text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I watched the MST3K version of the movie, and this review includes minor spoilers.<br /><br />When I started watching this movie, it looked like it might have promise as a cheesy sci-fi flick, but the more I watched it, the more disappointing it got. The first reason is pretty idiosyncratic - I liked the mousy shy girl with glasses a lot more than the model Wanda became by the end of the movie. More deeply, it was the fact that the loss of glasses and change in clothing replaced any actual character growth. Instead of growing into a character that could take care of herself, Wanda was just as dependent on males to do everything for her as she was at the start of the movie. The acting could have been better (though I got tired of cracks about Ireland's voice - they were even in the movie itself! It's not that bad.) The background was okay, but it was a little hokey (aliens = humans with facepaint), and could have used more explanation.<br /><br />Maybe it was just that I was interested in the movie itself, but Joel and the bots did little for me. The movie might have been better without them at all.<br /><br />Overall (for the movie itself, not the MST3K), a 3 out of 10. It was an okay flick, for what it was.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was in 6th grade and this movie aired on PBS during a series called 'Wonderworks.' I distinctly remember sitting on a couch watching the movie with tears running down my face at the end. In the film Jesse, the main character, forms an unusual friendship with a girl named Leslie. Due to a very simple, but careless mistake one of the pair dies. At the time, I found the story very powerful, because the fatal mistake is exactly the type of mistake a kid would make and so any kid watching the film will find it very easy to identify with and feel the emotional weight of the tragedy that ensues.<br /><br />Last year, I finally tracked down a VHS copy of the show. I probably should have stuck with my memories. Watching the show as an adult I was absolutely shocked by what a horribly made film this was. My girlfriend had a similar memory of the movie as well, and she too was pretty sad about how bad the movie was compared to her memories. <br /><br />Many adults probably have a good memory of watching this movie when they were kids. I strongly advise that these people leave their memories intact, and avoid seeing this film as an adult.
| 0 |
negative
|
A story of love between two people at the end of WWII. Beautifully filmed, very romantic and yet rather fatalistic fable of budding love and war that would not end. If you want happy endings don't watch Wajda movies, sweety.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.<br /><br />Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.<br /><br />Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.<br /><br />Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?<br /><br />I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"<br /><br />I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.<br /><br />Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.<br /><br />Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half.
| 0 |
negative
|
As the title suggests there is a philosophical, meritocratic thread running through this film: if a man has the talent and looks to find his way into society and money what might be the outcome if he is denied it for failing to have the X factor? This question is unsatisfactorily dealt with in this adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's book and left me rather cold along the way.<br /><br />Matt Damon is the Ripley of the title and apart from blagging his way on a funded jaunt to Europe falls under the spell of his commissioned target, Dickie Greenleaf (Law). Homoeroticism and social insecurity get all tangled up in a violent conflagration which escalated and complicate themselves for the rest of the movie. Law, Damon and the damningly pleasant Paltrow as Dickie's girlfriend are OK. I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman's cameo-ish Freddie Miles, the bluff society friend that Ripley can never be. The problem is that the story is lumpen without arc - or redemption, for that matter - which makes it rather difficult to swallow. 4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
Minor Spoilers<br /><br />In Chicago, Grace Beasley (Kathy Bates) is a housewife having a twenty-five years marriage with the lawyer Max Beasley (Dan Aykroyd) and a hysterical and psychotic dwarf daughter-in-law, Maudey (Meredith Eaton). Grace worships the singer Victor Fox (Jonathan Price), who will present a TV show in Chicago and will give five spots on the first row in a TV promotion. Kate calls the show and wins a ticket, when Max simultaneously asks for the divorce, claiming that their lives are too monotonous. Grace becomes depressed, and when she goes to the show, the audience is informed that a Chicago serial killer, who uses a crossbow, killed Victor Fox. With a broken heart, she decides to fly to England to Victor Fox's funeral. There, she realizes that he was gay, and becomes friend of his former mate Dirk Simpson (Rupert Everett). They fly back to Chicago, trying to find the killer. This movie is a delightful, original and weird dramatic comedy, having bizarre characters. It has a huge potential to be a cult-movie, with the presences of Julie Andrews and Barry Manilow themselves and a joke with Nicolas Roeg's masterpiece 'Don't Look Now', when Maudey wears a red raincoat in Chicago's underground part of the city. The beginning of the movie, with Jonathan Price singing 'Hitchcock Railway', is wonderful. I have repeated it four consecutive times. The cast has a magnificent performance, highlighting Kathy Bates, Jonathan Price, Rupert Everett and the unknown Meredith Eaton. Indeed, this movie is an excellent entertainment. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): 'Amor a Toda Prova' ('Love to the Proof')
| 1 |
positive
|
"The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1955) is Alfred Hitchcock's own remake of his 1934 thriller about a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) on vacation in Morocco where they got caught up in a nightmare that include murder, espionage, assassinations and the worst of all, kidnapping of their 10-years-old son. The movie which Hitchcock himself considered superior to the original is a great fun. Stewart and Day have a good chemistry together. The film is filled with the wonderful comical scenes and dialogues as well as the scenes of chilling suspense. <br /><br />The inclusion of "Que Sera, Sera" proved to be a stroke of genius because rarely the song fits the content and plays such an important role in the movie like "Que Sera, Sera" did in "The Man Who Knew Too Much". <br /><br />Hitchcock also treats us to the live music playing from Arthur Benjamin "Storm Cloud Cantata" for almost ten minutes while scene in London's Royal Albert Hall where the assassination of a very important politician was attempted takes place and both, the scene and the cantata are simply marvelous.
| 1 |
positive
|
This show is made for persons with IQ lower than 80. The jokes in the show are so lame. If you are on a deserted island and you do not have anything to do you will be better than to watch this garbage.... You will hate their accent their behavior and all the stupid jokes and pranks they try to perform...It really pisses me of that viewers gave Reba 6.7 on their voting...Sure i knew there are some people with IQ lower than 80 but what i did not know that there are so many of them! So people if you got to read this I hope that you will never ever download or buy this peace of garbage... I know it is not the place for his but i wish to recommend one much better mini-series 'Scrubs'
| 0 |
negative
|
The photography and editing of the movie is exceptional for the time period. Eisenstein builds upon each scene of the movie leading to the the sailor's revolt and the massacre at the town. As much as the movie is a high point in the cinema, it is also an example of SZocialist Realism. by 1925 the Soviet government actively used the arts, including film, as a means to spread the message of the revolution. Eisensteins portrayal of the revolt on the Battleship Potempkin offers the viewer insight into the message of the Soviet elite. Marxist theory and perspectives of class struggle are demonstrated as the sailors who represent the oppressed workers and the officers who represent the elite of society. Much of the film demonstrates the communist party message and how film was used as a tool of propaganda.
| 1 |
positive
|
I enjoy the show Surface very much. The show is very entertaining and it's a clean show. A Show like surface is interesting. It keeps my attention. It has compassion and suspense. I love all the cast members that are on the show. They are all very good choices. i think it is very important to have the right cast of Any show because thats what makes any show a success and of course the scenes and the show itself. Television has changed so much over the years. It has changed in good ways and in bad. I love to watch some comedy,action, suspense and romance. And scifi. But Surface is a show that I hope comes back for many seasons because it is a great show and its something that families can watch. My children are grown, but my husband and I enjoy watching these types of shows. I appreciate your time and letting me comment my opinion. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Paulette Blackwell
| 1 |
positive
|
A genuinely odd, surreal jumble of visual ideas which probably looked extremely puzzling on the printed page; just what drew Robert Redford to the project, one may never know. Sidney J. Furie directs this knockabout journey of an egotistical motorcycle racer taking a milquetoast juvenile under his wing; the kid looks up to this anti-hero, and eventually begins to ape his amorality. Disjointed and off-putting--though for some, the sight of Redford disrobing, about to disrobe, or having been disrobed might be enough to warrant attention. Lauren Hutton gets naked too, however all the sexy flashes are just teasers for the prurient-minded; there simply is no story. Perhaps Furie was making an esoteric comment about feckless wheelers and their flock circa 1970. If true, then this pre-Blank Generation approach backfired, as the film was not a success. *1/2 from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is awful, I'm SORRY. I bought this to get Star Worms, and actually expected this to be better after how disappointed I was in Star Worms. Oh just kidding, turns out this is the worst movie I've ever seen. The acting is garbage, not that there really is any, and the main character is a big stupid box who gets attacked by like, stuff or something. I can't really tell. The special effects are so bad that you can't even see the warring dinosaurs, which by the way do not war, but just stand and kind of move their mouths, or whatever those things are. The movie is a headache. It's very obvious the director is trying to establish a universe. Hahahahahahahaha... Really, this movie is just abominable, even by Troma's standards. The only good thing I can say about it is that it's got a Lloyd Kaufman intro, as he tricks us yet again into watching something that isn't fit for consumption.
| 0 |
negative
|
I always say, "there's nothing like a good movie". And I must say, this was nothing like a good movie! Drab, dull and tedious. It was like one of those bad dreams that never seem to end, no matter how hard you try to wake up. I don't mind the concept of a film without words, (ie: entering a fantasy or dream world), but there has to be something there to capture your imagination, not just empty images, which is what this film is. There seemed to be no character development and it jumped so fast from scene to scene that it was hard to discern any story. (Was there even a story?) You could tell the actors were trying their best, but unfortunately, poor direction sabotaged all the actors' work. It really seemed like a type of cinematic masturbation...only existing to pleasure the director and nobody else. Big waste of time.
| 0 |
negative
|
Something of a disappointment. Lee J. Cobb is the anti-union head of Roxton Garments in New York. His partner in the business is killed when an elevator is unleashed and plunges twenty-seven floors to the bottom of the shaft, in the scariest scene in the film.<br /><br />Cobb doesn't know it, or doesn't let himself realize it, but the man behind the killing is Richard Boone, who protects the business from union organizers.<br /><br />Then Cobb's son, Kerwin Mathews, returns from Europe determined to learn the business and join his father in running a clean shop. He's shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that Boone has been clobbering the union members and killing a few who have become irretrievably irritating.<br /><br />Robert Loggia is one of the organizers who is killed by a couple of Boone's goons, led by Wesley Addy. Loggia leaves behind a widow, Gia Scala, with whom Mathews, understandably and decorously, takes up.<br /><br />In the end, Cobb pays for his self deception, Addy and Boone get their just desserts, and Mathews winds up with the succulent Scala, after whom an opera house is named.<br /><br />There isn't a sparkle in any line of dialog. A couple of lines are stolen verbatim from "On the Waterfront" -- "pistoleros", "you'll talk yourself right into the grave." The plot is schematic and holds absolutely no surprises. Vincent Sherman's direction is pedestrian. The photography is flat an uninspired, though there are a couple of nice shots of New York streets.<br /><br />Lee J. Cobb can act. In this case, it must have been easy for him because he replays Johnny Friendly from "On the Waterfront," only this time with a soft heart. Richard Boone can act too. Joseph Wiseman, in a minor part, does a good job. Gia Scala hits her marks, says what the script demands, and does what the director tells her to. A stunning woman, her life soured early on. The director and photographer do a good job on Wesley Addy. He has white hair, a blanched face, eyes the color of a glacial lake, and he's sometimes shot through a wide-angle lens than turns his surprisingly fleshy lips into those of some kind of parasitic fish. I don't see him as a low-tier muscle man though. He and Boone should have switched roles. Harold J. Stone is his reliable self, although he's forced to be more "Italian", as Tony, than comes naturally to him. Nobody else in anything resembling a major part is more than mediocre, and some performers don't clear even that bar. Kerwin Mathews may be a nice guy in real life, but he's blandly sterile and belongs in domestic dramas on afternoon television.<br /><br />Great title, suggestive of intrigue and shadows. Some good people in the cast. A potentially explosive expose of a business nobody knows much about but which deals in megabucks.<br /><br />And it all comes out like this.
| 0 |
negative
|
**SPOILERS** The third and mercifully last of the Aztec Mummy trilogy in the fact that the series major star-besides the Mummy- actor Ramon Gay, as Dr. Eduardo Almada, was gunned down by the outraged husband of a woman he was having an affair with on May 28, 1960! Still that didn't stop Gay, in him being edited into them from his previous films, from being in a number of future Mexican horror movies made over the next four years after his death.<br /><br />In "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" we have the once again mad scientist Dr. Krupp trying to get his hands on the Mummy's golden breastplate and bracelet in order, by having them deciphered, to find the Aztez treasure that's been secretly buried somewhere in modern Mexico City over 500 years ago. "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" is not much as a movie in itself in that its made up of stock footage of the previous Aztec Mummy films that take up over half of the films running time.<br /><br />After getting introduced to the movie's cast members, some who have been killed in the previous Aztec Mummy films, we get down to the real nitty gritty in it involving the evil as well as criminally insane Dr. Krupp also know as "The Bat". Dr. Krupp-who looks like a wild eyed and crazed Orson Wells-is a man with boundless visions of grandeur in him not only uncovering the long lost Aztec treasure but now, unlike in the two previous movies he was in, creating life and using it in making an army of human robots to take over the world. An idea he must have gotten from watching Ed Wood's 1955 "Atomic Superman" classic "Bride of the Monster".<br /><br />Unable to handle the Mummy in his two other encounters with it, where he ended up getting thrown by it into a snake pit filled with deadly rattlers, Dr. Krupp had created a robot, with a human cadaver stuffed in it, to the job, of doing in the Mummy, for him. With he Mummy sleeping in its tomb at a local Mexico City cemetery Dr. Krupp has his Robot-Man brake into the Mummy's crypt to do battle with it and destroy it with its bolts of deadly radiation. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** The big built-up to the Aztec Mummy Robot-Man confrontation turns to be a big let-down with the Mummy having no trouble at all dispatching the "Tin-Man" in less then 30 seconds together with its creator Dr. Krupp. All this while both Dr. Almada and his friend and assistant Pinacate, who came to the Mummy's aid, have nothing at all to do but sit back and watch the action. Now without the mad and off-the-wall Dr. Krupp annoying it the Mummy can go back to its eternal resting place without ever worrying about the problems of the modern world at large, like Dr. Krupp, that it has really no interest in.
