane dialogue is voiced over. At least I think it's inane, the terrible song that accompanies this montage is mixed so loud it renders the dialogue at times almost inaudible. <br /><br />Finally the camper van arrives, at night, at a gas station where the family get out, have another inane conversation, before driving off. The camera then pans across to reveal the actor we have just seen drive away. He talks straight to camera and we realise he is the director of the movie we are watching which is about him, and how he came to make the movie.<br /><br />A nice idea which ALMOST (but not quite) makes the previous sequences worth the pain.<br /><br />As the movie unfolds he encounters the two characters we met picking litter at the start of the movie and they all form a motion picture company.<br /><br />All sorts of not very funny and clumsy comedy ensues as they put together a crew and attempt to raise the cash needed to start filming.<br /><br />This movie was obviously put together on a shoe string and a promise and there is a nice little idea in here struggling to get out but the execution is so inept that the idea gets lost. Comedy is more than things just falling over and everyone talking (or shouting) at once. So much of the dialogue here is shouted by several actors simultaneously - Robert Altman can do this sort of thing well because he has a script, rehearsals, decent sound techies, and editing facilities. Everyone shouting at the one mike which, by the sound of it, was hidden in a dustbin in the next room, does not make for clarity.
| 0 |
negative
|
Some might remember if having seen the film Juno a scene where Ellen Page has a moment of praise for Dario Argento's Suspiria, her favorite horror film. Jason Bateman's character then asks if she's ever seen a Herschel Gordon Lewis film, and to wit he has a copy of a movie (I forget which at the moment) and shows it to her. At the time I saw Juno I had seen Suspiria and a few Argento films but not Lewis. Now I can see that it's not just another one of Diablo Cody's pop-culture "in" references, but something that actually is an indicator on the tastes of the characters and, maybe more subjectively, how to judge them based on their tastes. In other words, Herschel Gordon Lewis's reputation is maintained some many years after he ended making his gore films - and it's that of a schlock-Meister, no more no less. Actually, less.<br /><br />It's interesting then to take Argento as a basis of comparison, because both filmmakers approach, at least in the case of The Gore Gore Girls and, well, any given Argento picture, similar material. Where Argento is extraordinarily conscious about his craft, getting an audience wrapped up in whatever little story there is by the power of the movement of camera and music and style, Lewis takes the easy route to get at an audience, which is with an immature script and (putting it lightly) lackluster direction. The Gore Gore Girls reveals a filmmaker who isn't interested in entertaining his audience in an actual compelling way as a horror film, but as a side-show or a brothel. He can't direct actors worth a damn, he lights like it's a porno movie, and for every one possibly clever or funny one-liner there's ten that either totally stink or are too clever by half or not clever nearly enough.<br /><br />That being said, perhaps as the best substantive thing to say about The Gore Gore Girls, a mystery movie about a detective (2nd rate Sherlock Holmes guy played by somewhat amusing Frank Kress) and a newspaper reporter (dummie Amy Farrell) investigating a series of murders of go-go dancers, is that it serves as the template for countless more Troma-style pictures. Perhaps this is faint praise, however, and really the best thing that can truly be said is that Henny Youngman- "Take my wife, please!"- has a few scenes and steals every one of them without having to try much. It's sad, since it could be the kind of picture that could entertain on an awesomely-bad level. But even on that score one may laugh more out of embarrassment for the production, some of the actors (i.e. that guy who plays the cop, my God) than out of some guilty pleasure enjoyment.<br /><br />Even the gore itself is somewhat of a letdown. At first one thinks that Lewis is at least delivering on this end, showing these women being murdered in crazy and vicious and exaggerated ways. But with the killings it all goes on longer than necessary; I don't mean this in terms of shock value, for that it's fine. But there needs to be something else to really make it "stick", that showing women's faces dissected and eyes gouged is fine if you're 12 and seeing this as one of you're first 'horror' films. It becomes, dare I say it, dull. Dangerously dull for such a "daring" so-called movie.<br /><br />This was Lewis's last film until 30 years later an apparently worthy swan song came with a sequel to a film he made earlier brought him out of his retirement from movies and job in writing books on how to make it in business. However, whatever experience he had coming up to this one doesn't show. It's not a failure, but it could have been, and it's just simply... schlock. Take it or leave it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Not quite a bomb? The only thing missing was the enriched uranium. Actually the script "may" have worked if the lead roles had been cast with younger actors, but the dramatics of an aging Diane Lane acting as if she was a teenager (or even a twenty-something) was too much to stomach. Every time she (Adrienne) would jump into the arms of Richard Gere and then pull both heels up behind her, you could almost see the grimace of pain on his face as he was probably thinking, "Oh, my aching back...this babe sure doesn't weight 125 lbs. anymore!" Anyway, both characters were distinctly unlikeable, especially Richard Gere's: a self absorbed plastic surgeon (Dr. Paul Flanner) that was on some kind of "soul quest" after a botched operation left him with a dead patient (an older woman from a small farm). Then there was her angry husband and son he had to deal with to explain what happened. Dr. Flanner is on his way to meet said angry husband (at the husband's request) when he meets up with Adrienne. She is recently split from her unfaithful husband (shock) and is helping out a friend by watching her beach-front cottage rental. Of course, that's where Dr. Flanner ends up staying and they both end up falling MADLY in love (especially after she finds out he is a rich doctor AND a plastic surgeon). In between romantic interludes and a nauseating song/dance routine that Lane (Adrienne) performs while listening to an old LP (no CD's?), they both try to figure how their lives got so totally screwed up. Dr. Flanner was also not much of a father and has a son (who is also a Dr.) who resents him for not being there for him while he was growing up. (Naturally Dr. Flanner was more interested in his medical career at the time rather than raising an impetuous, distracting boy.) To make a long (predictable) story short, Adrienne helps Dr. Flanner face his inner demons as well as confront said angry husband and son of the woman who died on his operating table (after going in for a "routine" cyst removal of the face). Dr. Flanner is FINALLY able to tell the husband (played excruciatingly sympathetic by Scott Glenn) that he is sorry for what happened - even though it was all the fault of that danged anesthesiologist. "I told him she was too old for that much juice!" Glenn's character,(Robert Torrelson) appears to accept Dr. Flanner's apology. It's hard to tell because his emotional response is so passive by this time that you wonder if if he is even hearing the good Dr. at all or thinking about some acreage that he needs to plow. Ever more circumspect, Dr. Flanner then decides he needs to visit his son (who is now practicing medicine pro-bono in a third world country) to mend their relationship. Unfortunately, that means he must temporarily bid adieu to Adrienne. Of course, while entertaining the natives in Timbuktu, he writes a love letter every hour on the hour to Adrienne (who nearly swoons like a school girl every time she gets one) and tells her that the hardest thing he ever had to do was to tell her goodbye. Evidently, apologizing to Robert Torrelson for his wife's death was the second hardest thing. In the end he gets killed in a freak mud slide (poetic justice as in mud pack?) and she is left with just the memories of what could have been...hopefully no more Gere/Lane sequels!
| 0 |
negative
|
My buddies and I spent the majority of a Saturday afternoon watching a selection of "bad" movies. Among the flicks we watched, the strongest contender (for quality bad-movie fare) was easily Jack-O. It's ludicrous that movies such as "Gigli", "Glitter" and "You Got Served" are listed in IMDBs bottom 100. While they're certainly bad movies, they don't belong in the bottom 100. They're robbing "Jack-O", and "Keeper of Time", etc, of the Bad Movie Greatness they so richly deserve.<br /><br />So what makes Jack-O so great (in bad movie terms)? For starters, Steve Latshaw, the director, decided to cast his son, Ryan Latshaw, in the role of Sean Kelly. Unfortunately for Steve, Ryan Latshaw was dangerously close to being out-acted by a block of wood. The kid, seriously, has no ability to emote whatsoever. The end result: unintentional comic gold. The kid could be listening to a joke, or just moments away from getting his head smashed asunder, and his expression is one of stony "emotionlessness".<br /><br />The other aspect of the movie that we found awesome was the sheer number of "double dreaming" sequences. What is a double-dream? Well, it's when a character wakes up from a nightmare, and then something equally nightmarish happens, and then the character wakes up again. Basically: they wake up after dreaming about waking up from a nightmare. Clever device, no? I believe the character of Sean Kelly experienced no less than 3 double-dreaming sequences.<br /><br />Let's see... what else? Oh yeah! This movie has a veritable cast of thousands. It's truly stunning to see how many speaking roles are introduced throughout the course of the movie. Best of all: almost none of the characters have anything to do with the story. They're either killed by Jack-O, or they serve no purpose whatsoever.<br /><br />Jack-O himself was pretty sweet. Like most other B-movie monsters, Jack-O has the amazing ability to, seemingly, teleport over great distances. He's invariably hanging-out, somewhere in the background, whenever you're dealing with a major character. What's puzzling, however, is that when he's actually chasing someone he moves at a shambling/stumbling speed, and yet he's able to keep up with people who are sprinting.<br /><br />That's all for now. Closing remarks: if you're looking for a unintentionally hilarious bad movie, you can't go wrong by renting this beast.<br /><br />Bad Movie Score: 7/10 Good Movie Score: 3.5/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is pretty good, it actually is like a good wine, it gets better the more you watch it. The pace is pretty slow for such a high octane topic, but the cinematography is beautiful and surreal. There is a cool blue tint that "rides" the whole film. There is also one great performance in Gabriel Casseus' performance of the character "Midget". He is terrific. Why doesn't this guy work more. If the film got better support, he probably would have.
| 1 |
positive
|
For the main criticisms of the movie... The love story: that wasn't a love story. Those were two people distraught coming together trying to find humanity in ANYone. The same thing happened with soldiers and the Russian boy. It added a feminine touch, but come on look at American movies...no where close to love story. There was no storyline: does war have a storyline? I think that is a silly criticism. The storyline is this. They start with 400 men and the movie narrowed down to show the lives of about 10 men and how each did their part and died. Death is the ultimate end to any story. Just because there was no happy ending doesn't mean it has no storyline. <br /><br />There was a horrid truth in this movie. I wouldn't necessarily call it "anti-war". It had a political statement of course, but the movie wasn't all about the politics. In fact, except for a few occurrences when the Captain? showed up, there was never a stifling air of Nazi Germany. They were far enough out of the reach of the main Nazi party. The fat cats weren't gonna go into Russia!<br /><br />Maybe not completely accurate and not a Hollywood hit, but it exhibits a fine knowledge of the common soldier (I'd say exactly of almost any nationality and war)and what they must go through. It was a losing battle, of course the movie is going to be depressing. And to the person who said that it was gutsy (and silly) to even portray Germans as victims: there are victims on all sides in every war (any real soldier will tell you that).<br /><br />This movie is a fine balance between movie and documentary. A few problems with it when arguing for just one, but it instills the best of both worlds. Watch it as such. Beware however because it is a hard movie to watch if not graphically, emotionally.<br /><br />I'm waiting til they make a movie about Iraq. It will probably have many of the same themes and will be very controversial, I want to see who has the guts to do it first. (Jarhead doesn't count)
| 1 |
positive
|
Alas, it seems that the golden times of stylish Italian cinema have sunk into oblivion. And the recent brainchild of celebrated filmmaker Lamberto Bava is yet another obvious proof to that assumption.<br /><br />I felt lucky to watch many films from this prolific director (like Body Puzzle, Delerium, Macabre and both Demons). Albeit not entirely satisfying they have never been that dull.<br /><br />A suspicion that this new entry to my DVD collection was money thrown to the winds arose shortly in the aftermath of the car crash scene exhibiting an awkward and unlikely position of the body under the flip-over car.<br /><br />And the sense of shallowness grew up in the course of the ponderously narrated chain of events that followed.<br /><br />Dumb dialogs, suspenseless script and a total waste of talents from the international cast. The only character that provided more or less passable performance was the mischievous Mark's son juicing up the entire boredom.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Mario's son job on all accounts could hardly be hailed.<br /><br />I look forward to seeing his Murder House hopefully expected to be an improvement.
