text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
What a mess--and I'm not referring to the "destruction" in the title. I could go on about the hackneyed plot, the lousy effects, the (actually notable) cast grimacing as they deliver the worst lines of their careers, etc. I'll just say there weren't any palm trees in Chicago the last time I checked, and leave it at that.<br /><br />Hmmm...need ten lines to get this posted on IMDb.. OK, well, I think a DVD release with outtakes could be interesting. Maybe Dennehy will reveal what favor got called in for him to appear in this thing. Maybe Dianne Weist will show us the bag of money it must have taken to get her involved. Maybe CBS execs will apologize...
| 0 |
negative
|
Never have I seen a movie like this; didn't plan on seeing it but it was worth the turn of the TV channel. I am mostly a scifi movie watcher,but I would be more than happy to add this one to my collection. It starts out as a one sided film with a simple love triangle, then became something a little different(can't tell more then that. but it does involve two guys and one girl. juts not the way you would expect). Also, this movie starred Hugo Weaving from the "MATRIX" and "THE LORD OF THE RINGS" in a role I would not have expected...very funny guy. This movie is playing on HERE TV, but if you do not have satellite, it is worth a rent. So give it a try; you won't be disappointed.
| 1 |
positive
|
Story-wise this isn't among the best or most cleverly written Columbo movie but the movie is extremely well made, with excellent directing and truly fine acting.<br /><br />Especially the acting within this movie attracts the attention. Director Nicholas Colasanto did a great job with the actors in the movie. Appereantly he allowed Peter Falk and John Cassavetes lots of space to play with, also since both are being credited on here as uncredited directors of this movie. Must be part of his directing style to allow the actors this much room. It works out extremely well for this movie. Perhaps he did this because Colasanto himself also used to work as an actor. He is perhaps best known for playing the role of Coach in the hit-series "Cheers", from the very start of it in 1982 until his death in 1985.<br /><br />So Peter Falk seems better than ever before in his role as Lt. Columbo. Also veteran actor John Cassavetes does a real great job as the movie its murderer and is a good match for the lieutenant. Beside them, the movie also features Myrna Loy. A big star from the silent movie era and also Pat Morita, in a small early role.<br /><br />But not just the acting-directing within the movie is real good. Visually and technically it's also a really great made movie, with slow long shots, without the use of any cuts. Also obviously the reason why this movie is longer than most Columbo movies. It really takes its time to set up things and tell its story. The movie also features a couple of nice artistic and experimental kind of shots. Of course all really fitting for the '70's.<br /><br />But like I said before, story-wise this just isn't among the best Columbo movies. Also the clues being left out for the lieutenant are a bit too obvious this time. It makes the murderer come across as a bit dumb, like he didn't thought his plan over good enough, while the character obviously is an intelligent man. Columbo this time also tries to irritate the suspect and other characters a bit more than he usually tries to do, in order to solve the crime. This and Peter Falk's different acting approach are a reason why his character might come across as different than he does in other Columbo movies. But different does not mean worse in this case.<br /><br />The movie also features a quite good musical score by Richard DeBenedictis, who after this became sort of the steady composer for the Columbo movies. <br /><br />A great Columbo movie to watch!<br /><br />8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This is a great movie. When two people from different backgrounds and social status think that they have nothing to offer each other and in the end they what each other needs it a testament to what the heart knows. Sometimes we wonder why one man is with a woman or vise versa and the outward appearances say one thing to our eye, but what they offer each other from within that we cannot see is amazing and unexplainable. When Nimi thought that Matthew had nothing to offer her and when Matthew was only looking for a fling (because he had an open marriage w/his wife Jenny), in the end they realized that they could not and did not want to exist without the other. It was worth it to them to resist what family and friends thought and what society said was right to be with each other. This movie kind of restores my faith in love.
| 1 |
positive
|
From the creators of Bruce Almighty and Liar Liar! The film took a while to pick up from the start, at least for me seeing as I expected this was a run-along America Pie flick. But it was slightly different-- a fun-loving slacker who finishes high school and makes his OWN college, running it accordingly. As you can expect, there's a lot of parties and hot girls in bikinis but this film tried harder than your average teen flick. Bartleby Gaines (Justin Long) encourages his students / peers to learn through freedom of expression and ultimately 'shove it to the system.' The humour was varied which I loved. All the cast delivered fantastic performances-- hire this one out with a friend, it's a bloody crack up!
| 1 |
positive
|
One has to take Martin & Lewis like a dash of salt & pepper. Why does Martin put up with Lewis? Then again, why do all the women in this movie like Jerry? Because he is innocently likeable! Martin sings a few good songs (lip-sync'd at least once) and Jerry manages to kiss more girls than in all his other movies combined. I generally find that I can take just so much of Jerry's antics before they become aggravating. BUT.... in this film, watch when Jerry gets stuck outside on a submerging Navy submarine! EXCELLENT! Buster Keaton should have been proud. I give the film a 7.
| 1 |
positive
|
Cimarron was painful to sit through. Although Irene Dunn does a good job with the heavy-handed script, Richard Dix' pompous and overacted role is brutal. The passage of time has not treated the character of Isaiah, as well as other racial and religious notions, well, although the movie is somewhat progressive on the roles of women and the mistreatment of Native Americans. The editing is especially weak. This is, without a doubt, the worst of all the "best" pictures.
| 0 |
negative
|
THE NEXT KARATE KID, in my opinion, is an excellent martial arts flick. I thought that Eric (Chris Conrad) and Julie (Hilary Swank) looked good in their prom attire. To me, Ned (Michael Cavalieri) was a real bully. This was because he got Julie in trouble with Principal Wilkes (Eugene Boles). If you ask me, Colonel Dugan (Michael Ironside) was a pure a******! This was because he was a very harsh man who wouldn't tolerate mistakes. My favorite parts were the prom and the showdown between Julie and the Alpha Elite. In conclusion, I highly recommend this smash hit to all of you who like martial-arts flicks or are fans of Hilary Swank.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie was obviously made with a very low budget, but did they have to make it so obvious? It looked like they made no effort to make the "future" look in the least futuristic. For example, the first scene takes place in an 80's office building and all the cars that get blown up are from the late 70's (I assume they didn't want to blow up cars that cost more than $500). Additionally, its pretty obvious that Don "the Dragon" is driving his personal car during the movie (after all, he did partially fund the film). Finally, they point out at the beginning of the film that all kinds of drugs are now legal in this new "cyberpunk" society. Not only does this never become important in the film, but later when don needs surgery without anesthesia, why doesn't he just go out and get some legal heroin or morphine? The whole movie is sloppy like this and completely anticlimactic since Don easily blows up an "unstoppable" Cybertracker about 25 minutes into the movie. However, if you find this movie cheap or free I'd watch it, the last scene is almost worth putting up with this whole film.
| 0 |
negative
|
...but it's still an entertaining TV movie. The transposition to the Civil War makes a nice change of pace, and adds a few subtexts (such as Ariel's servitude to Prosper/Prospero) that you might not otherwise see. Thankfully, they didn't try to make it a mini-series: at 90 minutes, it's just about right.
| 1 |
positive
|
You wear only the best Italian suits from Armani, hand stitched and fitted to your exact measurements. Your automobile is the finest that German engineering has to offer, and is equipped with as many gadgets as horses under the hood. You're a member of the finest polo clubs, frequently dine at restaurants such as Spago, and are always accompanied by at least two of the most beautiful women in the world. Your pocket watch doubles as a nuclear explosive, while your trusty pen can also be used as a semi-automatic .22 caliber gun. You snow ski in the Alps, go deep sea diving in the Caribbean, sky dive over the Andes, and all the while your hair is never, ever, out of place. You are Bond, James Bond, the world's most renown spy, favorite son of the good Queen, bad boy of the British SS, and perhaps the most desired man in the world. The character of James Bond was created by Ian Fleming, and is the movie industry's longest lasting icon, being the subject of over fifteen films spanning over four decades. The latest man to play the role is Pierce Brosnan, who took over the role of James Bond from Timothy Dalton in 1996, and made his 007 debut in Goldeneye.<br /><br />This is the setting for the first major title developed by a third party on the Nintendo 64. Goldeneye, developed by Rare for Nintendo, has been on the market for some time. Its continued dominance in the sales charts is just one testament to how good this game is, and no review library would be complete without it.<br /><br />Let's face it -- most of the time movie-licensed games are flops. Although the two seem like a good mix, the results, for the most part, have been horrendous. Games like Cliffhanger, True Lies, Lethal Weapon, and not to mention all the Star Trek flops, are ammunition enough against this mix. And for the record I am not a fan of movie licensed games, especially if I've seen the movie. At least that's how I used to think. In the case of Goldeneye, I had more reservations than normal. While not a bad movie, Goldeneye the film didn't have that much appeal to it, and I don't rank it in the top ten amongst Bond movies. As a game, however, let's just say it's a completely different story.<br /><br />The game is a first-person shooter, and in order to be successful, you'll need at least as much brains as brawn. For those who have seen the movie, which I imagine is most of you reading this, the story is very consistent and follows the path of the movie with little variation. A plot to control the world's most dangerous satellite, Goldeneye, has begun in the USSR, and in the process a beautiful woman has been captured. Your missions will be many, the danger extreme. You will have to rely on your wits and experience to get you through the most grueling missions the world has ever known. M will brief you as soon as you're ready. Good day, James.
| 1 |
positive
|
To judge a movie just for the landscapes,decor,costumes....it is just not right , you are missing the core : THE STORY<br /><br />A movie has to narrate something , to tell a story something that impress you . Yes , I was pleased by the sea , cliffs , clear water and all that but ... There is the plot ?<br /><br />They are more interesting movies with mad people , such as : FLIGHT OVER THE CUCKOO"S NEST...etc...etc. This one is about a crazy woman who is more attached to dogs than his children or his husband. Just a clear psychiatric case !!!! Nothing extraordinary.Unfortunately a waste of time . And there is all that rage coming from ? Fish smell ? Sea ?
| 0 |
negative
|
I am very impressed by the reviews I've read of this film - generally well-read, thoughtful and informed - obviously by people who like and think hard about films. I couldn't add a thing to the excellent reviewing job that IMDb members have already done. If I may, I'd like to correct a small but widespread misunderstanding that appears in many of the reviews: Mr Baseball was American and behaved in an ugly fashion but he was NOT an Ugly American. The original Ugly American was Homer Atkins, one of the heroes of the eponymous 1958 novel by Burdick and Lederer, and the exact opposite of Mr Baseball. Homer was an archetypal American, and an archetypal engineer - he went to Vietnam to work with people, he respected and liked the people he met, he used appropriate, sustainable technology in cooperation with his hosts, and he was liked and respected by them precisely because he exemplified democratic values and American virtues. His ugliness was purely facial, merely skin-deep; his personality and his humanity were deep and genuine.<br /><br />Mr Baseball exemplifies all the crass, ignorant, insecure boorishness that we Europeans and Americans so often inflict on other cultures; Homer Atkins, the Ugly American, was the other side of our coin, representing our humanity and decency. I believe that the Ugly Americans still far outnumber the Mr Baseballs; they are still our last, best hope.
| 1 |
positive
|
An excellent story well told by the film maker. The interactions between the man and the leopard brought many questions to the viewers mind about just who was being humane. The humans killed for no reason the animals only to survive. At the end of the movie you were left wondering just who the real "hero" of the movie was. A well told story. The human actor did an excellent job but the leopard stole every scene it was in.
| 1 |
positive
|
Hard to believe this was directed by Fritz Lang since he mostly directed crime dramas and mysteries. This movie has a cast that includes Robert Young, Randolph Scott, Dean Jagger and John Carradine. Scott plays an outlaw who tries to go straight and leave his old gang and winds up saving Jagger's life. Jagger works for Western Union, a telegraph company that plans to have telegraphs out west. Jagger hires a lot of men to make sure it is done because they have to worry about Indian attacks and bandits. Scott is in charge of the men and Young is a telegraph expert who can't shoot a gun but can ride. Scott meets up with his old gang who want to stop them but Scott can't tell anyone. It's a pretty good western and Lang should of directed some more westerns.
| 1 |
positive
|
The trailer for this film promised a new twist on the zombie genre: setting it in the Old West. Except it's not the real Old West, of course. It's some sort of Future West, in a world where some apocalypse has, as apocalypses are known to do, killed people and subsequently turned them into zombies. It's zombie virus time again, folks, and you know what that means? Get bitten and become one of them.<br /><br />So, into this dusty and dead-filled world comes a hero. He's a bounty-hunter, getting paid for taking care of zombies. It's not exactly clear who is providing the funds, but it seems a little cottage industry of zombie-hunting has emerged. But, as the trailer tells us, there's a problem. They are running out of zombies. The only way to keep on earning is to infect new towns and cities with the virus.<br /><br />I think that's not a bad idea for a film. But unfortunately it takes a lot more than a good idea and a crowd of people pawing at windows to make a good zombie film. What we actually get is a Clint Eastwood clone (the actor's even called Clint, for crying out loud) and his "hilarious" sidekick, trying to bag zombies while trailing some still-living bad guys to get some big reward. The whole subplot about infecting other towns is only mentioned in passing, over half-way through the film. Instead, there's a lot of western movie clichés, poor zombie make-up and some world-class bad acting. Really bad. The sort that wouldn't even make it onto Hollyoaks. Both hero and villain chomp on cigars, quips are thrown, people get bitten. As the movie lurches to a conclusion, the only thing worth wondering is whether it's going to end with the cliché of the hero being the only man alive, having killed the one he loves, or the cliché of him turning into a zombie in the final frame. (It's the first one, by the way) This film was written and directed by Gerald Nott. It's the only thing he has done and, hopefully, it will be his last. At the start of the film there is a caption that reads "Nott Entertainment". At least they got one thing right.