| 0 |
negative
|
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Danny (Mel Raido) is a lonely factory worker who tries to get by with his job and to be a good dad to his two daughters after a messy divorce from their mother (Maxine Peake.) But after an altercation with said daughters present at a Working Men's Club, he uses a trip to their dance class to take a glance at Louis (Colin Salmon) and his gang of hard men who train in the boxing gym/free weights section there and to train himself into a tougher, more assertive person. Before long he's taken the philosophies of Louis to heart and has joined him as a nightclub doorman as the 80s disco faze kicks in...but when associate Sparky (Scott Williams) tries to do a sideline in drug dealing, everything turns pear shaped.<br /><br />As Robert De Niro once stated in the film A Bronx Tale 'there's no bigger tragedy than wasted talent.' The writer of Clubbed had a good idea and a talent to make it into some sort of film...but without the ability, it seems, to put it all together into some sort of coherent film.<br /><br />As a brummie, some of the filming locations (especially a scene at the end outside the Ring O' Bells pub in Moseley!) were quite easy and fun to spot...but the dour look of the cinematography is really a downer on things. Some really poor acting, for instance lead actor Raido with an indecipherable accent that's all over the place, and a hammy script with some misfiring dialogue are bigger problems for the film though. More established actors like Peake and even telly favourite Neil Morressey are sidelined to very small supporting parts, while the disastrous Raido and Ronnie Fox's lame villain take centre stage. Williams does a poor man's Sick Boy from Trainspotting impression, leaving Salmon and Shaun Parkes seemingly the only performers left with any integrity from the whole thing, as the excessive, blood splattered violence (becoming a common trend for Brit flicks!) takes over. Truly a missed opportunity. **
| 0 |
negative
|
Well acted, yes. Very well, I must say, even though I don't speak Chezck. Nice cinematography. But the script is lame, really lame. A predictable soap opera, in which you know exactly everything that is going to happen. OK, maybe the ending isn't as predictable, but is it any good? It is one of those films that you have the feeling that have seen already, and forget about the day after.<br /><br />I just got a note from IMDb saying that my comment was not long enough. That's really sad, because I have no idea of what else to say about this movie, which actually says a a lot about it, don't you think? The thing is.. .It has no soul and no originality. Compare this movie with Barrio, or Riff Raff, shot more than ten years ago (or the extraordinary recently shot The Child). It's sad to see that this is a much worse film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Marco Poloni (Costas Mandylor) was born into a baking family in the Bronx. Although the Polonis have been well known for their confections over the decades, the business has fallen on hard times. Meanwhile, Grace Carpenter (Lauren Holly) is a most talented dessert maker in Manhattan but, she can not seem to land a prime confectionery position because of the glass ceiling. An accidental meeting between Marco and Grace results in a conversation about a possible solution for them both. There is a high profile bake-off, The Golden Whisk, taking place in the near future and Marco wants Grace to partner with him. There is a hefty amount of "dough", haha, at stake for the winners, enough to set Grace up in her own business and save the Polonis eatery, too. Reluctantly, Grace agrees. But, there are complications. Some of the judges and fellow contestants may have past issues with both Grace and Marco. Then, too, although Marco and Grace both feel some sort of attraction for the other, Grace has a long standing, very rich boyfriend. Can Marco and Grace win the contest? This is a lovely film for the romantic at heart. First, there is the nice cast. Holly has always been a lovely actress with a notable husky voice that furthers her attractions. In this film, she is perfectly cast as the determined but beautiful Grace. Mandylor, a newcomer, delights, too as the good-looking rival baker. The rest of the actors, including the wonderful Brenda Vaccaro as Marco's mother, is quite nice. As a Hallmark movie, the costumes, sets, and production amenities are beyond reproach and the script still manages to seem fresh and funny, despite some familiar themes. Treat yourself, romcom lovers, to a most sweet confection by securing a viewing of this film. It is definitely the movie equivalent of a big box of quality chocolates.
| 1 |
positive
|
Send them to the freezer. This is the solution two butchers find after they discover the popularity of selling human flesh. An incredible story with humor and possible allegories that make it much more than a horror film. The complex characters defy superficial classification and make the story intriguing and worthwhile - if you can stand it. Definitely a dark film but also a bit redemptive.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a case of taking a fairy tale too far. The Enchanted Cottage delivers Dorothy McGuire as a "terrible ugly" spinster and Robert Young as a disfigured pilot. Long story short: Scarface marries Spinster, after which their love transforms them, miraculously (lighting, cosmetics and the removal of fake scars), into beautiful peoplea magical change that they attribute to the enchantment of living in a seaside cottage that has been the abode of generations of honeymooners.<br /><br />If the story stopped there, fine; it would be a fable with a proverbial message: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it lurches ahead, reaching for reality. When Mr. and Mrs. Scarface greet their public, it comes as a painful shock to them that they're still homely. You see, they only appear beautiful to each other a situation which the audience is well prepared for because all the secondary characters have been sermonizing that ill-favored people really need to lower their expectations, and find other ways to be happy. You know. Take up hobbies. Spinster does woodcuts, for instance. Scarface considers collecting driftwood.<br /><br />The original playwright (Arthur Wing Pinero) and the filmmakers have zero faith in human nature. Their message is: You're either ugly or pretty, and no pretty person would ever love an ugly one. What's even worse, ugly people evidently need to imagine their lover as pretty. Reality just won't do.<br /><br />One wonders what Elaine Mason saw every day when she looked at her husband, Stephen Hawking.
| 0 |
negative
|
Mr. "Uwe Fail" strikes again, transformed a classic game in a cheap piece of crap. Poor acting; Poor Directing; Awful adaptation; I mean, Far-Cry game was awesome, its like a true FPS game, cool weapons and lots lots lots of "point and shoot". In the movie we had nothing compared to the game.. Well we had some of the "point and shoot" thing but... i don't know how to explain, but if you ever watched another "Uwe Fail" movie you will understand. If you don't believe me, go to the website "petition online" and do a check for one named "Stop Uwe Bowl".<br /><br />That movie made my eyes bleed, someone must stop him for once.<br /><br />Don't waste your time.
| 0 |
negative
|
One minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say " It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris " <br /><br />Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?<br /><br />THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind
| 0 |
negative
|
I couldn't believe how bad this film was, and trust me, I was not expecting a masterpiece from a made-for-cable film. I taped it just because I liked Jane Seymour. I've seen her enough to know that she is certainly an accomplished actress, so I just don't know what happened here. The characters were shallow, the dialog stilted, the acting bad, and yes that includes Seymour. It was nice seeing her play against type, but not in something this bad. I noticed that she carried a credit for executive producer, so she cannot escape blame for the sheer badness of this film. And oh, yeah, they had Barry Bostwick playing the male lead. 'Nuff said.
| 0 |
negative
|
....is where I'm assuming this movie came from. I mean, I've watched plenty of B movies over the course of my young life so far, and I wouldn't even classify this as a B movie. I remember seeing films in my high school mass media class that surpass this one.<br /><br />So the premise is...a bunch of dancing numbers and goofy crap happens. Women in bikinis, who aren't even that great looking to begin with, dance in the beginning and sing. Guys with hairy chests show up and girls with fangs who are out in the sunlight. I mean, I can barely put together a cohesive sentence just thinking about this movie. According to most people on this site, Manos the Hands of Fate and Pod People are the worst movies (MST3K classics :-D)...I used to be one of them. Then I saw this movie. Usually I don't try to trash a movie too much, but the people who made this really do deserve it. It is THAT bad and THAT unbearable, and I'm assuming the director or an actor in the movie is the only person who rated this a ten.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.<br /><br />At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.<br /><br />This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit.
| 0 |
negative
|
I hated this film. Simply put, this film is so bad that I almost want to disregard ever watching it and never again mentioning it. But on the other hand, I can't resist a good bashing. And if there's one thing that Evan Almighty does for the audience it is that it brings out the best criticism.<br /><br />The film (a sequel to the much funnier Bruce Almighty) starts out by reintroducing the audience to Evan Baxter, a mere supporting at best character in the original film. That's right. This film shows no Jim Carrey or Jennifer Anisten. Not even a small cameo appearance. You know your film is bad when the guy that agreed to do Ace Venture: When Nature Calls won't even have a short walk-on role. But somehow they manage to keep Morgan Freeman as God. While sitting in the near empty theater bored out of my mind at the lack of comedy I couldn't help but wonder how much money it took to secure Freeman for this film. Then it hit me an hour ago. It's just a throwaway role that takes up all of 20 minutes in the 100 minute film. God just pops up in between scenes to tell Evan to build the ark. Sure I know Morgan Freeman won't look at this film in a year and think it's as good as his roles in The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby but it's easy money.<br /><br />Where was I? Oh yes, the plot. Sometimes it's so hard to keep focused on the plot when you realize that you gave more thought thinking about the plot than the writer of the screenplay did. Anyway Evan (Steve Carell) has apparently left his job as a news anchorman for a job as a congressman. Yeah... with no transition in between. He never turns to his wife and says "I think I want to be a congressman." It just happens within the first five minutes and you are forced to deal with the big transition. Well as a congressman he is to partner for a bill proposed by John Goodman's character when suddenly God appears to tell Evan to build an ark. No "Hey, how you doing? How's the weather?" bit. Just "I want you to build an ark." Evidence of bad writing: Evan determines that God is giving him clues to build an ark after noticing a fan hold up a sign saying Genesis 6:14 when he's walking past his son whose watching a televised baseball game.<br /><br />That's basically the plot of Evan Almighty. There are some random supporting cast members that do their best at creating comedy but they don't do very well because they aren't given hardly any screen time. It's just your basic run of the mill family building an ark film. Oh and also there's that obligatory scene where a father has to cancel his hiking plans with his kids and wife because he becomes busy with work. They walk off disappointed but they understand, as do all the other times in film this has happened. Just once would I love to see the youngest kid turn to his father and kick him in the chins and tell him "You're a real bastard for canceling your plans with us. I'm going to turn emo now." There's also that drama that you'd expect from the father with his family when they realize (the wife, actually... the three kids have no problem helping dad build an ark) that he's gone crazy and he claims God wants him to build a big boat. But don't worry. His family decides to stick with him. Oops, I just spoiled the drama.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that there is hardly any good comedy going on. I know the decision was made to rate have this be a PG film to get a bigger crowd reaction but I don't think I'm in the minority when I think that family humor is more than just guys getting kicked in the nuts and animals crapping. Maybe I'm wrong and that's what quality family humor has been reduced to. And if it is, please bring me more adult comedies so I won't have to sit through anymore of this crap (pun not intended).<br /><br />The ending is extra cheesy. All of a sudden the film takes a dramatic CGI filled turn that makes me shudder to think how it is a terrible waste of CGI. I bet it was expensive too. Finally after all that waiting we are told why God wanted Evan to build an ark. And boy oh boy I hated the reason why. I'll spare the details but it was like watching or reading a murder mystery and having the killer turn out to be the person who walked behind the main character for one second and had no lines.<br /><br />Oh and then there's a nice touch at the very end. The song "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)" plays over the credits and we are then subjected to the "dancing" of the cast. I don't get it. They spend 100 minutes unsuccessfully making a comedy and then they wrap it up with a thriller. I swear I haven't been that scared watching Steve Carell dance since ... well never. There you have it folks. Evan Almighty is the scariest film of all time.<br /><br />All in all I thought it was a wasted experience. I'm baffled at all the talented actors (Carell, Freeman and Goodman) appearing in this bore-fest alongside Lauren Graham, the woman from Gilmore Girls that has yet to prove to me that she can act her way out of a paper bag. But most of all I'm surprised at my will power to actually sit through the whole film without walking out.<br /><br />Rating: * out of ****
| 0 |
negative
|
I suggest that in the future, any movie made by the Sci fi channel and subsequently released on DVD must say that it was indeed made by such channel as I would not buy this stuff if I had known this fact. Not that this was all bad, but when you have fade out for commercials in the middle of your movie it just ruins the flow of said film. This in turn makes the movie rather more boring. This one had an interesting story however the light hearted and extremely generic soundtrack distracted one from the film as did most of the bad actors with the exception of Dien and Linda Carter. The story, vampires are on the attack in South America, of course the rules of vampire movies are not in effect, which the usually aren't in any of the movies about vampires I have seen lately with the exception of the Blade trilogy. Group of soldiers are sent down to battle said squad another team is sent to meet up with the team and to track down the ex wife of one of the soldiers...why she is not just his wife, who knows as this part of the plot really goes no where. Still we get an interesting boat ride some nice jungle scenery and a lot of blood. This fact, however, does not save the film from being way to jerky in its presentation and really dull seeming at times. I don't know maybe it was the cgi blood, and smoke and whatever they have to make cgi now even though old effects look better and don't cost that much more. I mean cheap Italian zombie movies could do a bullet hole without cgi why can't we now?
