text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
When I saw this movie at age 6, it was in the CHILDRENS' section at Erols Video because it was animation. We watched it and it was a whole different ball game! A very violent story and graphic deaths are VERY entertaining and compelling, but not for children. Avoid for family viewing, my mom nearly had a heart attack and ripped the video apart!
| 1 |
positive
|
I have seen this movie and I did not care for this movie anyhow. I would not think about going to Paris because I do not like this country and its national capital. I do not like to learn french anyhow because I do not understand their language. Why would I go to France when I rather go to Germany or the United Kingdom? Germany and the United Kingdom are the nations I tolerate. Apparently the Olsen Twins do not understand the French language just like me. Therefore I will not bother the France trip no matter what. I might as well stick to the United Kingdom and meet single women and play video games if there is a video arcade. That is all.
| 0 |
negative
|
The core message is strong, the cast has given it their best shot, the packaging is excellent, but the screenplay is seriously over-dramatized and every cliche in the book on women's suffering in India has been over-used to the max.
| 0 |
negative
|
I came across this movie while channel surfing one day; and decided to give it a chance. To my surprise I enjoyed this darkhorse movie. I felt some genuine chemistry between Challen Cates and Malcolm-Jamal Warner. It was such a lighthearted and warm movie that when it was over I felt upbeat. Sure, this movie was predictable from the very beginning, but I give it high marks for the way that it made me feel when it was over. I must admit that I have never seen Challen Cates before, but I feel that she can definitely act. When you combine her good acting with her cute face and attractive figure. She has the makings of at least becoming a well-known star.
| 1 |
positive
|
<br /><br />Won't be long on this movie. The first half an hour was one of the most boring i have had to face since i've started watching movies. The story didn't advanced, nothing was explained about any of the characters. It felt like a non-movie. (A lot of people had already left the audience at this point).<br /><br />A lot of the scene were totally unjustified and unexplained.<br /><br />The director should have studied film a bit more to know that each sequence, each scene, has to make the story go forward. He never did that.<br /><br />The supposedly funny moments were contrived, and only a few people laughed (people with a weird sense of humor, i guess).<br /><br />Prize of the Jury in Cannes 2002.....don't know what the jury was thinking about....probably the "politicly correct effect".<br /><br />I would have loved to love it, the disappointment was therefore even bigger.<br /><br />You have to see it to believe it. But wait for the video.
| 0 |
negative
|
This early film from director Bob Clark ("Porky's", "Black Christmas", "A Christmas Story") didn't really pump my nads like I expected. In fact, it straight up annoyed me. It's about a theater troupe who sail to a burial island, consisting of dead criminals, where they plan to conjure some evil forces and resurrect some corpses... The leader of their group, a conceited black-magic enthusiast and possible homosexual, attempts to summon Satan's help with the re-animation of an exhumed body, which fails so they take the corpse to the nearby, deserted caretaker's house and play with it... Nothing interesting happens until the last fifteen minutes or so when the undead finally spring from their graves and go after the desecrater's. The make-up effects are okay, the gore is VERY minimal (PG rating), and the extremely irritating characters are focused on way to much, which really got on my nerves. I guess having group of terrible actors bickering for an hour was suppose to equal some "comedic" status, yet I found no humor in it, whatsoever. The entire concept is just ridiculous - how these kids are willing to dig up and monkey around with a dead body for as long as they did. The characters are stereotypical and bland and the movie is just plain boring... Don't waste your time with it...
| 0 |
negative
|
Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.<br /><br />A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.<br /><br />The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.<br /><br />Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.<br /><br />This is my truth - what is yours?
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is about a young man's painful journey to discovering his sexuality.<br /><br />The film is raw and unpretentious. It does not rely on steamy sex scenes to attract the viewers. Though the plot may seem incoherent and disconnected at times, and some events are not properly explained. I can understand it though, because this film is a collection of memories that are highly personal to the director. The subplot of about his sister and mother probably does not need to exist in the film, but I can certainly imagine that these are very important events in his life.<br /><br />The low budget of the film is clearly discernible. It is a pity that the sound effects are poorly done. The narration and some dialogs (particularly the scene in the classroom with the French teacher) have so much echo, which makes it hard to make out what is said. The ambient noise, notable traffic noise, is also captured throughout the film. When a scene cuts into another, the level of traffic noise changes.<br /><br />This film is probably not entertaining, but it certainly serves as an insightful diary of a young man's journey to embracing his sexuality.
| 0 |
negative
|
I am a happily married 49 year old female, who just happens to LOVE this movie to death.<br /><br />Geena Davis' character is strong, smart and kick ass...............I thought she did an excellent (thats an understatement) job in this movie.<br /><br />I'm not real big on action movies, but i thought it was sooooooooooo sexy and entertaining.<br /><br />She is my alter-ego.............when she starts putting that assault rifle together in the old hotel room.....................i got chills...............she did it like she knew what she was doing............thats one of my MANY favorite parts in that movie........<br /><br />i think she deserved an Oscar for her acting and physical roles........<br /><br />I'm going to have 'CHARLY' tattoed on my back..............I'm one of those girls who will NEVER BE A VICTIM......................I'm like her...............(shhhhhhhhhhhhhh secretly........and isn't that oh so sexy?)
| 1 |
positive
|
My review is divided into questions that you really should ask yourself: <br /><br />1. Plants eating people have been done HUNDREDS of times. It's been used by Nintendo in everything from Mario to Zelda to Metroid Prime. It's been used in plenty of low-budget 50's movies, on par with the lowest of the Godzilla franchise. And this brings it to a whole another level of cheese with plants that TALK. I've known no one who walked out, but I know a lot of people who absolutely broke out in hysteric laughing during parts of this movie. I was one of them. Doesn't the horror genre deserve something a little better than this pile of laughable crap? <br /><br />2. The characters easily could have been copy/pasted from Hostel or Wrong Turn or Wolf Creek or any other movie with collage kids with bad luck. Yet it's called "characterizing" when the movie takes hours of your time to tell you clichés that hundreds of characters before have had? Don't you ever wish a movie had characters that weren't just forgettable pieces of meat with legs? <br /><br />3. This was not gory. A guy cuts his skin off. Oh, my! (Not.) A guy gets his legs broken. Oh my! Gasp! (Not.) I have shown movies like this to my mother who hates everything to do with horror because it makes her sick, and she said: "I've seen PG movies worse than that! Why was it rated R?" So, why was it rated R? <br /><br />4. Here's the only plot the movie/book has: collage kids drink, have sex, get naked, cruse, bleed, and eventually die. This is possibly the most typical example of a cheap, thoughtless horror movie, yet people call this "mature"? What the . . .? <br /><br />5. I do not think I have ever seen something less original sense I watched A Beautiful Mind. <br /><br />Haven't you ever sat there and wished the horror genre, easily the most diverse genre out there, would do something . . . well, diverse? Something truly original?<br /><br />I just wish more horror movies would have actual horror, not just cheap collage parties put on film with a few splatters of fake blood tossed around.<br /><br />1/10
| 0 |
negative
|
One of our all time family favorites. When we need a laugh...we just put this one in and laugh all way thru like it is the first time we've seen it. This film has good, clean family humor. Pauly Shore is brilliant! With no plans for the thanksgiving holiday, Crawl (Shore) is invited to spend the holiday with a conservative coed, Becca. Crawl, being a big city boy, must adjust to the farm life if he is to fall in love with Becca. But, Crawl isn't the only one who is learning new things. Crawl teaches Becca and her parents how to be more open about their feelings and accepting others. This is fun for viewers of all ages.
| 1 |
positive
|
Up until around 1970 Lucille Ball was one great comedienne. She was such a perfect clown I only wish more people could have seen her with Bob Hope in "The Facts of Life" because she could do dry deadpan, too. as well as slapstick..<br /><br />Yep, Lucille Ball was wonderful . . . until "Mame."<br /><br />Trying to see Lucille Ball in "Mame" is physically impossible because there is so much Vaseline on the already filtered lenses that you'd need Windex to see Lucille Ball in some scenes. So even if you see Lucille Ball in "Mame," you can't really see Lucille Ball in "Mame". Which is a blessing.<br /><br />That's about the nicest thing I can say about "Mame," the movie of the musical of the movie of the play (this could go on, but it started with a perfectly funny book called "Auntie Mame"). Giving this a bad rap is like beating a sponge. So it does not matter that the music is croaked rather than sung. Most of the songs weren't much, anyway. There isn't any difference in the first three. "It's Today," "Open a New Window," and "We Need a Little Christmas" are all the same song. Celene Dion should do an album with them, they're so big and dull. The killer ballad "If He Walked Into My Life Today" needs a confident gorgeous voice (Edyie Gorme won a Grammy for doing it in 1967) that poor Lucille Ball did not possess when she made this movie. (True, Elaine Stritch can't carry a tune in a bucket, either, but at least Stritch can put over a song.)<br /><br />If you still feel your life is not going to be complete unless you see the movie musical "Mame," notice how there IS dancing in it, but whenever Lucy/Mame starts to do anything beyond a palsied shuffle the camera cuts away, returning right when the number is over and the star poses with the dancers. Again, it's just as well. Jane Connell got to reprise the role of pathetic Agnes Gooch after Lucille Ball had Madeline Kahn fired to ensure no comic originality would upstage the star. Connell is a stage performer who, like Carol Channing and Ethyl Merman, can't scale down her performances for films, so she joins Lucille Ball in being embarrassing, though for different reasons.<br /><br />The lavish gowns are by Theadora Van Runkle (Van Wrinkle?) and they provide the color missing in all but one of the cast. <br /><br />Bea Arthur as the actress Vera Charles, Mame's best friend, ignores everyone and does her own fun thing. If only she was in more scenes. She's too old for her role, too, but at least she didn't maim it.
| 0 |
negative
|
Would a different translation have made it chillier or scarier? Are the subtitles too compact to convey the nuances of the original language? Does it even matter? You may have heard that great actors can make reading a phone book exciting. Well, this is an opportunity to judge for yourself. <br /><br />If this isn't about homosexuality, murder, dismemberment, psychopaths, insanity, deviant psychology, then it is about acting - acting helped along with lots of dialog, So, enjoy the acting or muse about how titillating the dialog actually is.<br /><br />For English speakers, "Twelve Angry Men" might be a better choice. There's a bit more interaction, and you can judge if the acting is consistent with the dialog. You don't have to wonder if you're missing something.<br /><br />I would recommend Andy Warhol's "Empire" to those who like this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
Like most, I rented this after I heard the universal praise. And despite COUNTLESS bizarre, unexplainable moments along the way, I was very interested and entertained through 100 minutes of the film. Then the two women went to the "performance" late at night. The rest of movie (which is another 40 minutes by the way) is even WEIRDER than the first part AND completely contradict and dump on what I had already seen. Then the movie abruptly ends.<br /><br />Baffled, I wandered over to my computer to see if I could buy a clue as to what just happened. Nothing made sense, and I'm a pretty clever guy. None of these other user comments made sense, even when they say "SPOILERS." I still have no idea what they're saying. Someone's dream? Not real? Then what's the point of a 2 hour 30 minute movie if it's "not real?" Or is it real? I'm forced to make a choice. Either:<br /><br />[a] The movie is a work of genius on a MENSA level and I'm simply too stupid to understand it.<br /><br />[b] The movie is weird for weird's sake and just doesn't make sense. Everyone who loves it is trying to save face and pretend like they "get" it.<br /><br />I choose [b]. Screw you guys, I'm going home...
| 0 |
negative
|
I watched this last nite with an open mind. Sorry to say it is still bad. first, the movie is too noisey and you can't hear what people are saying. The accents are bad especially Richard Masur. What is the French chick doing in this film ??? Miscasting at its worst. Walken's makeup is strange. The Harvard scene is useless and not needed. Kristoferson's character is unlikeable and I wanted him to get killed and go away. Meanwhile, the Walken character gets killed too early and easily ( despite the makeup). The settlers are all stupid. GET ORGANIZED you bunch of hicks, people are coming to kill you !!!!! John Hurts character provides some humor buts thats all.<br /><br />I have nothing good to say about this excessive piece of crap. The only good thing is it ruined the director's career and killed United Artists.<br /><br />Still Crap after all these years.
