text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I don't know about you but i go to horror films to be scared and this was anything but scary, the movie had several chances to be truly scary and failed miserably EVERY TIME! Several of these supposedly suspenseful moments were haunted by some of the worst cg you will see this year, perhaps decade! I mean when i say the cg looks like daytime TV, I'm giving daytime TV a bad name, I've seen better stuff on the sci-fi channel. Who i really feel sorry for is the actors,(that they have their names attached to this film) they did a good job, i cared about most of the characters and i felt that their performances were quite good, but that was not enough to bring this movie out of the gutter. Whats really amusing is the reuse of some of the sets, if you have seen "exorcist: the beginning" it will be easy to spot the reuse of some of the buildings. However what i thought was the worst thing about this film, even above the cg problems was the main demon, he was just not scary in anyway, his form, the way he talked, he was extremely bland. all in all this movie was a horrible experience and i would have walked out of the theater if it weren't for my wife wanting to see the end.
| 0 |
negative
|
I always felt that Ms. Merkerson had never gotten a role fitting her skills. Familiar to millions as the Lt. on Law and Order, she has been seen in a number of theatrical releases, always in a supporting role. HBO's Lackawanna Blues changes that and allows this talented actress to shine as Nanny, successful entrepreneur in a world changing from segregation to integration. But the story is really about the colorful array of characters that she and her adopted son meet in a boarding house in Lackawanna, New York, a suburb of Buffalo.<br /><br />The story could be set in any major African-American community of the 50's and 60's from Atlanta's Sweet Auburn to New York's Harlem. But the segregation-integration angle is only a subtle undercurrent in the colorful lives of the folks at Nanny's boarding house. The story revolves around Nanny's relationships with all kinds of people, played by some of the best actors in the business (I purposely did not say black actors--this ensemble is a stunning array of talent who happen to be black, except for Jimmy Smits, of course) I recommend this film as a fun and colorful look at a bygone day.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie could be likened to "comfort food" for the soul. Anyone who has ever tried and tried to save a relationship could relate to this movie. So many parts of it are so hilarious and so many parts are so heartbreakingly true. It's not perfect in its production or even its dialog, but the story is unique which is saying a lot for modern "romantic" comedies. Luke Wilson is bland at best, but Heather Graham does an exceptional job in my opinion. Give it a try - despite the trite looking DVD cover.The character of Joline brings a lot of issues up in our culture of self-service. She asks us if commitment is really for the other person or ourselves. Truly, it is ourselves. Following through on promises (anywhere from marriage to an errand for a friend) is a great feeling. Anymore, our word is nothing but a shapeshifting puff of smoke. Joline is like a wake-up call. We must be conscious of our words and commitments, they mean more than we think. At the same time, we must not commit to someone who is incapable of doing the same.
| 1 |
positive
|
"The Phenix City Story" is a brutal, hard-hitting docudrama about what was once dubbed the "wickedest town in America." The film documents the events that led up to the murder by the Phenix City crime syndicate of Albert Patterson, an Alabama attorney who made a bid for the state attorney general's office as a way to clean up the vice and corruption plaguing his hometown. His son, John Patterson, picked up his father's mantle after his death and won the post, making clean up of Phenix City a primary item on his agenda.<br /><br />Director Phil Karlson created a film that has the ability to shock even today. The grimness is so relentless that the film is actually difficult to watch. We see the crime syndicate beat and kill in order to get what they want -- the beatings and killings include women and children, and one scene in particular, revolving around the death of a little black girl, is especially disturbing. It's not exactly an enjoyable film, because there's very little payoff at the end to reward the viewer for sitting through the infuriating events leading up to it, but it's a well made film, full of an intense and angry energy.<br /><br />A 15-minute prologue includes a series of interviews with the actual inhabitants of Phenix City, some of who are then portrayed by actors in the fictional portion of the film. It lends the film a quality of urgency that carries over into the narrative, so that we feel like we're watching a documentary the entire time, a feeling that's helped by Karlson's choice to film on actual locations.<br /><br />I'm glad I saw this movie, but it's one of those films that fills you with a sense of righteous indignation and then makes you feel helpless because you can't do anything about it.<br /><br />Grade: A
| 1 |
positive
|
The Buddy Holly Story is a great biography with a super performance from Gary Busey. Busey did his own singing for this film and he does a great job.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie gives golf a high mark, it was well acted and well directed. Giving you a view of history that some non-sports fans will enjoy. The historic factor alone gives it a high rating, the Brookline golf course was really done well. I am in the northeast and have seen Brookline as a fan, and as someone who loves the game. The movie was well done on all levels. A MUST SEE 5 stars. The acting was superb, Disney has another winner in its bag of Great movies. If for no other reason watch the film to give hope and encouragement to young people whom may not see the hope in their life. I would tell you that the setting, while in the late 1800's and early 1900's is very realistic. The costumes and dialect were right on the mark as well. Above and beyond the call of duty for a golf film. A Must see for fans and non-fans alike.
| 1 |
positive
|
Although Embryo could have been a potentially thought provoking examination of bioethics, it degenerates into a stereotypical Frankenstein parable, putting across the by now monotonous lesson that there were some realms man was not meant to enter or study.<br /><br />Scientist Rock Hudson is experimenting with ways to prevent miscarried babies from dying. After success with a dog, he immediately jumps to humans-violating medical ethics and any sense of plausibility-with the equally unrealistic assistance of a hospital administrator. His experiment works too well, with some decidedly unpleasant side effects.<br /><br />Although Barbara Carrera is reasonably good in her role, and some of the animal training is spectacular, the film suffers from being too fantastical. Even though a message at the prologue assures viewers that this represents contemporary technology, the scientific work depicted looks far fetched even for the twenty-first century, let alone the mid- 1970s. Furthermore, the scene where Carrera is able to find a cure for the side effects of bioengineering simply by typing a question into a computer is laughable.
| 0 |
negative
|
I rated this movie a 3 and that was generous. The scenery is ponderous and gaudy, the acting for the most part is terrible. I do think Peter O'Toole did a good job of acting (Tiberius), but he must have been mortified when he saw the final cut of the movie. John Gielgud, howsoever brief his appearance in the movie, still seemed to be playing a role from Hamlet. The hard core pornography parts were neither erotic nor did they do much to further the story. Okay Malcolm McDowell had a nice butt and the guy who played Macro was handsome. The guy who played Claudius, looked more like the traditional depictions of Nero and was certainly at odds with Robert Graves' picture of Claudius. The climactic (?) assassination of Caligula, wife and child is inaccurate in that it shows him after death lying on stairs in an open-air area, when in fact he was assassinated in the underground passage on the palatine hill which ran along the front of the Domus Flaviana that still exists today. There are places in this movie where virtually anything drew my attention away from it--merciful distractions. If you want history, read Suetonius or Tacitus, if you want pornography and sadism, watch Passolini's "Salo", but by all means stay away from this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.<br /><br />I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.
| 0 |
negative
|
Utopia, made in 1950 in France, was the last film Laurel and Hardy produced. With the bad reputation the duo have for their post 1930's productions I was expecting this film to be awful. Although admittedly it isn't up to the standard of their "vintage" comedies I was pleasantly surprised. It's watchable, and in parts genuinely funny! And certainly the plot is of the same standard as you'd expect. Some gags are derivative from their earlier work, but when you consider this film was their first for five years after their last Hollywood produced film, "The Bullfighters", the routines are executed confidently as you'd expect from these professionals. Some scenes are not up to much, but the value of this film is that some scenes are funny, and as such, absolutely priceless. I particularly enjoyed the bedtime scene.<br /><br />I felt sad at the end of the film. Our heros are left on their own desert island. It's such a metaphor for the real life truth. Hollywood and audiences of the time had consigned the stars to a desert island of memories, and that was to become last image they portrayed in film. Ollie died seven years later and Stan died fifteen years later. Stan turned down an offer to appear in "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World" in 1963. What a shame that was - a colour film, only two years before he passed. However, his health probably wasn't up to much.<br /><br />These boys are probably the greatest comedy performers of all time, and although the movie is far from their true potential, it's still an honour to watch them appear in film for the last time, and touching on the echos of their towering talent.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is truly a classic 80s movie! A must have in any '80s' movie collection! Guns, Bad Guys, CREEPS, Gangs, CHARLES BRONSON and more CREEPS!!!! <br /><br />In my opinion, this is the best Death Wish movie. Tons of non-stop action! <br /><br />And keeping with the classic 80's "bad guy vs good guy" movie - this movie is about anything but the norm and all about guns and CREEPS! We see Bronson mowing down thugs and CREEPS with a 30 caliber Korean War heavy machine gun! A HEAVY MACHINE GUN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! When Charlie runs out of ammo for the Heavy Machine gun, he runs back to his crib and takes up arms with his long range high caliber pistol! This pistol can stop a freakin ELEPHANT and Charlie is putting holes the size of hub caps into bad guys with it! And if that is not enough, Charlie is also packing an anti tank grenade launcher, which by the way, is only good if he can get the CREEPS clumped together.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is "ha ha" great and a lot of off the wall actors (mainly playing CREEPS) appear throughout the movie! The film is loaded with memorable one liners and scenes! Heck, my favorite scene/line is where the CREEP leader confronts Broson in Jail and calmly explains to him: "Tell you what I am going to do ...I'm gonna kill a little old lady ...just for you! ...catch it on the six o'clock news".<br /><br />Is this film violent? Heck yes! But, you'll laugh and cringe all the way through!!!!
| 1 |
positive
|
If you thought this is the french The Mummy and if you're hoping for another "Vidocq"...well look elsewhere. It does have the same kind of story like The Mummy concerning this book of the dead and a soul that needs to find 7 missing pieces that are scattered in the Louvre. I found the movie to be slightly entertaining, boring for the most part. The special effects aren't bad, but it's nothing spectacular as I was expecting big explosions and perhaps the eiffel tower crumbling down until I realized that those kind of scenes were in The Mummy and this is Belhpegor. Apparently based on a french cult tv series, Belphegor could have been so much better. I voted this film a 4/10 only for the beautiful Sophie Marceau...she must be almost 40 and she looks breathtaking!
| 0 |
negative
|
As many know, this is the feature film debut of Edward D. Wood Jr. as as a writer/producer/director/actor. I have been a fan of Ed Wood for several years now. While I don't like this as much as some of his other films it was probably the largest insight that the cinematic going public gets of Wood during his life. Everybody knows that he was a transvestite. This film is about changing one's sex and how being a transvestite can create conflict in relationships with loved ones. This film is way ahead of its time in dealing with this subject matter and how it deals with it. However, the film still contains Wood's usual pitfalls of bad dialog, meaningless stock footage, and hokey special effects. Throw in Wood's usual overdose of Bela Lugosi hamming it up and you have Wood's first attempt at being a director.<br /><br />The plot is that a police inspector goes to a doctor after he discovers the body of a transvestite who committed suicide for advice on how to avoid further problems along these lines. The doctor tells him the story of Glen, who is also a transvestite. Glen wants to marry Barbara, but can't bring himself to tell her about his secret. He also tells the inspector about Alan who undergoes a sex change because he is really more suited to being a woman. Bela Lugosi plays a scientist who seems to add some kind of running commentary on what is going on (Lugosi's part really isn't well defined and proves to be most likely a vehicle for Wood to have a star in his film and Lugosi to get some cash).<br /><br />All in all, the movie shows the hallmarks of Wood's career. It was obviously shot on a very low budget and has quite a few things thrown in rather haphazardly. It definitely has the "it's so bad, it's good" feel to it. However, I do have to applaud Ed on his progressive thinking in making this film. Transvestitism and sex changes were not extremely open subjects in the early 50s. Wood took a big risk in making a film that portrays transvestites as people who are not sexual deviants and putting a more human face on cross-dressing.
| 0 |
negative
|
The ultimate gritty heist film. Elements of Bogie, Welles & Sinatra will leave you sweating & satisfied. In comparison, it really upsets the proverbial apple cart to see recent films, such as "Oceans Eleven (remake)", reviewed in such high regard-especially in Europe. Films like Rififi must be shown, spoke about, and kept alive to remind younger (pathetic) critics what true classic Noir is.<br /><br />Criterion should be commended in their flawless and classy transfer.