| 0 |
negative
|
Mild spoiler in the second paragraph.<br /><br />Anna Christie was Garbo's lackluster 1st talkie. She and Dressler look like the only people who know what they're doing in this movie. The old guy who plays Garbo's dad (George F. Marion) in the film is soooo ah-noying!! All he does is stumble around drunkenly in a totally fake way and yell about "dat old dah-veel sea". He blames Garbo's "past", his whole life, and Everything on the sea! He comes across as stupid x 10. Charles Bickford is Matt, the rough 'n' tumble sailor Garbo falls in love with, and he's fine in his role, but nothing really outstanding.<br /><br />The best part is when Garbo unleashes her "terrible secret" on Bickford and her dad. Finally, Marion stops talking about the evil of the sea and beats his head and fists on the table in perfect time with Bickford. Then soon he goes on a tirade about the sea.<br /><br />I had to practically force myself to finish Anna Christie. It's too melodramatic in many parts and creaky. There are many good early talkies but this is not one of them. If you haven't seen Garbo before try something else before Anna Christie, like CAMILLE or GRAND HOTEL.
| 0 |
negative
|
The MTV sci-fi animated series "Æon Flux" is brought to life with Charlize Theron playing the title character, a freedom fighter who fights oppression in the walled city of Bregna, 400 hundred years into the future. For her latest mission, she has been sent to kill the city's leader Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas), but she uncovers secrets along the way.<br /><br />Aeon Flux falls under the category of good premise, mediocre execution. Interesting story yet the film was a little dull. A lot of people are saying that this is one of the worst movies of the year and that's not true at all. It may be a disappointing film but it's an average film at best. I have never seen the cartoon version of the movie so I can't compare the two. It's probably better because they have a chance to explain the story more. The film is not that confusing but it's easy to get lost if you're not familiar with the material. The acting was alright, nothing special. Charlize Theron gives a good performance and seems dedicated to the film. The rest of the cast also give decent performances including Jonny Lee Miller, Frances McDormand and Marton Csokas. There are also more than a few interesting characters in the film including Sithandra, Aeon's friend.<br /><br />The problem with Aeon Flux is that it takes itself too seriously. It carries the same serious tone throughout the entire film and that gets a little tiring. There's no humor and the film becomes a little boring at times. This is the same problem that Elektra had. Because the film is so serious, the dialog sounds cheesy and the serious scenes seem forced. The action scenes are pretty good but that's not what the film is really about so don't go in expecting just an action movie. The twist at the end isn't mind blowing but it's still a nice ending and better than other thrillers that have come out this past year (Hide and Seek). The costumes are little weird but still look nice and interesting. The visuals were are also done well so the film at least looks nice. So, the movie may be a case of style over substance. Interesting to look at but may not hold your attention for a very long time. In the end, it's not the best film out there but it might for a decent rental. Rating 4/10
| 0 |
negative
|
This film was made right in the area where I grew up and now live. I know personally most of the property owners of the various locations used in the film. As a teenager, I worked in the fields surrounding the isolated road shown late in the film with Ron Perlman, Jonathon Furr, and the car. I am told that Jonathon Furr and Ben Allison are are natives of NC. I was fortunate to see it at a local showing. At that showing was one of the people who helped select locations and secure props, such as the bus (1938 Greyhound) used in the movie. The bus had no reverse gear and during filming, the driver missed his stopping point a few times and had to drive several miles to return to the proper point. Those details of the technical issues added to the enjoyment for me. The film accurately depicts life in this area during WWII. A well done film and I anxiously await the DVD availability.
| 1 |
positive
|
I am currently 22 years old, and remember seeing this movie in the theatres when it first came out. You heard me right, I was 5 years old, and yet I can still distinctly remember what I saw that afternoon so many years ago. Was it a mystical trip through the fantastic world of Mark Twain's creativity?... No, on the other hand, it was a quite creepy film about Mark Twain's dark, depressed, and in fact suicidal side. One scene that still bothers me was a particularly strange scene in which Mark Twain is playing the organ at his own funeral.<br /><br />Would an adult enjoy this film? Well, this movie quite possibly features some interesting viewpoints that a person with a working knowledge of Mark Twain's writing might enjoy; but trust me on this, "Adventures" is NOT the film you want to use to introduce your young children to Mark Twain.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie has two new features in relation to the message conveyed by other equally good movies about death penalty and executions. Those are the stress also given to the drama endured by victims' parents -- without for that reason disguising the hatred and desire of revenge they feel or lessening the horror that execution represents -- and the Christian vision of all the questions implied. We must also point out that in this movie the sentenced man is not the usual nice innocent person we see in other movies dealing with executions which doesn't lead us to abandon the idea that a penal execution is no more than a legal murder anyway. Last but not least we must mention the extraordinary emotional weight put on the last moments of the execution course with all the catharsis shown by the convicted's last words and the detail with which the act of the execution itself is viewed in a parallel cut with images of the murder scenes in the forest to stress that we are being confronted with another murder so pitiless as the latter but performed in a cold and supposed "legal" way.
| 1 |
positive
|
I like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.<br /><br />Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the "tough girl" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.<br /><br />Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.<br /><br />In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste.
| 0 |
negative
|
Like NIGHT STALKER and then X-FILES, the show set up a fantastic situation and the main characters had to sort it out. Unlike these, the hero(es) weren't left holding an empty bag at the end. They had usually tangible results. It was also made clear that the 'good guys' were in a dirty profession where they occasionally had to pull some nasty things. Imagination, wit, acting which didn't always take itself too seriously ... I miss it. One reason being, I'm hard pressed to think of too many shows - BANACEK aside - which did as good a job of taking the viewer and grabbing their attention right off the bat. The writers excelled at setting up hugely improbable, if not downright impossible situations which the characters then had to find an explanation to. explanations which often took 90 degree turns into the clearly unexpected yet, for all that, still made sense. Too, I agree with another reviewer that the Anabelle character was somewhat underused, but when she was on screen, it wasn't just for eye candy. She was quite competent in her own right and stood up to the two male leads when she felt the point she was making warranted it. A rarity in those days. Sullivan? If he wasn't in the Department, he'd be working for the KGB or CIA. He's that sort of coldly efficient, ruthless type. He knows how the world works and realizes what it can take to get the job done. King? It's clearly a game to him. One he excels at and which he parleys into ideas for the detective/spy novels he writes as his ostensible 'real' job. He's probably the most fun to watch of the three, although they all have their moments and often, too. I do agree that the eventual spin-off series featuring only his character lacked the interest of the original, however.
| 1 |
positive
|
What attracts a man to military service? What prepares a man to survive brutal torture as a prisoner of war? What desperation leads to the planning and execution of an escape into the jungles of southeast Asia? How does he cope with the ghosts and memories he returns home with? Herzog tries to answer these questions in his documentary of Dieter Dengler, German emigre and U.S. Navy pilot shot down over Laos in 1966, who was taken prisoner, tortured and starved, but ultimately escaped to be haunted by the experience for the rest of his life. A powerful and personal first-hand account of the man, his life and experience recounted through the seemless integration of interviews, archival footage and new footage. You will never forget this story--or this man.
| 1 |
positive
|
May contain spoilers<br /><br />This historical movie was so refreshing. Although it may be exagerating the actual events, it does show the heartless nature of emperor Qui, which he was later infamous for. And there wasn't a single computer generated person in it. I think it's great that China has produce such an epic film. The costumes and the settings were beautiful, the performances were also excellent. Dignity vs. death is a major theme in this movie and i think it reflects the Chinese history and culture. I also enjoyed a little allusion to the terracotta warriors, a 3d map carved of the conquest of China with individual soldiers. Emperor Qui of course later as entombed with his life size terracotta warriors.<br /><br />I also enjoyed the scene with the dwarf, he was a very interesting character, even if he only had a small scene.<br /><br />9/10<br /><br />
| 1 |
positive
|
A potentially good idea gets completely let down by a weak script which throws all credibility out the window leaving the actors very little to work with. Roth covers it up as best he can by being all mouth; Hurt has about as much menace as a fluffy bunny and Stamp can't seem to decide whether he's playing an ex-London crook or some toff straight off the playing fields at Eton. As for poor Laura del Sol she does what she can but her character is no more than every northern European's idea of the stereotypical Latino woman who's all pouts and hot temperament. If you're a fan of any of the main actors don't disappoint yourself or fool yourself (as I suspect many of the other reviewer's here have done). Watch it by all means but stay critical; you know these guys can do better.
| 0 |
negative
|
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS For about the last four years I've been a keen fan of Ali G. Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly a very funny and intelligent guy and, in my view, his best creation is Borat who's as funny as Hell and quite shameless in what he does and says to people.<br /><br />Anyway, to the movie. I didn't bother paying money to see this in the cinema; I suppose because I didn't expect a lot but when I hired the DVD recently, I found the whole thing pretty sad. The best part of Ali's taking the mickey out of others was largely missing and the script an plot was pretty damned awful; hooking all the car batteries together to blow a safe - REALLY!!?? <br /><br />This movie goes to show I think that some things can run for too long and definitely don't translate to the big screen. The movie also had that syrupy sweet ending that I've come to expect from British films. Where have all the good British movie making ideals gone to? That said, there were the odd very funny moments such as the dog in Ali's bed and Ali's audience with HM the Q with the "Shaven haven - RESPECT" remark.<br /><br />So, in summary, I am an Ali G and Borat fan and I have enjoyed many of his interviews (notably the one with Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) but this movie fell really flat with me. If there's to be another movie, I hope it's a whole lot better than this lot of old tripe.<br /><br />Weasel100 <br /><br />Canberra, Australia
| 0 |
negative
|
I enjoyed this film very much. I found it to be very entertaining for me in that I feel that it captured the romanticism of turn of the century Irish-American culture. There's no messages. There's no violence and there's no overt sex, just wholesome 1947 style entertainment and Dennis Morgan had a chance to sing some really good songs. A really good movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
The biggest problem that the TV program Key West faced was that it was advertised wrong. If you saw the ads you would think it was a jiggle how, and be sorely disappointed. It was a vastly more complex show than that. <br /><br />I happened to be in Key West just before Hurricane Andrew hit, and I think I actually found myself having a drink or two with some of the cast in Rum Runners. Of course, that was before the show hit. I did see the sailboat that was in the opening go by a few times, and chatted with the guy who you see hacking up coconuts in the opening too. HE was a real local. Yes, I'd love to see this on DVD.
| 1 |
positive
|
***SPOILERS!*** I sometimes wonder what makes sequel-makers think that they have to explain (and therefore destroy) the mysteries behind iconic Horror films. The original "Hellraiser" of 1987 was an absolute masterpiece and probably one of the scariest films ever made. The 1988 sequel "Hellbound" was also a fantastic Horror film, though I personally didn't like how the viewer got background information on the Cenobites, some of the all-time creepiest Horror-villains in the original. The third part, "Hell on Earth" (1992) was already quite a mess, whose makers obviously thought it necessary to add a dose of humor to the formerly incomparably creepy lead-cenobite Pinhead (a typical 90s stupidity) and therefore destroyed most of his scariness. This fourth part "Hellraiser: Bloodline" (1996) is slightly more atmospheric than the third one, but it lowers this quality by inventing even more silly and completely unnecessary 'background information' about the cenobites and the opening of the gates to hell.<br /><br />Seriously - did we need to know how the mysterious puzzle boxes that open the gates to hell are being made? I think not, and that is not the only mystery about the cenobites that is stupidly destroyed in this film. The setting of "Bloodline" goes back and forth in three different periods. The film begins in a 22nd century space-station, when scientist Dr. Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) attempts to close the gates to hell forever. When government soldiers disrupt his mission he has to explain his reasons. In 18th century Paris, Merchant's ancestor was a toymaker assigned to build a puzzle box by an aristocrat obsessed with the occult. An evoked demon, the princess of hell, took over the body of the beautiful Angelique (Valentina Vargas). Since the only person capable of destroying the gateway to hell is the one who built it, the bloodline of the toymaker would be cursed and his ancestors infested by cenobites throughout the ages... The film, which takes place in the 18th century, the present, and the 22nd century, really is quite a mess. I admit that the part set in the 18th century has a creepy atmosphere and is by far the best part of the film, but its also its smallest part. The parts set in the present and in the future are quite weak, and filled with stupid and unworthy elements. The film's undoubtedly strong points are the terrific make-up and gore-effects, the absolutely ravishing Valentina Varagas as the she-demon, and Pinhead (Doug Bradley), who, in spite of having lost some of his creepiness, still is a menacing villain. It is an almost offensive idea for "Hellraiser" fans, however, that Pinhead is supposed be defeated by a ridiculous light-show. Overall, "Bloodline" is not a complete disaster, but it sure is an unworthy sequel to a series that began so brilliantly. Even director Kevin Yagher was obviously embarrassed about it, as he preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee. Overall, this is only recommendable to hardcore Pinhead-fanatics, and most of them are probably going to be angered by another diminution of their favorite demon's creepiness. All others are well-advised to stick with the brilliant first, and excellent second part of the "Hellraiser" franchise and skip all the others. The makeup effects in "Bloodline" are creepy as hell, but almost everything else is disappointing. My rating: 3.5/10
| 0 |
negative
|
This is both an entertaining and a touching version of the classic tale, also quite intelligent, not of the 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' school at all.<br /><br />It's the famous story of a child reared to manhood in the jungle by apes. A titled British couple (the wife pregnant) is stranded in the African wilds after a shipwreck. After the parents' deaths, the baby is raised in the jungle by apes. Twenty years later, this young man (i.e. Tarzan) rescues a wounded Belgian explorer, nursing him back to health. The Belgian discovers evidence that his rescuer is the young Lord Greystoke and returns him to his rightful estate in Scotland, where he must adjust to civilized society. <br /><br />The movie is sort of divided into two parts. In the first half, we see Tarzan in his jungle environment. Not being an expert, I am unaware as to the realism of its depiction of ape community life, but it is certainly entertaining. For me, the more moving section is the second half, when Tarzan must meet his real family, develop language skills, and adjust to aristocratic British society, all the while wooing Jane (Andie MacDowell). He is portrayed as a 'noble savage', whether in the wild or in elegant Edwardian parlors. By contrast, the upper crust is depicted as often far more barbaric than the jungle Tarzan left.<br /><br />Christopher Lambert is fantastic in his sympathetic portrayal of Tarzan in both the jungle and civilized environments. He conveys a real sense of his confusion and conflict, torn as he is between the two very different worlds, his original ape family and his new human one. Sir Ralph Richardson, one of the old British legends, is brilliant as always in the role of Tarzan's grandfather, the Sixth Earl of Greystoke. <br /><br />The film focuses more on Tarzan's struggles in adapting to civilization and his inner conflict than on his jungle exploits. This unusual take on the old classic makes it both the typical dramatic adventure but also, above all, a moving personal story. I wasn't surprised to note here that its director is the same individual, Hugh Hudson, who also directed Chariots of Fire, another brilliant movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
I love movies, all genres, and from big dollar spectacles to small indie projects. But even making allowance for this piece of junk being 25 years old and its attempt at homage to the 1950's it just suffers in almost aspect, by which we judge films.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, I was reminded of several "student films," I've had a chance to watch, efforts where creativity is required to fill gaps where funds are needed. <br /><br />All in all, chances are there are much better uses for 90 minutes of your life.<br /><br />2/10
| 0 |
negative
|
I am an atheist with little love for certain aspects of Christian fundamentalism.<br /><br />That said, this movie is reprehensible, vile and transparent. It only works on the level of the currently fashionable (and tired) hatred motif of white American Christian fundamentalism. Had this movie been made about a fundamentalist Jewish or Muslim family, or even a black Christian family, the outrage would have been palpable, and the movie would have been roundly panned in ALL circles. As it stands, though, it's "OK" and "artful" because white Christian fundamentalists remain one of the last "acceptable" targets for garbage such as this.<br /><br />And garbage it truly is. If you want to see a quality film of a similar bent, find and watch or review "Badlands." Nothing good was done in "The King" that wasn't done better decades ago in that masterful film.<br /><br />As other reviewers note, the characters are almost completely undeveloped in "The King," the lines are a snooze, the cinematography is lackluster. We've seen the tale of the sociopath done better 100 times. This movie doesn't cut it for thoughtful viewers.