| 0 |
negative
|
It is amazing what you can see if you wake at 2 am and turn on the telly. I didn't know they showed films like this. I immediately thought of Roger Corman, who reused locations for movies or used other films locations for his own movies.<br /><br />The makes of this film could just move the camera angles and add some time and they would have an XXX film.<br /><br />There was no story, just minimum dialog that led to stripping and sex. I bet there wasn't 100 words in the whole film, but there sure was a lot of very large busts and hot lesbian action. There was male/female action too, but it was only about 25% of the movie.<br /><br />Another interesting thing came to mind in watching this film that may interest those who are buying hi def DVDs. Sony refused to license Betamax to adult film makers and adult films came out on VHS. You can guess what happened to beta max as the adult film industry makes millions of videos. Sony has again refused to license Blu-ray to the adult film industry and they have just signed a deal with Toshiba. You can guess which high def system will disappear.
| 0 |
negative
|
I can laugh at just about anything, but unfortunately there is not a single one to be found in this stink bomb!!!!I honestly watched this movie from beginning to end, and did not even crack a smile. I am shocked that Sandler, Schneider, Spade etc., would put their names on this piece of crap. Worse than the worst that ever came out of the worst that ever came out of former SNL players. What more can I say? How could such tasteless, extremely unfunny drivel come from such a pool of apparent talent!! Maybe I have lost my sense of humor, (not likely), but I cannot remember a movie that I have disliked this much in a long time. What a waste of 2 hours I will never get back.
| 0 |
negative
|
SPOILER - This film gives away plot points and discusses the ending. I hated this film - mostly for political reasons, but also for moral and aesthetic reasons. Politically, this film glorified war and military technology - blowing things up real good. We are led to cheer as the music swells and the Afghans use our weapons to blow the Ruskies to bits. And no U.S. soldiers put their lives on the line - so it's a fun war. Aesthetically, there isn't a touch of real human emotion in the film, just smug, privileged people being sarcastic, feeling superior, and doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. And speaking of consequences, the film only makes a few small hits at what the arming of the Afghans actually led to. I had read an earlier draft of this script, and it ended on 9/11 - with Charlie Wilson realizing that things had gone horribly wrong. But that wouldn't leave the audience feeling good. This is a feel good movie about killing Ruskies. And it made me sick.
| 0 |
negative
|
Stalingrad is a terrific movie, well acted and directed, and rather down to earth in it's approach to the various bizarre aspects of warfare and it's politics. This is, together with "Das Boot" one of the best war movies (together with the Finnish "Vinterkriget" ("The Winter War", in English, I believe)). It depicts the ordeals of some of the German soldiers that fought --- and died --- in and around Stalingrad during World War 2. No big time heroics, no over bearing emotional fuzziness, only the fear of every day death in war. The mood of the movie is similar to the one in "Das Boot", and that should give you some hints on what to expect, I guess. So, if you enjoy realistic, non-Hollywoodish, war movies: Rent it, buy it, just make sure you see it! Finally, a film buff's note: for some of the previous reviewers information, I only want to add that "Stalingrad" isn't directed by Wolfgang Petersen (who made "Das Boot")!
| 1 |
positive
|
I think not! I mean yeah if you compare this film to The Godfather, or maybe a little older film like Casablanca, or maybe even a little newer film like The English Patient. It doesn't have the camera work or the cinematography like these other films, but that doesn't mean that this is a bad movie, or does it? I think the reason why this film is underrated is because a lot of people always compare it to other great Oscar winning films (you should never do that) which makes it hard to understand the beauty and the realism in this movie. In the categories Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role, this film really deserved all of them. The magnificent Dustin Hoffman gives us, once again, one of his best performances. A couple of times in this movie I forgot that it wasn't his son because it was just so real! I have never seen a film about relationships in different families where it was so easy for the actors to play that specific role but still so beautiful. So Dustin Hoffman passes the test with flying colors, in my opinion. There are a few actresses in the world who deserve to be called the best: Katherine Hepburn, Meryl Streep, Jane Fonda and Ingrid Bergman (I can't help it, I think she's great). Meryl Streep, even though she's in a supporting role, is amazing and real and you just can't help but being drawn ed to her talent and the way she makes it hers and real. Wow, that's all I can say. Justin Henry was great considering his age, his tears and his relationship with his mom and dad was beautiful, so I say good job to cute little Justin Henry. <br /><br />While I was watching this film for like the third time, alone, I couldn't stop crying. I tried but I couldn't. Thank god I was alone! This is probably the purest film I have ever seen. Other films that were nominated for Best Picture was Apocalypse Now, Norma Rae, Breaking Away and All That Jazz. I'm ashamed, cause I haven't seen any of them, but from what I've heard, Apocalypse Now is great but when I heard about Norma Rae I only thought of Sally Field. I think that considering the other nominees, this film deserved it's five Oscars, and that it'll continue to touch and make other people cry for a long time in the future, just like it has for the past 28 years. Good job all the actors and actresses in this film for giving us great performances and memories from watching this film that we won't ever forget.<br /><br />Thanks for your time.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am not a fan of musicals, but I am a huge fan of Jean Renoir and Jean Gabin. I rented this movie on a whim and was pleasantly surprised even expecting greatness from the classic director. This movie is BEAUTIFUL. The shots are like oil paintings with motion, something a lot of directors strive for but Renoir MASTERS. I cannot express how much this movie transcends itself... it's not really a musical, it just has a couple of well-placed musical numbers and a grand dancing finale. But there is something about this movie in particular which makes you feel absolute JOY when watching it.<br /><br />I am a fan of foreign art films, but I'm also a meathead who loves things like Die Hard and Schwarzenegger movies. I get very easily turned off by things that are overly happy or in "la la land," but this movie has an overwhelming positive energy that is just irresistible -- not to mention every frame is gorgeous and the plot is good. 10 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Wind. Easily one of the worst films ever made. The only good that comes from this kind of pointless drivel, is the fact that seeing films like this get distribution makes indy horror filmmakers like me confident that my upcoming feature will make the cut too. I mean, if this represents the market for indy horror, I could make a fortune videotaping myself taking out the garbage for 83 minutes. <br /><br />A complete list of what this film lacks would take way too long to write out. But, the highlites are: no story, terrible acting, awful cinematography, and virtually no editing. That last one bothered me the most. As an editor myself, this film drove me absolutely crazy because it had almost no editing at all. Every scene was shot in a master. They had absolutely no coverage at all. For anyone who doesn't know..."coverage" is shooting a scene from multiple angles to have cutting options when editing to make for a desirable viewing experience. Yeah, this movie had none of that. I'm talking about even the simplest of scenes. Example: an ordinary conversation scene between two people sitting at a table would typically start out with a master establishing who's in the scene and where they are. Then, as the conversation goes on, you would cut back and forth to over-the-shoulder shots as the conversation continues. You may even throw in a cutaway shot or two of something on the table, or in someone's hand. Anything. This is "Film 101" stuff guys. It seems as though these people had no idea this is how films work. Every shot was a camera lock-down. No movement, no cutting, no nothing. If I was teaching a course in filmmaking, this would be the visual aid for my "What not to do" lesson.<br /><br />In closing, don't waste your time folks. The only amazing this about this film is that it ever scored distribution at all.<br /><br /> <br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
"Hey, I didn't order no cab!" "Yeah, well you got one..." What can I say about Hack...what a man among men. He was a heartened ex-cop turned cab driver with a heart of gold. If you were able to (and fortunately for America's TV viewers...one person per week was) penetrate the cold, hard surface of Hack's exterior, you got to see a caring man devoted to vigilante justice. The show was superb, I laughed, I cried, I smiled...all in the same episode. My arms would break out in goosebumps when our dear friend Hack would exit his cab in another dark alley...with nothing more than his fists...ready to avenge a wronged civilian. A smile would break out on my face when the screen showed me a criminal in a dark alley's facial expressions when the Taxi of Justice's headlights illuminated upon his face. Week after week I canceled my duties as president of the Klingon Association to bask in the warmth glow of Hack's brilliance. I have never seen a better show, and I mourned the loss of one of America's greatest treasures when the show was canceled. In other Hack-related news, I would like to announce to the world that my wife and I are expecting Hack Koen to come into the world in about three weeks.
| 1 |
positive
|
Now, I am not prone to much emotion, but I cried seeing this movie. It certainly has more appeal among blacks than other ethnic groups, but there is something here for everyone. The classic song "It's so Hard to Say Goodbye" really makes this one worth watching at least once.
| 1 |
positive
|
The ending made my heart jump up into my throat. I proceeded to leave the movie theater a little jittery. After all, it was nearly midnight. The movie was better than I expected. I don't know why it didn't last very long in the theaters or make as much money as anticipated. Definitely would recommend <br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
Having a close experience with one such patient is probably the best reason why I had my heart rushing throughout the entire film. Intense, sensible, moral and revealing, and don't forget to check out the marvellous sound track. Really good.
| 1 |
positive
|
I agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.<br /><br />One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.<br /><br />The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.<br /><br />Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing.
| 0 |
negative
|
I normally love Jackie Chan movies but this one was terrible. There are only 2 or 3 fight scenes all of which are up to normal standard more or less. The bad thing about this movie is it focuses a lot on car chasing/racing. The car chase isn't so bad (though not as exciting as fighting) but the car racing at the end is exceptionally boring. Basically it takes all of things that make a Jackie Chan film a Jackie Chan film and leaves out everything except Jackie Chan. Even the traditional outtakes at the end lack their usual humour.<br /><br />I suppose to a certain extent it was made worse by the fact I saw one of those horrible dubbed versions. I usually try to see the subtitled version...I wish I could understand Chinese.<br /><br />I've only seen one Jackie film worse that this one and that was one of his early forays into Hollywood films that didn't turn out so well.<br /><br />Avoid unless really curious or a lover of motor sports.