| 0 |
negative
|
William H. Macy always gives a good performance. He never looks lazy and never seems like he'd rather be somewhere else. In short, he's what more actors should be like. "A Slight Case of Murder" is directed by Steven Schachter, who went on to do two more great films with Macy (Door to Door, The Wool Cap).<br /><br />Television movies have long been a dump of overdone acting, poor cinematography, and sub-par scripting. That's why it's so refreshing to see a TV movie that does exactly what it's sort of film was created for. To tell a small story (not a simplistic story) that does not require viewing on the big screen.<br /><br />"A Slight Case of Murder" is light, entertaining fare, and an great watch.<br /><br />7.6 out of 10
| 1 |
positive
|
Susie Q is an original and isn't like those other bad Disney film, ***spoiler*** a boy named Zach moves to a new town and has trouble at school, he is good basketball. a girl in the 1950's died with her boyfriend, when their car was crashed off a bridge. Susie (Amy Jo Johnson) from the power rangers - pink ranger- is helping Zach as a ghost to get a necklace along the way he must explain to his sister about her ghost, and finally getting this necklace, Susie returns to the bridge she died on and then she gets in the ghostly car of her boyfriend and they float up. later as he misses her he finds a girl who looks just like her. (do you believe in reincarnation?)Susie Q is a good movie to see now and then but they barely give because Disney needs to fill everything up with stupid movies and shows i give it a<br /><br />7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
I was really surprised when I came across this movie on cable TV a couple of years ago. The story is a wonderful example of how our land keeps changing and the fight to hang on to it and use it according to need. Conflicting desires of "the people" and the Government. The actors were fantastic in their portrayals and I absolutely fell in love with Tantoo Cardinal-she is so believable and was such a character in this movie, as was Rip Torn. The story was also a love story about the land, the past, and between the 2 main characters. I have tried to buy this film and have been unable to locate it-but I would sure would love to own it.
| 1 |
positive
|
I've got 10 plus year old computer games with better special effects! Plot is choppy and very predictable. Most of the actors seem like extras with no experience! Everyone has Scottish accents. It's like watching a crew of 'Scotties' from Star Trek without the personality or charm. Needless scenes of people putting up tents! Tents with all of the supposedly high tech equipment! Actors looking like they were not sure the camera was on them. Nothing to make you care if these people survive or not! Looks like it was made in someone's backyard and garage using low end equipment! Nothing seems original or even slightly entertaining. Do not waste your time!
| 0 |
negative
|
A boring movie about a miserable loser...that's Factotum in a nutshell. Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, alter ego of author Charles Bukowski upon whose novel the film is based. As we meet Chinaski he may be a writer but he's certainly not a successful one. He floats through life, getting fired from one menial job after another and not caring a bit. The fact that he's always drunk may have something to do with his not caring. He meets a woman, Jan, played by Lili Taylor and a relationship ensues. Chinaski moves into Jan's apartment and now instead of getting drunk by himself he can get drunk with somebody else. Good times. Eventually he's had enough of this relationship so Chinaski strikes out on his own. Unfortunately he still can't hold down a job so soon enough he's broke. At this point Marisa Tomei shows up and for some reason her character, Laura, decides to rescue this miserable drunken loser whom she doesn't even know. We soon meet some of Laura's acquaintances and the film veers off into a sort of bizarro world with this rather eclectic bunch. Soon enough Tomei and friends are out of the picture and once again we're left with Chinaski and his drinking and his miserable little life. There's some more time spent with Jan but mostly there's just time spent being a drunk, unemployable loser. And then the movie's over and not a moment too soon. 94 minutes of absolute monotony and it seems infinitely longer as the movie drags on. Nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. If you want to spend an hour and a half of your life watching Matt Dillon drink then this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a compelling story, well developed characters or any entertainment value whatsoever then you've come to the wrong place. Dillon's performance actually isn't bad at all. Too bad the movie which surrounds him is in fact rather bad.
| 0 |
negative
|
And again, I find myself in the minority.<br /><br />I didn't like this one. This is the ONLY Varney work I haven't embraced, including Knowhutimean. Slam Dunk Ernest rates the credit for being the worst of the line, but this is a clear competitor for that dubious title.<br /><br />This work is too rough, and too base to be lovable. Lovability was one of Ernest's key components, and this element was completely lost herein. Unfortunately, most think this is the best of the line, but if you loved the essence of what made Ernest, Ernest, you will realize to what I refer about fifteen minutes into this work. It was too blatantly base to be fun.<br /><br />It rates a 3.5/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, let's see... a handsome young stranger is new in town, and walks around on the local boardwalk. He meets a pretty girl, meets up with the obnoxious leader of the local hip young vampires club, is dared by them to follow them into this cave, gets into a conflict over the pretty girl, an epic fight ensues...<br /><br />No, it's not Lost Boys, although you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference, since I think even some of the carnival music is the same. (Do you have to pay royalties for sampling a movie?) Even the ending of this stinkbomb is ripped off from Lost Boys. The make-up is below par, even for a low-budget thriller, the characters are one-dimensional, and just exactly how many "Oh, I had this horrible experience" scenes of teen angst does one movie need? The humor is flat and stupid, and everything else is sadly predictable. Yawn.<br /><br />The only scary thing about this turkey is the promise (threat) of a sequel, an idea that hopefully every distributor in the country will drive a stake through.
| 0 |
negative
|
I rented this movie, because I noticed the cover in the video rental store. I saw Nolte, Connely, Madsen, 40's time setting, and thought "hmm, can't be too bad." Unfortunately, after watching it, my impression was "not too good".<br /><br />Its kind of a Chinatown ripoff, but the worst part is that other than Nolte, the other members of the squad didn't get enough screen time. But its a decent movie to see once I guess. And Melanie's role was small enough that she wasn't given a chance to be a nuisance.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the worst movie I have ever seen and believe me I've sen a lot of bad movies. I love cheeesy horror but this was just terrible. There was not one scene in this film where I felt scared. All the actors must have been people that they found at a bus stop 20 minutes prior to shooting. I wish that Blockbutser would have given me my 99 cents back. The acting was terrible. The writing was incredibly bad. Someone had to screen this movie before it was released and had to know that it was terrible. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with this monstrosity. Don't rent this movie. If you do, don't return it so no other poor souls will ever make the mistake of renting it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Normally I hate period films. Living in England is a nightmare at the moment if you have an allergy to period dramas - which I do. However this one is the best. It doesn't take itself seriously and Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are great together, Liv Tyler's good as well although her English accent is dodgy!!<br /><br />The film has everything for someone who just wants to go the cinema to enjoy themselves. It has action, adventure, drama and comedy. I'm not sure how well the jokes will translate across the ocean but hopefully they will. It would be a shame for American audiences to miss out on this film. It shows that English film-makers can produce something that doesn't involve constant swearing and sex. Both do feature in this but in a balanced format. Iain Robertson's camp portrayal of the well to do gentleman is brilliant and the two brothers who are also part of the upper class set are hilarious!<br /><br />As the trailer for 'The Spy who Shagged Me' is pupported to say...."If you see one other film"....this Spring make it Plunkett and Macleane. It's got fun, action lurve and of course, Jonny Lee Miller with an English accent for a change!
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is Wonderful! I can watch it again and again. Robin hood is Perfectly cast, and Marian is beautiful. I personally think Marian's German man is the funniest character, along with Latrine and the Sheriff! While space balls got boring and stupid after a while, this one always keeps your interest! W O N D E R F U L This was a great film, and never gets boring. A great cast is in the roles, and it is spoofed perfectly, and makes so much sense, and can be watched again and again! You will love this film if you'll only watch it, except if you hate comedy, or does not think Robin Hood should be tampered with. But this old story gets boring, and this movie gives it a great new flavor!
| 1 |
positive
|
This film has gone in and out of fashion more often than the miniskirt. A triumph in the post-war period, it was virtually forgotten by the 1970s except by students of cinema. Recently, it has begun to get recognition as perhaps the most even-handed representation of soldiers' integration into post-war life ever made (and that most definitely includes films such as "The Deer Hunter.") I like it, but my overall evaluation is somewhere between those extremes.<br /><br />The tale is a simple one. Three very different servicemen who have mustered out after World War II (The Big One!) fly home to their Midwest town and try to resume, or create, civilian lives. One has a disability, one has a cushy job waiting for him, and the other has nothing to go on but determination.<br /><br />There are some good but unfortunately uneven performances. Fredric March won the Best Actor Oscar for playing an old Sergeant who returns to his job at the local bank. Personally, I think Jimmy Stewart deserved it for "It's a Wonderful Life," which also deserved the Best Picture Award, but clearly this film touched a nerve with the post-war audience. As I said, it was fashionable. March has one fantastic scene, a humorous speech that brought to mind somewhat similar incident involving real WWII hero Pappy Boyington, and otherwise is solid but unspectacular.<br /><br />I am going against the grain here, but I thought that Myrna Loy, who played March's wife, was justly ignored by the Academy. I detected barely a hint of warmth from her. In fact, I kept thinking she was going to slap Frederic March for annoying her. She practically grimaced every time they were together. Something was definitely missing there, in her forced smiles and her air of tolerance rather than joyfulness. I think all this nonsense about her being "the perfect wife" is correct only if you think a passionless 1950s homemaker is your ideal. You may disagree with that, but the Academy voters apparently did not. She is a major problem with this film, terribly miscast.<br /><br />Dana Andrews as a former soda jerk who became a war hero, then winds up behind the counter again, is amazing. He is saddled with a wife who evidently married him right before he left for the war for all the wrong reasons, and his future looks bleak. But then he chances upon March's daughter Peggy (Teresa Wright, in a fantastic turn), and fireworks explode. Both are great, but then comes that unevenness again that pervades this film. Some moments of pure soap opera intrude, punctuated by the all-time classic line, "I'm going to bust that marriage up!" The romance is uplifting and does mirror a common condition after the war, that of returning servicemen finding love upon their return.<br /><br />Speaking of uplifting, now we come to Harold Russell. He has a naturalistic quality to his acting, or is it non-acting, that rings just as true today as it no doubt did then. Taking a no-nonsense approach to his situation, he is an inspiration. His best scene, one of the best in all cinema, is when he brings the girl who likes him up to his bedroom to show her the truth of his condition. "I'm lucky, I still have my elbows unlike some of the boys." Truly great stuff.<br /><br />The film has some moments that soar. It also has some moments that belong in the afternoon soaps. Take the good with the bad and see this one for the high points.
| 1 |
positive
|
There are few films that have had me waiting and waiting for release more than this one. This is the latest film from The Dead Gentlemen group responsible for the original Gamers film and the Demon Hunters films. This group has not been terribly active over the last few years but this film is a definite reason to try and keep things up in following their progress.<br /><br />This film follows a group of gamers who are trying to finish a campaign run by a GM frustrated by his group's disregard for his story. With the help of some new blood they attempt the campaign again with hopes of finishing this time.<br /><br />This movie is a breath of fresh air in the movie community and a great improvement over the original. The movie shows respect for the game much like the original movie did but on top of that this movie shows a dramatic improvement on special effects launching it above the simplicity of college films. The acting is fairly decent and the jokes are quite funny.<br /><br />Unfortunately many of the jokes are in jokes so if you are not a gamer you may not find the film as funny as others. So this is why I give the movie an 8 instead of the 9 that I initially thought of. Any case if you are a gamer or know about gaming check this one out you will enjoy it.
| 1 |
positive
|
By the acting in this movie, it is sometimes hard NOT to imagine that the cast are who they portray themselves to be. Unbridled passion and acting at times make this a very enjoyable and engaging movie. Wouldn't even have known about it except for HBO late night. And the biggest reason I like UK films much better than American ones are that the actors aren't afraid to act out what is needed.
| 1 |
positive
|
The opening scene of the beach at Fircombe while amusing in itself, unfortunately provides a suitable metaphor for the film - insipid and washed out. It is actually not as corny as most of the others in the Carry On series, but maybe because of that doesn't really deliver much fun. It's a fair bet that the title will appeal to fans of the Benny Hill show but those looking for attractive females in bikinis and miniskirts, while they will see some in this, will probably enjoy some of the other titles in the series, such as "Carry On Abroad" or "Carry On Up the Jungle" more. The emergence of early 1970s feminism is used as a plot device which seems rather self-defeating.
| 0 |
negative
|
Well well, I had seen a lot of reviews on this one, and a lot of promo always showing the decapitation scene. But this flick is a tough one. And I mean it by all ways. It's hard to find a copy, because it was a low budget independent release and because MPAA was on the hunt for every copy on VHS, it came out unrated but it had to be rated for the MPAA. So copies disappeared into the underground scene. All people involved in this flick never did anything else in the biz. So it made this flick unique. VHS copies almost never pop up on ebay or other sites and if they do you will pay over a 100$ to get one. But due US connections I was able to catch a release on DVD sold worldwide. Limited but it was to be a sort of official one. Now and then there are still some screenings of this splatterfest. But is it worth all the hype surrounding it? As said earlier, it is a tough one to catch but also to sit through. There are gory killings, there is necrophilia, there is nudity but there is also a lot of talking between the coppers. And to be honest, if you would like to see the movie in 5 minutes watch the ending, it's a flashback in the killer's mind. The blood flows and indeed it's a splatterfest but not the full 80 minutes, splatter galore for 10 minutes. The quality of the movie is okay, sound okay, no hiss, colors okay, black is black and not blue as in many low budgets. It's okay to watch it but you never will be frightened but it's one to watch with your friends having a beer and a pizza I guess. 555, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah 333.