| 0 |
negative
|
Nothing will ever top KOMODO with the lovely Jill Hennessey as a shrink (!), but KvC ain't quite as bad as I expected for a SYFY channel quickie. Just make sure to watch it while drunk or stoned, or while trying to go to sleep. The unimaginative title basically says it all: A group of mostly unknown actors converge on an island where a government experiment to grow giant vegetables has gone wrong. Giant creatures that came into contact with the vegetables have taken over the island and eaten everyone. So now the government is preparing to blow up the island, regardless of the people being there. The acting is wonderfully atrocious, especially a mustachioed general right out of THE INCREDIBLE HULK TV series, but this is typical of this kind of made-for-cable schlock. The CGI creatures are TV-level quality, which means you know you're watching cartoon monsters. However, two of the gals in the group are very cute, and worth watching as they run here and there in their tight little outfits. You just want to eat them up!
| 0 |
negative
|
This demented left-wing wipe-out trivializes Dante's great work, distorts the genius of the author out of all recognition, inserts hateful ideology, incompetent satire and moronic political commentary in every imaginable place, and itself deserves a place in the Eighth Circle, Tenth Bolgia with the rest of the falsifiers. Sandow Birk has reserved himself a spot next to it.<br /><br />Stocking Hell with Republican political figures, Fox News helicopters and Christian conservatives is a work of literary sacrilege, to say nothing of extreme liberal bias. It is, however, unoriginal, tedious and trite. Nothing in Birk's unworthy and heretical revision is in the least relevant to the original text or is in any way entertaining, humorous or enlightening, despite his smug pretension to the contrary. <br /><br />I could have eaten a reel of video tape and PUKED a better movie. I regret the two hours of my life that I lost watching this insult to the very concept of poetry. Calliope will weep forever.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Late Shift is a great book, I read the book several years ago, and I was transfixed at the cutthroat debauchery that went on when Johnny Carson retired and Jay Leno and Johnny Carson tried to grab his spot. When the movie came out, I snagged a VHS copy of the movie, and having reread the book recently, it's hard to say which I enjoy more, because they're quite equal in the amount of information conveyed. The two lead actors, John Michael Higgins, and Daniel Roebuck, two actors I never heard of before, and haven't heard of since, play Leno and Letterman convincingly, despite Letterman's dismissal of his portrayal as being poor. They play the parts quite well, despite a lot of people looking for an imitation of the two. I wasn't as interested in that. The story is what counts. And that brings me to Kathy Bates. Kathy Bates, playing Helen Kushnick, IS this movie. She plays this evil bitch of a character so menacingly you realize how on earth can this woman control herself, much less a national TV show. Yikes! There should be a sequel!!
| 1 |
positive
|
Boston Blackie movies have some strengths -- mostly in that the pacing is swift and the hero is cheerfully unfazed in even the worst circumstances. But the plotting is frequently atrocious, and the unrelenting comic bits often kill the pacing (if the plot happens to be atypically good) or are just unfunny and inappropriate.<br /><br />This one involves Blackie chasing an escapee from the asylum (Steve Cochran in a really poor performance) who has become fixated on beautiful Nina Foch (who puts in a nice, rather subtle acting job). Inspector Farraday, of course, believes Blackie has gone homicidal maniac (he at least has some evidence in this one for that), and is incompetently trying to jail him as Blackie goes after the real killer. The plot has possibilities, but any time any real tension gets going, we a get a not funny comedy routine. It doesn't seem like anyone at Columbia understood that, in a movie about a pursuit of a really dangerous maniac, cute little comedy scenes about hiding an inconvenient body from the inspector disrupt any willing suspension of disbelief. (One just concludes our clever hero is an idiot -- deadly for a film like this.) <br /><br />This one is not worth the time. For a well plotted episode of this series, see Alias Boston Blackie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Welcome to the world of Vikram Bhatt, the man who was once successful and got several hits with small actors like KASOOR, RAAZ and also the multistarrer AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA and his one film with Aamir GHULAM<br /><br />One sneak peak about this films are that all are Hollywood remakes and some decent ones like the once which worked<br /><br />SPEED is a remake of CELLULAR and that too a terrible one <br /><br />A look at the stars, we have the once saleable but now out of work Urmila and Sanjay Suri, then we have the flop Aftab, Ashish Chaudhary, Zayed Khan and others<br /><br />The film could be a decent thriller but many problems are there The storytelling has several cringeworthy scenes like Zayed hijacking a Mobile Company and many more and the stunts too are laughable while the twists in the end are too laughable The film also took a long time to reach the theatres which looses it's spark<br /><br />Direction is awful Music is outdated<br /><br />Zayed Khan screams, makes faces.etc what he does always Urmila is good in her part, Sanjay Suri is not that convincing Ashish Chaudhary tries hard in a negative role and he is okay Aftab is horrible and he makes you laugh in a negative role Surprising the same director gave him his only solo hit KASOOR Sophie is horrible Tanushree is a non actress
| 0 |
negative
|
Let us assume for a moment that you haven't experimented with the psychotropic mushroom and you're wondering about the so called bad experience and just how something like that might play itself out
Well go ahead and pop in a fresh copy of The Beguiled. See, with film you have your clean trips (Solaris and anything else directed by Andrei Tarkovsky), whack trips, i.e. the experience-from-which-you-never-recover (Sweet Movie and El Topo), and you're bad organic trips, a category specifically reserved for a film like The Beguiled which is the sort of content those keen writers at the Times who made all the right decisions with their lives and graduated from the Harvard Department of English refer to as "hallucinogenic in tone." By the third act of this Don Siegel directed movie, you may not exactly observe that your two lead-heavy hands have become shrunken and assume all the characteristics of a burrowing insectivorous mammal, nor will you exactly fall under the suspicion that your spine has achieved the same sinuous shape and knotty texture of a pomaceous fruit baring tree incalculable in age, but you will feel something.<br /><br />In 1970, when this film was filmed, most Americans were looking for an anodyne for their collective pain, a movie like The Graduate perhaps, a lot of world-endism was going on and, of course you had the nightmare break down of war in Vietnam. What you get with The Beguiled, banal drug metaphors aside, is a screenplay adapted from a novel by a guy who at least for the moment wanted to be known as Grimes Grice, and direction from the director who helped bring about the work and career of Sam Peckinpah. In the Beguiled, Donny Siegel, born in 12, Chicago, Il., less than 45 years after The Great Fire is showing his attempt at grappling with all that contemporary cultural madness of the early 1970's in the form of a classical film artifact. The Beguiled is an incredible film and an outstanding contribution to the cinematographic arts in almost every aspect: the shooting, editing, direction and story are all fantastic, and you're not likely to see anything else like it. Undoubtedly, a sinister film, its effects, as I've said, both dizzying and adulterating; frankly it's hard to believe would ever Universal attached its name to this picture, but you are going to see upon viewing some of the sweet, sweet camera moves, and cinematographer Bruce Surtees exploiting every bit of dark myth you harbor in your head about the American Plantation South, conflating beauty with evil in every location shot. Clint Eastwood, needless to say, has never been like this. Old Clint, he moves at instant from coy to livid, his eyes like two Archimedean spirals in medium close up. The rest of the cast is equally exacting and uncanny.<br /><br />This Beguiled will never make the AFI 100 in my lifetime, but that doesn't stop me from positing that it's one of the best American synch sound films ever made. While most people catalogue it as a western, to include the folks at The Western Channel, The Beguiled is a problem because you don't really know what it is: A sort of war movie? A drama? Psychological thriller? Maybe the answer to all those emotionally wrought Noir films starring Kirk Douglas? I actually call this piece a horror film because when my old man, who likes to kick back with the cheap, gratuitous violence projected in entertainments like The Wire, saw that high angle medium long shot of Geraldine Page wrapping a tourniquet around Clint's bloody leg, Pa was pretty quick to suggest we watch something else like the Outback Bowl, right before he absconded to another room. My advice: watch this one, and make sure it is on a very large screen, preferably run on that DPL home theater projector you're contemplating. I would put The Beguiled right on order along with that important consumer purchase, turn the overheads out, throw some cinematic light up on the big blank wall, and try not to lose your grip because just like Norman Bates, "We all go a little mad sometimes," even the beguiled.
| 1 |
positive
|
Mani is back wit a Rathnam(gem) he manages to capture the mental trauma of a small girl searching 4 her mother they way he goes about showing the problems-in Ceylon is a treat.. .. Tis movie is a must watch.the musical score does enhance the viewing pleasure.. Rahman a find of Rathnam has given some great tunes the lyrics r apt 4 the movie the locations used for the movie are very good and makes viewing pleasant the movie starts of in a light manner moves over to capture the feelings of the girl finally goes on o shed light into the life of people in war torn places across the world this is yet another classic from ManiRathnam
| 1 |
positive
|
Having just come home from my third viewing of The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit, I decided to jump on IMDb and see what others thought. I noticed a lot of Brits loved it, while those in America just didn't get it. That really doesn't come as any shock, as America doesn't get what "English" is.<br /><br />Wallace and Gromit are very English. Middle class English, in fact, with a hint of eccentricity throw in for good measure. The film is a lot like our two heroes; simple and unassuming. It has a nice and gentle plot so the children don't get lost, yet there's enough beef there to keep the adults amused too. There's some light innuendo (which seems have to have offended the evangelic - oh noes, drama!) but there is nothing more rude than a bottom for a brief moment. When people get offended by a plasticine anus, you know the world's messed up...<br /><br />One quick note to those (all American so far that I have seen) who think Chicken Run is a better film: Chicken Run was made to pander to your sense of humour, and I think it suffered because of it. Curse of the Were Rabbit is witty, English, and intelligent. Thomas The Tank Engine's film was ruined because it was made to please the Americans and I'm glad Nick Park did not let that happen to another Great British institution.<br /><br />To sum up: You can keep your Chicken Runs, your Shreks, your Madagasga's - that kind of crude, crass, slapstick comedy just doesn't compare to the wit and grace that is Wallace and Gromit in Curse of the Were-Rabbit. English to the core, and long may Wallace and Gromit stay that way.
| 1 |
positive
|
i found this movie to be a complete waste of 96 minutes. jones was a weird kid and is severly messed up! According to my memory which might be wrong, wasnt he only 16 or 17 years old? **Spoiler** why did he leave college and rent an apartment with a two crazy girls who feud over boys for a pasttime? and the cowboy who lives underneath jones creeped me out too, how he knew what happened in the apartments didnt float past me for a minute. i do not understand his thinking about the girl that took pictures for fun and stayed in her room when mandy moore was always over and is was quite obvious that she wanted to be more than friends with him. i dont really find this movie funny or artsy or dramatic or anything, i found it to be stupid and a complete waste of time (D- F+)
| 0 |
negative
|
This really is a film of two halves. The first detailing the lives and friendship of two boys (one a privileged Pashtun and the other a down-trodden Hazara) in late 70s Afghanistan before the invasion by the USSR works extremely well. The young actors turn in convincing performances and seeing Afghanistan as it once was throws the present situation there into stark relief.<br /><br />The real problem comes when we move into the later phase of the story where we join the Pashtun as a man living in America. Ancient debts to his young friend lead him to return to his homeland and it is really at this point that things break down. The central adult character is clearly supposed to be sympathetic, but in fact comes across as wimpish and wallowing in self pity. It is hard to really care for him and one cannot help but feel that the really interesting story is the one we do not get to see - that of his boyhood friend.<br /><br />Once he returns to Afghanistan the narrative becomes bogged down in a series of highly contrived coincidences. Most remarkably he manages to come across his childhood enemy after all these years almost immediately (even though he is not looking for him), despite the chaos that has since consumed the country. This enables him to confront past demons in a way that is simply too convenient to be credible. The resolution of the narrative is also run through with an awful, mawkish sentimentality which undermines any really serious points the film may be trying to make.<br /><br />Although it is possible to start seeing characters and the abuses of their lives as symbols of a state which has been torn apart by world politics it is hard to really see this as a film which engages with any wider political discussion. Instead the narrative becomes reduced to one character's emotional journey of self discovery and healing. Unfortunately this character is so dull and wrapped up in himself that it is hard to really become engaged in his story, while opportunities to make a really interesting film about Afghanistan itself are wasted.