| 1 |
positive
|
What a self-indulgent mess! Duncan Roy's film is apparently autobiographical, however it's impossible to find any glimmer of emotional truth in this chaotic, badly acted and woefully amateurish fiasco.<br /><br />In a way, you have to admire the balls of a man who through grim determination and a very generous benefactor manages to make a film about his own rise and fall - from abused, working class lad to criminal English lord. However, the tone is either so self-pitying or so arch, that it's impossible to engage with either characters or plot. The raw material is potentially great stuff, however Roy seems unable to tease out the kind of tale that should grab you by the throat, then move you to tears. And it's a complete mystery why it was ever made to be screened as a triptych of images - presumably because a single image would have been too tedious to watch.<br /><br />It's also interesting to see so many otherwise good actors - Bill Nighy, Diana Quick, Lindsay Coulson - giving career-worst performances.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a film with a lot of potential, well done and acted, with a rather week and inconsistent script. A young woman with two children moves to her mother's cramped apartment, because the husbands flat on top of the workshop where he cuts up stolen cars is aggravating their son's asthma.Husband ends up in jail when an ex pat's stolen car is traced to his shop, ex pat ends up being kind,generous and naive shmoe(and rather cardboard and we learn next to nothing of him ), but ends up with the girl, who "trades up" despite being sexually satisfied only by her husband. I expect this film to be successful in Czech, where it will be welcome due to its obvious premise - "Them ex-pats may have money, they may even get our women, but they're old, soft and our women want to be satisfied,we may be poor, but ... . Now if only could Evzen keep Marcela satisfied so she would not need to play with herself, or if he already had an existing family in Italy ... but that would complicate things.
| 0 |
negative
|
Six-shooter, Tunnel Sergeant, Dr. Death, Pinhead, Cyclops, and Blade help the young Andre Toulon take out Sutek's Egyption henchman in the best sequel this series has seen.<br /><br />Retro Puppet Master is atmospheric with many sets, quality acting and some fun puppet FX. What it lacks in gore, it makes up for with an interesting well-paced plot.<br /><br />Best Quote: Dr. Death: "Don't you know, my friends? Smell the sulfur, see the smoke..."<br /><br />This is easily the best Dave DeCoteau film I've seen. The actors do a more-than-credible job: Jack Donner as "Azfel" turns in an inspired performance, and the young Toulon does well with the puppets. Oh, and the ring-needle is cool.<br /><br />John Massari's score is a nice symphonic take on the original Puppet Master tunes by Richard Band, keeping the movie playful and eerie. It's rare for a Full Moon score to actually add something to a film, and this one does.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Dave Allen didn't seem to be affordable enough for Band and Co. in the late-90's and beyond, so all of the puppet action is done rod and string. There's no stop motion such as the famous and funny scene in the original where Pinhead's looking for his pinhead. And, of course, as with all of the Full Moon fare of this time period, RPM was shot in and around Castel Studios in Bucharest, so most of the bit parts were cast to Romanians: hearing their "Parisian" accents was a bit annoying.<br /><br />All in all, this is probably one of the top-10 Full Moon films. It's certainly the most inventive of the Puppet Master sequels.
| 1 |
positive
|
Edward Dmytryk directed this shadowy movie about a murder investigation involving demobilized military personnel. Robert Young gets to lecture us about hatred, Robert Mitchum walks through most of this picture, and Gloria Grahame revisits the feistiness she exhibited in "It's A Wonderful Life." It's Robert Ryan who gets at the heart of the matter: anti-semiticism. He goes so deep into his role as Monty Montgomery (Imagine parents named Lawrence calling their son Larry!), that the drama sits squarely on his shoulders, and he is more than up to the challenge. Without him, the movie would be commonplace. Ryan has played a number of memorable villains in his day ("Bad Day at Black Rock;" "Billy Budd"), but this performance put him on the map. With Sam Levene as the murder victim.
| 1 |
positive
|
There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.<br /><br />This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.<br /><br />The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.<br /><br />And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought "who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.<br /><br />This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the "haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100" effect. Or be warned.
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, so she doesn't have caller ID. When you are being stalked, you GET IT! And no cell phone? When you are being stalked, you GET ONE if you are one of the few full time working parents that is the head of the household that doesn't own one already. This mom gets a big ZERO in the parenting department. So her mom is in the hospital and she decides a shopping trip will help her out. Just a stupid movie. Glad I have Tivo and a FF button on the remote.And what is with the 10 line minimum, I just don't have that much to say about such a bad movie. I guess I can ask why she keeps opening packages that she has no clue who they are from. The son really didn't add much to the movie either. The cops were a big ol zero too. Now get to the nearest Verizon and get the darn cell phone. @@
| 0 |
negative
|
This film starts out with all the moody promise of a great contemporary noir Western - after the ill-conceived opening flashback sequence anyway. The scenery is beautifully desolate, the characters achingly isolated. While some of the acting is less than believable, the plot ultimately delivers enough tension and twists to make this movie worth a look.
| 1 |
positive
|
Chili Palmer is tired of doing movies and know wants to do some success in music. Being half mafioso half expert negotiator, he wants to rise in the music market. However, know everyone is like him and making the good singer Linda Moon to record a hit will be harder as expected. The first part is funny and filled with irony, this one falls into the easy jokes and has many less good moments. Only the two women (Uma and Milian) are decent in their part. Most of the film is done with histrionic character, excessively exaggerated (a little is OK, too much is disgusting) and the only one that one could save is the gay bodyguard, who, at least is coherent, the rest, are too much idiot. The most surprising thing is the fact that the movie is not boring, everything happens so quick and there are so many things happening that you do not have time to get bored, if you want to follow the movie. It may insult your intelligence (a lot!), and the movie is bad(yeah!), but, well, it's not boring.
| 0 |
negative
|
Despite the solid performance of Penelope Ann Miller, this movie was an awkward mess. The lead character's American accent was ridiculous and he never seemed comfortable as a result. There was no chemistry between the two actors and I'm still not sure what Ann-Margaret was doing there.
| 0 |
negative
|
Some will say this movie is a guilty pleasure. I loved this flick but I don't feel guilty about it. You can tell the whole cast and crew had fun making this movie. But Jack Frost 2 won't go over well with some people. Right from the beginning you can tell this movie will be cheesy and it definitely has an amateurish look to it. Well, if you get the privilege to watch this movie, after watching it remember that Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Mutant Killer Snowman is a pleasure, not a guilty pleasure. Now, because I can't fill up ten lines heres some great scenes: <br /><br />**SPOILERS** <br /><br />The three women on the beach had great deaths. The first one had Jack in a tree trying to drop icicles on one of them. He kept missing so he dropped an anvil on her. The next woman fell on a bed of icicles. The last one was stabbed in the eyes with tongs.<br /><br />The other great one was where two surfers stoners are hanging out near a frozen pole. One of them gets their tongue stuck on it (of course). Jack Frost pulls him back a rips his tongue off while saying "COWA-TONGUE-A DUDE!". Well, you have to see it for yourself.<br /><br />And of course, the snowball children kicked ass.<br /><br />**END SPOILERS**<br /><br />infinity stars
| 1 |
positive
|
As most people I am tired of the by the numbers clichéd movies that Hollywood makes. There seems to be no creativity in Hollywood. Companies only want to spend money on remakes are sequels that have an audience built in.<br /><br />This movie is a welcome change. It could be classified as romantic comedy for it's genre but don't let that turn you off this movie. This is a very original movie which is not like most things Hollywood produces.<br /><br />If you are reading this, you already know the basic plot so I will not bother going over that. The only movies that come to mind to compare this to are "Interstate 60" and "Art of Travel" which are little known gems that take a different path than most of the Hollywood garbage.<br /><br />This is well worth seeing if you are tired of watching more of the same.<br /><br />Dean
| 1 |
positive
|
I thoroughly enjoyed Gabrielle Burton's story of a mysterious gift and how it effects it recipients in the past and present. The talented Burton family of five film-making sisters, an author mother, and dancing dad offer a charming plot, respectfully edited for clarity , memorably chosen songs, and a beautifully filmed piece that made me laugh and cry as the characters' vulnerablility invited me into their predicamant. There was a farce-like attitude about this work with touching undertones of innocent wonder. Fanatastic
| 1 |
positive
|
As a big fan of Brian Yuzna and the majority of the movies he's been involved in, I guessed I'd enjoy Progeny. I didn't, although in ways it has it's moments. However, if you're expecting something of the calibre of Society or Beyond ReAnimator, you could be in for a shock. In a way this is similar to Society, being a tale of a seemingly ordinary world with a horrific supernatural underbelly...but that's where it ends.<br /><br />I'm not covering for Yuzna when I say that the fault doesn't really lie with him, as bad direction is bad direction, but the direction is sound. What trips the movie up is both script and acting. Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator, Dagon) has written an intelligent script, but one that doesn't really work with Yuzna's style of direction, leaving him paused on actors delivering lengthy dialogue when really he wants to throw that camera around and get down with his bad self. This matter makes the movie awkward enough as it is, but there's worse.<br /><br />If the movie had been made with great actors, the movie would have probably held it's own. Unfortunately this is very far from the case. The acting is wooden, shockingly so even for a low-budget B feature. The inexplicably successful and renowned Arnold Vosloo wrecks every damn line with near pinpoint precision, handing in one of the worst performances I've seen in a long while. The man manages to turn every line of well considered dialogue into the kind of ham-line you'll be throwing drunkenly at mates next time you're in the pub. 'Hey Bob! GOOD GOD, AM I GOING MAD! WHAT'S...COME OVER ME! NOOOO!' In fact I may try that one myself next weekend. The last minute addition of genre veteran (and personal favourite) Brad Dourif, instead of enriching the film like it should, almost seems to hand Dourif the movie in a last ditch effort to stop Vosloo from hamming, but quite frankly Dourif looks deeply uncomfortable (possibly waiting for the next assault of bad acting) next to Vosloo, and even an eccentric turn from him fails to resuscitate the film.<br /><br />If the acting was better, this movie would have been okay. Hell, it might have been pretty enjoyable, but the lack of character makes the movie a soulless affair, and makes the horror element seem tacked on and tasteless instead of an organic part of the film. I found the alien torture/rape scenes a little difficult to stomach already, but the fact that the characters were so lacking made them seem gratuitous as well as unpleasant, leaving a nasty taste in the mouth.<br /><br />So, if you really like Sci-fi and don't have a problem with bad acting, pedestrian pacing and a really garish, nasty rape scene, Progeny will probably be your cup of tea. But since I do, I'm probably never going to watch it again. Once was enough. On the plus side, this is the only Sci-Fi movie Yuzna ever bothered to make, so he obviously wasn't really that pleased with it himself.
| 0 |
negative
|
The film begins with a 30 minute explanation about the war, the human cyborgs, battles, history, and then dumps 2 actors into a gravel pit. They run around this gravel pit/desert area for about an hour shooting at each other. That's it. Must have cost about £10.00 to make, with change. Avoid.<br /><br />Marks out of ten: Acting -9 Sets 1 Costumes -9 Direction -50 Production 1 Titled intro 4<br /><br />I think to improve this film would be to: Lose the commentary. (Let the watcher decide what's going on). Remove some of the awful CGI. Add some techno rave music to it. They might just rescue it.......
| 0 |
negative
|
What a surprise this film was. I've seen a good few of Fulci's horror and zombie flicks and was amazed that this was by the same director. He also wrote the screen play which shows that the chap was quite capable of crafting a detailed, complex story line. The dubbing on this is not good, but far from the appalling slop that only further hinders later howlers like 'Manhattan Baby'.<br /><br />The photography in this film is fantastic. A strange, almost futuristic highway appears throughout the film which focuses on a small town where young boys are being murdered. A scene involving the beating of a woman is uncomfortable to watch, yet refreshing in comparison to usual cinema violence. <br /><br />What went wrong Lucio? Perhaps there is a strong case to suggest he had reached his peak with this film, and it slowly went downhill after that.
| 1 |
positive
|
I just discovered this film and love it. Just the right mix of fast moving story, entertaining characters, hilarious moments (but not overloaded with stupid jokes), and fun performances by Kelsey Grammar, Harry Dean Stanton, Ron Schneider, Rip Torn and more. Buckman is especially good, and I really enjoyed watching the guy who played Stapanick.<br /><br />I also find it interesting that they used a real submarine, the Pampanito, for the running on top scenes and emulated it almost exactly for their sets. The set decoration is really impressive if you do a digital tour of the Pampanito online and then compare it to scenes in the movie. They did an excellent job on this film.<br /><br />What a light entertaining and truly enjoyable movie!
