text
stringlengths 49
6.21k
| label
int64 0
1
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I'm a pretty tolerable guy, when it comes to movies, even B movies. I routinely watch some B movies for fun, and they can range from surprisingly good, to just downright awful. I usually set my expectations really low before watching these types of movies, and even after doing that, Descent was just downright awful. I really didn't mind that they were ripping off the Core to some extent, but they did absolutely nothing interesting with the material. Some scientists are worried about the earth's seismic activity, and must travel into the depths of the earth in order to stabilize the mantel. So what we get is a monotonously long set-up in which two dueling scientists played by Luke Perry and Rick Roberts have to work together on a top secret mission, named Project DEEP. The man in charge, General Fielding played by Michael Dorn, is secretly withholding vital information from Assistant Marsha Crawford, played by Mimi Kuzyk. Rounding out the cast is Natalie Brown who plays Jen, a mission specialist who created the "Mole" a drill which is used plunge into the depths of the Earth.<br /><br />Other than some pretty good special effects, and set designs, nothing about Descent is worthwhile. The movie starts out fairly entertaining, but it gets bogged down quickly in a tiresome story about uncontrollable seismic activity, which has been done to death in other movies such as the Core. Descent also has a poor script, with useless, forgettable dialog between the characters. To make matters worse, there is literally no action, no real threat or danger. The attempts at comic relief are painfully unfunny. The plot has gaping holes and some of the subplots are left untied at the end leaving a bad taste in your mouth. <br /><br />In closing this movie was just a cheap way for everyone involved to get a paycheck. There was no thought behind this movie, no innovation, it's just there. Other than some nice looking special effects, and set designs, this movie fails on every other level. The story is from the garbage can of Hollywood, and the characters are uninteresting to boot. Descent will simply descend you into boredom, and frustration. Avoid at all costs.
| 0 |
negative
|
I saw this movie the day it opened in NYC, at the Ziegfield. At the time Madonna was not quite the cultural icon she is now. She had a couple of hits, was very good in "Desparately Seeking Susan" and I had tickets to see her in concert at Giants Stadium. <br /><br />"Who's That Girl?" gives Madonna an actual role to play, which is not just a variation of her own personality. She does the madcap/heroine routine better than you might think. Griffin Dunne is very well cast as the man around to witness all the shenanigans.<br /><br />The story involves a huge cat named Murray, a bride-to-be who has slept with every cabbie in NYC, a mean father-in-law, and a key. There are a lot of car chases and cops trailing their path. All the elements of a screwball comedy intact. <br /><br />Sir John Mills is seen briefly. He shares a glass of champagne with the leads and has the greatest apartment on the Upper West Side, complete with a rain forest and everything. <br /><br />Compared to most Madonna movies (the ones I've been able to tolerate anyway), this is fantastic. On its own, its not that bad. 6/10.<br /><br />PS The concert was lousy.
| 1 |
positive
|
I haven't seen this movie since it came out at a drive in theater, and I have been searching for it since. At the time I was 12 and the story excited me; and NOW, the ending eludes me. It was young love that engrossed me the most, not to mention John's vocals and Taupin's lyrics. The story (at the time) hit home to my psyche. I am a lover of sentimental movies and this still hangs in my head after 35 years- it is that good. Place yourself at adolescent age and let your fantasies run. If this movie didn't excite your curiosity, then you were just too old. I look forward to seeing it again (even at my age)! If nostalgia is in your venue, I'm sure this is an interesting movie to see. It's innocence is simply astounding and it's simplicity is so easy and enjoyable.
| 1 |
positive
|
The Hospital is a movie that was made ahead of its time. This film, produced by screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky, who gave us the Oscar-Winning film, "Network", deals with overworked staff, gross incompetence, and bureaucratic corruption at a large conglomerate hospital in Manhattan. George C. Scott, in a superb performance as the head physician, is driven to alcoholism and a death-wish, as he tries to recover from a divorce, throwing his son out of the house, and worst of all, a medical facility where corruption and incompetence take precedence over caring and healing of the sick and injured.<br /><br />Mr. Scott makes the movie his own, and viewers will be shocked at what they observe at this medical establishment. You can feel the "pain" (pun intended) of what this hospital has done to him. The vivid images of this hospital's incompetence are so vivid and dramatically powerful that you may find yourself laughing and being deeply disturbed from scene to scene.<br /><br />If only the film had stayed with that premise in a documentary style fashion as it starts out, this picture would be brilliant. Unfortunately, there is a sub-plot of Scott falling for the daughter of a senile patient. The patient has been murdering people at the hospital. This is where credibility of the picture becomes strained. The romantic dialog scenes add nothing to the picture, and the mental patient, posing as a doctor, I found to be totally unbelievable. A simple security call and records check should have prevented the senile patient from doing the killings. It takes almost the whole movie, before security people are brought into the film to get the patient out of the hospital. I could not see ONE PERSON doing that much damage, even as corrupt as this hospital is.<br /><br />Furthermore, George C Scott's character is "overworked" (another pun intended) because the script has too many things happening at once. For example, within a period of 20 minutes, you could have as many as 20 different doctors accused and denying what they should have done or didn't do. With the nurses and aids, it's the same story. Someone's chart was read wrong, someone was given the wrong medication and died, the doctor operated on the wrong patient, than another doctor does the same thing, blaming a third nurse who was not on call because the second nurse who was supposed to be admitting the patient was on her coffee break. There is also a lot of subtle, dark humor with the same messages of incompetence and corruption being fed to the viewer.<br /><br />This repetition of medical ineptness is unforgettable. However, the murder subplot is a distraction more than a help to this movie. When the focus of this film is on the incompetence of the staff and Scott's reactions to this, you are glued to the screen. But the conversations between Scott and the mad patient's daughter force the film into a mystery type "Who Done it?" scenario that seriously hurts the quality of the movie. When the loony patient is revealing how he did the killings, I wondered the following: Why did the producers need the "find the killer" mad-patient sub-plot? I think the only point of Scott's character having a relationship with the senile patient's daughter, was to give him anybody with whom to communicate. The Hospital should have maintained its scathing indictment of the medical profession by removing the love-interest and mad patient scenes. It should have focused on the incompetent B.S within its walls more frequently. In an era where this movie could have been phenomenal, the sub-plot stories make the film very good instead of the great masterpiece it could have been.
| 1 |
positive
|
If you wondered whether Disney could broadcast a show with a character more spoiled than Paris, more shallow than Britney, more vapid than Jessica and more narcissistic than THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR, wonder no more. The amazing thing is Selena Gomez is, apparently, supposed to be the heroine. She's also supposed to be an outcast from the spoiled, shallow, vapid, narcissistic "popular" girls at school, which is no more believable here than it was for Hilary Duff in LIZZIE McGUIRE. Plots range from recycled BEWITCHED & I DREAM OF JEANNIE to "parodies" of HARRY POTTER. The older boy alternates between being a magical genius and being unable to master the complexities of his own shoelaces. The younger boy is just another of the smart-mouth "wisecracking" brats who have multiplied on TV like cockroaches in New York (and with the same appeal). The dad is the stereotypical dumb TV dad, and the mom... well, she's not totally awful. But all pales beside the hideous, loathsome, and yet horribly fascinating (like a bad car accident) spectacle of Ms. Lopez' smug, self-satisfied, snotty performance . And, again, she's the HEROINE.
| 0 |
negative
|
This film doesn't have a very clear picture of what it is or wants to be. There are some good bits when Stewart is on screen and they give him some lines to work with. It works best early on as romantic comedy, but the story keeps heading for more dramatic territory and gets itself lost in the process. By the last fifteen minutes or so, the plot twists are just a series dramatic clichés. <br /><br />The part with the airplane feels like some leftover footage from another film spliced in.<br /><br />The main reason I can think of to watch it is if you want be able to say you've seen all of Jimmy Stewart's films.
| 0 |
negative
|
Irvine Welsh's follow up to Trainspotting hits the screen as three short stories set in Edinburgh, all with a few of Welsh's trade marks, drug culture, depression, the working class and Hibernian football club. Uneasy to watch in places, it is no less than very well written, 2 of the stories having a darkly comic twist to them while the 2nd story a serious (and shockingly realistic) plot to it. Will not appeal to most, including myself to a point, but will no doubt adopt a cult following.
| 0 |
negative
|
Last night, I saw A PECK ON THE CHEEK (KANNATHIL MUTHAMITTAL with English subtitles). Oddly, it was 137 minutes long--slightly longer than the time listed on IMDb.<br /><br />At first, I found myself losing interest in this film because the rather confusing style of filming really lost me. The context for what was occurring was missing and I am glad I stuck with it. At the beginning, a young couple is married and shortly after the wedding, war breaks out in their native Sri Lanka and the lovers are separated. Months later, the wife is very pregnant and on board a refugee vessel heading to India. At a refugee center, you see the lady about to give birth--after which the titles to the film finally are revealed.<br /><br />The entire focus of the film then changes completely--to a young girl who is about to turn 9 in Madras, India. You see her in her home and she talks to the camera about her life and family. None of this seems that interesting or important and you wonder what is missing--what about the lady who was about to give birth? My wife and I debated this and we finally guessed that this little girl was actually the child of the lady in the first part of the film. Somehow or another, she had been adopted and was talking about her life with mom and dad #2--though she did NOT realize these people were not her biological parents.<br /><br />Soon after this, the parents revealed themselves to be total idiots (one of the complaints I had about the film), as they decided to tell this very young girl the truth about her parentage AND tell it in a way that left the girl emotionally screwed up and confused. Despite a stupid decision and telling her in the worst way, the parents made up for this by agreeing to help her find her biological mother. Seeing the impact all this had on the girl and parents (particularly the adoptive mother) was impressive to watch and sure sparked my interest.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has been involved in a very, very long and brutal civil war with Tamilese militants, off and on, for three decades. The family's decision to look for the mom back in Sri Lanka was indeed noble, but also a bit stupid at times--as they took so many risks and nearly got killed again and again by just blindly jumping into the middle of a war! This was all exciting and captivating but also left me wondering about the sanity of the adoptive parents--first you tell her she ISN'T your biological child and now you take her in the middle of a WAR ZONE!!! Sure, the kid really wanted to meet her biological mother, but this really was stupid in hind sight. If it were me, I might have been tempted to pay an unemployed actress to play the part and fool the kid--thus avoiding being in the middle of a war!<br /><br />Despite my complaints, the film was lovely to watch and was very rewarding. Far from perfect, it sure hits an emotional home run. Also, while I expected this because I have seen several Indian films, many Westerners will be a bit surprised by the vivid songs that seem to come out of no where--this IS standard in most films from India--including those made in Bollywood (Bombay) and Tamilwood/Kollywood (Madras).
| 1 |
positive
|
I saw bits and pieces of this on TV once, and when a friend recommended it, I began looking for it even though it seemed no place nearby had it. I finally got a hold of it in an antique store, and couldn't wait to watch it...Oh, that I had seen it a couple years earlier and could've really enjoyed it. I was surprised that this movie was only 80 or so minutes long, and I think this is what made the plot and story so lacking. The plot really does sound like a good one, both on the trailer and the movie comments: a teenager, Angus (Jesse Bradford) and his newfound stray lab Yellow are marooned on an island during a storm on a boat trip with his father (Bruce Davison). Together, they manage to survive the wilderness and wait to be found and rescued. Still, what is never mentioned is that everything is shortened and the events of the plot are very rushed. There is a possible love interest between Angus and Sara, but they're never shown together for more than a moment. Yellow is a mischievous dog the parents are reluctant to keep, but in a few days he seems to be appreciated enough to join a boat trip. The scene of the mother (Mimi Rogers) mentioning vaguely what death is like to the younger boy (Joel Palmer) doesn't go anywhere. In no time, we learn that 9 days have been spent on the island, then suddenly it's 14, then 19. Of all the animals a castaway could be exposed to in the wild, only 1 kind - a wolf - attacks them. Why couldn't something else have been a problem instead of having the same type of animal - maybe even the same one - strike twice? There are few views of how Angus prepares food, except when he discovers fruit and roots, and when he roasts a trapped rat. If he knows so much about survival skills, why weren't more scenes with it shown? The one thing that made me blank was why the dog didn't have much part alone. When he is rescued, and the dog is left behind on the island, there is no scene showing how he survives without a human's help. I wished I was more open to this when watching it, but I did enjoy some of this. The acting was good, and the score was enjoyable. Though, I found myself wondering why the father looked so much older than his family, and why he and the main search and rescue conductor share names. This is a good movie for kids, but though the protagonist is 14, nobody over 10 would be interested with this.
| 0 |
negative
|
I remember seeing this in the early 90's on UK TV and was hooked. The international scope of the production is breathtaking and watching how the characters develop through the five hours it runs for is magnificent. The scenes set in Pakistan and Afghanistan are of particular interest, and as a viewer you get a real sense of a grounds-eye view of the culture and vibe of these countries during the closing stages of the Cold War. The characters of Fazal and Helen develop really well throughout the series and rivals modern shows like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under in this area. In the UK, the VHS goes for about £6 and the DVD about £10 - a quality bargain. I thought Soderbergh's version was great too - but clearly owes this masterpiece a huge debt.
| 1 |
positive
|
Do you know that they want to escavate the Moon for real?And in Geneve there is the debated project that could lead to make possible time machine?All i can say about this movie that is based on facts about future(at the time of the movie)scientifical projects but real. Hope the moon will exist not happen as in the movie. Now about the movie itself, I saw the original movie too, and I also read the book. The book I didn't like though, but the movie yes.I totally agree with a previous comment that this movie was depressing,unlike the 60's one.That was very good with force, this one was only a paralled future of what is good movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
Before I talk about the ending of this film I will talk about the plot. Some dude named Gerald breaks his engagement to Kitty and runs off to Craven Castle in Scotland. After several months Kitty and her aunt venture off to Scottland. Arriving at Craven Castle Kitty finds that Gerald has aged and he has grown meaner. Gerald has certain rules for the castle(the rules have been the same for 200 years). Gerald does not want them to stay but, Kitty insist on staying by making excuses. One night her aunt catches a glimpse of the monster running across the hall. It scares her so much that she faints and (another excuse) they must stay longer. Kitty becomes more worried about Gerald after she tries to go in the maze but Gerald catches her and is even meaner to her. Kitty then sends for reinforcements, she calls their doctor who is actually their friend and his wide. Then to make things not look suspicious they invite a couple other friends(who don't really do anything). Blah,blah, blah Kitty and her aunt end up in the maze where the most suspense of the story is. They somehow get separated and they try to find each other. But the aunt stumbles upon the creature...here it is the moment we've all been waiting for, what is the creature lurking in the shadows?...it is a giant FROG!!! OMG what is better than that! After seeing the aunt the frog literally goes crazy and runs, oops I mean hops up the stairs to the top of the castle. The frog then leaps out an open window. We then go on a shot from the ground and see the frog gall towards us (oh yeah this movie was in 3-D). But you want to know what is funny is the frog that falls out the window is actually a toy because it is 1/10 the size of the frog before it takes the leap. It is then revealed that this was all evolutions fault, blah, blah and Kitty and Gerald get married. Then the last shot of this masterpiece is of the grave of the frog in the maze, the only place where he was ever really happy ;).
