text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
This film is likely to be a real letdown unless you understand the circumstances under which it was made. The Marxes were chosen to be cast in the film version of a play that was not originally written for them. They are sort of force-fitted into the roles. Ironically it might have been funnier if it had used different actors who did not have such high expectations placed upon them. Instead, it has been forever enshrined as part of a canon to which it really doesn't deserve to belong.
| 0 |
negative
|
I hope this group of film-makers never re-unites.
| 0 |
negative
|
Due to rather dubious plate tectonics, Japan starts to slip under the sea. Initial predictions say it'll take about 40 years before the country is submerged, but a rogue scientist adds in some even more dubious science and determines it will actually take less than 1 year! The government think he's a crackpot, but evidence soon starts bearing his theory out.<br /><br />This big budget disaster movie follows the formula set by any number of Hollywood films of the late 90's (I assume, having seen none of them), with the scale of disaster and tragedy bringing out the nobility of the human (well, Japanese) spirit in acts of heroism and sacrifice, and proving the power of love or something like that. i.e. it's as naive in its psychology as it's geology... we all know that half the populace would be out raping and looting the minute they thought the police had their back turned, and the other half would just panic and be useless.<br /><br />The film does have some very nice special effects, but is not as slick or expensive looking as an equivalent Hollywood production would be. It is at least as nationalistic, humourless and lacking in self-awareness as that Hollywood film would be though, and probably has even worse acting. It does have the hot evil chick from Battle Royale as one of the leads... but she's not even slightly evil, and is therefore much less hot.<br /><br />The film is much too long at 132 minutes, and gets worse and worse as it progresses towards a conclusion that had me in danger of puking. I certainly didn't care in the slightest whether Japan sank or not by the half way point, and well before the end I was trying to think of ways to expedite the process should I ever find myself in that situation for real.<br /><br />But, it does have nice special effects, and Kou Shibasaki is still pretty hot, so I magnanimously give it... 3/10.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have to admit that although I'm a fan of Shakespeare, I was never really familiar with this play. And what I really can't say is whether this is a poor adaptation, or whether the play is just a bad choice for film. There are some nice pieces of business in it, but the execution is very clunky and the plot is obvious. The theme of the play is on the nature of debt, using the financial idea of debt and justice as a metaphor for emotional questions. That becomes clear when the issue of the rings becomes more important than the business with Shylock, which unfortunately descends into garden variety anti-Semitisim despite the Bard's best attempts to salvage him with a couple nice monologues.<br /><br />Outside of Jeremy Irons' dignified turn, I didn't think there was a decent performance in the bunch. Pacino's Yiddish consists of a slight whine added to the end of every pronouncement, and some of the better Shylock scenes are reduced to variations on the standard "Pacino gets angry" scene that his fans know and love. But Lynn Collins is outright embarrassing, to the point where I would have thought they would have screen-tested her right out of the picture early on. When she goes incognito as a man, it's hard not to laugh at all the things we're not supposed to laugh at. With Joseph Fiennes standing there trying to look sincere and complicated, it's hard not to make devastating comparisons to Gwyneth Paltrow's performance in "Shakespeare in Love." The big problem however that over-rides everything in this film is just a lack of emotional focus. It's really hard to tell whether this film is trying to be a somewhat serious comedy or a strangely silly drama. Surely a good summer stock performance would wring more laughs from the material than this somber production. The actors seem embarrassed to be attempting humor, and unsure of where to place dramatic and comedic emphasis. All of this is basically the fault of the director, Michael Radford, who seems to think that the material is a great deal heavier than it appears to me.
| 0 |
negative
|
Jim Varney's performances as the Harem Girl and A.U. are amazingly funny--on a level surpassing Chaplin and Keaton. Linda Kash is great in her once-in-a-lifetime role as the hometown waffle waitress longing for adventure. Unfortunately, the remaining 90% of the movie was unwatchably bad due to the atrocious plot. The makers of Ernest Goes to Africa did not rise to the creative challenges inherent in low budget film production. Only worth seeing on cable.
| 1 |
positive
|
Meticulously constructed and perfectly played, To The Ends Of The Earth is a simply astonishing voyage out of our reality and into another age.<br /><br />Based on William Golding's trilogy, these three 90-minute films chronicle the journey towards both Australia and experience of youthful aristocrat Edmund Talbot (Benedict Cumberbatch) aboard an aging man o' war in the early 19th century as he heads for a Government position Down Under.<br /><br />Among the crew and hopeful emigrants sharing his passage are a tempestuous, bullying captain (Jared Harris), a politically radical philosopher (Sam Neill), a canny 1st lieutenant who's worked his way up from the bottom (Jamie Sives) and, fleetingly, the first brush of love in the form of a beautiful young woman (Joanne Page) whose ship literally passes in the night.<br /><br />Quite aside from the astonishing degree of physical historic accuracy, director David Attwood and screenwriters Tony Basgallop and Leigh Jackson have a canny eye and ear for the manners and stiff etiquette of an earlier time, crafting a totally convincing microcosm of the Napoleonic era.<br /><br />Shipboard life is one brutal, monotonous round of seasickness, squalor and danger after another and as Edmund becomes entangled in the loves, hopes and miseries of his fellow passengers he experiences a delirious whirl of life's hardships, Man's inhumanities and his noblest sentiments.<br /><br />Those who enjoyed Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World or Patrick O'Brian's series of novels on which it was based will love this for everyone else, it's a whole new world to discover.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am in a movie club at my school and I was forced to sit and watch this utterly dismal film. The film's story is not dismal, but the entire movie itself is exceedingly dismal. The acting was absolutely dreadful. The children were overly whiny. A metal pole could have done a better job. I wanted desperately to fall asleep, but because the television was so loud, I was kept from peace. The monkey's are neither cute, nor are they funny. The drama is laugh-worthy. I cannot remember when I saw a more dreadful film. The story is weak, thin, predictable, and completely fake. The adults try to be good actors, but they just can't seem to break through stereotypes. The girl even appears to want to leave the film via falling off a hill during the movie in order to leave it, I don't blame her. Micheal Anderson should publicly apologize for this film. Not just to me, but to everyone else who was forced to sit through this awful film. In fact, I apologize to you. Even if I had nothing to do with this project, I apologize for this film, because this means at least someone will. This film even surpasses the dismalness of films that of Rob Schneider and the Cheetah Girls. I would even go as far to say that it is even worse that Hilary Duff's collection of films, but that's pushing it. Just please don't see this film, or else you'll be pushed to write a review similar to this one on how awful this film is. I'm very sorry.
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this film in the theater in Edinbourgh along with 3 other Americans and our friend from Manchester and we all thought this was a waste of time. We would have much rather spent an extra hour to watch vapid dialog of Star wars III that was playing down the hall than all of this. <br /><br />Opening with one of the worst jokes I've ever seen committed to celluloid on the big screen, it did not take off with a bang. throughout the movie we got the feeling that the jokes were just trying too hard, the writers thought about the setup so much that you could see the joke coming 2 minutes beforehand, then when it came it was so lackluster that you couldn't even smile; I cite the giraffe cum-ming as a prime example. <br /><br />The plot itself makes for some interesting thoughts in my mind, which entertained me much more than what was going on on the screen. I think a lot more could have been done with that angle (the two different worlds, the fish-out-of-water experience of the characters, the confusion and surprise as people try to comprehend and distinguish the characters and writers from each other.) But too much time is wasted with pushing this painful plot to the end with as much 'bizarre' and 'goof' as is humanly possible. <br /><br />And to say the 16th century characters show any extra talent from the writers is an insult to intelligent writers and editors who possibly could have made this film a worthy 40 minute afterthought; but no, its a full length torture film of unfunniness. <br /><br />As we were leaving the theater, which had VERY little laughing inside it, I overheard the young hip electro-clash British couple behind me saying "That was rather good wasn't it. You never really knew what was coming next." And the girl responding "yeah, quite surprising." and that was it. If this is what is meant to get out of British people from watching a comedy: no laughing for 90 minutes but a teeny bit of communication between two lovers at the end, then this film succeeded. But i have more belief in British life than that.<br /><br />I've not not-laughed so hard at a comedy film since American Pie II.
| 0 |
negative
|
When I first saw this movie I was only a little kid and I fell in love with it, they really don't make movies like this anymore,I just watch this again now slightly older and still love it. <br /><br />The Humour is perfect and fits into the movie really well, all the gags are kind of childish but will make adults laugh as well,and in a kids movie is really very rare. <br /><br />The Animation is amazing and to watch hand-drawn animation is a real breath of fresh air to all the computer animation we see today. The Backgrounds are stunning and the coloring is amazing.<br /><br />The Characters are just the kind of characters that you fall in love with the moment you start watching girls will think the Chipmunks are adorable and Guys will think the Chipettes are really kinda sexy.<br /><br />The Songs are fun to listen too and some just really make you wanna cry or get up and dance, its also fun to watch visual humor to go along with them. <br /><br />The Voice Acting is great no doubt even if most of the voice acting is high pitch, but an interesting thing popped up and it one of the songs from this movie but the slowed down to show the real voices behind them and its really kinda fun to watch. <br /><br />If you see this movie in a store or somewhere to rent I say check it out it's really worth seeing and is a perfect family movie its absolutely amazing, words can not express this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
This show was a pleasant surprise after watching Mad TV on a Saturday night. Spike is an excellent host that you can tell is still getting used to it but he is doing great adjusting to his new job. I can imagine it being a difficult transition from writer(Seinfeld) to host however, unlike a lot of new talk show hosts he does not let airtime ride while trying to figure out what to do next. He is quick-minded and each segment and section rolls into one another smoothly. It also doesn't hurt that he's kinda sexy in a nerdy type of way so he's not hard on the eyes like Leno or Letterman. I can't remember the exact episode date that was my favorite but I especially LOVED the Idiot Paparazzi skit with a fake J-Lo and Katie Holmes. Great New Show!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Director Todd Verow's unexpected turn into sentimental coming-out drama yields a predictable result: Nothing new to see here. Attractive but unconvincing leads - these 20-somethings are supposed to be in high school? - dribbling out banalities about confused, adolescent sexuality doesn't strike me as the best way to explore the promise of Anonymous, which was equally self-involved, but also honest, raw and, by comparison, not all that maudlin. I have no idea what to make of this drab and uninspiring movie other than to hope that Verow finds another career. Sure, it's unpretentious, but so's Mike Huckabee.<br /><br />No single attribute, however, is as awful as Jim Dwyer's chintzy, electronic score, which grates non-stop, wall-to-wall for the full length of this movie. If I'd seen this, and heard this, in a theatre, I would have walked out. Thankfully, on my laptop, I could scrub and hit mute.
| 0 |
negative
|
How? I wondered why I hadn't seen this in theaters, or even a single commercial for it, and then after I saw the movie, I realized I was duped HARDCORE. I am a big Transporter fan, and a big Blade fan, so when I saw this I imagined some killer fight scene between two badasses, lots of gunplay, a whole bunch of stuff. Instead, I got the Ryan Phillippe movie with a brief cameo by Statham and Snipes. The guy that does the audio and video in the crime lab got more screen time than Wesley. It was like renting a Jackie Chan movie expecting a bunch of kung fu and getting Erin Brockavich. I expect bad movies from Hollywood, but actors like Snipes and Statham should treat the fan base better.
| 0 |
negative
|
Critics are a strange kind of people. Some of them are common people like you and me. Some of them are not. When a critic say Subconscius Cruelty is beautiful I wonder where they did grow up? What's beautiful with filming a field, some clouds or a tree with an old camera if you can't do it with style and capture the mood of the environments. Karim Hussain for sure can't. I've seen kids do better footage than Karim manage to do in Subconscius Cruelty. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is the whole recording, I refuse to call this a film, is just a bad excuse to picture nudity and extreme torture, rapes of both sexes, masturbation, sperm, pissing, cannibalism, child-murder and much much more. I love gore/splatter and I love horror. This ain't neither of those. This is utter crap and if my comments make just one single person skip Subconscius Cruelty it's been worth it. Always remember that your life won't last forever, don't waste two hours of precious time on Subconscius Cruelty. You've been warned.