| 1 |
positive
|
When a Stranger Calls belongs to the group of this year's remakes, with movies like Poseidon just over the horizon. Director Simon West (Con Air) helms this updated version, with plenty of relative unknown casts, which signals either the death rate is high (it isn't), or that established stars are steering clear from a potential turkey.<br /><br />Clocking in at a relatively short 87 minutes, it's primarily made up of two acts. The first, which takes a full one hour, is the setup. Our heroine, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), chalked up 800 minutes of talk time on her mobile phone (do the math), and as a lesson in responsibility, her parents had confiscated her mobile and grounded her. To pay off her debt, she works part time as a babysitter, and looking after the wealthy Mandrakis' kids, is her first stint.<br /><br />The huge Mandrakis mansion gets a full tour treatment, as it is where all the action will take place. Plenty of rooms (makes for good hiding), an indoor pool sized aquarium-pond (to get wet in, for the wet T-shirt treatment), and check this out - motion detector lights, which you just know will contribute to the scares with the manipulation of lights and shadows. Naturally, prank calls, red herrings are aplenty, which chalks up this act's runtime, but most of them fall flat in the suspense department.<br /><br />There's a minor trend emerging, with actors being the unseen, providing and acting through their voice instead. Recent attempts include Edward Norton in Kingdom of Heaven, and Hugo Weaving's V for Vendetta. Here, Lance Henriksen does the honours for the anonymous, nameless psychotic killer, but it just falls flat. Why? The script doesn't give him much dialogue. Most of the phone calls made were of the silent (mind-masturbatory) nature, which I felt was a waste - they could have also casted some unknown instead, and the job will still get done.<br /><br />The second act, where the main action takes place, is too little too late. And the bogeyman, well, is purely a bogeyman. Those expecting blood and gore will be disappointed, as basically it's a one -woman show to hold your attention in the first hour (eye candies always succeed), and this act will have her resolve everything in double quick time, ala Rachel McAdams in Red Eye. Don't expect any form of character development, nor subplots that will engage.<br /><br />The ending tried to be too smart for its own good, and came across as a cheap way to end the movie. There's not much of goodness to highlight from this movie - no scares, no thrills, no enigmatic villain, and plenty of security flaws, especially with that door alarm - the only thing it's good for, is to provide a number for 4D.
| 0 |
negative
|
Very stark, very drab, no real drama. Why not just make a documentary? This isn't exactly The Passion of Joan of Arc. The only reason for seeing Chronicles is to hear the performances. I love Bach's music and even I found it hard to sit through this misery of a film. The great Gustav Leonhardt plays (in two senses of the word) Bach. We don't get much of a sense of him as an actor, since he's given so little to do dramatically. Mostly, he gets to walk purposefully or angrily out of various rooms. Bach's life, of course, was not an Errol Flynn movie. It was indeed fairly drab and more than a little hard. This probably means that the life isn't a terrific candidate for a film. The music, of course, is another story. I recommend The Stations of Bach. Far more information, for one thing, and some insight into the music, which is, after all, why Bach interests us in the first place.
| 0 |
negative
|
kite runner is undoubtedly one of the most amazing books i have read in the recent past. i perhaps had very high expectations from the film, but none the less the movie was good, the entire setting seemed realistic. nothing was made to fancy. the dialogs were not very attractive or powerful, they were just right. The movie was not a bad experience at all, especially at the last 15mins ,where it got real emotional and even the hardest man would probably cry.but my imagination was far better than the movie...i cried more upon reading the novel than seeing the movie. but overall a good movie to see for those of u who are not readers. but the readers- the novel would be a better experience,so if at all u want to see the movie, read the novel first and then compare it to the movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
Gamers: DR is not a fancy made movie, it's more like amateur video. Horrible magic effect, really fake fireball, terribly made dungeon, castle, village...... sword, axe, shield, robe, plate..... okok... everything. You will need about 10 minutes to adjust your expecting on visual, then you will get 105 minutes of fun.<br /><br />I'm from Hongkong and it's really hard to find RPers, none of my friends play RPG and I always fancy to be one of the character in the world of D&D. Watching Gamers: DR just show me what would it be like to be a gamer. You see rule books, dices, game set, etc etc etc; You hear terms like "fighter", "wizard", "hit point", "level", "character", "flaming hand", "Chaotic Evil".<br /><br />What RPG fancy me is that it let you do anything u want to, not bonded by software RPG. Gamers: DR provide the same element, you wont know what happen next and it probably just make you laugh to dead. The movie goes both gamers's real life as well as in the D&D world. You will hear the gamer cast the dice when the character in game take action, which make you feel you really participle in the game.<br /><br />I don't want to spoil anything, but in short, Gamers: DR is a must watch movie for RPG lovers. For people never play RPG game, I'm sure you still get many fun from it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Perhaps one of the first slasher film that came out after Halloween (Although made from Irwin Yabalans from Halloween), I must say I honestly found "Tourist Trap" to be scarier and funner. "Tourist Trap" is one of those remarkable treats you find every now and then, and are left with the most enjoyable feeling of surprise. It was destiny I tell you, but one night I was at my local Blockbuster (One or Two months before it went out of business), and had nothing to get. Then I stumble upon this movie, I think huh seems like a laughable B-Movie, I rent it and took it home, boy was I in for a good scare. "Tourist Trap" comes off as a bad movie, it definitely has it's cheesy moments,but in the end you're having to much fun with it to really care.<br /><br />The things that impressed me the absolute most, and the things that made this movie one of the scariest ones I've seen, is number one the setting. A horror movie without a good setting isn't very fun, not here. I just love love love the location, it feels like we can relate to it, it almost feels like we've been there before. Which makes it creepier. Next is the characters, non of them are really stereotypical, and they all have a real personality. For example they're not stoners, alcoholics, or even Sex obsessed people, they feel like normal young adults. Plus they look realistic enough, and then their is Chuck Connors. Who gives a great performance as Mr. Slausen who we all take an instant liking too because again he's so real, he feels like that nice guy grandfatherly figure we adore. The last, and probably most important thing that makes this movie scary is how they make us (the audience) jump half way out of our seats, and turn on the rights, for the right reasons. For example most of the time in horror films we mainly just jump because of a sudden change in the music pitch, but in "Tourist Trap" prepare yourself, that's not the case. With it's perfect use of lighting, mannequins, and weirdness you feel utterly creeped out. Plus I love because although they may go a bit over-the-top with some things you still feel like this could happen. Which is exactly what a horror movie who takes such a ridicules premise should do, and that is make us (the audience) feel unsafe and terrified.<br /><br />Overall as far as any major problems go, I have none, only that it's weirdness may get a little too weird at times. However in the end "Tourist Trap" holds a place near and dear to my heart, for being one of the few horror films to make me turn on the lights and feel unsafe about traveling.
| 1 |
positive
|
Having finally been able to get the DVD of this 1997 HBO film, is at down to watch it. By the time I finished it the old saying "those who can not learn from the past are doomed to relive it" was echoing in the mind. First shown four years after the first bombing of the twin towers (and four years before the events of 9/11) Path To Paradise reveals the series of close encounters, blunders and official in-decisions that led to the first bombing of the twin towers and the lessons we should have learned from them.<br /><br />Path To Paradise features a nice cast of believable actors. Peter Gallagher and Marcia Gay Harden lead the cast as FBI agents John Anticev and Nancy Floyd who face not only the threats of terrorism but the lack of official interest from their superiors along with their NYPD counterpart Lou Napoli (Paul Guilfoyle). Art Malik, Andreas Katsulas, Shaun Toub and Tony Gillan are among those who plan and carry out the attack all of whom play their roles not as potential clichés but as real living people and make the film all the better for it. Of special mention is Ned Eisenberg as Emad Salem the man whom, if it had not been for skeptical FBI officials, could have potentially informed on the plot.<br /><br />The film is also well produced. Despite being made for cable this film doesn't feel like a low-budget film at all with its production values particularly in its sets and New York City locations. The film's fascinating cinematography gives the film an almost documentary style at times. When all of these elements are combined with the script it all helps to give the film a sense of reality which makes the events taking place all the more disturbing.<br /><br />The most disturbing thing about he film is its script. The events of the film are true (minus some dramatic license which is always necessary) and in hindsight are made even more shocking then they must have been when the film was first shown twelve years ago. The film reveals just how a group of men were able to smuggle a bomb into the World Trade Center. They did so thanks to the lack of Arabic translators, government agencies failing to pass information to each other, the FBI ignoring leads from a source and police departments being unable to pick up on clues. Worse then investigators inabilities to connect dots is the fact that many of these same things not only allowed the 9.11 attacks to take place but in some cases (such as the lack of translators) are issues that continue even today. Even more chilling is the ending which really did happen and looks all too prophetic today.<br /><br />Path To Paradise is a film that should be essential viewing today. The film is not only well acted and produced but teaches us a lesson we should have learned sooner. The lesson of the film? That those who can not learn from the past are doomed to relive it. If you can find this film then watch it and learn from it.
| 1 |
positive
|
It's exactly what I expected from it. Relaxing, humorous and entertaining. The acting couple was awesome, as well as the scene selection. I personally recommend this. It's kind of the movie that can be seen by whole family at the same time without anyone feeling uncomfortable or getting bored. This cute movie will make you smile, and laugh too. And the action scenes are tasty. Classics of modern american comedy. And very well done.
| 1 |
positive
|
My main criticism is quite simply that it isn't long enough or detailed enough. I would have loved to see more of everything: the building of the vessel, the engineering, the training, the first lift to orbit, preparations for departure, Venus Orbital Injection, everything. I would have liked to see more of the first leg, Venus to Earth, instead of zipping there like a n°10 corporation bus. In fact, I would have liked to see a series on the scale of Earth Story made of this, with a full hour dedicated to every planet and maybe another to the loop around the Sun. As it was, I was left hungry. On the other hand, I do understand budgets and viewers' attention-spans.<br /><br />Re the science: Let's be fair about the speed-of-light time-lag: they did mention at the beginning that there was a lag in conversations, but they let this evaporate once they reached the outer planets. Some kind of conversation had to be presented to the viewers, and we have to assume that the lag was edited out for the sake of palatability; so no complaints there. But zero for noisy spaceships. The only film in which spaceships make no noise was Kubrick's 2001, and even then he copped out by using the noise of the crew breathing in their helmets - which *was* pretty effective. I wish the makers of Space Odyssey had realized just how eerie the sight of vast rocket-motors blasting in absolute silence might be but alas, Pegasus lets out much the same roar as every other cardboard spaceship in every other cardboard SciFi film.<br /><br />But the rest of the science was excellent. No complaints there, in fact praise for bringing out the radiation problems as well as they did. I just hope that having done this film won't discourage the BBC from making a really detailed version, but I suppose that's not for next week or next year either...
| 1 |
positive
|
Well, I fell for it. I saw the box for this at the video store, and mistook it for "Girlfight", which I'd heard was great. In my own defense, the titles are similar, and they re-did the cover art for the box so it looked almost identical. Anyway, to sum it up, they obviously re-did the whole cover packaging/promo to capitalize on the buzz/success of "Girlfight". I popped it in and got a bad feeling when they started showing trailers for low budget straight-to-video flicks, and even worse when a music video of the main song for the movie, which sounded like elevator music and featured corny slomo clips from the movie preceded the main feature. When I saw the first few minutes and Maria Conchita Alonso showed up, I knew I'd fallen for it. (don't get me wrong, she's a talented actress, but I knew she wasn't in "Girlfight", the movie I'd been under the false impression I was renting).<br /><br />So, apart from me feeling sort of cheated and mad at myself for not looking closer, the movie was OK. The plot involves Belle, a young Latino woman who is the daughter of an ex-champion boxer. One of her close friends is a female boxer, who--and I could see all this coming sooo far ahead of time it was really a drag--gets seriously injured during a match with a mean champ named "The Terminator", who resembles a female version of a bigger, more pumped up Ike Turner. Of course, Belle decides that the only thing to do is to become a boxer herself and avenge her friend. She lives with her caring, supportive yet protective Dad (her mother died of cancer when she was younger), who just happens to be a cop. Her love interest, also caring and supportive yet protective, is also a cop who works with her dad. Hmmm, they both have jobs that put their lives in danger in the line of duty...wonder what's gonna happen? She starts training and meets a sleazy manager who of course, pretends to care about her but just wants to exploit her. The actor they hired looks like a very low-rent Cary Eweles and is so young he barely manages to have a mustache. His acting was also really, really bad. I'm not even going to go into the plot any further because anyone who has seen Rocky, or almost anyone, knows exactly where this movie is going and how it will end.<br /><br />This was not a completely terrible movie. Most of the acting was OK, and the lead actress was very good. There were good, strong female Latino role models. The final fight scene did get me sort of interested, even though I knew everything that was going to happen long before it did. The actress that played "The Terminator" did a great job of being unlikeable enough that I really did want Belle to kick her a$$, and rooted for Belle-again, although there were absolutely no surprises. My favorite moment (maybe the only moment where I wasn't mad at myself for renting the movie by mistake) was when Belle slaps her sleazy manager after he's shown his true colors, yells at him, and then turns away only to suddenly fake a punch and watch him cringe back in fear, showing that she is really the one in charge.<br /><br />The dialogue was really, really bad, my main complaint. One of their attempts to be witty was someone discussing boxing saying "size doesn't matter" and the female replying wryly, "now where have I heard that before?" Other lines that are supposed to have dramatic impact are "The doctors told me I may never walk again!" "Come on, you know you can trust me!" and "Your mother would have been so proud of you". I could go on and on. Nothing you haven't heard a million times before in bad soap operas or movies-of-the-week. <br /><br />Maybe I'm being too mean-the filmmakers did make an effort, and I did sit through the whole thing voluntarily...but only because there was nothing else to watch while I worked out. You could do worse (especially if you are looking for a movie with strong female characters) but you could also do much, much better.