| 0 |
negative
|
Unlike Terms of Endearment and Steel Magnolia's, I left the movie theater feeling VERY disappointed. I started to get into the characters and their complex mother/daughter and father/daughter relationships at the beginning. I even cried. But I had no sympathy for the characters with the ending. The final act did not seem in line with the mother's character at all. So, although the acting was pretty good, I thought the movie on a whole was disappointing.
| 0 |
negative
|
Before I took a job as a reviewer, I never went to films like this, and thus remained blissfully unaware that at the soul of the Hollywood film lies a deeply woman-hating spirit that thrives on putting its knocking little knees on the silver screen for all to either empathize with or revile. Or is this just a particularly bad year? An ugly trend? <br /><br />Here we have yet another seemingly sweet, innocent, beautiful woman turned lethal weapon. The kind that cautions us that beneath every pair of batting eyes and nesting instincts lies a wild-eyed beast guaranteed to make everyone's life within 50 miles a living hell.<br /><br />This month's specimen is Jewel Valentine's (Liv Tyler), whose simple dreams include having her own little house, a backyard fountain, and a mondo home entertainment system. Unfortunately, Randy (Matt Dillon, in his first film in 3 years), the dim-bulb bartender she picks up at McCool's one night intending to rob, is less materially oriented. The kind of guy who drinks beer out of a toilet plunger, he prefers to hunker down in his dead mother's house with few creature comforts save his snowglobe collection.<br /><br />In that same low-rent bar, the Devil in the Red Dress also bumps into Randy's cousin, Carl (the highly amusing Paul Reiser), a lawyer with an ego the size of St. Louis. When things go south within hours, enter the widowed detective with a heart of gold (John Goodman). The result? Three men sustain big, bad crushes on the leopard-clad progeny of Steven Tyler and Bebe Buell-crushes that make them do things that common sense would normally contraindicate. Like get involved in the first place.<br /><br />Multiple points of view and flashbacks patch together the front-page news about how easy it is to fall victim to one's libido, especially if you're male. As each of these men relates his perspective to a confidant, his desire to possess The Jewel colors the `truth' of the situation. About 70 minutes later, things come together in a reasonably amusing way. But it's amusement from the same source that tells you that the stuff on the popcorn actually tastes like butter.<br /><br />MCCOOL'S is the first film by Norwegian commercial and music-video director Harald Zwart, and his pedigree is clear during some of the fantasy segments, including one about a car wash, soap and a hose that you can probably extrapolate. It's also the debut project from the production company owned by Michael Douglas, who's found his niche as a toupeed sleezeball in a bingo parlor.<br /><br />Dillon and Tyler are unlikely to win any gold statues for this one, though given the one-dimensionality of their overdone film noir-type characters, you can't really fault them. Several minor roles drag out unexpected guests--Reba McEntire plays Carl's psychiatrist, and Andrew Dice Clay doubles as both the hoodlum Utah and his even-scarier brother. (Finally, an outlet for all that aggression.)<br /><br />This film unwittingly speaks volumes about the dynamics between men and women--or men and their mommies. But ultimately you'd probably find more lasting psychological truths in a Bugs Bunny episode. I will say that it's better, funnier, more sophisticated than other recent gems like TOMCATS, but should we really have to choose what to see based on what ranks lowest on the misogynism scale?
| 0 |
negative
|
Oh, Man, talk about the effect of advertising. Apparently, all that you have to do to enjoy box office succes is title your movie after a revered 19th century novel. Horrendous acting, directing, and cinematography in this sham of an effort.
| 0 |
negative
|
Patsy Kensit and some random Australian bloke star as a duo of wannabe tough coppers in the middle of investigating a series of art-gallery related murders, but in between they can still find the time to shoot juvenile shoplifters and suspect the brand new wife of the male cop of being adulterous. The serial killer suddenly isn't important anymore when the supposed lover of the wife (who's basically just a co-worker of hers) is found murdered and the male cop becomes prime suspect. "Tunnel Vision" is a really dull, implausible and tension-free Aussie thriller that obviously imitates popular sex-thrillers like "Fatal Attraction", "Disclosure" and "Basic Instinct". The characters are extremely one-dimensional and pretty much every good-cop/bad-cop cliché is extendedly described in the script. The struggling position of police women in a corps full of men, the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality, alcohol problems through stress, etc etc
Even the unhealthy eating habits of cops are a running gag. Yawn! Kensit really tries her best to make this film more bearable, but she lacks the credibility and talent of a real cinema heroine. The end-twist is more or less interesting (not at all original, mind you) but, by then, you stopped caring for the characters a long time already. The scenes filmed inside the sex clubs look ludicrously fake and Clive Fleury's directing is completely uninspired. What a total waste of time
| 0 |
negative
|
Beyond The Clouds is a hauntingly beautiful, elegiac work of art. The overall softness of the light that this movie is bathed in, makes you want to touch the screen. The autumnal mood conjured up could only been achieved by a director who has seen many summers of experience. Or, to put it another way, an old man. I know of no other movie that captures and uses the softness of light and seasonal mood with such ravishing quality as Beyond The Clouds. Nearly all the people in this film are beautiful, unless your idea of a beautiful woman is a pneumatic blond bimbo, that is. The dialogue doesn't really matter too much, not that there is much of it anyway, and as for storylines, forget it. Some films exist just as visual experiences, this is one of them. Don't bother if you want "simple entertainment",this not for you.<br /><br /> I could enthuse about the visual perfection of this movie for days, but I won't. If you are at all interested in cinematography, photography, film direction etc., watch this film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Her embalmed look was totally inappropriate for the role. Her face remained too white, hair too coifed, clothes etc. too clean (and well-fitting, especially her father's old hat and coat in the scene where Inman comes home) for any sense of accuracy. It would be one thing if the production had allowed all the other actors to remain clean and perfect, too, but she was the only one who didn't get messy. There was never even a smudge on her powdered cheek. Are we to believe she was the only person in the Civil War with a bathtub and a mirror? She certainly looked like the only one who used them. Tweezers, too; I mean, what's with those eyebrows? She looked absolutely mean!<br /><br />The love story was implausible. She only went over to the guy because someone told her that he had said he thought she was cute. So, she goes over to tease him, then flirts with him a couple more times, and suddenly this is a love on a par with Odysseus and Penelope? Please.<br /><br />I should have known better than to expect anything better from the man who brought us "The English Patient." My reaction to that one was the same as Elaine's on Seinfeld: "It sucked."
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm sorry, but "Star Wars Episode 1" did not do any justice to Natalie Portman's talent (and undeniable cuteness). She was entirely underused as Queen Amidala, and when she was used, her makeup was frighteningly terrible. For "Anywhere But Here," she sheds her god-awful makeup and she acts normally. And not only can she act good, she looks good doing it. I'm a bit older than she (she's only 18), and I have little or no chance of meeting her, but hey, a guy is allowed to dream, right?<br /><br />Even though Susan Sarandon does take a good turn in this movie, the film belongs entirely to Portman. I've been a watcher of Portman's since "Beautiful Girls" (where she was younger, but just as cute). There's big things for her in the future - I can see it.
| 1 |
positive
|
William H. Macy is terrific in this Alfred Hitchcock-esque film. Macy stars as a film critic who accidentally kills one of his girlfriends. The characters that ensue are hilarious. James Cromwell gives a terrific performance as a blackmailing private detective. As always, Macy is incredibly funny and gives a phenomenal performance. See this movie whenever it is on t.v. and check your video stores because this is one you don't want to miss.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a terrible movie that only gets worse and seems to never end. The acting was bad, the plot was worse, and the special effects seemed to have been created by a 5th grade science class. Dennis Weaver is such a great actor and should have never taken such a part. My advise, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!
| 0 |
negative
|
Yikes.<br /><br />I've seen quite a few bad movies in my days, a lot of them in the company of Mike, Tom, Crow and the others from MST3k. So was the case with this one as well and even though I found the movie in itself quite funny, it wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the MST3k commentary.<br /><br />The movie is a prime example of really bad movies coming out of Europe during the eighties. Horrible music, horrible acting, horrible plot (what little there is), horrible dialogue and really, really, REALLY, horrible editing. Cripes.<br /><br />This might be called a turkey if it weren't for the fact that it's not unique in any way whatsoever. It's pretty much the same kind of film that almost every italian hack of a director cranked out.<br /><br />So, try and get the MST3k version. It's a pretty fun episode with Mike and gang in quite good form.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the funniest movie I have ever seen. However, I have laughed harder at plenty of movies. This is because Best In Show's brilliance lies not in slapstick or one-liners, but in sophisticated and layered verbal wit. The improvised dialogue is is so quick that you end up laughing not at each individual joke, but only until after several jokes build on one another, each disarming your senses until the jokes climax and you can't help letting loose.<br /><br />It's a well-shot film, but what makes it extraordinary is the acting. I was impressed on my first viewing, but when I watched it after having learned that virtually every scene is improvised, I was amazed. It was thoroughly enjoyable to see the comedians work off each other, build jokes out of nothing, and completely immerse themselves in their characters.<br /><br />I imagine the golden days of Second City were like this.
| 1 |
positive
|
Stan Laurel regarded PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP as the first true' L&H film. THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS was the first 'official' L&H film, but this was the one where Stan completely resigned himself not only to performing (he had signed on with the Hal Roach Studios as a director and 'gag-man', before certain situations - among them Oliver Hardy's accident with a leg of lamb leading to Stan having to replace him; and the extra money that performing would provide for himself and his new wife, Lois - brought about his historic return to performing, as well as writing, directing, editing and involvement in other areas of production), but also realised the fact that he was part of a team that worked well together. This, therefore, is an historic and very important film in the history of comedy.<br /><br />It is also a surprisingly funny little silent film; rather different from what Laurel & Hardy would become known for and from what they are more immediately associated with today. The characters of 'Stan & Ollie do not appear - Scottish Stan Laurel plays the nephew of Oliver Hardy, a respectable man about town who is reluctant to be seen with this strange-looking fellow with a kilt and the habit of chasing pretty girls. There are some very funny moments in this well-made, charming little movie, and the performances of these two Kings of Comedy are spot-on - watch Stan's little 'scissor-kick' and smile that says, "Well waddaya know?" when he sees girls, or the hair-ruffling scene at the airport, for instance. Hilarious.<br /><br />Watch this film if you can, with backing music from The Beau Hunks Orchestra (available on the VVL video releases) which enhances the 1920s feel and is very, very pleasant to listen to. It's a brilliant and underrated little film, which is why I said it was 'surprisingly' funny.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.
| 0 |
negative
|
We chose to see this movie as an alternative to The Polar Express showing at our local IMAX theater. What a waste of time and money! First, it is not cute. The Snowman, at times, looked demonic. Other times, he was simply a zombie. He showed no expression or emotions most of the time, and his hollow blue eyes were just creepy.<br /><br />Secondly, Santa states in the beginning it's a movie about the spirit of giving. Santa and a snowman declaring war on each other is a movie about giving? I'm all for a little parody, but this just wasn't funny or entertaining.<br /><br />The idea that the Snowman's flute is his voice is different. Too bad you never see or hear the snowman play his flute...not even a "thank you" to Santa.<br /><br />The only funny parts of the movie were the "outtakes" at the end of the film. Too bad they didn't use them in the movie. It would have been better.
