text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
If you are very sensitive when it comes to extreme racial stereotypes, this cartoon is not for you. But if you are strongly interested in seeing a rare piece of wartime animation, come on in!<br /><br />In this cartoon, Popeye is patrolling the seas and discovers what looks like a Japanese fishing boat. The two Japanese fishermen trick Popeye into thinking that they want a peace treaty signed. But looks can be deceiving; the fishing boat turns out to be a Japanese navy ship! What follows is considered today to be morale-boosting propaganda.<br /><br />Be forewarned, the representations of the Japanese in the film are done in a mean-spirited fashion. Keep in mind, though, that there was a war going on at the time. But I strongly recommend this cartoon to those who are interested in the WWII era.
| 1 |
positive
|
Anyone remember the docudrama THREADS ? It's a drama documentary which shocked Britain in September 1984 . Whilst not exactly wholly entertained by Mick Jackson's nuclear holocaust horror film I could respect it . Unfortunately I can't respect this docudrama broadcast 20 years later which deals with terrorists letting off a radioactive dirty bomb in the centre of London <br /><br />The problem I have with it is that director Daniel Percival production values are far too good when in fact this would have benefited from rather cheap production values . The cinematography is superb but in this type of speculative drama do we need superb and well lit Oscar standard cinematography ? What we certainly don't need is a musical score as the survivors of the blast slowly stagger out of the smoke . Neither do we need vaguely well known cast members . Did anyone else sit there asking themselves " Hey what was he in ? I know that face " several times ? I know I did and it's very distracting . <br /><br />Perhaps the biggest production flaw with DIRTY WAR is that someone decided to make it a docudrama with too much stylistic emphasis on the drama . In THREADS the action cuts away from the action in Sheffield umpteen times and becomes an edition of HORIZON on the effects of nuclear war before cutting back to the fictional protagonists again and THREADS is very effective because of this . Here the information presented suffocates the drama which drowns in expositional and totally unconvincing dialogue . The characters in the teleplay aren't really characters they're just cyphers there to inform the audience what happens when radioactive material is exploded . It would have been better for the action to cut to captions to convey this type of information ala THREADS . The worse thing is that director Daniel Percival used the same technique as seen in THREADS a couple of years ago with his docudrama about smallpox . He should have used the same style with DIRTY WAR<br /><br />I should also lay my cards on the table and state that while I don't consider most Muslims are terrorists I am getting slightly fed up of TV productions like THE HAMBURG CELL , THE GRID and DIRTY WAR having to point out this fact to me by whalloping me over the head with it which is somewhat typical of patronising PC attitudes in TV companies nowadays<br /><br />I managed to miss the studio debate that Bob mentions here but I have also heard it discussed elsewhere and I can't help thinking it makes better viewing than DIRTY WAR itself with its heated arguments between differing factions of the political spectrum . If DIRTY WAR is remembered twenty years from now ( Highly unlikely I know ) it may well be remembered for the discussion it caused more than anything
| 0 |
negative
|
Bare Wench is another softcore parody of the Blair Witch project (I think there's about two dozen of those things out there). It has 5 very attractive women (which includes Nikki Fritz, Julie Smith, and Julie Strain), and one dorky guy whose only purpose is to provide comic relief.<br /><br />Okay, so I'm thinking "Cool. Great looking women, having softcore lesbian sex with each other very 10 minutes or so. This should be real good."<br /><br />Unfortunately, the producers blew it. There is nothing in this video that actually qualifies as a sex scene. There's a couple of false starts, but the majority of the action is just the women posing for the camera. I guess once the producers had spent their money on the women, and spent more getting them to remove their clothes, they didn't have any money left to get them to actually do anything. And I guess they also used up all their alloted nudity time too early, because towards the end of the video, there is a huge amount of pointless dialogue that is obviously being used for no other reason than to pad out the run time. "You're a liar! No you are! You go into the cave! No you go! I think we should go home! Well, I don't!" This goes on and on and on forever.<br /><br />There's way better stuff than this.
| 0 |
negative
|
First when does this storyline take place? It has to take place after the first movie because Kuzco knows Pacha and Chicha has her third child but it can't take place after the second movie because doesn't Kronk get a girlfriend or wife or something? You never see her in the show.<br /><br />Also, why is Kuzco going to school? The whole plot of the show is that Kuzco is going to school so that he can be emperor. But wasn't he emperor before this? And who's emperor while he learning to be emperor? Shouldn't that be Yzma? Or was Yzma fired in this time line already? And if that true why is waiting for him to fail to become empresses? Plus, you know in the first movie he said he was trained from birth to be an emperor by private tutors. So he should kinda know what he's doing.<br /><br />Kronk. Why is Kronk a student? He's around 25 they stated that in the first movie. He's an adult going to high school. Does everyone think he's a moron? I really like Kronk but I think because of his age and because everyone know that he is working for Yzma he should have been a teacher. Being a Home Ec teacher would be right up his alley.<br /><br />Malina, is very unlikable. She suppose to be Kuzco's love interest/moral compass. But a lot of time, she comes off bossy and know it all. She commonly says thinks I like "I should be proud because I am pretty and smart". <br /><br />She has ESP when it comes to Kuzco and knows whenever he's in trouble, when he's cheating, or even when he sings the Hot Hot Hottie song in his head even though she does cheer leading, school newspaper and keeps straight A+ in all of her classes. <br /><br />She seems more interested in using her prettiness to get Kuzco to do the right thing and do well in school then dating him. In fact, she seems more motherly to Kuzco then a love interest.<br /><br />Yzma. As I bought up before Yzma is trying to get Kuzco to fail so she become empresses. Not sure how that's suppose to work with being fired and all. Yzma seems to be reliving the first movie in every episode. In almost every show that she appears in she turns Kuzco into an animal in hopes of having him fail a class. (There are only 3 times that I can think of that that didn't happen.) The jokes about Yzma being old aren't as clever in the show as they were the movie. And classic jokes about Yzma are used to death in the show (like the "Pull the level, Krunk!", roller-coaster, and the lab). <br /><br />Also, some other points that don't make sense in this series. The fact that whenever Kuzco is assigned something everyone acts like this assignment will make him pass or fail the class but he seems to pass every assignment given to him. So why does one assignment matter so much?<br /><br />Seriously, who is ruling the kingdom while this is going on? Do they have a consul or a steward? You never see anyone ruling the kingdom unless Kuzco has weaseled his powers back or Yzma is empresses.<br /><br />Why is Kuzco going to a normal peasant school? Shouldn't he learning about how to lead a country, what to do in case of war or something that will be useful to him in the future? I could see taking some normal classes on like farming (so he would know how to prepare the country for a famine or something like that) but knot tying? How is that helpful?<br /><br />Now I know that someone is going to say "But it not suppose to make sense; it's suppose to be funny." Then they should have more funny things in there. All the funny things about the show have been done already in the movie. Also, if they notice some of these huge plot holes why don't they poke fun at them like in the movie? (For example, when Yzma and Kronk get to the secret lab before Kuzco and Pacha and Yzma and Kronk can't explain how they got their first.)<br /><br />There are some good points, it is nice to see some of the characters from the first movie in the series like Bucky and monkey with the bug. Pacha and his family are still very good characters with a good down earth feel. I feel that this series would be amusing for younger children. <br /><br />In conclusion, the series is not as good as the movie that it based on but it may good for younger children.
| 0 |
negative
|
Basically the first two Critters movie were already silly ones but in a good and entertaining way. This movie is way more of a B-movie, that is silly but for all of the wrong reasons.<br /><br />This is the first sequel that doesn't really follows the plot of the first two movies. Basically all of the characters are new and there are no bounty hunters this time (well, as good as none, since the bounty hunter in this movie shows up far too late) and the budget for this one obviously went down again. To save even more costs, the movie got shot back-to-back with part 4, which I imaging will be just as bad, since it directly follows this movie and got made by the same people involved as with this one.<br /><br />It's just a typical B-genre movie, that doesn't really have any originality in it or brings entertainment. It makes "Critters 3" a real redundant sequel, you can easily do without. Granted that things could had been way worse for this movie but it just ain't exactly a good one either. The movie just falls flat as a science-fiction/horror/comedy.<br /><br />Also kind of strange to notice how the Critters has suddenly changed in this one. They are about double their usual size this time, without giving an explanation for that and they are even more Gremlins like in this movie than was the case in the previous one.<br /><br />The movie is only made interesting because this was the feature film debut of Leonardo DiCaprio. He was about 17 in this movie and of course looking baby-faced like he still does now. I like watching this well known actors in their early roles. It's fun to see how they act and if their style has improved and changed over the years. Of course DiCaprio got only better but he already was kind of delivering his lines in the same way as he does these days.<br /><br />Really a too silly and lame movie.<br /><br />4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
<br /><br />Excellent ! I have to think back a *very* long time to find a film that's made me laugh quite so much. The writing is top-notch, the story is satisfying, and the entire cast is excellent - Chris Farley has never been better. One of the very best comedies of the 90s.
| 1 |
positive
|
The film "Chaos" takes its name from Gleick's 1988 pop science explanation of chaos theory. What does the book or anything related to the content of the book have to do with the plot of the movie "Chaos"? Nothing. The film makers seem to have skimmed the book (obviously without understanding a thing about it) looking for a "theme" to united the series of mundane action sequences that overlie the flimsy string of events that acts in place of a plot in the film. In this respect, the movie "Choas" resembles the Canadian effort "Cube," in which prime numbers function as a device to mystify the audience so that the ridiculousness of the plot will not be noticed: in "Cube" a bunch of prime numbers are tossed in so that viewers will attribute their lack of understanding to lack of knowledge about primes: the same approach is taken in "Chaos": disconnected extracts from Gleick's books are thrown in make the doings of the bad guy in the film seem fiendishly clever. This, of course, is an insultingly condescending treatment of the audience, and any literate viewer of "Chaos" who can stand to sit through the entire film will end up bewildered. How could a film so bad be made? Rewritten as a novel, the story in "Chaos" would probably not even make it past a literary agent's secretary's desk. How could (at least) hundreds of thousands (and probably millions) of dollars have been thrown away on what can only be considered a waste of time for everyone except those who took home money from the film? Regarding what's in the movie, every performance is phoned in. Save for technical glitches, it would be astonishing if more than one take was used for any one scene. The story is uniformly senseless: the last time I saw a story to disconnected it was the production of a literal eight-year-old. Among other massive shortcomings are the following: The bad guy leaves hints for the police to follow. He has no reason whatsoever for leaving such hints. Police officers do not carry or use radios. Dupes of the bad guy have no reason to act in concert with the bad guy. Let me strongly recommend that no one watch this film. If there is any other movie you like (or even simply do not hate) watch that instead.
| 0 |
negative
|
Medical student Paula Henning wins a place at an exclusive Heidelberg medical school. When the body of a young man she met on the train turns up on her dissection table, she begins to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death, and uncovers a gruesome conspiracy perpetrated by an Antihippocratic secret society operating within the school. Disturbing and gross, lots of scary parts. It even has a good script and ending. But it has a one poor part. What else could you see from this movie? It's a good mystery and horror movie. But, of course, if you like it, Go buy it. If you don't, there still is not reason to waste your money on this.<br /><br />Rated R for Extreme Graphic Violence, Sexual Situations and Profanity.
| 0 |
negative
|
Ron Howard and his "editors" only had one job to do... Follow the guidelines of the book which was "rich", "mysterious", "moving" and highly cinematic in its approach! <br /><br />What they did? They changed EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING! What is left is something that has no right being called "Angels & Daemons"! <br /><br />I really love the book and find it very hard to see it being treated this way!<br /><br />I wonder what was the opinion of Dan Brown himself for "this" film.<br /><br />I really have no patience to sit down and right the 1.000.000 changes they made, it is pointless.......
| 0 |
negative
|
I have never seen a more unrealistic movie than this foul piece of dung. The acting was over the top. The direction was tacky and amateurish. The script was just a joke. The story looked penned by a person that has never been around a high school football game, much less a professional game. And why, why did Oliver Stone feel the need to place himself in this movie as an actor? He was terrible, playing the most unrealistic announcer ever. He could not even get hired to do professional wrestling contests. Then you have Jamie Foxx, who throws like a girl. But, he is a tad more athletic than the aged Dennis Quaid. Seriously, Stone wanted to direct this film at 16 year old males with ADD. That is why we hear the loud music, the quick cuts and numerous edits. It just became a bad MTV video. Shame on Al Pacino for doing this crap. Cameron Diaz? Heck, that no-talent takes any role that comes down the pike. When Lawrence Taylor is the best "actor" you got going, well, your movie sucks! And this one does.
| 0 |
negative
|
Yes, I couldn't stop yawning, nor could my partner. Incredibly boring - 90 minutes seemed to stretch to at least 3 hours - and I'm not even a fan of action films, but this just falls asleep on its feet - unless you are a 70's polo neck sweater fan! <br /><br />** SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW ** If you were expecting ANYTHING to happen, don't hold your breath - it doesn't! <br /><br />But seriously, it totally fails to convince or involve the watcher. It's like a long, boring and rather disjointed dream. Frederic floats through it, able to leave work whenever he wants, and with attractive secretaries bringing tea and messages constantly. Obviously not real life! And an office with virtually no paper or files - just a giant calendar to let you know that the film really is taking 6 months to watch. <br /><br />Frederick never seems to be touched by any real emotion, neither does his wife, and the children behave like rag dolls - in stark contrast to any real life. Even Chloe, despite her strong views, never gives the appearance of really feeling anything. The only 3 seconds of any real feeling occur between a couple overseen in a cafe, and have nothing to do with the plot.<br /><br />Okay, so maybe there are some moral considerations, but if it's entertainment, or even good cinematography you are looking for, I think this film is incredibly over-rated by most other viewers.
| 0 |
negative
|
this movie has a great chase scene, if you listen to the soundtrack when the cars are chasing each other , it sounds very much like the soundtrack from the movie bullet, you'll hear the shifting of a 4 speed and they'll show the brake pedal in Roy Schneider's car, it's an automatic brake pedal!, i think one of the funniest moments in the movie is when the bad guy Richard lynch is looking at the driver of the car they are in, like the guy is nuts!.........the crook who runs the garage is also the guy who in the the first rocky movie, rocky's boss. good movie! also when the door gets ripped off you can see the guy sitting in the car just flinging the door open, the guy who helps him out of the car kind of looks like Mr Brady from the Brady bunch doesn't he?