| 1 |
positive
|
Director Fabio Barreto got a strange Academy Nominea for his last movie O Quatrilho. Quatrilho is a bad movie, but in Bella Donna, Barreto did one of the Worst movies of All Time. His adaptation of the novel Riacho Doce is ridiculous. Think with me how poor brazilians fishermen speak a perfect english? In the film they do. There isn't a Screenplay, It's only a very long videoclip with a beautiful places and many sex scenes with Moscovis and Henstridge.
| 0 |
negative
|
I have realized that many people have commented on the nature of this show being racist and homophobic, but I don't feel that is what this show is about.<br /><br />The show is about parents who weren't ready for kids and are now not ready for teenagers. This show helps to bring humor to a very hard topic that is sometimes over looked: parenthood.<br /><br />Yes we have all had shows that had families in it, for example: Family Matters, Step by Step, Family Ties, Full House....but it always would have the same old recipe to it's episodes. "Steph" cuts from school and gets caught by her father. They have a heart to heart conversation and music is played and it's over with a two week grounding that after an "aww, Dad..." gets a smile and the show is over. Where is the comedy in such a situation? Where is the realism? With The War at Home, you get real situations from a real father type figure. Most parents that watch this show hear some of the lines the parents put out and they either laugh (cause they know they've said it!) or they nod their heads (cause they know they've thought it and never had the guts to say it!) The War at Home has situations that bring out great comedy as a father thinking his son is gay. Doesn't sound funny, most think it makes the father homophobic, but the comedy comes in the bumbling father trying to talk to his son to open up. What parent knows the right thing to say, especially in a situation as this? I greatly recommend this show to anyone that I know has a sense of humor, and especially to anyone who is a young parent or was young when they had kids. You relate to a show like this when you are either.
| 1 |
positive
|
as a 'physically challenged' person (god, how i hate that phrase) i just happened to catch this on cable where there was absolutely nothing else to watch - overall, it was a fantastic movie. yes, i was a little disappointed upon finding out that neither actor is disabled, and yes, i was a little disappointed that more of the movie wasn't filmed from the 'true' point of view of the disabled (can you imagine what it's like always being the tallest person in the room and then having to live the rest of your life with a view of nothing but other people's asses and crotches? having to always wait for the idiot to stop reading the newspaper in the only handicapped stall, enduring everyone else's rude bodily expulsions while you wait?). and the scene with him driving the car was absolutely me! been there, done that, literally. but the movie was true enough to matter - while i've never lived in a home or assisted residence, there were plenty of times throughout the movie where i found myself nodding and saying to myself "yeah, that's true.... that's happened to me...." what impressed me is that some of the commentors on this board expressed the fact that the movie made them view life a little differently and with a little more insight as the lives of a silent 'minority' - can't ask more than that out of a movie, that it makes you think and view life differently, so by virtue of that alone, the movies was tremendously successful. should be required viewing of every kid in junior high school.<br /><br />pretty much for every person that's severely physically disabled, independence is one of, if not the most important focus of our daily lives, from working to socializing to recreating. for those of you who felt the movie was 'cliched,' try living our life for a single day - you'll see that the movie was 'cliched' because..... it's true. the challenges the actors faced only skimmed the surface of what happens to us every day - if we're lucky, we experience the same emotional and personal growth that the three characters (including the girl) did. every day presents obstacles for us to overcome - it's just that there's no swelling, dramatic music to accompany our lives, unless it's in our ipods.... lol!
| 1 |
positive
|
Wow, was this version of THE RACKETEER tough to watch! While none of the other reviews have mentioned this, the public domain version I watched was seriously flawed. The sound track was off by about 10 seconds--meaning the dialog and action never came close to matching. So, you'd hear something occur well before you saw it--a very confusing proposition! The worst is where you hear a gun shot and only later doe the guy get hit and slump to his death in a taxi.<br /><br />While this seriously marred the film, it also made concentrating on the dialog easier--and showed the serious shortcomings of it as well. The dialog was simply awful--often delivered with almost no inflection or feeling. As one review said, it was like watching a high school play. Part of this is understandable, as sound was a new medium, but this film's dialog was bad even compared to other 1929 films--really bad. And, like many of these early sound films, the film was just too talky--with sappy and overly melodramatic language and just not much action. And you'd THINK with a title like "The Racketeer" that there would be some action!! However, it's really a sappy romance--with very little action.<br /><br />The film finds Carol Lombard straddled with an alcoholic musician. She herself ends up stealing to try to take care of him--and the crook, Robert Armstrong, comes to her assistance. When Armstrong catches her cheating at cards, he covers for her and then helps the drunk brother to get on his feet--and naturally he falls for her in the process. The problem is that once the drunk sobers up, he, too, wants Lombard and she needs to choose between them. Wow...a recovering drunk or a mobster...talk about a couple great prospects! Overall, it's a bit hard to rate considering the lousy print I saw. However, even if you ignore this, the film has a lot of problems due to its poor use of dialog and excessively talky nature. And...it was sappy too boot.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Four Daughters," a sentimental story of a solid middle class family with four sisters, was notable in one respect: into this romantic, idealized milieu enters Mickey Borden
Carelessly dressed, with an uncompromising attitude to all bourgeois values, he really sets the hearts of the sisters aglow
His criticisms are not only directed towards those about him but also towards himself
<br /><br />One day Ann (Priscilla Lane) discovers him passionately playing the piano
"That's beautiful," she says
"It stinks," he replies
He falls in love with and marries Ann but eventually, realizing that their basic incompatibility is leading their marriage into disaster, he takes the equally uncompromising step of causing his fall
<br /><br />The role was superbly played by John Garfield, and it brought him not only stardom but also, and perhaps more important, won for him his place in cinema history as the screen's first rebel hero
<br /><br />Garfield was born in New York's East side of Russian immigrant parents, and spent his adolescence as a delinquent, a real life role that he only relinquished when he began to portray the rebel on screen
He continued, however, throughout his life to question and reject certain traditional values
He was occasionally suspended by the studio and maintained a cynical view of Hollywood
<br /><br />Finally he ended his career and his life as one of the victims of McCarthy's witchhunt
He was blacklisted by Hollywood because of his suspected left wing sympathies and friends claimed that being banned from working contributed to the heart attack' that killed him at the early age of 39
| 1 |
positive
|
Now first let me say I love god awful movies. Especially horror films mainly. I watched hundreds of movies on Mystery Science Theater 3000 with no pain. But this is the absolute worst film on the planet!!! I had to turn it off it was so bad. It was unfunny and just plain unwatchable. Give me 3 back to back viewings of Manos The Hands of fate or Monster A-go-go over this any day. Avoid this film like the plauge!! Now excuse me while I go gouge out my eyes to cleanse them of the filth I had to watch to get a decent judgement for this film. Only one decent gag in the part I watched was the hitmen now are an extermination pair for Hitmen Exterminators. Even that wasn't to great of a gag.
| 0 |
negative
|
This story about a man's 28 year struggle for a death that would liberate him from his already dead body becomes a masterpiece to be remembered,thanks to a team of artists in a state of grace. Directed, written,edited and scored by Alejandro Amenabar, it touches you from the very first images, and doesn't leave your eyes and your heart to rest until the last credits, thanks to Alejandro and a group of wonderful actors and actresses at their best. Bardem is an acting animal:One of those few comedians that can make a masterpiece from almost any character, the supporting actresses are great in their roles and the story is told with such a sensibility that one laughs and cries in the same minute, as we used to do with the great old masterpieces. The year's best film in all senses. 10 / 10
| 1 |
positive
|
Footprints certainly isn't your average run of the mill Giallo, and that's no bad thing. Unlike his previous effort, The Fifth Cord (which was your 'classic' Giallo) Luigi Bazzoni's film forsakes almost all of the Giallo trademarks and instead of murder; the focus is very on psychological mystery. It's obvious from the outset that this is going to be an entirely bizarre film as the film opens up with a scene set on the moon. Things don't get any clearer after that as the lunar sequence turns out to be the dream of Alice, a troubled woman. Alice is tormented by dreams of an astronaut stranded on the moon, which have apparently come from a viewing of a film called 'Footprints on the Moon'. After several things go wrong for her, Alice decides to go to a mostly deserted former tourist spot named Garma. Upon her arrival, she is surprised as the people she meets seem to already know her. Alice also meets a young red headed girl who also seems to already know her; the girl tells Alice she looks exactly like Nicole, except nicer and with shorter hair...<br /><br />The fact that Footprints doesn't feature much in the way of sex, murder and other Giallo trademarks puts it somewhat on the back foot with it's primary audience from the beginning as most people going into this film aren't going to get what they were expecting (or, probably, wanted). But on the other hand, Footprints commands respect for the fact that it doesn't just follow on from what went before it. By 1975, the Giallo had started to lose it's popularity and many of the films coming out around this period (with a few very notable exceptions) were merely retreads of what came before, so Luigi Bazzoni would have been taking a big chance on this film. Florinda Bolkan gives a strong performance in the lead role; and the fact that she's not the prettiest Giallo heroine isn't really important. The mystery builds nicely throughout, and while it can become a little turgid at times; Footprints is, generally speaking, intriguing for the duration. It probably won't come as a surprise to many once they get there that the ending doesn't make much sense, and doesn't really clear anything up; but it nicely adds to the bizarre cult value of the film, and all in all; I give Footprints a thumbs up!
| 1 |
positive
|
This is an excellent anime movie. It is well animated, has a good intricate plot and very good music. I understand that some may think of it as a little long, but I think that it is a good length and the animation is good traditional anime.<br /><br />THREE CHARACTERS:<br /><br />The way they use Tenkai is masterly. For example the body double showing up at all these locations adds to the ominous tone of the movie. The design of Tenkai is good too, the way he looks as a monk and in the end scene the armour he is wearing.<br /><br />The old man Andou is down to earth and a very likable character. When Jiro meets him it's a turning point in the movie.<br /><br />Sanpei, the Satsuma Shinobi who infiltrated Tenkais clan saves Jiros life twice. He stays in the background most of the movie though, but he is really one of the heroes of the movie.<br /><br />THE PLOT: The plot is good. It is traditional without being unoriginal. The historical time it is acted out in is interesting, The meiji restoration. The treasure is sought after by Tenkai to restore the shogunate while when Jiro finds it he uses it to help the anti-shogunate forces overthrow the shogunate.<br /><br />The way Tenkai tricks Jiro is interesting and has sort of a "Hamlet" feel to it. There is also a sweet irony to the fact that if Tenkai had not gotten Jiro to become a shinobi I don't think that he had been able to kill him in the end(Maybe by firearm, but not hand to hand combat weapons).<br /><br />The plot with all the death makes it mostly very dark, but there's some light moments when we see some of Jiros childhood memories. All in all it's a good, dark, intricate plot.<br /><br />THE MUSIC: The opening theme for example is very good with the electric guitar and drums. They occasionally in that piece use what I believe to be taiko drums, but i'm not sure.<br /><br />There is a lot of good music. Like the one played while they are traveling to the Iga shinobi. I believe the piece is called "Numatou" and has an incredible flute in it. The flute might be a pan flute, but more probably a shakuhachi.<br /><br />The end theme "Kamui no komoriuta" is calm and delicate. The vocals are beautiful and so is the song in general.<br /><br />THE ANIMATION:<br /><br />The animation, while good, is not perfect and the blood that runs down the characters do sometimes appear to be orange. The transitions are interesting and I think some transitions are very nice. One example of a nice transition is when Jiro and the Iga shinobi are running, there is the sunset in the background and the music is playing. The transition is simple, but effective and has a nice feeling too it.<br /><br />MY FINAL WORDS: I think that the plot, the animation, the music and the characters make this into one of the best anime movies I have ever seen.