| 0 |
negative
|
A group of young adults get stranded in the back of the beyond, where the only place in the vicinity is a museum full of wax dummies, and the only form of help is affable local Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors). As night falls, the kids get picked off in record time.<br /><br />An odd, freaky B movie that combines the creepiness of backwoods settings with the plot device of all-too-lifelike mannequins (making this a good update of the "bodies in the wax museum" genre), this is an intense shock fest along the lines of "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre". (It should then come as no surprise that TCSM art director Robert A. Burns repeats that duty here, and his eye for great set decoration always comes in handy.) Pino Donaggios' score is downright chilling; accompanied by the murky photography of Nicholas von Sternberg, it drenches the film in oppressive atmosphere.<br /><br />Plot twists vary in level of success; there was one that I saw coming a mile away, and one that actually took me by surprise, and I was all the more happier for it. One of the best moments is shared with us almost right up front, as the first chump victim is trapped in a room with objects flying at him of their own volition. The capper is a great impalement by pipe with blood dripping out of the end.<br /><br />Star Connors offers an engaging performance as our down-home good ol' boy antagonist, while the younger co-stars, predictably, can't perform at the same level, although Jocelyn Jones is a likable enough and certainly winsome lady who has enough appeal to rate as a sympathetic damsel-in-distress. Co-star Tanya Roberts (a brunette in this film) is okay in support. (If I had one problem with this film, it's just that the victims are a little too stupid. Then again, that doesn't make this much different from many horror films of the 80's.) Future notable names among the credits are future directors Ted Nicolaou, who was the editor here, Ron Underwood (who made a great debut almost a dozen years later with "Tremors") as the assistant director, and veteran makeup artist Ve Neill, who's done many films and won three Oscars since.<br /><br />Although some horror fans may be disappointed by the lack of nudity and sexual elements, this is otherwise a nice little surprise that debuting director David Schmoeller delivers with conviction and gusto. Recommended.<br /><br />8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is a joy to watch and should do well on DVD and video. I suppose you really have to be Irish to appreciate the some of the subtlties such as accent, colloquialisms and the dress sense of some of the characters but let me assure you that when Dylan Moran impersonates 'Barreler' the impersonation is quite familiar to most people from Dublin because we have many characters in our fine city that look, act and talk like that! The sheer simple comedy employed and Michael Caines genius acting alone are worth the money but on top of this the plot is great, the script is fantastic and the dialogue fast moving and catchy. A perfect light entertainment movie without the madcap humour of Jim Carrey.
| 1 |
positive
|
Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane<br /><br />Seymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.<br /><br />According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seemingly<br /><br />foppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and clever<br /><br />when he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored as<br /><br />Percy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to be<br /><br />the most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due to<br /><br />bad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, and<br /><br />Elizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit and<br /><br />dash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replaced<br /><br />by brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut. <br /><br /> I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous version<br /><br />or read the book, it would probably look ok.
| 0 |
negative
|
Thank god for this movie. It's a document of talent that, three decades later, seems even more unique and rare in retrospect.<br /><br />The music is just extraordinary, packed with so much talent in writing, performance, arrangement and production that it's absolutely infectious. The lyrics and vocal arrangements are incredible. The performances by under-appreciated talents like Nell Carter and Ren Woods uplift my spirit every time I hear them. While the film may be different from the stage version, I prefer the soundtrack to the cast album, which I find truly grating and under-developed. Here the arrangements are filled out and expanded into dynamic pieces that couldn't have been produced in a stage setting.<br /><br />But the music isn't the only thing extraordinary about this movie. The juxtaposition of almost hyper-realist dialog scenes (reminds me of Altman films) intercut with exuberant musical and dance numbers, really works. All the talent in this movie--directing, writing, photography, editing, music, choreography, casting, acting, costuming, art direction--merge perfectly into one of the best musical films I've seen.<br /><br />I think it's amazing how much we know about the characters in "Hair," based on very little information or plot. They're not drawn as caricatures, but as realistic and very human people. We see little glimpses of where they come from, but the portrait is completed by vignettes that draw the characters to the surface through accomplished acting, directing and editing. There's an undercurrent theme of the misogyny of Berger and Hud which colors their characters by exposing their reckless macho-hippie ideology. The scene of Berger's home life reveals important details about his psychology, and the brief glimpse of Claude's home tells us volumes about his background through the simple, realistic and genuine interaction between Claude and (presumably) his father.<br /><br />I love the fashion in this movie. It defiantly mixes sixties ideas with VERY seventies looks (one does have to overlook Treat Williams' hair extensions...). It's a document of how chic much of the late-seventies was, contrary to the conventional wisdom that the era was all about bad taste. Claude's beige knitted tie was a hot trend of 1979, and the hair and clothing of the singers and dancers (particularly those in white during the Central Park scene) mixes up the decades in a way that suggests the timelessness of the musical's themes. These elements merge with Twyla Tharpe's extraordinary state-of-the-art choreography in a way that enhances the artistry of both.<br /><br />"Hair"isn't a film that rewards cynicism. If you come to it with expectations, then you're most likely going to be held captive by artists who aren't bound by your rules. For me, it opened my eyes and ears and spirit to an insightful and passionate musical dialog about war, friendship and family that transcends its time and is still meaningful and relevant to me to this day.
| 1 |
positive
|
An ear-splitting movie, a quasi-old-fashioned screwball romp designed to showcase singing star Madonna's comedic attributes. She does indeed go far out on the proverbial limb here playing a beyond-vivacious parolee attempting to prove she was framed for murder (a body was found in the trunk of her car after she ran a red light...big laughs). After an energetic animated credits sequence--which is much more fun than the rest of the picture--we have nothing to look at but Madonna's black mascara and red lips set off by her platinum hair and pale complexion. What else is there? Griffin Dunne seems defeated playing Maddy's keeper, while the poor-choice supporting cast struggles to get laughs with lousy dialogue. It's an unfortunate set-back to the talents of director James Foley, who unwisely allows his star to run rampant in the spirit of the nutty slapstick films from the 1930s (but even Katharine Hepburn in "Bringing Up Baby" had a human side). Wretched. * from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is like "The Breakfast Club" meets "Mad City." It's got one plot twist after another with Justin Walker, Corey Feldman, and James Remar delivering really great performances. However, this movie is not for everyone. If you don't like movies that "go all the way" with regards to violence, then don't watch the last twenty minutes. My wife had to leave the room. Of course, I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. This is a really gritty, realistic teen drama. I can't believe it came from B-Movie king Roger Corman. This film is a must-see for those who are not faint of heart. Highly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
The characters was as unoriginal it hurts. The little skinny dorky computer geek, the funny African-American with stupid clisché punchlines, cool white guy with a compassion for cars and the handsome leader who ends up with the pretty girl. The actors is at best mediocre. Ecsept from Norton who does a pretty good job as the bad guy. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is also stupid and a total waste of time. Its all in all about a group of spoiled boys using the world as their playground where every safe in a big house is what keeps them with food on the table. I mean, why work for a living when you can rob people?<br /><br />AND,.. Who the f**** messes with the traffic lights in a major European city?!? And in the middle of the FRIGGIN day!? Think of all the damages and not to say deaths among innocent civilians. What about all the ambulances and firetrucks? <br /><br />I created NO compassion for the main characters, and weather Mr Wahlberg gets his bloody gold or not, i could not give less of a fart.
| 0 |
negative
|
Music videos are often completely disregarded in any discussion about film, with most people considering them to be a lesser art form. While a great majority are merely flashy clips to advertise a popular performer's latest hit single, a precious few really do rise above the rest, becoming works of art in their own right {anything directed by Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry is always worth watching}. While "art" isn't precisely the word I'd use to describe Michael Jackson's 'Thriller (1983),' it is an intensely-likable hybrid of schlock horror and music, and an outrageously-campy short film that remains remarkably endearing nearly 25 years later. The thirteen-minute music video, both the longest and most expensive ever at the time of its release, was directed by John Landis, a filmmaker I'm not terribly familiar with, though 'The Blues Brothers (1980)' is a classic, and I hear that 'An American Werewolf in London (1981)' is a stupendously entertaining horror/comedy.<br /><br />Whether or not 'Thriller' actually qualifies as a music video is certainly up for debate, taking into account its extensive length {though Jackson bettered this effort with 1997's 'Ghosts,' at 38 minutes} and the fact that the title song comprises less than half of the total running time. The video opens with a brief film-within-a-film, as Michael, on a quiet and brightly-lit night, reveals to his girlfriend (Ola Ray) that he is "different" from other guys, transforming into a hideous werewolf as the nighttime clouds part to reveal a full moon. As he presumably decapitates the unfortunate heroine, we come across Michael and his girl in the movie theatre, actually watching this drama unfold in a horror picture. When the girl becomes frightened, they both leave cinema and begin to walk home, at which point Michael begins to sing the opening lines of his latest song, "Thriller." However, when a hoard of blood-thirsty zombies emerge from the local graveyard {their entrance ghoulishly narrated by Vincent Price}, the situation begins to get interesting.<br /><br />It's difficult to quite put my finger on why 'Thriller' is considered one of the greatest of all music videos. It can't simply be that the song itself is a lot of fun, and Michael Jackson though he has since become the butt of all comedians' jokes for his peculiar personality and doings there's no doubt that he is an excellent singer and performer. Perhaps a decent explanation for the film's popularity is the incredible amount of work that must have gone into it; nothing like it had ever been seen before, and it still remains something of an oddity in the world of music videos. The gruesome monster make-up effects were engineered by Rick Baker, and are surprisingly graphic for a music clip, though it's all carried out with a good sense of fun. Several moments make for some genuinely exciting suspense, successfully capturing the atmosphere of the films which it is parodying {though always with a cheesy twist on the usual formula}. Simply put, you'll never look at a zombie movie in the same way again!
| 1 |
positive
|
Well as the headline suggests this is not the particularly good movie i was hoping it would be. i thought it would be great with mr fully monty man himself but tragically not. From the beginning i literally lost interest immediately when 2 women are just making tea and then suddenly she points out there is random water coming from under the door, then bam a full on flood through the route of the house its hard to believe they didn't notice the rising water level outside or at least heard it. Sorry for this to sound like a rant but it really grinds my gears and has affected me. Most acting was poor and the story tried to copy nearly every cliché to each disaster movie ever but just failed in that sense. CGI was poor i could do a better job using ms paint, directing poor too, and at the end i didn't care about 1 character at all!!! don't waste your time people no wonder it was released straight to DVD. Well thanks for reading xxx
| 0 |
negative
|
Perhaps, we are too much attached to great spectacles when we hear of antiquity brought to screen. Perhaps, we expect too much from these films. However, if we, as viewers, are offered far too little, what happens then? <br /><br />That is what I thought after seeing IMPERIUM - NERONE by Paul Marcus, a part of the production series on the Roman Empire. AUGUSTUS by Roger Young, the first IMPERIUM movie, included at least Peter O'Toole but what does this movie include?<br /><br />Hardly anything accurate. The historical errors are so serious that the movie changes facts and constitutes rather a distorted image of the Roman Empire than the true history. Throughout the movie, we see Nero young: young man during the allegedly long reign of Caligula, young man during the reign of Claudius and finally during his own (historically 14 year long) reign. And...he dies the same. According to the movie, Nero, born during the reign of Tiberius, lives for more than 40 years but looks to be in his late twenties when he dies... Continuity combined with made up history is the biggest problem of the movie, which makes it hardly logical, not to say reliable. Nero loses his father, is raised by slaves. At that time, his mother, Agrippina, is exiled by Caligula. Later, however, she suddenly marries emperor Claudius who already has big children with freshly married to him Messalina. At these moments of the movie, we see Acte (Rike Schmid), Nero's mistress. All right, it is historically "accurate"; yet, no source proves that she played such a decisive role in the rise of Christianity in Rome. In the film, she is not only a devoted Christian but even a witness of St Paul's miracle (he brings a young girl Marzia back to life). Besides, there was, historically, nothing like Nero seen on the court of Caligula since Nero was born in Caligula's 4 year long reign (A.D. 37-41). I understand that movies may change something but such an error makes the script absolutely unreliable! And many, many other shortcomings concerning content that are hard to enumerate but after 30 minutes of watching this film, I doubted whether I was watching a historical movie or a total fantasy.<br /><br />As for its artistic features which supply us with entertainment, they are equally lame as the history here is. The performances are artificial, the cast simply have beautiful faces but weak acting abilities. Perhaps, I am too much attached to Peter Ustinov or Charles Laughton in the lead, but Hans Matheson does not fit as Nero at all. He could have some of the good moments as an actor but never as the infamous Roman emperor. Is he an artist who burns Rome for a song? Is he a cynic who disguises the love to his relatives? Is he a cruel ruler who sacrifices the lives of thousands of innocent people for the sake of "alleged justice"? None of these. He is just a young man who does not know how to rule and, in the long run, begins to release the fire burning within himself... John Simm is out of place in this film as Caligula and absolutely inferior to other portrayals of the character. Elisa Tovati is only sexy as Poppaea; yet she could have been much much better. The costumes are inaccurate and the sets do not amaze. Low budget results in low effects and, consequently, low entertainment.<br /><br />But what made me most angry in this movie and, as a result, I give it 1/10 are some moments that are absolutely unacceptable:<br /><br />- the death of Poppaea and St Paul's talk with Nero at her dead body, <br /><br />- Claudius' mention of the current conquest of Britannia on the feast and soon his death (he conquered Britannia while Messalina was his wife much before his death), <br /><br />- Tigellinus killing Agrippina (Laura Morante), Nero's mother, <br /><br />- Nero's arguments in the speech to the senators, <br /><br />- finally, Nero's death - a calm day at the lake and an indifferent suicide that leads to a moral said by Acte "Let us forgive him"<br /><br />All in all, this film is a waste of time and is absolutely unneeded as yet another production concerning the Roman Empire. It's better to make one good film in 30 years than ten minor little ones in 5 years. 1/10 - should not have been made at all.
| 0 |
negative
|
Ridiculous thriller in which a group of students kidnapped their bad and neurotic teacher (Mirren) just to prevent her action against them. Interesting premise could render a good movie but this one is just lame and far fetched. Boring with an ending embarassing, just to say the least. Mrs. Mirren tries to give some dignity to this misfire but even she - a good actress, no doubt about it - could save this garbage. I give this a 4 (four).