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm rating 'The Decline of the American Empire' just about below average since it wasn't terrible, but also not great. I liked the very open conversations from people so incredibly selfish and ugly inside and out. That was probably the most original aspect a dialogue-laced sexual small film with people who are extremely far from models. That aside, it seems ironic that these French-speaking Canadians have a movie about a neighboring society that, well, is in 'Decline' when their own actions are their own demise. A group of women friends and male friends spend half the movie laughing it up on their infidelities and acceptance of such behavior and the other half "intellectually" speaking of how powerful they are for their speech and actions. These are the normal targets in typical sitcoms the main characters make fun of at parties occupied mainly by college professors. Sadly, it's not their "intelligence" or mastery of "history" that disturbs me. It's their pedestal made of ego and mightier-than-thou attitude that pushes me away and not one character could I relate to, nor like. When one cries, I couldn't care less it's your bed. When one complains, I barely flinched. What made me skirmish was one character, uh, peeing red. (Another example of playing with fire.) Sure, I understand it happens to some people, but it was hard to watch. And I sincerely hoped the he washed his hands as he had no problem going right back to cooking for everyone. On the complete opposite end of the noses-up educators, they introduce a stereotypical nomad. This made me cringe as no one seemed real; everyone was as shallow as their laughter on society. Unfortunately, with no one left to root for, you're left as empty as these character's souls.
| 0 |
negative
|
Nine out of nine people who watched this have declared themselves to be mentally scarred for life. No-one should ever have to see this abomination. The English Language is poorly equipped to express how utterly, dreadfully atrocious this "film" is. It's really not worth the plastic it's made of. No greater crime has been committed by the human race in the entire history of creation; never is there likely to be anything worse.<br /><br />It was agreed unanimously that the scene involving the shrunken head of Tommy and the young girl's blouse was unbelievably sick and twisted; in fact many of us have not yet recovered from the ordeal and are currently sitting in the corner of the room rocking, sucking our thumbs and whimpering.<br /><br />The fundamental question on everyone's lips, however, has to be "Why???". How is it possible for anyone to create such a monstrosity and then subject it to so many innocent people? After viewing the trailer we thought that this film might be a laugh: how wrong we were.<br /><br />Please sign the petition to rid the world of "Shrunken Heads" so that no other poor civilians be exposed to it. Please, for the good of humanity.
| 0 |
negative
|
Generally speaking, I'm a an admirer of Jess Franco's film-making but, for some of this movies, I really have difficulties understanding the motivation behind them or even their reason of existence. Like this sick puppy, for example. "Sadomania" has absolutely no cinematic value, it's poorly made without any sort of plot and featuring some of the most ill-natured sleaze footage ever captured on film. This is another filthy women-in-prison film where rape, lesbian-action and violent torture games are daily routine. The guards are crazier than the prisoners and the institution is protected by an impotent governor who only gets sexually aroused when he spots a girl having sex with a dog (!). The girls are all very beautiful and naked throughout the entire film, yet you can't really enjoy this sight with all the perversion going on. The dubious highlights include a barbaric hunting game (you can guess what he prey is), a duel-to-death between a guard and a prisoner and the image of a poor girl having a needle injected all the way through her nipple. Auch! Avoid this sick mess and you'll save yourself the trouble of taking TWO baths in order to wash the filth off.
| 0 |
negative
|
Tarzan, the environmental awareness leader, faces four trappers who by most unorthodox means abduct animals to get them to Zoos. Tarzan has a bland but sexy enough wife with an impeccable hairdo, and a kid. No one should fault Tarzan for being grieved by the vicious actions of the hunters.<br /><br />This Gordon Scott Tarzan flick is one of the silliest, completely and unnecessarily silly; for one reason or another, the team did not find anything charming to sustain the movie, and so it's just some silly rubbish. Tarzan and his family are threatened by a group of evil trappers ,because Tarzan's environmental awareness brought him into open conflict with the evildoers. The kid and the chimpanzee, both belonging to Tarzan, are kidnapped by the malevolent trappers; so Tarzan summons the unleashed animal forces of the jungle to release the kid and the chimpwith Tarzan leading the attack. TARZAN AND THE TRAPPERS is silly, unappealing, quite uninteresting. Maybe as a kid I would have liked it? Now one has to be too meanas viciously mean as those pathetic trappers punished by Tarzanto ask a Tarzan flick not to be silly; this I concede. But one is also truly entitled to ask these Tarzan flicks, however silly, to have and to show some gustoa bit of gustoeven a tiny bit of gusto. Some kick, some excitement, some fun. Now the Gordon Scott Tarzan failure is too silly exactly in the sense of not having any gusto at all, of lacking all excitement. (Yes, I liked the sequence of the jungle beast eating a snake. What beast? Watch the movie, kiddos, now here I just gave you one excuse to do so.) For one reason or another, the villains look somewhat pathetic and elicit mercy rather than virtuous anger.<br /><br />The books leave the impression that Tarzan seemed quite bright in his own way; and if finding a decent bodybuilder or another sportsman to look clever enough for the role might prove a too demanding, next to impossible task, Gordon Scott was anyway too far from meeting that ideal.<br /><br />The wife chides Tarzan for disliking books.<br /><br />The script suggests Tarzan was uneducated, almost illiterate, and adverse to learning; but the book says otherwise, and we know that Tarzan studied much, by himself, using the books of his gone family, before even meeting white people.<br /><br />And I did not like that yell.<br /><br />(It's supposed, dear kiddos, to be a genuine wild yell, not a missed yodeler.)
| 0 |
negative
|
Those who dislike this film seem to think that a loved one somehow 'belongs' to them and must be discarded if they go off with someone else. Fortunately, human nature is much deeper than that; loving someone deeply inevitably brings suffering - though if we are fortunate only on their death.<br /><br />This film is true in setting, atmosphere and dialogue to Nigel Balchin's original novel ('A Way Through The Wood'), and by pinpointing a seemingly irreconcilable dilemma captures the quiet desperation that lies behind many seemingly idyllic lives (and the depiction of English upper class country life is very accurate).<br /><br />I loved the film and hope it will appear soon as an UK-compatible DVD
| 1 |
positive
|
The man who gave us Splash, Cocoon and Parenthood gave us this incoherent muddle of cliched characters, poor plotting, you've-got-to-be-kidding dialogue and melodramatic acting? I guess everybody has a bad day at the office now and then. He's allowed.
| 0 |
negative
|
I attended a screening of 'The Cooler' at the Toronto Film Festival this year. While the other reviews I've read seem to be generally (and mystifyingly) positive, I must tell you without any kind of axe to grind that this film is unimaginably, unspeakably bad. The very brave and candid performances by William H. Macy and Maria Bello have been horribly misspent on what is probably the least polished, most clichéd script to have received the green light in years. I don't know how bad The Brown Bunny was, but I'm certain it couldn't have attained the Dante-style depths that this one did. As courageous as their performances were, perhaps the bravest thing these otherwise brilliant actors did was to entrust themselves to such a dreadful director and abysmal screenplay.<br /><br />He must pitch pretty well in the boardroom, because he should never been permitted to be within a hundred yards of a camera. The dialogue is so embarrassingly contrived and clumsy that I actually found myself blushing during the screening. I am mortified that the talents of Macy have been totally squandered in the hands of someone whose direction is as incompetent as his writing.<br /><br />Watching gifted actors like Alec Baldwin labor through Kramer's appalling script and ham-fisted direction was akin to watching a baby seal get clubbed to death - I felt angered, helpless, and sickened all at the same time. Although I am always glad that there are investors and industry-people willing to take risks on quirky scripts with interesting premises, this picture was a total, utter fiasco. Kramer couldn't have been crueler to these actors if he had himself taken a steel pipe to their knees. I hope for their sakes they can all avoid similar humiliations in the future. Macy wisely ducked out the side door and didn't even stick around for the screening. Regrettably, it seems that the bad luck of main character has rubbed off on the picture in the worst possible way. Anyone accustomed to quality independents will likely find it completely unbearable.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was Hitchcock's third Hollywood feature, and it appears he was yet to settle into a pattern of consistency, turning from faithful adaptation of classic novel in Rebecca, to espionage thriller in Foreign Correspondent, and now this romantic comedy in the mould of the "screwball" pictures of the 1930s.<br /><br />Hitchcock's formal method, on the other hand, had by now settled into something consistent, so much so that he was unable (or at least unwilling) to deviate from it. It was unwise then for him to step outside his usual genre, and a romantic comedy was particularly inappropriate. In Rebecca it was actually great to see Hitchcock constrained by his producer and the source text, forced to turn his technique to heavy Gothic drama, but for Mr and Mrs Smith there is a huge mismatch between form and content. In other words, Hitchcock was no Ernst Lubitsch.<br /><br />First, let's look at the romantic angle. The best love scenes in Hitchcock films were wild, passionate and slightly dangerous the "ever fallen in love with someone you shouldn't have?" situation, and he was great at depicting that. This is something that makes a much earlier film, Rich and Strange, one of the few Hitchcock non-thrillers that really works. Hitch is not so good however when it comes to a more gentle and familiar love story. A light, tender touch is required and Hitch doesn't have it.<br /><br />Secondly, take the comedy. Of course, Hitchcock films could be funny The Lady Vanishes is probably the best example but only when the jokes were sprinkled throughout the story. The master of suspense simply isn't enough of a comedy director to create a film that has funny bones. He cuts up scenes as he would in a thriller snappy opposing angles of people talking, inserted close-ups of hands and feet, point-of-view shots but doesn't allow for comic timing or focus on gags. For example, the business with Carole Lombard's dress bursting at the seems is shown to us with a couple of close-ups, but these are timed more as if he were revealing some crucial plot point, and have no comedic impact. Occasionally Hitchcock's style does roughly coincide with the comedy for example the arrangement of characters in the scene at the club, where Robert Montgomery tries to make it look as if he is with the attractive, sophisticated woman at the next table but such moments are few and far between.<br /><br />Even the cast of Mr and Mrs Smith are not up to standard. I'm not sure this was Robert Montgomery's strength lay, and he is boring here. This was of course exactly where "Queen of Screwball" Carole Lombard's strength lay, and yet while she is clearly acting well the scenes are simply not geared to capturing comedy performances. Even Jack Carson, who could be hilarious when he was really allowed to let go before the camera, fails to perk things up at all. Of course, neither of these fine comedy actors is helped by the screenplay, which isn't exactly bursting with laughs in the first place, even if the basic story is a fairly good premise.<br /><br />The only full-on comedy Hitchcock made after this was the Trouble with Harry, and that sort of worked because it played upon his familiar suspensefulness. However it was only when the story could exist independently of the humour, when the basic framework was suspense as it is in The Lady Vanishes or Family Plot that Hitchcock was capable of doing comedy well.