| 1 |
positive
|
by Dane Youssef<br /><br />I was kind of looking forward to this one. I enjoy Eddie Murphy and I love it when a star hand-makes a vehicle for themselves or when someone who writes decides to mark their own directorial debut. But when the star's head gets too big for the rest of his body, there's always a danger of a big-budgeted Hollywood vanity production.<br /><br />Will the filmmaker keep it real
or will he just waste amounts of money (the studio's, ours) and time (the studio's, ours & his own) patting himself on the back for an hour in a half? Sadly, it's the latter here.<br /><br />Another thing I really like is when someone breathes new and fresh life into an exhausted and dried-out genre. None of that here. The warring nightclub movies have become so worn-through that even the parodies of it are dreary and done to death. <br /><br />Murphy does neither. He does the most clichéd: He plugs into a routine conventional formula gangster picture and plays it as seriously as if it were "The Godfather." It's like a script where the next draft, they put in the jokes and the new ideas. But it seems like someone with clout just looked at it and went: "No
this is fine."<br /><br />Probably Murphy. He is credited all over this. In the opening shot of beautiful white satin sheets, his name headlines across the credits about five times.<br /><br />THE PLOT: A young orphan saves Pryor's life and Pryor adopts the little ragamuffin. <br /><br />20 years later, Pryor's dump has become a first-class hot spot. They're pulling down big money and a gangster wants their action. He's even got a dirty cop in his employ. But Pryor comes up with a scheme, a la "THE STING." <br /><br />Murphy's screenplay plays like an unfinished first-draft that nobody had the pair to call him on. The actors aren't really allowed to stand-out much, if at all. Even the almighty Murphy seems to be on auto-pilot. <br /><br />Pryor shows class and gentlemanly manners as Sugar Ray (perhaps it would have been better to name his character BROWN Sugar Rayfurther evidence that this one needed a polish), but everyone here is basically just on vacation. <br /><br />The Oscar-nomination the movie received is richly deserved (Joe I. Tompkins' Best Costume Design), but the production values are the only part that makes the '30's feel authentic. <br /><br />Some sets look somewhat fake, but this is supposed to be a comedy of sorts. It's rare one movie gets nominated for both a Razzie and an Oscar (unless it's one of Lucas' new "Star Wars" chapters).<br /><br />It's 1938 and everyone is talking like it's 1988, particularly the comedians. This is a prehistoric white man's formula. And with all these black comedians and satirists, you expect them to skewer the genre or at least bring new life to it. Nope. Murphy is pretty much just coasting here.<br /><br />The great Roger Ebert summed it up perfectly when he remarked in his review: "Murphy approaches his story more as a costume party in which everybody gets to look great while fumbling through a plot that has not been fresh since at least 1938." <br /><br />Jasmine Guy is perfectly cast and seems to be indulging herself in her role and Michael Lerner has all the looks, evil and mannerisms of the prototypical mob boss down pat. And there are moments where Pryor gives you an idea of what a more interesting leader and authority figure would sound like. He gives every scene he's in a feeling of dignity.<br /><br />Would it have been too much to ask that Della Resse sing? Or at least quit embarrassing herself with all her "Kiss My Ass talk?" <br /><br />And the late Redd Foxx doesn't get to leave much of a swan song here. He has some back-and-forth with Resse which could have been some great stuff. Nope. Murphy wastes another opportunity again here.<br /><br />Murphy's Quick is charismatic and likable. But those moments are few and far between for sure. Murphy has never looked better and never been duller. His character made me laugh twice throughout the whole movie.<br /><br />Stan Shaw's boxer with a horrible speech impediment isn't just painful and embarrassing, it's annoying. There's more to comedy than simply showing something unpleasant. You have to incorporate some kind of light touch and funny situation. Watching him strain even the some of the easiest words just makes us feel sorry for him and annoyed with Murphy.<br /><br />Can Murphy write a screenplay? Well
there was "Raw," but that was really stand-up material. He wrote the outline for "Boomerang" and "Coming to America" for sure. But her didn't have the last word there. Maybe a team of ER-like script doctors could've revived this one.<br /><br />Murphy's direction is so slow and quiet, you'd swear he was asleep at the wheel some of the time. He has too many static shots and doesn't seem to know how to build and release suspense. On some level, I think Quick is the real Eddie Murphy. Angry, young, hot-headed and ambitious. But occasionally charming. Now if he were only funny sometime.<br /><br />There's a scene in which Murphy has a femme fa-tale in bed who plans to make love with him and kill him. You can probably guess how it turns out. Like everything else in the movie, this could have been better, but
<br /><br />"Surprisingly," Murphy has not directed another movie since (he got a Razzie nomination). And he no longer writes the finished draft for his films either (he WON the Razzie for writing this!) <br /><br />It's great to look at and the music is beautiful, and there are a few really nice scenes. But that just falls under the category of "gems among all the junk." Not enough of them.<br /><br />Couldv'e been. Shouldv'e been. Wasn't. Oh, well.<br /><br />by Dane Youssef
| 0 |
negative
|
I am furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these "special forces" who "have been to hell and back" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two "heroes", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.
| 0 |
negative
|
Taylor Deemer Mrs. Drake English 10 PIB B4 31 March 2010 <br /><br />A Shot in the Dark<br /><br />It is difficult to make it through the movie Heart of Darkness because it is incredibly unexciting. The book that this movie is based off of has little action to begin with. So the thought of turning it into a movie seems like a totally off-handed idea anyways, basically guaranteeing a fail. <br /><br />Most of the book is of the mental travel of a young seaman named Marlow on a job through the many darknesses of the Congo and people as a whole
I feel like the screenwriter failed massively at capturing the essence of Marlow's travels. It totally missed the biggest issue of light versus dark. That is the major point in the book and when that doesn't translate to the movie, all that's left is 100 minutes of boredom and monotony. <br /><br />This being the case, the question is posed, why would anyone make this into a movie? An even better question could then be asked, who would want to watch it? It is utterly a chore to watch. Had it not contributed to a grade in my English class, I would have never even considered watching the movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Heart of Darkness is stripped of all its insight and meaning when it's taken from the pages of the book. The novella is torture to read until the last twenty pages or so, but the afterthought is that it is a pretty decent book. The movie is like a shot in the dark with no chance in the world of hitting its target. <br /><br />How can a book that's all about the mental processes and realizations of darkness be portrayed in a physical, visual sense? I feel like it's impossible to accurately show thoughts. Also, I feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that don't seem to add up at all. The novella Heart of Darkness was published in 1902, while the movie version of Heart of Darkness is from 1993. The 91 years between the two may be a reason behind the seemingly different terrains. The novella seems to have much harsher conditions, and the movie does not portray the prehistoric feel of the Congo. The Congo, in the movie, just seems like another place, not the dark, inhuman place that the book paints this setting of. I feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella.<br /><br />With two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie, the little bit of decency that is in the book Heart of Darkness is gone. When the controversy of light versus dark is the biggest theme, not including it in the movie makes it seem like the entire movie will be incredibly pointlessand it is. It's dull, unexciting, and a major waste of time. There's no reason to watch it. The book is stripped of any significance it has. If it's necessary, for some reason, read the book. Avoid the movie at all costs. <br /><br />Cast and Credits Marlow: Tim Roth Kurtz: John Malkovich The Russian:Morten Faldaas The Intended: Phoebe Nicholls<br /><br />Directed by: Nicolas Roeg Written by Benedict Fitzgerald, based on the novella by Joseph Conrad Running Time: 100 minutes Rated PG 13 (some sexuality and language)
| 0 |
negative
|
The only complaint I heard about this film was that it was slow. Though, perhaps this is the point. The two characters clash unforgivingly and the slow build-up of tension between them is anxiety-producing. The intricate and subtle gestures and minimal dialog take the tension to a point where an otherwise normal argument shocks the audience. Istanbul and the outskirts are dreamy, scenery captivating, and the plot is thrilling - not in that "look, the hero blew up yet another car and he's now flying with his motorcycle" kind of way, though. I had chills down my spine as the characters moved in and out of each other's spheres and watched the fog engulf Istanbul.
| 1 |
positive
|
The plot in this movie is very thin, and there is not much acting. Val Kilmer--I don't know why he agreed to do this movie--plays a minor role as a gang leader. In short, the movie is tedious to watch.<br /><br />One guy, who sort of resembles an archeology/religion professor, is exploring a subterranean area of Moscow, that has some history connected to railway construction and the Bolshevik revolution. A church tragedy in that history makes the exploration "spiritual" and spirits of a malevolent intent haunt the underground ruins. A friend of the professor decides to find his friend in the underground and hires a couple of Russian guides. The entire movie is based on this plot and contains much repeated footage of the underground, and some camera effects; much like those seen in "Day Watch", "Night Watch", etc.
| 0 |
negative
|
When, oh, when will someone like Anchor Bay or Blue Underground release this on widescreen DVD??? Le Orme, which I only know because of my rare/vintage video collecting habit, is a film in my collection that I would not only sit through, but actually enjoy watching. The fact that Klaus Kinski is top billed, but is only in small parts of the film, means little to me. (Though several comments expressed disappointment in his rather limited screen time.) I cannot say that this is a good horror film, a good mystery, a sci-fi epic or anything of that nature. It is simply unclassifiable in the "genre" sense of things. It is more like a confusing, frightening (though not particularly violent or bloody) dream, filled with great visuals and mystery. It relies on visuals and emotion, much like Bava's "Lisa and the Devil". Both films are beautiful in almost every sense, but almost impossible to describe in a logical manner; they both occur in such a dream-like atmosphere. Don't be deterred by Force Video's synopsis on the back cover. It is infinitely more complex and intriguing than that. Though Force Video's release from 1986 (the only one in the US, that I know of) is cropped to full-screen on tape, even in that format it is still great. Releasing it remastered and/or letterboxed would make it magnificent (hint, hint... DVD companies).
| 1 |
positive
|
Never been kissed starring Drew Barymore as Reporter Josie Gellar is a sweet, extremely sappy and sometimes quite painful tale of a timid woman named Josie Gellar who though brilliant is quiet and shy and has never been kissed by a man. She is assigned her first major news story for the newspaper she works for-to go undercover as a high school student befriend the popular cool kids and get a scoop as to what really goes on in the world of high school. Only problem is Josie has never been popular. High School was in fact, a traumatizing experience for her as she was the recipient of quite a lot of teasing and cruel jokes. Josie grabs this assignment, as much to finally "fit in" as to get a scoop-what she finds is the major premise of the story.<br /><br />Never been kissed is one of those movies that's so sappy and schmaltzy at times, particularly in a few scenes at the end that the limits of believability are sorely tested and many a cynic may not like this movie. It is however, very sweetly done. Drew Barymore is perfect as the bumbling yet lovely Josie-she breathes a breath of fresh air into the character and makes her appear perfectly realistic. I also enjoyed Leelee Sobiesky as the intellectual student who befriends Josie on her first day at the school.<br /><br />Never been kissed has some really funny moments as Josie unravels in her frantic efforts to be cool. Example-the reggae bar scene.I also loved the appearance of Josie's brother Rob who also goes back and signs up as a high school student, the way that he helps to give Josie her "dream" of finally fitting in is just hilarious. At the same time, as Josie's woeful story of her original years in high school are shown in flashback it is extremely painful. You do not need to have had similar experiences in high school to Josie to be affected by her story-Drew is wonderful at making her character have a personal connection with the audience and we adore Josie from the beginning.<br /><br />there is a lot of "mean girls" a 2004 release, in this movie but mean girls honestly was a lot grittier. Never been kissed becomes very much a romantic pic as Josie develops feelings for a certain man and the question becomes will they get together.<br /><br />I liked this movie. It was really beautifully done in some areas. The movie is corny in some places yes, the last scene-realistic-no way-does this movie manipulate your emotions in the most obvious Hollywood way? Oh yeah yeah yeah baby! But it manipulates beautifully, there are some lessons to be learned here. The movie never preaches but manages to paint an accurate picture of what high school was like for a select few. I have actually met people who have had similar experiences to Josie-I've met people very much like all these characters-I think a lot of people simply don't know or can't conceive of the cruelty that can exist in the world of high school, and how hurtful it can be, but it's there. Not unrealistic at all. What struck me was Drew's speech at the prom, as she demonstrates the "sheep mentality" that can exist so prevalently -as Hollywood and manufactured as many think that may be, it was well done and very true. <br /><br />I'm making never been kissed sound a lot heavier then it is, in truth this is a perfect movie to pick when one wants a sweet feel good light heartwarming picture. It's engaging, sweetly acted and just Rufus. I'd say check it out. 8 of 10.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is a great film. The movie shows so many themes all in one amazing film. Driving Lessons centers around Ben (Rupert Grint) a shy 17 year old who is coming of age. The movie goes on about how Ben is sick of his dominating mother and how he just wants to be himself. Ben then meets Evie, who he makes a very special bond with. The two take a journey and in the process Ben finds himself and what a relationship that he and Evie share. This is the movie that you watch by yourself, or with someone else. No matter what, you will all feel what Ben goes through in the movie. It is a very heart warming film that just makes you think whether your driving lessons were ever as emotional or as much of a journey as Ben's Lessons.
| 1 |
positive
|
Pick a stereotype, any stereotype (whether racial, sexual, cultural, etc.), and I bet you'll find it in Wassup Rockers. Do you think that all Hispanic teenage boys are stupid, hairy, inarticulate, and dirty troublemakers? Are Hispanic girls sex-crazed, easy, ass-baring sluts? Do Black people all want to start fights and carry guns? Do all gay people throw themed parties with pink drinks and ask young boys to model for them? Are all White teenage girls rich, stuck-up princesses who are bored with White teenage boys and are looking for something a little more dangerous? If you answered "yes" to any of the previous questions, you, my friend, are a bigot, and you will LOVE Wassup Rockers.<br /><br />Director Larry Clark likes to shock his audiences (I was 15 years old the first time I saw Kids and I think that's why I'm still a virgin), but Wassup Rockers isn't shocking
it's just bad. He tries to be edgy and realistic with his minimal dialog and body-hair close-ups, but these characters and this story are completely unrealistic.<br /><br />Simply put, Wassup Rockers is a teenage boy's fantasy. What 14-year-old boy doesn't want to be a skater who gets in trouble, crashes parties, drinks 40s, and is told by the hot, rich, White girl that his uncircumcised penis "looks dangerous?" Besides that demographic, I really don't know who's going to enjoy this film.
| 0 |
negative
|
When this show first came on the air, I saw it once or twice and thought it was another "fat guy, skinny wife" show that seemed to populate the networks at the time. It was just "okay" upon initial viewings and I didn't watch it again; however, once it went into syndication, I caught several episodes (simply because it was on twice a night), and I'm telling you, the more you watch this show, the funnier it is. Once you see how all of the great supporting characters are connected, this show makes you laugh out loud. Every new episode I watch is more creative than the one before--people who only watch this a couple of times will not notice this. The writing and story lines are much more sophisticated than they appear at first (this is far from "According to Jim"). First of all, Kevin James is hysterical, incredibly charming, and a talented comedic actor, as is the supporting cast. Leah Remini has excellent timing, and Patton Oswalt's Spence is one of the funnier characters on the show. And of course, Jerry Stiller is brilliant as Arthur. I was shocked to read comments that he was the worst part of the show--he's a gigantic part of why this show is so great--his delivery of these ridiculous schemes (rounding out the crazy dad character) are beyond hilarious. And the yelling--the best episode is when they show him as a kid yelling "Lemon Icee!!". That episode, during which Carrie takes him to a therapist in hopes to get him medicated (to make Doug less stressed out), guest star William Hurt decides that Arthur yells because he's never been validated. The latter part of the episode where Doug beats up his childhood self in a therapy session is beyond funny, it's one of the most creative scenes I've seen on a sitcom. I feel the strange need to defend this show, because it is severely underrated--while "Friends" was sometimes amusing, and "Raymond" has some great episodes and characters, they both lacked the creative touch that "King of Queens" has. In an era where most sitcoms have canned jokes and are on the whole mediocre, "King of Queens" continues to push the sitcom envelope and show real comic genius. Critics of this show obviously don't get it--or haven't watched the show enough to give it a chance, because anyone with real comic and creative sensibility has to laugh out loud while watching. It's certainly on par with my other two favorites, "Seinfeld" and "The Office" in its ridiculous tone. It's the Arthurs, Kramers, and Michael Scotts of TV that keep us watching, and laughing out loud.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is one of the most underrated movies of the 1990s. If you allow yourself to identify with the Patricia Arquette character, you will find it to be a very moving story of a woman regaining a sense of purpose to her life, and finding a new will to live.<br /><br />Arquette's performance is brave because it is purposefully "wooden" -- it's a way of defining her character's spiritual death, her complete lack of a desire to be alive. She moves through life like a zombie because her family has been murdered and she can't see the point of living. What is moving is how in the course of the story, she is reawakened -- by the Burmese landscape, by the beautiful quality of its people and landscapes, and by the primal choices she is forced to confront.<br /><br />Boorman supports this visually (and Hans Zimmer supports it with one of his most gorgeous, haunting scores) with an often static camera and with a propensity to shoot through glass, windows, windshields, etc. We are on the outside looking in, just like Arquette.... until she finds herself deep in the jungle and is forced to choose whether or not to fight for her life.<br /><br />I recommend the 1954 movie THE PURPLE PLAIN as well. It's a similar story in a similar setting, and makes for a fascinating comparison.