| 0 |
negative
|
I've seen 'NSNA' just after I've seen all Roger Moore-films and I must say that it felt so good to see Connery again. He proves for all times that he is the one and only Bond.<br /><br />The film itself isn't really a masterpiece but it is really worth watching. The jokes sit much better here, the effects are funny and interesting, Connery is Connery and Brandauer is really a good villain. But von Sydow is just wasted and the score is not often good and there are a few scenes that seem pretty unnecessary.<br /><br />7/10 \ 2.5/4 \ 3+ (1+ - 6-)
| 1 |
positive
|
I have always loved The Muppets. Though most children's entertainment then wasn't that likable, The Muppet's was. The Muppet's are very, very funny. They are probably the most likable children's characters ever. <br /><br />Not only did The Muppets have their own show. They also have starred in many films. from The Muppet's Christmas carol to The Muppet's treasure Island. The first Muppet's movie, The Muppet movie, was also, like the show and the other films, excellent.<br /><br />The Muppet movie is about how they all got started. Kermit the frog used to live in a swamp. Until one day a movie executive tells him that there are auditions for frogs in Hollywood. So Kermit takes off for Hollywood. Along the way he runs into lots of people such as Fozzie Bear, Gonzo the great, and Miss Piggy. Also, an evil man is trying to capture Kermit.<br /><br />All of the Muppet films are highly enjoyable. I mean they are all very funny. This film has many film appearances. Such as Steve Martin, Mel Brooks, Elliot Gould, Carol Kane, Richard Pryor, and Orson Welles. The Muppet films are all very enjoyable. I hear that Jason Segel is going to star in one soon. I can't wait to see it.
| 1 |
positive
|
Miscast, badly directed and atrociously written, this is watchable if you have an hour or two to kill or are suffering from insomnia, but only just. Robert Carlyle fully realises his potential as an actor of supreme mediocrity with only one expression to his repertoire (that of a chronically constipated football hooligan nursing a crippling inferiority complex), which he manages at times to alter slightly by flaring his nostrils and baring a row of skewed yellow teeth (this to indicate anger, tenderness, grief, surprise, horror, hilarity, compassion, etc.) In his role as "the best marine engineer in the UK" and son of a university professor he is about as convincing as my neighbour's cat. Tom Courtenay, equally miscast, slurring and mistiming every line, appears permanently soused to the eyeballs, and would seem no more able to tell a flood from a puddle of his own urine if he were standing in it. All in all, another silly attempt on the part of the British to imitate Hollywood pulp at its most rubbishy. The dialogue is a series of badly-delivered clichés; the action is disjointed; the plot is pointless and amputated; and the characters, if you can call them that, do not even make it into the basic two-dimensional sphere of their American counterparts.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a rip-off from Cellular. <br /><br />Bad casting... <br /><br />Bad direction... <br /><br />Bad Music...<br /><br />And the list goes on...<br /><br />well there was no direction since story, scenes and setting were lifted straight off of other movie. <br /><br />Even fight sequence is copied. One with the mace was from Kill Bill and another one with fire hose was from either a Jet Li's or Jackie Chan's movie (i am not able to recall the name of this movie)... <br /><br />Stay away from this cheap imitation and try to see the real thing... <br /><br />Cannot expected something original from any of the Bhatts any more!!!
| 0 |
negative
|
Sure, most of the slasher films of the 1980's were not worth the<br /><br />celluloid they were filmed on, but this video nightmare may well be<br /><br />the dullest produced.<br /><br />Six horny pot smoking students decide to go camping. Of course,<br /><br />and you know this already, they begin getting killed one by one by a<br /><br />mysterious stranger. The climax has a hunky forest ranger trying to<br /><br />get to the teens in time before the last cute girl becomes buzzard<br /><br />bait.<br /><br />John Carl Buechler, my least favorite B-movie guy, did the lousy<br /><br />makeup effects here. The cast features Carel Struycken, of "The<br /><br />Witches of Eastwick" and the Addams family movies. Sadly, he<br /><br />does not pop up until the very end of the film, and is covered in<br /><br />burn makeup, rendering him unrecognizable. Steve Bond (anyone<br /><br />remember him?) is here in an early role as a victim.<br /><br />Brown's direction, and the script he cowrote, both smell like the<br /><br />presents brown bears leave in the woods. He pads the film with<br /><br />so much stock wilderness footage, I thought I accidentally rented a<br /><br />special episode of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. Much of the<br /><br />cast sits around the campfire and eats, then walk, and sit and eat<br /><br />again. The forest ranger is involved in the strangest scene ever put<br /><br />in a slasher film: he tells a joke about a wide mouthed frog to a<br /><br />baby deer. Jackie Coogan, who must have forgot he once worked<br /><br />with the legends of silent cinema, has two scenes, and is involved<br /><br />in the second strangest scene ever put in a slasher film: he and<br /><br />the hunky forest ranger have a conversation about cucumber and<br /><br />cream cheese sandwiches on oatmeal bread...yeah.<br /><br />There is not one minute of suspense here. The killer, a forest fire<br /><br />survivor looking for a mate, watches the students from behind<br /><br />trees. We know it is the killer because the film makers have<br /><br />dubbed in a heart beat sound effect that helpfully serves to wake<br /><br />the viewer up every few minutes. Skip this pile of pine sap and rent<br /><br />"Halloween," instead.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for physical violence, mild gun violence, gore,<br /><br />some profanity, brief female nudity, mild sexual content, sexual<br /><br />references, and drug abuse.
| 0 |
negative
|
This one is a bit more stylish than the average erotic thriller and Peta Wilson is a very sexy presence but it plays like they lost a few pages of script somewhere. Subplots come in and out of nowhere, the connections between some of the characters are murky and the killer's motivation is unclear to say the least. Maybe they could get away with this in a porn version, but here some more clarification is needed.
| 0 |
negative
|
I sat through all 2 hours. I do not know what was worse, the awful plot, the lame characters or the hawaiian hottie that Eddie's 11 yearold kid and 80 year old grandpa made sexual advances toward. The money spent on this was just flushed down the throne. Matty Simmons should be ashamed. The original idea for this movie was "A Swiss Family Griswold" and it somehow turned into this mess. The only bright spot is that it's ratings were so bad we will never see this on TV again. AVOID AT ALL COSTS...RENT ERNEST SAVES XMAS or something else.
| 0 |
negative
|
Watching Stranger Than Fiction director Marc Forster's The Kite Runner is the cinematic equivalent of eating your vegetables because this art-house epic rated PG-13 is good for your movie-going diet. No, this isn't the kind of movie that I like to slouch on the couch and eyeball at the end of a tough day. The Kite Runner isn't your typical mainstream movie designed to entertain you and make you forget about your troubles. First, no celebrity stars appear in it. Second, nothing is cut and dried, black or white, or so outlandish that you don't believe an image that you see. Third, The Kite Runner lapses into subtitles when the characters occasionally speak in their native tongue. Fourth, Forster's film isn't a romantic trifle about boy-wants-girl, boy-loses-girl, and then boy-wins-girl back. Fifth, this foreign language film may make you feel uncomfortable and challenge your assumptions about life, friendship, and survival. The chief themes here are cowardice and redemption. The protagonist commits a cowardly offense in the first half of the action that he must atone for at the cost of his own personal safety and integrity. Right, The Kite Runner is about redeeming oneself for the sins of the past. We're talking about personal accountability, so don't rent or buy this wonderful movie for a boy's night out celebration or something to take the bad taste of the day out of your system. Based on Khaled Hosseini's bestselling novel, this culturally enlightened melodrama about right and down initially looks like one of those light-hearted friendship movies about adolescents in the vein of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Sandlot. About a half-hour into its 127 minutes, this escapade about two youngsters who fly kites in Afghanistan turns dark and unsavory. Nevertheless, if you can handle the remaining hour of the plot, you'll emerge gratified, relieved, and perhaps even entertained. <br /><br />The Kite Runner opens in San Francisco in the year 2000 as our protagonist, Afghan émigré Amir Jan (Khalid Abdalla of United 93) and his wife Soraya (Atossa Leoni of The Florist) receive two boxes of published copies of Amir's first novel. No sooner has Amir had a chance to bask in his triumph of a life-time as a storyteller than the phone jars him from his reverie and he is drawn reluctantly back into a past that is best left forgotten for him. Rahim Khan (Shaun Toub of The Nativity Story) calls Amir from Pakistan to make a request. Rahim was a servant in Amir's household back in the 1970s when Amir lived with his wealthy Pashtun merchant father Baba (Homayoun Ershadi of A Taste of Cherry) in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion. "You have one more chance to be good," Rahim informs Amir without sugar coating his request. Basically, Rahim wants Amir to fly to Pakistan and then enter war-torn Afghanistan and rescue Rahim's young grandson Sohrab (Ali Danish Bakhty Ari) who is being held a prisoner against his will as a sex slave for Assef (newcomer Abdul Salam Yusoufzai) a cruel Taliban chieftain and Amir's once dreaded adversary. <br /><br />The Kite Runner shifts from San Francisco in 2000 to an extended flashback set in Kabul in 1978 when life was idyllic. Twelve-year-old Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) and the son of his father's servant, Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada) love to watch movies, such as John Sturges' western The Magnificent Seven, when they aren't flying kites. Incidentally, this is kite flying like you've never seen kite flying. Not only do the kids fly them, but they also compete with other kids to see who can cut the strings of another kid's kite. The kite fighting flight scenes generate the same kind of excitement that the dog fighting scenes had in Tony Scott's Top Gun. Hassan is Amir's best friend but unlike Amir, Hassan belongs to the reviled Hazara minority. Earlier, young Amir and Hassan had a confrontation with young Assef (Elham Ehsas) and his two flunkies. Assef was about to beat them up, but Hassan pulls out his slingshot and threatened to use it on Assef. Assef had no choice but to back down. Meanwhile, Amir was prepared to suffer the hand fate had dealt him. Amir's father Baba laments his son's lack of spine and fears that he will grow up half of a man because he is a coward, unlike the plucky little Hassan who bails Amir out of predicaments. Anyway, Amir and Hassan emerge from the showdown with Assef without a scratch. Later, after Amir sets a new record with his kite flying and fight skills, Hassan runs after a kite to claim it. Hassan is the eponymous character referred to in the title. Hassan claims the fallen kite but he finds himself at the mercy of Assef and his two minions. Assef lets Hassan kept the kite, but his minions pin Hassan spread-eagle, belly down in an alley while Assef sodomizes the youth. Worst, a traumatized Amir watches the assault from nearby but lacks the courage to intervene on behalf of his friend who would have intervened for him.<br /><br />Aside from the extraordinary aerial scenes with the kites, The Kite Runner is down-to-earth, straight-forward stuff. When Amir returns to Afghanistan to rescue Sohrab, he masquerades as a Taliban fighter but he doesn't carry a firearm. The rescue scene in The Kite Runner is rather like the escape scene from The Midnight Express. While Forster doesn't explore the local politics or plunge us into the ethnic and cultural issues at stake here. Indeed, Troy scenarist David Benioff had to eliminate some parts of the book and the racial and ethnic prejudices aren't clearly delineated so you have to accept some things on faith. Forster lensed the film in nearly China to give it an authentic look. Forster deserves credit for making this two hour plus epic fascinating. The performances, especially by the children, stand out for their believability. The Kite Runner is a film that you won't easily forget.
| 1 |
positive
|
I remember seeing this film in the mid 80's thought it a well paced and well acted piece. I now work quite often in Berkeley Square and the had to get a copy of DVD to remind myself how little the area has changed, although my office is newish it just 30 seconds away from "the bank". Even Jack Barclays car dealership is still there selling Bentleys and Rolls Royces.<br /><br />It's look like the DVD is due a Region 2 release soon. The region 1 copy I is very poor quality. Let's hope they've cleaned it up.<br /><br />Only the slightly dodgy escape sequence from the court spoils what would otherwise be a great film but I guess is in line with the caper tag the film goes with.