| 0 |
negative
|
Enjoyed 'Den brysomme mannen' http://ow.ly/PTTp (my wife didn't, so I watched it in bits over a few days.)<br /><br />Reviewers mainly confused - most agree it's allegorical, but not of what; 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Socialism', 'Capitalism'? <br /><br />That most people don't wish to escape, and it's, essentially, forbidden goes with most of those options.<br /><br />So, presumably you're supposed to project your favourite preoccupation/prejudice/fear onto it. <br /><br />So I'd say it's about an a-epicurean life. A live desaturated of colour, literally in the film, figuratively in the interpretation.
| 1 |
positive
|
No way this overly simplistic script, with basically one character, should be interpreted as feature entertainment. In reality it has about enough material for an eighteen minute short, and even that would seriously tax your attention span. Zero characters beyond Noble Willingham are developed. The never ending closeups of lips and telephones are sleep inducing, and the script is so underdeveloped that a chimpanzee could have written it. In fact this whole sad thing shouldn't have even been put on film. A tape recording would have been more than sufficient to put you to sleep. Definitely not recommended. - MERK
| 0 |
negative
|
Philippe Garrel makes us breathe the forgotten atmosphere of the Nouvelle Vague, almost lost among the vestiges of its ancient splendor but ready to rise again from its ashes if recalled from the past. They who are a little acquainted with the director's subjects, on the other hand, may know very well how he's obsessed by a lingering sense of loss as far as fickleness of reality is concerned. "Les amants réguliers", therefore, show us the parallel stories of an "amour fou" and of a tempted revolution gone to ruin under the direction of young French students.<br /><br />The first part of the story is about the dramatic events of May '68 in France evoked in a series of astonishing plan-sequences, a sort of cinema verité style, that place the student insurrection in anything but an enviable light against a pitch-black background.<br /><br />There's much that can be said about the peculiarities of black-and-white photography used to describe the battle between students and police, where the high contrasts confer an unrealistic atmosphere to the sequences and darkness closes in upon the excited bodies wrapping them in mystery. The images, completely deprived of words, show the real consistence of the myth, made of crude violence, more and more emphasized by the exasperated reality of the movie shootings. The individual doesn't count anything at all here: he tends to disappear in the mass. What really matters in these fight scenes are the significance of the mass-suggestion, the blind fury of the juvenile assault, sinister eulogies of the power of the mob, even if conceived like separate entities apart from any kind of emotion, with the cold and distant look of an entomologist intent to catalog his insect collection.<br /><br />The second part of the story is described in a quieter and most intimate way. Stands out on the horizon the distressing portrait of a self-centered generation in search of its lost time, completely disenchanted about the individual values of men, inclined to rotate on its own axis between opium fumes and making a funeral oration in the praise of its recent defeat.<br /><br />"Les amants réguliers" seems to evoke from time to time the shadow of the great Robert Bresson, revised and corrected by Garrel's particular sensibility without drifting away from the main argument, trying to expand overall perspectives on the subject of human disillusions that though painful may bring us to the truth. In my opinion, trying to penetrate deeply into the substrate of the story, if a man lets himself go and play things by ear, he probably will find that he can bring out the dark side of his self with dire and irretrievable consequences.
| 1 |
positive
|
Ah, classic comedy. At the point in the movie where brains get messed together, a two minute scene with Bruce Campbell beating himself up partially, reminds me of how simplistic movies and ideas can grab you and wrap you into a whole movie.<br /><br />For years and years, Bruce Campbell knows what kind of movies we want out of him. We want to see weird movies like Bubba Ho Tep. We want to see cameo roles in Sam Raimi movies, and we want to see 'Man with the Screaming Brain'. With the title alone, one knows that it's going to border that completely silly type of movie, like Army of Darkness, only with more silly and less monsters.<br /><br />The idea of the movie is simple. Bruce sees doctor. Doctor has new idea. Bruce gets bad things happen to him on way to see doctor. Coincidentally, it's the thing the doctor wanted to show him that saves him. Hilarity ensues.<br /><br />With the addition of Ted Raimi as a weird Russian guy, and journeyman Stacy Keach as Dr. Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov, it's funny, that does this movie. Complete funny. Never a point of scary.<br /><br />If you like the silly Bruce Campbell, you'll like this. Then again, why would you be watching this if you didn't like Bruce Campbell?
| 1 |
positive
|
Typical story of an evil kid going after people. I suspect that Antonio Fargas (Huggy Bear on "Starsky and Hutch") and Vincent Schiavelli didn't want to stress this junk on their resumes (actually, Schiavelli left this life with a mostly good resume). Sometimes I wish that the killers in these movies would just go after the idiots who decide that we need a new one of these movies every other month (note: that comment is not to be taken seriously; I just think that slashers have lost their touch).<br /><br />Anyway, this is one movie that you'll do best to avoid. It's ninety minutes to two hours that I'll never get back.
| 0 |
negative
|
The preposterous premise of this flick has to do with Argentina reclaiming the Falkland Islands, having failed through force in 1982, by impregnating the European women inhabitants with Argentinean sperm thereby diluting the ethnic purity until it favored Argentina. Yeah, right. The reconnaissance is done by our hero/villan and cad, Fabian, who hauls his fish-eye camcorder from pillar to post secretly filming his encounters with the Falklanders including his courting and eventual conquest of one woman, Camilla. An unfortunate indie and fraudulent documentary, this flick favors us with lots of boring tourism shot from the hip....yada, yada, yada. The film has no plot potential and only begins to become interesting as Fabian and Camilla wend their way through the usual moments of awkwardness and uncertainty as they get from the handshake to the bed. "F*ckland" is only for those cinema purists who can appreciate the bleak, no frills, jigglecam austerity of Dogme indies.
| 0 |
negative
|
think of the most un-film-worthy subject you can and this is 10 times worse. A woman needs to complete as many crosswords as she can in a day. We don't even get to see the questions and think of the words on our own, we just watch her struggle. The woman seems so anxious and in a hurry to do the crosswords, but for some reason she spends the time distractedly walking all around the city when she could be focused at home. The acting is horrible, the actress huffs and puffs as she tried to think of the words, and we are left completely in the dark. The New York scenery is nice but the movie relies on it too much and it gets old fast. The movie plays like a rejected NYU student film. This film has no redeeming qualities and I do not recommend it to anyone, ever.
| 0 |
negative
|
Bergman's Skammen is one of the most realistic depictions of war ever set to film. This is not an action film by any means, though the pacing is faster and there is most action than in most any other Bergman movie. Nor is this a romanticisation of war or patriotism, unlike most war movies. In fact, the gritty realism and the deliberate ambiguity of the character's loyalties has a very contemporary feel.<br /><br />Skammen is a darkly lit movie, that should be watched at night, so as to let it work it's magic. Many of the effects are conveyed indirectly, but so effectively that some scenes compete in intensity to a contemporary, insanely huge budget film like Saving Private Ryan. Of course, the action in Skammen is on a much smaller scale but it is impressive none-the-less.<br /><br />While the film-making style feels contemporary, the setting of the film feels timeless and placeless. The war-torn countryside, and even the yet intact provincial hamlet could be anywhere, any time. And this film is not so much about specific historical events, with specific names and dates, but about universal human reactions to adversity and chaos.<br /><br />The acting in Skammen, though typically impressive from Ullman and Sydow, is not of primary importance in this film, unlike most other Bergman movies. Through much of the film they are spectators, much as we are. Bergman has the war imposed on them, and through them on the audience, and their reaction is perhaps what any of our reactions might be.<br /><br />Highly recommended. 10/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie did not give Mr. Bachchan justice. He is a great actor and I was very disappointed in the movie and there was not much plot to it. Matter a fact this is the first movie I have ever been disappointed in with him in it. It starts out with her coming to his home with his daughter and he is a photographer. He takes pictures of her in the garden has she's hosing herself down. He is a sixty year old man that has nothing to do but to take pictures of this girl. The movie makes no sense. The whole movie is about her chasing him around and her telling him how much she cares about him. Then his daughter falls and he has to take this girl around places so she is not bored and is daughter finds out. I just didn't think this movie was up to Bachchan's standards. He is better than this movie. I always pictured him as an upstanding person and then I seen him in this movie and I couldn't picture him in this movie. The movie didn't hold my interest at all. I couldn't wait until the movie was over. And you won't either.
| 0 |
negative
|
All-Monster congregation in the final film in Universal's renowned cycle of classic horror stories. Count Dracula (an intense, dapper John Carradine), calling himself Baron Latos, comes to Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) asking to be cured of his affliction. Naturally, this is just a ruse. Then, coincidentally, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney), a.k.a. "The Wolf Man", shows up and of course he *really* wants to be cured.<br /><br />As others have noted, the monsters don't get equal screen time. The Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) gets thrown in at the end just for the purpose of including all of the Universal Monsters. Stock footage and library music are re-used here as well. The film spends maybe a little too much time with the Dracula part of the story, although Carradine gives an impressive, non-hammy performance in the role of the Count. The film is mainly a showcase for Stevens, who goes through a tragic character arc of his own, and does an excellent job. The women are gorgeous, and I have to say that I loved Jane Adams as the luminous nurse - who happens to be hunchbacked.<br /><br />Of course, it wouldn't be complete without the inclusion of angry villagers.<br /><br />Competently, professionally made chiller is, just for my tastes, not really scary at all, but entertaining regardless. It's a respectable series entry overall.<br /><br />7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This was, without a doubt, the worse horror movie I have ever seen.... Forget the fact that the story had little to do with the facts of Ed Gein... Ed Gein's story is horrific & this movie ignored the facts and strayed way off course. Acting, on all levels, was pathetic. Story, again, for some unknown reason didn't go into the horrific facts. Could have been so scary if it would have stuck to the facts. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? TERRIBLE MOVIE! Steve Railsback version was much, much better. Don't waste a penny on this terribly made flick... And, why ignore the reality of the horrific events? That alone would make for a great story. Man, makes you wonder why this would ever be approved for release. Why spend so much money on a movie that will never make a penny (except for my wasted $5...
| 0 |
negative
|
Look, this movie is obscure, brilliant, and a classic that should sought out by any means necessary. I suppose the powers that be have decided that it will forever be relegated towards the bargin bin; nevertheless, we could only pray for the chance to see this one on DVD. I would say that it even beats the great Phatasm. If you like a dark movie, with plenty of spooky imagery, look for this one and see how an 80s horror movie is suppose to be.