| 1 |
positive
|
Another period piece for Chen Kiage... (can't remember him doing a modern film!)...<br /><br />Good characterization with a simple story of trust and broken promises. None of the HK fighting scenes, or the Hollywood type of heroes, but it is good because of it. The characters are strong, I really felt for them.<br /><br />Understanding the mandarin definitely gives the English subtitles the edge. The film is 3 hours, but it didn't feel like it.
| 1 |
positive
|
After a very long time Marathi cinema has come with some good movie.This movie is one of the best Marathi movies ever made. It shows how a old grandfather tries to save his grandsons eye. He tries everything that is possible in his hands to save the child's eye. Doctor and a relative of his tries to help him in his attempt.<br /><br />The acting by the grandfather, the boy and the doctor are simply superb. They have shown true picture of a typical Marathi life. Every bit of action has some meaning in it. I would recommend to watch this movie, as initially I thought this one would be of documentary type but this was above my expectations.<br /><br />This film is really going to touch your hearts.I would expect more Marathi movies to come up with performances like this.
| 1 |
positive
|
As others that have commented around the web... I'm a 130 pilot in the Coast Guard. Having said that, and being the skeptic I am, I went expecting the over-the-top cheese factors. There was some cheese, but all in all, not much.. and the film was pretty accurate.<br /><br />I watched the trailer again today. After seeing the film yesterday, I've realized the trailer gives the impression the movie is nothing but rescue after rescue action scenes. This isn't the case.<br /><br />The movie is truly more character/story driven than action. The inner struggles both Costner and Kutcher are dealing with.. Kutcher's is revealed further into than movie than Costner's is.<br /><br />Of course, there is a minor love story.. no surprise there. But for the most part, the movie tells the tale of two lives that come together, and after some time, help each other heal old wounds.<br /><br />As girlie as it sounds, Costner and, as much as I try not to like him, Kutcher do actually work quite well together and compliment each other very well in the movie.<br /><br />As critics have stated, you've seen it all before.. Top Gun, Officer and a Gentlemen, etc. But what movie hasn't been remade a million times.<br /><br />I can recall only one F word being spoken.. and can't really recall any other language.<br /><br />The movie is 2+ hours, and for some, may tend to get a little long towards the end.<br /><br />You'll laugh, you may cry, but I can honestly say, it was worth the $4 I paid.<br /><br />I hope you enjoy the movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
...and normally i don't like surprises!! Watch this movie by chance in a motel in South Africa second week of a three month motorbiking holiday in ZA. Apart from being well shot and acted it helped me in understanding the countries problems tremendously. Just watched the " Million Dollar Baby" and had to look up Hillary Swank since the name sounded somewhat familiar and her acting was superb. Didn't realise she was the solicitor in the "Red Dust". Well now i'm not to worried that she will disappear as so many other sidekicks of Clint before... Now i am being asked to write ten whole lines of comment which is rather ridiculous for i have written what i wanted to write. OK, here it goes: I think if you are from a western country, especially Europe, watching will help you to understand a little better why what is happening is happening down there! So this hopefully will fill ten lines.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is about a man who likes to blow himself up on gas containers.<br /><br />He also loves his mommy. So, to keep the money coming in, he takes his act to Broadway.<br /><br />SEE! CODY POWERS JARRETT BLOW HIMSELF UP ON HIS BIGGEST GAS CONTAINER YET! TONIGHT! 7.30PM! <br /><br />However, one day, his mommy dies and Jarrett goes berserk. He kidnaps the audience in the theatre and makes them all stand on top of a huge gas cylinder.<br /><br />Losing control further, he makes them all scream "MADE IT MA, TOP OF THE CYLINDER!" in unison.<br /><br />The noise is so deafening that it bursts Jarrets eardrums, causing him to topple from the cylinder into a vat of acid.<br /><br />This Warner Bros. movie is not all it's cracked up to be.
| 0 |
negative
|
Hilarious, clean, light-hearted, and quote-worthy. What else can you ask for in a film? This is my all-time, number one favorite movie. Ever since I was a little girl, I've dreamed of owning a blue van with flames and an observation bubble.<br /><br />The cliché characters in ridiculous situations are what make this film such great fun. The wonderful comedic chemistry between Stephen Furst (Harold) and Andy Tennant (Melio) make up most of my favorite parts of the movie. And who didn't love the hopeless awkwardness of Flynch? Don't forget the airport antics of Leon's cronies, dressed up as Hari Krishnas: dancing, chanting and playing the tambourine--unbeatable! The clues are genius, the locations are classic, and the plot is timeless.<br /><br />A word to the wise, if you didn't watch this film when you were little, it probably won't win a place in your heart today. But nevertheless give it a chance, you may find that "It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you do, you've gotta play."
| 1 |
positive
|
The jazz soundtrack makes this seem like a Clint Eastwood movie.<br /><br />In fact the whole thing strikes me as Burt doing Clint. The story is good and the movie is full of one liners that I carry with me to this day. (Reynolds to bad guy: I'm gonna pull the chain on you pal, because you're f'n up my town. And you wanna know the worst part? You're from outta state!)<br /><br />Highlights: The Technics 1500B reel to reel is nice set dressing for audiophiles!<br /><br />Charles Durning coming unglued while listening to wiretap tapes of prostitutes having (sort of) phone sex. (You'd have to see it, trust me, it's hilarious.)<br /><br />Brian Keith plays against type as a tough guy. (And does it well!)<br /><br />Bernie Casie's preoccupation with Zen.<br /><br />Rachel Ward. WOW! (Where'd she go?)<br /><br />Doc Severinsen and the Tonight Show band play their rears off as usual. (Joe William's guests on vocals. Manhattan Transfer re-recorded "Route 66".) The soundtrack lends class to the whole affair.<br /><br />Need I say more? It might be Reynold's best film ever. <br /><br />(Yeah, he plays himself, as usual, but it works!)<br /><br />Enjoy!
| 1 |
positive
|
My blurred childhood memories have kept the echo of the cult serie of Belphégor in the French 60's... so I was eager to see the big screen adaptation. I should have kept my money and gone for a stroll in the Louvre.<br /><br />The idea of the scenario is still very apt and interesting (the fantom of Le Louvre) but the adaptation is ridiculous. The dialogues hesitate permanently between French irony and serious "American business" without achieving neither but not without sounding asinine.<br /><br />Acting leaves somehow to be desired and special effects are meager compared to what one could expect (low budget ?).<br /><br />What is left of all that. Not much outside a few good shots of Paris ... which is seldom a disappointment.<br /><br />Belphégor was worth more than that.<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
Hope Floats with Sandra Bullock is a real disappointment. The story starts off ok. Her husband cheats on her and she finds out on national television. So she has to rebuild her life. Here it could have gotten interesting or built up in a story line, but you become so bored with it. She moves back with her parents and Harry Connick Jr. who plays Justin begins hitting on her. The two have no real chemistry at all, yet your supposed to get the impression that Justin is in love with her. The movie ends the way you figure it will but you wish it hadn't ended like every other kind like it. They had a good start with this movie and could have turned it into something watchable but instead its a movie that you definitely want to miss.
| 0 |
negative
|
Granny is definitely one of the worst horror movies ever made in the history of cinema.<br /><br />The script was diabolical, so bad in fact that I was almost crying with laughter at some of the things they came out with. The acting was almost as bad, they would have been better off casting traffic cones to play the roles (they would have done a better job). The murders were laughable, the suspense was non existent, the camera work was ineffective and the "major" plot twist at the end was disgustingly inappropriate, it just gets worse and worse.<br /><br />"The Granny" is possibly one of the most unthreatening "villains" caught on film, she looks like she is wearing a cheap mask from the supermarket (the nylon hair caused endless amounts of laughter) and a frilly nightgown. Would you be scared by that??? I certainly wasn't.<br /><br />If you like watching bad movies (see Manos, Troll 2, Michael Bay films  ) then this is a must see. Those who don't like bad movies and don't enjoy laughing at shockingly bad dialogue, avoid like the plague.
| 0 |
negative
|
"Murder Over New York" is fun, but not as good as most of the other Fox Chans. This film would have been better named, "Charlie Chan in New York", the film's working title. This is Toler's chance to play Chan in the Big Apple. There is a lot to like here, though, including guest star Shemp Howard of the Three Stooges.<br /><br />This has one of my favorite Chan sayings, "Coincidence like ancient egg--leave unpleasant odour." Toler and Yung are good in this one and so is the supporting cast. But there is little or no mysterious atmosphere which I look for in these films. Still, it is good to see.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have seen this play many times, from Olivier to Branagh, and this remains the one version that always stands out in my memory. Many actors have captured aspects of this character, but for me, it is always Derek Jacobi's performance they are compared to and all others just come up a bit short.
| 1 |
positive
|
I loved this show. Such talent; and I am so disappointed that it is canceled, after only just beginning. I looked forward to this show all week long. And so sorry for the people who were hoping to be The One. I would have loved to see who would have won. It just began, and in my opinion,it should not have been canceled. I hope these young artist have been viewed by talent scouts, and have the opportunity to reach their goals. I voted, and sat waiting for it to come on; never knowing that it was canceled. And I could not believe that it was. I am amazed that it had low ratings; because it was in my opinion one of the best reality shows on TV.
| 1 |
positive
|
First, I would like to apologize for my rating of "1"... The only reason i give this film such a high rating is that I can't delve into negative integers. All "This is a spoof" musings aside, and while I certainly have tried to give it due consideration, have left me with a certain notion, namely; "This is quite possibly the worst film ever made." On any level and in any plausible quantification of qualitative measurement... Seriously, I tried, I'm just as in to any indie born-for-cult-video-distribution film as the next buff, but seriously, this movie sucked rhino balls...<br /><br />Honestly, if I had directed this "film" I would have seen it as a legitimate cause for suicide.
| 0 |
negative
|
This movie is the funniest danish movie I've ever seen!<br /><br />The plot is funny, surprising and exceptionel. Danish humor is unlike any other, and it gets you every time. The entire audience laughed 90 % of the time....it was incredible. The characters are so well played, and the two actors, Mads mikkelsen and Nikolaj Lie Kaas play their best ever!<br /><br />I would highly recomend seing this movie, you won't regret it, believe me :-)
| 1 |
positive
|
A comedy that spoofs the inspirational sports movies, The Comebacks tells the story of an out-of-luck coach, Lambeau Fields, who takes a rag-tag bunch of college misfits and drives them towards the football championships. In the process, this life-long loser discovers that he is a winner after all by redeeming himself, saving his relationship with his family and friends, and finding that there is indeed, no "I" in "team"!<br /><br />I decided to watch the unrated version for this film. It was thirty minutes longer and I though it may be better than the theatrical release, hearing that people hated this movie. After all, thirty minutes of extra footage can add a whole lot to a movie. Well, I certainly was wrong. It was as bad as the recent "Meet the Spartans" but it was thirty minutes more of torture!<br /><br />Seriously, who makes a close to two hour spoof movie?! A spoof movie is short because if it goes any longer, it would be overkill! Honestly, I love stupid comedies. Heck, I liked "Date Movie," "White Chicks," "Epic Movie," and "Little Man"! I guess when it comes to spoof movies, it is either a hit or miss and this one definitely missed.<br /><br />On the lighter side, from the many jokes in this film, I will say about six or seven made me laugh, even some that made me laugh out loud. But that's not saying much. Following those jokes were more scenes of torture and unfunniness.<br /><br />I can't see how people would say this is not a terrible spoof film. In fact, there is as much product placement in here like Meet the Spartans, there are as many dance sequences, and unfunny jokes. I will say another thing I like about this movie is the songs. They are some very good songs in here. Overall, watch it if you like spoof films. Skip it if you like funny films.
| 0 |
negative
|
I usually can tolerate twisted movies, but this one is really a sick obsessive self-absorbed movie!<br /><br />Firstly, the writer/director is totally a self-absorbed guy full of sick jokes that are not funny at all. Secondly, he is also a sick pervert who manipulates and poisons children's mind! I can't believe my ears when I heard the sick and perverted monologues spoken by the kids!<br /><br />I really feel sorry for Zane Adlum and Devon Matthews. They are both very talented, but fell prey to Eric Schaeffer's dirty little-known movie!<br /><br />And what the hell happened to Eric Mabius' good looking face? I mean, he met this girl that he's supposed to marry, but he wasn't in the wedding! In fact there is this bald guy in his place! Did time really fly that fast?<br /><br />Anyway, don't waste your time to see this movie, unless you want to be poisoned and manipulated by one sick Eric Schaeffer!
| 0 |
negative
|
The plot in Petites Coupures certainly left this viewer dumbfounded.<br /><br />***spoiler***<br /><br />In the space of 48hrs or so, Auteuil's character has an affair with a teenager, loses his wife's affections, attempts to seduce Scott Thomas, is rejected by her goes on to grope yet another female character in the back of a car and then is finally shot for his trouble.<br /><br />***end of spoiler***<br /><br />wha ???<br /><br />The only saving grace in this flick is Kristin Scott Thomas. Similar to Charlotte Rampling, she seems a *natural* to star in French cinema. My hope is that one day François Ozon may cast her in a part where she can show her true talent.<br /><br />There are some fine French films such as the remarkable Le Colonel Chabert begging for a DVD release, yet this is the tripe that gets chosen.<br /><br />Avoid this one.<br /><br />zzzz..