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought that Eastwood's most unusual role was that in The Bridges of Madison County, but that was until I saw The Beguiled. He manages to pull it off, giving a very good performance and so does the rest of the cast. The direction is imaginative given that the film was made in 1971 and had there not been some plot holes - which the director seems to struggle to cover up at times - we would be talking about an excellent film. It remains powerful, nonetheless.<br /><br />8
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is a load of crap. It's quite disturbing to see that anyone is able to say that this is one of the best films of the year. What can I say? Bad acting, bad action scenes which becomes really comical in the end. Pardon me if this was a comedy, then I didn't understand it. If it was I regret laughing of the tent scenes! Do yourself a favor - go to bed instead of watching this! Good night!
| 0 |
negative
|
This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...<br /><br />How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders "mirrors life"? Life on which planet, exactly? <br /><br />It's written about "working-class" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the "working-class" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.<br /><br />This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.<br /><br />Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.<br /><br />Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.<br /><br />And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is one of the poorest adaptations of a fabulous book that I've seen. Jean George's novel is a fantastic book that I think is an outstanding read for any child. I can't give the same endorsement to this movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Despite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.<br /><br />By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.<br /><br />This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.<br /><br />While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.<br /><br />The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?<br /><br />In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.<br /><br />In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?<br /><br />The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come out.
| 0 |
negative
|
I really like Salman Kahn so I was really disappointed when I seen this movie. It didn't have much of a plot and what they did have was not that appealing. Salman however did look good in the movie looked young and refreshed but was worth the price of this DVD. The music was not bad it was quite nice. Usually Indian movies are at least two to three hours long but this was a very short movie for an Indian film. The American actress that played in the movie is from the television hit series Heroes, Ali Larter. Her acting had a lot to be desired. However she did look good in the Indian dresses that she wore. All the movie had not a lot to be desired and I hope Salman does a lot better on his next movie. Thank you.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was just looking at the 100 bottom movies according to IMDb users seeing if there was anything to review that I haven't yet and I found this little screen gem. One of those occasions when you see a movie ranked as one of the worst and you just have to be one of the few that actually likes it. Darn, well I guess I will get ridiculed and spat upon here, but for me this was a pretty good flick when I saw it. It has been awhile however, I remember it used to come on HBO late at night and I watched it two or three times and I haven't seen it really since and I would love to watch it again now knowing Jolie was in it. The story follows a cyborg and a guy trying to escape the clutches of this corporation and some bounty hunters after them. I think that is basically all there is to it, throw in a few scenes with Jack Palance and we have our movie. Some good action here and there, and some blood and violence as well. There is also a love story at play as well as the female cyborg and the guy who trained her to fight kind of fall in love with each other. The dialog sometimes becomes rather bad at times and it is by far not a top notch film, but for a b-movie it is really good. I don't know if it was a theatrical release though because it does not seem high quality enough for that, but it does make for one of the better direct to videos if it was one of those.
| 1 |
positive
|
The best thing about this movie for me was that Bryan Dick played Rafe and made me -melt-. Rafe and all his gorgeousness made the movie worth sitting through, even though I itched to get up and scream. I have never seen a hotter man. <br /><br />-ahem- But that's not the point.<br /><br />The title? That is indeed what it is. They took the beautiful story written by Annette Curtis Klause and threw it out. I will, in all my anal-retentive glory, point out what was missing, what has changed, and all else wrong with the movie.<br /><br />Sit tight and here goes:<br /><br />-Apparently, RAFE is son of ASTRID and GABRIEL, and apparently, ULF is no longer ASTRID'S child, like in the book. AND, as I recall from the book, RAFE and ASTRID were LOVERS.<br /><br />-ASTRID is apparently BLOND, as opposed to the notably RED HAIR described in the book. I believe the book said that she looked more like a FOX than a WOLF. And the movie also shows that ASTRID is VIVIAN'S aunt.<br /><br />-WHERE DID AXEL GO? <br /><br />-VIVIAN is 19. In the book she was 16. <br /><br />-VIVIAN and AIDEN meet IN HIGH SCHOOL which they both attend in the book. VIVIAN goes to see AIDEN because of his poem 'Wolf Change'. But, according to the movie, AIDEN beat up his dad, escaped, and now lives in Romania, and draws Graphic Novels. This made me go 'What the F**K.' <br /><br />-There is no 'Kelly' in the movie. WHERE WAS THE KELLY IN THE MOVIE. The KELLY in the book, however, hated VIVIAN. And she also dated AIDEN after they broke up. Vivian even gets tipsy in the book and trashed her room.<br /><br />-GABRIEL bears a striking resemblance to a Columbian Drug Lord in the movie. And he sort of sounds like one too. His acting was very good, but his appearance threw me off.<br /><br />-VIVIAN had NO parents in the movie. Her father and mother and 2 other siblings died in the movie. Yet in the book, when she comes home one night, her MOTHER, ESME is sitting on the couch, after fighting with ASTRID over GABRIEL. And VIVIAN has no siblings. Only her father died in the book.<br /><br />-AIDEN accepts VIVAN for what she is. This REALLY got me. He kills RAFE in the creepy church, confronts VIVIAN, and she saves him from the others wolves, except AIDEN shoots her, so they saunter off to find medicine, and then they try to leave the city together. WTF?! In the book, AIDEN freaks out when she turns into a wolf, and cries like a chick, throws stuff at her, and so she panics, and jumps out the window. Then he makes up a story that he tried to break up with her, and she threw a chair out of the window. That doesn't sound accepting to me.<br /><br />-AIDEN wants her to runaway with him. In the book, he wants nothing to do with VIVAN after she turns for him. Nor does he lovingly hold her face and say she can control it. He cries like a woman because he is SCARED of her. <br /><br />And the final indignation...the one that nearly gave my three best friends and I HEART ATTACKS IN OUR SEATS:<br /><br />-In the movie, AIDEN and VIVIAN run away together, and VIVAN has killed GABRIEL. As in she SHOOTS him. GABRIEL dies. In the *BOOK* not only does VIVIAN not kill GABRIEL, I do believe they END UP TOGETHER. As in, she doesn't end up with AIDEN, she ends up with GABRIEL. WHAT THE HELL.<br /><br />Small things were noticed too: Ulf's red hair which he gets from Astrid has been changed to brown in the movie, and Vivian works at a chocolate shop. <br /><br />A horrible shock; I am ashamed. The book really wasn't hard to follow. If Disney can use a random H!School, why couldn't the directer have found a random H!School? <br /><br />*sigh* I was really looking forward to this movie, I loved the book, it's sad that it didn't follow it one bit. I give it a 2, only because (as the top of this review states) Rafe (played by Bryan Dick) was dead sexy, and Agnes Bruckner did a wonderful job. AND, they kept the poem from Steppenwolf <br /><br />With love,<br /><br />Caitlin
| 0 |
negative
|
Making a film based on a true story, particularly one as incredible and horrifying as the 1972 Andean plane crash, is hard for even the best filmmakers. But the Mexicans behind this forgettable and cheap exploitation flick don't even try! The actual names of both the survivors and the casualties of the Uruguayan air force plane crash have ALL been altered, the crash itself is obviously staged in a very slip-shod manner, and the cannibalism aspect has been unnecessarily and gorily played up. Shockingly, it made a ton of money on both sides of the border. Thankfully, thought, it has mercifully been forgotten. But the same people behind this would later give us the equally revolting GUYANA: CULT OF THE DAMNED!<br /><br />This cheap horror exploitation flick necessitated the making of ALIVE some fifteen years later. That film was a masterpiece. SURVIVE!, to put it mildly, is not.
| 0 |
negative
|
Let me start by saying you know a film is poorly run when extras make the cover. With that said, anyone who says this is the worst film ever is being dramatic, and anyone who says that the film is great is completely delusional. The film "is what it is." And what is that... A modest budget ($4 million, I estimate) studio sequel. The film isn't terrible, but for Road House fans it will be a disappointment. And that brings me to problem one, just as Dirty Dancing wouldn't been what it was without Swayze, Road House isn't the same without him. The lead lacks depth, character, and likability to carry the film. I feel that the lead was poorly cast and the producers should have bent over backwards to get Patrick to do it if they were gonna do a sequel. The other cast was uneven with outstanding actors like Will Patton along side day players who couldn't act there way out of a paper bag. Busey, who I have seen do great characters seemed like he just mailed it in. Ellen was played well, except for not being believable at all as a bayou raised chick. Sherri, the DEA agent at the first bar was hot and a good actress, yet her part was awkwardly small and undeveloped. The writer totally missed all opportunities to add depth and interest to the story and characters. Instead opting for a base one dimensional film. Which leads me to the biggest problem, the script... I got a bad feeling when the credits rolled and there were three script writers separated by an "and" and an "&." It looked very amateur. And that is what the writing was. I heard the original script was better and then a rewrite was done and the hard core sucking began. Some cheezy parts of the film to watch for are... During the first undercover meeting, the obvious drug deal under the table. "Hey lets meet at a crowded nudey bar, I will pull a block of coke out of my jacket and you pull cash out then we will slide them under the cocktail table" WAIT! "Make sure to look cool when you look left and right to make sure no one is looking!" Second, I love it when someone gets shot in the chest and then you see him sitting up happy as a lark 10 minutes later. There are some nasty editing cuts towards the end of the film especially during fight scenes and when the main character is chasing thru doors and runs into a patron. Which brings me to the realism of the DEA training, I won't both to get technical... But jumping thru doors isn't standard training... Nor do typical female agents, who bust their butts to make it in a male oriented field, act like weak characters... Boring! Thanks for the chauvinistic view Heir Director. There is other stuff I could teach a course at a school about it... The sped up fighting, the cheezy dialogue, the recycled story... etc... But aside from all that you just cannot like ex-Mr. Applegate, he totally lacks the humble zen coolness that made Mr. Patrick Swayze such a bad ass. He just strikes me as one of those 5 foot nothing actors who think they are a bad ass, but just like Van Damnit he runs into a real bad ass (Chuck Zito in Van Don't case) and he gives him a lesson about "badassdom." Therefore, that I feel is the major linchpin of the film, if you are a bad ass you are a bad ass, you don't have to try. Example: Swayze! If you are a pretty boy who tries to hard to prove you are a bad ass among other things... Then well... You are why your audience, the Average Joe... Will not rent this film, and if they do they will write reviews like this.
| 0 |
negative
|
The beautifully engaging song with the same name as the film won the best song Oscar in 1955.<br /><br />Love is a many splendored thing.<br /><br />It's the April rose that only grows in the early spring.<br /><br />Love is nature's way of giving a reason to be living.<br /><br />That golden crown that makes a man a king.<br /><br />Once on a high and windy hill<br /><br />In the morning mist two lovers kissed and the world stood still.<br /><br />Then your fingers touched my silent heart and taught it how to sing.<br /><br />Yes, true love a many-splendored thing.<br /><br />How can we forget such a beautiful song. Henry King, the director, had the privilege to work with Jennifer Jones twice that year for this film and the greatly under-rated film "Good Morning, Miss Dove." Jones was nominated for "Splendored Thing" but she could have been easily nominated for Miss Dove as well.<br /><br />William Holden is just great as the war correspondent sent to report on the Communist revolution in 1949 China. His love for Jones, an oriental doctor, was endearing and so memorable to watch.<br /><br />While the ending is not pleasing, this is still one of the greatest romances ever put on the screen.
| 1 |
positive
|
I think this movie had really bad production value. The lack of acting makes me think they should mark it as an early docudrama. It may have had no money available for its making. I feel bad that it was a ruff ride into the Major League for Jackie Robinson.<br /><br />I believe he was much better than many of the white players of his day. He had to be really great to break the color barrier of the time. No getting around that this was a really bad movie.<br /><br />Wish there was more info about its makers. They may have been limited by the quality of actors that were willing to take on the project. Maybe no money to get good people.
| 0 |
negative
|
The famous French detective Henri Cassin takes his first vacation in 11 years in St. Margot where he meets Nanette, the daughter of the vacation spot proprietors. Despite Nanette being promised to childhood sweetheart Leon, Henri and Nanette fall in love and decide to marry, despite Nanette's father objecting due to Henri's age. On the day of their wedding, Leon returns and Nanette runs after him. Nothing is heard of the two until both are found dead, and Henri swears he won't rest until he can find the killer. The only clue Henri has to work with is a footprint found by Leon, but he is also getting written warnings that others will die soon. Soon Nanette's mother is found dead and Henri has no idea as to the identity of the killer. Thinking himself a failure he returns to Paris, then he realizes (and fears) that the killer can be only one person, even though none of his colleagues can believe his explanation. Out of the ordinary murder mystery that doesn't really follow the formula in other of the genre by Columbia or other B studios. Credit to that certainly goes to director Lewis who does manage to turn this into a noirish film despite the setting of the film, also aided by the use of good camera-work and lighting. Geray turns in a very good performance in probably his only lead and the rest of the cast is able to carry their performance. Rating, 8.
| 1 |
positive
|
Rita Hayworth plays a Brooklyn nightclub dancer named Rusty who specializes in cheesecake chorus revues; she manages to get herself on the cover of a national fashion magazine, but her impending success as a solo (with romantic offers all around) has smitten boss Gene Kelly chomping at the bit. Terribly tired piece of Technicolor cotton candy, with unmemorable musical sketches (the two worst of which are irrelevant flashbacks to the 1890s, with Hayworth portraying her own grandmother). Kelly, as always, dances well but acts with false sincerity; when he's serious, he's insufferable, and the rest of the time he's flying on adrenaline. The script is a lead weight, not even giving supporting players Phil Silvers and Eve Arden any good lines. *1/2 from ****
| 0 |
negative
|
This could have been a good biopic, but what a mess! I had this film when I was a theater manager. When I put the film together, and watched it, I thought I had some reels out of order. As it turned out I didn't, and if I did, nobody would have noticed. I couldn't figure out what's going on! Everybody who walked out pretty much felt the same way!