| 0 |
negative
|
One of my favourite films, whenever it is on, although I do admit one time missing it when it was on Foxtel last year.<br /><br />Despite the age of the film it doesn't look like that and the story even though it'd been done a thousand times before still felt entertaining. There were one or two little niggles for me in the story but I looked past them and just enjoyed the film for what it was.<br /><br />Overall I give it a 7/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Rating: *1/2 out of ****<br /><br />"The Net" is one of those films that won't remain in your mind till the next one hour. Well... Just if you keep thinking how bad it is. It's a mediocre, miserable, hollow, laughable and predictable piece of garbage. One of those adjectives I've just used above is the reason which made me add 1/2 a star to the one I would have given. So is it a case of 'so bad it is good'? No. It's a case of 'so bad it is laughable'. <br /><br />Bullock in a (surprise!) very bad performance plays Angela Bennett, a computer expert who is at home all the time. She works at home, doesn't have any friends and her neighbors don't know her. Suddenly, she sees herself involved in dangerous situations, after her colleague dies and the same thing almost happens to her. Her identity, bank accounts, etc, etc, etc, are all deleted, and she is now Ruth Marx. The conspiracy involves even the government and... Wait! Haven't we seen this before? Yes, thousands of times. "The Net" tries to be modern, to be the portrait of the '90s, showing the computer as a villain. Big deal! It is a film about nothing, just a pretext to show ridiculous action scenes. Take the scene of the boat accident. I just laughed when the camera started to get slow...<br /><br />What makes everything even worse here is Sandra Bullock. How awful she is! Has she already made a decent film? "A Time to Kill", okay. But she is still a bad actress, repeating her robotic face moves in each of her pictures.<br /><br />The vantages and disadvantages of the computer were already shown in "2001: A Space Odyssey", the best, most intelligent and most complex film ever made. It's not needed to compare "The Net" with it, is it...?<br /><br />The only reason to see "The Net" is to laugh, as I've said, and to see what it tried to be. The results, well, are a shame.<br /><br />DELETE this film from your mind!
| 0 |
negative
|
I´m from germany so please excuse my style of writing. As I´ve seen Chucky 4 for the first time I was a bit surprised, I knew Chucky as a usual 80s scarymovie, but Bride of Chucky was very different from the old ones. First there is the artwork of the very good director Ronny Yu, who we still have in mind from A chinese ghost story. His visual style is in a wired kinda way comparable to Francis Ford Coppola. Also the voices of Chucky an Tiff are very impressive. I´ve also liked the screenplay very much, especially the scene in which Tiff throws the Champaignbottle in the ceilingmirror.<br /><br />I give it a 9.0 vote for funny, gory and progressive entertainment. If you have any comments on my opinion, just send me an E-Mail. MFG Schawez
| 1 |
positive
|
From the offset, I knew this was going to be a terrific movie, the pace, the cinematography, personalities indigenous to the Dallas area, the diversification of characters, not to mention the director Oliver Stone and of course Eric Bogasian...The film starts out on a Friday (suggestively occult in the first place) and begins with a radio station in Dallas that is hosting their number one talk show, The Barry Champlain Show (Based on the Talk Radio Host Alan Berg)...Barry (Eric Bogasian) is the abrasive radio talk show host and his job is such whereby it is compulsory to pontificate all of the sensationalistic nuances of the radio audience feeding into his show...He attempts to commiserate with a bunch of societal deviates turned lonely, vulnerable, obscene phone callers who have the masochistic craving to be publicly vilified, Barry Champlain is effective in coping with this precarious ilk, by socially debasing them rather than simply subjugating them to mere admonishment...New technologies serve a stigmatic purpose for the Dallas radio audience, and paramount concepts take a backseat to perversion, talk about "Baseball Scores, Orgasms and People's Pets!!"<br /><br />The whole thing is a cacophony of drug-induced diatribes and a potpourri for psychopathic paranoia!! This high profile cannon fodder is something that Barry Champlain thrives on!!! The convoluted pathos, the deranged proclivities deeriving from inaneities and puveyors of pornography and the overall pop culture afflictions serve as volatile ammunition for Barry Champlain's stilted battleground!!<br /><br />The setting for this movie is perfect in that there is a two thousand foot drop in terms of ideology.. In the the center of Dallas there is an overbearing sense of cosmopolitan awareness, whereby 20 miles away resides a significant chapter of the Ku Klux Klan!!...The play is based in Denver,that is where the actual story takes place, other small theater plays depict the cities of Louisville, Atlanta and Cleveland. Dallas is the city where the film takes place, I thought it was an excellent choice!!...This movie illustrates how people have a horrid and erroneous and deadly misconceptualization of the Jewish people in America, whereby they control the banks, their agenda is different than everybody else's and their intellectual literature leads to perversion!! These preconceived notions compound Barry Champlain's overall dilemma!!! Barry Champlain's personal undoing is whereby he is irascible and non-responsive to his alcoholism, and his abrasive and politically controversial nature is his ultimate undoing, this is what makes the film so believable!!<br /><br />The characters in the movie were well portrayed, Dan, the tailor made for middle management hatchet man (played by Alec Baldwin) who was constantly monitoring Barry Champlain's every move!!..Laura, his girlfriend, also his producer, will constantly feel Barry is someone who is always misunderstood!! Ellen, his ex-wife, is a recipient of Barry's anguish and selfishness, but cannot quite relinquish her feelings for Barry regardless of the path of personal destruction he winds up resorting to!! The Dallas radio audience is a melting pot of socially misplaced retro-bates who are dementedly amused by their own real shortcomings!!!...In part, everybody's hang-ups including Barry Champlain's own hang-ups are what do Barry Champlain in!! His audience ogles depravity, solicits amelioration and ultimately becomes Barry Champlain's pet project for prescribed sinners!! Social culture conflicts become Barry Champlain's downfall!! <br /><br />This movie is superb!! In my opinion Oliver Stone's best picture, including Platoon and Natural Born Killers..That statement in of itself tells you how magnificent a film Talk Radio is...The story consulting and acting and co-producing of Eric Bogosian is simply compelling!! The camera angles, the dialogue, the haunting character portrayals, all top notch..The cinematography of the Dallas skyline at the end of the movie is terrific!! Dallas has the dubious distinction of being deemed a mega metropolis...So now, just like Los Angeles and New York, there are crack baby cases too numerous to count, low cost housing neighborhoods from Hell and budgets cuts that will mean there will be a significant number of people who will be dead by this time next year!!!!...Dallas asserts it's status as a major metropolitan area in the precarious manner by which human debauchery prevails!! The city has it's lynching radio listeners who have given a pejorative spin to the marvel of nationwide air wave communication!! These are the culprits in the movie!! The ghoulish tabloid derelicts who want to meet the big bad wolf, and their decadent curiosity has morally obliterated "The last neighborhood in America"
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is striking only in its banality and use of cliches. Sadly it was obvious throughout up until the ending. But don't be mistaken into thinking that it ended strongly. Only a little unexpectedly, though nothing worth watching the thing through for.<br /><br />From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.<br /><br />I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
When the opening shot is U.S. Marines seriously disrespecting the U.S. flag, a movie has a tough road ahead, but unfortunately it was downhill from there. There is a military adviser credited, who is also apparently a retired U.S. Marine, making it even more baffling that this incredible breach of protocol, and law, went unnoticed. Even more baffling is the way they simply glossed over how a Marine is reported KIA, then buried, in very short order, without the slightest explanation of how they identified the body, or if there even was a body. The U.S. government is still finding the missing from WWII, and it takes months to identify the remains. Military shot down remain MIA for months or years and are only declared KIA when the remains have been positively identified, or after years of red tape. Here we are expected to believe that it happens within a matter of days or weeks. Maybe this happens in Denmark, but not in the U.S. Clearly none of the people involved ever had the slightest involvement with, or respect for, the U.S. military.<br /><br />Beyond that, there are a number of other utterly laughable moments when characters come up with zingers out of nowhere. There must have been some really extended meetings between auteur and actors as they struggled to find their motivation for such hogwash. Having a script that worked might have helped, but this one seems to have been made up on the spot, working from Cliffs Notes. There's no way to know if the script was this awful originally, or if it was the auteur, or the middle-management kids at the studio who bear responsibility. Either way, this is an awful movie that should have never been made.
| 0 |
negative
|
I just finished watching this film. For me, the most outstanding work in this film was the music score. While many silent film scores work very well with their scenes, I feel that this is the best score I've come across. The mutiny scenes in particular worked extremely well.
| 1 |
positive
|
i was having a horrid day but this movie grabbed me, and i couldn't put it down until the end... and i had forgotten about my horrid day. and the ending... by the way... where is the sequel!!!<br /><br />the budget is obviously extremely low... but ... look what they did with it! it reminds me of a play... they are basically working with a tent, a 'escape pod', a few guns, uniforms, camping gear, and a 'scanner' thing. that is it for props. Maybe this is even a good thing, forcing the acting and writing to have to step up and take their rightful place in film, as the centers of the work, instead of as afterthoughts used to have an excuse to make CGI fights (starwars).<br /><br />The cgi is fine. It is not exactly 'seamless'... but imho it still works. why? because there isn't too much of it, and what there is, is not 'taking over' with an army of effects house people trying to cram everything they can into the shot. it prompts the imagination... it's some relatively simple stuff, with decent composition (especially the heavy freighter shot.. there is one long shot that must be at least ten seconds...that tracks the entire length of the ship... it must be a record for sci fi battle sequence film making in the past 10 years, to have an action sequence that lasts longer than 0.75 seconds), and some relation to the story. it might look old or not 'state of the art', but it doesn't look stupid and it doesn't take away from the story.<br /><br />The acting is good, except the characters die too fast to get to know them. The captain was great, but a few of his scenes could have used another take. I also got confused with his character losing his cool and stomping on a corpse, I like to think captains are calm cool and in control... what was going on in that scene? did the other crew worry about him losing it at that moment? did he feel himself losing control? <br /><br />Now, as for the plot.... mostly it is good... why? Because it doesn't try to explain itself. It just happens. It's called 'the planet', its a mystery, get it?? Nobody knows why there is a statue, and they don't find out either. The mysterious cult? The weird scientist with the tattoo? What do you expect to find out in less than 90 minutes? This isn't War and Peace. And, thank god, it's not star wars/trek either. No midichlorians, no 5 minutes of expository boring dialog that has no purpose in the story. The characters are stranded, and are only able to figure out a few basic things... it is not a star trek episode where they find out it's leonardo davinci or a child like space wanderer. It is mysterious, and i liked that. I don't know why, maybe I can identify with these guys more , since they don't know whats happening, and i don't either... they don't talk a lot of space gibberish or have magic boxes telling them what is happening. <br /><br />In fact, I would argue that one of the weakest moments is when the 'traitor' turns on the crew, and tries to 'explain' the reason for the planet, the cult, etc. This coincidentally has some of the weakest dialog, imho, in the whole movie, and it interrupts the flow and some of the characters look unnatural in that scene. <br /><br />OK, sometimes I felt it was a little too mysterious, though. Like, why did the guy get fried through his eyes with lightning? That was odd. Just weird. The 'hamlet' ending... again I would have liked to have known some of these characters better. And would it have been so hard to have a 30 second rescue scene at the end? This is not a serial show, it was a film, and we like closure in films, even if they can have a sequel. Imagine Hamlet with no 'flights of angels sing thee to thy rest'<br /><br />Anyways. What can I say. This was well worth the dollar I payed at the 'red box' machine at the supermarket. It was also, imho, a better piece of storytelling than starwars parts 1 2 or 3. Like I said, it sucked me in, wanting to know what was happening, and I couldn't stop watching until the end.