| 0 |
negative
|
The movie Night Crossing captures the feelings experienced by the vast majority of East Germans during the period 1961-89. I lived in West Berlin during most of 1967 and travelled through The Wall into East Berlin on a weekly basis. Why? Excitement, crossing a border into a Soviet governed country, experiencing the smells and the feel of East Germany, which is why Night Crossing is excellent, it captures that very feeling, and it is exciting. I was arrested by the Vopos in Checkpoint Charlie and accosted by a man in his leather coat and dark glasses I am led to believe was Stasi. When I watch the movie I can smell cheap diesel and cooking oil, I can see the outdated vehicles, the drab clothing the public wore and the lacklustre produce in shop windows. It brings back memories of realising just how lucky I was to live in a free country. In 1988, I toured the DDR from East to West, North to South. East Germany had changed little since 1967. The Trabants, constantly breaking down, were still the main mode of private motorised transport, the shops still featured nothing much to tempt me, uniforms were still commonplace, but the people, the ordinary people were open and nice once you had gained their trust. Watch Night Crossing, it's as close to the truth as any movie you will see on divided Germany, even closer than two other favourites The Spy Who Came In From The Cold and Funeral In Berlin.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this out of curiosity. I enjoyed Stargate SG1 and I've watched many of the other TV shows and movies that the principal characters have worked on.<br /><br />My expectations weren't high, so I was surprised to be so monstrously disappointed.<br /><br />The acting throughout is appalling, and the script is worse. <br /><br />Zero research into the bad science that is spouted throughout the movie, or into martial arts (which several cast members engage in throughout the movie, despite clearly having no martial arts training (baton twirling does not a warrior make)) training makes the already implausible plot even less credible. The same weapon (carried by Michael Shanks), when shot at the side of a mountain, causes extreme damage, but when shot indoors at the wall made of wicker, creates a small fireworks effect without damaging the wicker structure - OK, I suppose Michael Shanks fans will be sued to seeing that in Stargate SG1, where a staff weapon creates either a surface burn on a main character, or blasts a hole in a section of castle wall as required), but still... A bad CGI snake 'god' eats one of the faithful in the way a dog would eat - snakes just don't behave like that.<br /><br />The basic premise of an amazonian warrior cult on a distant planet is silly at best. Matriarchal societies have always been based on a lack of understanding that men are required in the process of propagating the species - for instance, the Picts, who didn't figure out the role of men in sexual reproduction until the ninth century - at which time, the balance of power moved from the women to the men. They carry technological weapons and demonstrate some knowledge of science - particularly of medicine, so the idea that a matriarchal society could exist with this level of scientific knowledge is based purely on the original author's wet dream. Of course, the few references to stellar science made in this movie demonstrate that the author knew nothing about that either (except for a few keywords that he must have heard in other movies). Still, it could have been done better - like 'She' in 1965 for instance, which showed matriarchal society with a certain reverence, far more believably, and even after 45 years it seems fresher than this fetid exercise in stupidity. Marching a few women around in 'armour', pouting aggressively, and spitting out their lines like a kiddie looking for a fight in a nightclub ("Come on then! I'll do ya!" style), seems to be over-simplifying the complexities of a matriarchal culture.<br /><br />The cultural references are so simple - 'all hail the snake mother' pretty much sums it all up. Even the tiniest hamlet shows more cultural variation. <br /><br />There is nothing clever, thought-provoking, interesting, visually exciting, or remotely entertaining about this movie. The soundtrack is of similar quality.<br /><br />I can only assume that the few, overly-charitable positive reviews this movie has received are from blinkered Michael Shanks fans who will give a thumbs up to anything he's involved in. Don't be fooled. Low budgets are not a reason for a film to fail - cheap B movies can be brilliant. This isn't one of them, and there's no reason to inflict this movie on yourself.
| 0 |
negative
|
I've read that Paolo Sorrintino's inspiration for The Consequences of Love came from simply observing a businessman alone in a Brazilian hotel, and speculating what he might be doing there. The film unfolds to us in a similar way. We view the existence of Titta who has lived alone in a hotel in Switzerland for 8 years. He is secretive and avoids friendship. His life is dominated by order and regularly. Gradually, the truth of his existence is revealed to us until, finally, his world begins to fall apart.<br /><br />The mystery of Titta is central to The Consequences of Love and it works thanks in large part to the superb performance by Toni Servillo. His character becomes all the more intriguing to us as little details are revealed - that he injects heroin once a week, that he has no imagination. Although some here criticise the dialogue for not being naturalistic, that doesn't matter in my view - this is not that sort of film, and I think the script is great. The camera work is also excellent.<br /><br />If you have to criticise, the film does lose its way a in the later scenes as the mystery of Titta's existence is revealed to us, and as his world begins to fall apart. However, the tragic final scenes are every bit as good as the earlier build-up.
| 1 |
positive
|
I really liked this movie. One thing I have noticed is that Korean TV drama's are way better, as far as giving you the whole story. I watch movies when I do not have the time or feel like going through 16-30 episodes. Movies are seem to be rushed and if you do not watch carefully, you may miss something. <br /><br />I do feel this one was rushed and I had to rewind a few parts to try and find what I missed, especially towards at the end. If you like nice love stories, I still think this is cute, and if yo have the extra time, I still think this is worth watching.<br /><br />It is always nice to go back follow the actors in different movies as we do not get to follow them from when they begin, as we do the actors producers and directors in our own countries.
| 1 |
positive
|
For all the viewers who have seen 'The Cure' would agree with me on this comment that it is a superb movie and is very heartwarming. Joseph Mazzello and Brad Renfro prove their star quality in this movie, along with Dexter's (Mazzello) mother Annabella Sciorra.<br /><br />When i first watched The Cure on TV, i didn't know what to expect, but as i watched this masterpiece it soon became clear what it was about. Dexter an 11 year old boy who is plagued with AIDS, sits around his backyard playing with his toys when one day he meets his next door neighbour Eric, which at first is a little awkward for the 2 boys, but they soon became good friends.<br /><br />During the film, i kept wondering what would happen to the two boys, as they kept me wondering. I wondered how the heck they would get to New Orleans sitting a door with a sea biscuit under it pulling an inflatable crocodile behind it. There were other great scenes throughout the movie.<br /><br />But the part that reached out to me was the part when Dexter's health started to deteriorate. You just couldn't help but wonder if he was going to make it but towards the end you find out. I thought at the first prank they played, that Dexter was really dead he obviously wasn't, silly me. But when they play the third, something is very wrong. Dexter doesn't get up to laugh nor does he show any kind of laughter. At that point the victim of their prank soon announces that poor Dexter had died. At that part i lost it. I balled my eyes out, and from that scene onwards i was crying. You just have to. As the end nears you start to understand Eric's loss and then the movie ends on a nice note with Dexters shoe floating ever so slowly down the river.<br /><br />Overall this movie was excellent. It has laughter, adventure, emotion and sadness etc. When you put that in a blender you get an excellent, must watch film. Peter Horton has done a great job directing this film and i believe its certainly one of his best. But for now, i will try to search for this movie on DVD, if it exists that is. Once again a superb movie that will take you on an emotional rollercaoster.
| 1 |
positive
|
Being Belgian myself, I take interest in the history of Congo. It has been our only colony for many years (Rwanda was a Belgian protectorate, but not a colony), and it is part of our country's history. Nowadays it seems to be very popular to say that all that the Belgians did to Congo was wrong, especially in the 19th century. I'm not saying that bad things didn't happen. Of course they did, but back then this wasn't abnormal. Do you really think the French or the Brits were that much nicer in their colonies? No, they weren't. It was 'normal' at the time for our king Leopold II to use Congo as a way to gain personal wealth. It was his private property (it didn't belong to the state then) and he tried to make the most out of it. Of course gruesome things like hands being chopped off happened and yes to todays standards that's inadmissible, but in those days it was common practice. And it has to be said, all this didn't happen anymore during the last decades... I know several people who have lived an worked in Congo for many years before the declaration of Congolese independence. It's true that they had several black servants, but they are very nice people and I really can't imagine they ever treated them bad. For as far as I know they have always treated them with a lot of respect (However, I'm not saying all Belgians did). In fact if they weren't that old now (almost all about 80 years old now) they would love to return to Congo.<br /><br />The good thing about this movie is that it gives an historically accurate vision on what happened during the last years of Belgian governance and the first years of Congolese independence. The story isn't as black and white (perhaps not the best words in this context, but how else to explain what I mean) as I feared it would be. It doesn't say that all the Belgians did was wrong and all the Congolese did was good. It shows perfectly how the Congolese, in their rush of getting independent from the Belgians, didn't mind to accept help from the Russians as well as the Americans, who both had more eye for the raw materials like copper, diamonds, bauxite, rubber,... and getting the Congolese in their political 'camp' and weren't all that interested in their independence. It does not only give a good idea of how Lumumba became more powerful, but also how Mobutu played a double role. It shows the Belgian reaction on some of our compatriots being violated, threatened and even murdered (My father was one of the paratroopers who were send to Congo to rescue the Belgians). It gives a good idea of the political problems Lumumba encountered as the province Katanga didn't want to be part of the Congolese Republic, the role that the Belgians had in the murder on Lumumba ... it all gets it's part in this movie.<br /><br />The story seems to be very accurate and the characters really look and act like the real ones. This movie has been able to give a very good idea of what life in Congo in the late fifties and early sixties was like and should be seen by everybody who is interested in the history of the country. But it should also be shown in history classes, especially in Belgium, because it's a part of our history that should never be forgotten. I give it a 7.5/10, perhaps even an 8/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was one of my favorites as a child. My family had the 8-track tape soundtrack!! It took us years (until I was in my 20s) for us to get a video of the movie (my dad taped it from HBO or something). Every summer when we go to the beach (my mom, brother, sister and I) we lay on the beach and sing all the songs from this movie!!! LOVED IT!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Bad, ambient sound. Lots of shuffling. Loooong pointless scenes. Eg: guy sees interesting woman in lobby. Manages to stay there and watch her under the guise of waiting for the building supervisor to get a package. Says nothing. Stares creepily. More shuffling and other irritating ambient noise. Wait. Wait. Wait. Guy says nothing. Woman looks frightened or at least slightly disturbed about it and rightly so. Manager comes back with package. Guy goes up to the apartment with the package.<br /><br />Another example: the guy and his host sit around watching bad TV. More ambient noise and shuffling. Wait wait wait wait. Guy wanders off to bed. If you can stand to sit through any more of this movie, you get to watch them watch TV again later.<br /><br />If you want a story, any dialogue, entertainment, or a well crafted film, look elsewhere.