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw Anatomy years ago -- dubbed at a friends house I don't remember it much, and then I saw at the video store there is a second one -- not really related to the first one Franka Ponte makes a little cameo. And that one was okay not as good as the first one. I'm seeing the first one again tonight -- not dubbed collectors edition. I really like German movies like this one it's very interesting and people and cults like the one in the movie could exist i think, i dunno. But it's very grossly entertaining and scary. Anatomy 2 is a little different and the characters are not as good as the first. But if you really thought Anatomy was interesting and good you should see the second one.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Psychopath (1973) A trip down memory lane. I saw this film many years ago on a old black and white t.v. A children's' show host Mr. Rabbey avenges the brutal abuse that parents inflict upon his kiddie fans. Mr. Rabbey (who looks like he's always on the verge of losing it) finally cracks and decides to go on a hunting trip. Watch out bad parents cause Mr. Rabbey is on the prowl! What happens next is priceless. However, trying to find this movie will be quite a chore.<br /><br />What makes this film notable was the fact that Joe "Maniac" Spinell made a short promo reel for a film based upon this one. In his unfinished film, he plays Mr. Robbie, a t.v. clown(who looks like a pudgy out of shape Edward James Olmos) who avenges his young fans child abuse by going after their parents. Sadly, Mr. Spinell could never find the funds to complete the project. The film was going to be titled Maniac II: "Mister Robbie". Rabbey or Robbie the similarities are all too close for comfort. Pretty violent for a P.G. movie.<br /><br />Recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
Quai des Orfevres takes too long getting going, with Clouzot so enamored of his back-stage milieu that he is almost in danger of forgetting the story. However, once it does, it's Clouzot at his best. Bertrand Blier (father of Bertrand Blier and co-star of his Buffet Froid) is the worldworn pianist who married beneath himself and who plans to kill the seedy studio mogul with designs on his wife only to find that someone has beaten him to it. Not only that, but his carefully planned but clumsily executed alibi falls to pieces, not least when a thief steals his car at the murder scene
<br /><br />The film really kicks into life with the arrival of Luis Jouvet's police inspector, a rather wonderful creation half Alistair Sim in Green for Danger and half world-weary Maigret with better dialog. In a neat running gag, his investigation is constantly conducted at the top of his voice against chaos and noise, whether it be the noisy typewriters of the police station or a loud rehearsal. The police station itself is a wonderfully realistic creation, a wealth of chaotic and telling small details that makes Steve Bocchco's once revolutionary 80's US cop shows look like antiquated museum pieces by comparison. <br /><br />If Suzy Delair is a rather unconvincing femme fatale, the supporting cast more than compensate, with the beautiful Simone Renant a standout as the lesbian photographer in love with her from afar and constantly mistaken for Blier's lover by Delair and other interested parties (only Jouvet, similarly unlucky with women, understands and genuinely sympathises). With great black and white photography by Armand Thirard, this is a terrific little thriller with a nice twist ending and a lovely scene with a cab driver reluctantly identifying Renant in a police station. (Trivia note: Pierre Larquey, who played the playfully philosophical Dr Vorzet in Le Corbeau, turns up in smaller roles as a cab-driver in both Quai and Les Espions.)<br /><br />The Criterion DVD is quite superb - great picture quality plus an illuminating extract from a French TV show featuring interviews with Clouzot, Blier and Renant.
| 1 |
positive
|
A Delta Force Army unit, assigned to find a batch of missing Green Beret bad-asses not known for going completely missing, will be in a fight for survival against a cloaked skeleton man, the supposed spirit of an ancient Indian warrior who was revived when archaeologists disturbed his grave. The Skeleton Man rides a horse and has the ability to propel to and fro using a type of dimensional portal, and seems unaffected by bullet-fire and explosives. The Skeleton Man's horse leaves no hoof prints and he can ride from behind and around his prey silently. The film's point-of-view through the Skeleton Man's eyes looks at his prey with a different color. In other words, he's not seemingly human, so how can Captain Leary(Michael Rooker, as grizzled and intense as ever)and his gang of would-be commandos stop this menace? For some reason, the Skeleton Man murders employees of a nearby chemical plant. What are the Skeleton Man's motives for slaughtering endless human beings? And, why is a blind Indian living in the forest our commandos inhabit spared if the Skeleton Man, as a human, slaughtered his entire tribe to prove himself? <br /><br />As completely stupid as it sounds. Just unbelievable horrible. This is the kind of film that can deaden brain cells. Casper Van Dien gets second billing in the credits just under Rooker, yet is saddled with a ridiculously underwritten character who exits the film quite early. Rooker deserves better than this. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want this movie in my resume. The Skeleton Man is a reject Templer Knight from a de Ossorio film. He has a spear which can merely knock certain people down while exploding the head of a woman on impact. An arrow shot from the Skeleton Man's bow actually destroys the propeller of a chopper plane. For nearly 99 % of the film, bullets are shot at the Skeleton Man and he can go in and out of that portal thingee yet, at the end, all of a sudden, he becomes vulnerable to attack. Oh, and the horses also change as the Skeleton Man freely moves through the forest from that portal.The film is written and edited by clowns. The attack scenes are poorly constructed and the characters, who are supposed to be experienced pros, make really bad decisions throughout this film. The mind boggles with this film. Good for some laughs, and some gore scenes make this hunk of pure crap watchable as a trash movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Breaker! Breaker! has Chuck Norris as a truck driver and a karate master, talk about juggling two disparate careers. He gives a load he can't deliver to his younger brother Michael Augenstein and then when the young man doesn't show up, Chuck goes looking for him.<br /><br />What young Augenstein has got himself into is a speed-trap run by Judge George Murdock who comes from the Roy Bean school of jurisprudence. Of course Norris deals with matters in the usual Chuck Norris way and when he gets in trouble, the call goes out over the CB for all the truckers to come and help their good buddy. This speed-trap known as Texas City has a bad reputation and the drivers are only too happy to help a pal.<br /><br />Chuck's of course quite a bit younger and with no facial hair in this one. He's got the tight lipped look of a man who realizes the Academy won't be looking at this gobbler. George Murdock is overacting outrageously as the Judge Roy Bean wannabe.<br /><br />This one is strictly for the fans of Chuck Norris.
| 0 |
negative
|
The movie gets a score of 3 because it dared to be so very different. It features a cast acting while you can hear their thoughts and desires! This is truly a weird film and an experience I won't forget. The only problem is that the experiment, though in some ways interesting, is generally quite dull and unengaging. In fact, it's amazing that a Norma Shearer and Clark Gable film could be THIS dull! The film is based on a Eugene O'Neill play and it really does seem quite stagy. In fact, it would have been best just to keep it as a stage production--it just didn't translate at all to the big screen.<br /><br />So this movie is only recommended to die-hard cinemaniacs and those who love Gable films so much they just have to see all his films!
| 0 |
negative
|
Orson Welles' 1974 documentary "F for Fake" examines trickery and fraud, mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. Clifford Irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, yet, at least it seems, purports his innocence. The other main subject of the film is artist Elmyr de Hory, a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces, sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. Interspersed among these stories are bits where Welles does magic tricks to illustrate points, etc., and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with "War of the Worlds".<br /><br />I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in "F for Fake". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4/10 --Shelly
| 0 |
negative
|
Just an hour ago I finished watching this my friend. As a fans of Dragonball we think that this movie is so bad that is good. We will say one thing : without a sixpack beers there is now way you can survive through this movie. This movie should be watched with a many Dragonball fans to laugh their ass off. The best character in the movie is the lord Horn, his makeup, his laugh, and behaviour crates the unforgettable experience. What we liked in this movie, was the fact that the island of Turtle Man was the same as in cartoon version. We believe that the only character similar to the one in the cartoon is the Turtle Man. He is also a sex maniac and kind of idiot too.
| 0 |
negative
|
Another try, another miss. France may be doomed for not being able to produce a good horror movie. I mean... the least they could do was to shoot the movie in the forest of Brocéliande, but even the forest is fake ! It was shot near Paris ! The subject is useless, the actors are really insignificant and the text makes you wish you were deaf. Nothing could save it.<br /><br />Bad... to the bone. I wasn't warned. I want my money back.
| 0 |
negative
|
My best guess is this piece of work will come out on DVD sometime before Christmas.<br /><br />This movie was terrible. The time line jumps all over the place. This wouldn't be so bad if it left some suspense for the end. It was entirely predictable. Bitch girls pick on outcast, outcast wants to know why they hate her so much, bitch girls die a terrible death, outcast girl goes home and looks crazy. Outcast girl brought evil spirits with her, makes neighbors go crazy and kill each other. Creepy kid understands what's going on. Oh, and the younger sister not being good enough for Mommie, sick mother sending younger daughter to bring the golden child home. <br /><br />To be fair, there were some great moments here and there. First of all, Sarah Michelle Geller's character dies in the first few minutes. Definite plus. Didn't see that one coming. I didn't expect the wife to pour bacon grease on her husband's head, either. If the movie had kept up those kind of thrills, I would have loved it. The beginning showed so much promise. <br /><br />I was disappointed because I enjoyed the first one. It made me jump, I didn't expect most of what happened, and though I questioned some of the movie, it was still a fun watch. I didn't watch any previews for this the sequel, because I wanted to be surprised. I was, but in the wrong direction.
| 0 |
negative
|
This should have rocked. VH1 moved away from the traditional divas (Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, etc.) that had made the 2003 show so stale. Sadly the move backfired. The show had no MC keeping the show together. Queen Latifah did a fantastic show at the 2003 Divas. The show kicked of with a horrific rendition of Lady Marmalade featuring Patti Labelle, Cyndi Lauper, and Jessica Simpson. Okay in the studio with some control they can all sound great. <br /><br />However, when they are competing with each other (why?) it just sounds torturous! Jessica Simpson has the most bizarre facial expressions when she sings that i've ever witnessed! Cyndi Lauper also performed Girl Just Wanna Have Fun. That wasn't as bad but it was hardly impressive. The worst was yet to come! Cyndi and Patti Labelle teamed up to perform Cyndi's hit 'Time After Time'. It was acoustic, and didn't fit in with the rest of the show. Still it could've been okay if they both hadn't insisted on squealing like mamed animals. It was just dire.<br /><br />Debbie Harry (from Blondie) is always cool. She has a style of her own and although maybe she can't compete vocally with a many of the divas although she certainly can sing very well. Debbie came out and performed Blondie's #1 hit 'Rapture'. With some lovely vocals. She really hit the notes perfectly. She looked stunning. Rapper Eve provided a new, but sadly inferior rap. It was good. Debbie's next performance was a team-up with newcomer Joss Stone. They performed the Blondie hit 'One Way Or Another'. I think Joss misunderstood the style of the song and just shouted over Debbie. A rather sad bit was when Debbie tried and failed to match her shouty style which spoiled it a bit. She should've just let Joss get on with her totally inappropriate warballing. The whole of Blondie performed this track. The final track Debbie performed was Blondie's massive hit 'Call Me'. It was pretty poor. Not Debbie's fault because you just couldn't hear her. The sound was atrocious all the way through the show.<br /><br />Joss Stone also performed a few songs on her own. They were quite well done. Ashanti also showed up to perform two inexplicable cover versions. Firstly she did Diana Ross' 'I'm Coming Out', and then Chaka Khan's 'Ain't Nobody'. She is not a diva! She can sing to an extent but she has no presence whatsoever. Why not just get the real singers in. Chaka was even interviewed on the show....<br /><br />Gladys Knight showed up and did a medley. It was very good. She was probably the best bit of the show. I don't know much about her other than she is a seasoned performer in Las Vegas and her experience and class really shone through. Patti Labelle fitted in another performance this time her 80's hit 'New Attitude'. It was the finale and it was okay but it was too little to late. This was one big dud. Better luck next time VH1.<br /><br />The version I saw was a heavily edited 55min version which was shown on VH1 in the UK. If these were the best bits.....
| 0 |
negative
|
A classic late 50's film. The superannuated headliners (Joan Crawford and Louis Jordan) are not at their best, but the direction, cinematography, and acting of the younger cast are compelling. In a 50's sense (which I love).<br /><br />The look and feel of the artsy (over-artsy?) contemporary film "Far from heaven" reflects exactly this sort of film (and I suspect this film may be one of the models). A silly plot, of course (hey, it's 1959!), but as a film-- glorious! As a reflection of the society, extremely interesting. And as witness to how Hollywood breaks away from the idealistic portrayal of American sexual mores, fascinating.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a student film and it's a piece of crap. I would use much stronger language to describe it but then the review wouldn't be posted and the world needs to know- beyond any possible reasonable doubt- this movie REALLY SUCKS.<br /><br />There seems to be a different ruler used when measuring an already famous director's early work. Like somehow it was genius that we were just too stupid to comprehend since he finally got it right now today. I'm not buying it. The early movie "Bad taste" made by the LOTR Peter Jackson's sucks and this "early work" from another famous director really sucks the same way too. These "early works" are representative of crappy everything, from budget to scripts to actors etc.. it all is bottom of the bucket trash. Don't be fooled by the big name.<br /><br />If you like watching a handful of male 70's hippie burnouts pretend they could ever command a ship with the worst special effects you have ever seen- this is your movie.<br /><br />I can't f*37449ing believe this thing won a golden scroll award for best special effects. That is a joke right? Or a joke award?<br /><br />If you want to watch what this movie WISHES it was rent a season or three of Red Dwarf you smeghead.