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't imagine a director whose thirst for blood and violence is greater than Quentin Tarantino's. (At least in his films) Inglourious Basterds is no different. We all know Tarantino, the guy who exploded on the scene in the early 90s with cult classics, such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Since, he has been a disappointment for some. Well, I am relieved to say, Tarantino has not lost his touch. He brings us his best since Pulp Fiction and thankfully so.<br /><br />We know the story, a WWII tale told only as Tarantino can. (Fictional of course) A war film hasn't been done like this before. Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine leads the Basterds in Nazi occupied France. Their goal - killin' Nazi's. Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa plays a similar role on the other side. He's know as the "Jew Hunter" and goes about his business as ruthless as no other. The third sub story consists of a young Jewish refugee, Shosanna Dreyfus, who witnesses the slaughter of her family. And she, of course, wishes to plot revenge on the Germans for her devastating lose. There actually is three stories here intertwining and connecting with each other. If you know anything about Tarantino or his films, this is nothing new for him.<br /><br />War has never been been so fun. The Basterds, are haunting, but at the same time, very funny, at times even hilarious. The dark comedy aspect play a big aspect in this as in many other Tarantino films. The entertainment and hilarity is led by Brad Pitt. I found him extremely funny and entertaining. I couldn't wait to see him on screen again. Even with his crazy accent, he works in this type of film. Also making great impressions were Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, who were tremendous. The film was filled with noteworthy performances.<br /><br />The story itself, has so many historical inaccuracies to even count, but so what? It isn't meant to be a documentary. Tarantino wanted to have fun with, as should we. The cinematography department deserves big props with beautiful vibrant colors highlighting the film. You've really got to love the last line in the film... but Pulp Fiction remains his masterpiece.<br /><br />Quentin Tarantino among all other things, is an entertainer. WWII, is one of the most tragic events in history, but Tarantino some how manages to make it fun. Inglourious Basterds is a fun film, it's tremendously entertaining, shocking, dramatic, suspenseful, and funny at the same time. Jam packed with everything you look for in a movie, done with that certain Tarantino style, it's worth being checked out. It's time to experience for yourself what war is like through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino.
| 1 |
positive
|
By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). "Three" AKA "Survivor Island" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.<br /><br />In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.
| 0 |
negative
|
Why oh why did they have to try and make a sequel to one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time. The movie is a train wreck on every level and should have never been made. Randy Quaid's portrayal of cousin Eddie is an over the top caricature of his previous outings as cousin Eddie. Also, the Eddie character is not interesting enough to carry an entire movie. Even "eye candy" Sung Hi Lee could not redeem this hunk of holiday crap. Please do not waste your time on this move, just watch the original again.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film may be great, but it is a complete ripoff of Bill Forsythe's Comfort and Joy. c&j is one of the sweetest films I've ever seen without becoming diabetic.<br /><br />It's OK if you do like it, but realize that EVERYTHING in this film is a direct rip-off.<br /><br />The original is http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087072 I can recommend almost anything by forsythe - Local Hero, Gregory's Girl, That Sinking Feeling. I better go rent some tonight. Local Has a young Peter Capaldi, and an old Burt Lancaster.<br /><br />Unfortunately he's given up film-making after some really crappy Hollywood treatment. Sad.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was telling a friend of mine about the time my grandfather actually picked this horrible piece of crap for us to see one night at the theater. He never picked another one again! It was that bad! Anyway, my friend then told me that her father did some of the writing for this garbage. I thought she was kidding. It turns out, she was serious. She had never actually seen it, and she said that it put a quick halt to her father's writing career. I told her not to waste her time. But, if she did actually break down and watch it, she would see within the fist minute why this ended her father's days as a writer. I mean, even for the 1980's, this crap is bad beyond description. I mean, Joe Frazier as Terrible Tucker? And why in the world would two cops care one bit about a house full of ghosts? And the movie poster? A ghost with his tongue hanging out? What is that about? Nothing about this makes any sense. Well, I told my friend that this crap not only ended her father's writing career, it ended the careers of everybody involved. Or, at least none of them ever fully recovered from being in this garbage of a movie. Let's just say that I will forever ridicule my friend for revealing to me that her father was a writer for this movie! That alone should tell just how bad this is!
| 0 |
negative
|
The Presentation is VERY shabby. (to my notion) as documentaries often are. Michael Moore's "documenatry" - Farenheit 911 is FAR more convincing but has FAR too much media and political influence. Cant wait till Saturday when I get to see the docudrama "The Game of their Lives" . IFC goes right of center. I have started a collection of IFC movies from off the internet due to "TGOTL" *** out of ********** on "Decade". Wanna see good documentaries? Stick to the History Channel.. Or try docudrama. You cant go wrong with them my friend. Cant go wrong. The seventies were ten years of reruns. Or so the old times would have you to believe. Disco died and it is gone forever. When Elvis died o yes we all did grieve
| 0 |
negative
|
The original Australian Kath & Kim is brilliant. Why do American producers need to remake & ruin yet another classic show? Remember the original version of "The Office" with Ricky Gervais, It was an absolute masterpiece, and there was no need to remake it. The producers said that the British humour from "The Office" and the Australian humour from "Kath & Kim" would not translate to an American audience......... WHAT??? So basically they are saying that Americans are too dumb and stupid to understand the jokes, so they need to remake the shows with over-the-top childish gags, so that the Americans can understand the humour. The original Australian version of Kath & Kim is fantastic and very funny. Avoid the American version like the plague!!
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie includes 2 well known actors I have previously enjoyed watching. There actions are great and each action is heart felt. But it makes me think these 2 were thrown into a speech/drama class at college for the first time and told for one to act dominating and constricting to the other in a room without allowing her to leave and the woman to be truly innocent and treat her with enough mind-humping to drive the audience into tears for her release.<br /><br />The only good part IS the acting abilities, the plot has the same ruse as Hitlers influence and I started to hate the protagonist for that. But all of this could have been done within 15 minutes in my opinion, so to drag it out for over an hour was just pure punishment for all who watched it.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
Robert Carlyle excels again. The period was captured well and the soundtrack, although hearing modern techno in this period piece was a little disconcerting at first, proved to be very well chosen.<br /><br />Well worth a watch.
| 1 |
positive
|
A bus drops off a nameless man outside a run-down Standard Oil gas station in the middle of nowhere. We never learn where the bus came from, or why he is on it, or who he even is. Why is he the only passenger? Is he a prisoner? Is he the "bothersome man" referred to in the title of the movie? Has he died and gone to heaven, or hell? Like our man, we don't get a chance to stop and wonder. He is met by a gatekeeper of sorts and shuttled off to a nondescript city. From day one, all the choices are made for him. An apartment has been rented, a job has been found, an office assigned. In fact, his life is not entirely unlike life in the virtual reality of corporate cubicles and suburban condos. Women are heartless, dinner parties are a drag, office jobs suck. But some pieces don't fit the puzzle. Silently efficient, gray-clad goons roam the streets. Are they some sort of paramedics, or the secret police? And why are there no children? Is the story even set in the real world? Whenever we think we might be getting some answers, new mysteries unfold. "The Bothersome Man" leaves you half relieved that it's over, half wanting more. I hope they make it into a computer game soon.
| 1 |
positive
|
"With all the misery in the world, how can we not get drunk?" Mia<br /><br />A lovely aerial view of a major city turns ominous with the approach of a fleet of airplane bombers; an irate hairdresser reacting to a perceived racial slur cuts a road through a businessman's bushy hair; a man dreams of being dragged to an electric chair after a failed magic trick and a teacher breaks down in front of her grade school class because her husband called her a hag. These and about fifty other vignettes that run the gamut from the outright depressing to the wildly humorous to the joyously uplifting populate Roy Andersson's You, the Living, his first feature since his critically acclaimed if commercially unsuccessful Songs From the Second Floor.<br /><br />You, the Living is filled with the same kind of imaginative set-pieces as Songs, replete with black humor, surreal situations, and strange looking characters. Though a bit overlong and less focused than his earlier work, what remains constant is Andersson's unmistakable style with its stationary camera, sterile-looking backgrounds, and precise attention to detail. If there is a theme that ties the sketches together, it is that our time on Earth is limited and "tomorrow's another day', so let's treat each other with kindness. Along the way, we are entertained by tuba and drum music from the Louisiana Brass Band, dinner guests at a banquet hall standing on their chairs singing a rousing song, and a house that turns into a moving train.<br /><br />The emotions range from the gloom of a daughter attempting to communicate with an Alzheimer's patient to a young woman's ecstatic dream about marrying a handsome guitar-player named Micke to the cheers of a crowd of onlookers. While there is no continuous narrative thread, the theme of greed and desperation appears in several sketches. The first of these threads features two corpulent individuals and their tiny dog sitting on a park bench, the woman bewailing the fact that no one understands or loves her, yet she blithely ignores the man's comforting and reassuring words.<br /><br />There is also a hefty admixture of irony. During what seems to be an executive luncheon, one man tells another on the phone that workers don't appreciate quality and how nice it is to appreciate money and the things that it can buy such as fine wine. When he is not looking, however, a man at an adjacent table calmly lifts his wallet from his jacket on the back of his chair. Though Andersson's cynicism is at times not very well hidden, You the Living has an underlying humanism that shows compassion for the human condition. It is a cautionary tale that looks at the mess we humans have gotten ourselves into but suggests there is still time to turn it around, if we heed the warning of the poet Goethe that opens the film, "Be pleased then, you the living, in your delightfully warmed bed, before Lethe's ice-cold wave will lick your escaping foot."
| 1 |
positive
|
I only watched the first twenty minutes of this movie and personally I think that this is the worst movie to be made in the recent years.<br /><br />The plot was so bad that it might have been possible that a 10 year old kid wrote it. The acting was also sloppy with pretty much an unknown cast and not only that the action sequences especially at the first half of the film were so terrible it was unbelievable.<br /><br />I don't know how the producers obtained the budget to film this movie but the production company must be regretting it by now.<br /><br />To anyone who may come across this film in the near future, I advise you to steer clear of this joke of a movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
People must learn to watch what is up there on the screen. This is a great film that is based on a slow, careful gathering of details which serve to establish the personalities of these two men. The passivity of Yusuf (Emin Toprak), the country cousin, is well described by his fear of talking to women. He has at least three chances to start a conversation with a young woman and loses all of them. He has many decades of bachelorhood ahead of him, and maybe unemployment as well.<br /><br />Mahmut is a different case. He got out of the small town by working very hard (we imagine), and his resentment of slackers like Yusuf is palpable (he leaves crumbs on the expensive carpet--the slob!). We are shown a group of friends talking about Tarkovsky among other things, and we note that Mahmut feels regret--but only slight regret--that his work has become commercial over the years. The gulf between the cousins just gets wider and wider. The mouse trap theme is wonderfully vivid, it brings out the compassion and confusion of Yusuf, and the cold-blooded problem solving of Mahmut.<br /><br />I was reminded of two classic films of men driving each other nuts: Les cousins by Chabrol (the rich boy with Hitlerian pretensions played by Brialy is always in my mind) and Kiss of the Spider Woman (William Hurt can't figure out why everybody's so mean). Nuri Bilge Ceylan takes his place among the dozen important directors now active. I just hope that in future he will come to rely on collaborators, instead of directing, writing and shooting his films himself.
| 1 |
positive
|
Everything about this movie is perfect. The set design, the acting, the camera movement, the mood, the colors - everything. You'll be hard pressed to find a better movie. Easily, the best film generated in the last 35 years. Keep an eye on Michael Almereydas!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Lord David Cecil wrote an interesting book in the 1930s EARLY VICTORIAN NOVELISTS, where he looked at the works of Dickens, Thackeray, Eliot, Trollope, Mrs. Gaskell, Charlotte Bronte, and Emily Bronte. He selected these writers as the popular favorites of the first half of the Victorian period, and he explained their strengths and weaknesses (as he saw them) to the reading public. Some of his comments are quite relevant to this day, but like all criticism it gives an idea of the spirit of the times of the critic's life as well.<br /><br />Cecil thought highly of George Eliot (Mary Ann Cross), who wrote about seven or eight books (including sketches and poetry). But for most modern readers, they are usually acquainted with her shortest book, SILAS MARNER, which is still read in some high school curriculum. The other books, FELIX HOLT THE RADICAL, DANIEL DERONDA, MIDDLEMARCH, THE MILL ON THE FLOSS, ADAM BEDE, ROMOLA, SCENES OF CLERICAL LIFE, are still in print (Penguin, for example, has most of them in print), but are mostly unread. The one of most interest today is her last novel, DERONDA, where she discusses the Jews in English society, and an incipient, pre-Hertzl type of Zionism. ROMOLA is her sole attempt at a historic novel (about Savanarola's experiment of a religiously pure republic in Florence in the 1490s). Her meatiest novel is MIDDLEMARCH, which is concerned with English society in the provinces in 1832, the year of the great Reform Bill of Lord Grey. I had to read MIDDLEMARCH in college for a literature course. It certainly is a thoughtful book (Virginia Woolf called it the most grown-up book in the English language). But it suffers (like all of Eliot's novels) from one defect - she cannot write livable, exciting prose. While Dickens is overly exuberant at times, and Thackeray can become pompous and prolix, and Trollope can become (as Lord Cecil says) very ordinary in his discussion, and Charlotte Bronte can fail to explain certain relationships well, and Mrs. Gaskell seems best dealing with female characters, all of them (and Emily Bronte in her single novel) hold the reader's interest. Reading most of Eliot's novels is like trying to chisel sentences out of blocks of marble with a toothpick!<br /><br />To date I have read about fifty pages of MILL OF THE FLOSS. I notice that one of the other reviewers never finished the novel too. But I have read a synopsis of what it is about. The Tullivers (Maggie and her brother Tom) are the central figures - they own the mill in the title. Although close at the start of the story, Maggie falls in love with the son of a neighbor whose father is involved in legal difficulties with Mr. Tulliver Sr. Tom takes a dim view of this relationship, and the tragedy of the story is regarding the split between the siblings, culminating in their demise at the conclusion (Maggie runs back to the mill to rescue Tom during a heavy flood, and they die together). It must have been a success with Victorian readers, but it is very gloomy and depressing to modern audiences.<br /><br />The movie changed the ending a little - Maggie (Geraldine Fitzgerald) does die at the end with her lover, and Tom (James Mason) notes their deaths at the conclusion in his record book. The story is totally rewritten, except for a double death in the flood at the conclusion. It doesn't really help matters. Although Fitzgerald and Mason do pretty well with their parts, they can't really pull the film up by their work alone. The end result is a fairly minor film, that fortunately did not hurt the lead's careers. The only other thing to note is that the boyfriend was played by Frank Lawton, who two years earlier played David Copperfield as a grown up opposite W.C.Fields, Lionel Barrymore, and Maureen O'Sullivan. But then, Lawton never really had a major film career - he just happened to always be around in pictures, some good, some mediocre.