| 1 |
positive
|
What do you do if you're Aishwarya Rai, coming off of a blockbuster film like 'Devdas', with some skeptical critics still relentlessly unsatisfied with your astounding performance or convinced by your strong screen presence and stellar acting skills, what do you do? Go home, sit down and pout? No. If you're Aishwarya Rai, you sign yourself up for the next strong period piece that comes along and continue to prove yourself worthy of all the praise, kudos, great scripts and equally great roles. And that's just what she did with and in 'Chokher Bali - a passion play' where she stars and shines as Binodini, a young widow who causes controversy way ahead of her time. Directed by Rituparno Ghosh {who later goes on to direct her in the equally stellar 'Raincoat'}, Prasenjit Chatterjee {Devdas in Bengali} costars.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Good<br /><br />Carrey is good actor and he proved it in "Man on the Moon" and in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". But hey, what can an actor do without good story and proper directing. He can do "Number 23".<br /><br />The Bad <br /><br />Joel Schumacher is poor, overrated director and he proved it in almost every movie he made. What he did with Batman is just disaster, but probably Batman movies supposed to look good. Well, they didn't. Instead of Gothic and macabre we got Disneyland. Sure "Falling Down" was great but can You ruin the film with Robert Duvall and Michael Douglas AND with excellent script? No You can't. <br /><br />And so good actor and poor director finally met and made "Number 23"...<br /><br />The Ugly (23)<br /><br />I know that it's stupid to begin with but... Fingerling's subplot (almost half of this movie) looks exactly like intro to another chapter of Max Payne2. VoiceOvers, quality of detective story itself, quality of the characters, even colors, mood and music, editing, and sound mix too! Perhaps it works for the game, but surely it doesn't in the cinema.<br /><br />Mise en scene is so bad that it becomes funny. It's not even annoying. Carrey reads walking down the stairs in park? Why? Is it natural? No, but it looks good. Why Suicide Blond covered walls in her apartment with white paper? If she just wanted to kill herself? There is no logic in that, but still it looks good. Guess what it, it doesn't look good at all. It looks unnatural instead. <br /><br />All female characters are Flat. Why is that so? Who cares, let's go on with the story.<br /><br />Who is this Fingerling? Private eye on the suicide? Hardly believable.<br /><br />Scenes when Walter Sparrow is arguing with his wife about weather book is really about him could be the best part of this movie. Instead we get Moulder/Scully routine. Disappointment. <br /><br />Interiors has no sign of people living in them, except the significant objects (shoes, photos etc.) Hard luck.<br /><br />Dialogs ain't that bad. But what about V.O.? Well that's another story. "There's no such thing as destiny. There are only different choices". Captain obvious to the rescue! "Number was coming after Fingerling. And now it was coming after me". Cliché. And so on.<br /><br />It's obvious that average housewife would break into public building in the middle of the night. Successfully and undisturbed.<br /><br />The subplot of the dog dragging main character to the graveyard. This is so old trick and so comfortable for writer, and that it should have been banned. I mean it!<br /><br />Flashbacks and editing similar to "what happened in last episode of X-files" isn't the best way to present the most interesting part of the movie. Is it?<br /><br />I wish I could say that this story deserves a better fate, but it doesn't. It makes no sense. Told in chronological order is weak and unbelievable. All the time we have undeveloped characters trapped is chain of situations which are nothing but badly written fiction. This could be fun, but - since whole movie is dead serious - it isn't. To many coincidences is just bad for every story. And the "mystery"? It's predictable and easy to guess. <br /><br />Losing touch with reality is great theme for good movie, but I never saw any of that in Hollywood's productions. If You're interested in the subject just watch "Repulsion" by Polanski or something by David Cronenberg, "Spider" or "A History Of Violence" both of that movies deals with similar problems that "Number 23" wanted to show. Wanted, but failed.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival, and would not recommend it. It is two and a half hours long, during which nothing much happens at a wading-through-porridge pace.<br /><br />The main characters are gormless and totally lacking in charisma or personality. No-one smiles at all during the film (neither would I if I had their lives), and although Domino seems to have a healthy sexual appetite she doesn't seem to enjoy sex at all.<br /><br />The whole experience is depressing and ponderous, the director lingering over each scene in a way that drove me crazy rather than striking me with the beauty of his technique.<br /><br />Too many questions were left in my mind: why does he sniff the Algerian man's head? Why does he levitate? What is he looking at over the allotment fence? Why does he kiss Joseph? Why did we go and see this rubbish rather than ordering another bottle of wine in Bouzy Rouge?
| 0 |
negative
|
"The Chipmunk Adventure" is one of the greatest animated movies of the 1980's. Alvin and the Chipmunks have always been of some interest to me, since they were what really got me into rock and roll. Neither one of the Chipmunks has any bad traits. Alvin's really the star and has all the cool looks. Theodore is the lovable sensitive one. Then there's Simon (my personal favorite), the smart one who is often a party pooper. I also like the Chipettes a lot. There's Brittany, who, like Alvin, is one who is always trying to be so popular. Then there's Eleanor, who, like Theodore, is sweet, sensitive, and loves food. Janette is the only Chipette who is not much like her counterpart; she's very naive and really clumsy.<br /><br />In the Chipmunks' very first full-length movie, David Seville is going on a business trip to Europe, and he's leaving the boys with Miss Miller while he's gone. While playing an arcade game, Alvin loses against Brittany and then says that if he had the money, he'd race Brittany around the world for real. Unbeknownest to the kids, a man named Klaus Furschtien and his sister, Claudia, who have been trying to come up with a sneaky way to deliver diamonds around the world in exchange for cash, overheard this conversation and said that they'd let them race around the world for $100,000. Alvin and Brittany accept it and go on the race.<br /><br />This adventurous movie has a lot of great songs. "Off to See the World" made for an appropriate theme song for the movie. Then there is "Getting Lucky", one of my favorite songs in the movie. "My Mother" is most likely the sappiest song in the movie, but it always makes me cry. "Wooly Bully" is the only cover song used in the movie (the rest were completely original). Then, of course, there's "The Boys and Girls of Rock and Roll", which, in my opinion, has to be one of the greatest musical numbers in movie history.<br /><br />I used to watch this movie very often, until my recorded tape of it died. I still watch the movie, though. This is actually a fun movie for people who are about to go on a vacation to a foreign country for the first time. It'll give you an idea of what kind of stuff you'd expect out of world travel. Definitely one of my childhood movies, and one that I'd recommend to 80's fans and Alvin & the Chipmunks fans.
| 1 |
positive
|
Now this is more like it!One of the best movies I have ever seen!Despite it made very well on all aspects,this movie was put down solely for not being too historically accurate.Loosen up!There are tons of historical movies out there that were forgiven for not being too historically accurate and many of them do not even come close to how grand,how entertaining and how captivating this movie was!Now this is what a movie ticket is all about!You will get exacty what you want from this movie's genre and all naysayers are those with the anti-Flynn syndrome.This conservative rooted syndrome is very closely related to the anti-Elvis,anti-Ali,anti-Clinton,anti-Kennedy syndromes,usually caused by fear of charming individuals who have unconventional beliefs.If the viewer of this movie is open minded and has the ability to separate politics from art,you will find this movie not only one of the best classics,but also one of the best movies of all time.I rate it the second best western ever, right behind Wayne's The Cowboys........
| 1 |
positive
|
I've been waiting since last October to see this film! (it was supposed to come out October '98) and now I've finally seen it I am not disappointed. Bloody marvellous! OK it was a tad slow in the beginning, but once it got going it's a very exciting nail-biting tense Robert Carlyle is so different from either Gaz in 'The Full Monty' and Begbie in 'Trainspotting' ) that it's hard to recognise him! And Johnny Lee Miller, no longer with his Sick Boy from 'Trainspotting' blond hair, plays his dashing gentlemen highway man with the right about of humour and sensitivity that it is easy to see why Liv Tylers Rebecca falls for him. A great film. As Hades in Disney's 'Hercules' would say: "Two thumbs way way up!!"
| 1 |
positive
|
I am very open minded. I watch all kinds of programs to the end...good or bad...just to give them a chance and learn from the good aspects and bad ones. This show had potential to be good. But my god, what were the writers, casting director, and director thinking? The cast of actors are terrible...with the slightest exception of Meryl (Mimi Rogers), and Darcy (Joy Osmanski) being given occasional good lines with the best execution of the lot.<br /><br />The rest of the cast kill the show. It is the same story line in every episode. Sam has plans to do something. His boss disrupts these plans by assigning him ridiculous work projects. Then the foolish ways Sam tries to accommodate both in a manner that is primarily stupid and lacks any real intelligent humor. This is EVERY episode. It gets very tiring.<br /><br />Season 2, they ditch the eye candy. The 2 "hot" girls in the show get written out (yet the brother stays? explain that casting cut to me please). I can see why they wrote them out...they had no substantial role...but they didn't add anyone better to replace them.<br /><br />The cocky Derek Tricolli character is given a continuous appearance in season 2. His acting (along with everyone else's) resembles many poor sitcoms from the 80's...might have been funny then...but painful now.<br /><br />the show could have been so much better with a few good writers and some people who had any talent to execute them. This show lacks everything. Production quality is the only good aspect of the show. It is great in that regard...unfortunately the content is painfully sad.<br /><br />My god. FOX, was there really nothing better to choose from? I'm sticking with shows like "It's always Sunny in Philadelphia" or "30 Rock" for now. The bar should be set by programs like these that actually assume the audience are intelligent and aren't continually drooling on themselves using all their brain power on continuing to breathe.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Haaaarrrryyy!" <br /><br />The amplified, dispassionate female voice could have been Leona Helmseley in heat but, no, it belongs to Allison Hayes as Nancy Archer, the 50-Foot Woman of the title. In the most infamous role of her film career, Allison's performance literally rips off the roof. In fact, make that a couple of roofs.<br /><br />Jaw-droppingly tacky, "Aot50FW" is the tale of Nancy, a neurotic, boozy heiress and her loveless Lothario husband, Harry (William Hudson, who also co-starred opposite The Amazing Colossal Man). Nancy has a close encounter of the third kind, in the desert, with a bald giant from outer space who wears a mini-skirt and gladiator sandals, and who has a thing for Nancy's jewelry. What he does to her once he's carried her off is probably best left a mystery, but soon Nancy starts to grow.<br /><br />Treading into the center of town on tranquilizers, tightly wrapped in nothing but the bed sheets, the buxom giantess heads toward the low-rent saloon where Harry is having a few laughs with a floozy named Honey (Yvette Vickers). The confrontation turns ugly.<br /><br />The Poverty Row f/x make the alien giant and Nancy appear to be transparent due to incompetently transposed images. You'll understand why director Nathan Juran changed his name to Nathan Hertz on the credits. Juran was no stranger to directing giant creatures, human and non, having also directed "The Deadly Mantis," "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad," "Jack, the Giant Killer" plus several episodes of TV's "World of Giants" and "Land of the Giants." <br /><br />A lot of laughs for all the wrong reasons.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Down Periscope" has been in our library since it first arrived in VHS. Since then, we have acquired the DVD and a digital from Cinema Now.<br /><br />It is a quirky flick that does not go militarily overboard as either pro or con. It is first and foremost a comedy and as a vehicle for the main characters, I am quite surprised that a sequel has never been offered.<br /><br />The movie has gained a following that borders on a cult obsession, even among the very young. I became aware of this while visiting the USS Drum in Mobile, Alabama in 2002. A group of Cub Scouts, my grandson among them, had all taken up the roles from the movie and planned to relive it during their overnighter on board.<br /><br />It is a fun romp that makes you proud both of our Navy and Hollywood... which is rare company.<br /><br />Thanks to Kelsey Grammar, Lauren Holly and Rob Schneider for making what could have been an otherwise unremarkable movie, such great entertainment!
| 1 |
positive
|
I must preface this comment with a sort of admission: I suppose I just have a soft spot for the original 60s-70s TV series. I think the filmmakers here blew it from the get-go as far as casting: in a supposed remake, audiences would look for reflections of the hip, athletic Linc (Clarence Williams III), or the cool, with-it Michael Cole, and so forth. Instead, we get Giovanni Ribisi as a poor-little-white rich boy who comes off as just pathetic, like he is in all his roles (in the office I used to work in, I amused myself once by creating a fake movie poster, casting various actors as members of the office staff; guess who I cast as the dorky son of the company President?). Danes does OK as the new Julie, but none of the characters have much to do, as the story just sort of sits there, mired in conventionality. So it's quite forgettable, besides. What was I talking about?
| 0 |
negative
|
I think i was one of the people who found this another one of roth's pearls. his performance, as awarded, was stunning. the story which was told so eloquently by Francis ford Coppola 25 years earlier, really unfolds gradually and leaves room for the characters to develop. Roeg proves again it doesn't have to be a war-setting to be interressting. In a most wonderful location lies a story of contrast. Ruthlessnes and beauty go hand in hand, while loneliness should become your best friend. It shows a more sinister past of a small golden age kingdom which lands on a coast full of wealth for a 1st world country, if u send the right men. All in all a beautiful directed film from Nicola's roeg wih a sublime cast.
| 1 |
positive
|
I only saw this film once a quarter of a century ago, yet it's impact has never left me and I can still remember even now my reactions to it.I was mesmerised by the breadth and the sheer beauty of so much of the photography. I was astounded that an American studio could produce such a European film with it's slow pace and its unfocused plot. The lack of any strong characters felt like a flaw but I raged at the completely unnecessary ending on the yacht which seemed as though it was bolted on to give some kind of plot cohesion and which was entirely at odds with the style of the rest of the picture.It was also refreshing to see a western which made no pretence about the brutality and exploitation that so often was the unfortunate detritus of the American Dream.The western scenes and sets also had an authenticity which was entirely new to me and which prefigured the recent Deadwood series.The film was massively cut for the American audience and its my very real wish that in these days of Director's Cuts that Michael Cimino is given the opportunity of a fresh edit in the light of reflection - a cut which could turn this ill fated movie into the masterpiece it had the potential to become. I have now seen the original first cut and the network of relationships makes so much more sense,although Christopher Walken is responsible mainly for carrying this off. If only De Niro and not Kris Kristofferson had Played the main lead!There was still a massive preoccupation with creating the reality and atmosphere to the detriment of a good script. Nevertheless, the camera work was so cleverly handled that at times you could almost believe you were inside the action yourself.And there were many special moments. Everybody arguing in the hall in different languages trying to overcome their national differences and seek some unity of action in face of the impending disaster gave a real insight into the difficulties facing the welding together of the USA: especially when the threat came from a combination of the old elite and money.Nate's faltering approach to Ella when she first visited his cabin stood in stark contrast to the violence that was to follow and was another one. I had a special showing with a large group of mates to see the new cut and we all enjoyed it whilst having varying reservations.This revisionist and much closer to the truth version of events was probably too much for Americans to take when the film was first released but we all felt it had enormous merit and that its place in cinema history was also due for major revision
| 1 |
positive
|
Or maybe not. Whatever anyone thinks of "Broadcast News," good or bad, almost all the credit for that "thinking" belongs to writer-producer-director James L. Brooks. As a screenwriter (of which he has long been one of the best), it is not easy to savage an entire business -- in this case, the "business" being television news -- but to do it with a smile, a wink, a knowing nod and a laugh practically every step of the way. To do all that takes real talent, something Mr. J. Brooks has in abundance.<br /><br />One user on this website, in his summary, asked the musical question -- "Did Walter Cronkite act like this?" Answerve: No! Of course not! And the reason for that is in Walter's -- uh, Mr. Cronkite's -- day, the only thing that mattered was bringing the news to the people. Same goes for John Chancellor and Chet and David and Douglas Edwards and Howard K. Smith. Sure, they had to pay lip-service attention to their ratings, if only to please their bosses. But all they REALLY cared about was THE NEWS ITSELF.<br /><br />Now, of course, all that has changed. For the last 25-30 years in the network news business, the only thing that has really mattered is ratings, ratings, ratings. The bottom line. How many bucks will our news division deliver for the network? Don't believe that?<br /><br />Let's consider "The Big Three": Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings (aka "Stanley Stunning"). All three have now been on the job at their respective anchor desks for the last 15-20 years (Peter actually got his first shot at the national anchor desk way back in the 1960s but was totally unprepared for the job). Of the three, Dan is the one with the greatest in-the-field training as a reporter. Personally, I think all three do terrific jobs as news anchors and are deserving of their positions. All of which has nothing to do with why all three are actually IN those jobs. All three are now in their 60's (Dan is pushing the big 7-0) and all three are still very good looking. And if you think they're still good looking now, imagine how good looking they were in their 40's, when all three were hired for (let's say, "put in") their current jobs. But do you honestly believe that any one of these three would have been "put in" had he looked like, let's say, Fred Gwynne ("Herman Munster"). Or like -- heaven forfend -- ME!!! Not only that, if Dan were retiring tomorrow, a younger (than he is today) Walter Cronkite would not be able to get his old job back. Why? Not pretty enough. And it would matter not a whit that he is, or once was, "the most trusted man in America." <br /><br />And this is what "Broadcast News" is all about. Tom Grunnick (William Hurt), the next pretty-boy-national-news-anchor-to-be who has trouble with a few minor things, such as thinking for himself, being able to write and knowing stuff. Jane Craig (Holly Hunter), the brilliant news producer with news business standards and ethics, all of which get thrown to the wind when even she falls for pretty-boy-Tom. And Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks, no relation to James L.), a top-notch newswriter and field reporter who has no hope for a national job because he "flop-sweats" behind the anchor desk. And many other such flawed characters whom you KNOW really do exist in the news divisions of the various networks.<br /><br />"Network" blazed the trail. Eleven years later, "Broadcast News" carried the torch as a worthy successor. In the new millennium, what will be the next movie to savage the business of network "news you can use" ..... maybe. Or maybe not.