| 0 |
negative
|
****Contains Spoilers****<br /><br />As a fan of Rachael Leigh Cook, I watched for this show to finally come on so that I could see it. I taped it so I could watch it several times, and there is something about this show that really bothers me!<br /><br />I recognize that this was a made-for-TV movie. Not only that, but it was made for Lifetime, which is a channel that I despise. Because it was made for TV, I can ignore the huge plot holes. I can ignore the massive lack of character development in Ally Sheedy's character. I can overlook the fact that George C. Scott and Rachael Leigh Cook, both of whom are very talented actors, were definately not reaching the best of their abilities. I can look past the fact that Don Diamont's character was so cliche'd, that you knew when you saw him he was the villain. I can even pass over the obvious mistake in the timeline (She's raped during her winter break, and then over a year later she has the baby from it.)<br /><br />The major thing that I can't get over is this: There are two trials for the custody of the child. In the first trial, custody is awarded to the child's father because he is "better educated, has a degree from a community college, and has a full time job." In the second trial the judgement is reversed because the Judge feels that there is lack of evidence that Emma (RLC's character)is an unfit mother, and custody shouldn't be taken from the primary caretaker and given to someone with no previous interaction with the child.<br /><br />The problem is this: Nowhere during the course of these trials is the fact that a thirtysomthing year old man raped a 15 year old girl and got her pregnant taken into consideration! Whether it was a rape or not, he had sex with a minor! Wouldn't that be taken into consideration when the judge is choosing him for custody because he's a "mature adult?" Mature adults don't have sex with minors! <br /><br />It's not the worst cable movie that you would ever see, but it's not a great show either. ** out of ****
| 0 |
negative
|
Let me first start out by saying 1 out of 10 is too good for this movie. It's unfortunate that IMDb doesn't have tenths of a star... I watched this abortion of a movie in the middle of the night due to insomnia, and it was absolute garbage. The plot was horrible. The acting was horrible. The movie was utterly boring. "malachi" looked like the Shadow with Alec Baldwin (The Shadow is infinitely better than this as well) The character Eve was so undeveloped and 2 dimensional she didn't even grab my attention. I didn't even know her name was Eve. Don was interesting when he kept his mouth shut. The "TWIST" (if you can call it that) was laughable and pathetic. When it came, the movie had done such a horrid job of building suspense or attachment to any character that I simply thought "Who gives a S***." The only thing that made me even lift an eyebrow about this movie was the fact the med. teacher was Dyson in Terminator 2 (Also a movie that was light years ahead of this motion picture massacre.) Anyone who was involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves for wasting 90 minutes of countless people's time. It's no wonder no actor from this movie ever had a fruitful career. In summary.... This movie is so bad, I feel dirty and need a shower. Worst movie in history, Gigli was better, Prom Night (the remake) was better and dare I say it Saw IV was better...........
| 0 |
negative
|
After watching this film I decided that it was so awful that I must join IMDb and write a review to warn other people of the pit falls of renting/buying this film. To be fair to the film there is only one good section to this film and that is the end credits cause then you know that this crap is well and truly over. I watched it to the end in the hope that I may get a little bit of pleasure out of the film. Just tunnels more tunnels and an old man talking to himself (If you watch this film too many time so will you). As for Val if he keeps selecting films like this he may as well kiss goodbye to his acting career. There is no point in even writing about what is in the film as that has already been done. Keep your money and sanity and keep well clear.
| 0 |
negative
|
Based on Mika Waltari's Book,This Second CinemaScope movie ever made is full of rich color,beautiful music and panoramic spectacle.The Plot sometimes gets muddled in contrite wording,But all in all it has a strong social content:Man is ruled by his emotions,and that every action has an equal consequence.But to truly enjoy this film,First see the movie,then read the book.Although different,it sheds light on a whole lot of things that were not seen on the screen,and gives breath to some more of the depth of Sinuhe.
| 1 |
positive
|
The cast played Shakespeare.<br /><br />Shakespeare lost.<br /><br />I appreciate that this is trying to bring Shakespeare to the masses, but why ruin something so good.<br /><br />Is it because 'The Scottish Play' is my favorite Shakespeare? I do not know. What I do know is that a certain Rev Bowdler (hence bowdlerization) tried to do something similar in the Victorian era.<br /><br />In other words, you cannot improve perfection.<br /><br />I have no more to write but as I have to write at least ten lines of text (and English composition was never my forte I will just have to keep going and say that this movie, as the saying goes, just does not cut it.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of my favourite Disney films. It has everything you could hope for in a Disney animation: cute animals, great songs, a nasty villain and lots of adventure. The story begins in Paris, where aristocat Duchess and her three kittens live with their Mistress in a mansion. Life is perfect for them until the Mistress' fiendish butler Edgar discovers that she plans to leave her entire fortune to the cats. He realises that if he even stands a chance of claiming the fortune, the cats will be out of the way. An excellent, often forgotten masterpiece from the 1970's - a time when the Disney studio made few animations - which features songs such as the title number "The Aristocats" as well as "Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat", this will enchant viewers young and old with its enduring jazziness.
| 1 |
positive
|
All right, there's no way to sugarcoat this. The plot was ridiculous, the premise was ridiculous, the acting was unconscionable, the effects were laughable and all of the outdoor scenes appear to have been filmed in New York's Central Park. That having been said, there was something about this movie that I couldn't walk away from. Maybe it was the atmosphere, or maybe it was the evil super-vixen or the amazon wenches.<br /><br />Anyway I'm not one to sit on the margins and criticise without pointing out a few redeeming qualities, so here they are.<br /><br />A violent off-shoot of the women's lib movement is portrayed in a wilderness setting (central park, of course), and all of the masochistic young men out there will be very impressed. Furthermore, some of the scenes in which certain characters lose consciousness are amusingly dramatic (you'll note that I write dramatic, rather than convincing).<br /><br />All I can say is that some people like B movies and I'm one of them. If you're one of them too, then give it a go. Cheers, Mr Kincaid. This is one for the ages.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was a very good PPV, but like Wrestlemania XX some 14 years later, the WWE crammed so many matches on it, some of the matches were useless. I'm not going to go through every match on the card because it would take forever to do.<br /><br />However major highlights included the HUGE pop for Demolition winning the tag team belts from Haku and Andre the Giant, The first ever mixed tag match featuring Randy Savage and Sensational Queen Sherri vs Dusty Rhodes and the late Sapphire and the first ever clash between The Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan.<br /><br />Some matches were a complete waste of time. Like The Bolsheviks vs The Hart Foundation was only about 40 seconds long, Koko B Ware vs Rick Martel was short and Big Bossman vs Akeem was too short.<br /><br />Mr Perfect vs Brutus Beefcake and Ted DiBiase vs Jake 'the snake' Roberts were very good indeed.<br /><br />Overall Grade - B
| 1 |
positive
|
The Italian Job requires daylight hours and no experience is required. This is a great matinee and a good afternoon at the movies. The plot is good, but the actual playing out of the plot is very simple and requires no thought process. It's car chases, explosions and all for the simple purpose of defeating "the bad guy" played by Edward Norton. For Norton, it seems he is content to portray the exact same characters as in his previous films such as "The Score". Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron deserve better scripts. Warning: If you've seen the trailer, then you have seen the movie. If you're looking for entertainment at inexpensive prices then you need The Italian Job.
| 1 |
positive
|
Incredibly hilarious mid-70's Italian Rootsploitation with lots of non-consensual S&M, lesbian sex, gratuitous racial cruelty etc...Few redeeming cinematic qualities, except for the fairly cool theme music with dubby "African" drums and flute. Brilliant sample dialog: <br /><br />White Slave Owner (to White Plantation Manager): "You're so dumb, I'll bet you forgot to interrogate that n****r midwife!"<br /><br />White Plantation Manager: "Not only did I interrogate her, I did it so well she died before I could get any answers from her!"<br /><br />All the black actors have 70's afros, and say "yes, massa" in a high-pitched voice. The female lead has sex with everybody on the plantation. 10 Stars for fans of tasteless sleaze.
| 1 |
positive
|
Who won the best actress Oscar for 1933? It should have been Laura Hope Crewes for her magnificent portrayal of the most monstrous mother ever. She truly is one of the great character actresses of all time. She played the frivolous Prudence Duvernoy in "Camille" (1936) and her best remembered role is Aunt Pittypat in "Gone With the Wind".<br /><br />Irene Dunne was the "official" star of the film but her scenes with Laura Hope Crewes were dynamite.<br /><br />David (Joel McCrea) is in Heidelberg when he is offered a job in New York. His wife, Christine (Irene Dunne) can continue her studies at the Rockafellar Centre. Their first stop in America is a visit to David's mother, Mrs. Phelps. To say that Laura Hope Crewes dominates every scene is an under-statement. From her first entrance - in a frantic burst of effort to greet her "big boy" - all attention is on her. Even sitting around the tea table, when she forgets Hester's existence, even forgetting how she takes her tea, you know something is not quite right.(Hester has been living there for a while.)<br /><br />Frances Dee is completely sweet and so right in her role as the adorable Hester. Her performance in this film, especially the scene where she has hysterics and the aftermath proves how under-rated as an actress she was.<br /><br />All the young cast are excellent. Eric Linden is superb as Robert, the younger son who comes to the realization that his mother is horrible but can do nothing about escaping from his mother's spell. Joel McCrea, at one point says "painting roses on bathtubs - that's more your style". There is a very subtle suggestion in the film of Robert's sexuality.<br /><br />Irene Dunne is excellent in whatever film or genre she tried.
| 1 |
positive
|
I haven't seen so many people packed outside a theater since Star Wars Episode III. Both shows sold out, and for good reason. The Man With the Screaming Brain was the best movie to see with a crowd full of geeks. (Hey, I'm a dork too.) <br /><br />Bruce Campbell was present and had the whole crowd in stitches! The movie was cheesy in the best possible way. It may be the funniest movie that Bruce has done. Ted Raimi steals the show with his Bulgarian hip hop-itude and zany facial expressions, he is a laugh riot! Who knew that Ted could rap? <br /><br />I changed my mind, the person who stole the show was actually a robot. There is nothing funnier than a robot...doing the robot.<br /><br />As for Bruce's performance: "I take the 5th." Thanks Bruce. Thanks for being cool, thanks for taking the time, thanks for all of the fun.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a silly movie with much singing and dancing. Acting is average, but writing leaves something to be desired. There are rememberable performances by Buddy Epsen, with a short but outstanding performance by Gypsy Rose as the bitter wife of a rich playboy. A totally unbelievable portrayal of college life which ends with a superb ice skating exibition of Alice in Wonderland. Many parts are worth watching, but do not be afraid to fast forward through parts of the movie
| 0 |
negative
|
With a cast like this, I knew the acting would be amazing. Still, I was cautious, as I always am of sequels. Would it sustain the feeling of the first film? Could they possibly replicate the tension and thrill of the masterful heist of Ocean's 11? We'll never know, because they didn't try. At least, not in the way I expected. Instead, they made a light and truly funny parody of the heist genre. If you want a gripping, logical heist, don't watch this. If you want a good laugh, with witty dialogue, quirky characters, and an absolutely genius scene where Julia Roberts has to impersonate herself, then you'll love Ocean's 12.
| 1 |
positive
|
A very accurate depiction of small time mob life filmed in New Jersey. The story, characters and script are believable but the acting drops the ball. Still, it's worth watching, especially for the strong images, some still with me even though I first viewed this 25 years ago.<br /><br />A young hood steps up and starts doing bigger things (tries to) but these things keep going wrong, leading the local boss to suspect that his end is being skimmed off, not a good place to be if you enjoy your health, or life.<br /><br />This is the film that introduced Joe Pesce to Martin Scorsese. Also present is that perennial screen wise guy, Frank Vincent. Strong on characterizations and visuals. Sound muddled and much of the acting is amateurish, but a great story.
| 1 |
positive
|
Although a made for cable film by HBO, it is an enjoyable movie and a fascinating look at the back-stabbing and double-dealing world of television. Allowing the viewer to peek behind the scenes of the so-called late night talk show wars in the early 90s, as Jay Leno and David Letterman competed for the coveted position as host of the Tonight Show. Kathy Bates gives a bravo performance as Leno's mercurial manager Helen Kushnick and one can feel empathy for what Leno/Letterman endured at the hands of tv executives. It is just as timely now, considering the recent events involving the failed attempt by ABC to replace Nightline with Letterman. No matter how many times I have seen this film, I still find it as much a pleasure to watch as I did when it first aired. If this should ever be released on DVD, I would certainly add it to my collection.
| 1 |
positive
|
Shame represents a high point in the career of a master. Ingmar Bergman penetrating, existential study of a couple on the island of Gotland dealing with surviving a long war. Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow give painfully detailed performances in this spare, stark drama. The films intensity rests in Bergman's keeping our focus on the minute, intimate relations of his two characters - both accomplished musicians - trapped in a landscape they have ceased to understand. We see the way the external pressures of the war complicate and corrode their relationship. Both characters are forced by the material circumstances of the war to betray their own sense of ethics. In one of the most powerful episodes Bergman forces us to reflect on the manipulative power of the cinematic medium by showing us a filmed interview with Ullman's character that has been re-edited and distorted for political effect by one side of the conflict and is used by the other side as evidence of war crimes in a brutal interrogation scene.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary
but not intentionally.<br /><br />Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.<br /><br />Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as "There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing" and "I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel
or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney
thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else
avoid like arsenic.