| 0 |
negative
|
I am a fan of bad horror films of the 1950s and 60s--films so ridiculous and silly that they are good for a laugh. So, because of this it's natural that I'd choose this film--especially because with John Agar in it, it was practically guaranteed to be bad. Sadly, while it was a bad film, it was the worst type of bad film--dull beyond belief and unfunny. At least with stupid and over-the-top bad films, you can laugh at the atrocious monsters and terrible direction and acting. Here, you never really see that much of the monster (mostly due to the darkness of the print) and the acting, while bad, is more low energy bad...listless and dull.<br /><br />The film begins with some young adults going to Satan's Hollow to neck. Well, considering the name of the place, it's not surprising when they are later found chewed to pieces! Duh...don't go necking at Satan's Hollow!! Well, there are reports of some sort of crashing object from the sky, so what do the teens go? Yep, throw a dance party--a very, very, very slow dance party where the kids almost dance in slow motion. So it's up to the Sheriff (Agar) and his men to ensure that the teens can dance in peace without fear of mastication.<br /><br />As for the monster, it's some guy in a gorilla suit with a silly mask--a bit like the monster in ROBOT MONSTER. Not exactly original and not exactly high tech. To make it worse, it makes snorting noises and moves very, very slowly--so slow that even the most corpulent teen could easily outrun it! How it manages to kill repeatedly is beyond me.<br /><br />Overall, too dull to like--even if you are a fan of lousy cinema.
| 0 |
negative
|
I can't believe this movie has 6 stars on IMDb. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen that wasn't an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The plot is predictable. I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters. The dialog is cheesy. Several moments in the movie actually made me groan out loud (including Kiefer Southerland's crazy neighbor and the incredibly lame joke that ends the movie). Jeff Bridges' accent is goofy - I can't tell what country he's supposed to be from. It has to be one of the least thrilling thrillers I've ever seen as well...after Sandra Bullock's character disappears, absolutely nothing happens to advance the story for a good 45 minutes. I would give this movie a negative amount of stars if I could.
| 0 |
negative
|
A rather mild horror movie; if not for a couple of sex scenes, it could easily have been a TV movie. Plot holes abound (one example: why would there be a secret passage from the 18th century leading from the upper floor of a house that was burned to the ground and a new building put ther 200 years later?), cardboard acting, characters doing things that anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size wouldn't do...<br /><br />It's got a few fun moments, but overall it's a sub-par film that managed to get Roy Scheider because his bills were due. If you're looking for an extremely formulaic, predictable film that might provide a few laughs, it might be worth watching. If not, then this one's not for you.
| 0 |
negative
|
The guy mentioned to sue for the 1.5 hours wasted of his life, i cant disagree on that one. The movie started as some kind of class project cam thing, and ended up in a dark room. whenever the girls where fully nude there magically appeared light all over, I know i dint write the script or having anything to say about it. But this one is like a bad remake copy of saw with a bad ending. To think of a man who actually wrote this story, sick. This is really a shocking movie cant say ist horror cause its not. Its mere the brutality and the violence that made me sick. It really is frustrating to watch a movie without ending, its like bang, in your face. the movie is done now you can go home. <br /><br />cons -cam -lighting (althrue i think is was supposed to) -overdone -sickening<br /><br />cons -real in your face -acting was good in my opinion -it sucks you in<br /><br />Overall The movie is NOT my taste of movie the witer wanted us to know that these things happen, and the man wrote his own little fantasy. If you ever saw the movies saw ? they all had a moment of comfort in it something to hold on to. This one ? does not. Maybe its just me, that im too soft but this movie made me tremble, and the story is real short, sick man kills girls slowly. But the actors sucked you in this movie every blow every scream you could almost feel it.<br /><br />And to be honest, i was to quick to judge about this one, its a terrible movie ? no its not. its an overdone example of reality, this is a real as it could get. But don't watch this movie if you expect great mystery or a real plot, or even some kind of story. man gets girls in a dark room and kills em one by one, thats really it.
| 0 |
negative
|
does anyone know where i could get my hands on this video or the film for this. I have been searching for it for a long time to show my daughter to show her and i can not find it anywhere. probably because it was only on video and they never made the DVD or VHS or idk.<br /><br />i saw this right off Disney back in 1996 and i think it would be the best video to show her. such a good movie that has every type of emotion displayed throughout the whole movie. also has a lot of actors that started their careers with this movie. If anyone knows how to get a copy of this movie or has a copy and willing to sell it to me for like 50 bucks or something, please call 201-566-0148. thank you
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Seagal has been acting in several entertaining action movies, but this time this movie really sucks. Just stupid killing and really stupid storyline. In addition, Seagul looks fat and old.
| 0 |
negative
|
* Terrible * * Below Par * * * Not Bad * * * * Good * * * * * Brilliant<br /><br />WARNING *MINOR SPOILERS*<br /><br />Homosexuality these day's is hardly the taboo subject it was over forty years ago.However it must be said that perhaps more so in America than say, over here in the U.K. it can still be a touchy subject.Just look at the whole debacle of gay's in the millitary some years ago in the US.It's with 'In and Out' that writer Paul Rudnick taps in to the small town mentality of middle America and the way the press in the US (As well as in the UK) make such a big deal in outing a celebrity.You need only look at when Will Young and Stephen Gately of Boyzone came out of the closet.<br /><br />The movie centres on Howard Brackett(Kevin Kline), a High school English teacher in his home town.The local people are preparing themselves for Oscar night as one of the nominees Cameron Drake(Matt Dillon) came from their town and was a former pupil of Howards. Cameron, who plays a gay soldier in a vietnam epic wins the award only to out Howard as being gay during his acceptance speech.This could not come at a worse time for Howard who is just day's away from marrying his fiance and fellow school teacher Emily(Joan Cusack).As you would expect the media reaction is cataclysmic and turn's Howards life upside down.Not only does he try to convince his family and friends that he is not gay but evade sleazy news reporter, Peter Malloy(Tom Selleck).<br /><br />Although this was billed as a screwball comedy it's clear that Rudnick and director Frank Oz are also attempting to be satirical.You only have to look at the early scenes at the Oscars cerimonee and the way the people of Bracketts home town as well as the teaching board of the school react to his outing.<br /><br />Sadly the film doesn't live up to the promise we see early on in the movie.This is a pretty flat attempt to make social commentary out of a wacky comedy.A good cast is sadly wasted on a script that never really delivers the nessecary amount of laughs and is no where near as insightful as it thinks it.<br /><br />Kline gives us the same kind of endearing performance that he gave us in his earlier comedy 'Dave', making Howard an instantly likeable character. Cusack too is good value as Howard's weight obsessed fiance while Tom Selleck play's very well against type as a gay news reporter.Bob Newhart is a joy also, as the principal of the high school where Howard works.It's great to see him on the big screen for a change.It's a shame that it had to be this.<br /><br />The performances as good as they are can do little to rescue the movie from being a rather dull affair.While a couple of scenes do offer some amusement.Namely the inspired scene where Howard attempts to make himself seem more manly by listening to a self help tape.There is little to enjoy, and when things can't seem to get any worse Rudnick resorts to a sickening finale that lurches in to over the top sentiment. I also couldn't help but feel that my intelligence was being insulted.Malloy appears to be too sleazy a character to become the man who put's his ethics before getting a good story while Cammeron finally come to the rescue in the film's climax seems at first to be too self involved a character to care a jot about what happens to his former teacher.After all it's he who caused all the trouble in the first place.<br /><br />'In and Out' isn't exactly dire.But when you consider the likes of Klines better work like 'A Fish called Wanda' you can't help but feel that here is a great talent being sadly wasted.<br /><br />Robs Rating:* *
| 0 |
negative
|
(Some Spoilers) Sweeping into New York City on a first-class railroad car a killer who doesn't kill with a gun or knife or club but just with his,or it's, touch and breath. A killer that's as old, or even older, then man himself. That killer has a name it's know the world over as smallpox.<br /><br />Arriving in New York one cold November afternoon the killer hidden inside of Sheila Bennet, Evelyn Keyes, and like a Trojen Horse it waits until the opportunity presents itself. Then like a ticking time bomb with it's fuse set off explodes throughout the length and breath of the city.<br /><br />Sheila knows that she's being followed by a U.S Customs officer who's been on her tail since she came back to the US from the Island nation of Cuba. Having smuggled $50,000.00 of illegal uncut diamonds she had to be careful in getting them to her husband Matt, Charles Korvin, to be cut and sold to unsuspecting jewelers in the city. <br /><br />Mailing the diamonds ahead of time Sheila knows that if caught the diamonds won't be found on her. What she doesn't know is that Matt is two timing her by having an affair with her kid sister Francie, Lola Albrght. Even worse he plans to check out of town with the diamonds leaving her as well as Francie holding the bag.<br /><br />Even though we know right from the start of Sheila's deathly condition it doesn't really come to the surface until much later in the movie.The first half of "The Killer that stalked New York" is a crime suspense/drama with the U.S Customs officials and NYC police looking for the stolen diamonds. As Sheila starts to get sick and begins to infect everyone whom she comes in contact with the film reaches the point of a mass panic in the streets type horror movie. <br /><br />Both the police and custom officials together with members of the city's Health Depertment race against the clock to find Sheila before she infects the entire city of New York with the deadly smallpox infection that she's carrying. Sheila finding out from Matt's boss Willie Dennis,Jim Backus,that he quit his job as a nightclub piano player and that he was having an affair with Francie shocks her into the realization to what a heel he is.<br /><br />Confronting Francie at her apartment it turns out that Matt not only stiffed Shelia but her sister as well. Which later leads the guilt-ridden Francie to take her own life. On the run and not knowing that she's infected with smallpox Sheila goes to her brother Sid (With Bissell),who manages a flop-house on the Bowery, to find a place to stay. Only too late does Sheila, and Sid, find out the the stolen diamonds is the last of her problems. Knowing that she's dying Sheila goes to the office of jeweler Arnold Moss, Art Smith, knowing that sleaze-ball of a husband Matt, who ended up beating old man Moss into a bloody pulp, is going to be there to exact vengeance on him.<br /><br />Doucmentry-type drama, based on a true story, with striking black and white on-location photography makes this movie about the horrors of unseen and deadly smallpox unleashed on a unsuspecting public well worth watching.
| 1 |
positive
|
What can you expect from a direct to DVD film? You know what you are getting yourself into when you rent this. The quality of the cinematography reminds me of reality TV shows. <br /><br />Why are they shots always up so close to the actors!? And why are they always centered? There isn't anything to look at. (And the actors are that great looking, so that blows.)<br /><br />The writing and dialogue is just plain awful. That intro scene, with the British Guy is hilarious. Just try and listen this words, they hardly make any sense, just goes around in circles. The lines in the rest of the movie sounds like they were pull out of romance and sci-fi novels, as if the writers had no idea what they were doing. The characters definitely sound like they have no idea what they're saying. <br /><br />This is a terrible movie. I feel bad for the actors tied to this project. Embarrassing!