| 0 |
negative
|
Fellow Giallo-fanatics: beware and/or proceed with caution
for this movie isn't exactly what it appears to be. It surely looks like a Giallo, with its juicy VHS cover (showing a busty naked girl and a big bloodied knife), rhythmic title and the names of two veteran Italian actors in the cast (John Phillip & Fernando Rey), but it's basically just an erotic thriller without much of a plot. The version I watched is presumably harshly censored with a running time of barely 77 minutes but then still there's a severe lack of suspense, character development and most of all sadistic (and typically Giallo) carnage. "Eyes Behind the Wall" can briefly be summarized as the gathering of a bunch of perverted characters and the extended depiction of their sexuality issues. It's an interesting effort notwithstanding, because writer/director Giuliano Petrelli (his only film) clearly attempted to do something special, but the overall result is unsatisfying and regrettably tame. Inspired by Hitchcock's "Rear Window", the main character is a frustrated elderly and wheelchair-bound writer. He and his much younger lover get their sexual kicks from spying on the single male tenant living across the road. The tenant, respectively, likes to perform gym exercises around the house whilst being naked and clearly has bisexual desires. Wheelchair guy sends his wife over and they have sex. Then, there's also Ottavio the butler who repeatedly rapes schoolgirls. Are there any normal characters in the story? Well no, of course not! The film benefices from a continuously ominous atmosphere, with a moody soundtrack and nifty photography, but none of it ever leads anywhere so it's all just sleaze & sex without significance. There's a truly bizarre twist/revelation at the end of the story, but it comes too late and too randomly to boost up the overall quality. Not recommended to fans of Italian horror/cult cinema, but maybe it is great viewing for psychology students, to analyze the characters Freud-style.
| 0 |
negative
|
In the early 19th century, a young woman with a harelip falls foul of her family's ambition and the superstitions of the local community, but she meets a man who may see her differently, and just may, change Pru's life forever.<br /><br />Precious Bane is a British Broadcasting Corporation adaptation of the highly acclaimed novel by Mary Webb. It's a beautifully filmed piece that is acted to an incredibly high standard, the story {screenplay by Maggie Wadey} is excellent, and the period detail and use of dialect is second to none. It's such a shame that this film has yet to get a DVD release, one would have thought that with Clive Owen's {great here as Gideon} rise to stardom, the BBC would get it out there, but sadly no, so the only way of catching it is on the very rare occasions that TCM shows it. The lead performance from Janet McTeer as Pru Sarn is simply brilliant, guts and genuine emotion go hand in hand as McTeer gives it her all. Pru has to not only contend with her facial disfigurement, but also the constant snides and hurt from the ignorant villagers. This is a time when folk believed that if a Hare ran in front of a pregnant woman it spelt doom, a time of Bull Baiting, a time of superstitions and talk of witches. In spite of constant set backs Pru is strong and resourceful, even her own family knock her dreams back without realising it, but this road may well be a terribly bumpy one, but hope is everlasting, and Pru has hope in abundance.<br /><br />8.5/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Can somebody please explain the plot of this movie to me? Yes, I know the bus ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, after the driver never noticed that his compass wasn't functioning, but what then? And how did it end? Maybe I'm to stupid to understand this movie, but to me it was an absolute waste of time.<br /><br />My recommendation? Do not bother, there are far better movies to be seen. This movie ranks with my other all time low-low's (Going overboard - Adam Sandler and Fire on the Amazon - Sandra Bullock)
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is a completely inaccurate depiction of the real story of Noah's Ark. The producers probably did not even read the Bible. This is the worst movie I have EVER seen! Noah's wife was never mentioned by name in the Bible, but the writers of the film "gave" her the name Naamah. This movie depicts the destruction of Sodom a good 1000 years before it happened, and what about Gamorrah? It too was destroyed at the same time Sodom was. (Maybe the producers thought that not including Gamorrah in the story and showing the city of "Sodom" as in you-know-what would raise more eyebrows.) This film is utter filth and mocks God and the Bible. It is a wonder that any true Christian would want to participate in the production of this abysmal, hideous, reprobated mockery of the Bible.
| 0 |
negative
|
You Are Alone is a beautiful, almost delicate film, smart directed, crisply written, with two complex and riveting performances, and a twist of an ending that no one will see coming, but will make you want to see the film a second time to go back and catch up on all the clues you misread.<br /><br />The story, about a highschool girl who drowns her depression and awkwardness by working a few hours a week as a $500 an hour "schoolgirl" escort, and the depressed next-door neighbor who discovers her secret and hires her for an afternoon call in a downtown New Haven hotel, features breathtaking performances from both Jessica Bohl, as the girl, and Richard Brundage, as her neighbor.<br /><br />Bohl as Daphne gives a breakthrough performance on par with Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary. She so captures a teenager's angst of growing into her own skin, and when she talks about always being in control, you start to realize she's not in control at all, but in danger of going over the deep end, which I guess in a way she does.<br /><br />Brundage as Buddy is depressed, angry, heartbroken, a shell of a man. But it isn't until the film's startling conclusion that you grasp a full comprehension of his pain.<br /><br />After a very brief opening segment, which will hook most independent film lovers, and have the religious right running towards the exits, we are brought into the hotel room. At first you're not sure about these people, or the film-making style. Shaky, annoying...like the characters. Until you realize their back story, told in short flashbacks. They're confrontational at first for a reason, and so is the camera. But as they open up, as the story settles down, likewise, so does the camera. And, I don't know, 20 minutes in, give or take, you find yourself unable to take your eyes away from the screen.<br /><br />Having just seen the world premiere screening at the Brooklyn Film Fest -- where the director asked the audience if anyone expected the ending and not one person answered yes I almost wish the film were already on video so I could watch it again. Because thinking back now on some of the conversations in the film, particularly a very candid dialog regarding fantasy and climax, I really thought things were going in a very different direction. But I realize now so much of their conversation meant something completely different than what I imagined. I need to see it again!!! But as dark and sexual as much of the talk is, blunt to say the least, I found myself laughing more than I might have expected at some of its candor, which definitely falls into the "things we think, but lack the nerve to say out loud" category. It's very blunt, especially when you realize so much of it has a completely different meaning. Some of it will make you uncomfortable, especially if you're watching You Are Alone with a partner. You'll definitely have something to talk about perhaps argue about afterwards. Perhaps it should come with a warning: You SHOULD be alone when watching! The music is amazing. I would have come home, and purchased the soundtrack at my favorite online music store if I could have. The film looks as good as anything shot on film. After the screening director Gorman Bechard was asked what sort of process he used to get the digital footage to look so good. His answer: none. They couldn't afford it.<br /><br />I have to give Bechard credit. I am a big fan of his two shorts, The Pretty Girl and Objects in the Mirror, but even they could not have prepared me for the complexities and surprises of this film.<br /><br />To everyone involved: bravo.
| 1 |
positive
|
I've heard many things about Beowulf, maybe because i'm from Romania and a good part of the movie was filmed here, in my country. And i expected a lot from this film. At the end, i was disappointed. It is not as horrible as other users said, but it's definetely bad. It's all about a monster killing people in a 6th century castle and Lambert the one who comes to kill him. Lambert is good, as he is in all his roles, but the rest of the characters suck, and the action isn't too good either. Plus maybe the only thing that could've saved this film, the special effects, are also very bad, the monster looks awful (not scary, but awful). Oh and another bad thing: the music. The movie tries, and manages to create the 6th century atmosphere. But all the action sequences are presented on rock music, which is very very bad. I mean action on rock works perfectly on a movie like Charlie's Angels - where that's the perfect way to shoot your action. But here, that was a very bad idea.<br /><br />Vote: 4 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
Great subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration. <br /><br />The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, "quick - we must try to save him," but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two "rescuers" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!<br /><br />I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 rating?
| 0 |
negative
|
Right, where do I start? I cannot even imagine to comprehend this preteen pathetic excuse of a show. Picture this: a boarding school, where kids whose parents are rolling in money simply chuck them in there so as to jet around the world themselves. It could not get any more diabolic than this.<br /><br />If you taught these kids, shall not even upgrade them to the term teenagers, because they hardly even act like sane homosapiens, were self-centered, think again. About 23 minutes choked full of their so-called problems, boy troubles, and the like.<br /><br />The heroine of the show, of course, Mademoiselle Zoey, played by Britney's Polly Pocket Little Miss I'm All That sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, has obviously much to learn about acting. However, I will give her some face, because her superficial, one dimensional character, does not allow much room for depth. She plays Pacific Coast Academy's sun, moon and stars, crusader fighting for the plight of all women, equality of all genders.<br /><br />Perfect in everyway, always with her two loyal sidekicks, Nicole, the daffy bimbo, who obviously has too much of Daddy's cash, and tough chick, Dana, who proves a hard nut to crack. Both left the show in seasons 2 and 1 respectively, not that I blame that. But horror of horrors, in comes Lola, who deems herself the greatest actress since Natalie Wood, with green feathers in her hair and fake tan. She is even more rude than Zoey herself, if that is even possible, and even more dumber than Nicole, and hell, we know that cannot be possible.<br /><br />This show, like all the sorry excuses for television programmes Nickelodeon has been spewing out since 2000s, is a prime victim of stereotyping. Get girl next door and dense to her best friend's feelings for her Zoey, a great albeit inarticulate at times best boy friend, Chase, a cool, arrogant ladies man, Logan, a boy and clothes crazy girl, who is not very bright, Nicole, the one whom everyone thinks is weird just because she is extremely smart, the nerd, Quinn, the over-dramatic, annoying yet super thin, Malibu picture perfect model, Lola, and the tough yet soft inside woman, Dana. Now, where have I heard these characters before? I am sorry, but what is so wrong with having a personality? Just because Quinn is passionate about Science, and actually cares about her future and doing well in the academic aspect, in which the rest should be concerned about as well, she is "weird" and a "nerd"? Lola at the beginning of the series, proved to be a potential great character with her sassy ways and different outlook in life, Zoey just had to go, get out your pitchforks, burn her at the stake, she's going back to Weird Town and all that jazz. So much for womens rights. Unfortunately, Lola just became nothing more of another OC clone, in all its anorexic glory. Probably so as to not outshine her Mistress.<br /><br />But hey, the 2000 generation of MySpace whores seem to love it with the Chase/Zoey typical fairytale romance, the tension between adamant, "hot" Logan and "kick-ass" Zoey or Dana, whichever to your liking, and the pretty people. Please, this show exists to remind us that people do not like realism, they prefer a pretentious, shallow and vapid lifestyle. Sorry to break it to you darlings, that will not happen, unless you have a major trust fund and parents to cushion you.
| 0 |
negative
|
Bart The Genius Whilst not the first Simpsons episode, Bart he Genius more or less is the first typical episode. There's no gimmickry or theme it's just your typical Simpsons episode in set-up. It always seems to me that it's an episode that grows on you. There are certain elements I don't care for, largely the blotchy animation which can be forgiven. But over time I take a liking to this story of it's uniqueness.<br /><br />For example, it'd be very hard for a live-action sit-com on a standard budget to do this episode due to the various different sets that show in this episode, the computer bays in Ms. Melon's class, the opera and so on. My point is with that, The Simpsons realises one of the biggest strengths in animation. The sheer lack of visual limitations when compared to live-action.<br /><br />On a writing stand-point it's also highly intelligent and fresh. The concept is pretty unique, and particularly the problems faced. Instead of the ol' fail-safe that work was too hard, it was simply Bart's social isolation from his classmates that failed him (although the exploding science experiment may prove otherwise...which I also think is one of the best visual gags of the series.) The ending seems a little unoriginal, largely because the Bart running naked into his room to avoid Homer was already done in the shorts, but still funny for Marge and Lisa's short back-and-forth if for nothing else.<br /><br />Ultimately it's a very good episode, with lots of interesting new point in the series, though not exactly perfect.<br /><br />Oh, and the now iconic name Kwijybo was of course unleashed onto the world.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is without a doubt the most stunning and amazing documentary I have ever seen! The images that are shown are absolutely breathtaking and stunning. On top of that, it is a wonderful learning experience. I'm not one for educational documentaries, but this one grabs hold of you and doesn't let go until the end. You'll be so hooked and entranced by what you are watching that you'll forget your at home watching TV! This series is available to buy on DVD and I HIGHLY recommend picking this one up! With all the evil and death in this world, this documentary series gives us proof that life is beautiful and worth saving and preserving.