| 0 |
negative
|
At the beginning of 'Loggerheads', we're introduced to three pairs of seemingly unrelated characters. To make matters even more confusing, we're informed (via titles on the screen) that the action is taking place in three separate time lines (between the years 1999 and 2001). It takes a great deal of time but eventually we come to see how the three pairs are related: Mark Austin, a young man in his 20s, gay and HIV Positive is estranged from his conservative parents, Elizabeth and Rev. Robert Austin. <br /><br />Mark is now a drifter and arrives in Kure Beach, North Carolina, a seaside town, where he meets George (sensitively played by Michael Kelly), a gay motel owner and they eventually become involved with each other. Meanwhile, Mark's birth mother, Grace (played by Bonnie Hunt) has come to the point in her life where she has decided to find the son she gave up for adoption when she was 17. Similarly, Mark's adoptive mother, also has decided to track her estranged son as she misses him (despite the misgivings of her homophobic minister husband).<br /><br />'Loggerheads' we're told is based on a true story and that perhaps is its Achilles Heel. Director/Writer Tim Kirkman tries too hard to create scenes fraught with dramatic tension where there is very little to be found. Take Mark and Georgethey're both sensitive souls who have little to disagree about. There's some slight tension when Grace faces off against an Adoption Agency Director who is forbidden by law to give her any information about her lost son as well as a slight conflict with her mother who denies that she disapproved of her when she became pregnant as a teenager. No sparks fly either between Elizabeth and Robert since the good Reverend has adamantly insisted from the beginning that he has no intention of reconciling with his son. <br /><br />'Loggerheads' is similar to 'Brokeback Mountain' in that the gay couple are the good guys and the straight males (for example, the Kure Beach cop and the Reverend) are the baddies. The biggest letdown of the movie is that there is no interaction (and hence no dramatic conflict) between Mark and either one of his 'mothers'. Mark is already dead before either the birth or adoptive mother has a chance to reconcile with him. <br /><br />Kirkman's theme is both a plea for tolerance and an exhortation for family members to express their heartfelt feelings before it's too late! Kirkman's sentiments are for the most part well-intentioned but they do not make for good drama. Loggerheads moves along at a snail's pace without providing any new revelations (or suspense) regarding such topics as AIDS, Adoption and Homophobia. Ultimately 'Loggerheads' fails due to a lack of originality.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a totally awesome movie! If you haven't seen it yet, you damn well should. Sure, the plot is slow to develop, the special effects are laughable, the acting is ridiculous and the action is badly choreographed, but as wrestler DDP would say; That's not a bad thing....that's a good thing! Everything about this movie is hilarious, especially if you get the dubbed version, which has even worse actors. It's countless laughs until you get to the end, yearning for the sequel, where the mummy fights wrestling women. Thus, I give it ten stars. Unless you're one of those 'discriminating' and 'intelligent' people with good taste, who likes only 'high quality' films of the highest calibre, I recommend this utterly monkeydellic movie!
| 1 |
positive
|
At the beginning of the movie, Ramgopal Verma says that "Sarkar" is his tribute to The Godfather. This one feels more like an insult. It pales terribly in comparison to the Coppola classic. Although no one was expecting Ramgopal Verma to fill Coppola's shoes, the movie did create a lot of expectation and buzz. <br /><br />Amitabh Bachchan plays "Sarkar", a character automatically drawing instant comparisons to Indian political party Shiv Sena's Supremo Bal Thackeray. Abhishek Bachchan plays his son Shankar who returns from abroad and gets caught up in Sarkar's politics at home. Just like Al Pacino in the original Godfather. <br /><br />As most Bollywood fare, incidents and characters are overtly simplistic and devoid of any kind of solid foundation. Quick phone calls and sudden announcements turn the film from one direction to another. Abishek takes to Mumbai's murky underworld politics-crime nexus like a duck takes to water. Amithab Bachchan as Sarkar is supposed to look magnificent and powerful, he just ends up looking old and clueless. Most of his acting is centered around constantly staring at different things around the movie set - the actor in front of him, the floor or in some other random direction. <br /><br />However, Kay Kay performs exceedingly well as the wronged elder son Vishnu. So does Zakir Hussain as Rashid, the Dubai based dope smuggler who wants to gets his footing in Mumbai. This actor has awesome screen presence and can send chills down your spine with just the way he looks. The moment he enters the screen, you want to run and hide under the bed. <br /><br />All its obvious flaws not withstanding, the film did well at the box office. The buzz and the big star cast obviously helping. Also Verma manages to hold your interest albeit mildly towards the later half of the film. He is actually making a sequel to this one which I am sure will be more of the same fare.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie just arrived to Mexico and since I read very good reviews here about it I decided to go watch it with my friends and girlfriend, but i was greatly disappointed, I don't understand how people can rate it 10/10 I mean screenplay and directing were beautiful, but a great overall movie need a good story which this flick lacked altogether.<br /><br />I've enjoyed several dramatic Asian and European films but they had a good story, watch this movie at your own risk unless you are eastern European or orthodox i don't think you will like it.<br /><br />Half the people on the theater left including my 4 friends who waited outside since they were really bored so was I but I always wait till the end of the movie.<br /><br />Regarding the movie, it was extremely slow paced, with a lot of time wasting scenes, the full length of the story could have been shown in no more than 40 minutes, but they made it longer by having scenes of the monk getting coal that is like 15 minutes of the whole movie plus panoramic views and so on, until they made it a full length movie a really boring one.<br /><br />I recommend you listen to me if you still watch it come back and rate this comment as useful after wards to help people avoid this waste of money.
| 0 |
negative
|
Camp Blood looked great when I was buying it, but when I watched it boy was I wrong. Its tacky, the acting is outrageous and the quality of the film is shocking. Being a movie fan, I usually find humour from tragic horror, but at times I couldn't even laugh. Maybe Camp Blood 2 will be an improvement.
| 0 |
negative
|
... BREAKER MORANT and ROMPER STOMPER . It has also given us watchable films such as BOOTMEN and THE ODD ANGRY SHOT . Unfortunately for everyone involved in this debacle THE WOG BOY won't be joining appearing in either list .<br /><br />I was looking forward to seeing this movie simply because of the politically incorrect title , so politically incorrect that when it was broadcast on BBC 2 late at night the announcer didn't even mention the movie's name so I was expecting something so offensively anachronistic that my jaw was going to drop in disbelief . It did drop in disbelief , I found myself not being able to believe that the financiers thought this was going to be a major international hit <br /><br />The problem lies with the cast and the script . I do know that Australia with its small population doesn't have a large pool of actors so I'll be forgiving for the most part , but this doesn't stop my criticism of Nick Giannopoulos as Steve . For this type of comedy to work you must be impressed with the comic skills of the lead actor and I'm sorry to say but Nick G just doesn't have the skills . I'd never heard of him and seen nothing else he's been in so perhaps he's much better at other performances . Here however he's just plain irritating , unconvincing and I lost count at the number of times he mugged for the camera . The jokes themselves are very flat and predictable and getting back to the script it seems very under developed , I mean who thought a running gag about a female Minster Of Work who's having it off in the back of a limousine was funny to begin with ? You do get the feeling that someone in the production should have been more honest and said " Look mate , this screenplay's not nearly good enough . Go and make it more subtle and structured "<br /><br />I've been harsh and harshness has been called for in this review . I gave the movie four out of ten and it would have only got three if it wasn't for the one genuinely funny sequence where Steve is watching a current affairs show only for himself flashing up on screen and labelled a " Dole blodger " . This shows that the screenwriters were aware of comic timing and social comment . Such a pity that they didn't come with a much better written movie
| 0 |
negative
|
If one overlooks the technical problems of this early (1930) sound movie such as the sound quality and the occasional stiffness of John Wayne, one will find this movie to be an epic that is more realistic than almost any movie made since. Beginning at the Missouri, a large caravan of Conestoga wagons, people, and animals head west. The wagons are pulled down huge cliffs and cross a flooded river with considerable risk to the riders in the wagons. Indians meet with Wayne, and allow the train to pass through their land. Later, Indians gather west of the train to combat them. The wagons form a huge circle with horses and cattle in the circle, and fire their rifles creating with the circling Indians a veil of smoke.<br /><br />When the battle ends, the dead are buried on the spot and the people and wagons depart. This scene is remarkable, as the camera stays with the dead as the living depart. It is unique in the way it links the viewer with the dead and separates the viewer from the living. The wagons encounter a major thunderstorm with torrential downpours and mud everywhere. They finally arrive at their destination near a redwood or sequoia forest in Oregon. The film is done in 70 mm widescreen at about a 2.0:1 ratio (in 1930!).<br /><br />I haven't mentioned the plot because it is secondary to the scenic grandeur and the enormous amount of work involved in making this film. Moviemakers will never work this hard again to make such a movie or any movie. Given the technical limitations of the sound, the music is at times moving, such as when Wayne leaves his girl to hunt down his friend's killers and at the end.<br /><br />While all the critics rave about The Searchers and Wayne's psychology, racism, short temper, and complex characters, The Big Trail gives us a story of simple people encountering extraordinary hardships. One of the best westerns I have seen.
| 1 |
positive
|
Jack Webb is riveting as a Marine Corp drill instructor in the D.I.. Webb play Sgt.Jim Moore, a tough but fair Marine whose job it is to prepare young teens for possible combat. No one could have played this role any better that Jack Webb. As a former Marine,I can assure that this is the most accurate film dealing with basic training in the Corp. Extremely entertaining!
| 1 |
positive
|
okay, my question; who's the idiot that wrote this movie, giving it the same name as Dean Koontz's awesome book? its terrible, nothing like the book...you got the dog, and the watcher, but there the similarities end...might be good, if you haven't read the book, though...but it disappointed me, really.<br /><br />they should make a new one, and let koontz write it... now that would be a good movie... I'll say it again, this movie disgusted me...absolutely disgusted me. it was terrible, it was absolutely nothing like the book. I would never again watch it.
| 0 |
negative
|
This comic classic of English school girl antics is and was one of the great art house classics. Then the art house disappeared with the arrival of videos. And so did the audience for this movie. The loss is not to the art houses or to this great film. The loss is to those who will never have a real opportunity to view this memorable laugh filled cinematic masterpiece. But I am preaching to the converted aren't I. Who else would search for this flick?
| 1 |
positive
|
Seeing the title of this movie "Stupid Teenagers Must Die" made me believe this was a spoof of some kind. I discovered later on the original title was "Blood and Guts". Both titles are misleading, though. This is not a spoof, neither a serious splatter movie. This is something in between, failing in both areas. A group of teenagers is attending a séance at a spooky house and then the killing starts. Sounds over familiar, doesn't it. Well, this movies adds nothing whatsoever to the endless stream of similar movies. And it is badly made. Because of the lack of light the entire film is grainy. Now this effect can be highly effective, but it isn't in this case. The young cast isn't acting too badly, but the director has no clue as what to do with actors. In numerous scenes the actors are clearly waiting for directions, but these are given too late. It could also be an editor's mistake, of course. The characters are unrealistic and the story line just stinks. The sound is terrible at times: conversations are undecipherable, but when talking loudly or screaming the actors are very loud indeed.<br /><br />This is not the worst horror movie I have ever seen, but it still is a bad one. For me a 3 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie could have been oh so much better. It is a beautiful story set in very trying times, and yet it was so poorly executed. The leading actors have in the past done excellent jobs, and for the most part they do an adequate job in this film. Although at times their dialogue seems stilted and forced. The directing could have been more concise. The bulk of the criticism should go to the writers, who took a good story and made it tedious. In short, there are thousands of MUCH better ways to spend 2 hours.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one dreary, inert, self-important bore. When the only thing that suddenly gives a film life is a hanging, you know the venture is botched. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Truman Capote as a narcissistic, tic-ridden, self-indulgent, cartoon-voiced, insect-like caricature. Why he is this way is never explained and we get scant background information. The script focuses on Capote's writing of 'In Cold Blood' and his attachment to the damaged brothers who murdered a family of four. The acclaimed writer of 'To Kill A Mockingbird', Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), accompanies Capote in his initial inquires into the crime, and her presence immediately suggests a far more interesting subject for a biopic. Unfortunately, Lee is quickly sidelined in favor of endless scenes of Capote bemoaning his pained existence. Watching him is like watching Dr. Smith from 'Lost in Space' complain about his "delicate back" to anybody who will listen for two hours. The difference, however, is that Smith was fun to watch while Capote is not. The film's precious self-importance kills it, as does director Bennett Miller's reluctance to add any kind of shading. Like the morose piano score, the film is a one note wonder, providing no contrast, no emotional coloring, and no intimate drama. If Capote really was this irritating, why make a film about him and expect audiences to watch it? Though the supporting roles are well performed (Chris Cooper is his usual stalwart self), they serve such little dramatic purpose because, ultimately, it's all about Capote(!) Director Bennett and screenwriter Dan Futterman fail to emotionally engage their intended audience because they were clearly overwhelmed by the cultural baggage of Capote's "legend". Their product is stillborn Oscar bait...and is more evidence that one great genre pic has more "truth" in it than a dozen piles of oh-so-sincere crap like this.