| 0 |
negative
|
"Quintet" is definitely not a film most people would find amusing or even interesting for that matter. There is no scene, dialog, acting or plot development that would light a spark. The icy world is one thing, but muddled plot is something you really can't bear. The characters are not only three-dimensional, they're not even one-dimensional, there is no emotion and there is no sense in anything that goes on. There is a world encased in ice, where nobody is doing any meaningful work, except playing Quintet, and the rules to the game are never even hinted. The homes are not heated, even there is electricity, but who and what produces it? There is wood, but there are no animals, except dogs, so where do clothes come from, or shoes for that matter, since, apparently there is no industry, and everybody is dressed as in 16th century Europe, which is in odd contrast to not so futuristic pavilion backdrop. The entire movie seams to be stuck inside Altman's imagination, and he never bothered to share his ideas or his vision with audience. Desolation or hopelessness have nothing to do with lack of appeal to this movie, the world of George Lucas's "THX1138" is no brighter place and characters are no more fun, but the story has it's path. In Quintet, there is no obvious or even hinted path, and in my opinion it doesn't even provoke thinking about the idea behind it all, as, for example, similar film, John Boorman's "Zardoz". It's not even done in Altman's unique style, so it doesn't appeal to his fans,either, and I'm one of them. All in all, Robert Altman had a dream, and he woke up without telling anybody what it meant, not even to him.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a good film, no doubt, but with some odd aspects. Without spoiling anything it takes place in 3 places only- a Sicilian farm, the boat,and Ellis Island New York. All shots are close up so we never see a broad sweep of anything. I wonder if this was to save money? No street scenes anywhere, and we don't even see the boat except in close ups. And the music...what on earth was going on with playing Nina Simone songs, decades before they were out? I could have done without the milk river business too......But hey, before you think of me as a pure misanthrope, let me repeat, this is a very good film, with heartbreakng moments, wonderful photography, great characters and more accuracy than the usual (American) efforts at the immigration experience.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie clearly has an agenda, which could be summed up like this: Never, never cross the border (either physical or metaphorical). Let's shun everything that's on the other side with a wall or a fence or something else, let's pretend all "gringos" are evil, satanic, or drug dealers. All that is outside one's country's border (and specially US borders) is dangerous, malevolent and people there will hate you, or envy you or try to steal you or something else. The "based on true events" is only a perverse tag that can be pinned on anything to give it some aura of credibility or, in this case, just to help pushing the film's ideology down some naïve throats out there. The perversity of the film lies in the fact that it reduces countries, people and all else into very black and white stereotyped categories: Mexicans into disgusting people, Mexican police into a bunch of corrupt cops, republicans into the right-wing morons, democrats into almost hippie humanists and so forth. Is there anything good about the film? I hardly think so, but may be you think differently.
| 0 |
negative
|
It really isn't hard to understand this movie! I watched it with no expectations and no knowledge of the story from the games. I was completely blown away!<br /><br />Initially, I wondered how most of the characters have some sort of super-powers but it IS called "Final FANTASY...". I also wondered about Cloud's past but that was easy enough to look up. In no way did these questions spoil the enjoyment of the movie, though. Just the opposite; it shows I kept thinking about the story long after seeing the movie.<br /><br />It's one of the most beautiful movies my eyes have ever seen. The music supports the movie completely. The characters are incredible. <br /><br />I want more!
| 1 |
positive
|
The NYT review says that Sigourney Weaver's character is taut and frustrated, and, later, that she could be the sister of MTM's character in Ordinary People. Say, WHAT? No way. This lady was quirky from the start. NOTHING like MTM in Ordinary People. Sorry.<br /><br />Next, the NYT goes on to say that Sigourney Weaver's Sandy Travis and Jeff Daniel's Ben Travis are 40-something year olds, "children of the 60s." Ms Weaver must be dancing a jig. I believe at the time she made Imaginary Heroes she was in fact 55 years old. She was born in 1949.<br /><br />NYT perception corrections aside, this was a pretty good movie considering it was made by someone so young. Obviously Sigourney Weaver thought so, and so did Jeff Daniels. The young man playing Tim was outstanding.<br /><br />There are some critical comments I could make about the script. Such as that I never really got a good sense of why Sandy Travis missed her son. Her sort of blown apart behavior was perhaps triggered by his death, but that such behavior lasted ¾ of the way through the film I felt had more to do with her stagnation marriage, her relationship with Tim, and where he really came from, and other unresolved issues, than from any mourning of her elder son. Ben's mourning was much more clear.<br /><br />So Matt Travis was an asshole. Did his mom think so too? Still, a very watchable film. What is becoming clearer and clearer is not that there are no roles for women over a certain age, rather that what it takes is a director such as this one to be so clearly in love with an older woman (Ms Weaver) and to almost make his film an homage to her. Sort of an anti-Woody Allen.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is an excruciatingly boring, slow-moving movie. We can feel some sympathy for the socially- and sexually-inexperienced and awkward Tomek, but the motivations of Magda are pretty hard to see, and the ending, at least for me, was inscrutable. <br /><br />Maybe it's about how we all need love, but I'd get more out of a good Busby Berkeley.<br /><br />I'm told that comments have to be at least ten lines, so I'll add that in the background are some interesting shots of the relationship between Polish citizens and government employees and institutions. I wonder if it's meant to portray this before or after the fall of the communist government.<br /><br />Finally, watch for the clever way the men from the gas company investigate whether or not there is a gas leak in Magda's stove.
| 0 |
negative
|
Due to a very misleading advertising campaign, I saw this film in theatres at the relatively young age of 10. The trailers on TV portrayed the film as a comedy, and I bugged my parents until they took me. After seeing the movie, I was blown away. I had no idea what to think. Totally different than anything I had seen before, leaving far to many questions for such a young mind. Needless to say, I loved it. This morning was the first time I'd watched in in probably 2-3 years, and I still think it's one of the greatest films made in the last decade. Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges are both in top form, as a mysterious man who may or may not be from another planet, and the psychiatrist that develops a bond with him while trying to decipher his mystery. The supporting cast are near perfect as well, each resident of the mental institution is incredibly convincing in their own way. The open ending was handled very well, giving lots of evidence to support whatever you believe happened in the end. How this movie failed to receive at least a nomination in that year's Oscars is beyond me. If you haven't seen this film, run to Wal-Mart RIGHT NOW. The DVD is usually in the bargain bin, pick it up! <br /><br />9.5/10
| 1 |
positive
|
I wanted to see this movie ever since the previews came out. I don't understand why everyone is so hard on this film. It may not all be technically true to the sport of rugby, but this film is not mainly about the sport. It's about a rugby team that is taught how to be more than the world expects of them. They are taught to become men, and not temporally vain boys. Hollywood is never 100% correct in their productions. They are there to make a product that sells. Something entertaining. The story of Coach Gelwix and what he has taught over the years is simply amazing. He teaches about service, honor, integrity, and moral cleanliness. How many other movies are teaching that to our youth these days? I was proud to see such an amazing story that taught reverence and respect.
| 1 |
positive
|
Neal N Nikki is voted on of the Worst films of the year by Planetbollywood. Its hard to believe the famous Chopra's have produced this lousy movie. It was presented as a movie for the family, but turns out to be a ridiculous sex comedy. Nor does it make you laugh, but cry of boredom and nor does it have any sexy girls to make the film look sexy. The title song is the most annoying song of the decade, I'm the Neil, I'm the man, rock star superstar. Uday Chopra is one of Bollywood's worst actors ever with no acting talent. After making many Super Flops, and not receiving any movies from a producer rather then his Family. He gives a total crap performance, that bores you to death. Tanisha, who is and will always be known for being Kajol's sister, gives a dreadful performance. Both actors have the most annoying chemistry, and are very immature for their age. It has a special appearance by the very cute Richa Pollad, in a pathetic role. The ending was so daft and stupid, I cant believe i actually paid money to rent this crap.
| 0 |
negative
|
I always had this concept that Korean movies were all about comedy and drama, but "Christmas in autumn" has changed my point of view. This movie is so simple. It doenot have any melodramatic scenes or over the top comedy scenes. Not a single scene where the actors cry out loud. Not even a scene where the actor and the actress kiss, not even a simple kiss. And yet this movie is able to reach it's viewers in ways that I dint know existed. The ending of the movie left me Speechless. I dint even cry, but my eyes were red hot. This movie left me a feeling I can hardly describe in words.<br /><br />I don't think I can recommend this movie to everyone but I do recommend this movie to people who want to watch real cinema. 9.4/10
| 1 |
positive
|
I was 12 years old when I saw the original film (I lived in Italy and the Italian title was "FBI, OPERATION CAT!") That was a fun film and not just for kids. This awful remake it's pathetic even for a 5 year old! What possessed Disney to ruin their reputation and the memory of a lovely film I don't know and I just can't believe it. Even the title song in the original film (both original version and the dubbed Italian version) was extremely nice and creating the mood for the story. On this remake the title song is even worst than the movie itself. It was just nice to see Dean Jones even if for just a cameo appearance, he was a regular on the great old Disney's films. I cannot honestly see anything else positive in this remade movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Every movie Quentin Tarantino has made has become progressively worse. I'd like to believe that most people would agree with that statement, but seeing as "Inglourious(sic) Basterds(sic)" has an 8.5/10 from over 100,000 ratings, it doesn't seem like the general movie-going public has any sense. Even his best work, Reservoir Dogs, wasn't a 'masterpiece.' The trouble is that claiming that you like Tarantino's work has become trendy. As soon as that happens, you get boatloads of people ready and willing to hop on another bandwagon. They will ignore laughably terrible acting, and utterly self-indulgent writing just so they can be part of the exclusive club called "everyone." This movie is so terrible, that I swear it must be some sort of twisted joke by Tarantino to see how much torture his fans will tolerate and still praise him. Like another reviewer has already said: "Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing." I couldn't agree more. This movie is nothing more than self-indulgent and in-joke riddled writing paired with acting ability taken right out of a high school play. But, thanks to the general movie going public, I'm sure it will still go down as one of the best movies ever made. Bravo, Tarantino. You've pulled-off one of the best practical jokes of all time.