| 0 |
negative
|
The lousiest of all lousy Jaws rip-offs was regretfully made by one of my all-time favorite directors; Lamberto Bava (here under his John Old Jr. pseudonym). You know how it goes in these cheap European imitations, right? They only want their monstrous animal to be be bigger, sicker and more threatening, but this more than often results in the opposite effect. Bava's creature is a humongous sea-devil and it's more than just a shark! We're seemly dealing with a prehistoric monster here, with the jaws and appetite of a Great White, but it also has tentacles like an octopus! It's up to a couple of dolphin-loving oceanologists to discover how this monster was able to survive all these thousands of years and why exactly he only started his killing spree now. The script of "Monster Shark" makes few to no sense and most of the action takes place on the mainland. The shark itself is an unintentionally laughable creation and it was a wise decision of Lamberto Bava to only show it vaguely and in quick flashes. The acting performances are above average and the underwater photography is surprisingly clear and well-handled. The twists in the plot are predictable and you'll probably have the most fun spotting detailed facts about the characters. For example: count all the cans of beer Dr. Hogan drinks throughout the whole movie!
| 0 |
negative
|
It is a shame that the Gershwin family and Goldwyn Estate has pulled this great movie from the viewing, thereby depriving the public from seeing some of the most wonderful actors and performances ever packed into one motion picture. <br /><br />It is also true that the singing voices for Sidney Poitier and Dorothy Dandridge were dubbed for this movie, and that is used as one of the reasons that the Gershwin's do not want this movie ever released again.<br /><br />For in spite the flaws in the movie and the creative differences between the Gershwins and the Goldwyns, this film has some of the most remarkable performances ever committed to the screen. Sammy Davis, Jr. and Pearl Bailey are especially deserving praise.<br /><br />This film was the great independent producer Samuel Golwyn's swan song. It was also ironically, the Gershwin's greatest shame.<br /><br />Finally, it is a loss to the wonderful black actors who appeared in it. For we can no longer see them at their best.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was hooked in by the premise that the show was about demons. From hell. And a doorway to hell. What I didn't realize was that I would be watching some guys run around tunnels chased by small children who may / may not have been demons for the entire movie. Sure there was some dialogue in between, and great underground scenery but the lack of a plot, developed characters, any twists or development in the story at all was sorely lacking. Oh, and out of interest, there were no special effects. The entire budget was spent on actors salaries, sets and lots of time running around with a camera underground.<br /><br />The ending was one of the typical lackluster boring endings that makes you say "I endured this film of boredom for that!?" If you want to see demons and a doorway to hell, I promise you that you would be better off served watching the trailers to the game Hellgate : London which while shorter than this movie at 5 minutes, pack more dialogue, character development, action, plot and satisfying conclusions than this.<br /><br />The second star is for effort, but overall a low score for failing to make a movie that stands out, and for promising in the tagline much more than what was delivered.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's not often I feel strongly enough to post something about a film. This was, however, simply the worst movie I have ever seen. The performances were laughable at best, at worst they were, well, there's no other word for it, awful. Especially the lead female who's random sexual come-ons have to be seen and heard to be believed. Honestly, the plot is nonsensical,the dialogue appalling and the characterisation...there is none. I'm surprised it's not an Alan Smithee film. I can't stress this strongly enough... avoid at all costs.How do movies like this ever get made? This is no budget film-making at its very, very worst.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw (unfortunately) the dubbed version on Encore.<br /><br />Student Paula Henning (Franka Potente who was also in the cult favorite "Run Lola Run") stars as a serious medical student who gets into a prestigious school in Germany. But she soon discovers that some students go missing and the bodies they work on in the anatomy lab are incredibly fresh...<br /><br />I was stuck seeing the dubbed version on Encore. It hurt a lot (the words not matching the lips got annoying real quick) but I still liked what I saw. The acting was good, it was beautifully photographed, it wasn't TOO gruesome and I was never bored. Even more refreshing was a likable heroine who fights back when the bad guys go after her. The (mild) nudity was, in a refreshing twist, male! A previous poster mentions Benno Furmann (who is excellent) showed his butt but I don't remember seeing it. Regardless this is a well done, scary and excellent thriller. From all I've read the original German language version is the best (I don't doubt that for one second) but the dubbed version is watchable. I give this a 7.
| 1 |
positive
|
My wife and I loved this film. Smart dialogue, great characters, clever plot construction. The pacing in this film is non-stop. Couldn't even get to the kitchen for some munchies. We have never seen Corey Feldman this funny. Taylor Nichols plays a good Fed...my wife loves him on that "Married Man" HBO show. The ensemble cast were all strong. The twist at the end had us cheering. That is why we give this film a "Standing O."
| 1 |
positive
|
On the way home from a day at the beach, four young people seek shelter from a torrential downpour at the home of Lord and Lady Alexander after their car runs out of gas. They don't know it, but the house they're staying in is to be the site of a Satanic ritual. Jane (Camille Keaton), the only female of the group, is to be sacrificed. As her male companions rush to her aid, one of them accidentally kills Lady Alexander. Things really get out of hand and everyone else attending the black mass is also killed. The four try to make an escape, but soon discover there's no escape from what they've witnessed. One by one, they meet their fates.<br /><br />Gong into Tragic Ceremony, I was positive I would enjoy it. Slow-burn Gothic horror is right up my alley. I'm also quite fond of some of Riccardo Freda's other movies like The Horrible Dr. Hichcock, The Ghost, and I Vampiri. Tragic Ceremony seemed to be a sure thing. Unfortunately, things don't always work out the way they should. The biggest tragedy with respect to Tragic Ceremony is the time I spent watching this mess of a movie. With a few minor exceptions, nothing about the film appealed to me or worked for me. The characters are unlikeable, the plot is incoherent and schizophrenic, and the pacing is terrible. There's a subplot about some cursed pearls that goes nowhere and only serves to confuse things even further. In addition, nothing interesting happens for most of the movie. By the time the four leads realize they're in danger, I was well past the point of caring. And I don't understand the reviews I've read that praise the acting of Camille Keaton. I suppose it's a terrific performance if you consider an emotionless daze to be acting. The three male leads are the very definition of nondescript. They do nothing to stand out. The supporting cast includes some genre favorites like Luigi Pistilli, Luciana Paluzzi, and Paul Muller, but none is given anything to do. In fact Muller's main contribution is a two minute long monologue at the end of the movie that attempts to explain what happened in the previous 80 or so minutes. It's a weak attempt to provide a wrap-up to a very weak movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
A quick resumé: Almost nonexistent, badly chosen musical soundtrack, steady-cam filming done without the steady but with lots of coffee and a hyperactive cameraman, NO plot, and nothing ever really happens. The film goes from one dialog into another, sounding hollow, never achieving depth, never creating the illusion that you really are inside a cobweb of conspiracy, and the everybody-has-an-affair-with-everybody is just a boring excuse to show the main actress in nice underwear. (which, combined with her rusty voice certainly is nice, but nothing to base a movie on) The high point for me is the opening scene, and the film just degraded from there to a point where I just wanted to quit the film about 45 minutes into the story. I regret sitting it out.
| 0 |
negative
|
Coming from Oz I probably shouldn't say it but I find a lot of the local movies lacking that cohesive flow with a weak storyline. This comedy lacks in nothing. Great story, no overacting, no melodrama, just brilliant comedy as we know Oz can do it. Do yourself a favour and laugh till you drop.
| 1 |
positive
|
A very well directed version of Eric Bogosian's stage play. Well worth checking out for Bogosian's great characters and for anyone who wants to see how to bring a play to the movies correctly.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm a huge fan of zombie movies and this is just a pathetic attempt at one. I find the best features of zombie flicks to be the sense of solidarity and a need to survive. This movie focused more on a "let's just make it gory" view.<br /><br />The movie was full of bad acting and even worse special effects. When the zombies emerge from the floor and take the guy down, there is blood just spraying out of the hole. I wasn't aware that holes in airplane floors bleed so extensively. And the original zombie lady, Kelly or something, displayed the worst acting I have ever seen when she woke up and began feeling sick. I laughed quite hard when she died. Deserved it in every way.<br /><br />I was a little confused as to why Dr. Kelly could talk after becoming a zombie, but then there wasn't anything uttered by another zombie because annoying screams and shrieks. And they seemed to be killing the zombies pretty efficiently by shooting them in the abdomen, yet when Dr. Bennett is expelled from the airplane and into the engine, removing most of his lower half, he is still able to live at the end.<br /><br />I kinda felt that they altered things to make a "good" scene. When one of the bitchy girlfriends (I didn't take the time to learn their names. They played a pointless role) was in the bathroom, she was attacked by a zombie behind the mirror. Was it a two-way mirror to watch Mile-High Clubbers? I've never broken a mirror on an airplane (bad luck and all that) but I doubt there is that much room behind there, with the insanely confined space of the actually bathroom and all.<br /><br />The few redeeming qualities were too little too late, sadly. One thing the movie had going for it was the smoking hot flight attendants, yet they felt the need to kill all but one off. And I will admit that I laughed pretty damn hard when the old lady chomps down on Frank's arm and he says "She's gumming me to death" or something to that degree.<br /><br />Honestly, I'm sad I wasted my nine dollars on this movie. The fact that I bought it underage kinda redeems that but still... It failed on so many levels. Stick with Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later.
| 0 |
negative
|
Low budget, but still creepy enough to hold your interest in another take off on the familiar Frankenstein story. This movie is also known as LADY FRANKENSTEIN. The alluring Tania Frankenstein(Sara Bay)fresh from medical school arrives at her father's estate to find that he is still up to his old tricks. Baron Frankenstein(Joseph Cotten)is murdered by his own creation and now his daughter decides to carry on the family tradition by creating herself a lover. This is closer to being an eerie melodrama than horror flick. Supporting cast features Mickey Hargitay, Paul Whiteman, Paul Muller and Herbert Fux. A rainy night could amplify the atmosphere. Still a fun watch.
| 0 |
negative
|
Fantastically written, acted, and produced! Loved seeing this gleaming, talented cast -- every single one of them -- give a such great performance. This movie thoroughly warmed the cockles of my heart! Great storytelling!<br /><br />This is a great movie for Black History month. Full of an accurate portrayal of recent history and very real characters who weathered incredible pain -- with dignity and a belief in a better future. It is so easy to see how these diverse adults all affected this child and contributed to the fertile imagination that would eventually fuel the talent of his adulthood. The next time you're in the company of a listening and observing child, remember; show or he may be a writer-in-the-making!
| 1 |
positive
|
Fata Morgana is an absolute masterpiece. It's Werner Herzog's most unconventional film. It doesn't have a plot or story. Instead of a story, we're given a collection of images, words and music that work so wonderfully together. It's not a documentary either. Some of the people in this film are directed and given lines to read. It has some of the most beautiful and haunting images. Herzog shoots real mirages and we see cars and people floating around in the middle of the desert who aren't actually there but hundreds of miles away reflected like in a mirror. The use of music in this movie is so brilliant - from Leonard Cohen, Mozart, and the Third Ear Band. Imagine Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey in the desert; that's what this movie is like. This film is so hypnotic that it has the ability to make you feel as though your spirit has left your body. A must see. It will change the way you view films. Rating: 10 out of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'd read all the negative reviews for "Anna Christie". You know, the gripes about the static camera, out-dated acting and wordiness of the screenplay. But when I viewed it yesterday I found it remarkably affecting and enjoyable. Yep, Clarence Brown's camera remains stationary for the most part, and I'm pretty sure one of the microphones was concealed in the ship's light. Yep, there's a lot of dialogue and no spectacular action sequences. It's an early talkie with primitive technical aspects. But... then there's Garbo, Marie Dressler, George F. Marion and Charles Bickford, all proving that great acting is timeless.<br /><br />I believe "Anna Christie" is still one of Garbo's most iconic performances. And it's a wonderful performance from the Divine One, in a role that is really quite atypical for her. Yes, we've seen Garbo weary and almost beaten, yet never with bags under her eyes or her knocking back shots of whiskey. Garbo played so many (delightful) costume roles, that to see her play a contemporary woman is fascinating. She's not weighed down by heavy dresses or make-up. This performance seems quite raw from Garbo.<br /><br />The plot, from the O'Neill play, follows weary Swedish ex-prostitute Anna, and her reunion with her boozy, seaman father. Anna's had enough trouble for any girl of twenty, as she tells drunken, slovenly Marthy (Dressler)in a bar. She finds solace in a life at sea, and romance with a rough-hewn, but good-hearted, fisherman (Charles Bickford). But her past threatens to ruin it all.<br /><br />Charles Bickford is overlooked in Garbo's long line of (largely inferior) leading men. He's one actor who can actually share the screen with her and not get swallowed up by her magical presence. The pair have great chemistry together and seemed to enjoy working with one another. Dressler can never be accused of underplaying, and once again the grand dame is up to her old tricks, but she's terrific and convincing in her role, never annoying as in the dreadful "Dinner At Eight". I've never really heard of George F. Marion before, but he was wonderful as Garbo's father.<br /><br />This is Pre-Code, and rather gritty and dark by MGM's standards. I really enjoyed it, and while it may creak in some places, it's still wonderful.