| 0 |
negative
|
Abysmal pulp adventure exploitation in the jungle woman genre. Lousy audio thankfully obscures the dumb dialog. And it's awfully talky for a movie about people who don't speak English. There's no adventure to be found here; it's a jungle adventure with cliffhangers and one wild animal attack that happens in flashback.<br /><br />Three pale-face dopes wander the African wilderness and encounter warring man-hungry tribes of Amazons. These wild women have advanced out of the Stone Age only so far as to invent makeup, shoes, and underarm hair removal technology. Despite their desperation for "hus-bahnd," the ladies insist that they will fight the men and burn the weaker ones.<br /><br />The only thing of interest, as if there were any question, is the assortment of young women clad in animal skins cleverly designed like the bathing suits of 1951. Plenty of wrestling and bad dancing mixed with stripless 1950s stripper moves. No nudity or appreciable violence. On the other hand, you may be humming the catchy native song for days.
| 0 |
negative
|
what a waste of time! i expected better from cameron diaz! i guess it wasn't really her fault for being in a terrible film. the film does not capture the beauty of europe.....and wasn't successful in leading the audience into suspense or wonder. weak attempt at storytelling and narrating -- dialogue is dull and wasn't able to convey what i sometimes think simplicity is beauty. no love, energy, electricity on screen. too bad!!!!!!!!1
| 0 |
negative
|
Latter days is the best gay movie of the homosexual genre. Most of the films entail sappy stories, one night stands, and let us not forget infamous baseball teams? Latter days actually contains male affection beyond the kiss in the dark, and quite graphic material that made me wonder whether the film belonged at Blockbuster or badpuppy.com. The films emotional journey is what sets it above the rest in the genre. Not until this film had I seen a story of such intense passion and love, and the torture that it can bring. I think when people cry during movies they should be beaten, but I found myself sobbing throughout several scenes because of the realistic nature of the world in which we live. I suggest every gay male see this film, and if you have a boyfriend, thank him...
| 1 |
positive
|
As Anthony Bourdain said... "I wanted to stick my head in a bucket of lye, pull my eyeballs out and jump off a cliff." This summarizes my feelings about this pathetic waste of human effort. Artless, self- indulgent, thoughtless, and just bad. Bad beyond comprehension. What else can I say? If you are unfortunate enough to be in an area where this piece of idiotic trash is playing, please, please have mercy on soul and avoid at all costs.
| 0 |
negative
|
WESTERN UNION tells in melodramatic fashion the stringing of telegraph lines between two points out west. Siblings Dean Jagger and Virginia Gilmore work for Western Union, and Randolph Scott and Robert Young work for the Creightons. Indians and some bad white guys get in the way, but nothing can stop America's progress. This sense of manifest destiny is greatly enhanced by a first-rate musical score and vibrant color photography. Scott is a bank robber looking to mend his ways, and both he and engineer Young vie for the attention of the perky Gilmore. Lots of great character actors help keep the large production moving forward.
| 1 |
positive
|
Graphics: brilliant, obviously. The most stunning things were definitely NOT given away in the trailers. Fight sequences move extremely fast, but after watching a couple of them your eyes should be used to it and it won't seem so confusing. Cloud has a wide array of swords, and I kinda wish things were moving a LITTLE slower just so we could see them, because they were each incredibly detailed. Oh, and we finally get to see exactly how one equips Materia...<br /><br />Music: brilliant also. I was a bit nervous about it, since (from what I've seen) Nobuo isn't the best at writing music to go along with action (remember the Steal the Tiny Bronco sequence?), but it's brilliant and it fits perfectly. I'm glad I preordered the OST. They changed the lyrics to One Winged Angel though, so you won't be able to sing along if you know the Carmina Burana Lyrics.<br /><br />Plot: the first half of the movie sets up things and introduces everyone in a fairly complex tapestry, but the second half is almost entirely fight sequences, once all the players are in place. I wouldn't call it a weak plot, but it's nowhere near as convoluted as the game's plot was. I think this is in an effort to avoid trying to overshadow the game, and I think that's a good thing...the movie is its own entity, and shouldn't try to top the original in terms of sheer plot.<br /><br />I admit, I was kind of hoping that this movie would bring FF7 to a wider range of people, but this is NOT a mainstream movie. I was going to give it only nine stars, just because it doesn't even really try to explain anything to newcomers...Marlene (at least I think it was Marlene...sounded like her) gives a bit of background at the beginning, but it's more of a refresher than a crash course. But then I realized, for me this movie is a 10/10, so why should I take off points just because other people probably won't like it as well...if you've played the game, or are at least passingly familiar with it, you should see this movie. But you don't need me to tell you that. If you're not familiar with it, go out and buy it, sit there for twenty hours and beat it, and then see the movie...although even without any background, it's still stunningly beautiful. You just won't get any of the inside references...which make up 50% of the movie (that is, everything that ISN'T a fight sequence).
| 1 |
positive
|
"The Last American Virgin", along with "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" is one the last great teen films ever made. It is tender tale of envy and unrequited love set in the early eighties. Much-maligned by critics that it was a sophomoric, banal attempt to recreate the magic of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", these same critics fail to recognize that the two films were actually filmed concurrently during late 1981, and released at only slight intervals from one another. Either way, the studios would never allow such a bold and uncompromising portrayal of the issues many male teenagers are confronted with as they reach their sexual maturity. Especially considering the heart-wrenching discovery the protagonist, Gary is confronted with in the end. American Pie this is not. The story revolves around a trio of male teenagers, and their mostly unsuccessful sexual pursuits. Gary is the least successful of the group, hence the tagline LAST AMERICAN VIRGIN. Secretly, Gary lusts after Karen, who is involved with Rick, his best friend. Rick and Karen begin having sex, and Karen gets pregnant, only to be dumped by Rick, who is not interested in the obvious responsibility which lies before him. Gary glides into help Karen, which leads to the aforementioned, unexpected conclusion. Overall as a film, I find it was very successful as a comedy, as a commentary on the sexual dilemmas of young men, and a remarkable coming of age tale dealing with issues such as envy, unrequited love and abortion, which are just as pertinent today as they were over twenty years ago. Also, it has one of the rockingest soundtracks ever made!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
The storyline has too many flaws and illogical sequences to be worthwhile. Jolie's acting is pretty flat and poor, Washington's is OK, the rest of the cast are cardboard cutouts. Somehow almost everything about this film oozes mediocrity. The plot is lame. The only thing I liked more or less about this film are the fairly original methods the perpetrator uses to end his victims. Technical details are worse than the most far-stretched CSI 'knowledge' and gizmos and halfway the movie one wonders if the director even cared about detail credibility. (Some Spoilers hereafter!) I mean, an EKG machine with a pure sinus wave reflecting a man's heartbeat, a quadriplegic with full body muscle spasms and one working index finger, sure. A killer gutting a man's bowels whilst keeping him alive to allow the rats to feast on him followed by a rat aiming for the guy's FACE! What's with all that stupidity? Then there are quite a few continuity goofs, but you can find those elsewhere here on IMDb Honestly I found it a bit of an insult even to my limited intelligence.<br /><br />Waste of time. Still 4 out of 10 to keep my girlfriend from kicking me.
| 0 |
negative
|
It would be great if a discussion on this medium length film is initiated with a brief tale about hypocrisy of Hollywood people.It was in 1988 that Chuck Norris saw this film at Cannes International Film Festival.He made a silly remark by uttering that the senseless killing depicted in Dekalog 5 is far more effective than killings which have been filmed in his Hollywood films with him as a potent action star.He was speaking about an innocent taxi driver whose face is brutally disfigured in Kieslowski's film by a reckless psychopath who hits him cruelly with a big stone.There should be absolutely no justification for violence and its perpetrators in a dignified human society.This is the reason why Chuck Norris' statement appears as a cruel joke which defends violent means in a society which is increasing becoming restless.An honest reviewer would not be making a mistake if he/she states that Kieslowski's film "Dekalog: Dekalog,Piec (#1.5)" has universal connotations.This is because the events depicted in Dekalog 5 can happen in any part of world.The best lesson which Kielowski gives to us concerns levels of violence which are acceptable in a just society.This is the reason why the brutal slaying of an innocent cab driver is capable of causing a feeling of repugnance in us.We would not feel the same hatred for homicide when it appears in films featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger,Chuck Norris and Jean Claude Van Damme as they appear much too artificial.One can easily grasp that special effects and modern studio techniques can charm only toddlers but make no sense to serious film enthusiasts.Kieslowski also champions helplessness of human beings in rescuing fellow humans beings from the clutches of death and misery.This is particularly interesting as time and again it has been proved that strict laws and capital punishments have not been able to prevent homicide.
| 1 |
positive
|
Stodgy drama starring Pat O'Brien as a washed-up reporter who turns up at his ex-boss's house to ask for money to fund his son's operation, only to find him dead on the floor. Since O'Brien knows the identity of the culprit, he offers to take the rap in return for the money he needs. A decent premise is wasted on a film that pretends it has surprises, twists and turns, even though it really doesn't. Performances are rotten across the board, the movie dresses itself up as a hard-boiled American noir but the mix of dodgy accents doesn't work, and the story is hardly gripping. And it contains possibly the least attractive screen kiss of all time.
| 0 |
negative
|
I discovered this late one night on Turner Classics. I kept saying to myself "I'll turn it off as soon as it stops being funny", but needless to say I watched the whole way through.<br /><br />I am a movie junkie but I had never even HEARD of this movie (or if I did in 1971, I forgot). It's worth watching just for the performance of Goldie Hawn as the tart-tongued ingénue. Her acting is a revelation in this movie. Yes, the script is sharp and excellent (when was the last time they made a Hollywood comedy with a smart script?) but her acting is extraordinary. I never realized how funny Goldie could be, and it makes her later appearances in roles such as Laugh-In and Private Benjamin a little sad. In her later career she is far too over-the-top compared to her minimalist, wickedly funny appearance here.<br /><br />It's a pleasure watching the young Matthau, the great Bergman and the stellar supporting cast, but it's Goldie Hawn that will make this movie worth watching again.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a snuff movie. I'm shocked it is even considered to be in the IMDb library. And, Bill, Julia, and all other "professional" actors involved should be ashamed to be part of this sick flick. I thought I was going to view a somewhat classic horror film with a creative end that writers like to invent....that usually make no sense when writing a horror film, but as a viewer, we try to rationalize and understand. This ending was not creative. It was sick and has all the earmarks of a snuff movie. I am shocked it was edited to this ending, and more shocked that it will be out for distribution by the end of June 2009. It should not be shown in a theater. It is harmful to innocent minds on many levels....watch the movie, the ending, and you will understand this statement. Plus, included in the plot is a sweet little girl "not yet 9" her character says. She is not in the snuff ending, but she is an integral part of the movie. Why do directors feel they need to shock with a sick flick in order to get recognition? The director is in the wrong line of work if she thinks this is an art film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Oh, the horror! I've seen A LOT of gore movies in my day, but this one just makes me gag with with laughter rather than repulsiveness. This is definitely a crazy movie and is very low-budget, I might add, but if you're able to look past the cheap audio, horrible dialogue, ugly girls, the obviously fake gore scenes, and overall cheeziness of the film, then you might find some of this film to be somewhat entertaining. The story is about a copy cat killer who goes on a killing spree every "5th day, of the 5th month, of the 5th year" (wow, how original), and it's up to two detectives (one of whom gave a valiant effort at trying to make the crapy dialogue good) to stop the killer's bloody rampage. The killing scenes (which are done with a plastic toy knife) are pretty brutal (which is a good thing), but very annoying due to the constant repetition of an obviously recorded scream (which is very ear piercing). As for the gore, there's plenty of it but it looks very fake; especially the blood - dude, c'mon, purple blood? But, if you're a fan of gore videos, like myself, then you'll find something in this video to cherish like I did (the crap-talking detective...he's the best thing going for this film). Other than that, all you're going to find is a bunch of senseless nudity (which is also a good thing, but too bad the girls are OOOGLY) and a very idiotic hippy necrophiliac serial killer. Sorry, but this one sucks.