| 0 |
negative
|
Yes, I know, Roscoe Arbuckle didn't like to be called 'Fatty', but I couldn't resist the joke.<br /><br />This is a fine Lloyd Hamilton short from his peak period, directed by Roscoe. The two work together with lots of good gags and Roscoe's usual attention to the details of shooting the picture in an interesting manner. Most comedians preferred flat lighting and a still camera to make them more interesting. Roscoe uses a couple of long tracking shots and some nice camera trickery to tell his story and to show Ham as a fine actor, as well as a talented comedian.<br /><br />This story plays with some interesting themes, like Lloyd's classic MOVE ALONG: here it's about perceptions of reality and the confusion that movies make of them. Or you might choose to ignore such issues and laugh your head off.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am a fan of Jess Franco's bizarre style, and a lover even of his trashier films, and my personal opinion is that he has, besides several very entertaining movies, also created a few masterpieces, such as the brilliant "Paroxismus" aka "Venus In Furs" of 1969, for example. It is, however, an undeniable fact that the 180+ movies this highly prolific filmmaker has directed in his career, also include a bunch of big time stinkers. "Sadomania" of 1981 certainly is one of these stinkers, just an utterly bad and plot less movie with the ability to bore the hell out of you in spite of constant sleaze and nudity.<br /><br />Sure, the constant nudity will keep you entertained for 20 minutes, but since it keeps going on and on like that one is pretty likely to get bored after a short time. The only thing that really kept me watching this was the intensity of the sleaze which is, generously spoken, slightly amusing.<br /><br />After couple of newlyweds get lost in the desert on some island, they are stopped by a bunch of topless women carrying guns, wardens of a local prison camp. While the husband is banished from the island, the wife is taken to the prison camp, a place of torture and sexual humiliation, reigned by the sadistic nymphomaniac Magda and an extremely perverted governor. The prisoners are, of course, entirely hot chicks, most of them blondes, the wardens are entirely topless women carrying rifles.<br /><br />The plot, if one can call it that, is extremely stupid of course, but who is going to watch this for a good plot anyway. The (only) interesting thing about "Sadomania" is the high level of exploitation, even for a 'Women In Prison' film. There are probably two short scenes in the movie where we see a woman actually wearing a top, the sleaze contains all kinds of sexual perversions from rape to bestiality, and some of the torture scenes are really nasty.<br /><br />It is amazing that a film with this extreme level of sleaze, however, can still be so boring. The sleaze will keep you watching in the beginning, but after the first 45 minutes I actually had a hard time not to fall asleep. It also makes me wonder why, out of all pornstars, Jess Franco chose Ajita Wilson, who was, according to most sources, a transsexual who had been born a man (well, maybe for exactly that reason). If you really want to watch this, make sure you have enough beer at home to sit through it and watch it for the sleaze and exploitation only (and maybe for the slight unintentional fun factor). Don't expect to be highly entertained, however, it is almost unbelievable how a movie with such a high sleaze level can be so boring. I am a Jess Franco fan and I always will be, but "Sadomania" is just bad. 2/10
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this film recently for the first time in over 30 years and was very pleasantly surprised. I remembered a film that caught the mood and feel of Britain in the mid 1960s without falling into the 'Swinging Britain' clichés that so many other films thought they had to propagate, my memory proved correct. Those who feel that this is like a TV play are not entirely wrong but while Andrea Newman was to become famous for risqué TV drama, this film is more in the tradition of the 'kitchen-sink'films such as 'Saturday Night And Sunday Morning' but with an emphasis on middle-class rather than working-class life. Rod Steiger is excellent as the middle-aged angst-ridden lead, unhappily married to a repressed and apparently barren wife (Claire Bloom). The onset of the 'Technological Revolution' is the the backdrop for the drama in which old values and certainties are challenged. This is the stage for the central character played by Judy Geeson, a role which at the time was a shocking departure from the typical prim behaviour of contemporary heroines. The reversal of roles, with the girl rating her conquests in a little-black-book was a precursor to the Feminist movement and was criticised at the time for promoting promiscuity among young girls. The irony of these criticisms is to be seen in both Claire Bloom's and Peggy Ashcroft's characters who are both acceptingly dissatisfied. Peter Hall made few films and on this evidence that is a great shame. Steiger is exemplary and wholly credible showing why he was so highly regarded
| 1 |
positive
|
On the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 "The Wind" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is "unknown and underrated": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no "Battleship Potemkin", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this movie for the first time a few weeks ago, and It was quite possibly one of the most boring, unfunny films I ever had the misfortune of seeing. First of all Matthew Modine is a terrible actor, and ruined most of the movie, on top of that, the plot is just way too silly. The only reason a checked into this film was because of Alec Baldwin, and his character was eliminated pretty quickly. Unless you are a fan of Michelle Phiffer you should probably avoid this movie like the plague. Many people can't praise this film enough, but I just cannot figure out what people find so terrific about it. If its supposed to be the black humor that makes this film so terrific, then I guess anything can pass for comedy these days.
| 0 |
negative
|
This outlandish Troma movie is actually a very good movie. It is known as their epic and best and most highly rated production. Their version of Shakespeare's play is extremely funny with the usual dose of Troma nudity and gore. Troma has made some very good gore films, one of my favorites is "Street Trash" and of course the Toxic Avenger movies. I have one Troma movie, "Terror Firmer", which has a reputation as their goriest and nastiest movie. I enjoyed "Tromeo and Juliet" so much, that I need to finally watch "Terror Firmer". This is a 2-disc Collector's version with four commentaries and many many features. "Tromeo and Juliet" is an absolute hoot and highly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
I guess they reward idiocy today because whoever came up with the concept for this movie was not shot on sight.<br /><br />This is a morons delight. The worst stereo-types of every ghetto and high school movie is dragged out twisted around and made even more unbearable. Every character in this movie has a sob story beyond sympathy. Lets pray for a remake where the whole school gets nuked.<br /><br />***Spoiler*** how does a school so run down have the internet in the first place?
| 0 |
negative
|
"Curse of Monkey Island" is a treasure; in my opinion the series as a whole was the holy grail of adventure gaming, not to mention LucasArts.<br /><br />But to return to "Curse," whats beautiful about CMI is that its not afraid to be itself. It does deviate from the first two but still remains faithful to the Ron Gilbert productions (if only the same could be said about the 4th installment of the series!). The voice work is impeccable, with Dominic Armato playing our favorite protagonist Guybrush Threepwood. The animation, while quite different than the classic pixelated characters, is done beautifully. It really is just absolutely gorgeous. And the music is fantastic! Its never annoying and you never have the urge to turn it off.<br /><br />Although I'm not too big a fan of romance, the romantic scenes and themes are not at all overpowering. They also have the rare ability to come off as sweet instead of cheesy. That says a lot from a girl who routinely falls asleep during chick flicks.<br /><br />Then, of course, is the classic MI element of humor. CMI is quite adept at delivering deadpan lines, altogether absurdist humor, and simply good fun. Gary Coleman makes a cameo as a budding young entrepreneur, and world events are discreetly jabbed at without stepping out of the bounds of the game.<br /><br />Its not entirely fair to compare CMI to MI and MI2 because it truly is in a realm of its own. Personally I can never find a favorite between the 3 as they all are quite different from each other. However, if you want a swashbuckling good time with the flair of the classic series, I insist you give this game a shot. You will NOT be disappointed.<br /><br />10/10 stars, hands down.<br /><br />- Emily N
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, I AM "the target market" & I loved it. Furthermore my husband, also a Boomer with strong memories of the '60s, liked it a lot too. I haven't read the book, so I went into it neutral & I was very pleasantly surprised. It's now on our "Highly Recommended" video list.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
I have rarely laughed so hard at a movie. Notice that I laughed AT Iron Eagle, not WITH it, because this is probably the stupidest film I have ever seen (with the obvious exception of sci-fi monstrosity CyberTracker). You should also remember that this film is not a comedy!<br /><br />Even overlooking the preposterous plot (the idea that a 16-year-old could walk into a US Air Force base, steal an F-16, fly to the Middle East and kill about a thousand people without anyone noticing is beyond belief), the film is full of ridiculous action scenes that make little or no sense. For example, at various points, Doug Masters uses a machine-gun on his plane to shoot a steel girder, a control tower, and a tent. All of these things explode in a massive fireball. Why? The enemy aircraft also explode in a strange way reminiscent of a paper aeroplane being blown up with a firework.<br /><br />On the plus side, I did actually enjoy this film. Admittedly not in the way the makers probably wanted it to be enjoyed, but all the same I laughed at it and later bought the DVD. It's also improved by the awesome presence of David Suchet as the evil terrorist leader (maybe you'll recall him as mustachioed Belgian detective Poirot?) Overall, then, the film is a laugh and a light-hearted alternative to more serious fighter-plane movies like Top Gun. Even if it is just as subtly homo-erotic (check out the man-hug between Doug and Chappy. Something's going on between 'em!)
| 0 |
negative
|
More entertaining than all the gay orgies in "300" combined. More heartbreaking than a Shakespearian tragedy. More poetic than even the most melodramatic poems about lost love and blah blah blah. And on top of all that, the greatest trash ever made.<br /><br />A black comedy testing the limits of the human senses, John Waters's cult movie "Pink Flamingos" is a story about the conflict between two families that ends in humiliation, death and of course the eating of dog feces (yeah by the way that is not actually the humiliating part). No no, this is not about the impossible love, there are no Romeos or Juliets on these 90 or so minutes. This movie is about the battle for prestige if you could call it that. The battle for the title - Filthiest person alive.<br /><br />On one side we have Divine (played by the cross-dressing Waters regular... umm... Divine) a caring daughter, good mother, cannibal, murderer, pervert and current owner of said title. She loves her son Crackers a bit way too much. Crackers himself sports a sexual attraction to both chickens and young ladies sometimes mixing them up in threesomes. Family friend and loyal accomplice Cotton gets her satisfaction from watching Crackers during some of his... acts involving the mentioned earlier objects of attraction. Last but not least Divine's mother and grandmother to Crackers, Edie. A 400 hundred pound woman, sleeping, eating and basically living in a baby cradle. She is addicted to eggs and loves the egg-man (the man who brings the eggs...lol).<br /><br />The four of them live peacefully in a caravan outside the city until the moment when they become a target for the Marbles. Exhibitionists, manipulators, cheaters, very evil people actually. Their main source of income comes from the kidnapping and impregnating of young women. For the impregnating part they use their trusted and loyal cross-dressing butler to provide the semen. After that they sale the birthed child to the highest bidder.<br /><br />It was the Marbles's envy towards Divine and her title that will lead to an inevitable confrontation between the two families. An Epic battle of filth, perversion and violence.<br /><br />"Pink Flamingos" is an unsurpassed masterpiece in the trash-movie genre. Loaded with oddities and strange acts, John Waters's movie is loathed and hated by traditionalists, critics and the average movie-going audience. But for the few that remain unscratched by these generalizations the Flamingos is an unforgettable experience. Funny and sick, violent and poetic. It truly is an exercise in poor taste
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.
| 0 |
negative
|
I didn't expect too much from this movie, but I was still disappointed. It's supposed to be a comedy, but there are only four or five scenes where I actually laughed, and I think that's rather poor. There is no real plot either, I always had the feeling that most of the scenes could have been put anywhere in the movie because there's no connection between them. But the worst thing was the "acting" of Kim Franke. He has ONE facial expression during the whole movie, as if he was supposed to play some retarded guy, but I believe that's not the case. All in all I rate it four out of ten, I've seen worse movies than this, but I wouldn't spend money on this one again.
| 0 |
negative
|
The debut that plucked from obscurity one of the brighter stars of contemporary noir is an assured, if limited, stab at the con game and obsession. Filmed for zero money, Nolan couldn't have chosen a better subject than the drab and seamy underside of London to ply his trade, given the lack of funds. This short (67 min) is at its best in playing with the audience's and protagonist's expectations about who is scamming whom, though the initial set-up does ring some alarm bells in the credibility dept. The muddy cinematography (he often used natural lighting due to budget) can be mostly chalked up to noir stylization, though the limitations do show at times.<br /><br />One can easily see Nolan's style developing in this fledgling effort; many of the same themes of blurred identity and expectation smashing recur in MEMENTO and INSOMNIA. Not a masterpiece but good and certainly worth a look for modern noir and Nolan fans.