| 1 |
positive
|
This review is long overdue, since I consider A Tale of Two Sisters to be the single greatest film ever made. I'll put this gem up against any movie in terms of screenplay, cinematography, acting, post-production, editing, directing, or any other aspect of film-making. It's practically perfect in all of them a true masterpiece in a sea of faux "masterpieces." <br /><br />The structure of this film is easily the most tightly constructed in the history of cinema. I can think of no other film where something vitally important occurs every other minute. Quite literally, Ji-woon Kim seems to have made a movie that practically taunts the viewer to dissect it on the most detailed of levels. A seemingly insignificant object may be shown a rack of dresses, two diaries, a drop of blood emanating from a floor crack, a bottle of pills, etc. but upon meticulous inspection turns out to be so much more a clue that helps to make sense of that particular scene (or perhaps the movie in total), which almost always contributes a stirring reflection upon the psychological concepts that lurk in the background until the viewer's intelligence prompts them to spring to the forefront. Such an event might occur a handful of times during any other movie, but in A Tale of Two Sisters such events occur in such a rapid-fire, relentless fashion that the viewer must watch the film in a perpetual state of alertness, lest they miss something important. In other words, the content level of this film is enough to easily fill a dozen other films. How can anyone in their right mind ask for anything more from a movie than this? It's quite simply the highest, most superlative form of cinema imaginable.<br /><br />The most commonly cited criticism of A Tale of Two Sisters is nicely summarized by Zaphod B Goode, who falsely claims that the story is an incoherent, unresolved mess that uses confusion to instill a false sense of intelligence because it does not provide a final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. He posits that Ji-woon Kim tossed up a dozen possible explanations and left it at that. In reality, however, nothing could be further from the truth. A Tale of Two Sisters provides a series of unassailably objective facts that help the viewer to identify the EXACT occurrences of each and every scene of the film. If our good friend Zaphod had been paying attention, he would have noticed for example the series of obvious flashbacks which provide enough factual information to make sense of the film. These flashbacks convincingly contradict Zaphod's assertion of complete subjectivity. The objective elements of A Tale of Two Sisters are so obvious to anyone willing to see them that the mere assertion of a lack of objectivity can only call into question the patience of a viewer who apparently does not want to put forth even the slightest effort whatsoever to see them. Can Ji-woon Kim really be faulted for the impatience of viewers who lack the desire to understand his film? I think not.<br /><br />Please note that I will not insult the intelligence of critics such as Zaphod that cannot "get" A Tale of Two Sisters, because it really has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence as much as a lack of persistence. The movie spells itself out so effectively that the only possible explanation for confusion is a lack of effort on the part of the viewer. Yes, this film does require a rather significant amount of puzzle-solving, but the pieces fit together to create a beautiful picture. You need only put them together. Remember, the screenplay was written by someone with the picture already in mind he simply separated the pieces and placed them skillfully throughout for the purpose of providing a magnificent cerebral exercise that when completed bestows an ultimate form of satisfaction and state of awe.<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me. There are films that seem to start with an incomplete picture and try to create a puzzle that is insoluble by design. Spider Forest (2004), Perfect Blue (1998) and Donnie Darko (2001) are perfect examples of this. A Tale of Two Sisters is not. It's ironic that Zaphod claims Darko to be more masterfully constructed than A Tale of Two Sisters, especially considering that Darko not only provides almost NO objective facts but also a twist ending that is the quintessential deus ex machina cliché that could be dropped at the end of any movie ever made in order to provide the ultimate in faux intelligence. I'm ashamed of myself for mentioning the two films in the same sentence, but the contrast is an important one. Although it does perplex me that Zaphod would cite a movie that crumbles when exposed to even the slightest intellectual effort as a way of criticizing a film that only becomes discernible thru a significant application of intellectual effort. He apparently likes his "intelligent" films in the most superficial form possible. This is evident when he makes 17 consecutive questions in his review that are answered quite convincingly by the film itself. Just read the threads by Opiemar within the IMDb A Tale of Two Sisters Discussion Forum. Anyone who carefully reads those threads and still asserts a lack of an objective solution to this film may as well stop watching intelligent films altogether because the answers are so damned OBVIOUS.<br /><br />I'd like to say more, but I've come to my 1,000 word limit. All that has been said here needed to be said. So be it now said!
| 1 |
positive
|
I bought this on VHS as "Terror Hospital", and when I got home I checked IMDb and was like OMG it's the legendary "Nurse Sherri"!!! So here's another one from Al Adamson, who had clearly learned some minuscule amount about film-making since the "Blood of Dracula's Castle" days. Where that earlier effort is a more or less totally sclerotic lump, this one mixes it up a little, adding a definite element of variety and surprise amid the incompetence. Sure half of the movie is a blind post-op football player shooting the breeze with his stacked nurse, but at any moment we might be cutting away to the cackling disembodied head of the satanist mastermind, or Nurse Sherri running a farmer through with a pitchfork, or a wee bit of abstract student-film quick cutting to go with the pulsing-blob effects in the possession scene, or the most gratuitously half-hearted topless bit ever, or god knows what else (I forget, to be honest). As dumb-ass pieces of sh*t go, this one runs toward the high end. Congrats, Al.
| 0 |
negative
|
Hollywood is one of the best and the beautiful things that had occurred in my life. I admire and am very much fascinated by the way Hollywood generates ideas and implement them. It makes me wonder about the scope of human brain. I saw Flatliners a long time back but the story, direction, cast and of all acting is still fresh in my mind. The story begins with our lead actor Sutherland saying during sunrise "what a beautiful day to die." For all of us, It's a story which shows emotions that are sometimes withheld in our mind during our entire life. Never able to understand few things in life. It shows us to get motivated and to improve our quality of life. Anyway I suggest it to all that watch it once.
| 1 |
positive
|
Though I had sort of enjoyed THE SATANIC RITES OF Dracula (1974), I knew I shouldn't expect too much from its even more maligned predecessor! Surely the least of the Hammer Draculas (Marcus Hearn on the Audio Commentary for THE CREEPING FLESH [1973] even goes so far as to call it the studio's nadir!), the film really flounders due to its totally unhip - and now embarrassingly dated - updating of the myth (the modern-day setting actually suited SATANIC RITES rather better)...even if, truth be told, it's still vastly preferable to dreck like Dracula 2000 (2000) or VAN HELSING (2004)!<br /><br />Despite Christopher Lee's vociferous bashing of the film, he still cuts an undeniably striking figure as the undead vampire (even if he appears very little and is inexplicably confined to one setting); likewise, Peter Cushing delivers his usual committed performance. The only other noteworthy acting job in the film is that given by Christopher Neame (son of director Ronald) as Johnny Alucard(!) - even if that's only because of how unbelievably hammy it is! Unfortunately, the two best-known female members of the cast (both of them horror regulars) - Stephanie Beacham and Caroline Munro - can't rise above their physical attributes.<br /><br />The camera-work is by Dick Bush (who had shot THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW [1971] and, for Hammer, WHEN DINOSAURS RULED THE EARTH [1970] and TWINS OF EVIL [1971] - but is perhaps best known for his longtime association with Ken Russell) which manages some nice atmosphere throughout, especially during three crucial sequences: the carriage-ride scuffle at the (properly Gothic) beginning; the hysterical Black Mass sequence, followed by the resuscitation of Dracula; and the final confrontation between Lee and Cushing's Van Helsing.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is about so many things. Most obvious is the hold that film can have over an audience and how capturing life on film can be a kind of magic. There is also the tense relationship between China and the West as many Chinese saw (probably rightly so) the "Barbarians" as trying to take over and pollute their way of life. Liu even seeks to preserve their way of life on film because he sees that it will one day disappear. Their is also Liu's internal conflict between the loyalties and traditions of China versus the self-determination philosophy of the West. All these themes are woven quite skillfully into a coherent and enjoyable whole by Hu. A very enjoyable film.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was boring. Very much like Underworld, only even less interesting. It's not much of a werewolf movie and no where near a horror film. The lead couple were boring. I totally didn't care about Vivian and Aiden. And there was so little character development that I didn't care about any character in the film. The plot was paper thin. The transformations were basically nil. I did like the wolves themselves, might as well have have done a wolf documentary, I would have liked that better. I wouldn't recommend this movie. I didn't find it fun or interesting. It just drags and everyone in it is a boring drag. This movie could win an award for how not to make a werewolf film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Kristy Swanson plays an elite hitwoman who is supposed to have knocked off a TV reporter for a group of bad guys,but once she sees this poor fellow at home playing with his kids she decides to junk the whole project and the TV reporter's life is spared.The hitwoman's life is up for grabs as the people who wanted this reporter killed now want her dead for not following through with her assignment.Such is the basis for a movie called Supreme Sanction.<br /><br />Supreme waste of time is more like it.We see Swanson's character beat up,pummel and kill men far bigger than her.And she always one two fifty steps ahead of the group of murders who can't,for some reason,do away with this super hitwoman.Having one woman do away and beat all these men,makes the movie seem so gay.It is too predictable once you figure Swanson's character is going to win out anyway,thus making the film boring and inept.<br /><br />Kristy Swanson is decent actress,who in her younger days was always sexy and easy on the eyes.Supreme Sanction is not one of her better efforts however.
| 0 |
negative
|
Someone on these Boards has predicated that the whole thing is being dreamed by the best friend of the protagonist, albeit a friend he hasn't seen for some 20 years. I'm reluctant to dismiss this out of hand but it does raise some viable questions. Why WOULD a telephone engineer - or a shoe salesman or butcher for that matter - WANT to create a mythical world and weave it around a friend populating it in the process with a set of equally mythical supporting characters. With an imagination that good the friend should be WRITING not Dreaming. Dream or not SOMEONE, and the obvious candidate is director Paolo Sorrentino, has created a very watchable world in which Tony Servillo makes stillness a Fine Art. We are asked to believe that forty-something Titta La Girolomo (Servillo) 'upset' the Mafia some years prior to our meeting him and as penance he is a virtual prisoner in a small Swiss hotel from which each week he drives to a local bank with a suitcase containing nine mill large in used notes. Other than this weekly trip he is free to do as he likes and what he likes to do is smoke, play cards with a man who cheats and a wife who reminds the husband how far they have fallen socially, and ignore the friendly overtures of Olivia Magnani, who has spent two years trying to get a smile and/or a 'good evening' out of him. For reasons best known to himself and which are inconsistent with a man who has no interest in anything or anyone, Servillo spends a certain amount of time every day applying a stethoscope to the wall of his bedroom and listening to the private conversations of his card-playing partners. Eventually he does respond to Magnani - he has to do so or they would be no film. This is plot 6f: the one about Destry, who never wears a gun, or Sean (Duke Wayne), the 'Quiet Man' who refuses to rise to provocation and fight until the obligatory scene where the gun is strapped on and the fists cocked - but instead of contenting himself with a polite come stai oggi he removes 100,000 from the suitcase and buys her a car. The final inconsistency occurs when Magnani tells him she will pick him up the following day at 4 pm in her car and they will drive into the mountains to celebrate his birthday. We've established that she lives locally so why she is then seen driving from somewhere miles away, ignoring a police roadblock to drive off the road and overturn the car is anyone's guess. This inconsistencies apart this remains a fine piece of film-making with an excellent lead performance and a very good supporting one.
| 1 |
positive
|
It pays to watch Reader's Digest. Or Time, if it was the original source of the article that served as a supposed inspiration to Mani Ratnam to make this masterpiece. Based on a true story of an adopted girl who goes in search of her biological parents, Mr. Ratnam paints a classic that rivets as much as it rebukes, cherishes as much as it chastens and preaches as much as it practises.<br /><br />Where does one start? The foreboding gloom that precedes fresh strife in northern Sri Lanka? The chaotic household of a family headed by a firebrand engineer-author and 3 adorably naughty children? Or that murky region where reality crosses the point of providing a comfortable existence and becomes a monster of incredulous and sinister events and ideologies? Whichever way one looks at it, this film is worth being in your collection, if you happen to like Mani Ratnam's compelling dramas.<br /><br />Mr. Ratnam is a past master in blending fictional tales within real life incidents and in this film, he oozes class in adapting two real-life stories into one. I will not go into the story as it is better seen than read. But, what I will dwell upon is the impact it had upon me and why, for all the war-mongering that happens in this world, it cannot destroy that simple yet inexhaustible force called hope.<br /><br />Innocence, in its purity, cannot fathom the complex desires of adult decadence and greed. Nor does it recognize perils when it is accompanied by the fierce determination to seek what it wants. It is an innocence of such nature that drives Amudha to seek her biological parents, despite warnings that they could be lost in the cauldron of civil war. Having survived a terrorizing experience of conversing with a physically challenged man only to realize that he is a more lethal entity in disguise, Amudha sticks to her cause in a manner that tears down her well-wishers' resistance. And finally, when the twain do meet, mother and daughter, the reunion is so taut with emotion that even the temperamental adoptive father is reduced to tears. Aided by a coruscating background score from A R Rahman, the scene that follows is poignant to melt even the stoniest of hearts: a list of questions that Amudha has to ask her biological mother. In a culmination as dramatic as the sequence of incidents leading to it, a child discovers its mother, alive in body but lost in spirit. With the crushing realization that she has no hope of staying with the one who bore her, Amudha does to her adoptive mother what this film's title means: a peck on the cheek.<br /><br />As for the cast, the trail is clearly blazed by the brilliant PS Keerthana. Mr. Ratnam has a gift of extracting spectacular performances from little-known child artistes, but this should take nothing away from Keerthana for an award-winning performance. With an able supporting cast of Madhavan (Thiru), Simran (Indira) and the stupendous Nandita Das (Shyama), she embellishes the scenes in almost every frame she is in. The music may be not as memorable as other Rahman offerings but that still didn't stop him from garnering another National Award for the best music direction. "Vellai Pookal" is as much an ode for the need to cherish human life as it is for nature. The dialogues are top-class (sample the touching exchange Amudha and Indira have on the swing, shortly after the revelation that she is not Indira's biological daughter) and the cinematography, superb.<br /><br />This film is a clear statement to drop arms as much as it is to respect human life and expressions. Do not judge it as a lesson in film-making; you will only lose out on experiencing one of the very best from the Mani Ratnam-A R Rahman stable.