| 1 |
positive
|
Roomies is the story of a guy who loses everything except his incredible girlfriend and an idea for a corn dog that he plans to patent and sell. Immediately his uncle dies and leaves him a house and a car, and he gets some roommates in to help pay the rent and gets a job. Then his girlfriend gets drunk and cheats on him, so he goes and writes a book about roommates and becomes famous.<br /><br />88 minutes. None of these details of the plot are explored in any detail, what you read above is more or less as interesting as the film will be. When his uncle dies there are some breasts on screen, one of the potential roommates he interviews is pretty funny for about 40 seconds. The ending is literally the worst i've ever seen. I want the other 87 minutes of my life back!<br /><br />I hadn't thought anyone could make a movie with so little merit: Surely there are rules against this sort of thing getting to the public? The script can't be longer than twenty pages, and the budget must have been minuscule because the whole film has about 3 locations and a car. The only conceivable use for Roomies, in my opinion, is if you're holding someone hostage and want to frustrate them beyond human thought. If so, get it on repeat and you'll have a ready made gibbering wreck within the day.<br /><br />one-and-a-half out of 10
| 0 |
negative
|
When I first saw the ad for this, I was like 'Oh here we go. He's done High School Musical, but he can't coast along on that so now he's making appearances on other Disney shows'. Personally, I love The Suite Life and I'm a big fan of Ashely Tisdale. But for some reason, I'm not too keen on Zac Efron, although all my friends think he's the best thing since Jesse McCartney. But he really annoys me. Anyway, I watched the show (taking a break from English coursework) and was pleasantly surprised. The performances were good all round, especially from the regular characters on The Suite Life, and Zac Efron wasn't as bad as I had anticipated. All in all, a pretty good show.
| 1 |
positive
|
I get the feeling a lot of people liked this movie (not all people, but a lot of them) because they don't want to admit they don't understand it. People of middling intelligence, if you will, who pretend to be ever so avant garde and trendy who think Lynch is a genius.<br /><br />Lynch, to me, is like Tarantino. They're both great, but neither one is the messiah as so many fanboys want to believe. No director can change the world, so chill out. And both make sucky flicks sometimes, it just happens. Everyone has a bad day. And clearly, since this movie was actually designed as a pilot first and then hack-jobbed into a feature film, it wasn't made with all the passion and forethought one should put into a movie. Face it, much of the movie is gibbering unintelligibility which cannot be understood. We can all make up meanings, Lynch may have his own view, but none of that matters. It was strewn about the screen incoherently. Admittedly, the first portion had the semblance of an intentionally convoluted passingly interesting story, but then it falters.<br /><br />The cowboy, the mysterious organization of men with their phonecalls, the lawyers... come on. I can almost picture David Lynch yelling cut, forcing the crew to gather around him and explaining to them all "Look how crazy and weird I am! Isn't it great?? It's so weird and crazy!" Weird and crazy works if it's a by-product of your style. However, it's pretentious and tired when you go out of your way to do nothing but that. It's like all those half assed Pulp Fiction throw backs that came out after Pulp Fiction. It's just not cool.
| 0 |
negative
|
Wish it would be released, as I would love to see the finished product! We saw the unfinished version before it came out. Loved all the characters and actors. Anyone know if it is out on video yet? Would love to see it again.Definitely worth renting if it's not going to be shown in the theatre. I had a hard time finding it because they renamed it.
| 1 |
positive
|
While the film has one redeeming feature, namely some striking shots e.g. the shot of the sheep hanging from the tree, the scene of the funeral procession on the raft, or the scene of the boats leaving the village (which seemed influenced by the scene when the warships approach in the fantastic "Fellini Satyricon"), these were more photographic than cinematographic, and would have been better appreciated hung on a wall in an art gallery than embedded in a painfully slow-paced film that comes in at a whopping 162 minutes and suffers from terrible dialogue, extremely poor character development, over-acting, uninspired symbolism and heavy stylisation. This is the first film I have seen by Angelopoulos, and his reputation having preceded him, I expected a lot better, but can honestly say that this is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I won't go out of my way to watch any of the director's other work in the future. The four friends I went to see it with agree.
| 0 |
negative
|
Is there a fire fighter cliché that is NOT used in this film? From the opening line "I'm getting too old for this" through the "antics" of the firemen, to the "worrisome wife" the loss of his best friend in the firehouse, to the final funeral for the fallen brethren, this film looks and sounds like it was written by the marketing department at Disney ("Our studies show that audiences really like it when..." and then they stuck it in).<br /><br />There is nothing original here. Any emotion we feel for these guys is brought in for our admiration and feelings for firemen. <br /><br />Go watch Rescue Me if you want to see real heroes: Everyday guys with flaws that think nothing of running into a burning building to save strangers.
| 0 |
negative
|
Algiers is not a classic, it is a perversion of the wonderful original Pepe le Moko, directed by Duvivier and starring a much more attractive and charming Pepe, Jean Gabin. If you want to fully experience the Casbah and the characters in Algiers, I recommend you don't even watch this movie and see Pepe le Moko instead, for it is much more elaborate, more beautifully filmed, the lines are not clichéd and the characters adhere much more to reality. Furthermore, the ending is so dramatic and key to Pepe's character that you'll find the Algiers version intolerable. Although Algiers does an almost excellent job mimicking each scene, the acting falls short as does the credibility of the characters. Plus, the wardrobe is truly breath-taking in all scenes, particularly Pepe's in the last scene and Gaby's (at all times) but also when she's on the boat. Frankly, Algiers is cheap as far as imitations go.
| 0 |
negative
|
Classe Tous Risques (The Big Risk) is repeatedly recommended every time I look up a Jean-Pierre Melville film that I had to give it a watch as soon as possible. Since I've been discovering Melville and seemingly working backwards through his filmography, it would be easy for me to mistake this as one of his films, but it was made in 1960, by Claude Sautet, before Melville would come and stake his claim on french neo-noir.<br /><br />Classe Tous Risques has two of the best lead men of the time, Lino Ventura and Jean-Paul Belmondo. Ventura plays Abel, a gangster exiled in Italy with his wife and two kids, who wants to come back to Paris because the police are closing in on him. After a roaring and fast paced opening with a big surprise, Abel eventually gets hooked up with Eric Stark (Belmondo) who wants to get into the criminal underworld. Stark becomes Abel's chauffeur and eventual only friend in an underworld that turns it's back on Abel after everything he's done and been through. The film shows the the duality of the two men, the older Abel at the end of his time after tragedy strikes him, and the younger Eric starting off the same way Abel did, falling in love with a beautiful woman who sticks with her man despite the world they are a part of. It never ends pretty for them, or their loved ones. Its one thing to see a individual criminal come to his demise, its different when he has loved ones he risks taking down with him.<br /><br />Much like Melville's film, the seemingly simple story gets more subtlety complicated as it goes along. As usual, as what I feel with Melville's films, it left my head spinning (in a good way) and dying to re watch it again to pick up what I missed the first time. Classe Tous Risques is a definite keeper.
| 1 |
positive
|
CHRISTMAS IN AUGUST is a perfect movie. A flawless movie about all the flaws of humanity. On the outside it may look like a movie about death, but is in fact a movie about life. I simply cannot recommend this movie enough. And be not afraid, dear readers, it is not a depressing film. As stated, it's a movie about the brightness of life coached under the guise of death. You will laugh. You will cry. You will realize that life is fragile and short. And you will leave the viewing with a better understanding of how precious life is.<br /><br />10 out of 10<br /><br />(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of this movie and reviews of other foreign films)
| 1 |
positive
|
I stumbled upon this movie by chance. I was traveling a few years back and this movie was on some channel on cable at the hotel late one night. Not much else on and figured I watch it for about 20 to 30 minutes until I decided to go to bed. Needless to say, I stayed up and watched the complete movie. The plot was very interesting and does make you wonder if there had not been SS who did this or at least thought of doing it. I have been looking all over for this movie. I even sent and email to the production company, but the weren't sure that it would ever make it to DVD, but said there was always hope. If anyone finds this movie drop a note here where you found it, as I'd sure like to get a copy some day.
| 1 |
positive
|
Found an old VHS version of this film in my parents house so I thought I'd give it a go. Right from the start I wasn't expecting much from this film and I'm glad for that because overall the film was no good.<br /><br />The acting overall was very poor, even for a Nicolas Cage movie. One scene with a radio controller stands out as being so pitiful that I found it hilarious that this scene wasn't cut. The first 30 minutes of the film had almost no developed plot and I didn't know what was going on.<br /><br />The story itself had the possibility of being decent but either the director was just bad or was trying too hard to put his own unique touch on the style of the film. I managed to watch the whole thing but I won't likely ever see this film again.
| 0 |
negative
|
Some nameless aliens off on a distant ship from a distant planet have sent the giant robot Kronos to rob the world of its energy. They've got a prototype clanking around Mexico for openers and if he proves successful more will be sent. It would certainly take a lot of time for just this one Kronos to perform that task.<br /><br />For reasons I can't explain the aliens first capture the mind of leading scientist John Emery who telepathically directs Kronos to his first targets. Since Emery is killed off later and the monster seems to function well enough without Emery as a controller, why the aliens needed him in the first place is a bit bizarre.<br /><br />In any event scientists Jeff Morrow, Barbara Lawrence, and George O'Hanlon who work under Emery aren't fooled a bit about his nature. And of course they come up with a plan to deal with the raging metal giant.<br /><br />Kronos is a perfect film for the Fifties, the bad guys are never seen they're just out there looking to undermine mankind. It's a perfect film for the Cold War. And Jeff Morrow assures us we'll be ready for them in the future.<br /><br />The players look like they're having a grand old time mouthing as many clichéd lines the writers could put in the script. I get the impression that Kronos is the kind of film Ed Wood might have done on a bigger budget with a bit more care.
| 0 |
negative
|
In London, the Venetian Carla Borin (Yuliya Mayarchuk) is searching an apartment to share with her beloved boyfriend Matteo (Jarno Berardi). She meets the lesbian real estate agent Moira (Francesca Nunzi) and rents a large apartment. When the jealous Matteo finds some pictures and letters from her former lover Bernard (Mauro Lorenz) in Venice, he hangs up the phone and the upset and amoral Carla has a brief affair with Moira and intercourse with an acquaintance in a party. When Matteo comes to London, he concludes that his lust for Carla is more important than his jealousy and her behavior.<br /><br />"Transgredire" is another "soft porn" of the sick director Tinto Brass with a shallow and ridiculous story where every situation is a motive to expose the intimate parts of the women in the cast. The amateurish camera exposes the body of the beautiful Yuliya Mayarchuk in every possible angle and her character is abused, touched and licked in every part of her nice body, but without showing explicit penetration. This flick is only recommended to fans of this director and as a voyeur experience seeing Yuliya Mayarchuk naked in erotic situations. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Pervertida" ("The Pervert")
| 0 |
negative
|
Well,<br /><br />First of all, as many reviewers have pointed out - this is a rip off of the Martin Cahill story - first represented by the BBC and by the John Boorman film "The General" - which is a great film and far, far superior to this one.<br /><br />Speaking as a native British person, the supporting cast to Kevin Spacey was really good in terms of British and Irish acting talent, especially Peter Mullan - but it was totally wasted. The characters were c**p! And as for Kevin Spacey - didn't come across as a loveable rogue but as nothing really substantial or significant.<br /><br />Not a lot to redeem this film. The best bits are the gags and tricks nicked from the other films it rips off. Compare notes on this film and "The General" - I'd be interested to see what others think.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
POSSIBLE SPOILERS<br /><br />No one is likely to pick up a DVD of Red Dust without knowing that it is about South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Hilary Swank stars as a South African exile who returns to her home town as a lawyer representing Alex Mpondo (Chiwetel Ejiofer), a member of the South African parliament who was tortured by a prison guard, Pete Muller (Ian Roberts), who is seeking to escape prison by testifying before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They could certainly have found an actress who has or could imitate a South African accent; Ms. Swank makes no attempt whatsoever to cover her unmistakably American accent. Nevertheless she is the only well-known actor in the movie, and it would probably not have been made without her or someone equally well known. She does a passable job. However, Ejiofer and Muller (pronounced in the German way with an umlat over the "u") are outstanding as is Jamie Barlett as the chief of police, responsible for murdering Mpondo's comrade and fellow prisoner. The torture scenes are shown in brief flashes but they are vivid and believable. What is not believable is the Truth and Reconciliation process -- except that it actually happened. "Red Dust" should be seen for that reason alone because it was and is unbelievable that the ANC prisoners could actually forgive the torturers, and this is as close as we are likely to get to seeing the process in action.