| 0 |
negative
|
Once again I must play something of the contrarian. Most of the reviews for Ab Tak Chappan have been extremely positive. Mine is positive, but only slightly. A 7 out of 10 is equivalent to a "C" letter grade from me.<br /><br />It seems that a lot of the praise is rooted in two factors: One, that Ab Tak Chappan is more realistic than the typical Bollywood film, and two, that it is trying to do things differently.<br /><br />The first point I couldn't care less about. I'm not looking for realism in films, and so I do not score higher for a film that shows a story and characters closer to how I believe the real world to be--I'm a big fan of surrealism, fantasy, absurdism, and so on, although I do not dislike realist films merely for the fact that they're realist.<br /><br />For the second point, I agree that it is commendable to try to do things differently. However, I don't think "originality" versus formulaicism makes for a better or worse film in itself. A film can be "original" and poor, just like a film can be formulaic and excellent. What matters are how well the film does whatever it sets out to do and how enjoyable or aesthetically rewarding that is to the viewer.<br /><br />Ab Tak Chappan is based on the true story of a Mumbai cop named Daya Naik. Naik was an "encounter specialist". Encounter specialists, who could be said to be early instantiations of real world "Judge Dredds", are trained to operate like the criminals and gang members they pursue, and they're basically given a license to kill--effectively acting as policeman, judge, jury and executioner in a matter of moments. Ab Tak Chappan follows the story of Sadhu Agashe (Nana Patekar), the encounter specialist based on Naik. We see him at work, interacting with his fellow encounter specialists and engaging in violence. We see him at home, trying to live a normal life in his less-than-luxurious surroundings. We see him trying to adjust to a new "commissioner" halfway through the film. And we see his odd relationship with a notorious Indian gangster, Don Zameer Zafar (Prasad Purandhare).<br /><br />All of this has the potential to make a fabulous, gritty film. I agree that it's nice to forgo the typical Bollywood musical numbers and romances--not every film needs that stuff; Ab Tak Chappan producer Ram Gopal Varma is famous for leaving music and romances in the background or by the wayside in many films that he's directed or produced. Additionally, Ab Tak Chappan has some good performances--Patekar almost gives off a Death Wish (1974)-era Charles Bronson vibe. It also has admirable cinematography--the hand-held stuff near the beginning of the film was particularly effective, for example. It has a great score that mixes more of a moody Hollywood-sounding action/crime score with traditional Indian instruments and modalities. The violence is well done and gritty.<br /><br />There is also decent exploration of subtexts, including the morality of (having) encounter specialists, the idea of following orders, and so on. The encounter specialists are shown having to largely divorce themselves from ideas of right and wrong. More poignantly, the film questions the merit of blindly following orders. Parallels are drawn between the encounter specialists following orders and, say, members of a country's military, and we're shown what a corrupt situation this can lead to.<br /><br />But (you just knew there was a "But" coming, didn't you?) director Shimit Amin and his scriptwriters have created a story with far too many characters, far too much sprawl, and that moves a bit too slow. All of these problems may be due to Amin and crew looking at the Godfather films, which Ab Tak Chappan has some (at least superficial) resemblances to, although from a policeman's perspective.<br /><br />Most of the encounter specialists we do not get to know very well--these are shallowly drawn characters to say the least, except for Agashe and Jatin Shukla (Nakul Vaid). For one, Narayan, I didn't know who he was until at least halfway through the film. His name is mentioned a number of times, but I'd only get glimpses of him until the scene would change. Then everyone would change clothes by the time they appear again and I'd have to start all over figuring out who Narayan was.<br /><br />The same thing happened with Agashe's first commissioner. The film was already far into the new commissioner before I could figure out the relationships. It seems like there are new characters in every scene. We never learn the stories of most of them. While that might have some artistic merit in that the encounter specialists are mostly killing people they do not know anything about (because they're mostly doing so on orders), since we do not learn much about most of the encounter specialists, either, it's difficult to find characters to care about, and that doesn't exactly make for a gripping film.<br /><br />The primary villain is Zameer. But until about halfway through the film, there's no indication of this. He doesn't get much more screen time than the other villains parading through the film, and he's literally "phoning his performance in"--he's in another location (Dubai), communicating only by telephone for the majority of the film. We don't actually see Zameer doing much. To an extent, the film depends on a couple "twists" that necessitate not showing Zameer doing a number of things, but we could see him do other things, and a lot of the other villains could have been left out.<br /><br />That would have tightened up the film a bit, making it more focused and about a half-hour shorter, both of which would have benefited its impact. This is not an action-packed film by any means. For at least the first 45 minutes or so, I found myself admiring Ab Tak Chappan's considerable style, but saying, "Okay, get on with the story already".
| 1 |
positive
|
One of the best sitcoms to run on Indian television along with Dekh bhai dekh and Idhar udhar. Great acting, well paced and an extremely amusing script made this a truly memorable series. The fun filled opening montage (sung by none other than the inimitable Kishore Kumar)gave a very accurate picture of what one could expect. I used to borrow it from my local video library years after Doordarshan had stopped airing it. I wish Indian television would revert back to serials such as these rather than the asinine saas-bahu soaps and reality television which is all its good for these days. Anyone who's found of genuinely good comedy ought to go and get this series. You'll might also enjoy a couple of Pakistani sitcoms such as ups and downs and aik aur aik which are certainly comparable to India's best.
| 1 |
positive
|
so, i won't disagree with the critics but I really was not all that moved by this movie. i was a little hesitant to rent it,as I am going through some of the same things the protagonist is supposed to be experiencing. yet, i did rent it thinking that I might experience some catharsis, or at the least understand that I am not alone. while i understood the protagonist's irritation with his careless cousin, I didn't feel his internal struggle with isolation as much as I would have liked. i felt that much more emphasis was placed on his disruptive cousin overstaying his welcome. it is a beautifully filmed movie, and I did really appreciate the use of silence to bring out the feeling of isolation.
| 1 |
positive
|
The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.<br /><br />The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")
| 0 |
negative
|
Although I was hoping that I'd like it a little more, this was still certainly an impressive film. There were great performances by all the leads, and the story, while not what I'd call chilling, was still effective and it kept me interested. For me, the best part of this film was the look of the picture, for it always looked cold and damp and it just really seemed to suit the film well. I also thought that the low budget suited this movie, for I don't think that a crisp picture and clear sound would have worked as well in a film this grim. All things considered, it fell a little short of my expectations, but I'm still very glad that I finally sat down to watch this movie.
| 1 |
positive
|
"For a Squadron Leader - normally the only guy trained and equipped for navigation in a squadron and very hard to replace - to risk an expensive plane and himself to pick up a crashed fellow pilot, no matter how close a friend he is, in the face of oncoming enemy troops, is hard to believe, especially when they both have to share a cramped Spitfire cockpit - two into a Skyraider, OK, but a Spit?! Come on, this part of the film is a Biggles adventure, not fitting a film that one is supposed to take seriously!" as said by Tord S Eriksson (Gothenburg, Sweden) is rubbish. Not at all Biggles. One true story of the war comes to mind of two grounded spit pilots, who planned and flew (illegally) a strafing mission over France. One had to crash land and his friend landed his spit under fire, while German infantry was moving in on them, and flew them both out of there. In a spit. They were BOTH severely injured in former fights, one had an artificial leg from the knee down. Now that may sound like something out of Bigles, but it happened. Ill get sources if needed
| 1 |
positive
|
This noisy, dizzying football film from director Oliver Stone seems to have everyone in the cast - well, everyone except William H. Macy, who could have tackled the role played by Mr. Stone, the team doctors, or the "fruitcake" selling cereal. If you're a fan of the foul-mouthed, there are some great, profanity-laden knock-down, drag-out, put-down phrases you can try-out on two-faced friends and way-ward lovers. The film is sometimes good as lively background party atmosphere, especially during the first two hours; it even features some MTV-styled music video scenes.<br /><br />** Any Given Sunday (12/16/99) Oliver Stone ~ Al Pacino, Cameron Diaz, Jamie Foxx, Dennis Quaid
| 0 |
negative
|
This is slightly less sickening than the first two films, but otherwise it's business as usual: a scuzzy, sleazy and unbalanced slice of diseased cinema. Charles Bronson is back, blasting into action when his friend is killed by yobs terrorising the neighbourhood. Crime, you see, is up 11% in the South Belmont area... so what's to be done? A stronger police presence? Tougher jails? Harsher sentences? Nope, the only solution is to send in a loose cannon like Bronson to mete out bloodthirsty revenge or, as the writers would have it, justice: this time he's the personal killing machine of police chief Ed Lauter.<br /><br />The writers bend over backwards to make Kersey the hero, sending the useless cops into the area only to confiscate a weapon from an elderly resident who keeps it for protection, and supplying a scene in which Kersey has his camera stolen and shoots the thief right in the back, to applause from the watching crowd. Capital punishment for theft? Well, okay. The attitude of everyone in the film is that this is a solution, and the dishonest twisting of the characters into ciphers who exist only to cheer Kersey on or back him up is appalling.<br /><br />Sure, these villains are scum, but shouldn't the film leave the audience to make up its mind, rather than slanting the entire thing towards Kersey and his mindless answer? Funnily enough the beleaguered residents don't fear gang reprisals or blame Kersey for any of the violence, which is odd as one character is killed precisely because of Kersey's involvement. At the end of the film they all take guns from their sock drawers and gleefully join in with the massacre, never stopping to think things through or struggle with the thought of having to kill another human being.<br /><br />The atrociously shallow performances don't help Bronson has literally one facial expression throughout and can't even put inflection on the right words. New heights of stupidity are reached here a machine gun? A rocket launcher?! and new lows of misogyny: the movie contrives to desecrate every female character in sight, whether by rape, explosion or throat-slashing; and it sets them up in supremely stupid fashion, like one victim who ventures into the crime-ridden, gang-controlled neighbourhood to ask out a stranger, or another who goes shopping alone at night. This is dreck, pure and simple, mindless garbage put together without style or sense.
| 0 |
negative
|
Burt Kennedy both wrote & directed this western taken from a novel. Kennedy was a well known good writer & director, mostly westerns.<br /><br />Robert Mitchum was a star for over 20 years when he made this. This role was like many he had made already,One can see why he was a big star for so many years.<br /><br />He filled this role easily like a well used glove.<br /><br />The title character is played by Robert Walker Jr. (his father a fine actor Robert Walker--died tragically at age 32---his mother is noted actress Jennifer Jones).<br /><br />Robert was of slight build & even though he had talent only made a few films. (he was in Rita Hayworth's near last film.<br /><br />ROAD TO SALINAS ---the same year & was very good).<br /><br />He looked very much like his father, but seemed to lack his fathers charm. He made only a few more movies. He is still living & I wish him well.<br /><br />Most of his scenes are with another son of a Hollywood great. John Carradine's son David, who is still making movies. they made a nice team.<br /><br />In westerns you always have a female character & usually she is a dance hall performer. (today they call them hookers), Angie Dickinson assays this role nicely. also featured are western stalwarts, John Anderson & Jack Kelly.<br /><br />It was film in Old Tucson )outside of downtown Tucaon Az,. & the scenery is gorgeous.<br /><br />Typical of the older westerns, there is not too much action,there is some good humour & the usual ending shoot out.<br /><br />It is a fast enjoyable 89 minutes.<br /><br />Ratings: *** (out of 10) 84 points(out of 100) IMDb 7 (out of 10)
| 1 |
positive
|
This could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.<br /><br />Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the "bad guy".<br /><br />This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone.
| 0 |
negative
|
A remake can be successful. An adaptation can be successful. It isn't relevant whether its a remake or an adaptation.<br /><br />A good movie is a good movie and a poor movie is a poor movie, regardless.<br /><br />Sarkar, I am afraid, was a very poor movie. First of all, just by making characters look dangerous, or macho, they don't bring in an aura about them.<br /><br />What was so brilliant about Nagre(Amitabh Bacchan's character) that we should have been in aura of his 'power' and what showed the 'benevolence' of the character? Nothing.<br /><br />This fact was said by a commentator and Amitabh kept giving facial expressions. Now Amitabh can give brilliant facial expressions but why should it mean any thing if there is no history or story to go with it.<br /><br />There wasn't proper charecterisation of the characters who worked under 'sarkar' too. Just because a man had spectacles, why should we assume he is wise. ] The flow of the movie was generally dullbecause scenes from the Godfather were created (like the policeman slapping Abhishek Bacchan), the older brother being killed by Abhishek (like Fredo was killed on instructions of Pacino) but too much was sought to be packed into the movie with too little story and depth to go with it. That was indeed the problem.<br /><br />If you try to pack 3 hours of intricate detail like a Godfather in 2 hours and that too with few dialogues, what you get is a highlights show from a cricket match, never making the full impact watching a full match will make.
| 0 |
negative
|
Critters 4 ranks as one of the greatest films of the twentieth century. The word classic has never been so aptly used as in describing this mind-blowing epic. I agree that the original Critters is the best of the series, but the claustrophobic tension of the space station in which Critters 4 is set really must be seen to be believed. I strongly recommend this to anyone interested in seeing one of twentieth century's major film landmarks.
| 1 |
positive
|
Okay, first the good thing : If you saw the trailer then you know about 100% of the "scary/jumpy" moment of the movie. And yes, it's a good thing because you should just stick to the trailer and not go see the movie.<br /><br />I now understand why Sarah Michelle Gellar did not stay alive in that movie for very long, she did not want to associate her name with this production. I wish her the best for "The Return".<br /><br />You have to follow 3 different story in this movie, and they are all disconnected (in time and meaning) until the very end. And even then it's a very bad climax. And god forbid even open the door to another sequel.<br /><br />Yes, in this movie, "The Rage and Fury" is on the move. No need to visit the house anymore, just be close to someone who when inside and you're done. It's not a curse anymore it's kinda like a virus. Go inside the house, get scared, return back to USA and spread the joy in your apartment building.<br /><br />It's not that difficult to follow, but you just don't really care about anyone. The plot line is slim to none and you have many scene in this movie where you just laugh and shake your head... Milk anyone?? I saw Ju-On 2 at the Fantasia movie festival last summer, different story completely but much better than this dud. It's not a remake, but this time, maybe they should have simply done a remake....<br /><br />If you must see it, wait for the DVD.