| 1 |
positive
|
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen.<br /><br />We are supposed to like and be rooting for an arrogant, know-it-all, trashy bank robber, played by Dale Robertson, and a coy tease played by the extra-ordinarily beautiful Linda Darnell in a fire engine red dress. She must have been sewed into that bodice! <br /><br />A Senator in the film thinks Native Americans and whites should try to come to an understanding, the bigots, however, win the day. I could barely sit through the endless dialog of bigotry that issued from the other characters mouths.<br /><br />Except for Wounded Knee and Dances with Wolves there are few films that give a positive portrayal of American Indians, and very few old westerns do. This one is exceptionally bad in that regard.<br /><br />The romance between Robertson and Darnell set my teeth on edge, as he came swaggering in, forcing a kiss on her, while she plays the old hard to get game.<br /><br />There are scenes that are unintentionally humorous, such as the characters obviously not really riding in or on a stagecoach in several shots.<br /><br />A puzzlingly humorous incident in the storyline is Linda Darnell's character going to great lengths to purchase tickets for the stagecoach, only to then demand a horse to ride, minutes later, for no apparent reason.<br /><br />Another humorous scene is when the stagecoach comes to a screeching halt at the sight of a cowboy hat lying beside the road, and not only that, but then ALL the passengers pile out for a look-see.<br /><br />1 star.
| 0 |
negative
|
I went to see this film because Joaquim de Almeida was in it. Joaquim had a fairly small part, so it was good that I liked the film on it's own. In fact, I liked it a lot!<br /><br />The film centers around two characters, Albert and Louie. Albert is a shy, retiring sort, and Louie... well Louie is not. The story revolves around Louie's request to Albert to let him come over to Albert's place for just a little while. Louie has just gotten out of prison.<br /><br />Albert and Louie have known each other since childhood, and of course whenver they do something together there is trouble and it's Albert who always takes the fall.<br /><br />The action of the film is based on the adventures that ensue from Louie's visit. On The Run is a chronicle of mad-cap, zany, situations. However, Bruno de Almeida and scriptwriter, Joseph Minion (After Hours), don't always take you where you expect to go. There are twists and turns that add depth to this film. Of course there is plenty of outright comedy, but there is much subtle humor here as well.<br /><br />There are some downright good performances here as well. Albert is played delightfully by Michael Imperioli. He's getting fairly well-knownthese days from the HBO series, The Sopranos.<br /><br />Louie is played by John Ventimiglia, who imbues his character with a lovable, child-like quality. (no matter what he does, you just gotta love Louie!).<br /><br />Both these actors are excellent in their individual characters. With Imperioli, you'll want to hug him and bring him home to Mom. Ventimiglia, well, you won't know whether you should slap him or bring him home (and NOT to Mom!).<p><br /><br />There are other stand-out performances as well. The character of Rita is played by Drena DeNiro (yes, Robert's daughter). The audience adored her. In talking with the others who saw the film it was fun to discuss whether it was Albert or Louie who was their favorite of those two. But, everyone loved Rita!<br /><br />Is this film perfect? No, I can't say that it is. There were many times I wished the director had had a bigger budget to work with. There were some scenes that cried out for more budgetary freedom. (Give this guy a decent budget to work with and I believe you are going to see a film that will make you stand up and notice.)<br /><br />The ending sequence was a bit of a victim of budget. Yet, budget or no budget, the ending screen shot, in my opinion, brought together the talent of actor and director into a memorable, emotionally effective scene.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
It came as no surprise to me that this was a very depressing and draining movie. After all, it's all about the impact of war on civilians AND it's by the "king of depression", Ingmar Bergman. In other words, so many of Bergman's works delve deep into human misery and angst and so this movie seems not so extraordinary coming from this director.<br /><br />Even though it is more difficult to watch, the last half of the movie offers perhaps more insight into the lower depths of humanity. That's because initially, the main characters (Liv Ullman and Max Von Sydow) try to overcome adversity and are basically decent (though a bit stupid) people. However, as deprivation after deprivation occurs, they (especially Von Sydow) become less and less humane and more animalistic--doing ANYTHING in order to survive.<br /><br />Fun to watch, NO FREAKING WAY! But, an interesting insight into human nature.<br /><br />PS--1 thing I LOVED about this film is that it avoided a stupid movie chiche. When the couple sat down with the shopkeeper to drink a glass or wine, they FINISHED the wine completely! In most movies, they barely touch their drinks or leave them untouched. It drives me crazy, as I would NEVER leave a $4 alcoholic beverage without drinking it unless it tasted terrible or had a bug floating in it! BRAVO!
| 1 |
positive
|
While Disney have been THE animation studio for the past 70 years, there have always been rivals to their supremacy. When this review was written in 2009, for example, companies like Dreamworks and (to a lesser extent) Warner Brothers and Ardman, were bringing out animated movies that could be said to challenge the Disney dominance. Back in the beginning, in that late '30s and early '40s heyday when Disney was serving cinematic banquets like Snow White, Dumbo and Fantasia, the competition was provided by brothers Dave and Max Fleischer. Despite releasing two very commendable films, they never quite cornered the market many attribute their downfall to the commercial failure of Mr Bug Goes To Town, released the same week as the attack on Pearl Harbour (which gave the American public something more significant to think about than going to the cinema to watch a cartoon!) That this film has faded into relative obscurity is a travesty.<br /><br />In a patch of overgrown garden in the city a bunch of bugs are in dire danger. Humans use the land as a shortcut, discarding litter and cigars, and other hazards, right on top of the bugs' homes as they go. Honey-shop owner Mr Bumble (voiced by Jack Mercer) fears that the future is bleak, and wonders how he will ever be able to raise his daughter Honey (voiced by Pauline Loth) in more secure surroundings. A highly unscrupulous creature, Bagley C. Beetle (voiced by Tedd Pierce), offers to provide her a safer place to live if she will accept his hand in marriage, but Honey is much more interested in her childhood sweetheart, the perennially cheerful and optimistic Hoppity (voiced by Stan Freed). Hoppity believes that everything is about to be resolved for the better, but is left looking foolish when Bagley Beetle and his pair of comical sidekicks manipulate the crisis to their own devious end. Only at the very end, as their patch becomes the foundation for a huge new skyscraper, do the bugs switch loyalty back to Hoppity as they look to him to lead them a new, safe home away from the destructive influence of humans.<br /><br />What really works in this film is the delightful characterisation all the bugs are cleverly developed and designed for maximum audience appeal. The bumbling villains Swat the fly and Smack the mosquito (hilarious names, if you stop to think about it) are particularly memorable. Equally admirable is the storytelling drive even the youngest of children can enjoy this story, while at the same time it skillfully conveys a message for older audiences about the way human carelessness can impact upon the survival of wildlife. Time has inevitably dated some aspects of the film, and when viewing it the audience needs to accept (and forgive) these occasional signs of general age and wear. But on the whole Mr Bug Goes To Town is an accomplished, funny and very slickly presented animation with a worthy message to boot.
| 1 |
positive
|
First I have to admit that I have had some doubts about the director. He has done some movies (with Jarkovsky) about the recent "czech=east" history or more precisely about families (individuals) how did they survive some historical moments. But it was always like the chines food sour-sweet. This movie was totally different. It was pure, it shows the bones of life, it shows the variations of human natures. This film is an excellent piece of art (story, acting, picture, music) but it shows you the life around you in much brighter light that we don't want to see. By the way I have saw it on a DVD (with English subtitles) but I am afraid that in the USA I wont be able to get it.
| 1 |
positive
|
The stark, cold landscape of Big Sky Country, with its majestic snow-capped mountains juxtaposed to barren plains, is put to poetic use here in this Lynchian fable/slide picture show about death and melancholy from the young and talented Polish Brothers (who previously treated indie movie fans to the bizarre and fascinating "Twin Falls Idaho"--a film about a young woman falling in love with two brothers who happen to be Siamese twins). A little orphan boy is dying, and a town is about to flooded in the name of progress (in the form a damn and hydroelectric power plant). With its eerily pleasing music score, minimalist dialogue and character development, and uncanny fantasy sequences involving some very unique angels, the Polish brothers put their focus on what every good film artist knows a film should be about, the moving pictures...the images, the scenes...paintings of deep beauty captured on celluloid. This is best to be viewed late at night so that the haunting imagery can linger in your mind and wash over you as you drift off into sleep. The fact that all of this was done on a shoe-string budget of less than two million dollars puts Hollywood with their bloated film costs and hollow movies to shame and indicates something grand to come from the Polish brothers in the future.
| 1 |
positive
|
Who will love my children has changed my heart, it made me cry all the way through, the most i cried with was when the family had to say goodbye to the baby, i cried the most with that, and each time a child was adopted, i cried when they had to say goodbye to their mother, it was sad for them to lose their mother, I felt sorry for the kid with epilepsy, i was glad he was adopted by the same family as one of his brothers. To me that boy i thought was the special one because he was going in a home. I feel that i am special because i am in a world with Aspergers Syndrome and sometimes when i feel down, i sometimes like to cry. I really enjoyed this movie, 10 out of 10. A true story, very good. Another movie that would bring tears to your eyes i think would haver to be Tuesday's With Morrie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0207805)
| 1 |
positive
|
If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!<br /><br />For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.<br /><br />Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre.
| 1 |
positive
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=211772166650071408&hl=en Distribution was tried.<br /><br />We opted for mass appeal.<br /><br />We want the best possible viewing range so, we forgo profit and continue our manual labor jobs gladly to entertain you for working yours.<br /><br />View Texas tale, please write about it... If you like it or not, if you like Alex or not, if you like Stuie, Texas or Texas tale... Just write about it.<br /><br />Your opinion rules.
| 1 |
positive
|
conventional and superficial ,Claude´s portrayal was incomplete it is supposed that just a few moments with Sheila , makes him win her love , but the story itself and the songs make it and enjoyable experience essentially the final sequence .Altough i don´t know why it was given a PG rating .<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
An interesting companion piece to true documentaries of John C. Holmes. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with what ultimately killed Holmes, and it certainly could have benefited from doing so. Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg got the most praise for this, but I felt the true stars were Julianne Moore as the cocaine-sniffing mother wannabe, Don Cheadle as a black man struggling with identity as pornstar/stereo-salesman in some wild getups and William H. Macy, who's wife is the ultimate slut. Not to mention a nearly unrecognizable Alfred Molina. Macy's new year's eve bash and Cheadle's chance for a better life after a donut shop robbery gone wildly wrong are probably the two best scenes in the movie, or at least the two best shot. What this movie does best is show how power can easily corrupt in its various forms. However, none of the characters apparently learn anything from their dark downward spiral as they all rebound and return to their normal lives.
| 1 |
positive
|
1980 was certainly a year for bad backwoods slasher movies. "Friday The 13th" and "The Burning" may have been the best ones but there were like always a couple of stinkers not far behind like "Don't Go Into The Woods Alone" and this one. But in all fairness "The Prey" is nowhere near as bad as "Don't Go Into The Woods" but it's still not great either. One thing is that it's just boring and acting isn't very good but much better than "DGITW" and this movie actually has some attractive looking females to look at, all three of the female leads were stunning. One thing what is up with all that pointless wildlife footage it just seemed pointless and it looked as the director used that to just used that to fill up some time space.<br /><br />So, what was there to like about this movie? Well, there were a few laugh out loud cheese moments- I couldn't contain a fit of giggles when the final girl did a bizarre type of backwards moon-walk to get away from the kille and there were a few good kill scenes- my favourites being the girl suffocated to death with the sleeping bag; and the phoney looking.<br /><br />All in all The Prey is dumb, boring and the killer I didn't find scary at all, this movie could have been a whole lot better.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Gun is probably the worst film I've ever saw. The comedians direction is very poor, the dialogs sounds like they were written by a 13 year old teenager, the plot (what plot?) is another "suspense" in which it is very hard to get into. Finally, nothing in this movie is any good. A big thumbs down to everyone involved and particularly to the Montreal film festival who presented this movie IN COMPETITION!