| 0 |
negative
|
Valentine, a model in France is separated from her lover who is abroad, they plan to meet up in England, but seem to be growing ever more distant as the film progresses. One night after declining a pass made by her coworker, she hits a dog named Rita. The dog survives and she returns it to her owner, a hostile retired judge who's is living as a hermit and eavesdropper, listening in on the conversations of all his neighbours. She becomes intrigued by the nature of this man and visits him often, often becoming part of his eavesdropping games. One conversation the two listen in on is of extreme importance though, the conversation between a young soon to be judge and his wife, which we find out parallels the life of the man who is eavesdropping upon them. As we find out more about the couple, the man reveals more of his story, then continues his story, and we find out if the two men will continue towards the same fate. Little does Valentine know how her life, this encounter and the fate of the young judge will become entangled together. Her hitting the dog that day seemed to be fate, a divine sacrifice by the dog for her owner, allowing Valentine to be the saviour of the young judge, who is traveling the same path as her dear friend, to prevent him from having such a grim future, filled with loneliness and solitude. It seems the old man's dream will come true after all, and he can sleep with a smile on his face for the rest of his days.<br /><br />An AMAZING finale to possibly the BEST trilogy of all time! Kieslowski never ceases to amaze me. He is one of my favourite directors, and one of the most talented directors in the history of cinema. His use of the colours of the French flag in the three films was nothing short of incredible, every shot, every scene was like a work of art. Three of the most visually appealing movies i've ever seen. And his subtle connections between the three films are awesome. Usually signified with a subtle pause, or late focus in a scene, see if you can spot some. I have to mention this and it is a huge SPOILER, i loved the ending, how all the characters of the three films were the remaining survivors of the ferry disaster, with Valentine and the young judge together, and the old man watching it on her TV, solidifying his happiness over the suffering which he dealt with for those many years. I couldn't think of a better way to end the film, but a smile on my face, great way to wrap up an amazing film and trilogy! I recommend this for EVERYONE who loves film, movies, anything...A Work of Art! 10 out of 10 for both the movie and trilogy.
| 1 |
positive
|
"Paranormal State" is an interesting show for most paranormal believers. I enjoy watching what the "team" has to say and what they "find", however, I know that the entire show along with it's build ups and story lines are completely set up. They go to real haunted locations and I suspect that they speak with actual witnesses. I commonly feel as I watch it that I am not watching non-fiction but an actual movie that is contradictory to reality. I personally would not advise or recommend anyone to watch this show unless you are a basic scare seeker. <br /><br />Interesting show. Stick to "Ghost Hunters"
| 0 |
negative
|
Plunkett and Macleane is a wonderful updating of the swashbuckling tradition, predating Johny Depp and his pirate friends. The tone is lighthearted, with a touch of social commentary, but nothing too heavy. One could almost see Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone in this.<br /><br />It starts out in low gear, with the introduction of the characters and the establishing of the themes of social inequality and rebellion; but, it kicks into high gear once the boys hit the highways. The robberies are grand and stylish, with romantic touches that are the bread and butter of swashbucklers. The actors are engaging and help elevate the material a bit, which is fairly hollow. There's not much depth to the figures, but they are played with such charm and skill that it doesn't matter.<br /><br />Muh has been said about the modern music. Period music tended to the more serene, which seems out of place. A classical score with Celtic rhythms for the action pieces could work, but the more modern, rebellious rock and techno music seemed to add an edge to the action. Since the characters are more legend than reality, accuracy in the music seems pointless. The pieces tend to fit the mood of the aired scenes, so it mostly works well. I just wonder how they missed Adam Ant's "Stand and Deliver." Make no mistake, this is not a serious film. It's pure escapism and a wonderful lark. Tony Scott shows some of the visual flair of his father, but I don't think we are going to see many Oscar nods in his career just yet. He seems to understand the material here and pulls off a fine film. With time he may prove to be a name to reckon with. His father took a while to mature beyond visual stylization and become a more rounded director. This is definitely one to watch for an entertaining evening or for a swashbuckling film fest.
| 1 |
positive
|
'You're in the Navy Now' is painfully bad: very likely the worst movie Gary Cooper ever made. It's supposedly based on a true story, but the incident which inspired this film doesn't seem to have enough plot to sustain a feature-length script.<br /><br />I saw this movie on local television while I was house-sitting for my mother-in-law in Long Island, New York. There was a raging blizzard outside, and I was literally snowbound. If I'd been able to get out the door, I definitely would have stopped watching this movie.<br /><br />There are some interesting names in the supporting cast, notably Charles Bronson (under his original name), Lee Marvin, Harvey Lembeck, Jack Webb and Jack Warden. Forget it. Everybody stinks in this movie. Even the usually reliable Millard Mitchell is awful. Lee Marvin and Jack Warden are onscreen so briefly, there's no point in your watching for them.<br /><br />Gary Cooper plays an obscure naval officer who is assigned to command a ship which is powered by a new, experimental steam turbine: basically, the whole ship is a giant teakettle. Cooper realises that the assignment is not a prestigious one: if it were, it would have gone to a better officer.<br /><br />Cooper was a good actor in dramatic roles, but he simply had no ability for comedy. He made several bad comedies, and this one is his worst. Jane Greer has always bored me, and she bored me more than usual here. This ship went down with all hands, and sank without a trace. Have I mentioned that this movie stinks? I'll rate 'You're in the Navy Now' one point out of 10. Toot! Toot!
| 0 |
negative
|
This one's as cheesy as they come the concept of a massive and indestructible extraterrestrial bird is already too loopy for words, but wait till you get a load of the goofy creature as it appears on screen! I tell you I laughed so hard through this thing that I missed out on some of the expository dialogue then again, the latter is often so heavy on scientific jargon and laws of Physics and such (at which I've never been any good, in spite of my love of sci-fi movies) that it didn't really matter anyway! The bird first depicted as a mere blurred form whizzing through the skies but subsequently shown in all its dopey glory is so sublimely silly that it wouldn't be amiss in a Looney Tunes cartoon (witness the series of intermittently-taken photographs that start with the creature in the distance and end on a side-splitting extreme close-up of its face)! <br /><br />Director Sears had fared much better with his other film about UFOs, the fine EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS (1956) with special effects provided by a master, Ray Harryhausen (speaking of which, I've just given away my copy of the latter in anticipation of acquiring Columbia's recently-released SE DVD); also, it seems to me that some of the footage illustrating the bird's rampage in New York here were lifted from the destruction of Washington seen in that earlier sci-fi classic! Again, the leads are played by genre regulars namely Jeff Morrow (from THIS ISLAND EARTH [1955]) and Mara Corday (from TARANTULA [1955]); as with the afore-mentioned FLYING SAUCERS, these titles are highly-regarded and beloved by fans consequently, they are vastly superior to this lamentable addition to the alien/monster animal cycle prevalent during the sci-fi heyday and beyond (incidentally, other flying menaces were featured in THE FLYING SERPENT [1946], which I haven't watched, and Larry Cohen's tongue-in-cheek updating of same in Q: THE WINGED SERPENT [1982]).<br /><br />Unfortunately, THE GIANT CLAW can't even rise to a decent climax which is so rushed as to be "a wash-out", to quote a jet pilot from the film itself whose assault with rockets on the bird proves completely ineffective (that is, before Morrow realizes that it's shielded by an invisible barrier and then has to figure out a way how to be able to penetrate it). Ultimately, apart from the intractable (and frankly tedious) technical asides, one gets a feeling of "so bad, it's good" watching this: after all, it only lasts for 74 minutes and, in any case, the bird is such an unforgettably daft creation as to put a huge smile on your face every time it turns up!
| 0 |
negative
|
"Four Daughters" introduced John Garfield to audiences, and that is what is remembered most about this film today. Unlike some actors who appear in several films before their screen image gels, Garfield established his immediately, with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth and talk of the fates being against him.<br /><br />It's actually the story of four girls, their widowed musician father (Claude Rains) and their various suitors, one of whom, Felix, is played by handsome Jeffrey Lynn. He's the one they all have a crush on, but he's in love with Buff (Priscilla Lane). Then she meets ne'er-do-well Mickey Borden, who falls for her as well. When Buff realizes that one of her sisters is in love with Felix, she leaves him at the altar and marries Mickey.<br /><br />This is a fairly formulaic story given life (and sequels) by the acting. Garfield has already been mentioned, but Priscilla Lane was by far the strongest of the daughters, the most interesting, and the best actress. Jeffrey Lynn was a fresh and good-looking leading man, and this film got him off on the right foot with Warners. However, true stardom was not to be. Like many others of the era, he went into the service, and when he came out, he had a Bronze Star but not much of a career. He later went into television and real estate. Claude Rains is warm and wonderful as the patriarch.<br /><br />So popular was "Four Daughters" that it inspired "Four Wives" and "Four Mothers," as well as reuniting much of the cast again in "Daughters Courageous" where the actors played different characters.<br /><br />Very enjoyable, a nice remembrance of simpler and probably happier times, and a chance to see John Garfield in his first film.
| 1 |
positive
|
In the mid-1970s, my NYC apt. building was finally wired for cable-TV and since Showtime (instead of HBO) was the only premium channel offered showing recent movies, I signed up for it. Being a writer and night-owl by nature, I soon discovered the channel was showing movies late at night and until the wee hours of the morning I'd never even heard of--most of them American independent films and foreign films that had never been given a U.S. theatrical release. Many of them had recognizable "star" casts and respectable directors, and thanks to Showtime, I discovered many first-rate films I (and other Showtime subscribers) would never else have had the opportunity to see. Most of these cinematic mongrels were indeed "dogs" but often so bad they were unintentionally hilarious. One night, Showtime unveiled a little Italian-made gem called "Redneck" (filmed in 1972, given a limited European release in 1973). Even though the movie had never been released in the U.S., the MPAA rating was listed as an 'R'. Since the director was one Sylvio Narizzano (the director who made his name with the glorious "Georgy Girl"), and the three leads were Mark ("Oliver") Lester, Fabio Testi and Telly Savalas, I decided to give it a try. And found myself nailed to my TV screen in disbelief for 89 minutes. As I recall, Savalas and Testi played two criminals, the former a raging maniac who, in one stomach-churning scene, casually sent a German family to their deaths by nudging their trailer off a cliff, thereby plunging to the wilderness depths below. So far, so bad. Then, out of nowhere, Testi (as the "nice" psycho) and Lester (all of 14 when the movie was made) are seen, both nude, in a men's room, Testi sneaking peeks at the kid's body while shaving, and poor confused Lester fixated on close-ups of Testi's naked butt. As a not-yet-jaded member of the movie industry, and a card-carrying liberal (I was as much against censorship then as I am today), the entire movie made me queasy (and, being the early '70s when I thoughtI'd seen everything in the anything-goes movies of that liberated era--including the uncut version of Altman's "That Cold Day in the Park", a real jaw-dropper until it was trimmed for an 'R' rating and would have spelled The End for Altman's career had he not next come up with something called "M*A*S*H"), I still wonder if anyone else except me ever saw "Redneck" and was appalled as I was. Trashing the actors and movie-going audiences is joy maladjusted filmmakers have been merrily indulging in since the beginning of time. But leeringly exploiting a highly respected and talented child actor (Mr. Lester) at a time when he was beginning to make the difficult transaction from child to adult actor (and I'm sure his film offers had thereby dwindled to meretricious junk like "Redneck")...Mr. Narizzano, you should be hanging your head in shame. (Incidentally, I was soon to make friends with actors who had appeared in Narizzano's future, undistinguished efforts. They both despised him. Surprise?)
| 0 |
negative
|
As with FOOTPRINTS (1975), I became aware of this one purely by accident: it was mentioned in a review of THE LIBERTINE (1969), which I researched when that film turned up on late-night Italian TV, as being in a similar vein; incidentally, I missed out on that screening of THE LIBERTINE (though I acquired it via the same channel later on) but did manage to watch the film by way of a rental of the English-dubbed R1 DVD during my sojourn in Hollywood in late 2005/early 2006. Actually, in view of the enthusiastic reviews for it, I was let down by THE LIBERTINE – being too light-hearted in nature for what was essentially a serious theme (the sado-masochistic relationship between a young couple)!; to be honest, for much of the time, I was afraid that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN would go the exact same route…but was subsequently amply redeemed by a wicked (if not exactly unpredictable) final twist.<br /><br />The film concerns the freethinking social attitudes and dazzling creative arts prevalent in this era: an eminent philanthropist (Philippe Leroy) invites a female journalist (Dagmar Lassander) at his fashionable home for the week-end; however, it transpires that he’s a misogynist who distrusts all members of the opposite sex and would rather dominate (or even kill) them! Therefore, for the first half of the narrative, we see the heroine enduring pain and humiliation at Leroy’s hands (including being forced to make love to a dummy in his own image!)…until the tables are subtly, but unsurprisingly, turned: she not only emancipates herself from his control, but teaches him that Man and Woman can co-exist harmoniously – except that Lassander’s following her own personal agenda as well!! <br /><br />The leads are perfectly cast, and the film itself often darkly comic for those in the mood; furthermore, it’s greatly abetted by a typically effervescent “Euro-Cult” score (from the ever-reliable Stelvio Cipriani) and the imaginative – even outré – look (the giant structure depicting the lower section of the female form, with a steel-trap where its sexual organ should be, seems to emanate from Freud: incidentally, this prop figured prominently in stills I’d seen previously from THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN…but it barely registers in the film proper!). Other bizarre touches include the preposterous radio program “Sexual Aberrations And The Stars”, and an idyll at a castle belonging to Leroy’s family complete with secret passage through the wardrobe and a dwarfish manservant. One of the highlights, then, is easily Lassander’s erotic dance virtually in the nude – an episode which actually spearheads the ‘humanization’ of Leroy; eventually, the two characters have a ‘showdown’ in the latter’s pool – amusingly set to a Spaghetti Western-type theme! <br /><br />In the long run, for all its stylishness, the film emerges as inferior to the similar but much more extreme contemporaneous Japanese masterpiece by Yasuzo Masumura BLIND BEAST (1969). Finally, it’s worth noting that THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN was distributed in the U.S. by film-maker Radley Metzger’s company Audubon Films; he would even employ its production designer (Enrico Sabbatini) for his own CAMILLE 2000 (1969)! To get to the edition I watched: apart from the usual shortcomings in the English-dubbing department, the presentation here was further marred by a rather washed-out appearance and brief instances of distracting extraneous noise on the soundtrack! By the way, there seems to be some confusion with respect to the film’s running-time: its length given on various sources ranges anywhere from 84 to 108 minutes – all I can say, however, is that the copy I own ran for 87 minutes!