| 0 |
negative
|
I'm not sure what I can add that hasn't already been said in some of these other fine, and quite hilarious, comments, but Ill try.<br /><br />So you know the plot: there is a bed possessed by a demon that "absorbs" and selectively disintegrates the bodies of whoever (or whatever) lays on it with its orange soda-filled body. We have the man, in some scenes looking uncannily like Robert Smith of The Cure, hanging out inside the wall commenting on the goings-on, and we have our various victims that just cant resist the comfort of this mystical bed.<br /><br />This is no ordinary bed. No sirree Bob! Not only does it eat people, but it cleans up after itself, draws the covers back, and it even makes itself. Who wouldn't want a bed like that? It can even use its sheets as a rudimentary "lasso" to wrangle escaped victims back in (especially if they're taking up half the length of the film to try and escape).<br /><br />Our "main" story (if you can call it that), is about these three girls who go out to this remote area to house-sit(??). I don't recall exactly, but it doesn't really matter though as there are plenty of things that defy convention that you just have to give in and accept. The dialogue in the film is like no other; the characters talk to each other seemingly by telepathy as their mouths never seem to move and there is a constant echo. One of our girls believes she isn't liked by the rest of "the gang" and makes sure to tell us all her feelings on this matter through an echoey voice-over, but we don't care; character development was thrown out the window a LONG time before in this film so why start now? There are scenes when the bed laughs, snores, crunches, and makes various other noises that we assume judging by our cast's non-reaction to said noises, cant be heard. This and the telepathy makes the issue of diegesis very difficult to ascertain...but thats OK....this is Death Bed: The Bed That Eats and it defies all logic so its OK. It makes for a lush dreamy quality to this most bizarre film If you buy (hehe buy...did I say "buy"?) this DVD, make sure to check out the introduction by the director. He explains that the filming of this "flick" started in 1972, didn't wrap up until 1977, he shopped it for a few years with no luck, and then fast forward 26 years to 2003 it gets released on DVD. Supposedly someone somewhere had a print of this in some other country and made bootleg after bootleg of it and it was quite by chance, on a message board no less, that our director found evidence that people knew, and gasp! cared, about his little-known film. Its from there that he decided to give it a shot and release it. I'm glad he did. Once you've even so much as heard the title to this film, you MUST see it. I for one am going to buy this and I'm going to preach its gospel around the world...starting with this comment
| 1 |
positive
|
If this film had been directed by DW Griffith or Stanley Kubrick, it would be recognized for what it is: a cinematic masterpiece, told with depth and subtlety and passion, a film with no equal in the visual realm. It is unremittingly stunning and also very brutal in its depiction of our great heritage of greed and annihilation. And of course, what the reviewers could not abide is it doesn't tell a simple narrative dick-and-jane tale like 99% of hollywood output. Its characters are complex and confused by their passions and thoughts, fears and emotions. They even appear to be thinking, something your average movie reviewers do not understand and cannot abide, so they destroyed it. See the original uncut wide-screen version. It is stunning.
| 1 |
positive
|
Sometimes, but very rarely, a movie tells a story so well that it almost becomes difficult. This movie tells several stories so well simultaneously that it was the first few times a movie I could not watch to completion. It was too real....and the characters SO STRONG that watching it became a personal struggle. Seeing these three men and their families deal with their hardships, one in particular, often hit me too hard. Now, I have watched in its entirety without interruption several times, and I realize what I always suspected. This movie is a masterpiece. The writing, the acting, the blending of several stories without being even the least bit choppy, everything about this movie is exceptional. Seven Academy Awards? No wonder, it certainly must have deserved them.
| 1 |
positive
|
This is better then the first. The movie opens up with Sheriff Sam .Then, Sam and Anne pack there bags up and head to the Tropicana while Jack tags along.<br /><br />People are shot, get glass through necks, get squished by anvils, get stabbed with icicles, eyes gouged out, head explosions, drownings, hangings, lobsters shoved into faces, slit throats, freezing to death, killed by snowballs, arms are ripped off, melted by anti-freeze, icicles down necks, hit in face with pots and pans, fingers getting' bitten off, icicles through mouths, bitten on the neck, exploding people, toasted snowballs, and shoved in blenders.<br /><br />The snowballs are hilarious, they put it into a blender and turn it on, then it says 'that was fun' they put in in a waffle thing and it gets burnt. <br /><br />This is just a great movie. Then they start thinking of other ways to kill it, and the snowball replies, 'that's not nice'<br /><br />It was worth then ten bucks spent to buy this.<br /><br />10 out of 10 stars.
| 1 |
positive
|
*** This comment may contain spoilers *** Warning: this does contain spoilers I have seen some pretty lame films in my day. And that only stands to reason seeing as I see about 80 films a year. I would have to say that out of those 80 films I see at the theater, maybe 5 are really really good, 15 or 20 are not that great, 40 or 50 are okay and then maybe 5 or 10 are absolutely terrible. Here On Earth falls into a category unto itself. This is one of the most predictable, vehement, despicable films I have ever seen. It is loaded with unlikable characters, maudlin situations about after-school-special kinds of topics and enough fluff in here to make THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS look like American BEAUTY. And I am not being unfair. This is an awful film.<br /><br />This is the story of a rich guy, a poor girl, a poor guy and a small town that makes fresh cookies every day for all of it's town folk. Are you getting warm and fuzzy yet? Let me continue. One day, the rich snot comes waltzing into town with his new graduation present that his dad has bought for him and he insults the pretty girl at the diner, almost gets in a fight with her long time boyfriend and then races him and destroys the little diner that she works at. So he is sentenced to a summer in the small town where he and the boyfriend have to fix the diner together. What this does is gives us plenty of opportunity to see Chris Klein with no shirt on so we can understand why the girl at the diner would fall for him. He has abs!!! Oh and he is rich!!! And.... he is the biggest jerk with no respect for anyone. He is James Dean, he is a rebel that doesn't give a damn!! He is rude to everyone in town, he doesn't want to associate with anyone that is trying to be nice to him and he acts like a spoiled rich brat. But Leelee Sobieski still falls for him. There is no reason given as to why she does, she just does. Oh, pardon me, that's right I forgot to mention that he likes the same poet that she does. Well if that doesn't get you wet then I don't know what will.<br /><br />Here On Earth also has some of the most predictable moments I've ever been privy to in film. There was one point when I left the theater to get some popcorn and read the graffiti on the wall of the bathroom and I told my fiancée exactly what was going to happen in the next ten minutes. Upon my return she just laughed and said I was right, even when I said that there was going to be a dancing scene. And furthermore, the disease that she suddenly contracts is cancer. This is the most beautiful cancer patient I have ever seen. Have you ever watched a cancer patient die slowly? They lose weight, they lose their hair, their gums begin to rot. It is not a pretty picture. Sobieski glows after she contracts cancer, like she is pregnant. What an insult to people that have watched love ones die slowly from this disease. And how do you contract knee cancer from falling down in the field?<br /><br />Now I realize I have seen way too many movies and this causes my cynicism to run rampant at times, but this is ridiculous. There wasn't one thing to like about this film or the Chris Klein character. He is a jerk, he is obnoxious and he never once tries to make peace with anyone around him. Here On Earth is not only a bad film, it is an irresponsible one. This received a 4.2 on the IMDb voting chart, and that is way too high. This is an embarrassment to screen writing and whoever gave the green light to this being made should not only lose their job, but he or she should have to promise never to step foot near a script again.<br /><br />0 out of 10, and that is being generous. This film should be shown at film schools as how not to write and direct a film.<br /><br />If you are bored and really need something to do and your choices are cleaning a farm full of cow manure or watching this film, choose cleaning the cow manure. It'll smell better and you'll feel like you've done something good with your two hours.
| 0 |
negative
|
What is enjoyable about watching random movies at random times is that one never quite knows what to expect or where the next great piece of cinema will emerge. Recently, my viewing has taken the form of stapled classics like "Raging Bull" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but this time my VCR took me away from modern conveniences and plopped me right down in front of Lionel Jeffries' "The Railway Children". This is a skillfully directed film about three youthful children, a mysterious event with their father, relocation to the open fields of England, and eventually the rewards inherited by merely waving at trains. At first glance this seemingly simple children's film doesn't seem all that hopeful as it has been lost on VHS rarity for some time, but within the first fifteen minutes of this film, one realizes that it is more than just your common place children's movie "Railway Children" was created during a time when purity was more than just saying "no", when family meant everything, and where adventure was ready for you around every railroad track bend. This is more than an adorable film, it has amazing cinematic techniques used, it keeps the regular viewer glued to the screen with unanswered questions, and gives three perfect companions to follow along this 110-minute voyage. "Railway Children" is a lost treasure that needs to be seen by families and film aficionados alike.<br /><br />There are several moments that stand out proudly in "Railway Children" that transform this from mediocrity to excellence one happens to be our three children; Bobby, Phyllis, and Peter. Modern cinema assures us that these three children cannot provide ample darkness, laughter, and insight into the world surrounding them, but Jeffries' children prove otherwise. From intelligently spoken lines (both from acting and the script), to sincere kindness and dedication to this small village, all the way to the final meeting at that train stop; these children are more than just child stars advancing a story, they are leading us with emotion, persuasion, and a realism unseen by today's children. There is more imagination packed in this small VHS than I have witnessed in film for years. A favorite scene that could have been handled with generality, of which I have seen in other films, was the birthday scene for Bobby. The way that Jeffries floats her between guests and gifts was exciting and refreshing, keeping our eyes excited about each scene, as well as our mind. Another scene that captured my attention was when the children were working on gifts for Perks, when asking one man for a gift, Jeffries has him merely state, "No, I will not. I don't like Perks." The children's reaction is hilarious providing moments for both children and adults to enjoy throughout. Filmed in the 1970s, this tiny feature provides genuine laughs than most modern comedies. It is a creative film coupled with great choreography and direction.<br /><br />That is to say, as much as I loved this film, it wasn't perfect. Jeffries does a great job of keeping us guessing as to what happened to father, but it did feel like the event occurred, the children were kept in the dark, and it suddenly resolved itself by the end. More detail to father, not much more, would have solidified his character and given us the opportunity to see more of the children's reaction. Also, there is one scene in this film, one of those grandiose wide-screen shots of the English countryside that is just breath-taking, but when looking a bit closer you happen to see cars in the background. It made me chuckle, but didn't distract too much from the overall picture. Cinema like this is sorely missed today, and oddly, it seems that only the British have the gumption to produce it. Films like "Love, Actually" or "Vicar of Dibley" demonstrates the power and excitement for community towns, places where everyone knows everyone and we aren't afraid to be neighborly. This is more of a theme that American audiences could have more of more understanding of what is happening outside, instead of remaining secluded to your own events.<br /><br />Overall, I loved "Railway Children". I didn't know what to expect when I first put it in the VHS player, but from the opening scene, to the exploding train set, to Perks birthday, Jeffries proved that he could handle the most child-friendly story with ease. His ability to make the child actors feel like real characters, to involve the adults less, and to involve the children like they were adults was outstanding. This is a film to be viewed as a strong alternative to anything Disney releases. The continually occurring themes of friendship, kindness to strangers, and forgiveness blasts through the TV with grace and power. "Railway Children" is more than just a kid's film; it is a feature that should be a staple to modern audience viewing. Not only does it give a great visual to the English countryside, but it also teaches (and shows) how life would be greater with an emphasis on imagination and courage, instead of fighting any CGI bad guys.<br /><br />Grade: **** ½ out of *****
| 1 |
positive
|
This film is bundled along with "Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though "Il Prezzo del Potere" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.<br /><br />As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.<br /><br />In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.<br /><br />Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Man with the Golden Arm, Otto Preminger's controversial, panoramic crime drama, plays itself out among the mental descriptions of its living and architectural occupants, in rhythmic, lashing arrangement. Opening the film, a closeup from within a bar of Frankie looking in through the window, already tells us to the prominence that the protagonist's subjective experience will grasp. Pulled in the direction of increasingly slighter spaces, the film shuts itself off, as the local gangster's long-drawn-out poker game shuts itself from the daylight, bolts itself in, as Sinatra's Frankie Machine has himself locked in a room in the celebrated scene of his harrowing struggle to overcome his habit. In delving into the shapes and faces of its jazzy urban haven, the visual traffic in The Man with the Golden Arm characterizes skewed psychological circumstances, forming an overpowering environment, as maintained by the recurring tracking shots into closeups of Frankie's eyes.<br /><br />The grace of this fiery drama, striking as early as the exciting opening crane shot, displays the command over the perceptible world that studio production allows. The wonderfully dilapidated urban sets define an independent place with no beginnings or ends, an indeterminate state, the sort that in reality hardly last as long as this skid row seems to before being gentrified or leveled. The flair of certain performances, particularly Robert Strauss's as the wonderfully named underworld gambling boss Schwiefka and Arnold Stang as Frankie's trusty four-eyed lapdog, becomes this fiery surreal feature pleasingly. The premise of drug addiction, Sinatra's powerhouse performance, Elmer Bernstein's infectious, forceful jazz score and Saul Bass's famous, influential and controversial opening sequence centering on the animated paper cut-out of a heroin addict's arm ensured that, in its era, The Man with the Golden Arm presses forward upon the cause for realism in the still reticent Hollywood. It is impressionistic and subjective, as I say, but its intent, its force and its spirit are much closer to home.<br /><br />What absorbs me the most in this film is its aspect as a gangster film. It has the illegal card games, short cons, the fights, the guns, the double-crosses, characters on the lam, a femme fatale, a stunningly sexy gun moll, the shady nightclubs and urban landscape, but it does more than exploit this environment for entertainment. Really, it is the perfect environment, and genre, in which to tell this story, a crime-ridden urban borough where it's all too comfortable to escape through a bottle or two, or three, or four, or drugs, a transient dose that really just functions to keep one in obscurity from any enlightenment and all the clear scenarios the world could bid.
| 1 |
positive
|
For me it's a case you'll never understand if you didn't live it.. so read this to know why would i have such unlimited anger..<br /><br />I heard a lot about (Bruce Lee).. my father loved him.. my mother who hates any minor shot of violence loved him ! and how she talks till now about his " The Big Boss" aka "Fists of Fury" , and the experience of watching it at the Egyptian movies 1973 with all the gigantic success.. further to that I watched a real good movie about him (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story - 1993).. so I found myself crying : where are your movies Bruce ?!! <br /><br />I went to the video store.. and it was dumb move.. (you'll know why !).. and waw.. I found a lot of Bruce Lee movies.. I selected one named (Bruce Lee in New Guinea) <br /><br />I did it to myself and watched that one.. OH GOD please forgive your servant.. I harmed myself but with no intended decision.. I wouldn't do it if I knew its evil damaging !! its mythical level of hideousness !! <br /><br />After that I didn't understand at all what's the big fuss about Bruce Lee as a great immortal star ???.. why anybody would care whether he is here or there.. this hero (whom I've watched !) is not that gifted and not that genius and of course is not that sexy ??? <br /><br />Until my father saw THIS star and he asked me to pause at any of his close ups and after he examined his face a little.. he told me in a very definitive way "this is not Bruce Lee" ! so I became too confused to ask : who's this silly guy anyway ??!! <br /><br />It was 2001.. 2 years after my first entry to the IMDb database.. therefore I tended to it immediately to know who the hell is that man.. and I discovered the truth.. he isn't Bruce Lee.. No my dear friends.. he is Bruce Li !!! <br /><br />And what a huge.. so huge difference !! I just want to know who can love that bad clone ?? Or god forbid .. love his repulsive movies.. I watched 2 of them and couldn't bear finishing the third ! <br /><br />After that I ignored all our video stores because its cheap cunning (writing on the posters that THIS IS Bruce Lee !??).. and I've got the original.. The one and only Bruce Lee who is such a great star indeed and Oh BOY he certainly had the right to immortality.. and no less.