| 0 |
negative
|
Would somebody please explain why anybody would want to make a "British neo-noir" crime film with a cast almost entirely American? The accents spoken in this film are bloody awful! But entirely in keeping with the performances, which are so wooden, one fears to strike a match for setting the cast on fire.<br /><br />Really, what kind of disgusting, moronic, cynical crud is this? Even neo-noir films have some character you either feel for or want to feel for, even if they're wretched and doomed; they at least have some decency to them, some sense that what they've done is wrong, or that a seemingly good plan has gone wrong, and that somehow they're stuck with the responsibility for it.<br /><br />Not in this stanky stew. These characters are putrid, betraying each other, themselves, and the audience.<br /><br />Also, note that they are low-lives - all right, nothing wrong with that - except that they seem to be living a life of luxury. For a film supposedly about desperate petty thieves, the keynote here is - ennui. It's all so terribly dull and dross, doncha know. So let's just rip some people off or maybe murder them, and go get laid in a luxury hotel. What ambition! <br /><br />Gooping this whole mess to some bottom of swampy muck are: boringly uneven pacing; predictable 'action' sequences that aren't; banal and incoherent set-design; made-for-bad-TV camera-work and editing; forgettable score; and an entire lack of any imagination or innovation in production and direction.<br /><br />Wholly unbelievable, unlikeable, and for less dedicated movie watchers(or masochists) like myself, utterly unwatchable.<br /><br />There are other nasty things I would like to say about this nasty film, but they wouldn't print them here. Suffice it to say, you can probably find something more useful to do with your time than watch this film - just about anything, in fact.
| 0 |
negative
|
Once upon a time Theresa Russell made a few halfway decent movies, so I keep hoping that one of her efforts from the past decade or two will merit a rating of at least 6 or 7 (out of 10). However, DARK WORLD is just the latest in a string of disappointments. The first 90 minutes are very hard to watch. The lines are delivered by the lead actors as if they are being read at a first rehearsal or even a casting session (in which the actors are doing it for the sake of their agents, but do not really want the parts for which they are perfunctorily reading). The sets and props seem "off" somehow (what kind of a police department would allow a detective to have a whole living room wall shelved full of case file holders?). The screen is constantly cluttered with meaningless time and datelines, which appear with no rhyme or reason. Now, if the scriptwriter were standing here after the lights go up from a film fest screening, they no doubt would crow about how all these shortcomings are REALLY clever clues to the plot turning topsy-turvy in this misfire's final five minutes. Well, for those audience members whose only other movie experiences are TV: THE MOVIE and SURFER, DUDE; they might be bamboozled into nodding their heads in agreement. But it is hard to believe that ANYONE who has seen 10 or more movies in their life--and is not a close friend or relative of a DARK WORLD cast or crew member--could fall for such a lame canard. Despite what the d.v.d. box might lead you to believe, this movie has about as much resemblance to SUNSET BOULEVARD (dead narrator device) or Hitchcock (schizophrenic protagonist device) as a drained Jim Beam bottle refilled with urine has to booze!
| 0 |
negative
|
some would argue this is better mainly because of the acting; but it is indeed far worse for reasons that outweigh the improvement.<br /><br />the source from which all the problems stem; the story. aside from one of them people being shot point blank, with a shotgun, in the chest and surviving for hours without medical attention, there is a bigger problem. Nic, the gangsta with the golden heart is willing to do anything for the friend he just met that day; and that includes asking an evil spirit for help. Ce-Ce, who comes out of nowhere with a past in voodoo, is willing to summon Killjoy, so long as Nic can "hook her up." the acting, while improved, is still horrid. these people couldn't convey emotion out of a paper bag. the script doesn't help them either. stupid lines, and i can only assume no direction from the director. this script was read like Shakespeare in high school with a teacher whipping them as they went.<br /><br />while this movie (if you can call it that at its 80 min. run time (thankfully)) is perhaps even funnier than the first because of all these things, it is definitely more painful to watch. 1/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
The first two Bring It On movies were both quite good in their own ways. The first was fairly serious, the second was successfully satirical - and the third opted for the usual idiotic low-brow comedy that we always see in the utterly brainless teen movies that Hollywood has coming out of the woodwork. The entire point in this movie was that cheerleaders are total airheads who hardly know enough to carry on a common conversation, and that's the extent of this movie's comedy. Ha ha. Not.<br /><br />There is no shred of cleverness in this movie, no theme, no subtext, nothing for anybody with half a brain to be entertained by (and sure enough, I could not sit through all of it). If you're the sort of person who're entertained by fart jokes, this movie is for you. Congratulations.<br /><br />2 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
It occurred to me while the final scene of the movie froze to reveal the scant detail of Buddy Holly's death that there are still people alive today who were at that venue in Clearlake, Iowa who remember it vividly. That has to be a haunting memory, lent even more poignancy by the lyrics of "American Pie", as it pays tribute to the day the music died. The world lost some tremendous talent that day, lives cut short way before their prime, and one can only wonder what might have been if the trio of musicians who perished that day had survived to create an even greater musical legacy.<br /><br />I watched the film today some thirty years after it's original theatrical release. Thirty years, I have some trouble wrapping my mind around that. I had forgotten a lot of it, while remembering some of the little things, like the cricket in the wall who became immortalized with the band's name. But most of all, I remember the music. It's hard just to sit there and not begin tapping to the beat of "Oh Boy" or "That'll Be The Day", and one has to wonder just where the threat to our morals might have actually come from with those tunes. I'm with Buddy on that score at least, how could they be jungle rhythms if he came up with them? Funny how each successive decade brought it's own threat to the fabric of society - The Beatles, Motown, Disco and a whole host of other musical forms. We're still listening and dancing to the beat, so I guess they couldn't have been all that bad.<br /><br />There was another takeaway from the film I had forgotten about. This is where I learned to bang a phone on the table when the person on the other end wasn't seeing things my way. I've done that a number of times over the years, but by now had forgotten the source. Well, I should be good for another thirty years or so now.<br /><br />You certainly have to give Gary Busey credit for his portrayal of Buddy Holly. Seeing him today, one could never imagine him as the slimmed down rocker with the horn rimmed glasses, but it was a tour de force characterization and performance that earned Busey an Oscar nod. Don Stroud and Charles Martin Smith are competent as Buddy's band members, though their characters take a back seat to much of the story. I enjoyed the subtle ways that other musical legends were segued into the picture, names like Sam Cooke and King Curtis, without ever dwelling on their presence. <br /><br />I'll always be a fan and follower of music from the Fifties and Sixties - 'oldies' they call them now. I guess that makes me a bit of an oldie too, but you can't replace the experience of growing up with the music history that now makes it to the big screen. Which only goes to reinforce the idea that I'll keep on enjoying the music until, well, the day I die.
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought Rachel York was fantastic as "Lucy." I have seen her in "Kiss Me, Kate" and "Victor/Victoria," as well, and in each of these performances she has developed very different, and very real, characterizations. She is a chameleon who can play (and sing) anything!<br /><br />I am very surprised at how many negative reviews appear here regarding Rachel's performance in "Lucy." Even some bonafide TV and entertainment critics seem to have missed the point of her portrayal. So many people have focused on the fact that Rachel doesn't really look like Lucy. My response to that is, "So what?" I wasn't looking for a superficial impersonation of Lucy. I wanted to know more about the real woman behind the clown. And Rachel certainly gave us that, in great depth. I also didn't want to see someone simply "doing" classic Lucy routines. Therefore I was very pleased with the decision by the producers and director to have Rachel portray Lucy in rehearsal for the most memorable of these skits - Vitameatavegamin and The Candy Factory. (It seems that some of the reviewers didn't realize that these two scenes were meant to be rehearsal sequences and not the actual skits). This approach, I thought, gave an innovative twist to sketches that so many of us know by heart. I also thought Rachel was terrifically fresh and funny in these scenes. And she absolutely nailed the routines that were recreated - the Professor and the Grape Stomping, in particular. There was one moment in the Grape scene where the corner of Rachel's mouth had the exact little upturn that I remember Lucy having. I couldn't believe she was able to capture that - and so naturally.<br /><br />I wonder if many of the folks who criticized the performance were expecting to see the Lucille Ball of "I Love Lucy" throughout the entire movie. After all, those of us who came to know her only through TV would not have any idea what Lucy was really like in her early movie years. I think Rachel showed a natural progression in the character that was brilliant. She planted all the right seeds for us to see the clown just waiting to emerge, given the right set of circumstances. Lucy didn't fit the mold of the old studio system. In her frustrated attempts to become the stereotypical movie star of that era, she kept repressing what would prove to be her ultimate gifts.<br /><br />I believe that Rachel deftly captured the comedy, drama, wit, sadness, anger, passion, love, ambition, loyalty, sexiness, self absorption, childishness, and stoicism all rolled into one complex American icon. And she did it with an authenticity and freshness that was totally endearing. "Lucy" was a star turn for Rachel York. I hope it brings a flood of great roles her way in the future. I also hope it brings her an Emmy.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.
| 0 |
negative
|
I am a fifth grade language arts teacher, and after we read this book (which the students loved), then we watched the movie. They laughed out loud! Unfortunately, it's NOT a comedy! The acting was so awful, I felt like I was watching a bunch of kids in the neighborhood putting on a play. My students were mimicking the lines and making fun off and on the whole way through. I have to agree with them, at times, it was pretty bad. Still, I would show it to students again, just for fun, and to compare the film with the book. We did a Venn Diagram (teachers know what that is) afterward, to show what was the same in both and what were the differences, so there is an educational value in showing it. I noticed that another adaptation is being filmed for 2005 so we can only hope the acting will be better!
| 0 |
negative
|
Ocean's 12<br /><br />'If you steal fifty million dollars, they will find you.' (Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber, Die Hard)<br /><br />This adage certainly rings true in this sequel. Terry Benedict has been informed that Danny Ocean and his compadres were the ones who ripped him off and now he wants it all back. The Ocean gang need a lot of money and fast, but cannot work in the states as Benedict has made it impossible for them. So it's off to Europe to perform acts of death defying thievery, whilst trying to avoid Catherine Zeta Jones' super cop, an old flame from Rusty's (Pitt's) past. <br /><br />On their first heist in Amsterdam they find out that who ratted on them was the 'Night Fox', a super slick thief with a legend complex. He issues them with a challenge that could write off their debt in full or land them in some kind of Uma Thurman-Kill Bill II-buried-alive-type-sequence. Interesting? Well, yes. Slow? Sort of. Entertaining? Mostly. Unnecessary scenes of character development? Plenty. <br /><br />Ocean and his band of merry men are charismatic, if nothing else and as this is a sequel and we are all old friends we see plenty more 'pally' situations and conversations. Too many. Damon's Linus is more nervous than before; the cousins are bickering as we knew they would; Bernie Mac talks too much and Don Cheadle's cock-er-ney accent is as bad as ever (I really like Cheadle, but could not abide this). Pitt and Clooney talk like old friends, filling each other's glasses and reading each other's minds. However, what worked so well in the last film was the lack of character development versus how slick the whole damned op was. And as much as these actors work well together, Zeta Jones fits into this film like a big square peg in a tight 11 sided hole. She simply doesn't fit and her chemistry with Pitt is non-existent.<br /><br />The stars of this film for me, however, were Vincent Cassel as the Night Fox and Soderbergh's choice of locations. Cassel plays pomp and wealth as if he was born into both. His Night Fox is arrogant, 'awfully cavalier with other people's lives' (Danny Ocean) and a total contrast to the Ocean gang. This is where I think the film loses its way. Cassel and the European locations provide an all too realistic contrast with the American actors and the style of the first film. We want slick, brash and quick-witted; not gritty, considered and intellectual. This is where the film doesn't work.<br /><br />Admittingly, you cannot repeat the same formula twice to the letter, but going to far left or right usually does more damage than good in a mainstream film like this.
| 1 |
positive
|
seriously people need to lighten up and just accept that funny is funny, and this movie is f**king hilarious. Better than the first and Knoxville really grew a pair for this film and did way more crazier stunts then the first. If Ebert and Roper(not saying that I'm a huge fan of theirs) can look past the pure idiocy of this film enough to give it 2 thumbs up then i think other people can to. I wasn't sure what to expect from this but i was floored and it is rare when a sequel is better than the original. This new one I believe exceeds the first big time. so do what i did,just relax kick back try not to barf at some points and laugh your ass off.
| 1 |
positive
|
haggard doesn't even need to be graded, since it was never designed to be graded like Oscar-winning movies are and it was never intended to have won an Oscar (obviously). if you just look at some of the stuff that Bam and Bran tried, like the fast-motion shots, it comes across as a film thats something more than just cky or jackass (even though those are cool too). For pure enjoyability i definitely give this film a 10; almost every scene made me laugh until my sides hurt, like falcone's trail movie. If you haven't seen this, see it and then buy it. Personally my favorite character is brandon (falcone), he's just so smooth and natural and random that its hilarious, he freestyles great (with the action figures) and makes up the funniest stuff- lol a diamond mountain bike? haggard is definitely a movie that in overall humor is only rivaled by anchorman and napoleon dynamite.