| 0 |
negative
|
First: a warning.<br /><br />I recently saw this movie on DVD in the Universal 'Hitchcock Collection' series. The source print looks to be in immaculate condition, but the image is a bit soft, suggesting it might be a second generation copy straight from video. The framing is far too tight, so all the compositions are terrible. Even the title of the movie is cropped. I gather from other IMDb reviews that there is a much better version available.<br /><br />Mr and Mrs Smith is just a footnote to Hitchcock's career.<br /><br />In his lengthy interviews with Francois Truffaut in the Sixties, Hitchcock gave a comprehensive overview of his whole body of work, but all he could say about this picture is that he did it as a favour to Carole Lombard and that he didn't understand the characters so just photographed Norman Krasna's screenplay.<br /><br />In truth, there is not much more that needs to be said.<br /><br />It is a screwball comedy out of the same mould as It Happened One Night, His Girl Friday and Philapdelphia Story. Carole Lombard is a typically feisty wife who learns that her marriage is technically invalid, falls out with with her husband on the flimsiest of pretexts and spends most of the picture being 'adorably' unreasonable.<br /><br />Robert Montgomery does well enough as the put upon husband, but it is hard not to lose patience with him. Long before the end of the movie the audience is saying: "dump the silly cow, she's not worth it."<br /><br />Gene Raymond plays the best friend with whom she becomes engaged. He is supposed to be a courtly, 'old family' Southerner, although this is not obvious from his accent and only really becomes apparent in the drunk scene (which he otherwise plays very well). He is an honourable, generous, teetotal gentleman, so of course he is bullied and patronised by Robert Montgomery and made the butt of many of the jokes - although he is not as badly treated as the similar Ralph Bellamy character in His Girl Friday.<br /><br />This movie feels like it was made by people who only knew of screwball comedies by reputation, but hadn't actually seen one. For example, a good screwball comedy has a strong central idea with a number of on-going comic threads that continually intertwine and overlap. Here, all the comedy elements are just strung out, like beads on a necklace. This is screwball comedy by the numbers.<br /><br />It is the same with the direction. Typically, these comedies race along at an ever increasing pace that rises to near hysteria by the end. Hitchcock doesn't get this. His direction is somewhat lethargic and the picture becomes a stately succession of scenes that all seem slightly over-written (but under-nourished) and slightly too long. He was never a particularly good director of actors so he just lets the cast get on with it. They do OK.<br /><br />Hitchcock had a good sense of humour, which he frequently used in his thrillers, but he had no feel for comedy as a genre. His later Trouble with Harry was also a misfire, for similar reasons to this movie, but at least he was involved in that picture. Here he is just going through the motions.<br /><br />All the people connected with this movie were good solid professionals so it is not especially bad. It just feels a bit derivative, over-familiar, over-long and ultimately rather flat.<br /><br />Mr and Mrs Smith is one for Carole Lombard fans and Hitchcock completists only.
| 0 |
negative
|
Adam (Eric Jungmann) and obnoxious best friend Harley (Justin Urich) are driving cross country to a wedding. Along the way they pick up sexy hitchhiker Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Then, for no reason, a monster truck keeps trying to run them off the road...and maybe kill them. Who is doing this and why?<br /><br />Pretty good horror film. Its energetic and full of flashy direction which gets you right into the action. It's also a horror comedy. Most of the humor is infantile and REALLY gross but actually somewhat funny. Also this movie really piles on the gore at times--but that's a GOOD thing! The acting is OK--Jungmann overplays his nerd role a bit much; Urich is stuck with the hopeless role of the foul-mouthed, sex-obsessed best friend--but pulls it off; Brooks is good too in a limited role.<br /><br />BUT I could see the "twist" ending coming long before it happened and logic totally disappears at the end (especially the rescue). Still, this is a gory, sometimes funny and sometimes scary horror movie. I give it a 7.
| 1 |
positive
|
The gate to Hell has opened up under Moscow. A priest, played by Vincent Gallo, goes to the city to find a friend who has gone missing in the tunnels under the city in an attempt to find the gateway. Wandering around underground he and his colleagues have to deal with the tunnels inhabitants both human and demonic. Good idea with a good cast of second tier actors goes nowhere much like the tunnels that are its setting. I've watched this twice now and I still have no idea why this is suppose to be scary when not a heck of a lot happens other then people talk about the evil and we see shadow forms. Nothing is clear and honestly I didn't see the point of it all other than provide a pay check for those involved (Second billed Val Kilmer is in a couple of fleeting scenes that don't amount to much other than to allow him to be billed as in the film.) The idea is really good, the performances are fine, the script goes nowhere. Take the advice of several of the characters in the film and don't cross the river to see this.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen! Me and my husband own over 600 DVDs, most of which are Sci-Fi and Horror B-Movies that aren't top quality, but still entertaining. Dracula 300 had absolutely no redeeming qualities at all! The writing was horrific, and the acting was even worse. It took us a 3 tries to get through the entire movie, because we could only tolerate it in 30 minute intervals. We thought surely it must get better...we were wrong. I would rather watch a corpse being embalmed than to have to sit through that again!!! When it ended me and my husband just looked at each other like "Uh..is that it?" The ending seemed like there was supposed to be more, but they ran over their apparent $500.00 budget and were like "Oh, crap...we are broke..end it now...quick..roll credits!"
| 0 |
negative
|
Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-
| 0 |
negative
|
I was lucky enough for this film to come on TCM, so I had the opportunity to see it. It's rather hard to find, despite it being a Hitchcock classic. Unfortunately, it also has its shortcomings, some of which Hitchcock has repeated later. First off, the ending is a little too neat and "perfect". In the last few scenes, until the last five minutes, there is an astounding amount of tension; then, the five minutes just clears everything perfectly up... very unsatisfying. The ending is also overly dramatic, for a Hitchcock film. He is, was and always will be the master of suspense... why would he stoop to something as low as a cheap action sequence for the ending? Apart from the few shortcomings, the film is great. The plot is excellent; one of the best and most universal ever. The theme? Simple. You meet a stranger. A perfect stranger. He offers to kill someone for you... you know you have someone you want(if nothing else, subconsciously) dead. The catch? He asks you to do the same for him... will you accept this bizarre yet ingenious arrangement? You're clear of suspicion, and so is he... after all, neither of you knew the victim. And you don't know each other, either... you're just 'strangers on a train'. Brilliant concept, and one that just about every single person can relate to. The pacing is good, you never lose interest or patience. The cinematography is good, but not nearly as good as it is in other, better Hitchcock films. The acting is flawless. The characters are well-written, credible and realistic. Hitchcock uses some of the same elements that he often uses; the dominating mother, the mothers boy, etc. The film is very good, but it just feels a little watered down. It didn't go that famous extra mile that would have made it great. It stopped before crossing the line between what's common and what's daring. That is the primary reason for the film failing to be great, but mainly remains good, with potential to be more than that. The end leaves you unsatisfied and disappointed. However, everything leading up to the end is very good, so the film still gets a deserving 8/10. Good, but not great. Any fan of Hitchcock should see it, as it is among his best... somewhat far down on the list, but still there. I recommend it to any fan of Hitchcock. 8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was bad on so many levels. The writing was horrible so even the best actors could not have made this movie watchable. It's a shame because they did have some good actors in this movie. I mean if anyone has seen any of the Police Academy movies, you would know that Steve Guttenberg was good. His Character in this movie was very serious, which was a big difference from Characters i have seen him play before, so that was a plus. And I did think that Steve Guttenberg was extremely hot in this movie. With or without the shirt you can not deny that he has a GREAT body! Sexy face too. Loved the 5 o'clock shadow look, it made him look dangerous. At one part in the movie he is lying in bed without his shirt and i have to say, I would have gladly jumped in there and tried to take his mind off of his problems! So honestly i would watch this movie again just to fantasize!
| 0 |
negative
|
Mildly entertaining and self consciously cheezy -- but what else could it possibly be? Cushing in one of his poorest roles, and he often sounds dubbed. McClure is just too Cheezy to be believed, but who can blame him in the wasteland of this movie whose plot about ancient dinosaur birds ruling humans has 19th Century throwback "period charm," but not enough and unfortunately the script carries the racist connotations of the literary genre into films. Nice effort from the actors, but a poorly conceived production.