| 0 |
negative
|
Having only seen five episodes of the show before this, (I've been watching the repeats on BBC Two) I haven't really had much experience of the League, but as a fledgling fan as well as a massive fan of British comedy, I can say this film is hilarious. Seeing Herr Lipp, (who I had not seen on screen before the film) Briss and Geoff on the big screen was a great comedy experience. Being on screen is something that the League take full advantage of, with heads blowing up, (it'll come as a surprise who it is) and gruesome murders with random Middle Ages style battles all the way.<br /><br />Geoff is easily the funniest character of the three protagonists in this film, because he has the best one liners and overall behaviour, just like in the series. One of my only disappointments with the film was not hearing Geoff shout "Well now I've got this gun" even once, (even though there is a build-up to it in one part of the film.) The film itself overall is, to use the phrase everyone else does, Pythonesque and it's very reminiscent of films like "Life of Brian." Appearances from Tubbs and Edward were welcome, but Papa Lazarou's line "Hello Daves" cracked me up more than anything said by them, (Lazarou's probably my favourite Vasey character after Tubbs and Edward.) It's got quite a poignant ending with one of the main character being killed off and I can only hope this is not the League's last on-screen Vasey venture. With Gatiss mentioning the possibility of another series or film, I'm now very excited. This is a film I will see again, partly because the projector died towards the end, leaving out 10 minutes or so of the film, but mainly because it's inventive and hilarious. I'm not really bothered if it's not as good as the TV series, because I loved it.<br /><br />One thing though, if you've never seen the League, you'll still love it, but Dave knows what you'll think about the people who make this stuff up. As Tubbs or Edward might put it, it's a local film, for local people, and a precious thing at that.<br /><br />**** out of ***** (4/5)
| 1 |
positive
|
While the camerawork was certainly "funky" - perhaps one dutch-roll short of "stoned" - the premise of the film was fantastic. It really took a scathingly satirical (in the true traditional of Hal Hartley) look at God, Jesus and Devil. The interaction of Jesus and Satan provides some hilarious scenes... Even the monologues of Jesus were great - this was by far the best Jesus I've even seen. So laidback, Zen-like, Son-of-God-ish but still such a nice guy. On one level this is a very general look on the paradoxes of Christianity, but yet there is still a personal level, where you can relate to Jesus Christ without having a God-Complex (thanx to Martin Donovan and Hal Hartley).
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie is TRASH from the word go. First, it gives an account of a season that took place 16 YEARS AGO! Who cares? This movie had about as much depth as a bottle cap. It makes a complex person like Bob Knight into a cartoon character.<br /><br />Swearing doesn't bother me, but I'm still amazed that ESPN showed a movie with more cursing than a Kevin Smith movie on a basic cable channel. The F-word was dropped at least 20 times before the first commercial break.<br /><br />This movie was terrible and anyone associated with it should be embarrassed. I rate this on the same level as Jaws IV - The Revenge and Everybody Wins...2 movies that are in the Crapfest Hall of Fame.
| 0 |
negative
|
Now don't get me wrong, i love a good film and after watching The Thin Red Line (and loving it) I was eager to track down Terrence Malicks two earlier films, and, having just watched Days of Heaven, my enthusiasm to see Badlands has virtually disappeared.<br /><br />I have noted much rave about the beautiful photography, but i saw this film on a terribly old vhs tape which made it look pretty awful. All i can say is i hope the photography was superb, because it would have been one of the only things of interest in this film. Not since the Replacement Killers have i fallen asleep during a film. This film felt so long (and it wasn't!), the editing was choppy and disjointed, the storyline non-existent, the voice over was an incoherent ramble, the characters weakly developed, and the whole thing was uninvolving. I know that Malick was uncertain of how to do the film. He consequently shot a heck of a lot of footage then spent around two years editing in an attempt to piece it all together. This is very apparent on screen. Everything looks chopped up, every time a scene seemed to gain some momentum (or some character development) it would obtrusively cut to boring scenes of people doing boring things. It was as if someone had tried to cut together a story out of stock footage of people farming. The few good points are the music and the chase scene near the end, but those things are no where near enough to maintain interest. I would normally let a bad film pass by without being too vocal but when it is so highly over-rated something must be said.<br /><br />Maybe a farmer would like it...?
| 0 |
negative
|
I should have gone without seeing the movie after reading the review here. I saw the whole movie by fast forwarding and ended in 25 minutes. though its a low budget movie it could have been made better. <br /><br />The movie starts more like a thriller and in few minutes it tells you that you should switch off immediately. And why was the movie named "crash landing" when it was landed so well in such a bad climate. <br /><br />Without any acting, all the characters where just moving or doing like kids.<br /><br />And should not forget to comment on the joker - the main hijacker who would have been more suitable if this movie was a full time comedy.
| 0 |
negative
|
"SHUT THE FRONT DOOR" That's what I said when I was told that Blockbuster got a new movie in called Snakes on a Train. Okay, maybe that's not exactly what I said, but you get the point. I didn't need to know who was in the movie, or anything else. All I knew was that I am renting this movie.<br /><br />I probably should have asked what it was about though. In retrospect, I don't know if I would have really wanted to watch a movie about a Mayan curse that causes a woman to give internal birth to snakes and have them spit out of her mouth. Nor would I want to see a movie that features a guy who looks strangely enough like a pedophilic version of Leif Garrett.<br /><br />Anyways, while the curse might be interesting on some levels (well, maybe not), there was still promise of these annoying characters getting eaten or at the very least, killed by snakes. So I was willing to sit through the first hour of very little happening other than a Texas Ranger forcing a girl into a nice little titty grope so she can keep her cocaine, or the Hispanic shaman that likes to occasionally stab people. But then, all hell broke loose, and the girl started to spit out more and more snakes.<br /><br />*SPOILER ALERT* So everything's going well at the end, and I'm willing to overlook the fact that some of these snakes all of the sudden turned out to be 25 feet long. After all, people are getting eaten, so it's all good. But then all of the sudden, and I'm not going to tell you how because that would ruin the best part, one of the snakes is about 300 feet long. Then it proceeds to squeeze and devour the train, with all the graphic artistry of Serpentaur from the old GI Joe cartoons. Unfortunately, I could not make a Nemesis Enforcer connection with this movie. Anyways, so you would think that a snake that big, who ate a train, would be pretty unstoppable. Well not if you know your Mayan voodoo rocks and have the ability to summon tornadoes from heaven. Yeah, that's all I'll say about that.<br /><br />In short, this movie is bad. Really bad to the point where you might be numb after watching this, or your brain might hurt. I didn't give this a one, because no matter how stupid it was, it still wasn't as bad as Date Movie. So if you like camp or badly constructed B horror movies, this is the one for you. If you think this will actually be cool like its bigger, more infamous brethren, just walk away from the box if you see it. And I'll leave you with a quote from the movie that should basically sum it all up.<br /><br />"Snakes can't get on a train!" Because that's just silly. Not like they make stops or anything....
| 0 |
negative
|
The Adventures of Sebastian Cole is about a boy named Sebastian (Adrian Grenier) who fancies himself becoming a writer at some point, given he actually puts effort into it. This movie is presumably the years where he gets his material for writing, the adventure years, hence the title and the previous quote. In it we experience the very typical coming of age stories and warnings of loves, drugs, and sex...changes. Yeah, there's a slight twist here that is very interesting, and that is that Sebastian's step dad (Clark Gregg) very early on makes a rough decision to get a sex-change that has a huge impact on Sebastian's family and his relationship with his step-dad.<br /><br />Clark Gregg plays Hank/Henrietta, Sebastian's step-father and is very good in the part, very believable without being over the top, which is a route this film could've taken rather easily. Thankfully they didn't. Adrien Grenier, who I'm only familiar with from Entourage, is also very good in his part as Sebastian, and together, he and Gregg have a great relationship on screen. It's always quite engaging to watch these guys (?) relationship as it develops and is genuinely heartbreaking at times.<br /><br />And that's the best of what this film has to offer. Unfortunately, it brings with it some mediocre camera work, direction, and cinematography. It's not bad, but it's a far cry from being good, or memorable in the slightest. The characters are also thinly written, and it's clear from the get go how most of the arcs will pan out. The only truly fascinating character through and through is Clark Gregg's Hank/Henrietta. I've already said Grenier did well acting-wise, but the character of Sebastian is not only not engaging, but is completely unlikeable. I don't honestly see why anyone in the audience would route for his character in anything he does. He mopes, whines, cheats, lies, and lacks any aspirations other than to be a complete slacker. It'd be different if he was maybe a side-character or comic relief, but to have him as the main focus and to be asked to take the character seriously? Come on.<br /><br />And I don't really hold it against this film, but I just want to say...pick a different song in all these films, Hollywood! No more "Where Is My Mind" by the Pixies, we all know it's a good song, stop using it in every other film!<br /><br />I feel like I could just keep tearing more and more of this film apart, but in all honesty I didn't hate it. I just didn't really care for it, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The Adventures of Sebastian Cole isn't a bad or boring film, it's just not a very good or engaging one either. It's very uneven and the script could've used quite a bit of work. I guess the point of the film is to be a loose sort of look at the life of a writer before he made it, and it worked...if that writer put out pieces of fiction that I wouldn't want to read.
| 0 |
negative
|
A delight from start to finish.<br /><br />If you don't like the Muppets, then I just have to feel sorry for you. This terrific film doesn't simply cash in on the Muppets' popularity -- it's a well-conceived and well-written film in its own right. It's got great songs, and it has that thread of wistful melancholy that was always present in Jim Henson's creations and which is most personified in the character of Kermit the Frog. I always responded to this as a kid, and it's what makes the Muppets still enjoyable to me as an adult when other material aimed at children drives me crazy.<br /><br />A huge cast of big names appearing in cameos makes this film feel like a kiddie-sized version of "Around the World in 80 Days," except that it's about 80 times better.<br /><br />Grade: A
| 1 |
positive
|
I love Juan Piquer-Simón! He's my absolute favorite bad-movie director and, throughout his whole career, he incompetently tried to cash in on simply every successful contemporary trend in the horror and fantasy genres. After the big hit that was "Superman", J.P made his own and hilarious "Supersonic Man", he picked in on the violent slasher-movie madness with the insane "Pieces" and he really over-trumped himself with "The Return of E.T.", the unofficial and downright laughable sequel to Spielberg's SF-blockbuster. "The Rift" is obviously inspired by the series of profitable underwater monster movies like "The Abyss" and "Deepstar Six". From start to finish, you can amuse yourself by spotting all the stolen ideas and shameless rip-offs of these (and other) classics. When a completely new and fancy type of submarine vanishes near the deep Dannekin rift, a second mission with U-boat designer Wick Hayes on board is sent out to investigate what really happened to Siren One. In the dark depths of the ocean, the rescue mission discovers an underwater cavern where the government secretly experiments with mutant sea-creatures. The monsters are quite aggressive but there's also the danger of a government enemy among the crew members... "The Rift" is a forgettable film, but it nevertheless has some ingenious though very dodgy monster models. Fans of blood and gore won't complain, neither, as the beastly attacks are quite gruesome and merciless. The acting is very wooden although many of the cast names can definitely do better. It's advisable that you simply enjoy the clichés and gory effects in the "The Rift" because, if you start contemplating about the screenplay, you'll find that it makes absolutely no sense.
| 0 |
negative
|
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** What's going on here ?<br /><br />Barbara Hershey, looking decidedly unsexy - as if she'd stolen her granny's spare wig - puts in an unconvincing performance as a woman who kills the wife of a man she has had an affair with 'in self defence' after hitting her forty odd times with an axe.<br /><br />Like Lizzy Borden, she is acquitted but after the most unconvincing argument ever presented to a jury by the representative of a supposedly 'innocent' defendant I have ever seen.<br /><br />Lizzy Borden took an axe and gave her father forty whacks When she saw what she'd done - she pleaded self defence<br /><br />I don't think so<br /><br />I find the defendants guilty of screening an unconvincing portrayal and have no alternative but to award this film a sentence of 4 out of 10 (which would have been lower but for the previous good behaviour of some of those involved)<br /><br />
| 0 |
negative
|
This adaptation for TV was a wonderful vehicle for Bill Irwin to show his ability to perform physical humor. With the backdrop of a struggle between an actor and his writer/director, Bill uses his clowning antics to showcase a variety of skills including hat tricks, pantomime, dance and various physical devices.<br /><br />Although it takes a big swipe at the entertainment industry and his craft, it is engrossing for people of all walks and ages.<br /><br />This work was televised as a PBS special. Bill performed a piece of it on the Tonight Show, but out of context it did not go over well.
| 1 |
positive
|
This movie examines the now infamous Wannsee Conference where top Nazis gathered to discuss the organisation and implementation of the "Final Solution" First off, I want to say I was amazed to see Kenneth Branagh play a Nazi. With the slicked back blonde hair, he certainly looked the part but he didn't really act the part well. There was none of the menace & cruelty and in the end, he came out looking like a grinning cheerleader, keeping the meeting going. The real Heydrich would not have let the conference get out of control the way it did in the film.<br /><br />The best performance of all was undoubtedly Colin Firth who played Dr William Stuckart, the man who wrote the 1935 Nuremberg race laws and who gave "legal respectibility" to everything the Nazis did. Firth's performance was stunning, the main vocal opponent to what Heydrich was proposing. The best part of all was when he was verbally dressing down one of the Nazi thugs. The thug muttered "I'll remember you" and Firth replies "you should! I'm very well-known!!" The film is historically accurate but let's boil it down to what it really is - 90 minutes of a group of men around a table discussing, shouting and bragging. There's no excitement, no real conflicts (except the brief argument). It's just 90 minutes of talking! Same room, same table, same people.<br /><br />I'm not sure if the DVD is worth the money. I for one felt short-changed.