| 1 |
positive
|
I didn't understand the people who rated it over 5. I think it's a horrible film from any point of view. Plots, acting, art, dialog, music, whatsoever! I don't mind a low budget..However you have to get some point. Wandering, wondering..pointless..then two boys started kissing in bed. awful,,just awful. I love indie films, don't mind it is slow. However this movie disappointed me from any perspectives. Even the Graffito, not artistic.<br /><br />I was wondering what kind of people would like it. I am a female in my 30's. Is it for teens who have some kind of the loneliness about life, or I just don't get it? What I gained then? Wasting time! Please go for some others.
| 0 |
negative
|
The recent DVD release of Good Humor Man labels the film as comedy. It's hardly a comedy, rather a dull indie film about a group of losers. Supposedly set in the 70s, there is scant attention paid to period details, with overly muted color correction taking its place. The monotonous soundtrack only serves to accentuate the repetitiveness of the film (perhaps that is the point, but it does not add to the enjoyment of the viewing experience.) Apprarently the clique of losers only like to hang out at one location, the bleachers. It seems like the packaging of the film as a comedy is meant to deceive people into renting or buying this film, which is a complete waste of time.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of my all time favourites. All the actors do a great job. Comparing this movie to "Lawrence of Arabia" does no justice to both movies. "The Wind and the Lion" levels a much lower budget with fantastic actors portraying heartwarming characters in a heartwarming atmosphere. Action and beautiful pictures are provided as well, which all together guarantees a favourite movie to me.
| 1 |
positive
|
then you will be a big fan of this movie. Its almost the same basic concept, a nice mixture of music, soul, and drama. I'll admit, i was a little aprehensive about seeing this movie, I had only seen previews of a white trash girl chained to a radiator, but I am a big fan of Samuel L. Jackson and I enjoyed Hustle & Flow so i thought I would give it a chance.<br /><br />I'm very glad that I did. It turned out to be more than just the surface story of a nymphomaniac southern girl being imprisoned by a 60 year old black man. The story had heart, and was very influential.<br /><br />The music in this movie also added a nice touch. Craig Brewer mixed his style from Hustle & Flow into this movie, except took a new spin and used the Blues. His musical scenes are still at the top of the charts as far as performance scenes go by. He also has very interesting flashback scenes and just gives you an overall crazy feel during some of the more controversial scenes.<br /><br />No doubt, if you liked Hustle & Flow, you will love this movie, and if you are a fan of the blues you should definitely go an see this. I give it a 9 out of 10, very interesting film, and it is extremely under rated. shame.<br /><br />Go out and rent this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
Did someone find the plot somewhere in the film?. Perhaps it is the thing missing in this pretentious exercise of cinema about cinema. It is quite surprising that Gordon says that "A movie without a plot is nothing"... It is possible that characters have more to say that the own Wim Wenders. Was this phrase in the original plot or the actor decided to send a hint to the director?.
| 0 |
negative
|
First there are some plot holes in this movie. We see in the very beginning a kid dies from playing the game. But who was tied up in the mail truck delivering the package which contains the game? How did the driver place the package into the mailbox when he was lashed to the steering wheel? It is not like he was Mr. Fantastic. Wow that in just the first 15 minutes... The actors are second rate, take the "Bad Guy" played by Patrick Kilpatrick (who?) exactly he has appeared in one episode of everything on TV and some secondary roles in poor movies (like this one). So most of the acting is like TV dramas, I can live with that, but the graphics or special effects are horrible. The disembodied "Game" voice sounds like a poor clone of Hal from "Space Oddessy 2000". What they called Zombies looked more like shadows jumping around like monkeys from "Planet of the Apes". The Aliens had transparent bodies like the shadow zombies. In most cases, the movie was just predictable as it had no hook or hidden agenda going. The story was a good idea but like most good ideas discussed over lunch was never developed beyond that good idea stage.
| 0 |
negative
|
I didn't realize just how much of this episode was taken from The Enemy Below until I finally saw the movie (it has since become my fave war flick). There were a couple of elements lifted from Run Silent Run Deep as well. Nothing wrong with stealing ideas, as long as you do something cool with them. And boy did Roddenberry and company do something cool with this one.<br /><br />The story begins when the Romulans violate a 100-year old treaty and by crossing the neutral zone and destroying a series of Federation outposts along the zone, ostensibly to test their superior weaponry and invisibility screen (and subsequent shift in the balance of power between the Romulans and the Federation, in their view) as a prelude to an all-out invasion. Kirk has to decide whether it's worth risking war to try and stop the Romulan ship, or if in fact the greater risk lies in letting the invaders go after they destroyed 4 military outposts. Kirk wisely chooses the latter.<br /><br />This is our first look at an enemy of the Federation, the Romulans, a warlike, yet in their own way honorable race who are distant relatives to the Vulcans. However, unlike their peaceful cousins, the Romulans did not renounce their emotions and violent and imperialistic ways, even as they advanced technologically.<br /><br />None of this matters to Mr. Stiles, the ship's navigator and this episode's chief antagonist on board the enterprise (the Romulan commander has his own problems with a gung-ho junior officer). All that matters to him is he hates Romulans and Spock looks like one..until the end when Spock saves his life (naturally). This contrasts sharply with Captain Kirk and the Romulan commander, neither of whom has any personal ill will towards the other at all. Both men are simply doing their duty. In fact there's a mutual respect. This is the first Trek episode to deal directly with prejudice, and it does so deftly (as opposed to season 3's not-so-subtle "Let That be Your Last Battlefield").<br /><br />Like The Enemy Below, we have a classic chess match between two ship commanders who are actually very much alike. You see right away that both of these captains are good..VERY good. If you were going into battle you'd want either of these man as your leader. Both are honorable and decent men who are duty bound. Yet even though the Romulan commander is bound by duty to his home world, he still finds himself wishing for destruction before he can make it home rather than start another interstellar war. Yet he still does everything he can to make it home, just as Kirk does everything he can to stop him.<br /><br />This is, in my opinion, one of Trek's 5 best. It has everything: Plenty of action, suspense, great dialogue, fine acting (I still maintain the Romulan Commander was Mark Lenard's best Trek role), and it manages to make its social commentary without being overly preachy. A pity Roddenberry forgot about the last part when he did TNG.<br /><br />Watch this episode, then watch The Enemy Below.
| 1 |
positive
|
Fun With Dick and Jane failed to entertain on so many levels. There were loose ends with the writing, for example, it seems as though one of the major conflicts was the indictment of Jim Carrey's character DIck Harper, but the writers never follow up that particular conflict. Basically the story is weak and mostly unfunny, but Carrey saves a few scenes with his physical humor, but honestly, Jim Carrey wasn't very funny in this movie, and Tea Leone might as well have been there just for her appearance because she wasn't funny either. This is just another example of Hollywood banking off franchise actors with a lousy unoriginal story.
| 0 |
negative
|
After watching Ingmar Bergman's Skammen, I had many feelings, but most notably, I felt unsatisfied. I have heard so much hype about this movie but I came to find it lacking. Don't get me wrong, I can fully appreciate the artistic value of such a film, but as far as depth and emotion, I was not so impressed. I found the characters to be disagreeable and unrealistic, which detracted from the dramatic effect. In addition, the fact that the war was fake led me to feel that the emotion was not real. Dramatic war movies, in my opinion, are much more effective if the events (not necessarily the story itself) really happened. I find that of all the movies that try to show the brutality this one falls in the middle as far as effectiveness.
| 1 |
positive
|
Peter Strauss, by nature of appearing in mini-series and made-for-TV films, often gets an unfairly high proportion of bad reviews - Usually from casual observers who saw ten minutes of the film, having channel-hopped into it half-way through. Well, I've just read all the other 20 reviews for this film and am delighted to see not a single bad word said about The Jericho Mile - That should be enough to have you blasting out to buy this film!!<br /><br />Peter Strauss won an Emmy for his role in this film and watching it even once will show you why he deserved it so much.... <br /><br />Looking to be objective, I attempted to criticise this film. Instead, I found myself arguing down every one of my possible nit-picks. This is what true, realistic film-making is about. This is not your typical Hollywood sensationalism, where everything is overacted - It's so realistic and true to life that people have thought it's based on a real event!!
| 1 |
positive
|
For some unknown reason, 7 years ago, I watched this movie with my mother and sister. I don't think I've ever laughed as hard with them before. This movie was sooooo bad. How sequels were produced is beyond me. Its been awhile since I last saw this "movie", but the one impression that it has stuck with me over the years has been, "They must have found the script in a dumpster in the backlot of a cheap movie studio, made into a "movie", and decided that it didn't suck enough, and made it worse. I'm pretty sure that they spent all the budget on camera work and the so called "special effects", and then had 13 cents left toward the script AND to pay the "actors".
| 0 |
negative
|
Warner Brothers produced this 3D extravaganza that was the biggest commercial success for westerns in 1953. Guy Madison leads a band of guardhouse soldiers and misfits to rescue two white women being held by Indians, which essentially all there is to this film. The 3D format was in its early stages as a Hollywood gimmick to compete with the growing popularity of home television, and the effects work very well here. The rescuers make off with the ladies and are pursued by the Indians until the white men make their stand at an island in a creek bed. The Indian weaponry comes at the audience non-stop throughout, and a spray of tobacco juice aimed at a rattler is thrown in for good measure. Madison was quite popular as television's Wild Bill Hickock and is good as a displaced cattle rancher who is given his thankless task by the army. For all the film's polish and presentation, the movie was made in just three days.
| 1 |
positive
|
I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.<br /><br />Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.<br /><br />Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit.
| 0 |
negative
|
A terrible movie that is amateurish on almost every level - a boring and derivative screenplay filled with stereotyped characters played by embarrassed actors for a director lacking the most rudimentary understanding of his craft. The whole thing stinks. It plays like a slasher movie from the early eighties, down to the crappy score and ketchup SFX, but without the childhood nostalgia that is required to look fondly on such dross. One of the worst horror films I've ever seen - definitely the worst that received a mainstream theatrical release. I've never walked out of a film in my life - had I been unlucky enough to see 'Hatchet' at the theater, it would have been a first. Avoid at all costs.
| 0 |
negative
|
Exceptionally silly actioner with braindead leads in a story which would have suited a fill-in issue of Spiderman. The action sequences never really flow as they should, leaving some cool bits orphaned in a sea of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I really wonder how they'll release this one in the West. Sam Lee overacts like crazy, newcomer Edison Chan doesn't display any acting talent yet. The robot is clunky and not very impressive, and the CGI effects (though done by US sfx-people) are ridiculous, totally destroying any remaining suspension of disbelief. I am NOT looking forward to Gen-Z Cops...
| 0 |
negative
|
Even allowing for my unabashed love of the first two films in the franchise, and sweeping away any sort of biased leanings I might of had for the character of Max, I just can't bring myself to rate at average this cartoonery waste of space that so nearly soils what had gone before it.<br /><br />Gone is the rugged nasty streak that brought feeling to the character Mad Max Rockatansky, gone is the impacting feeling of desolation in an apocalyptic world, and more crucially, gone is director George Miller's passion for the franchise. The dreadful score matches the cartoon heart of the film, it seems that the makers didn't really know what to do with the amount of cash given to make this third {and thankfully last} instalment. Sure the stunts are spot on {to be expected by now}, and of course Miller manages to paint a barren desert landscape by purely lifting from what he has done before. Yet he clearly struggled for fresh ideas with the action since The Road Warrior's crowning glory of the Petrol Tanker pursuit is replicated here, only he uses a train instead!!.<br /><br />It's just a very poor show that may have seemed like an ambitious turn of events back in the mid 1980s; but when viewing the three films together now, Thunderdome just comes across as a director losing his edgy approach whilst sadly getting caught between the mix of comedy and fantasy action. And the truth is that neither of those genre slants would have worked singularly, in the context of this series, anyway. I give the film 3/10 purely for one real good Thunderdome fight sequence, while the stunt men here deserve some credit at the very least. But this is the third time I have tried to like this film, and as glutton for punishment as I undoubtedly am, I wont be trying again, ever.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is so bad it will be my contribution to the next bad movie party I go to. It is clear from the start that Steve Gutenburg was taking this role seriously.... the other principles were walking through their lines. I think they got a whiff of how much it stank early on and they were going through the motions for their paychecks. Sean Bean "acted" as usual but was spared sharing space on screen with any of the principles till the final scene where it was like an actor walking onto a high school stage that is how defined the contrast was. Some actors do not look good scruffy. Some actors should not bulk up for a part. Those two statements apply to "Police Academy" Steve. His scruffy look translates to bum and indigent and his bulking up makes him look potato lumpy not buff. Pair that with one of the worst scripted dialogues in Hollywood history and you have BAD movie. I can only guess that all of the principles really really needed the money for remodeling or something or their agents signed them before the script was written by the monkeys that must of typed it out. I would love to know the back story to this disaster.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film is one of my favorite Christmas classics. Sure, it's fluff, it's not "relevant", but when did movies being simply entertaining and fun become a bad thing? No, this movie is definitely "A Good Thing" as Martha Stewart(appropriately)would say! Barbara Stanwyck is so appealing in this film and Dennis Morgan perfectly compliments her. Both of them have charm and warmth to spare. They are assisted by a crew of those incredible character actors who seem to have disappeared since the 40's and 50's--Sydney Greenstreet, S.Z.(Cuddles)Sakall, Reginald Gardiner and Una O'Connor among them. Where are characters like this today? Not one role could have been better cast. Bette Davis thankfully refused this role as beneath her and she was right to refuse it. She would have attempted to steam roll over everyone and everything around her and completely destroyed the film. Stanwyck was a strong actress, but had the wisdom to play this lightly. She has seldom been more appealing and is pitch perfect. Morgan is the essence of the nice guy. Because his part is the least splashy there is a tendency to overlook his skill. Just the fact that he could hold his own surrounded by such distinct character actors is an accomplishment in itself, but he too is absolutely perfect as Jefferson Jones. Skip the ill advised(and pointless)1992 remake and watch this bright, sparkling holiday gift!