| 1 |
positive
|
I really enjoyed this movie... In My DVD collection of baseball movies... Reminded me how great the sport truly is... Whether it's here in America or Japan.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.
| 0 |
negative
|
I didn't know what to expect when I started watching this movie, by the end of it I was pulling my hairs out. This was one of the most pathetic movies of this year...in fact, in the last ten years. David Dhawan should just give up his career as a director. I am yet to come across one original script that David Dhawan has worked on. This one was a complete bit y bit rip off Hitch. I have nothing against remakes as such, but this one is just so lousy that it makes you even hate the original one (which was pretty decent). I fail to understand what actors like Salman and Govinda saw in this script. I read somewhere, that this was supposed to be Govinda's comeback vehicle. If thats true, then only God can save his career. Salman just overacted to the hilt. Govinda who I think is an actor of very high caliber was completely wasted. Katrina Kaif and LAra Dutta had nothing to do apart form wearing designer clothes and smiling for no rhyme or reason. Please stay away form this one!
| 0 |
negative
|
I am shocked by all the good reviews on the cover of this movie and on IMDb. It belongs in the $2 bin at your local video store. To say that this is a B movie is extremely generous.<br /><br />Besides lacking a single redeemable character, only slightly better than average acting, and an ugly 80's style picture quality, the script for this film is dull and lifeless. This film is not only boring--it is pathetic. (Admittedly, there is occasionally some mildly interesting chemistry between the two main characters.) Even the final plot twist--rather, the only plot twist--does not save this film.<br /><br />Rent "Diamond Men" if you must, but do not hesitate to turn it off once you become appraised of its worthlessness. 2 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is the very first Three Stooges short with Shemp that I saw, and it is one of my favorites! <br /><br />That is what I really liked about Shemp when he returned after Curly's stroke, he did not try to be like Curly, he was his own character, and that is what I admire! Shemp is my favorite third stooge, I like him more than Curly, but I like Curly as much as I do Shemp. Shemp is great, he's funny, he's silly, he's SHEMP! <br /><br />I really loved the scene where he dropped the nickel and Moe got into the booth with him to find it and they ended up getting tangled in the wires and really badly hurt! <br /><br />But what I really thought was scary was when Shemp had his face smashed against the glass of the phonebooth, he looked like a deformed Professor Snape!<br /><br />Poor Shemp, he had a lot of bad things happen to him in this short, but that is just typical Three Stooges, they always have a lot of bad things happening to them! <br /><br />This short is another must see for Three Stooges fans! <br /><br />10/10
| 1 |
positive
|
A demon, from a tree, removes itself in the form of a human man to make love to a young fair maiden only for her to die. The demon's eyes freeze, two drops of blood fall onto a bed he had specially created for his object of desire. The bed consumes the blood and it's hunger remains..anything that comes in contact with the bed is consumed! This is explained to us by one of the bed's victims, a painter whose soul is trapped "inside" one of his last works, the artistic rendering of the his final resting place(..he was dying of consumption, coughing up blood, deciding to die on the death bed). You see the painter, who we are able to see as if he were trapped in a small room looking through his painting, unfortunately a spectator to the bed's meals. The bed has a dark sense of humor, and we see this through it's allowing the painter to live, even giving him jewelry and other possessions once owned by eaten victims. One victim's skull grows bright red flowers not far from the basement housing the bed. The film features three young women who come across the mansion which holds the basement containing the death bed. The painter(Dave Marsh)might just have a method to destroying the death bed but it will include a human sacrifice in order to resurrect the body of the one whose death caused it's hunger in the first place. Patrick Spence-Thomas provides the soft, depressing voice of the trapped painter, narrating the film, lamenting about his current situation, telling us about past victims, and often scolding the bed of it's predatory nature.<br /><br />A definitive, genuine cult film..I expect it's status to soar now that DEATH BED:THE BED THAT EATS has found it's way to an audience(..such as myself)who appreciates the bizarre and grotesque. The bed itself contains a liquid type of acid with an apple-cider hue where we see the objects and humans(..struggling for naught) consumed. Many might recognize a young William Russ(BOY MEETS WORLD, THE UNHOLY)in curls, seeking after his runaway sister, finding her in the basement, zombie-like and traumatized(..of course, Julie Ritter pretty much was this way the whole film, in a trance, barely uttering a word)with them both trapped. In one of the film's most demented scenes, Russ attempts to stab the bed only for his hands to get caught in it's grip, the flesh acidified with only skeletal bones remaining, the cartilage deteriorating. There's one lengthly attempted escape by a victim whose legs were caught in the bed, almost out of the basement when it's sheets snatched her back into it's belly where she belonged. The film feels almost completely surreal as if we were watching a macabre nightmare unfold. Director George Barry often features gags regarding the victims who find themselves in the most unfortunate position choosing the death bed as their place of refuge..the painter gives us a recollection of all the various people who were eaten. There's really nothing like this movie anywhere, it's definitely one of a kind.
| 1 |
positive
|
What makes this movie so damn bad? Is it the lame sub-par juvenile humor? Could it be the horrid "trendy" suck ass music? Perhaps the uninspired go nowhere story? Or maybe even the fact that Traci Lords gives her worst acting performance ever and to add insult to injury keeps all her clothes on throughout the length of this steaming turd sandwich. Regardless no matter what the reason this film sucks, the fact remains that it really REALLY does. I have never wished I could be watching a movie with Dean Cameron in it instead of what I was watching in my life, but "Ski School" is a masterpiece of comic genius compared to this travesty.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Nikol Nesbitt, Buffy Tyler and Suzanne Stokes all unleash their Tupperware tits<br /><br />Where I saw it: Starz on Demand
| 0 |
negative
|
**SPOILERS AHEAD**<br /><br />It is really unfortunate that a movie so well produced turns out to be<br /><br />such a disappointment. I thought this was full of (silly) clichés and<br /><br />that it basically tried to hard. <br /><br />To the (American) guys out there: how many of you spend your<br /><br />time jumping on your girlfriend's bed and making monkey<br /><br />sounds? To the (married) girls: how many of you have suddenly<br /><br />gone from prudes to nymphos overnight--but not with your<br /><br />husband? To the French: would you really ask about someone<br /><br />being "à la fac" when you know they don't speak French? Wouldn't<br /><br />you use a more common word like "université"? <br /><br />I lived in France for a while and I sort of do know and understand<br /><br />Europe (and I love it), but my (German) roommate and I found this<br /><br />pretty insulting overall. It looked like a movie funded by the<br /><br />European Parliament, and it tried too hard basically. It had all<br /><br />sorts of differences that it tried to tie together (not a bad thing in<br /><br />itself) but the result is at best awkward, but in fact ridiculous--too<br /><br />many clashes that wouldn't really happen. Then the end of the<br /><br />movie--the last 10 minutes--ruined all the rest. Why doesn't Xavier<br /><br />talk to the Erasmus students he meets back in Paris? Why does<br /><br />he just walk off? Why does he just run away from his job, is that<br /><br />"freedom"? And in the end, is the new Europe supposed to rest on<br /><br />a bunch of people who smoke up and shag all day? Is this what<br /><br />it's made up of? <br /><br />Besides, the acting was pretty horrible. I can't believe Judith<br /><br />Godrèche's role and acting. Why was she made to look like<br /><br />Emanuelle Béart so much? At first I thought Xavier was OK but<br /><br />with retrospect I think he was pretty bad. <br /><br />And that's all really too bad, because technically (opening credits,<br /><br />scenes when he's asking what papers he needs) it was really<br /><br />good (except for sound editing around the British siblings), and the<br /><br />soundtrack was great too. So the form was good, but the content<br /><br />pretty horrible.
| 1 |
positive
|
I will confess that once I started watching this movie, it had a hold on me that forced me to watch it through to its conclusion. Quite possibly this was some latent voyeuristic tendency in me that wanted to see our hero get it on with his victim, or maybe fascination that they got funding to make, distribute, and show this film that kept me searching it for merit, or possibly some bizarre wish-fulfillment fantasy that there might be a point at the end of all the pain. But no such luck.<br /><br />So you are warned to not start watching it in the first place, lest the same thing happen to you. There's nothing here worth wasting your hour and a half on.<br /><br />The first-person mockumentary and the schtick about Fabian's "quest" to impregnate women of the Falklands comes out even more like a sophomoric (maybe Freshman - high school Freshman, that is) film student project than you might imagine. The effect ends up being both sneering at the local inhabitants (who, other than the two professional leads, are in fact real people) as well as engaging in rather disgusting sexual politics (no matter whether you take it all literally or symbolically, it's pointless and sexist).<br /><br />The reason I ended up watching it all the way is the same reason that once one starts to pick at a scab, there's an irresistable fascination of continuing to do so until it's completely off, even when you know it's bad for you. You just want to see what happens.<br /><br />In the end, this is rather dishonest filmmaking, because it seems ultimately to have no moral center, no elucidation of the local political situation, nor any place in the type of political-sexual-personal film universe a la Goddard. In short it's got nothing to say and spends a long time pretending it does. Smug would be the one-word tagline.<br /><br />I'd suggest the filmmakers rent 'Waiting for Guffman' a few times, or hell, even 'Blair Witch Project' if they want to pursue the schtick with a little more style and a little more genuine emotion. Or at least entertainment value.
| 0 |
negative
|
this movie is the worst EVER!!! sorry but this was a total waste of good hours. quasi-psychology and b-actors makes a baaaad horror movie. you can say that if you are into bad movies you will adore this one. and the "hot chick" wasn't all that hot. there is absolutely no climax to the movie, and the worst part is the ending song. some homemade thing with these words "its in awful condition the world is a mess. when heads fall of bodies and girls wont stay dressed. the cops they are clueless, eating donuts in their car. newspaperflash next morning: headless body,topless bar." Jesus! sorry guys, but milks gone bad with this one.
| 0 |
negative
|
I thought "puppets making crank phone calls" was pretty low, but I don't believe that Carlos Mencia's show even qualifies as comedy. His main objective is to make the audience incredibly uncomfortable while using the word "beaner" as many times as he possible can. I have never felt compelled to write a review declaring the awfulness of anything on IMDb before, but I really do hope this show is never renewed or rerun.<br /><br />Mencia is trying to be the next Dave Chapelle, and perhaps he was only hired by the network because they hoped he would fill those shoes. It is obvious right down to the rip of Chapelle's intro (blues guys vs. mariachi band). However, Mencia has absolutely *no* attitude, and does not delve into popular views of the hispanic culture enough to come up with a creative poke at it each time. Instead he sticks to a small number of hardly-shocking nicknames for his fellow latinos and makes "jokes" about immigration. Every once in a while, he'll take advantage of the slight darkness of his skin to make fun of someone else, like middle eastern cultures. These jokes mainly consist of reiterating every joke or stereotype made against the culture, and perhaps some incredibly old topics (such as 9/11), in a watered down, stand-up style, while he laughs at himself to cover up the audience's style. I think he's too afraid of really offending anyone, so it just makes the viewer feel awkward. He also beats jokes to death. If you've ever seen "Why the f*** is this news?" you'll know what I'm talking about. It's funny at first, but he just rambles on and on and becomes Captain Obvious at some point. <br /><br />It's a trainwreck that is purely painful to watch.
| 0 |
negative
|
Though not Hal Hartley's best work (my personal favorite is "Surviving Desire"), there is still much to like about this movie, especially for fans of Hartley's dialogues. Even to audiences new to Hartley, I would definitely recommend this movie over the sophomoric "Dogma." This movie is more intelligent, truer to its source material (the Bible), and more fun than any of the other pre-millennium apocalypse movies.<br /><br /> This movie is actually part of the French "2000 As Seen By." (2000 Par Vu) series; as such, it is perhaps even a lower-budget film than Hartley's other works. While the need for simple scenes shot with digital camera is understandable in this context, the main problem with this movie is the unfortunate overuse of the blurry/jittery effect. I'd be happy to never see this effect used in a movie again; especially at the beginning, it almost makes the movie unwatchable. But overlook this flaw, and you'll be treated to a fine film. Especially notable is Magdalena (played by P.J. Harvey) relating how Jesus saved her from being stoned to death; a short scene I found surprisingly moving. (Despite the fact that it was NOT Mary Magdalene that this happened to; the woman in the Bible was unnamed.)<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
_Saltmen_ is a long film for its genre, and quite often the pace is much slower than that expected by Western audiences. That being said, I enjoyed it thoroughly both in terms of interesting subject matter and the magnificent images this film contains. Some of the scenery is truly breathtaking, and there is enough of interest that most should be able survive _Saltmen_ with minimal use of the fast-forward.<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
The beginning of this movie had me doubting that it would be little more than a typical B sci-fi flick. But, as it progressed I began to get interested and I saw the whole thing through. The premise is interesting, original, and has the makings of making a classic. Alas, it instead ended up a mediocre movie, done in by the usual factors which turn a potentially good movie into a bad movie (bad acting, low budget etc.). I'm interested to see how this would turn out if it were remade with good actors and a big hollywood budget.