| 0 |
negative
|
If you want to see a great little horror comedy with an eerie feel to it this is the one. If you are expecting a blood and guts gore flick thats going to scare your pants off- then this isn't the one for you.<br /><br />For the budget that this movie was filmed on, the music was particularly amazing! Even though the film was filmed on a bargain budget the music and audio was definitely better than most movies with a huge budget!<br /><br />The story was truly well done and the director is to be commended. There is an almost perfect blend of comedy to horror in this movie! The acting is top notch and leaves room to make a sequel which I am definitely holding out for! I have no doubt that this movie will become an instant cult classic.<br /><br />In a nutshell this movie chronicles the life story of a boy who enters into the career of becoming a grave-robber. It tells the story in flashback of each of the more fantastic experiences that the robber duo encounters. Vampires to Zombies and even aliens! Our stars start out as simple grave-robbers stealing for jewellery but quickly become body snatchers for a mad doctor (Angus Scrim) who requires bodies for his medical practise. When the duo find a way to have a vampire dispatch their cruel employer the grave-robbers discover that trafficking in undead corpses is much more profitable than just stealing regular dead bodies. The only problem is that there is another gang called the house of Murphy that is competing for the same undead corpses- and thats where both grave-robbing gangs clash head to head with dire consequences.<br /><br />This movie is one of the most refreshing and exciting horror comedies that I have seen in years and reminds me of the Evil Dead. Don't miss this one, you will regret it!
| 1 |
positive
|
I have watched Farscape from first episode to now, and I will continue to watch it! The setting and the characters are amazing and the plots are great. The show really keeps me on the edge of my seat and when the show goes off after an hour I keep hoping it will be another hour!
| 1 |
positive
|
Honestly awful film, bad editing, awful lighting, dire dialog and scrappy screenplay.<br /><br />The lighting at is so bad there's moments you can't even see what's going on, I even tried to playing with the contrast and brightness so I could see something but that didn't help.<br /><br />They must have found the script in a bin, the character development is just as awful and while you hardly expect much from a Jean-Claude Van Damme film this one manages to hit an all time low. You can't even laugh at the cheesy'ness.<br /><br />The directing and editing are also terrible, the whole film follows an extremely tired routine and fails at every turn as it bumbles through the plot that is so weak it's just unreal.<br /><br />There's not a lot else to say other than it's really bad and nothing like Jean-Claude Van Damme's earlier work which you could enjoy.<br /><br />Avoid like the plaque, frankly words fail me in condemning this "film".
| 0 |
negative
|
The movie is really cool, I thought. It sticks to the original game quite well, and some of the battle scenes are depicted in such high detail, it's incredible. I thought the movie could have been a little better if they'd give you a little more information before the end, but trying to figure out what's going on is what hooks on you this movie.<br /><br />The CG is beautiful, I don't think they could have done a better job graphics wise. Every little detail, the way they move, the way their swords look, everything is perfect. The way they make the characters look is almost like they're real people.<br /><br />The music was great, and I found it entertaining to listen to just how much of it was remixed from the original game, with new instruments and effects.<br /><br />All and all, I'd recommend this movie to anyone that enjoys fast paced action and a good storyline. I would definitely play the game before I'd watch the movie though.
| 1 |
positive
|
I've never made one of these before, but this movie was literally so bad I had to say something about it.<br /><br />I'm all for independent film-making as the past year has seen of the worst (in my opinion) of Hollywood's showings, the mainstream just seems to have lost touch with what making good films is all about. That being said movies like this really give independent film a bad reputation.<br /><br />The characters are boring and too stupid to empathize with. The direction is horrible, the plotting is horrible, the plot itself is horrible, stay away, far away. Only one brief scene featuring a female's nude breasts, and even that wasn't worth a second look.<br /><br />The scariest thing about this movie is the idea of ever having to watch it again. I gave it a 2 and not a 1 simply because the actors were visible and the sound was audible - it earns one point for each of those traits.
| 0 |
negative
|
Square really landed this one. They didn't try to please everyone and instead focused exclusively on Final Fantasy 7 fans. And boy, are those going to be happy fans when they see this movie! The story might not be all that interesting or credible but it ties in neatly with the story of the game and has several honest-to-god funny moments!! A total surprise there and a welcome one too<br /><br />There are lots of cameos and funny references to the game too. And most important of all: The fighting scenes rock so hard they could cut through diamond! They are truly the total awesomeness and would have made the movie worth it even if everything else sucked. I mean, they are some of the best ever created PERIOD.<br /><br />See this movie. Bye.<br /><br />PS: I know my review sounds like the ravings of a teenage girl. It was, like, totally what I intended.
| 1 |
positive
|
Malcolm McDowell diagnoses Megan Gallagher's daughter and she as having a form of illness, when they believe they are seeing "The Huldre", troll-like creatures which live with "the rocks and the roots" (to quote the movie).<br /><br />Basically a family moves into an older house, which has a smaller doll-house in the backyard. The daughter (well played by Sofia Vassiliova) starts to befriend the creatures, until they become vindictive. The family cat also disappears.<br /><br />There are a few good scenes with Megan Gallagher ("Millennium") and Malcolm McDowell as the psychiatrist. There is also something strange which occurred to one of McDowell's patients.<br /><br />If you enjoy this type of story, you may also like "Bad Ronald", which had a similar odd theme, and the house is haunted by bad Ronald (Scott Jacoby) only that movie is from the 70's. 7/10.
| 1 |
positive
|
I a huge fan of when it comes to Doctor Who series and still am, But I was very disappointed when i began to watch this new series.<br /><br />Children under the age of 15, or even better under the age of 10 will probably will enjoy it the best, and possibly new fans who haven't seen any of the original series, But as far as fans of the original series, will find this series missing much of the charm the made the original series so great, It took David Tennant to get me to Appreciate how Much better Christoper Eccellestion was as a Doctor in the 1st season.<br /><br />I would only recommend this series for people who haven't seen much of the original series, people who are under 15, and EXTREMELY DIE HARD who fans, everyone else will just get a laugh and mumble curse words about Russel T. Davies screwed up one of our favorite TV shows.
| 0 |
negative
|
I was under assumption that this was the cat and mouse duo but it wasn't instead it was something that shouldn't have been made not even for its time. They disguise themselves in the "blackface" fashion because they fly to Africa and they even act like Stepin Fetchit and all the others rolled into one. There are some cartoons that are racist but they are classics, being a mixed woman I have the right to say this, but if you are into the historical aspect of these cartoons try Merrie Melodies "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs" or "Angel Puss" you won't find them on DVD because the distributors promised not to put them in the mainstream, but you can find them on a site as YouTube. I don't recommend little kids seeing this but if you want to see how early America was racist and ignorant these are better suggestions, not to mention this particular cartoon has poor animation, i know it was 1932, but I have seen better for its time.<br /><br />"Plane" unnecessary. -1 out of 10.
| 0 |
negative
|
This is a cute little French silent comedy about a man who bets another that he can't stay in this castle for one hour due to its being haunted. And, once the guy enters the house, it looks much more like a crazed fun house or maybe like the after-effects of LSD!! While there ARE ghosts and skeletons, there is a weird menagerie of animals, odd special effects and gags as well. It's awfully hard to describe but the visuals alone make the film worth seeing. HOWEVER, understand that the self-indulgent director also had many "funny gags" that totally fell flat and hurt the movie. His "camera tricks" weren't so much tricky but annoying and stupid. IGNORE THESE AND KEEP WATCHING--it does get better. The film is fast paced, funny and worth seeing. In particular, I really liked watching the acting and mugging of Max Linder--he was so expressive and funny! Too bad he is virtually forgotten today. For an interesting but very sad read, check out the IMDb biography on him.
| 1 |
positive
|
I have witnessed some atrocities of cinema. In the past couple of years, it seems producers and directors are bent on making films that drive me closer and closer to insanity. Hannibal was not an exception. I wasn't expecting much, when I went in to see the movie. The book was ridiculous, and the saying, "The Book is always better than the movie" did not assure me at all that this movie would be anything but trash. But what I came to see was a movie that made all other bad movies seem better in comparison.<br /><br /> Usually, when I see a terrible movie, I find myself more amused than anything else. Sadly though, I could not even laugh at the sad excuse for a film that Hannibal is. The movie was filmed with promise, I guess. It had Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, and Gary Oldman. And for directing, there was Ridley Scott. There have been movies with significantly less talent that have been tremendously better. There was so much I would have cut from this film that I doubt anything would have remained. It was pathetic. The storyline was so ludicrous that it seemed like a complete idiot had written it. What's worse is that the book was even crazier, and there were some scenes that were too extreme to be included, which is sad in the case of a movie where<br /><br />***SPOILER AHEAD*** <br /><br />Ray Liotta's brain was being cooked in pieces. That scene more than any other made me want to cry, because it tarnished its predecessor to such a monumental level. Silence of the Lambs was one of my favorite films of all time. But Hannibal was a two hour plus joke. This movie should only be watched, if people want to learn how not to write a good movie.
| 0 |
negative
|
It's perfectly ok that people dies in an animation, but there are just way too many death in this one. Start from the very beginning, the story is all around battles, fights, death, and revenge. It goes on and on for entire one and a half hour. It was interesting at the beginning, but I grew very tire after before the show was half way through. Unlike other animations, this one is lack of humor. There are not many interactions between the characters either. The good thing about it is the sword fight scene looks pretty good and the characters look nice.
| 0 |
negative
|
The Hindi version of the film is 121 minutes. Set in Bengal in the early 1900's, the film (based on Tagore's novel) draws an analogy between the British colonization of India and the subjugation of women. An educated and beautiful woman, Binodini becomes a widow within a year of her marriage, but she does not accept the constraints imposed on her as a widow by her society. The film has a beautiful look to it but perhaps Aishwarya Rai is out of her depth in portraying Binodini's strong character with its subtle combination of idealism and deviousness. Binodini's idealism does not come across, and as a result, the analogy between women and colonization remains somewhat buried.
| 1 |
positive
|
This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.
| 0 |
negative
|
What-ho! This one is jolly good. I say jolly good, ol' chap. Or should I say "ol' bean"? My mastery of British terminology is a little dusty. Anyway, my biker boots and I walked into this screening with no prior viewing experience of Wallace and Gromit. I'm happy to say that my boots and I walked out pleased to have made their acquaintance.<br /><br />While not as adult-accessible as Toy Story, W & G still manages to be clever enough to provide the grown ups with a little humor that will most definitely soar over the heads of the young 'uns who are too busy guffawing at the Were-rabbit's belches to have any clue that something is amiss. I highly suggest that you pay close attention any time you see books or words on the screen because there are quick glimpses of puns that you'll miss if you aren't paying attention. My favorite is a book of monsters that refers to the Loch Ness Monster as "tourist trappus." If you've ever been known to say, "I can really relate to Kevin Federline," or if you're just illiterate then not only will you miss out on these jokes, but you probably should be spending your time learning to read instead of going to movies. Consider this a public service announcement.<br /><br />The most impressive aspect about W & G is its clay animation. Thanks to the tedious process, it took FIVE YEARS to finish the film! According to the press notes, there were some days when the optimum goal was to merely accomplish 10 seconds of completed film. Folks, I sometimes have trouble finding the motivation to finish responding to a handful of emails or adding captions to pictures for my reviews (a point that is proved by a lack of pictures in this review); so I can't even imagine having the required patience for that.<br /><br />I really like the rough, hands-on quality of the claymation figures. The fact that you can see fingerprints in the clay is a nice, personal touch. How can you not be impressed with clay characters that show more expression and emotion than Paul Walker and Keanu Reeves combined? The Curse of the Were-rabbit is, as director Nick Park calls it, the world's first vegetarian horror movie that should entertain both kids and adults alike. Relying on (and as a male who prides himself in his shaggy-haired, cool-bearded masculinity I hesitate to use this word) cute and (oh man, I probably shouldn't use this word either) lovable characters rather than outdated M.C. Hammer references, W & G is proof that DreamWorks can create entertaining animation when it chooses cleverness over the cheap joke.
| 1 |
positive
|
`AfterLife' is about a somewhat arrogant, reasonably wealthy man who discovers that his mother is dying, and finds himself looking after his sister, who has Down's Syndrome. He can't be bothered with her, and basically just wants to get her off his hands; he has better things to do. At one point he finds that he has to take her, by car (she doesn't like flying) across the country.<br /><br />If that all sounds familiar to you, it is probably because you have seen `Rainman,' a film far superior to its imitator, `AfterLife.' That it copies the basic premise (heck, it nicks a few characters and even scenes too) is not the fundamental problem with the film. The fundamental problem is that I did not care about these characters.<br /><br />The brother, Kenny (Kevin McKidd), is a bit of a womaniser. He has a girlfriend who comes and goes in the story, and who learns to like the Down's Syndrome sister (again, this is taken from `Rainman'). He is a journalist, trying to get an interview with a doctor who is facing a scandal. When he ends up looking after Roberta, the sister, he doesn't have much time for her, and sometimes leaves her alone for a little too long. When she wanders off, he becomes even angrier towards her. Am I spoiling anything by saying that he becomes a nicer, loving person by the end of the film?<br /><br />Roberta is not determined to be 'normal'; she is 'normal,' and wishes people would stop treating her differently. She is played by Paula Sage, an actress who does have Down's Syndrome, and her performance is easily the best thing about the film; why did the screenwriter not explore her character more? Well, probably because that would mean the characters would get in the way of the story. When we surely already know the story anyway, didn't the filmmakers see the problem they were creating?<br /><br />For a film about a dying mother and her handicapped daughter (the father is absent; I think he is dead, but I'm not sure), it is surprising how little impact the film has on the emotions of the viewer. The scenes are performed in such a standard, dull way, with such standard, predictable dialogue, that I found myself rolling my eyes.<br /><br />I have nothing against sentimentality in films, but it only really works if you care about the characters. Here the characters are so uninteresting and two-dimensional that I didn't really think there was much to care about. `Rain Man' has an emotional climax, but that moved me, because I cared about the characters.<br /><br />Talking of climaxes, this film has a stinker. There is sequence at the end of the film that starts off as an unbelievable situation and ends up in even worse territory; an unforgivably cruel trick is played on the audience. The sequence is designed to move the audience, but ends up being horribly manipulative and offending the intelligence of the viewer. Audiences aren't stupid, and they know when the film is cheating. What a cheap shot.<br /><br />There is not one scene in this film that has the impact it should. There are a few sequences that are funny, yes, but when the characters talk to each other, I can practically see the screenplay in front of me, moving predictably and uninterestingly, never hitting anything that touches the mind or the heart. There are those phoney arguments that are reserved especially for the movies, where the other character knows exactly what the reply is. Why don't supposedly 'realistic' films not realise that, in real life, anger can be irrational, and sometimes people can't express their emotions, and they might say things that don't make sense, or not be able to say anything at all? All of the actors in this film deserve better material. This film is not based on fact, but I think a documentary on a family with a Down's Syndrome member would be much more interesting. That way, we might have had truth and emotion. For some reason the characters in this film think that an emotion only involves saying something loudly and making a suitable facial expression.<br /><br />** (out of 5)
| 0 |
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.