| 0 |
negative
|
I doubt whoever wrote this screenplay has ever actually read Mansfield Park...or if they have it was not very well. None of the characters are what they should be: Fanny is lively and conscious of her mistreatment, while Sir Thomas, who treated her very well, seems to have accidentally fallen into Aunt Norris' personality. Additionally, a first person narrative by Fanny is highly inappropriate to both the story and her character. Fanny is not an entertaining heroine, and I would contend that she is not meant to be. Additionally, in the movie version, Fanny flirts shamelessly with Edmund from the very beginning, when they have been raised as brother and sister! Austen's Fanny would have shrank from flirtation of any sort, and the novel paints the Fanny/Edmund pairing as highly uncomfortable...as it should be. Unlike some other Jane Austen novels (P&P, Emma), Mansfield Park does not rest on the strength of its female protagonist. It is a very different sort of novel than the others; it is not meant to be a love story. I watched this movie because I have just now finished reading Mansfield Park, and I am absolutely horrified by what I see; Miss Austen is rolling in her grave.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie should have been billed as three movie-summaries linked together to form a full-length feature film (including lots of shots of people slowly walking down dark corridors and streets). BE WARNED! The first hour of this movie is simply a re-hash of the first two Aztec movies as told by the main character. The actual movie doesn't start until the thing is almost over. I must say, the overacting on the part of the Bat is quite hilarious.<br /><br />As for the robot, I thought a robot was a mechanical device that may or may not resemble a human. The Bat's "robot" consists of a radioactive reanimated corpse encased in a lead robot-body. As Tom Servo put it, "He's not that impressive; he doesn't even have knees!" That, and it takes the robot about an hour just to lumber across the room. But once he catches you, WATCH OUT! He'll disintegrate you with a touch (powered by radium? Pluh-ease!).<br /><br />This is a great movie when accompanied by Joel and the Bots. Otherwise, you're just a glutton for abuse.
| 0 |
negative
|
"An evil spirit takes over a girl and diffuses panic in the Louvre museum" that's all I think, the summary of the movie and the movie itself ! Which I think it's one of the worst French or non French movies ever made in the history of cinema ! <br /><br />Nothing good in here except the music (of the credits only !), some tender moments of (Sophie Marceau), and of course the movie's finale shot.. Not because it ends ages of what seemed to be a countless years we had in watching THAT CRAP but also for being so perfect as one magical C.G.I work that was too good to be true in here ! <br /><br />By the way I want to change the plot summary to be like this "An evil spirit takes over some cinema artists to make lousy movies".. Just like this one for sure.
| 0 |
negative
|
Me being one was probably having a brain fart at the time for renting it. Anyone who actually buys it, will enjoy using this as a coaster. Perhaps a frisbee? This is a dvd I actually found up front where the kids could get to it. Since dvd's don't seem to be in the position to be put in that tell tale back room with all the big box vhs tapes are, I find it rather annoying they stuck this up next to a disney film. Yep, going from Dinosaur to Erotic Ghost has shown what we all think of Disney right? I havent' stooped that low just yet. There's no acting in here. The only thing interesting is the old 1973 movie trailers for ollllld ancient erotic films that I'm amazed have escape from being burned to hell.<br /><br />1/10 (if imdb allowed zero's it'd be 0/10)
| 0 |
negative
|
When I was young, I was a big fan of Chuck Norris. I just begun getting out all his old movies on video so I can see them through adult eyes. I remember that I really liked this one in particular, and thought it was one of his best. Now that I'm a little older, I can say that although it's thoroughly average, I still consider it one of his better films. In an acting stretch for him, Norris plays a cop haunted by his participation in the arrest and capture of a dangerous serial killer movie. Serial Killers are all the rage nowadays, and people would like to think of them as a wholly 90s invention. In contrast, it's good to see where the current infatuation has sprung from, most obviously, action movies (as well as stalk n' slashers) of 70s and 80s. While Norris attempts at both humour and any form of human compassion are ham-fisted and laughable, nobody could kick someone in the head quite like Chuck. Being a big fan of Steve James also, I can recommend this film, ditto for genre legend Billy Drago, as well as seeing Mitch from The Blue Brothers in a supporting role. Not great, but it's better than anything Norris did in the 90s.
| 0 |
negative
|
I can't believe they do this kind of filth out of a serious theme. Totally unrealistic (they seemed to want it to be HIGHLY realistic but all the elements are based on clichés), real propaganda stuff. After seeing this, an addict probably just want to continue his/her career :-) I gave it 2.
| 0 |
negative
|
and there are not many in cinema history. "Rouge" seems to be a bit of a hope. Hope in mankind and in life. But to say only that may be naive. Kieslowski could find the right way to tell the story of that embittered judge and the twentish but wise model. Perhaps that old and disappointing love affair will not be repeated -there's the new couple with the young judge after the accident-. But what to say about this master of the camera? You can't miss a second of the movie because you have to watch every and each one of those faces. Kieslowski loved human beings and that is quite evident in the way the camera treats the actors. Ms. Jacob and Mr. Tringtignant are perfect It's not only this movie but the downbeat "Thou shall not kill" and "A story about love" that may you think about contemporary cinema as a way of expressing an artist's point of view. Pity American public -the average one- could not see these films. At least they are not in the Maltin's dictionary. And even the Baseline does not know what to say about this unique man. abel posadas
| 1 |
positive
|
Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm actually too drained to write this review -- bad movies always do that to me -- but I feel obligated, as if it's my civic duty, to warn anyone who might be considering purchasing or viewing this god-awful mess-of-a-picture. Please, please, just take my word: this is one you'll want to stay away from. It's so boring and dull, so insipid and uninspired, such a poor excuse to assemble any familiar talent. Burt Reynolds? Wasted (despite his best efforts). Ice-T is barely in the film, and when he does appear on screen his performance is so restrained and muted that it becomes crystal clear that the director, perhaps intimidated by Ice's intense stare, didn't know what to do with him. Rob Lowe, as the title character, has never displayed so little on-screen charisma. Mario Van Peebles should be ashamed of himself; his performance is, in the saddest sense possible, a joke. Surely, Satan himself signed Mario's check for this film. The plot is as weak, half-baked and annoying as all the music involved (the utterly boring club song seems to continue on, literally, for the first third of the movie). The film's look will prompt one to seriously wonder if the Director of Photography was also forced, like one of the film's forgettable female characters, to smoke crack from a pipe duct-taped to his mouth. And if you're looking, at least, for stylized, shoot-'em-up-type violence you'll get none here. This film, I assure you, I promise you, has Absolutely no redeeming qualities! Please, I implore you, Avoid this Flick! Don't put it in and get suckered into believing that its pace will pick up, it'll get better, and evolve into a decent denouement. It won't. It don't. It can't! It sucks! Now, you have been warned, and I can now go to bed (It's 3am - please forgive any resulting errors this admonition might contain) -- knowing my conscience is clear, because I've done my civic duty for my fellow man!
| 0 |
negative
|
A few thoughts before I get to the heart of the film: 1) I have never seen so many bare breasts in a film before, displayed in so many non-sexual scenes -- it was weird; 2) Joseph Fiennes, where have you been? You charmed us in *Elizabeth* and *Shakespeare in Love*, and then you went away for awhile. Mainstream American wants more! Okay, I'm a college English professor, I have read this play many times, and this is probably the best film version I've seen of it. While individual aspects of other productions may have stood out, this is the overall package put together well. Pacino is no Olivier, but he doesn't need to be, so get over it! The film's cinematography is stunning and not just because of the bare breasts. Venice is portrayed amazingly, and you do get a feel for really being there. Portia's residential island is amazingly beautiful, and the lighting is always tinted the proper way for the scenes' appropriate moods.<br /><br />The anti-Semetism in this film/play is hard to watch, especially at the end. Pacino's dropping to the knees and clutching his religious artifact is perhaps the most powerful moment of his on film since *The Godfather Part III* (when Michael's daughter is gunned down on the opera steps). Is the play anti-Semetic? Sure. Is *Othello* racist? Sure. Take it for what it is: a commentary on the Elizabethan era, not a commentary on today.<br /><br />Fiennes is underutilized in the film, but still a pleasure to watch. The women in the film are alright; no one really stood out here, but they do blend in nicely with the scenery. Jeremy Irons and Pacino are excellent in the two juiciest roles, adversaries until the end. I've always felt Irons was underrated (I still get chills when I hear his voice from *The Lion King*), and Pacino is Pacino.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Captain and Tennille have released a very good 3 DVD package with minimal editing. Unlike most variety show releases these shows have not been hacked to bits. The musical and dance numbers are included with the skits just as they were when first broadcast. I suspect that some musical numbers on the DVD may have been edited into shows in which they did not originally appear but have been unable to verify that suspicion. I've noticed a few inconsistencies between what is on the DVD and program information I've found on the net. I've been unable to verify whether the net information is inaccurate or if the musical performances have been edited into the shows on the DVD. Whatever the truth may be, I'm very appreciative of the efforts made by the production company. I wish every variety show released would show the same respect for the format. I would guess about half the shows broadcast are included. I believe they ran into rights problems on the shows which weren't included. Hopefully those issues can be resolved and a Volume 2 can be released sometime in the future. There are some individual music videos along with a dance rehearsal among the extras. I recommend this DVD to any C&T fan.
| 1 |
positive
|
To start out with, the script is immitative and inane. The characters are shallow and formulaic. The plot has arbitrary reversals and non sequitors. Baldwin's direction is terrible -- these actors could do better on their own. The jokes and wisecracks fall flat. The shoot out scenes are clumsy and incredible. Baldwin directs himself as the wise courageous hero but spends most of his time in power struggles with women, particularly with the caricatured repressedwoman in their tunnel team who is always asking for and denying reassurance. The conductor suffer from absurd incompetence, being unable to effectively employ a pistol he has come by.Anomalies: a hooded man bristleing with guns stalks through a railroad car, startling people. The next time we see them they are going about their business sitting in their seats, talking, eating, reading, knitting.In the New York subways folks sometimes come on the train to do some musical or dramatic number --- maybe that's what they thought the "happening" was.
| 0 |
negative
|
I just watched this movie last night. Within 30 minutes of the start, I was hoping it would end.<br /><br />It had a promising beginning; the first 10 minutes. The premise of this movie (friendship that goes nowhere after they've spent days (and Years) together in "Separate" beds in hotel rooms) is just not believable. He does kiss her somewhere along the way, and she feels Ohh, so terrible about it. <br /><br />Very little substance to grab your interest. The acting just does not hold up. He is very passive. Regardless of how much of the movie is shown, the viewer never develops any type of a caring connection with the characters on the screen. You learn that her next utterance will be as boring as her previous one. ("Do you have a cigarette ?", He doesn't smoke, He wants her to stop smoking, Doesn't she know this by now.)<br /><br />She calls him in the middle of the night to visit him after a year's absence, she comes in through the door, they don't even hug or kiss or express any type of emotional connection. He doesn't even lean forward to lift her suitcase to help her in. That is not how real people behave, This is not how best pals behave.<br /><br />When he receives her phone call in the middle of the night (she is in town for one day), he shows little interest to see her face, acts more like she will be a burden for the night. At this point they've known each other for two years and he hasn't seen her for a year. Not Believable, not real. <br /><br />Supposedly, he has written a book on Entropy and Enthalpy, yet we never see him write or read or discuss any of his interests in Physics with her, not that she would be able to handle the discussion. We learn that a watermelon in L.A. costs $50, (It wasn't the Silicon Type mind you) he has no problem affording that Fruit. We also learn that the airport shuts down when a few really really fake snow flakes fall off the sky. I'm Sorry but was that in L.A. too?<br /><br />We never see how these two characters survive, we never see them at work. We never see them struggle, They are always on vacation. They have infinite time, they have no worries whatsoever. <br /><br />Nice life. Unreal life. Unreal Characters. Bad Title. Bad Movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
'Anne Christie' was Garbo's 14th film and the first in which her husky Swedish voice was heard. She plays the lead character, Anna, who has struggled with being abandoned by her father Chris (a drunken barge owner played by George F Marion), and with the misfortune of the life she has has to lead to keep her head above water.<br /><br />Meeting Irish Matt (Charles Bickford) may mark the turning point for her ... or does it? Garbo looks and sounds great in this drama which, although looking rather clunky and moving at a slow pace, still manages to interest and engage an audience nearly 80 years later. Marie Dressler makes an impact in the role which gave her a second flush of movie success in films such as Min and Bill, Dinner at Eight, and Emma; while Marion and Bickford are more than adequate.<br /><br />An interesting slice of movie history. Garbo would do better talkies in the years following, but 'Anna Christie' will always be remembered for the first time she talked on screen.