| 1 |
positive
|
Big (and we mean plus sized big) baddie Sebastian Cabot is trying to run salt of the earth farmers off their land in order to get the oil rights. When sea faring Sterling Haden's pop is killed, how will Haden put an end to TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, armed only with a harpoon? <br /><br />First off, this isn't a B-western. There are no singing cowboys, no daredevil stunts, no interesting action sequences. It's just an independent movie -- you know, the ones that use unimportant actors to say "important things" and cover the general low budget vapidity of the goings on with Interesting Camera Angles.<br /><br />Second, this movie, to avoid compromises (one expects) that would cause the elimination of Trumbo's Important Statements about Justice in America, and the rather sick relationship between the chief henchman and his girl, IS really low budget. The main problem that causes is that the acting is really, really bad. Sterling Haden is decent enough in tough roles, but he is the last guy you want playing a sensitive Swedish sailor gone to find his fortune in the West. Sebastian Cabot tries to do a Sydney Greenstreet as (very) bloated plutocrat. It's not a bad idea, but Cabot does not have the acting chops for it. The guy who plays the hired gun with the missing arm and soul (Johnny Crale) has the best role in the film. He does nothing with it.<br /><br />Third, the script really isn't all that. Trumbo gets some digs in about the immigrant isn't going to get a fair shake from the sheriff in a corrupt town, and the people, when up against real oppression tend to back down. This is a pretty stale movie message by 1958 -- High Noon, Bad Day at Black Rock, Devil's Doorway -- are all Westerns that deal with the evils of Western society with an eye to the evils of 50s America. Trumbo, in '59, certainly had every personal reason to agree with those sentiments, but he isn't doing anything new or interesting with them.<br /><br />So, given all the negatives, why does this movie get a 4? Mostly because there are interesting quirks throughout the movie. (The relationship between Crale and his girl is, um fascinating.) And Trumbo, while a mediocre writer when pursuing his political affectations, is very good in creating both interesting characters and intelligent interactions between them. Just when one is ready to pass out from Indy movie boredom, will come an exchange of dialog or simple quirkiness that gets one realize that guy writing the script was not simply a hack.<br /><br />If you don't like Trumbo or westerns, give this one a miss. Otherwise, try it. You might like it more than I did.
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this one mostly to see Charlie Ruggles and Una Merkel, two of my favorites.<br /><br />The plot has many a twist and turn -- it's not bad as a straight mystery aboard a train.<br /><br />But why throw in a circus train wreck and an escaped gorilla? I can mention this without it being a "spoiler" because the circus train wreck and the gorilla have nothing to do with the intricate mystery plot.<br /><br />The bad person trying to kill the good people has many tricks up his sleeve, but the circus train wreck was purely coincidental. It allows for a single scene with a menacing gorilla, but then it's back to the murder mystery!
| 0 |
negative
|
Truly a great leap forward in the perfection of painful cinema.<br /><br />Everything about this film is bad. Acting (if it can be called that), lighting, sound, script (if there was one), editing, direction, camera work, it is all atrocious. There is not a single element that is done well. If I thought that this was intentional then I might give the film some credit but I can not believe people would set out to make such a horendous film.<br /><br />This film is worth buying and screening to your worst enemies.
| 0 |
negative
|
In his feature film debut `Yellow,' Chris Chan Lee attempts to enlighten Hollywood's portrayal of Asian-Americans by departing from the stereotypes typically depicted in mainstream film. However, in so doing, Lee commits a far more heinous crime: he exaggerates Asian-Americans' own stereotypes of themselves to the point of incredulity. The result? Dreadfully one-dimensional characters and an outrageously shallow script triggers the cast into a frenzy of over-acting, ultimately resulting in a film that is physically painful to watch.<br /><br />Don't be deceived by any of the positive reviews garnered by `Yellow'; each falls into one of two camps. In one corner (e.g., right here on imdb.com), you find Asian-Americans who are so elated that an Asian character can be depicted onscreen without thick glasses and a math book, that they somehow neglect the idiocy of Lee's final product. On the other hand, you find movie critics who have simply presumed that it'd be uncool to give `Yellow' the thorough bashing that it deserves; after all, it's an edgy Asian-American film made by an independent Asian-American filmmaker... protected territory for now.<br /><br />Case example: main character Sin Lee (Michael Chung). Writer/Director Lee accomplishes a monumental feat with Sin, by editing `Yellow' in such a way that Sin never appears onscreen unless he is either scowling or yelling. See Sin resenting his friends' support. Scowl. See Sin walk along the beach and brood. Scowl. (Yelling ensues.) See Sin closing up his father's shop. Scowl. See Sin urinating. Scowl. See Sin breathing. Scowl.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Sin is full of Asian-American angst. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Scowl.<br /><br />Just to be thorough, Lee introduces us to Sin's father, Woon Lee (Soon-tek Oh). Throughout the movie, whereas Sin simply scowls or yells, Mr. Lee scowls *and* yells. In fact, this is Woon's principal role in `Yellow': simultaneous scowling and yelling.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder if Woon is an Asian father with an authority complex. Do you think? I'm not sure. Scowl. Yell.<br /><br />If Lee's one-dimensional characters don't annoy you, his story line will. Meet Mina (Mary Chen) and Joey (John Cho), two characters that exist in this film solely for the purpose of spinning a tangential and entirely irrelevant love story into the film. You see, Lee learned in film school that every good movie must include some sort of love-related subtext, and these two characters allow him to fulfill the obligation. Mina and Joey's excruciatingly inane flirting dialogue consists of one-liner insults culminating in a kiss: `Nerd!'; `Stupidhead!'; (eyes meet); (understanding smile); (kissing ensues).<br /><br />But rest assured, somewhere out there, Sin is scowling while this all takes place.<br /><br />That neither Mina nor Joey contributes in any way whatsoever to the film's plot does not perplex me so much as Lee's insistence on the most hackneyed movie cliches to accomplish his nonsequiturs. And trust me, the flirting sequence is just the tip of the iceberg.<br /><br />Towards the end of the film, we find Woon Lee attempting to explain his constant scowling and yelling to Sin's girlfriend, Teri (Mia Suh), in what I am sure Lee meant to be a poignant moment. What a surprise: as Woon invokes a metaphorical story about the homeland to illustrate his point, ripped straight out of Reader's Digest, his voice quivers in that extra-special paternal way. The camera pans into an obligatory shot of Teri's trembling hands. We feel compelled to roll our eyes, except we realize that Woon's explanation makes no sense whatsoever. But lack of substance didn't stop Lee from making the movie, so why would he cut this particularly ineffective scene? After all, the world can always use another cliché.<br /><br />Well, you say, the movie may be painful, but at least it *must* be a technical masterpiece -- say, like, `What Dreams May Come.' Sorry, on a technical basis, `Yellow' disappoints as well. Lee's edits are awkward and disrupt what little rhythm exists in the film at all, but I'm sure Lee thought they would seem hip. To make matters worse, every frame is either underexposed or overexposed. Although the light meter was invented in 1932, somehow the newfangled technology didn't make it onto the `Yellow' set.<br /><br />In light of the film's utter deficiency, supporting actor Burt Bolos, who plays Sin's best friend Alex, performs relatively well. Although Bolos overacts slightly, you can't really blame him when Lee's script consists solely of scowling and yelling. Bolos' castmates, on the other hand, show no restraint in their overacting whatsoever.<br /><br />I have not seen a film as bad as `Yellow' in a very long time. And I truly pray that I will not see a film as bad as `Yellow' for quite some time, as well. Please do not waste see it; life is already way too short. Thank you.
| 0 |
negative
|
This wonderful movie really takes the time to step back and tell the story without words. The end of the movie contains almost no dialogue but what is in the minds of the characters is always perfectly clear. You know the film is not going to have a happy ending but you leave the film feeling hopeful.
| 1 |
positive
|
This was a funny movie. Just having seeing the Evil Dead trilogy not a week ago (and left wanting for more), I got as many Bruce Campbell movies as I could, including really bad ones. This one is funny, without being exceptional, but as sure as hell original.<br /><br />I mean you've got mad scientists, superhuman cyborgs, half brain freaks, gypsies, ex KGB cab drivers, jealousy, murders of passion, love, romance, sex, action and what more, all with the same 6 actors :)<br /><br />You really have to see it and enjoy it, I can't explain it in a text box. I guess it is not so much a cult movie as Evil Dead was, but it certainly has that Bruce Campbell touch I love. Ted Raimi lends a hand, Tamara Gorski looks both beautiful and interesting (she has gone a long way from the hooker in Friday the 13th) and Vladimir Kolev also shows a lot of promise as an actor, although he will probably be cast as secondary character in Hollywood movies his entire career.<br /><br />Bottom line: funny movie. If you liked Evil Dead you'll like this, too.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's not difficult, after watching this film, to see why post-silent Soviet cinema is held in such little critical esteem. Don't get me wrong. THE CRANES ARE FLYING is, for the first half at least, supremely entertaining, boasting a lightness of touch completely unexpected from its country of origin; a fresh, brisk, spacious technique that eventually irritates as much as it initially charms; two stunning subjective set-pieces; and a romantic verve that flirts with, but never quite topples into, Lelouch territory. It's just that , in its subsuming of vast social, national and world events to a love affair, it is essentially no different from a conventional Hollywood movie.<br /><br />Of course, in a Soviet Union that emphasised the state above all else, and in an era (World War Two) that suppressed individualism and liberty to uphold murderous symbolism, this foregrounding of two appealing young lovers is a relief. And the thematic similarities - all consuming love rent apart by war - with two of the most wonderful of all films (SEVENTH HEAVEN, LES PARAPLUIES DE CHERBOURG) also adds to its potential loveability.<br /><br />The story is simple enough. Boris, a young factory worker from a bright medical and artistic family, and Veronika, a student, conduct a breezy relationship at night, their only free time. Boris's cousin Mark, a composer, also has eyes on Veronika. When the Nazis invade Russia, Boris secretly volunteers, to the chagrin of his family and lover. He promises to write to Veronika, but never does, thinking maybe she hasn't bothered to see him off, or perhaps the mail is simply unreliable. Veronika's parents die during an air raid, and she moves in with Boris's family, helping out at the hospital where his father tends wounded soldiers.<br /><br />Distressed by Boris's silence, Veronika is also assailed by the attentions of Mark, who has gained exemption from military duty by bribing a local official. She is eventually worn down, and marries him, to the disapproval of her adopted family. Boris, meanwhile, is killed in action. Veronika, disgusted with herself and an adulterous Mark, refuses to believe this, and awaits his return, fostering a young orphan bearing his name.<br /><br />The title refers to the birds the couple see at the height of their love, symbolic perhaps of its transcendant, epiphanical power. But this is illusory - the cranes fly in a V formation, and this shape pervades the entire film, through the geometric shapes of buildings, interiors, exteriors, groupings of people, composition, camera angles, the heroine's name - or by editing in which feet walking southwest in one story are met by feet walking southeast in another. <br /><br />This serves to fatally trap the lovers who have no control over their destinies, and also suggest the Stalinist power that is never, specifically, mentioned in the film. Although the pair seem to be free in space, whether literally in an unpeopled environment, or privileged in generous close-ups, they are always ironised, minimised, torn apart - by circumstances, families, by crowds (see the brilliant, if obvious, sequences where Veronika is engulfed by tanks, or the pair fail to meet in a huge crowd), or simply by the film's structure, which is constantly distancing, through paralellism, their closeness. Although at the beginning, the lightness and brightness of style suggest a beautiful romantic idyll, it is constantly being broken by strange edits or camera angles of distracting snatches of music.<br /><br />What is most remarkable is how these blocks to romance are achieved by abstracting rather than emphasising historical forces. The whole film, but especially the war itself, is strangely unreal and dreamlike, we are never shown its harsh, brutal actuality, just its effects on the lovers. In fact, it is transformed into a majestic spectacle, devoid of nasty Germans. <br /><br />On the home front, the air raids create delicious effects of light and shade, or ruins of almost Gothic decadence. In the bunker, the threat to the Soviet empire is less important than Boris's perceived indifference. The empty, oneiric Moscow spaces the lovers initially, than Veronika with her mother, walk though are less actual locations than emotional spaces. <br /><br />When Mark tries to force himself on Veronika, the air raid is less a destructive reality than a symbolic release of sexual and emotional frustrations. This is a brilliant sequence, filmed with silent, Expressionistic terror, in which the screen seems to burst with hysteria and violence, all the more compelling for the earlier scenes' wistful gentleness.<br /><br />It's not much different at the front either, where fights over girls' honour are more urgent than tactics, Nazis or despair. The movement of Boris and his wounded comrade into a final space is a further abstracting of the experience of war, its setting in a forest giving it a sexual dynamic; and Boris' final, pre-death flashback is an extraordinary mixture of dream-wish fulfillment and heightened anxiety, in which what is wished for becomes menacing and grotesque.<br /><br />From this point on the film becomes a little less interesting, slightly more obvious. One more grasp for Expressionist overload - Veronika's attempted suicide and her rescuing the infant - is clumsily handled; and her sombre guilt casts a paralysing shadow over the whole film. The use of deep focus, at first ravishing, soon becomes wearing, devoid as it is of any of the moral force or meaning Welles brought to its use in CITIZEN KANE. After what seems a quietly sly critique of totalitarianism in favour of the individual is cruelly betrayed at the end, when individual suffering, as so often in Russian art, transmutes into symbolic (i.e. sexless, dehumanised) hope. A pity.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of the very, very few films that are so overwhelming that you are very unlikely to watch it more than once or twice in your lifetime (other examples are Claude Lanzmann's documentary Shoah and Come and See by the director's husband Elem Klimov - which covers much the same unbearable territory but in a very different way).<br /><br />I suppose this is just as well given the difficulty of ever seeing a print.<br /><br />Apparently it's extraordinarily overt Christian symbolism and admission that there were active Russian collaborators, ensured that it was hardly ever seen in the USSR - and of course post-soviet Russia has very little interest in films of that era.<br /><br />The one time I saw it in London was in a festival of Russian movies shown during the Glasnost era (i.e. probably c.1988) - however it apparently has been shown several times in the UK more recently so at least one subtitled print must exist here.<br /><br />As far as I know it has never been released in the west on DVD or video so if you haven't seen it, your best chance is probably to join a film society and endlessly nag them to find a print and screen it.