| 1 |
positive
|
Reports of this film's brilliance appear to have been greatly exaggerated, and unless the other reviewers were watching a different movie, I fail to see how anyone can find this film anything other than dull, unscary, uncreepy, overlong, and at times, unbearably irritating. I'm not some schlocky horror fanatic. I love j-horrors and euro-horrors over American horrors any day, but I feel the need to warn any potential viewers about this film before they invest two hours of their life in it.<br /><br />It could have been so great. A reporter is investigating a series of bizarre deaths and occurrences, which seem ostensibly unlinked, but a series of unnerving tropes appears to connect them - dead pigeons, thudding noises, the presence of strangely tied knots... Our reporter goes from person to person, interviewing them, filming them and then passing on. Three important characters are among this jumble of people, a young, shy psychic girl, an immensely irritating, insane psychic man, and a crazy old woman and her boy, whose importance is not revealed until later on.<br /><br />The problem is that the film is not even remotely interesting, which makes its two hour running time unforgivable. It's also not even remotely scary or creepy. Supposedly scary scenes, like shots of ghoulish faces are done incredibly poorly, shown twice, or worse, we are told when they are about to happen. Other techniques, such as telling us that a family just interviewed "died five days later" simply don't make me care, let alone mildly creeped.<br /><br />The film does pick up a bit towards the end, as our reporter, cameraman, psychic and cursed woman go to a village in order to 'remove' the curse which is linking all these deaths. However, by that time, I was in a state of catatonic boredom, and couldn't care less, so all the fairly creepy camera-work and shocks were wasted on me. The "final tape" is quite good, but once again, I'd given up caring and just wanted this film to end.<br /><br />Boring and dull, not scary and not creepy, I would advise you keep away from Noroi. It has promising moments, but this is a film that was poorly made and not worth your time.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was the very first kung fu movie that I have ever seen. The dubbing is not the greatest but alot better than some that I had seen. The plot is much better than some that are made today. It is gory at times but that is what gives it that special push. Academy award material is it not. But if you like to watch fights and a decent story backround, this is for you!
| 1 |
positive
|
I have a strong feeling that what you think of this film will strongly depend on your frame of reference. If you've never seen a Miyazaki film before, then it will probably confuse the heck out of you. If you have seen a Miyazaki film before, then it will still probably confuse the heck out of you....but you won't really care! That's because I found that the first time I saw one of his animated films, I tried too hard to figure out what was happening and why--and it impacted my enjoyment of the film. Now that I have seen just about every Miyazaki film, I see the bizarreness and just take it all in--enjoying the beauty of it all. In many ways, these films (at least to Western audiences) is like drugs--lots of strange and beautiful images that don't always initially make sense but sure feel great to see!! Of all the Miyazaki films, this might have the most unusual and incomprehensible story line--even more so than SPIRITED AWAY and PRINCESS MONONOKE or MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO. But, like these and many other Studio Gibli films, if you just sit back and watch you are rewarded with a fabulous tale. But, because it is so hard to describe (and others have already done so), I won't even go there.<br /><br />As for the artwork, it's very typical of one of these Japanese films, though there was one noticeable change. There was a very extensive use of what looked like colored pencils for the backgrounds. This was NOT a bad thing at all--the lovely pastel-like look was very pleasing and unique. In some ways it looked like a tiny bit of Bill Plympton's art style was infused into a typical Miyazaki film. With a high frame-rate, exceptional character animation (which imbued them with tons of personality) and a great "wow-factor", this is an exceptional film for all ages. Though clearly designed more for younger audiences (the TOTORO fans especially), it is a bit scary here and there (during the storm segments) but there is plenty of great stuff for adults. As an adult (at least chronologically so), I loved the cute stuff and applaud the other-worldliness of the film.<br /><br />A great film--among Miyazaki's best. I don't give it a 10 because I am hesitant to ever do that--plus I did like a few of the studio's other films a bit more (particularly TOTORO). But that DOESN'T mean you shouldn't rush out now and see it--do it and do yourself a favor.
| 1 |
positive
|
Your ability to enjoy The Ashes of Time may depend on our expectations before stepping into the theater. Even its most strident supporters seem to agree that audiences can be split right up the middle in their appreciation of this unique film.<br /><br />Unlike most HK actioners, the battle scenes are curiously kept at a distance. When they do happen, they're rendered in a jerky style in which it's difficult to make out exactly what's occurring on screen. The dramatic scenes can be extravagantly beautiful, with the of Maggie Cheung, Brigitte Lin, and a roll-call of HK's top acting talent chewing up the scenery. As with some of Wong Kar-wai's early work, the dialog could be more precise. <br /><br />In short, The Ashes of Time requires a forgiving attitude. Released around the same time as Wong Kar-wai's spectacularly successful Chungking Express, it's clear that the director isn't as confident working with the elements of the martial arts film. Anyone looking for tense action is likely to be disappointed. But those intrigued by the director's aesthetic will likely find this a unique experience at the very least.
| 0 |
negative
|
William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice portrays 16th century Venice. Al Pacino plays Shylock, a Jewish loan shark who plots revenge on a Catholic that has looked down on him. The movie is a slow moving plot in the beginning that builds up throughout the two plus hours. The film gives a very good and believe appearance to it's characters, especially Pacino. When hearing that Pacino plays a Jew one might think that it would not work looking at Pacino's previous mobster type movie roles. Nonetheless it works very well, credit must be given to the costume designer's and director's of the film. The look of all the characters fits well with the time period the play takes place in. The costumes look like the Renaissance appearance one might envision to be.<br /><br />The film portrays a very anti-Semitic vibe. From the first minute to the last it is shown how the Catholic's try to take advantage of the Jews in every way they can, even to the point of keeping them locked away in "ghettos" and not allowing them to regular jobs. In comparison to The Passion of the Christ, another recent film that people believed to be very Anti-Semitic, Merchant of Venice makes Passion look like a Jewish holiday. The film shows how the Jews, or at least Shylock wanted revenge for the mistreatment that the Jews received. The location shots also seem very timely and the scenery is at times very beautiful or very ugly depending on the scene of the film, making it just that much more realistic. Showing the beautiful and the ugly can also be seen as anti-Semitic because the ugly is usually shown around the Jews and the beautiful around the Catholics.<br /><br />Although the film clearly attempts to have a serious aura certain parts do add a bit of humor to the act. The oh so serious trial between Shylock and Antonio (Irons) adds a bit of humor when Portia (Collins) and Nerissa (Goldenhersh) come into the trial and decide who will be the victor and the defeated. That in itself might not be funny, but seeing it that they were women dressed up in disguise as men one might find it to be pretty amusing. The whole cross dressing scene, as compelling as it was could have probably been even more memorable had the make up artists and director Michael Radford taken notice that the two women still look like women and could easily be recognized. The director also could have seen into the fact that the women are speaking through their regular voices instead of trying to sound like men, which in part takes away from the scene but doesn't kill it entirely.<br /><br />Overall the film gets a 7 out of 10
| 1 |
positive
|
Since this cartoon was made in the old days, Felix talks using cartoon bubbles and the animation style is very crude when compared to today. However, compared to its contemporaries, it's a pretty good cartoon and still holds up well. That's because despite its age, the cartoon is very creative and funny.<br /><br />Felix meets a guy whose shoe business is folding because he can't sell any shoes. Well, Felix needs money so he can go to Hollywood, so he tells the guy at the shop he'll get every shoe sold. Felix spreads chewing gum all over town and soon people are stuck and leave their shoes--rushing to buy new ones from the shoe store. In gratitude, the guy gives Felix $500! However, Felix's owner wants to take the money and go alone, so Felix figures out a way to sneak along.<br /><br />Once there, Felix barges into a studio and makes a bit of a nuisance of himself. Along the way, he meets cartoon versions of comics Ben Turpin and Charlie Chaplin. In the end, though, through luck, Felix is discovered and offered a movie contract. Hurray!
| 1 |
positive
|
About 12 minutes into the song, in the scene where Daryl Hannah and JFK Jr are first embracing, there is a really pretty song playing...what is that song?! And, who is it sung by? It's a song that sounds very romantic and it is a female singer, piano playing, etc. I have tried everything in the world to look up the music on Google and on iTunes, etc., but it just doesn't come up, not even on Lyrics websites. So, if you hear it I would sure love to know enough about it so that I can try to either go get the CD with that song on it, or find it in iTunes. I don't know if my email will pulblish, I am new at this...but I will be looking back here.
| 1 |
positive
|
Maybe in its day this movie was special. But five decades later it seems quaint, just another cinematic relic of the dreadful 1950s. Stereotypes abound in this fluffy story about three female gold diggers who set up shop in a Manhattan penthouse, in an effort to attract wealthy husbands.<br /><br />I don't mind the shallow theme. But the film's premise is lame. And the execution is worse. It's a romantic comedy, but I found little to laugh at. The plot point about an extremely nearsighted bimbo is about the only clever element of the story. Overall dialogue is flat, and so too is the delivery. And the script structure is disconcerting. The plot keeps jumping back and forth among the three ladies. It's as if the writer couldn't quite blend the ensemble roles. The result is a plot that seems choppy.<br /><br />Marilyn Monroe was a good choice for her role. But Lauren Bacall was too old for the role she played. And Betty Grable, with her squeaky voice and awful hairdo, was just plain annoying.<br /><br />Color cinematography is conventional. But there were lots of shots using rear screen projection, contributing to a dated look. The visuals are made even worse by costumes that reek of cheesy 1950's "glamour"; they are just awful. Viewers must endure a fashion show, a plot point that amplifies how the film's director was smitten by those trashy glad rags.<br /><br />And then there is that orchestra. In what is arguably the worst film opening in cinema history, the first part of the film has an orchestra playing some dreary-sounding tune. At first, I thought I was watching the introduction to coming attractions. But no, it's actually part of the film. And the orchestra plays on, and on, and on. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, whatever to do with the story. What were they thinking?<br /><br />I enjoyed Marilyn Monroe, with her breathy voice, as she bimbos her way through the plot. But the film would have been far better if they had dumped the other two ensemble roles, dumped that orchestra, enhanced the comedy dialogue, and downplayed those gaudy, cheesy costumes.
| 0 |
negative
|
If this film was just outrageously poor would be fine, the problem is many take it seriously. To make it short, a few points: <br /><br />- There is no story, no focus, no lead whatsoever and all the questions raised fail to find an answer. Overall, the film is extremely repetitive and boring (I have been in war-torn African countries several times and found all the lingering on local misery and hopelessness very painful to watch but still having no sense).<br /><br />- Questions raised are pure manipulation and the truth is that they are no questions but statements.<br /><br />- I am no doc filmmaker, but what's the point in raising, for example, the question of weapon smuggling, if the only element brought to the audience is a local reporter's statement? The director doesn't even bother showing us at least a sequence where he would be waiting near the airport trying to spot heavily loaded trucks leaving the area right after a plane landed.<br /><br />- The story of the fish takes up less than 5 mn, and is only supported by a sequence where the director films a documentary shown during a local conference. Did this guy do any work at all???? <br /><br />- Abject poverty is shown all the time in endless sequences but where's the point? One can go almost anywhere in Africa with a hand cam and shoot the same images unfortunately. Where's the big news? <br /><br />- Filming the prostitutes watching and crying over images of their assassinated friend and fellow prostitute is worth the worst emotional manipulations one can see these days on thrash and real TV.<br /><br />- The parallel drawn between the famine devastating the country with over two million starving and the exportation of fish is absolutely pointless, dishonest and makes no sense but to manipulate viewers in typically anti-globalization and anti-western feelings.<br /><br />There is an interesting debate in France after an academic published a very detailed comment on the film, which brought number of journalists working in Africa for decades to investigate a bit further about several details. It turns out that: <br /><br />- The fish waste shown drying in the sun and collected by some local people is not at all meant to be eaten by human beings but is collected to be exported for reasonably good money for animal-feeding purposes. I think I am not the only one having had the impression that the director suggested the exact opposite.<br /><br />- Arm smuggling is a reality (but there again, where's the big news??), but not the way this film explains the issue. If the empty planes landing in Mwanza do participate in smuggling, they actually unload their shipment in a different location in Africa, then go to Mwanza to pick up fish in order not to make the trip back empty (meaning that they do actually land empty in Mwanza...).<br /><br />- People do eat fish locally, contrary to what the film suggest (around 40-60% of what is taken out of the lake) and thousands of people make their living with it. Good for them! It's private business of that kind that will one day take African countries out of poverty and not western moaning and endless foreign assistance.<br /><br />I cannot tell how shocked I am seeing the success of this film!