| 0 |
negative
|
In all, it took me three attempts to get through this movie. Although not total trash, I've found a number of things to be more useful to dedicate my time to, such as taking off my fingernails with sandpaper.<br /><br />The actors involved have to feel about the same as people who star in herpes medication commercials do; people won't really pay to see either, the notoriety you earn won't be the best for you personally, but at least the commercials get air time.<br /><br />The first one was bad, but this gave the word bad a whole new definition, but it does have one good feature: if your kids bug you about letting them watch R-rated movies before you want them to, tie them down and pop this little gem in. Watch the whining stop and the tears begin. ;)
| 0 |
negative
|
being a high school student,i have to take a health class. this year, the topic is drugs. we learn about the harm they can cause a person. from what we talk about, i still believe and know that drugs can really mess a person up. anyway, my teacher wanted us to watch this. naturally, we groan and start to sleep, but like the rest of my class, i actually did enjoy this movie. it was totally real, and not sugar coated at all. the characters were amazing and believable. even the plot was outstandingly realistic and believable. what i liked about this movie mainly was how it got the point of the effect's drugs can take on an abuser, and the consequences the person has to deal with. everyone reassures themselves that nothing bad will happen to them. well lets get serious. anything can happen in a small town, even to your best friend, like Sam and Chris. this movie shows it. a person can really learn a lot from watching this. it was pretty effective.
| 1 |
positive
|
There was a time in the US that everything was possible on film, so came the roughies, movies containing horror and explicit scene's. The best known are Forced Entry and Waterpower, but of course those were made with a bit of budget. All shown on 42nd in NY, but hey, there were other grindhouses out there that showed no budget roughies. Wet Wilderness is an example of it. It circuited the underground scene after a while so copies were available but as seen on other reviews, some copies were abrupt cut at the end. But the version I watched was complete. Well i would call this one more a porn one then a roughie, there is a serial killer around but he likes more to watch others have sex instead of killing them, when he kills it's done off screen. The acting is the worst I ever seen. And I guessed that the so called actors didn't like what they are doing, for example in the beginning when we have the lesbian scene watch one girl stop performing and pulls a pubic hair out of here mouth then continues doing what was happening, or when mother is riding the black man, the daughter is sitting in the grass annoyed by ants! But it is the storyline that made this one famous, incest and racism is what this made it famous. When there is blood watch the two girls sitting there waiting for a cue to act, god this is worse but still one to have if you are into sleaze and grindhouse. Be sure that you have the full version.
| 0 |
negative
|
My god how bad this is. Who is this impostor pretending to be Ali G? Avoid this at all costs. It replaces the smart multi-layered satire and humour of his show with down and out toilet humour.<br /><br />This was obviously an attempt to get him known in the States before he released his show there on HBO.<br /><br />One commentator here pleads that we not judge the movie on the merits of the show due to the difference in the mediums. While it is true that the standard format of the show could never have been transferred to the big screen Mr Sacha Baron Cohen could have ensured the smart use of his comic style in a more conventional movie storyline. Instead we have this mess, which in all honesty has nothing at all to do with Ali G except for the packaging.<br /><br />Terribly disappointing. Go seek out the DVD's of Innit, Aiiii, or Bling Bling for some real Ali G.
| 0 |
negative
|
Look, this is a low budget horror film that suffers from all of the problems that go with low budget movies. But you must see this just to watch Lisa Erickson as Julie. She is SMOKIN' hot and a great little actress to boot! These types of horror movies often unearth a rare gem and The Power gave us Lisa Erickson! Nothing I enjoy more than sitting down in my studio apartment with a Coke and putting in this film. My friends Bob, Bill and Dennis agree.. Lisa is not only brilliant, she is a hottie. The movie itself often plods along and the rest of the actors are not very helpful in that regard. But as soon as Lisa hits the screen, things really start hopping. The others are clearly not in her league. This is not the Exorcist but as I said, if you want to see a fun little movie with a hot little actress, this is the one to see!
| 1 |
positive
|
Three distinct and distant individuals' lives intersect with the brutal killing of one by another. The one-hour film only reveals the event that brings the three individuals together only after half the film is over. I have seen other segments of the "Dekalog" but this one struck me as the most sparse one in dialogue and yet most fascinating in structure.<br /><br />The film opens with a law student practicing a mock plea of defense for a man charged with murder. Obviously the same arguments must have been repeated by the man as a full-fledged lawyer but this is never shown on screen (at least in the short 1-hr version of Dekalog 5). We are made to imagine that this must have been the case. A cab driver who is a misanthrope, has two facets to his character: the good side feeds a mangy dog, cleans his cab meticulously, picks up dirty rags thrown by people who lack civic sense, and remembers his wife while dying; the bad side frightens small poodles, refuses to give a ride to a drunk--probably worried that he will puke in the cab--and ogles at pretty girls. The repulsive protagonist who murders without mercy, drops stones from bridges on fast moving traffic, and pushes strangers into urinals without any provocation, is also a person who can make innocent young girls laugh. Kieslowski's film and the script thus present the good and the bad side of two of the three main characters.<br /><br />Yet the film is not about capital punishment but more a treatise on killing. The Fifth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is explored theologically--("Even God spared Cain...'), sociologically the tenderness of brutes to children and poor forlorn dogs, and psychologically (after effects of drunken night with a male friend that led to the accidental death of his sister, whose photograph he carries with him). What makes ordinary persons turn into killers--this is never fully explained but suggestions are legion.<br /><br />In Kieslowski's world there is a pattern where events and people are interlinked in a cosmic sense (note the resemblance of clown to the killer, as it hangs from the mirror in the cab). Kieslowski and the young idealist lawyer seem to ask us to look at the Commandment literally and figuratively--why do we kill? Are the people legally killed truly bad? Is there a force beyond society (the drunken night that led to life of a girl) that makes us into abhorrent murderers?<br /><br />It would be missing the forest for the trees to discuss the two detailed killings in the film--both without mercy. The film invites the viewer to contemplate why we are asked by God not to kill.<br /><br />I understand a longer full-length version of the film was made by Kieslowski. But even this short 1-hr version is superb with its bleak and sparse script, intelligent editing, interesting cinematography and top-notch direction that provides much more than the sum of its parts.<br /><br />This segment anticipates the more wholesome Dekalogs 6,7 and 8.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Lone Ranger was one of my childhood heroes, and I never missed a chance to catch his adventures on Saturday morning re-runs during the mid 1950's. Somehow however, this film got by me until I had a chance to catch it today courtesy of my local library. I was struck by a number of elements during the story, as right from the start, you have a new Lone Ranger theme song before you hear the traditional opening used on the TV show. The adventure uses Tonto (Jay Silverheels) in a nicely expanded role, even though he takes his share of lumps throughout, getting beat up and shot more than once. Perhaps most interesting of all, the Ranger actually shoots to kill in a couple of situations, putting his character at odds with the vision created for the TV series that he would never use his weapon to kill, only to wound or to protect himself and others. <br /><br />Aside from that, you have a fairly traditional Western adventure. The Ranger and Tonto come to the aid of an Indian tribe whose members are being murdered by hooded raiders attempting to track down five medallions that together, form the key to a fabulous treasure. Interestingly, the leader of the bad guys is an already wealthy woman, disarmingly portrayed by Noreen Nash. Her top henchman is played by Douglas Kennedy, and it was no surprise to see Lane Bradford as one of the baddies. Bradford's character was one of the men shot by the Lone Ranger, which got me to thinking how many times that might have happened in the TV series. A quick check revealed that he appeared in 'The Lone Ranger' show fifteen times, while Kennedy appeared a total of six times. <br /><br />What might be most interesting of all about the picture is it's attempt to portray Indians in a revisionist light at a time when TV and movie Westerns were still largely portraying the red man as an illiterate savage. The character of Dr. James Rolfe (Norman Fredric) is the most revealing in that regard; he's an Indian who attained an education and went on to become a doctor, returning to the land of his tribe to tend to the needs of all it's citizens. For purposes of the story, he had to impersonate a white man to be accepted by the local ranchers. This was the hardest thing for me to accept about the story line actually, as Dr. Rolfe was the grandson of the elderly Chief Tomache (John Miljan). That no one in the story except Paviva (Lisa Montell) knew that he was really an Indian was something of a stretch for me. I suppose it was possible that he left the tribe at an early age, but without that back story fleshed out, it didn't make sense to me that no one else from the tribe would know who he was.<br /><br />I don't know why I'm intrigued by this so much, but after watching and reviewing over two hundred Westerns on this site, I've suddenly come across three films in the past month that utilize a blanket pull gimmick like the one performed by Tonto's horse Scout in this picture. Roy Rogers' Trigger did a similar stunt in 1952's "Son of Paleface", and I caught it again in 1958's "The Big Country" by a horse named Old Thunder in that flick. It's done as a bit of comic relief in a situation that wouldn't normally come up for a horse, and it now makes me curious when the bit might have been first done. I'll have to keep watching more old time Westerns. Not to be outdone, Silver had a chance to shine in the picture as well, making the save of an Indian baby that was about to be used as a hostage by bad guy Brady.<br /><br />Speaking of gimmicks, Clayton Moore borrowed a tactic from the TV series when he donned a disguise as a Southern gentleman to smoke out the villains posing as the hooded raiders. Whenever he would do so in the half hour format, it was always clever enough to hide his real features, usually with a beard as done here. One of the more interesting episodes I recall had to do with the Ranger impersonating an actor in the guise of Abraham Lincoln.<br /><br />Keep an eye out for a couple of goofs I spotted along the way. In an early scene at the opening, an Indian is shot by one of the hooded raiders, and in a close up, there's blood on his shirt but no bullet hole. Later on in the story, Ross Brady and Wilson ride up on the Indians after they've kidnapped one of the villains out of jail. Brady shoots him from a standing position to prevent him from identifying the raiders, but is immediately shown about to make his getaway on horseback with Wilson.
| 1 |
positive
|
I first saw this film in the late 60's, and try to see it every time it comes on TV, which, unfortunately, isn't often. Now that I have TCM and FMC, I hope it will be on at least once a year. Like Louis Gossett Jr. in An Officer and A Gentleman, Jack Webb delivers an unbelievably great performance as a Parris Island Drill Sergeant with the classic screw-up recruit, and the story line in this one, though dated, is touching and very well acted. And having real jar-heads in the cast certainly helped in the realism of the film as well. It's a great film with top-notch acting and a superb story. See it if you have the chance-It's well worth the time!
| 1 |
positive
|
Better than average World War II-era "who-dun-it" featuring Warner Baxter as a former gangster who suffered amnesia and has been reborn as a psychiatrist now known as Robert Ordway who helps both the police and criminals who want to go straight. Crime Doctor's Courage is the fourth in the series of ten and also involves a victim who might have some mental problems. The link to "courage" is not particularly clear.<br /><br />This entry revolves around the death of fortune hunter Gordon Carson whose two previous wives have under mysterious circumstances and who in turn dies in a locked room under conditions that resemble suicide but Dr. Ordway labels murder. Hillary Brooke plays the part of widow Kathleen Carson who is involved with Anthony Caruso - a mysterious Spanish dancer whose act includes his sister that disappears on stage. As a mystery novelist, Jerome Cowan is a good supporting actor as is Lloyd Corrigan as an aficionado in crime.<br /><br />Spooky houses with creaking doors, caskets in the cellar, and suspects that are never seen in daylight add to the air of suspense. The set for the dance sequence is quite elaborate and the ballet music very good. Direction, production design, and photography stand out. The exterior shots and costumes suggest more affluence rather than normally found in the average "B" detective thriller.<br /><br />Strongly recommended.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was released originally as a soft "X", apparently with the explicit sex deleted. Later, the producers "relented" (smelled money) and re-released it with the excised scenes restored (apparently only about 3 minutes). I guess since Kristine was of age, it was held against her and her promising career came grinding to a halt. I guess its all in the timing (witness Pam Anderson's career)--but Ronald Reagan was in charge during Kristine's debacle (we had not heard about Nancy Reagan's affairs), Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski were in full swing during Pam's "coming out".<br /><br />The sex is just icing on the cake, both version satisfy. This naughty musical is way above similar of others that were released at the same time.
| 1 |
positive
|
I really liked the movie 'The Emporer's New Groove', but watching this was like coming home and seeing your wife having "relations" with a llama. Seriously, this movie was bad. It's like Club Dread after Super Troopers. I am supposed to write 10 lines, but I don't even know what else to say. I laughed a couple of times, but only because I was drinking. A movie like that should at least be funny when your drunk. It was not. Maybe llamas are just funny and regular cartoon people aren't. Either way, just stick with The Emporer's New Groove if you want a funny, cartoon, llama-themed movie. Line 10 is this line right here.
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.