| 1 |
positive
|
One of my favorite movies. Great cast, lead by Jonathan Silverman and Blythe Danner. Serious drama situations with brilliant comedic punches. An exact mixture of character and story. Real people with real problems, and everyone has a different relationship with each family member. Sensitively moves from slightly-sad to hilariously-funny. Read the quotes. This is the best adaptation of a Neil Simon play.<br /><br />If you wanna see more of Eugene check Biloxi Blues (starring Matthew Broderick who played in both stage versions) is OK, a bit on a darker side. Get away from the made-for-TV Broadway Bound.
| 1 |
positive
|
A truly scary film. Happening across curmudgeon James Kunstler's rants led me to recently-formed web logs like Life After the Oil Crash (LATOC), Energy Bulletin, and The Oil Drum, and the data behind the theory of Hubbert's Peak. Like this film, LATOC and Kunstler paint a grim picture of die-off or die-back. I hope they're premature, but in mid-2005 rising gasoline prices, rising oil prices, Chevron's Will You Join Us campaign, BP becoming Beyond Petroleum and even T Boone Pickens lend credence to the idea that we are at or near a peak of oil production.<br /><br />After copious research of limited data, oil investment banker Matt Simmons has suggested that the Saudis may no longer be able to increase production in their immense, but aging fields. In the face of increased demand (primarily from the US and China), the Saudis have not responded with higher production, despite previous assurances. Stated world production from 2000 and 2004 indicates that light, sweet crude has indeed peaked. which means that refining will become more costly.<br /><br />The film seems aimed at baby boomers, but younger people, our children, also need to understand the implications of an energy-depleted future.
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow, I loved this movie, this film was filled with plot twists, good acting, great story, and a surprising ending. To be completely honest this movie wasn't overly gory, it does contain some gore, though, but was more on the psychological side. I read it on the Internet: the film cost 3000 dollars and was shoot in 8 days. Amazing!!! This is for someone that wants to think and loves great film making. What starts out as a terrorizing thriller slowly transforms into something a bit more twisted, even a bit more sinister. Not much I can say without giving away plot points only that this movie went beyond my expectations
| 1 |
positive
|
First, the current IMDb plot description seems to be misleading, the movie is about a group of girls who pick up a misogynistic hitchhiker, who plans to kill them all. They stop at a small motel, where he holds them hostage, but develops an intense attraction for one of the girls. Violence ensues.<br /><br />I picked this up by mistake thinking it was the other 2007 movie "The Hitcher". Not that The Hitcher is any better, and I was looking for a crummy movie to watch anyway, but this was almost unbearable at times. I think I could have vomited on a piece of paper and come up with a better plot than this.<br /><br />I can't even count how many movies I've seen with virtually the same storyline, so this was almost painfully predictable at times, but what really made it awful were a few scenes that ... well let me give an example. At one point a door is covered in (what is very obviously) blood, and two police officers, at the scene because of a 911 call, are looking at it from 30 feet away, see a man, also covered in blood, walk out of the door, agree that it looks suspicious, but decide to not investigate further.<br /><br />But, however ridiculous it may be, the movie was never boring, was well produced, directed, and acted, complete with good special effects, gratuitous nudity, and violence. I probably would not recommend actually spending 90 minutes of your life sitting down to watch this movie, but it turned out to be perfect to have on while I cleaned my basement. Also highly recommended for fans of crummy movies, and would be a good movie to watch with friends when you plan on doing more talking than watching.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is by far one of the best movies I have seen in a very long time. Top 20 of my lifetime. I laughed more than I have since Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and cried more than I have since I saw The Notebook. If you are looking for a touching movie without the sappy edge...this is the one. It is real and powerful. See it and you won't regret it. I was reluctant at first and I only watched it because I had to do a school project about speech disabilities. But this movie is so much more than that. It is about life, free and independent from the way the world would have you held down. Its about the disabilities that each of us have that keep us from see ourselves and what we miss but letting everything else get in the way.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was wandering through my local library, browsing VHS tapes, when I saw a movie that made my mouth drop--Waterbabies. I have been hoping to see this movie again--it's been over 22 years since I saw it (cable-movie channel around 78-79). I had recalled a good many of the details--Grimes in particular. My son, who is 4, and I watched it.<br /><br />He agreed with me that Grimes was "Not nice", and the best way for me to describe it was that he didn't love Tom. He accepted that. It was amazing that I still recalled some of the songs, too! They had stuck in my head for 22 years--which means they had to have some memorable-ness, eh?<br /><br />It's a good child's movie, with parental guidance in case of questions about what children had to go through that were not nobility/society in the time-frame. This is what all the children faced daily (except for a few lucky ones), and while we try to Disney-coat movies, making them more pc for children these days, it doesn't mean that cruelty didn't exist--or even still doesn't. I enjoyed the animation. It wasn't Disney, no. I don't think Don Bluth touched a paintbrush on this movie.<br /><br />There's a lot going for it, though. David T plays two roles! (I really like him!) James M does too. The waterbabies themselves are cute. You feel sorry for Tom, and root for him. Then Billie herself is extraordinary in the multi-role part she's playing--it's as if her eyes ARE magickal! I'm a huge fan of WoO, TLW&TW, and company (AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HP!), and I filed this along with those kind of movies. Yes, he jumps in the water, but not because of suicide. He jumped because he trusted the lady in black--she'd been appearing to him all along.<br /><br />I think it's a good movie! If you have kids, pick up a rental copy. If you happen to locate a buy-able copy, let me know where! Ian liked it! :)<br /><br />Dee
| 1 |
positive
|
It was harrowingly close, but The China Syndrome received the worst kind of publicity when as it was going into theatrical release, the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant happened. I still remember the whole country's attention was glued onto hourly bulletins coming out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And wouldn't you know it, a scientist in The China Syndrome describes the worst case scenario as rendering an area as large as the state of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.<br /><br />Less than a decade later in the Ukraine at Chernobyl, the Soviet Union in its last days dealt with such a crisis that didn't get righted in the nick of time. The China Syndrome once again became a relevant movie.<br /><br />The film is more about cutting corners for safety than it is about being anti-nuclear. Jack Lemmon is a man who lived with nuclear power all his life as the captain of an atomic power submarine. What angers him and sets him off to create the confrontation that climaxes the film is the stupidity and greed of the power company managers. Stupidity and greed though are commodities found every day. The problem with them is that there are places where it can be tolerated less in human society.<br /><br />Lemmon shares star billing with a couple of famous Hollywood offspring, Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas. Jane is a TV News reporter who is constantly being assigned to puff feature stories and just happens to be at a nuclear power plant when an accident occurs. The cover-up by her own station and her later meeting with Lemmon set off the chain of events depicted in The China Syndrome.<br /><br />Fonda's best scene I thought however was with Peter Donat a news executive with her station. Take a look at her facial expressions as Donat fluffs off the importance of the story and patronizingly tells her that her very beauty demands she stick to puff pieces. Fonda knows she's got something and sticks with it.<br /><br />Michael Douglas plays her iconoclastic cameraman, this was a typical part for him back in the day. In his TCM tribute to his father Kirk Douglas, Michael said he opted for roles showing sensitivity. Still I could have seen a young Kirk Douglas in this part.<br /><br />What to do about energy for industrial and post industrial nations, a vexing problem that will bedevil our government for a couple of generations to come. This film shows what can happen with a dependence on nuclear power. Our current problems geopolitically in the world stem in part from a dependence on fossil fuel, specifically oil. Everything we use brings consequence some unforeseen. <br /><br />The real hero of the film in my opinion is Wilford Brimley, Lemmon's colleague at the nuclear power plant. In the end Brimley really steps up to the plate.<br /><br />See The China Syndrome to know what I'm talking about.
| 1 |
positive
|
All that talent.....but when ya have poor direction, and a WEAK screenplay, it doesnt matter WHO is in a movie. Very tired attempt at telling a tale..which was actually interesting in the beginning, but then QUICKLY fell apart toward the end....to bad.
| 0 |
negative
|
The third and final Female Prisoner Scorpion film directed by Shunya Ito. The series' star, Meiko Kaji, would complete the series in the fourth installment, Grudge Song, directed by the capable Yasuhara Hasebe (who also directed Kaji in the excellent Stray Cat Rock: Sex Hunter). The original Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion is one of my all-time favorites. The sequel, Jailhouse 41, is nearly as good. It's generally considered the best of the series, and I might agree, I think, if it ever gets a better release on DVD (the original, by Image, is very poor). Beast Stable, in my opinion, is nearly as good as FP701. It's much slower, much more contemplative. It has its share of violence and nastiness, but there's more focus on the story and the characters. Sasori (Kaji) eludes detectives in the first scene (she is handcuffed to one and lops his arm off and escapes with it in tow, which must be seen to be believed!) and hooks up with a freelance prostitute, Yuki. Yuki is being hassled by a local prostitution ring, which includes a goofy-looking madame with a cage full of pet crows. What really surprised me is how sad the movie is. Yuki's story, which is never resolved, it heartbreaking. The images are startling, and Ito's direction is masterful. It's too bad that he never went anywhere after he left the FP701 series. This is an awesome film.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie on my flight from Philly to Denver. The screen was three rows in front of me and about 12" x 10". So I really wasn't going to watch it. But I like Malcolm in the Middle, so I thought I'd watch just a few minutes. Next thing I know I'm sucked in, having a great time, and was pleased as how good it was and how fast it seemed to make the time go by. I agree with that the acting is very good for this level of entertainment. Being one of the older baby boomers, I was also pleased to see Lee Majors with a role in the movie, as with a couple of other actors who were famous (Jamiel?) "yesterday" but are out of the spotlight today poking fun at themselves.<br /><br />It's your basic "kid is wronged, kid gets even (and then some), and everyone enjoys themselves in the process". No heavy thinking, no great analysis needed. Just a good fun way to pass the time.<br /><br />3.5 out of 5.
| 1 |
positive
|
While not the first movie I've purchased for myself, this is almost certainly the one I've watched the most. The animation is well-drawn by the experts at Tokyo Movie Shinsa, and the animators frequently made use of clever techniques such as having the sun cause "lens flare", having the camera get soaked (and having the "camera operator's hand" clean the lens!) etc. While the film avoided becoming a an "animator's gadget-fest", the judicious but generous application of such techniques gave the film a much more "realistic" feel than the typical cartoon.<br /><br />The story has many interweaved plots which don't seem to have much to do with each other until everything comes together at the end, in a manner even the writers self-effacingly admit is contrived. Each of the major plot lines has its own musical theme, ranging from "Pop goes the weasel" [Hamton & Plucky], to the love theme from "Romeo and Juliet" [Fifi & Johnny]. The transitions between plotlines are slightly varied, but consistent.<br /><br />Truly a wonderful film; there isn't much original music, though the new lyrics to "Spinning Song" are clever and enjoyable. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
| 1 |
positive
|
I began watching this movie on t.v. some weeks ago, but gave up after the first 10 minutes or so. At the start, the person on the witness protection scheme located in an isolated farmhouse becomes nervous about his exterior placed guards, and then asks the guard inside the house whether he can make a telephone call - only to discover the line has been cut.<br /><br />Shortly afterwards, Roy Scheider as one of the witness's assassins turns up and duly executes the witness and his wife - upon which the Roy Scheider character duly picks up the wall telephone in the kitchen, dials a number, and then speaks: It is done!!!! That was it for me!
| 0 |
negative
|
A malfunction in space sends astronaut Neil Stryker (Glenn Corbett) off course and headed to something of a parallel world, called Terra, circling the sun exactly opposite Earth. As a being from space would pose a threat to this world's order, Stryker is held until a determination can be made as to exactly what to do with him. Stryker, however, gets suspicious of his surroundings and escapes. With the help of a sympathetic nurse and a old scientist who opposes the government, Stryker will try to board a spaceship and head back to Earth.<br /><br />Stranded in Space (or The Stranger if you prefer) is another of those 70s made-for-TV movies that was to be turned into a regular, weekly show. In this case, it's easy to see why it didn't make it. First off, there's nothing new about the show's set-up. It was undoubtedly designed to follow the same formula used by The Fugitive or The Incredible Hulk or Planet of the Apes. You know, a stranger constantly on the move going from one town to the next taking whatever odd job he can all the while being pursued by a government agency or newspaper reporter. It's a formula that's been done to death. The second strike against Stranded in Space is its lead, Glenn Corbett. Could this guy come across any less likable? I was rooting for him to get caught. Without sympathy for the main character, this kind of show would never work. Finally, this is supposed to be science fiction. Just because everyone is left-handed and someone has hung three fake looking moons on the horizon I'm supposed to jump to the conclusion that this is some distant planet? So it's a mere coincidence that they all speak English, dress just like people on Earth, and drive Plymouth Furies? Yeah, right.<br /><br />The lone highlight for me was the inclusion of Cameron Mitchell in the cast. Sure, it's difficult to watch him in something this dreadful, but you know the old saying - any Cameron is better than no Cameron (yeah, I've never heard it either).<br /><br />As with a lot of these 70s made-for-TV movies, I watched Stranded in Space courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I wouldn't call it a great episode by any stretch of the imagination, but there are a few good jokes along the way. So in the end, while I rate the movie a 2/10, it gets a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.