| 0 |
negative
|
Based on a Stephen King novel, NEEDFUL THINGS provides the intrigue and eeriness to keep you in your seat. A mysterious man(Max von Sydow) comes to town and soon becomes the most talked about citizen. Could it be that the devil himself has set up shop as an antique dealer in a small town in Maine? von Sydow is masterful and dynamic in this role that dominates the screen. Also starring are Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedelia. Harris is steady and Bedelia is deserving of your attention. Also in support are J.T. Walsh and Amanda Plummer. Not the best, nor the worst adaptation of King's horror on the screen.
| 0 |
negative
|
For a long time, this was my favorite of the Batman films. It had the best cinematography and an edgy feel to it with two wild characters - Catwomen and The Penguin - along with the always-interesting Christopher Walken. However, after the last viewing it finally slipped in my ratings and, frankly, I now prefer the last Batman: Batman Begins, with Christian Bale.<br /><br />THE GOOD - Nonetheless, this is still the most intriguing of the five latter-day Batman films. The stylish cinematography in here is the best of any of the Batman movies. Director Tim Burton is known for his films which feature stunning visuals, as this is a great example. The three characters listed above are all very different and very interesting, almost fascinating. Of the villains, I preferred Catwomen, finding her the most fun to watch before and after she changed. Violence is not overdone here as it was in several of the other Batman stories but one is never bored watching this. As he did in the first film, Michael Keaton does a fine job playing Batman/Bruce Wayne.<br /><br />THE BAD - For a movie based on a comic strip that mostly kids read, I still think these first two Batman movies, both done by Burton, were too dark and the profanity was definitely not appropriate. Although, unlike the first movie, there was no usage of the Lord's name in vain in here, there still was profanity and both villains made too many sexual remarks. That would have been okay if they hadn't marketed this film for kids as well as adults. Danny DeVito's "Penguin" is downright gross in spots. "Grotesque" I can handle, but who wants "gross." Few guys, meanwhile, complained about the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer playing Catwoman. Generall too much darkness and some cheap shots on Christian- bashing also made me re-consider my previously-high rating of this film.<br /><br />OVERALL - Fabulous visuals and memorable characters make this the most interesting in the Batman series, but too-dark an edge, too gross and too much anti-religious bias all finally turned me off after a half-dozen looks at this film. Sorry, but I prefer a kinder-gentler Batman movie. After all, it's just a cartoon. Most will disagree, but I was glad to see the series lighten up after this one.
| 1 |
positive
|
With several name actors (Lance Henrikson, David Warner, Joe Don Baker), why was Jeffery Combs given the lead? Henrikson would have been a perfect fit for the lead, as would Warner, Baker or even others in the movie such as Charles Napier. Combs was miscast in this, and did a poor job of it. Everything he did seemed fake or contrived.<br /><br />The script is poor. Meaning that if Lance Henrikson (or another) had the lead role, he might have saved the film (removed it from my "waste of time" category), but it still would have been a bad movie. The screen play was completely lacking. The director should have recognized this and helped the movie along.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was expecting "Born to Kill" to be an exciting, high-tension film noir. Instead, it's got two good action set-pieces (one at the beginning and one at the end) and some marvelously atmospheric cinematography by Robert de Grasse (usually a "glamor" cameraman and a surprising credit for a noir), but the rest of the film is pretty boring. Lawrence Tierney goes through his psycho kick but it's a strictly by-the-numbers performance, mechanically churning out what the audience expected from him after "Dillinger" (an overrated movie but at least better than this). Claire Trevor's character is too stupid and unmotivated to have any audience appeal, and the action (such as it is) stays so resolutely inside that damned house in San Francisco the film becomes claustrophobic instead of genuinely thrilling. It's one of those movies in which the supporting players -- notably Elisha Cook, Jr. (whose character's homoerotic itch for Tierney's is one of the few subtleties in an otherwise pretty obvious script) and Isabel Jewell -- out-act the leads. It also doesn't help that, nearly half a century after Alfred Hitchcock and Anthony Perkins revolutionized the depiction of psycho killers on the screen in "Psycho," Tierney's is so gross and obvious he might as well have "PSYCHO" tattooed on his forehead. Also, there's no indication in the film as it stands as to why the source novel was called "Deadlier than the Male" -- but perhaps James Gunn made the female characters stronger and more interesting than they are in the film. "Born to Kill" is a real disappointment from Robert Wise, who already had some quality movies under his belt and would go on to a stellar career.
| 0 |
negative
|
My mistake for thinking this was a serious war-is-hell movie prior to seeing it. That all ended seconds into the film when the "MTV" logo appeared. It might as well been called "National Lampoon's Sexy-N-Loose." And it did play to the "MTV" crowd; the movie that followed those comical first few seconds played like the music videos they used to play 40+ years ago. At least Disney was smart enough to ship its Rated R stuff over to Touchtone and allowed us to take it seriously. Okay, I'm being harsh; it wasn't that bad of a film. However, it definitely has its share of overacting and the film is extremely biased/one-sided. Admittedly, I'm not a war movie buff. I can't watch 'Platoon,' 'Full Metal Jacket' or 'Saving Private Ryan' more than once. Sure they were good movies, but they're not my forte and they all seem to blend in after awhile to where I wouldn't be able to distinguish one from the next. Following a tour in Iraq, Phillippe plans life after the war but is drawn back in due to a clause in his contract. Or, at least, that's the military's plan until he goes AWOL and the characters speed cross-country on a few bucks amazingly never caught. No, I haven't been in any war, nor to Iraq, nor do I agree with it. I also don't have all the knowledge when it comes to recruitment or signing their contracts. I can say this: though I am sorry they're drawn back into this conflict, I can't feel too much for someone so dumb not to read the fine print. It's like someone on their deathbed leaning over to finally read the Surgeon General's warning on their box of cigarettes and say, "Oh, they're what? Deadly? I'll sue them!"
| 0 |
negative
|
Irwin Allen's first venture into all star spectacle was one all star disaster. The Story of Mankind contains some of the most incredible casting decisions of all time. Virginia Mayo as the blond Cleopatra, Dennis Hopper chewing the scenery with Napoleon, Peter Lorre dining on the scenery for weeks as Nero, Marie Wilson as Marie Antoinette as a roadshow Marilyn Monroe, that's just some of them.<br /><br />The film also is known for being the last film which featured all three of the Marx Brothers though they all have different roles. Chico plays a monk who is Christopher Columbus's confidante, Groucho euchres the Indians out of Manhattan island as Peter Minuit, and most astonishing of all, Harpo Marx as Sir Isaac Newton who discovers gravity when an apple conks him on the bean. <br /><br />Holding all these portrayals together is a story where mankind itself is being judged. A super H Bomb is about to be discovered and let loose will do in the world's population. It's Judgement Day a coming.<br /><br />But mankind has its advocates and detractors. Speaking for the prosecution is Old Scratch who's been bringing the worst out in man for centuries in the form of Vincent Price. But man has his good side as well and who better than Ronald Colman to demonstrate man at his most civilized best. Colman and Price plead their case before The Judge played by Cedric Hardwicke. <br /><br />In those three individuals you have some of the finest speaking voices the English language ever knew. When the film is on them as they each bring out the exhibits for their case it's a pleasure to listen to. Then when the focus is on the individual stories, you want to scream in agony.<br /><br />What was Irwin Allen driving at, I'm still trying to figure it out. Was he deliberately camping it up with some of these casting decisions? If it was satire, it just doesn't get off the ground.<br /><br />This was Ronald Colman's farewell film and while it's hardly something I'd like to go out on, I can't think of any man who could have stated the case for civilization any better. <br /><br />So when you see The Story of Mankind, fast forward through some of the exhibits and treasure every moment the advocates are before the judge.
| 0 |
negative
|
This was truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!" well you're wrong, dead wrong.
| 0 |
negative
|
I loved this movie from beginning to end.I am a musician and i let drugs get in the way of my some of the things i used to love(skateboarding,drawing) but my friends were always there for me.Music was like my rehab,life support,and my drug.It changed my life.I can totally relate to this movie and i wish there was more i could say.This movie left me speechless to be honest.I just saw it on the Ifc channel.I usually hate having satellite but this was a perk of having satellite.The ifc channel shows some really great movies and without it I never would have found this movie.Im not a big fan of the international films because i find that a lot of the don't do a very good job on translating lines.I mean the obvious language barrier leaves you to just believe thats what they are saying but its not that big of a deal i guess.I almost never got to see this AMAZING movie.Good thing i stayed up for it instead of going to bed..well earlier than usual.lol.I hope you all enjoy the hell of this movie and Love this movie just as much as i did.I wish i could type this all in caps but its again the rules i guess thats shouting but it would really show my excitement for the film.I Give It Three Thumbs Way Up!<br /><br />This Movie Blew ME AWAY!
| 1 |
positive
|
Now, I love bad, old skifee movies as much as most people. And I understand that a budget is a budget. That said, Planet of the Dinosaurs is as bad as a bad movie can get. The thing has no actors, and only one attractive female whom they kill off two minutes after swimming ashore. There are literally no redeeming qualities to be found in this pile of wasted celluloid. The only thing not wasted was paper...the screenplay must have been no more than four pages long. Surely no one actually WROTE dialogue this pointless. I'm constantly amazed that such movies ever got made, much less released. I'm only glad I didn't pay to see this waste of time. It's 75 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a cult classic for sure!!<br /><br />It is tricky to follow at times, but then again, so is a film like Jacobs Ladder or even say Fight Club. If you want standard fare, then i figure go rent the Care Bears Movie or perhaps an old Disney classic. But if you want " to view the world differently" then i would say open yourself up to Enigma's and for that matter to a film that challenges what we see and think.<br /><br />For me the key is that the film was original and had me questioning throughout. So while i have seen some complaints, all in all i would say take the film for what it is and enjoy.
| 1 |
positive
|
What a wonderful film, filled with eccentric, unique characters who are wonderfully realized by a great ensemble cast. The director also did a great job keeping the story held together, getting those wonderful performances (on not messing with them) and using music (and what wonderful music it is) to great effect. S. Epatha in the lead role is great. I had always heard what a brilliant stage actor she is, and although I have enjoyed her on Law and Order, this really shows what she can do with a filled out, complex role. Macy Gray is terrific, Mos Def, as usual, wonderful. Lou Gossett, great. Jimmy Smits, terrific, and doesn't try to pull focus because he's a star. A true piece of ensemble acting. <br /><br />Rent it, enjoy it, groove to it, and treasure it. Something special.
| 1 |
positive
|
Gary Busey is superb in this musical biography. Great singing and excellent soundtrack. The Buddy Holly Story is a much better movie than La Bamba. From reading other comments, there may be some historical inaccuracies. Regardless, it is a fun toe-tapping film, and a good introduction to Buddy Holly's music.