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw this movie when it was first released in 1986. At the time I was young and enjoyed all the normal comedy available, i.e.; Monty Python, Jim Belushi & SNL, Steve Martin, Cheech & Chong, so I believe that my judgment represents most "sane" individuals.<br /><br />The absolute best part of this movie was the trailer played at the beginning of the movie for the new "My Little Pony" movie that was coming out.<br /><br />This movie was so atrocious that it was actually yanked from most theaters before the initial week run was completed.<br /><br />I'm surprised that anyone would waste there corporate money to duplicate this steaming pile of human waste.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money to rent or watch this "movie".
| 0 |
negative
|
At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.
| 0 |
negative
|
As a Michigander, I got the Michigan jokes. Very funny - make fun of Pontiac, Ann Arbor, all those lame suburbs of Detroit. Yes, yes, I've heard these jokes a million times. I'll give them credit for accurately depicting the lameness of Grosse Pointe. It couldn't get more White. Did you hear those lovely Michigan nasal accents? Where the girls talk so fast you can't understand one word that comes out of their mouth (nose)...? As much as I love Michigan, I hated this movie. <br /><br />I have never met one person from Grosse Pointe that I liked. Listen to that awful live band and that annoying and horrid background music! What is that? One of your Gross Pointe homeboy's band? Probably. Wow, what a great "Detroit scene" you guys have over there. Funny how people from Grosse Pointe always say they're from Detroit. They're so White and rich, they wish they had something to complain about.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie blows. All the way from the lame jokes about girls in thongs to the terrible character development. Oh wait a minute, you mean the entire basis for a character is that he says the f-word a lot? What a deep personality. Great job, Grosse Pointers! And I love all the sexist lingo, like how the narrator calls the first girl who gets killed that we never even hear speak a "naive b*tch". That's really lovely.<br /><br />And those homemade masks with the Marilyn Manson contact lenses are really great. And I love how it made perfect sense as to why the bikers came by and killed people. And how their narrating master had such a obvious role in the movie... ?? The main boyfriend dude was so boring I fell asleep looking at him. The three idiot guys (or was it two or four? how can I tell, they all look and act the same!) were so desperately trying to make me laugh, but Beavis and Butthead already got out my butt humor laughs back in 1994. And what's with the gay jokes? No wonder this movie sucked - everyone involved must have some minor problems with their masculinity, eh boys?<br /><br />The only saving grace to this film was the main girl. Despite what the other people on here have said, she actually was a good actress. Teenage girls talk the way she talked. They really act the way she acted. Her acting was very natural and believable. I really thought she was a Grosse Pointe convenience store employee. .. maybe she is! And yeah she had big boobs, most the women here do. Michigan is the fattest state in the union, you know. In all aspects.<br /><br />So, those of you who think this is a representation of Detroit, it's not. It's the suburbs of Detroit. They are very White and full of aimless teen angst. Limp Bizkut, ICP (yes, ICP is from one of our suburbs) and $75 baggy khaki pants all the way! Lame rich kids who are mad because they have lots of money and nothing to complain about. And they make bad movies, too.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
Art-house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to cover the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on pornographic combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. The suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of Australian writing (book or film) since 1960 - surprise surprise, the suburbs have a dark underbelly - and the plot is as contrived as any you've seen. "The neighbours would never know about this guy," one of the filmmakers says about Joel Edgerton's character. "But he was completely plausible as to what he was. Serial killers don't all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. They look like the guy next door." Another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. But the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it's a genre film that nobody saw. Backed by substantial funds (including some from Film Finance - that's government), this got a run at the Underground Film Festival in Melbourne and had to rely on ACMI kindness for a *very* short release season. Q1: What is the FFC doing funding genre flicks, even if they are 'arty' and aesthetically unconventional? Q2: Why are these nasty movies (ACOLYTES; BEAUTIFUL; PUNISHMENT; NO THROUGH ROAD) being made in the first place? Richard Wolstencroft & co encourage their creators to believe they're giving the masses what they really want, as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. The truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim - and win far more obscure awards - than they're due.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm sure that the folks who made this movie think they're doing something wonderfully politically correct, because they manage to criticize U.S. wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq by suggesting that the U.S. does war well, but doesn't clean up afterward, thus sowing the seeds for future trouble. Furthermore, they do this without making Islamists the enemy AND without making Republicans the enemy, since it's the Republicans that are in office and are doing this supposedly great thing, bringing down the USSR by covertly supplying a war in Afghanistan.<br /><br />But seriously now . . . do we really want a movie that repeatedly says "let's go kill some Russians!" like that's the greatest thing a red-blooded American can do? And are we supposed to find this congressman adorable because he surrounds himself with women with big hair and revealing clothes? Even his supposedly smart assistant, who is always dressed professionally, keeps looking at Charlie like he's just the most wonderful, handsomest, greatest guy around. As if she's Nancy Reagan to his Ronnie. Julia Roberts does a bang-up job in her role, but basically women are really demeaned in this movie, and it was really annoying.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Think like a Dinosaur" was an well-produced & executed show of the -Outerlimits- series. The actor (Enrico Colantoni as Michael Burr) plays an impressively well and convincing protagonist-role. You can actually identify yourself with him and his 'introspective' feelings on what to do to the girl whom he has fallen for (because, he's been alone and disappointed for 2 years and feels hopeless until "Kamala" comes to his life with a timid fear of performing the task of being transported. He then consoles her and let's her know it's all going to be alright; which ends up being an deception to both of them. More so something bad occurs and she (prototype) comes back....and her (clone) is sent to the other inhabitant planet. Although, the -Dino- and "Micheal" have yet to find this out, when they do it's up to Michael to decide to either kill her or to let her live. Yet what happen to him prior upon meeting her (kamala) was very much related to what happen to his wife, his wife died similarly. This show professes irregularity and sorrow thru-out most of it. After the show you're left pondering...about what SHOULD have been done and you're stuck with the 50/50 of what's right from wrong. Hence, The "balance" equation being solely there is no one.<br /><br />10/10 Highly recommend watching this show.
| 1 |
positive
|
First let me say I'm not someone who usually cringe at the fact of having to think while seeing movies, I love Tarkowsky movies for example, Berghman is also a favorite.....but this? The positive points can be summed up easily: the photography is splendid, and the music is perfect....does it make a good movie? I used to think so, but this one is a perfect example of one that (for me) doesn't make it.... maybe it's because I'm too dumb? possible, but I don't think so.... Tarkwosky for example also used very long shots, but what he never did was filming 5 minutes of the exact same image of two people walking (and I mean just their heads, because in this movie there are a lot of those shots, but sometimes it IS effective), the general result is plainly boring, even with the intelligent undertones (which are done in a way that, while intelligent, is above all very pedantic)<br /><br />you also always feel that the director is making some of the long shots not for the aesthetic, or symbolic effect, but just to spare on budget....<br /><br />I'm very disappointed in this film, because I really liked the first 30 minutes or so, but it just went on and on, without even keeping the same level as in the first scenes....<br /><br />While reading the very praising comments on this page, I also get the feeling some people just try to see much more in the movie than there is to it...when a movie is slow and arty, it doesn't necessarily mean it is very profound....yes it is an allegory on musical theory placed in the context of a small town, which is quite interesting on itself, but it does NOT make a profound movie....except for people who absolutely want to make some sort of intellectual masturbation out of it, but then it's not what you find in the movie, but what you find in yourself....an exercise that, in my opinion can be made much more effectively while watching "Stalker" or "Solyaris" than Werckmeister Harmonies, that owes much to Tarkowsky, but cab never equal it's level....
| 0 |
negative
|
If you like shoot em up westerns this is a keeper. I thought that the movie was fun to watch and to see folks that I have not seen in a while. I am no expert but I liked the acting. The town and props etc seemed to fit the period and kind of town that you would find out on the frontier. This is not an A western, not enough people and budget. The costumes and firearms were correct for the time! I expect to see the young actors in the film again in the future. Rachel, Chance, Rebekah and Kirby were great. The SASS (Single Action Shooting Society)members that contributed to this effort were pretty darn good. Hope to see more.
| 1 |
positive
|
I vowed some time ago to never get another Joe Castro film (perhaps after "Near Death") but I sort of ended up with this one by accident, since it was a Troma release & I didn't read the cover carefully. Oops. Well, I watched it, and it's by no means good, but it's, I guess, sort of "tongue in cheek"....if it's not, it sure seemed that way. Some intrepid folks from the University of the Rio Grande set out to find if the Chupacabra exists, because of surveillance camera footage from someone's GOAT BARN that shows this weird thing hopping across the field of vision. And also because the person that this thing supposedly killed was the uncle of the leader of the expedition. There's a couple of camera men, one of whom whines the whole time, and there some ex-Marine named "Army" (?!), who is some kind of munitions expert or something. At any rate, the do find the Chupacabra on some guy's ranch & set out to find it, getting involved with two supposed witches along the way. The creature itself is rather ridiculous-looking, with spines on its back & a great big long tongue that Gene Simmons would die for. Eventually, after a bunch of folks done get killed, so does the Chupacabra, and they take it back to the university for an autopsy. So, is it from another planet? Is it a genetic creation from some lab in Puerto Rico? Uh, they don't tell us, really. Not exactly intriguing but not quite terrible either. Definitely not a wide audience for this one. 4 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Clubbed" is yet another 'will-this-do?' entry into the Brit fisticuffs genre and is sure to keep punters who aren't expecting too much moderately entertained for ninety minutes after a few beers. However, for anyone seeking intelligent, quality entertainment it's really best avoided.<br /><br />There are so many misnomers in the appalling script that even an actor of the calibre of Colin Salmon is left looking daft. The action is set in the 1980s, but it's never clear why, especially when they haven't been able to pull off any convincing feel for that decade - it takes more than a few 80s soul records on the soundtrack, the occasional zoot suit and a handful of 30-year-old cars. Then we see central characters studying texts such as Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War" and speaking about how violence should be a last resort, while the same characters seem only too willing to start doling out punches with all the testosterone-fuelled, unthinking abandon of a bunch of chavs fighting over a bag of chips.<br /><br />Character development does not exist in "Clubbed". Nor does irony, subtlety or pathos. This is a film which trades on fond memories of Guy Richie's early gangster films, which despite their flaws certainly had much more wit, better editing, snappier dialogue and packed more emotional punch than this limp little saga. They're a decade old now, anyway - isn't it time we moved on from trying to emulate them?
| 0 |
negative
|
I caught this on late, late Mexican cable and I have to rant about it. The title was translated as "Secretos" (Secrets). Well there's a secret that has an important part in the movie but come on, ! We are not stupid. We know there's a novel behind this.<br /><br />Anyways, the movie is pretty interesting and it's carried by it's solid ramatic performances. The always beautiful and stunning Jordana Brewster and Christopher Eccleston deliver great performances and have such great chemistry between them. Cameron Dìaz is also good although she has minimal on-screen time. Blythe Danner is perfect and his last appearance in the movie is touching, sad. Great performances. <br /><br />Jordana's character and her sister's ex-boyfriend travel to Europe in order for her to deal with his demons and understand why her sister died. Through flashbacks, we learn the sad truth and we can't help but feel sorry for the whole family. The ending is truly moving. <br /><br />So there's nudity but it's minimal. In fact, the sex scenes are artsy and do not intend to be steamy or sexy.<br /><br />To be honest, I kept watching it for Joranda Brewster's on screen charming and beauty. And I ended up liking the story and the dramatic presentations. <br /><br />Give this movie a try if you like solid dramatic features. Great movie. The last, last scene was very sad.. The two little sisters through flashbacks.
| 1 |
positive
|
Anne (Natalie Portman) tells us about how much she hates her mother, Adele (Susane Sarandon). That's how the movie begins. Adele decided that her and her daughter were moving to California without asking anyone and leaving her husband without any reason. The story is about the relationship between the mother and the daughter. It's really deep and touching, thanks to the great work of the actresses. Natalie was nominated to a Golden Globe for that role. She is one of the most talented actresses I ever saw, and so is Sarandon. They really look like mother daughter. The soundtrack is also great. The movie is incredible. *10 out of 10*
| 1 |
positive
|
The two most noteworthy things about "I Won't Play" are: It won an Academy Award as the best two-reel short film of 1944; and it was directed by silent-era leading man Crane Wilbur. The plot of this run-of-the-mill short is inconsequential, the dialogue lacks spark, while the acting is no better and no worse than that found in most war-themed Hollywood movies of the 1940s (in other words, it's awful). Admittedly, there are moments when "I Won't Play" is funny -- Janis Paige's totally artificial look and line delivery are precious -- but one laughs AT the picture, not with it.