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't think of anything, I repeat, ANYTHING positive about this "Movie"! The whole 1 hour 45 minute movie could be shrunken into a short 5-minute movie! In most scenes, there is absolutely nothing going on and it seems just the camera was left on recording on purpose only to increase the time of the movie! All you see is someone in the background walking around or watching TV with no specific subject or even talk what so ever! I just feel I've wasted 105 minutes of my, my family's and my friends' weekend for nothing! If a movie is poorly made or the scenario isn't great that's whole another story, at least it leaves you something to discuss about but about DISTANT, I just have to call it a "Movie" because it was motion pictures recorded by a camera.<br /><br />If you haven't seen it, imagine a 105-min long movie based on two-three lines of story! What will you end up with? 5% of content and 95% of fillers! That's exactly how "Distant" was at least for us! Actors did a great job acting roles that had nothing special in them, they barely talked or showed any special emotions! I picked up this movie in the comedy section of a store relying on what I read on the back of its cover. I'm still wondering what was funny in it other than our face after watching the movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Between sweeping, extraordinary scenes within a plethora of Indian locations and a plot which is Bollywood inspired yet grounded in reality, this highly moving film is a must-see for those who love a good romance/adventure. And by this, I mean "good", not a Hollywood or Bollywood easy and contrived happy ending. East meets West in a different take on the buddy film. The performances are inspired and brilliant, the cinematography epic and the plot entertaining, engaging and poignant without a trace of schmaltz or cheap tugging at heartstrings. HARI OM is a sweet film that won't rot your teeth. See it!
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not a big fan of musicals, although this technically might not qualify as a musical. But I thought I would give it a chance as I love war movies. It was mediocre at best.<br /><br />Hudson seems totally out of kilter in this role. It just didn't work for me. Julie Andrews probably played her part as best as she could, but I just find it hard to buy her as a conniving, deceptive spy. Sorry, I know that is classic stereotyping on my part. But I have to say I think this is Julie at her most beautiful and feminine looking. I always thought of her as more matronly, but then surely that's a result of her roles in Sound of Music and Mary Poppins. No doubt they were desperately trying to get her out of that typecasting in this role. She was quite beguiling in appearance here, but I still didn't buy her as a spy.<br /><br />I couldn't keep my focus through the whole movie and found myself tuning in and out - and having conversations with those in my room (which I usually never do - I'm always shushing everybody). So that tells you how little it held my attention. Don't waste your time!
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is standard goofy sci-fi fare from the 50s. In its favor, the plot does manage to pull off an alien invasion without actually producing the aliens themselves. But come on now, if aliens needed energy and could absorb it from sources like hydrogen bombs, why would they come to earth? Why wouldn't they just suck it out of a STAR!?!? The only credible reason for the presence of Kronos is a direct attack on Earth society, not the mere collection of energy. Nothing like that is even intimated; Kronos may have been built by a superior race but its activities on Earth are the most primitive. The end that the scientist-heroes plan for Kronos is based on nothing but pseudo-scientific gibberish. It amounts to the "reverse the polarity" gambit which has been used so much in bad scifi it has become a joke in itself. Low and behold, this causes our unwanted visitor to release its collected energy. No one in power seems to care about the impact the release of that much energy (which by the film's end includes, among other things, the entire yield of a hydrogen bomb) will have on the surroundings. And unfortunately, by the time the movie ends, the surroundings are the suburbs of Los Angeles. Whoops!
| 0 |
negative
|
This British documentary was recently shown on Comedy Central during their "Best of
" week and can also be seen on South Park's second season DVD. I remember seeing many commercials for the DVD showing clips of this documentary, most of which occurs with Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and some other guy in a hot tub. It was funny when I saw it in the commercials, but I was used to seeing it by the time I saw the actual documentary.<br /><br />Overall, "Goin' Down to South Park" is a fairly funny and interesting look at how South Park episodes are made and of the series' history going back to when Matt and Trey came up with the idea in college. However, there was something about the tone of this documentary that actually felt sort of depressing. It's not as fast-paced, rapid-fire, and as lively as the actual South Park episodes. Instead, it kind of has a slow, dry-wit style, which at times can be funny, but most of the time you're just waiting for something to happen. If you get the chance to watch it, by all means go for it, but I don't think you're really missing much if you never see it.<br /><br />My IMDb Rating: 7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Classic author C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay stating that no children's story is worth the reading, viewing etcetera if it can only be enjoyed by children. I'd say this film is an easy one to hold up as a defence of his argument.<br /><br />Around the age of five or six, I loved it, tracked it down only three or four years later and found it to be wet, poorly animated, dully and confusingly written, and with distressingly repetitive and awful songs (I'm looking t you, hi-cockalorum), showing a production aiming at joyful silliness and whimsy, but resulting with an ugly, twee, frustrating mess.<br /><br />By all means, show this to your infant, but I would heartily recommend that you don't buy a copy or attempt to sit in on the viewing. If you want something set in the same era but with genuine charm and wit, go after 'Oliver Twist' or the BBC's brilliant adaptation of 'The Box of Delights'.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film was pure trash. Not the worse film ever. If it were to be broken down, the acting was good enough to get the job done but the script was SO out there and so stupid that one was left thinking, "Where did my life go?" Even Vanessa Redgrave~ whom I love (and is the reason I watched this) was wasted. Utterly wasted. She didn't even leave an impression. The directing was so distant that non of the characters left me much of anything, but to see Redgrave leave nothing. Her part was nothing. She was good as a mean boss but that was it. Do depth and she's given depth to small roles~ see Venus and Atonement. I would not waste my time and was upset to have spent the $5 on this movie...I wanted it back. No returns. Skip the film. It'll only bring you grief...and boredom.
| 0 |
negative
|
After an astronaut dies in space, he is brought back to a military base. Inside the man are discovered alien embryos -- he is the host for what could be a terrible alien invasion! This film comes to us from director Bernard L. Kowalski, who also directed "Attack of the Giant Leeches" (see separate review) but may be better known for his work on "Columbo". Executive producer was Roger Corman, known as the creator of much better films than this one... particularly in the 1960s.<br /><br />This movie is cheesy and poorly constructed. What comes across as interesting is the poor effects, not the actual film itself. One scene shows a close-up of the alien embryos and it's an embarrassing cartoon representation. Even for 1958. And then when a full-grown alien appears... you'll wonder why he is wearing shoes. Or if you're really perceptive, you'll wonder why you've seen the alien suit in other movies.<br /><br />By no means is this the worst science fiction film you'll ever see. And you almost have to give it some credit -- the alien host overtaking a military base idea predates both "The Thing" and "Alien" by a number of years. I don't know if these films were inspired in any way (I doubt it), but at least it was ahead of its time. Beyond that, though, the film flops and is only great for heckling when drinking. I haven't seen the "Mystery Science Theater" version, but this sure is one film worthy of their insults.
| 0 |
negative
|
Most of Wayne's B westerns are kind of fun in a naive way, but this one really stinks. The editing is terrible, and the direction and pacing is completely lethargic. Most of the cast stands around waiting for the mute guy to write down his thoughts on a pad of paper, and I was bored. Sorry, Duke, but this gets a 1.
| 0 |
negative
|
Yes, this is one of the better done television movies and I wouldn't expect less from Joe Sargent. One thing for this reviewer is that I was also a great fan of The Carpenters, I got to sing all of their material in elementary school and middle school choir and I got to do much of the solo material of which Karen sang lead. I thought she was one of the most wonderful pop singers of the 70's - and being a child/teen singing these songs and learning music - the one thing I was looking forward to was meeting this woman. I never got to, she died three weeks before that was to happen. And yes, that did effect me for I knew nothing of anorexia - and could not understand completely what happened.<br /><br />When this TV movie got produced, I got quite an understanding. Maybe not everything in Karen and Richard's life is open to the television audience, but in opening the parts that were shown, I got to understand much from the music industry of that time. What upsets me is that I am writing "of that time" and seeing "now". No one has learned a darned thing, even though this was a very informative and heartfelt look into a family's problems in the music industry.<br /><br />These films aren't done for fun, they're done to open a door and show us something. Here was a wonderful woman who got caught up in the whole idea that her talent was based on weight. She was fine. Didn't know it. She got mixed messages about her weight from the brother she loved, the parents she loved and the music industry that cared more about her looks/weight than the talent within. With the onset of MTV, it got worse. With 'American Idol' it's like a puss festering in an English accent.<br /><br />A wonderful TV film, I am sure later someone may give it an HBO treatment but either way, many lessons to be learned and the absence of another wonderful talent.
| 1 |
positive
|
Le conseguenze dell'amore (2004)is a beautifully made film that takes small carefully positioned steps towards its ending that need to be savoured in order to be enjoyed. From the contrasting landscapes, to the tightly enclosed world that the hero inhabits, we are taken by the Director and controlled from the very moment we enter the hotel. We, like the hero, will never escape from the suffocating intensity and paradoxical monotony of his criminally driven, Mafia world. That the film resists Mafia stereotypes whilst revelling in them makes it all the more successful. The concrete grave, the inevitable brutal executions and overwhelming maleness are laid bare and exposed for what they are. Just brutality and business, and no more. Life is about being part of the corporate machine that is organised crime and not about love or living for self, family or others. Our hero is indeed a hero in that he gives up his life for the sake of the touch of the beautiful barmaid, the resolution of the misery suffered by his only neighbours in the hotel and in order to escape his decorative prison. The consequences of love are indeed beautiful and brutal at the same time. See it!!
| 1 |
positive
|
It's hard to imagine that "The Battle of Elderbush Gulch", directed by the legendary D.W. Griffith, was made a way back in 1914. It is a showcase for Griffith's emerging style.<br /><br /> The story centers around a group of settlers called the Cameron Brothers and their families which include a young waif (Mae Marsh) sent out from the east to live with her uncles and a young wife (Lillian Gish) who has just given birth. A group of Indians tries to capture the waif's pet dogs and are driven off by the men folk. During the confrontation the Indian Chief's son (Henry B. Wathall) is killed. The Indian chief plots his revenge and launches an attack on the small community of Elderbush Gulch.<br /><br /> It is this attack, which is quite brutal and graphic for this or any other time, that forms the core of the picture. The Indians slaughter the towns folk, women and children alike and drive them out of town towards the Cameron's homestead. The newborn baby becomes separated from its mother and all hell breaks loose. Someone goes for help and returns in the nick of time with the calvary.<br /><br /> The battle scenes contain some graphic violence. For example, we see a woman being scalped alive and there is also a sequence where we see a horse being shot down. I have never seen an animal being slain so convincingly on screen. Mr.Griffith was becoming a master of staging large scale battle scenes, a talent that he would use extensively in his epic Civil War drama, "The Birth of a Nation" released the following year.<br /><br /> Even though it runs a scant 29 minutes, "The Battle of Elderbush Gulch" is nonetheless an exciting and historic bit of film making. See if you can spot Lionel Barrymore and Harry Carey in bit parts.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Saratoga Trunk" is a 1945 film starring Ingrid Bergman and Gary Cooper. It's based on a 1941 book by the great Edna Ferber. Subconsciously she may have had Gone with the Wind on the brain; parts of the story reminded me of GWTW.<br /><br />Set in the 1890s, Clio Dulaine is an illegitimate child who returns from New Orleans from France with a mulatto servant (Flora Robson) and a dwarf servant, Cupidon (Jerry Austin). She has given herself a Countess title and claims to be a widow. Her mother killed her father by accident, and his family shunned her. Clio takes over the old homestead with the idea of embarrassing her half-sister and the wife of her father, which she does by calling great attention to herself. Her plan is to marry someone very wealthy who can give her the security and respectability she craves. Then she spots Clint Maroon (Cooper), a Texas gambler, and falls for him. The two have a volatile relationship - and he doesn't have any money, so she can't marry him - so he leaves for Saratoga Springs. Eventually the Dulaine family has enough, and their attorney gives her $10,000 to get out of town. She does. She goes to Saratoga Springs and goes after the owner of the railroad, Bart von Steed. But Clint is always around.<br /><br />Bergman is beautiful in dark hair and wearing the period costumes, and Cooper is drop-dead gorgeous with that incredible 300-watt smile of his. How she could resist him is beyond me. And the love scenes - whoa, what chemistry! The supporting cast is excellent, Robson and Cupidon creating interesting characters, and Florence Bates giving an excellent performance as a socially prominent woman who takes Clio under her wing, knowing she's a big fake.<br /><br />The film runs a little long, and some of the acting may seem old-fashioned today, but it's an absorbing story filled with atmosphere and vivid performances. The ending won't come as any surprise. It's a fun journey, though.
| 1 |
positive
|
this film is so unbelievably awful! everything about it was rubbish. you cant say anything good about this film, the acting, script, directing, effects are all just as bad as each other. even ed wood could have done a better job than this. i seriously recommended staying away from this movie unless you want to waste about 100mins of your life or however long the film was. i forget. this is the first time i wrote a comment about a film on IMDb, but this film was just on TV and i had to let the world of movie lovers know that this film sucked balls!!!!!!!!!!!! so if you have any decency left in you. go and rent a much better bad movie like critters 3
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.