| 1 |
positive
|
Martin Lawrence is not a funny man i Runteldat. He just has too much on his mind and he is too mad which trips his puns pretty early in the game. He tries to make fun of critics, which boils down to "f*** them". Then he goes on to rather primitive sexual jokes on smokers with throat cancer and it just goes downhill from there. 3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Today You Die starts as honourable criminal Harlan banks (producer Steven Seagal) is hired by sinister businessman Max Stevens (Kevin Tighe) to drive a security vehicle with $20,000,000 of cash in the back from point 'A' a Las Vegas casino to point 'B' him, sounds simple right? Well what Max forgot to tell Harlan that the money is stolen & that he has just become the getaway driver in an armed robbery. Bummer. Things get even worse for Harlan when the local cops catch him & chuck him in prison for a long time, however Harlan managed to hide the money before he was caught & with a nice $20,000,000 at stake & unaccounted for Harlan has to watch his back as the crooks want it as do Government agents. Harlan teams up with Ice Kool (!)(Anthony 'Teach' Criss) in prison & they both manage to escape at which point Harlan goes looking for some revenge...<br /><br />Photographed & directed by Don E. FauntLeRoy one has to say that the shot in Eastern Europe straight-to-video action films that Steven Seagal specialises in these days aren't getting any better & Today You Die is a good case in point. This is a terrible film, simple as that really. The script by producer Danny Lerner, Kevin Moore & Les Weldon gives Seagal a new sort of character to get his none existent acting skills around, that of a criminal rather than some Government agent/cop/soldier/one man army cliché he usually plays. In fact if you were being charitable you could say Today You Die is a rip-off of Mel Gibson's excellent thriller Payback (1998) where he too played a really nasty piece of work to such good effect. While Payback was a superb uncompromising hard edged film noir type action thriller Today You Die isn't & pales into insignificance by comparison. Unfortunately here Seagal is terrible, he has no on screen presence or menace either & the audience is never quite sure whether he is meant to be a bad guy that we hate or not. For instance initially his character's is set up like a modern day Robin Hood as he steals from the rich drug dealers & scumbags to give to the poor (as well as keeping a tidy profit for himself) which is just ludicrous in itself but then it has Seagal turn around & murder a lot of people which contradicts the likable criminal with morals that the film went to such lengths to set up in the first place. The story is full of holes, for instance Agent Knowles is contacted by the on the run Harlan & is then reprimanded by her bent superior for meeting him & it turns out that he found out by tapped her phone. In that case why didn't her boss use the information he had to catch Harlan? The story is the usual dull predictable bland fight over lots of money with surprise surprise the investigating Government agent is actually a bad guy! Wow, I didn't see that coming I must say...<br /><br />Director FauntLeRoy slows everything down to a snails pace & Today You Die feels like it goes on forever, the action scenes & set-pieces are also severely lacking in entertainment value. The infrequent fight scenes aren't great, most are either shot in shadow, very quickly cut & edited or with the camera played behind Seagal's character to try & disguise the fact that most of the stunt work done here is by a double. Again Seagal looks fat & out of shape & uses long baggy overcoats to try & hide it, it doesn't. There's a pretty cool car chase through the streets of Las Vegas in this at the start & I thought that Today You Die might be alright but it seems the whole sequence was stolen from another action film called Top of the World (1997) which is about a Las Vegas casino robbery, as well as using footage from that film Today You Die also edits scenes from the Charlie Sheen action film No Code of Conduct (1998), the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film The Order (2001) & the Wesley Snipes prison based action film Undisputed (2002) so quite how much of Today You Die is original footage is anyone's guess.<br /><br />Technically the film is alright, considering it's edited together from four separate films as well as it's own footage it's just about competent & consistent enough. All the footage of the US locations are obviously lifted from the films already mentioned with all the original footage shot on the cheap in Bulgaria. The rap style music that litter Today You Die is awful by the way. The acting is poor & Seagal just mumbles his way through his lines as usual.<br /><br />Today You Die is a really bad film made up from other bad action films, Seagal looks old & fat, the action scenes are average at best & most of the story is fairly random & it doesn't come together at the end that well at all. One to avoid unless your a die hard Seagal fan, if such an animal even exists...
| 0 |
negative
|
This is what they came up with for prop comedian Carrot Top's first feature film.<br /><br />A stupid surfer (carrot dude) inherits an R&D enterprise from an old kahuna (Jack Warden). Things go less than swimmingly, but get much worse when the company is threatened with a hostile takeover attempt by corrupt corporate raiders. The most implausible thing about this movie is that smart-girl Courtney Thorne-Smith would find this red-headed step-child fascinating in the least (but then, he just inherited millions). 'Classic' moments include comic Larry Miller drinking sweat from a plastic cup.<br /><br />Funny comedy? Try UN-funny toilet humor, and that's exactly where this belongs - in the toilet... flush twice.
| 0 |
negative
|
People say that this film is a 'typical teen horror movie'... well it's a horror movie with a teenage girl in it.. what do you expect! It's a good film, I counted 3 actual screams in the audience whilst the film was on and it was a very jumpy scary film. I wasn't bored in the film at any point and I was even on the edge of my seat at one point. The only thing that was slightly bad was that it was a tiny bit slow in getting into the actual storyline but this all led up to why she was where she was and why what happened, happened. The acting was good, the scenery was good and the storyline was good too, I hope to see a 'When A Stranger Calls 2' in a few months! Good film!
| 1 |
positive
|
Even as a big fan of the low to no budget horror genre, I couldnt find this disaster mildly amusing. With horrible acting, a painfully generic "plot" and no dimensional characters, no matter how bored and drunk you are, this one is not worth your 81 minutes. Don't make the same mistake I did. Rent something else. ANYTHING else!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
Ghoulies IV may not be the best out of the series but it isn't too bad, if you don't take it fully serious then you may enjoy it.<br /><br />It's nice to see Peter Liapis return as Johnathan Graves who has gave up using magic and has became a Detective but still thinks about what happened in Ghoulies.<br /><br />The plot is about a woman named Alexandra that is Johnathan's ex-girlfriend that breaks into a museum and takes a red gem, using the gem she awakens her boyfriend named Faust that is Johnathan's dark side but he needs the gem so he can enter the real world and John is sent to hell.<br /><br />Something goes wrong and Alex loses the gem so she needs to find a new one, as she leaves the gateway is still open and two little Ghoulies named Lite and Drak appear. They're not the true Ghoulies since they look like guys in a Troll costume wearing a mask but that doesn't matter since they are humorous in parts.<br /><br />Lite and Dark need to find Johnathan since he can return them home so they go around causing mayhem as they try to find Johnathan. Another difference is that the two Ghoulies are the good guys unlike the ones in the previous films.<br /><br />I found Ghoulies IV to be good but this film may not go for everyone, check it out if you like low budget films like Troll 2.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is an adaptation of an Edith Wharton work, whose writing is amazing. Sadly, this movie never shakes the feeling that these 20th century movie people don't grasp the 19th century repression and desperation Wharton's work depicts. Ward and Dalton aren't so bad, but Alicia Witt's wooden performance made me wince. She was supposed to be playing the restless element of the story, but she stood like a stick the whole movie long, and I never believed a word out of her mouth. When she asks Sela Ward "Why can't I move you?" near the end of the film, I couldn't help but answer: "That's what I've been wondering for the last hour and a half!!!"
| 0 |
negative
|
I did have a good time the first 45 min. or so, but then suddenly it was all down hill. The suspense somewhat started to get thin and the jokes somewhat the same all over. What kept it going were the good actors.<br /><br />But the problem with this film is that it is trying to be cleverly funny,like Tarantino and god is that outdated stuff. Tarantino being a bit overrated sometimes, this movie comes ten years too late. At best it is for teenagers, and I am sure many of them find the character of Johann funny, which he is for the first 30 min. The other problem I have with it is that the story fades away towards the end more and more, thou I tried to find a recovery point. Maybe it didn't recover because the lack of passion comes with the effort of trying to be cleverly funny. Also, like in many movies, sure, good actors who can afford it don't seem to demand a better dialogue, or just turn down the script.
| 0 |
negative
|
[POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT]<br /><br />It's unlikely that Seagal will ever again scale the heights of lousitude he did with *On Deadly Ground* (mainly because no one's ever going to let him direct again), but he sure tries, don't he?<br /><br />This one's a typically brainless and badly-written little fantasy about how Indian folk remedies are much more effective than Western medicine. Seagal seems to actually believe this nonsense, although he never explains why life expectancy in the Americas and Europe is so much higher than it was in 1492.<br /><br />Kinda like he never explains how his supposed "water-fueled engines" work in *On Deadly Ground*.<br /><br />Even the "action" in this one sucks.
| 0 |
negative
|
With all of mainland Europe under his control Hitler prepares for the last obstacle in his way before heading for North America, Great Britain. With an overwhelming edge in aircraft Goering's Luftwaffe looks unstoppable on paper. Once in the air however the RAF tenaciously disrupts the paradigm by blowing the enemy out of sky air at a seven to one rate. The Battle of Britain rages on for a over a year as the Island nation is bloodied but unbowed providing crucial time for their American allies to produce more arms for the inevitable struggle. <br /><br />Using more staged footage than the three previous documentaries in the Why We Fight series the Battle of Britain has a more propaganda like feel to it with the dramatized (some with unmistakable Warners music score ) scenes glaringly obvious to newsreel. In an ironic twist amid the devastation caused by German air attacks Beethoven's Seventh Symphony is employed to underscore the visual suffering. The story itself is one of remarkable courage by a defiant nation who refused to buckle under to the devastating attacks inflicted upon it by up until that point an invincible war machine. It is the 20th century version of the 300 Spartans.<br /><br />There have been more exhaustively researched and better looking commercial efforts done on this battle since this film but the immediacy and motivation The Battle of Britain provided then will always make it a more valuable document of England during its "Finest Hour".
| 1 |
positive
|
Detective Sergent Vince De Carlo (James Luisi) and company are on the case of a vicious Serial Killer/Rapist. Can Psychologist Carol (Susan Sullivan) help, or will she become the killer's next victim? And what is with the killer's hilarious White Dude Afro? <br /><br />Inspired by the case of serial killer Ted Bundy, "Killer's Delight" aka "The Dark Ride" is a rather dull Serial Killer tale from 1978 that doesn't offer much. If anything, it's more of a police procedural flick than a horror movie, as much of the violence occurs off camera. Sure, we get mutilated bodies, but we don't get a whole lot in the exploitation department-especially considering that they are from the aftermath, and not during the crime. Those hoping for the likes of "The Toolbox Murders" or "Maniac" will be very disappointed.<br /><br />Fortunately, there is an impressive scene involving a woman trying to escape the killer that get's the tone right, and is quite suspenseful to boot. Also, John Karlen is quite effective as the killer, though his hilarious hairstyle (white guys with Afros are always worth a chuckle) is more than a bit distracting.<br /><br />"The Dark Ride" is too routine and mediocre to really warrant a recommendation, as it lacks the proper exploitation elements, and is dated even by the standards of the time. Those looking for a better example should probably turn to "Don't Go In The House" and a few others instead, as this just doesn't cut it.
| 0 |
negative
|
In a word, god-awful... too many plot holes.. um, yeah... Who takes their kid to dig up a dead body in the middle of the night? and what's up with his wife stealing the skeleton.. who does that? why, exactly did the shrink stab himself in the neck? and that whole dog thing.. i mean, really! Having Sparrow narrate from the beginning also just completely destroyed the suspense for me.. i mean, if he's narrating the story, clearly he's lived to tell it, so there's no chance of him getting offed.. where's the suspense there? <br /><br />Of course, you expect plot holes in a film like this. But, there are so many I lost track of the story completely because of them. What kind of name is Fingerling? Or Toppsy? Why did the wife dig up the body? (Who does that?) or go into that crazy spooky asylum alone? and where'd all those candles come from? Why does the writer have his PO BOX in the freaking book??? I mean come on... And the book just happens to find its way to the bookstore next door to the wife's bakery?? Way too convenient... Oh and Happy Birthday Honey, here's a book about a serial killer.. What a THOUGHTFUL gift! The book is like 20 pages long, half of which are blank, and it takes him freaking FOREVER to read it. If he's truly obsessed with this book, wouldn't he have read it all in one shot?<br /><br />A bit convenient for him to bump into his future wife (carrying a cake!) about 23 seconds after being released from a mental hospital.. how old was he playing? 36?? <br /><br />Was I the only one at the end rooting for the bus to actually run the guy down? Not good when you're rooting for the protagonist to bite it in the end.<br /><br />It seems like this was written by committee.. I imagine that the first draft probably had nothing to do with the number 23... It seems as if they needed a gimmicky hook to bait the audience into thinking there was some supernatural thing going on, when in the end it really didn't seem to have anything to do with anything. I mean, I wasn't expecting the Godfather or anything, but everything about this film was a total let-down. Without all the numerology stuff, this movie could actually have been OK, instead of some hackneyed Se7en knockoff.<br /><br />Not scary, unintentionally hilarious and otherwise a total snoozer.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Two Hands" is an entertaining, funny story about Australian lowlifes. The screenplay contrasts the world of fast money and deadly acts with the inexplicability of fate and circumstance. In a subtle way we are asked to ponder the concept that major events in our lives are sometimes generated without our being fully aware of the root causes. The forces of fate and circumstance take Jimmy, the main character, into situations that bring about the realization of his shallow dreams and, ultimately, an understanding of a more personally promising world.<br /><br />The clueless Jimmy, portrayed with acumen by Heath Ledger, is a kid who grew up without opportunity. The high paying world of crime offers the greatest appeal to his blunted senses. The love and help of friends guides him to a higher plateau.<br /><br />The film is well-directed and well-acted. The band of criminals teeter between likable and despicable, keeping us interested in their crazy antics all through the film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Set in the 1794, the second year of the French republic formed after the execution of Louis XVI, this film portrays the power struggle between the revolutionary leaders Danton (Gerard Depardieu, at his finest) and Robespierre (a commanding performance by the Polish actor Wojciech Pszoniak). The moderate revolutionary Danton has returned to Paris from his country seat where he has been since being deposed as leader of the Committee of Public Safety in the previous year by Robespierre. He is opposed to "The Reign Of Terror" which has resulted in the executions of thousands of citizens, mainly by guillotine, who are thought to be opposed to the Revolution. Danton is confident of the support of the ordinary people and tries to persuade Robespierre to curb the bloodletting. But Robespierre and the Committee are afraid that the popularity of Danton will lead to them being overthrown, and put Danton and his supporters on trial for being traitors. This was the first French language film made by Andrzej Wajda after he had arrived in France from Poland. His Polish film company was closed down by the government due to his support for the Solidarity trade union, which had opposed the Polish government in the late seventies and early eighties. His previous film "Man Of Iron" (1981) had dealt with the Solidarity union and its leader Lech Walesa, and it is easy to draw comparisons between the relationship of Walesa and the Polish leader General Jaruselski, and that between Danton and Robespierre. Danton/Walesa are the voice of reason opposed to Robespierre/Jaruselski who continue dictatorial rule despite having lost the support of the people they claim to represent. The film is based on the Polish play "The Danton Affair" written by Stanislawa Przybyszewska in the 1930s, and on its release the film was criticised by some for being static and theatrical. But what the film does is to concentrate on the behind-the-scenes meetings of the Committees and the scenes in the National Assembly and the courtroom rather than the activities on the streets of Paris.