| 0 |
negative
|
"East Side Story" is a documentary of musical comedy in Stalinist Russia and later in the eastern European satellite comedies, with many clips from the films and commentary from the survivors. Although some of the Stalinist films look laughingly bad (The Bright Road (?) being a notable exception), the films from the sixties actually look pretty good. "My Wife Wants to Sing," "The White Mouse," and "Midnight Revue" look particularly entertaining. The producers had to contend with the censors, who had the power to decide what was politically correct, which led to some confusion, humorous in retrospect, since the people whom the censors were trying to appease were the very people who supported making the films to begin with! Since musical comedies were fairly rare behind the Iron Curtain--there were only something like forty made in forty years--they had a disproportionate effect upon their audiences, who made major hits of some of the films.<br /><br />I notice that the sound for the sixties films was much better. The directors often had to make do with antiquated equipment, and stringent power regulations--they had to film in seven minute takes or less--and dangerous officicrats.<br /><br />I also notice that "West Side Story" seems to have had a strong influence on "Hot Summer." The later films may not measure up to "Singin' in the Rain," but they certainly look like they beat the hell out of "Bye Bye Birdy"
| 1 |
positive
|
"Caligula" shares many of the same attributes as the 1970 "Fellini Satyricon" with bizarre sights, freakishness, and depictions of sexual excesses all set in the "glory" of ancient Rome. But Fellini it ain't... First of all it is not as entertaining. Far too much screen time is devoted to bug-eyed, rubber-faced McDowell in the titular role. His performance is far too fey and campy to be convincing. The portrayals by Jay Robinson in "The Robe" (1953) and David Cain-Haughton in "Emperor Caligula" (1983) are far more persuasive and believable, with the latter being the most nuanced. Relief could have been judiciously provided by developing the surrounding characters more fully. As it is, they are little more than cyphers. One example is the role of Macro, played by Guido Mannari who has tremendous screen presence in an important role, but is mostly left in the background. The only positive features to credit are the adroit use of some Prokofiev and Stravinsky themes in the music score and the inclusion of some of the distasteful but nevertheless accurate actions of the despot. These two factors are far less than what is needed to relieve the prevailing tedium, however.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Best of Everything is a high gloss large screen soap opera which follows the careers of four career women, Hope Lange, Suzy Parker, Diane Baker, and Martha Hyer at a New York publishing firm. What's the best for some women is not necessarily the best for all.<br /><br />Presiding over this group of young fillies is wise old mare Joan Crawford who's been around the track a few times on screen and in real life. She looks right at home as the boss lady as well she should have at this point.<br /><br />Around the time she was making The Best of Everything Joan Crawford became a widow when her fourth husband, Alfred Steele died. It was a particularly traumatic event for her, she woke up one morning and found him dead in bed next to her. She inherited all of his stock in Pepsi Cola where he was the board chairman and during the same period as The Best of Everything was being made, she wound up the queen bee at Pepsi Cola. Life does sometimes imitate art. So that authority as she barks out dictation and coffee orders to Hope Lange rings real true.<br /><br />In fact all the women here with the exception of Lange are in for some rough sledding. It's rough for Lange too, but she literally makes the best of everything.<br /><br />What a collection of stinkers the men are in this film. The best of them, Stephen Boyd, is a heavy drinker. The others Louis Jourdan, Robert Evans, and Brett Halsey, are as slimy a collection of rodents as ever gathered for one film.<br /><br />I can't forget Brian Aherne either who's the fanny pinching head of this publishing firm. Half that office would have sexual harassment suits going today.<br /><br />Some nice location shots of New York in the fifties make the film a real treat. Catch it by all means.
| 1 |
positive
|
The timing of this film being released could not be better, particularly in light of all the turmoil in this world today. The film is a heartwarming, endearing and witty a piece. If you have siblings and still have parents alive, this will hit home well for the viewer. If you've lost your parents, then it will touch you deeply. The laughs come frequently, the ensemble cast works very well together and are believable. This film is intelligently written and the lines that come from each of the actors make the viewer laugh out loud frequently. There are moments that will bring tears to your eyes as well. I would recommend this film to anyone who respects the importantce of family and can follow an intelligent film.
| 1 |
positive
|
I was giddy with girlish-glee when I found out about this movie shortly after seeing Spirits Within.<br /><br />After years of anticipation, they gave November 2005 release date. Well, November came. And went. Followed by December. Oh, look, today's January 31, 2006. No US release as of yet.<br /><br />Oh well, I'm so glad I had a friend with a bootlegged subtitled copy. ;D<br /><br />Well, the cg was great. Not as good as expected, but near perfect. I cringed, however, at the unnatural movements made by the children throughout the movie. I had thought that we were passed this by now. Also, I didn't really care for the anime look given to their faces. I was under the impression that they were shooting for a realistic look to the film, and yet most of the characters have larger-than-norm eyes, especially the girl characters. They had personality, though, I'll give them that.<br /><br />Even though I'm not a big fan of anime, I do have to say I was impressed with the wild fight scenes. They were animated beautifully and had me hanging onto the edge of my seat.<br /><br />For about the first two.<br /><br />And there-in lies Advent Children's biggest flaw. It's mostly just a bunch of hyper-stylized fight scenes.<br /><br />A FF7 sequel of epic proportions had been promised for years. Instead, they gave us a pretty piece of cg with barely a plot to excuse it's just-under-two-hours running time.<br /><br />Where Final Fantasy is famous for its intricate stories, this movie falls short. You don't really get to know the characters. The only way you'd have any understanding of most of what occurred in the film would have been if you had played the game. We barely got to see them before they were battling it out with whatever current threat.<br /><br />What hurts the fans even more is the awful cameos that the majority of FF7 characters were given. They were nothing more than Cloud's "I'll call if I need you, but I probably won't" back up singers. And, to add to the hurt, they had each character individually throw Cloud higher and higher. This little part here was so cheesy I almost turned it off. I would have been much more impressed if he had just simply jumped up all on his own, ricocheting off of walls to get himself up higher.<br /><br />It hurt even more when they reduced the Turks to less-than-just comic relief. That was fine for the game, but this is cinema. People do not act like cartoon characters in a harsh battle. They took away their dignity :/<br /><br />And, spoiler (yeah right, most of you probably already know, anyhow). Who remembers Darth Maul being hyped up in SW: Episode 1? Yeah, now, picture that, but with Sephiroth. That's right. He had maybe 5 minutes of screen time. Maybe that. End Spoiler :P<br /><br />If this movie was made for the fans, then way to go Square. If this is any indication of the direction you're taking the FF series, I doubt you're going to be seeing much of my money. I played your games for the wonderful story and the excellent characters.<br /><br />You had a chance to make something epic. Something truly beautiful, a masterpiece that flies in the face of all of the Disney CG films.<br /><br />Instead you gave us a pretty piece of flesh with hardly anything underneath to hold it together. Way to go.<br /><br />And I'm sure if the rest of the fans paused for a moment and tried to just pay attention to everything but the CG they'd know what I'm talking about. Well, I was gonna rate this a 5/10, but after thinking about it while righting this, I'm giving it a 3/10 because they could have done better. They have done better. And this is just sad.<br /><br />If they're gonna remake anything FFVII, they need to do this one first.
| 0 |
negative
|
At the end, it is clear that the murderers planted the murder weapon in Mrs. Columbo's car and it was at the police ballistics lab. <br /><br />But where did the gun under the hood, used in the demonstration, come from? Wouldn't the murderers have cleared out the stuff under the hood? They had a whole week? Or did Columbo's cops replicate the camera/gun under the hood used in the demonstration? How did they do that without breaking and entering the car? Perhaps this is why the murders seemed surprised at the end. But how could Columbo have replicated their camera/gun device and gotten it calibrated to their key fob? Columbo must have gotten the gun back from ballistics and had it re-planted under the hood of the car, and been very lucky that the rest of the device with camera was still there and transmitting.<br /><br />This was a 10/10 show until this glaring plot error at the end.
| 1 |
positive
|
I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both "Legend of Boggy Creek" (1972) and the first film entitled "Sasquatch" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. "Harry & The Hendersons" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did "Bigfoot" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of "Jaws" or "Predator". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said "bald!") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between "Swamp Thing" and Chaka from "Land of the Lost" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in "Predator", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of "In Search Of" 3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
After watching "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" I was just sitting in disbelief of what I was witness to. A big cover up by the FBI, a massacre by gung-ho/trigger happy government agents? I clearly remember the Waco standoff, I was 17 years old at the time and watched it all on CNN. I remembered reflecting about all the children as I watched the Mount Camel compound burn in April 1993. I remember feeling sorry for the children, but clearly felt that it was the fault of their evil leader David Koresh and the other Davidians. Gazecki's film shows clearly and beyond doubt, even though it is biased, that the FBI lied over and over again. I think that this film was a big contributor to the reopening of a new investigation of the incident in 1999. The outcome of this new investigation was in some sense predictable, the judgement relied on fact that was just as grey as the facts that the Davidians presented. I was very disappointed about the verdict, because as far as I know it didn't take into account all the lying, misinformation and evidence cover-up by the FBI and other officials. Why have no one be prosecuted for hampering the work of the Texas Rangers investigators? Why were they allowed to contaminate the crime scene and bulldoze the compound shortly after the incident? These are questions that I haven't been given answers to by the government. Most importantly, what about the children? In this new investigation I haven't been informed about who was responsible for spraying the CS flammable tear-gas into a compound with many hazards for igniting this gas and I haven't found any answer to whether the children's muscles contracted due to the effects of the gas, while they were alive. If they did, I would surely think that the Janet Reno or who ever was in charge of the raid should be indicted for mass-homicide or manslaughter. The question that was raised by Gazecki, but not mentioned is; Was is a direct plan for the people in charge and their tanks to cut holes and burn the building down with intent? (a plan that would have been accomplished with 112% efficacy) or were the officials in charge so incompetent, that their were unaware of the consequence of their actions? Both are equally frightening. Even if the Davidians set fire to the compound, the officials in charge surely provided them with the opportunity to do the job. If the officials in charge knew, as they claimed, that the Davidians would set fire to the compound, why the f
did the tanks cut all the holes in the building making it into a furnace and why didn't they have plans to deal with the fire that they knew would occur? Dark questions that still won't go away The final and most relevant issue of this film, is the way that the Davidians are demonized by the government through the media, who just feeds it in to the public. I clearly remember the resentment I felt for the evil Davidians that I saw on CNN in 1993. Now that I'm older I can see a clear line of communication coming out of the government every time they are gearing up for a massacre of civilians along with the intended targets. Demonizing people with words like; "they have different unlawful values then us" "they don't enjoy freedom" and "they are a threat to our freedoms and way of life" makes them so much easier to kill
| 1 |
positive
|
Sex is Comedy, though not driven by a fantastically imaginative plot, concentrates effectively on the relationship between film-director and crew during the process of film-making, whilst successfully addressing the dynamics of human relationships and more specifically the issues and problems encountered by actors involved in filming sex scenes. Director, 'Jeanne', features prominently throughout, for it is she who carries the plot forward, in the place of a narrator, and gives us numerous little pearls of wisdom to think about. She is a social commentator, relating to her assistant and others the problems she finds with her new male lead by way of associating him with a masculine stereotype. Their ambiguous relationship typifies something about human nature the tendency to be fickle. On one hand, the two seem close; when he is not in sight, she claims to hate him. Jeanne also addresses his masculine pride perhaps in a feminist take on things.<br /><br />The taboo of what constitutes obscenity, is raised: the content of the sex scenes is not considered obscene but beautiful, because it is fakeness which constitutes obscenity - that is the director's justification. This is, however, doubly ironic, for the film we watch is in itself a construct within a construct.<br /><br />There's more to this film than just relationships, of course. Watching this film is not simply a question of analysing it for the sake of drawing out some sort of meaning. One can delight in the natural lighting which pervades the movie. This makes it realistic and believable. A static camera is sometimes used taking in a heavy composition and at times the camera appears shaky like a home movie. If you're looking for something fun to watch on a Sunday afternoon that isn't too heavy but still leaves you thinking: this is it.