| 0 |
negative
|
I just want to say that Chris Diamantopoulos's role as Williams for that entire show, was Emmy worthy. It was uncanny how well he did. And to be as rapid-fire and as random and as creative as Robin Williams really is....WOW. There were scenes where Diamantopoulos had to say probably 20 rapid fire lines and do 15 different characters while delivering those lines, all while sounds as much like ROBIN WILLIAMS doing those characters.....well, that my friends is impressive acting. Its one thing to do a Robin Williams impersonation for a couple of minutes. Its another to do it for a whole TV movie.<br /><br />I don't know how I felt about the whole show, and I don't know how much they played with the facts, but I do know that it was Chris Diamantopoulos that kept me watching. So for that, I give HIM a 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but "Cronica para un desayuno" could be one of the most gretatest films in tne mexican movie history for a lot of reasons. We can get a lot of ingredients for a perfect mexican middle-class family breakfast: a cup of Buñuel's surrealistic motifs with a little drop of Ripstenian desolated scenarios; a pound of phallus symbols around the film and a difficult psychological complexity, more than Todd Solondz's Happiness and the Dogma movement films. There`s a lot of sordidness, black humor, repressed dreams (Teodoro's dream of fly), incestual lack of control (the relation between Marcos and Luzma), no-sense parallel stories, a discrete violence, anachronisms and<br /><br />a little sign of hope (spotlighted in Luzma, the husband's home return and "Un poco Mas" used for leit-motif). Marcos (Bruno Bichir) is a charming character ( I think in a Bukoskian way), the king-without a-crown who don't expects for anything, but broken noses. Luzma (Maria Rojo) , the lovable wife , put out a lot of faces, but the only thing that she worried is that her sons had breakfast; she' s a loser in many ways and sensual in few moments , but you will fall in love of her. The soundtrack's drag (too much woods) feeds the lack of technical merits, intentional , of course: out-of-focus shots, overlighted close-ups (in introspective scenes), dizzy pans and sudden edition cuts. "Crónica" is something difficult to digest, it get stuck in the throat and anything helps for it. It tastes bitter, like a rotten orange juice and sour like expired milk, but you want to enjoy it. So I recommend to get some Melox before the show, because you won't get hungry after all.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Nobi" or "Fires On the Plain" is a film that is so excellent on so many levels, that not enough good things can be said about it. My only regret is that I was not able to see this 1959 film sooner.<br /><br />Being something of a film purist, I tend to look at films for their artistic merits based upon dialog, acting, photography and even the efforts to remain true to the period in terms of costume. Ultimately, I want to know if the film is "truthful" enough in revealing the human condition to make me think without oppressing me with what the director wants me to think.<br /><br />"Fires on the Plain" is a great film because it crafts a portrait filled with realistic human reactions to the dying fires of a great historical catastrophe.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is a condemnation of war on all levels -- as any good war film should be. War is horrifying, bloody, destructive. It is also murderous on the psyche. However, what is fundamental about "Fires on the Plain" is its unapologetic look at the Japanese soldiers. It shows them slowly collapsing under the weight of superior American firepower and their nation's inability to wage a war of its own making. A fatalistic code encouraging death before surrender is at the heart of this madness.<br /><br />I was astonished to see such an honest and brutally close look at the bitter fruits of Japan's military misadventure made just 14 years after the end of what the Japanese call the "Great Pacific War." Ichikawa, reveals what the Germans called the "war life," the plight of the common soldier.<br /><br />Ichikawa's film is interesting, since even today Japan is having a hard time fully coming to terms with its wartime fanaticism, its subjugation of conquered peoples, the racism of its war against the Chinese and war crimes which included cannibalism by soldiers and officers practiced not only against one another, but against Allied prisoners of war.<br /><br />Ichikawa produces a stark representation of the victimization of soldiers by a confluence of bad political decisions and cultural pressures.<br /><br />This stark examination is skillfully done by portraying the doomed soldiers as human beings who exhibit, at various times, fear, brilliantly laconic humor, dialog enriched by its sparseness, and a plot whose complexity is belied by the grim, wilderness setting.<br /><br />Ichikawa's portrait is a ragged and painful tapestry of defeated men. The tubercular Tamura, played as a woebegone and gentle soul by Eiji Funakoshi, is a good soldier who can't abandon his humanity, though he is as frightened and lost as his comrades. Before he departs for a hospital that will reject him as too healthy, Tamura is given a hand grenade by a superior who, recognizing the hopelessness of their situation, advises Tamura to kill himself.<br /><br />Why Tamura's hopelessly ill-supplied and militarily incapable unit was not ordered to surrender at the start of the film is telling. Ichikawa makes it plain that the war is over and everyone is merely waiting to die. As Tamura leaves his unit for his hopeless search for physical and spiritual salvation, he sees his comrades pointlessly digging an air raid shelter. They appear like corpses looking up from their own mass grave.<br /><br />We later watch as the overworked hospital's medical staff abandons the dying patients to an all-consuming American artillery barrage. The pathetic patients, who crawl from their huts in a vain attempt to survive, appear like pathetic, serpentine creatures dragging themselves from an omnipotent force. You know they won't survive.<br /><br />Ichikawa makes it plain that the only thing worse than a defeated army is one that has lost its honor by abandoning its humanity and its comrades. As Tamura staggers through the jungles of Leyte we encounter the noble, the dying and the exploitive. Cannibalism rears its ugly head as soldiers begin to eat one another rather than surrender to American "corned beef."<br /><br />When the men do talk of surrender, the propaganda of how Americans kills prisoners is countered by a worldly-wise soldier who reveals that the approaching Americans feed and care for prisoners of war because they, unlike the Japanese, respect brave soldiers who are forced to give up.<br /><br />It is the Japanese who intend to die fighting for the Emperor long after resistance has lost all meaning. Those willing to fight to the death will be killed. It is the calculus of war.<br /><br />After shooting a murderous and cannibalistic comrade, whom he earlier offered his own body to as food, the fatalistic Tamura's careless surrender also seems to be an intentional form of suicide. His death is a lonely image. Was Ichikawa trying to tell us of the internal conflict of the ordinary soldier who wants to live, but who is still trapped by his nation's suicidal cultural codes?<br /><br />If someone watches this film carefully, he or she will see that absolutism and fanaticism is the enemy. The Americans are portrayed as a technologically advanced people willing to employ that technology in the form of inexorable military power -- a lesson that transformed Japanese postwar society. Ichikawa's film isn't so shallow that it indicts America. Ichikawa indicts the sedimentary layers of Japan's destructive policies that created the war and then to continue it when all was lost.<br /><br />Ichikawa does not mention the nuclear weapons dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He doesn't have to. The slow-motion destruction of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippines reveals the seeds of Japan's immolation.
| 1 |
positive
|
While I agree with the previous post that the cinematography is good, I totally disagree with the rest: This is nothing more than a porno movie disguised as an artsy film. Showing little boys naked is not art and amounts to child porn. Steer clear of this dud. Stupid is what this film is.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was looking forward to seeing Bruce Willis in this, especially since I remember being mesmerised by the original when I was young.<br /><br />This movie is a perfect example of how movie companies can take a very good story and dumb it down until it's just another formula ridden hype of the fabled American law enforcement system/army VS, (the Russians.... no sorry the cold war is over, make that WITH the Russians) VS the TERRORISTS, similar to probably 50 other movies.<br /><br />Furthermore it treats its audience like a bunch of idiots. The choice of weapon is well, plain ridiculous, are we seriously expected to believe that the world's most feared and experienced hit man/terrorist would select that for an assasination?<br /><br />The whole point of the original story was the tense dual of intellects between the ordinary detective who is given the responsibility and the professional who crafts a ruthless but elegant plan to reach his target and then get away. None of that survived. All we have is the tired old American CIA/FBI/army vs the evil terrorist plot, we've all seen 1000 times before.<br /><br />But of course the movie company's MBA's realised that a new intellectual angle here would lose them revenue from the short attention span gang, so the answer is ......Bruce Willis, BIG explosions and a crippled plot. They assume the American audience wont be able to relate to a threat to a foreign statesperson (where is France on the map afterall) so it has be an American!<br /><br />Another example of a movie defiled by the boardroom.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie just was not very funny. There's not much else to say, other than that it was kind of embarrassing for Laurence Fishburne and David Hyde Pierce, both of whom deserve much better than this. Also, I don't understand why, after this movie completely and utterly bombed, WB insisted on making it into a TV show.
| 0 |
negative
|
Dolemite is awesome. Rudy Ray Moore's rhymin kung fu pimp with horrible choreographed action sequences is about as close as you can get to becoming a spoof of a genre without actually being spoof. Citizen Kane this may not be nor Les Infant Au Revoir, but this is undoubtedly genius in it's own right. The production values in this movie are so bad they could qualify as existential special effects. The plot drags a little in the middle but the power of such a cheap premise as kung fu hookers is enough to bring all but the snootiest film lovers through. The infamous ever present boom mike evokes shades of the gloriously incompetent Ed Wood and never grows unfunny. I sometimes wonder if the boom mike was left in on purpose as commentary on the ridiculous aspects of movies in general but i usually get distracted by erotic scenes that lack eroticism to the point of high art mundanacity. Everything is this movie is alive and breathing, dripping with desperate longing to be simultaneously loved and reviled. It works.<br /><br />9 out of 10
| 1 |
positive
|
A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...<br /><br />If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...<br /><br />A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who "think" they can make movies.<br /><br />I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
The main word that comes to mind when considering this film is "dodgy". This is a low-quality film biography of one of the most iconic performers of all time. The Gloved One deserved better.<br /><br />Before getting into the meat of my thoughts on this biopic, I have to say that there are two things I found effective. First was the use of actual fan footage and interviews at certain points in the film, especially in the scenes depicting the first set of child molestation allegations. I feel that this contributed a certain authenticity that was *severely* lacking throughout the rest of the film. Second was the sequence depicting the courtship of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. I will not comment on whether I believe the marriage was a sham, but by many accounts, it was a relationship where care and affection existed between the two parties involved. That really came across in this film; Flex Anderson and Krista Rae had decent enough chemistry to pull it off. These successful points are enough to keep Man in the Mirror away from 1-star status.<br /><br />That said...there was very little else here that worked. Very few of the actors looked like the people they were supposed to portray, most egregiously those playing Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Jackson, and Diana Ross. Also, the absence of Jackson's music was a huge loss. How can you effectively tell a story about him without his music?? I understand that they were unable to secure the rights to it with this being a low-budget, unauthorized production; it seems, though, that if you can't have the man's music in a film about him, you might as well pack it up and go home, because you're missing out on an extremely important part of his life story.<br /><br />This film's characterization of Jackson bothered me a little, too. I won't argue that he was troubled and may have been a few fries short of a value meal, but here, he was portrayed as something close to mentally disabled. I don't believe that Jackson, known to have been a shrewd businessman, would have been quite as naive about how the adult world works as he was made out to be in this film.<br /><br />Finally, the way this film was written was nothing short of disgraceful. Many lines or exchanges of dialogue were either extremely corny, like Michael and Janet's "Tinkerbell" exchange, or nonsensical, like the "Blanket of love" comments made by Michael. Also, the screenwriters don't exactly have a knack for subtlety. There was a lot of telegraphing of upcoming events ("What could possibly go wrong??" sorts of lines) and extremely overt hammering of themes and motifs in the film (if I'd heard the word "believe" one more time...). This is what ultimately hobbled the film as something that could be considered awesomely bad.<br /><br />Perhaps when we are a few years, or even a decade or three, removed from Jackson's death, someone will be able to bring his story to life in a more deserving film. By that time, we might have a better perspective on his life, and someone will be able to present a truly thoughtful examination of who Michael Jackson really was and what he's meant to the world of entertainment. This very dodgy biopic was not that film.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of my all time favorite movies, it's great to watch in groups, I find. It's also great for any Alan Rickman fan, he does such a wonderful job. It's engrossing, entertaining, very surprising... you have to watch it twice, at least. I haven't watched it with anyone who didn't like it or at least find it worthwhile.
| 1 |
positive
|
I've heard people compare this movie to Sideways. How this comparison was made, I'll never guess because this movie was in no way comparable to Sideways.<br /><br />These 2 films were as different as Star Wars and the Thornbirds. The only thing they had in common at all was they both had wine as a subject.<br /><br />Though the interviews in this documentary were semi-interesting, they were ruined by the absolute worst camera work ever...attempted. I've never seen worse camera work in my life and I'm comparing it to home videos accidentally taken by 5 year olds.<br /><br />I give this two stars, ONLY for the interesting interviews with French wine types and for showing how pushy and corrupt the American wine companies are (Aren't all companies pushy and corrupt?) I'd give it -10 stars (Yes, that's NEGATIVE 10) for the deplorable, terrible, horrible, awful, VERTIGO-INDUCING, 5-year-old-could-do-better camera mess.