| 1 |
positive
|
I can't say that I embrace this as a Romantic Comedy, as I found little funny about it. I did find it endearing, entertaining, heartwarming, and terminally sweet, and while there were some witty moments, I found them more bittersweet than outright comedic.<br /><br />I liked this one. Barrymore has grown so much as an actress, and it's always wonderful to catch her on the big screen, but this translates well to the small screen, too. In fact, on subsequent viewings, I like this one more and more.<br /><br />If you're a fan of the Romantic Comedy, then you may be a bit put off by lack of comedic effect with this one, but if you're in it for the romance, it's definitely here to be found.<br /><br />It rates a 7.8/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
| 1 |
positive
|
I generally love this type of movie. However, this time I found myself wanting to kick the screen. Since I can't do that, I will just complain about it. This was absolutely idiotic. The things that happen with the dead kids are very cool, but the alive people are absolute idiots. I am a grown man, pretty big, and I can defend myself well. However, I would not do half the stuff the little girl does in this movie. Also, the mother in this movie is reckless with her children, to the point of neglect. I wish I wasn't so angry about her and her actions because I would have otherwise enjoyed the flick. What a number she was, take my advise and fast forward through everything you see her do until the end. Also, is anyone else getting sick of watching movies that are filmed so dark. Anymore, one can hardly see what is being filmed. As an audience, we are impossibly involved with the actions on the screen. So then, why the hell can't we have night vision?
| 0 |
negative
|
Billy Wilder created a somewhat conventional biopic about the Charles Lindberg flight. He structures the film using flashbacks extensively to tell the Lindberg story leading up to the famous flight across the Atlantic, which happens in present time in the film. Flying an airplane for hour after hour is not the stuff of excitement, and Wilder is not going to deviate from his theme of Lindberg as hero of the common man, so things are predictable. However, James Stewart is well cast and quite believable as Lindberg, and the many obstacles he has to overcome just to get his plane in the air keep one watching. <br /><br />The film comes through most successfully as Wilder weaves the parts of the story together in a way that create tension, then relief, then tension again. The cinematography is quite good, score by Franz Waxman enhances the scenes, and Stewart really seems to make Lindberg come alive, makes one believe he could be Lindberg. There is a bit of 1950's religious schmaltz at the end, but overall the direction, acting, and high production values overcome the predictability of the story (would anybody REALLY see this picture and NOT know that Lindberg made it across the Atlantic?) to make an enjoyable film that has aged better than most films from that time. Billy Wilder made films of a wide variety of types, and this is one that is representative of his craftsman-like best.
| 1 |
positive
|
See No Evil is the first film from WWE films. Yes WWE, Word Wrestling Entertainment, pro wrestling. Of course being that it's a WWE film a wrestler has to star in it, the wrestler being Glenn Jacobs aka Kane. Which is not really important as if you didn't know Kane or what WWE stood for you would never know it had anything to do with the wild word of wrestling, as the movie has nothing to do with wrestling. See No Evil is gross out horror film, it has some moments were the some people may jump but for the most part it's just saying, hey look how gross we can get! Not that there is anything wrong with that. Jacob Goodnight (played by Kane) is sort of a Jason type character, his mother tortured him as a kid with strict (understatement) Christian beliefs and has warped his mind. Now he's a big scary chopping killing machine. 90% of the movie takes place in an abandon hotel where Jacob stalks six teenagers (surprised?) and a handful of adults. I could explain why they are in a creepy old hotel but eh, who cares? Despite it's lack of originality See No Evil is well made, for what it's supposed to be. Kane plays an awesome killer and needs little make up to be scary. One flaw in the movie is the most annoying possibility people survive, I really looking forward to having them being horribly killed, but alas, does not happen. I wish the film didn't have the stigma of wrestling attached to it, although like I said the film has nothing to with wrestling, people are still closed minded enough not to want to see it because, given of course if they are a wrestling hater. Then again the movie may also make money because Wrestling fans will want to see it. Either way, See No Evil has top notch effects and little CGI, and like I said, it's quite brutal so like I say it's good stuff....if you like that sort of thing.
| 1 |
positive
|
Young Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are outstanding in this excellent film about two boys who have promised to "take care of their mother," and how they cope when their new stepfather begins beating the younger boy. The supporting cast around the boys is top-notch as well. The script really gets inside the mind and heart of an imaginative child. It's hard to believe Wood could grow up to look anything like Tom Hanks, but that's nothing new in Hollywood. That's honestly my only criticism of the film.
| 1 |
positive
|
This one was truly awful. Watching with fascinated horror, I kept on asking "why have they done this?" That is, taken all the scenarios out of "The Day after Tomorrow", "The Perfect Storm" and "Twister" and remixing them in a three-hour miniseries, directed by long-time junk TV director Dick Lowry, with every disaster movie cliché known to man and not an ounce of real suspense. Many of the cast were unknown Canadians and location filming was done in Canada, Winnepeg doubling for Chicago, so no doubt tax breaks had something to do with it. Although some ambitious special effects were attempted, the execution is so poor no decent spectacle is achieved. The actors may be a competent lot; the script is so bad no-one had a chance to show it, except perhaps for Randy Quaid as Tommy the Tornado chaser, who went right over the top and was quite amusing.<br /><br />Believe it or not, the producers have since made another one of these Canadian disaster turkeys called "Category 7 the End of the World" which was very tastefully shown on CBS in the US a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina. How could the network of Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite do such a thing? In prime time? PT Barnum "nobody ever went broke underestimating public taste" is proved right once more.
| 0 |
negative
|
James Marsh's The King is a film that mystifies me. I can't think what its meant to be for. It's a story about a young man called Elvis played by Gael Garcia Bernal who gets an honourable discharge after 3 years Navy service and then goes off to find his biological Father and behaves dishonourably with him and his family. It's all rather sick really. Elvis worms his way into the family by seducing his 16 year old sister Malerie (Pell James). It's rather impossible to identify with anyone in this film from here in Middle England. Preacher Father and bouncy joyful Christian Congregation; I couldn't work out whether the film is meant to be deriding them for their mindless beliefs. Or is the target the happy family and we are meant to think that's unviable. OR is it just saying that some people are lost and just hell bent on destruction. It's shallow. We all know that bad things happen; the interesting bit is to learn why but this film just gratuitously depicts a violence without ever unravelling the thinking that has led to it. "The King" is such a lost opportunity. There are some really interesting questions about honour; the Warrior Code; the changing concepts of valour; honour killings in Indian families and so on. Honour is a very varied concept. But this film just adds nothing to the notion. However, Paul the Projectionist did more than his meagre role suggests. The DVD Projector showed all films in a green-only hue and the only way to repair this was to get it sent to Belgium. He did this through Christmas. I think those postal workers and repairers and Paul went far beyond the call of duty and our reward was this dismal film. But you might see it differently?
| 0 |
negative
|
This isn't a bad TV movie. Shtrafbat is short for Shtrafnoy Batallion, which means Penal Batallion. Such battallions were formed due to the increasing demand for soldiers as the Soviet Union was taking heavy casualties all through out the war. These battalions consisted of convicts and dishonored soldiers who were given the chance to clear their names by proving themselves in combat. They were looked down upon as scum and were expended easily during combat without much regret, or much honor, on the part of military. They were often sent on suicide missions and suffered extreme casualties. The ones who refused to fight were executed on sight. Needless to say, their lives sucked.<br /><br />There were some very nice performances by the cast, especially by Yuri Stepanov who played Antip, Aleksandr Bashirov who played Stirah, and Roman Madyanov who played Major Kharchenko. However the series isn't really that addictive, in part because it's too long, it could've a lot shorter and as effective.<br /><br />Although it's about war, Shtrafbat has very mild violence and pretty much no gore. It relies solely on the actors to make it work, and after all, it's a TV series, so the producers didn't want to scare off the viewers and the sponsors.<br /><br />Shtrafbat explores the cruelty of the Soviet regime, and explaines why so many men chose to fight the Nazis instead of joining them. Personally I'd rather be a Fascist then a Communist given the circumstances presented in the film. One character explains that the Soviets stripped his farm clean and his family died of starvation. Out of anger he burned it down which got him arrested for destroying Kolhoz property and he ended up in the penal battalion as a criminal. Antip reminisced on how his mother killed her youngest son to feed the rest of the family. Both men explained that they fought for their motherland, rather than the for the Soviets.<br /><br />The penal battalion had one Marine(Naval Infantry) who raped a girl, killing his comrade in the prosess, threatened his other comrade to keep his mouth shut about both ordeals, and then feigned injury when it came to fighting. On top of all that the girl committed suicide due to shame. I imagine if enough Marines watched this movie they'd pick up banners and riot on the streets calling for a boycott or an official apology from the producers.<br /><br />To say the least, I'd recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in the former Soviet Union or World War II. I don't think I wasted 500+ minutes of my life.
| 1 |
positive
|
I watched this on Sky TV late one night, as I am a Vampire fan. I must admit I half expected it to be a B-Movie disaster but I was pleasantly wrong.<br /><br />Subspecies is about a family of Vampires. When a Vampire Lord dies, his two sons, the handsome and Noble Stefan, and his brother, the Evil, hideous Radu start a war with each other over their birth right, the Bloodstone. The bloodstone is a holy grail of sorts for Vampires and it bleeds the blood of saints, which give the vampire who drinks it an ultimate High.<br /><br />The fight for the Bloodstone takes an unexpected turn when 3 College Students turn up in the Brothers' territory on a school trip and Stefan has to protect them from his brothers Lusts.<br /><br />Like, I said, I went into this film not expecting much at all but it was one of the best low budget movies I have ever seen. The sets and locations (Romania I think, been a while since I've seen it) are very nice and the music score did the film justice.<br /><br />Most of the acting was adequate, but its Anders Hove as the evil radu that steals the movie (and all the subsequent Sequels). Hove's performance as the twisted Vamp is truly breathtaking and bumps the film simply from okay, to pretty d@mn good!
| 1 |
positive
|
I think the film makes a subtile reference to rouge of Kieslowski, as the whole atmosphere gives me a feeling of red. It seems to be that a lot of the backgrounds contain red, think of the tea-room f.e. I also think this is one of the greatest movies of the last years.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Curacao" is a foreign intrigue drama set on the title Caribbean Island which involves a retired sea captain and bar owner (Scott) and a demoted CIA field operative (Petersen). The film has numerous bad guys, foreign agents and thugs, skulking about the pair of protagonists all coveting something Scott has which they want and are prepared to kill for. A lukewarm low budget tv flick, "Curacao" is spiced up with a couple of babes and use some Carnival street parades as window dressing. Little more than fodder for the bored couch potato. C-
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.