| 1 |
positive
|
i am surprised so few have good words for this movie. For its time (the 80's) it was a very entertaining and engaging story. Casting was good. Story was good. Special effects were remarkable for the time period. Deserving of an 8/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
As the '70's drew to a close, rumours began to fly in the entertainment industry about the possible return of Sean Connery to the role he had made famous back in 1962 - James Bond.<br /><br />Cubby Broccoli was asked on location in Brazil during the making of 'Moonraker' by the B.B.C.'s Barry Norman how he viewed the prospect. Understandably, the producer was reluctant to commit himself to an opinion.<br /><br />When 'Moonraker' opened, Bond fans were outraged by what they perceived to be a cheapening of the character, and the jumping onto the 'Star Wars' bandwagon much as 'Live & Let Die' had done with the blaxploitation craze a few years earlier. Many publicly vocalised their hope that Connery would return, if only to show Eon how a real Bond movie should look.<br /><br />Years of legal battles followed. The original script, entitled 'James Bond Of The Secret Service' ( later retitled 'Warhead' ) was written by Kevin McClory, Len Deighton, and Connery, was never filmed, and remains one of the great unmade movie blockbusters.<br /><br />A new script, closer to the 'Thunderball' storyline, was commissioned. It was written by Lorenzo Semple Junior, best known as the man who put the camp into 'Batman'. He had also written 'The Parallax View', one of the decade's finest conspiracy thrillers. Feeling the script needed a British touch, Connery brought in Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, writers of hit British sitcoms 'The Likely Lads' and 'Porridge'. The witty title was suggested by Connery's wife Micheline. <br /><br />'Never Say Never Again' opened just before Christmas 1983 to a shower of critical praise; normally sensible critics were so ecstatic at Connery's return they ignored all other aspects of the film. Many used it to viciously attack the Roger Moore series, particularly that year's 'Octopussy'. In truth, 'Octopussy' is superior in every respect. 'Never' lacks the excitement and spectacle one associates with Bond, at times it looks like a made-for-T.V. movie. The story had been done before and better in 1965's 'Thunderball', hence 'Never' was always going to come off second best. It was also hampered by not being part of the official series, meaning that Monty Norman's 'James Bond Theme' and Maurice Binder's gun-barrel logo could not be used. <br /><br />As Bond, Connery is magnificent, effortlessly stepping back into his most famous role. Playing Bond as an older, wiser agent worked. Barbara Carrera landed her best movie role as villainous 'Fatima Blush', a lady whose love for murder is such she dances after ( so she thinks ) killing Bond. Kim Basinger smolders as 'Domino'. As S.P.E.C.T.R.E. agent 'Maximillian Largo', Klaus Maria Brandauer gives a chilling performance. A major disappointment though is Max Von Sydow as 'Blofeld'. The posters gave the impression he would be a major character, in fact he appears only in a few scenes. With a stronger script, he could have been one of the all-time great Bond villains. <br /><br />'Never' promised to be a throwback to the early Eon Bonds such as 'From Russia With Love', but did not deliver. The gadgets were there, but were used almost apologetically. Bond's rocket-firing motorcycle was a tired gimmick even in the '60's. The film tried to compete with Eon's Bonds in terms of humour. Bond saving himself by throwing his own urine sample into an assassin's face is a farcical a moment as any you will find in 'Moonraker'. But the nadir comes with the introduction of Rowan Atkinson as bumbling Foreign Office official 'Nigel Small-Fawcett'. He gives a performance so staggeringly awful you wonder if he thought he was in a Footlights revue. <br /><br />Michel Legrand's music is horrible, the man seems to never to have seen a Bond film in his life. <br /><br />Though the film was a financial success, viewed years later it stands as the weakest Bond of the '80's. Connery himself was disappointed with it, and not did act in a movie again for some years.<br /><br />1983 was a good year for 007 maniacs, in addition to the Connery and Moore movies, George Lazenby did a delightful cameo in the made-for-T.V. 'Return Of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.: The Fifteen Years Later Affair'.
| 1 |
positive
|
I actually joined this site simply to write in about this movie. I was sitting in my living room and this movie came on one of the local channels. I made it about an hour through before I simply had enough. Curious to see what the general movie-opinionated public thought of this movie, I looked it up on this site. I was absolutely shocked to see that there were an overwhelming amount of people that thought it was great. I needed to have my say, and here it is: This movie is absolute garbage. It was a chore to sit through. The "jokes" were uninspired rehashes from other, better shows and movies, and Leguizamo's manic portrayal of this obnoxious character should only appeal to age ten and below. That actually may be a stretch even for that age. I'm all for slapstick ridiculousness, but there isn't even the faintest hint of wit or cleverness. I have an idea, lets take bad uninspired obvious jokes and play them at twice the speed. Now that's funny. Ha. Ha.<br /><br />Movies that you should see that take silly humor and add comic timing and originality: The Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,...and the list goes on. Don't lose an hour and a half of your life on unmemorable crap.<br /><br />By the way, I can only assume that the reason that David Bar Katz (the other writer) did VERY little in film after this movie is because he was instantly blacklisted. I'm actually impressed that Leguizamo was able to recover after this mess.
| 0 |
negative
|
I felt that way when I saw the episode in its original run and still agree when I watch it on reruns. You had the culprits totally mocking Columbo throughout the episode and treating him like he has down syndrome. And in the end you see their shock when Columbo gets them dead to rights and arrest them. You also get a realistic reaction from the arrogant preppy killers. They stillcouldn't give Columbo his props and say he just got lucky. I like the formula where there is an elaborate crime, the killer(s) totally underestimate Columbo, and then you get their realization that Columbo was totally playing the criminals. I recall in the first few episodes of the post 1989 episodes they weren't following that formula and this was the first episode that I was pleased with.
| 1 |
positive
|
No serious spoilers, but some very minor ones.<br /><br />"Acacia", a Korean contribution to the ever popular Asian horror wave, concerns a husband and wife who decide that they're getting on a bit and decide to adopt a child. The child, who has an usual obsession with the dead tree in the family's garden, eventually disappears when the couple eventually have a child of their own and the aforementioned tree seems to hold a grudge against the family itself.<br /><br />And that's about it. The film moves at a snails pace, clocking in at over 100 minutes with 80 minute material. It is essentially a thin family drama with a creepy tree, and there is very little in the way of scares, just shots of the tree with weird mumbling noises playing over the top. However, the idea of the tree being the child's mother is a pretty original one, but it isn't exactly exploited to its full potential. This sort of separates "Acacia" from much of the new wave it belongs to: films like Ju-On and Ring tend to do the opposite, and milk bland ideas until they are red in the face.<br /><br />The film does begin to get going towards the end; however the realisation of the child's fate and the parent's actions not only dampen the earlier curiosity of the story, but are revealed with such machine gun editing that it's difficult to take in all at once. The final sequence is undoubtedly creepy, however it feels like too little too late.<br /><br />Overall, the film does not feel too much like a Ring cash in, however with the "film renaissance" that Korea is currently going through, I couldn't help but feel this film could have been so much more.
| 0 |
negative
|
for me,this is not a good TV show,animated or otherwise.it is however,annoying to the nth degree.there are a few reasons for this,in no particular order.first,the intro of one of the most pointless,and annoying characters ever,Batmite.this character serves no purpose for the show,whatsoever.maybe it is intended as comic relief,but it doesn't work out that way.next up,the Joker.i thought it was really ridiculous to have his character let loose with that ridiculous laugh after almost every sentence.talk about repetitive.this gets old really fast..also don't think the had the right actor to voice the character.it just doesn't sound at all like the joker should sound.lastly,they made Robin look like a complete dork.other than these problems,the show isn't that bad.but these are big enough problems to drastically lower the likability factor.for me,"The new adventures Of Batman" is a 3/10,at best.
| 0 |
negative
|
First of all, i am from munich, where this movie takes place, and believe it or not, there are guys like Erkan and Stefan, including the silly dialect! I know their comedy show from the beginning and my main fear was, that the movie is just an assembling of their already known jokes, but it is not! The jokes are evolved through the story, and make, in their own special way, sense. But if you absolutely dislike Erkan und Stefan, hands of this movie. Everyone else - it's worth viewing!
| 1 |
positive
|
An excellent thriller of all time. Vijay Anand excels as Director and Editor. Performances by Dev Anand, Vyjayantimala, Tanuja and Ashok Kumar prove to be an asset to the film which has its screenplay worked out to the minutest detail. Cinematography adds to the mystery, glamour and other requirements of the story as it evolves. And to top it all, music by Sachin Dev Burman is unforgettable. "Yeh dil na hota bechara" by Kishore Kumar, "Raat akeli hai" by Asha Bhosle, "Rula ke gaya sapna mera" by Lata, "Aasman ke niche" by Lata and Rafi and "Hothon pe aisi baat main" by Lata, again reaffirm Burman Dada's unique stature as a top notch composer with a style of his own.
| 1 |
positive
|
I agree with most of Mr. Rivera's comments, and I just want to ad a couple of caveats. This film, "The Mascot" is criminally neglected in its current form. For that matter, so is "Vampyr". "The Mascot" isn't a "bonus feature"-- it's tacked on as a chapter in "Vampyr". Even though it's made very clear that this is a separate movie, it should have been treated as such by the manufacturers. And while I"m at it, "Vampyr" needs some of that same respect and cleaning up as well. I got the feeling the decision to put The Mascot on there went something like this.<br /><br />Dude A: "We just transferred Vampyr to DVD, but it comes up about 20 minutes short. We need to put something on there that won't cost much money. Can you believe film critics want to be paid to talk about films!" Dude B: "Not to worry. I have this little animation thingy that's been sitting in my drawer. Just go ahead and throw it on as an additional chapter." Dude A: "You're awesome, Dude B." The animation's of The Mascot is great, and there's no need for me to repeat what Mr. Rivera's done so well. However, this thing needs some major cleaning and restoring, especially the audio. The plot comes through in the dialogue. And in my copy there were so many hisses, pops and places where the sound just dropped right off (I would have had no idea what the dog was going after without having read the box). No amount of volume was going to make the words more understandable, it just brought up the tinniness and made the hisses and pops louder.<br /><br />Bottom line is: Starewicz's films need to be put into a respectful collection, cleaned up, spiffed up, liner notes and the whole nine yards. In other words, they need to be "Criterionized" 9 out of 10 for the movie, not the product which would get only a 5.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you're one of those people who doesn't really like Sci-fi because of their sometimes far-fetched ideas and surreal world perspectives, you better stay away as far as you can from Stuart Gordon's Space Truckers! It truly is an absurd space adventure, stuffed with eccentric characters, colorful kitsch and ludicrous plot-twists. In all honesty
I probably never would have cared for this film, if it wasn't for Gordon's name on the credits. This guy comes pretty close to being a genius in the horror genre, with undeniable milestones like From Beyond' and Re-Animator' on his résumé. Apparently, Stuart Gordon likes his humor as twisted as possible! He already went completely over the comedy-top once (with Re-Animator) but, with the slight difference that the bizarre humor was effective there. Something that isn't really the case for Space Truckers
most of the gags lead nowhere and the entirely exaggerated atmosphere only works in small doses. In the end, all that remains is an occasionally amusing but completely unnecessary mess. Dennis Hopper and Charles Dance (or at least a semi Charles Dance) are always a joy to look at and the still stunning Barbara Crampton has a small role near the end of the film. Crampton was Stuart Gordon's regular heroine in previous horror films. The story of Space Truckers is as silly as they come. Dennis Hopper plays the self-made loner who's fed up with his job. Who wouldn't be when you're transporting pigs across the galaxy for a company named Interpork? He sees his change to flee while bringing his muse to earth. They float into Space-pirates and find out their cargo is meant to wipe out half the universe! Stuart Gordon wisely returned to making horror again after this little escapade. Since Space Truckers, he already made the sublime `King of the Ants' and the absolutely brilliant `Dagon'
| 0 |
negative
|
OK, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad Movie!
| 0 |
negative
|
On first viewing this movie seems to be some kind of fairy tale about a beautiful and significantly white horse once seen never forgotten. However viewed strictly within the context of the story the implication is that to survive in the immediate post-Civil War America, one had to have a horse, and not any old horse but a truly great one. And Eagle's Wing is such a horse. But for a man to be worthy of such a horse is another matter. Who should own it? The Native American or the AWOL soldier? The story throughout pits primitivism against civilisation. As has been said by other commentators it is ironic that it took an English director to perceive this fact, and then develop this simple theme into a western like no other you're ever likely to see again. The film is basically about this beast and the savage harshness of the environment and the people who scrape a living from it. The photography and the soundtrack are exquisite. Martin Sheen's performance is a revelation. This film, released in the same year as Sheen's other great performance as Willard in 'Apocalypse Now', hints at his abilities which somehow were never given such a free rein again. More's the pity. A comparison of the two stories throws up the surprising similarities between them - not least that both films chart a man's journey into his soul in order to find redemption. Whereas Willard is redeemed I will leave it to the viewer to decide if Pike is eventually. The ending is fabulous in the true sense of the word, and very moving; be warned. Altogether this is an extraordinary film.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.