| 1 |
positive
|
Mom has to be one of the all time uncomfortable movies to watch. It features an elderly lady you would love to have as your Nanny who becomes the nastiest mother f***ing monster you would ever want to meet on a dark night!<br /><br />This supper Nanny eats the inners of a young lady at the opening of the movie and it just gets sicker as it goes on. A cross between the howling and brain dead seem to come to mind when describing Mom!<br /><br />A must for horror fans who have the stomach for it (if you have watched re-animator or brain dead, this will float your boat)and are willing to switch the brain off for an hour or so...Let the gore pour!...8/10
| 1 |
positive
|
Watching QUINTET is not unlike watching a group of people playing a word game in Portuguese, or some other language you do not understand. You get the idea that they are playing a game, and if you watch closely enough, you may just begin to understand the rules. But, why bother, since it is clear you can't join in and you wouldn't want to if you had the chance.<br /><br />Director Robert Altman is not one to beg an audience to like his films, let alone understand them. Sometimes he lets you slip into the picture to be a part of the crowd, like in M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE and A WEDDING, films so full of hubbub and orchestrated chaos, one or two more bodies in the scene wouldn't make much of a difference. And other times, he seems to resent the fact that someone might even be watching his film; as in IMAGES or THREE WOMEN, where the stories are almost personal monologues made for an audience of one, Altman. With QUINTET, Altman seems to purposely dare anyone to become involved with the narrative. <br /><br />You can't depend on Altman to do the logical or the expected, which is sometimes the thing that makes his films so remarkably iconoclastic. But sometimes doing the unexpected isn't daring, just dumb. For instance, in QUINTET, we are introduced to a young woman who is apparently the last person on earth capable of getting pregnant, and she is, indeed, with child. This last ray of hope in a decaying society is almost immediately extinguished; Altman doesn't even wait until the end to play his last depressing card in this elaborate nihilistic and pessimistic tale. He lets us know how empty and meaningless life is right off the bat. Brave? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely. Devoid of a purpose, he tries to build a story on a rapidly melting iceberg, all the while reminding us how pointless the effort is. <br /><br />For the record, QUINTET, can at least claim to be prophetic. The story is centered on a treacherous game played by the various bored characters. It is a form of TAG (the assassination game): a handful of people target each other for elimination, each as a would-be assassin and each as a would-be victim. Two or more can form alliances to kill a third. As they die off, new targets are assigned. Whoever lives, wins. All of this happens at some exotic, inhospitable wasteland. It is, to a great extent, an extreme, sci-fi version of "Survivor" -- minus the commercial plugs and faked "reality."<br /><br />It is not a bad concept for a sci-fi epic. A post-apocalyptic setting, a microcosm of the world (the cast is pointedly multinational), a game where no on can be trusted or least not for long, and where no one really wins. Literally a cold war. A steely eyed director with a taste for dark humor and violent invention could have a field day. The mystery in QUINTET is not in the game or how it is played, but in why it exists it all. If the game "Quintet" is a metaphor for life, then Altman, seems to see nothing in the material but a chance to show life to be an empty, meaningless game -- a conclusion as obvious as it is untrue. Given the lively, albeit cynical nature of the rest of his diverse films, I don't believe that Altman believes in QUINTET either. And if Altman has no faith in his material, why should we?
| 0 |
negative
|
Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce return as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in this superior tale of Holmes battling the 3rd Reich and the mastermind genius of Professor Moriarty. The film opens up in Switzerland as Holmes is in disguise as an "old bookseller." He must bring Dr. Tobel and the Tobel Bomb Site to England before the Germans can kidnap Tobel. Holmes succeeds and the Germans recuit the evil Professor. Moriarty manages to outwit Scotland yard and LeStrad "Dennis Hoey" by kidnapping Tobel. The only clue left by Tobel is a list of "dancing men." Who will break the hidden code of dancing men, Holmes or Moriarty first? Can Holmes prevent the bomb site from falling into the German hands thereby saving England from the precision bombing techniques developed by Tobel's bomb site? Watch and enjoy.
| 1 |
positive
|
Hellraiser: Bloodline is where the sequel mediocrity of the Hellraiser series well and truly sets in. Gone is the imagination and invention of the first two movies. Gone is the ethos of Pinhead and his minions. Gone are the sick desires of humans. In fact everything that once made Hellraiser so original has been trashed by this mess of a picture.<br /><br />All that is left is that basic premise of Christian mythology that there is a Hell with evil Demons. What happened to the evil that men do? This watered down excuse for a Hellraiser movie is padded out with endless Psycho Babble, so that Pinhead becomes a nonsense spouting philosopher and not the harbinger of doom as he is meant to be. <br /><br />The film uses the most basic of film formulas with characters separating and getting individually killed. Pinhead is not Alien. The link between the box and the 'demons' or 'Hell' is never established it just arrives at a sacrifice and sits on a sideboard.<br /><br />The lead female Character is called 'Rimmer' and the producers obviously think it really funny because everyone keep saying her name. Really the film should have been retitled to give it that characters name.<br /><br />Shame on you Kevin Yagher and Alan Smithee.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time! The director did a wonderful job showing the contrasts between social classes, a situation that is very pertinent in France today. All the characters are lovable, especially Juliette and her family. The development of the romance is, while not entirely realistic, at least plausible, and does a wonderful job showing how much people will change for love. I found this to be a heart-warming Cinderella story - but one in which Cinderella is a powerful woman in and of herself. I laughed through this entire film, and absolutely loved it. I recommend Romuald et Juliette to anyone who enjoys unique characters, comedy, and nontraditional romance.
| 1 |
positive
|
I think "Rosemary's Baby" is the most overrated horror film out there. Not scary, interesting or much of anything. It's reasonably well-directed and Ruth Gordon was wonderful but that's about it. But this sequel makes it look like "Gone With the Wind"!<br /><br />I caught this on TV back when I was 14. Unfortunately, I still remember it. From what I remember Rosemary's baby Andrew is now grown up and the coven wants him to start taking over (the world that is). But there are forces trying to stop it...and Andrew is having doubts himself...<br /><br />I'm giving this a 2 for a few reasons: Gordon is in this (and still very good); Stephen McHattie was actually pretty good as Andrew and there is one spooky moment at the beginning with Rosemary (Patty Duke) being "kidnapped" by a bus...with no driver.<br /><br />Other than that it's dull, silly and needless. The original didn't NEED a sequel! Ira Levin's book followup in 1999 wasn't much better.<br /><br />Tune in for the beginning with Duke...then tune out. Not worth the effort.
| 0 |
negative
|
Recap: A lone swordsman, living in the desert and acting as an agent to other swordsmen, recollects how his life turned out to be as it is. It started with that the woman he loved chose to marry his brother instead, causing him to leave his home town. One of the swordsmen is Huang who is himself in the middle of a complicated love story, where a woman wants to have him killed for having ran away from a promise to marry her younger sister. But the sister wants to hire a swordsman to have Huang protected, and everything is put to an edge when the woman and her sister is really the same person.<br /><br />Comments: I've seen the Redux version released in 2008 of the original that was released in 1994. How the two versions differ I can't say, but the Redux is very heavily stylized in the way of Chinese Wuxia action. That is unfortunate as that style to me seems to have forgotten one of the most important elements of a successful and entertaining movie. A comprehensible story. But true to its style scenery and visual elements seem much more important and much more in focus of writer and director Kar Wai Wong. Therefore there are lots of colorful, very beautiful scenes, that are completely unrelated to the story.<br /><br />The editing and timeline of the story is also mishandled. Much is left out in the scenes, the time line is broken and rearranged in a confusing way. Very slow and calm scenes are suddenly relieved by surprisingly brutal and seemingly unmotivated fights, only to themselves being relieved by something else and unrelated. The result is a confusing and very uninteresting movie.<br /><br />Thanks to these brutal but very few fights, the movie is put into the action genre. The poster and photographs also imply this but could almost be regarded as false marketing. Only a few minutes out of the 90 could be considered as anything like action, the other couldn't be farther away from it. The movie in its entirety is very slow, dull and hence very boring. Not even the rare action filled scenes help since they are so disconnected from the rest of the movie.<br /><br />I might say that I'm not a fan of this Chinese style, since they often seem to be afflicted of these same problems, most importantly that the visual is more important than the story, but Ashes of Time Redux is perhaps the worst example I've seen.<br /><br />3/10
| 0 |
negative
|
This is one of the most boring films I've ever seen. The three main cast members just didn't seem to click well. Giovanni Ribisi's character was quite annoying. For some reason, he seems to like repeating what he says. If he was the "Rain Man", it would've been fine, but he's not.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
CHEERLEADER MASSACRE (2003)<br /><br />starring: Tamie Sheffield, Charity Rahmer, Erin Byron, Leonard Johnson, E. Eddie Edwards, Samantha Phillips, GiGi Erneta, April Flowers, Nikki Fritz, Tylo Tyler, Brad Beck, Summer Williams, Brinke Stevens, Melissa Brasselle.<br /><br />plot: A group of cheerleaders, along with their coach and three guys, are on their way to a game when suddenly their van breaks down and they take refuge in a nearby cabin. Soon, they drink, have sex, and are brutally murdered one by one by an unseen killer.<br /><br />the good: A few laughs, surprising identity of the killer, a Brinke Stevens cameo, my favorite scene from THE SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE used as a flashback. <br /><br />the bad: I was excited about this film, I loved all three Slumber Party Massacre's because they were just so fun, and I was expecting a lot from this "Slumber Party/Sorority House Massacre with Scream tones), but it just sucked! They overdid it on the "We're cheesy but proud" thing and basically made soft-core porn but with a good who-dun-it.<br /><br />**
| 0 |
negative
|
Daffy Duck has signs hanging from every inch of every available tree announcing that it's rabbit season. But, you guessed it - it's really duck season. Elmer Fudd appears: he's the only hunter dumb enough to fall for the gag.<br /><br />He's even dumber than that. When Bugs Bunny strides up to him and asks how the rabbit hunting is going, Elmer admits that he hasn't seen a rabbit yet. This is more than Daffy can stand. He emerges from his hiding place and immediately points to a rabbit: Bugs Bunny. "Shoot him now!" Daffy screams. "You be quiet," says Bugs. "He doesn't have to shoot you now." Daffy insists that he does.<br /><br />After Daffy returns his blasted-off beak to his head, he is doomed to more arguments infected with "pronoun trouble" which all have the same result. Later, Bugs dresses as a sexy woman and flirtingly asks Elmer for a duck dinner. Will Daffy get the last laugh? "Ha, ha, very funny! Ha, ha, ha!"<br /><br />What's funny about this classic cartoon? Bug recoils in fright as Daffy screams in his face. Bugs Bunny says "Yes?" while dripping with self-satisfaction. Daffy Duck stands on tiptoes demanding to be shot. Elmer Fudd whines that he "can't wait any wonger." Daffy sees Bugs in women's clothes and makes that little noise with his tongue. Carl Stalling plays "You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby" during Bugs's drag act. Daffy demands "sheer honesty" out of Bugs. Stalling plays "Home Sweet Home" at an inappropriately appropriate moment. Daffy tells Bugs he's "desthpicable."<br /><br />In five words: every detail of this film.<br /><br />NOTE: This short is available on "Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume One," Disc 1
| 1 |
positive
|
I thought Nick Gomez's look at the gritty streets of New Jersey, where car-jackings are at an all-time high, was both thought-provoking and entertaining. This is just as good as movies like Boyz n the Hood or Menace II Society or Above the Rim. I thought the actors and the scenarios were suitable, it had a gritty realistic feel to it and was very atmospheric, whether on purpose or by raw coincidence. I liked this movie a lot, an underrated gem i found on TV and glad i caught it. Go watch this movie if you get a shot. If they don't have a DVD, they should release one. Well done Nick Gomez. IMDb Rating: 5.9. My Rating: 9/10
| 1 |
positive
|
This show was crap when it first came on. The first actress that played the daughter didn't fit the role, the writing was hit or miss, and Damon Wayans CLEARLY wasn't comfortable doing such a cornball family friendly show. The chemistry between himself and Tisha Cambell (they're long time friends, as are all of the Wayans clan with Tisha's husband and Will Smith and Jada Pinkett) DID work so they retooled the show. Once it returned, they recast the daughter, made the son much dumber (a la Eric from "Boy Meets World")and made the youngest daughter into a genius...(later they gave her a little genius boyfriend to do comedic guest appearances). The show, while if often rollercoasters from over the top buffoonery to being corny walks the line enough to keep it as a show that you can see Damon Wayans be comfortable in his own skin on the set (especially since the main writers, directors and consultants were ALL members of the Wayans family) AND in his character. Once everyone had been on the show for a while, they worked to everyone in the casts strengths and were able to make a consistently funny show on the air.<br /><br />However, there is TOO MUCH buffoonery, too many over the top antics, and oftentimes too much chaos happening in the life of the Kyle family. They made Junior TOO STUPID, they also made the eldest daughter an attractive, clumsy idiot from time to time and the youngest daughter wasn't even spared by the writers. I feel they jumped the shark and signed the shows death warrant when Junior got his girlfriend pregnant, she moved in and he married her and her parents were introduced (Junior's wife's father's character makes me WINCE just thinking about him). The show remained funny...but it was a UPN show on ABC if that makes any sense to the reader.<br /><br />The reruns are funny enough, but I'm relieved it's over...there was nowhere left to go with it. When it's bad it's REALLY BAD. It tends to be cornball at times but at least he was a black man who had a sitcom make it to syndication on a major network..Who can say that for themselves now? (Given the CW merger and the "brownout" on TV networks lately, that is). One.
| 1 |
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.