| 0 |
negative
|
Have just seen this film for the first time after purchasing it on DVD<br /><br />It comes across as a cheap attempt to cash in on the two Conan movies.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this film didn't appear to have the same budget as the Conan films and hence some of the sets and effects aren't as flash and some scenes seem hurried. <br /><br />Nielsen is OK to look at but unfortunately she couldn't act if a gun was put to her head. <br /><br />Arnie's supporting role looked like it was done as a favor to director Fleischer, who also directed Conan the Destroyer. Maybe Arnie wasn't confident that he would go on to headline films like Predator, Total Recall, T2, etc.<br /><br />Some of the female guardians of the talisman early in the film looked like they were struggling to lift their swords and the looks on their faces suggested they were having great fun making this film. I couldn't be so jovial if I was fighting for my life.<br /><br />All this aside, this film required very little concentration to watch and was mildly entertaining. I've seen a lot worse. Two stars.
| 0 |
negative
|
Blind Spot's images are great. The action draws you in completely, even though the movie is a bit long. By the end credits all that you can think about are the film's positive high-points. The lead actors have the most incredible screen presence. The story is heart-wrenching. The film score is nicely understated . Completely moving in its own powerful way. Not your standard melodramatic cuing. Trance-like moments add poetic resonance to the engrossing narration and terrific visual compositions. Hope you get a chance to see this film. It delves into some dark territory but you come out of the tunnel seeing nothing but white light.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not sure how I can make ten lines out of this question, but I'll try.<br /><br />When Julie went to the dance and they were dancing to slow music. What was the name of the song that was playing and who played it? <br /><br />I love that song! And I watch the movie over and over just to hear that one song.<br /><br />I did several searches online and even looked up the soundtrack but I sill can't find the song.<br /><br />It might be because the song they were dancing to wasn't a complete song and just partial.<br /><br />I would appreciate if anyone out there who knows what the name of the song and the group who sung it.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br />Frank
| 1 |
positive
|
i see hundreds of student films- this is tops. james cox is a fantastic director- he moves the camera, tells the story and uses music in a way that is far advanced for his years. no wonder he got a feature from this film.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
Sickening exploitation trash plays like a bad (and reverse) "Death Wish" ripoff - but the ugly and untalented Tamerlis makes Charles Bronson look like Al Pacino with her performance. As for Ferrara's "stylish" direction, when a film is so vile, dumb and deeply offensive, it's hard for the viewer to pay attention to such details.
| 0 |
negative
|
A killer (John Karlen) with a penchant for really bad disguises (afro wig on a white dude?) cruises around in his van looking for victims. Detective DeCarlo (James Luisi) is on the case and finds the killer rather easily by just hanging out by the local pool and looking for anyone looking weird (again, the afro wig comes into play). Tracking the killer to his home, DeCarlo decides to set up a risky sting involving a female police psychologist.<br /><br />Inspired by the crimes of Ted Bundy before he was caught, KILLER'S DELIGHT is a pretty predictable and cheap serial killer flick. Director Jeremy Hoenack has no idea how to pace a film or even make it suspenseful. He does know how to show lots of close ups of the killer wringing his hands though! The only thing this really has going for it is the captured 70s atmosphere (look out for the bathroom wallpaper). Well, that and a downbeat ending. The Media Blasters/Shriek Show DVD has lots of nice stuff though including an audio commentary by Hoenack and Karlen, plus video interviews, trailers and an alternate opening.
| 0 |
negative
|
First, the obviousas a cop drama crossed with a funny melodrama, QUAY
is disconcerting ,straightly independent and a menace to banality. Jouvet's aplomb is put to good use in a tough cop performance immediately noticeable by its vigor and exuberant force; his Antoine is not so much a man of intellect, but a man of vast life experience and earthly instinct. QUAY
is not subversive in the sense that today's (and already yesterday's ) philistines enjoy using the word. It is Clouzot's most playful hour. He tended to adapt Steeman's books in a satiric note. (It's said that Clouzot was a big reader of detective novels.) As a director, Clouzot's firm hand is successful. <br /><br />It is not a mystery or a thriller,but a satirical look at a Parisian couple and at the police's proceedings. Those accustomed with Clouzot's masterpiece LES DIABOLIQUES might find slightly disconcerting the multiplicity of things, styles, elements in QUAY
.Here Clouzot speaks about many things, about a couple, and a hidden love story (Simone Renant's for Blier),about the entertainment's world and about old spinsters, about police techniques and an old bitter cop with a boy to raise, etc.. There is a note of exuberancenot only in Jouvet's performance, but also in the film's conception. <br /><br />Quay is a realistic crime drama made as a satire. It offers an outstanding performance by Jouvet as a tough police inspector. Antoine is an old cop with an adventurous past (he fought in Africa ,but did not climb the ranks' stair because of his independent behaviors); he lives with his son, a schoolboy; at work, Antoine is tough and merciless, an able inspector, bitter, intelligent and harsh. It is a role of great gusto, very picturesque. Jouvet composed his character of several defining traitshis clothes, his expression, his funny accent, his brutality, and that mocking air
.Antoine is not made to look more clever than plausible; when he interrogates Blier, Antoine makes mistakes ,and his talent is presented like the talent we meet in real lifemixed with errors and lacunae and defects. Antoine's talent is one that comes also from experience, from daily observationit's not the almost supernatural _divinatory genius of almost all the famous detectives.<br /><br />QUAY
is multifacetedit is a realistic crime drama, and also a satire and a melodrama. One can consider it among the first _filmic forays into the legendary toughness of the French police. Long ago Eastwood's and Wayne's harsh cops, there was Antoine. <br /><br />The title is interesting, suggesting that this is a movie about the police, not about a case or a mystery. <br /><br />As craftsmanship, Clouzot was perhaps the best and sharpest in France (in the way that Welles was). QUAY
is very true to Clouzot's naturea sardonic comic, sharp observations, much psychology, sharp, unsparing irony. The man was firstclass when he filmed somethinghe knew what to shoot, what to choosesee the introductory scenes of this film, with Jenny Lamour's great stage success. Each scene is memorably, _exemplarily shot. Clouzot's technical, stylistic aptitudes were amazing. His style is inventive, satirical, sharp, extremely limpid, ingenious. <br /><br />Jouvet's style was exuberant, powerful, vehement. (Some disliked it precisely for these features. As he had been a great stage actor, his movie style was deemed as too theatrical, etc..) His Antoine is a fine example of what was meant by composing a role, by a composition. <br /><br />Jouvet had a very peculiar physiognomymuch like a menacing bird of preysomewhat like Van Cleefyet much subtler, nobler and more intelligent and distinguished. Jouvet had this predatory, ferocious air, and it is useful here, as he performs an old tough cop. One of QUAY
's sides is that it is a Jouvet recital. He is immediately recognizable, identifiable by the quality of his play (I see that many, watching this flick, do not know it is a Jouvet moviewhich is an astounding quality in itself). <br /><br />Fresnay and Jouvet are the two French actors that I admire the most; the first one was revealed to me by a Renoir drama (the famous one), while Jouvet by a Carné comedy. I was charmed to see that Clouzot gave leading roles to both of them.<br /><br />To end, a word about Steeman; he wrote the novel used by Clouzot (who had previously adapted another Steeman novel, as a Fresnay comedy). Steeman was an old school mystery writer, in the Wallace vein. He became quickly outdated with the new hardboiled fashions. When I was 11 I have read one of his thrillers, and liked it much.
| 1 |
positive
|
Tenacious D: in The Pick of Destiny tells the fictional tale of the formation of the band Tenacious D and their quest to find the Pick of Destiny, a guitar pick with supernatural powers made from the tooth of Satan himself (played by Dave Grohl). JB (Jack Black) and KG (Kyle Gass), joined together by fate, must travel to the Rock N' Roll Museum and steal the Pick of Destiny to become the greatest band on earth. The movie is hilarious and delivers non-stop laughs. Jack Black and Kyle Gass work perfectly together, having been real life friends and co-workers for over 20 years. The film is in part, a musical. All (or most) of the music was written and performed by The D. All of the songs are new material and many of them are classic. The soundtrack is definitely worth checking out. This film will be mostly appreciated by fans of Tenacious D, but if you are not a fan of The D, I still think you will enjoy the movie. If you are a fan of the D, then you must see this movie. The acting isn't as bad as you may think, and the laughs and crudeness never stop coming. I highly recommend this movie to anyone looking to get their socks rocked off and laugh as hard as they have laughed in a long time. Look out for cameos by Dave Grohl, Ronnie James Dio, Meatloaf, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, Tim Robbins, John C. Reilly, and Neil Hamburger. Also, stay tuned for an extra scene after the credits.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not the biggest fan of westerns. My two personal favorites though are Unforgiven, and Tombstone. This movie though, I loved! It was great! The plot was well done, and it was a fun movie. Everybody who had a part in this movie did excellent! I even think it beat out both movies in someway. Well, not really Unforgiven because that was a superb movie that these two can't compare with in the long run. I do think it beat out Tombstone though. Both had there strong points. For instance, they both had excellent well known casts, very good plots, and very good filming. But Posse beat out Tombstone in four ways in my opinion. First, the characters were more unique in Posse. The music was better in Posse. The idea was original in Posse, unlike Wyatt Earp. And the biggest difference, the action sequences! Oh my gosh! Posse was a western with really good action sequences. I mean really good! The action was fast paced. Like modern day based shoot'em up movies. The action had big budget explosions too! The fistfights were pretty good also. Mario Van Pebbles was great in this movie! I suggest buying this excellent movie!
| 1 |
positive
|
I would assume that this film would get rave reviews in Canada--particularly in Quebec. That's because the Canadians have traditionally loved hockey and the Montreal Canadians were like gods in Canada for decades. As an American, the closest thing we have to them are the New York Yankees. If you are a fan, then they are the greatest and winningest team in history. If you are not a fan, then they are Satan's team!! Well, at least that's how it was as I grew up in Washington, DC in regard to the Dallas Cowboys. So I am pretty sure when this film was shown up North that everyone immediately had a strong emotional reaction--their national sport AND the closest thing they have to a national team in the NHL.<br /><br />Now the cartoon itself is moderately interesting when it begins and the main character talks about growing up around Ottawa and rooting for the Canadians AND Maurice "the Rocket" Richard. However, when his mother accidentally buys him a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey and forces him to wear it, I knew right away what a horrible and shameful thing this would be to a little boy. This ability to connect to the character--even though he lives in a far off land is what made this a very special short film. The way the other kids treated him and his conversation with God at the end make this a lovely nostalgic film. Very clever and memorable.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.